I know it’s secondary to the thrust of your argument, but he wasn’t a low level hacker, he was one of the best. Helped invent what hacking is.
Good thing Julian is also a seer then, when he dumped unredacted info onto the world stage. He could have had the same impact without putting certain info into the public domain, clearly.
And hasn’t Mueller concluded the DNC leaks were via Russian hackers?
Look, I’ll leave it at that, clearly your opinion of him is somewhat higher than mine. Which is fine.
Look, Wikileaks doesn’t have conventional methods and this irks a lot of traditional journalists/publishers. Was he reckless? Maybe, but you see that’s the type of rhetoric which is used to shine the light away from what was actually revealed – the atrocities committed by the U.S and U.K Governments in Iraq and Afghanistan. This whole narrative of “oh is he really a journalist” or “oh, yes he revealed things, but he was completely reckless” is exactly just that, it’s to manufacture consent amongst the public against Assange and Wikileaks. This helps the real criminals escape any accountability. Isn’t it amazing that the likes of Cheney, Blair and Bush are walking around without a care in the world, yet Assange and Manning have had to rot or are rotting in prison as we speak? What kind of world do we live in where this can happen? If we lived in a just world, the aforementioned gentlemen would be rotting in prison for the rest of their lives while Assange and Manning would be universally lauded as heroes.
You don’t have to like Assange to despise what has and is happening to him. This is an assault on journalism and freedom of the press despite what blue check journalists tell you on Twitter. Further, this is also a flagrant violation of international law and human rights and is deeply troubling to every refugee out there.
As for Mueller concluding the DNC was hacked by Russians, he basically deferred to the January 2017 intelligence community report which said the Russians did it. This report is utterly devoid actual evidence and contains representations such as “moderate confidence”. If Assange says he didn’t receive the cache of documents from Russia and that they weren’t involved, I believe him.
Just wanted to end this post with a thread on some of the crimes Wikileaks as exposed in their short history
4 Likes
CA lot of legal games and US / European political/ cultural politics to be played out on this. Many players.
Western allies are generally uncomfortable with the reach of US claims of extra- teritorial
jurisdiction.
As for the US it has been careful to frame its idictictment to avoid a First Amendment defence.
Intitially, Assange considered that the UK extradition treaties gave him better rights than those of Sweden , which had previously allowed for rendition. Since then, Sweden has imposed a defence of political offence as legitimate and rendition possibilities seem to have been extinguished.
Both the UK and Sweden are signatories to the European Human Rights Convention ( wider than the EU and not an EU treaty) although the UK has signalled the possibility of withdrawing from the reach of the European Court of Justice, Hence the call from within the UK that Sweden should call for extradition and that any such request should take predence over a US request. There may also be a view that Sweden could be less swayed than the UK in economic issues.
2 Likes
He’s not a journalist, he’s a publisher.
And as far as getting the truth out there, confirmation bias is so prevalent that people are taking their own interpretations anyway. Look at the revelation of wmds found in iraq: bush supporters saw it as oroof he was justified going to war, people anti-bush said there wasn’t enough wmds to justify it. What was the point of the truth if we still can’t agree?
I’m more concerned about the fate of his cat.
3 Likes
Currently being held at Belmarsh prison, reserved for the most extreme convicts and terrorists. Bit unusual for someone “skipping bail” and on an extradition request.
1 Like
At least they haven’t shipped him to Al Ghraib… yet.
Assange’s father has now taken up his cause, urging Government to become more involved , and suggesting he could be extradited to Australia. Presumably Assange could be charged under Australian law for failing to redact the names of ASIO agents contained in the US five eyes cables.
At least Shorten has said he is prepared to meet with the Assange lawyers.
Leaving aside the issue whether he is a journalist, Wikileaks has been a significant resource for the more responsible MSM, which might explain the international support from journalists
1 Like
Not exactly true about this prison, but suits your conspiracy theory. They do store terrorists there but is a multifunctional facility.
It does have a hospital where your precious Jules can get his teeth fixed and all his other ailments seen to.
In my view anything is too good for him.
Is he still part of that weirdo cult?
Was never his choose or preference.
And I think he denies being in it, just that his mother dated a cult member and they ended up fleeing.
Reporting on Assange’s personal life and attributes are a distraction from the bigger picture, including, comparisons with the Pentagon Papers, rights under the UK and US legal systems and the reach of US extra-territorial jurisdiction.
As for Hillary, to blame her loss in the Presidential race on Wikileaks means she is in denial.
Seems that the revised UK/US extradition treaty is controversial , with some Parliamentary Committees condemning elements that they perceive to be weighted against British citizens. They may care less about Assange being Australian, but this could bounce around in the UK legal system for years.
3 Likes
Ah fairynuff.
If the mum dragged him in then he just had the greater mis fortune of also having white hair like the other kids taken along.
COMMENT: Wretched are the offence-takers: in defence of Folau and Assange
Elizabeth Farrelly
Not a prophet, priest or politician, Israel Folau is a rugby player.
Israel Folau and Julian Assange make unlikely bedfellows. On most counts they’re opposites: dark and fair, conservative and radical, explosive athlete and indoor intellectual, man of faith and politico-geek. Yet history will link them irretrievably for the one trait they share: their unswerving dedication to a principle they hold above all, higher than popularity, success or civic orthodoxy. Their dedication to truth-as-they-see-it.
The story arcs feel mildly biblical (or possibly Icarus-like). Both were high-flyers who knowingly courted trouble. Both met their nemesis within a single turn of the sun. On the day Folau was told of Rugby Australia’s intention to sack him for reposting his unacceptable theology, Assange was thrown to the wolves for publishing American secrets. Each now faces extreme punishment.
Each man’s sin was truth-telling in a form that our supposedly permissive culture finds unacceptable. Folau (re)published his belief that unrepentant sinners would go to hell. Assange published other people’s secrets – in particular those of the imperial US. Each seems likely to pay a shattering price.
But should we punish truth-tellers? Are we sure this is reasonable, fair and wise? Or is there some other dynamic here, more about us than them?
Folau is widely (indeed, unacceptable as this word now is, hysterically) accused of homophobia. But is that accurate? Homophobia defines as a “dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people” (Oxford). Hate speech adds a degree of incitement towards hatred. But Folau is not inciting anything. I’m not even sure he’s expressing hatred. Isn’t he simply stating his belief?
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange finds himself deserted by public opinion (and therefore diplomatic support), principally on character grounds.
Folau’s posts are persistent, yes, and apparently in breach of his contract (as amended with social-media strictures). Yet to me they read neither as phobic nor as incitement but as a statement of belief so profound he’ll risk his celebrity, income, sport and career without a backward glance.
The pile-on against Folau rejects all such subtlety. First, it fails to distinguish between hate and ontology. Second, it regards Folau’s beliefs as a choice. Third, it ignores the fact that these beliefs consign drunks, liars, fornicators, thieves, atheists and adulterers – probably most of us – to hell along with homosexuals.
And fourthly, it ignores its own part in winding the whole thing up. The failure to distinguish faith from politics is a major category error. Religion is no more a “choice” than is homosexuality. As Folau notes, “my identity is based around my faith in God”.
We – and especially millennials who’ve grown up seeing everything as a market exercise in elective consumption – tend to see everything as politics. Increasingly, therefore, we confuse popular response with validity, a dangerous conflation indeed. (To wit, Trump).
Popular responses are inevitably shaped by framing. The anti-Folau push is fed by the strenuous culture of victimhood that dominates social media. There, writes social psychologist Jonathan Haidt, tiny slights or “microaggressions” become “a form of social control in which the aggrieved collect and publicise accounts of intercollective offences, making the case that relatively minor slights are part of a larger pattern of injustice and that those who suffer them are socially marginalised”.
Not a journalist, perhaps, but such a qualification would not obviate the US charge against him. Julian Assange is driven from the Ecuadorian embassy in London after his arrest.
Such exaggerated collective offence-taking encourages us to compete for the status of “most bullied,” although it can only occur where actual equality levels are quite high. Thus even dominant white males like Alan Jones claim they’ve been bullied on social media and political leaders paint environmental groups as eco-terrorists in a way that would be otherwise risible.
What’s fascinating is how the search for victimhood has flipped to become a hunt, a blood sport (writes Lionel Shriver) where cyber-hounds “prowl the cultural veldt for givers of ‘offence’ … spotting [their] prey, stalking, going in for the kill”.
I’m not saying homophobia’s okay. Of course not. But Folau’s offence, if offence it is, should apply equally to all us sinners: drunks, fornicators, adulterers … His hell is gonna be one busy little place. But only the homosexual aspect got anyone excited. Why? Because until recently our culture was clearly and explicitly homophobic. But that’s more on us than on him.
Rugby Australia says that although “Israel is entitled to his religious beliefs, the way in which he has expressed these beliefs is inconsistent with the values of the sport”. Which goes to the last ingredient in this pudding of misconceptions: celebrity.
Were Folau a postman, a truckie or even an ordinary footballer, his views on hell would be dismissed as harmless lunacy. Somehow, celebrity demands special circumspection – although only if we disagree. Charlize Theron may use her celebrity to advocate animal rights. That’s fine. But Folau must shut his mouth.
Here, again, the fault is more ours than his. Folau isn’t a prophet, priest or politician. He’s a rugby player. No intellectual or moral leadership attaches unless we pin it on him. No one would give a damn about his religious views had we not built a great worshipful edifice around “sport”, making moral heroes of men who happen to be good at kicking a ball round a paddock. Now that’s offensive.
Similarly with Assange. The bail-case judge labelled him a narcissist. Peter Greste argues that the freedom-of-speech defence doesn’t apply because Assange is not a journalist and did not edit the WikiLeaks material.
Yet we now know that, despite all denials, there was indeed a sealed indictment awaiting Assange. It contains charges of conspiring with Chelsea Manning to steal classified information from the US of A with a view to publication. Nothing suggests that editing or journalism qualifications would obviate these charges.
Yet Assange finds himself deserted by public opinion (and therefore diplomatic support), principally on character grounds. Had he been more modest, more qualified, more circumspect, Australia would likely agitate for his return. So his real crime is not theft, but personality.
Both cases amount to trial by mob. This, like any witch-hunt, is driven by our collective fear of anyone answering to a higher power than public opinion. I don’t agree with either man but let’s have the debate. It’s those of us who do not have principles we hold beyond politics or commerce who should feel ashamed.
4 Likes
Yeah I stopped at “Religion is no more a “choice” than is homosexuality.”. What garbage.
8 Likes
Unfortunately I read the whole thing and it’s a steaming pile of turd. Almost every sentence is full of ■■■■.
2 Likes
I can see what she’s trying to say there and it is nuanced
ie those who are truly bitten by faith can not ‘choose’ to leave - they are consumed by it
it’s actually a very strong piece
2 Likes