Slashdot Mirror


WikiLeaks Calls for Pardons From President Obama -- Or President Trump (wikileaks.org)

"President Obama has a political moment to pardon Manning & Snowden," WikiLeaks tweeted on Friday, adding "If not, he hands a Trump presidency the freedom to take his prize." And a new online petition is also calling for a pardon of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, saying Assange is "a hero and must be honoured as such," attracting over 10,000 supporters in just a few days. An anonymous reader writes: Monday WikiLeaks also announced, "irrespective of the outcome of the 2016 U.S. Presidential election, the real victor is the U.S. public which is better informed as a result of our work." Addressing complaints that they specifically targeted Hillary Clinton's campaign, the group said "To date, we have not received information on Donald Trump's campaign, or Jill Stein's campaign, or Gary Johnson's campaign or any of the other candidates that fulfills our stated editorial criteria." But they also objected to the way their supporters were portrayed during the U.S. election, arguing that Trump and others "were painted with a broad, red brush. The Clinton campaign, when they were not spreading obvious untruths, pointed to unnamed sources or to speculative and vague statements from the intelligence community to suggest a nefarious allegiance with Russia. The campaign was unable to invoke evidence about our publications -- because none exists."
Thursday a WikiLeaks representative expressed surprise that, despite the end of the U.S. election, Julian Assange's internet connection in the Ecuadorean Embassy in London has not yet been restored.

17 of 445 comments (clear)

  1. Political reality by paiute · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Clinton lost by a whisker. Clinton is Obama's friend. Wikileaks spread dirt on Clinton. Now you want Obama to give you a warm handshake and a kiss on the cheek?

    --
    If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    1. Re: Political reality by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's putting it likely; I'll bet that Hillary wants Assange's head on a pike. And to be honest, I'm not sure why anybody cares about him at all, to new he comes off as a total weasel.

    2. Re:Political reality by _KiTA_ · · Score: 1, Insightful

      That's a great map. Wanna see another great one?

      This one.

      The Dems have a problem and until they admit it we're going to see the Right resurgent. Making excuses isn't going to help.

    3. Re: Political reality by zieroh · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Funny, I would have thought that Clinton's anon shill brigade would have been dismissed by now. Did she pay you through the end of the month?

      A reasonable person might conclude at this point that, because they're still here, they're neither shills nor being paid.

      An unreasonable person, unable to accept the logical or plausible because it conflicts with their deeply-held but ultimately warped worldview, might instead wonder why they hadn't been dismissed yet.

      Funny, that.

      --
      People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
    4. Re: Political reality by zieroh · · Score: 3, Insightful

      For partisan hacks, however, Wikileaks has provided useful fodder that could be dressed up as ammunition and presented to low-information voters who are easily swayed by bogus headlines and cheap political spin.

      Fixed that for you.

      --
      People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
    5. Re:Political reality by Dahamma · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yep, no one protested Obama's election.

      http://i.imgur.com/J1hSHPi.jpg

      Oh wait, maybe they not only did, but did it in a way only extreme right wing protesters can (ie. racist as hell and with death threats).

    6. Re:Political reality by KeensMustard · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Remind us again, which candidate was it that said he would not accept the election result unless he won?

      And which candidate was it that promised to lock up dissidents against his reign, were he to obtain power?

  2. Why? by craXORjack · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't believe Manning qualifies as a whistle blower. (S)he just exposed a boatload of confidential documents with no clear purpose behind the action.

    --
    Liberals call everyone Nazis yet they are the closest thing to it.
    1. Re:Why? by penguinoid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      One of the best uses for the pronoun "(s)he".

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    2. Re:Why? by pushing-robot · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Agreed. Why do people lump them together? Snowden and Assange/Manning/Wikileaks are polar opposites; Snowden blew the whistle on illicit spying, Wikileaks *is* illicit spying.

      How anyone can support both I have no idea.

      --
      How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
  3. What? by smooth+wombat · · Score: 3, Insightful

    An organization which knowingly and deliberately worked with a foreign government to affect the U.S. presidential election now wants people to listen to them and pardon people who have affected U.S. national security?

    Talk about a pair of balls.

    --
    We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
  4. Re:Eat a dick by Tablizer · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Julian Assange can eat a dick.

    He is, Putin's

  5. The other campaign by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Clinton lost by a whisker. Clinton is Obama's friend. Wikileaks spread dirt on Clinton. Now you want Obama to give you a warm handshake and a kiss on the cheek?

    Trump won over Clinton 290 to 228, which is most definitely *not* a whisker.

    If you want to complain that Clinton would have won by different rules, you also have to allow that Trump would have campaigned differently under the different rules.

    For example, with full popular voting Trump would have campaigned more vigorously in California and New York, to garner more of the proportional popular vote in those states.

    He would have had a different campaign, and won under the different rules as well.

    1. Re:The other campaign by silas_moeckel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Let me explain Clinton got a plurality of votes not a majority. She also lost the EC by a wide margin.

      People are pissed because they allowed presidential campaigning to be a docudrama and think meme's from FB are fact.

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
    2. Re:The other campaign by msauve · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You clearly don't understand that Presidential elections only occur in the Electoral College. The popular election is only for Electors. And, there's absolutely no requirement for a popular vote at all. That's a privilege (not a right) which the states have chosen to provide. The Constitution gives states the power to chose Electors in any manner they want. If a state wanted to have their legislature, or their Governor, chose the Electors, they could.

      No, Clinton did not get more votes than Trump. She got considerably less.

      Finally, it was never the intent that the Electoral College proportionally reflect the populace. Each state is given one Elector for each Representative and one for each Senator. Just as Senators give small states disproportionate power, so to does the Electoral College. That's by intentional design, to prevent large populous states from overwhelming smaller ones. Nationally, the US is a federation of states, not a direct democracy. Always has been. This is all grade school civics.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
  6. Re: Assange by gweilo8888 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The chances of Assange *not* having leaked documents on someone who has basically cheated almost every single person he's done business with are nil. There are simply too many people Trump has screwed over for there *not* to be an army of angry one-time collaborators -- and current collaborators who can see the writing on the wall far too late -- who would be willing to leak and help take him down.

    Ergo, Assange has intentionally squashed the Trump leaks and promoted the Clinton leaks in a partisan effort to ensure Clinton didn't get in. And for that, he deserves a swift and firm statement on the choice of the orifice into which he can now insert himself with this request.

  7. Re:Pro-Kremlin fronts by phantomfive · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Snowden has a fuckton of Western blood on his hands

    [Citation Needed]

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."