RUSSIA 🇷🇺 Thread: Wikileaks=FSB front, UKRAINE?, SNOWED LIED; NATO Aggression; Trump = Putins B!tch
- Thread starter ☑︎#VoteDemocrat
- Start date
It's interesting because you have a point, while simultaneously talking out of your ass.
In this case, what you've said has some validity. In general, simply not true.
You're free to think you know the IC because you've read books and consumed some lectures, but I have worked in the IC. And I am telling you, in a general sense, you're wrong.
Trece
Superstar
If the Race is Putin vs. Clinton it is also the Main Stream Media +Clinton vs. Putin
Trece
Superstar
So if Assange has information tying one of the most powerful Washington DC families to corruption and abuse of power he should just ignore it or better yet donate a million dollars to the DNC and let them know he deleted the damaging material. -Got it
Otherwise HRC will have the mainstream media now known as the "ministry of truth" attack the character of whoever dares to expose her corruption because why would they dare to attack her anyway? They must have some evil ulterior motive like spying for the Russians or some shyt.. It cant be because they dont want this country to become an embodiment of the book 1984 under one party rule.
ill
Superstar
First, Trump is a Putin lackey.
Now, Jill Stein is a Putin lackey.
Cant wait to find out Hillary and Gary Johnson are also Putin lackeys.
Pooooootieeee Pooooot
88m3
Fast Money & Foreign Objects
ill
Superstar
Honestly, Vlad should just run himself in our election. He'd probably poll better than Hill and Trump.
88m3
Fast Money & Foreign Objects
Spitta Andretti
Rookie
Let him slowly take the rest of Ukraine and integrate it into the Russian Federation tbh fukk it
88m3
Fast Money & Foreign Objects
tbh what about cac on cac crime?
The American
Defending America against cacs
Cosign. When America was slowly invaded by whites, no one stepped in to defend it. I never cared about Afganistan, Kuwait or Georgia getting invaded. Not my problem, nor do I wanna spend tax dollars on any of that.
Tbh, I want the Soviet Union to return. If they don't wanna be socialist, at least rename it to the Union of Soviet Republics, and bring back the hammer and sickle. shyt was A1.
Idgaf if Russia conquers white america. Russian culture is better than anglo cac culture. The USSR was piff af. Let Putin do his thing and bring back the red flag, Rocky 4 all over again
By ALEX GIBNEY AUG. 8, 2016
Photo
CreditJennifer Heuer
The release of a cache of emails from the Democratic National Committee by WikiLeaks last month has raised a great many questions — about the role of the D.N.C. in trying to influence the primary and about the alleged interference of Russian intelligence in an American election.
It also raised long-debated questions about WikiLeaks itself, about how an organization dedicated to radical transparency continues to bring secretive worlds to light. And the episode reveals some of the weaknesses of WikiLeaks and its founder, Julian Assange, like their recklessness with personal data and their use of information to settle scores and drive personal agendas.
I’ve had my own run-ins with Mr. Assange. During the making of my 2013 film, “We Steal Secrets: The Story of WikiLeaks,” I spent an agonizing six hours with him, when he was living in an English country house while out on bail. I was struck by how insistently he steered the conversation away from matters of principle to personal slights against him, and his plans for payback. He demanded personal “intel” on others I had interviewed, and dismissed questions about the organization by saying, “I am WikiLeaks” repeatedly. (Later, Mr. Assange and his followers attacked both me and my film.)
Even given that history, I believe that WikiLeaks was fully justified in publishing the D.N.C. emails, which provided proof that members of the D.N.C., in a hotly contested primary, discussed how to undermine the campaign of Bernie Sanders. They are clearly in the public interest.
As for Mr. Assange’s animus against Hillary Clinton — he has written that she “lacks judgment and will push the United States into endless, stupid wars which spread terrorism” — that is evidence of bias, but no more than that. After all, many news outlets are clearly, and sometimes proudly, biased.
We still don’t know who leaked the D.N.C. archive, but given Mr. Assange’s past association with Russia, it wouldn’t surprise me to learn that it was a Russian agent or an intermediary. Mr. Assange insists this is a mere distraction from the issue of D.N.C. interference, but the answer is also in the public interest. We should all be concerned (although hardly surprised) if it is that easy for the Russians to break into the D.N.C. and possibly United States government networks.
As for the way the leak was published, Mr. Assange and WikiLeaks have more to answer for. Contained in the D.N.C. archive were Social Security numbers and credit card data of private individuals, information that served no public interest. Mr. Assange defended this invasion of privacy by claiming that deleting the information would have harmed the integrity of the archive.
But there is a responsible tradition of redacting potentially harmful private information. In 2010, just before publishing the first Afghan war logs provided to WikiLeaks by Chelsea Manning, Mr. Assange and a group of journalists from The Guardian, The New York Times and Der Spiegel were engaged in a tussle over redacting the names of Afghan informants. The three publications all decided to do so, but Mr. Assange disagreed. As he told Nick Davies of The Guardian, “If an Afghan civilian helps coalition forces, he deserves to die.”
Others present at this time insist that he was concerned about their safety but had little technical ability to do the redactions on a tight deadline. The net result: Mr. Assange held back 15,000 documents and published the rest, including the names of about 100 Afghan civilians.
There is no evidence that any of those people were killed. But people couldhave been hurt. And his refusal to redact allowed the United States government to deflect attention from the evidence of possible war crimes by claiming that Mr. Assange had blood on his hands.
In an underappreciated part of the WikiLeaks saga, computer-savvy volunteers at the organization corrected Mr. Assange’s mistake and used an inventive computer program to scrub names and identities from the second leak of documents, the Iraq War Logs. It was an exemplary display of how to publish sensitive materials. Sadly, Mr. Assange reverted to form in subsequent leaks, including the unredacted publication of 251,000 State Department cables and his recent release of the emails from the A.K.P., Turkey’s ruling party, which exposed the personal information of more than one million Turkish women.
Sign Up for the Opinion Today Newsletter
Every weekday, get thought-provoking commentary from Op-Ed columnists, The Times editorial board and contributing writers from around the world.
By comparison, Edward J. Snowden has been much more careful about how leaked documents were published. He recently criticized Mr. Assange, noting that WikiLeaks’ “hostility to even modest curation is a mistake.”
Mr. Assange has also leaked documents to benefit his private aims. In 2010, he ordered an associate named James Ball to pass 90,000 cables covering Russia, most European countries and Israel to a shady journalist named Israel Shamir, who, according to Mr. Ball, later offered them to pro-Putin Russian media outlets for a $10,000 fee. It also seems likely that Mr. Shamir passed documents to Belarus’s brutal president, Aleksandr G. Lukashenko, just before a crackdown on opposition activists (which WikiLeaks has denied). Mr. Shamir is also the father of Johannes Wahlstrom, a Swedish journalist who helped to engineer a vilification campaign against the two women who accused Mr. Assange of sexual assaults and who was to be a key witness had Mr. Assange been tried for rape in Sweden.
For many of those who know him well, Mr. Assange is afflicted by what the police call “noble cause corruption,” a belief that noble ends justify reckless or immoral means. In a world awash in new information — and misinformation — context, motivation and trust are crucial when weighing the importance of leaks and their accuracy. Mr. Assange still claims that WikiLeaks is a beacon of transparency. We should no longer take him at his word.
Alex Gibney is a filmmaker whose latest documentary, “Zero Days,” is about cyberwarfare.
A version of this op-ed appears in print on August 8, 2016, on page A23 of the New York edition with the headline: Can We Still Trust WikiLeaks?. Today's Paper|Subscribe