• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1636 days ago

    Isn’t it great that a man who exposed governmental corruption and war crimes faced a harsher persecution and punishment than the corrupt governments and war criminals themselves?

    Democracy™️

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        69
        edit-2
        6 days ago

        First, no he did not. He released information relating to government officials engaging in misconduct. Hillary Clinton had been a government official for a long time, Trump had not. Of course youre more likely to get that kind of information on her and not him.

        But even if he had, having a political allegiance is not a crime punishable by prison as far as I know.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          216 days ago

          He released information relating to government officials engaging in misconduct

          … at precisely the right time to maximise the effect of the release and diminish her chances at winning the election.

          No whistleblowers shouldn’t go to prison, I’m glad Assange is going home but I do dislike him immensely.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            176 days ago

            Uh, if I was about to vote for a presidential candidate, and someone had evidence that person was involved in some kind of misconduct, then I’d certainly rather be aware of that before voting for them than after.

            Would you not?

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              96 days ago

              If it was just about transparency he would’ve released it sooner.

              Sitting on it to release at the right time was partisan.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              -26 days ago

              He held onto the information until he was given a signal by Trump’s team to release it. He could have released it whenever he wanted, but didn’t.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                165 days ago

                Or, he just released it before the DNC because that was when it would have the most visibility. Especially when part of what was released was evidence of the DNC conspiring against Bernie Sanders.

                Do you see that as pro-Republican just because it was anti-DNC? You could make the same argument that Bernie told him to release it then because it was so favorable to him.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          96 days ago

          Strange how he primarily releases information that makes the left look bad while ignoring the right. Not even Trump specifically but they could release stuff on other right wing politicians. Lord knows that every single one is corrupt in some way or another after all.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        33
        edit-2
        5 days ago

        Notice how you’re angry at the people who released the info instead of the people who were corrupt and deplorable? PsyOps mission accomplished!

        My understanding is that, while it’s likely the source of those leaks was Russia, it’s never been proven wikileaks withheld info about Republicans. I’ve seen the claims dozens of times, but never the evidence, so please share if you do… Otherwise, it’s insane to hate a journalist for withholding information they don’t have, just because it hurts your preferred political party.

        EDIT T+2hrs: 35% downvotes and zero replies or supporting evidence. FYI I asked the same thing on Reddit about a dozen times over the last decade, and the result was always the same — If your position is “I can find no evidence for my claims, and don’t know why I hate WikiLeaks or Assange. I just do.” then you’re probably a psychological warfare victim…

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        -356 days ago

        Not saying it’s excusable, but I’m guessing he was exposed to a lot of Trump propaganda being in Russia and all

          • @[email protected]
            cake
            link
            fedilink
            23
            edit-2
            6 days ago

            But it’s sad that whistleblowers are even persecuted in a so-called democracy. Like you know you fucked up, but instead of feeling humble and ashamed you start persecutions of the people who have exposed you, while preaching what an exemplary democracy you are to the rest of the world.

            Same with ICC, ICC exposes your ally as a war criminal and instead of upholding law, you start thinking how to sanction the judges and obstruct their actions, because you feel above the law. The US is acting like a school bully who is the only one who can say what’s right or wrong in big parts of the rest of the world, they try to influence foreign governments and install their own candidates, so in a way, they aren’t much better than China or Russia. Heck they even tapped the phones of their allies back then and probably still do.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              45 days ago

              Private companies do the same, often going as far as to have whistleblowers executed. People (and especially organizations) protect their interests, even (or especially) at the expenses of others lives.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                14 days ago

                You know, that whole issue is now just completely way up in the air. The man in question had no difficulty saying the same. If you think you have any proof, feel free to bring that down to land as hard and as destructively murderous as you’d like to be.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        6
        edit-2
        4 days ago

        They wanted to make an example of someone. His thumbing his nose at the US government was well publicised, so they made their revenge on him very public too.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        15 days ago

        He pleaded guilty and agreed to delete “secret documents”, whatever the hell that would be, as part of the deal

  • sovietknuckles [they/them]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    146 days ago

    This might hurt future publishers of whistleblowers. Does this set the precedent that publishing info from whistleblowers can be prosecuted as espionage?

    • SoyViking [he/him]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      186 days ago

      I don’t know the details of how the US legal system works but isn’t a plea bargain essentially the same as a settlement in civil cases?

      If so, it should (at least in theory) have very little prejudicial value since the courts did not rule on the question if Assange’s culpability.

      I know that in the real world the US regime once again learned that it can get away with murder and journalists all over the world have already learned the lesson that the evil empire will fuck them up if they air their dirty laundry. But from a legal nerd point of view a settlement should be quite useles as a precedent.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    136 days ago

    How many years would his prison sentence have been if he was extradided the year he fled to the embassy? I feel like he would have been out by now. Wasn’t he leaking early Iraq war corruption stuff? That was 20 years ago.