Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by takyon on Friday July 13 2018, @11:00PM   Printer-friendly
from the not-dead-yet dept.

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


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Touché) by DeathMonkey on Saturday July 14 2018, @01:30AM (13 children)

    by DeathMonkey (1380) on Saturday July 14 2018, @01:30AM (#706876) Journal

    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!

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Touché=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Touché' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday July 14 2018, @02:16AM (6 children)

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Saturday July 14 2018, @02:16AM (#706884) Homepage Journal

    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.

    --
    There is a supply side shortage of pronouns. You will take whatever you are offered.
    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by DeathMonkey on Saturday July 14 2018, @03:17AM (5 children)

      by DeathMonkey (1380) on Saturday July 14 2018, @03:17AM (#706899) Journal

      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)

        by deimtee (3272) on Saturday July 14 2018, @07:11AM (#706973) Journal

        I don't see Assange's name on that document.

        --
        No problem is insoluble, but at Ksp = 2.943×10−25 Mercury Sulphide comes close.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 15 2018, @05:04AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 15 2018, @05:04AM (#707475)

          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)

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Saturday July 14 2018, @02:42PM (#707119) Homepage Journal

        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.

        --
        There is a supply side shortage of pronouns. You will take whatever you are offered.
        • (Score: 2) by takyon on Saturday July 14 2018, @06:48PM (1 child)

          by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Saturday July 14 2018, @06:48PM (#707264) Journal

          The Conspirators also used the Guccifer 2.0 persona to release additional stolen documents through a website maintained by an organization (“Organization 1”), that had previously posted documents stolen from U.S. persons, entities, and the U.S. government.

          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]

          DCLeaks (also known as DC Leaks) is a website that was established in June 2016. Since its creation, it has been responsible for publishing leaks of emails belonging to multiple prominent figures in the United States government and military. Cybersecurity research firms say the site is a front for the Russian cyber-espionage group Fancy Bear. On July 13th, 2018, an indictment was made against 12 Russian GRU military officers; it alleges that DC Leaks is part of a Russian military operation.

          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

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 15 2018, @05:09AM (#707478)

            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)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 14 2018, @02:59AM (#706893)

    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)

      by Aegis (6714) on Saturday July 14 2018, @04:37AM (#706938)

      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)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 14 2018, @04:39PM (#707182)

        You have to read that OIG report: https://www.justice.gov/file/1071991/download [justice.gov]

        As described above, Comey began drafting a public statement announcing the conclusion of the Midyear investigation in early May 2016, well before the tarmac meeting, and told the OIG that he planned not to inform the Department. Comey told us that he had struggled with the decision, and that “in a way the tarmac thing made it easy for me” and “tipped the scales” towards making his mind up to go forward with an independent announcement. He stated, “I think I was nearly there. That I have to do this separate and apart.... And so I would say I was 90 percent there, like highly likely going to do it anyway, and [the tarmac meeting] capped it.”
        [...]

        "What I said to myself at the time, we talked about it as a leadership team a lot and all believed that this was the right course, try to imagine what will happen to the FBI if we do the normal thing. Then what will happen to us is the Department of Justice will screw around it for Lord knows how long, issue probably a one sentence declination, and then the world will catch on fire, and then the cry in the public will be where on the earth is the FBI, how could the FBI be part of some corrupt political bargain like this, there’s no transparency whatsoever, where is the FBI, where is the FBI. Then, after a period of many weeks where a corrosive doubt about us leaks into the public’s square, then I’d have to testify in exactly the way I did before. Our view of it would be dragged out in that way, in a way I think would’ve hugely damaging to us, and frankly, to the Justice Department more broadly and for the sense of justice in the country more broadly."

        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

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 14 2018, @07:53PM (#707312)

          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

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 15 2018, @05:15AM (#707480)

        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

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 14 2018, @05:34AM (#706954)

    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.