A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
News [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
A pardon for Snowden, Assange, and Chelsea would give Biden a lot of credit
Assange is different from the other two.
Agree with what Snowden and Manning did on whatever level you like but their actions aren’t the same unfortunately.
Of the 3 Snowden is feasible.
Assange is by a large margin less altruistic than the other two - all three have paid a steep penalty for their actions, though.
Is chelsea manning in need of a pardon? I thought Obama gave her one.
He commuted her sentence.
I have a slight worry that pardoning Snowden would result in his disappearance/death since Putin would no longer have any use for him. Right now they are protecting someone who is considered an enemy of the US government and has embarrassed the US intelligence apparatus, if that changes then he no longer fills a purpose for the Russian government.
I want Snowden to be home free but right now I think he's in a precarious situation.
If the options are "pardon" and "not pardon", "not pardon" just means he stays in that exact same precarious situation. At least a pardon stands to change it, with the added benefit of being morally correct.
Even if the change is that he gets sent to a Siberian prison and/or executed? As long as the war in Ukraine is ongoing, I sincerely doubt he has any chance of getting out of Russia.
He's not doing much inside Russia one way or another. At least a pardon gives him a way out. And if he gets sent to a gulag, that's not on whoever pardoned him. That's on whoever sent him to the gulag.
I have never understood under what justification the US is demanding Assange is extradited to them and charged with espionage. He is not American, doesn't live in the US and owes no allegiance to the US. Does the US claim some kind of universal jurisdiction in this case?
Every country has "universal" jurisdiction in the sense that they can request the extradition of any foreign individual for any reason.
It's then up to the rest of the world whether to grant that, or more specifically whatever country the individual happens to be in.
Extradition exists because otherwise crimes commited remotely across borders would be even more rampant than they already are, and it is in the interest of governments to allow other governments to prosecute individuals that commit particularly egregious crimes across a border, or escape across a border.
Whether Assange is one of those is debatable, but the US has a lot of weight to throw around and Wikileaks offended the government specifically. So here we are.
Whether Assange is one of those is debatable, but the US has a lot of weight to throw around and Wikileaks offended the government specifically. So here we are.
Isn't there some big nuclear submarine deal going on right now between America and Australia?
In the name of national security, who cares about the rights of a few foreigners living on foreign (allied) soil? This isn't a coincidence, this is literally a core component of US foreign policy.
The guy who passed hacked intelligence from a Russian agent to the Trump campaign whilst pretending it was from DNC staffer Seth Rich (which was an alt-right conspiracy theory) even when he knew that wasn't true, and even after Seth Rich was dead and he knew it wasn't true?
The guy who meddled in election outcomes because he thought he had a better shot at being pardoned by Trump?
The guy who was originally on charges for slipping a condom off whilst having sex?
Yes, this guy. This messenger you're currently shooting deserves a pardon and multiple awards.
He exposed more corruption and illegal actions than either of us ever will. We need to encourage these heroic deeds. The FBI planted evidence on him. His client attorney privilege was violated. If he was actually such a bad person, these illegal lengths should never have been used to frame him.
His human rights should absolutely be respected, but I think the world will be a worse place with this guy running around.
As a messenger, his organization turned a blind eye on one side (WikiLeaks refused to publish Russian government documents: Report, WikiLeaks Turned Down Leaks on Russian Government During U.S. Presidential Campaign) and instead collaborated with them, to the degree of forging messages and using leaks to distract from equally newsworthy dirty laundry.
I'd compare him to a cop who selectively polices crime gang A but ignores crime gang B. And whose phone number is found with members of crime gang B, together with evidence that they could call the cop at any time (and did so) to appear inside crime gang A's territory. Yes, technically, the cop has apprehended more criminals than either of us ever will and we could give him a medal for his work (and crime gang B is certainly motivated to help that along to get this cop more entrenched and promoted).
Literally from the article you posted:
“WikiLeaks rejects all submissions that it cannot verify. WikiLeaks rejects submissions that have already been published elsewhere or which are likely to be considered insignificant. WikiLeaks has never rejected a submission due to its country of origin,” the organization wrote in a Twitter direct message when contacted by FP about the Russian cache.
Assange has mentioned on numerous occasions that they get a lot of fake leaks sent by ABCs designed to hurt WikiLeaks' credibility. Unless there is concrete evidence of him being a Russian asset (and it has to be concrete, especially knowing that he has literally been framed by the FBI on multiple occasions), I'm not going to immediately drop my support for whistleblowers.
Also literally from the article I posted:
“We had several leaks sent to Wikileaks, including the Russian hack. It would have exposed Russian activities and shown WikiLeaks was not controlled by Russian security services,” the source who provided the messages wrote to FP. “Many Wikileaks staff and volunteers or their families suffered at the hands of Russian corruption and cruelty, we were sure Wikileaks would release it. Assange gave excuse after excuse.”
Neither of our quotes really adds anything to the discussion.
A nebulous policy to reject "anything WL can't verify" or "has been published elsewhere" or "is likely to be considered insignificant" or is "diversionary (to WL's election interference)" is a carte blanche for Assange to turn down anything that he doesn't like.
What I have seen concrete evidence for is that Assange wanted Trump to win (In Leaked Chats, WikiLeaks Discusses Preference for GOP Over Clinton, Russia, Trolling, and Feminists They Don’t Like <- contains verified excepts from leaked internal WikiLeaks chats). And for strongly pushing the Seth Rich conspiracy theory (hinting in multiple interviews that Seth Rich was behind the DNC leaks and even posting a $20000 reward for the murder case).
I won't even ask for concrete evidence that the FBI has framed Assange, because in the big picture, it doesn't change who he is or what he does. To me, it's been sufficiently proven that he takes sides (that's an 'F' for integrity, report the story, don't be part of the story), that he collaborated in anti-democratic GOP activities and that his promotes views that align with the gunk spread by "Russia Today" or "Sputnik." Whether that's because he a Russian asset or because he's had a false awakening into the conspirational world view Russian information warfare uses to twist people, who knows. I'll withhold judgment on that one, but I also won't expect him to do anything good for the world.
He would be easier to support if he had just kept releasing important news/evidence when it was morally justified, and not got into the more questionable activities of private intelligence - such as election meddling.
Bad move on his part, makes him a lot harder to defend.
A million people died in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, despite global protests and outrage. Sometimes it feels like there must be better systems than the current set up of "democracy".
He's an absolute scum bag and is directly responsible for Trump's election.
That said, my personal feelings about him are irrelevant. Whistle-blowers are an important part of democracy and must be protected.
It isn't whistle blowing if you're using it for your own personal gain. Then it is just politics
He sold away his whistle blower status in my book when he was attempting to manipulate elections and wasn't being 100% truthful
I don't think he would have done that if we didn't pursue him like a dog and threaten to throw the book at him, as a whistleblower.
If we'd given him proper whistleblower protections, he wouldn't have fled for his life or intentionally jumped in our enemies pockets
Nah that man has an agenda.
He's basically a tattle-tale so he can benefit. Not a whistle-blower with the intent to help people like Manning or Snowden. He's just an asshole.
Dropping those charges doesn't mean the CIA won't execute a special operation.
Though, perhaps not, as if they were the case, I'd probably have happened already.
There's no benefit to killing him. Damage is done and he's out in the open.
They'll just protect him with those Boeing whistleblower laws.
doubt that
Yeah. It's an election year so Biden has to posture for doing things without actually doing things.
Fuck establishment democrats.
I really wish he would do something other than 'consider' something.