SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Prominent whistleblowers and journalists defend Julian Assange at online vigil
Over the weekend, dozens of public figures, including prominent whistleblowers and journalists, took part in a 36-hour international online vigil in defence of WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange. The event was the third "Unity4J" vigil organised by independent journalist and New Zealand Internet Party leader, Suzie Dawson, since Assange's communications were cut-off by Ecuadorian authorities at their London embassy last March.
[...] Daniel Ellsberg, whose release of the Pentagon Papers in 1971 exposed the extent of US criminality in Vietnam, drew a parallel between his own activities and those of WikiLeaks. Referring to WikiLeaks' 2010 publication of US war logs in Iraq and Afghanistan, he stated: "I really waited almost 40 years, after the Pentagon Papers had come out, for someone to do what I had done."
Ellsberg pointed to similarities between the attacks that had been levelled against him, and the persecution of Assange. "I was charged with 12 felony counts, a possible 150 years in prison. Nixon had in mind for me what Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have had in mind for Julian Assange," he said.
takyon: #Unity4J. See also: Why I Stand With Julian Assange at The American Conservative.
Related: FBI Whistleblower on Pierre Omidyar and His Campaign to Neuter Wikileaks
Julian Assange has His Internet Access Cut Off by Ecuador
Ecuador Spent $5 Million Protecting and Spying on Julian Assange
(Score: 3, Touché) by DeathMonkey on Saturday July 14 2018, @01:30AM (13 children)
How strange... Before he illegally interfered with a US election we were fin with him. And then after he illegally interfered with a US election suddenly we didn't like him so much. It's so confusing!
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday July 14 2018, @02:16AM (6 children)
How did Assange "illegally interfered" with a US election? Assange falls under the heading of "journalist". He may or may not have edited his source stories, but every editor in US history has done so. So - reporting is illegal now? Or, reporting is only illegal when you don't like the source of the story? Or, reporting is illegal because you dislike the slant of the editorializing?
It's really not all that confusing. A powerful woman with a lot of skeletons in her closet took a terrible dislike to a reporter/editor. Politics as usual.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by DeathMonkey on Saturday July 14 2018, @03:17AM (5 children)
How did Assange "illegally interfered" with a US election? Assange falls under the heading of "journalist".
"Organization 1" is probably going to come out of this whole thing with some charges. [justice.gov]
That's just a prediction at this point, though....
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Saturday July 14 2018, @07:11AM (1 child)
I don't see Assange's name on that document.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 15 2018, @05:04AM
You are right. There aren't any names beyond the 12 GRU officers.
But you know what there is in that document? A Julian Assange shaped hole called "Organization 1"
The sad thing is that because he's a sociopath with narcissistic personality disorder, Assange has taken down wikileaks's good name. All the good will and reputation the organization had earned for all the good work they did, he flushed that down the toilet in his vendetta against clinton. He burned all of his principles on the altar of revenge and in so doing he handed the establishment everything they needed to discredit wikileaks.
If you really card about wikileaks's stated goals, you would be livid with rage that Assange threw it all away for his own petty grievances. The thing about being a martyr is you actually have to go down fighting for a real cause. In the end, Assange is just dragging everybody else down with him. He's no martyr, he's just another corrupt user, absolutely no different from the people he claims to be fighting.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday July 14 2018, @02:42PM (2 children)
That's rather boring, actually. But, like Diemtee, I fail to find "assange" in a search of that document. So, not only boring, but irrelevant. Likewise, a search for "wikileaks" gives me nothing.
Now, I know you're pretty smart. Maybe you just copy/pasted the wrong link into your reply. Take this opportunity to respond with something meaningful.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Saturday July 14 2018, @06:48PM (1 child)
What is Organization 1 if not WikiLeaks, I thought to myself? Then I remembered that DCLeaks site. Looked up the Wikipedia for it, and what do we have?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DCLeaks [wikipedia.org]
So yeah, looks like DeathMonkey might have forgotten that other site. Although both DCLeaks and WikiLeaks ultimately published the material, so...
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 15 2018, @05:09AM
The problem with your analysis is that DCLeaks had not previously posted documents from anyone. As you quoted, it was created in June 2016. The indictment starts by saying "Beginning in or around June 2016, the Conspirators staged and released tens of thousands of the stolen emails and documents." Since there was no "DCLeaks" before June 2016, that description does not match.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 14 2018, @02:59AM (4 children)
FBI director Comey interfered in the election the week before, in full public, but please continue pounding on Assange and praying to the altar of Comey, just because Trump finally fired him because it was apparent he was a loose cannon.
(Score: 2) by Aegis on Saturday July 14 2018, @04:37AM (3 children)
Yes.... the anti-Trump bias at the FBI was to release damaging information about the Clinton campaign...
Clearly it's a deep state conspiracy to make white rice brown.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 14 2018, @04:39PM (1 child)
You have to read that OIG report: https://www.justice.gov/file/1071991/download [justice.gov]
To me it looks like he thought he was being set up to be a fall guy, that "tarmac meeting" was the last straw.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 14 2018, @07:53PM
A fall guy under Obama, or Trump, or both?
And look what we have now: A corrosive public discussion, and huge damage to the Justice Department and the sense of justice in the country.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 15 2018, @05:15AM
It sure is weird that congress has suddenly got oversight fever. But for some reason the only thing they want oversight on is one specific ongoing case. I mean, all that brouhaha about wiretapping and NSA spying, and yet the very same people raising a ruckus also just signed off on extending the NSA's wiretapping abilities. And I don't mean same people as in generic congress members, I mean, the exact same people on the exact same house intelligence committee. [eff.org]
So strange!! I am so perplexed. NOT.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 14 2018, @05:34AM
If releasing the truth is 'illegally interfering' with the US election - whether that information was gotten from a hack or not - then those laws need to be struck down immediately. I don't care whether it's illegal, and I wish the same would happen to the RNC.
Note that the 'It's illegal!' argument was used just as often against Snowden.