RFK died in 1968, and doesn't seem to have a personal website. The website in question is his son's, whose public service record is somewhat less established.
Unfortunately it seems to be a position shared by the loonies and no one else. I suspect Ramaswamy support for Assange comes more than from Assange having had a TV show on Russia Today than Ramaswamy's love of liberty as Ramaswamy is deeply opposed to individualism and liberty.
I think Assange should be pardoned but it is a choice between Assange doing time and the continued US support for Ukraine, I'd choose Ukraine. It seems stupid that it has to be such a choice, but here we are.
Even if you're willing to leak secrets, you have first to find yourself in the position to have access to the secrets. As a leaker, it's extremely unlikely that Snowden will ever find himself in that situation a second time. You know this, and yet you pretend that you're making a point.
Assange needs to be released immediately. He is a journalist imprisoned for exposing American war crimes, and every day he spends in prison is another stain in the West's claim of moral superiority to authoritarian regimes.
The only way he could be released in a way that's not hypocritical is if we scrap all notion of government secret classification. Is that what you're advocating?
Secret classification (in civilized nations that respect free expression) only binds people who agree beforehand not to divulge the information as a condition of gaining access to it, for example in the course of their employment. Journalists or other people who gain access to the info secondhand didn't agree to anything, and therefore commit no crime by republishing the classified info.
It's not a crime to expose state secrets that have been leaked by someone else - a person who, by the way, has already been released from prison. Furthermore, these exposed secrets were heinous, they were crimes against humanity.
Which crime do you believe Julian Assange has committed?
Since this is literally "Hacker News", I think it's worth focusing a technical hacking-nugget near the center of this political thing:
Allegedly Assange agreed to crack password-hashes for Manning, supplying the resulting fresh passwords to Manning to use. [0]
While I'm sure the US government is out to make an example of Assange, I don't see how anyone can argue the above allegation falls under regular ethical journalism. Just imagine a newspaper editor saying: "Wow, these documents you found while burgling the mansion are awesome, hey, how about I give you fresh lockpicks and a grappling-hook so you go back and check the upper floors that you couldn't reach before?"
> Allegedly Assange agreed to crack password-hashes for Manning, supplying the resulting fresh passwords to Manning to use.
Read the chat logs. This allegation is actually false. First, it's not totally clear that Assange agrees to crack the password, though he does remark that he had the capability to do so. He definitely doesn't supply the cracked password.
> Just imagine a newspaper editor saying: "Wow, these documents you found while burgling the mansion are awesome, hey, how about I give you fresh lockpicks and a grappling-hook so you go back and check the upper floors that you couldn't reach before?"
And then imagine the newspaper editor not actually supplying the lockpicks or grappling-hook and never speaking of it again.
> First, it's not totally clear that Assange agrees to crack the password,
Assange said he "passed it into our lm guy", which is an implicit--but clear!--signal that he will help with the technical problem, along with being a kind of small assistance all on its own.
> Read the chat logs. This allegation is actually false. [...] He definitely doesn't supply the cracked password.
That part doesn't matter, since Assange is accused of conspiracy to X. That one word is very important, it means a chat-log showing him agreeing to assist with the X is sufficient grounds to charge him with that related crime.
Analogy: You message me explaining you need to crack data on a CAN bus in order to steal a luxury car, and I agree to analyze your collected data and find the secret key needed to disable the security systems.
Those chat-logs would still be enough to charge me (and you) with conspiracy to commit grand theft auto: It doesn't matter if I never touched the car myself, and it doesn't matter if I failed at extracting a secret key, the important thing is we each acted and collaborated towards a crime.
They see 'humanity' as a weakness. Like decency, and honesty.
What's astounding is that neither Democrat elites or their donors seem to give a flying. Lil Russian accusations here, lil smear there, and suddenly he's not a journalist or a whistleblower any more.
Leaking national secrets needs to be punished to deter people from doing it. You can do it, but you must also be willing to defend your actions in a court. This seems necessary, as an organisation can't operate without keeping some secrets.
I think the punishment should depend on what was leaked. If the contents were a clear injustice, then there should be no negative consequences for the leaker. But they must still stand up for their decision in court. What is certainly not acceptable is trying to flee from consequences. This should merit a punishment, which is what happened here.
Why would he or anyone else in his position have any faith that they'd get a fair trial in a US court? He'll get thrown in a detention cell and treated like a POW as he awaits trial for years, only to be eventually told the court does not consider him a journalist and he's fucked for life, no matter how important or valid the leaks were. If the leaks were embarrassing to someone important enough, which they were, then he's done. For him to sacrifice himself on the altar of 'justice' he knows he won't receive is not a reasonable expectation.
Assange isn't American and didn't leak in America. Should the rest of the world have to adhere to all American laws? What about China's or Russia's, etc?
And what solution do you have, when the courts and justice system has significant political influence from the executive/legislative arms, and is pushed by them?
I'm neither arguing for or against Julian, I'm just saying that "have unbiased judge" requires an unbiased/uninfluenced judge.
Seems sensible... except who gets to decide what's a secret and for how long? And by "defend your actions in a court", you likely mean a court of the country who's secret you leaked? Or no?
So would you for example agree to be extradited to Russia for saying there's a war with Ukraine? Or to China for mentioning the Uyghur genocide? It's a secret after all.
Also, just being able to threaten journalists with court in general would have a chilling effect - especially in a place like the US where it costs so much money.
By the way, the first and sealed indictment of Assange was not for leaking secrets. Make of that what you will.
The Australian Labor Party and the Liberal/National Party are both centrist. Characterising Liberal/Nationals as "right-wing lunacy" when they're the party that banned firearms, legalised gay marriage and added a national VAT tax on everything (twice) is nonsense. It's an attempt at using projecting US-style politics on Australia and it's disingenuous at best.
If the Liberal/National Parties are reelected it's because of Labor's incompetence and playing with American-themed identity politics instead of actually addressing concerns within the country.
Readit News
And Monique Ryan is already on thin ice -- can't help but wonder what the people of Kooyong think about her spending her time on this.
She's a federal representative, not a state representative. I hope you apply such 'non-local' arguments to all federal representatives equally.
I think Assange should be pardoned but it is a choice between Assange doing time and the continued US support for Ukraine, I'd choose Ukraine. It seems stupid that it has to be such a choice, but here we are.
Can you unpack that?
Watching the smear machine rev up against her, the moment she got traction, has been quite the spectacle.
I wouldn't trust him to follow through.
Dead Comment
Even if you're willing to leak secrets, you have first to find yourself in the position to have access to the secrets. As a leaker, it's extremely unlikely that Snowden will ever find himself in that situation a second time. You know this, and yet you pretend that you're making a point.
Which crime do you believe Julian Assange has committed?
Allegedly Assange agreed to crack password-hashes for Manning, supplying the resulting fresh passwords to Manning to use. [0]
While I'm sure the US government is out to make an example of Assange, I don't see how anyone can argue the above allegation falls under regular ethical journalism. Just imagine a newspaper editor saying: "Wow, these documents you found while burgling the mansion are awesome, hey, how about I give you fresh lockpicks and a grappling-hook so you go back and check the upper floors that you couldn't reach before?"
[0] https://blog.erratasec.com/2019/04/assange-indicted-for-brea...
Read the chat logs. This allegation is actually false. First, it's not totally clear that Assange agrees to crack the password, though he does remark that he had the capability to do so. He definitely doesn't supply the cracked password.
> Just imagine a newspaper editor saying: "Wow, these documents you found while burgling the mansion are awesome, hey, how about I give you fresh lockpicks and a grappling-hook so you go back and check the upper floors that you couldn't reach before?"
And then imagine the newspaper editor not actually supplying the lockpicks or grappling-hook and never speaking of it again.
Assange said he "passed it into our lm guy", which is an implicit--but clear!--signal that he will help with the technical problem, along with being a kind of small assistance all on its own.
> Read the chat logs. This allegation is actually false. [...] He definitely doesn't supply the cracked password.
That part doesn't matter, since Assange is accused of conspiracy to X. That one word is very important, it means a chat-log showing him agreeing to assist with the X is sufficient grounds to charge him with that related crime.
Analogy: You message me explaining you need to crack data on a CAN bus in order to steal a luxury car, and I agree to analyze your collected data and find the secret key needed to disable the security systems.
Those chat-logs would still be enough to charge me (and you) with conspiracy to commit grand theft auto: It doesn't matter if I never touched the car myself, and it doesn't matter if I failed at extracting a secret key, the important thing is we each acted and collaborated towards a crime.
Dead Comment
They could afford a little humanity and release Julian Assange.
They see 'humanity' as a weakness. Like decency, and honesty.
What's astounding is that neither Democrat elites or their donors seem to give a flying. Lil Russian accusations here, lil smear there, and suddenly he's not a journalist or a whistleblower any more.
The barrel has rotted.
People need to own up to ignoring this human rights violation.
Dead Comment
No: Real journalists do not do the things Assange is indicted for.
[Allegedly] Manning asked for help cracking password hashes, and Assange agreed to provide Manning fresh passwords to log in as other users.
That isn't "journalism", and it doesn't become protected/regular/normal journalism even if the prosecution is overzealous in other ways.
I think the punishment should depend on what was leaked. If the contents were a clear injustice, then there should be no negative consequences for the leaker. But they must still stand up for their decision in court. What is certainly not acceptable is trying to flee from consequences. This should merit a punishment, which is what happened here.
I can't choose an excerpt - but it's a quick read: https://theintercept.com/2020/01/02/chelsea-manning-torture-...
I'm neither arguing for or against Julian, I'm just saying that "have unbiased judge" requires an unbiased/uninfluenced judge.
So would you for example agree to be extradited to Russia for saying there's a war with Ukraine? Or to China for mentioning the Uyghur genocide? It's a secret after all.
Also, just being able to threaten journalists with court in general would have a chilling effect - especially in a place like the US where it costs so much money.
By the way, the first and sealed indictment of Assange was not for leaking secrets. Make of that what you will.
If the Liberal/National Parties are reelected it's because of Labor's incompetence and playing with American-themed identity politics instead of actually addressing concerns within the country.