Slashdot Mirror
Why Julian Assange Should Embrace 'The Fifth Estate'
Nerval's Lobster writes "It's no secret that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has a low opinion of the new film, "The Fifth Estate," in which he's portrayed by Benedict Cumberbatch. He's railed against it several times, culminating in a lengthy statement (posted Oct. 9) in which he called it 'a geriatric snoozefest that only the US government could love.' That's in addition to a letter in which he refused to meet with Cumberbatch, saying that the script would force the actor to give a 'talented, but debauched, performance.' WikiLeaks and Assange are clearly attempting a bit of damage control ahead of the film's Oct. 11 release in the U.K. (followed by its U.S. debut on Oct. 18). But what if that pushback is the wrong reaction? That's not to say that Assange should gleefully embrace the film —the script portrays him as something of a hustler who freely lies about his past. Whatever its qualities, however, the film could get people talking about WikiLeaks' role in the broader geopolitical context, and that's ultimately a good thing for the organization: It's been quite some time since Assange and company have provided the world with an explosive, game-changing revelation. If nothing else, Assange can take some cold comfort from the case of Mark Zuckerberg, who faced similar issues when the David Fincher-directed 'The Social Network' made its debut in 2010; Facebook's PR team was probably preparing for the worst as the release date approached, but the film — despite its impressive box office, and the awards it won — ultimately did little to harm either the real-life Zuckerberg's reputation or Facebook's continuing growth."
...cannot be a good thing for his credibility, no matter what geopolitical issues it brings to the fore.
What Assange should embrace is a better legal team to get him out of the embassy.
That's in addition to a letter in which he refused to meet with Cumberbatch, saying that the script would force the actor to give a 'talented, but debauched, performance.'
That sounds vaguely like the changes against Assange in Sweden .... talented but debauched performance.
but the film — despite its impressive box office, and the awards it won — ultimately did little to harm either the real-life Zuckerberg's reputation or Facebook's continuing growth.
It's a movie, it's made for entertainment purposes.
It's not meant to be taken seriously, so as long as the party being fun of doesn't, neither will the audience.
But with Assange throwing a hissyfit over this one, people will start to wonder...
I say he should embrace the film as one of the inevitable results of attempting to somehow be an attention-seeker while simultaneously hiding from anyone and anything that doesn't completely agree with his ideals. There's only so much you can do to control the public's perception of your character, true, but you throw even that away if you hide from public view and only defend yourself in secrecy.
Don't. Stop. Don't. Stop. Don't . . . stop. Don't stop.
I hope that Wikileaks can continue to get information to the public. I suspect that government agents have infested WikiLeaks in every way they can and wonder if Wikileaks can still function.
the case of Mark Zuckerberg, who faced similar issues when the David Fincher-directed 'The Social Network' made its debut in 2010; Facebook's PR team was probably preparing for
Taking extra money showers, then wiping their arse with $100 bills? Please! The entire business model of Facebook has been around monetization. They don't care about reputation as long as it sells. "Zuckerberg is evil! Buy this book!" Er, ok. "Zuckerberg is God! Buy this book!" Er, ok. Either way... the book is bought.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Hes probably just mad that its not him playing himself in the movie. Even with Wikileaks he made it about Julian Asange instead of about the leaks.
Thanks to the casting choice of this movie, If I ever meet Julian Assange, I am going to walk up to him and say "KHAN!!!!!"
So they might as well make a movie about him instead. Character assassination and a profit, everyone wins.
Our good friends at Mirriam-Webster define terrorism as "the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal".
I get the political goal part, but I'm really not seeing any sort of violent acts or fearmongering.
He's closer to being just another dickwad politician than he is a terrorist.
> These guys employ terrorist tactics,
Citation needed. What have the blown up? How many people have they taken hostage and/or beheaded? Or do you just mean they keep secrets? In which case every teenager is a terrorist.
> act like they are above any law
Citation needed. Above any law? Would that be when he (not wikileaks the org) offered to meet with prosecutors, just not in their custody on their terms....for mere "questioning"? Would that be when he asked for legal assylum from another country over concerns that the prosecution was a thinly veiled attempt to extradite him for other reasons?
> That's terrorism
who is being terrorized exactly? War criminals? Banksters? Politicians? People with dirty secrets hiding evidence of their own crimes?
I have seen a number of wikileaks, going back before the government leaks, back when it was all banks and companies and their dirty dealings. I have yet to see anything from them I would call terrorism.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Seems to me this is a pretty good attempt for the media to portray Assange any way they like. The public will lap it up and believe every bit of it, regardless of it's true-to-life accuracy. It's a lot easier to vilify people when you have the masses on your side already.
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
Assange's reaction is interesting because everything I've seen about that movie led me to believe it was going to be an overly positive portrayal.
While I think Wikileaks is a good thing for the world, I also think Assange is an attention whore and mostly self-serving. I've found it rather obnoxious the way he's been deified by some in the press. He's not the one putting his neck on the line to disclose secret information, but he's wrapped his whole personality around it. People have been leaking information well before the advent of Wikileaks. It's not like the service is the be all and end all for anything. There are a million and one channels for making information public this just makes it somewhat more convenient.
It's no secret that the US military has a close relationship with hollywood at times. They loan military hardware for use as props, in return for assurances that the movies will portray them in a good way. This isn't a shadowy backroom dealing - a few minutes googling will show it's all done out in the open. There is even a small department within the Pentagon, the Film Liaison Office, dedicated to the task.
So is it possible that someone pressured the studios involved (Principly Dreamworks) to make sure that Assange was shown in a suitably scoundral-like manner? I'm not talking about anything serious like threats of jail for no-cooperating, just a reminder that studios which insult the military or lend support to wanted enemies of the state are not going to be getting any of those oh-so-useful support agreements in future. 'If you make Assange look good, don't come to us next time you want to film scenes on an aircraft carrier.'
So... what civilians have they targetted and killed? Destroyed any public buildings? Held people for ransom? I mean, even if they have caused harm, 'Terrorist' still technically has a meaning. In what way are Wikileaks terrorists, rather than 'dangerous people I don't like'?
Wow, so much stupidity packed in so few sentences! Congratulations!
So let me get this straight, wikileaks relies on a steady stream of gov't employees willing to risk their own careers to stay relevant?
Are they any different than the cold era KGB/CIA in that their main goal is to spy on the gov't?
Wikileaks has been over for some time now. Let's start ignoring it already. Other leakers can handle the future.
embrace, extend, extinguish? :-)
These guys employ terrorist tactics, and act like they are above any law. That's terrorism
I thought that was governments and corporations?
Most of the people who will see the film can tell the difference between fact and fiction, including being able to generally identify the wide swath in between. This is not going to be a "Batman" blockbuster. It's not even going to be a "The Social Network" blockbuster.
Anyone who had an opinion on whether or not Mark Zuckerberg was sort of a sleaze did not have their opinion changed by seeing "The Social Network."
He's being portrayed in a way he doesn't like by somebody that has an agenda that involves gain on their part by making others look bad. This is happening by using information provided by others and the whole thing is outside of his control. The media is then being involved to make sure that the exploitation is maximized for greatest impact. The bully gets his due and doesn't like the taste of his own medicine and is off to cry to his mommy about how others are treating him.
This couldn't have happened to a more deserving person if they tried. Live by the sword, die by the sword.
The fifth estate is a mediocre movie. The fact that the talented Cumberbach plays Assange means that Assange becomes human rather than a political figure. When Cumberbach is not on screen, it has the feel of a PBS UK import.
The movie is through the perspective of Assange's friend and so, Assange comes off as a mystery rather than a liar.
As for the movie, it is just middling. People who dislike Assange will find more reasons to confirm their dislike and those who like Assange will find more reasons to do so.
Maybe I missed it during the movie but the speech where Assange/Cumberbach says "they are afraid of you" that is in the trailers is not in the movie.
In every dictionary of English, the explanation of the political term 'useful idiot' should use Assange as the primary example. Anyone who knows ANYTHING about the recent history of whistle-blowing and leaking KNOWS wikileaks was created to destroy honest, non co-opted groups that were attempting to give public access to 'secret' information. Assange was chosen because of his sociopathic personality. The group overseeing the real control of Wikileaks and Assange was led by British Intelligence, under another of Tony Blair's war-mongering projects.
The British have a long history of using these intelligence methods. During WW2, Britain was injecting control messages into the mainstream media of West Europe, even to the extent of taking over Nazi radio broadcasts seamlessly, with voice impersonators replacing the usual radio announcers (the BBC actually handled the recruitment of the voice talent, leading to the little known fact that the so-called Churchill Radio broadcasts on the BBC were actually spoken by an impressionist, while Churchill was at home- usually outside of London because he was such a coward- drunk).
Assange was the stooge used to create the circumstances for strife and war in the Middle East- especially Egypt and Syria. Not one of his so-called 'leaks' harmed Israel or the USA- what an amazing coincidence. Assange's ego (and low intelligence) made him the ideal dupe.
On the other hand, Snowden is the real deal- except even in his case he is a dupe telling us powerful truths, but truths that your masters decided had better come into the open at this time- for fear that an uncontrolled release of the truth later could have a very nasty, uncontrollable backlash. Snowden was allowed to gather and inform us of a FRACTION of the extent of abuses by the intelligence agencies of the West in an inoculation (you inject a little bit of the real 'poison' to allow the body to become immune to further 'poison' in the future).
Now when informed people tell their sheeple friends about the extent of government evil, their friends yawn, shrug their shoulders and say "heard it all before, and what can anyone do about it?".
The monsters that rule you spend tens of billions of each on psychological warfare against YOU. You, on the other hand, have exactly one person's collections of resources to fight back- not exactly an even contest. So when YOU try to figure out the real truth behind Assange and Snowden, if there is ANY sheeple instinct in you, you will fail. In truth, even if you consider yourself cynical, you still believe the 'push' information the mainstream media feeds you. You WILL be distracted by the sex crime charges against Assange, for instance, thus limiting your ability to see the bigger picture- that Assange is an identical play to so many used by the British during WW2.
Hollywood makes movies to make money. I don't know Assange, but weren't there some shady things in his past? I'm not an expert and not accusing him of anything, but when the stories were breaking they ranged from "he is a saint" to "he is the devil." The truth usually lies somewhere in the middle.
Repeating an assertion without evidence doesn't make it true. How has Asange made it about himself - it's not like he asked the Swedish government to cook up a witch hunt as a pretext to hand him over to the United States, after he asked for and was given permission to leave the country.
Reminds me of the pro-gov slanted news and media in Russia, China, Syria, etc.
Just mix in some non-factual shit, call it "artistic license", and you can paint whichever real events however you want in the minds of fools -- The largest voting demographic...
Wikileaks is about exposing hidden truth. Assange would be a hypocrite to go along with a production that he feels hides the truth.
Assange might be wrong about what constitutes truth in this situation because, unlike something as straight-forward as publishing secret documents, some truths are a matter of perspective. Nevertheless, you can't reasonably expect Assange to go along with something he believes is not truthful.
Comparisons to facebook miss the point. Facebook is about making money and while they may have lofty corporatespeak goal - they are a publicly traded company and therefore can't honestly aspire to anything more than the almighty dollar.
He's even offered to return to Sweden, if Sweden promises not to hand him over to the United States. That Sweden refuses to do so tells you all you need to know about what their intentions actually are and how much of a shit they give about the allegations.
Which is also a brave move on Asange's part, because while Sweden has great hippie health care and education, their justice system is straight up authoritarian. The state can hold suspects for extended periods of time without bail, and also incommunicado. So if Asange goes back he could be held for months without outside contact or an attorney.
These guys employ terrorist tactics, and act like they are above any law.
Sure, the NSA is bad, but what was your point about Assange?
Thank you folks, I'll be here all week.
The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
You don't see the acts of violence perpetrated by the american terrorists^Wgovernment all over the world to further the american corporate^Wpolitical goals? Then you must be blind.
Producer (one of them)
Steve Golin (born March 6, 1955)[1] is the founder and CEO of Anonymous Content LLP, a multimedia development, production and talent management company and co-founder and former CEO of Propaganda Films.[2]
"producing spots and campaigns for Nike, Intel, Citibank, United Airlines, Ford, Audi, Coca-Cola, Pepsi"
Well versed in propaganda, or for the slow people "A really good liar"
Bill Condon ( winner of the Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Director for his work on The Twilight Saga) is a shlock artist well versed in writing mindless garbage, also a big fan of propaganda (that benefits him of course).
All in all the reason Assange isn't happy about the film is it's a hit piece, a dilution of a critical issue.
Making a movie is the first step to marginalizing Assange and wikileaks into meaningless.
Hollywood knows this, look at how well they marginalized the American public and destroyed this country.
The comparison to the Facebook movie is a naive and simplistic view that is entirely incorrect.
Everyone making that film knew it would appeal to the young set.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
He's even offered to return to Sweden, if Sweden promises not to hand him over to the United States. That Sweden refuses to do so tells you all you need to know about what their intentions actually are and how much of a shit they give about the allegations.
It mostly tells me that Sweden respects the principle of legality more than you do. In Sweden extradition requests are negotiated before a court. What you want is the government to tell the judge what the outcome of such a case should be. That may work in Mother Russia but it doesn't fly in Sweden.
No, that was only one option presented, they could conduct their questioning (not trial, or anything else) on neutral ground. Or does respecting the principle of legality extend to countries which you are not in and mean you must expose yourself to their legal system if they make an accusation, even if you are not within their country?
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Alexander? Is that you?
him as something of a hustler who freely lies about his past
This isn't completely inaccurate, the fact remains he continues to take full credit and has seemingly, in his own egotistical way acts as if he is a savior of wikileaks/whitleblowers. There was an investigation by FrontLine and or a documentary on the sundance channel that showed who was really responsible for 90% of the information that ended up on wikileaks, and Assange flat out denies ever knowing these people, but it is ridiculously easy to find evidence that he was closely connected to these people.
Obviously one could argue that he was trying to protect or deflect attention away from his sources, but when they're willing to be interviewed by a reporter without blacking out there faces, they never wanted to protected to begin with.
And I agree with your comments, but you have people that buy into government propaganda and the whole ridiculous notion of patriotism (which really is similar to religion) that claim this type of reporting supports terrorism, or whatever else there minds conjure up.
Citation needed.
Go back to Wikipedia and continue masturbating as you edit. Idiot.
Citation needed.
Please don't use the citation needed troll. Yes, the person you're responding to is a fairly typical brainwashed American, but that response implies that you are someone who doesn't believe anything, unless it comes to them second-hand.
You wouldn't want us to think that, would you?
Ooo, look, anther Zombie Lie. The Swedish courts can prevent the government from extraditing someone, but they cannot compel it.
He's even offered to return to Sweden, if Sweden promises not to hand him over to the United States. That Sweden refuses to do so tells you all you need to know about what their intentions actually are and how much of a shit they give about the allegations.
That's very generous of him, but in the end he skipped bail in the UK after running from Sweden, and no governement would make such a promise - it is quite likely that the USA don't have anything that would require an extradition, but if they do, then not extraditing him would be highly illegal.
Its more of a jab than a troll. I am perfectly fine with no citations however, those are some pretty extraordinary claims. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, which in this case, should at LEAST be a citation of some sort.
I mean seriously "Wikileaks uses terrorist tactics"? I am a pretty staunch supporter, but if that were true, I would need to seriously rethink my feelings on them. Everything I know about them indicates this is false for any reasonable definition of "wikileaks" or "terrorist tactics".
So yes, if he or anyone else, wants to be taken seriously on a statement like that, a citation should be included. If its true then either there is a citation out there, or the poster has inside information which seriously needs to be published ASAP. Either way, without that, its just an unfounded and nonsensical claim.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
One of the main criticisms of Wikileaks is that the movie just skips this part, so instead of talking about Wikileak's role in the broader geopolitical context, people will just talk about the rest (just like they are talking about Snowden and not about the crimes). It skips where the troops got out of Iraq (officially ending the war) because they were going to start being charged for their crimes over there. It skips where Tunisia and other dictatorships fell because of the leaks. It just skips everything that matters and talks about him instead.
Any movie that does not portray the US government crimes properly is biased in their favor, it's not impartial or balanced.
What acts of violence are those? I doubt you can find even 1 that is recent and not defensible. You may not agree with the defense, but if there is legit debate over what is a just military action and what isn't, then you're intentionally lying by saying you'd have to be "blind" not to agree. It is only things that are not reasonably debated where you'd be "blind" not to see it.
So in addition to being a coward, you're also a liar.
Even if you're against most US military action, you'd be blind not to see that there is a serious difference of opinion about what is Just and Good.
He's even offered to return to Sweden, if Sweden promises not to hand him over to the United States. That Sweden refuses to do so tells you all you need to know about what their intentions actually are and how much of a shit they give about the allegations.
Which is also a brave move on Asange's part, because while Sweden has great hippie health care and education, their justice system is straight up authoritarian. The state can hold suspects for extended periods of time without bail, and also incommunicado. So if Asange goes back he could be held for months without outside contact or an attorney.
That is a fake offer, made in poor faith; they can't promise not to hand him over if he's charged with a crime in the US. And since he hasn't been charged with any crime here, they can't even give a conditional promise not to hand him over for a specific charge. What if it turned out he'd murdered somebody? I'm not suggesting he has, or suggesting that there is any accusation that he has. But you can't know what crimes somebody didn't commit. You can't make a blanket promise not to extradite somebody to countries you have extradition agreements with.
And honestly, as an American, it seems pretty absurd that somebody in his situation would have real fear of charges. No US jury would convict him. Even a jury that hates him would find him "not guilty." The people who leaked to him often committed crimes in the US, but he did not, and since his intent was clearly to act as a journalist, even if he'd been in the US when he did it, his part in it is explicitly protected. The US simply made vague threats and he got so caught up in his anti-American propaganda that he freaked out and hid in a closet. And presumably he's given himself a life sentence.
Extraordinary evidence isn't required in a forum where people are talking. Citations are laziness. What is really called for to accompany an extraordinary claim would be an extraordinary argument of support. Which is lacking, granted. :P
how_to_merge_the_truth_with_fiction_-_the_film.avi
In Sweden extradition requests are negotiated before a court
In just about every country everything gets decided before a court. And yet somehow governments can still grant immunity from prosecution.
Except, that is, when the government wants prosecution above all else.
The biggest problem with the Fifth Estate is that it's subjective fiction, and Assange has been one of the biggest targets of government-driven propaganda smear campaigns around. There is still a far superior movie waiting to be made about this subject written by investigative journalists as a documentary.
Just and Good was supporting Saddam invading Iran?
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Do you really think he'd get a civil trial instead of GIMTO treatment or even extraordinary rendition to Egypt or wherever for a spot of torture? If he gets with reach of US spook agency vengence he's fucked. Those guys see the law as nothing but a blunt instrument.
However in the absence of a cogent argument, citations will do for making the point. Especially since holding someone to such a high standard as being able to summon such an argument may be unfairly hamstringing him.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Religion isn't the nail this time. I'm sorry but your example is just as clueless as the idiotic climate science is a religion/biology is a religion/geology is a religion/apple fanboyism is a religion posts.
Is that not a citation?
1984 was written as a response to Brave New World; without it, 1984 would not have happened. 1984 is based upon almost entirely negative feedback and censorship for total control. Brave New World was based entirely upon positive feedback controls and distraction; censorship wasn't heavy handed; it didn't need to be. It was more imaginative and trying to point out new methods of control (which were beginning to be used at the time) and new problems while 1984 was a rebuttal, reminding people how human nature has always worked and therefore is likely to continue to work - both go to extremes in their opposite directions for emphasis. Both fail (probably intentionally) to address the flip side.
Creating entertaining versions of history and news which distort truth while NOT censoring the actual truth is totally like Brave New World and is not like 1984. Conditioning people to be such wimps that when they do find the truth it is so unpleasant that they essentially punish themselves with their inability to handle truth.... meanwhile being surrounded in numerous escapes... also makes it difficult to spread bad news around-- no big brother required... distributed decentralized control is even possible. FOX News is a great example, they use both techniques.
You don't need to Torture somebody to make them a loyal party member.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
So why is it that you treat it like a documentary and claim WL and JA are "doing damage limitation"?
A fiction based on real life (like that submarnine in WW2 thing) will "sex things up" to get an interesting movie rather than a strait documentary and pointing it out to people is not "Damage limitation", it's reminding people "It's a fookin MOVIE".
If you have to go back that far, you're almost arguing against yourself. But yeah, you make my point very well; it is not clear-cut, it is a matter of differing values and opinions. A matter of real, actual differences in what people believe is Good. You shouldn't need to land on one side of that, or the other, to see that they are real opinions.
That is a bunch of silliness that shows extreme ignorance both of the US legal system, and also the actions you make reference to.
If he was acquired through an extradition request to Sweden, he would already BE in the civil legal system. You can't be removed from the civil criminal system to the military unless you are a member of the military.
Everybody in GITMO are people who were captured in a war zone and accused, at least on capture, of being illegal (without uniform) enemy combatants. It is not, and has never been, a dumping ground for political prisoners. That is extreme ignorance.
US intelligence agencies don't have free access to people being held by civil authorities. And giving them access without a lawyer present would basically taint his case so bad he'd be released.
If you go back to Vietnam, to the Pentagon Papers, the only reason Daniel Ellsberg, who leaked a bunch of secrets relating to the Vietnam War, didn't go to prison was that the prosecutors misbehaved and so they threw out the charges. That is the real US system. And the journalists were never charged; and while more extreme individuals in government said naughty things about those journalists, there were never serious threats of charges. Because the journalist is protected. Not in theory, in reality.
You don't have to like the US system to see that it does have strong areas.
As for extraordinary rendition, the practice of giving people to third countries to be mistreated, that can't happen once you're under civil criminal detention. And it never has. And the CIA isn't allowed to do it anymore anyways, because it wasn't effective. (Egypt isn't using scientific analysis to determine which techniques result in quality intel) That was all getting intel, and it was a failure.
Citations are silly, people can look it up. I'd rather they look it up and educate themselves, than choose propaganda to feed them.
Nonsense. Foreign countries refuse to extradite people to the United States all the time, based on our death penalty and atrocious civil rights record. Given the psychological torture inflicted upon Bradley Manning, and Obama personally intervening to keep a journalist brutally imprisoned in Yemen, any country in the world has a perfectly valid reason refuse to hand over whisteblowers and journalists to the U.S.
If you want to try and run with this "you must extradite" line of reasoning, why don't you start by demanding the State Department turn over Luis Carriles to authorities in Cuba and Venezuela to face trial for bombing air planes. And when will George W. Bush be arrested and turned over to Malaysian authorities?
Hardly. U.S. charges would of course be based on Assange's activities at Wikileaks, so it would of course be trivial to make a promise not to extradite for anything having to do with journalism. If the FBI suddenly turns up video and DNA evidence that Assange was a triple ax murderer in Ohio, then they could request extradition for those charges.
It's also well known that the DOJ has a sealed indictment against Assange, which means they have charged him, they just haven't been open about it.
On some other planet where a whisteblower wasn't just handed a longer sentence than eight spies who sold secrets to Russia, for money? Where the only person to do jail time for the Bushco torture program was the person who confirmed it's existence?
Stones, glass houses:
No display of apples can make my oranges red.
We don 't extradite to those countries.
And no, it isn't "well known" that the DOJ has a "sealed indictment" against Assange. It has been widely speculated in foreign press. And if you knew anything about US law, you'd know better than to believe that nonsense.
And I don't see what is so hard to understand about the claim that the person leaking classified information is committing a serious crime, and the journalist they leak it to is protected by the US Constitution. If you can't even understand that part of my point, then why bother? You know you don't know anything about the US legal system if you're having trouble with that basic distinction.
With respect, you are showing how naive you are if you think it's going to be dealt with via the US legal system. Have you slept for the last decade?
No. You have to pay attention to the details. If he's extradited then he's in the legal system. That is how the transfer happens. They don't just hand him over to anybody with a US flag pin.
And if you pay attention to details, the US doesn't target journalists. Free speech is sacred here. Though they certainly will make threatening statements about people who are perceived as working against US interests, especially if they were assisting somebody to leak classified information, which is a crime. But they don't go after the journalist here. Period. It would not be tolerated by Americans if he was nabbed by some rogue CIA agent.
False. We have extradition treaties with both Venezuela and Malaysia. Either Bush and Carrieles are as subject to extradition as Assange, or your argument is invalid.
Yeah. It is.
Where the Obama administration has subjected reporters to criminal investigations and prosecuted more whisteblowers than all previous administrations times two? If you are so ignorant as to US legal system is and has been working maybe you shouldn't be commenting on the subject.
No amount of poutrage is going change the fact that you're wrong. Manning showed how the USG is willing to treat whistleblowers and Padila showed how even civilains are subjected to brutal military prison conditions. And that was before the passage of the NDAA, which allows indefinite military detention without trial.
In the age of information, ignorance is a choice.
Rolling Stone isn't a news outlet. I know, shocking, painful thing to find out.
A private intel company, connected to the CIA, leaked... an email. of their own. to themselves. with scary words.
Even Rolling Stone comments, "The news, if true, was a bombshell." Yeah. Exactly. "If true."
If you actually read the story, that alleged email wasn't leaked. Somebody claims to have stolen them, and we don't even know who, so that is exactly the kind a sane person will ignore; especially when most of the people involved are intel agencies or companies. There is just no way to know which documents are forged by the person who stole them, which were forged by stratfor, which were forged by the CIA, etc.
And get a clue, look it up, the US doesn't prosecute journalists. Period. Look that one up. I'm serious.