You are correct, that it is not ok in principle. The personal grudge of Assange against Clinton is understandable, but shouldn't have influenced releases. But I also think the US democrats basically played themselves and had it coming, especially since the media was partisan in favor of democrats. And that isn't an understatement.
The accusation of partisan hack from anyone supporting either party of the US rings a bit hollow to be honest. To a degree also because they are just unlikable. As if the info uncovered would make them victims. Perhaps they are, they pretty much look like it.
I find it curious that this line of thinking has only recently cropped up. Assange and by extension WikiLeaks has literally never claimed that they weren't partisans. Their whole mission statement is basically leaking things when they would make the biggest impact, and they've pretty much always done their big info dumps at opportune times when they would make the biggest noise. Should they have waited on the emails until after the election? Why? Why does it matter who or what Assange sides with, if the things he releases are 100% true?
I don't remember seeing these same criticisms back in 2010 during the cable leaks, curious that this is only an issue now, after the light is being shined on the democrats rather than the republicans for a change...
Afaik assange said he didn't have anything on trump that was worse than what trump had said himself. Trump was hardly beloved by the rnc, so what would it have done to leak rnc docs assuming they existed?
You almost seem mad that the dems suffered damage from a politically motivated revealing of their behavior. Maybe if they didn't do the bad things they would have had nothing to worry about.
I personally think his actions did align with the best interests of the American people. And I think the people who disagree mostly just are sour that Clinton rightfully lost.
I can't figure out if you are arguing for- or against- Assange, but just in case people are interpreting it as the against-...
The email leak was exposing corruption in the DNC handling of Bernie Sanders' campaign. Particularly when the corruption being exposed was related to an ongoing election, it is easy to believe Wikileaks just released what they had ASAP without waiting for any particular time.
The emails didn't exist before the election and waiting until later is, from a neutral leakers point of view, kinda silly. It is not at all obvious Wikileaks acted partisanly.
Not sure, Assange / wikileaks went from "impartial leaked docs hosting service" to "at the whim of founder's grudges" for me. Releasing the dem emails is fine, timing it for maximum damage to Dems election prospects isn't.
Were establishment Democrats particularly pro-wikileaks during the Manning releases? I don't recall that - in general both parties have been pretty much anti-whistleblower and pro-secrecy.
If anything the Republicans (particularly pro-Trump factions) have been awfully hypocritical on this stance since they've previously called for various leakers (Snowden in particular) to return home and face the death penalty. They definitely previously referred to Assange as a criminal and a threat to national security, but I guess as long as he's anti-Hillary he's a hero?
The last US presidential election cycle really soured public opinion on Assange.
After the Hillary email leaks, Democratic Party rhetoric turned against Assange. Many in the party hold him culpable for Trump's election.
I don't know if he was favoring one party or the other (as some Democrats purport), or if he was a Russian mouthpiece, or if he was just leaking the information that came to him unbeknownst to the state actors at play.
He lost a lot of the goodwill he built, and that put him in a very dangerous spot.
You should be upset with the DNC members whose behavior was exposed by the emails. Those DNC members destabilized the election with their behavior, not Assange.
Assange reported it.
You seem to have the blame completely reversed. Assange did not perpetrate behavior that destabilized an election or facilitated a Trump win, not one bit. Democrat party leaders did that and have only themselves to blame.
I went to an event where Assange spoke, and I'm not sure if that's part of why I hold this opinion, but it's been pretty clear to me for many months that Assange is intentionally doing everything he can do keep Clinton out of office.
Is that wrong? Certainly the bias is there. But it seems to have reasonable weight behind it as well. I am too young to understand what Wikileaks used to stand for, but their activity today seems to be centered on keeping corruption out of America, and that seems noble enough to me. Maybe though it's a step down from what they used to be.
While I can understand that, the root issue is that this “hacking” is in fact a public service—whistleblowing. There was much more support for Assange, even from the political establishment, before he published the emails in the lead up to the election. I can’t even be mad at that because it showed what a corrupt organization the DNC was at the time (and probably still is, although there is the Unity coalition now).
So I would argue he embarrassed both the military industrial complex AND the DNC to get him where he is now. It’s also much harder to see publishing internal documents of a campaign/political party as a public service or whistleblowing, though I think the case for “russian interference” is entirely overblown compared to, say, blatant interference via the incestuous political/media blob.
It is straight up weird that Assange is going after Hillary because he's a bit butthurt about her. Its funny when a whistleblowing body is explicitly partisan for personal reasons. Don't have strong feelings one way or the other
It's not, of course, as you point out. One can't defend the ethics or law on the basis of what's good for a particular political party. One should come to a proper understanding of relevant US law, and US jurisdictional limitations (Assange is an Australian citizen and as Chris Hedges points out in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hyZktgMp4Q "he isn't bound by any law to protect American secrets"), but the hyperpartisanship you speak of is remarkably corporate media driven and not in interest of the American citizenry. Most Americans call themselves independent and did so around the time of the 2016 US election (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/01/08/a-... and https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/09/160907114001.h...). I think it's because more people (particularly young people) are coming to realize that a two corporate party division is not addressing their needs as citizens of a wealthy country, and the Democrats and Republicans take remarkably similar sides on the most major issues of the day that get national interests involved (chief among them: war -- the single issue that costs the most money and lives).
You'll find similar unnecessary disclaimers before any serious discussion of Pres. Trump these days (such as "I'm no fan of Trump but...") as if a black-and-white ('for us or against us', remember that?) view is right and proper and must be dismissed before any serious discussion can begin. Even when what they're about to describe is a continuation across US administrations. Majoritarian issues don't get that kind of framing. I rarely hear anyone say anything resembling "I'm no fan of mass surveillance, but...", or "I don't like extrajudicial murder like what the US does with the drone war, but...".
It's quite interesting you should mention political affiliation and facism. Did you know that when the DNC emails were hacked and released via WikiLeaks as if they were exposing a major scandal that the RNC had also been hacked by the same people, yet no emails were released at the time? Considering just how much information about Republicans meeting with corporate donors and just how directly that results in Republican legislation, it's quite hard to believe the DNC emails which exposed essentially nothing were the only thing worth exposing. Assange facilitated this partisan assault on the American political system.
Do you have any idea how much Assange and WikiLeaks has cooperated/collaborated with Russian agents? The US 2016 elections were a shit show in no small part due to WikiLeaks releasing only the Democrats emails. Zero Republican emails were leaked, and the most damning part of this is that the released Democrat emails were completely innocuous, but when a website called WikiLeaks releases a huge bulk of emails they've labeled as suspicious or scandalous, stupid people jump to unsupported conclusions and you end up with unqualified politicians undermining democracy, and we're not the only country this happened to. Assange and WikiLeaks are guilty of participating in Russian attempts to spread disinformation in support of the Russian's agenda at a bare minimum.
Assange might not be guilty of being the kind of traitor we traditionally think of, but he's still a dangerous individual that will help overthrow legitimate governments by misrepresenting illegal activities as exposing scandals, none of which actually exist.
So tell me again, how exactly is Julian Assange the single most hard hitting journalist of the last decade? Very little of what he claimed turned out to be accurate, and he participated in withholding information from the public which actually did have a chance of exposing serious political corruption. I might also remind you that despite essentially being a partisan shill for the Republicans (greatly helping them win in 2014 and 2016), they attempted to put him in jail as well.
The problem isn't that a lot of Democrat rank and file want to see Assange in jail, it's that way to many Republican rank and file haven't seen him for the liar and yellow journalist he his.
It absolutely is. But there are dozens or more comments here about how Assange and Wikileaks were "above all that", and "impartial sources, without fear or favor".
When no, he was and is as partisan as anyone else.
No intention to flame, I genuinely find this case fascinating.
So Devils advocate - the dnc was polarized before assange leaked anything. It was straight up controlled by Hillarys camp. If Hillary were some grassroots candidate or hell, if the dnc had just not deliberately sided with one specific candidate when their bylaws are crystal clear that that is wrong (not to mention common sense agreeing) - then yeah I'd say assange was playing presidential chess (though we don't know his actual impact) and that's bad. But that said - the dnc was corrupt as hell. I see assange having a metric fuck ton of moral wiggle room here. Personally it didn't matter what candidate did what Hillary got away with in that election - whoever it was deserved to be exposed and too bad if other incriminating shit came out too. My two cents.
Further, what I've seen is that ppl who dislike assange seem to base it on "well he did something illegal" (giving Manning instructions for hacking). Well, Manning then chose to hack and was pardoned after way less than assange has been through, so how can assange possibly be so bad?
I'm still awaiting more details. I have no problems changing my views. But as everything stands now, I cannot help but think this whole anti assange business is fueled by the exact same propaganda machines that were running on behalf of Hillary in 2016. The ones that mysteriously shut off or slowed down the moment she lost. The ones that insisted that she didn't receive debate questions ahead of time. The ones that convinced so many that there was no server hacking. The ones that made trump look like an incompetent loser with no chance of winning.
Both parties do this. Pointing it out isn't whataboutism. Pointing it out is showing that Assange is the one who made political moves. He targeted specific politicians to leak negative information at opportune times. He didn't do this out of a sense of bringing the truth to light, he did this to further a political agenda. Where are his leaks on the republican party?
I don't think Assange is a partisan. He's Australian after all and has no stake in this election. I think he is releasing info on Hillary because that is what he has and is timing the release for maximum public exposure. If he had similar info on Trump, I firmly believe he would be doing the same thing.
The accusation of partisan hack from anyone supporting either party of the US rings a bit hollow to be honest. To a degree also because they are just unlikable. As if the info uncovered would make them victims. Perhaps they are, they pretty much look like it.
reply