[blhack]

What I've wanted for Julian Assange, Edward Snowden, and Chelsea Manning, and if Obama would have done it before leaving office, it would have earned him infinite respect:

Try them, possibly even find them guilty of something, but also award them with the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

What these people have done is probably illegal, but it is unquestionably about the most American, patriotic act you could commit. Speaking out against perceived tyranny with no regard for your own wellbeing, is an incredible act.

It makes me profoundly sad how the world (or at least my world, mostly far left, liberal, educated, etc.) has turned so hard against Julian Assange. He's a hero in every sense of the word.

[dmix]

There's no way Obama, or any mainstream president, would have done that. He loved the intelligence agencies even more than Bush as it gave the US the same power projection without any of the dirty business being under public scrutiny. The "polite societies" way of do much of the same which was highly criticized in the prior administration. Despite the convenient optics I don't see him being any more liberal on the matter than mainline political angle (which is solidly against Assange / Snowden / etc).

The administration gave them tons of leeway (ie, ignoring the destruction of thousands of tapes of torture in the Thailand black site with zero repercussions for the agents involved) and made the strategic shift of the power/resources from the military towards the IC when he got in office.

He also famously prosecuted more whistleblowers than any other president. Letting Manning go after 7rs in solitary confinement is the closest he got at trying to revise his history on the matter - at the last minute. So I don't see how such an action would make any sense in the context of his 8yrs of actions otherwise (rhetoric is another matter which people seem to value more in politics than action).

Nor is this is not a partisan issue. Both establishment parties are fully in support of doing the IC's bidding.

[blhack]

I know, and this is why it would have gained him so much respect in my eyes.

I think it's possible to both recognize the importance of intelligence agencies, and recognize why whistleblowing should be discouraged, but at the same time recognize the patriotism required to do it anyway.

Giving these people the Medal of Freedom, to me, would have been an acknowledgment of that. "Yeah, you shouldn't have done that, but you did it anyway, and you deserve to be recognized for that."

"I disagree with what you're saying, but will defend to the death your right to say it" and all that.

[alexandercrohde]

> and recognize why whistleblowing should be discouraged

It drives me nuts that whistle-blower has become a bad word. It is by definition good. The government has made laws to pay people for whistle-blowing, to help reduce corruption.

Definition of whistle-blowing: * a person who informs on a person or organization engaged in an illicit activity.

So if you catch Nixon breaking into the DNC and you report it, you're whistle-blowing (and the greatest hero possible). If you publish random private information online, that is merely leaking.

[eeeuo]

Leaking secrets is not a freedom of speech issue.

I would agree with you if Snowden narrowly leaked the details of the PRISM program. I think if he did that he would have been a genuine hero. But he didn't. He downloaded as much secret information as he could, and gave them to organizations that were openly hostile to American interests.

Consider the level of detail of methods and sources in the information leaked by Snowden. I think one would have to be extremely naive to believe that Russia and China did not get their hands on the Snowden leaks very quickly(and that's the most charitable interpretation). Therefore, the leaks weakened the US's geopolitical position and improved the position of their rivals.

For a command-in-chief to reward a person who did that with a Medal of Freedom would be a truly baffling choice.

[Buge]

Did Snowden give is data to organizations that were hostile to the US? I thought he gave it to journalists, and let them censor as they saw fit.

[na85]

>organizations that were openly hostile to American interests.

Exactly which organizations are you referring to?

[bitofhope]

Yea I'd like to have this elaborated on. As is the GP makes The Guardian sound like Daesh.

[eeeuo]

Wikileaks.

[na85]

Snowden went to Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras who aren't with WikiLeaks.

[dmix]

Isn't it also naive to think China and Russia weren't fully aware of the NSA's capabilities? If anything the only effect it had on intelligence agencies is it accelerated the smaller countries towards this type of mass surveillance, they learned thoroughly what was possible - beyond what you can buy at miltech trade shows. And now we see many awful countries mimicking this type of stuff now, like in Ethiopia.

But otherwise for 99% of it the only one it was new and valuable to was the public.

As good as the FBI/IC is at counter-intelligence if Snowden can do this stuff I'm sure a highly trained spy recruited by any top tier agency could get similar access.

Also notably Snowden did not leak the really sensitive TAO stuff, which was well compartmentalized. He mostly leaked spreadsheets for the 'middle management' in NSA. I'm sure he only revealed a small portion of their top-teir capabilities. And the stuff he did leak was almost always very vague, often just a few bullet points in a spreadsheet was all we had to work with...

[eeeuo]

> Isn't it also naive to think China and Russia weren't fully aware of the NSA's capabilities?

The latest Mueller indictment suggests no.

I believe that the NSA's domestic surveillance programs were an egregious mistake. However, I do not think that "awful countries" implemented domestic surveillance programs because they read the PRISM documents. Nor does it explain why Snowden leaked details of activities that were not illegal and fully within the mandate of the NSA.

[bachbach]

You may correct me if you know better, but I have not seen any information that was leaked that I didn't imagine Russia or China already being very aware of.

Was this information revealed to only Russia/China and kept from journalists? If so how do you know about it?

[remarkEon]

"They probably already know about it" seems like a weird standard to use for answering the question of if making a particular state secret public harms the National interest.

[bachbach]

That is an issue of reputation or PR.

[GW150914]

If I were Snowden I’d be really pissed to be in the same breath as Assange. Snowden gave up a good life to tell people about pervasive monitoring, while Asange was always a relentless self-promoter and scumbag who tried to have his cake and eat it too.

[slg]

I agree, it really is a disservice for people to lump them all together. Whisleblowing is an important act and it needs to be protected. But there is more to whisleblowing then just revealing secrets. Snowden handled things better than Manning by being more focused in what was revealed and filtering things through journalists. Both of them are worlds better than Assange. Lumping them together will only help turn people with legitimate gripes against Assange against people like Snowden and Manning.

[resters]

I'd argue that Snowden's leaks would have been better sent to Wikileaks. We've seen perhaps 5% of the information, and much of the illegal behavior is likely still going on.

The only hope that US intel agencies have to redeem themselves as working toward the interests of the people and not against them is to be totally transparent about all illegal behavior and to undergo a full audit to stop all of it.

[slg]

Which is exactly my point. Whistleblowing shouldn't be done with a shotgun approach that reveals all secrets. Every piece of information should be reviewed and judged in a vacuum as to whether there is a benefit to the public for it to be revealed. Wikileaks just releases everything and doesn't care about the public value or any negative results from that release. That isn't whistleblowing. You are free to agree politically with Wikileaks, but don't pretend it is something it is not. That only ends up hurting the real whistleblowers.

[viraptor]

If that was the process, we'd hear about everything lumped together and quickly forgotten about in confusion. The way it was published instead, people have time to process specific revelations and let the whole thing stay alive for multiple media cycles.

[mc32]

Snowden isn’t without culpability. Yes it was patritic to illuminate the spying on Americans citizens etc., but he also revealed some things which i think he should not have.

Most people were in agreement with Wikipedia leaks until they thought he hrlped a political candidate they disagreed with. If Snowden tomorrow released some information which hurts Dems, I’m convinced hidden pitchforks woul come out from hiding too. Same for Repubs

[res0nat0r]

If Assange is going to get anything from the USA is extradited to it and charged with trading in knowingly stolen material to undermine the candidate of the 2016 election he didn't like. Based on what was in the last Mueller indictment we'll see what happens between the US and the UK.

[scottmf]

Yeah, Assange is no hero. His communications with Trump Jr and the leaked Wikileaks chats make that clear—as well as his meetings with people like Nigel Farage and Dana Rohrabacher. Assange has had a very clear agenda for some time now.

[mancerayder]

Assange has had a very clear agenda for some time now.

I thought his agenda was exposing privacy violations and the implications for authoritarian snooping without cause.

But it smells like you wanted to say something else and ran out of time while writing that comment?

[belltaco]

>I thought his agenda was exposing privacy violations and the implications for authoritarian snooping without cause.

Keyword 'was'. In the run to the election after it, it became all about hating on one political party, colluding with the other, and influencing the election.

[resters]

If you were Assange and you were trying to convince Trump Jr to hand over documents to you, would you pretend to be indifferent about the outcome of the election?

Assange wants to help reveal any secret information that will help fix the many problems stemming from secrecy and corruption of governments and institutions. Every one of his actions have supported that mission.

The focus on Assange's alleged political views and his personal life are an attempt to "shoot the messenger". We should really be 99% concerned with the information that was leaked and at most 1% concerned with anything about Assange's personality.

[kej]

WikiLeaks sat on Manafort's group sex and blood money texts, but released Podesta's emails less than an hour after the Access Hollywood tape was published. His agenda was more than an act to get on Don Jr.'s good side.

[intrasight]

Well spoken. Thanks.

[smokeyj]

> Both establishment parties are fully in support of doing the IC's bidding.

It'a almost like we have a shadow government spreading Fake News. Trump may be an idiot but a broken clock is right twice a day.

[bootlooped]

Julian Assange does many things that seem to have the sole purpose of embarrassing the US. I don't see how he could be a candidate for any type of award from the US government. Any benefit Wikileaks has had on the US, primarily by helping spark a debate about domestic surveillance, is overshadowed by the harm they've done due to his radical anti-secrecy zealotry.

Take the Vault 7 releases for example. What was the public good done by that information being published? Those are our weapons, in my eyes it is not much different than if Wikileaks had published the blueprints for the F-35. There is a legitimate interest in the US having secrets, and there is an interest in our global adversaries not having them.

At least with the diplomatic cables and the DNC emails, there was some amount of public interest information in there, but why dump the whole set? To embarrass the US, and in the latter case, to affect the election. Are those noble goals worthy of the Presidential Medal of Freedom?

As for his personal character, recall two things: he screwed over his supporters by jumping bail in England, and he reneged on a pledged to acquiesce to extradition if Manning was released. These are not the actions of a hero to be celebrated, they're selfish and dishonorable.

[boomboomsubban]

>Take the Vault 7 releases for example. What was the public good done by that information being published? Those are our weapons,

They have gone out of their way to ensure that there aren't any unpatched exploits released with the info, even with most of the tech community being unwilling to help.

They are not "our weapons," they're a detailed rundown of what our weapons can do and how we use them. Our alleged "enemies" couldn't do any more damage with them than we do by ourselves.

[resters]

Since the US is the most powerful nation, of course it will be the target of some of the politically motivated leaks.

With respect to Vault 7, once the secrecy of the tools was compromised they already had zero value to the US arsenal. In fact, I would not be surprised if the US Government leaked Vault 7 itself, to prevent the thief from being able to use them effectively.

Consider the value of the Vault 7 tools if they were known only by a small group of hackers with a halfway decent budget. They'd be worth many billions of dollars.

But once leaked, their value decreases substantially, since the zero days can be patched and the exploits mitigated.

Any state actor who stole Vault 7 would have no interest in releasing it to Wikileaks. Even Russia would benefit more by knowing about it and leveraging that knowledge than by leaking it in its entirety.

Also don't forget about the government hoarding zero days which put American firms at risk.

Per your last point, let's not worry too much about Assange's personality or character. The important thing to focus on is the leaked information, not the messenger.

[bootlooped]

> Per your last point, let's not worry too much about Assange's personality or character. The important thing to focus on is the leaked information, not the messenger.

The post I was responding to was saying they wished Assange were awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Don't you think somebody's personality and character is relevant to that?

[virtualadmin]

Obama unfortunately prosecuted the largest amount of whistleblowers. I doubt he would have done this.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/mar/16/whistleblowe...

[squirrelicus]

Hmm sample size is too low to draw conclusions. 3 vs 8 over several years? Ehh.

But you're probably right for other reasons. He was a bit of an authoritarian despite talking like a cuddly bear. His relationship with the intelligence community is probably what allowed him to spy on the Trump campaign and more or less keep it on the down low for a while.

[dbg31415]

The gap between what he said and what he did was not small.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSDs3CJAwI4

[squirrelicus]

I'm definitely not saying Obama was an ally of whistleblowers. It seems like he was just mostly average in this realm. I mean, 8 is still more than 3, but again, that might not be his fault, whistleblowing might have just more than doubled. Hard to tell.

[mc32]

Here's my take. When you see your duty as a patriot to betray what's been entrusted to you because you think it's the right thing to do, you do it with the notion that you are "taking one for the team". And you pay the price.

What you do may not be proven right within your lifetime, but if you are eventually proven right, you will have earned the respect posthumously.

I don't think we can claim being a patriot is easy or comes free. Often times you have to pay a heavy price.

Of course that's no consolation for Snowden (or Assange).

[misterhtmlcss]

I can totally agree with that. At the end of the day if a patriot is a guy standing between you and your leader and taking a bullet or on a field of battle losing a limb or pulling what Snowden did it's all a risk you take for participating in that level of game. It just is what it is and fairness doesn't enter into the equation.

[kev009]

This is such a contrasting comment I am curious if you remember how you consumed information back then to i.e. develop admiration for the whistleblowers, and retain the political operative narrative that Obama was somehow sympathetic and good to these causes.

[blhack]

Obama was not sympathetic to these causes. That's why it would have gained him so much respect from me.

I posted the quote in another reply, so sorry for repeating it, but: "I disagree with what you are saying, but will defend to the death your right to say it."

This value is probably the most important to me, and it is something that I think is fundamentally American. I would have loved to see Obama exhibit it.

[dnautics]

Can you give an example in Obama's political tenure when he had ever done anything consistent with that sentiment or that strategy?

Politically, Obama's heroes are the progressives of the Wilsonian and Roosevelt era. Wilson jailed Eugene Debs for sedition, and ironically it took the era's conservative firebrand (H L Mencken) rabble-rousing about it in exactly that spirit and eventually Harding (not exactly a socialist) commuted Debs' sentence.

For that matter: Can you think of an example when any politician or political figure in power in the US in recent memory has done something like that? I'm not comprehensively knowledgeable about US politics, but the only one I can think of is Clarence Thomas voting against the majority in Texas V Lawrence, where he said he was opposed to laws forbidding gay sex, but he didn't think the supreme court should rule on it, and he would vote to strike down the law if he were in the Texas State Legislature.

[nostrademons]

H.L. Mencken wasn't really a conservative firebrand, more of an iconoclast. His position then could be likened to that of Trey Parker & Matt Stone today, i.e. shits on everything, liberal and conservative, for the lulz, and occasionally makes some very perceptive social commentary in the process.

[dnautics]

that's very fair, although I would say he was more sophisticated than Matt & Trey, and his favorite enemy was FDR.

[kev009]

Ok, I can see where you're coming from. You are wishing a standing president would do a good thing. It's a nuanced way to form an argument or ideal because the leaders have become so politically charged (imagine trying to promote any idea to a left-wing audience and tying in Trump, most would shut their brains off and attack the messenger which isn't so different than what happened here).

[anothergoogler]

Does the meaning of your comment change in any way if you replace Obama with Trump, or "a sitting president"? I don't believe in the "deep state", but I think all presidents are equally beholden to the intelligence apparatus, and none would dare provoke it.

[hardlianotion]

I thought Trump actually did quite a good job provoking the intelligence apparatus just last week with Putin.

[nostrademons]

I would assume he used Obama's name because Chelsea Manning's conviction, and Snowden & Assange's exile, all happened during Obama's presidency.

I think it's likely that Trump, Bush, and all other sitting presidents would do the same thing, but the only other prominent example we have is Reality Winner, who just pled guilty last month, hasn't really occupied the headlines, and isn't the subject of discussion here.

[anothergoogler]

Thanks for the reference, I hadn't heard about Winner and will have to read up on it now. (Also that's quite the name!).

[s73v3r_]

That quote has absolutely nothing to do with this conversation, and it's being overused to the point of making it meaningless.

[dosy]

Are you so sure all these "leakers" aren't actually intelligence operations? Particularly Snowden. Didn't anyone else sense how stage managed it felt? I never bought the act, but it was a good act tho.

Strategically I think the limited hangout / power projection has utility: you get to watch who reaches for encrypted apps once they know, selectors "self-select" has to increase signal/noise ratio; and you get to start a debate about "privacy" which ultimately ends up targeting the tech companies (which it is in state interest to have leverage on, but it also works for tech companies because they get to be the "saviours of the people" when of course they are also collection partners); and you get to say "our intelligence services have been crippled" and ask for more money and legislation, particularly through the secret courts.

To me, "Operation Snowden" was about strengthening US intelligence capability/posture, not weakening it. But of course, for public consumption, he must be called a traitor. I think for that reason, because he sacrificed himself to this narrative, he truly is a patriot, but just not for the reason most people think. :)

As for Assange, I think the guy is a fraud. Or at the very least an idiot who sacrificed what may have been a platform for reform / awareness for his own ego / sickness. Sad. A waste. That is all. :)

[garmaine]

For what benefit?

[acct1771]

Didn't you read the comment?

One blatant example: how do you think it'd benefit intelligence agencies to see who begins encrypting their comms after the news breaks?

If it's a topic of talking head discussion on the news, and nobody picks up arms, that's implied consent. "Well, that's just normal operations, we've been doing that since 20xx!"

Open secrets are ones you don't have to worry about leaking in ways you don't want. Being able to coordinate media reaction, social media reaction, and Gov officials' responses, is key, if this was indeed a limited hangout.

[dosy]

Thank you, for explaining it a second time to those who had trouble with the long sentences in the first comment.

Another advantage I omitted (for fear HN would not comprehend it) was simply the bragging rights: look at this awesome spy tech we have, wouldn't it be a shame if someone - used it to advance their national interests. And while you're all gawking at it, don't none of y'all get to thinking that Murica got weak. We're talking to you, "allies."

[garmaine]

I didn’t have any trouble understanding it, it just doesn’t make any sense whatsoever and objectively wouldn’t have worked, at massive cost to their reputation. The is conspiracy nonsense worse than UFO believers and 9/11 deniers.

[dosy]

Hahaha, that's an interesting theory, but it conflicts with how I think about things. It's good to know that's what you believe, tho.

It's funny to think that the spies who know the biggest truths are also the ones who need to be the most emphatic in their denials of them. Must be such a weird life. To have a reputation as being unreliable in everything except lying. Crazy.

Thankfully regular people don't know their own beliefs are untrue. The counter-narratives are designed so well that regular people readily accept them, and vigorously self-censor dissenting ideas. The system works! :P

[travmatt]

I’m never going to understand the praise for Julian Assange. He may have started out with good intentions, but his turns towards Putin and subsequent actions are pretty unforgivable in my estimation. I can’t see how a moral person could stand by his decisions, honestly. I think Pussy Riot summer him up best:

"But Julian Assange, he openly works with [Russia]," Nadya Tolokno told The Daily Beast in an interview Thursday. "It's not a secret. He's connected with the Russian government, and I feel that he's proud of it.

"I generally support the work that WikiLeaks is doing, but I'm not that thrilled about his decisions that are unethical, in my view, concerning his connections to the Russian government."

Tolokno said she visited Assange at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London two years ago, saying their meeting convinced her WikiLeaks has ties to the Kremlin.

"He couldn't deny it," said Tolokno, whose full name is Nadezhda Tolokonnikova. "He often works with the Russian propaganda machine, and he doesn't try to hide it.

"Julian Assange doesn't try to hide that fact because he hosts at the Ecuadorian Embassy the editor-in-chief of the Russian propaganda team, Russia Today, and he has projects with them," she added.

Tolokno added she confronted Assange about advancing Russian interests ahead of America's.

"I understood his position: He's in a state of war with the American government," she said. "He's smart and charismatic and will use any means to destroy the American government.

"And we had a conversation if it was really the ethical thing to do that with the hands of another government [Russia] which is, in fact, much worse and a real authoritarian government."

[https://www.google.com/amp/thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-...]

[jumelles]

Unfortunately I agree completely. Assange and WikiLeaks might have been on the 'right side' of things years ago, but things have changed since then. Siding with Putin is absolutely unforgivable.

[meatbags]

Why the assumption that Assange sided with Putin? Those of us watching the story closely know that no evidence has been presented of this. Co-aligned interests is not collusion. The source of the DNC leaks remains unknown. It's not even clear whether it was an external actor or a DNC insider.

I feel like the blinding hate for Trump has eroded people's ability to think critically. The Russiagate hysteria is evidence of that.

Edit: I'll soak up the downvotes. Keep em coming.

[jokermatt999]

Did you miss the indictment of the DNC hackers that also detailed the DC Leaks being registered by GRU? You should catch up on that if so.

[meatbags]

I'm aware of the well-timed indictment, despite the fact that the public's mind was made up well before then. An indictment is not a conviction, and its evidence comes from sources (intelligence agencies) that have been proven numerously to lie, fabricate, and falsify evidence for political ends. For context, Mueller was FBI director under Bush and during the Iraq war. Pretend that someone other than Trump won, and now tell me honestly -- do you trust US intelligence agencies and do you find the indictment's technical evidence compelling?

(edit) To bring the point of this post back to my earlier one -- where is the evidence that Assange "sided with Putin"? Siding with someone implies collusion, and mutual interest is not collusion. It implies Assange knew the source was a Russian state actor prior to publishing (whether it was is still speculation).

I apologise if this post seems long-winded and antagonistic, but I feel this is an important distinction that has been glossed over. I see Russiaphobia seeping into close friends who I consider to be rational and it worries me.

[supergirl]

the only fact here is that he works with RT. rest is just random opinions of random people.

[boomboomsubban]

That's not a fact. He independently produced a show that RT bought and ran.

[fit2rule]

> I can’t see how a moral person could stand by his decisions, honestly.

I feel this way about anyone who attempts to deflect the USA from scrutiny, with regards to the war crimes it has flagrantly committed in the time that Wikileaks has become relevant. It seems that the USA can do no harm when it comes to war-fighting, and the American public remain, as ever, wilfully ignorant of the crimes being committed in their name - and for which therefore, they bear responsibility.

Without people such as Assange willing to stand up and decry these heinous acts of inhumanity being committed by a government hell-bent on maintaining the social fallacy that it is a "wholesale rights defender", when nothing could be further from the truth, there would be a whole lot more offences against innocent people occurring.

The USA and its allies have been wilfully destroying civilisation around the world, for decades. We need more people like Assange who are willing to stand up and point this out, and most important of all, the world needs Americans to take their heads out of the sand and realise that their nation is in fact a wholesale exporter of death and destruction, and you are paying for it.

Incidentally: The fact that Putin is right about Americas crimes, doesn't mean that wanting to do something about America's crimes immediately aligns oneself with Putin. That is just smear tactics and vitriol.

What's important is the statistics: one bomb dropped every 18 minutes, mostly on innocent people, murdering them - for the last 3 decades.

[jumelles]

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

No one is saying the US doesn't have its own problems. None of that changes Russia's current behavior.

[benchaney]

Ironic comment given that this thread is about a scandal about the US's poor behavior, and you are focusing on wrongdoings of the Russian government to divert attention from that.

[fit2rule]

This cynical automatic "but .. whataboutism!" is really just as much about deflection as anything else.

Assange and Wikileaks came onto the scene because the nature of the protection of the military-industrial-pharmaceutical complex through State Secrecy meant that real crimes were being committed in the name of the American people, yet they were being wilfully kept ignorant of this fact - and are, yet even still today. Wikileaks was a real, grass-roots, honest attempt to bring the military-industrial-pharmaceutical complex to justice for its real, honest-to-god crimes.

This has nothing to do with Russia - although Russia may also have its interests served by having Americas' crimes revealed to the greater public at large, it is irrelevant: The innocents having bombs dropped on them by America and its Coalition are also served by having the non-warfighting-addicted public enlightened as to their plight - does this automatically make them 'the enemy' and thus justify their wanton murder - in the same way that hatred-of-Russia is justified because "they clearly don't want whats best for America, which is war, more war, and endless more war"?

Lets not play the "whataboutism" card.

Lets just look at why this whole Wikileaks thing is embarrassing to the USA and its partners: it can no longer get away with committing real war crimes at international scale with impunity and safe cover, in the name of the American people, when those people are finally waking up to just how heinous the situation really is: an inhuman and deathly situation the warmongers have given the American public, to pay off financially as well as morally, for decades into the future.

The fact of the matter is, it is a good thing for the secrets to be revealed: because the corruption of government always begins with its secrets. The American people - as well the world at large - must never be complacent about the betrayal potential of state secrecy.

We must always demand the truth be revealed, especially when it involves Trillions of dollars of death, mayhem and destruction being enacted on the world.

And for all his faults, this is why Assange - and others just like him - will always be held high in my mind. Higher than any serving member of the military, anyway.

[ljm]

What about whataboutism?

This mindset isn't productive - these actions don't exist in a vacuum and to treat it as such pretty much absolves the other party of all guilt while the focus is on somebody else.

Hypocrisy isn't whataboutism.

[resters]

So what does it mean for Assange to do something that favors one nation's interest over America's? Wikileaks is not meant to benefit "US interests" in the sense of pleasing US leaders.

The entire point of a transparency organization is to reveal information that helps the people of the country understand what their leaders are up to.

If it was revealed, for example, that Trump was a pedophile, the case could be made that US national interest was served by keeping it confidential and letting him carry out his presidential term without suffering (and forcing our nation to suffer) the indignity of having it revealed.

However I think it would be in the best interest of the American people for such information to be leaked so that we could decide how to handle it via the democratic process.

Secrecy has been granted to governments based on trust, and that trust has been widely violated. Assange shows us where our leaders have violated our trust. He's shown the people of other nations how their leaders have violated trust. He's not taking sides for or against any state, he's taking sides for the people of every state against corrupt leaders.

[resters]

The parent is a logical argument yet nobody tries to refute it, only downvote it for political reasons.

[nirv]

You quote a political actionist, a member of a punk band, as if she were some kind of expert, investigative journalist or insider. She's not informed on the merits of the matter at all.

[geofft]

> It makes me profoundly sad how the world (or at least my world, mostly far left, liberal, educated, etc.) has turned so hard against Julian Assange. He's a hero in every sense of the word.

In my world, heroes don't run from sexual assault trials.

Is he afraid of prison, or of the sexual assault prosecution being a sham to punish him for what he published? Chelsea Manning was prosecuted and sentenced and more-or-less tortured for the actual things she leaked. She's a hero - she did the right thing for the country even though she knew what it would cost her. She didn't run. She was sitting in solitary confinement while Assange was tweeting in an embassy and claiming political asylum.

Someone who wants to change the world, who seeks prestige and power, and who gains fame from someone else's sacrifice can be many things (and perhaps many good things) - but I wouldn't call him a hero.

[jexah]

So if you manage to avoid being tortured or killed, then what you did wasn't a sacrifice and wasn't patriotic? Considering the definition of hero goes so far as saving somebody from a burning building and receives minor burns, I think it's rich to say that because that person didn't receive full body 3rd degree burns or die in the fire, that they're not a hero. They risked their life and did their best to avoid or mitigate the damage they caused themselves.

Are you saying that the rescuer who fails to save the person and dies in the fire is more of a hero because they screwed up, or chose to give up and be burned alive? What about the rescuer who saves the person and intentionally runs back into the burning building and dies to gain "hero points"?

Yeah, the case against Assange in Sweden was just to get him to go back so Sweden could extradite him to the US. That is something legitimate to run from. I believe it is foolish to maximise the amount of damage to one's self, for many reasons least of all that it hampers one's ability to achieve their goal.

[Faaak]

If you'd read the article, you'd know that the sexual charge was dismissed

[geofft]

Yes, I did read the article (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html) and it says that the investigation was closed (not that the charge was dismissed), because the prosecutors determined he had successfully run beyond their ability to prosecute them by claiming asylum for years, and they didn't see a point in keeping the case open. That's basically the opposite of justice.

> In May, 2017, Swedish prosecutors announced they were closing their investigation into the sexual assault allegations due to the futility of proceeding in light of Assange’s asylum and the time that has elapsed.

He is still wanted for what the article calls the "minor bail violation" of crossing multiple international borders to flee trial for those charges.

[danso]

The investigation was dropped because Sweden gave up:

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/may/19/swedish-prosec...

> “In order to proceed with the case, Julian Assange would have to be formally notified of the criminal suspicions against him. We cannot expect to receive assistance from Ecuador regarding this. Therefore the investigation is discontinued.

> “If he, at a later date, makes himself available, I will be able to decide to resume the investigation immediately.”

[pcwalton]

There are lots of reasons why prosecutors dismiss charges unrelated to whether the accused is guilty. "The defendant is currently enjoying the protection of the government of a foreign country" is high among the list of reasons why a prosecutor might choose to do so.

There is no doubt in my mind that Assange is a rapist (as well as a useful idiot at best in service of Russia's interests).

[oliwarner]

He fled from a second questioning about a rape allegation and then broke his bail conditions. Your benchmark for "hero" is different to mine.

[forapurpose]

Obama pardoned (or at least freed) Chelsea Manning.

> He's a hero in every sense of the word.

I think we can have an intelligent discussion of his conduct, but let's not waste time and attention with hyperbole. We all know that some people believe he is and some believe he's not; what substantiated, well-considered knowledge can we add?

[lifeformed]

How do you reconcile your view of Assange with these facts:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks#Allegations_of_Russi...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks#Correspondence_betwe....

[bootlooped]

That second link appears to just go to the Wikileaks Wikipedia page now, the section may have been removed? This article covers the same content:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/11/the-sec...

[lifeformed]

Some reason the period at the end of the URL gets deleted when I try to post it. It's supposed to go to the section right above the first link.

[Buge]

I assume so many people post a url then a period immediately after it to end the sentence, that HN strips off the period at the end of the url, assuming it's not part of the url and was instead meant to end the sentence. I can see that the period in your comment is not linkified, so HN considered it not part of the url. By doing this, HN is going against RFC 3986 which says that the period is an unreserved character and is valid in fragments (and paths) without being escaped.

You can work around HN's behavior by escaping the period as %2e

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks#Correspondence_betwe...

[s73v3r_]

You either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain. That's what happened to Assange. WikiLeaks did some good in the past. Then he became a Russian puppet, and tool of the Trump campaign.

[pvg]

By that logic, we'd have to give this dude

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Comey#NSA_domestic_wiret...

the Presidential Golden Eagle of Infinite Liberty.

[SN76477]

I agree, they are hereos, but leadership cannot award misbehavior as it undermines the system. We need better watchdogs.

[anonymous5133]

Turning yourself into a tyrannical government is the most unpatriotic thing you can do.

[pvg]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/08/murong-xuecun-...

And, you know, Gandhi.

[api]

One of these is not like the others. Snowden and Manning seem genuine. Assange may have been genuine once but it's quite clear that in recent years he was either compromised, turned, or himself adopted some kind of rather loathsome fascist ideology.

[briandear]

Just a curiousity, is “far left” and “liberal” even related? Seems like the far left and far right are two sides to the same totalitarian coin. Liberal implies a respect for the freedom of individuals while “far left” puts the collective over the rights of the individual. The word liberal has lost its meaning. The far left (and far right) is incompatible with freedom. Cases in point: Venezuela, Cuba, the Soviet Union. The far left closer to fascism than liberalism.

http://thedailyjournalist.com/thethinker/fascism-is-far-left...

[kmonsen]

I think parent uses far left like far left in US politics or average European, not like Venezuela or Soviet Union. The latter two were of course incompatible to freedom just as the extreme right. I do believe that the "almost far left" are much more compatible with freedom (think Sanders on steroids) than the "almost far right" (I guess current GOP?).

It could be that this is just incidental in that the public are currently more aligned with what the left wants so the right currently has to be anti-freedom if it wants to get elected. If public opinion shifts drastically maybe DNC would resort to trying to restrict voters instead of encouraging them?

[a13n]

It seems "left" and "right" can be used differently in different countries / times. In the US today, left is synonymous for liberal (typically democrat), and right for conservative (republican).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left%E2%80%93right_political_s...

[SyneRyder]

You might like the website The Political Compass, a quiz/self-test where authoritarian / libertarian are on a separate axis from the typical left / right of economic planning. It at least shows the lack of nuance in trying to reduce all politics to a single "left & right" dimension - and that by doing so, we ignore ways where both "sides" may actually share common views.

https://www.politicalcompass.org/

[Cyphase]

Probably inspired by the World's Smallest Political Quiz.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World%27s_Smallest_Political_Q...

https://www.theadvocates.org/quiz/

[isostatic]

It's also rather biased in questioning

[nyolfen]

in the US, the left uses liberal institutions because being far left is tolerated by liberal society in a way that being far right is not

[lostlogin]

Could you clarify - are you saying that being far right isn’t tolerated in the US? Or that being far right isn’t tolerated by liberal society in the US?

[nyolfen]

the latter

[lumberjack]

Traditionally there are three political groups: conservatives, liberals and socialists.

"Far-left" falls under socialism, along with anarchism and communism. The idea that ties them together is this concept of trying to fight against and eliminate some hierarchy in society. Often times, wealth inequality. There is no such thing in the US.

To say that you are a liberal far-left is indeed a misuse of terminology.

Fascism falls under conservatism along with monarchism and any other traditionalist or reactionary political ideology. Standing opposed to "the left", the chief idea that ties all these ideologies together is that some hierarchal structures are beneficial to society.

Interesting to note that Republicanism is a liberal ideology, not a conservative one. Liberalism is a much more well defined ideology than the other two. Briefly speaking: "all men are created equal" (hence Republicanism), small government and free markets and capitalism.

[dragonwriter]

> Traditionally there are three political groups: conservatives, liberals and socialists.

That's not even approximately correct. There are a lot more groups than that, and those aren't even on the same conceptual level.

> "Far-left" falls under socialism, along with anarchism and communism.

Socialism is one of many leftist ideologies. Communism is, yes, a subset of socialism; OTOH, anarchism is not a subset of socialism (anarchism is a distinct ideology.)

> > The idea that ties them together is this concept of trying to fight against and eliminate some hierarchy in society. Often times, wealth inequality. There is no such thing in the US.

The first part is not horrendously inaccurate but not really useful correct, either.

I don't know if you are trying to say that the far left, socialism, anarchism, communism, social heirarchies, or wealth inequality doesn't exist in the US, but, in any case...no.

> Fascism falls under conservatism along with monarchism and any other traditionalist or reactionary political ideology.

Reactionary ideologies have the same relationship to conservatism as radical or far-left ideologies have to liberalism.

> Interesting to note that Republicanism is a liberal ideology, not a conservative one.

Small-r republicanism is an ideology that is neither inherently liberal nor conservative, though the most common modern form is liberal. Big-R Republicanism J's just attachment to an American political party that doesn't have a single clear ideology but covers a range of liberal to reactionary ideologies.

> Liberalism is a much more well defined ideology than the other two.

Socialism is, while still a fairly broad umbrella, both more specific and better defined than liberalism.

> Briefly speaking: "all men are created equal"

That doesn't actually differentiate it from socialism, nor is this really essential to liberalism (a belief that all men are created equal undergirds some liberalism, but isn't essential to liberalism; another basis is that equallegal treatment allows people to reach the different positions appropriate for different inherent worth.)

> (hence Republicanism)

Neither Republicanism nor republicanism is inherently attached to an egalitarian ideology.

[brbrodude]

If you actually tried studying these topics instead of going behind shallow propaganda, you'd see how misguided you are. But actually liberals are not leftists, there's no left in USA.

[frabbit]

I don't think they are related.

The Left is generally in favor of socialism of some sort: common ownership of the important stuff.

The Right has two wings: fascists and the sneaky, slippery moralizers known as Liberals. Liberals are content to wring their hands about minorities while reaping the benefits of very violent, command economies which extract wealth from the poorest (including within the USA). Their obfuscation of the true nature of capitalism and relatively less appalling public statements on minorities helps to keep a lid on things. Fascism only becomes overtly necessary when capitalism is having a periodic crisis and Liberal lies are not cutting it any more.

So, in short, no, nothing to do with each other.

[windowshopping]

Assange is a hero? Last I checked he was working with Russia to support the Trump campaign.

Used to respect him a lot, lost all my respect for him and WikiLeaks when he got involved in trying to influence elections. That was not that site's mandate.

[undseg]

Can you elaborate on that? Provide sources etc. Genuinely curious

[jumelles]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/08/26/assange-slams-inc...

"Assange also accused the Clinton campaign of stoking "a kind of neo-McCarthy hysteria" about Russia's alleged role in the DNC hacking and Moscow's purported links to the Trump campaign."

Meanwhile a recent federal indictment has accused Russia of doing exactly that: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/07/13/rosenstein-says-1...

The indictment is here: https://www.justice.gov/file/1080281/download

More info here: https://www.2016activemeasures.org/#involved

[_up]

Everyone can be accused. That in itself doesn't mean anything. Also, Ex FBI Director Comney testified that the FBI didn't get access to the DNC server. Instead, the DNC hired itself people to verify their claim that they were hacked. How can they be serious if they aren't even trying to secure the main evidence? It is also pretty clear that they are not on Trumps side by announcing this directly before the summit.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?425087-1/fbi-director-investig...

[18pfsmt]

This is a site populated by technical people, so please don't characterize technical security audits so simplistically ("what about the server" is a complete red herring).

There were 140 servers, not "the server." Regardless, the interesting data was found in the network gear of the data center that housed the servers (i.e. meta data/ connectivity logs). Trump was given the choice as to when the latest indictments were announced.

[_up]

I don't know why you seem to be so triggered. I only wanted to discuss an alternate viewpoint. Science is about asking questions not accepting only studies that validate your own viewpoint.

I didn't know that there were 140 servers involved. Interesting. So did Comney lie and the FBI actually did get access to everything, including the physical Hardware. The thing is even if you have found proof that Russian Spies got access to the system it only implicates spying not publishing. The leak could still have come from someone inside the DNC. So to examine everything is essential. Also usually Police at least try to look impartial and not only look at evidence that supports their desired outcome. Looking only at the network gear like you said is the opposite of that.

[resters]

It's not really accurate to say he was trying to influence elections. His goal is to publish verifiable documents that bring transparency to important political issues. He did not take sides whatsoever in the 2016 election, and obviously would have loved to publish information about Trump if any had been leaked to WL.

[jumelles]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/wikileaks-fue...

WikiLeaks promoted false conspiracy theories.

[resters]

I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that WL promoted those theories.

Clearly if you watch the full statement Assange makes, he's simply establishing a universe of possible sources of the leaks. Statistically, a disgruntled employee is significantly more likely to attempt sabotage than many/most of the other explanations being floated at the time.

Also, FWIW anyone can weaponize a system like Wikileaks, and we should reasonably expect that to be a major source of the leaked data. But keeping in mind that WL is something that can be weaponized, there are many different attacks that can be delivered through it.

[bootlooped]

> and obviously would have loved to publish information about Trump if any had been leaked to WL.

I don't think that's clear, since they were in seemingly friendly contact with Donald Trump Jr and Roger Stone. When caught, Assange claimed they were only pretending to be friendly with them. If Wikileaks has no credibility, the explanation is unbelievable, if the explanation is believable it means they are willing to lie and deceive to achieve their goals, which in turn loses them credibility.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/11/the-sec...

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/02/roger-s...

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/11/assange...

[resters]

Just as any journalist might spend hours hanging out with a source, developing sympathy and rapport, WL has to use some of the same strategies.

It's a tactic used by detectives, journalists, psychotherapists, etc. It is appropriate in some fields and is part of the professional standard and is not a reflection on credibility.

I do not think we have to look far to assess WL's credibility. When is the last time that significant source material has been provided to some other, competing transparency organization? WL is the market leader and in spite of having been under attack for years has not been left in the dust of some other competitor. In that sense WL has tremendous credibility.

When is the last time someone has leaked a trove of data to the NYTimes after WL sat on it for months waiting for the perfect moment to deploy it? This simply hasn't happened.

All it would take would be one big story where the leakers publicized that Assange said no to the story or that he sat on the information. I think it's quite obvious that Assange actually would publish any significant story at the earliest opportunity.

Snowden chose not to go to WikiLeaks for his own personal reasons and because he wanted to be extra cautious about how aggressively the information was disclosed (to protect national security). Wikileaks is specifically not willing to heavily editorialize the leaked information (by omission or actively) because doing so would create doubt about why he suppressed information, and such doubt would actually harm WL's credibility.

Something like WL can easily be weaponized by state actors, disgruntled employees, estranged partners, etc. Because of that, the decision not to suppress any significant stories is crucial. WL won't publish paraphrased rumors, it publishes the actual source material so that there is no need to make inferences or imagine what was kept back.

It's ironic if not a bit absurd that Assange was asking Don Junior to turn over damaging information about his own father and that his remarks are used as evidence that he wanted Trump to win the election.

On a related but tangential note, it's remarkable to me that nobody has leaked Trump's tax returns yet. I'm also surprised nobody has posted a bounty on Ethereum for the first person to send the tax returns to Wikileaks and publish the decryption key and checksum in a public ledger.

One other thing that I'll mention is that I think that people who like one of the two major parties are much more likely to perceive someone else's behavior as being motivated by partisan loyalty.

[bootlooped]

> When is the last time that significant source material has been provided to some other, competing transparency organization?

The Panama Papers and the Paradise Papers were both released to the ICIJ. I don't think you would consider them a transparency organization though.

Considering only a "transparency organization" as Wikileaks competition is wrong though I think. Wikileaks' competitors are conventional producers of journalism, they just have different approaches to how the information will be presented.

[jumelles]

Assange now supports Vladimir Putin over the US, and there's no amount of whatabouting that can defend Putin's actions.

(And I hope you're aware that Assange isn't American!)

[firasd]

It makes me profoundly sad how the world (or at least my world, mostly far left, liberal, educated, etc.) has turned so hard against Julian Assange. He's a hero in every sense of the word.

If this Assange guy hadn’t gone all-​in on supporting Trump, Russia, & co., he would still have a broad base of support among liberal Americans—many of the same people who lobbied for Chelsea Manning’s release. Epic bad strategy on his part.

Also, beyond partisan alignment, another reason I view him more dimly than I used to is his habit of dumping entire inboxes. Compare to something like the Panama papers that was vetted by journalists...

[e40]

It really shows the non-liberal bias here at HN that the above comment has more down than up votes. Because if you are liberal, there is statement concerning Assange that is more true.

[micv]

You don't get a medal for being a Russian asset unless you're in Russia.

[syngrog66]

Assange is a Russian agent. Snowden most likely as well. They both deserve execution & infamy, not praise.

[jasonvorhe]

The death penalty. How civil of you.

[nailer]

> least my world, mostly far left

I'd be careful using that term, unless you're explicitly into violence towards anyone who disagrees with you.

[joering2]

Couldnt upvote this more. Imagine sitation in which you drive on highway and on the other side of median you see a car crashed with people burning inside. You drive by without stopping because pulling over on highway, leaving unatended cr and jaywalking across highway lanes is illawful. What kind of society one would live if we would never engage in any action because of blank asumption that eventual parsonal liability outweights our nobility.

[bootlooped]

I don't see how this analogy works for Assange, since he's done everything he can do to avoid liability.

[ck2]

It is very, very simple to understand the difference between Assange vs Snowden/Manning

Assange is an anarchist. He didn't use physical guns or bombs but rather selective release of information to selected parties at very selected times to cause as much damage as possible.

Snowden & Manning on the other hand loved their country so much they were horrified to learn what was being done in our name so they exposed that information in the hope that someone, anyone, could make things right and prevent it from happening again. There was no scheme otherwise to their actions.

So yeah they all dealt with exposing secrets but WHY is the very critical difference.