8mo ago

Julian Assange has reached a plea deal with the U.S., allowing him to go free

www.nbcnews.com Julian Assange has reached a plea deal with the U.S., allowing him to go free

The WikiLeaks founder has been held in a prison outside London for the last five years and fought extradition to the U.S. He is expected to return to Australia.

Julian Assange is free.

After living in a cell for more than 5 years, he can soon go home and meet his family again.

I'm wondering if it was worth the sacrifice. The governments and tech companies are spying more than ever on everyone.

news @hexbear.net

ElGosso [he/him] @hexbear.net

8mo ago

Julian Assange has reached a plea deal with the U.S., allowing him to go free

www.nbcnews.com /politics/justice-department/julian-assange-reached-plea-deal-us-allowing-go-free-rcna158695

65 6

Hacker News @lemmy.smeargle.fans

bot @lemmy.smeargle.fans

BOT

8mo ago

Julian Assange has reached a plea deal with the U.S., allowing him to go free

www.nbcnews.com /politics/justice-department/julian-assange-reached-plea-deal-us-allowing-go-free-rcna158695

12 1

News @lemmy.world

return2ozma @lemmy.world

8mo ago

Julian Assange has reached a plea deal with the U.S., allowing him to go free

www.nbcnews.com /politics/justice-department/julian-assange-reached-plea-deal-us-allowing-go-free-rcna158695

383 68

You're viewing a single thread.

79 comments

He is a dick, who used to be important for wikileaks but has kept tergeting specific angles for his leaks, which seems to indicate pushing a political agenda, which reduces trust in him and his platform.
The work he started is too important to leave in his care.
Example: During the DNC email leak, Wikileaks was clearly in a rush to publish the documents without removing credit card information and social security numbers, this is just sloppy.
Assange also worked to draw out the release of documents to increase Wikileaks publicity, this went on far enough that he publicly made announcements of releases that never came.
Wikileaks also published evidence that the DNC was behind the killing of Seth Rich, a DC staffer that Assange alluded to have given him the emails, this evidence came from a PI who has freely admitted not having seen any emails between Wikileaks and Seth not having seen the laptop containing the emails, or even having spoken with someone who had. The PI in question is a known FOX contributer.
Assange also seems to have weirdly close ties to Russia, he only had his morning talkshow broadcast on RT, supposedly they were the only ones to take up his show for syndication.
When he was first exiled, he requested that the Russian security service FSB should handle his security detail.
Today, the largest sponsor of Wikileaks is the Russian Government.
All of this speaks to Wikileaks not being the supreme beacon of free speach, but rather part of the Russian propaganda machine.
I don't think it started this way, Assange and Wikileaks probably started with the best of intentions, but the reality of our society came into play and Assange/Wikileaks sold thier credibillity for money from the Russian government.
- While I agree on the facts I want to offer a slightly different (possible) conclusion: a organisation like wikileaks needs resources and supporters. If they are targeted by all the "good guy"-countries and the only one willing to support them is "evil guy" Russia, then they are not in a position to resist. They chose to compromise their integrity instead of just not existing.
  If the western world wants a whistleblower/leaks organisation that follows journalistic integrity and ethics, they need to fund it even if it leaks their own internal documents.
  
  Oh, absolutely!
  I get why they accepted the money, but they doesn't seem to have accepted the consequences yet.
  And I don't have an answer as to how to solve the issue.
  We need an organization like Wikileaks, but no one will want to fund it, as they don't want their skeletons out of the closet.
  The only way I could see it working would be if someone inherits shitload of money, and funds the organization directly, else there are allways conflicts of interests.
  
  If the only people willing to give you money are fascists, don't take the fucking money.
  
  I also take money from possible fascists because I need it to survive. It's called having a job.
  
  Choosing to take money and work for Putin is quite a bit different than having a salary from a corporation. Equating the two is apologizing for dictators.
- Keep in mind that during the US Presidential Election of 2016 Assange had already spent 3~ years living in the Embassy of Ecuador in London. Add in how the United states wanted him extradited to serve potentially life in prison and was probably using all sorts of surveilance and information gathering methods against him and wikileaks to prevent and mitigate any future leaks.
  Now when you're facing an opponent known for its power to assasinate world leaders and powerful political figures, power to spy, hack and survey even their close allies for years, influence other goverments and politicians through blackmail, extortion and economic means you're bound to get a bit stressed and go a bit paranoid. When it comes to Russia the oppinions towards them where a lot more favorable in 2010-2022 as most of Europe wanted to keep access to affordable oil and gas. Meanwhile Anti-imperialist sentiment against US was probably at it's alltime high with the War in Afghanistan and Libya.
  Wikileaks was never really a beacon of free speech its always been more of a platform where people can leak information about goverments and other powerful individuals or organizations doing bunch of shady or downright evil stuff behind our back. These often offer rare glimpse behind the scenes allowing us to be little less blind when voting during whathever election comes next.
  
  Wikileaks was never really a beacon of free speech its always been more of a platform where people can leak information about goverments and other powerful individuals or organizations doing bunch of shady or downright evil stuff behind our back. These often offer rare glimpse behind the scenes allowing us to be little less blind when voting during whather elections comes next.
  When WikiLeaks first came about it's original goal was aimed at leaking information about authoritarian governments, primarily China and some countries in the Middle East. It was pretty big news at the time because assange had wrangled together a team of some pretty high profile Journalist and privacy tech people.
  However, most of those people were never really involved in the organization, and were mainly utilized as a marketing scheme. The rest slowly left the organization as works in their fields within WikiLeaks stagnated, or left over security and leadership concerns.
  Imo Assange has always been a duplicitous attention seeker. However, if that were illegal, pretty much everyone involved in media would be thrown in a cell. I think his biggest failures that should tarnish his public image is his handling of the leaks. Him rushing to release information against the advise of his security experts, information that hadn't been properly vetted to protect the whistle blowers from prosecution.
  Multiple people have had their lives ruined because he didn't take the time and effort to protect his sources. And not because they didn't have the ability to, or lacked the proper protocols, but because Julian didn't care so long as his name got air time.
- I fail to see how that's relevant here. The guy isn't a US national and wasn't in the US when he committed his alleged "crime".
  He has absolutely no duty towards the US and is 100% free to associate with whoever he wants, and yes, even Russia.
  US has no standing whatsoever in this situation, and it's a travesty of international law that Sweden and the UK even entertained the idea of extraditing him. The response should've been "go sue the American who actually committed that crime on American soil. Oh wait, you've already convicted her, and she's already out after serving her sentence? WTF are you going on about then?"
  
  The connection from Assange to Russia was laid out in the OP. Russia had a vested interest in skewing and interfering with US politics in 2016.
  There's the relevancy you failed to see.
  
  Even if Assange himself was openly interfering in US politics, how is that relevant? If he isn't a US person, and he's not on US soil, why would he be bound by US law? US law isn't universal law, you know.
  
  People don't like the guy, that's enough jurisdiction for them!
  
  From this thread, looks like you're right, sadly...
  
  I can't tell if we got bots/shills but these assange threads are getting swamped with comments and voting.
  Not sure if this real public sentiment or somebody is setting it for this "sensitive" topic.
  Nobody can really properly state their position beyond, that guy is a rapist and russian asset... seems like an op tbh
  Same old smear attempts that US has been using for a decade.
  
  The point is that he had/has an interest in keeping Russia happy, that means that everything WL has published since taking Russia's money is probably only to the detriment of the west.
  That doesn't mean that WL publishes false/fake information, however true propaganda is still propaganda and serves a political agenda.
  By allying themselves with Russia, WL has made it clear that they are only really focusing on the west's transgressions, and will mostly ignore Russia's.
  They are no longer impartial activists, they have taken sides, but still claim to be impartial.
  That is the issue
  
  true propaganda is still propaganda and serves a political agenda.
  oh that we could convince liberals this is true.
- Nothing, I did not realize that was required to have an oppinion.
  
  Less excuses, more exposing
  
  I did buy a 100-400mm telezoom lens for my Lumix S5, I can expose some fantastic photos of planes, animals and similar stuff...
  
  I'll allow it
  
  Alrighty then.
  unzips
  
  unzip: cannot find or open private_part1.zip
  
  What US war crimes have you exposed?
  
  ~~Who wrote an essay complaining?~~
  Who contributed to the discussion?
  FTFY
  
  Neither have you, what's your point?
  
  Why are you replying in the first place? Was there something you were trying to accomplish or do you just get off to downvotes?
  
  Trolling
  
  I'm sorry, but unless you exposed any US war crimes I'm not sure I can take you seriously.
  
  Hey get a load of this guy, can't even expose one lousy US war crime. He's basically complicit
  
  Ok, then don't give a shit.

79 comments