如何评价 2016 年 11 月 8 日美国总统大选结果?

相关问题: 2016 美国大选投票已正式开始,特朗普和希拉里的形势如何? 新华社快讯:美国东部时间8日零时(北京时间8日13时)刚过,美国新罕布什尔州…
关注者
13,477
被浏览
4,395,232

1,159 个回答

在这个时间点,我默默地向这个人致以最高级别的敬意。

维基解密网站主页新刊登了如下声明(2016年11月8日)
wikileaks.org/Assange-S

Assange Statement on the US Election
阿桑奇对美国大选的声明

8 November 2016

By Julian Assange


In recent months, WikiLeaks and I personally have come under enormous pressure to stop publishing what the Clinton campaign says about itself to itself. That pressure has come from the campaign’s allies, including the Obama administration, and from liberals who are anxious about who will be elected US President.

在近几个月,维基解密和我个人承受着巨大的压力去阻止克林顿选举团队的任意妄为。这份压力来自于民主党选举同盟,包括奥巴马当局,以及对于将要被选为美国总统之人感到焦躁不安的自由主义者们。


On the eve of the election, it is important to restate why we have published what we have.

在大选之夜,非常有必要再次重申为什么我们公布了我们所拥有的信息。


The right to receive and impart true information is the guiding principle of WikiLeaks – an organization that has a staff and organizational mission far beyond myself. Our organization defends the public’s right to be informed.

接受与传递真实信息的权利一直是维基解密的固有原则——这是一个拥有团队与任务编制,远超于我个人的组织。我们的组织守护着公众的知情权。


This is why, irrespective of the outcome of the 2016 US Presidential election, the real victor is the US public which is better informed as a result of our work.

这就是为什么,无论2016年美国总统选举的结果如何,真正的胜利者是:对事实真相更加了解的美国公众。这也是我们工作的成果。


The US public has thoroughly engaged with WikiLeaks’ election related publications which number more than one hundred thousand documents. Millions of Americans have pored over the leaks and passed on their citations to each other and to us. It is an open model of journalism that gatekeepers are uncomfortable with, but which is perfectly harmonious with the First Amendment.

美国公众彻底接触了维基解密公开的与选举相关的材料,总共超过10万份文件。成千上万的美国民众凝视着这些信息,互相引证传递并给到我们反馈。这是个很好的新闻业模型,也是令一些“守门员”们感到非常不适的。但是这与第一修正案完美和谐匹配。


We publish material given to us if it is of political, diplomatic, historical or ethical importance and which has not been published elsewhere. When we have material that fulfills this criteria, we publish. We had information that fit our editorial criteria which related to the Sanders and Clinton campaign (DNC Leaks) and the Clinton political campaign and Foundation (Podesta Emails). No-one disputes the public importance of these publications. It would be unconscionable for WikiLeaks to withhold such an archive from the public during an election.

被我们公开的获取到的材料,涉及政治、外交、历史或者伦理道德,并不曾在世界上其他地方公布过。当我们得到满足以上条件标准的材料,我们会公布。我们获得了关于桑德斯与克林顿选举(DNC泄漏邮件),克林顿政治活动,以及克林顿基金会(Podesta邮件)的资料。没有任何人怀疑这些资料的公开对于公众的影响力。如果维基解密组织在大选期间保留这些材料不让公众知晓的话,我们在良心上无法接受。


At the same time, we cannot publish what we do not have. 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 fufills our stated editorial criteria. As a result of publishing Clinton’s cables and indexing her emails we are seen as domain experts on Clinton archives. So it is natural that Clinton sources come to us.

与此同时,我们无法公布自己并不拥有的资料。直到现在,我们还没有获得关于唐纳德·特朗普选举的相关信息,或是吉尔·斯坦因的选举,或是加里·约翰逊的选举,或是任何其他候选人的资料符合我们的资料审核标准。由于公布了克林顿文件及其对邮件进行索引,我们看上去更像是克林顿档案的专家。其实克林顿的资料到我们这里很正常。


We publish as fast as our resources will allow and as fast as the public can absorb it.

一旦我们的的情报资源达到标准,我们立即会公开发布, 然后公众会最快速度吸收这些信息。


That is our commitment to ourselves, to our sources, and to the public.

这是我们对自己的承诺,对我们的信息源头的承诺,对公众的承诺。


This is not due to a personal desire to influence the outcome of the election. The Democratic and Republican candidates have both expressed hostility towards whistleblowers. I spoke at the launch of the campaign for Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate, because her platform addresses the need to protect them. This is an issue that is close to my heart because of the Obama administration’s inhuman and degrading treatment of one of our alleged sources, Chelsea Manning. But WikiLeaks publications are not an attempt to get Jill Stein elected or to take revenge over Ms Manning’s treatment either.

去影响选举结果并不是出于个人的愿望。民主党和共和党候选人们都对举报者们表现出了敌意。我在吉尔·斯坦因(绿党候选人)开始竞选之时开始发言,因为她的平台显示了他们需要保护。这是我心中一直惦记的事情,因为奥巴马当局曾残忍及可耻地处置我们宣称过的信息源之一,切尔西·曼宁。但是维基解密公布的材料并不是为了帮助吉尔·斯坦因竞选成功,也不是为了替曼宁小姐进行复仇。


Publishing is what we do. To withhold the publication of such information until after the election would have been to favour one of the candidates above the public’s right to know.

我们所做的只是出版公开。如果保留这些材料直到大选结束,这会使其中一名候选人正中下怀,也使公众失去了知情权。


This is after all what happened when the New York Times withheld evidence of illegal mass surveillance of the US population for a year until after the 2004 election, denying the public a critical understanding of the incumbent president George W Bush, which probably secured his reelection. The current editor of the New York Times has distanced himself from that decision and rightly so.

说到底我们这么做是因为,当年纽约时报保留了非法大量监察美国人口的证据将近一年时间,直到2004年选举为止都拒绝公布对时任总统乔治·W·布什的决定性信息,结果可能导致了他的再选受到保护。可想而知的是,现任纽约时报总编极力撇清了自己与此事的关系。


The US public defends free speech more passionately, but the First Amendment only truly lives through its repeated exercise. The First Amendment explicitly prevents the executive from attempting to restrict anyone’s ability to speak and publish freely. The First Amendment does not privilege old media, with its corporate advertisers and dependencies on incumbent power factions, over WikiLeaks’ model of scientific journalism or an individual’s decision to inform their friends on social media. The First Amendment unapologetically nurtures the democratization of knowledge. With the Internet, it has reached its full potential.

美国更有激情地保护着言论自由,但是第一修正案只有在不断反复实践中才能真正存活。第一修正案明确保护防止着企图阻止人们发言以及自由出版能力的尝试。第一修正案不会给予传统媒体特权,即使是在其企业广告和对当权集团的依赖下,维基解密的科学性新闻模型或是独立个人通过社交网络传递信息的权力依然受到保护。第一修正案毋庸置疑地养育着民主化知识。随着因特网的发展,其潜能达到了完全的释放。


Yet, some weeks ago, in a tactic reminiscent of Senator McCarthy and the red scare, Wikileaks, Green Party candidate Stein, Glenn Greenwald and Clinton’s main opponent 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.

即便如此,几周前,让人回想起参议员麦卡锡的策略(即美国五十年代由参议员麦卡锡发起的麦卡锡主义运动,毫无证据地指控他人对美国不忠,是共产党等等),维基解密、绿党候选人斯坦因、格伦·格林沃德(律师、新闻从业员),以及克林顿的主要参选对手被一把红色的大刷子涂了一身。克林顿选举团队,当他们散布显而易见的虚假消息,指向无法验证的信息源或是推断出模糊不清的声明来描述效忠于俄罗斯的不法邪恶力量之时,克林顿选举团队还是没法找到与我们的公开材料相关的不利证据——因为根本不存在那些证据。


In the end, those who have attempted to malign our groundbreaking work over the past four months seek to inhibit public understanding perhaps because it is embarrassing to them – a reason for censorship the First Amendment cannot tolerate. Only unsuccessfully do they try to claim that our publications are inaccurate.

最后,那些尝试去诽谤我们开创性成果的人在过去的四个月去禁止公众了解我们,可能因为这对他们是个大大的尴尬——这会成为第一修正案无法容忍的审查制度的原因。他们声明我们的材料不准确,这份努力最终是失败徒劳的。


WikiLeaks’ decade-long pristine record for authentication remains. Our key publications this round have even been proven through the cryptographic signatures of the companies they passed through, such as Google. It is not every day you can mathematically prove that your publications are perfect but this day is one of them.

维基解密十年来的清白记录依然继续保持着。我们的这一轮的关键性解密档案里包含的如谷歌这这样公司的数字签名,充分验证了其信息的可靠性。并不是每一次都可以从数学上去佐证我们公布的档案是真实完美的,但这次是个例外。


We have endured intense criticism, primarily from Clinton supporters, for our publications. Many long-term supporters have been frustrated because we have not addressed this criticism in a systematic way or responded to a number of false narratives about Wikileaks’ motivation or sources. Ultimately, however, if WL reacted to every false claim, we would have to divert resources from our primary work.

我们遭受了强烈的批评,主要来自于克林顿的支持者们对我们的公布材料。许多我们的长期支持者们非常沮丧,因为我们并没有用系统化的方式理睬这种批评,或是回应对于维基解密动机、信息源的虚假叙述。然而最终,如果维基解密对每一份虚假声明都去回应,我们就不得不将精力与资源从主要工作中分散出来了。


WikiLeaks, like all publishers, is ultimately accountable to its funders. Those funders are you. Our resources are entirely made up of contributions from the public and our book sales. This allows us to be principled, independent and free in a way no other influential media organization is. But it also means that we do not have the resources of CNN, MSNBC or the Clinton campaign to constantly rebuff criticism.

维基解密,就像所有的出版者一样,终极目标是对其投资者负责。那些投资者就是你们。我们的资金源完全来源于公众捐赠和我们出版的书籍销售。这让我们保持自己的原则,独立并自由,没有其他任何一家有影响力的媒体机构可以做到。但是这也意味着我们不拥有如同CNN / MSNBC,或是克林顿选举团队所拥有的资源去持续性对抗批评。


Yet if the press obeys considerations above informing the public, we are no longer talking about a free press, and we are no longer talking about an informed public.

但如果媒体思前想后对过多因素进行考量与顾虑,甚至越过了让公众知情的原则,我们就不是在谈论一家自由的媒体了,我们也不是在讨论公众知情权的问题了。


Wikileaks remains committed to publishing information that informs the public, even if many, especially those in power, would prefer not to see it. WikiLeaks must publish. It must publish and be damned.

维基解密确保承诺公布信息给公众,即便很多人,特别是那些当权者并不愿意见到。维基解密必须公布信息。它必须公布,并被一些人诅咒。



附:

如何看待「十月惊奇」维基解密连续爆料:The Podesta Emails? - 兔子君的回答

如何确认维基解密的爆料内容是否真实? - 唐纳德·特朗普(Donald J. Trump)


段落经过评论中各位的指点进行了细微修改,还感谢各位的指教。请继续指出其他问题,我会一一确认的。

继续浏览内容
知乎
发现更大的世界
打开
浏览器
继续
You call them deplorable, we call them people. 一个国家的领导人不应该抛弃任何一群人甚至是任何一个人,这是教训,历史的教训。对中国更是这样:抛弃人民的人会被人民抛弃。

update:11.9,0:20 PST(得,我都不知道换时间了).伯克利的学生正在游行,高喊"not our president". 天上直升机乱飞,觉也睡不了,就像14年底BLM在复习周大游行一样。选的人中你意就是小甜甜,不中意就是牛夫人。合你意就是民主,不合你意就是rigged,那和你们反对的川普有什么区别?这很伯克利,真的。fb上的人生百态写一部三言二拍绝对没问题,明末清初那些东林文人不食人间烟火、自认清高正确、遇到质疑立马翻脸的情况在他们脸上表现的淋漓尽致。

update: 11.9, 23:15 PST. 今天学校有很多人游行,大概上万吧。我一个Chem专业的人,看到大家就像信仰崩塌一样的死气沉沉,甚至Phillip Geissler如此乐观开朗的人上课的时候都心不在焉时常写错字,我觉得很难过,又很愤怒。都是善良单纯的人,居然被MSM洗成这个样子。贴一段我一个在U Chicago的朋友的评论还有我的转发吧,也不想翻译了,主要是给身边的美国朋友们看的。措辞会和你们平时中文界面里看到的我不一样,毕竟我还要命。

Qi Zheng:

While I'm waiting for Secretary Clinton's concession speech, I felt that I could write something to reflect on last night, as this is the first election that I witnessed first-hand.

First, I want to say to those who are extremely stunned, disappointed, destroyed, and scared to death - DON'T BE. As more than half of Clinton backers think Trump supporters are deplorable, guess what, a similar percentage of Trump voters think of you the very same way. So, regardless of who you think fits to be the president, stop trying to secure that moral high ground, right this minute.

The truth is, half of the country voted for what you (we) believe is a racist Nazi bigot, who did all kinds of stuff that is disqualifying. We can start to call them many names: racists, sexists, morons, white supremacists, f*cking a******, but they are Americans that also deserve to live in this democracy. There's a big urban-rural divide in U.S., and you will never understand that by living in a bubble. My family live in a county to the north of Houston that voted overwhelmingly Trump - and I can tell you they are not what you were taught Trump supporters are. Quite on the contrary, as much as you loved Obama, some people's lives were fucked over, and there's really nothing wrong about showing their disagreement with their votes. Even if some of them truly voted for white supremacy, we need to work on healing that gap, other than widening it. This is what democracy is actually supposed to be.

On the other hand, what democracy is not supposed be, is DNC colluding with Clinton from the beginning of 2015, to plot against other Democratic contenders; it's stealing debate questions from CNN; it's taking yuge sum of money from special interests and do them favor. To be honest, as much as I agree with many of Clinton's policies, her politics in the past two years embarrassed the party and the nation big time. This kind of corruptness, corporatism, and abuse of power is exactly what I saw in the place where I was born and raised, and I don't want to see that represented by a U.S. president(ial candidate). That's exactly why 60%+ voters were approval of Obama but Clinton failed to win.

Starting from the very beginning of her campaign, Secretary Clinton has run on the idea that "it's my turn to be president," and by the way, the first female president of this nation. That particular sentiment eventually lost her the campaign. No one, absolutely no one, "deserves" to be president, and if Clinton hasn't learned that in 2008, this time around we all learned that lesson.

Last night, we saw a presidential candidate who couldn't even wait for an extra hour to make a formal concession speech, who dared to send a political surrogate and tell supporters to "head home," while millions of Americans stayed up late, half of which her own voters. If that's who we've chosen to run against Trump, I guess we lose. And we never had a chance, since the first DNC email was sent out to hand-pick Clinton as the nominee.

Don't blame Russia (Seriously? Are we back to the Cold War?), don't blame people who voted Johnson, don't blame Sanders supporters whom Hillary never respected, don't blame young voters, white voters, and so on - blame the smugness that lost us an important election, and change that, starting today.


Life goes on. The American democracy is alive and well. We still have a Congress, and a Supreme Court - them being Republican doesn't mean we don't have them. And more importantly, I hope we still fight for the same things: protestors at Standing Rock are still being brutalized, people still work 40/50 hours a week and cannot put food on the table, our inner cities are honestly in huge distraught, while big businesses make millions of dollars of contributions every election round. I believe there's a path to address these problems under a President Trump, and we should all work towards that, and crying and calling people names don't help with anything.


Shujia Liang:

I believe the USA WILL have a female president. It may be Michelle Obama, who is even overqualified as the first lady, or Elizabeth Warren, a better and more consistent senator than HRC. My friend said all the stuff I wanted to say, from the heart of Illinois. We are in Berkeley, and we should be proud of the democracy and equality we fought for since the Vietnam War. If DJT does anything misconduct in the future, use the power of democracy, vote for the senate, vote for the house, and tell others, especially people in the Lake District and NC who lost their jobs, that what SPECIFICALLY we can do to help them, instead of letting it go and make them so "deplorable" that they became and elected a "sexist, racist, homophobia and etc,." If you are annoyed by what I just said, I am not mad at you. Calm down and ask ourselves, the strongest country in the world, the United State of America, how did it become the strongest and most developed, carrying half of "uneducated sexists, racists, homophobians, and etc,." at the same time? We are in Berkeley, we are the Cal undergrads, and if we regard ourselves as the future elites in this country, please think about what my friend just said.

继续浏览内容
知乎
发现更大的世界
打开
浏览器
继续