by tartoran on 10/23/25, 2:25 PM with 409 comments
by notmyjob on 10/23/25, 3:25 PM
I’m concerned about human rights, but I’m equally concerned about yellow journalism or coordinated media bias.
From a practical standpoint, this is why Wikileaks matters. Rather than count on the State department to serve that role, we should count on independent journalists like Glen Greenwald and outlets like Wikileaks who are reliably independent.
by nla on 10/23/25, 3:30 PM
The State Department confirms it no longer operates the HRG, but says it is still receiving reports through other direct channels.
I couldn't find any requirement in the law that requires a public website.
NGOs can still submit information through established contacts or by email.
I would think email is a lot easier than a webform.
by docdeek on 10/23/25, 3:11 PM
On the other hand, the US seems so partisan now that had the current administration told the world they were taking huma' rights abuse reporting seriously by creating a web form, some people would probably be criticized for that, too.
by mikeyouse on 10/23/25, 2:35 PM
We're in a really bad place... with a servile congress, it turns out there aren't really any laws constraining the executive branch. When everything relies on "independent IGs" for law enforcement inside executive branch departments, and the President can fire them all without consequence or oversight, then it turns out there is no law.
by liampulles on 10/23/25, 2:54 PM
by wnevets on 10/23/25, 2:57 PM
by jimnotgym on 10/23/25, 4:18 PM
by kome on 10/23/25, 2:46 PM
It was followed by a decade of ridiculous but very effective character assassination of Assange, who is hated based on how dislikable he appears.
I recommend youngsters and "zoomers" read about it, because the recent past is often the most forgotten: https://collateralmurder.wikileaks.org/
by blibble on 10/23/25, 2:56 PM
by ARandomerDude on 10/23/25, 4:45 PM
means Israel.
by hirvi74 on 10/23/25, 2:34 PM
by alluro2 on 10/23/25, 4:19 PM
And I'm just surprised when people still react to what he does as "unbelievable", "illegal" etc... I get it, but it's weird how persistently people still try to frame Trump's actions into moral, legal, historical, cultural, responsibility or any other framework.
He is someone who was born into wealth in the worst way possible, and was never - ever - subject to any moral restrictions, material consequences, or requirements that depend on any positive qualities, effort or success.
In those conditions, his bullish way of behaving always got him what he wanted in the moment, without any downsides or counter-weight that would regulate it. Time after time, he was given proof - by us, the society - that there are no consequences, or they are just so unimpactful, and that he can continue doing what he does. There is no framework that he needed to adhere to.
He was then placed into practically the same position within the government - being able to do whatever he wants and benefits him (directly, or through benefitting his posse), and there will be no material consequences of any kind. If he comes up to any inconvenient restrictions put in place before, they can just be removed first.
And that's it, that's what he's been doing all along. He doesn't have any higher interests, any ulterior motivation, or ambitions - in every situation, he just uses it to get something for himself in that moment - even if openly solely to be able to brag that he did it - and he makes himself look big by lying or belittling others, and that's it. Just a very simple unrestricted narcissist, on grander scale.
Their behavior is quite simple to understand and predict. It's just that they can rarely be SO up there, so unrestricted, that people still seem to struggle to not try to tie him to norms and frameworks.
by ea550ff70a on 10/23/25, 4:39 PM
by redleggedfrog on 10/23/25, 3:28 PM
Who's going to protect you now America? Federal government, police, your Mom? Nope nope nope. You noodle armed programmer geeks need to break out your 2nd Amendment rights and get strapped.
by g-b-r on 10/23/25, 7:02 PM
by efitz on 10/23/25, 4:33 PM
Why is it that eliminating one particular web site is somehow a failure of the US Constitution?
Yes, Congress is dysfunctional. Welcome to the post 17th amendment world. Repeal that and make the House truly proportional instead of artificially limiting it to 435 members and you’ll go a long way towards fixing a lot of the current problems. Eliminate PACs and donation caps and enforce KYC for donations and we can see who is actually buying our legislators.
But on the main topic, the left in the US is seeking judicial intervention to block nearly every single action that the administration takes, and district court judges are handing down nationwide injunctions against the president on a weekly basis. If this is such a crisis, then go judge shopping and get an injunction.
by 23david on 10/23/25, 3:41 PM
by brianblaze420 on 10/23/25, 3:28 PM
by watwut on 10/23/25, 3:18 PM
by chinathrow on 10/23/25, 4:14 PM
by excalibur on 10/23/25, 2:31 PM
by cakeday on 10/23/25, 4:03 PM
by wonderwonder on 10/23/25, 3:09 PM
The courts can stop him and indeed have in several cases. Often times higher courts over rule those lower ones but not always. Majority of the time they eventually end up siding with the executive branch though. So courts are doing their job. Checked and balanced.
Every check and balance is working its just not making decisions the left agrees with. This is indeed what democracy looks like though.
Mid terms are coming up and the people will once again have a chance to voice their opinion.
Note: I have been hit by the HN "posting to fast" limit so I can't respond.
by SoftTalker on 10/23/25, 2:55 PM