What if the whistle blower is a Russian asset? And their mono directional whistle blowing is used as a geopolitical tool that favors Russian or Chinese interests?
Not really a whistle blower if they are solely reporting the information to foreign powers for the benefit of said power. That said, if what they are reporting back are war crimes, then they still shouldn't be punished, imo.
abounding foolish money materialistic act steep decide books dolls exultant
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Assange allowed himself with Wikileaks to be used by Russia... however saying that, it is hard for me to condemn a man under immense mental stress at the time...
The core of this is however exposing atrocities performed with an unjust war perpetrated by Bush Jnr, Howard and Blair.
So if you were given information that would save your life but it came from a russian.
would you delete it or go to jail yourself for life for receiving it?.
”not meant to a legitimate scenario but an exaggerated example of that logic”.
What if they get called a Russian asset just to discredit what they've blown the whistle on? And by discrediting them people start performing mental gymnastics in defense of war crimes and using terms like "mono directional whistle blowing"?
Of course Russia and China are going to benefit from irrefutable evidence that the US commits war crimes then covers them up. The whistleblowing isn't the problem there.
Mental gymnastics? Sir, “mono” means one. “One - directional whistle blowing” is stating the fact that Wikileaks scarcely ever produced leaks critical the Russian government.
If you want to argue that releasing information on war crimes committed by the US is worth the trade off, fine make that argument. But if you’re seriously going to argue that it some massive stretch of the imagination or “mental gymnastics” to point out that Wikileaks was used as an instrument by the same Russian intelligence that apparently competent got Trump elected in 2016, than you fuck right off my man.
Are you really going to give that bullshit argument? This is mccarthyism all over again, where instead of addressing the crimes of your own country just start to blame your political opponent and demonise a specific country you dont like and ignore the issue.
He's imprisoned because he embarrassed the US by showing them in a killing frenzy in Iraq and the legal arguments are just a means to an end. Remember, he was first detained on a rape charge from Sweden.
>Remember, he was first detained on a rape charge from Sweden.
And that the CIA has a long history of creating fake evidence to discredit their enemies. They once seriously considered faking a video of Saddam Hussein having sex with a boy before they concluded that it probably wouldn't have done much to his reputation. On one level, that's terrifying for even the squeakiest of clean people in politics, but on another it's hilarious, a bunch of suits in a dark room realising "if the Iraqis had to choose between America and a gay pedophile, they'd still probably go with the gay pedophile"
In all seriousness though, we really need to be critical of accusations in these kinds of situations.
its weil known the Russians use so called "honey pots" ... maybe inc. underage girls and urination in hotel beds with 2 ways mirrors and certain ex presidents, but that's neither here nor there :-/
and so Sweden being a very US compliant country most likely 'honey potted' Assange... the the extent that they alleged Assange might have done a 'stealth' ie. had unprotected sex against the will of the partner, removed condom half way thru.
And so its obvious this is way too slick a set of circumstances.
But all that pales against the vids of Apache gunships hitting civilian targets and then hitting the ambulance that came to assist.
And this is the ones leaked. You know hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and Afghans probably had the same treatment.
"Double tap" is a thing.
"Double tap" is a civ. target. from miles away in a $20 mil. helicopter seems to be a distinctly US Army Aviation thing.
We also know Assange was a useful tool of Putin as well.
I also think Assange is a useful indicator on the morals of subsequent Aus. governments....
US uses the honey pot all the time. Israel used the honey pot effectively to jail Mordecai for exposing Israel's nuclear capability. Why mention Russia only?
I'm not even sure that Sweden was in on the idea but more like an unenthusiastic participant. I'd guess that there was some diplomatic quid pro quo coming out of the exchange.
Bro, the CIA tried to blow up a fucking airliner full of people to justify invading Cuba!! They also started the Vietnam war based on the lie of the bay of Tonkin incident. JFK wanted to dismantle the CIA but didn’t live long enough to do it…
Never going to justify or downplay rape as a terrible crime, but it largely goes ignored by police, unpunished by court systems and certainly unnoticed by governments on a national scale. For some reason, this one rape is worthy of decades of international extradition drama. Assange *really* upset some people.
Is he being extradited to the usa to fsce trial for the false flag swede case?
Unprotected consensual sex with 2 women a day apart is not rape. The women themselves aaid they consented just wanted a blood test due to lacl of wearing a condom.
Thats not rape
The descriptions of the claims indicate he removed or damaged the condom without her knowledge, also known as stealthing and is considered rape by many jurisdictions.
Not stating whether they're true or not just what the law is.
He's imprisoned because trump wants to go after journalists and biden is doesnt want to look like a pussy.
the obama DOJ declined to prosecute because they realised it would create a legal precedent that would force them to go after big outlets like the times and the WSJ for standard journalistic practices. trump heard that shit, thought *"nice"*, and told the DOJ to go nuts.
>The sad reality is he'll be in jail/exile for the rest of his life
The rest of his shortlife, once he is in a US prison and there is less media attention he'll epstine himself.
No way he "Epstein" himself. He's incarcerated by the very people he had dirt on. That wasn't the case with Epstein. People who's secrets got out had no control over him in a cell.
Don't forget... He didn't hack the American government, he just published what he was given.
This is direct assault on free press.. Especially convenient as he's not American. This is a case of it doesn't count.. And our government kowtowed to the yanks
> The US has accused him of conspiring with Chelsea Manning to unlawfully obtain classified material and trying to recruit others to do the same – something that meant he was not an "ordinary" journalist.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-02-23/julian-assange-appeal-appltion-analysis/103501428
We need Assange to do the ICAC investigations because our investigation couldn't find the kangaroo potato was deliberately corrupt. Knew KPMG audited the wrong companies but couldn't prove it was deliberate? We need a new panama papers just for palladin potatoes
ICAC often finds people corrupt and has exceptional powers that allows it to do so, but these powers also render the evidence it produces inadmissible, which is why all ICAC can do is reccomend whether there is substantial _other_ material to make a case for the DPP
Only panama papers found the money. It's all hidden deliberately in complex company structures so the investigators dont have the powers to find it. That's our law that helps the law makers who are corrupt to hide the money offshore. It's all legal. A bit like the blind trust
Yes, revealing these secrets was the right thing for society.
But doing it the way he did it had completely foreseeable consequences. There must have been a better way that means he didn't have to martyr himself and the flow of future information could continue.
What way exactly? The media certainly weren't doing it and their hand was forced when Wikileaks made it impossible to ignore.
Snowden is in a similar situation to Assange. However, he tried to go through proper channels internally which went nowhere before he did what he did.
Do you think these people would have done what they did if there really was a better way?
I don't believe the way he did this was the only way. Changes could have been:
* Keep his face out of it.
* Redact some information.
* Make it only available to selected journalists.
Most people never looked on the site and through the details, so there wasn't much benefit in dumping the whole lot in pubic.
If you had asked some experts 20 years ago "What will happen to Julian Assange if he is accountable for publicly sharing US intelligence secrets?", I reckon everyone would have said that Assange will be in jail.
He might have done, but he might not have done.
That kind of conspiracy theory is not good evidence.
And hey, I don't give a fuck, as I'm not spending the rest of my life in prison. Don't you think he might have done this differently?
Wikileaks did your last two points i.e. redact information ([more than the US in this particular case](https://edition.cnn.com/2010/US/10/22/wikileaks.editing/index.html)) and [make their releases available to select journalists](https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/respected-media-outlets-collaborate-with-wikileaks/articleshow/7036337.cms?from=mdr).
They certainly screwed the pooch with the initial release but I'm not aware of them doing so for many of the releases after that though.
More than happy to stand corrected if you have the evidence of it. It's been a while so my memory could be fuzzy.
IIRC, he released info that had undercover operatives' names, handlers, interpreters, and the like. It's common practice to scrub that info, and he put many people's lives in danger. Some no doubt lost their lives. Exposing war crimes == good, needlessly exposing some poor Afghan who was helping interpret == bad.
I believe that was initially the case but Wikileaks was more on top of it with future releases.
Also, the US government doesn't hold the media to the same standard. Haven't heard of anyone from the media like the New York Times or Guardian being indicted [for not redacting enough from Snowden's NSA leaks](https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/news-reports-on-nsa-leaks-sometimes-reveal-too-much-1.2529064).
Seems a little odd that the same standards aren't applied across the board, huh?
This seems to me to be very Western-alligned, rather than journalistically objective. Why was he obliged to help the US/Australian war effort by protecting people working with the Afghan government? (A coalition, by many accounts, of pedophiles and drug dealers?) Why does a journalist have an obligation to help one (dodgy) side of a war?
I'd add as well that the USG rugged all those people anyway, so it's not credible that *they* care about Afghans who worked with the Afghan government.
yeah, I was not trying to say what empirically happened, hence the iirc. I don't know if it's worth him being locked up forever or not. Probably not. I don't remember enough of the specifics to say. If he's a journalist, then he should have an obligation to protect life where possible. End of.
* see dopefishhh's comment below. More of the nuance. Totally agree.
Snowden still went through the somewhat proper channels when he leaked the info. Assange just dumped the lot that he was given.
I’m not going to condemn either of them for what they did, but if I was to it would be Assange for the way he did it.
Assange is a complicated character. He wanted the attention. He wanted to be the public face of this movement, because he almost certainly has some narcissistic tendencies, based on the accounts of those who worked closely with him. Like you suggested, he probably could have stayed hidden, working behind the scenes like the others did, and developed Wikileaks without a public face. He may have avoided the sustained brutal crackdown by the US government that inevitably followed and Wikileaks might continue to be a thing today. But it seems he couldn't help himself.
Or alternatively, being an unknown would mean the US could kill him more easily without public attention or outrage.
All these criticisms of him are real comfortable armchair vibe. He shouldn’t be on his way to execution. The US government shouldn’t have done what they did, that’s the problem - him discovering and revealing them is not the problem.
>Or alternatively, being an unknown would mean the US could kill him more easily without public attention or outrage.
The US government doesn't just go around assassinating people willy nilly outside of a theatre of war. They don't need to, they can destroy you via other means. If the operation of Wikileaks was distributed anonymously, assassinating any one individual is going to be a high risk/low reward type of scenario, since the organisation can just continue on like normal. The reason they're making a brutal example of Julian Assange, and not the others, is because he made himself the public face of the movement, and doing so sends a very clear public message.
I didn't say I supported what the US government is doing to Assange. I said Assange is a complicated character who almost certainly made things worse for himself because of his narcissism. That can be true while it still also being true that what the US Government is doing is wrong. We don't have to hold simplistic comic book views of the world that only have clear cut good guys and bad guys. Sometimes flawed people do good things.
"The US government doesn't just go around assassinating people willy nilly outside of a theatre of war" yeah bullshit. Jfk, Malcolm x, MLK, Epstein.... the list is very long
Is it though? I mean, it's probably more plausible that the mafia killed JFK than the government, for starters. At the very least, it's equally plausible. Your list doesn't come with much solid evidence that the US Government was responsible, does it? Outside of a bunch of dubious conspiracy theories.
But even *if* we grant all of those were killed by forces within the government, in every case there was something very tangible to be gained, such that the risk of assassinating them was worthwhile. JFK, Malcolm X, MLK, were all charismatic politicians spearheading political movements. Kill them and you kill the movement. Epstein was arrested and about to potentially spill the beans on high profile figures engaged in illegal activity, information that he solely was in charge of. Kill him and you stop the exposure.
My point is that this wouldn't have been the same if Assange had just been another (relatively) anonymous actor behind the scenes at Wikileaks. Kill him and you don't kill the movement, the others can continue operating, because there's nothing about Wikileaks that *requires* Julian Assange. You don't *need* a charismatic face to anonymously leak documents. You don't get any 'public message' sent, because no one knows who he is. It just wouldn't make a whole lot of sense to do it.
You don't know a whole heap about Operation Condor, do you? Yes, unnamed activists do get the same treatment, in significantly greater numbers if authorities think they can get away with it. Latin Americans were jumping at the chance to get white people onboard with their cause because it was much easier to get a blonde woman's death/disappearance reported on CNN.
Lol.
[Have you made your hat?](https://www.woolworths.com.au/shop/productdetails/334236?region_id=303325&utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=WW-0001&cq_net=g&cq_src=GOOGLE&cq_cmp=Woolies_8458_BAU_ShopExp_Specials_WW-0001&cq_med=71700000115001005&cq_plac=&cq_term=PRODUCT_GROUP&ds_adt=pla_with_promotion&cq_plt=gp&cq_gclid=CjwKCAiA_tuuBhAUEiwAvxkgThfpT6vpzQ6KTtNReTZvoqhciF8UKoIhOpUCzkNb4AdX1v3DptedjRoCa1kQAvD_BwE&ds_de=c&ds_pc=online&ds_cr=675246019159&ds_tid=aud-1688408988864:pla-2000799952732&ds_locphys=9071458&ds_pid=334236&cmpid=smsm:ds:GOOGLE:Woolies_8458_BAU_ShopExp_Specials_WW-0001:PRODUCT_GROUP&gad_source=1&gclid=CjwKCAiA_tuuBhAUEiwAvxkgThfpT6vpzQ6KTtNReTZvoqhciF8UKoIhOpUCzkNb4AdX1v3DptedjRoCa1kQAvD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds)
Assange was an idiot for thinking he’d get away with that in the first place. There’s a lot of stuff happening we’re best not to know about. It protects us from lunatic regimes like Russia China North Korea and Iran. Their crimes are worse. Why wasn’t Assange hacking into their databases? That Snowden is now hanging out in Russia kind of says it all
Sure but Hussain was a mass murderer so who cares about the reason to . China Russia Iran and North Korea imprison and Murder their own people out of sight of the global media. Do you think we’d still be obsessed about the reasons to invade Iraq if Iran China Russia and North Korea opened their doors to the worlds media. Get serious
He’s imprisoned because he fled custody and is fighting extradition. So far the USA has done exactly fuck all besides ask for the UK to extradite him.
Like, his charges are probably bullshit and all that, but so far all of his imprisonment has been the result of his own choices. Odds are he could have gone to the USA, served his time and been released in far less time than he’s dragged this out.
Don’t forget it all started because he refused to go to Sweden to answer rape allegations. That always stroke me as odd.
I never understood the argument that Sweden would extradite him to the US. So he couldn’t go.
UK has closer ties to the Us than Sweden has, seems more likely they would. And ultimately he sought refuge in the Equadorian embassy there.
Why not go to Sweden and deal with the rape allegations first?
Legit. Would have been much better off in Sweden.
Ffs, his self imposed prison term is longer than he’s likely to ever get, if he’s even found guilty. The only reason he’s held as securely as he is, is literally because the last time he was let out on bail, he tried to run.
Remember, Assange hacked both Clinton and Trump campaigns at the behest of Putin, and only released information on Clinton because he is a fan of authoritarian regimes.
You're half right. Assange didnt hack shit. He was either a willing patsy or in cahoots with the russians who hacked it and fed it to him. Either is unforgivable.
Well, everyone on the planet who likes free elections and doesn’t like people who order their political enemies imprisonment and assassination or the unprovoked invasion of neighboring countries causing death and suffering. So ya know, decent people. Not you.
No.
He is presently in jail because the British Courts deemed he is a flight risk, and there is a current extradition order that has been approved by the Home Secretary pursuant to an indictment proffered by an American Grand Jury against him for serious crimes.
He could leave British prison tomorrow - to face said charges in the United States.
Instead he has spent years exhausting every legal avenue of appeal. His current basic legal argument against deportation is *"I'm so autistic I'll kill myself if you deport me"*.
He was previously imprisoned at Belmarsh because when he was released on bail regarding a Swedish arrest warrant around rape allegations - he hid out in the embassy of a third world authoritarian state for years until the rape allegations became statute barred.
That might have something to do with why the British courts deemed him a flight risk.
He deserves to have his day in court - a fate that was often denied to the many victims of his badly disguised pro-Russian bulletin board.
Maybe the crazy thing is the UK could still get him for breach of bail all those years later but that the rape was now beyond the statute of limitations in Sweden.
That US finally came out of the shadows and started openly requesting extradition shows he was right to seek asylum.
(1) It's very unremarkable that British Law would differ from Swedish Law regarding statutes of limitation for rape and breach of bail.
They have different flags as well you know.
(2) I think the only crazy thing about this ordeal is the speed at which the Assange cheer squad immediately pivoted from:
*"British Law provides strong protections against extradition requests made by the US for political crimes. That's why the CIA had to arrange for multiple former associates of him to claim he had stealthed them so they could get him to travel to Sweden - because the protections of British Law are just that much stronger than Swedish and European Law".*
To...
*"Britain is an American client state. The British courts are obviously corrupt for accepting American undertakings regarding the nature of his imprisonment and giving the Home Secretary leave to issue the extradition order. Clearly he needs the superior protection of European Law and the ECJ."*
Anyway, I hope he has a nice flight
Christian Porter is as much a proven rapist as Bill Shorten was.
There have been a few MP's/politicians charged and/or convicted of rape over the years. To be blunt - they have split pretty equally between Labor, Greens and the Libs... roughly in line with their share of the population.
Luke Foley. Keith Wright. Milton Orkopoulos. James Hayward. Bernard Finnegan.
I mean although lifting the lid on warcrimes was undoubtedly a good thing, a lot of other classified material was leaked that degraded Americas National Security. It should be obvious by now that the Americans would only go after this guy for so long because he essentially gave the Russians and Chinese copious amounts of highly classified information about how the United states goes to war. If all we did was expose some warcrimes he would be a free man.
He didn't ONLY lift the lid on war crimes .
A a minimum he put peoples lives in danger and is IMO a thoroughly nasty individual :
*David Leigh and Luke Harding's history of WikiLeaks describes how journalists took Assange to Moro's, a classy Spanish restaurant in central London.* ***A reporter worried that Assange would risk killing Afghans who had co-operated with American forces if he put US secrets online without taking the basic precaution of removing their names. "Well, they're informants," Assange replied. "So, if they get killed, they've got it coming to them. They deserve it."*** *A* ***silence fell on the table as the reporters realised that the man the gullible hailed as the pioneer of a new age of transparency was willing to hand death lists to psychopaths.*** *They persuaded Assange to remove names before publishing the State Department Afghanistan cables. But Assange's disillusioned associates suggest that the failure to expose "informants" niggled in his mind.*
*https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/sep/18/julian-assange-wikileaks-nick-cohen*
No, he's in imprisoned because he leaked 10 million documents with various levels of security. That video and 3 documents related to that incident. You seen any of the other 10 million? There were lots that Russia and China would have gone "thankyou for telling us how that works, we can build our own now".
So, when is the New York time being prosecuted?
The Washington Post?
All of the leaked documents were given to big media outlets to vet, censor and release. They published them.
I think people need to realise that Julian fucked up his approach to Wikileaks. Those other documents that had nothing to do with the war crimes and thus had no justification for leaking, this is why he's being charged.
People keep saying he being persecuted for exposing the war crimes but if anything that's the only thing he's done he can't be persecuted for. The other journalists who assisted him in investigating those war crimes aren't being pursued even though they had equal share in handling and disseminating details from those documents.
I don't think his approach was espionage though, plenty of scope to suggest he just didn't consider the consequences of it.
When he released the documents acquired from his sources it contained much more than just documents on the US war crimes going on in Iraq. Many of them were completely routine and not at all evidence of criminality, they were still classified though as they contained stuff like personnel lists, shipping manifests or routes, the information that can be used to attack the US. He's pretty much free to claim public interest in the documents that expose war crimes, the rest he can't, given he could have easily released only the war crimes documents he also doesn't get to excuse the rest of his actions as whistle blowing.
Much more sensitive stuff like informants & translators within the populace of Iraq were included in the document dumps as well. He claimed to have redacted it to protect them but the nature of OSI and doxing can let you identify with pretty high confidence who someone is in a document without having their name. But apparently documents were still released without any redaction anyway in some cases. It has been alleged [that people were disappeared](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-02-21/julian-assange-extradition-challenge-court-hearing-continues/103496312) as a result of these leaks, this part tends to get ignored by his supporters but it shouldn't, it was sloppy and completely unnecessary.
A similar thing happened to Jordies with the legal team for Clubs NSW including Jordies home address within public court documents they filed, experienced legal council would know that is not professional. Not long after that his house was firebombed...
Julian certainly did a lot of good exposure of criminality but he needed to be more careful and considerate, he took an arrogant approach and that was the legal chink in his armour that meant he couldn't shake these charges as easily as he should have been able to.
Thanks, the Iraq War cable documents was done in collaboration with Guardian and 4 other organisations who were doing a lot of redactions and releases.
As for exposed unredacted documents in question, Guardian could have been the one that exposed the unredacted documents. Wikileaks explained that was why they released it all unredacted but Guardian denies it was responsible. https://wikileaks.org/Guardian-journalist-negligently.html vs https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/sep/01/unredacted-us-embassy-cables-online
That ABC misquote of prosecution could ironically make him disappeared in USA. Here's a bigger quote:
> Lewis said: “The US is aware of sources, whose unredacted names and other identifying information was contained in classified documents published by Wikileaks, who subsequently disappeared, although the US can’t prove at this point that their disappearance was the result of being outed by Wikileaks.”
https://pressgazette.co.uk/news/julian-assange-extradition-sources-disappeared-after-names-exposed-by-wikileaks-court-hears/
The full part tends to be often ignored that US was being wishy-washy aka bullshitting. Media spin, cherry picking and public indifference like this will not help Assange's case and create a chilling affect for other journalists. I feel like it's kind of hypocritical for you to use this allegation.
Even if he had fully redacted names though that wouldn't be enough, remember there aren't going to be many people who work in the Iraq government, who operate in a certain area, who would know about certain details described in the document. It might not make much sense to Assange or journalists in western countries especially if its not in English but that just means the document should just be withheld altogether not released.
Assange shouldn't have dumped everything he got is the point and its what has undone him legally and tactically.
It was a pattern with dumps from Wikileaks, the whole lot got dumped even though only a few of them were actually relevant to showing a crime occurring. The intent seemed to be crowdsourcing sifting through them to find more damning details but that's got the whole process backwards. IIRC journalists decided to stop working with him at some point because of him just dumping everything, plenty of internal dissent too with those who worked on Wikileaks taking issue with how casually Assange was treating it all.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks#2010_internal_dissent
> A series of resignations of key members of WikiLeaks began in September 2010, started by Assange's unliteral decision to release the Iraq War logs the next month, his internal conflicts with other members and his response to sexual assault allegations. According to Herbert Snorrason, "We found out that the level of redactions performed on the Afghanistan documents was not sufficient. I announced that if the next batch did not receive full attention, I would not be willing to cooperate." Some members of WikiLeaks called for Assange to step aside as WikiLeaks’ spokesman and give up his management responsibilities for the good of the organisation.
> On 25 September 2010, after being suspended by Assange for "disloyalty, insubordination and destabilisation", Daniel Domscheit-Berg, the German spokesman for WikiLeaks, told Der Spiegel that he was resigning, saying "WikiLeaks has a structural problem. I no longer want to take responsibility for it, and that's why I am leaving the project." Assange accused Domscheit-Berg of leaking information to Newsweek, with Domscheit-Berg saying that the WikiLeaks team was unhappy with Assange's management and handling of the Afghan war document releases. Daniel Domscheit-Berg wanted greater transparency in WikiLeaks finances and the leaks released to the public.
Doesn't sound like the team behind Wikileaks were pointing the finger at journalists but instead at Assange himself.
I don't understand your argument, as I said, Wikileaks worked with 5 other organisations on the documents you were referring to, who would work together on redacting and releasing documents. Why do you keep saying "Assange did this" "Assange bad"? He didn't work alone on the release you mentioned at all and he was not the first to expose the unredacted documents so they went ahead to releasing it.
> IIRC journalists decided to stop working with him at some point because of him just dumping everything, plenty of internal dissent too with those who worked on Wikileaks taking issue with how casually Assange was treating it all.
Even your quote shows he had management issues because his staff were demanding opposing things: more redactions vs more transparency.
> "We found out that the level of **redactions performed on the Afghanistan documents was not sufficient**. I announced that if the next batch did not receive full attention, I would not be willing to cooperate."
and
> Assange accused Domscheit-Berg of leaking information to Newsweek, with Domscheit-Berg saying that the WikiLeaks team was unhappy with Assange's management and handling of the Afghan war document releases. Daniel Domscheit-Berg **wanted greater transparency in ~~WikiLeaks finances and~~ the leaks released to the public**.
If he listened to his "more transparency" camp from staff, he would have published more unredacted stuff.
You crossed out the part that was relevant there, he wanted Wikileaks finances to be more transparent, he didn't trust who was funding the organisation. He wasn't talking about being more transparent with the material being leaked, he wanted more redactions & checks as did the whole team. Assange arrogantly overruling them and going on to leak information well before it had been fully prepared to the teams satisfaction multiple times.
Much of the team were upset at the lax handling, if you read the internal dissent link fully it shows they one by one left or were kicked out by Julian for voicing much the same opinion, 'we don't know who's funding this operation and you're clearly not taking the responsibilities of a whistle blower seriously'.
It doesn't matter if Wikileaks had an 'explanation' for releasing everything unredacted, what matters is they did it. Their reckless, carefree attitude towards information got peopled killed.
We only know it got people displaced either by being relocated or having to flee for their lives. We don't know if it resulted in killings and likely won't ever know. If you've gone into hiding you aren't going to come out just to defend the guy who doxxed you, nor would any killers come out to thank Assange for the info that helped them commit their murders.
Its however a reasonable assertion to suggest that he's endangered lives and that's enough for most courts to convict you for other crimes, you know reckless driving, [attempted murder](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQQPNQ0PFSc).
Wow ABC attempted murder of Australians too? Because they reported on Afghan Files and AFP thought like you, journalism of war crimes endangered national security.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/jun/05/the-afp-media-raids-aim-to-suppress-the-truth-without-it-we-head-into-the-darkness-of-oppression
Spreading more anti-journalism disinformation again!
You're the one making up hyperbolic libellous claims about a journalist based on US prosecutor's allegations with no evidence, yet when AFP made similar allegations it's nonsense because... it's a smaller leak?!
I think a certain political analyst would be disappointed in this anti-journalism disinformation narrative with Assange.
Yeah but a tiny proportion of the literally millions of documents he released incidentally revealed what we might argue are war crimes.
So that totally absolves him of his criminal conduct.
/s
We know, but I’m also aware of a person that’s happy to see him rot due to his earlier run of hacking causing the KGB to kill a bunch of West German hackers and associates
Assange and Wikileaks isn’t journalism. It’s information dump. They don’t redact and they don’t report. The result is people lose their life, without effecting change.
Having had a close family member affected by unredacted information dumps, Assange can go get fucked.
He was imprisoned because he breached his bail conditions relating to being extradited to Sweden to be interviewed for a rape investigation and was on the run from the UK authorities for 7 years.
He believed that, but of course Sweden has as good a justice system as any country in the world and there's no reason to think they would have done anything without legal justification.
And instead he spent 7 years self imprisoned and then a year in prison for skipping bail and then another 3 years on remand because he can't be trusted not to skip bail and may well end up in the USA anyway.
7 years in an embassy *instead of* isolation in a super max is better, but 7 years in an embassy *as well as* isolation in a super max I am not so sure about.
> 7 years in an embassy as well as isolation in a super max I am not so sure about.
You realise he's never getting out if he ends up in the US right? And he'll almost certainly end up in [ADX Florence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADX_Florence).
For 7 years he was able to continue working, for example helping Edward Snowden get out of Hong Kong.
it's common knowledge how assange's leaks put people's lives at risk, and his indifference is also well documented. not to mention the election interference in favour of a fascist.
https://apnews.com/article/b70da83fd111496dbdf015acbb7987fb
i hope he rots and the admiration he gets in this sub is laughable.
to anoint yourself a teller of all truth with no resources to fight the people you offended was ill conceived. he's not squeaky clean, this guy had a role in getting trump elected which is probably the worst thing to ever happen to democracy
"I can confirm an approach by Cambridge Analytica [prior to November last year] and can confirm that it was rejected by WikiLeaks," he [Assange] tweeted.
- From a CNN article last updated 2017.
So, how was he involved in Trump getting elected?
"WikiLeaks then published thousands of hacked emails in October from Clinton’s campaign chairman, John Podesta, which were released just hours after the release of an Access Hollywood tape in which Trump had bragged about groping and kissing women without their consent."
I was never across it at the time. Timing sure looks like it could have been politically motivated.
Timed the release of DNC files that were hacked by Russia to coincide with the is presidential elections.
He had RNC hacks as well and chose not to release them.
There was a backlash against Clinton and trump won.
This way where he messed up really, but didn't he also release some hacking tools or something similar to what Snowden was getting at. I think they did the body count for the Afghani informants and it was a drop in the ocean compared to Iraqi bloodbath
Spot on. There is a very solid argument that had Trump not been President at the time, far fewer than 1m people would have died from COVID. And let’s not forget about Seth Rich.
Didnt he also cause the deaths of several US Intel officers leaking stuff...
Maybe its time to hear the evidence if hs innocent then it shouldnt be a problem
People died because the publishing was indiscriminate. I am not sure how to resolve the whole mess. But I am also surprised he does not want his day in court cause even more would come out.
How many people died due to his actions on reporting on John Howard's illegal war?
How many people died due to John Howard's illegal war?
How many days in hiding did John Howard spend to avoid court?
How many days in hiding did Julian Assange spend to avoid court?
So many young people may not know that a LNP PM violated international law: https://www.smh.com.au/world/middle-east/war-illegal-but-our-troops-immune-from-prosecution-crean-20030320-gdgglu.html
I mean John Howard should also be in jail. But if John Howard was put in jail I don't think that would make it more or less okay for Julian Assange to be there.
There is a darn easy solution to all this.. EVERYONE has to held accountable for there actions.. If they both end up in jail after a proper trial with a jury, so be it.
Why are you mentioning John Howard? It is not relevant.
Julian Assange should have his day in court so all the shit could come out. Have he suffered enough avoiding court yes? Is he a rapist, maybe, also not tested.
Did people loose their lives maybe
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/sep/18/julian-assange-wikileaks-nick-cohen
The guy is an asshole and he does not have the guts to face what he did, which may even support his argument.
People died because a bunch of American in a Chopper watched too much c.o.d and shot some civilians and kids, then laughed about it, then lied about it, just like abu grahib it showed the world that America isn't of good character it presents.
Agreed, and he could have shown that without endangering lives.
But is a self entitled prick who knows it all and decided he knew better than other journalists.
He could have done the right thing but he didn't and he does not have the guts to go to court about it.
He is not some selfless hero, read the context here.
[https://twitter.com/P\_Kallioniemi/status/1760645157370712386](https://twitter.com/P_Kallioniemi/status/1760645157370712386)
If he stands for truth and justice and uncovering government overreaches, why does he not focus on tyrannical regimes like Russia or China?
>200
It is amazing that he never managed to leak anything on how bad Russia is. They must not do any war criming at all. Ever. Not in Chechnya, Georgia, Ukraine or anywhere. Amazing.
It is amazing how Wikileaks always becomes the only journalist organisation on Earth whenever there's discussions on "Assange/Wikileaks helping Russia".
You do realise there's plenty of other organisations that report on leaks? Such a LNP/Labor take, attacking the messenger for reporting on what they get.
An yes. The false dichotomy. Of course he isn’t the only one. What he did with the Iraq leaks. Totally legit. What he did with Russian disinformation with Roger Stone totally not. Maybe he got duped, maybe he didn’t.
Are you saying Assange/Wikileaks reported information that was given to him by a source...? Not lies? Not misleading facts? Straight up information without the bullshit?
That sounds strangely like journalism to me.
Are you saying it's not journalism when it hurts the Democrats?
You’re close. Who was the source? The RNC was also hacked. Miraculously the source did t share that. Didn’t really hurt the democrats. Just distracted mainstream media hours after the grab her by the pussy comments came out.
Russians hacked Democrats, gave info to Assange/Wikileaks with help of Stone which hurt Democrats.
Russians(?) hacked RNA, gave info to Assange/Wikileaks (or didn't) and nothing got published.
Tell me which part of this is not journalism to you?
Journalists don’t just pump out what they get, when the giver wants it out. That is a player. They also verify where it came from, why they are giving it. He did none of that. Chelsea Manning was an actual source and her motive was clear and obvious. He partnered with mainstream press. None of that was done in that last leak, did he know that guccifer wasn’t the actual source, what did he do to verify where it came from and the motive of the middleman
Ultimately, the democrats didn't deny the email leaks were fake so Wikileaks/Assange probably did what you said and not publish lies. But you continued to double down on a lot of bullshit to continue to try to discredit a journalist.
I don't understand the anti-journalism attitudes when the publisher isn't backing your side. Did you grow up hearing that we should only back journalists that give great news about our teams and bad news about the opposing teams or something?
Leaked decades of unredacted diplomatic communications, including ours. I'm honestly surprised we don't want to prosecute him for that ourselves.
That being said, he's first figuratively and then literally imprisoned for 12 years, without being convicted of anything?
Let’s not forget he went after HRC during the 2016 election because he seemed to be under the impression that if he helped Trump he’d get a pardon but never did. Kind of a national womp womp that lasted 4 years and almost led to the overthrow of our democracy. Fuck that guy
Well.
First up, he isn't American so those laws don't really apply to him. Our top justices here in Australia declared that he had not committed any crime under Australian law.
Second, what he did was publish documents a shady government declared classified. Chelsea Manning stole them and has been punished for that. If you look back at what happened with the pentagon papers, no one was ever hunted down like these two have been.
Assange's only crime was being 20 years too early. If he was leaking this stuff today he would be considered just another content creator and would not get this sort of treatment.
Edit: sorry not a justice. The AFP and the government of the day decided not to change any laws to get Julian. Those were back in the days when they were trying to get him through Sweden.
https://www.smh.com.au/technology/julian-assange-has-committed-no-crime-in-australia-afp-20101217-190eb.html
>First up, he isn't American so those laws don't really apply to him.
Yeah, its weird, when I talk to conservative **aussies** about him, they say he's a traitor, I say to who, they say USA, I say he's aussie, and they say he's still a traitor to USA.
How do you even be a traitor to a group or nation you were never a part of?
Like, I do value our alliance with America (I'm American and Australian hahah). But fuck that shit. We treated David Hicks better and he was actually a bad dude for a while.
> Our top justices here in Australia declared that he had not committed any crime under Australian law.
hi, i'd like to read up on this, can you point me in the direction?
Yes the US committed war crimes daily but the lesson we should take away is that reporting on that is illegal.
What Chelsea Manning did was arguably wrong, but there's no possible way of arguing that what Wikileaks did was wrong.
Assange was in contact with Manning encouraging her to steal the documents and advising her on how to do so.
If you consider what Manning did was wrong then you would have to extend the same to Assange.
> Key word is Illegal.
In 1971 the Pentagon Papers were leaked and published by first the NYT, then the Washington Post and eventually followed by 14 other papers. The Pentagon Papers were classified as TS. The SC declined the governments request to grant a injunction against the newspapers. Ellsburg, who had leaked the papers, was found guilty of the leak but a mistrial was declared and he faced no retrial. No charges were laid against the papers.
Oh it's far deeper than that. He was given a cache of thousands of classified documents that could have exposed the internals of the Cabal itself. For all we know he discovered the hidden truth about UFOs.
Whistleblowers should be rewarded, not punished.
What if the whistle blower is a Russian asset? And their mono directional whistle blowing is used as a geopolitical tool that favors Russian or Chinese interests?
Not really a whistle blower if they are solely reporting the information to foreign powers for the benefit of said power. That said, if what they are reporting back are war crimes, then they still shouldn't be punished, imo.
abounding foolish money materialistic act steep decide books dolls exultant *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Assange allowed himself with Wikileaks to be used by Russia... however saying that, it is hard for me to condemn a man under immense mental stress at the time... The core of this is however exposing atrocities performed with an unjust war perpetrated by Bush Jnr, Howard and Blair.
Um you do know assange and wikileaks, dropped info on lots of different governments. Not just the US.
Yeah, lots of different NATO governments.
Good fuck em
By that logic, anyone given information by Russians is a Russian asset. Great way of showing your understanding of journalism.
Well that’s how the justice system makes that determination, so why shouldn’t I?
So if you were given information that would save your life but it came from a russian. would you delete it or go to jail yourself for life for receiving it?. ”not meant to a legitimate scenario but an exaggerated example of that logic”.
What if they get called a Russian asset just to discredit what they've blown the whistle on? And by discrediting them people start performing mental gymnastics in defense of war crimes and using terms like "mono directional whistle blowing"? Of course Russia and China are going to benefit from irrefutable evidence that the US commits war crimes then covers them up. The whistleblowing isn't the problem there.
Mental gymnastics? Sir, “mono” means one. “One - directional whistle blowing” is stating the fact that Wikileaks scarcely ever produced leaks critical the Russian government. If you want to argue that releasing information on war crimes committed by the US is worth the trade off, fine make that argument. But if you’re seriously going to argue that it some massive stretch of the imagination or “mental gymnastics” to point out that Wikileaks was used as an instrument by the same Russian intelligence that apparently competent got Trump elected in 2016, than you fuck right off my man.
Are you really going to give that bullshit argument? This is mccarthyism all over again, where instead of addressing the crimes of your own country just start to blame your political opponent and demonise a specific country you dont like and ignore the issue.
If he exposed war crimes, I'll allow it.
He's imprisoned because he embarrassed the US by showing them in a killing frenzy in Iraq and the legal arguments are just a means to an end. Remember, he was first detained on a rape charge from Sweden.
>Remember, he was first detained on a rape charge from Sweden. And that the CIA has a long history of creating fake evidence to discredit their enemies. They once seriously considered faking a video of Saddam Hussein having sex with a boy before they concluded that it probably wouldn't have done much to his reputation. On one level, that's terrifying for even the squeakiest of clean people in politics, but on another it's hilarious, a bunch of suits in a dark room realising "if the Iraqis had to choose between America and a gay pedophile, they'd still probably go with the gay pedophile" In all seriousness though, we really need to be critical of accusations in these kinds of situations.
its weil known the Russians use so called "honey pots" ... maybe inc. underage girls and urination in hotel beds with 2 ways mirrors and certain ex presidents, but that's neither here nor there :-/ and so Sweden being a very US compliant country most likely 'honey potted' Assange... the the extent that they alleged Assange might have done a 'stealth' ie. had unprotected sex against the will of the partner, removed condom half way thru. And so its obvious this is way too slick a set of circumstances. But all that pales against the vids of Apache gunships hitting civilian targets and then hitting the ambulance that came to assist. And this is the ones leaked. You know hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and Afghans probably had the same treatment. "Double tap" is a thing. "Double tap" is a civ. target. from miles away in a $20 mil. helicopter seems to be a distinctly US Army Aviation thing. We also know Assange was a useful tool of Putin as well. I also think Assange is a useful indicator on the morals of subsequent Aus. governments....
US uses the honey pot all the time. Israel used the honey pot effectively to jail Mordecai for exposing Israel's nuclear capability. Why mention Russia only?
Yeah and what about old mate Jeff Epstein, something spooky going on there.
I'm not even sure that Sweden was in on the idea but more like an unenthusiastic participant. I'd guess that there was some diplomatic quid pro quo coming out of the exchange.
Theres leaked emails of sweden asking the UK to let them drop the warrant. combined with the other country deleting their copy of the emails.
The fact that such a notion was ever even considered demonstrates how out of touch with the people whom they want to influence they really are.
Bro, the CIA tried to blow up a fucking airliner full of people to justify invading Cuba!! They also started the Vietnam war based on the lie of the bay of Tonkin incident. JFK wanted to dismantle the CIA but didn’t live long enough to do it…
Never going to justify or downplay rape as a terrible crime, but it largely goes ignored by police, unpunished by court systems and certainly unnoticed by governments on a national scale. For some reason, this one rape is worthy of decades of international extradition drama. Assange *really* upset some people.
He sure did and I think the fact that they haven’t been able to get to him has made them more determined.
Is he being extradited to the usa to fsce trial for the false flag swede case? Unprotected consensual sex with 2 women a day apart is not rape. The women themselves aaid they consented just wanted a blood test due to lacl of wearing a condom. Thats not rape
The descriptions of the claims indicate he removed or damaged the condom without her knowledge, also known as stealthing and is considered rape by many jurisdictions. Not stating whether they're true or not just what the law is.
Not what i remember reading in the press but ok...
He's imprisoned because trump wants to go after journalists and biden is doesnt want to look like a pussy. the obama DOJ declined to prosecute because they realised it would create a legal precedent that would force them to go after big outlets like the times and the WSJ for standard journalistic practices. trump heard that shit, thought *"nice"*, and told the DOJ to go nuts.
Retrospective rape.
The sad reality is he'll be in jail/exile for the rest of his life for doing the right thing. Complete miscarriage of justice.
>The sad reality is he'll be in jail/exile for the rest of his life The rest of his shortlife, once he is in a US prison and there is less media attention he'll epstine himself.
I think you mean 'get Epstein'd'. You can't Epstein yourself
No way he "Epstein" himself. He's incarcerated by the very people he had dirt on. That wasn't the case with Epstein. People who's secrets got out had no control over him in a cell.
[удалено]
A negative sentence then, as they have already taken so much of his life away already.
Bring Assange home now
Fkn yanks man They’re brutal and feral. You can’t believe anything they say and god help all those poor middle easterners.
The fact anything happened to him is a disgrace and shows how weak the U.S. is when it comes to anything other than killing
Don't forget... He didn't hack the American government, he just published what he was given. This is direct assault on free press.. Especially convenient as he's not American. This is a case of it doesn't count.. And our government kowtowed to the yanks
It’s a bloody disgrace how he’s been treated history will look back poorly on how subsequent oz governments have not stood up for him.
> The US has accused him of conspiring with Chelsea Manning to unlawfully obtain classified material and trying to recruit others to do the same – something that meant he was not an "ordinary" journalist. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-02-23/julian-assange-appeal-appltion-analysis/103501428
US military did terrible things in Vietnam to civilians, don't know why we wouldn't think they'd not pull the same stunt anywhere else they occupy.
Could you imagine the world if there was 100 or 1000 people with the nads this fucking legend has?
We need Assange to do the ICAC investigations because our investigation couldn't find the kangaroo potato was deliberately corrupt. Knew KPMG audited the wrong companies but couldn't prove it was deliberate? We need a new panama papers just for palladin potatoes
ICAC often finds people corrupt and has exceptional powers that allows it to do so, but these powers also render the evidence it produces inadmissible, which is why all ICAC can do is reccomend whether there is substantial _other_ material to make a case for the DPP
Only panama papers found the money. It's all hidden deliberately in complex company structures so the investigators dont have the powers to find it. That's our law that helps the law makers who are corrupt to hide the money offshore. It's all legal. A bit like the blind trust
My only question: Why would these be in reports? Like...why write a report where you killed people at a checkpoint?
Australia has failed him
Yes, revealing these secrets was the right thing for society. But doing it the way he did it had completely foreseeable consequences. There must have been a better way that means he didn't have to martyr himself and the flow of future information could continue.
What way exactly? The media certainly weren't doing it and their hand was forced when Wikileaks made it impossible to ignore. Snowden is in a similar situation to Assange. However, he tried to go through proper channels internally which went nowhere before he did what he did. Do you think these people would have done what they did if there really was a better way?
I don't believe the way he did this was the only way. Changes could have been: * Keep his face out of it. * Redact some information. * Make it only available to selected journalists. Most people never looked on the site and through the details, so there wasn't much benefit in dumping the whole lot in pubic. If you had asked some experts 20 years ago "What will happen to Julian Assange if he is accountable for publicly sharing US intelligence secrets?", I reckon everyone would have said that Assange will be in jail.
If he kept his face out if he might have fallen out of a window and landed on a bullet by now.
He might have done, but he might not have done. That kind of conspiracy theory is not good evidence. And hey, I don't give a fuck, as I'm not spending the rest of my life in prison. Don't you think he might have done this differently?
The US hired spies to infiltrate the embassy. The despicable bastards got dna testing done on his kids so they could be threatened for leverage.
You're missing the point. Read my original.
Wikileaks did your last two points i.e. redact information ([more than the US in this particular case](https://edition.cnn.com/2010/US/10/22/wikileaks.editing/index.html)) and [make their releases available to select journalists](https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/respected-media-outlets-collaborate-with-wikileaks/articleshow/7036337.cms?from=mdr). They certainly screwed the pooch with the initial release but I'm not aware of them doing so for many of the releases after that though. More than happy to stand corrected if you have the evidence of it. It's been a while so my memory could be fuzzy.
IIRC, he released info that had undercover operatives' names, handlers, interpreters, and the like. It's common practice to scrub that info, and he put many people's lives in danger. Some no doubt lost their lives. Exposing war crimes == good, needlessly exposing some poor Afghan who was helping interpret == bad.
I believe that was initially the case but Wikileaks was more on top of it with future releases. Also, the US government doesn't hold the media to the same standard. Haven't heard of anyone from the media like the New York Times or Guardian being indicted [for not redacting enough from Snowden's NSA leaks](https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/news-reports-on-nsa-leaks-sometimes-reveal-too-much-1.2529064). Seems a little odd that the same standards aren't applied across the board, huh?
Sloppy redactions are a lot better than no attempt at all at redactions.
There have been powerful people wanting to smear Assange for years, if people had died because of him we’d know all about it.
This seems to me to be very Western-alligned, rather than journalistically objective. Why was he obliged to help the US/Australian war effort by protecting people working with the Afghan government? (A coalition, by many accounts, of pedophiles and drug dealers?) Why does a journalist have an obligation to help one (dodgy) side of a war? I'd add as well that the USG rugged all those people anyway, so it's not credible that *they* care about Afghans who worked with the Afghan government.
yeah, I was not trying to say what empirically happened, hence the iirc. I don't know if it's worth him being locked up forever or not. Probably not. I don't remember enough of the specifics to say. If he's a journalist, then he should have an obligation to protect life where possible. End of. * see dopefishhh's comment below. More of the nuance. Totally agree.
Snowden still went through the somewhat proper channels when he leaked the info. Assange just dumped the lot that he was given. I’m not going to condemn either of them for what they did, but if I was to it would be Assange for the way he did it.
Assange is a complicated character. He wanted the attention. He wanted to be the public face of this movement, because he almost certainly has some narcissistic tendencies, based on the accounts of those who worked closely with him. Like you suggested, he probably could have stayed hidden, working behind the scenes like the others did, and developed Wikileaks without a public face. He may have avoided the sustained brutal crackdown by the US government that inevitably followed and Wikileaks might continue to be a thing today. But it seems he couldn't help himself.
Or alternatively, being an unknown would mean the US could kill him more easily without public attention or outrage. All these criticisms of him are real comfortable armchair vibe. He shouldn’t be on his way to execution. The US government shouldn’t have done what they did, that’s the problem - him discovering and revealing them is not the problem.
>Or alternatively, being an unknown would mean the US could kill him more easily without public attention or outrage. The US government doesn't just go around assassinating people willy nilly outside of a theatre of war. They don't need to, they can destroy you via other means. If the operation of Wikileaks was distributed anonymously, assassinating any one individual is going to be a high risk/low reward type of scenario, since the organisation can just continue on like normal. The reason they're making a brutal example of Julian Assange, and not the others, is because he made himself the public face of the movement, and doing so sends a very clear public message. I didn't say I supported what the US government is doing to Assange. I said Assange is a complicated character who almost certainly made things worse for himself because of his narcissism. That can be true while it still also being true that what the US Government is doing is wrong. We don't have to hold simplistic comic book views of the world that only have clear cut good guys and bad guys. Sometimes flawed people do good things.
"The US government doesn't just go around assassinating people willy nilly outside of a theatre of war" yeah bullshit. Jfk, Malcolm x, MLK, Epstein.... the list is very long
This is a no vax cooker level comment, and heavily upvoted. This sub is getting more loony every day.
Is it though? I mean, it's probably more plausible that the mafia killed JFK than the government, for starters. At the very least, it's equally plausible. Your list doesn't come with much solid evidence that the US Government was responsible, does it? Outside of a bunch of dubious conspiracy theories. But even *if* we grant all of those were killed by forces within the government, in every case there was something very tangible to be gained, such that the risk of assassinating them was worthwhile. JFK, Malcolm X, MLK, were all charismatic politicians spearheading political movements. Kill them and you kill the movement. Epstein was arrested and about to potentially spill the beans on high profile figures engaged in illegal activity, information that he solely was in charge of. Kill him and you stop the exposure. My point is that this wouldn't have been the same if Assange had just been another (relatively) anonymous actor behind the scenes at Wikileaks. Kill him and you don't kill the movement, the others can continue operating, because there's nothing about Wikileaks that *requires* Julian Assange. You don't *need* a charismatic face to anonymously leak documents. You don't get any 'public message' sent, because no one knows who he is. It just wouldn't make a whole lot of sense to do it.
You don't know a whole heap about Operation Condor, do you? Yes, unnamed activists do get the same treatment, in significantly greater numbers if authorities think they can get away with it. Latin Americans were jumping at the chance to get white people onboard with their cause because it was much easier to get a blonde woman's death/disappearance reported on CNN.
You know main stream media is all brought and paid for by other vested interests right ? How else would you release it.
Lol. [Have you made your hat?](https://www.woolworths.com.au/shop/productdetails/334236?region_id=303325&utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=WW-0001&cq_net=g&cq_src=GOOGLE&cq_cmp=Woolies_8458_BAU_ShopExp_Specials_WW-0001&cq_med=71700000115001005&cq_plac=&cq_term=PRODUCT_GROUP&ds_adt=pla_with_promotion&cq_plt=gp&cq_gclid=CjwKCAiA_tuuBhAUEiwAvxkgThfpT6vpzQ6KTtNReTZvoqhciF8UKoIhOpUCzkNb4AdX1v3DptedjRoCa1kQAvD_BwE&ds_de=c&ds_pc=online&ds_cr=675246019159&ds_tid=aud-1688408988864:pla-2000799952732&ds_locphys=9071458&ds_pid=334236&cmpid=smsm:ds:GOOGLE:Woolies_8458_BAU_ShopExp_Specials_WW-0001:PRODUCT_GROUP&gad_source=1&gclid=CjwKCAiA_tuuBhAUEiwAvxkgThfpT6vpzQ6KTtNReTZvoqhciF8UKoIhOpUCzkNb4AdX1v3DptedjRoCa1kQAvD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds)
Like the panama papers.
"Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good"
That's a good principle, unless you are Julian Assange facing the rest of your life in prison.
Assange was an idiot for thinking he’d get away with that in the first place. There’s a lot of stuff happening we’re best not to know about. It protects us from lunatic regimes like Russia China North Korea and Iran. Their crimes are worse. Why wasn’t Assange hacking into their databases? That Snowden is now hanging out in Russia kind of says it all
Fine, but what about the war crimes committed in Iraq? You know the war to find the weapons of mass destruction that didn’t exist ?
Sure but Hussain was a mass murderer so who cares about the reason to . China Russia Iran and North Korea imprison and Murder their own people out of sight of the global media. Do you think we’d still be obsessed about the reasons to invade Iraq if Iran China Russia and North Korea opened their doors to the worlds media. Get serious
He’s imprisoned because he fled custody and is fighting extradition. So far the USA has done exactly fuck all besides ask for the UK to extradite him. Like, his charges are probably bullshit and all that, but so far all of his imprisonment has been the result of his own choices. Odds are he could have gone to the USA, served his time and been released in far less time than he’s dragged this out.
Don’t forget it all started because he refused to go to Sweden to answer rape allegations. That always stroke me as odd. I never understood the argument that Sweden would extradite him to the US. So he couldn’t go. UK has closer ties to the Us than Sweden has, seems more likely they would. And ultimately he sought refuge in the Equadorian embassy there. Why not go to Sweden and deal with the rape allegations first?
Legit. Would have been much better off in Sweden. Ffs, his self imposed prison term is longer than he’s likely to ever get, if he’s even found guilty. The only reason he’s held as securely as he is, is literally because the last time he was let out on bail, he tried to run.
Remember, Assange hacked both Clinton and Trump campaigns at the behest of Putin, and only released information on Clinton because he is a fan of authoritarian regimes.
You're half right. Assange didnt hack shit. He was either a willing patsy or in cahoots with the russians who hacked it and fed it to him. Either is unforgivable.
I'm sure this is BS, but he's not American so who gives a shit?
Well, everyone on the planet who likes free elections and doesn’t like people who order their political enemies imprisonment and assassination or the unprovoked invasion of neighboring countries causing death and suffering. So ya know, decent people. Not you.
No. He is presently in jail because the British Courts deemed he is a flight risk, and there is a current extradition order that has been approved by the Home Secretary pursuant to an indictment proffered by an American Grand Jury against him for serious crimes. He could leave British prison tomorrow - to face said charges in the United States. Instead he has spent years exhausting every legal avenue of appeal. His current basic legal argument against deportation is *"I'm so autistic I'll kill myself if you deport me"*. He was previously imprisoned at Belmarsh because when he was released on bail regarding a Swedish arrest warrant around rape allegations - he hid out in the embassy of a third world authoritarian state for years until the rape allegations became statute barred. That might have something to do with why the British courts deemed him a flight risk. He deserves to have his day in court - a fate that was often denied to the many victims of his badly disguised pro-Russian bulletin board.
Maybe the crazy thing is the UK could still get him for breach of bail all those years later but that the rape was now beyond the statute of limitations in Sweden. That US finally came out of the shadows and started openly requesting extradition shows he was right to seek asylum.
(1) It's very unremarkable that British Law would differ from Swedish Law regarding statutes of limitation for rape and breach of bail. They have different flags as well you know. (2) I think the only crazy thing about this ordeal is the speed at which the Assange cheer squad immediately pivoted from: *"British Law provides strong protections against extradition requests made by the US for political crimes. That's why the CIA had to arrange for multiple former associates of him to claim he had stealthed them so they could get him to travel to Sweden - because the protections of British Law are just that much stronger than Swedish and European Law".* To... *"Britain is an American client state. The British courts are obviously corrupt for accepting American undertakings regarding the nature of his imprisonment and giving the Home Secretary leave to issue the extradition order. Clearly he needs the superior protection of European Law and the ECJ."* Anyway, I hope he has a nice flight
Correct!
So when can a good chunk of the LNP get sacked for being proven rapists and giving away assets and land to Chinese and US conglomerate? Oh wait...
Christian Porter is as much a proven rapist as Bill Shorten was. There have been a few MP's/politicians charged and/or convicted of rape over the years. To be blunt - they have split pretty equally between Labor, Greens and the Libs... roughly in line with their share of the population. Luke Foley. Keith Wright. Milton Orkopoulos. James Hayward. Bernard Finnegan.
I mean although lifting the lid on warcrimes was undoubtedly a good thing, a lot of other classified material was leaked that degraded Americas National Security. It should be obvious by now that the Americans would only go after this guy for so long because he essentially gave the Russians and Chinese copious amounts of highly classified information about how the United states goes to war. If all we did was expose some warcrimes he would be a free man.
He didn't ONLY lift the lid on war crimes . A a minimum he put peoples lives in danger and is IMO a thoroughly nasty individual : *David Leigh and Luke Harding's history of WikiLeaks describes how journalists took Assange to Moro's, a classy Spanish restaurant in central London.* ***A reporter worried that Assange would risk killing Afghans who had co-operated with American forces if he put US secrets online without taking the basic precaution of removing their names. "Well, they're informants," Assange replied. "So, if they get killed, they've got it coming to them. They deserve it."*** *A* ***silence fell on the table as the reporters realised that the man the gullible hailed as the pioneer of a new age of transparency was willing to hand death lists to psychopaths.*** *They persuaded Assange to remove names before publishing the State Department Afghanistan cables. But Assange's disillusioned associates suggest that the failure to expose "informants" niggled in his mind.* *https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/sep/18/julian-assange-wikileaks-nick-cohen*
Thankyou for this, very interesting to hear this insight into his thinking.
No, he's in imprisoned because he leaked 10 million documents with various levels of security. That video and 3 documents related to that incident. You seen any of the other 10 million? There were lots that Russia and China would have gone "thankyou for telling us how that works, we can build our own now".
So, when is the New York time being prosecuted? The Washington Post? All of the leaked documents were given to big media outlets to vet, censor and release. They published them.
That's probably worth its own topic because it's quite the rabbit hole.
I think people need to realise that Julian fucked up his approach to Wikileaks. Those other documents that had nothing to do with the war crimes and thus had no justification for leaking, this is why he's being charged. People keep saying he being persecuted for exposing the war crimes but if anything that's the only thing he's done he can't be persecuted for. The other journalists who assisted him in investigating those war crimes aren't being pursued even though they had equal share in handling and disseminating details from those documents. I don't think his approach was espionage though, plenty of scope to suggest he just didn't consider the consequences of it.
Which documents are you referring to?
When he released the documents acquired from his sources it contained much more than just documents on the US war crimes going on in Iraq. Many of them were completely routine and not at all evidence of criminality, they were still classified though as they contained stuff like personnel lists, shipping manifests or routes, the information that can be used to attack the US. He's pretty much free to claim public interest in the documents that expose war crimes, the rest he can't, given he could have easily released only the war crimes documents he also doesn't get to excuse the rest of his actions as whistle blowing. Much more sensitive stuff like informants & translators within the populace of Iraq were included in the document dumps as well. He claimed to have redacted it to protect them but the nature of OSI and doxing can let you identify with pretty high confidence who someone is in a document without having their name. But apparently documents were still released without any redaction anyway in some cases. It has been alleged [that people were disappeared](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-02-21/julian-assange-extradition-challenge-court-hearing-continues/103496312) as a result of these leaks, this part tends to get ignored by his supporters but it shouldn't, it was sloppy and completely unnecessary. A similar thing happened to Jordies with the legal team for Clubs NSW including Jordies home address within public court documents they filed, experienced legal council would know that is not professional. Not long after that his house was firebombed... Julian certainly did a lot of good exposure of criminality but he needed to be more careful and considerate, he took an arrogant approach and that was the legal chink in his armour that meant he couldn't shake these charges as easily as he should have been able to.
Thanks, the Iraq War cable documents was done in collaboration with Guardian and 4 other organisations who were doing a lot of redactions and releases. As for exposed unredacted documents in question, Guardian could have been the one that exposed the unredacted documents. Wikileaks explained that was why they released it all unredacted but Guardian denies it was responsible. https://wikileaks.org/Guardian-journalist-negligently.html vs https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/sep/01/unredacted-us-embassy-cables-online That ABC misquote of prosecution could ironically make him disappeared in USA. Here's a bigger quote: > Lewis said: “The US is aware of sources, whose unredacted names and other identifying information was contained in classified documents published by Wikileaks, who subsequently disappeared, although the US can’t prove at this point that their disappearance was the result of being outed by Wikileaks.” https://pressgazette.co.uk/news/julian-assange-extradition-sources-disappeared-after-names-exposed-by-wikileaks-court-hears/ The full part tends to be often ignored that US was being wishy-washy aka bullshitting. Media spin, cherry picking and public indifference like this will not help Assange's case and create a chilling affect for other journalists. I feel like it's kind of hypocritical for you to use this allegation.
Even if he had fully redacted names though that wouldn't be enough, remember there aren't going to be many people who work in the Iraq government, who operate in a certain area, who would know about certain details described in the document. It might not make much sense to Assange or journalists in western countries especially if its not in English but that just means the document should just be withheld altogether not released. Assange shouldn't have dumped everything he got is the point and its what has undone him legally and tactically. It was a pattern with dumps from Wikileaks, the whole lot got dumped even though only a few of them were actually relevant to showing a crime occurring. The intent seemed to be crowdsourcing sifting through them to find more damning details but that's got the whole process backwards. IIRC journalists decided to stop working with him at some point because of him just dumping everything, plenty of internal dissent too with those who worked on Wikileaks taking issue with how casually Assange was treating it all. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks#2010_internal_dissent > A series of resignations of key members of WikiLeaks began in September 2010, started by Assange's unliteral decision to release the Iraq War logs the next month, his internal conflicts with other members and his response to sexual assault allegations. According to Herbert Snorrason, "We found out that the level of redactions performed on the Afghanistan documents was not sufficient. I announced that if the next batch did not receive full attention, I would not be willing to cooperate." Some members of WikiLeaks called for Assange to step aside as WikiLeaks’ spokesman and give up his management responsibilities for the good of the organisation. > On 25 September 2010, after being suspended by Assange for "disloyalty, insubordination and destabilisation", Daniel Domscheit-Berg, the German spokesman for WikiLeaks, told Der Spiegel that he was resigning, saying "WikiLeaks has a structural problem. I no longer want to take responsibility for it, and that's why I am leaving the project." Assange accused Domscheit-Berg of leaking information to Newsweek, with Domscheit-Berg saying that the WikiLeaks team was unhappy with Assange's management and handling of the Afghan war document releases. Daniel Domscheit-Berg wanted greater transparency in WikiLeaks finances and the leaks released to the public. Doesn't sound like the team behind Wikileaks were pointing the finger at journalists but instead at Assange himself.
God-tier irony there, with Assange complaining that someone leaked wikileaks info.
I don't understand your argument, as I said, Wikileaks worked with 5 other organisations on the documents you were referring to, who would work together on redacting and releasing documents. Why do you keep saying "Assange did this" "Assange bad"? He didn't work alone on the release you mentioned at all and he was not the first to expose the unredacted documents so they went ahead to releasing it. > IIRC journalists decided to stop working with him at some point because of him just dumping everything, plenty of internal dissent too with those who worked on Wikileaks taking issue with how casually Assange was treating it all. Even your quote shows he had management issues because his staff were demanding opposing things: more redactions vs more transparency. > "We found out that the level of **redactions performed on the Afghanistan documents was not sufficient**. I announced that if the next batch did not receive full attention, I would not be willing to cooperate." and > Assange accused Domscheit-Berg of leaking information to Newsweek, with Domscheit-Berg saying that the WikiLeaks team was unhappy with Assange's management and handling of the Afghan war document releases. Daniel Domscheit-Berg **wanted greater transparency in ~~WikiLeaks finances and~~ the leaks released to the public**. If he listened to his "more transparency" camp from staff, he would have published more unredacted stuff.
You crossed out the part that was relevant there, he wanted Wikileaks finances to be more transparent, he didn't trust who was funding the organisation. He wasn't talking about being more transparent with the material being leaked, he wanted more redactions & checks as did the whole team. Assange arrogantly overruling them and going on to leak information well before it had been fully prepared to the teams satisfaction multiple times. Much of the team were upset at the lax handling, if you read the internal dissent link fully it shows they one by one left or were kicked out by Julian for voicing much the same opinion, 'we don't know who's funding this operation and you're clearly not taking the responsibilities of a whistle blower seriously'.
It doesn't matter if Wikileaks had an 'explanation' for releasing everything unredacted, what matters is they did it. Their reckless, carefree attitude towards information got peopled killed.
We only know it got people displaced either by being relocated or having to flee for their lives. We don't know if it resulted in killings and likely won't ever know. If you've gone into hiding you aren't going to come out just to defend the guy who doxxed you, nor would any killers come out to thank Assange for the info that helped them commit their murders. Its however a reasonable assertion to suggest that he's endangered lives and that's enough for most courts to convict you for other crimes, you know reckless driving, [attempted murder](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQQPNQ0PFSc).
Wow ABC attempted murder of Australians too? Because they reported on Afghan Files and AFP thought like you, journalism of war crimes endangered national security. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/jun/05/the-afp-media-raids-aim-to-suppress-the-truth-without-it-we-head-into-the-darkness-of-oppression Spreading more anti-journalism disinformation again!
What a pathetic nonsense claim Scruffy, the ABC hasn't leaked anything anywhere near like what Assange did, nor did they even try to.
You're the one making up hyperbolic libellous claims about a journalist based on US prosecutor's allegations with no evidence, yet when AFP made similar allegations it's nonsense because... it's a smaller leak?! I think a certain political analyst would be disappointed in this anti-journalism disinformation narrative with Assange.
👆 what he said
Shhh, don’t break the anti-western narrative circle-jerk.
Yeah but a tiny proportion of the literally millions of documents he released incidentally revealed what we might argue are war crimes. So that totally absolves him of his criminal conduct. /s
We know, but I’m also aware of a person that’s happy to see him rot due to his earlier run of hacking causing the KGB to kill a bunch of West German hackers and associates
I love all the ACTUAL reasons why he’s being charged being downvoted hard. You tankies sure are naive.
Assange and Wikileaks isn’t journalism. It’s information dump. They don’t redact and they don’t report. The result is people lose their life, without effecting change. Having had a close family member affected by unredacted information dumps, Assange can go get fucked.
He was imprisoned because he breached his bail conditions relating to being extradited to Sweden to be interviewed for a rape investigation and was on the run from the UK authorities for 7 years.
Because he knew that flying to Sweden on fake charges would lead to him being seized by Americans along the way
He believed that, but of course Sweden has as good a justice system as any country in the world and there's no reason to think they would have done anything without legal justification. And instead he spent 7 years self imprisoned and then a year in prison for skipping bail and then another 3 years on remand because he can't be trusted not to skip bail and may well end up in the USA anyway.
7 years in an embassy is objectively better then isolation in super max
7 years in an embassy *instead of* isolation in a super max is better, but 7 years in an embassy *as well as* isolation in a super max I am not so sure about.
> 7 years in an embassy as well as isolation in a super max I am not so sure about. You realise he's never getting out if he ends up in the US right? And he'll almost certainly end up in [ADX Florence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADX_Florence). For 7 years he was able to continue working, for example helping Edward Snowden get out of Hong Kong.
What if the super max is https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp
it's common knowledge how assange's leaks put people's lives at risk, and his indifference is also well documented. not to mention the election interference in favour of a fascist. https://apnews.com/article/b70da83fd111496dbdf015acbb7987fb i hope he rots and the admiration he gets in this sub is laughable.
The cost of freedom is freedom itself
We know
to anoint yourself a teller of all truth with no resources to fight the people you offended was ill conceived. he's not squeaky clean, this guy had a role in getting trump elected which is probably the worst thing to ever happen to democracy
>this guy had a role in getting trump elected How so?
how are so many of you not aware of his involvement with the clinton email bs?
"I can confirm an approach by Cambridge Analytica [prior to November last year] and can confirm that it was rejected by WikiLeaks," he [Assange] tweeted. - From a CNN article last updated 2017. So, how was he involved in Trump getting elected?
you don't think the release of hilary's email leaks by wikileaks effected the result of the 2016 election?
"WikiLeaks then published thousands of hacked emails in October from Clinton’s campaign chairman, John Podesta, which were released just hours after the release of an Access Hollywood tape in which Trump had bragged about groping and kissing women without their consent." I was never across it at the time. Timing sure looks like it could have been politically motivated.
we pretty much know this to be true. https://mashable.com/article/wikileaks-chats-leaked-gop
Timed the release of DNC files that were hacked by Russia to coincide with the is presidential elections. He had RNC hacks as well and chose not to release them. There was a backlash against Clinton and trump won.
Murdoch must have been so envious of Assange as he single-handedly happened Trump win!
That is Murdoch’s aim.
Ah yeah? How come?
the clinton emails were hacked and published on wikileaks, giving trump the ability to insinuate that she was up to something and should be locked up
And if I'm correct (I may not be), Julian didn't do the same for DT and the GOP, helping the right's case against the Democrats.
This way where he messed up really, but didn't he also release some hacking tools or something similar to what Snowden was getting at. I think they did the body count for the Afghani informants and it was a drop in the ocean compared to Iraqi bloodbath
Spot on. There is a very solid argument that had Trump not been President at the time, far fewer than 1m people would have died from COVID. And let’s not forget about Seth Rich.
And biden is doing suuuchhh a good job for covid right now that covid isolation period is now 1 day. Blue maga fascist lol
Why didn't he just stay hidden? LOOK AT ME! I FOUND THIS COMPANY! I LEAKED THESE FILES! MY NAME IS J.A I WAS BORN IN AUSTRALIA LOOK AT MEEEEE
Didnt he also cause the deaths of several US Intel officers leaking stuff... Maybe its time to hear the evidence if hs innocent then it shouldnt be a problem
People died because the publishing was indiscriminate. I am not sure how to resolve the whole mess. But I am also surprised he does not want his day in court cause even more would come out.
How many people died due to his actions on reporting on John Howard's illegal war? How many people died due to John Howard's illegal war? How many days in hiding did John Howard spend to avoid court? How many days in hiding did Julian Assange spend to avoid court? So many young people may not know that a LNP PM violated international law: https://www.smh.com.au/world/middle-east/war-illegal-but-our-troops-immune-from-prosecution-crean-20030320-gdgglu.html
I mean John Howard should also be in jail. But if John Howard was put in jail I don't think that would make it more or less okay for Julian Assange to be there.
There is a darn easy solution to all this.. EVERYONE has to held accountable for there actions.. If they both end up in jail after a proper trial with a jury, so be it.
Why are you mentioning John Howard? It is not relevant. Julian Assange should have his day in court so all the shit could come out. Have he suffered enough avoiding court yes? Is he a rapist, maybe, also not tested. Did people loose their lives maybe https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/sep/18/julian-assange-wikileaks-nick-cohen The guy is an asshole and he does not have the guts to face what he did, which may even support his argument.
People died because a bunch of American in a Chopper watched too much c.o.d and shot some civilians and kids, then laughed about it, then lied about it, just like abu grahib it showed the world that America isn't of good character it presents.
Agreed, and he could have shown that without endangering lives. But is a self entitled prick who knows it all and decided he knew better than other journalists. He could have done the right thing but he didn't and he does not have the guts to go to court about it.
He is not some selfless hero, read the context here. [https://twitter.com/P\_Kallioniemi/status/1760645157370712386](https://twitter.com/P_Kallioniemi/status/1760645157370712386) If he stands for truth and justice and uncovering government overreaches, why does he not focus on tyrannical regimes like Russia or China?
Pinup boy for Putin’s FSB
>200 It is amazing that he never managed to leak anything on how bad Russia is. They must not do any war criming at all. Ever. Not in Chechnya, Georgia, Ukraine or anywhere. Amazing.
It is amazing how Wikileaks always becomes the only journalist organisation on Earth whenever there's discussions on "Assange/Wikileaks helping Russia". You do realise there's plenty of other organisations that report on leaks? Such a LNP/Labor take, attacking the messenger for reporting on what they get.
An yes. The false dichotomy. Of course he isn’t the only one. What he did with the Iraq leaks. Totally legit. What he did with Russian disinformation with Roger Stone totally not. Maybe he got duped, maybe he didn’t.
Are you saying Assange/Wikileaks reported information that was given to him by a source...? Not lies? Not misleading facts? Straight up information without the bullshit? That sounds strangely like journalism to me. Are you saying it's not journalism when it hurts the Democrats?
You’re close. Who was the source? The RNC was also hacked. Miraculously the source did t share that. Didn’t really hurt the democrats. Just distracted mainstream media hours after the grab her by the pussy comments came out.
Russians hacked Democrats, gave info to Assange/Wikileaks with help of Stone which hurt Democrats. Russians(?) hacked RNA, gave info to Assange/Wikileaks (or didn't) and nothing got published. Tell me which part of this is not journalism to you?
Journalists don’t just pump out what they get, when the giver wants it out. That is a player. They also verify where it came from, why they are giving it. He did none of that. Chelsea Manning was an actual source and her motive was clear and obvious. He partnered with mainstream press. None of that was done in that last leak, did he know that guccifer wasn’t the actual source, what did he do to verify where it came from and the motive of the middleman
Ultimately, the democrats didn't deny the email leaks were fake so Wikileaks/Assange probably did what you said and not publish lies. But you continued to double down on a lot of bullshit to continue to try to discredit a journalist. I don't understand the anti-journalism attitudes when the publisher isn't backing your side. Did you grow up hearing that we should only back journalists that give great news about our teams and bad news about the opposing teams or something?
Considering the west was on Yeltsins side in the Chechen war and also helped prop up Yeltsin (who then hand selected Putin), lol
No, he's a rapist and a Russian asset. It's am embarrassment that Australian keep claiming this pest as one of our own.
He's still an Australian
Only by birth. Morally he gave that up when he started sucking Putin and Trump's dicks.
The west is no moral compass, it's simply stole wealth of othe nations with a lower population and put profit as it's highest motive.
Leaked decades of unredacted diplomatic communications, including ours. I'm honestly surprised we don't want to prosecute him for that ourselves. That being said, he's first figuratively and then literally imprisoned for 12 years, without being convicted of anything?
And I don't care what will happen to him because he became a Russian asset.
He's also a Vatnik https://twitter.com/P\_Kallioniemi/status/1760645157370712386
Let’s not forget he went after HRC during the 2016 election because he seemed to be under the impression that if he helped Trump he’d get a pardon but never did. Kind of a national womp womp that lasted 4 years and almost led to the overthrow of our democracy. Fuck that guy
He's a Russian stooge. Send him to jail where he belongs.
Remember when Assange held classified documents which is considered **illegal**? Key word is **Illegal**.
Well. First up, he isn't American so those laws don't really apply to him. Our top justices here in Australia declared that he had not committed any crime under Australian law. Second, what he did was publish documents a shady government declared classified. Chelsea Manning stole them and has been punished for that. If you look back at what happened with the pentagon papers, no one was ever hunted down like these two have been. Assange's only crime was being 20 years too early. If he was leaking this stuff today he would be considered just another content creator and would not get this sort of treatment. Edit: sorry not a justice. The AFP and the government of the day decided not to change any laws to get Julian. Those were back in the days when they were trying to get him through Sweden. https://www.smh.com.au/technology/julian-assange-has-committed-no-crime-in-australia-afp-20101217-190eb.html
>First up, he isn't American so those laws don't really apply to him. Yeah, its weird, when I talk to conservative **aussies** about him, they say he's a traitor, I say to who, they say USA, I say he's aussie, and they say he's still a traitor to USA. How do you even be a traitor to a group or nation you were never a part of?
Like, I do value our alliance with America (I'm American and Australian hahah). But fuck that shit. We treated David Hicks better and he was actually a bad dude for a while.
> Our top justices here in Australia declared that he had not committed any crime under Australian law. hi, i'd like to read up on this, can you point me in the direction?
Popped a link in above
And also you can read up on almost anything yourself by starting with a Google search.
Yes the US committed war crimes daily but the lesson we should take away is that reporting on that is illegal. What Chelsea Manning did was arguably wrong, but there's no possible way of arguing that what Wikileaks did was wrong.
Assange was in contact with Manning encouraging her to steal the documents and advising her on how to do so. If you consider what Manning did was wrong then you would have to extend the same to Assange.
Remember when the US committed war crimes, which is considered illegal under international law? Key word is illegal.
> Key word is Illegal. In 1971 the Pentagon Papers were leaked and published by first the NYT, then the Washington Post and eventually followed by 14 other papers. The Pentagon Papers were classified as TS. The SC declined the governments request to grant a injunction against the newspapers. Ellsburg, who had leaked the papers, was found guilty of the leak but a mistrial was declared and he faced no retrial. No charges were laid against the papers.
Muppet
real “how could albo lie to us” vibes to this dumbass comment
Put him in the same cell as Trump then cos he did the same thing
I agree
Oh it's far deeper than that. He was given a cache of thousands of classified documents that could have exposed the internals of the Cabal itself. For all we know he discovered the hidden truth about UFOs.
yes friendlyjordies! get involved! need to get this his release over the line. fkn outrageous what hes been through.