Starker on 24/4/2019 at 18:20
Quote Posted by Tony_Tarantula
They freaking LOVE these news stories. The Assange arrest is being hailed as a wonderful moment and Yemen is being spun as being strong on terrorism.
But does the fantasy in your head line up with actual reality? Let's take a look.
Here's the reaction of Ari Melber from MSNBC:
Quote:
(
https://twitter.com/AriMelber/status/1116380553178243072)
The U.S. government indictment of Julian Assange is an
aggressive and potentially chilling legal document for journalists in the U.S. and abroad.
That is a significant issue regardless of one's view of Assange as a person, or his work, or his politics.
Here's an NYT opinon piece arguing that Assange's arrest sets a dangerous precedent:
Quote:
(
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/11/opinion/julian-assange-wikileaks-first-amendment.html)
Assange seems to have thought that, by helping elect Trump, he would improve his own situation. As Julia Ioffe reported in The Atlantic, in 2016 WikiLeaks suggested to Donald Trump Jr. that Trump should lean on Australia to have Assange, an Australian citizen, appointed ambassador to the United States. Roger Stone, a Trump adviser who was indicted in part for lying about his communications with WikiLeaks, reportedly told an associate that he was trying to get Assange a pre-emptive presidential pardon. Now Assange has discovered, as so many others have before him, that betting on Trump can ruin your life. There's a certain dark satisfaction in that.
But any legal theory that Trump's Justice Department uses against Assange can also be used against the rest of us.Here's CNN reporting the reactions of several media organisations:
Quote:
(
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/04/11/media/reliable-sources-julian-assange-arrest-media/index.html)
Several prominent groups that advocate for the press say they are very concerned about the implications of Thursday's charges, even though, as the Committee to Protect Journalists noted, "the indictment does not explicitly charge Assange for publication."
What it does do, CPJ said, is construe Assange's interactions with Manning "as part of a criminal conspiracy."
Robert Mahoney, CPJ's deputy director, said "the potential implications for press freedom of this allegation of conspiracy between publisher and source are
deeply troubling. With this prosecution of Julian Assange, the U.S. government could set out broad legal arguments about journalists soliciting information or interacting with sources that could have
chilling consequences for investigative reporting and the publication of information of public interest."
Reporters Without Borders expressed a similar set of concerns. "
The persecution of those who provide or publish information of public interest comes at the expense of the investigative journalism that allows a democracy to thrive," the group said.
The UK's National Union of Journalists said it is "
shocked and concerned by the actions of the authorities today... The NUJ recognises the inherent link between and importance of leaked confidential documents and journalism reporting in the public interest. It should be remembered that in April 2010 WikiLeaks released Collateral Murder, a video showing a 2007 US Apache helicopter attack upon individuals in Baghdad, more than 23 people were killed including two Reuters journalists.
The manner in which Assange is treated will be of great significance to the practice of journalism."
Plus many more outlets have published statements of people who support Assange in this, such as Rafael Correa, Edward Snowden, Noam Chomsky, Assange's attorneys, etc.
Tocky on 25/4/2019 at 01:54
Quote Posted by Tony_Tarantula
Do you have any documentation for that or is everything said speculation?
Are you serious about wanting me to provide evidence of the Internet Research Agency which Russia runs? I can link articles but surely you already know right?
As for the second paragraph, that was more of a personal observation. I can link the part where Trump states he wishes he could have the power over his own press that Putin has. Do you want that? Starker already linked the NYT article about Assange expecting Republicans to help him and showed where Roger Stone was attempting to. What exactly do you want? You will have to be specific because I said many things. Some I assume you know, such as Russia poisoning journalists, rock bands, and ex agents. I can post some links about that if you want but surely that is something you know.
icemann on 25/4/2019 at 08:42
I'd say the likelihood of anyone on the Russian end revealing anything against their government would be very unlikely. That person's family would disappear never to be seen again. I'd call that a fairly effective deterrent. Even those that left first, then switched sides later, going by history have often been assassinated in those countries by secret agents. Repercussions by world wide governments be damned. Denial, denial, denial.
Contrast that to things elsewhere and it's VERY different in democratic countries. Possibility of life in prison for that whistle blower only, would for many be a price worthy of paying in-order to reveal things they became aware of that went against their moral code.
I'm just looking at it from a logical perspective. I have a major dislike of Russia and how it does things. ESPECIALLY toward former members under the Soviet Union (eg Ukraine). Their "election process" as well as treatment of gays and lesbians is horrible.
lowenz on 25/4/2019 at 09:18
The only good Russia is Lenin/cosmist Russia :O (and russians know it as well, now Russia is simply "Gazprom country")
heywood on 25/4/2019 at 15:49
Quote Posted by froghawk
Thanks for the rundown. I wasn't familiar with his stance on all of those things, and while I'll need to do more research, several of them do seem initially quite troubling after a quick glance - particularly the Postol and Timor cases.
I still check out what Chomsky has to say from time to time, because he'll often have some nugget of insight that I wouldn't hear elsewhere. But I've attended a couple of his lectures (albeit a long time ago) and heard him make some surprising claims, without attribution, and then say something like "don't take it from me, look it up for yourselves, it's all out there". And then after much digging, I couldn't corroborate it using any reputable source. That put me off a bit, so I don't take what he says at face value. If he makes an interesting claim or argument, I'll just use it as a springboard and go off on my own.
Quote Posted by icemann
I'd say the likelihood of anyone on the Russian end revealing anything against their government would be very unlikely. That person's family would disappear never to be seen again. I'd call that a fairly effective deterrent. Even those that left first, then switched sides later, going by history have often been assassinated in those countries by secret agents. Repercussions by world wide governments be damned. Denial, denial, denial.
Contrast that to things elsewhere and it's VERY different in democratic countries. Possibility of life in prison for that whistle blower only, would for many be a price worthy of paying in-order to reveal things they became aware of that went against their moral code.
Exactly. Look at Manning: he releases half a million classified documents including wartime intelligence during the war, spends just 7 years in jail, and now she's treated like a minor celeb, making good money on the speaking circuit and running for Senate. If a Russian intelligence officer did the same thing, they would be dead quick and Julian Assange would be eating polonium.
icemann on 25/4/2019 at 16:09
Exactly. Which is what my point was. You didn't hear anything about Russia from Wikileaks because there was no'one willing to send anything to them. That's not a secret alliance between Wikileaks and Russia, or an agenda by Wikileaks against the U.S or Western / democratic countries. It's purely down to the fact that no'one was willing to take that risk. Compare that on the opposite side of the coin, where people were very willing to take that risk as the worst case scenario was FAR LESS severe.
heywood on 25/4/2019 at 20:44
Well, there's that, but I think there's more to it. A person like Assange should be motivated to keep a powerful friend somewhere. He can't afford to piss off all the major countries. And who's going to host Wikileaks if the US, Russia, and Europe are all trying to take it down or attack it? Not China, they're not exactly into rouge sites and internet freedom.
Starker on 25/4/2019 at 20:49
Except, Assange did claim that he had dirt on Russia, once:
Quote:
(
https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2010/1026/WikiLeaks-ready-to-drop-a-bombshell-on-Russia.-But-will-Russians-get-to-read-about-it)
"We have [compromising materials] about Russia, about your government and businessmen," Mr. Assange told the pro-government daily Izvestia. "But not as much as we'd like... We will publish these materials soon."
Assange and another WikiLeaks spokesperson, Kristinn Hrafnsson, who talked to the daily Kommersant Tuesday, refused to provide details. "Russians are going to find out a lot of interesting facts about their country," Ms. Hrafnsson told Kommersant, adding that WikiLeaks would soon be targeting "despotic regimes in China, Russia, and Central Asia" in a series of fresh document dumps.
These compromising materials never... er... materialised. He appeared to back down when a Russian official suggested about Wikileaks that:
But fine, never mind that Assange has never published anything sensitive on Russia, never mind that he has taken pro-Russian stances on issues, never mind that he had a show on Russia Today, and never mind what happened in the US 2016 elections, just answer me this one question: why did Assange request Russians to be his bodyguards in the embassy?
icemann on 26/4/2019 at 05:33
Hmm. Well I dunno on that one.
[Edit]
I'd say thats due to being paranoid about America coming after him.
He has no reason to be worried about Russia since he hasnt released anything about them (yet).
Starker on 26/4/2019 at 12:43
Well, even if he's refusing to publish materials on Russia simply because he's afraid, the fact remains that he has disproportionately targeted the US and the West and ignored Russia and China.
.