Julian Assange is arrested by British police

[Lord Thesaurian]

Citation needed for the idea that Wikileaks has released hacked kompromat on the Kremlin in any significant volume or frequency, especially when the Senate report states the opposite, and includes specific details of Wikileaks’ formal and informal relationships with RT, and parroting Russian propaganda/attempting to discredit information damaging to Putin, as well as relaying non public US info to the Kremlin:

Although WikiLeaks .seeks to portray itself as a legitimate media organization, its disclosures have jeopardized the safety and privacy of individual Americans and foreign allies because WikiLeaks has made only minimal, and sometimes no efforts to redact sensitive information, and does not seem to weigh whether its disclosures add any public interest value.1287 While WikiLeaks has systematically targeted the United States in this way, the Committee has identified no corresponding pattern with respect to leaks targeting Russia or its allies. The Committee is unaware of information of comparable volume and sensitivity that WikiLeaks has solicited or released about any other national government, including authoritarian and oppressive regimes with substantial records of human rights and civil liberties violations.

Julian Assange has said that he focuses his efforts on the·United States because it is the world's "superpower."1293 A former colleague ofAssange has described his work as a "one-dimensional confrontation with the U.S.A.,"1294 and e m a i l -
- p r o b a b l y ~ drafted by Assange reflect his ambition to "bring down" the United States with leaks. 5 The WikiLeaks website previously stated that WikiLeaks "aim[s] for maximum political impact."

(U) WikiLeaks and Russian government talking points have closely mirrored each other. in April 2016, Assange and WikiLeaks criticized the release of information in the Panama Papers as a "Putin attack [that] was produced by OCCRP which targets Russia & former USSR and was funded by USAID & Soros,"1313 a frequent refrain in Russian state-sponsored influence operations.1314 Putin echoed this two days later, stating: "WikiLeaks has showed us that official people and official organs ofthe US are behind this." 1315

[Heathen Hammer]

Here's your citation: https://wikileaks.org/syria-files/do...ert-assad.html
https://search.wikileaks.org/?q=russia
Wikileaks were providing leaks from Russian allies since 2006.
Granted, they do not reject assistance from Russia, but only after America had plotted to murder Wikileaks staff, while having its puppets imprison Assange on bogus charge.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Nothing I could see in your links mentions anything comparable to WikiLeaks “systematically targeting the US” for “maximum political impact” with regards to Russia or it’s allies. The description of the Syria Files page says the files “reveal how the West and Western companies say one thing and do another.” WikiLeaks has been backed by the Kremlin since at least 2012 according to the Senate report.

[Heathen Hammer]

American Senate saying how journalists that uncovered American war crimes committed in illegal war approved by same Senate are the bad guys? Now way!
But seriously, US government is not an authority here. I just provided evidence that Wikileaks reported against Russia and her allies as well. Wikileaks doesn't have pro-Russian bias, just because they have better relations with Russians after Americans tried to murder their staff for doing real journalism.

[Lord Thesaurian]

How does reporting against “the West and Western companies” indicate WikiLeaks has targeted Russia or her allies in the way it has overtly targeted the US “for maximum political impact?” Nothing in your links shows that, and one of them is just a generic link to a search page.

[Heathen Hammer]

Because I posted list of instances where they reported on Russia, hence the search link. They've been reporting leaks from Russia for years. They are not biased to favor Russia, its just that unlike America, Russia didn't try to murder the man for it. Its in America's best interest to reign CIA in and purge it of criminal elements.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Which leaked Russian documents indicate WikiLeaks has targeted Russia or her allies in the way it has overtly targeted the US “for maximum political impact?” If there are so many, surely you can provide one.

[Heathen Hammer]

Who said that Wikileaks specifically targeted US in the first place? American Senate is not a legitimate source and is biased.

[Lord Thesaurian]

The Senate report directly references Assange himself, in his 2012 book, “Cypherpunks,” where he says he focuses his efforts on the US.

[Cookiegod]

I'm sure Legio will agree with me that the American constitution is in dire need of some upgrades:

"Yeah you can say what you want and criticise our government, but only if you criticise our enemies in at least equal measure."

"If you can leak immoral behaviour by your government, but don't have access to equally damning Kremlin documents, we have the right to assassinate you."

[Lord Thesaurian]

Here are criminal counts Assange is indicted for, none of which include “criticizing the government.”

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/wikil...ing-indictment
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/wikil...ing-indictment

Criticizing the government is illegal in Russia though, which doesn’t appear to have affected WikiLeaks’ commitment to shilling for the Kremlin.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ine-disrespect

Assange/WikiLeaks’ work on behalf of Russian intelligence makes it a “non state hostile intelligence service often abetted by state actors,” which necessitates counterintelligence by the US. Assange himself has talked about targeting the US, as I mentioned, so it’s not as though the issue is ambiguous.

[Cookiegod]

"necessitates counterintelligence by the US" - what a great way to phrase your advocacy of a heinous crime.

Great job shilling for the assassination of a journalist who so far has been proven right every single time.

[Lord Thesaurian]

"necessitates counterintelligence by the US" - what a great way to phrase your advocacy of a heinous crime.

The reference is from the Senate report. “Journalists” targeting the US government in criminal hacking campaigns working with a hostile foreign power as a non state intel service are not immune to counterintelligence just because they call themselves “journalists,” nor because you refer to counterintel as a “heinous crime.”

Great job shilling for the assassination of a journalist who so far has been proven right every single time.

Lol. Was Assange “proven right” when he hosted programs on Russian state media to regurgitate Kremlin propaganda?

Was WikiLeaks “proven right” when they contracted with Russian state media (by Assange himself at the Ecuadorian Embassy) to designate RT as the ultimate beneficiary of these “journalists’” hacked materials?

Was Wikileaks “proven right” when they tried to discredit the release of the Panama Papers as a “Putin attack [that] was produced by OCCRP which targets Russia & former USSR and was funded by USAID & Soros?” Was Putin “proven right” when he said “WikiLeaks has showed us that official people and official organs of the US are behind this?”

Was Assange/WikiLeaks “proven right” when he parroted a conspiracy theory that Seth Rich was the source for the hacked DNC emails, not the GRU, and offered a reward for information about Rich’s murder?

If WikiLeaks are nothing more than “journalists,” then so is the CIA.

[Cookiegod]

The reference is from the Senate report. “Journalists” targeting the US government in criminal hacking campaigns working with a hostile foreign power as a non state intel service are not immune to counterintelligence just because they call themselves “journalists,” nor because you refer to counterintel as a “heinous crime.”

"not immune to counterintelligence"=deserve assassination. Keep going with the newspeak euphemisms. The senate report is also glorious. If the government says the meanie who says bad things about them isn't a journalist, then the government should have the right to have him "counterintelligenced".

Lol. Was Assange “proven right” when he hosted programs on Russian state media to regurgitate Kremlin propaganda?

Oh no, he appeared on the Russian version of RFERL, how dare he, when from FOX news to CNN no one's interested in critique of the domestic regime. Clearly that must mean he's factually incorrect.

Was WikiLeaks “proven right” when they contracted with Russian state media (by Assange himself at the Ecuadorian Embassy) to designate RT as the ultimate beneficiary of these “journalists’” hacked materials?

Was Wikileaks “proven right” when they tried to discredit the release of the Panama Papers as a “Putin attack [that] was produced by OCCRP which targets Russia & former USSR and was funded by USAID & Soros?” Was Putin “proven right” when he said “WikiLeaks has showed us that official people and official organs of the US are behind this?”

Was Assange/WikiLeaks “proven right” when he parroted a conspiracy theory that Seth Rich was the source for the hacked DNC emails, not the GRU, and offered a reward for information about Rich’s murder?

If WikiLeaks are nothing more than “journalists,” then so is the CIA.

It speaks volumes that you had to resort to irrelevant slander when it should've been so easy to show examples of where he was proven wrong. It also speaks volumes that you accuse him of a conspiracy theory where no actual conspiracy is required, and instead resort to unsubstantiated conspiracy theories yourself.

The DNC emails were hilariously badly secured. Surely that must mean only the Russians could have done it!!! Must have been the same GRU that made all the bounties on American soldiers in Afghanistan and filmed Trumps golden showers.
Surely no public employee with a conscience and bravery can't exist. That would reflect quite badly on those for whom the moral compass takes a backseat after unconditional loyalty to the empire.

[Lord Thesaurian]

"not immune to counterintelligence"=deserve assassination. Keep going with the newspeak euphemisms. The senate report is also glorious. If the government says the meanie who says bad things about them isn't a journalist, then the government should have the right to have him "counterintelligenced".

Sardonic rhetorical appeals are not an argument. I’ve invented no euphemisms, but rather, referred to the sourced conclusions from the Senate report on its investigation.

Oh no, he appeared on the Russian version of RFERL, how dare he, when from FOX news to CNN no one's interested in critique of the domestic regime. Clearly that must mean he's factually incorrect.

It speaks volumes that you had to resort to irrelevant slander when it should've been so easy to show examples of where he was proven wrong. It also speaks volumes that you accuse him of a conspiracy theory where no actual conspiracy is required, and instead resort to unsubstantiated conspiracy theories yourself.

Conflating Assange/Wikileaks formal and informal relationships with Russian state media, intelligence, and government to a US non profit whose editorial independence is protected by federal law just indicates your argument has already been reduced to “what about capitalist America” sophistry. Your assertions are also false. The examples given are neither irrelevant nor conspiratorial nor slander. They were included and sourced within the Senate report discussing “Russia's Strategic Support for and Partnership with WikiLeaks.”

The DNC emails were hilariously badly secured. Surely that must mean only the Russians could have done it!!! Must have been the same GRU that made all the bounties on American soldiers in Afghanistan and filmed Trumps golden showers.
Surely no public employee with a conscience and bravery can't exist. That would reflect quite badly on those for whom the moral compass takes a backseat after unconditional loyalty to the empire.

There’s nothing noble nor conscientious about shilling for the Kremlin, nor targeting, hacking, and timing the release of hacked US materials “for maximum political impact” in accordance with the Kremlin’s geopolitical aims. Admitting that you don’t even believe the GRU hacked the DNC in the first place hurts, not helps, your argument that it’s everyone else who’s making dishonest claims and not you.

[Ältester der Motten]

Which leaked Russian documents indicate WikiLeaks has targeted Russia or her allies in the way it has overtly targeted the US “for maximum political impact?” If there are so many, surely you can provide one.

Bringing up this point is disingenuous and moving the goalposts. This was not claimed by your debatte partner. The fact is that America has plenty of skeletons in her cupboard. This is self-evident with or without wikileaks, but now even more so. The history of attempted and successful assassinations and coup d'etats during the Cold War and the more recent on-going drone wars INCLUDING an outright classical assassination of a high-ranking foreign official of a country at peace (the Iranian general who was murdered in Syria), the human rights violations at Guantanamo, its neglect of even its own people during Corona, etc. The fact that Russia is hardly an innocent angel herself doesn't change that, and is superfluous to the argument. This is almost like a negative whataboutism. Human rights violations and war crimes are not a competition between Russia and the US. There are 195 countries in the world. US human rights violations and war crimes are what they re with or without Russia's existence.

And it's not like Wikileaks actively employed people to leak US stuff. They are a wiki. They take the data they get from third parties. If no one leaks any Russian data, there's no Russian data to share and put up on the website. This is a nonsensical point attempting to divert attention away from America's illegal and harmful activities.

Will you accuse Snowden of being a Russian spy because he didn't leak internal secret Russian papers next?

The Senate report directly references Assange himself, in his 2012 book, “Cypherpunks,” where he says he focuses his efforts on the US.

Julian Assange is a private individual with private individual preferences and concerns. If he is more concerned about exposing the US than Russia, then it is his prerogative to act upon his concerns. Which is reasonable, because Russia doesn't have an undeserved good reputation as leader of the free world and protector of everything good in the world in the English-speaking/ Western world and simply doesn't need exposing - we already know how they act, they are indeed relatively nonchalant about it.

Assange is a hero of free speech just like Aaron Swartz, even with his individual failings.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Bringing up this point is disingenuous and moving the goalposts. This was not claimed by your debatte partner.

This is false. HH explicitly equated WikiLeaks’ targeting and hacking of the US to its treatment of the Kremlin in order to allege that Wikileaks is not in fact overtly beholden to the Russian government. Not only was there no citation given to substantiate the assertion, it is refuted by the Senate investigation, as discussed.

This is self-evident with or without wikileaks, but now even more so. The history of attempted and successful assassinations and coup d'etats during the Cold War and the more recent on-going drone wars INCLUDING an outright classical assassination of a high-ranking foreign official of a country at peace (the Iranian general who was murdered in Syria), the human rights violations at Guantanamo, its neglect of even its own people during Corona, etc. The fact that Russia is hardly an innocent angel herself doesn't change that, and is superfluous to the argument. This is almost like a negative whataboutism. Human rights violations and war crimes are not a competition between Russia and the US. There are 195 countries in the world. US human rights violations and war crimes are what they re with or without Russia's existence.

This is a strawman, and making false accusations about whataboutism while basing your argument on whataboutism is nonsensical. CIA intel or counterintel operations, the assassination of Soleimani while the latter was in Iraq actively directing Iran’s proxy wars against the US, Covid, or Guantanamo, are all, as you say, “superfluous to the argument.”

A Senate investigation already concluded last year that WikiLeaks was selectivley fed information by Russian agents as part of a longstanding relationship built on shared anti-American interests and partnerships with the Kremlin, and the group actively sought after and then coordinated the dissemination of those hacked materials with the Trump campaign. The group is a proven national security threat and should be dealt with like one.

The Senate’s finding was based on the evidence, not a moral comparison between Moscow and Washington.

And it's not like Wikileaks actively employed people to leak US stuff. They are a wiki. They take the data they get from third parties. If no one leaks any Russian data, there's no Russian data to share and put up on the website. This is a nonsensical point attempting to divert attention away from America's illegal and harmful activities.

The GRU hacked the DNC and fed the information to WikiLeaks, who then coordinated the dissemination of those hacked materials with the Trump campaign “for maximum political impact” as part of the Kremlin’s interference in the 2016 election. This was part of a multifaceted relationship whereby WikiLeaks has acted as “a non state hostile intelligence service” on behalf of the Kremlin. The inevitable “what about US foreign policy” is the diversion from that relationship, not the other way around.

Will you accuse Snowden of being a Russian spy because he didn't leak internal secret Russian papers next?

WikiLeak’s relationship to the Kremlin is the cause, not result, of the deferential treatment the Kremlin enjoys. As noted in the Senate report:

Assange also attempted to rebut criticism that WikiLeaks does not release documents critical of or damaging to Russia. For example, on September 19, 2017, WikiLeaks released 35 internal documents from a Russian IT company that services Moscow's wiretap system.1423 The existence and nature of the system was already well known to Russian and American researchers and was not assessed to be damaging to Russia.1424 Nonetheless, Assange complained that U.S. media had not paid sufficient attention to the release.1425 The timing and limited nature of this release is consistent with indications that WikiLeaks knowingly aided the Russian 2016 election influence campaign.

Julian Assange is a private individual with private individual preferences and concerns. If he is more concerned about exposing the US than Russia, then it is his prerogative to act upon his concerns. Which is reasonable, because Russia doesn't have an undeserved good reputation as leader of the free world and protector of everything good in the world in the English-speaking/ Western world and simply doesn't need exposing - we already know how they act, they are indeed relatively nonchalant about it.

Assange is a hero of free speech just like Aaron Swartz, even with his individual failings.

Whether or not you believe the US “deserves” its geopolitical position in the world is as irrelevant as Assange’s “personal failings” and his status as a “private individual.” As “a non state hostile intelligence service,” WikiLeaks has actively served the Kremlin under the guise of a legitimate media organization. As referenced in the Senate report:

(U) WikiLeaks and Russian government talking points have closely mirrored each other. in April 2016, Assange and WikiLeaks criticized the release of information in the Panama Papers as a "Putin attack [that] was produced by OCCRP which targets Russia & former USSR and was funded by USAID & Soros,"1313 a frequent refrain in Russian state-sponsored influence operations.1314 Putin echoed this two days later, stating: "WikiLeaks has showed us that official people and official organs ofthe US are behind this."

(U) Assange and WikiLeaks undertook efforts to obscure the source ofthe stolen emails, including through false narratives. Assange's use of such disinformation suggests Assange possibly knew of and sought to hide Russian involvement. One narrative from Assange involved a conspiracy theory that Seth Rich, a DNC staffer killed in a botched robbery, was the source of the DNC email leak and had been murdered in response. On August 9, Assange gave an interview on Dutch television implying that Rich was the source ofthe DNC emails,1420 and that day WikiLeaks announced that it would be issuing a reward for information about Rich's murder.1421 In a subsequent interview, Assange commented about the WikiLeaks interest in the Rich case as concerning "someone who's potentially connected to our publication."1422 The Committee found that no credible evidence which supports this narrative.

WikiLeaks is not a conventional organisation. It has no board, no governance, and no effective rules. In such a febrile environment, and with Julian so central to the organisation's ability to function, it's not hard to see how such decisions came to be seen as correct.

Press enquiries started to trickle in. A little research revealed his unsavoury history, but I was told Julian would be unwilling for WikiLeaks to publish anything critical of Shamir. Instead, shamefully, we put out a statement simply distancing WikiLeaks from him.

There followed even more damning allegations. Shamir had been seen leaving the interior ministry of Belarus, an eastern European dictatorship.

The next day, the country's dictator, Alexander Lukashenko, boasted he would start a Belarusian WikiLeaks showing the US was funding his political rivals.

Scores of arrests of opposition activists followed the country's elections – but Shamir wrote a piece painting an idyllic picture of free, fair, elections in a happy country.

The final straw for me came on Friday. By drawing attention to, and then publishing in full, the unredacted cache of documents, WikiLeaks has done the cause of internet freedom – and of whistleblowers – more harm than US government crackdowns ever could. These cables contain details of activists, opposition politicians, bloggers in autocratic regimes and their real identities, victims of crime and political coercion, and others driven by conscience to speak to the US government. They should never have had to fear being exposed by [WikiLeaks].

https://www.theguardian.com/media/20...eave-wikileaks