Julian Assange and Wikileaks

I think the piece was done when the arrest was made by the MPS and didn't have time to include it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_material_published_by_WikiLeaks

A reminder of what Wikileaks did before it became a Fallen Hero.

Just going to point out that Wikileaks/Assange has been carrying water for Russia since at least 2010. [1]

And let’s not forget their leak on the Warlock system in 2008, widely regarded as having no journalistic value and directly endangering lives in the Middle East.

Edited by archonspeaks on Apr 12th 2019 at 12:07:55 PM

Which would mean it served as a non-compromised asset for 4 years. Also, that its most famous leaks was before the Russians became involved (probably because of said leaks).

Hence we know our Revenge of the Sith moment.

Edited by CharlesPhipps on Apr 12th 2019 at 12:11:38 PM

Even before their fall, they were at best reckless free information fanatics. At worst, they viewed a lot of people's safety with nothing less than depraved indifference.

We were all there and quite a few of us paid attention to those claims. I found them unconvincing then, especially since most of the information they posted was the same information posted by their more reputable colleagues.

A lot of what the US claimed was classified data that endangered soldiers...didn't.

And yes, they were freedom of information fanatics.

Which isn't necessarily a bad thing faced with the fact the US government (as well as many countries they dealt with) were doing masive amounts of illegal activity under the guise of security.

The public can't be informed if they don't have access to information.

Edited by CharlesPhipps on Apr 12th 2019 at 12:18:34 PM

Even before they started getting more directly tied into Russia Assange had an obvious pro-Russia bias. Don’t forget they got called out numerous times in 2007/2008 for using their platform as a means to publish stuff like the Warlock files (publishing the frequencies IED jammers operate on is of public interest how?) that we’re of dubious journalistic relevance but seemed purely meant to hinder and attack the US, while simultaneously failing to investigate obvious transparency issues that had been brought to their attention in Russia and Russia-aligned states.

They’ve done some good work, for sure, but there’s no harm in recognizing that Assange was a flack from the very beginning. People liked them because they were taking shots at the US in the middle of a deeply unpopular war effort, and ignored the warning signs.

Edited by archonspeaks on Apr 12th 2019 at 12:24:54 PM

Assange was never it in to inform the public about important information, he wasn’t even in it to reveal information that could lead to productive conversations (the collateral murder video does raise points about the US over-reliance on air power when policing a conflict zone where armed groups on the ground can be not just friend or foe but also a civilian or near-civilian third part not connected with allied forces).

Assange was always in it to say “fuck you” to the US government, well beyond any talks about total transparency (which wikileaks has never had themselves), or revealing important information (which requires one to look over what one reveals) the motive has always been to give the US government a giant middle finger, I wouldn’t be surprised if he’d always been a Russian asset, he’s clearly a giant Tankie if nothing else.

Lots of protests in the UK with signs that has "Hands off Assange" and "Don't shoot the messenger".

Tucker has a new vid via Fox News on YT where he mentions that people should get raging mad at the Democrats instead of Assange.

TL/DR - They needed a distraction.

Edited by Ominae on Apr 13th 2019 at 9:28:21 AM

Tucker: a slimeball that comes across as slimy even when compared to the rest of FOX News.

Horseshoe Theory confirmed...in a honestly curious way.

Edited by KazuyaProta on Apr 13th 2019 at 1:17:44 PM

It's important to note a couple of things. First, this is over charges that the Obama administration held back on prosecuting due to concerns over press freedom. Second, the Swedish authorities, who have the strongest legal claim on him, were not notified before his arrest. Third, Ecuador was reportedly assured that he would be arrested for British crimes (skipping bail) and not extradited to a country that employs torture and the death penalty. Given the innumerable reasons and methods the Home Office had available to go after ol' Jules, it does rather seem like they picked the worst possible one.

I'm genuinely surprised that anyone was surprised the British government was turning him over to the USA. There was never any question he was being extradited to the US for political reasons and not local crimes.

I mean, the general implication I got was that Ecuador knew they were being played and no longer cared because he was such an awful tenant. The real problem is that some of the nastiest people in the US government look set to use one of the least likeable people on the planet as a weapon to crack down on press freedom, and some poor sod is going to have to defend him.

Pretty much.

This seems like a classic case of, "What protects a bad person is needed to protect good ones."

Just send him to Sweden. The charges should be dealt with first because time is running out. Plus, Sweden doesn't have the death penalty.

Why is the death penalty even an issue here? Unless I'm mistaken, Assange has not committed Murder in the 1st Degree under American jurisdiction, which is basically the only crime the US sentences people to death for nowadays.

Spying for foreign powers.

treason also has a potential death sentences, right?

It can, but it's not a mandatory sentence. If he's not given capital for treason he faces a $10K+ fine and prison terms anywhere from five years to whole life term.

I’m not sure if you could really get treason to stick on Assange, and that usually carries a life sentence and not execution anyways.

Fears of the death penalty were always a little overblown, and given the whole fuss that’s been made about it now it seems even less likely.

Is Assange even eligible for a treason charge, given that he's never been a US citizen and/or resident? Furthermore, the US definition of treason requires the defendant to outright side with a nation or organization directly at war with America, so unless Assange was directly helping AQ or ISIS on the side...

Finally, America (and the entire Western world) doesn't like to use treason charges to go after these people, its a very severe charge. They've got plenty of more reasonable offenses that they can use to put him away for decades.

Espionage might be able to result in a death sentence, but most cases result in (extensive) prison time. And I believe that in the last few decades, there have been a few precedents set that restrict capital punishment to aggravated murder.

Edited by Rationalinsanity on Apr 14th 2019 at 7:17:31 AM

I would think you can only be charged with treason against your own country. How can you commit treason against something you've never had allegiance to?

I seriously doubt he'd get the death penalty. Personally, though, I really wouldn't be opposed to it beyond some pragmatic concerns (I'd rather not martyr him)

The possibility of Assange getting the death penalty was something amplified by Wikileaks originally. I don’t think it’s a serious possibility.