John McCain claimed that leaks provided to WikiLeaks by Bradley Manning, which included the diplomatic cables, caused U.S. foreign sources to be harmed.
However, it was in fact an error on the part of a Guardian journalist, not WikiLeaks, that that led to the full unredacted cables leaking to third parties on the web that WikiLeaks published them as well — and not before Assange attempted to warn the office of Hillary Clinton, then U.S. Secretary of State about the unintended leak of the cables.
WikiLeaks had a major impact on the news cycle during the 2016 presidential election, releasing a number of damaging leaks exposing corruption in the Hillary Clinton campaign.
Now that he is in custody, should he be allowed to tell his side of the story or will he be silenced by those who are still trying to keep secrets?
What side of the story? You are presenting only one side, the Trump side. However history tells a different story.
"Trump on Thursday repeatedly denied knowledge about WikiLeaks and Assange. But, in fact, Trump has a history of supporting WikiLeaks, saying at one rally in 2016: "WikiLeaks, I love WikiLeaks."
During the campaign, Trump routinely applauded WikiLeaks for its role in disseminating the contents of internal communications stolen from the Democratic National Committee and Clinton campaign. He even publicly encouraged the Russians "to find the 30,000 emails (from Hillary Clinton's server) that are missing."
https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/11/politics … index.html
As one reporter said, "journalists don't hack." I think they have enough evidence to extradite him to the U.S. Both the U.K. and Ecuador seem to have their fill of him. The judge called him a "narcissist," and Ecuador said he was destructive, destroying their surveillance equipment and trying to install his own and smearing feces on the walls.
I presented nothing but known information - you on the other hand just regurgitated Democrat talking points. If he was such a "bad guy" then why didn't Bob Mueller interview him? Why wasn't he extradited when Obama was President so he could be "prosecuted" for the crime you are alleging?
I can't wait until he starts talking myself - from what I hear, he has dirt on every leader in the world, expect Trump (because in his own words, there wasn't any)
With so much damage control hitting the media, it seems that one side doesn't want him coming to America for fear of what? Seth Rich ? More ?
Ralph, Democrat talking points are the mainstay of many here, too many!
But if he has dirt on every leader in the world, do you really think there is any way he will be allowed to reveal it?
If he has that dirt why has he been sitting on it? Maybe he has it set up to be released on his say so as insurance against him being put away or otherwise silenced?
Whatever happens to him will likely provide the answer.
Quite the contrary, Ralph, it seems that you are only regurgitating the Republican side of the story. As IslandBites says, it seems you don't know how extradition works. Now that dear boy Assange was committing destruction inside the embassy. which they consider crimes, the Ecuadorians are washing their hands of him and he can be extradited to either Switzerland (for the alleged rapes) or the U.S. for the hack in which he was complicit, supplying a password for an intended crime against the U.S. "Talking points," you gotta be kidding. I guess you consider anything that doesn't come from Fox to be fake news.
Sure, he can testify before Congress at the same time Barr releases the unredacted Mueller report to Congress.
We certainly don't want anyone to keep secrets about our goverment.
"Sure, he can testify before Congress at the same time Barr releases the unredacted Mueller report to Congress."
You would play political games with a man's life? How...liberal!
Please feel free to be more clear.
Or are you trying to say once again that a double standard on truth is OK as long as it benefits Trump?
What possible reason can be given to wait to allow a man to defend himself until Muellers unredacted report goes to congress? What is the connection, what does that report have to do with Assange? But for a political game I can detect no possible connection - can you?
Is it just another example where people do not matter the the liberal machine - where the ends always justifies the means?
The reason is called truth in government, especially when both cases are closely related to the various Russia investigations.
You can't go public with evidence that benefits Herr Trump and hide other evidence that hurts him.
Unless of course you want a dictatorship.
"Unless of course you want a dictatorship."
Which seems to be the direction in which this country is heading. Trump can say or do anything with impunity, it seems.
In a society where impunity is the norm, violence becomes normalized. — David Luhnow, WSJ.
Of course not, not even if they hard national security. The U.K. is saying that the Assange/Manning Wikileaks etc. harmed their national security, too, so I guess somebody should testify about something. This can't be straightened out unless they do.
From what I have read, the UK has agreed with Ecquador that they will not extradite him to countries with a death sentence or where he can be killed. So, unless they do not keep their word, which will be bad, there's no question of him speaking up in Congress, right? Or do you mean via Skype or something?
Erm. Really? I guess you have no idea how asylum and extraditions work.
I hope that we do not deport Assange from the UK to the US. The video clips that I have seen on the news of the shootings by US forces suggest to me that they were committing war crimes and that, therefore, reporting them was in the public interest.
?? News videos "suggest" to you that US military personnel are war criminal and it is thus legal and proper to hack into computers? This seems an odd excuse to forgo a trial.
He didn’t do the hacking. He is a reporter and was offered news.
You could be right Glennis Rix, but would your opinion change if it was found that he encouraged or directed, or facilitated the hacking that produced the "news" he reported?
Since I don't know if he did or didn't, and am still struggling to develop an opinion, that was a sincere question.
Clearly, hacking is wrong and a criminal offence; encouraging or facilitating it is also a criminal offence. So Assange, if he encouraged it, should face the consequences. However, there is a difficult moral dilemma. What was revealed in the leaked videos was also a criminal offence and, in my view, state sponsored murder - which is what happened -is also a serious crime and was rightly exposed. I can only guess that Assange’s partner in crime approached him with a proposal along the lines “ I can provide you with video evidence of a war crime”. What would any one of us done faced with a similar dilemma to the two men? Brushed it under the carpet ?
You could take one of two black or white views. Either they are criminals or they are heroes. Unfortunately, things are not always black or white and I see this as a grey area. Are there mitigating circumstances that ought to be taken into account by a sentencing judge?
My concern is that the severity of any sentence imposed on Assange would reflect not only facilitating hacking (if that is what happened) but also the fact that he shamed the military by exposing a brutal military attack on unarmed civilians and journalists. Have the people who authorised and perpetrated that crime been brought to trial?
I understand what you are saying Glennis, but the first question must be settled before the contingencies of your point(s) can come into consideration.
That "first question" is whether he facilitated or promoted the data acquisition.
Apparently he helped set up a cloud data drop online (where Manning could send the stolen data) and Wikileaks provided the password for it.
Bottom line: it's a BS charge to get him to the US where the jackals will fight over his fate.
No civilized country should consider extradition to the US where sentencing regimes are so harsh .
He should certainly face trial in Sweden, however. The allegations are clear, significant and the women concerned deserve their chance to see their grievances properly judged.
And a fence, receiving and selling stolen goods, is not a criminal.
We disagree on that point.
He claimed to be a "journalist". Too many people don't know what journalists are and what they are not. I have two degrees in journalism, so I believe I'm qualified to debate you. Real journalist use real news sources. They don't hack or help someone to hack into computers. In other words real journalists don't commit crimes themselves to get their story. Real journalist don't put in jeopardy the national security of a country to get their sensationalism. But I notice that you called him a "reporter". Anybody can set up a website and call himself a reporter, but Assange called himself a "journalist," not a "reporter."
Hi Will, First, I thought I heard that the charges in Sweden had been dropped. I suppose I should check that out.
Then, if all he did was provide the password for a place to drop the data, I don't see that as rising to the charge of assisting the hacking.
Generally, and without addressing the specifics of the Wikileak releases, I don't think exposing a majority of categories of government secrets should be illegal. I recognize exceptions of course but as a concept, I don't think the government should have the power to muzzle the press. And whether you see Assange as a journalist, or not, I think Wikileaks' actions do fall within the realm of journalistic functions. The example of the Pentagon Papers comes to mind.
So a president exercising his freedom of speech means we’re heading toward a dictatorship? America, governed by a constitution since it’s inception which is the antithesis of a dictatorship is heading toward a dictatorship? Hmmm That kinda sounds, what?...looney? Who thought speech could “Trump” the constitution and turn America into a dictatorship?
by Readmikenow 3 years ago
What do you feel about the revelations from Wikileaks concerning Hillary Clinton and the media?These documents are quite revealing. It appears CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS and others are nothing more than operatives for the Democrat party. The New York Times asked her permission to print quotes....
by andycool 9 years ago
WikiLeaks is involved in uncovering many hateful activities of the US government. In this respect would it be justified to restrict their activities by the US government?
by Susie Lehto 3 years ago
"Isn't it strange that so many media outlets are now condemning Wikileaks for doing what journalist used to do?"WikiLeaks’ Email Exposes Billionaire Globalist Soros as Hillary Clinton’s Puppet MasterRead more at http://thefreethoughtproject.com/wikile … YrAZ47W.99Soros committed...
by pisean282311 9 years ago
WikiLeaks chief Julian Assange said in an interview published Thursday there was a "high chance" he would be killed in a US jail if he were to be extradited from Britain on espionage charges.The Australian is on bail in Britain fighting a bid by Sweden to extradite him over sex assault...
by Singular Investor 9 years ago
I thought it would be a neat idea to award Julian Assange the Nobel Peace Prize for 2011 - if he's still alive of course - but it seems I was not the only one to have the same thought - the Russian government has suggested it already - 2 Peace Prize Winners imprisoned - 1 in the USA (he ain't there...
by Susie Lehto 3 years ago
Strong language by the people working to rig the election. They pay people with mental illnesses to protest and anything goes at Trump rallies. "Hillary knows what's going on" ... "We're starting anarchy here." ... "If your there (at a Trump rally) and...
Copyright © 2020 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|