Thanks for taking the time to reply. Though I don't agree with any of your comments. There has never been any proof that the DNC was hacked by an outside source, other than the claims of a mysterious entity named CrowdStrike which examined the servers but then never widely shared their findings. Other people have done analysis of the speed rate at which the data was taken, and came to the conclusion that it was downloaded by someone on the inside, and then shared / leaked (rather than hacked by Russian entities).
But let's say it was indeed hacked by Russia. Does that matter? The material revealed how the DNC was conspiring against the presidential campaign of Bernie Sanders. Isn't that in the public interest? Shouldn't the DNC be called out on its anti-democratic behavior? It is not as if Wikileaks was publishing fake information - what they published were actual emails from the Clinton camp and internal documents of the DNC, which presented both in damning ways. When did we enter an era in which the truth can only be published when we agree with it?
You say Assange had a personal vendetta against Hilary Clinton. I say Assange was a journalist who published the info he got. Perhaps if we find out he had access to damaging info on Putin but passed on it, your argument would be justified. But again, for the sake of devil's advocate, let's say he was driven by a blind hatred of Clinton (I don't know, perhaps her quip asking if he could "just be taken out" pissed him off?). Again, should that matter? Publishers are almost always driven by their political biases. We quickly identify certain publications as leaning conservative or liberal. And individual journalists and media pundits are no better. Currently, we have complete hatred in the press for figures such as Sanders, Tulsi Gabbard, Corbyn, and Trump. Was Assange's vendetta against Clinton any worse than the current journalistic smears against those figures? At the very least, what Assange published was accurate, as opposed to the mainstream press, who endlessly shill the same talking points "Trump, Gabbard, and Sanders are Russian agents, Corbyn is an anti-Semite" without any proof.
Much of your reply lists your criticisms of Trump. What does that have to do with Assange? Did Assange rig the American elections? No, enough people in each state voted for Trump so that he got enough of the electoral vote to win. All Assange did was publish information. How that information may or may not have influenced people is a separate matter.
Finally, let's say all your above points are absolutely right - Assange was directly working with Russia to hack the DNC because of his personal hatred of Clinton. And now he's caught. Was his "crime" really so great? So great as to negate the classic liberal values of free speech and the right to a fair trial? Is Assange such a menace that we must become tyrants to put him down? Or are certain rights indeed universal, no matter what?
|
