/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

He hasn't won the appeal, they merely granted him the right to appeal.

>>481696
You are correct, i always get that stuff mixed up.

In my mind this is a battle of words, with many contests in different arenas. If the lawyers that fight for Assange say the correct sequence of words, they continue to the next round. If they win all the rounds Assange gets released from the dungeon and he gets to go to a hospital where he gets proper medical attention. If they fail, Assange gets shipped off to one of the US's imperial torture-chambers, where they take revenge by inflicting a most brutal agonizing slow death on him.

"the right to appeal" is the name of one of these word battle rounds. And he won that. Hurray for that.

I'm surprised he's still alive, they seemed to be trying to kill him indirectly through mistreatment.

>>481829
If Assange dies, he becomes a martyr, Journalism-Jesus.

>they seemed to be trying to kill him indirectly through mistreatment.
Yeah the neocons got away with this because they used to be competent managers of empire.
But their cold war 2.0 project will likely flop hard, and that means they'll get the torture privileges revoked.

>>481829
I don't think there's any desire to kill him anymore. They're accomplishing their goal just fine torturing him for the rest of his life. It sends the same chilling message to would-be whistleblowers and journalists.

>>481838
Absolute monarchs used to torture their critics too, it did not help them stay in power. They might have traded embarrassment of whistleblower revelations for something much worse. The concept of making the state compliant to criticism wasn't a naive aspirational virtue, it was a shrewd strategical adaptation after absolute monarchies broke down. What they have done is preserve the position of some careerists at the expense of institutional integrity.

People who are competent and want to get stuff done, seek out organizations that are benevolent and likely to illicit voluntary cooperation from others. Malevolent organizations are sought by bullies that want to get away with bullying.

Assange was very mindful to not release information that could do serious damage, by exercising revenge, they may have incentivized the next guy to do as much damage as possible as to destroy the ability to take revenge. Keep in mind that they did send a message, but it wasn't interpreted uniformly. Intimidation may elicit compliance by some, but to others it signals weakness.

Investigative journalism was never a detriment to state-power. It kept the base and the superstructure in alignment, damaging journalism was foolish and bad statecraft.

Like when Blinken blamed social media and implies
<when we controlled the media we could do genocide in peace.
He doesn't seem to understand the causal connection. People turned away from mainstream media first in order for alternatives to become possible. If they hadn't gone down the drain, people wouldn't have tuned out.

>>481851
>Assange was very mindful to not release information that could do serious damage
Here's what actually happened with the Iraq War Logs: Assange was up for several days redacting before release to avoid information that might get informants killed, and then some worms at The Guardian published a book with the password to the unredacted files. This prompted Cryptome (which doesn't believe in redacting leaks) to release the entire set of files unredacted, to which Wikileaks responded by removing the (now pointless) redactions on their own releases. That's only the story for the Iraq War Logs. I'm not aware of any redaction done to later Wikileaks releases, and you better believe the Vault7 leaks were damaging as fuck to the CIA. It's what prompted them to plot assassination and eventually forced Assange out of the embassy.

>>481855
>Assange was up for several days redacting before release to avoid information that might get informants killed.
So even if shit got out later, Assange clearly acted in good faith.

>and you better believe the Vault7 leaks were damaging as fuck to the CIA.
Idk, a public release is far from the worst scenario. The CIA gets to see that too and realize what's compromised, and likely react fast enough to do a lot of damage controle. If somebody wanted to inflict more damage they would release the information that compromises operational security to the CIA's opponents but not the public.

>It's what prompted them to plot assassination and eventually forced Assange out of the embassy.
IMHO going after Assange was not rational, it confirmed the accuracy of the information, the rational thing to do was to deny that the released information was authentic. As a spy agency the best thing is secrecy, the second best thing is ambiguity.