A lot of people will tell you Assange's extradition is about a lot of different things: Press freedom, the US projecting power, human rights, being a political prisoner and so on. It's not. It's...
Exemplary
A lot of people will tell you Assange's extradition is about a lot of different things: Press freedom, the US projecting power, human rights, being a political prisoner and so on.
It's not. It's about a single individual having his day in court suspected of vile, damaging crimes that have hurt thousands of people in their daily lives.
Assange is not like the other US whistleblowers who disclosed to the world how the US intelligence apparatus worked. He went way, way beyond that irresponsibly.
Even though you may agree with ideals of openness in government, over-protection of governments' irresponsible and even immoral use of power, Wikileaks is not an outfit you should champion. That's clear from evidence that's been publicly available for years.
To me it's interesting to see how many have continued to support the outfit against reason because they appear to want so bad that Assange and Wikileaks were their guy even though they've clearly demonstrated they're not.
He's not your guy. This is not a case about the high ideals, this is about a hacker having his day in court after trying to avoid that for more than a decade.
Few articles will mention what Assange has done, how many years he's sat in an embassy or in prison to avoid standing trial for the legal consequences of his actions so evidence will finally be presented in court, or how Wikileaks colluded with the Russian GRU, doxxed every single Turkish female voter in 2016 and on and on.
Assange was using Wikileaks to further his own personal, anti-US aims even prior to seeking refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy.
I strongly urge people to look into the facts of the case rather than listening to whatever third parties are wanting to attach to this criminal case.
You seem to be focusing on one dump, the Turkish names released, and ignoring some of the very significant cables and videos that he released. Not the least of which is Collateral Murder, which...
You seem to be focusing on one dump, the Turkish names released, and ignoring some of the very significant cables and videos that he released. Not the least of which is Collateral Murder, which fundamentally changed the way many people viewed the US Armed Forces and their view on the war in Iraq. You cant watch American soldiers shred the bodies of journalists with massive rounds and then go on to kill the Good Samaritan who stops to help the wounded, while nearly killing his children, and not be moved to anger. I would go so far as to say it was a significant turning point that caused a massive drop of support of that war, which ultimately ended up costing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives, possibly up to 600,000 and over 4,000 American troops.
For NOTHING.
Bush, Powell, Cheney and Rumsfeld should all be serving hard time in a federal penitentiary for their war crimes. Instead the US is leaving no stone unturned in an effort to harass Assange, keep him in prison for the rest of his life and outrageously arguing that his leaks 'may have put people in danger' - Its so outlandish its lunacy.
Trillions of dollars wasted, hundreds of thousands of people killed, and a pointless war that turned much of the world against the US Endless Wars and starkly pointed out that the US administration will bold face lie and deceive (no weapons of mass destruction, chemical warfare mobile labs, nuclear weapons) its populace in order to promote a pointless war.
We wont even go deep into the mass troop suicides that have happened after Iraq as soldiers come to the realization they were used and their buddies died for zero reason - Thirty thousand veterans have died by suicide in just the Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom conflicts over 20 years. That's sickening.
Against this profound and starkly shocking release, your complaint about the release of names of Turkish female voters, while disturbing, is hardly enough reason to imprison the man and make his life hell for years. Several American politicians have called for his head on a platter and the way the US has spied on him and tried to trap him even while he was hiding out in the Ecuadorian embassy is reprehensible.
I support the man for numerous reasons. One is that Ive read a lot of the cables and releases and the information in them is shocking. We are so often fed bs from our gov's but its very eye opening to read how they actually operate behind the veil.
Also, he has the support of some brave and honorable people who have also gone to the wall for truth, not the least of which is John Pilger, Noam Chomsky, Tulsi Gabbard, Edward Snowden and Daniel Ellsberg (Pentagon Papers, Vietnam War).
In comparison those who hate him are those who hated being exposed. Hillary Clinton is at the top of that list. She was extremely embarrassed by some of the manipulation and outright gossip that he revealed from her diplomatic cables and harming her chances at the presidency.
I also support the man because major news organizations around the world can see the lasting effects that his conviction would bring and many are in support of him. Just the fact that he's been in prison this long awaiting a decision on his extradition has had a chilling effect on reporting corruption. Thus organizations like the Committee to Protect Journalists, The International Federation of Journalists, Pen International and most importantly Daniel Ellsberg's Freedom of the Press Foundation are all shouting the message that if Assange is convicted then freedom of the press is in jeopardy and corrupt governments will be able to hide their crimes in the dark without a free press. With all due respect, I trust their judgment of the situation much more than any average observer - they have a lot of skin in the game.
Assange's personality may even be objectionable in some ways, but its not his personality thats on trial. Its literally the right to publish gov secrets that are damaging to our society, to the entire world. Truth wants to be free, but it needs very brave people to push it out into the public and face the anger of those who have been exposed. He's one of the only people to do it, and the list of whistleblowers is so short that we know them by name.
The many important things Wikileaks released more than a decade ago were admirable. But the outlet stopped publishing things in responsible ways before 2011. The later publications have hurt a lot...
The many important things Wikileaks released more than a decade ago were admirable. But the outlet stopped publishing things in responsible ways before 2011.
The later publications have hurt a lot of innocent people that have done nothing wrong.
In 2016, Wikileaks clearly and unambiguously worked to get Trump elected. Prosecutors will no doubt argue in court (and provide the best evidence they've got) that this was ordered by Russia.
We'll see if Assange stands trial.
Remember the demonstrably false Anti-Clinton conspiracies Wikileaks was publishing in the 2016 election campaign on the coattails of Russian-stolen DNC content that helped get Trump elected?
In part what Assange is to stand trial for are all the unreasonable, unredacted publications he made that have hurt a lot of innocent people who have done nothing wrong.
Wikileaks stopped being a serious outlet before 2011. Why do you think Herbert Snorrason and a dozen or so of the other team members reacted so extremely negatively against the lacking redactions of the Iraqi War files and left during 2010?
What is on trial is under no circumstance a "right" to publish government secrets that are damaging.
The press has to responsibly disclose content that they deem of public interest. Wikileaks clearly has not done that.
If not, what's the difference between journalism and someone publishing hacked materials to damage a foreign entity? Would there be any practical difference between this type of "journalism" and a foreign spy agency hurting an adversarial state by these means?
We have international agreements and standards for extradition precisely so people like Assange and other get their day in court, and can be held to account. The UK's process in the area is...
We have international agreements and standards for extradition precisely so people like Assange and other get their day in court, and can be held to account.
The UK's process in the area is robust. considerations of Assange's rights are considerable.
The whole issue there is that the FBI has shown time and time again that it will ignore international agreements if that suits their needs. Think of the numerous (indirect) coups in the past and...
The whole issue there is that the FBI has shown time and time again that it will ignore international agreements if that suits their needs. Think of the numerous (indirect) coups in the past and the ongoing imprisonment of people at Guantanamo Bay. If they have attemped to murder Assange (I have seen another tildes user in this thread mention that), it is very clear that they do not plan to abide by international laws in this case.
I don't think you'd find anyone here defending a clandestine operation to murder someone in another country. Definitely not one that isn't an active, violent threat. What you're referring to...
I don't think you'd find anyone here defending a clandestine operation to murder someone in another country. Definitely not one that isn't an active, violent threat.
What you're referring to appears to be the work of Mike Pompeo. There have been many batshit plans that never manifest (e.g., drunk Nixon nuking NK) which can be hard to evaluate, except to say the people involved are not good people.
Pompeo was a Trump appointee whose company included Manafort with his activity in Ukraine on Russia's behalf, Flynn's plot to kidnap a rival of Turkey's Erdogan, the downplaying of the murder of Khashoggi, and a number of other shady, authoritarian acts.
I also don't think you'd find many people defending the horrific past of alphabet agencies (MK Ultra, violence towards civil rights leaders, Operation Condor, etc.) or people like Gina Haspel who became the head of the CIA after Pompeo.
That aside, Assange is not a journalist and he is not someone speaking truth to power. There is a good chance he is a foreign asset and committed crimes that merit extradition.
According to the Mueller Report, WikiLeaks had received an email containing an encrypted file named "wk dnc link I .txt.gpg" from the Guccifer 2.0 GRU persona on July 14, which was four days after Seth Rich died.[77][78][79] In April 2018, Twitter direct messages revealed that even as Assange was suggesting publicly that WikiLeaks had obtained emails from Seth Rich, Assange was trying to obtain more emails from Guccifer 2.0, who was at the time already suspected of being linked to Russian intelligence.
What do you call it when someone "guesses" the password to a website, and then messages that password to the son of a president who's seeking reelection? The Wikileaks website used to say that...
What do you call it when someone "guesses" the password to a website, and then messages that password to the son of a president who's seeking reelection?
The Wikileaks website used to say that Assange had hacked "thousands of systems including the Pentagon", why's that relevant if he never did hacking-related things for Wikileaks, but is just an "editor"?
The charge your linked video considers is a "Charge of conspiracy to commit computer intrusion", which to my mind is an accusation of partaking in hacking. What if the courts were to judge whether or not he was a hacker, alongside a spy (in the other charges)?
I like healthy skepticism. There are reasonable limits to skepticism.
We don't have evidence because that evidence hasn't been presented in court as Assange is doing anything and everything to avoid trial. Like he did with the sexual allegations in Sweden until the statute of limitations ran out. That means we have to judge what's available to us, and leave the appropriate amount of uncertainty.
Us normal folks don't have to go by the threshold of "beyond any doubt" or "beyond reasonable doubt" because we're not a court. We can all say that we know OJ Simpson killed her.
Why would a reasonable person conclude that Assange isn't a hacker considering his history? What evidence is there to suggest he isn't a hacker in this case?
For those who have been following, Julian Assange has now been imprisoned for 1865 days. This is from his latest support email three days ago: There are now only three days left until a UK court...
For those who have been following, Julian Assange has now been imprisoned for 1865 days.
This is from his latest support email three days ago:
There are now only three days left until a UK court will give its decision on the most consequential free press case of our generation: whether to allow the extradition of Julian Assange to the United States for truthful publishing which revealed war crimes, human rights violations and corruption.
Universally decried as an attack on the public’s right to know and journalism itself – the courts decision will determine if Mr. Assange can be transferred to the very country which planned to murder him in a plot described by lawyers for Assange in February as “truly breathtaking”.
Speaking on Wednesday to gathered journalists at a press briefing for the Foreign Press Association, Julian Assange’s wife Stella Assange, WikiLeaks Editor-in-Chief Kristinn Hrafnsson, Reporters Without Borders Rebecca Vincent and lawyer Jennifer Robinson outlined their grave concerns over the handling of the case, with Stella Assange telling reporters that Julian could be just one decision away from extradition. https://twitter.com/FreeAssangeNews/status/1790717874379616767
Lawyer Jennifer Robinson speaking via video link from Assange’s home country of Australia said that journalists everywhere should be deeply worried as the US was trying to set a precedent exercising jurisdiction over any journalist or editor anywhere in the world – yet would not afford them the same basic rights as US citizens if extradited. Stella Assange last month labeled US ‘non-assurances’ that Julian could “seek to raise” First Amendment protection once extradited as “weasel-words”; Amnesty International have previously said that US ‘assurances’ were “not worth the paper they are written on”. https://twitter.com/FreeAssangeNews/status/1790720214016929853
WikiLeaks’ Kristinn Hrafnsson said that it was abundantly clear that Julian Assange is a political prisoner, going on to say that it would be a “judicial scandal” if on Monday the court chose to accept US ‘non-assurances’. https://twitter.com/FreeAssangeNews/status/1790720049545691187
Reporters Without Borders’ Rebecca Vincent called on the Biden administration to immediately halt proceedings against the WikiLeaks publisher and to “act in the interest of press freedom and journalism, rather than enabling this very dangerous prosecution that will tarnish the reputation forever of the country of the First Amendment"
Stella Assange said that she expected a decision to be given on Monday – although nothing in the case was certain. Describing her need to stay positive, yet realistic, Mrs. Assange said that Julian could either be very close to being freed – or could be imminently on a plane to “never see freedom ever again.”
Should the UK court allow extradition the only bar to his immediate extradition would be the European Court of Human Rights – although it is by no means certain that the court would intervene.
On Tuesday Mr. Assange was visited by Council of Europe rapporteur Sunna Ævarsdóttir who expressed deep concern over his well-being and warned that his harsh treatment would deter others who “wish to report truthful information pertaining to armed conflicts”.
At this most crucial of times, with Julian's life hanging in the balance we urgently call for citizens to join us at the Royal Courts of Justice, London, WC2A 2LL from 8.30am on Monday May 20th to leave the world in no doubt of the strength of feeling,and our implacable determination to see Julian Assange freed and re-united with his young family.
Amnesty: “It is unacceptable that years of Mr. Assange’s life have been stolen"
Be on the right side of history – demand the immediate release of Julian Assange and protect your right to know.
The grave concern from his supporters is if Assange is extradited that he will not only face a life in prison but there is great fear he may "Jeffrey Epstein" in prison. Given the abject hatred that some powerful politicians have expressed toward him, this doesn't seem unfounded.
We need to stop using "Epstein" as a euphemism for suicide or "assassination to look like suicide" because I literally had to have a conversation with a student about it this past year because he...
We need to stop using "Epstein" as a euphemism for suicide or "assassination to look like suicide" because I literally had to have a conversation with a student about it this past year because he made a "joke" that sounded more like being suicidal himself, and it's not the thing we should remember that guy for either way.
Assange, idfk, he's one of those people whose personality does not assist in advocating for their innocence. I am not sure he didn't cross the line to doing more than reporting on the classified material. I also think that the US government is probably too obsessed with him at this point to be making a rational decision on that.
The reason Epstein is particularly appropriate in this case is because there is very real concern that he won't suicide, but that those he has exposed will find a way to kill him in prison and...
The reason Epstein is particularly appropriate in this case is because there is very real concern that he won't suicide, but that those he has exposed will find a way to kill him in prison and make it look like a suicide. Thats different than committing suicide and why the Epstein moniker was used.
I'm aware, I still think it's not really helpful as his death has been ruled a suicide. (And suicide itself can occur under pressure from someone that wants you dead, etc. ) Using his name as a...
I'm aware, I still think it's not really helpful as his death has been ruled a suicide. (And suicide itself can occur under pressure from someone that wants you dead, etc. )
Using his name as a verb is still a problem IMO and it paints him as a victim in this light. Assange being "Epsteined" similarly paints him as a victim. I'd rather focus on the crimes the man committed and there are other ways to express a concern for Assange's safety.
It kinda does though. None of the other wikileaks staff got murdered, did they? Kristinn Hrafnsson is still wandering around doing stuff. Wang Dan pissed off the Chinese and lived to tell the...
Given the abject hatred that some powerful politicians have expressed toward him, this doesn't seem unfounded.
It kinda does though. None of the other wikileaks staff got murdered, did they? Kristinn Hrafnsson is still wandering around doing stuff. Wang Dan pissed off the Chinese and lived to tell the tale. Etc etc.
John Young from cryptome has leaked far more stuff than Assange could ever dream of doing and he literally walks around New York on a daily basis and nobody has killed him.
I am pretty sure that if any state, least of all one so violently paranoid as the US, really wanted Assange dead, he would have met with an accident long ago. Assange is a useful point of distraction, not a dangerous revolutionary.
They wont bother killing him on foreign soil or if they can keep him permanently embroiled in court cases but they've already plotted. Skip the first part of this article but start reading at "A...
They wont bother killing him on foreign soil or if they can keep him permanently embroiled in court cases but they've already plotted. Skip the first part of this article but start reading at "A Yahoo! News investigation last year revealed newly installed CIA Director Mike Pompeo’s swift and furious reaction: He instructed the agency to make plans to kidnap and murder WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange..."
The fact that he has the support of some high profile people and his wife and legal team keep his profile high means the US isn't going to do anything to draw undue attention. But the fact they want to kill him has already been exposed.
A lot of people will tell you Assange's extradition is about a lot of different things: Press freedom, the US projecting power, human rights, being a political prisoner and so on.
It's not. It's about a single individual having his day in court suspected of vile, damaging crimes that have hurt thousands of people in their daily lives.
Assange is not like the other US whistleblowers who disclosed to the world how the US intelligence apparatus worked. He went way, way beyond that irresponsibly.
Even though you may agree with ideals of openness in government, over-protection of governments' irresponsible and even immoral use of power, Wikileaks is not an outfit you should champion. That's clear from evidence that's been publicly available for years.
To me it's interesting to see how many have continued to support the outfit against reason because they appear to want so bad that Assange and Wikileaks were their guy even though they've clearly demonstrated they're not.
He's not your guy. This is not a case about the high ideals, this is about a hacker having his day in court after trying to avoid that for more than a decade.
Few articles will mention what Assange has done, how many years he's sat in an embassy or in prison to avoid standing trial for the legal consequences of his actions so evidence will finally be presented in court, or how Wikileaks colluded with the Russian GRU, doxxed every single Turkish female voter in 2016 and on and on.
Assange was using Wikileaks to further his own personal, anti-US aims even prior to seeking refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy.
I strongly urge people to look into the facts of the case rather than listening to whatever third parties are wanting to attach to this criminal case.
Here's a 2019 comment I made on the situation back then: https://tildes.net/~news/c8v/julian_assange_arrested_at_ecuadorian_embassy_in_london
Here's another from 2021: https://tildes.net/~news/xph/a_remarkable_silence_media_blackout_after_key_witness_against_assange_admits_lying
You seem to be focusing on one dump, the Turkish names released, and ignoring some of the very significant cables and videos that he released. Not the least of which is Collateral Murder, which fundamentally changed the way many people viewed the US Armed Forces and their view on the war in Iraq. You cant watch American soldiers shred the bodies of journalists with massive rounds and then go on to kill the Good Samaritan who stops to help the wounded, while nearly killing his children, and not be moved to anger. I would go so far as to say it was a significant turning point that caused a massive drop of support of that war, which ultimately ended up costing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives, possibly up to 600,000 and over 4,000 American troops.
For NOTHING.
Bush, Powell, Cheney and Rumsfeld should all be serving hard time in a federal penitentiary for their war crimes. Instead the US is leaving no stone unturned in an effort to harass Assange, keep him in prison for the rest of his life and outrageously arguing that his leaks 'may have put people in danger' - Its so outlandish its lunacy.
Trillions of dollars wasted, hundreds of thousands of people killed, and a pointless war that turned much of the world against the US Endless Wars and starkly pointed out that the US administration will bold face lie and deceive (no weapons of mass destruction, chemical warfare mobile labs, nuclear weapons) its populace in order to promote a pointless war.
We wont even go deep into the mass troop suicides that have happened after Iraq as soldiers come to the realization they were used and their buddies died for zero reason - Thirty thousand veterans have died by suicide in just the Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom conflicts over 20 years. That's sickening.
Against this profound and starkly shocking release, your complaint about the release of names of Turkish female voters, while disturbing, is hardly enough reason to imprison the man and make his life hell for years. Several American politicians have called for his head on a platter and the way the US has spied on him and tried to trap him even while he was hiding out in the Ecuadorian embassy is reprehensible.
I support the man for numerous reasons. One is that Ive read a lot of the cables and releases and the information in them is shocking. We are so often fed bs from our gov's but its very eye opening to read how they actually operate behind the veil.
Also, he has the support of some brave and honorable people who have also gone to the wall for truth, not the least of which is John Pilger, Noam Chomsky, Tulsi Gabbard, Edward Snowden and Daniel Ellsberg (Pentagon Papers, Vietnam War).
In comparison those who hate him are those who hated being exposed. Hillary Clinton is at the top of that list. She was extremely embarrassed by some of the manipulation and outright gossip that he revealed from her diplomatic cables and harming her chances at the presidency.
I also support the man because major news organizations around the world can see the lasting effects that his conviction would bring and many are in support of him. Just the fact that he's been in prison this long awaiting a decision on his extradition has had a chilling effect on reporting corruption. Thus organizations like the Committee to Protect Journalists, The International Federation of Journalists, Pen International and most importantly Daniel Ellsberg's Freedom of the Press Foundation are all shouting the message that if Assange is convicted then freedom of the press is in jeopardy and corrupt governments will be able to hide their crimes in the dark without a free press. With all due respect, I trust their judgment of the situation much more than any average observer - they have a lot of skin in the game.
Assange's personality may even be objectionable in some ways, but its not his personality thats on trial. Its literally the right to publish gov secrets that are damaging to our society, to the entire world. Truth wants to be free, but it needs very brave people to push it out into the public and face the anger of those who have been exposed. He's one of the only people to do it, and the list of whistleblowers is so short that we know them by name.
The many important things Wikileaks released more than a decade ago were admirable. But the outlet stopped publishing things in responsible ways before 2011.
The later publications have hurt a lot of innocent people that have done nothing wrong.
In 2016, Wikileaks clearly and unambiguously worked to get Trump elected. Prosecutors will no doubt argue in court (and provide the best evidence they've got) that this was ordered by Russia.
We'll see if Assange stands trial.
Remember the demonstrably false Anti-Clinton conspiracies Wikileaks was publishing in the 2016 election campaign on the coattails of Russian-stolen DNC content that helped get Trump elected?
You know, when they "prioritized" those publications and said no to Russian government leaks?
In part what Assange is to stand trial for are all the unreasonable, unredacted publications he made that have hurt a lot of innocent people who have done nothing wrong.
Wikileaks stopped being a serious outlet before 2011. Why do you think Herbert Snorrason and a dozen or so of the other team members reacted so extremely negatively against the lacking redactions of the Iraqi War files and left during 2010?
What is on trial is under no circumstance a "right" to publish government secrets that are damaging.
The press has to responsibly disclose content that they deem of public interest. Wikileaks clearly has not done that.
If not, what's the difference between journalism and someone publishing hacked materials to damage a foreign entity? Would there be any practical difference between this type of "journalism" and a foreign spy agency hurting an adversarial state by these means?
Even if that is true, the US colluding to kill an australian citizen is projection of power.
We have international agreements and standards for extradition precisely so people like Assange and other get their day in court, and can be held to account.
The UK's process in the area is robust. considerations of Assange's rights are considerable.
The whole issue there is that the FBI has shown time and time again that it will ignore international agreements if that suits their needs. Think of the numerous (indirect) coups in the past and the ongoing imprisonment of people at Guantanamo Bay. If they have attemped to murder Assange (I have seen another tildes user in this thread mention that), it is very clear that they do not plan to abide by international laws in this case.
The FBI is domestic, the CIA is international.
I don't think you'd find anyone here defending a clandestine operation to murder someone in another country. Definitely not one that isn't an active, violent threat.
What you're referring to appears to be the work of Mike Pompeo. There have been many batshit plans that never manifest (e.g., drunk Nixon nuking NK) which can be hard to evaluate, except to say the people involved are not good people.
Pompeo was a Trump appointee whose company included Manafort with his activity in Ukraine on Russia's behalf, Flynn's plot to kidnap a rival of Turkey's Erdogan, the downplaying of the murder of Khashoggi, and a number of other shady, authoritarian acts.
I also don't think you'd find many people defending the horrific past of alphabet agencies (MK Ultra, violence towards civil rights leaders, Operation Condor, etc.) or people like Gina Haspel who became the head of the CIA after Pompeo.
That aside, Assange is not a journalist and he is not someone speaking truth to power. There is a good chance he is a foreign asset and committed crimes that merit extradition.
Intent and character doesn't get more clear than him promoting the Seth Rich conspiracy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Seth_Rich) while being in contact with Guccifer 2.0 after his death:
What do you call it when someone "guesses" the password to a website, and then messages that password to the son of a president who's seeking reelection?
The Wikileaks website used to say that Assange had hacked "thousands of systems including the Pentagon", why's that relevant if he never did hacking-related things for Wikileaks, but is just an "editor"?
How about if said person proclaims to be the "third best hacker in the world"?
What about if they've pled guilty to over 20 counts of hacking to avoid serving jail time for those hacking events?
The charge your linked video considers is a "Charge of conspiracy to commit computer intrusion", which to my mind is an accusation of partaking in hacking. What if the courts were to judge whether or not he was a hacker, alongside a spy (in the other charges)?
I like healthy skepticism. There are reasonable limits to skepticism.
We don't have evidence because that evidence hasn't been presented in court as Assange is doing anything and everything to avoid trial. Like he did with the sexual allegations in Sweden until the statute of limitations ran out. That means we have to judge what's available to us, and leave the appropriate amount of uncertainty.
Us normal folks don't have to go by the threshold of "beyond any doubt" or "beyond reasonable doubt" because we're not a court. We can all say that we know OJ Simpson killed her.
Why would a reasonable person conclude that Assange isn't a hacker considering his history? What evidence is there to suggest he isn't a hacker in this case?
Hacker seems to be an appropriate word here.
For those who have been following, Julian Assange has now been imprisoned for 1865 days.
This is from his latest support email three days ago:
There are now only three days left until a UK court will give its decision on the most consequential free press case of our generation: whether to allow the extradition of Julian Assange to the United States for truthful publishing which revealed war crimes, human rights violations and corruption.
Universally decried as an attack on the public’s right to know and journalism itself – the courts decision will determine if Mr. Assange can be transferred to the very country which planned to murder him in a plot described by lawyers for Assange in February as “truly breathtaking”.
Speaking on Wednesday to gathered journalists at a press briefing for the Foreign Press Association, Julian Assange’s wife Stella Assange, WikiLeaks Editor-in-Chief Kristinn Hrafnsson, Reporters Without Borders Rebecca Vincent and lawyer Jennifer Robinson outlined their grave concerns over the handling of the case, with Stella Assange telling reporters that Julian could be just one decision away from extradition.
https://twitter.com/FreeAssangeNews/status/1790717874379616767
Lawyer Jennifer Robinson speaking via video link from Assange’s home country of Australia said that journalists everywhere should be deeply worried as the US was trying to set a precedent exercising jurisdiction over any journalist or editor anywhere in the world – yet would not afford them the same basic rights as US citizens if extradited. Stella Assange last month labeled US ‘non-assurances’ that Julian could “seek to raise” First Amendment protection once extradited as “weasel-words”; Amnesty International have previously said that US ‘assurances’ were “not worth the paper they are written on”.
https://twitter.com/FreeAssangeNews/status/1790720214016929853
WikiLeaks’ Kristinn Hrafnsson said that it was abundantly clear that Julian Assange is a political prisoner, going on to say that it would be a “judicial scandal” if on Monday the court chose to accept US ‘non-assurances’.
https://twitter.com/FreeAssangeNews/status/1790720049545691187
Reporters Without Borders’ Rebecca Vincent called on the Biden administration to immediately halt proceedings against the WikiLeaks publisher and to “act in the interest of press freedom and journalism, rather than enabling this very dangerous prosecution that will tarnish the reputation forever of the country of the First Amendment"
https://twitter.com/FreeAssangeNews/status/1790725944799293633
https://twitter.com/FreeAssangeNews/status/1790720214016929853.
Stella Assange said that she expected a decision to be given on Monday – although nothing in the case was certain. Describing her need to stay positive, yet realistic, Mrs. Assange said that Julian could either be very close to being freed – or could be imminently on a plane to “never see freedom ever again.”
https://twitter.com/FreeAssangeNews/status/1791095601397940281
Should the UK court allow extradition the only bar to his immediate extradition would be the European Court of Human Rights – although it is by no means certain that the court would intervene.
On Tuesday Mr. Assange was visited by Council of Europe rapporteur Sunna Ævarsdóttir who expressed deep concern over his well-being and warned that his harsh treatment would deter others who “wish to report truthful information pertaining to armed conflicts”.
At this most crucial of times, with Julian's life hanging in the balance we urgently call for citizens to join us at the Royal Courts of Justice, London, WC2A 2LL from 8.30am on Monday May 20th to leave the world in no doubt of the strength of feeling,and our implacable determination to see Julian Assange freed and re-united with his young family.
Amnesty: “It is unacceptable that years of Mr. Assange’s life have been stolen"
Be on the right side of history – demand the immediate release of Julian Assange and protect your right to know.
More details here: https://freeassange.org/donate/
The grave concern from his supporters is if Assange is extradited that he will not only face a life in prison but there is great fear he may "Jeffrey Epstein" in prison. Given the abject hatred that some powerful politicians have expressed toward him, this doesn't seem unfounded.
We need to stop using "Epstein" as a euphemism for suicide or "assassination to look like suicide" because I literally had to have a conversation with a student about it this past year because he made a "joke" that sounded more like being suicidal himself, and it's not the thing we should remember that guy for either way.
Assange, idfk, he's one of those people whose personality does not assist in advocating for their innocence. I am not sure he didn't cross the line to doing more than reporting on the classified material. I also think that the US government is probably too obsessed with him at this point to be making a rational decision on that.
The reason Epstein is particularly appropriate in this case is because there is very real concern that he won't suicide, but that those he has exposed will find a way to kill him in prison and make it look like a suicide. Thats different than committing suicide and why the Epstein moniker was used.
I'm aware, I still think it's not really helpful as his death has been ruled a suicide. (And suicide itself can occur under pressure from someone that wants you dead, etc. )
Using his name as a verb is still a problem IMO and it paints him as a victim in this light. Assange being "Epsteined" similarly paints him as a victim. I'd rather focus on the crimes the man committed and there are other ways to express a concern for Assange's safety.
It kinda does though. None of the other wikileaks staff got murdered, did they? Kristinn Hrafnsson is still wandering around doing stuff. Wang Dan pissed off the Chinese and lived to tell the tale. Etc etc.
John Young from cryptome has leaked far more stuff than Assange could ever dream of doing and he literally walks around New York on a daily basis and nobody has killed him.
I am pretty sure that if any state, least of all one so violently paranoid as the US, really wanted Assange dead, he would have met with an accident long ago. Assange is a useful point of distraction, not a dangerous revolutionary.
They wont bother killing him on foreign soil or if they can keep him permanently embroiled in court cases but they've already plotted. Skip the first part of this article but start reading at "A Yahoo! News investigation last year revealed newly installed CIA Director Mike Pompeo’s swift and furious reaction: He instructed the agency to make plans to kidnap and murder WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange..."
https://www.thenation.com/article/society/us-government-murder-julian-assange/
The fact that he has the support of some high profile people and his wife and legal team keep his profile high means the US isn't going to do anything to draw undue attention. But the fact they want to kill him has already been exposed.