Just to know, who would he be supposed to cozy up to if he was about freedom of information?Assange has never believed in freedom of information, else he'd have never cozied up to Putin (incidentally, the same holds true for Edward "I'm gonna hide in Russia and give Putin moral cover" Snowden, albeit to a much lesser degree)
Finally we agree on something.He is a traitor and a hypocrite.
He is a traitor and a hypocrite.
I'm agreeing with Sarcobite too.Finally we agree on something.
But who, then? There isn't really anyone who fits and who wouldn't imprison him.Not the guy who kills Journalists.
He cozied up to Putin when he started taking money to do a show on Russian State TV. If he had the courage of his convictions, and he really believed in the freedom of information, he wouldn't have done that.But who, then? There isn't really anyone who fits and who wouldn't imprison him.
Well, who would he have seen instead? I keep asking you the question and you keep answering to another question.He cozied up to Putin when he started taking money to do a show on Russian State TV. If he had the courage of his convictions, and he really believed in the freedom of information, he wouldn't have done that.
I don't really *care* who else he would have seen, and that question is entirely irrelevant. It doesn't matter if Russia really was the only place he could have gotten money (it wasn't). Unless you're going to start telling me that Russia and Putin are paragons of free press and free information, then it's manifestly obvious a man who claims to care exclusively about those things should not be taking their money and spouting their party line.Well, who would he have seen instead? I keep asking you the question and you keep answering to another question.
Nah, it's more that the standards you claim to hold him up to are inexistant, because even under the assumption that he believed in freedom of information, it's hard to see a "better" choice to achieve his stated goals. Is it a good choice? Nope. Is there any better? It's really unlikely.I don't really *care* who else he would have seen, and that question is entirely irrelevant. It doesn't matter if Russia really was the only place he could have gotten money (it wasn't). Unless you're going to start telling me that Russia and Putin are paragons of free press and free information, then it's manifestly obvious a man who claims to care exclusively about those things should not be taking their money and spouting their party line.
I'm not on Assange's side, so I'm not going to do his legwork.
He was doing fine in the UK for two years after he helped Manning release his leaks, he could have stayed there possibly indefinitely. Or he could have not pissed off Ecuador repeatedly. Or gone to other countries in Europe. He had options.
Where else he could have gone is not the issue, because I don't have to provide an answer to that. Assange portrays himself as a man of Principle - Russia violates his principles. If his schtick is that he is a principled man, that his love of freedom of information and his belief in that value is why he did what he did, he violated his principles by taking Russia's money and defending Russia at every opportunity.
Your position is equivalent to sealoining in terms of its contributions to the actual discussion and it's merits - it's like trying to demand that I'm obligated to prove you aren't holding a baseball right now.
I hope he gets a ferrous one.In a just world he'd be given a metal.
I won't go all that way either. Assange is likely to have become an influence agent serving other countries and acting on the behalf of political parties in the US, he's far, far from clean IMO.Whatever personal failings Assange has are irrelevant in the presence of the vital public service he's done to reveal corruption and criminal behavior in the american government. In a just world he'd be given a metal.
As for Edward Snowden. He's an American Patriot who knowing full well what kind of torture Chelsea Manning was being put through decide to seek refuge in a country that would never stab him in the back because his mear presence there is a massive "fuck you" to the corrupt government seeking to imprison him for exposing their heinous crimes. He also deserves a metal.
End of story.
Daily reminder that if you ever end up agreeing with Sacrobite you may need to reevaluate your life.
Chelsea wasn't tortured, she was imprisoned. For crimes she absolutely committed.Whatever personal failings Assange has are irrelevant in the presence of the vital public service he's done to reveal corruption and criminal behavior in the american government. In a just world he'd be given a metal.
As for Edward Snowden. He's an American Patriot who knowing full well what kind of torture Chelsea Manning was being put through decide to seek refuge in a country that would never stab him in the back because his mear presence there is a massive "fuck you" to the corrupt government seeking to imprison him for exposing their heinous crimes. He also deserves a metal.
End of story.
Daily reminder that if you ever end up agreeing with Sacrobite you may need to reevaluate your life.
So explain us what would, in your opinion, would have been needed to follow such high-minded principles. Explain us what better options were there. Not "this isn't good", but "that one would have been better".Snowden claims to care about freedom of information and Press, and continues to hide in Russia, the place where neither exist. I don't care *why* he's doing it, he's betraying the principles he claims to take so seriously. If High-minded principles are your supposed motivation, you actually have to follow them.
I respect that. To be clear I don't think Assange is a good guy, but when American soliders are killing journalists in Iraq, laughing about it on vidoe, and that's treated as ok, WE the american peoples NEED TO KNOW.I won't go all that way either. Assange is likely to have become an influence agent serving other countries and acting on the behalf of political parties in the US, so he's far, far from clean.
No one said otherwise. This isn't a referendum on Whistleblowers.I respect that. To be clear I don't think Assange is a good guy, but when American soliders are killing journalists in Iraq, laughing about it on vidoe, and that's treated as ok, WE the american peoples NEED TO KNOW.
Moving to a country that doesn't kill journalists and suppress information on a scale like Russia. It's pretty simple. And if he couldn't find a place that was safe to do it, then he should face his accusers in open, public court and defend himself like anyone else. Russia is not and never will be* an acceptable option for someone who tries to claim some sort of freedom of information moral high ground.So explain us what would, in your opinion, would have been needed to follow such high-minded principles. Explain us what better options were there. Not "this isn't good", but "that one would have been better".
Why would that be any different without Assange? Just send it to like 300 different news sources and it'll blow.I respect that. To be clear I don't think Assange is a good guy, but when American soliders are killing journalists in Iraq, laughing about it on vidoe, and that's treated as ok, WE the american peoples NEED TO KNOW.
Of course, but the how, when and where the information is released is also a tool that can be used and was used for ingerence purposes. If that was deliberate on his part, then he is also guilty of hostile actions.I respect that. To be clear I don't think Assange is a good guy, but when American soliders are killing journalists in Iraq, laughing about it on vidoe, and that's treated as ok, WE the american peoples NEED TO KNOW.
Ah, but you see, the issue is that pretty much anywhere else where he'd have done it, he'd have been arrested or worse on the behalf of the US government, as most whistleblowers were, and with good chances his info shut down before it could be properly broadcast. So, what is it? Going to see the assholes and be sure your info gets maximum visibility or stay with the theoretically good guys and have a pretty high chance your stuff gets suppressed or quickly ignored after a handful of days/weeks?Moving to a country that doesn't kill journalists and suppress information on a scale like Russia. It's pretty simple. And if he couldn't find a place that was safe to do it, then he should face his accusers in open, public court and defend himself like anyone else. Russia is not and never will be* an acceptable option for someone who tries to claim some sort of freedom of information moral high ground.
*at least until such time as the current Kleptocracy loses power.