What I Learned About Julian Assange While Working Alongside Him(buzzfeed.com)
buzzfeed.com
What I Learned About Julian Assange While Working Alongside Him
https://www.buzzfeed.com/jamesball/heres-what-i-learned-about-julian-assange
169 comments
> Yeah he is controversial, but is he worthy of so much attention?
He is running to be the most powerful political figure in the world...so yes.
He is running to be the most powerful political figure in the world...so yes.
There is a difference between quality, informative journalism which allows people to make up there own mind and endless character assassinating, speculative
tabloid smut; However, I trust you know that.
The reason I used Trump as an example is because from what I've read and seen of Clinton she doesn't seem much better but is largely ignored in some media outlets in Australia.
The reason I used Trump as an example is because from what I've read and seen of Clinton she doesn't seem much better but is largely ignored in some media outlets in Australia.
What have you read and seen about Clinton? Because the bad things she actually has done are not remotely in the same league as those of Trump. She gets accused a lot by conservatives who clearly have a chip on their shoulder about her, but none of those accusations turned up anything serious. There have been 7 congressional hearing on Benghazi to try to bring her down, but nobody could find anything she's actually done wrong. The email server was certainly sloppy, but hardly worse than anything other government officials have gotten away with.
The things Trump has done wrong, like the Trump University scam, not paying his contractors, opportunistic bankruptcies to get out of paying his debts, while he still gets to keep his own profits, and the rape case with a 13 year old victim against him, get barely any attention at all. Most of the attention he gets, is about things that he personally has actually said. And that's already bad enough for most people.
The things Trump has done wrong, like the Trump University scam, not paying his contractors, opportunistic bankruptcies to get out of paying his debts, while he still gets to keep his own profits, and the rape case with a 13 year old victim against him, get barely any attention at all. Most of the attention he gets, is about things that he personally has actually said. And that's already bad enough for most people.
With those candidates, there is no "lesser of two evils" in my opinion, though the media has us believe so. That is my point. My point is about media bias and, it's rampant.
If there's no "lesser of two evils", it's because Clinton is not really evil. She gets lots of bad press, but all things considered, she's actually pretty good. Certainly by the unfortunately low political standards of US.
I'd certainly like the US to elect more progressive politicians, but that seems unlikely to happen. In any case, Trump is sub-par even for US standards. He should be completely unacceptable, and fortunately even people of his own party are finally starting to see that.
I'd certainly like the US to elect more progressive politicians, but that seems unlikely to happen. In any case, Trump is sub-par even for US standards. He should be completely unacceptable, and fortunately even people of his own party are finally starting to see that.
Well, yea. One of them is an actual good candidate and the other is Trump. The media is just trying to make them look competitive so people keep reading stories on the election.
> On character assassinations, another example I could give right now is Trump
Except as a practitioner, Trump is hardly a noteworthy example of character assassination. Bad press sometimes is a result of unfavorable facts.
Except as a practitioner, Trump is hardly a noteworthy example of character assassination. Bad press sometimes is a result of unfavorable facts.
You said US Government. Both America and the US Government are actually held in some regard around the world.
http://www.pewglobal.org/2015/06/23/1-americas-global-image/
http://www.pewglobal.org/2015/06/23/1-americas-global-image/
In 2015 almost half of Germans disliked the US, you do that poll again after we have received millions of Arabs and I can guarantee you that 75% of Germans dislike (or hate) you now.
Saying anything pro US today will make you a social outcast.
In ten years from now the EU will be run by the far right and you guys wont even be able to visit us out of fear from being attacked by random people on the streets. That's how popular the US foreign policy is.
It will be like visiting the Middle East, only that we have nuclear weapons.
Saying anything pro US today will make you a social outcast.
In ten years from now the EU will be run by the far right and you guys wont even be able to visit us out of fear from being attacked by random people on the streets. That's how popular the US foreign policy is.
It will be like visiting the Middle East, only that we have nuclear weapons.
It turns out Pew found the opposite in their 2016 poll of global opinion of the United States. Favorability of the U.S. increased from 50% favorable to 57% in Germany from 2015 - 2016, while unfavorable views declined from 42% to 38%.
http://www.pewglobal.org/2016/06/28/americas-international-i...
http://www.pewglobal.org/2016/06/28/americas-international-i...
I think we'll find the current US election won't help the opinion polls for 2016-2017 :)
Also, I'm not really up on this kind of thing, but 57% seems pretty low for the land of the free?
Also, I'm not really up on this kind of thing, but 57% seems pretty low for the land of the free?
Great, then everything must be fine! Continue arming Jihadists and keep creating a mess in the Middle East so we receive more of these fine people! It will only fasten the process I described before.
I hereby nominate "Europe blaming the US for the state of the Middle East" as the new "pot calling the kettle black".
At least they have the "they tried to conquer us first" excuse.
Maybe you should inform yourself better. Germany refused to help their so called "ally" 2003 in the Iraq war, Germany refused to help their "ally" in the Libyan war, Germany refused to support any side during the Syrian civil war. Germany is the main reason that sanctions against Russia during the Ukraine conflict were weakened to the point of irrelevance (the US actually wanted a full blockade - LOL) as the government understands that it's really the US that caused this conflict.
The only US war that Germany viewed as legitimate and thus supported was the Afghanistan war of 2001.
The only US war that Germany viewed as legitimate and thus supported was the Afghanistan war of 2001.
It was more a reference to the whole "History of the Middle East, 1870-1960" thing, wherein Europe got its empire building thing on, redrew national boundaries, set up new governments, and generally made a hash of things before deciding it wasn't fun anymore and abruptly exiting the region, leading to the power vacuum the US stepped into in the 1950s.
Which doesn't change the fact that the US had no business invading Iraq in 2003 and probably should have stayed out of Afghanistan as well, but pretending Europe -- Germany near the top of the list -- had no role in creating the situation there is silly.
Which doesn't change the fact that the US had no business invading Iraq in 2003 and probably should have stayed out of Afghanistan as well, but pretending Europe -- Germany near the top of the list -- had no role in creating the situation there is silly.
I really don't care about stuff that happened so long ago as it most people that are fighting in todays conflicts weren't even born back then and refugees coming to Europe don't do this because of something that happened prior to 1960.
That's like some Arabs retarded claim that every evil and barbaric thing they do today is justified because of the Crusades! (even though in reality the Crusades were a defensive move against the Arab invasions and thus absolutely justified but that's a different topic)
That's like some Arabs retarded claim that every evil and barbaric thing they do today is justified because of the Crusades! (even though in reality the Crusades were a defensive move against the Arab invasions and thus absolutely justified but that's a different topic)
I'm travelling in Asia and have just been in Europe and something very different is happening lately. When I meet Americans, young and old, the majority of them tell me they're ashamed or embarrassed of being American, some of them tell me they usually tell people they are from Canada!
I don't hear people from anywhere else doing that to be honest.
I don't hear people from anywhere else doing that to be honest.
It's really weird because even people with dictators will say they are proud of their country even if they hate the dictator or the poor conditions of their country.
You don't get many Haitians saying "I'm ashamed of my country" or Russians saying "I'm ashamed to be Russian" It's predominantly a section of Americans who feel that way. I've met Mexicans who have become citizens of the US who still consider themselves "Mexican" in every way --except that they live outside Mexico, while they decry the corruption and lack of opportunity back home --but never ashamed.
You don't get many Haitians saying "I'm ashamed of my country" or Russians saying "I'm ashamed to be Russian" It's predominantly a section of Americans who feel that way. I've met Mexicans who have become citizens of the US who still consider themselves "Mexican" in every way --except that they live outside Mexico, while they decry the corruption and lack of opportunity back home --but never ashamed.
Maybe it's because the US used to have such a stellar reputation. It used to be the leader of the free world, was founded on important liberal principles that have inspired the world. Around international conflicts, the US used to insist on lofty principles that they now trample at every opportunity. The world got used to holding the US to a higher standard than Russia or some petty dictatorship.
The US itself definitely helped to paint this image of being better and more noble than other countries, even other freedom-loving western countries. And now they're falling so far short of that ideal, that it is really embarrassing to everybody who can see what's been happening.
I'm not even American, and I'm ashamed of the US.
The US itself definitely helped to paint this image of being better and more noble than other countries, even other freedom-loving western countries. And now they're falling so far short of that ideal, that it is really embarrassing to everybody who can see what's been happening.
I'm not even American, and I'm ashamed of the US.
I guess... but there also aren't many Spaniards, or French, or Belgians (citizens of countries presently with democracies but with colorful pasts) who are ashamed embarrassed of their countries. They might be opposed to some policies and disagree with some of their past history but seldom are ashamed. Imagine a Chinese person or Japanese person saying they are "shamed". It's a very hard thing to come by.
Some people are ashamed of some things their countries have done. But none of them were ever the champion of freedom the way the US used to be, and few slid down as hard as the US did while still claiming moral superiority.
Though I can imagine Belgians having been pretty ashamed in 1908.
Though I can imagine Belgians having been pretty ashamed in 1908.
> this is the time for character assassinations.
Speaking of that, a weird UN "partner" / extra shady porn site was caught doing something like that just last week with fake CP allegations that got picked up by a few media outlets:
https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiLeaks/comments/58o29r/text_summ...
Speaking of that, a weird UN "partner" / extra shady porn site was caught doing something like that just last week with fake CP allegations that got picked up by a few media outlets:
https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiLeaks/comments/58o29r/text_summ...
Choosing to hide in an embassy to avoid a rape investigation isn't being practically in prison.
If he actually is innocent, then you can't blame him though can you? If they didn't get him for that, the US would get him for something else.
I dare say a lot of people would probably take a similar approach if given the opportunity.
I dare say a lot of people would probably take a similar approach if given the opportunity.
The US isn't getting him for anything. The US has filed no charges against him. He is wanted by Sweden to answer questions regarding rape allegations and not regarding any charges in the US.
His claim that the rape allegations are a setup by the US make little sense. If the US were to set him up in order to have him extradited from another country Sweden would be far down the list of countries to chose. The terms of Sweden's extradition laws and previous court rulings on extradition cases make it very unlikely the US would be successful in extraditing him.
His behavior strikes me more as that of someone guilty and desperate to avoid punishment. Maybe I am wrong but he could have cleared the whole thing up long ago by returning to Sweden.
His claim that the rape allegations are a setup by the US make little sense. If the US were to set him up in order to have him extradited from another country Sweden would be far down the list of countries to chose. The terms of Sweden's extradition laws and previous court rulings on extradition cases make it very unlikely the US would be successful in extraditing him.
His behavior strikes me more as that of someone guilty and desperate to avoid punishment. Maybe I am wrong but he could have cleared the whole thing up long ago by returning to Sweden.
Yeah, it would be more likely that the US would extradite directly from the UK then try to get Sweden to extradite him on some pretext so that they could get him from Sweden.
Well, practically under house arrest then.
He's actually there because he will not be granted assurances he won't be extradited to the US for far more serious charges.
I'm not saying rape charges are not serious by the way, just that these rape charges seem ... odd ... and he will probably get off.
He's actually there because he will not be granted assurances he won't be extradited to the US for far more serious charges.
I'm not saying rape charges are not serious by the way, just that these rape charges seem ... odd ... and he will probably get off.
> him and other whistle blowers are being seriously screwed over by the US Government
What has the US government done to Assange?
What has the US government done to Assange?
Trump's simply grist for the mill. 24 hours a day is a lot of time to fill. What boggles my mind is that otherwise seemingly intelligent people talk about him as if they have to be "fair" about the stuff he spouts. Information elements with process problems produce bad information. Trump's process is mind-bogglingly bad.
What does anyone mean by "trust the government"? And how does anyone think they could trust Assange more?
It's funny; when the brothers Dulles ran Washington, we were overthrowing governments. But people's trust of the government was at an all-time high. Some of that is just lag but ... what does it mean to "trust the government", anyway?
What does anyone mean by "trust the government"? And how does anyone think they could trust Assange more?
It's funny; when the brothers Dulles ran Washington, we were overthrowing governments. But people's trust of the government was at an all-time high. Some of that is just lag but ... what does it mean to "trust the government", anyway?
Character Assassination: the malicious and unjustified harming of a person's good reputation.
The Trump example fails on all counts: it's not malicious, he's running for President where character is critical; it's not unjustified, he's a piece of work; he doesn't HAVE a good reputation to begin with, even with his supporters.
As a Canadian observer, I've been gobsmacked by how much of pass Trump has been given for terrible behaviour until very recently.
The Trump example fails on all counts: it's not malicious, he's running for President where character is critical; it's not unjustified, he's a piece of work; he doesn't HAVE a good reputation to begin with, even with his supporters.
As a Canadian observer, I've been gobsmacked by how much of pass Trump has been given for terrible behaviour until very recently.
This being the time for character assassinations also means you shouldn't trust anything from him. He's only doing it for character assassination too. The time he was doing it merely for transparency and accountability is far behind us. And this is hardly the first time a former associate points out Assange's own lack of transparency and accountability, and his dictatorial attitude.
Though it contains information I didn't know yet, nothing in this article seems out of character for him.
While the US government seriously screwed over Manning and Snowden (and I'd really like to see a pardon for both of them), they haven't actually done anything to Assange. He's only wanted by Sweden for rape. I don't doubt some people in the US want to see him hang, but it's doubtful there's even a good case against him, as he only published information, and didn't personally steal anything. And he didn't do so on US soil or as a US citizen either. (Though it's true that recent US governments haven't been overly concerned with the rule of law.)
On Donald: the media is mostly giving him a lot of free publicity. The worst things about him are coming out of his own mouth. He's worthy of so much attention because he's running for president. Clinton is hardly a saint, but her actual crimes and misconduct are rare and minor in comparison to those of Donald. There are certainly a lot of accusations flying about, but they've been investigated to death (excessively so, in the case of Benghazi), and little to nothing stuck.
Though it contains information I didn't know yet, nothing in this article seems out of character for him.
While the US government seriously screwed over Manning and Snowden (and I'd really like to see a pardon for both of them), they haven't actually done anything to Assange. He's only wanted by Sweden for rape. I don't doubt some people in the US want to see him hang, but it's doubtful there's even a good case against him, as he only published information, and didn't personally steal anything. And he didn't do so on US soil or as a US citizen either. (Though it's true that recent US governments haven't been overly concerned with the rule of law.)
On Donald: the media is mostly giving him a lot of free publicity. The worst things about him are coming out of his own mouth. He's worthy of so much attention because he's running for president. Clinton is hardly a saint, but her actual crimes and misconduct are rare and minor in comparison to those of Donald. There are certainly a lot of accusations flying about, but they've been investigated to death (excessively so, in the case of Benghazi), and little to nothing stuck.
> "Assange’s approach has taken WikiLeaks from the most powerful and connected force of a new journalistic era to a back-bedroom operation"
This assumes a false dichotomy. Wikileaks was never not a bedroom operation - that's the very core component of the "information revolution" the author is pining for. A young queer kid in Boston stole some very shocking videos from his IT job and gave them to a man in a chat room, who published them online. That's all it takes to change the world now.
If anything, all of WikiLeaks' problems come from trying to stray from this model.
This assumes a false dichotomy. Wikileaks was never not a bedroom operation - that's the very core component of the "information revolution" the author is pining for. A young queer kid in Boston stole some very shocking videos from his IT job and gave them to a man in a chat room, who published them online. That's all it takes to change the world now.
If anything, all of WikiLeaks' problems come from trying to stray from this model.
Wikileaks had a chance to be more than a bedroom operation, and it would have made them far more powerful than they are now. Building a network of aligned journalists and political allies would have increased visibility, attracted more leaks with localized impact, and made it much harder to shut down discussion of contents with "this was stolen", as the Democrats are now doing with complicity of much of the US media. But as we saw with the author's NDA story, Assange is the #1 enemy of that ever happening. He reflexively accuses anyone with their own publicity approach of being a careerist or worse, then logs into twitter to align not just himself, but Wikileaks the organization, with the most extreme possible opponents of his enemies. The impact that the leaker wants to make, the stories good journalists could write, even most third party mining of leaks is ignored in favor of Julian Assange's personal agenda. I think the world would be better off with a bigger, broader Wikileaks that promotes journalism instead of mistrusting it.
I think you've proved my point by missing it.
> "Building a network of aligned journalists and political allies would have increased visibility, attracted more leaks with localized impact, and made it much harder to shut down discussion of contents with "this was stolen", as the Democrats are now doing with complicity of much of the US media."
What you're describing is called "starting a newspaper." This happens all the time. The Intercept is a good example of what you're talking about, there are hundreds of others. BuzzFeed, HuffPo, Drudge, take your pick. It's not the same thing. I can explain the difference if you'd like me to.
> "Building a network of aligned journalists and political allies would have increased visibility, attracted more leaks with localized impact, and made it much harder to shut down discussion of contents with "this was stolen", as the Democrats are now doing with complicity of much of the US media."
What you're describing is called "starting a newspaper." This happens all the time. The Intercept is a good example of what you're talking about, there are hundreds of others. BuzzFeed, HuffPo, Drudge, take your pick. It's not the same thing. I can explain the difference if you'd like me to.
Exactly. What do we want? Tips on stories inside banks from the likes of journo Chris Giles at the FT who is utterly wedded to the status quo, along with tens of other "journalists"?
Our media is like a sieve, only instead of finding the unusual and challenging thinkers it weeds them out and retains the unthinking dross whose only ambition is to join the establishment and kick back.
Our media is like a sieve, only instead of finding the unusual and challenging thinkers it weeds them out and retains the unthinking dross whose only ambition is to join the establishment and kick back.
Just because you can think of one journalist you wouldn't want handling financial leaks doesn't mean they're all rotten. Were the Panama Papers (ICIJ) not well handled? Even the Los Angeles Times apparently had the guts to publish a story that took the side of low level bank employees, eventually bringing down the chairman of Wells Fargo.
And what's the implied better alternative, anyway? When Wikileaks does a data dump, most people aren't poring over it all night, it's usually people in the same media you decry who bring important revelations to mass attention. Giving them a head start to potentially write a great story doesn't seem like something that should be wildly controversial.
And what's the implied better alternative, anyway? When Wikileaks does a data dump, most people aren't poring over it all night, it's usually people in the same media you decry who bring important revelations to mass attention. Giving them a head start to potentially write a great story doesn't seem like something that should be wildly controversial.
As the parent post suggested I don't want wikileaks merging/'empowered' with our largely supine press.
It's entirely different from starting a newspaper. We're talking about what Wikileaks does with its position as a trusted avenue for large data leaks.
When Wikileaks receives a data dump, it verifies and looks through the data, determines whether they can make a splash with it, spends weeks or months hyping the release while formatting and indexing the raw data, then releases it along with a flurry of tweets highlighting items that Assange views as most damaging to the target organization.
Where that goes wrong is not the logistics, it's the publicity model. With the DNC leaks, they released massive numbers of emails, forcing journalists to slog through at the same time as the DNC put out statements decrying theft and blaming Russia. Sure, @wikileaks might quickly tweet out some highlights, but they're all hot soundbites that mostly get retweeted by Trump fans, not compelling narratives. And that doesn't happen at all for non-English releases like AKP.
You say I'm proposing a newspaper-like model. A newspaper verifies and looks through the data, looks for a specific narrative to report on, collects background information and comments, and publishes one or more stories that they believe are good for the public. They don't typically work closely with other newspapers or release raw data to the public.
This isn't what Wikileaks is about. If someone with data wants to give it to a group that will use and spin it a certain way, as you say there are plenty of newspapers out there. Wikileaks presents itself as the choice for someone who hacked data from an organization outside their home country, or otherwise doesn't know who can report on it or who to trust.
So I'll try rephrasing what I want. A better Wikileaks focuses on its core competencies of securely receiving, verifying, and formatting large leaks. It works with newspapers instead of snarking at them on Twitter, and allows them to create some compelling, broadly relevant narratives before publishing all the data. It's effective. Collateral Murder got huge coverage because it was one video with one clear angle. Cablegate worked because the release was initially restricted to newspapers, allowing the stories to precede the blanket rebuttals and put large parts of the press on Wikileaks' side. Wikileaks should have moved to build on Cablegate instead of moving away from that release model. Instead, according to the article, Assange decided to control everything himself, mistaking misalignment of priorities with certain outlets for an all-encompassing conspiracy. Now much of the US media is parroting the PR line of a political party while the rest play catch-up and mostly deal in soundbites. Whatever the DNC hacker's motives, the impact is far less than I think it could have been.
When Wikileaks receives a data dump, it verifies and looks through the data, determines whether they can make a splash with it, spends weeks or months hyping the release while formatting and indexing the raw data, then releases it along with a flurry of tweets highlighting items that Assange views as most damaging to the target organization.
Where that goes wrong is not the logistics, it's the publicity model. With the DNC leaks, they released massive numbers of emails, forcing journalists to slog through at the same time as the DNC put out statements decrying theft and blaming Russia. Sure, @wikileaks might quickly tweet out some highlights, but they're all hot soundbites that mostly get retweeted by Trump fans, not compelling narratives. And that doesn't happen at all for non-English releases like AKP.
You say I'm proposing a newspaper-like model. A newspaper verifies and looks through the data, looks for a specific narrative to report on, collects background information and comments, and publishes one or more stories that they believe are good for the public. They don't typically work closely with other newspapers or release raw data to the public.
This isn't what Wikileaks is about. If someone with data wants to give it to a group that will use and spin it a certain way, as you say there are plenty of newspapers out there. Wikileaks presents itself as the choice for someone who hacked data from an organization outside their home country, or otherwise doesn't know who can report on it or who to trust.
So I'll try rephrasing what I want. A better Wikileaks focuses on its core competencies of securely receiving, verifying, and formatting large leaks. It works with newspapers instead of snarking at them on Twitter, and allows them to create some compelling, broadly relevant narratives before publishing all the data. It's effective. Collateral Murder got huge coverage because it was one video with one clear angle. Cablegate worked because the release was initially restricted to newspapers, allowing the stories to precede the blanket rebuttals and put large parts of the press on Wikileaks' side. Wikileaks should have moved to build on Cablegate instead of moving away from that release model. Instead, according to the article, Assange decided to control everything himself, mistaking misalignment of priorities with certain outlets for an all-encompassing conspiracy. Now much of the US media is parroting the PR line of a political party while the rest play catch-up and mostly deal in soundbites. Whatever the DNC hacker's motives, the impact is far less than I think it could have been.
But many people don't realize that this kind of idiosyncratic asshole-ishness is how a lot of successful rebels / revolutionaries work, cultural and political.
Lenin is a great example, and the most illustrative for me because I spent so much time studying him. The man was factionalistic to the point of absurdity. Always he was dreaming of a new epithet to throw: economism, leftism, opportunism, etc. But because of this he insulated a radical minority and made them disloyal to anything but the ideology he was using to direct their political action. And in the end it worked.
Steve Jobs did a similar thing, but I'm sure I don't have to explain that one here.
Lenin is a great example, and the most illustrative for me because I spent so much time studying him. The man was factionalistic to the point of absurdity. Always he was dreaming of a new epithet to throw: economism, leftism, opportunism, etc. But because of this he insulated a radical minority and made them disloyal to anything but the ideology he was using to direct their political action. And in the end it worked.
Steve Jobs did a similar thing, but I'm sure I don't have to explain that one here.
"...And in the end it worked."
While I have an idea of what you mean, I'd reexamine that conclusion. It worked for a while. IMO, the Soviet system wasn't sustainable until Khrushchev - Beria and Stalin were constantly trying to figure out when the other was going to murder them.
I think the pathology in play for Lenin and Stalin was akin to eliminationism on a smaller scale - once someone became "othered", they were pretty much destined for one behind the ear.
While I have an idea of what you mean, I'd reexamine that conclusion. It worked for a while. IMO, the Soviet system wasn't sustainable until Khrushchev - Beria and Stalin were constantly trying to figure out when the other was going to murder them.
I think the pathology in play for Lenin and Stalin was akin to eliminationism on a smaller scale - once someone became "othered", they were pretty much destined for one behind the ear.
I don't mean that communism worked, but that Lenin achieved what he wanted as far as actual revolution is concerned. What you said is true though, and I think it has to do with the problems inherent in trying to "plan a society."
I'm okay with publishing dnc leaks. Or RNC leaks. Or whatever else he wants to leak. But there was absolutely no reason for him to provide cover for Russian intelligence. If they wanted to publish the leaks, they could have. He wasn't protecting anyone by providing anonymity. He was just providing plausible deniability.
"A young queer kid in Boston stole some very shocking videos from his IT job and gave them to a man in a chat room, who published them online. That's all it takes to change the world now."
Sort of. They started as an organization whose site was designed to provide anonymity with the promise they had lots of people to process the stories and protect sources. That's already different than just randomly publishing something online with arbitrary site, maintainers, terms, etc. It's a narrow start. They were totally ignored, though.
Then, someone on the inside of a large bank bought into their claims after they did a lot of promotional work. That leak did real damage. This created a PR effect boosting them into consciousness of many parties. The highest-profile guy promising to be expert on anonymity, hacking, protecting sources, etc convinced that Boston boy to deliver documents to him. He published them to significant effect although I don't know about changing the world as America is still screwing up Middle East, people in power stayed in power, no convictions for proven fraud, and so on. That guy... later woman... did get put in prison, though. Organization got destroyed by U.S. banking elite when it was foolish enough to think it could target a major bank here without consequences. Turns out cash fuels Internet revolutionaries as much as the bad guys and cutting it off plus legal pursuit was all it took. Only still publishing because he was offered diplomatic protection in an embassy plus his opponents have little imagination.
So, the situation is much more complex than your post suggests with most people just publishing stuff on the Internet failing to get change and easily shutdown. The amount of misinformation that benefits establishment spreading the same way dwarfs anything activists are doing with recent elections showing establishment is doing great on social media keeping people fighting over two, dirty candidates. Conclusion is that Wikileaks' unique circumstances led to its significant leaks that had questionable effect before it was decimated by a simple funding block at banking level. And that was supposedly the greatest success story of anonymous, leaking organizations.
Gives me high hopes let me tell you...
Sort of. They started as an organization whose site was designed to provide anonymity with the promise they had lots of people to process the stories and protect sources. That's already different than just randomly publishing something online with arbitrary site, maintainers, terms, etc. It's a narrow start. They were totally ignored, though.
Then, someone on the inside of a large bank bought into their claims after they did a lot of promotional work. That leak did real damage. This created a PR effect boosting them into consciousness of many parties. The highest-profile guy promising to be expert on anonymity, hacking, protecting sources, etc convinced that Boston boy to deliver documents to him. He published them to significant effect although I don't know about changing the world as America is still screwing up Middle East, people in power stayed in power, no convictions for proven fraud, and so on. That guy... later woman... did get put in prison, though. Organization got destroyed by U.S. banking elite when it was foolish enough to think it could target a major bank here without consequences. Turns out cash fuels Internet revolutionaries as much as the bad guys and cutting it off plus legal pursuit was all it took. Only still publishing because he was offered diplomatic protection in an embassy plus his opponents have little imagination.
So, the situation is much more complex than your post suggests with most people just publishing stuff on the Internet failing to get change and easily shutdown. The amount of misinformation that benefits establishment spreading the same way dwarfs anything activists are doing with recent elections showing establishment is doing great on social media keeping people fighting over two, dirty candidates. Conclusion is that Wikileaks' unique circumstances led to its significant leaks that had questionable effect before it was decimated by a simple funding block at banking level. And that was supposedly the greatest success story of anonymous, leaking organizations.
Gives me high hopes let me tell you...
A well-drawn profile.
Edit: see below for reasons. I accidentally posted this sentence early before finishing more of a post. Now I've instead made a response to the question below
Edit: see below for reasons. I accidentally posted this sentence early before finishing more of a post. Now I've instead made a response to the question below
How so? It's nothing more than character assassination.
I think this is a fair article, and no hatchet job. The writer has decided not to like Assange from working with him and experience.
Some pull-outs that show thought over partisanship :
'Assange is routinely either so lionised by supporters or demonised by detractors that his real character is lost entirely. 'Far from the laptop-obsessed autist he’s often seen as, he’s a charismatic speaker with an easy ability to dominate a room or a conversation.'
'Assange often trusts strangers more than those he knows well: He dislikes taking advice, he dislikes anyone else having a power base, and he dislikes being challenged – especially by women. He runs his own show his own way, and won’t delegate. He’s happy to play on the conspiratorial urges of others, with little sign as to whether or not he believes them himself.'
'once you have fallen foul of Assange — challenged him too openly, criticised him in public, not toed the line loyally enough — you are done. There is no such thing as honest disagreement, no such thing as a loyal opposition differing on a policy or political stance.'
' Assange would not, in my view, ever knowingly be a willing tool of the Russian state: If Putin came and gave him a set of orders, they’d be ignored. But if an anonymous or pseudonymous group came offering anti-Clinton leaks, they’d have found a host happy not to ask too many awkward questions: He’s set up almost perfectly to post them and push for them to have the biggest impact they can.'
Some pull-outs that show thought over partisanship :
'Assange is routinely either so lionised by supporters or demonised by detractors that his real character is lost entirely. 'Far from the laptop-obsessed autist he’s often seen as, he’s a charismatic speaker with an easy ability to dominate a room or a conversation.'
'Assange often trusts strangers more than those he knows well: He dislikes taking advice, he dislikes anyone else having a power base, and he dislikes being challenged – especially by women. He runs his own show his own way, and won’t delegate. He’s happy to play on the conspiratorial urges of others, with little sign as to whether or not he believes them himself.'
'once you have fallen foul of Assange — challenged him too openly, criticised him in public, not toed the line loyally enough — you are done. There is no such thing as honest disagreement, no such thing as a loyal opposition differing on a policy or political stance.'
' Assange would not, in my view, ever knowingly be a willing tool of the Russian state: If Putin came and gave him a set of orders, they’d be ignored. But if an anonymous or pseudonymous group came offering anti-Clinton leaks, they’d have found a host happy not to ask too many awkward questions: He’s set up almost perfectly to post them and push for them to have the biggest impact they can.'
> But if an anonymous or pseudonymous group came offering anti-Clinton leaks, they’d have found a host happy not to ask too many awkward questions
Why would he? That's the whole point of WikiLeaks, to publish information about those who have the power in so called democratic systems.
Why would he? That's the whole point of WikiLeaks, to publish information about those who have the power in so called democratic systems.
The risk of the wikileaks project is that it gets manipulated by the governments they seek to reveal. Journalists generally insist on a level of access and autonomy when publishing a story because it ensures that they understand as much of the picture as possible before talking about it.
By giving up that editorial control, they cede it to whomever provides them with documents. It's entirely possible they'll receive leaks that leave out compromising information about the leaker, or fake documents to impune an opponent.
If the problem with the mainstream media is that they just toe the line given to them by the US government, then wikileaks risks toe'ing a line they aren't aware of.
By giving up that editorial control, they cede it to whomever provides them with documents. It's entirely possible they'll receive leaks that leave out compromising information about the leaker, or fake documents to impune an opponent.
If the problem with the mainstream media is that they just toe the line given to them by the US government, then wikileaks risks toe'ing a line they aren't aware of.
Well, if those awkward questions concern the authenticity of the documents, and WikiLeaks wants to provide a journalistic-like service to the world, then WikiLeaks should ask those awkward questions.
If WikilLeaks doesn't care about the authenticity of what it publishes, then what is its goal?
If WikilLeaks doesn't care about the authenticity of what it publishes, then what is its goal?
To impose a secrecy tax on conspiratorial organizations. [1]
Even if the documents are misinformation, publishing them damages the ability of the organization to carry on its conspiratorial activities, eg, make and carry out secret plans. Internal, private communications (eg, emails), a powerful tool, also have a PR liability. Secrecy tax.
[1] http://cryptome.org/0002/ja-conspiracies.pdf
Even if the documents are misinformation, publishing them damages the ability of the organization to carry on its conspiratorial activities, eg, make and carry out secret plans. Internal, private communications (eg, emails), a powerful tool, also have a PR liability. Secrecy tax.
[1] http://cryptome.org/0002/ja-conspiracies.pdf
WikiLeaks has a very good track record in that respect. Nothing they've ever published has been claimed to have been fake, so I'd say it seem they're doing a good job, let them keep doing it.
> That's the whole point of WikiLeaks, to publish information about those who have the power in so called democratic systems.
It didn't start out as a site for unfounded gossip about politicians. It started out to call out and address censorship. Then the Manning leak turned it into addressing government crimes, and only now is it suddenly about dirt on specific people.
It didn't start out as a site for unfounded gossip about politicians. It started out to call out and address censorship. Then the Manning leak turned it into addressing government crimes, and only now is it suddenly about dirt on specific people.
And the highlight point is that someone can use that to provide a very one sided perspective if they only provide WikiLeaks one side of the story.
Someone gets a leaks about something that the government of Haiti is doing. So they can't publish it unless they have something equally bad about every single government on the planet? You have to go find 200+ other leaks, only then you can publish them altogether, because otherwise it would be one-sided. What a stupid argument. Think, don't just repeat talking points.
You are ignoring the point. All I am saying is that if you're a biased actor, such as say... Russia... a party that publishes everything they get is extremely easy to abuse.
Someone could even choose to send WikiLeaks only the parts of the data they gathered that support their goals.
Absolute positions such as WikiLeaks against careful decision making on what to leak and when can have unintended effects. Even if entirely well-meaning, they've opened themselves up to being exploited.
Someone could even choose to send WikiLeaks only the parts of the data they gathered that support their goals.
Absolute positions such as WikiLeaks against careful decision making on what to leak and when can have unintended effects. Even if entirely well-meaning, they've opened themselves up to being exploited.
> All I am saying is that if you're a biased actor, such as say... Russia... a party that publishes everything they get is extremely easy to abuse.
And what I'm saying is that publishing everything as long as it's true, is not abuse, it's the actual goal.
And what I'm saying is that publishing everything as long as it's true, is not abuse, it's the actual goal.
I don't think we're going to ever be speaking on the same plane of reason in this conversation.
[deleted]
Buzzfeed? Like seriously? Next should be CNN with their 'technical problems'.
Does someone there really think this kind of propaganda piece will make anything in the Podesta e-mails less real? Can you get anymore obvious?
This is some Soviet-level shit
FWIW, the author wrote critically of Assange and Israel Shami in 2011 [0], so it's not as if he's changing his mind in order to support the Clinton regime.
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/no...
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/no...
Hey, good catch, thanks for sharing. In my view that increases the credibility of the Buzzfeed article.
That said, nothing wrong with pointing out that it's an unfair attack now as it may have been in 2011. (I didn't know Ball has written about Assange extensively until googling it after reading the BuzzFeed piece).
Since it's a piece by someone who has a personal dispute with Assange, it has to be taken with a grain of salt. I think its most interesting contribution at this time is its argument that Assange, for better or worse, hasn't changed, it's the world.
Since it's a piece by someone who has a personal dispute with Assange, it has to be taken with a grain of salt. I think its most interesting contribution at this time is its argument that Assange, for better or worse, hasn't changed, it's the world.
Every single person who works with Assange ends up having a personal dispute with him. The old saying is still true - "if you think everyone's an asshole, chances are it's just you".
Wikileaks collaborators and repeatedly walked away on bad terms. At this point I'd be curious to know if there's anyone who actually gets along with him.
Wikileaks collaborators and repeatedly walked away on bad terms. At this point I'd be curious to know if there's anyone who actually gets along with him.
The stuffed giraffe, I presume.
I can't wrap my mind around why people are so concerned about whether he's an easy guy to get along with or not. If you don't have to work him personally, why do you care? Surely you can hear his message and separate that from his personal character?
It goes far beyond just being easy to get along with. He actually seemed pretty nice when I met him in 2005. But this is about demanding blind disobedience, accepting his authority, not tolerating any criticism (or advice), and apparently even using psychological pressure to force people to sign an NDA.
I suspect that the people who left Wikileaks did and still do agree with the original cause, but not with the cult of personality that Assange seems to have created around it.
I suspect that the people who left Wikileaks did and still do agree with the original cause, but not with the cult of personality that Assange seems to have created around it.
Ok, that is good criticism but all that says is that his methods are probably not as effective for obtaining his goals as they could be. Doesn't detract from A) the goals that he's aiming for and B) the goals that he's already achieved.
The goals he's currently aiming for seem different from the ones he used to have. I support their original goals, and they've done some good stuff, but these days Wikileaks seems to be entirely about Assange, his cult of personality, and his vendetta with everybody he imagines is after him.
> nothing wrong with pointing out that it's an unfair attack now as it may have been in 2011
True.
True.
> Podesta e-mails less real
As we can see from the polls, if there was something damaging here people don't really care.
As we can see from the polls, if there was something damaging here people don't really care.
The head of the DNC (and Hillary's former campaign manager) giving debate questions to the Clinton campaign is truly outrageous, and it is only the media's extreme hate for Trump that is keeping this from getting more attention. But I agree with your point that it is not damaging her.
The media's extreme hate for Trump? They used to love him. He was, and still is, great for ratings. And his free media attention is a big part of why he won the primaries. But he keeps saying increasingly shocking, vile and dangerous things, and it's the people working for the media, as well as everybody else (even people from his own party) who are getting extremely disgusted with him.
Don't paint this as if it's just the media. It's Trump.
Don't paint this as if it's just the media. It's Trump.
> people don't really care
Exactly, and that's worrying.
Exactly, and that's worrying.
People were distracted by the pussy thing - which was not coincidentally released on the same day.
Most people have no idea what was even in those emails and most of the media I read made a point to say that there was nothing damaging in there (cherry picking the most mundane things they could).
There wasn't anything too surprising to people who hate Hillary Clinton (yes, she's in the pocket of wall street) and supporters and most of the mainstream media (MSNBC, CNN, NYTimes, etc.) didn't pay any attention.
Most people have no idea what was even in those emails and most of the media I read made a point to say that there was nothing damaging in there (cherry picking the most mundane things they could).
There wasn't anything too surprising to people who hate Hillary Clinton (yes, she's in the pocket of wall street) and supporters and most of the mainstream media (MSNBC, CNN, NYTimes, etc.) didn't pay any attention.
I read a bunch of the emails and there wasn't anything significant in there unless you count cherry-picking quotes and willful misunderstanding. At best there are some ambiguous things that could be interpreted certain ways.
tl;dr: There is no smoking gun. People say things in private emails they wouldn't discuss in public, NEWS AT 11!!!!!
P.S. It wasn't "that pussy thing". It was Trump bragging that he pushes women into sexual encounters he knows they don't want and gets away with it because he's famous and rich. I like how the right pretended everyone was upset about some foul language though or that it was just "locker room" talk. If Trump had said "oh she's so hot, I'd love to fuck her" no one would have cared because that is locker room talk. What Trump said was in a different league.
tl;dr: There is no smoking gun. People say things in private emails they wouldn't discuss in public, NEWS AT 11!!!!!
P.S. It wasn't "that pussy thing". It was Trump bragging that he pushes women into sexual encounters he knows they don't want and gets away with it because he's famous and rich. I like how the right pretended everyone was upset about some foul language though or that it was just "locker room" talk. If Trump had said "oh she's so hot, I'd love to fuck her" no one would have cared because that is locker room talk. What Trump said was in a different league.
You don't think that cheating in the debate by providing one candidate with questions in advance is significant?
Considering it was a pretty basic question that every Democratic primary candidate is asked about, not really.
It's like asking a Republican in a primary debate if they want to control guns.
It's like asking a Republican in a primary debate if they want to control guns.
If it was so basic, why did the head of the party email the campaign the exact question? She must have thought it was important, otherwise why put your career on the line
Smoking guns:
* She admitted to having a "private" (real) policy position and a "public" one (lies).
* Bits of her speeches to Goldman came out and she basically said "we were way too hard on you guys" and "we need to listen more to you guys to help prevent another crisis".
* She mentioned that she basically wanted a hemispheric free trade & freedom of movement zone.
Of course, apparently it's not the done thing these days to talk about policy scandals that actually affect us during a Presidential election.
* She admitted to having a "private" (real) policy position and a "public" one (lies).
* Bits of her speeches to Goldman came out and she basically said "we were way too hard on you guys" and "we need to listen more to you guys to help prevent another crisis".
* She mentioned that she basically wanted a hemispheric free trade & freedom of movement zone.
Of course, apparently it's not the done thing these days to talk about policy scandals that actually affect us during a Presidential election.
How is the first one a smoking gun? She was quoting someone else. Lincoln, I think.
Her ties to Wallstreet are hardly a surprise. It sucks, but we already knew that she's probably not going to do what needs to be done to Wallstreet. But there's no reason to believe that Trump is going to do any better, and on almost everything else, Clinton is still a lot better, or at worst less bad.
Her ties to Wallstreet are hardly a surprise. It sucks, but we already knew that she's probably not going to do what needs to be done to Wallstreet. But there's no reason to believe that Trump is going to do any better, and on almost everything else, Clinton is still a lot better, or at worst less bad.
* She mentioned that she basically wanted a hemispheric free trade & freedom of movement zone.
...That sounds wonderful, if a bit too good to be true. Is it supposed to be bad?
...That sounds wonderful, if a bit too good to be true. Is it supposed to be bad?
That depends. Are you a fan of NAFTA, CAFTA, the TPP and TTIP?
I think she's more alluding to something like the EU common market. NAFTA, CAFTA, TPP and TTIP don't do anything about freedom of movement, and do a lot about a ton of other things that have nothing to do with that.
The pussygate tape came out before the Wikileak emails [1] which argues, if you're rational, that the timing was co-incidental or, if you're conspiratorial, that the Clinton campaign had a mole inside of Wikileaks who had just enough access to make them aware of the leak but not enough to stop it.
[1] https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/784484823717011456 & https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/784491543868665856
[1] https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/784484823717011456 & https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/784491543868665856
> The polls
The new emails show they're rigged
Besides could You show me any major news outlet that covered them really throughly (considering how damaging they are)?
Besides could You show me any major news outlet that covered them really throughly (considering how damaging they are)?
[deleted]
>>Then it was a darling of many of the liberal left, working with some of the world’s most respected newspapers exposing the truth behind drone killing, civilian deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq, and surveillance of the top UN officials.
>>Now it is the darling of the alt-right, revealing hacked emails seemingly to influence a presidential contest, claiming the US election is “rigged”, and descending into conspiracy. Just this week on Twitter, it has described the deaths by natural causes of two of its supporters as a “bloody year for WikiLeaks”, and warned of media outlets “controlled by” members of the Rothschild family – a common anti-Semitic trope.
This critique curiously echoes the two main propaganda attacks on Jeremy Corbyn:
1) Insinuations and manufactured accusations of anti-semitism:
* http://news.sky.com/story/damning-report-condemns-jeremy-cor...
* http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-37656197
2) "We used to support him but it's become clear that we can't any more":
* http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/zoe-williams-brands-je...
* http://labourlist.org/2016/08/i-used-to-support-corbyn-but-o...
* http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/billy-bragg-jeremy-cor...
I don't doubt the next anti-establishment figure will be met with the same response "yes, we used to think they were great until it became clear that they're an awful Jew hater".
>>Now it is the darling of the alt-right, revealing hacked emails seemingly to influence a presidential contest, claiming the US election is “rigged”, and descending into conspiracy. Just this week on Twitter, it has described the deaths by natural causes of two of its supporters as a “bloody year for WikiLeaks”, and warned of media outlets “controlled by” members of the Rothschild family – a common anti-Semitic trope.
This critique curiously echoes the two main propaganda attacks on Jeremy Corbyn:
1) Insinuations and manufactured accusations of anti-semitism:
* http://news.sky.com/story/damning-report-condemns-jeremy-cor...
* http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-37656197
2) "We used to support him but it's become clear that we can't any more":
* http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/zoe-williams-brands-je...
* http://labourlist.org/2016/08/i-used-to-support-corbyn-but-o...
* http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/billy-bragg-jeremy-cor...
I don't doubt the next anti-establishment figure will be met with the same response "yes, we used to think they were great until it became clear that they're an awful Jew hater".
> he doesn’t see the world in the way many Americans do, and has no intrinsic aversion to Putin or other strongmen with questionable democratic credentials on the world stage.
These two statements can be unrelated. You can see the world differently from "average American" point of view, yet have intrinsic aversion to questionable rulers.
Sorry for nitpicking.
These two statements can be unrelated. You can see the world differently from "average American" point of view, yet have intrinsic aversion to questionable rulers.
Sorry for nitpicking.
This is double standards 101. I would have hoped a stronger leadership by Assange to set higher political standards. Now I feel this is just leak pornography.
[deleted]
You are on the verge of voting a women into office that is likely the most corrupt politician in US history that has ever run for this office. How on earth is exposing this bad for your country, you want to be ruled by people who steal and lie to you about what they are going to do? How did she earn $250 million dollars while in public office?
Oh and Assange is not a US citizen, why would anyone expect him to think like one, let alone make it a requirement.
Oh and Assange is not a US citizen, why would anyone expect him to think like one, let alone make it a requirement.
I am neither an US citizen nor living in US, and have not said anything about Hillary in my reply.
I'm not against publishing this stuff in general. And in a normal election, it would be totally disqualifying.
There are mitigating circumstances, however.
1) Her opponent is totally unqualified for the presidency, and is basically a fascist, and a bigot, and obsessed with revenge.
2) The information was obtained via espionage by a foreign power, attempting to interfere in the US election. I can only imagine what kind of stuff we'd find in RNC emails.
As far as I'm concerned the correct course of action here is to elect Hillary, and then have congressional hearings into both the contents of those emails, and the methods by which they were obtained.
Hillary is a crooked in the usual way that politicians are. We can survive another crooked politician in the White House for four years. Trump would be the end of the republic.
There are mitigating circumstances, however.
1) Her opponent is totally unqualified for the presidency, and is basically a fascist, and a bigot, and obsessed with revenge.
2) The information was obtained via espionage by a foreign power, attempting to interfere in the US election. I can only imagine what kind of stuff we'd find in RNC emails.
As far as I'm concerned the correct course of action here is to elect Hillary, and then have congressional hearings into both the contents of those emails, and the methods by which they were obtained.
Hillary is a crooked in the usual way that politicians are. We can survive another crooked politician in the White House for four years. Trump would be the end of the republic.
> Trump would be the end of the republic.
That's not exaggeration? To me, it's insulting the people who founded this country to imply that all it takes to defeat an intricate system of governance they founded to ensure the preservation of their country is an uncouth man becoming president.
That's not exaggeration? To me, it's insulting the people who founded this country to imply that all it takes to defeat an intricate system of governance they founded to ensure the preservation of their country is an uncouth man becoming president.
Michael Dell wrote, that every time Dell doubled in size they had to reinvent their processes.
The good ol' USA has grown by orders of magnitude. And we're still trying to use the same rules that worked for horses and written letters and muskets. We've rarely even revisited the rules, much less rewrite them.
Yes I think its a fragile thing, that depends upon the good will of the people executing the processes. When they brag about how they're going to twist the rules for personal vendettas, then we should all worry.
The good ol' USA has grown by orders of magnitude. And we're still trying to use the same rules that worked for horses and written letters and muskets. We've rarely even revisited the rules, much less rewrite them.
Yes I think its a fragile thing, that depends upon the good will of the people executing the processes. When they brag about how they're going to twist the rules for personal vendettas, then we should all worry.
There are parts of the constitution that show their age (The second amendment being written in a time before modern weapons, nuclear arms, and drones where the people really could keep a government in check), but I don't buy the concept of a president without absolute power has eroded so far that one "bad president" could bring about the end of the US.
Are you seriously considering what that'd even mean? What would "the end of the republic as the GP mentioned even mean?
The president has more power than ever, but Trump will not be the end of the United States because the system of governance we have limits the harm he could do.
I honestly think Trump would be less likely to bring about WW3 (the only barely realistic way I could see the fall of the US happening) than any other candidate if only for his lack of sophistication.
Are you seriously considering what that'd even mean? What would "the end of the republic as the GP mentioned even mean?
The president has more power than ever, but Trump will not be the end of the United States because the system of governance we have limits the harm he could do.
I honestly think Trump would be less likely to bring about WW3 (the only barely realistic way I could see the fall of the US happening) than any other candidate if only for his lack of sophistication.
They've steadily eroded checks and balances until they have essentially no checks now.
Presidents now wage war without Congress' help. Fire nuclear missiles. Enrage world opinion through careless remarks and insults, through instantaneous media (radio, tv, internet). Call out the National Guard. Declare martial law. Enforce or fail to enforce laws selectively. Appoint Federal judges exclusively by emergency appointment between sessions (started with Bush).
That's a lot of scary stuff.
Presidents now wage war without Congress' help. Fire nuclear missiles. Enrage world opinion through careless remarks and insults, through instantaneous media (radio, tv, internet). Call out the National Guard. Declare martial law. Enforce or fail to enforce laws selectively. Appoint Federal judges exclusively by emergency appointment between sessions (started with Bush).
That's a lot of scary stuff.
>Fire nuclear missiles.
Sorry... what?
Was there a unilaterally declared American nuclear strike I'm not aware of?
Sorry... what?
Was there a unilaterally declared American nuclear strike I'm not aware of?
It's been two hundred years and there has been plenty of time to erode the checks and balances that keep the executive in check. The president literally has the power to end all life on earth. How is congress going to check that?
Not to mention the power of the surveillance state.
Not to mention the power of the surveillance state.
The people who founded this country didn't know about nuclear weapons.
>The WikiLeaks founder is out to settle a score with Hillary Clinton
...
...
I just want to remind everyone that the Clinton campaign has been proved at least twice (according to the Podesta e-mails) to plant stories in the press. Keep that in mind while reading this: you don't know how much of it was written by the person whose name it comes under.
Could you link those Podesta emails?
And anyway, this article isn't really anti-Assange or pro-Clinton, as far as I can tell. It does seem to be anti-Russia, but not pro-US.
And anyway, this article isn't really anti-Assange or pro-Clinton, as far as I can tell. It does seem to be anti-Russia, but not pro-US.
It seems implicitly anti-Assange to me.
It eloquently conveys the fact that Assange is an asshole.
That may be so. But should we not refrain from shooting the messenger? The message he brings is important.
About Assange's anti-Hillary bias: it may be a personal affair, but there is something also of objective interest. Of course, Trump is a monster/clown. And probably Russia does not want Clinton. However, I am sure Saudi Arabia prefers Clinton. How many wars are going to worsen? That's not very comforting to me.
About Assange's anti-Hillary bias: it may be a personal affair, but there is something also of objective interest. Of course, Trump is a monster/clown. And probably Russia does not want Clinton. However, I am sure Saudi Arabia prefers Clinton. How many wars are going to worsen? That's not very comforting to me.
I'm not the kind of guy who takes a single person's testimony as fact.
Not OP, but I can help. The dumps are huge, so there are probably lots of things I don't know about too. I suggest reading everything for yourself--can't take anyone's word for anything. Another fun hobby is if you look up various politically relevant Wikipedia articles and compare them before & after the election.
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/2175#efmAAGAAi - This is the Wikileaks email describing a strategy (bird dogging) you'll hear more about later.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uMzYaO2syE - This video shows one Zulema Rodriguez who will appear in later videos around 17:36. She appears to be lying to the cops and blocking the road at the AZ protests. We'll see more of her later.
https://beta.fec.gov/data/disbursements/?two_year_transactio... - This is FEC data showing Zulema on the payroll of MoveOn.org. Note how the dates correlate with the previous item. This casts quite a bit of doubt on the story she told cops in the previous video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=5IuJGHuIkzY - The infamous O'Keefe video contains a description of bird dogging that's a lot less innocent than the one above. They discuss getting people to cause violence at the Trump protests. Zulema, in particular, mentions being both at the AZ protests (which we've corroborated above), and at another, more violent protest.
https://i.sli.mg/dNBRek.png - This image shows that the person seen in the AZ protest videos matches the person in the O'Keefe video.
Note also that there was a fiasco over the ACORN videos some time ago from O'Keefe, causing some to suspect the video was edited. That said, it's interesting that the protests taken credit for were violent and that the information can be matched up with independent information and videos.
Finally, though it's not related to Podesta at all, there's also been a recent attempt to frame Julian Assange for CP by an extra shady porn site:
https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiLeaks/comments/58o29r/text_summ...
This part is just to show that weird stuff is going on. Note also that you can test the DKIM signatures on the emails yourself. There's too much crazy this election. I advise that you test things yourself, don't take anybody's word for anything. I don't claim to be infallible and things get weird as hell if you look very far into them. It doesn't help that a lawyer went on CNN to give a completely bogus claim that only journalists are allowed to look at Wikileaks. That claim is utterly false: https://popehat.com/2016/10/17/no-it-is-not-illegal-to-read-...
That aside, you could get in trouble if you have a security clearance. But that's due to the agreements you make in getting a clearance, not due to any law that gives "journalists" special privileges the general public does not also enjoy.
EDIT: One more thing. People are starting to spread totally fake Wikileaks images now on social media. I suggest adopting a links or GTFO approach to dealing with that.
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/2175#efmAAGAAi - This is the Wikileaks email describing a strategy (bird dogging) you'll hear more about later.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uMzYaO2syE - This video shows one Zulema Rodriguez who will appear in later videos around 17:36. She appears to be lying to the cops and blocking the road at the AZ protests. We'll see more of her later.
https://beta.fec.gov/data/disbursements/?two_year_transactio... - This is FEC data showing Zulema on the payroll of MoveOn.org. Note how the dates correlate with the previous item. This casts quite a bit of doubt on the story she told cops in the previous video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=5IuJGHuIkzY - The infamous O'Keefe video contains a description of bird dogging that's a lot less innocent than the one above. They discuss getting people to cause violence at the Trump protests. Zulema, in particular, mentions being both at the AZ protests (which we've corroborated above), and at another, more violent protest.
https://i.sli.mg/dNBRek.png - This image shows that the person seen in the AZ protest videos matches the person in the O'Keefe video.
Note also that there was a fiasco over the ACORN videos some time ago from O'Keefe, causing some to suspect the video was edited. That said, it's interesting that the protests taken credit for were violent and that the information can be matched up with independent information and videos.
Finally, though it's not related to Podesta at all, there's also been a recent attempt to frame Julian Assange for CP by an extra shady porn site:
https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiLeaks/comments/58o29r/text_summ...
This part is just to show that weird stuff is going on. Note also that you can test the DKIM signatures on the emails yourself. There's too much crazy this election. I advise that you test things yourself, don't take anybody's word for anything. I don't claim to be infallible and things get weird as hell if you look very far into them. It doesn't help that a lawyer went on CNN to give a completely bogus claim that only journalists are allowed to look at Wikileaks. That claim is utterly false: https://popehat.com/2016/10/17/no-it-is-not-illegal-to-read-...
That aside, you could get in trouble if you have a security clearance. But that's due to the agreements you make in getting a clearance, not due to any law that gives "journalists" special privileges the general public does not also enjoy.
EDIT: One more thing. People are starting to spread totally fake Wikileaks images now on social media. I suggest adopting a links or GTFO approach to dealing with that.
The Podesta emails is thousands of files and are still being released every day by WikiLeaks. Anyone can search them here https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/ But it's so many that you really have to spend some time digging.
Regarding my claim, I don't remember where I saw it, and a naive Google search didn't bring anything useful. But Natsu already did a more comprehensive job than I could, so follow him.
Regarding my claim, I don't remember where I saw it, and a naive Google search didn't bring anything useful. But Natsu already did a more comprehensive job than I could, so follow him.
[deleted]
If you found this interesting, you might like the (much longer) account written by the ghostwriter of an autobiography Assange backed out of:
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n05/andrew-ohagan/ghosting
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n05/andrew-ohagan/ghosting
[deleted]
>he doesn’t see the world in the way many Americans do, and has no intrinsic aversion to Putin or other strongmen with questionable democratic credentials on the world stage.
Why should he? America has much more "questionable democratic credentials" than Russia. At least the latter is constrained in its immediate back yard, it doesn't invade countries to "bring democracy", getting oil and leaving behind chaos, mayhem and civil war, nor does it bully or stronghold most of the world's governments.
Why should he? America has much more "questionable democratic credentials" than Russia. At least the latter is constrained in its immediate back yard, it doesn't invade countries to "bring democracy", getting oil and leaving behind chaos, mayhem and civil war, nor does it bully or stronghold most of the world's governments.
You're just throwing out a grab bag of complaints.
America can be very democratic and aggressive. Bhutan can be autocratic and insular. Russia can be autocratic and (selectively) militaristic.
Russia has joke democratic credentials. You're a pawn or a fool if you think otherwise. Admitting the us is a more functional democracy doesn't stop you from disagreeing with our foreign policy.
America can be very democratic and aggressive. Bhutan can be autocratic and insular. Russia can be autocratic and (selectively) militaristic.
Russia has joke democratic credentials. You're a pawn or a fool if you think otherwise. Admitting the us is a more functional democracy doesn't stop you from disagreeing with our foreign policy.
I'll admit that the US is a more functional democracy, but that's mostly because it doesn't matter who gets in the office. Talk about "fetishism of small differences". Both parties are more alike than different, except in small ways just enough for each to capture its kind of people. Of course "a more functional democracy" whose two major candidates in 2016 are Trump and Hillary, and who had Bush Jr. serving 2 terms is a joke in itself, but still.
Most of the complaints about Russian elections are from organizations working "Radio Free Europe" style -- "soft power" sponsored attacks to delegitimize a country and help install friendly lackeys like that Yeltsin figure in its early days. This has been going for over 2 centuries all around the world, so it's not really news.
Are there are actual issues with Russian internal politics / elections etc? Sure. But not something anybody outside of Russia should even care about. Whereas the caprices and "strategic interests" of other countries can exploit or completely fuck up every country in the whole world.
Most of the complaints about Russian elections are from organizations working "Radio Free Europe" style -- "soft power" sponsored attacks to delegitimize a country and help install friendly lackeys like that Yeltsin figure in its early days. This has been going for over 2 centuries all around the world, so it's not really news.
Are there are actual issues with Russian internal politics / elections etc? Sure. But not something anybody outside of Russia should even care about. Whereas the caprices and "strategic interests" of other countries can exploit or completely fuck up every country in the whole world.
So you think there was little or no difference between the Clinton administration and Bush 2 with respect to foreign policy?
Most people agree on most things. Politicians are marketers who arbitrage differences to get elected.
Most people agree on most things. Politicians are marketers who arbitrage differences to get elected.
Most of the complaints about Russian elections are due to them being rather severely rigged. Like, election officials getting caught on camera stuffing ballot boxes, regions with more votes than ballots, that kind of thing. At this point Russia seems to be the standard test used in papers about statistical methods for voter fraud detection. And that's not even getting into what happened to all the independent media and anyone who challenges the political status quo.
You got some down votes for this comment and you deleted that other comment because it got down voted too.
But I, at least, strongly agree with you.
Like PJ O'Rourke said: America has one political party, and like everything in America it has two of them.
The fact that the US has two political parties is merely an exercise in excess, demonstration of waste.
Whoever gets in will continue to authorise extra-judicial drone killings, CIA meddling in others affairs, both internally and eternally, and generally fuck-over the average American.
But I, at least, strongly agree with you.
Like PJ O'Rourke said: America has one political party, and like everything in America it has two of them.
The fact that the US has two political parties is merely an exercise in excess, demonstration of waste.
Whoever gets in will continue to authorise extra-judicial drone killings, CIA meddling in others affairs, both internally and eternally, and generally fuck-over the average American.
>You got some down votes for this comment and you deleted that other comment because it got down voted too.
I deleted it because I thought I was carried away and left too many comments in the thread, so left the main ones who get the same point across once (didn't want to trigger any itchy moderation).
On the rest, yes, that's the case.
I deleted it because I thought I was carried away and left too many comments in the thread, so left the main ones who get the same point across once (didn't want to trigger any itchy moderation).
On the rest, yes, that's the case.
Number of US overseas military bases: 600+
Number of Russian overseas military bases: 2
I wonder why people paint Russia as if it was some aggressive power like the US.
Number of Russian overseas military bases: 2
I wonder why people paint Russia as if it was some aggressive power like the US.
Because Americans are so used to being told they are the good guys, "the shit", and the world's only saints. Their media (even "serious" media, like the NYT) is the most patriotic in the whole western world. Of course it helps that there's a trillion dollar defense industry to benefit from all of that too.
So, when they meddle 10.000 miles from their borders it's their right and they do it "for democracy".
But when another country (let's call it R) tries to meddle in a place where actual pro-fascists toppled a voted-for government in a country in its borders, where tons of people with R ethnic origins live -- then they don't have the right.
People speak about communist countries propaganda art portraying their leaders as "heroes" -- and it's indeed idiotic. But then again, the US is the only other place where they can produce and watch movies and shows where the President is a hero fighting bad guys with his bare hands (from Air Force One to numerous tv/cable series).
And people watch that with a straight face -- in any other western country this would be considered only acceptable for comedy.
So, when they meddle 10.000 miles from their borders it's their right and they do it "for democracy".
But when another country (let's call it R) tries to meddle in a place where actual pro-fascists toppled a voted-for government in a country in its borders, where tons of people with R ethnic origins live -- then they don't have the right.
People speak about communist countries propaganda art portraying their leaders as "heroes" -- and it's indeed idiotic. But then again, the US is the only other place where they can produce and watch movies and shows where the President is a hero fighting bad guys with his bare hands (from Air Force One to numerous tv/cable series).
And people watch that with a straight face -- in any other western country this would be considered only acceptable for comedy.
Free speech means you can make a movie where the president is the hero as much as you can make a TV series where he is the murdering villain (House of Cards).
Neither is state produced and neither got the creators thrown in jail.
That's the difference.
Neither is state produced and neither got the creators thrown in jail.
That's the difference.
The CIA has clandestinely produced cultural propaganda throughout its existence.
>Neither is state produced
That's my point exactly. People actually enjoy this former shit instead of finding it ludicrous.
(The villain one is OK -- and you can find all around the world. After all its an adaptation of a British series, and besides lots of politicians are villains and scumbags).
It's the fact that there are people that don't immediately see the former as ludicrous that's strange.
That's my point exactly. People actually enjoy this former shit instead of finding it ludicrous.
(The villain one is OK -- and you can find all around the world. After all its an adaptation of a British series, and besides lots of politicians are villains and scumbags).
It's the fact that there are people that don't immediately see the former as ludicrous that's strange.
[deleted]
The US is a sea empire, the Russians are a land empire.
Ask the Poles, non-Slavic Central Europeans, people from the "stans" of Central Asia and others about their love of Russia.
Ask the Poles, non-Slavic Central Europeans, people from the "stans" of Central Asia and others about their love of Russia.
[deleted]
Russia keeps annexing countries. That's not something the US does and it's not something we want major powers to be able to get away with anymore.
>Russia keeps annexing countries.
In its borders, with ethnic Russian population, and with a long history of being together in the same trans-national entity (USSR), not to mention a history of Crimea being Russian.
>That's not something the US does
No, it did enough of that in the past. For the last 50+ years it merely invades countries, and intervenes whether it feels like all over the globe.
In its borders, with ethnic Russian population, and with a long history of being together in the same trans-national entity (USSR), not to mention a history of Crimea being Russian.
>That's not something the US does
No, it did enough of that in the past. For the last 50+ years it merely invades countries, and intervenes whether it feels like all over the globe.
This is false. In addition to Syria, Russia has troops stationed in Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Belarus, Moldova and Vietnam. They had bases in Ukraine, too, but those are now in Russia thanks to their war of aggression.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Russian_military_bases...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Russian_military_bases...
[deleted]
% wonder why people paint Russia as if it was some aggressive power like the US
Anexation of the Crimea and fuelling of a civil war in the Ukraine?
Anexation of the Crimea and fuelling of a civil war in the Ukraine?
Ukraine was together with Russia as parts of USSR, it's within its borders, and Crimea is a region where a large part of the population is of Russian ethnic origin (and which the rest of Ukrainians don't particularly like).
It also had its voted-for government toppled (with the support of foreign powers), and pro-fascists coming into power. It was then that Russia intervened.
That's "fueling of a civil war"? How does a country that left places it had absolutely no reason to be, as hell-holes of civil war and destruction say that with a straight face?
It also had its voted-for government toppled (with the support of foreign powers), and pro-fascists coming into power. It was then that Russia intervened.
That's "fueling of a civil war"? How does a country that left places it had absolutely no reason to be, as hell-holes of civil war and destruction say that with a straight face?
It had its "voted-for government toppled"? Not in any usual sense of the word. The elected members of the Ukranian parliament just kicked out the President and a few of his buddies after they violently repressed protests caused by their actions. That seems a lot like democracy to me. Stepping in and annexing part of a country because your preferred candidate is no longer in power, on the other hand, is a huge affront to it - and the way that Russia sees the "parts of USSR" as their property regardless of what the inhabitants think is terrifying.
>The elected members of the Ukranian parliament just kicked out the President and a few of his buddies after they violently repressed protests caused by their actions.
Sort of like Trump's elected republicans throwing out President Hillary and a few of her buddies, after weeks of protests by Tea Partiers who disagreed with what the actually elected government was doing and didn't want to wait 4 years for the next elections...
>Stepping in and annexing part of a country because your preferred candidate is no longer in power, on the other hand, is a huge affront to it
Better make it: because pro-fascists (literary: nazi sympathizers) are now in power after a coup, and they don't particularly like the Russian-ethnic population in their own country.
Sort of like Trump's elected republicans throwing out President Hillary and a few of her buddies, after weeks of protests by Tea Partiers who disagreed with what the actually elected government was doing and didn't want to wait 4 years for the next elections...
>Stepping in and annexing part of a country because your preferred candidate is no longer in power, on the other hand, is a huge affront to it
Better make it: because pro-fascists (literary: nazi sympathizers) are now in power after a coup, and they don't particularly like the Russian-ethnic population in their own country.
More like the Republicans and Democrats throwing out President Hillary and a few of her buddies for having Tea Party protestors shot. Also, the evidence for the Ukranian leadership being pro-Nazi fascists who hate ethnic Russians looked pretty weak and more like Russian propaganda last time I checked.
I'm not a huge fan of Russian politics or US politics for that matter. That said when I read comments like yours I can only think of how you would feel if Russia had turned up in the US with war planes during the occupy demos?
Russia signed the Budapest memorandum where she promised to honour post soviet state borders. You don't renege international treaties just like that, at least not in Europe.
% That's "fueling of a civil war"?
Russia also sent arms, volunteers and even regular troops into the conflict, it is a bloody damned proxy war.
% That's "fueling of a civil war"?
Russia also sent arms, volunteers and even regular troops into the conflict, it is a bloody damned proxy war.
My point is, given the circumstances, it could very well be a full-on war and that would be legit too. It enters a "proxy war" to protect its large ethnic population in a bordering country -- and this only after the voted-for government of said country was toppled, and pro-fascists got into power who don't particularly like that population.
For once, those are actual legit national "strategic interests", not "the world is ours so we have strategic interests all over the globe and we will crush anyone who steps on them" ones. The USSR used to do those too of course. But Russia is no USSR, and only a specific world player consistently does those the last 20+ years.
Countries that have actually invaded other countries (4 of them in the last 20 years), have countless proxy wars, and leave behind hell holes of civil war and destruction have little basis to criticize. And in general, anybody who criticizes the second case, without criticizing 10 times as strongly the first, is at best a hypocrite.
For once, those are actual legit national "strategic interests", not "the world is ours so we have strategic interests all over the globe and we will crush anyone who steps on them" ones. The USSR used to do those too of course. But Russia is no USSR, and only a specific world player consistently does those the last 20+ years.
Countries that have actually invaded other countries (4 of them in the last 20 years), have countless proxy wars, and leave behind hell holes of civil war and destruction have little basis to criticize. And in general, anybody who criticizes the second case, without criticizing 10 times as strongly the first, is at best a hypocrite.
First you say that Russia is not fuelling a civil war and then you say that they are justified to do so. You are just running propaganda.
Ask Georgia, Ukraine, Lithania, Estonia and Finland this. Then try Canada.
These 600 bases were welcomed by local governments. Have you noticed how the terms "first world" and "second world" used to designate US and USSR allies respectfully, but now just mean "countries that have it good" and "not so lucky ones"? Curious coincedence.
These 600 bases were welcomed by local governments. Have you noticed how the terms "first world" and "second world" used to designate US and USSR allies respectfully, but now just mean "countries that have it good" and "not so lucky ones"? Curious coincedence.
>These 600 bases were welcomed by local governments.
Sure, by the friendly lackeys installed in power.
>but now just mean "countries that have it good" and "not so lucky ones"? Curious coincidence.
Not that curious. Besides the bad politics of the USSR, those countries were also fought against with all the might of the "first world", not to mention they had a huge colonial history of being held down to boot.
Sure, by the friendly lackeys installed in power.
>but now just mean "countries that have it good" and "not so lucky ones"? Curious coincidence.
Not that curious. Besides the bad politics of the USSR, those countries were also fought against with all the might of the "first world", not to mention they had a huge colonial history of being held down to boot.
You seem to have extensive knowledge about the subject, if you can off the top of your head know that 600 bases were welcomes by local governments. I personally know of only 1, and no one wanted it there. Local government was bullied with thinly veiled suggestions of tariffs (or was it sanctions, I don't remember).
It's not a coincidence at all, the US gained more and more power, and the USSR broke down. If you think there's a coincidence there you're not smart enough to be here.
It's not a coincidence at all, the US gained more and more power, and the USSR broke down. If you think there's a coincidence there you're not smart enough to be here.
"America has much more "questionable democratic credentials" than Russia."
This is simply prima facie false. I understand not understanding the context to "invading countries" but really?
There's a really nice book - "A Peace to End All Peace" and it should explain some of what you may object to. Before this round of festivities, the US was unsteady on its feet as the domain of the Cold Warriors.
The 2003 fun was as much about the U.N. process breaking down as anything else.
This is simply prima facie false. I understand not understanding the context to "invading countries" but really?
There's a really nice book - "A Peace to End All Peace" and it should explain some of what you may object to. Before this round of festivities, the US was unsteady on its feet as the domain of the Cold Warriors.
The 2003 fun was as much about the U.N. process breaking down as anything else.
Sadly, this is very much in line with what I've been seeing from WikiLeaks in this past year. Assange is growing increasingly vindictive and conspiratorial, and any future WikiLeaks data dumps need to be viewed in this light. (Which is to say: even if the documents are genuine, their curation and any theatrics surrounding them should be heavily scrutinized. WikiLeaks seems to no longer be an equal-opportunity leaker, but instead focuses its attention on Assange's political enemies.)
Would it be fair to say that Assange is currently on a mission to expose the American government's dirty laundry at all costs, even if it means cooperating with other bad governments?
Could we expect him to focus more heavily on the Russian and Chinese governments in the future?
Could we expect him to focus more heavily on the Russian and Chinese governments in the future?
It doesn't work that way, he doesn't hack the US, Russian or Chinese government and he doesn't direct other hackers, he only gets to leak data that was given to him by whistleblowers.
So your calls for Assange to specifically expose Russia and China to somehow "be fair" is quite senseless. I have to wonder how you think this actually works?
So your calls for Assange to specifically expose Russia and China to somehow "be fair" is quite senseless. I have to wonder how you think this actually works?
I understand how Wikileaks works, but keep in mind he holds onto things for a while and waits for an opportune moment to release them. You can't doubt that the leaks of the past few months have been very politically motivated to inflict as much damage as possible (which is not necessarily a bad thing), and not just a mere passing-on of what others gave him.
Are we to assume he's never been contacted by any Russian or Chinese dissidents? Maybe not, but if he has, I'd definitely like to see a proper release.
Are we to assume he's never been contacted by any Russian or Chinese dissidents? Maybe not, but if he has, I'd definitely like to see a proper release.
Their twitter is complaining that if they had the Podesta emails earlier, this might've been Sanders vs. Trump.
What I see when I look at the whole Wikileaks/Assange situation is a guy who started off well-meaning and really did want to make a difference who through a stroke of right-place-right-time happened to receive at the time the largest leak of classified documents in history.
I honestly feel that being suddenly thrust into the spotlight as the most notorious person in the world at the time put Assange in a position he was not physically nor mentally equipped to deal with, and everything that has happened since then is a combination of not being able to deal with the fame and notoriety he gathered and an ego that prevents him from asking for help. He had isolated himself in a self-created cocoon of paranoia and ego long before he did so literally in the Ecuadorian embassy.
In some ways, I feel bad for the guy, his intentions were well-meaning, and I respect the hell out of a guy who would stand up to the most powerful nation on earth and call them out for what they were doing, but Assange is his own worst enemy, and his current situation is of his own making.
I honestly feel that being suddenly thrust into the spotlight as the most notorious person in the world at the time put Assange in a position he was not physically nor mentally equipped to deal with, and everything that has happened since then is a combination of not being able to deal with the fame and notoriety he gathered and an ego that prevents him from asking for help. He had isolated himself in a self-created cocoon of paranoia and ego long before he did so literally in the Ecuadorian embassy.
In some ways, I feel bad for the guy, his intentions were well-meaning, and I respect the hell out of a guy who would stand up to the most powerful nation on earth and call them out for what they were doing, but Assange is his own worst enemy, and his current situation is of his own making.
FYI, no proof has been given that Julian is still at the Embassy since the episodes last Sunday (no sightings at the window or balcony, no picture or clips). The WL subreddit in general believes there's been fishy activity on their twitter since then.... they just now tweeted the long awaited "prove Julian is OK" tweet, but unfortunately it is just some sentences of text. I think at the minimum there is cause to raise an eyebrow.
This just seems like an attempt to generate drama.
I'll remove it if it's too sensational, but there has been a steady stream of panic threads on certain subreddits over the last week, and I was trying to give an objective, short rehash. Anyways I'm not advocating a jump to conclusions, just to keep an eye on it.
Helpfully fueled by some of the Wikileaks crowd, who are active tin-foilers.
For example, Gavin MacFadyan, a WikiLeaks staffer, was diagnosed with an illness a while back.
A few weeks ago, WikiLeaks said as much, and sent him best wishes in a Tweet.
He died the other day.
WikiLeaks response was to go back and delete the tweet, and now the flames of his "mysterious and sudden death" are being fanned in those subreddits - "how long before JA dies from a sudden and mysterious illness?"
Not to mention the other wing nuts:
"There is a wireless telephone bug .This has been caught by my bug detector. Active on the frequency 400 kilo Hertz. Other people also have verified this. This needs stopped immediately check out my timeline. This signal is all across the U.S.A."
This is just after the claims of the military raid on the embassy in broad daylight that no-one could get photos of because (they couldn't decide): a) the military were telling people they'd be prosecuted if they did, or b) the military were using technology to "obfuscate" any photos people did take.
For example, Gavin MacFadyan, a WikiLeaks staffer, was diagnosed with an illness a while back.
A few weeks ago, WikiLeaks said as much, and sent him best wishes in a Tweet.
He died the other day.
WikiLeaks response was to go back and delete the tweet, and now the flames of his "mysterious and sudden death" are being fanned in those subreddits - "how long before JA dies from a sudden and mysterious illness?"
Not to mention the other wing nuts:
"There is a wireless telephone bug .This has been caught by my bug detector. Active on the frequency 400 kilo Hertz. Other people also have verified this. This needs stopped immediately check out my timeline. This signal is all across the U.S.A."
This is just after the claims of the military raid on the embassy in broad daylight that no-one could get photos of because (they couldn't decide): a) the military were telling people they'd be prosecuted if they did, or b) the military were using technology to "obfuscate" any photos people did take.
You're probably right to an extent about the tin-foil, but I would say WL fueled the Gavin thing themselves by tweeting "It's been a bloody 6 months for WL [list of 3 who died, incl. Gavin]". Either way for them I think it's mainly the uncharacteristic if not bizarre language, as well as particularly partisan tweets of late. That and JA being MIA.
I wasn't referring to your comment, but to the brouhaha you reference. Sorry to imply otherwise.
More of the same political tactics. Feel dirty having read buzzfeed.
There should be an Onion article titled, "Challenger to status quo is racist, anti-Semitic, transphobic, misogynist, possibly gay, rapist, pedophile, terrorist, bogeyman."
Yawn.
Writers like that are why people are backing the republican nominee.
There should be an Onion article titled, "Challenger to status quo is racist, anti-Semitic, transphobic, misogynist, possibly gay, rapist, pedophile, terrorist, bogeyman."
Yawn.
Writers like that are why people are backing the republican nominee.
This is so transparently a hit piece that it's sad. A weak attempt to divert criticisms from leaked emails with "They're just trying to settle a personal score against Hillary!".
I'm not sure about Americans but I would say the majority of the the world mistrusts the US Government. While I'm not saying Assange doesn't have flaws, this isn't exactly a point in time I would believe anything I read about him, Wikileaks or his character, this is the time for character assassinations.
We also need to keep in-mind (as the article states) the guy is practically in jail, him and other whistle blowers are being seriously screwed over by the US Government, so IMO most of these profile pieces are going to paint a picture of someone who isn't in a great place right now. I often here people complain about the state of Wikileaks, but what do people expect?
On character assassinations, another example I could give right now is Trump, maybe it's just because he is low hanging fruit, but boy is the media giving it to that guy like I've never seen, it's to the point where I've pretty much stopped reading the news in Australia right now because there are just constant trump bashing articles, it feels like the work of "The Ministry of Truth" in 1984. Yeah he is controversial, but is he worthy of so much attention ? From what i understand Hillary is far from flawless also.
To conclude my rant, I'm taking this with a grain of salt :)