Actually, "collateral damage" usually refers to harms done to civilians. The US informants in Iraq were not civilians in this context at all, but operatives. So, where is the irony?

The US informants in Iraq were not civilians in this context at all, but operatives. So, where is the irony? — Janus

For heaven's sake, Janus, these were individuals caught up in a terrifying theatre of war, swarming with terrorists, IED's, American soldiers - your life, and your family's life, could be wiped out in a flash, on a whim. It was some of these poor miserable bastards who, for their own reasons, decided to translate for the yankees, presumably because they thought it might be a better deal than co-operating with the Iraqi mujahideen or some of the other sundry criminals and terrorists who were on every street corner. Then the yanks pull out, thanks, see you later, here's fifty bucks. And then a few years later, some asshole decides that it's alright if your name is published for all to see. Wouldn't you just love to hear the next knock on the door?

I don't know if you just being callous, or you don't understand, or you don't care, but I will be charitable and guess the second.

Don't mistake Assange for a white knight. He might have been, but he's not. — Wayfarer

I haven't said Assange is a "white knight". I see no reason to doubt he is a flawed human being just like the rest of us. The real issue is over whether he has by any reasonable criteria committed any crime, or whether he is just being made into a "whipping boy", to be set up as a cautionary example by corrupt power elites.

A domino chain of resignations at the secret-spilling site WikiLeaks followed a unilateral decision by autocratic founder Julian Assange to schedule an October release of 392,000 classified U.S. documents from the war in Iraq, according to former WikiLeaks staffers.

Key members of WikiLeaks were angered to learn last month that Assange had secretly provided media outlets with embargoed access to the vast database, under an arrangement similar to the one WikiLeaks made with three newspapers that released documents from the Afghanistan war in July. WikiLeaks is set to release the Iraq trove on Oct. 18, according to ex-staffers – far too early, in the view of some of them, to properly redact the names of U.S. collaborators and informants in Iraq.

'I am the heart and soul of this organization, its founder, philosopher, spokesperson, original coder, organizer, financier and all the rest. (said Assange) If you have a problem with me, piss off.'

https://www.wired.com/2010/09/wikileaks-revolt/

On July 19 2016, Wikileaks released an unredacted database of emails from the Turkish party AKP, which also included the addresses and other personal details of millions of Turkish women, as reported by scholar and journalist Zeynep Tufekci. Three days later, in its leak of 19,252 emails from the Democratic National Committee, WikiLeaks once again included the social security and credit card numbers of donors, amidst other sensitive information.

https://www.wired.com/2016/08/what-happened-to-wikileaks/

The whistleblowing site WikiLeaks has published the sensitive personal data of hundreds of ordinary people, including sick children, rape victims and people with mental health problems, an investigation has revealed.

In the past year alone, the “radical transparency” organization has published medical files belonging to scores of ordinary citizens. Hundreds more have had sensitive family, financial or identity records posted to the web, according to the Associated Press.

In two cases, WikiLeaks named teenage rape victims.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/aug/23/wikileaks-posts-sensitive-medical-information-saudi-arabia

In a country where women are beaten to death for the crime of having allowed themselves to be raped.

There's your 'radical transparency' in action.

I do agree that releasing such details is careless and irresponsible, but is it a crime? Also, was Assange still in control of what was released in 2016?

A lot of people here seem to reflexively assume that he's a persecuted whistleblower, but that's only part of the story. I heard an interview recently - I think it was a Slate podcast - a journo who did get some time with him in the Embassy noted he had a huge 'enemies list' of people he had grudges against, which formed the whole basis of the conversation. I think, unfortunately, Assange is pretty loopy, and a sad case of idealism gone wrong. By all accounts, intensely narcissist and megalomaniacal, someone who thought he could bring down governments and change the course of history but who basically doesn't give a flying f*** for anyone else. The Wired article above 'what happened to Wikileaks' gives a wrap.

I think Assange is unquestionably a "persecuted whistleblower", and he may well be "loopy" and "narcissistic and megalomaniacal" but none of that per se is, or should be, a punishable crime, so I still don't understand your apparent support for what is happening to him

so I still don't understand your apparent support for what is happening to him — Janus

You do often seem to have great difficulty understanding what I say. I must be inarticulate, or something. ;-)

No, it's not that; it's that you haven't provided any argument for why it should be thought that he has committed any crime worthy of indictment. You have also acknowledged that his being a 'persecuted whistleblower" is at least a part of the story.

I generally understand perfectly well what you say; what I often don't get from you is a reasoned argument for why you are saying it.

The real issue is over whether he has by any reasonable criteria committed any crime, — Janus

I think that's the judgement that a trial is supposed to determine. So without a trial the question is rather pointless.

I generally understand perfectly well what you say; what I often don't get from you is a reasoned argument for why you are saying it. — Janus

I think the facts on the record about what Assange has done show abundant evidence for, at the very least, reckless disregard for many individual lives. As to what crimes he has committed, no matter what he is accused of or convicted for, I'm sure many people will always believe that he's the real victim.

There must be an allegation that a crime has been committed to support indictment.

Reckless disregard for individual lives is not an indictable offense. The US and many other countries and corporations have shown such disregard over and over again.

It seems obvious what the real reason for the persecution of Assange is; if the power elites did not see him, and those who aspire to be like him, as a threat to their rule, and consequently to be treated as an example to be made to other would-be dissidents, none of what has happened to him would have transpired.

There must be an allegation that a crime has been committed to support indictment. — Janus

I think the US already has an indictment.

What's the alleged crime?

Assange would be a lot more credible if he could reveal some Russian or Chinese secrets.

Reckless disregard for individual lives is not an indictable offense. — Janus

So it doesn't matter if Assange publishes information that leads to people being killed or jailed. Collateral damage, right?

Assange would be a lot more credible if he could reveal some Russian or Chinese secrets. — YuZhonglu

Yeah but who wants a polonium pellet in their tea-pot. At least the yankees aren't going to send someone with nerve poison.

I think the US already has an indictment. — Metaphysician Undercover

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/16/doj-mistakenly-reveals-indictment-against-wikileaks-julian-assange.html

What's the alleged crime? — Janus

I don't know, I haven't seen the indictment, some espionage or something like that. I think the US wants to emphasize how some information was obtained, rather than the simple reporting of information.

I understand. I think he was working for the Russian government, though. — frank

I haven't seen Russia hysteria like this since the cold war. But Russia has journalists too. What difference does that make? He could be working for Satan and that would not change the fact that he published documents given to him by a third party, which is legal; and that his real crime is embarrassing the US government. All the rest is media spin that people are letting themselves absorb. I mean really, how do you or I know who Assange "works" for? If he worked for Mother Teresa would you feel differently about the case? Rationally you shouldn't. You should judge what he did, not what some rumor monger leaked to a credulous reporter. Don't you think?

He calls himself a journalist but he has no qualifications in that discipline and has never worked for accredited media. — Wayfarer

Neither are factors in who is a journalist. As I mentioned, numerous court decisions have upheld the journalistic rights of average everyday citizens in reporting events of public interest. In the eyes of US law there is no difference between a credentialed reporter for the NY Times and me, out there with my camera reporting on a newsworthy event. That's the actual law.

I mean really, how do you or I know who Assange "works" for? — fishfry

I don't remember you being this loose-cannonish. If he worked for Russia, it just means he had a bias.

The info about the war crime didn't shock anyone. It didn't change anything. No one but a few bleeding heart philosophical types even care. Is that what you're really pissed off about? Because I could understand that.

Janus
7k

Don't mistake Assange for a white knight. He might have been, but he's not. — Wayfarer


I haven't said Assange is a "white knight". I see no reason to doubt he is a flawed human being just like the rest of us. The real issue is over whether he has by any reasonable criteria committed any crime, or whether he is just being made into a "whipping boy", to be set up as a cautionary example by corrupt power elites. — Janus

The way to find out if Assange is guilty of a crime or not...is to have him stand trial. We have laws in the United States...and he has been charged with breaking at least one of those laws. (A serious one...not jaywalking.)

He should be brought to trial.

My guess is he will have a formidable defense team...financed by people who think he is being wronged.

The trial will determine whether he broke the law or not.

If not found guilty...he should be immediately released to whatever country he wants as home. If found guilty...he should pay the price the law calls for.

No one seems to be able to say what law he has broken. Also Assange is not a US citizen.

Janus
7k
↪Frank Apisa
No one seems to be able to say what law he has broken. Also Assange is not a US citizen.
25 minutes ago
Reply
Options — Janus

The charges seem to be that he assisted Chelsea Manning (at that time Bradley Manning) to break into US government computers and steal classified documents.

One does not have to be a citizen of a country to be charged with violating its laws.

If you are not a citizen of a country then you are not subject to its laws unless you are in that country.

Janus
7k
↪Frank Apisa
If you are not a citizen of a country then you are not subject to its laws unless you are in that country. — Janus

On the off-shoot chance that you are correct (you are not)...it should be a snap for Assange to beat this rap. So no big deal.

Are you claiming that all persons are subject to the laws of all countries, even if they are neither citizens of, nor residing, nor traveling, in the countries in question? Is that what you are saying I am not correct about?

If I am incorrect about that I would be very surprised. If I am correct about that, then unless Assange was in the US when the alleged crime was committed the US 'justice system' has no legal right to indict him in the first place.

No one but a few bleeding heart philosophical types even care. — frank

Yeah, well what does that say about the populace? Perhaps the US authorities don't care that he revealed the footage of the gleeful shooting of innocents, and they probably likewise don't really care about the possibility that punitive actions were taken against Iraqi collaborators with the US (since traitors are not looked upon favorably by power elites even if they are helping those elites). It is more likely they simply care about their precious secrecy of information being violated.

Can we talk about the victims of the war crime? Or is Assange really that much more fascinating? Why?

There was another case where 7 Seals tried to get their commander prosecuted for war crimes in Iraq and they were told to let it go. Their persistence paid off. The commander was charged with murder.

I don't remember you being this loose-cannonish. If he worked for Russia, it just means he had a bias. — frank

What? X "works for Y means X has a bias? Come on, that's not even sensible. Works for means works for. You can't change the terms just because you have no evidence for what you claimed. [If you're the one who claimed Assange works for Russia. Didn't go back and look that up].

The info about the war crime didn't shock anyone. It didn't change anything. No one but a few bleeding heart philosophical types even care. — frank

I care. And a lot of Americans care. That's how we got Trump. Hillary stood for the centrist consensus that's turned us into a warmongering torture regime. Trump ran against that, and that's a big factor in why he won. It's sad and frustrating that he's now surrendered to the neocons. But Trump's victory shows that at the time, many Americans did and still do care about the endless immoral war machine. You may remember that during the primaries he called out Jeb! on W's war and that resonated like crazy with a lot of people, even Republicans.

If I am overzealous (loose cannon, whatever) it's because I'm a lifelong Democrat and social liberal who's appalled at what's become of the left and the Democratic party. I'm old enough to remember when Dems were against the wars and against torture and in favor of civil liberties. And instinctively suspicious of the bullshit put out by the intelligence agencies. Those days are gone, leaving me and millions like me without a political party. That's exactly how we got Trump. Hillary's vote for the Iraq war (and her impassioned 30-minute speech on the floor of the US Senate in favor of the war) is why she lost the Dem primary in 2008 and it's one of the reasons she lost to Trump in 2016. You're wrong that Americans don't care about our messed up foreign policy. Enough do to have made Trump president.