Sympathy for Navalny, Hypocrisy over Assange

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Sympathy for Navalny, hypocrisy over Assange​

Since Alexei Navalny’s death in a Russian prison, he has been called “another martyr to democracy” (“US can honor Navalny’s memory by supporting Ukraine aid,” Editorial, Feb. 21), yet after recovering from an earlier poisoning meant to kill him, Navalny chose to return to Russia, a brave but reckless act with an unsurprising outcome. Response from US media has been an emotionally charged opportunity to call out the criminality of President Vladimir Putin and his brutal regime while calling on the Biden administration to send Ukraine weaponry, thus to honor Navalny’s memory.

Navalny had “worked tirelessly to expose Putin’s corruption,” knowing that criticizing the government is considered a crime in Russia. One would assume that informing the citizens of the United States of its war crimes would be unwelcome but permissible. Not so. Our country has hounded WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange for the past dozen years and is now attempting to extradite him to stand trial on espionage charges (“Assange starts final legal battle to avoid extradition,” Page A3, Feb. 21). Former president Donald Trump reportedly even sought his execution when he was in office.

more here. Some of the comments are interesting.

Sympathy for Navalny, hypocrisy over Assange - The Boston Globe

One would assume that informing the citizens of the United States of its war crimes would be unwelcome but permissible. Not so.

www.bostonglobe.com

 

[h-hawk]

https://www.politifact.com/article/2019/mar/18/wikileaks-russias-useful-idiot-its-agent-influence/

"The idea that WikiLeaks was acting as an unwitting agent of the Russian government has never been plausible," said former U.S. intelligence analyst Ned Price, noting that Russia had been publicly blamed for hacking the Democratic computers prior to WikiLeaks’ disclosures.
"We have to remember the people behind the operation are not naifs—technical or otherwise," Price said of WikiLeaks. "This outfit knew exactly what it was doing and who was behind its ill-begotten goods."
Catherine Fitzpatrick, a longtime chronicler of Kremlin activity and a former human rights activist, went a step further, describing WikiLeaks as an "agent of influence," or asset, for Russia.
"It isn't just a coincidence that the foreign policy goals of Russia and WikiLeaks are the same," said Fitzpatrick, now a Russian translator and analyst at The Interpreter. "They align because WikiLeaks collaborates with the Russian government."
Some experts believe Assange did Moscow’s bidding unwittingly, serving as the Kremlin’s "useful idiot."
Bradley Moss, a national security lawyer, says Assange’s actions appear to demonstrate a personal grudge against Western intelligence agencies. Still, he’s not buying the argument that WikiLeaks worked hand in glove with Russia during the election.
"There are certainly reasons to suggest that Assange and his team were disturbingly naive, and arguably even deliberately so," said Bradley Moss, a national security lawyer. "But no evidence has emerged yet to suggest that WikiLeaks truly knew exactly how much they were being used."
For now, the best evidence available for gauging WikiLeaks relationship to Russia is circumstantial.
A New York Times analysis in August 2016 of WikiLeaks’ activities during Assange’s period of exile and found a distinct pattern.
"Whether by conviction, convenience or coincidence," the New York Times wrote, "WikiLeaks’ document releases, along with many of Mr. Assange’s statements, have often benefited Russia, at the expense of the West."
The New York Times also noted that in 2012, as WikiLeaks was running out of money, a television program hosted by Assange began airing on the Kremlin-financed news organization Russia Today."

 

[tumorboy]

Assange ran and hid from consequences as long as he could. Navalny went at the beast head on.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

https://www.politifact.com/article/2019/mar/18/wikileaks-russias-useful-idiot-its-agent-influence/

"The idea that WikiLeaks was acting as an unwitting agent of the Russian government has never been plausible," said former U.S. intelligence analyst Ned Price, noting that Russia had been publicly blamed for hacking the Democratic computers prior to WikiLeaks’ disclosures.
"We have to remember the people behind the operation are not naifs—technical or otherwise," Price said of WikiLeaks. "This outfit knew exactly what it was doing and who was behind its ill-begotten goods."
Catherine Fitzpatrick, a longtime chronicler of Kremlin activity and a former human rights activist, went a step further, describing WikiLeaks as an "agent of influence," or asset, for Russia.
"It isn't just a coincidence that the foreign policy goals of Russia and WikiLeaks are the same," said Fitzpatrick, now a Russian translator and analyst at The Interpreter. "They align because WikiLeaks collaborates with the Russian government."
Some experts believe Assange did Moscow’s bidding unwittingly, serving as the Kremlin’s "useful idiot."
Bradley Moss, a national security lawyer, says Assange’s actions appear to demonstrate a personal grudge against Western intelligence agencies. Still, he’s not buying the argument that WikiLeaks worked hand in glove with Russia during the election.
"There are certainly reasons to suggest that Assange and his team were disturbingly naive, and arguably even deliberately so," said Bradley Moss, a national security lawyer. "But no evidence has emerged yet to suggest that WikiLeaks truly knew exactly how much they were being used."
For now, the best evidence available for gauging WikiLeaks relationship to Russia is circumstantial.
A New York Times analysis in August 2016 of WikiLeaks’ activities during Assange’s period of exile and found a distinct pattern.
"Whether by conviction, convenience or coincidence," the New York Times wrote, "WikiLeaks’ document releases, along with many of Mr. Assange’s statements, have often benefited Russia, at the expense of the West."
The New York Times also noted that in 2012, as WikiLeaks was running out of money, a television program hosted by Assange began airing on the Kremlin-financed news organization Russia Today."

I used to have respect for Politifact. That was a hack piece.

Most of my liberal friends - and a lot on both sides here on HROT - thought Assange was a hero back when Wilkileaks was exposing US war crimes in the criminal Iraq war. Now they blame him and hate him because of his complicity in the Hillary loss.

Do I think the leaks in the 2016 helped Trump? Yes. So if you hate Assange for that reason, fair enough. But ask yourself this....

Is Assange being extradited so he can be tried for those 2016 election leaks? Pretty sure not. He's going to be tried for the stuff we thought he was a hero for.

 

[seminole97]

"Whether by conviction, convenience or coincidence," the New York Times wrote, "WikiLeaks’ document releases, along with many of Mr. Assange’s statements, have often benefited Russia, at the expense of the West."

The premise underlying this argument is nothing more than exposing Western lies benefits Russia.
So I guess we shouldn't know when our government is lying to us, because that actually doesn't benefit us, just the Russians.

 

[seminole97]

Now they blame him and hate him because of his complicity in the Hillary loss.

They hate him because he attacked their warmonger.

 

[mnole03]

They hate him because he attacked their warmonger.

No. I hate him because he’s very clearly a Russian asset. He has always covered for them.

He did this right before the election knowing full well what he was doing.

WikiLeaks Fuels Conspiracy Theories About DNC Staffer's Death

Roger Stone, a longtime informal Trump adviser, and WikiLeaks have found common cause in advancing questions about the murder of a young DNC staffer.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[mnole03]

I used to have respect for Politifact. That was a hack piece.

Most of my liberal friends - and a lot on both sides here on HROT - thought Assange was a hero back when Wilkileaks was exposing US war crimes in the criminal Iraq war. Now they blame him and hate him because of his complicity in the Hillary loss.

Do I think the leaks in the 2016 helped Trump? Yes. So if you hate Assange for that reason, fair enough. But ask yourself this....

Is Assange being extradited so he can be tried for those 2016 election leaks? Pretty sure not. He's going to be tried for the stuff we thought he was a hero for.

There has been internal conflict at Wikileaks since the beginning regarding Assange’s power and his unwillingness to release certain things.

He’s not a journalist. He doesn’t care about authenticity or the truth. He works for the Russians. His editorial decisions reflect that. It’s why so many staff members quit. It’s why leakers don’t trust him.

WikiLeaks release excludes evidence of €2 billion transfer from Syria to Russia

WikiLeaks denies withholding any documents it received as part of its 'Syria Files' release.

www.dailydot.com

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

He’s not a journalist. He doesn’t care about authenticity or the truth. He works for the Russians. His editorial decisions reflect that. It’s why so many staff members quit. It’s why leakers don’t trust him.

This is nonsense. Legit journalists pick and choose all the time. It's fine to say you don't like his choices, but his record on publishing truth is better than most. Note that even those who scream the loudest against him seldom say he published falsehoods.

Back when Wikileaks first hit, I expressed concern that their efforts to anonymize the suppliers of their information could be an invitation for bad actors to slip them bad info - either to smear others or to discredit Wikileaks. I was thinking mainly of our CIA, because we're good at that sort of thing, but certainly Russia is another likely exploiter.

Despite that vulnerability, it looks mostly like Wikileaks exposed true stuff. Some of us think that's a valuable service, even when the folks who look bad are people we like. That's a price I'm willing to pay for finding out what the power brokers want to hide from us.

 

[seminole97]

No. I hate him because he’s very clearly a Russian asset. He has always covered for them.

He did this right before the election knowing full well what he was doing.

WikiLeaks Fuels Conspiracy Theories About DNC Staffer's Death

Roger Stone, a longtime informal Trump adviser, and WikiLeaks have found common cause in advancing questions about the murder of a young DNC staffer.

www.nbcnews.com

So, revealing the truth was damaging to Clinton.

Some people see that as a damning admission, other people want to shoot the messenger.

Which are you?

 

[mnole03]

So, revealing the truth was damaging to Clinton.

Some people see that as a damning admission, other people want to shoot the messenger.

Which are you?

He suggested Seth Rich was his source and that’s why he was murdered.

His source was Russian. He didn’t want to reveal that because he was trying to affect the election.

 

[mnole03]

This is nonsense. Legit journalists pick and choose all the time. It's fine to say you don't like his choices, but his record on publishing truth is better than most. Note that even those who scream the loudest against him seldom say he published falsehoods.

Back when Wikileaks first hit, I expressed concern that their efforts to anonymize the suppliers of their information could be an invitation for bad actors to slip them bad info - either to smear others or to discredit Wikileaks. I was thinking mainly of our CIA, because we're good at that sort of thing, but certainly Russia is another likely exploiter.

Despite that vulnerability, it looks mostly like Wikileaks exposed true stuff. Some of us think that's a valuable service, even when the folks who look bad are people we like. That's a price I'm willing to pay for finding out what the power brokers want to hide from us.

He said he doesn’t try to determine whether documents are authentic.

He’s not a journalist. He’s a tool for information dissemination. Journalists are concerned with the truth. Julian Assange is not.

 

[seminole97]

He suggested Seth Rich was his source and that’s why he was murdered.

His source was Russian. He didn’t want to reveal that because he was trying to affect the election.

You don’t know his source.
We do know the information was true.

Are you one of the Hillary supporters who hates when the people see the truth?

 

[BlIIlken2]

Assange is a **** and should be killed for treason. Navalny should be the elected leader of Russia. Next.

 

[seminole97]

He said he doesn’t try to determine whether documents are authentic.

He’s not a journalist. He’s a tool for information dissemination. Journalists are concerned with the truth. Julian Assange is not.

Do you think ‘journalists’ are a separate breed of human, with different rights than anyone else?

 

[mnole03]

You don’t know his source.
We do know the information was true.

Are you one of the Hillary supporters who hates when the people see the truth?

I think where the information came from was a crucial part of the story. Crowdstrike was very clear that they believe it came from a Russian source.

Seth Rich wasn’t involved.

 

[seminole97]

I think where the information came from was a crucial part of the story. Crowdstrike was very clear that they believe it came from a Russian source.

Seth Rich wasn’t involved.

The information was TRUE.

If it was delivered by a fat Mexican in a Spiderman costume, how would that matter to you if the information was TRUE?

It revealed that Donna Brazile was telling the truth, and the DNC rigged their nomination contest for Hillary.

Are you mad that truth came out, or that the DNC rigged their nomination for Hillary?

 

[mnole03]

The information was TRUE.

If it was delivered by a fat Mexican in a Spiderman costume, how would that matter to you if the information was TRUE?

It revealed that Donna Brazile was telling the truth, and the DNC rigged their nomination contest for Hillary.

Are you mad that truth came out, or that the DNC rigged their nomination for Hillary?

I am not mad that the information came out.

I’m mad that the Russian government was clearly interfering in the election and that Assange tried to conceal it. That’s important information, too.

 

[seminole97]

I am not mad that the information came out.

I’m mad that the Russian government was clearly interfering in the election and that Assange tried to conceal it. That’s important information, too.

What does it change about the DNC interfering in the nomination of Hillary over Bernie?

 

[mnole03]

What does it change about the DNC interfering in the nomination of Hillary over Bernie?

I’m not criticizing the leak. I’m criticizing Assange’s actions afterward.

 

[Scruddy]

I thought navalny died of a blood clot? What about the American journalist killed in Ukraine?

Assange and Snowden both deserve full pardons.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

He suggested Seth Rich was his source and that’s why he was murdered.

I tried to verify this and although I found this claim being repeated, I couldn't find the actual words from Assange. Can you point me to them.

If Assange did actually say Rich was a source, that would be a departure from Wikileaks' policies, so it would be surprising and disappointing. But I want to see the quotes.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

He said he doesn’t try to determine whether documents are authentic.

Another claim that doesn't quite ring true. If he said that, I'd bet that wasn't the point he was making, but is a misrepresentation of his point. So, again, can you point to that quote?

 

[mnole03]

I tried to verify this and although I found this claim being repeated, I couldn't find the actual words from Assange. Can you point me to them.

If Assange did actually say Rich was a source, that would be a departure from Wikileaks' policies, so it would be surprising and disappointing. But I want to see the quotes.

“Whistleblowers go to significant efforts to get us material and often very significant risks. As a 27 year-old, works for the DNC, was shot in the back, murdered just a few weeks ago for unknown reasons as he was walking down the street in Washington,”

- Assange in a Dutch interview

Julian Assange just implied a murdered DNC staffer was Wikileaks' hacked email source

There has been wild speculation that the young political staffer was a source for the DNC emails published by Wikileaks

www.independent.co.uk

Followed by an offer of $20k for information leading to the arrest of Rich’s murderer.

 

[mnole03]

Another claim that doesn't quite ring true. If he said that, I'd bet that wasn't the point he was making, but is a misrepresentation of his point. So, again, can you point to that quote?

Assange got mad that newspapers tried to authenticate documents he hadn’t.

How WikiLeaks Outsourced the Burden of Verification

To the Times, The Guardian, and Der Spiegel

archives.cjr.org

 

[seminole97]

Assange got mad that newspapers tried to authenticate documents he hadn’t.

Unfortunately the Daily Beast link to Assange being "upset" is dead now.

But the key takeaway from your link is right there to see:

The Times’s decision to check with the White House was of great service to WikiLeaks, because it was one of several processes that served to remove any doubts about the authenticity of the Afghanistan documents.

 

[BelemNole]

He had a giant cache of Russian documents and didn’t release those. That’s all you need to know about him.

 

[QuadCityHawkeye1976]

Julian Assange has always been a piece of crap.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

“Whistleblowers go to significant efforts to get us material and often very significant risks. As a 27 year-old, works for the DNC, was shot in the back, murdered just a few weeks ago for unknown reasons as he was walking down the street in Washington,”

- Assange in a Dutch interview

Julian Assange just implied a murdered DNC staffer was Wikileaks' hacked email source

There has been wild speculation that the young political staffer was a source for the DNC emails published by Wikileaks

www.independent.co.uk

Followed by an offer of $20k for information leading to the arrest of Rich’s murderer.

I have to agree that that's suggestive. And surprising. But is he actually outing Rich as a source or, as he suggests a couple of sentences later, that instances like that illustrate the fears that potential whistleblowers can have? He certainly could have used a better example. Chelsea Manning, for example.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Assange got mad that newspapers tried to authenticate documents he hadn’t.

How WikiLeaks Outsourced the Burden of Verification

To the Times, The Guardian, and Der Spiegel

archives.cjr.org

That clearly misses the point. Wikileaks gave the documents to mainstream publishers like NYT and the Guardian in significant part so those better-equipped organizations could vet them. And to increase the audience, obviously.

What Assange was objecting to was the appearance that the NYT - but not others - seemed to be offering the White House the opportunity to exercise censorship or a veto.

Assange's whole shtick is to release truths that governments want to hide from the public. Of course the sense that NYT was getting the offending government involved would rankle.