A group of Australian lawmakers say they will travel to Washington this month to lobby the United States to abandon its efforts to extradite WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.
Here’s hoping Australia can get Biden to listen to reason. Just because Wikileaks, as the messenger, embarrassed the US gov’t doesn’t mean Assange was wrong. As in many cases America was by doing stupid shit in the first place.
Assange is an information terrorist. He has secrets on everyone but only releases selective secrets to hurt the people his handlers want hurt. This doesn’t make him a noble whistleblower, it’s makes him the bad guy in Skyfall.
This must mean every newspaper is also the bad guy in Skyfall. What is the difference between the NYT doing this and Assange? And why should the consequences be different?
For a country that is ready to shoot their neighbour for the 1st amendment, it seems you only want that for yourselves.
No one is trying to arrest him because he is selective about what he releases. They want to arrest him because he aided in illegally accessing classified info. That is the behavior of a spy, not a jornalist. The person he aided was already found guilty and did their time.
The extradition was not issued until after the WikiLeaks. Assange has always claimed he was given the leaks from manning. This is why the UK courts have an appeal against extradition order. It tells you this in the Wiki page on Assange. Assange is an arsehole, he has a history of hacking in the 90’s. This doesn’t mean he should be hounded by the richest in the world because they did not like what he said about them.
“No, no, Mongostein. No this was Assange, and I moved on him very heavily in fact I took him out furniture shopping. He wanted to get some furniture. I said I’ll show you where they have some nice furniture. I moved on him like a bitch. I couldn’t get there and he was imprisoned. Then all-of-a-sudden I see him, he’s now got the big phony tits and everything. He’s totally changed his look.”
Occam’s razor says you’re wrong. If we take the idea that Assange is a radical journalist who would publish any juicy evidence of state wrongdoing, regardless of source or target, then it doesn’t take much more thought as to why foreign states would leak military intelligence through Assange to reduce popular support for the activities of the defence apparatus of a rival power. It’s one additional step to add “and also he is directly controlled by the foreign state”. Why would they need to control him if he does what they want without them having to go to any special effort?
And the west wouldn’t have much motivation to leak their Intel to wiki leaks, because wiki leaks is a western institution - they can just use their normal propaganda outlets in their own nations - and the population of foreign nations would be better targeted by some source in the target nation.
This is just conspiratorial stuff. You need some better evidence - for example, that Julian Assange had good actionable Intel on a country but refused to disclose it without a good reason - to prove that he is acting for the express benefit of a particular state actor.
Here’s hoping Australia can get Biden to listen to reason. Just because Wikileaks, as the messenger, embarrassed the US gov’t doesn’t mean Assange was wrong. As in many cases America was by doing stupid shit in the first place.
#FreeAssange
Assange is an information terrorist. He has secrets on everyone but only releases selective secrets to hurt the people his handlers want hurt. This doesn’t make him a noble whistleblower, it’s makes him the bad guy in Skyfall.
This must mean every newspaper is also the bad guy in Skyfall. What is the difference between the NYT doing this and Assange? And why should the consequences be different?
For a country that is ready to shoot their neighbour for the 1st amendment, it seems you only want that for yourselves.
No one is trying to arrest him because he is selective about what he releases. They want to arrest him because he aided in illegally accessing classified info. That is the behavior of a spy, not a jornalist. The person he aided was already found guilty and did their time.
The extradition was not issued until after the WikiLeaks. Assange has always claimed he was given the leaks from manning. This is why the UK courts have an appeal against extradition order. It tells you this in the Wiki page on Assange. Assange is an arsehole, he has a history of hacking in the 90’s. This doesn’t mean he should be hounded by the richest in the world because they did not like what he said about them.
Who’s Assange’s handler?
You have to ask? Who has Assange never released any information on even though they are known for corruption…
I have to ask. He’s never released info on me. Am I his handler?
“No, no, Mongostein. No this was Assange, and I moved on him very heavily in fact I took him out furniture shopping. He wanted to get some furniture. I said I’ll show you where they have some nice furniture. I moved on him like a bitch. I couldn’t get there and he was imprisoned. Then all-of-a-sudden I see him, he’s now got the big phony tits and everything. He’s totally changed his look.”
You can’t be his handler, I clearly am! I handle him so good people don’t even know my name
Are you well known as a corrupt state?
Occam’s razor says you’re wrong. If we take the idea that Assange is a radical journalist who would publish any juicy evidence of state wrongdoing, regardless of source or target, then it doesn’t take much more thought as to why foreign states would leak military intelligence through Assange to reduce popular support for the activities of the defence apparatus of a rival power. It’s one additional step to add “and also he is directly controlled by the foreign state”. Why would they need to control him if he does what they want without them having to go to any special effort?
And the west wouldn’t have much motivation to leak their Intel to wiki leaks, because wiki leaks is a western institution - they can just use their normal propaganda outlets in their own nations - and the population of foreign nations would be better targeted by some source in the target nation.
This is just conspiratorial stuff. You need some better evidence - for example, that Julian Assange had good actionable Intel on a country but refused to disclose it without a good reason - to prove that he is acting for the express benefit of a particular state actor.