First, Assange isn't a whistleblower, nor a leaker. He was a publisher. Wikileaks received leaked documents from whistleblowers and published them. Or at least received documents from somewhere and published them.

In the beginning Assange tried to vet the leaks he published. He contacted the US over the Manning leaks to go over them so he could publish without risk, the US refused.

So Assange set up a huge team of journalists to comb through the documents to see what was safe to publish. One of those journalists working for The Guardian proceeded to publish the key to the entire database, ensuring everything was leaked

Shortly after, he ends up in embassy and was unable or unwilling to do similar things.

There's nuance here that I didn't originally appreciate, thanks!

Interested in any links you could provide, too.

The Wikipedia article handles it adequately, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks#Unredacted_cable_rel...

If you want a deeper dive, I'm sure something exists but I don't remember where it would be.

>Shortly after, he ends up in embassy and was unable or unwilling to do similar things.

Are you suggesting with this "unable or unwilling to do similar things" part that he should be excused because he tried to do it initially? Should we forgive a lapse in journalistic ethics from that point forward because he started out on the right path and just couldn't stick to it?

Being forced into taking refuge in a tiny foreign embassy because the country whose war crimes you exposed is trying to lock you in a dungeon for life and/or assassinate you isn't, "a lapse in journalistic ethics". Our government has been the bad guy every step of the way in this whole affair.

> because the country whose war crimes you exposed is trying to lock you in a dungeon for life and/or assassinate you

Maybe the plea deal should be an opportunity to reevaluate these hyperbolic claims regarding the potential punishment that awaited Assange.

>Our government has been the bad guy every step of the way in this whole affair.

And that was the exact lack of nuance I was criticizing. One side being a bad guy does not make the other side a good guy. There is no excuse for the way Assange eventually abandoned any form of journalistic ethics.

"One of those journalists working for The Guardian proceeded to publish the key to the entire database, ensuring everything was leaked"

It might have been somewhat leaked before, maybe because of misscomunication/individual action. But it was not known widely before - still, Wikipedia made the decision to publish all unredacted on their own:

"WikiLeaks said that on 2 September it would publish the entire, unredacted archive in searchable form on its website"

The key had unquestionably leaked, and though it wasn't wide spread at the time, it inevitably would be. Things were already starting

Wikileaks said their decision to publish was to prevent third parties from tampering with the leaks creating false stories, but it was likely primarily that Assange and Wikileaks wanted the credit for the leak. Not a noble reason, but it still wasn't their fault they were in that shitty situation.

"Not a noble reason, but it still wasn't their fault they were in that shitty situation."

Not so sure about that. I recall some of the journalists working with him on the release said, they were shocked to here, that Assange said he does not care at all about the life of the informants, as they were working for the US. (source, some article from "Spiegel", would be quite some work to dig that up)

So I do not trust, that he seriously was concerned about their lifes, making serious security considerations.

My point is, if he would have been concerned, he could have used better security in the first place.

"In February 2011 David Leigh of The Guardian published the encryption passphrase in a book;[6] he had received it from Assange so he could access a copy of the Cablegate file, and believed the passphrase was a temporary one, unique to that file"

Assuming David Leigh was not lying, Assange should have been more clear with the security implications. (then again, I see no reason to publish the temporary key in the first place). Still at that time it was not not known, except for maybe some intelligence organisations. So if really concerned, one could have done many different things to protect informants, delay the time, instead of publishing it officially for the whole world to see.

I won't claim Assange had great security, I don't think even he would. Still, publishing any key you get without express permission seems suspect.

The key was public and the database was public. If you're an informant, would you rather be completely unaware of that while the local intelligence organization is already digging through it or have the whole world know including people that could help/warn you? I don't think "sit on it" is obviously the best choice.

Julian Assange published evidence of war crimes committed by the US Army. Both the leaker/whistleblower (Manning) and Julian Assange got their lives ruined over it. What is the lesson here? That if you value your life you should look the other way when you come across evidence of serious malfeasance? That killing innocent people is not a real crime but embarrassing those in power is the worst crime imaginable?

This is much bigger than Assange.

"Julian Assange published evidence of war crimes committed by the US Army."

I assume you mean the famous "collateral murder" videos?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_12,_2007,_Baghdad_airstri...

That is my biggest issue with the whole wikileaks thing. Because it might borderline a warcrime by being careless - but it was no murder. Yet it was framed as the US army just killing journalists for fun. But it was not at all like this.

There was active fighting, the journalists that were killed were embedded with active fighters - and their camera misstaken for an RPG. Those things can happen, especially if the journalists do not mark themself as journalists.

"The cameras could easily be mistaken for slung AK-47 or AKM rifles, especially since neither cameraman is wearing anything that identifies him as media or press"

The second attack while civilians evacuated and the children killed in the van - that was the bad thing. But it was still in the context of US troops receiving fire. So not at all allright, dirty war in a urban area - but not intentional murder. It was collateral damage in a wrong war.

Yeah okay, your comment reads like every single war crime apologia ever written. Obviously when it's your side there's always nuance and good intentions. I'm not going to give the benefit of the doubt to an army that was invading a country based on lies and that destroyed said country for 2 decades.

Why do you need a benefit of doubt? The audio of the helicopter gunners is recorded.

And my general judgement of the war was quite clear I think.

So if you come to a different conclusion about the facts, then I am interested in your arguments.

Have you seen that video yourself?

You mean the second strike?

I tend to agree, the problem is, this was not a conventional war, for which the concept of war crime was made for.

The combatants were not wearing uniforms. The van was not marked as an ambulance. All civilians and some had weapons - and on the other hand US soldiers thinking only in terms of conventional combat, where there might have been an rpg still around for an enemy to retrieve and fire at them.

"Well, it’s their fault for bringing their kids into a battle"

But they happened to live there. They did not visited a battlefield for fun. So yes, the video showed quite well to the world the reality of urban fighting against an uprising. Dirty as hell.

Yes.

But partisans and resistance movements are normal part of war and something you have to accept when you invade and occupy a foreign country. It is permissible to use all means available to one when resisting foreign occupation.

The Van wasn't an ambulance. It was, I suppose you say, people helping wounded people, and those people are protected, whether they are marked or not.

Yes, I said I think it was a wrong war and that the "ambulance" wasn't marked as one because it was just some civilian trying to help people.

But otherwise there are some rules for engagement in partisan warfare. For example they must be marked as combatants by uniform or some other clear sign.

Exactly for this reason, to be able to divide between combatants and civilians. The more the partisans ignore that, the more civilians will die. Which is why it is also frequently used as a dirty tactic to raise more civilian uproar and more joining the partisans.

I think we've gotten to deep into the threading, so I can't respond to your comment where you actually bring this up, but it is permitted, because there's a precedent, namely Skorezeny.

It is at least permissible to order the use of enemy uniforms for sabotage operations, provided that they be taken off before direct attacks.

Well I agree that we got too deep here in an OT, but you can always click on the "2 minutes ago" and then you can reply directly.

Ah, I see.

The purpose of partisan warfare isn't to protect civilians, but to drive out invaders.

One does have to put on a uniform or sign while performing direct attacks, but it's not required during sabotage operations. Then it's even permissible to use enemy uniforms.

"Then it's even permissible to use enemy uniforms"

No it is not. At least not under common international law. (And a sabotage mission is a direct attack)

"Not all uses of enemy uniforms are prohibited therefore; only “improper” uses. For example, wearing enemy uniforms in order to flee the fighting or escape capture does not run afoul of the law. On the other side of the spectrum, engaging in attacks while wearing the uniform of the enemy is flatly prohibited"

https://lieber.westpoint.edu/combatant-privileges-and-protec...

> What is the lesson here?

At least part of that lesson is that if you engage in partisan politics with your 'journalism' then you instantly become a great deal less sympathetic with about half the population. That includes a bunch of people in positions with enough power to make your life complicated.

Almost every newspaper or channel is partisan...

I am not aware of anything he has leaked being problematic. In fact, the US couldnt demonstrate that he had lead to the death of any soldiers or spies. And in a lot of cases, the spying was certainly unjustified.

I find it troubling that people dont have the nuance to identify that hes a bit of a smelly housemate and problematic manager but ultimately a clear net benefit to mankind.

>I am not aware of anything he has leaked being problematic.

I hesitate to even bring it up because it tends to poison any online discussion, but the DNC leaks were a pretty obvious one. Even if we give him the benefit of the doubt that the leaks were truly whistleblowing despite not actually revealing any illegal behavior, the way he continued to insinuate that Seth Rich was his source despite Assange still being in contact with the source after Rich's death should make it clear that Assange was not acting ethically.

>but ultimately a clear net benefit to mankind.

And this was exactly my original point. This isn't how the law works. We don't throw the good and bad on the scales of justice to see which side is heaviest. He did plenty of good things. He committed some crimes. The good things don't excuse the crimes.

> This isn't how the law works. We don't throw the good and bad on the scales of justice to see which side is heaviest.

Shoot, there goes the argument I was planning to deploy against Saint Peter at the Pearly Gates.

> DNC leaks

Assange is a journalist. The DNC leaks were public interest. The fact that they occurred during an election heightened that public interest. They were 100% justified in the US in moral and legal terms under 1A. Unless you are still tilting at forgotten politicians its really really weird to keep harping on about.

>This isn't how the law works.

What has law got to do with morality, other than often standing in the way of morality?

He has consistently maintained that the crime they charged him with "Soliciting covert information" should be protected under 1a. Or at least otherwise protected as journalism. He isnt even a US citizen mind, but US law doesnt give a shit.

Law should follow morality. Any normal right thinking human bean should understand that its literally the job of journalists to solicit and expose public interest information. If the government is committing crimes, if the government is acting in a way counter to their domestic narrative (which you base your vote on), if the government is treating its foreign partners especially shittily, the public has a right to know.

That the US had made doing so a crime, is a matter for the US electorate to deal with. They should remove the dumb as dogdoodoo law, or remove the government that opposes removing that law, physically if necessary. That he failed to abide by a set of stupid rules in doesn't suddenly make his actions amoral.

Its not that on balance he did some good and some crimes. Its that his crimes were in the public interest, so the law that made his actions criminal, is at fault not he.

I actually don't understand why this has to be brought up. I don't understand why people cling to law as a substitute for morality. Governments are very often wrong.

We kind of do look at the big picture when deciding a proper punishment.

> In fact, the US couldnt demonstrate that he had lead to the death of any soldiers or spies.

Isn't "it's difficult to prove that people literally died because of his actions" a pretty low bar to set?

Not when the claim being made was that his leaks would lead to death.

Julian Assange, on his leaking of the names of hundreds of Afghan civilian informants into the hands of the Taliban:

"Well, they're informants. So, if they get killed, they've got it coming to them. They deserve it."

I personally don't see much moral need to, for example, somehow obtain proof that the Taliban actually killed people based specifically off of his actions. He obviously doesn't actually care if they did.

Well put. This is the point I was trying to make, but I was more glib. It is perfectly reasonable to criticize someone for jeopardizing peoples' lives, without waiting to find people who were provably killed as a direct consequence.

"Could not demonstrate with 15 years to gather that data and present it" is a bit more than "Possibly"