Stella Assange speaking to the Luxembourg Parliament on the persecution of Julian Assange

  • TWeaK
    link
    fedilink
    English
    91 year ago

    Huh? You think Julian Assange is Putin’s buddy?

    • @MataVatnik
      link
      281 year ago

      His editorial policy on the release of leaked information was, for lack of a better term, biased.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        91 year ago

        Editorial policy is a blatant excuse. Have you scrutinized Fox News, CNN, DW and RT editorial policies? Want them tortured to death too? Nah, that’s just the USA state giving us a lesson to keep our heads down, nothing more, nothing less.

        • @Eldritch
          link
          01 year ago

          We want them all held responsible. That some aren’t isn’t a reason none should be. We have to start somewhere. We shouldn’t stop there.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            4
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Use the right words, to “held him responsible” means to potentially murder him in the name of democracy. Add to this that the USA state is not going after all these people, nevertheless, they are crossing borders for Assange. They want to show him to the world as an example. Their efforts resemble those they took to get to Osama.

            • @Eldritch
              link
              -11 year ago

              First. No realistically it doesn’t. Second, they should. I never said they shouldn’t. Specifically I said they should hold them all responsible. So I don’t know what you’re getting at. You’re not even addressing what I said.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          -21 year ago

          Are those organizations accused of directly being involved on an individual level in hacks against the USA? Because the allegations against Assange are that he directly was involved in the hack.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              01 year ago

              "The superseding indictment alleges that Assange was complicit with Chelsea Manning, a former intelligence analyst in the U.S. Army, in unlawfully obtaining and disclosing classified documents related to the national defense. Specifically, the superseding indictment alleges that Assange conspired with Manning; obtained from Manning and aided and abetted her in obtaining classified information with reason to believe that the information was to be used to the injury of the United States or the advantage of a foreign nation; received and attempted to receive classified information having reason to believe that such materials would be obtained, taken, made, and disposed of by a person contrary to law; and aided and abetted Manning in communicating classified documents to Assange. "

              https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-charged-18-count-superseding-indictment

              Sounds like this is exactly what he is charged with.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            31 year ago

            You are missing the point. I’m not using the editorial bias as an excuse to put the man in a death row.

      • @fishos
        link
        31 year ago

        And who exactly do you expect to talk about the crimes the US commits? Their allies? Just because the information comes from a biased source doesn’t change the fact that all of the information is accurate. Doesn’t change the extrajudicial killings, illegal detentions, torture…

        Like, I’ll give you that he is biased. So what? Are you proud of the things he revealed the US is doing? We commit crimes and then hide behind “national security” when the only “security” being threatened is that of those on top commiting these henious acts and hoping to get away with it.

        The source doesn’t change the facts that were presented.

          • @[email protected]OP
            link
            fedilink
            -21 year ago

            yea those large troves of archives sure do look cherry picked… (not) In any case, even if you’re right, editorial bias is not a crime. Every major (and minor) news outlet has editorial bias.

              • @[email protected]OP
                link
                fedilink
                -21 year ago

                So an organisation (WikiLeaks) that collects primary documents from anonymous inside sources whose identity it protects, verifies the authenticity of the documents, analyses them, collaborates with major news outlets around the world in publishing them for maximum journalistic impact, is what, “not a news outlet”, just a “site”? Please.

                The fact is, if not for WikiLeaks, Chelsea Manning would likely not have released those documents because every news outlet she contacted first had no secure communication and didn’t take her calls seriously. It was the secure dropbox WikiLeak pioneered that revolutionised journalism. Many of the legacy media have since adopted similar tech.

                Julian has won numerous journalism awards. His publications helped end the Iraq war and enabled torture victims to get justice.

                “The aim is justice, the method is transparancy.” - Julian Assange

                  • @[email protected]OP
                    link
                    fedilink
                    -41 year ago

                    Please read up on the Iraqi gov decision making pre-US withdrawal and get back to me after.

                    They decided US troops could no longer be immune to prosecution due to what they learnt from certain docs released by WL, describing possible murders. This then spurred the US withdrawal.

          • TWeaK
            link
            fedilink
            English
            11 year ago

            TL;DL? At least, a little bit more detail, ie what they did and what they claimed the policy was.

            • @MataVatnik
              link
              8
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Essentially their policy of leaking everything and anything tended to mostly apply to the US and allies of the US. This would then expose collaborators in places like Belarus and place their lives in danger. Wikileaks would say this was in the name of transparency. However in cases where they were dealing with information being leaked from Russia they would be more careful to editorialize the leaks and protect identities.

              Then, aside from that, Assange partook in activities that completely deviated from journalistic protocol and entered the territory of espionage. In particular dealing with the case of chealsea manning, in her communications with Assange, Assange actively aided Chelsea in ways to access restricted information in a way that broke the law. Russian asset or not, that’s a big nono.

              • TWeaK
                link
                fedilink
                English
                21 year ago

                Manning’s account should reasonably be called into question, not least because she refused to testify against Assange in 2019 (and was subsequently jailed for 10 months and fined a quarter million).

                WikiLeaks’ audience has always been primarily English-speaking, as such their focus is going to be on news related to English-speaking countries. While you’re drawing a difference between two different countries, that could just as easily be explained by a difference in time - people criticised them for their releases in Belarus as being careless and putting lives at risk, so with their later releases around Russia they were more careful.

                I just feel like you never would have this impression if you’d just read WikiLeaks’ publications, press releases and social media posts, as well as any other sources on the topics they cover, rather than reading articles about WikiLeaks itself. You would only think WikiLeaks is pro-Russia if you follow a pre-constructed narrative and frame the evidence in a particular way. It’s very murky overall, but I don’t think that viewpoint lines up objectively.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                -1
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Lol that’s BS, they literally started by leaking mostly secrets of post Soviet states, but nobody gave a shit and editors of news paper there were instructed by their higher ups in Washington not to publish it.

                Source: Mediastan (2013)

                And yes he probably did have a bias against Hillary, I wonder if that could be because SHE WAS ACTIVELY INVOLVED IN HIS PERSECUTION.

      • TWeaK
        link
        fedilink
        English
        01 year ago

        Just like you know billionaires’ wealth will trickle down to you eventually? Both ideas came from the same source.

      • @[email protected]OP
        link
        fedilink
        -11 year ago

        Did Vladimir come visit his buddy Julian in the embassy then? Hang on I’ve gotta look up those visitor logs UC Global kept.

        • chaogomu
          link
          fedilink
          91 year ago

          Is everyone forgetting how Assange had a TV show on RT, the Russian state propaganda network?

          And how every single leak about Russia was either heavily redacted, or just not released, when leaks about the US or US allies were not? Even when some of those US ally leaks put people in danger?

          Wikileaks showed clear favoritism to Russia, because Russia was footing the bills.

              • @[email protected]OP
                link
                fedilink
                -2
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Yes, his independent show was licensed to air on RT, what’s your point. It was also hosted by Youtube, a US military contractor.

                • chaogomu
                  link
                  fedilink
                  21 year ago

                  RT is literally state controlled media.

                  RT has regularly been described as a major propaganda outlet for the Russian government and its foreign policy.[2] Academics, fact-checkers, and news reporters (including some current and former RT reporters) have identified RT as a purveyor of disinformation[58] and conspiracy theories.[65] UK media regulator Ofcom has repeatedly found RT to have breached its rules on impartiality, including multiple instances in which RT broadcast “materially misleading” content.[72]

                  In 2012, RT’s editor-in-chief Margarita Simonyan compared the channel to the Russian Ministry of Defence.[73] Referring to the Russo-Georgian War, she stated that it was “waging an information war, and with the entire Western world”.[17][74]

                  As to the show being “independent”… It was made by Assange, specifically to air on RT. Assange was paid for the show, because that’s how licensing content works.

                • @NOT_RICK
                  link
                  English
                  21 year ago

                  YouTube being a military contractor is certainly a take

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      41 year ago

      Right after they moved servers to Russia he started echoing Kremlin talking points. He’s likely an asset at this point.