‘Julian Assange is free’: Wikileaks founder freed in deal with US : worldnews

[–] [email protected] 175 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Isn't it great that a man who exposed governmental corruption and war crimes faced a harsher persecution and punishment than the corrupt governments and war criminals themselves?

Democracy™️

[+] [email protected] -61 points 6 months ago (4 children)

[deleted]

[–] [email protected] 69 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children)

First, no he did not. He released information relating to government officials engaging in misconduct. Hillary Clinton had been a government official for a long time, Trump had not. Of course youre more likely to get that kind of information on her and not him.

But even if he had, having a political allegiance is not a crime punishable by prison as far as I know.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 6 months ago (1 children)

He released information relating to government officials engaging in misconduct

... at precisely the right time to maximise the effect of the release and diminish her chances at winning the election.

No whistleblowers shouldn't go to prison, I'm glad Assange is going home but I do dislike him immensely.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Uh, if I was about to vote for a presidential candidate, and someone had evidence that person was involved in some kind of misconduct, then I'd certainly rather be aware of that before voting for them than after.

Would you not?

[–] [email protected] 9 points 6 months ago

If it was just about transparency he would've released it sooner.

Sitting on it to release at the right time was partisan.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

He held onto the information until he was given a signal by Trump's team to release it. He could have released it whenever he wanted, but didn't.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 6 months ago

Or, he just released it before the DNC because that was when it would have the most visibility. Especially when part of what was released was evidence of the DNC conspiring against Bernie Sanders.

Do you see that as pro-Republican just because it was anti-DNC? You could make the same argument that Bernie told him to release it then because it was so favorable to him.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Strange how he primarily releases information that makes the left look bad while ignoring the right. Not even Trump specifically but they could release stuff on other right wing politicians. Lord knows that every single one is corrupt in some way or another after all.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Any evidence Wikileaks withheld info about the right? They release info that's leaked to them. If Russia used Wikileaks to further their own agenda, that's not a Wikileaks problem (as long as the information is accurate).

[–] [email protected] 11 points 6 months ago

Looks like they received a leak about Russia security services and refused to release it, during the 2016 election. Not a good look, that.

https://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/347007-wikileaks-rejected-documents-on-russia-during-2016-election/

[–] [email protected] 36 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Notice how you're angry at the people who released the info instead of the people who were corrupt and deplorable? PsyOps mission accomplished!

My understanding is that, while it's likely the source of those leaks was Russia, it's never been proven wikileaks withheld info about Republicans. I've seen the claims dozens of times, but never the evidence, so please share if you do... Otherwise, it's insane to hate a journalist for withholding information they don't have, just because it hurts your preferred political party.

EDIT T+2hrs: 35% downvotes and zero replies or supporting evidence. FYI I asked the same thing on Reddit about a dozen times over the last decade, and the result was always the same — If your position is "I can find no evidence for my claims, and don't know why I hate WikiLeaks or Assange. I just do." then you're probably a psychological warfare victim...

[–] [email protected] 8 points 6 months ago

Yuck. I wish I could help you

[+] [email protected] -38 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Not saying it’s excusable, but I’m guessing he was exposed to a lot of Trump propaganda being in Russia and all

[–] [email protected] 49 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Are you thinking of Snowden?

[–] [email protected] 25 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children)

But it's sad that whistleblowers are even persecuted in a so-called democracy. Like you know you fucked up, but instead of feeling humble and ashamed you start persecutions of the people who have exposed you, while preaching what an exemplary democracy you are to the rest of the world.

Same with ICC, ICC exposes your ally as a war criminal and instead of upholding law, you start thinking how to sanction the judges and obstruct their actions, because you feel above the law. The US is acting like a school bully who is the only one who can say what's right or wrong in big parts of the rest of the world, they try to influence foreign governments and install their own candidates, so in a way, they aren't much better than China or Russia. Heck they even tapped the phones of their allies back then and probably still do.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Private companies do the same, often going as far as to have whistleblowers executed. People (and especially organizations) protect their interests, even (or especially) at the expenses of others lives.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago

You know, that whole issue is now just completely way up in the air. The man in question had no difficulty saying the same. If you think you have any proof, feel free to bring that down to land as hard and as destructively murderous as you'd like to be.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago (1 children)

withholding law Did you mean upholding?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago

Yes, sorry, typo

[–] [email protected] 9 points 6 months ago

Yea, my bad

[–] [email protected] 35 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Sounds like they got what they needed from him

[–] [email protected] 21 points 6 months ago

Instilled fear in potential future whistleblowers.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (2 children)

What do you mean?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

They wanted to make an example of someone. His thumbing his nose at the US government was well publicised, so they made their revenge on him very public too.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago

He pleaded guilty and agreed to delete "secret documents", whatever the hell that would be, as part of the deal

[–] [email protected] 27 points 6 months ago (2 children)

party-sicko

some petty bullshit making him plead guilty to espionage but shrug-outta-hecks

[–] [email protected] 20 points 6 months ago

America, after spending an insane level of resources and decades of man power to make someone say a phrase: HA! GOT EM!

[–] [email protected] 17 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Everybody will know that this is a forced confession anyways so who cares?

[–] [email protected] 12 points 6 months ago (1 children)

It does set a potentially dangerous precedent, but with how things are going (American newspapers declining in quality and SCOTUS selectively ignoring precedent and doing whatever), you're right that it doesn't mean much.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago

That’s what’s so concerning about the case. The USA tried to persecute an Australian citizen working out of the EU for publishing information.

As he is not a US citizen he was not able to use the X amendment to free speech.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 6 months ago (2 children)

This might hurt future publishers of whistleblowers. Does this set the precedent that publishing info from whistleblowers can be prosecuted as espionage?

[–] [email protected] 19 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I don't know the details of how the US legal system works but isn't a plea bargain essentially the same as a settlement in civil cases?

If so, it should (at least in theory) have very little prejudicial value since the courts did not rule on the question if Assange's culpability.

I know that in the real world the US regime once again learned that it can get away with murder and journalists all over the world have already learned the lesson that the evil empire will fuck them up if they air their dirty laundry. But from a legal nerd point of view a settlement should be quite useles as a precedent.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 months ago

That sounds right

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago

That's the goal.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 6 months ago (3 children)

How many years would his prison sentence have been if he was extradided the year he fled to the embassy? I feel like he would have been out by now. Wasn't he leaking early Iraq war corruption stuff? That was 20 years ago.

[–] [email protected] 68 points 6 months ago

He didn't leak, he published.

That's what's so concerning about the case. The USA tried to persecute an Australian citizen working out of the EU for publishing information.

If precedent was set they could kidnap anyone from sovereign countries based on US law

[–] [email protected] 21 points 6 months ago (2 children)

He might have been epsteined though

[–] [email protected] 7 points 6 months ago

IIRC he had some kind of insurance file against that, I think there used to be some encrypted file you could download from Wikileaks and if he died the password would be released.

No idea what it was (if anything, it could have just been a bluff of course) but it seems to have had the desired effect so far.