|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
Ari Melber is a liberal and a lawyer iirc so people understand what I'm talking about this is what I would expect at minimum from those who consider themselves "left" on Assange
|
On April 12 2019 01:51 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2019 01:44 IyMoon wrote:On April 12 2019 01:40 xDaunt wrote:On April 11 2019 20:05 Biff The Understudy wrote:Julian Assange has been arrested. There were a time where he was something else than a pawn of Putin and somewhat a sympathetic figure but considering what wikileaks has done to get Trump elected and why, he can go screw himself. Assange arrested at the Ecuadorian embassyMeanwhile Russia has accused the UK of “strangling freedom” by doing so. Those guys have balls of steel. And before xDaunt accuses anyone to spread conspiracy theories: Yes, we're all aware of what Mueller's team has alleged in other criminal indictments. But we'd be remiss to overlook the fact that Assange has not been indicted in connection with the DNC hack. The only hacking conspiracy alleged against Assange has to do with Manning. And keep in mind that Assange has always copped to helping Manning but has vehemently denied getting the DNC emails from Russia. These are rather curious facts in light of the narrative that Mueller pushed. There are lots of possible explanations for why Assange was not charged in connection with the DNC hack. But again, the timing of all of this is weird. The offense happened in 2010. Manning was convicted in 2013. Why did the DOJ wait until March 2018 to charge Assange? Why is the arrest happening now? Regardless, the DOJ is about to squeeze Assange big time, so we're going to find out what happened soon enough. Hassnt he been wanted for along time now? Isn't that why he was hiding out in the embassy He was wanted by Sweden for some sexual offense if I remember correctly, which is why he initially sought refuge at the embassy.
all those charges had been dropped over the years, which imo only lends more to your question of the timing. i had read somewhere, and my apologies for not having it ready, that perhaps the embassy had grown tired of keeping him around. it’s all super odd to me.
|
On April 12 2019 01:44 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2019 01:40 xDaunt wrote:On April 11 2019 20:05 Biff The Understudy wrote:Julian Assange has been arrested. There were a time where he was something else than a pawn of Putin and somewhat a sympathetic figure but considering what wikileaks has done to get Trump elected and why, he can go screw himself. Assange arrested at the Ecuadorian embassyMeanwhile Russia has accused the UK of “strangling freedom” by doing so. Those guys have balls of steel. And before xDaunt accuses anyone to spread conspiracy theories: https://twitter.com/shashj/status/1116285599776899074 Yes, we're all aware of what Mueller's team has alleged in other criminal indictments. But we'd be remiss to overlook the fact that Assange has not been indicted in connection with the DNC hack. The only hacking conspiracy alleged against Assange has to do with Manning. And keep in mind that Assange has always copped to helping Manning but has vehemently denied getting the DNC emails from Russia. These are rather curious facts in light of the narrative that Mueller pushed. There are lots of possible explanations for why Assange was not charged in connection with the DNC hack. But again, the timing of all of this is weird. The offense happened in 2010. Manning was convicted in 2013. Why did the DOJ wait until March 2018 to charge Assange? Why is the arrest happening now? Regardless, the DOJ is about to squeeze Assange big time, so we're going to find out what happened soon enough. Hassnt he been wanted for along time now? Isn't that why he was hiding out in the embassy He was wanted by Sweden because he had sex with some girl and the condom broke? And it was a while since the incident that the report was filed. It was all very fishy.
Assange feared the Swedes would extradite him to the US (rightfully so), so that's why he sought asylum.
|
On April 12 2019 01:23 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2019 00:59 Plansix wrote:On April 12 2019 00:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 12 2019 00:29 Plansix wrote:On April 12 2019 00:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 12 2019 00:03 Plansix wrote:On April 11 2019 23:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 11 2019 23:37 Plansix wrote:On April 11 2019 23:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 11 2019 23:14 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
I generally do not trust people who refuse to sign their names to their work. I understand the fear of government power and violence. But there are women’s rights activist in Saudi Arabia who are open about it and jailed for advocating what they believe it. Journalist are held, jailed and sometimes killed for their work. There were journalists jailed in the US during the Bush administration for not revealing their sources. Those journalist understand that there is value in being transparent about who they are and why they are reporting on a topic. They are interested in earning my trust and are willing to put themselves at risk to get it. Wikileaks is not and would rather rely on the malfeasance of my government to justify their lack of transparency. And that will never be a compelling argument for me. Is there something you think Wikileaks is hiding that invalidates it's work or justifies Assange's imprisonment by US officials? Or is this more a general commentary of how you feel about ethics in journalism? Assange encouraged and offered to help Manning break into the NSA files to steal more information. Journalist will, in general, take information someone wants to leak to the public, but not assist them in criminal activity to obtain information. And Wikileaks has a NDA, which it has employees sign. They do not want all their information leaked because it “has value”. Reporters do not sell the information they discover for a profit. They don’t pay sources. If they do either, they are no longer reporters. A story about the NDA, for reference. https://www.wired.com/2011/05/nda-wikileaks/ I think that's important to know about wikileaks to the degree it's verifiable, but I'm not sure if you think that invalidates it's work or warrants the US imprisoning him or Chelsea Manning based on your comment or if you're merely describing your concerns about their ethics? I never said the US government was justified in their actions when it came to Manning. She also stole information that was deemed to be classified, which could have put people at risk in ways we are not fully aware of. That is always a risk when leaking this sort of information. She knowingly broke the law, so she should have received some level of punishment, but her sentence and treatment while being incarcerated was barbaric and a stain on the US. Assange is a different story. He encouraged her to steal information and offered to provide aid. It is unclear if he ever followed through. I don’t know if he committed other crimes while trying to obtained leaked information, like offering assistance to people trying to steal information. But the only way I would be even mildly ok with Assange is if he overtly said he would never assist people in stealing government secrets and would only help them publish those secrets. I didn't mean to say you did. But it does seem you're appealing to/supporting the process and legal system while lamenting what that meant in reality if I'm understanding correctly. I don't mean to be a pest but I'm still unclear on whether you're taking the position that the ethical concerns you point out about Wikileaks invalidates their work. Particularly what they've published. You're not challenging the veracity of their publishing, but taking issue with their methods of procuring what they publish and that they should all be punished if it's found they did what they were accused. If that's inaccurate just let me know, but it helps me understand the context of your other posts by having that information. No, I am not challenging the veracity. I am questioning the intent of the publication. And if I am being provided a complete picture. I question if someone paid Wikileaks to release information they had. Or paid them not to release other information. Or if they paid someone to steal information from a specific government. I don’t treat Wikileaks any different than I treat a traditional news publication. If articles don’t have bylines, I don’t trust them. If I can’t figure out how that publication pays its employees and funds its works, I don’t trust them. I might read what they say, but it is always through the context that what I am reading was released for a reason that is being obfuscated. I'm reasonably confident no major publications provide a complete picture. I think those are good and fair questions to ask of a publication (bylines are a bit different given a history of not just imprisonment, but torture and assassination of real dissenters in the US, but when reasonable I think it's a fair expectation) though I'm not of the opinion your argument is about justice and not vengeance. On April 12 2019 00:43 Adreme wrote:
GH is accidentally doing the very thing that makes me dislike a lot of liberals and its the accidental hypocrisy that permeates their belief system.
If you chastise Trump for having no real plan on any issue just huge promises with no clear vision or way to implement them, but then support Bernie who has large promises with no clear and honest way to pay for them (they are just liberal promises instead) then your position on honesty is disingenuous at best.
In this case if you chastise Trump for at best inviting a foreign power to help him get elected and at worst working with them to do so (or something in between), then you defend Assange who likely is actively working with Russia to acquire and distribute information then you never cared about the former at all and just wanted to theow mud at a R.
I'm going to need a quote to even know what you're talking about? But MMT + MIC cuts + taxing wealth + removing profit from several industries, can pay for everything Bernie wants and then some. I do ask why a publication like NPR or the Times wouldn’t provide some information. But the difference is that their reporters exist in the US and have told people why they do specific things. They are transparent about their process, who does what and why they do it. The NPR team that covers politics answers questions from listeners all the time. And people are free to come to their own judgments based on that information. The same is not true for Wikileaks and that leads to judgments based on the lack of information and why they are unwilling to provide it. I'm kinda trying to get at what judgments you're trying to make about Wikileaks based on your observations and comparisons to publications like NYT and NPR, which presumably reported what wiki exposed but bear no responsibility for the procurement? I know CNN said it was illegal for citizens to read the Wikileaks publications and that they should get their information on them from CNN. + Show Spoiler +
All news organizations report where they got the information and most provide context for that information. Most have drop boxes to receive the sort of information wikileaks received. The difference is that reporters, per their own admission, wouldn't try to crack any encryption or seek assistance in doing do. Also, if they receive information that they believe would put people at risk for whatever reason, they would attempt to mitigate that danger without sacrificing their ability to publish. To be clear, that is not just for goverment agents, but people who might be at risk for reprisal if a story is published for any number of reasons. Wikileaks, under Assange's leadership, did not do this. Over the objection of some of the people within wikileaks, per reporting on that subject.
News organizations, from Pro Publica to the WSJ exist within the societies they report on. Because of that, they accept responsibility for what they publish in the sort term and long term. We complain about the state of journalism now, but that is mostly due to the garbage that is cable news. Other print publications do might higher quality reporting. And by being public and forward facing, making themselves available for the consequences of that reporting.
There is a version of Wikileaks that I would champion and consider to be trust worthy. It just isn't the one that currently exists.
|
On April 12 2019 01:43 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2019 23:37 Plansix wrote:On April 11 2019 23:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 11 2019 23:14 Plansix wrote:On April 11 2019 22:32 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 11 2019 21:54 Plansix wrote:
For all its talk about transparency, WikiLeaks has never been much of a transparent organization. I can’t put a face to anyone who works for them beyond Assange. I don’t know how they make money, but they do. Their mission statement is similar to most journalistic organization, to report what it happening in the government. But unlike investigative journalist, no one at WikiLeaks signs their name to their work. In a lot of ways I know less about WikiLeaks than I know about the CIA and NSA. I can’t exactly blame them. I’d read years ago that Iceland was going to invest a ton in server farms, which they could embed in their geothermally rich country to cut power costs and try to restructure a chunk of their economy away from the banking sector and into being a safe haven of sorts for stuff like actual whistleblowing g Which I liked as an idea, I’m not sure how far along it is, if they are doing it. Who can dislike the nation that gave us Bjork? If it’s done in a conditional way and there’s oversight, I’d much prefer some kind of arrangement of that kind, on stuff like proper redaction and whatnot, than the likes of Wikileaks being left to their own devices. Who protects whistleblowing and whatnot, for its own sake right now? If there’s mechanisms to do so, with a setup that has some kind of framework and some kind of oversight that will actually protect legitimate whistleblowing I’m all for it. Not just in terms of national security stuff but the corporate sector as well. There were plenty of people pre 2008 pointing out the problems in the financial sector and what was going on there, who ended up blacklisted and probably many more besides who would have added their voices but decided not to because of those kind of risks. There are risks to having huge amounts of information in the hands of someone like Wikileaks in an accountability sense, or in that information being used not to hold a government to account, but by another government/state against that state, etc, all those things are possible or have actually happened. Plus I think inextricably making Assange = Wikileaks either intentionally or not was something harmful to that organisation. Ultimately though the best defence over accusations of doing bad shit, is not to do bad shit, or at least do less not try to dig up dirt on the other guys and use that as a counter-attack. I’m really no fan of Russia but it’s not some boogeyman. Sure do look into such things but to have the United States being high and mighty on interfering with the elections and politics of other countries is absolutely insane and transparent as hell. I generally do not trust people who refuse to sign their names to their work. I understand the fear of government power and violence. But there are women’s rights activist in Saudi Arabia who are open about it and jailed for advocating what they believe it. Journalist are held, jailed and sometimes killed for their work. There were journalists jailed in the US during the Bush administration for not revealing their sources. Those journalist understand that there is value in being transparent about who they are and why they are reporting on a topic. They are interested in earning my trust and are willing to put themselves at risk to get it. Wikileaks is not and would rather rely on the malfeasance of my government to justify their lack of transparency. And that will never be a compelling argument for me. Is there something you think Wikileaks is hiding that invalidates it's work or justifies Assange's imprisonment by US officials? Or is this more a general commentary of how you feel about ethics in journalism? Assange encouraged and offered to help Manning break into the NSA files to steal more information. Journalist will, in general, take information someone wants to leak to the public, but not assist them in criminal activity to obtain information. And Wikileaks has a NDA, which it has employees sign. They do not want all their information leaked because it “has value”. Reporters do not sell the information they discover for a profit. They don’t pay sources. If they do either, they are no longer reporters. A story about the NDA, for reference. https://www.wired.com/2011/05/nda-wikileaks/ Reporters sell their stories all the time. Publications, the ones who pay reporters, compete to publish first because attention-worthy information is profitable. You don’t trust unsigned work? Oh really? Do I have to go digging to find your defenses of anonymous sources? As usual, you seem to just be throwing an incoherent mixture of moralistic apothegms at the wall to see what sticks.
Anonymous sources are completely different. And frankly, you know that. Or you I have vastly overestimated you, which is on me.
Anonymous sources are filtered through the reporter writing the story and rely on the reporter's, editor's and publication's reputation. Reporters have clear standards on when and how they use anonymous sources and are more than willing to explain why they were will to do so for one story and not for another. And the reporter's reputation will be damaged if they cite an anonymous source that turns out of have been lying.
And do I really need to explain the difference between paying for stolen documents/information and a reporter receiving compensation for a their labor in writing a story?
|
On April 12 2019 01:55 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2019 01:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 12 2019 00:59 Plansix wrote:On April 12 2019 00:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 12 2019 00:29 Plansix wrote:On April 12 2019 00:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 12 2019 00:03 Plansix wrote:On April 11 2019 23:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 11 2019 23:37 Plansix wrote:On April 11 2019 23:29 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Is there something you think Wikileaks is hiding that invalidates it's work or justifies Assange's imprisonment by US officials?
Or is this more a general commentary of how you feel about ethics in journalism?
Assange encouraged and offered to help Manning break into the NSA files to steal more information. Journalist will, in general, take information someone wants to leak to the public, but not assist them in criminal activity to obtain information. And Wikileaks has a NDA, which it has employees sign. They do not want all their information leaked because it “has value”. Reporters do not sell the information they discover for a profit. They don’t pay sources. If they do either, they are no longer reporters. A story about the NDA, for reference. https://www.wired.com/2011/05/nda-wikileaks/ I think that's important to know about wikileaks to the degree it's verifiable, but I'm not sure if you think that invalidates it's work or warrants the US imprisoning him or Chelsea Manning based on your comment or if you're merely describing your concerns about their ethics? I never said the US government was justified in their actions when it came to Manning. She also stole information that was deemed to be classified, which could have put people at risk in ways we are not fully aware of. That is always a risk when leaking this sort of information. She knowingly broke the law, so she should have received some level of punishment, but her sentence and treatment while being incarcerated was barbaric and a stain on the US. Assange is a different story. He encouraged her to steal information and offered to provide aid. It is unclear if he ever followed through. I don’t know if he committed other crimes while trying to obtained leaked information, like offering assistance to people trying to steal information. But the only way I would be even mildly ok with Assange is if he overtly said he would never assist people in stealing government secrets and would only help them publish those secrets. I didn't mean to say you did. But it does seem you're appealing to/supporting the process and legal system while lamenting what that meant in reality if I'm understanding correctly. I don't mean to be a pest but I'm still unclear on whether you're taking the position that the ethical concerns you point out about Wikileaks invalidates their work. Particularly what they've published. You're not challenging the veracity of their publishing, but taking issue with their methods of procuring what they publish and that they should all be punished if it's found they did what they were accused. If that's inaccurate just let me know, but it helps me understand the context of your other posts by having that information. No, I am not challenging the veracity. I am questioning the intent of the publication. And if I am being provided a complete picture. I question if someone paid Wikileaks to release information they had. Or paid them not to release other information. Or if they paid someone to steal information from a specific government. I don’t treat Wikileaks any different than I treat a traditional news publication. If articles don’t have bylines, I don’t trust them. If I can’t figure out how that publication pays its employees and funds its works, I don’t trust them. I might read what they say, but it is always through the context that what I am reading was released for a reason that is being obfuscated. I'm reasonably confident no major publications provide a complete picture. I think those are good and fair questions to ask of a publication (bylines are a bit different given a history of not just imprisonment, but torture and assassination of real dissenters in the US, but when reasonable I think it's a fair expectation) though I'm not of the opinion your argument is about justice and not vengeance. On April 12 2019 00:43 Adreme wrote:
GH is accidentally doing the very thing that makes me dislike a lot of liberals and its the accidental hypocrisy that permeates their belief system.
If you chastise Trump for having no real plan on any issue just huge promises with no clear vision or way to implement them, but then support Bernie who has large promises with no clear and honest way to pay for them (they are just liberal promises instead) then your position on honesty is disingenuous at best.
In this case if you chastise Trump for at best inviting a foreign power to help him get elected and at worst working with them to do so (or something in between), then you defend Assange who likely is actively working with Russia to acquire and distribute information then you never cared about the former at all and just wanted to theow mud at a R.
I'm going to need a quote to even know what you're talking about? But MMT + MIC cuts + taxing wealth + removing profit from several industries, can pay for everything Bernie wants and then some. I do ask why a publication like NPR or the Times wouldn’t provide some information. But the difference is that their reporters exist in the US and have told people why they do specific things. They are transparent about their process, who does what and why they do it. The NPR team that covers politics answers questions from listeners all the time. And people are free to come to their own judgments based on that information. The same is not true for Wikileaks and that leads to judgments based on the lack of information and why they are unwilling to provide it. I'm kinda trying to get at what judgments you're trying to make about Wikileaks based on your observations and comparisons to publications like NYT and NPR, which presumably reported what wiki exposed but bear no responsibility for the procurement? I know CNN said it was illegal for citizens to read the Wikileaks publications and that they should get their information on them from CNN. + Show Spoiler + All news organizations report where they got the information and most provide context for that information. Most have drop boxes to receive the sort of information wikileaks received. The difference is that reporters, per their own admission, wouldn't try to crack any encryption or seek assistance in doing do. Also, if they receive information that they believe would put people at risk for whatever reason, they would attempt to mitigate that danger without sacrificing their ability to publish. To be clear, that is not just for goverment agents, but people who might be at risk for reprisal if a story is published for any number of reasons. Wikileaks, under Assange's leadership, did not do this. Over the objection of some of the people within wikileaks, per reporting on that subject. News organizations, from Pro Publica to the WSJ exist within the societies they report on. Because of that, they accept responsibility for what they publish in the sort term and long term. We complain about the state of journalism now, but that is mostly due to the garbage that is cable news. Other print publications do might higher quality reporting. And by being public and forward facing, making themselves available for the consequences of that reporting. There is a version of Wikileaks that I would champion and consider to be trust worthy. It just isn't the one that currently exists.
To reiterate — and then I think we've exhausted this more or less — A major reason the publications you trust enjoy such luxurious comfort under the rule of the government they report on, and Assange was dragged out of the embassy to be extradited on some questionable charges is the kind of position you're articulating here and allowed/prompted Hillary to "joke" about assassinating him with a drone imo.
As I suggested before, the complicity with the erosion of our rights in favor of short term political gains or to satiate personal desires of vengeance concerns me and the only hopeful development over the course of this discussion for me was Ari Melber making the point I am from a much more liberal centrist POV.
|
|
|
I feel like folks have already forgotten this story and the lack of accountability it triggered for those who spread it, especially before they changed the headline. It was about the meeting between Assange and Manafort which as far as anyone can tell never happened.
Manafort held secret talks with Assange in Ecuadorian embassy
An example of how much more widespread western propaganda is compared to Russian when it comes to US politics:
+ Show Spoiler +
Keep in mind we're selling bombs (they drop on children) to a country that chopped a journalist (he was a dick) living in the US into pieces on tape
|
“I know nothing about Wikileaks,” Trump said in the Oval Office, according to a White House pool report. “It’s not my thing.”
It's not my thing, says guy who quoted wikileaks during all the rallies.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On April 12 2019 02:06 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2019 01:55 Plansix wrote:On April 12 2019 01:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 12 2019 00:59 Plansix wrote:On April 12 2019 00:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 12 2019 00:29 Plansix wrote:On April 12 2019 00:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 12 2019 00:03 Plansix wrote:On April 11 2019 23:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 11 2019 23:37 Plansix wrote:[quote] Assange encouraged and offered to help Manning break into the NSA files to steal more information. Journalist will, in general, take information someone wants to leak to the public, but not assist them in criminal activity to obtain information. And Wikileaks has a NDA, which it has employees sign. They do not want all their information leaked because it “has value”. Reporters do not sell the information they discover for a profit. They don’t pay sources. If they do either, they are no longer reporters. A story about the NDA, for reference. https://www.wired.com/2011/05/nda-wikileaks/ I think that's important to know about wikileaks to the degree it's verifiable, but I'm not sure if you think that invalidates it's work or warrants the US imprisoning him or Chelsea Manning based on your comment or if you're merely describing your concerns about their ethics? I never said the US government was justified in their actions when it came to Manning. She also stole information that was deemed to be classified, which could have put people at risk in ways we are not fully aware of. That is always a risk when leaking this sort of information. She knowingly broke the law, so she should have received some level of punishment, but her sentence and treatment while being incarcerated was barbaric and a stain on the US. Assange is a different story. He encouraged her to steal information and offered to provide aid. It is unclear if he ever followed through. I don’t know if he committed other crimes while trying to obtained leaked information, like offering assistance to people trying to steal information. But the only way I would be even mildly ok with Assange is if he overtly said he would never assist people in stealing government secrets and would only help them publish those secrets. I didn't mean to say you did. But it does seem you're appealing to/supporting the process and legal system while lamenting what that meant in reality if I'm understanding correctly. I don't mean to be a pest but I'm still unclear on whether you're taking the position that the ethical concerns you point out about Wikileaks invalidates their work. Particularly what they've published. You're not challenging the veracity of their publishing, but taking issue with their methods of procuring what they publish and that they should all be punished if it's found they did what they were accused. If that's inaccurate just let me know, but it helps me understand the context of your other posts by having that information. No, I am not challenging the veracity. I am questioning the intent of the publication. And if I am being provided a complete picture. I question if someone paid Wikileaks to release information they had. Or paid them not to release other information. Or if they paid someone to steal information from a specific government. I don’t treat Wikileaks any different than I treat a traditional news publication. If articles don’t have bylines, I don’t trust them. If I can’t figure out how that publication pays its employees and funds its works, I don’t trust them. I might read what they say, but it is always through the context that what I am reading was released for a reason that is being obfuscated. I'm reasonably confident no major publications provide a complete picture. I think those are good and fair questions to ask of a publication (bylines are a bit different given a history of not just imprisonment, but torture and assassination of real dissenters in the US, but when reasonable I think it's a fair expectation) though I'm not of the opinion your argument is about justice and not vengeance. On April 12 2019 00:43 Adreme wrote:
GH is accidentally doing the very thing that makes me dislike a lot of liberals and its the accidental hypocrisy that permeates their belief system.
If you chastise Trump for having no real plan on any issue just huge promises with no clear vision or way to implement them, but then support Bernie who has large promises with no clear and honest way to pay for them (they are just liberal promises instead) then your position on honesty is disingenuous at best.
In this case if you chastise Trump for at best inviting a foreign power to help him get elected and at worst working with them to do so (or something in between), then you defend Assange who likely is actively working with Russia to acquire and distribute information then you never cared about the former at all and just wanted to theow mud at a R.
I'm going to need a quote to even know what you're talking about? But MMT + MIC cuts + taxing wealth + removing profit from several industries, can pay for everything Bernie wants and then some. I do ask why a publication like NPR or the Times wouldn’t provide some information. But the difference is that their reporters exist in the US and have told people why they do specific things. They are transparent about their process, who does what and why they do it. The NPR team that covers politics answers questions from listeners all the time. And people are free to come to their own judgments based on that information. The same is not true for Wikileaks and that leads to judgments based on the lack of information and why they are unwilling to provide it. I'm kinda trying to get at what judgments you're trying to make about Wikileaks based on your observations and comparisons to publications like NYT and NPR, which presumably reported what wiki exposed but bear no responsibility for the procurement? I know CNN said it was illegal for citizens to read the Wikileaks publications and that they should get their information on them from CNN. + Show Spoiler + All news organizations report where they got the information and most provide context for that information. Most have drop boxes to receive the sort of information wikileaks received. The difference is that reporters, per their own admission, wouldn't try to crack any encryption or seek assistance in doing do. Also, if they receive information that they believe would put people at risk for whatever reason, they would attempt to mitigate that danger without sacrificing their ability to publish. To be clear, that is not just for goverment agents, but people who might be at risk for reprisal if a story is published for any number of reasons. Wikileaks, under Assange's leadership, did not do this. Over the objection of some of the people within wikileaks, per reporting on that subject. News organizations, from Pro Publica to the WSJ exist within the societies they report on. Because of that, they accept responsibility for what they publish in the sort term and long term. We complain about the state of journalism now, but that is mostly due to the garbage that is cable news. Other print publications do might higher quality reporting. And by being public and forward facing, making themselves available for the consequences of that reporting. There is a version of Wikileaks that I would champion and consider to be trust worthy. It just isn't the one that currently exists. To reiterate — and then I think we've exhausted this more or less — A major reason the publications you trust enjoy such luxurious comfort under the rule of the government they report on, and Assange was dragged out of the embassy to be extradited on some questionable charges is the kind of position you're articulating here and allowed/prompted Hillary to "joke" about assassinating him with a drone imo. As I suggested before, the complicity with the erosion of our rights in favor of short term political gains or to satiate personal desires of vengeance concerns me and the only hopeful development over the course of this discussion for me was Ari Melber making the point I am from a much more liberal centrist POV.
There are plenty of reporters that end up dead, hurt or imprisoned by the countries they report on. And some of them are from the US or write for our publications. Not every reporter is a member of the White House press corps.
And I support and encourage Assange to receive a fair, open trial in a US Court with the best attorneys available.
On April 12 2019 02:07 Dangermousecatdog wrote:The President of Ecuador, who is a different person as the former president of Ecuador who granted asylum to Assange, revoked the asylum. There doesn't need to be a xdaunt conspiracy theory about this. What I do find rather odd are the charges that the US has placed for the extradition of Assange. https://www.justice.gov/usao-edva/pr/wikileaks-founder-charged-computer-hacking-conspiracyThe charges and the explanation makes no sense.
To be honest, I think the US might need to get in line. There are more than a few countries that have a bone to pick with Assange. Those charges are weird and seem to be thrown together to push for extradition.
|
On April 12 2019 02:11 GreenHorizons wrote:I feel like folks have already forgotten this story and the lack of accountability it triggered for those who spread it, especially before they changed the headline. It was about the meeting between Assange and Manafort which as far as anyone can tell never happened. Manafort held secret talks with Assange in Ecuadorian embassyAn example of how much more widespread western propaganda is compared to Russian when it comes to US politics: + Show Spoiler +
To your point, just look at any of the reporting from the NYT, WashPo, or other "respectable" outlets over the 2-3 years on the Russia investigation. Mildly stating, it does not hold up.
My position on the media has always been one of inherent distrust. There is no outlet who gets it right all of the time. The real question is the extent to which the outlet is acting in good faith when the outlet gets it wrong. Every story should be looked at with a critical eye and considered in light of other known facts.
|
On April 12 2019 02:11 GreenHorizons wrote:I feel like folks have already forgotten this story and the lack of accountability it triggered for those who spread it, especially before they changed the headline. It was about the meeting between Assange and Manafort which as far as anyone can tell never happened. Manafort held secret talks with Assange in Ecuadorian embassy
you get what you pay for in capitalism. don't want to pay for good journalism, actually motivated and well educated people? great, let's have billionaires and partisan think tanks/pacs finance outlets. or have people churn out clickbait articles like this one...
the Guardian looks stupid now, rightfully so. though there's a decent chance that this story did not make it into the actual paper. I know from experience that many papers have different editorial staffs for online and offline products.
//edit: typo and clarity
|
Assange is an enemy of the United states, even though trump and Republicans love Wikileaks.
|
On April 12 2019 02:20 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2019 02:11 GreenHorizons wrote:I feel like folks have already forgotten this story and the lack of accountability it triggered for those who spread it, especially before they changed the headline. It was about the meeting between Assange and Manafort which as far as anyone can tell never happened. Manafort held secret talks with Assange in Ecuadorian embassyAn example of how much more widespread western propaganda is compared to Russian when it comes to US politics: + Show Spoiler + To your point, just look at any of the reporting from the NYT, WashPo, or other "respectable" outlets over the 2-3 years on the Russia investigation. Mildly stating, it does not hold up. My position on the media has always been one of inherent distrust. There is no outlet who gets it right all of the time. The real question is the extent to which the outlet is acting in good faith when the outlet gets it wrong. Every story should be looked at with a critical eye and considered in light of other known facts.
WaPo is almost exclusively trash. Occasionally they have some decent write-ups or pieces but most people don't even know they do advertorials.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Going back to a point I made about certain things surprising some and not others:
The suspect for the rash of Black churches being burned down has been arrested, turns out he was the son of the Sheriff and I guess they are going with an updated version of Marilyn Manson made him do it?
A suspect in arson fires at three historically black Louisiana churches is a law enforcement officer's son who may have been influenced by "black metal" music and "its associated history with church burnings," the state fire marshal said Thursday.
The man was identified as Holden Matthews, 21, according to Gov. John Bel Edwards, who called the fires a reminder of "a very dark past of intimidation and fear."
"I don't know what this young man's motive was, I don't know what was in his heart, but I can say it cannot be justified or rationalized," Edwards told reporters. "These were evil acts. But let me be clear about this, hate is not a Louisiana value."
www.cnn.com
|
to be fair, norwegian death metal does have some old history of church burnings.
|
On April 12 2019 02:34 brian wrote:
to be fair, norwegian death metal does have some old history of church burnings.
But on the other hand, the dude is just a racist looking for an excuse
|
yes, sorry, i didn’t mean to rationalize it. but rather, highlight that this absurdity at least does have a basis in reality, not that it actually matters. unlike the ‘video games cause violence’ lunacy. in the end, certainly a distinction without a difference.
|
A good thing with this arrest would be to look at a whole new system for whistle blower protections. A proper country should have sufficient protection for someone to expose (war) crimes without him having his life ruined. Would lessen the need for Assanges and Snowdens.
Not just the US, most countries tbh. Although realistically countries like sweeping and the rug too much.
|
It’s not like specific brands of music in the US are popular with racists and skinheads. The Dead Kennedys could tell us all about it.
|
Northern Ireland24428 Posts
On April 12 2019 02:11 GreenHorizons wrote:I feel like folks have already forgotten this story and the lack of accountability it triggered for those who spread it, especially before they changed the headline. It was about the meeting between Assange and Manafort which as far as anyone can tell never happened. Manafort held secret talks with Assange in Ecuadorian embassyAn example of how much more widespread western propaganda is compared to Russian when it comes to US politics: + Show Spoiler +Keep in mind we're selling bombs (they drop on children) to a country that chopped a journalist (he was a dick) living in the US into pieces on tape
Speaking tangentially in relation to your last point, thoughts on this move? edition.cnn.com
I'm not really under illusions that Cuba is some paradise that is great or whatever, but I mean come on. It's not the Cold War anymore, they're hardly a big international mover and shaker.
It just seems both anachronistic and incredibly hypocritical given the standards the likes of the Rowdy Saudis are expected to adhere to (and don't even do that)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
