That doesn't mean that there hasn't been a coordinated campaign of character attack and punishment for revealing uncomfortable truths against him. Nor does it mean that he is deserving of what has happened

[1] https://www.snopes.com/2019/02/01/snopes-fb-partnership-ends...

As for the subtext of your message, you seem to be doubtful that the justice system is biased black people. I have no doubt you are a smart person, so it baffles me why on a post about how complex issues need a broad and nuanced understanding you'd take this simple-minded sarcastic swipe.

You appear to think that the social justice issue was determined simply based on the fact the black people are incarcerated at a higher rate than the general population, and political correctness demands that it be attributed to judicial bias. There is a lot of research supporting this bias; it isn't just a PC justification.

Furthermore, announcing leaks gives the orgs being leaked on time to get their story straight and destroy evidence, so I'm really skeptical that announcing leaks like that is the responsible course of action.

What makes you so sure of this?

The United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture (and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment) visited Mr. Assange with a medical team and then wrote an appeal to the UK Government. The UK government should react with a prompt and impartial investigation. They did not do that. The did not even answer the question of the United Nations Special Rapporteur.

That by itself, no matter if Mr. Assange was subjected to torture, is non compliance with international rules.

Given Brexit this level of "we do not care about international rules and we do not accept the UN as an authority" is unsurprising. IMHO a western nation like the UK ignoring a member of the OHCHR is very worrisome. It shows that the UK government has little interest to participate in the trend towards "good governance".

This is blatant antisemitism.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_abuse_of_psychiatr...

Sorry they are nothing more than a propaganda machine of Russia at this point.

They went political in the last election choosing to keep GOP documents silenced and release the DNC data.

I have no issue if Wikileaks wasn’t playing political games. But they are.....

Good quality newspapers tend to separate reporting and editorials/opinion fairly clearly, but have always contained both. It is also wholly common for newspapers to endorse candidates for high political office within the editorial context.

It is a matter of record that newspapers and magazines endorsed Clinton over other candidates by a massive margin in the 2016 elections:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_endorsements_in_the_...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_endorsements_in_the_...

I don't know where the idea that the news media is supposed to be a purely-objective fact source comes from, to be honest. This seems to be some kind of straw man.

The charge against Wikileaks, such as it is, is that while the material disclosed might be verbatim, it is obviously still subject to the editorial decisions of its leadership about which material to seek out and to disclose.

Made his bed and now has to lie in it.

HMPS are solely responsible for the conditions in which somebody is held, the legal team can do nothing for him.

There's two aspects to the time stamps. One is that based on the time stamps, the emails were all copied on Nov 7 2016 at rates of up to 49.1 megabytes per second.* This is fairly high for internet transfers. The other aspect is that the last modified timestamps of all emails and attachments were quantized to a 2 second granularity. This means this was not a hacked internet server to server transfer but was a copy to an intermediary drive that was formatted with the old FAT format.

The forensics show it wasn't a hack. No one competent in security or forensics would honestly come to that conclusion based on what is known. When coupled with Murray's testimony that he personally couriered the emails from a park near American University in DC back to Assange himself, it's curious Murray has not been subpoenaed to name the leaker, also it's curious the FBI had no interest in inspecting the DNC servers or drives.

* The wikipedia article deceptively misrepresents this as 49.1 megabits per second. Both its own sources explicitly say megabytes, and this is confirmable by examining the original data, which anyone competent can easily do themselves if they have doubts.

Being in the company of armed men who aren’t friendly forces while US forces are under fire in close proximity seems like a bad idea as well t wouldn’t be unreasonable to assume you are hostile forces.

And as for the ambulance - “The van had no visible markings to suggest it was an ambulance or a protected vehicle”

One doesn't always want to be known as the source of information, for a variety of reasons.

> "Also, I'm curious, where is the line between investigative journalism and criminal disclosure of information?"

Can depend on the jurisdiction and one's own perspective. The "ethical dilemmas" section of this Wikipedia article on ethics in journalism provides a taste:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism_ethics_and_standard...

Assange is in jail because his lawyers are challenging the US extradition request and there is legal process going on.

There is no evidence of him being tortured. He seems to have mental problems. People getting mentally ill in jails is very common.

* Sometimes individuals must break the law for greater good. This is called civil disobedience, or civil resistance.

* Just because one is breaking the law for common good, civil servants can't and should not be expected to stop enforcing the law. If you allow that, it's the end of the rule of law based society. The whole idea of just society is that you restrict what individuals in the government can do.

If you decide that civil disobedience is the way and you break the law, you should not ask to be treated differently under the law. Political pardons exist for a reason.

(I'm not taking position on the legality of actions Assage took, or justification of his actions. I'm arguing general principle.)

It was an immoral act done as far as I can tell, for immoral purposes, which were successfully attained. That it was also illegal is why it can be punished rather than merely pointed to as the kind of thing that must be tolerated despite its immorality.

The argument has, however, been made that the law as it is prohibits some other acts that are not so immoral and it could not effectively address what Assange did without so doing, and so it should be narrowed (or treated as more narrow by the executive) so as to let Assange go free in order to not chill more legitimate acts. This is, IMO, a not entirely unreasonable argument that I can respect, though I am unconvinced by it as yet.

> «He continues to be detained under oppressive conditions of isolation and surveillance, not justified by his detention status,” said Melzer

Melzer fairly clearly states that he believes there is credible evidence that Assange has been subjected to psychological torture.

Clearly I was gay while doing stuff online on a Saudi Arabian server.

There were additional files she was interested in leaking that she did not have access to.

She then obtained the password hash of an account that did have access and tried to crack the password, but was unsuccessful. She then sent the hash to wikileaks, not something wikileaks asked for, along with a request for help. There was no response.

Later she was in a chat with someone using a known wikileaks chat account. The identity of this person has not been established. She asked if they had been able to crack the password hash and that person said no they had not cracked it. They did not say they tried to crack it or they approved of cracking it. They answered the question factually, no, they had not cracked it.

Manning never hacked the system, but did try to. There's no evidence Assange attempted to hack the system. There's pretty solid evidence someone at wikileaks told Manning that they had not cracked the hash she had sent them, but none that they had attempted to do so. As far as the leaks that were published, none of these involved hacking, they were obtained using Manning's granted access. They were however unauthorized exfiltration of state secrets documenting war crimes.

This is the case alleging he actively assisted a leaker in hacking crimes.

> Sometimes individuals must break the law for greater good. This is called civil disobedience, or civil resistance.

Which is not a complete description of civil disobedience. It is accurate, but not precise.

Civil disobedience implies the actor wishes the law to be changed. They might expect not just a pardon for themselves, but a pardon for everyone who broke the unjust law. It's a distinction with a difference.

We agree that its effectiveness depends on accepting the punishment, sure.

The US Civil Rights movement generally practiced civil disobedience because the views the laws, the law making process, and the process of selecting who could even participate in the law making process as unacceptable.

The key assumption was that enough of the people who could participate in that process were nevertheless moral enough to reform all of those aspecta given a vivid enough demonstration that they could not turn away from of the top-to-bottom injustice of the system.

I don't think Assange was engaging in civil disobedience, nor do I think he would have been justified if he were, but doing so does not and never has relied on faith in the justice of the existing law-making process any more than it does in the law being violated itself.

Unsure why so many people are invested in arguing that this is just the routine functioning of the law when it certainly isn't

There is no pleasing Assange supporters, though. If they'd stuck him in with a bunch of other people, you'd probably be complaining about that instead.

No, the evidence doesn't show that and it's not been proven. Stop stating it is a fact, that is disingenuous.

Hey foldr, I got a password hash here $1$O3JMY.Tw$AdLnLjQ/5jXF9.MTp3gHv/

Try to crack that for me, it's a password to a system. Did you do it? Did you crack it?

If you say yes: you committed a crime.

According to your legal theory, if you now here say "no", you also committed also a crime since you admitted to helping me gain unauthorized access to a computer system. That is the argument you are making. It's a ridiculous argument and wouldn't stand before a jury, only before a secret national security court with no jury and the judges are all military.

Oh wait it gets worse, we don't even know who foldr is. Turns out that several different people have used this account over time and there's no evidence who was using the account when they said "No."

Yes, it does. It is the duty of the press to try to protect their sources, and the rights of a free press can not be infringed upon. While the act may be considered illegal by some other law, that law is unconstitutional.

Whether or not the requirement is met in Assange's case is to be decided by the court. There are certainly laws in the UK that prohibit hacking. Anyway, you are wrong in general about how extradition works. People are often, for example, extradited on murder charges.

This is what happens to anyone who isn’t granted bail. Unless you are granted bail, you are kept in custody in the period between being charged with a crime and being tried for it.

As I mentioned above, it’s not difficult to see why Assange has not been granted bail in this instance. In fact, he didn’t even apply for bail.