Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
UCS Hellmaker
Mar 29, 2008
Toilet Rascal

PhazonLink posted:

isnt Wikileaks also another thing that non regressives used to love but they stopped loving it when it became too hard to ignore that its face, Assange is actually either or both a russian tool and a sexpest

guy literally had a documentary made on him that started with the director being a super fan of him, to literally hating him and turning the movie from a fluff piece to one highly critical of him and more pro for the people he hosed over for fame. He also legitementaly raped two woman then holed up in an embassy where he then proceeded to be a loving hermit instead of facing his charges (regardless of the potential for extradition to the us he goddamn hid till statue of limitations hit) and took every bit of goodwill he had and lit it on fire. Including having the embassy turning off his internet and openly hating him because they had ample suspicions he was snooping on their secure channels and many times got them in hot water for openly leaking Russian propaganda. All of this doesn't even get in to how much the people that helped him build up wikileaks got hosed over, including the whistleblowers that he offered no protection to.

synopsis posted:

The film's original premise was to address the life of Julian Assange, documenting scenes showing "motives and contradictions of Assange and his inner circle",[7] focusing on the risks taken by persons involved in the well-known Wikileaks website, including Assange. The documentary begins in 2010, addressing the judicial measures he came to face on the part of the Swedish authorities, which sought his extradition from the U.K. in 2012. Assange alleges that any such Swedish extradition would have culminated in an eventual extradition to the United States.[8] The opening scene shows Assange (with Wikileaks staffer Sarah Harrison) calling the U.S. State Department, asking them to step-up security procedures.[9] This segues into a presentation of Assange's angst about the fate of Chelsea Manning and Assange's plans to avoid U.S. capture. The film then presents documentation of Assange's asylum claim, and the disguising of himself to sneak into the Embassy of Ecuador in London for refuge.

Originally titled "Asylum",[10] the film becomes a journey into Poitras's disillusionment with Assange. In the re-cut of the film, she altered the film's focus on the experience of risk-taking media work (Assange's as well as her own), towards a critique of Assange as a flawed character, including his alleged sexual assaults and "troubling" statements about women.[11][12][5]

In the 2016 version of the film, Poitras presents a more sympathetic position towards Assange.[13][14] The 2017 re-cut version focuses more on Assange's responses to accusations against him.[15][14]

In mid-2016, directly after the Cannes screening, Assange friend and Wikileaks supporter Jacob Appelbaum was publicly accused of abusing women while working with Wikileaks and serving as a computer security activist at Tor.[16] At one point in the film Poitras states in a voice-over her personal disappointment with Appelbaum, and her anger at Appelbaum's alleged abuse of one of her friends. In interviews, she stated that Julian Assange frantically attempted to get her to remove scenes in which he refers to the sexual assault allegations against him as a "radical feminist conspiracy" by lesbians, and that his lawyers contacted her directly before Cannes. Poitras said that Assange sent her an SMS message calling the scenes a "threat to his freedom".[17] According to Poitras, this was what led her to refocus on the same accusations, to add the Appelbaum story to the film, and to change the overall message of the film.[15]

The film touches briefly on the role played by Wikileaks in the 2016 U.S. election.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

UCS Hellmaker
Mar 29, 2008
Toilet Rascal

V. Illych L. posted:

i personally don't think assange should be tortured to death in prison for exposing the crimes of the american empire even if he is credibly accused of being a big ole creep

A ton of his condition right now is directly related to his self imposed exile in a room for most of a decade. he legitimately needed way more of things that he was unable to receive there, then was basically persona non grata which is the psychological stuff (not including the well deserved paranoia that he developed mind you)

The long term ramifications of no sunlight and no access to regular foods and resources is something that definetly he has. his haggard looks when he was removed compared to even a few years ago was his body basically not getting regular medical treatments or care, then not having any exposure to sunlight for god knows how long. Dude likely has bones equivalent to a 90 year old woman as an example. We also don't really know his diet while he was in there, or if he has had any major tests while in the embassy that are preventative for older men hitting their late 40s. However I don't believe that the brits would willingly just not treat him in prison (mind you I am not British and have no idea about the prison he is in so I DO NOT want to assume). American prisons are goddamn awful and most care gets ignored till its to late then they go to hospital systems that do try their best. In all honesty we don't know his actual medical condition, just letters from outside groups, if possible him releasing his medical records would be a good thing (if it was even allowed again uk differences) to show it was serious and not a ploy which is honestly what many would believe after his track record. Again though his haggard look when he was arrested states otherwise he definitely has had major declines health wise in the last 3 years.

There is a ton involved with what is actually going on physically with him, and tons that may be all due to his time exiled in the embassy without proper care, issue is unless records are released its hard as hell to do more then speculate.

And no torture is never ok, should he be investigated impartially yes. but at this point the waters so muddy who the gently caress knows what is going on in the justice department. Specially when trump and Pompeo went double down in 17 after the cia leak.

Edit: I do realize this is a greenwald temp thread, but a thread about dirtbags that used some level of fame to be just horrible people or always have been but twitter exposed the hell out of them seems like a somewhat novel idea. Assange in particular was someone that everyone thought was in the right for a long time and had many good actions at first. Then turned out to be a massive narcissist that would blow whistleblower covers and made the whole wikileaks org into a thing about him, then sucked on the teat of russia in order to get more info and try and get protection.

UCS Hellmaker fucked around with this message at 09:34 on Mar 18, 2021

UCS Hellmaker
Mar 29, 2008
Toilet Rascal

V. Illych L. posted:

no, because 'there' is the torture prison for doing journalism and we don't normally punish people for things unrelated to their actual charge

if one finds oneself saying some variant of 'torture is bad BUT' it's a pretty bad sign imo

tbf the only torture I say should be ok is against child rapists and killers but its a visceral thing for me, especially after time in ems and some of what ive seen in that and dealing with CFS :smithicide:
Do I know torture is wrong? yes, is it a visceral reaction because I loving hate those people? gently caress YES

V. Illych L. posted:

also it does bear noting that assange has not actually been convicted of anything and his stated reason for not wanting to face the charges seems to have been vindicated by subsequent events so ymmv on that point as well

tbf this goes back the muddy water thing to, he hid until the statute of limitations hit, and basically it was all to old to do anything with. The idea that it was all a cia plant to get him and the woman were agents was insane in the first place. Nothing can come from arguing on it though because its been almost a decade since the og charges and accusations and nothing will ever come from it or happen to him on it.

UCS Hellmaker fucked around with this message at 09:39 on Mar 18, 2021

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply