But the hypocrisy of claiming to be defenders of free speech while persecuting its critics speaks volumes. — Banno

'Free speech' is not absolute. Wikileaks is hiding behind it, taking advantage of democratic freedoms, but not observing any of the conventions which hold the framework together.

You can imagine what would happen if any Russian citizen tried what Assange had done, in Russia. Putin would have no need to bother with the niceties of detention and trial.

Typo fixed.

SOo you would charge Assange with "not reporting on China and Russia".

Yeah, that works. Not. It's just looking for excuses. And in so doing one is excusing the destruction of what is left of the trust that is needed in oder to restore Democracy.

Again, a democracy needs to know when it has gone wrong. It's that capacity to self-referentialy correct itself that marks it as different to tyranny.

liberals like Wayfarer don't care about truth. They care about aesthetics, making sure everything is done according to the sanctioned titles, by the proper channels. — StreetlightX

not observing any of the conventions which hold the framework together. — Wayfarer

As if on cue.

Nevermind, of course, that Assange literally had to tell the 'official' papers to hold off on publishing while he redacted names.

Davis details how The Guardian, the New York Times, and Der Spiegel journalists were putting Assange under extreme pressure to go to press before Assange had finished redacting names from the documents. None of the outlets offered any resources or support to help redact them, and Assange had to pull an all-nighter himself and personally cleanse the logs of over 10,000 names before going live.

Davis says that it was Guardian journalists such as Leigh and Nick Davies, the two most vocal critics of Assange, who were displaying the cavalier attitude toward redaction back then.“Of course, it was apparent that they would be risking, if not the safety, certainly exposing the identity of many people — there’s tens of thousands of documents there,” said Davis. “I never witnessed a conversation where anyone took that seriously. Not one.”

Davis says the only conversation that he witnessed on the topic of redaction was between Davies and Leigh, and Assange wasn’t present.“ It occurred to Nick Davies as they pulled up an article they were going to put in the newspaper — he said ‘Well, we can’t name this guy,’” recalls Davis. “And then someone said ‘Well he’s going to be named on the website.’ Davies said something to the effect of ‘We’ll really cop it then, if and when we are blamed for putting that name up.’ And the words I remember very precisely — from David Leigh was he gazed across the room at Davies and said: ‘But we’re not publishing it.’ Indeed, the only ones who seem to concur with this “cavalier” characterization of Assange are those who’ve had a lot invested in making sure they weren’t blamed for the leaks.

https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2019/04/20/debunking-all-the-assange-smears/

Again, people like Wayfarer will excuse war crimes and the murder of innocents because 'not done by the book'.

Again, again, a democracy needs to know when it has gone wrong. It's that capacity to self-referentially correct itself that marks it as different to tyranny.

The events of "Collateral Murder" allow us to understand why the US is so hated in the middle east. It provided an opportunity for correcting an error. Lost, now, I'm affraid.

Again, a democracy needs to know when it has gone wrong. — Banno

Like I said, I don't have a problem with that. I once had a vision of Wikileaks being a world-wide clearing house, unaccountable to any state, dishing all that dirt on all sides, everywhere. But. not so much. Huh? So you'd have to go back a read my spiels, above, to remind yourself of the battle space that some choose to insert themselves into. Big boy rules.

Disappointing; disingenuous.

You would charge Assange with "not reporting on China and Russia".

Again, again, a democracy needs to know when it has gone wrong. It's that capacity to self-referentially correct itself that marks it as different to tyranny. — Banno

Of course. If say the NY Times or Washington Post had accessed those sources and published classified information, do you think the editor of those journals would face criminal sanction? Or that Wikileaks is being singled out somehow?

Disappointing; disingenuous. — Banno

I can see your misplaced and subjective disappointment. But where is the disingenuousness? Are you calling me a liar?

You would charge Assange with "not reporting on China and Russia". — Banno

Yes, I would. Not only that, but for failure to look for or spill all the shit he had. He's a partisan if he ignores what he was given. I'm sure spooky tunes fed him information on his handlers, but we didn't see that, now did we?

But where is the disingenuousness? Are you calling me a liar? — James Riley

No, not a liar. I think you are kidding yourself. Here:

Yes, I would. — James Riley

Your argument is not against Wikileaks, but in favour of a better Wikileaks. Yep.

Given how Assange has been treated by those nations that supposedly defend and foster open discussion, do you think it likely that there will be folk willing to stand up against Russia or China?

Do you think prosecuting Assange in this way encourages such reporting?

That's what I find disingenuous.

I suppose, to answer a few of my own questions:

- NY Times etc would not publish classified information as this is illegal. A large part of Wikileaks rationale is to provide a medium through which journalists working at those organisations can release such information and remain protected by anonymity.

- As Wikileaks purportedly has the final say on what is published, then that makes them a publisher. If the site was truly anonymous, i.e. nobody vetted anything that was put on there, then they could deny being a publisher, but the fact that they review material prior to it being released effectively means they're publishing, 'making public', that information.

No, not a liar. I think you are kidding yourself. — Banno

Being disingenuous is different than kidding oneself. It's not being genuine. You're kidding yourself if you think states are going to sit around and let you dish for one side against them.

Your argument is not against Wikileaks, but in favour of a better Wikileaks. Yep. — Banno

:100: Yep! I never said my argument was against Wikileaks. And indeed, I was in favor of a better one. Didn't I say something about a world clearing house? But that didn't happen, now did it? No disingenuousness there. Just fact.

Given how Assange has been treated by those nations that supposedly defend and foster open discussion, do you think it likely that there will be folk willing to stand up against Russia or China? — Banno

Actually, there were. But they're dead or in a gulag. You'd think if Assange had a little courage like they had, he could use his trial as a showcase in a democracy. But he was a tool and it was never about getting the truth out. It was taking the low hanging fruit and punching an easy target that, at most, might put you in country club. Hell, he probably could have cut a deal by spilling on his handlers. But then he'd be a marked man. Maybe wit pro? Maybe even a sex change operation on the state's nickel, but only if he wanted one.

Do you think prosecuting Assange in this way encourages such reporting? — Banno

Actually, yes. Especially prosecuting him in this way. There are plenty of people out there facing worse, and going back into the flames. If you can't handle the heat, get out of the kitchen. I mean, it's not like we are gutting him, or poisoning him. We are giving him a podium.

Especially prosecuting him in this way. — James Riley

Torture is indeed effective. I'll leave you to it, then.

Torture is indeed effective. — Banno

So now you are arguing he's getting water-boarded or enhanced interrogation at Gitmo? First I've heard of it. I don't think you know what torture is. But maybe you confuse Khashoggi with due process?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_States

So now you are arguing he's getting water-boarded or enhanced interrogation at Gitmo? — James Riley

No. Nothing so unsubtle.

Lots of column inches even here about Assange. But the best we can do about Kashoggi is,

I'm sure the Saudis thought they "brought to justice" Khashoggi. — StreetlightX

And I never did get an answer to just what Saudis might have thought that. Or do we all think that Kashoggi got justice?

Nothing so unsubtle. — Banno

Do tell. Maybe you could leak us the truth about his torture. Who told you? Putin?

Do tell. — James Riley

Empathy can't be taught. I'll read that last post of yours as being about you, and leave you to your own devices.

Empathy can't be taught. I'll read that last post of yours as being about you, and leave you to your own devices. — Banno

1. In anticipation of better from you, I did a quick search and saw the alleged "psychological" torture.
2. I noticed he's not in U.S. custody. So there's that. Here he'd be on easy street and he'd probably be out by now after community service; or found not guilty. :lol:

- NY Times etc would not publish classified information as this is illegal. A large part of Wikileaks rationale is to provide a medium through which journalists working at those organisations can release such information and remain protected by anonymity. — Wayfarer

Except the people who did publish were precisely papers like Der Spiegel and so on. This make you wrong, or a liar.

As Wikileaks purportedly has the final say on what is published, then that makes them a publisher. If the site was truly anonymous, i.e. nobody vetted anything that was put on there, then they could deny being a publisher, but the fact that they review material prior to it being released effectively means they're publishing, 'making public', that information.

So which is it, are they journos or not? Or does their designation as journos turn on your personal whim as to what is convenient for you as the wind blows?

I'm still considering it.

Empathy can't be taught. — Banno

P.S. Empathy would be with the victims of those who don't provide due process to their own.

He's being held as a direct result of the extradition proceedings. He would be free if the US dropped them. Hence the incarceration, while not on US soil, is a direct consequence of US actions.

P.S. Empathy would be with the victims of those who don't provide due process to their own. — James Riley

In that regard the Australian Government is culpable. They could end this vey quickly if they so chose.

Our government has never been anything but kangaroo decoration for American whims.

In that regard the Australian Government is culpable. — Banno

Yeah, let's point our fingers at any easy target. No sense doing the hard work. That's dangerous.

There's some hope - all it needs is for Scotty from Marketing to think that there would be some electoral benefit in acting.

I'll believe it when I see it. Even labour are American lapdogs (dingos?), for the most part.

If those within my house start to divide, and take sides with an external actor who sews division within my house, should I become the oppressor they said I was all along, so they can say to the world "I told you so!"? Or should I fall by being the better angel of my of my nature? Should I let them have what they pray for? Is that a false dilemma? — James Riley

Yes. Your mistake is treating people's lives as if they're the plot of 'Top Gun'. There's no 'your house'/'my house'. America is made mostly of people (who suffer from the oppression of their government), Australia likewise is populated by human beings who suffer at the hands of a disgraceful government and its corporate sponsors. The rest of the world's people suffer likewise (though often at the hands of the US than their own governments). People. All the same people. Not Russians vs Americans. Not your house vs my house.

Whatever his personal motives, Assange highlighted actions which, if allowed to continue, would harm people. Sending the message that such actions will be severely punished by governments the world over will harm people. There's no us vs. them except in the storyline they want you to swallow. But then your proclivity for swallowing simplistic us vs. them narratives you're fed so that you can play out your John Wayne fantasy has been noted before.

1. What does anyone here think of the link between Assange & Conspiracy theories? There's lotsa ammo in the warehouse, sir!

2. Assange & Anti-vaxxers? What's the connection?