Talk:Julian Assange

Assange as a journalist
Suffice it to say that his status as a "journalist" - as the term is commonly understood - is questionable to say the least. An introduction to for and against views here: http://www.debate.org/opinions/is-julian-assange-a-journalist

This is the worst article I've ever seen on this site
After years of reading this site, I have created this account just to correct the information on this awful article.

1) "While his politics has been described by some as techno-anarchic, his admiration and support for the likes of Ron Paul and Rand Paul and his support of free market and anti-abortion views seem to put him somewhere on the far-right side of things."

It is true that he admires Ron and Rand Paul. It is more true that he admires Noam Chomsky, Yanis Varoufakis, and John Pilger, to name a few. These are figures that are very definitely on the far left. In fact, he doesn't just admire them - he regularly cites Chomsky favorably and is a signatory of Varoufakis's DiEM manifesto, a left-wing call for a democratic Europe.

Moreover, there is no evidence that Assange has "anti-abortion views". The entire article cited is a diatribe against one off-hand remark Assange made in trying to give a friendly criticism of the Paul-style philosophy. One could just as easily conclude from the remarks he made that he was presenting a reductio ad absurdum argument against the Paul philosophy.

Finally, Assange's alleged support of the free market comes from precisely one source, as far as I can tell: his interview with Forbes. This is not an interview that can be taken too seriously, given the setting and context of the remarks. In fact, it is unclear what Assange even meant by the remark without further qualification. To be sure, his other stated attitudes on wealth inequality, democracy, labor rights, and the distribution of power in the world lead one to strongly suspect that he has ambivalent attitudes about free market, and lead one to suspect even more strongly that the Paul-"libertarian"-style economic ideology is one that Assange rejects.

2) The women did not accuse Assange of rape.  I won't go into the details, but you can follow the links in Assange's affidavit, and they show definitively that, while the women may have had some complaints about Assange's behavior, they were not alleging rape.  One of the women even publicly stated that she had never been raped.

--

I would like to see these problems corrected as soon as possible.

Assangecorrection (talk) 12:34, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * If you've spent years reading this site, then you should know by know that we're a collaborative wiki and that "we welcome contributors" (to quote the front page directly). If you think something's wrong with the article - any article - then just make your proposed edits yourself. Don't issue orders to other people on the site to do them. If you actually do have a real case with your edits, you know grammar and you use quality sources, then whatever your edits will contain will pass for the article, as with any article. If you don't live up to any of the mentioned things, the edits won't stick. So in the ideal scenario, the article will have been genuinely improved by your edits, and will otherwise resist poor edits. Worst case, we revert you for not using grammer, not having an actual case and/or for not using non-crank sources. What's there to lose in trying then? So, knock yourself out! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:50, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

The myth is broken
Often it's said that WikiLeaks has never been wrong, or that no one would charge they are deliberately selective or deceptive. But the Awan case caused Assange to tweet this:
 * Pelosi is doing s [sic] closed door meeting. No staff or anyone allowed. Kaitlyn come to Rayburn room and get her iPad for Imran.

The "her iPad" is DWS Wasserman Schultz, not Pelosi. It is completely apparent from the context. No one is suggesting Pelosi is involved in the Awan scandal. Either Assange doesn't understand what he's reading and/or the American system, or he is being deliberately deceptive and disengenuous. nobsAloha Snackbar 22:01, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * In fairness to Assange, he tweeted the raw data from the email link without narrative context which then was picked up by Gateway Pundit and went viral, unfairly implicating and impugning Pelosi, which only engendered more confusion in an already complicated case. While we're grateful to Assange for providing the material, the timing and absence of a narrative context to recycled material leaked a year ago does not make Assange look impartial (note I'm standing up for an injustice done by notorious rightwingers and Assange to Nancy Pelosi). nobsAloha Snackbar 16:20, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

The important question
What happened to Assange's cat? Anna Livia (talk) 20:08, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * rehomed EK (talk) 20:16, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Could have been gainfully employed in the embassy (under the title Chief Mouser or Rat Officer). Anna Livia (talk) 10:02, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Does Julian Assange deserve to be in prison?
I heard that he worked with the Russian government to make Hillary Clinton lose the 2016 election. &mdash; Unsigned, by: Sarsath / talk / contribs
 * You'll find a lot of emotionally charged arguments about this. Some people think he doesn't deserve to be since he's leaked a lot of important information, and that his current arrest is just the authorities whisking him away so they don't have to deal with his status as a threat anymore. On the other hand, the man is at best considered to be a massive git. He doesn't vet his leaks (leading to real human lifes being put at risk), he's gone on the record to state that his leaking is always done specifically to cause the most damage, his involvement with the 2016 election was blatantly set up to influence it in favor of Trump and finally he's extremely likely to be in Russia's pocket, given how there have been no leaks from Russia since 2010. And this is without going into the sex crime allegations, which are their own beast. So while his role as a whistleblower may have brought real issues to the attention of the world, I think it's safe to say that you shouldn't spill any tears that the man is going behind bars. Responsible leaking is a thing (see Snowden for a good example on how to handle sensitive data), and he's pretty much broken every unspoken rule you need to follow when leaking sensitive information. 09:00, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * hes was in jail because he breached his bail conditions when he fled to the ecuadorean embassy, while extradition to the us on espionage charges that seems to be largely spurious has been delayed due to covid-19, hes still in jail because of the whole hiding in an embassy thing makes the judge thinks he might do a runner. the dnc stuff is unrelated to the charges of espionage hes been accused of, as are concerns of privacy.


 * what do you think he is going to prison for? hes yet to be extradited (hes on remand right now), its not certain even that he will be. its not certain he'd convicted if he were. what do you think he deserves? how much is wikileaks and how much is assange specifically?


 * you might not shed any tears over assange going to prison, but you should be concerned about sending whistleblowers to prison. you dont even have to unpick all the rumours and lies and exaggerations of wikileaks's failings. they arent even relevant. its not about russia or privacy. its about the us government's campaign of harrasment and intimidation for anyone shining a light on its crimes.


 * its unsurprising he's in 'russia's pocket' as you put it. he wants asylum somewhere beyond the reach of the us. doesnt leave many options. and stresses of the past years with an not unjustified sense of paranoia might effect ones judgement or exasperate personal failings. but as ive already said. is not about that. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:11, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not a judge, so that call wouldn't be up to me to make. As to what Assange would be charged for, he got charged with conspiring with Chelsea Manning to gain access to information he wasn't allowed to and to leak said information. That is all things considered a very light sentence, according to Wikipedia, one that only will last for up to 5 years with parole at most. It also is an accusation that is extremely hard to disprove. Even if that would fail, there are also still the sex crime allegations, which could see him go to jail in Sweden over that and those aren't tied to his leaking accusations. As for the whole, yeah I'm dissapointed by the fact that the US is trying to send anyone who sheds a light on their crimes to jail. But frankly, I'd rather stand up for someone with more moral integrity than the alleged rapist who put people's lives at risk because he couldn't be bothered to do a check on the documents he's been given. With someone like Snowden, you have a much better case to be made, the situation is much more grey there, since Snowden put in the work to not leak the information indiscriminately and made sure nobody's personal lives would be put at risk. I can get sticking up for Snowden, I do not get sticking up for Assange. (Which is in part why I think that Manning's jailtime was fully self-inflicted. She was given immunity and Assange is just a complete douchenozzle who isn't worth defending.) 14:34, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * this all might matter if it were rape charges he is facing. its irrelevent here and hes not facing any charges. they've all been dropped. because you dont personally like some one does not mean they should not a afforded the same protections and light sentence would be a travesty of justice, that would be setting a dangerous precedent for journalists and whistleblowers. the supposed lightness of a sentence irrelevant. and no evidence wa presented at mannings trial suggesting assange solicited for anything.  this is someone being threatened with extradition and imprisonment for exposing human rights abuses and war crimes. and manning's jail time self inflicted for having integrity? jesus fuck. potentially endangering peoples by not properly redacting personal information shows poor judgement but irrelevant as it isnt even what hes being charged with. it is not required to be a saint.
 * and considering the campaign of harassment and intimidation waged since on wikileaks, its small wonder hes gone of the deep end a little.
 * the moral integrity of the man is irrelevant. your sanctimony is irrelevant. the crime of which he is charged and what it means is. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:23, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Good thing I'm not a law student, lawyer, prosecutor or a judge then eh? The question posed was "does Assange deserve to be in jail", which is different from "has Assange broken a law which he deserves to be in jail for". Given the status of the man as a git, endangering of lives through improper vetting, his blatant influencing of the US election, his ties to Russia and possible sexual assault allegations, yeah I would say he deserves to be in jail. And yes, Manning's jailtime was self-inflicted. Look, I care about integrity as much as the next guy but her entire argument was "I don't like the grand jury process", not "the crimes Julian Assange are alleged to have committed are worth defending". It's basically being Lawful Stupid for the sake of it at that point. 18:18, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * he doe not deserve to be in jail because he has committed no crimes (breaking bail not withstanding, and currently on remand because hes a flight risk). people dont deserve prison because of allegations. whatever the merits of the rape allegations in that case the slip shod way it was pursued makes it look like nothing short of intimidation, proceedings repeatedly starting then halting then starting again, the threat of prosecution left hanging but ever present. it was only officially dropped last year.


 * and wikileaks involvement with the dnc email leaks just is not that significant. russia hacking dnc servers was. people close to trump's campaign were eager to leak the data was. assange, with a long standing enmity for clinton and upfront from the outset about what his motivations were, just made the ideal delivery boy. hes allowed to have ties with russia, however problematic they might have become. hes an australian and private citizen, not part of the us government. and the effect of the leak on the election is overstated - it was one part of a broader campaign.


 * wikileaks issues with curation of its leaks isnt, like any of the other issues you've mentioned, black and white either. you ignore just how important wikileaks has been.


 * even with your ducking of the more pertinent issues surrounding his extradition, vaguely efined dickishnes is not 'deserving of prison'


 * as for manning and the grand jury, thats all about intimidation of whistleblowers. its not surprising manning should object to a process that runs roughshod over constitutional rights of witnesses, who are denied legal counsel. the witness immunity that manning was 'offered' has the effect of removing her right to silence. grand juries have long been an instrument of political repression, where witnesses were subpoenaed because it was known they would not cooperate and could then be imprisoned without trial.


 * the suggestion that manning's jail time was self inflicted is unvarnished bullshit, as is the summarising of her argument as 'i dont like the grand jury process'. yeh, she doesnt like the grand jury process because the grand jury process is a fucking awful charade of justice. her subsequent imprisoning with an extortionate fine is simply obscene. AMassiveGay (talk) 04:23, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * assange is a dick though. im not contesting that. AMassiveGay (talk) 04:24, 9 June 2020 (UTC)