Also, why has it taken so long for him to agree to an interview on the rape allegations? Yes, it's possible, as Assange has asserted, that it is bogus, but there are also two victims who deserve some closure.
It hasn't. The Swedish prosecutors have been the ones refusing to hold the interview, not Assange.
He still pulled out. Apparently his legal team had something more important to be doing that day, or something, so we have to wait until next month. Again.
In the mean time, we're supposed to believe the Hillary Clinton campaign really, really wants you to pay more attention to Julian Assange and his website, and it's only mainstream media that lies to us.
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.
Since pretty much all of the mainstream media influences the US elections with their bias, I'm happy that there is an actual source of information that they can't ignore.
I´m glad they are revealing the hypocrites Hillary and the Democratic party.
We already know who Trump is. At least he is honest and is the same man behind the scene as at the spotlight.
Hillary is a habitual lier and hypocrite. Happy voting.
I don't get this overhyped aggression towards Hillary, her crime is basically to be a career politician. How can that be comparable to the idiot scumbag running for president?
Being a corrupt senior government official and selling US interests for money to foreign actors- is.
Worth noting that the two victims have also stated that the allegations are false.
Do you see that as okay?
Next, suppose Russia or China supported an independent actor who did the same.
Is that okay?
Now, remember, these are foreign actors with their own agendas. They may have very good reason to, say, doctor the releases or groom them in a way that best serves their interests.
So, on the one hand, one could argue that information should be free, transparency is important, etc, etc. Ultimately, they're doing everyone a service.
On the other, there is a legitimate question about nations and foreign actors meddling in a sovereign state's electoral process, and the precedent that sets regarding international norms and established codes of conduct.
It's not a black-and-white issue by any means.
unless it happens to be of benefit of the candidate you support, of course. then it's all hunky-dory.
of course I'm just kidding. however, there are people that feel this way, and these folks definitely see the issue in black and white.
> Do you see that as okay?
Yes.
> On the other, there is a legitimate question about nations and foreign actors meddling in a sovereign state's electoral process, and the precedent that sets regarding international norms and established codes of conduct.
I don't think there is. What if Russia or China or Germany issued a statement expressing their point of view that influenced the election.
Do you see that as okay?
Russia and China are under no obligation to keep the citizens of the US ignorant of things that candidates for the Presidency of the US would prefer them to be ignorant about. Also, the US has never shown any hesitation in leaking information, commenting on or directly funding candidates or movements that it preferred in either country.
Do you see that as okay?
I don't view it as equivalent.
It's kinda like the difference between marketing and corporate espionage.
On the one hand, we have a sovereign nation stating a position.
On the other, we have a (potentially hidden) sovereign nation exposing the communications of others.
The difference is in the (supposed) attribution of the communication. In the former case people will recognize it as naked politics and ignore it. In the latter, the level of trust in the information goes up since it's (supposedly) attributable to someone from the nation being manipulated, which to me is far more likely to sway people's opinions and effect the kind of manipulation being sought.
Anyway, we can clearly agree to disagree on this one, as fundamentally it's a matter of personal values. Speaking for myself, I would generally prefer that nation states leave domestic politics of other nations alone (and yes, that's a general statement that applies to every nation).
Which I suppose is pretty easy to say until there's a totalitarian regime committing genocide or something...
Like I say, not black and white. :)
And it still needs to be said, there's no proof that the Russian state is involved. This is a cynical deflection to keep us from talking about the content of the leaks; one that prefers to escalate tensions with a nuclear power to acknowledging the truth about what some people have said when they thought no one else would hear.
Maybe I should've picked Switzerland and Norway as my examples to avoid clouding the issue... ;)
Was it the source choice, or the publishers choice? Both?
I would agree with your point if we had a single source of information or only information coming from one side. That is simply not the case though.
FWIW, attacking the source is what you do when the information itself is indefensible.
I agree that it's not black and white, but meddling in foreign elections goes back as long as it was an option. The US did so with great success in the Cold War.
Obviously? Do you think Thiel is spending his money after the election?
The wording seems designed to suggest something nefarious going on when at least with WikiLeaks you get original material instead of you know SuperPAC radio spots.
That aside, WikiLeaks timing releases is little more than the NYT picking between the story that goes to the front page with big picture and those on page 6. For that to be propaganda there needs to be some agenda other than "maximize attention" and I haven't seen that.
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN1051TD
Covered far and wide in almost every form of media.
You seem to be under the impression that the Cold War was fictional and not a conflict that lasted around 40 years...
I doubt he is actively trying to subvert the election, but whoever is feeding him the information seems to be trying.
Data is not knowledge. Knowledge is not wisdom.
Dumping a lot of data at once is how you bury it, not bring it to light.
What you seem to be advocating for is that in order to release factual informaton it has to have an approved message associated with it first?
Data dumps are transparency. Now it is up for others to make that into knowledge.
And the statement doesn't make sense. Why do they deserve "closure" if it was possibly bogus?
Because if it was "he had somewhat consensual sleepy-sex" (no offense meant) "and now we want an STD test" is a pretty pathetic character attack for a state - I highly doubt that was the best they could muster.