Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by Synaesthesia 2365 days ago
Wikileaks has a faultless record. They’ve never had to retract a publication. Assange, like him not not, was a reporter, who reported uncomfortable facts about the military and our ruling class.

He is being punished, tortured really for this “crime”.

He has been endlessly and baselessly slandered. All that alleged bad behaviour while he was imprisoned in the embassy ... funny how there’s been no footage of it, despite the fact that he was under 24/7 surveillance!

And these rape charges, clearly also designed to tarnish his name, now finally exposed as a fiasco.

Many newspapers had huge scoops thanks to Wikileaks, but have now turned on them. A particularly striking example is the supposedly liberal Guardian.

Journalists everywhere should be afraid as this sets a dangerous precedent for all of them.

16 comments

The most detailed, nuanced account of Assange I've seen is this one[0] by Andrew O'Hagan (an author hired to ghostwrite Assange's autobiography who spent a year or so in and out of his orbit). And it's hard to square that account with the image of Assange as a journalist who's being persecuted for the truths he's shared.

Though O'Hagan is sympathetic in many ways he doesn't sugarcoat anything, and I came away with the impression that Assange is the author of a great deal of his own woes. (Among other things, much of the account involves Assange lying pretty incessantly, even to his closest allies about petty dramas, so I now find it hard to take anything he's said at face value.)

[0] https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v36/n05/andrew-o-hagan/ghost...

----

Edit to add: there's a quoted exchange in the account, which now springs to mind every time I hear about Assange.

> There are few subjects on which Julian would be reluctant to take what you might call a paternalistic position, but over Snowden, whom he’s never met but has chatted with and feels largely responsible for, he expressed a kind of irritable admiration. "Just how good is he?" I asked.

> "He’s number nine," he said.

> "In the world? Among computer hackers? And where are you?"

> "I’m number three."

We're discussing the torture of a journalist in the west. Adn you bring up a story that you think he lied to often. Now I assume you are right and I think that stains his character.

But, I think this is kind of hard to swallow at this point. I know you respond to someone else comment, and not directly to the story. But in this light i think it is not time to discuss if Assange lied at some point. The man deserves a fair trial, and some nobel prizes for the good stuff he did. Before Wikileaks we were some tin-foil hat /r/conspiracy readers. And now "deep state" a term you find in the MSM. Big progress necessary on the way to fix this mess, yet Assange's life got destroyed in the process.

They great thing about Wikileaks is that the data speaks for itself. I don’t care at all about Assange’s personality but I’m very thankful the information he put out there is available to the public. He’s exposed tons of corruption.
Assange is the luckiest of the many heroes of the journalism where even Guardian, NYT and SZ were left as establishmemt propaganda machines with command chain news.
Indeed, this is essential reading in its entirety. The image that emerges is one of a vain and duplicitous man who treats his projects as vehicles for self-aggrandizement. His poor character and lack of integrity are unbecoming in anyone who claims to speak truth to power.
It's no secret that Assange is vain and an asshole.

That doesn't mean that there hasn't been a coordinated campaign of character attack and punishment for revealing uncomfortable truths against him. Nor does it mean that he is deserving of what has happened

> "I’m number three."

Wow, he has a high opinion of himself! That's just terrible. Horrible. Only the humble and the meek are worthy of support when they're persecuted.

I used to be a fairly strong supporter of our military. Not blanket support (since there are always exceptions to anything), and I wasn't super enthusiastic/patriotic like some are, but in general I had a pretty positive view.

My uncle is a general in the Air Force, all three of my grandfathers fought in WW2 (my Dad's biological father was killed by a drunk driver when he was 7), etc etc. I have pictures of my grandfather standing under the Arc de Triomphe in Paris with the tank squad he commanded.

Wikileaks helped change my mind quite a bit. Among the many things they published, there was one video that really stood out: POV camera from a apache as the pilot releases a missile into a group of civilians that included a number of journalists. Things like this couldn't be ignored, because of Wikileaks record. You couldn't start off down a path of rationalizing, etc. They made you face up to the ground-level reality.

I still support and appreciate the people who serve in our armed forces, but thanks to Wikileaks I have a much more nuanced,skeptical, and (I believe) more appropriate view.

>They made you face up to the ground-level reality.

The news media has consciously hidden and censored the ground level reality of war since Vietnam, where they made the mistake of showing families the graphic ground level realities of war in color while they ate TV dinners in their living rooms. This created what was perhaps the greatest anti war sentiment in US history -- it was not sustainable. Meanwhile Hollywood perpetually pushed out war and action movies glorifying violence while also censoring the disgusting reality of it.

why was anti war sentiment not sustainable for tv news stations?
because "Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media"
Manning's Collateral Murder video was a turning point in my political views.

To see the people responsible for getting that out - something that should never have been kept secret - imprisoned and hunted across the world has only confirmed those views.

I assume you’re talking about this video.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_12,_2007,_Baghdad_airst...

Reading the Wikipedia entry seems to indicate the Apache’s has reason to believe they were hostile forces. Indeed, some of the men with the journalists had weapons and were in the same spot as harassing fire had come from earlier.

Have you watched the video itself?
I have. It seems like a tragedy of war, which unfortunately happens some times.

I didn’t think it was some great revelation about the US military.

If random bombardment of civilians without a positive ID is standard operating procedure for the US military (and then concealing that the people killed were civilians until this information was leaked), then I would say that this was a revelation for me about the US military.

Then firing on the dad who stopped his car to try to help the civilians injured by our strike, killing him and injuring his kids? Yeah, I had no idea that medical assistance was no longer considered protected in war.

I guess it’s the context.

Being in the company of armed men who aren’t friendly forces while US forces are under fire in close proximity seems like a bad idea as well t wouldn’t be unreasonable to assume you are hostile forces.

And as for the ambulance - “The van had no visible markings to suggest it was an ambulance or a protected vehicle”

Faultless record? Absolutely not. They will support /r/conspiracy's lunacy at all costs as long as it somehow ties to Hillary Clinton. This one[1] was the most ridiculous claim they supported, but I'm sure someone who cares more could find dozens or even hundreds more claims made by WikiLeaks that are nothing more than deranged Dale Gribble-esque rants.

[1] https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/san-francisco-tech-assange...

Sorry - were the claims that David Soloff was behind T&C actually made by Wikileaks? Your link provides no evidence of that fact that I see, and from a brief perusal of the primary sources, I don't see Wikileaks ever making that claim either.
Disregarding the fact that Snopes is a very disreputable organization (e.g. there's a reason Facebook fired them as fact-checkers), your reference doesn't even back up what you say. Is it possible you're the one engaging in conspiracy theories?
The official narrative is that they withdrew from the program[1]. If you have contradicting evidence, please provide it when making such a claim. This community doesn't like broad claims without evidence.

[1] https://www.snopes.com/2019/02/01/snopes-fb-partnership-ends...

Wikileaks does not have a faultless record.

For example:

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2016/07/why-did-wikileaks-hel...

That's an example of "like him or not", it's not a retraction and nothing published was false.
It's a contradiction to the claim he simply acted as a reporter: reporters don't release private information concerning no matter of public concern of people who are in no respect public figures.
That's a very strange definition of "faultless record." Shall we elevate the Ashley Madison password leakers to the same level of folk hero? What about a VPN that spies on its users - they never publish anything false, so any persecution is unfair, right?
We're talking about two different things. The grandparent said that Assange hasn't had to make any retractions and hasn't published any false info. This is undeniably true.

They also said "like him or not". Not everyone likes the outcome of his leaks. Many do. Many like some, but not others. Regardless, he's had a major impact on politics based on very true information Wikileaks has made available to the public.

If the Ashley Madison password leakers were helping expose corruption in the government, I'm sure some would view them as folk heroes too.

The grandparent said Wikileaks has a faultless record, which they don't. The rest is special pleading.
The grandparent very clearly defined what they mean by that. Assange hasn't had to make any retractions.
I think misrepresenting the contents in a dump in such a way as happened here would qualify as something worthy of a retraction.
It is possible to build a false narrative with nothing but true information.

Say I put up a website that every day posted a story about a Jewish person who had been convicted of a financial crime. Say I promoted this site and built up a fan base. If every story was 100% true, nothing but real convictions.

Would you say this is an honest, faultless website?

Not unless you computed percentage of financial crimes committed by Jews as a percentage of total number of financial crimes committed in the United States.

If we saw that this number was appreciably higher than 2%, then we could immediately draw the conclusion that the justice system in this country is biased against Jews, right?

(This would be just like we do in the case of blacks when it comes to "more dangerous" crimes like assault, armed robbery, rape, and murder.)

Your point only reinforces mine -- a website presenting nothing but facts can still offer a false narrative; it takes more work to establish the true narrative.

As for the subtext of your message, you seem to be doubtful that the justice system is biased black people. I have no doubt you are a smart person, so it baffles me why on a post about how complex issues need a broad and nuanced understanding you'd take this simple-minded sarcastic swipe.

You appear to think that the social justice issue was determined simply based on the fact the black people are incarcerated at a higher rate than the general population, and political correctness demands that it be attributed to judicial bias. There is a lot of research supporting this bias; it isn't just a PC justification.

It _is_ possible. Like how you're trying to build the narrative of Wikileaks having built such false narratives - which they haven't, to the best of my knowledge. If you have evidence to suggest otherwise, please link to it.
See what HKers are doing because they wanted to (initially) safe guard their reporters?

See what the west here does to stop rather similar practices of which Assange happens to be at the receiving end? Very little. We let him die, and I include myself into "we". This is just abhorrent. And it seems we dont even know what to point our anger to, the US govt? The UK? The fucking-were-so-enlightended Swedish govt? Any (western) govt that fails to stand up for him?

To stay in xmas spirit: Assange is the modern day Jesus of reporting dying for our freedom and our right te be informed of our sick and twisted govts.

I'm angry now.

> See what HKers are doing because they wanted to (initially) safe guard their reporters?

Psychological projection can be contagious, when used with blame: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/intense-emotions-and...

> funny how there’s been no footage of it, despite the fact that he was under 24/7 surveillance!

There wouldn’t be. It’s an embassy. The met aren’t daft enough to do anything other than watch the front door.

A Spanish company were hired to spy on Assange's meetings - going so far as to install streaming cameras in the ladies room.

https://elpais.com/elpais/2019/09/25/inenglish/1569384196_65...

> After the installation of new video cameras at the beginning of December 2017, Morales requested that his technicians install an external streaming access point in the same area so that all of the recordings could be accessed instantly by the United States. To do this, he requested three channels for access: “one for Ecuador, another for us and another for X,” according to mails sent at the time to his colleagues. When one of the technicians asked to contact “the Americans” to explain the way that they should access some of the spying systems installed in the embassy, Morales would always be evasive with his answers.

> Morales ordered his workers to install microphones in the embassy’s fire extinguishers and also in the women’s bathroom, where Assange’s lawyers, including the Spaniard Aitor Martínez and his closest collaborators, would meet for fear of being spied on.

> Wikileaks has a faultless record.

How about this bullshit Steve Jobs AIDS diagnosis?

https://file.wikileaks.org/file/steve-jobs-hiv/steve-jobs-hi...

This is disingenuous.

https://wikileaks.org/wiki/Steve_Jobs_purported_HIV_medical_...

Wikileaks explicitly noted:

> Due to the contradictory dates, possible evidence of forgery, strong motivations for fabrication, and few motivations for a legitimate revelation, the images should not be taken at face value.

Using Wayback machine, I can confirm that this text was associated with these images from the first moment that they were published on Wikileaks.

Also, HIV isn't AIDS and you should keep that in mind.

While investigating, I did find this though: https://compote.slate.com/images/6095c484-0c54-4ba2-9ac2-e87...

This is blatant antisemitism.

This is a bit esoteric but Julian did criticize the NY Times UFO story in 12/15 and then deleted the tweet-

https://imgur.com/a/1z3APkC

It’s hard to verify he deleted it because his Twitter account has been deactivated. Just found it interesting because I think his original tweet was accurate but it was strange that he backtracked.

Today I learned that publishing numerous documents entirely it partially forged by Russian Intelligence counts as a faultless record.
What was forged by Russian Intelligence?
You do know that Wikileaks was on the verge of releasing damaging info on Putin. Then magically it never happened after Assange was visited by Russian agents.

Sorry they are nothing more than a propaganda machine of Russia at this point.

They went political in the last election choosing to keep GOP documents silenced and release the DNC data.

I have no issue if Wikileaks wasn’t playing political games. But they are.....

Even if you believe that, it doesn’t answer my question. What information was forged by Russia?
This is not an answer to the question that malvosenior asked.
They did not keep GOP documents silenced.
You do know...

Please, no conspiracy theories.

Oh? What was forged?
>They’ve never had to retract a publication.

Refusing to ever retract anything either means they're literally perfect. Fuck the New York Times, Guardian, BBC, Al Jareeza and every other news organisation that has ever existed.

Or they refuse to retract ever, despite sometimes making mistakes.

Can you point to something non-factual that Wikileaks has published that you think should have been retracted?
Agree with you on all points, except for a slight nitpick: Assange was more of a news publisher than a reporter. That is, he didn't write news stories.

We - informed internet users, not just journalists - should be very worried about his treatment and try to act to support him and Wikileaks. If you can't act yourself, do consider donating:

https://defend.wikileaks.org/donate/

(there might be other relevant avenues of donating, this is one of them)

> Many newspapers had huge scoops thanks to Wikileaks, but have now turned on them. A particularly striking example is the supposedly liberal Guardian.

There's a Norwegian conservative newspaper who (somehow) got access to all the cable gate documents [1], and benefited tremendously on it - but now won't speak up about how Julian Assange is being treated.

(Sorry about the norwegian news article)

[1] https://finansavisen.no/nyheter/politikk/2010/12/aftenposten...

According to you then, RT also has a “faultless record”...
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. - George Orwell

Speaking truth to power is something the corporate-owned fourth estate no longer engages in, and instead discards civil discourse and individuals with integrity because reality is inconvenient compared to fanning the flames with phony-outrage clickbait, replacing it with corporate-led fascism and intolerance masquerading as liberalism. Here are just some of the heroes of freedom:

- Phil Donahue (completely gave up a promising career)

- Jesse Ventura

- Cenk Uyghur *

- Chris Hedges

- Julian Assange

- Chelsea Manning

- Aaron Schwartz

- John Kiriakou *

- Daniel Ellsberg *

- Gary Webb

- Robert Parry *

- Max Blumenthal *

- Aaron Maté *

- Lee Camp *

- Jeremy Scahill *

- Glenn Greenwald *

* The few, lucky ones

All of these have had important positive contributions, but don't idolize any of them. Some of them have adopted problematic positions (IMHO) on various issues or promoted political causes of state establishments. Some are dismissive or even defamatory of people with more radical political views than theirs. Some aren't and I only have good things to say about them, but the point is - we should always judge stories and commentaries by the merit and never fully trust someone even if their record is positive and impressive.
Some humans aren't perfect; film at eleven. I don't think any of the "trust the mainstream narrative" authoritarians ITT are comparing Assange to Aaron Maté. They love the pablum that Rachel Maddow feeds them, and they'll grasp at any irrational straw that could help them keep slurping it down.
Can you tell me more about Jesse Ventura?
We need to be very exact in these matters. The problem with the rape charges is that very, very likely he would have been convicted under Swedish law, which is very strict on what counts as rape. (If proof could be produced.) What is a farce is how the case went on and on, and how the plaintiffs didn't even seem to want to hang on the to case, and how a crime which is routinely buried in cold cases by Swedish Police suddenly became the top priority of the state (country, for you US-people) prosecutor. And so on. There is a kernel of truth. Everything else is a farce. If we don't acknowledge the kernel, we risk debating the merits of the case, when there is the political machine around it which merits most interest. (In global politics, not in the personal lives of the plaintiff, I have great respect for them too.)
Going on the record of being a victim of sexual abuse isn't easy and being subject to harassment by the press, WL zealots and other loonies could've just been enough to warrant that the victims no longer cared enough about justice. They've both been on the record saying that they only wanted to pressure Assange to get tested for STDs since he forced himself on them without protection. I assume they didn't want this to blow up the way it did.
It never became a top priority for the Swedish state. But since he fled to the Ecuadorian embassy the investigation just dragged on. This was never a high priority case other than for the press. And as soon as he could be inteterogated the investigation was closed. He is and has been mistreated in may ways, but the accusations of sexual assault in Sweden was not part of some US lead conspiracy against him.
> the accusations of sexual assault in Sweden was not part of some US lead conspiracy against him.

What makes you so sure of this?

The public prosecutor can press charges, which is what happened here. They don't for a boatload of would be cases. With Assange, they did, which is not exactly true to form.