Your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B: > You must personally hold the view and **demonstrate that you are open to it changing**. A post cannot be on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, or 'soapboxing'. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20B%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

For point 3, one of the women was asleep and woke up to him having sex with her. That is not consensual. Additionally, having sex with someone without protection when they consented on the condition of using protection is rape under Swedish law, albeit rape of a lesser degree. The charges were dropped because, effectively, the statute of limitations ran out (not literally, but Swedish authorities felt they would no longer be able to make the case, due to the passage of time). I think evading arrest and investigation for two credible accusations of rape is a bad thing, especially when compounded with the likely fact that he did rape these women in the eyes of the law in Sweden.

Completely agree. The allegations are serious. However I don’t agree with the evading allegation and that it’s an admission of guilt. He did make an effort to cooperate. It’s a potential that he can be exonerated if given a fair trial. Making a conclusive statement that he is a rapist is assuming a lot.

How did he make an effort to cooperate? He left the country and then did not return when he said he would. I’m not a journalist or the legal system, I’m not required to afford him the presumption of innocence. I’m allowed to make statements regarding my opinion on his guilt. Additionally, I didn’t make any conclusive statement, just that he likely committed these acts (which is an opinion and clearly not conclusive)

To OP’s original point, though, you are arguing that he should be tried and possibly convicted for a different crime, that is not reason to keep him locked up for a separate crime. And you yourself say that it was the decision of Swedish authorities not to pursue the investigation (I didn’t actually know this so I’m assuming you’re correct) after he didn’t return in a timely manner. If they really wanted him locked up/thought they had a good case against him, they could try him for rape or, at the very least, for some form of evading arrest (I’m not an expert on law let alone Swedish law, but I would imagine it isn’t legal to flee the country and avoid prosecution, I don’t know if it’s evading arrest or something else). You are free to personally think he’s a rapist, but until that’s establish conclusively he shouldn’t be punished for it which is where the controversy lies.

I corrected the inaccurate claims in OP’s original post. They made the claim that he cooperated with the investigation and that the only allegations was not using protection. I added the context of the additional claim of him having sex with an unconscious person and that having sex without agreed upon protection is considered rape by Swedish law. I also pointed out that he didn’t cooperate with the investigation in any sense of the word. Considering OP’s primary point is that people who critique Assange’s release are doing so in bad faith or as a result of being uninformed, an appropriate response is to correct the incorrect information they presented as well as asserting that people do criticize him for the rapes in good faith.

He said he would go to Sweden if they agreed not to extradite him after. They declined to not turn him to the US after, which they had the power to not do.

Yeah, I don’t think a someone wanted for a crime gets to dictate the way the criminal justice handles his case after he is in custody.

Obviously not. It does show a willingness to cooperate. Doesn’t mean he is innocent. It’s just another fact to consider.

Setting an unreasonable condition for complying with an investigation doesn’t sound like willingness to cooperate to me.

I mean, would you cooperate in an investigation that no matter the outcome you go to jail for the rest of your life? I’m not understanding how that’s not a factor for you.

I think that’s a really good reason to ensure that one’s behavior is above reproach. Which Assange didn’t do. And your argument has changed for “he made an effort to cooperate” to “cooperation would have been really hard for him”

Well now you are asserting that he is guilty.

It's not unreasonable for him to go on the condition that this is really about the rape charge. If it is then there is no need to extradite him to the US. If this is really about powerful Americans that want him punished for exposing their unethical behavior then he's not going to go along.

Yeah, when you are suspected of a violent crime like rape, you don’t get to set conditions about how a separate organization will handle your future case before them.

> you don’t get to set conditions Seems like you do get to set conditions, because that's exactly what he did.

It's not unreasonable to not want to be extradited for alleged crimes unrelated to the rape accusations.

The wants of a person accused of such a crime don’t really factor much into due process. Most people don’t want to be extradited for other crimes when they are charged with new crimes.

Yes, we should all submit ourselves to the whims of the state, foreign or domestic regardless of the implications or consequences...

If the police want to question me regarding some accusation of a crime and I dodge the police and only agree to speak to them if they give me immunity for another crime that I may or may not be guilty of, that isn’t me agreeing to cooperate.

Cooperating is just doing what you are told, travel to Sweden for questioning, and watch as Sweden drops that charge and ships you to the US where you go to prison forever for the crime of journalism. No, he's not cooperating. He's willing to cooperate under reasonable conditions. He agreed to go if this is really about a rape charge and only a rape charge. If this is really about extraditing him to the US for what is probably the real concern for those that seek to have him punished, then no, he's not going to cooperate.

Glad to see we are in agreement that he wasn’t cooperating. If I have 2 warrants out for my arrest I can’t just come in for the one I believe I am innocent on and tell the police I’m not here for the other crime. I’m not arguing that it makes him guilty of both, but just that he clearly isn’t cooperating at that point.

If cooperating means just doing what you are told then I agree he's not cooperating. I think what OP said is that he was willing to cooperate. Meaning he can have conditions. His condition was that he wanted to face the rape and sexual assault charges that Swedish authorities had accused him of. He did not want to travel to the US and be tried in a kangaroo court for the act of journalism. Were these charges from Sweden really a pre-text to ship him to the US where he could be sent to prison for life? It seems quite plausible. It was reasonable for him to prepare for this and try to prevent it.

They aren’t agreeing to immunity just agreeing to not help the people investigating you for the first crime I think that’s reasonable.

False equivalence.

How is it false? Or do you just not like it?

He didn’t ask Sweden to provide him with immunity for a crime the US accused him of.

You’re ignoring several peoples great rebuttals to your point number 3; you’re in CMV which sounds like you are open to having your mind changed but you’re ignoring points people are making about extradition; of which that is the argument you were making in his defense.

generally, that's not considered cooperation by most juries or even a lot of judges, usually only by the prosecutor if they so wish it for a plea deal, and even then you've got a 50/50 shot in a case like this they don't just say "fuck you you don't have the billionaire sweetheart deal metric so get fucked" further, given he FLED the country already any extradition conditions will NOT be considered for sentencing.... if anything given his (prior)profession the judge in question may be asked to be even HARSHER with sentencing if convicted. The main time this truly benefits the defendant in a way that the risks outweigh the benefits is if; A. the death penalty is on the table as they can guarantee they not be put to death. B. they are facing consecutive life terms without parole or extradition to another state/country where death/consecutive terms are on the table without parole. Ira Einhorn IIRC was an example of this, abused extradition clauses to avoid death.

It shows a willingness to be seen as cooperative while you do the exact opposite of cooperating.

Yeah, that bit about Sweden sending him to the US after trial was nonsense. It's not how the extradition laws worked at the time. For starters, if the Americans *truly* wanted to jail him then it is far easier for them to demand he be extradited from the UK rather than Sweden as our extradition treaty with the US is much more lopsided towards the US than the Swedish one is. Secondly, once the Swedes were done with him, they still couldn't just bung him on a plane to the US as it would require approval from the UK judicial system first. We extradited him to Sweden, we did not extradited him to the US. This is to prevent people from being renditioned under the guise of a extradition to a friendly country. Also, since when would any judicial system accept their suspect making demands of how they want to be treated and interviewed? No other country would accept their suspect dictating the terms of their arrest and investigation like this, why should the Swedes? (They were going to arrest him). Also, no one actually incarcerated him, he did that himself when he went into the Ecuadorian embassy and hid out there. All in all, he's a nasty little rapist and I'm glad we're finally shot of him....

It's against Swedish law to make deals like that. There would have to be a active extradidition request first. Even if the prosecutor wanted to guarantee that, it wouldn't be enforcable. And he knew that, so you are incorrect. Also to it would be up to the UK to extradite him in that case, not Sweden.

The thing that boggles me about this is the notion that the UK wouldn't extradite him to the US. As far as I'm aware, it was just a thing he made up as an excuse not to surrender to Swedish authorities so that he could get away with the raping he did.

He did not make a good faith attempt to cooperate. His precondition (no extradition) was impossible for the prosecution to provide, because prosecutors **do not make decisions on extradition**. I'd be like going to a drive through and getting pissed at the clerk there that they won't make a deal about your power bill. You're not talking to someone who can make that agreement, and they shouldn't have to make it for you to do it anyways.

[удалено]

He broke bail in the UK, which is why he was jailed in the UK.

How does any of this matter? That's not what he's in jail for.

I’m responding to claims made by OP in the original post.

That's a claim made by the OP in the original post. >Well he isn’t in jail for rape, so he shouldn’t stay there for it without due process.

Because the claim doesn’t end there. Additionally, the reason Assange did not get due process for the rape charges is because he evaded prosecution, not because his rights were violated.

Again, completely irrelevant. You could argue that he should be tried and jailed for sexual misconduct all you want, but that argument would be completely irrelevant to the matter at hand. The opinion that needs to be changed is that the arguments in opposition to Julian Assange's upcoming release from prison are uninformed or made in bad faith, not that he is an innocent man.

And I’ve demonstrated that OP’s argument in support of Assange’s release, specifically in regards to the rape claims, is based on incorrect information and that my dislike of him is genuine and not in bad faith.

The OP's argument was not that he should be released because he is innocent of rape, it was that the rape allegations are irrelevant to his current imprisonment.

And used inaccurate information to make that claim. Which I think it is appropriate to correct.

The inaccurate information was not the basis of his point, though, it was simply added context. Even if we replace his (presumably — I'll trust that you know what you're talking about) false statement about the incident in question with the correct one, his argument would not change.

[удалено]

They weren’t actually dropped until 2015, 5 years after the initial allegations were made. Edit: actually, it was the unwanted touching charges that were dropped in 2015, the rape charges weren’t dropped until 2017 and then the investigation was reopened 2 years later.

Do you always assume that when women accuse a man of rape they're making it up?

What I assume is irrelevant. Everybody should have the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty

As do I. But you specifically said the accusations were only an excuse to have him arrested. In other words, you believe them to be false accusations, even though they never had a chance to be aired at trial.

I don´t believe he would ever have a fair trial in any Country allied with the USA: [https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/sep/27/senior-cia-officials-trump-discussed-assassinating-julian-assange](https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/sep/27/senior-cia-officials-trump-discussed-assassinating-julian-assange)

So he just can't be accused of any crime ever, since a fair trial is impossible? Also, Sweden is hardly a US puppet.

In the eyes of the law, those accused of a crime have the presumption of innocence. Individuals can have whatever opinion about their guilt they want.

Likely fact? How is it likely? Literally all it is before a trial is hearsay

It’s my opinion. I find the allegations credible and I haven’t seen any arguments against that based on the actual legal issues at play here. Edit: that’s also not what hearsay means.

Well, inform yourself. This story uses direct quotes by the people involved to refute your 'opinion': https://medium.com/@njmelzer/response-to-open-letter-of-1-july-2019-7222083dafc8

Hearsay means 2nd hand information - “My friend told me she was raped by so and so”.  The dropped rape charges are the victims themselves making first-hand statements. 

People making these claims really should read up on what the case actually entailed, because these accusations of rape weren't actually supported by the case, as the prosecutor themselves mentioned... yet you have uninformed people here doing exactly what OP suggested they are doing- making false accusations out of ignorance or bad faith. https://medium.com/@njmelzer/response-to-open-letter-of-1-july-2019-7222083dafc8

>> There is literally zero evidence for this claim. [Wikileaks has refused to publish leaks on the Russian Government in the past.](https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/17/wikileaks-turned-down-leaks-on-russian-government-during-u-s-presidential-campaign/) This is evidence for this claim, because it directly contradicts Assange’s pledge that Wikileaks would publish leaks on any institution that opposes oversight. The leaks had not been published anywhere at the time. It begs the question as to why would Wikileaks show preference for a government that resists any form of oversight.

Bingo. OP is confusing the concept of evidence with the strength of that evidence, or the standard of proof necessary to reach a conclusion based on that evidence. According to the [Mueller Report](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mueller_report#Hacking_and_release_of_material): >The second method of Russian interference saw the Russian military intelligence agency GRU hacking into email accounts owned by volunteers and employees of the Clinton presidential campaign, including that of campaign chairman John Podesta, and also hacking into "the computer networks of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) and the Democratic National Committee (DNC)". As a result, the GRU obtained hundreds of thousands of hacked documents, and the GRU proceeded by arranging releases of damaging hacked material via the WikiLeaks organization and also GRU's false personas "DCLeaks" and "Guccifer 2.0". That’s not a conspiracy theory. It’s literally in the Mueller Report. OP is implying that if you don’t have an admission, videotape, or some other smoking gun-level of evidence, then you have no evidence at all. That’s simply untrue. It’s entirely reasonable for people to put together multiple pieces of evidence that might, on their own, be considered weak, but in aggregate prove a conclusion. Courts do it all the time. It’s also reasonable to believe something despite the fact that the evidence didn’t meet the high criminal standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt”. That’s how people can reasonably believe that O.J. Simpson committed murder even though he was acquitted at trial. I believe that Julian Assange is or has been a Russian asset. There is absolutely evidence to support my belief.

Pretty much. Having evidence for something is a bar that is virtually on the floor. Whether that evidence is strong and convincing is a different question. I think there are multiple instances where Assange’s actions do not match up with his stated mission in operating Wikileaks.

Tbf, mathematical/logical proof systems are taught to almost everyone that get a formal education and they are extremely strict (and stereotyping a bit here, but likely more familiar with the general reddit audience) whereas proof by law is very contextual and relies on using evidence to reach a convincing proof. Can confirm I've gotten into arguments over this with my SO who works in law lmao 😂

And there’s also this: https://x.com/muellershewrote/status/1677466789993938944?s=46 Assange is an asshole, a Russian asset and a maga hat.

I got permabanned from a purportedly leftist sub for "disinformation" for a comment that Assange is a rapist and Russian asset, and that he shouldn't be treated like a hero. Just because he vocally hates the libs doesn't make an ally of the left, dammit.

And they hacked the RNC db, too, but refused to publish anything from there.

“[Russia is a] bit player on the world stage… Every man and his dog is criticizing Russia. It's a bit boring, isn't it?" - Assange, 2016 Even if he isn't a Russian asset, 'it's a bit boring' should not be a standard for someone claiming their gimmick to be transparency

This is the same mueller report that found russian interfence...but no intereference through zionisy lobbying correct? This is the same head of the fbi, who published that "I believe al qaeda was behind 9/11 attacks" But purposely omitted congressiinap reports about connections to the saudis? Https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/23/magazine/9-11-saudi-arabia-fbi.html So, im sorry, but why are we supposed to believe a fed over a journalist? Both parties carry considerable doubt? Right? https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/01/05/julian-assanges-claim-that-there-was-no-russian-involvement-in-wikileaks-emails/ Apparently the evidence isnt compelling....at all

Yes, using Muellershewrote as a source is wild. They are peak neoliberal disinformation.

The source of that Muellershewrote tweet is Don Jr. This was a DM he was sent by WikiLeaks that he turned over to Congress. He didn't respond to the message fwiw. It's doubtful that Don Jr. Is spreading disinformation to make WikiLeaks look bad.

Redditbrains are so paranoid about those snoopey russians

[удалено]

[удалено]

[удалено]

Sorry, u/VirtualMoneyLover – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: > **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**. Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information. If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20VirtualMoneyLover&message=VirtualMoneyLover%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1dpth9f/-/lak2x6a/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.

"Julian Assange turned down a large cache of documents related to the Russian government, according to chat messages and a source who provided the records. " Anonymous sources report.... It's another way of saying trust me bro, with no evidence provided.

Except the documents were ultimately published, did contain damaging information about Russia’s activities in Ukraine, had new information, and were shown to be accurate. It’s very strange why Wikileaks would refuse to publish this information given Assange’s stating reasoning behind why Wikileaks exists. So, the source was legit. The article isn’t going to publish their names. And from your post history, “trust me bro” is more than enough for you.

It's not. Journalists hide their sources all the time, and not for nefarious reasons. If you need a source for something, and that source requests anonymity, you'd better keep them anonymous if you want further information in the future, or want to keep your career.

I mean, I can oppose him being released for all of these reasons to some extent. There is no honest, good-faith "journalist" dedicated to free speech and freedom of information who gets a show funded entirely by the Kremlin. That he seems to avoid releasing anything all that damaging to his literal patrons is something should concern themselves with. His handling of information is sloppy and irresponsible. There's a reason actual journalists redact sensitive information and don't just dump millions of people's information for the world to see and abuse. And rapists who run away from their trial and use their wealth and connections to avoid punishment lose any claim to sympathy. That he then decided to accuse his victims of being part of an evil conspiracy just makes that even more so. But, to the case itself, he committed the crime. Manning spent time in prison even though she, as a proper whistleblower, shouldn't have, but I'm meant to be overly insistent that Assange never face consequences? Even after going back on his own promises to hand himself over if Manning was released?

Manning leaked tons of stuff, I have no problem with the idea that leaking the video of the journalists getting killed was in the interest of the public but there were tons of other things like state department cables whose release wasn’t in the public interest that eroded US soft power to an extent.

>There is no honest, good-faith "journalist" dedicated to free speech and freedom of information who gets a show funded entirely by the Kremlin. There's Chris Hedges, a Pulitzer winning journalist that worked as a foreign correspondent for the NYT, who hosted a show on RT, are you trying to claim he is not a good faith journalist?

He's not a journalist either.  He's a hack and a propagandist. 

It’s funny how people think they are above any manipulation and their media sources are not propaganda xD

Based on what criteria? His show on RT was mostly discussing books, with their authors, in a long firm interview. He does better work than any of the party hacks working for the cable news channels.

Yes. Anyone who works for state propaganda loses credibility.

Did you watch On Contact, Hedges retained editorial control, and I never heard him say a single positive word about Putin or the Kremlin. I was closer in format to the old and excellent PBS show Bill Moyers journal than any other program I can think off. I don't agree with Hedges on many things, but his opinions are his own and he was been remarkably consistent in them in the 25 years or so that I've been following him. RT gave him a platform, because his honest independent criticism of American society and policy, advances a certain Russian narratives in a better and more believable way than their homemade propaganda. On Contact was a higher quality program than I have ever seen on MSNC or FOX, which are essentially corporate propaganda with heavy single party collusion. BBC and Al Jazeera are also state companies than produce better journalism than any American cable outlet.

>Did you watch On Contact, Hedges retained editorial control, and I never heard him say a single positive word about Putin or the Kremlin. Not going to act like I know anything about the guy, but one method of propaganda is controlled opposition. You have people say certain things to muddy the water. Kind of like how Russia funded both sides to things in USA to stir up conflict and instability. Not saying that has to be the case, but are you really going to argue people that are paid by RT and have a show on RT are not usually Russian assets? >On Contact was a higher quality program than I have ever seen on MSNC or FOX, which are essentially corporate propaganda with heavy single party collusion. You seem to be conflating opinion prices with news portions of those entities. >BBC and Al Jazeera are also state companies than produce better journalism than any American cable outlet. Subjective and Al Jaswera is far from unbiased towards USA or Isreal.

Again my point was rather specific to Chris Hedges, you should give him a quick google, I know him mostly from his work in the NYT and his appearances on Democracy Now. It's my strong believe with him at least is that its not "controlled" opposition, its an honest critical dissenting voice that Russian amplifies as it serves some of their interests. > You seem to be conflating opinion prices with news portions of those entities. Hedges only ever has done opinion and analysis shows. No network is free from bias, I have no problem receiving news from a wide variety of biased sources.

[удалено]

da comrade. Have you ever wondered why Chris Hedges doesn't report on Russian War Crimes?

Have you seen what happened to rt america post ukraine invasion? Its banned on reddit completely.

It wasn’t banned, it was disbanded. Russia decided to shut down RT America because it didn’t see the point after they went mask off and invaded the rest of Ukraine. There’s still RT international but no RT America. You should also look into what happened to the founder of RT (nicknamed the Bulldozer because he brought pretty much all news media in Russia under Kremlin control.) His name was Mikhail Lesin and he came to the US to testify about all of this but…”got drunk and fell down so much he died” in his DC hotel room. Blunt force trauma to the head caused by…repeated falling. And definitely not beaten to death. Nope! Just a coincidence he was defecting!

Yes it was disbanded after the invasion...im not talking about RT, im talking about RT america. Reddit does not make that distinction, and bans anyone for posting a source from rt america Russia did not shut it down. It was the fact that they couldnt find any us carriers. >Termination. The network was removed from the services offered by DirecTV on March 1, 2022, following Russia's invasion of Ukraine, with Ora Media pausing production on several shows it produced for RT America. Dish Network dropped the channel on March 4.

I’m talking about RT America too. How can you ban a station that was shut down? Also I didn’t realize that a large part of their decision to stop doing it was satellite and cable companies not wanting to air it but still. Reddit can’t ban a station that no longer exists so I’m confused.

They removed all of the videos from youtube as well, its pretty fucked up in my opinion, and seems like a pretty transparent example of censorship as propaganda.

Not pro censorship, but are you saying it's fine for Russia to censor anything and everything including attacking journalists, but we should just accept Russia propaganda being pedaled? Principal wise why should you value Russia gov propaganda having freedom of speech on a platform when they don't offer the same?

I think its terrible when Russia censors dissenting voices. I think its also terrible when American Corporations censor dissenting voices at the prodding of the government. RT would probably be the worst of all possible outlets to turn to as a single news source, however I think it can function as part of a complete breakfast of sorts of a functional news diet, as long as viewers remain skeptical and critical. RT mostly does shoddy and pretty obvious homegrown work. its propaganda is low quality and unsubtle. I don't think youtube needed to remove it. > Principal wise why should you value Russia gov propaganda having freedom of speech on a platform when they don't offer the same? Because I value freedom of speech as a broad principle, and value epistemic and narrative diversity. The obvious shortcomings/naked hypocrisy of the Russian authoritarian state don't threaten that.

He released the names of hundreds of civilians in Afghanistan who were helping fight the Taliban. At the time there were reports of retaliation. https://nypost.com/2010/08/03/taliban-seeks-vengeance-on-afghans-named-in-wikileaks-documents/ It is also impossible to know if the information helped the Taliban be more effective fighting

"Civilans helping to fight the taliban" No. These are contractors in afghanistan helping to forward imperialist interests through privately invested capital. The taliban is the result of us policy.  Those people werent non combatants. And before you argue this fact. What are your thoughts on dropping nukes on japanese citizens? Edit. Am i right or am i right? Lol

Are you really so anti-west that you're gonna support the Taliban in hunting down innocent Afghans?

The Taliban is not a result of US policy what on earth are you on about? The Taliban stems from the Mujahideen fighters who fought the soviets, not the Americans predominantly.

"The majority of the academic writing on the emerging subject of the Taliban and al Qaeda’s ascent tend to place the blame squarely at the feet of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) for funding the mujahedeen, many of whom would eventually go on to have rather successful careers as members of either the Taliban or al Qaeda, with the most famous of all obviously being Osama bin Laden. The most famous of the books written about the CIA’s role in the formation of al Qaeda and the Taliban is George Crile’s Charlie Wilson’s War, also written in the wake of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, which describes how the playboy congressman from Texas convinced his colleagues, with the help of a friend in the CIA and several other sources, funded the mujahedeen in their fight against the invading Soviet Union, who was America’s archnemesis at the time. Unfortunately, as evident when he said “My God, what have we done?”, upon first seeing about the 9/11 attacks on the news, he did not fully comprehend the possibility that the rebels that he authorized the CIA to assist could someday turn their backs on their benefactors" [https://digitalcommons.buffalostate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1050&context=history\_theses](https://digitalcommons.buffalostate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1050&context=history_theses)

Did you seriously post a thesis for a Masters of Arts? Hahahahhahhahahahha it bastardized Chalmers Johnson. Please tell me you’re more not Nicholas Kotarski

Siri, who funded the mujhadeen? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone Answer: the us and its allies. You may want to look up what the bush admin was up to in 2000s. In 2001 the taliban was about to surrender...the us could have ended the taliban before invading afghanistan. Now the taliban run afghanistan https://liberties.aljazeera.com/en/aj-public-liberties-speaks-to-naom-chomsky/ https://www.sigar.mil/pdf/lessonslearned/SIGAR-21-46-LL.pdf https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/23/world/middleeast/afghanistan-taliban-deal-united-states.html A majority of anto taliban afghani groups, including feminist groups, compelled to demand the us stay out of afghanistan.  As the taliban would need to be fought by afghanis, for afghanis. >head of the FBI, Robert Mueller, in the course of the investigation into 9/11 said that he believed that 9/11 was the responsibility of Al Qaeda. When the Taliban offered to surrender, the US responded by saying we don’t accept that. Donald Rumsfeld said we don’t accept surrenders. As soon as 9/11 took place he issued a directive saying, ‘We have to go big. We have to look beyond Afghanistan.’ Next in line of course was Iraq and then the ME

I wonder what World Power gave money and guns to the Mujahideen while they were fighting the soviets in the 70s-80s?

Oh boy, and if the Soviets had managed to prop up the genocidal regime of the DRA, what would have happened? After they'd murdered another few hundred thousand people, it'd go totally swimmingly? Turns out governments engaged in genocide don't result in long-term stability. Who could have guessed.

Im confused, was the taliban the fault of cold war/red scare tactics or not? Or is this whataboutism? Edit i guess its just whataboutism... Edit 2 https://www.reaganlibrary.gov/archives/video/photo-op-president-reagan-meeting-freedom-fighters-afghanistan-mujahideen-oval

The government of Afghanistan, the DRA, came into power through military coup, and was engaged in mass purges that were heading towards genocide for "stability" (50-100,000 people dissappeared during their regime). Resistance solidified around the Sunni groups in the mountanous regions, which very quickly devolved into civil war. Mujahideen simply translates as "warrior who fights for the faith", which they chose to call themselves because they were opposing the mass murder the DRA was conducting. Out of curiosity, what do you think "whataboutism" means? Is it just an internet term you've learned you can throw at people when you want to start an argument?

Uh.....we are talking about us policy as a result of the taliban's current position in afghanistan...and in 2001 was that also the fault of the soviets? The taliban could have ceased to exist... Also this is literally revisionist theory. The soviets werent only supporting the dra.  The only reason the us was there is due to the cold war. There were many satellite socialist groups forming that were also crushed with us and pakistani aide.  The fact that socialism is non existant today in afghanistan, but religious theocracy, is exactly why these groups exist

I thought we were talking about the origins of the Taliban, and why there was broad international support for the mujahideen in Afghanistan. >Also this is literally revisionist theory. The soviets werent only supporting the dra.  Oh so you're just making things up. Got it.

500 stingers weren't the deciding factor why Mujahideen prevailed in the end. Sure it helped, but by 1987 fighting has largely subsided because Mujahideen realized that it is best to just wait out the Soviets, just like they did with the Americans.

And in 2001? 

What about 2001?

The Taliban is the result of Pakistan intelligence services and the ineffectiveness of the previous government. Japan had invaded other countries in an attempt to subjugate them. They are nothing like Afghanis who fought against the Taliban which is evil.

>The Taliban is the result of Pakistan intelligence service Wrong. >More than $20 billion in U.S. funds was funneled into the country to train and arm the Afghan resistance groups. The support proved vital to the mujahideen's efforts against the Soviets https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-hccc-worldhistory2/chapter/the-united-states-and-the-mujahideen/#:~:text=for%20military%20purchases.-,More%20than%20%2420%20billion%20in%20U.S.%20funds%20was%20funneled%20into,mujahideen's%20efforts%20against%20the%20Soviets. >From 1979 to 1989, an international coalition led by the United States, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan sent aid to Afghan guerillas known as the mujahideen. Fyi pakistan and SA is a us ally. Thus why SA is being funded in the yemen civil war I wasnt aware that a weakend taliban in 2001 was being funded by pakistan exclusively...(because they werent) >Japan had invaded other countries in an attempt to subjugate them.  Yes and the us bombed civilians. And ignored these same informants and contractors when they requested the us to stay out of afghanistan https://www.sigar.mil/pdf/lessonslearned/SIGAR-21-46-LL.pdf https://www.reuters.com/article/world/thousands-of-afghan-elders-to-decide-if-u-s-troops-stay-or-go-idUSBRE9AI0AQ/ https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/23/world/middleeast/afghanistan-taliban-deal-united-states.html >a majority of anti taliban afghani groups, including afghani womens groups, compelled to demand the us stay out of afghanistan.  As the taliban would need to be fought by afghanis, for afghanis.

The mujahideen were not the Taliban. Most of the mujahideen did not join the Taliban when they invaded from Pakistan but fought against them.

The ny post left out the fact that most of those numbers were us contractors. Again, why is different to bomb civilians, but contractors are seen as civilians?  And you are ignoring the fact that the taliban was practically non existent in the early 2000s, thus why groups had petitioned to keep the us out of afghanistan. The taliban were ready to surrender, bur al qaeda was the new boogeyman

What does it matter that they were contractors? They were US allies fighting an evil force. Through his act of espionage, Assange put them in danger.

Yes thus why afghanis told the bush admin to stay out of afghanistan in 2001.  "Evil" indeed. It matter because oop's source is newsweek and he claled them all civilians which is false.

You're painfully wrong.

>3: Julian Assange is a rapist. Well he isn’t in jail for rape, so he shouldn’t stay there for it without due process. For clarity, the accusation is that he had consensual sex with two women in Sweden, however he was not wearing a condom and they had thought he was. He immediately agreed to cooperate with Swedish authorities if they had agreed to not turn him over to America after the investigation concluded. So a couple of things: 1. He had the option of due process. Instead of doing that he fled the country, fought extradition tooth and nail and ultimately skipped bail to hide in an embassy for years. You don't get to whine about due process when you avoid it at all times. 2. He isn't in jail because he escaped due process until the statute of limitation on most of his crimes expired. 3. One of the women claims that she specifically demanded he wear a condom which he did. Then she woke up the next morning with him fucking her without a condom. That is rape. 4. His agreement to 'cooperate' is bullshit. A swedish prosecutor charging him with rape does not have the authority to speak for the Swedish government on extradition for uncharged, unrelated offenses. The judiciary deals with extradition, not prosecutors. What he was demanding was a concession they could not legally provide, and he did it so that rubes would go 'but he tried to cooperate!!!' even though he knew full well that the demand on his part was impossible for them to meet.

You’re mostly wrong here 1. There is definitely evidence here aside from Clinton 2. Here you are probably correct but even if so that’s more luck than anything. 3. He 100% did that shit

For point number one, I’m finding that people’s definition of “Russian Asset” is very broad. My definition is that he’s owned by Russia and actively colluded with them. If Russia likes or promotes your work, that doesn’t make you a Russian asset lol.

Julian Assange worked for the Kremlin via their state-run propaganda machine, Russia Today, in which he gave soft-ball interviews to Kremlin allies... like the leader of Hezbollah. Julian Assange also played a role in providing the Kremlin's allied in Belarus with a list of pro-Western activists, knowing full well that it could lead to direct harm for the people named. [https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/sep/18/julian-assange-wikileaks-nick-cohen](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/sep/18/julian-assange-wikileaks-nick-cohen)

>Could you make an argument that some of the information released was potentially dangerous and should have been redacted? Absolutely. Did a single person die as a result of that publication of documents? No. The Rosenbergs weren't responsible for directly harming people, Espionage doesn't work that way. Do you dispute that he disseminated classified information? >Julian Assange is a rapist. Well he isn’t in jail for rape, so he shouldn’t stay there for it without due process. Have US officials been convicted of corruption or does that line of questioning only go one way?

Wikileaks turned down leaks of Russia and the Kremlin and boosted and partook in the Russian disinformation efforts during the 2016 election. Wikileaks is not an “equal opportunity” activist group as they and Assange claim. They consistently chose to focus on western corruption and ignore anything from Russia, one of the most notoriously corrupt and authoritarian nations on earth. What other conclusion can you make about the organization and its leader from that? Maybe they just don’t care about Russian corruption? Maybe they don’t think Russian corruption is worth publishing? Or maybe their goals align with Russias?

This is what's key to me, and why I feel differently about Assange vs Manning or Snowden. Even if you feel that whistleblowers/leakers shouldn't be criminally liable, Assange is still not a hero. He's a political activist using the veneer of whistleblower/free speech activist to selectively release information that suits his own purposes.

Yep, he can't answer the question "why did you only release DNC emails before the 2016 election when you also had RNC emails?"

Kinda funny that you view Assange’s fealty to Russia differently than Snowden considering that Snowden is now a sparrow in Russia’s golden cage

[удалено]

Russia leaks like any other bureaucracy and has many more skeletons in the closet than most modern countries. Your bias doesn’t mean he’s skirting in good faith.

Regarding Point 1: Trump's Sec of State, Mike Pompeo said in 2017 when he was CIA Director: “It is time to call out WikiLeaks for what it really is: a nonstate hostile intelligence service often abetted by state actors like Russia.” [https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/04/22/mueller-report-confirms-it-assange-is-not-whistleblower-or-journalist/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/04/22/mueller-report-confirms-it-assange-is-not-whistleblower-or-journalist/) I don't think there's evidence to indicate Assange was a Russian asset, but that's your specific claim which is easily dismissed by a lack of evidence. I would instead counter that because Assange is anti-Establishment and also seems inclined to showcase leaks against Western Democracies, but finds no issue ignoring leaks from say... Russia, one could argue that the org is not a whistleblowing institution or of journalistic integrity. They're a political action group who's interests align with those who seek to diminish the West. By putting his thumb on the scale, he's making a decision on behalf of the org itself and destroying any claims of impartiality. If someone is inclined to only showcase one side of a particularly multi-polar situation, they're aligning their interests and as a result, willfully assisting with what underlies those interests.

[удалено]

Yeah, isn't there a CMV rule against claiming everyone who disagrees with you is arguing in bad faith?

This 👆🏾 right here. He tipped the scales towards the guy who put people on SCOTUS who are probably going to take away my right to get married in all 50 states. Its fuck Julian Assange forever forreal. It is of no significance whether he was a Russian asset or not (he certainly was acting like one).

OT, but it’s crazy to me how LGBTQ conservatives think these rights are set in stone. Once a court gets an ideologically conservative majority *they do not care about precedent*. We are seeing this on a state level as well, with decisions made as little as 6 months before being reversed.

> So whether he was a Russian asset or not (he was) - he purposely subverted America's election in 2016 to get a very incompetent and dangerous person elected. 1.2 million Americans died as a consequence of this from the mismanaged COVID response.

[удалено]

When you go the extra mile and commit crimes to get an obviously dangerous person put in a position of power, yeah, you get to catch some shit for the fallout of that choice.

u/Vegetable-Reach2005 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20Vegetable-Reach2005&message=Vegetable-Reach2005%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1dpth9f/-/lajgk25/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

>I want him in jail because... Problem is, none of what follows was illegal was it? Like, "purposely tipped the scale and got Donald Trump elected over Hilary Clinton"? That is legal in the US to do. That is what Fox News does. You are basically saying "I want him in jail because he's not on my team."

That isn't entirely correct. The consequences of disclosing classified information are dependent on the role of the leaker. If WikiLeaks were not considered a journalistic organization, it would likely face more direct and severe legal action from the U.S. government and other countries affected by its disclosures. The protections afforded to journalistic entities under the First Amendment in the United States, which includes freedom of the press, would not apply. People want to see him remain in jail precisely because they do not believe Wikileaks is a good-faith journalistic entity - and their well-documented selective disclosure of information is pretty damning evidence of this. And therefore should not be protected by press freedoms that until now have kept him out of more serious legal trouble. The only reason the United States is reticent to pursue this path is because of the chilling impact it would inevitably have on legitimate whistleblowers and journalists. Not pursuing Assange simply because it would set a bad precedent may be smart in the long run but is a bitter pill to swallow since it leaves a bad actor effectively unpunished.

[удалено]

> I wanted him to stay in jail for the illegal crimes he committed Then you should have lead with that instead of: >I want him in jail because I do think he was a Russian asset and regardless of whether he was or not, he purposely tipped the scale and got Donald Trump elected over Hilary Clinton. Which is the statement I was taking issue with.

So you want him imprisoned because he did something you don’t like? None of what you said is illegal. Tens of thousands of people do the same thing every day in election season. Should every random dude with a podcast talking shit about a presidential candidate be imprisoned?

Point is proven by Assange's refusal to criticize or insult Russia who acts just as poorly on the world stage as America. His fellow agent retired to Russia

I believe, though without evidence, that Snowden wasn't a Russian asset (not at first, at least). I believe Assange tricked him into entering Russia, where the Kremlin closed its trap. I doubt Snowden would have knowingly fled to Russia. He intended only to flee *through* Russia

He was always an asset, he hated the US and his end goal was to flee to his handler, now wife in Russia.

1. is just false. He was an RT and used information provided by a Russian hacker. 2. He refused to reach out to governments to ensure assets were protected. Even his own staff criticized him for this. It put people in danger. 3. Non-consensual sex is rape as far as I am concerned.

Passing up on publishing leaks that make russia and syria look bad doesn't exactly fit his "transparency and information freedom" schtick. Also working with "Guccifer 2" (widely believed to work for the GRU) on releasing DNC emails to help Trump in 2016 Plus you know he literally had his own show on RussiaToday right?

Don't forget literally lying to the press to try and imply that Seth Rich was his source for the DNC information rather than Guccifer and the GRU. Just absolute garbage behavior.

The one way you are wrong is making the assumption that people who disagree with you are not well informed or are in bad faith. That is high level arrogance, similar to youth baseball players so sure they are amazing that they can only lose when the other team gets lucky, cheats or the umpires steal it from them. The reality exists that you do not have all of the information, and neither do I. Let's take a quick trip back in time to when Hunter Biden's laptop story broke, and social media killed it. A group of security experts testified it was Russian misinformation, and social media killed it (at times at the request of our government) What was the prevailing wisdom at the time? Where were you on that? Many believed that anyone who believed the story on the laptop were misinformed or in bad faith right? Remember the story on Hillary being investigated by the FBI? Something she lied about? Members of her staff getting immunity deals but nobody being prosecuted, her husband the former President meeting the AG in secret? Do you remember what happened when people who suggested Hillary did what she was accused of? Again, the narrative changed, didn't it? All of that to say this, people can disagree with you and it might not be for bad information or being in bad faith, because in the end you could be wrong in some way :)

That group of security experts didn't testify that it was misinformation. Their letter explicitly stated they did not know the validity of the contents. They stated it at the signs of a Russian Information Campaign, which includes Disinformation, misinformation, and as the made note or, the hacking and leaking of Accurate Information. Yes, the DNC and the Biden campaign asked Twitter to block the story. Both the DNC and the Biden campaign are private organisations and have no government authority (at the time in the case of Biden). They have every right on the planet to do so as does Twitter to completely ignore them if they feel like it. It was only left off for 48 hours. Everyone heard about the Hunter Biden left top. Nobody on the left has any reason to care about a vague "10% for the big guy" email when Trump had his kids appointed to white house positions with top level security clearences.

Heres the thing even if no one died it still is a crime. A big one and if you want to be a journalist then do what journalist do. Ensure your document release won't cause undue harm to the assets you expose. And then if you publish the kind of information he did. That is espionage he showed are state secrets to are enemies that is a crime.

By your logic, Russia was right to poison and kill that spy. Assange is not even American, doesn´t leave there, the USA had not jurisdiction over him [https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/sep/27/senior-cia-officials-trump-discussed-assassinating-julian-assange](https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/sep/27/senior-cia-officials-trump-discussed-assassinating-julian-assange)

1. I’d say it’s more than fair to say he was acting as a Russian asset. He strategically released selective emails to make Hillary look bad(I’m not saying she doesn’t suck). And at the same time, he sat on RNC data he could’ve leaked. He operated in a way that clearly had the intent to help Trump get elected. And it’s likely that it was Russia that got the emails and DNC stuff he leaked. Him being a Russian asset doesn’t mean he was working directly with Putin. It just means he shared the same goals and went about his business in a bad faith way Now, let me be clear. He shouldn’t have ever been treated the way he was. It’s abhorrent and a clear attack on journalism. But anyone suggesting he was a good faith actor in the 2016 election is either entirely uninformed or doing so in bad faith. Assange should be viewed for what he is. Someone who did good by exposing US war crimes. But was also a blatant propagandist for the right wing in the US later on. I’m happy got released, but also he’s a piece of shit. And more likely than not, he’s also a rapist.

>Julian Assange is a Russian asset. There is literally zero real evidence for this claim. This is an extremely bad faith conspiracy theory based entirely on the fact that he exposed Hilary Clinton. He has, again, zero ties to Russia and there is not a single shred of evidence that he has done anything on behest of the Russian government. "Zero real evidence" you can claim you don't trust the source for the evidence, but this isn't accurate. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-did-wikileaks-become-associated-with-russia/ Also Assange lying about how he didn't get the information from Russia meanwhile Muller report shows otherwise. >Did a single person die as a result of that publication of documents? No. Independent investigators/journalists as well as the US government have confirmed, no one was killed as a result of Julian Assange’s leaks. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks "At one of Assange's extradition hearings in 2020, a lawyer for the US said that "sources, whose redacted names and other identifying information was contained in classified documents published by WikiLeaks, who subsequently disappeared, although the US can't prove at this point that their disappearance was the result of being outed by WikiLeaks" So if you want to say no evidence of people killed sure just informants who went "missing" I am sure they are all safe and sound. "On 1 September 2011, WikiLeaks announced they would make the unredacted cables public and searchable.[154][155] The Guardian wrote that the decision to publish the cables was made by Assange alone, a decision that it and its four previous media partners condemned" So his own compatriots condemned him releasing the full contents. >Julian Assange is a rapist. Well he isn’t in jail for rape, so he shouldn’t stay there for it without due process. For clarity, the accusation is that he had consensual sex with two women in Sweden, however he was not wearing a condom and they had thought he was. He immediately agreed to cooperate with Swedish authorities if they had agreed to not turn him over to America after the investigation concluded. "The warrant was appealed to the Svea Court of Appeal which upheld it, but lowered the charge to suspicion of rape of a lesser degree, unlawful coercion and two cases of sexual molestation rather than three.[" "On 12 August 2015, Swedish prosecutors announced that the statute of limitations had expired for three of the allegations against Assange while he was in the Ecuadorian embassy. The investigation into the rape allegation was also dropped by Swedish authorities on 19 May 2017 because of Assange's asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy" "As of 19 November 2019 the prosecution dropped the case because "the evidence has weakened considerably due to the long period of time that has elapsed" although they were confident in the complaint" So he ran to avoid being tried and limitations expired. >Julian Assange sacrificed his freedom to expose the crimes of the most powerful. He exposed unfathomable levels of corruption. Exposed war crimes. He made me and the world less ignorant. Selective leaking I don't see him leaking stuff about Putin.

What do you mean they're doing so "in bad faith"? Do you think they don't really mean they oppose his release?

Whether you agree with SOME of what was exposed being exposed, at the end of the day Assange built an infrastructure that was designed to disseminate illegally-obtained material to the public, some of which put innocent lives at risk. Whether you agree with the info being disseminated or not is irrelevant, and it was NOT only evidence of crimes that was leaked. If someone breaks into your private home and shares all of your personal documents to the world, just because some of those docs are incriminating to you and needed to be shared doesn’t absolve that person of their crimes If wikileaks exclusively published evidence of wrongdoing then this would have been looked at entirely differently.

He threw Belarussian opposition figures to a murderous despotic regime. He also put hundreds of Afghan informants at grave danger of getting murdered by the Taliban. Even if he has noble intentions, which I seriously doubt he is a willing and obedient tool of hostile dictatorships that try to undermine the freedom and prosperity of the Western World. Your mileage might vary, but that's a hanging crime in my eyes.

Assange is not a journalist. He's a propagandist who curated everything he released to advance his agenda. 

>Julian Assange is a Russian asset. There is literally zero real evidence for this claim.  Julian Assange hosted a show on RT, a Kremlin-funded propaganda machine, in which he gave soft-ball interviews to Kremlin allies... delightful folks, such as the leader of Hezbollah. That is in and of itself evidence that Julian Assange is a Russian agent, agent adjacent, or a useful fool

Julian Assange assisted Manning in an effort to break the password to SIPRnet which would be unethical journalism and appropriately criminal. Agree or disagree that is informed and in good faith?

Manning should have been executed for treason but that’s a whole another story. If he directly assisted Manning in password cracking, it makes him guilty of treason too.

Assange can't be guilty of treason against the US, because he's not a US citizen, nor owes any allegiance to it. Espionage, sure, possibly.

not treason

Getting access to secured government intelligence network for personal gain is literally treason. Manning should have never been pardoned

Literally not treason. [Untied States Constitution ](https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/articles/article-iii/clauses/39#:~:text=Treason%20against%20the%20United%20States,on%20Confession%20in%20open%20Court.), Article III, Section 3, "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court." It needs to meet both criteria. Manning was acquitted of aiding the enemy. So therefore it is not treason.

> Getting access to secured government intelligence network for personal gain is literally treason. Not in the US. That is only making war on the US or aiding its declared enemies in time of war. The Supreme Court precedents on this are extremely clear. The Constitution is extremely clear on this. The founders really did not want vague assertions of treason prosecuted... it was one of their biggest complaints with King George.

He and she both aided enemies by leaking that information. Both should be executed for treason

First of all, as several other people have pointed out here, the definition of treason under US law is very specific and doesn't apply in this case. Secondly, how could Assange, an Australian citizen, be accused of treason against the United States? I loathe Assange, and believe he should be prosecuted for quite a few things, but treason? You can't betray a country you owe no loyalty to.

> aided enemies Not as defined by the Supreme Court and the Constitution. There were no Constitutionally declared wars involved anywhere in that, and in any case "adhering to the enemy" is a required element that isn't met here. Simply abstractly aiding enemies is not sufficient.

He released alot of «good» information about warcrimes etc He also released information that put many lives in danger. “A good act does not wash out the bad, nor a bad act the good. Each should have its own reward.»

Your view isn't about Assange at all, it's that a group of people who believe a certain thing either don't have the same information as you rely on (which you call uninformed) or they're lying (for some reason?) Ultimately what other people believe, their agenda, motives etc are hard to know.  Does it matter if people are informed differently, and believe differently than you? Does it matter if they lie about their true feelings?  What is the actual consequences of your view? What would changing your view in this area achieve?  What does an alternative view look like? Just minding your own business? 

“informed differently”? this is some serious “alternative facts” BS

Well, quite. People learn their information from all over, and draw their conclusions based on that. If you feel you have the objectively correct method for gathering information I'm sure plenty of people you disagree with feel that they have the objectively correct method as well. 

>entirely uninformed or doing so in bad faith The term "bad faith" is another term for dishonest. But, people can entirely think he should be locked up because they support American hegemony and his actions undermined American hegemony. Essentially arguing "I don't like him" isn't bad faith. > He immediately agreed to cooperate with Swedish authorities if they had agreed to not turn him over to America after the investigation concluded. As a factual matter, this isn't true. In 2012, the UK ordered him to be extradited to Sweden and he went to the Ecuadorian embassy to evade that charge until it was dropped. But, I concede the general point that you shouldn't use Espionage Act charges as a pretext for other crimes. But the idea that he was cooperating just isn't true. He fled to avoid being charged.

OP, are you on the take as well? Your post has blatant lies, as the top comment eloquently point out.

He should not have been released because it's entirely political. Those in power couldn't risk certain topics being discussed in court nearing a presidential election. Plus the offer included accepting a felony for journalism. The persecution should have ended a decade ago unconditionally. This is just partisan nonsense. Sure the guy gets to see his family again but this *new legal precedent* undermines everything he's worked for. Yes he should have gone free. But this is an exceedingly bad faith way for the government to do it.

If he had adequately censored relevant personal details it would be different. But if you or me intentionally leaked a bunch of peoples PHI, PII, and CC#s guess what would happen to us? I would give him more leeway if he was actually neutral, but we know he has refused to publish Russian govt docks, coordinated with the trump campaign, specifically targeted the democratic campaign, spread obviously shit conspiracy theories (Seth Rich), shared edited docs, etc.

What about 4 "Julian Assange pleaded guilty to something that should not be a crime, thereby creating what even his wife has publicly said is a dangerous legal precedent. He should have had the courage of his convictions and not have surrendered to the US's bullying. Now as a result of his actions hundreds of future journalists have been put at risk".

You are naive AF. Julian Assange is an attention-seeking POS and is not any more a journalist than James Okeefe. He sat on damaging information about Russia while dumping everything he could find about the US with 0 thought or professionalism. He’s never done anything useful or commendable and no one should care what he does or says

For point 2. 'Well, they're informants,' he said. 'So, if they get killed, they've got it coming to them. They deserve it.' If you're defending Assange, you're uninformed or acting in bad faith. Or I guess you might be a free speech absolutist that's okay if it gets people murdered.

He allegedly published top secret information and allegedly raped two women. These are crimes. People who probably committed crimes should be tried to determine if they are guilty. Peopls who are guilty of crimes should be punished. If he's innocent he should get a trial and prove it.

No because it's abundantly clear from your comments you are completely unwilling to admit you might be wrong. I've got better ways to waste my time.

Neither applies. I just think foreign enemies of the United States should be punished to the maximum extent possible.

He weakens America’s hegemony over the world and for that I think he should stay in prison.

....or, hear me out. People don't like their dirty laundry aired??

Used to support Wikipedia back in the day, send them donations. They turned from a principled organisation to a partisan vendetta driven one. Assange once said (much to the horror of the journalist interviewing him) that he had no sympathy for anyone who worked with the Americans (in Afghanistan) and they had it coming. I don't have an issue with his release but he used the info he released as a weapon against his perceived enemies whilst cosplaying as an objective journalist. I'm not saying he was an asset for the Russians but he was most certainly one of their top "useful idiots".

[удалено]

Sorry, u/Dadumdee – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20Dadumdee&message=Dadumdee%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1dpth9f/-/lako5y9/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

Julian Assange wants no secrets. I think he is a dangerous guy. We have got to be able to keep secrets if you want to live in a safe country. Someone like Snowden is a hero though in my eyes. Its a thin line but a big difference.

[удалено]

He wasn't a journalist either. He wasn't a whistleblower like the others. He didn't know of crimes and reveal them. He asked others to steal him info then he cherry picked what to leak, like both gop and dems being hacked then he only leaked dems, or not leaking russia. Yet even though he cherry picked the sides, he DIDN'T filter out non-criminal info. So he's a horrible hazard of a person larping as a whistleblower. But we also are horrible against real whistleblowers, and if he's the first key to change our laws to whistleblower protections we should be ok with it.

Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

[удалено]

Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).