this post was submitted on 26 Jun 2024
494 points (95.7% liked)

News

23317 readers
3596 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange returned to his homeland Australia aboard a charter jet on Wednesday, hours after pleading guilty to obtaining and publishing U.S. military secrets in a deal with Justice Department prosecutors that concludes a drawn-out legal saga.

The criminal case of international intrigue, which had played out for years, came to a surprise end in a most unusual setting with Assange, 52, entering his plea in a U.S. district court in Saipan, the capital of the Northern Mariana Islands. The American commonwealth in the Pacific is relatively close to Assange’s native Australia and accommodated his desire to avoid entering the continental United States.

Assange was accused of receiving and publishing hundreds of thousands of war logs and diplomatic cables that included details of U.S. military wrongdoing in Iraq and Afghanistan. His activities drew an outpouring of support from press freedom advocates, who heralded his role in bringing to light military conduct that might otherwise have been concealed from view and warned of a chilling effect on journalists. Among the files published by WikiLeaks was a video of a 2007 Apache helicopter attack by American forces in Baghdad that killed 11 people, including two Reuters journalists.

Assange raised his right fist as he emerged for the plane and his supporters at the Canberra airport cheered from a distance. Dressed in the same suit and tie he wore during his earlier court appearance, he embraced his wife Stella Assange and father John Shipton who were waiting on the tarmac.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] disguy_ovahea 46 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

It’s a bit more than embarrassment. Some of what he exposed was absolutely horrific. Other leaks directly compromised confidential war and spy intelligence that directly led to the execution of informants. There had to be consequences for the latter. Had he responsibly redacted names, as a journalist should, I may have had a different opinion.

[–] ikidd 10 points 4 months ago (1 children)

The intelligence leaks were via media outlets that didn't sanitize the publications. It was up to them to do what was needed on that front. And in the end, nobody has shown that those failures to censor information had anything like the consequences to intelligence assets that Libby/Cheney's leaks had.

[–] disguy_ovahea 25 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

He created Wikileaks and personally hosted classified information. The release of the unredacted Afghan War Diary directly resulted in the execution of Afghani informants.

https://wikileaks.org/

[–] [email protected] -1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Source on the executions? I found that informants were named and when warned that this could result in their deaths Assange basically said, "lol, snitches get stitches."

That said, I couldn't find anything about the informants actually being executed.

[–] disguy_ovahea 4 points 4 months ago (3 children)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 4 months ago

The Insurance section on that article is extremely interesting. I wonder if/when we will be able to crack into that potential treasure trove. But maybe it's just 1.4GB of a picture of Julian's asshole

[–] Jtotheb 5 points 4 months ago (1 children)

So, to clarify, since zero deaths are listed there—we don’t have a source for that claim?

[–] ikidd 2 points 4 months ago

Exactly my point; there have been no deaths attributed to these leaks by any credible source other than an administration that has variously tried to frame, imprison, assassinate and astroturf Assange, that is directly implicated in warcrimes and has done it's own leaks of intelligence assets that are actually provably murderous.

This is how this whole thing has gone since the start. We still have a group that's inconsolably upset that Wikileaks exposed their nomination tampering, and will move the goalposts at every turn that shows Assange was on the right side of history.

[–] ikidd 1 points 4 months ago

So, according to your own link, absolutely nothing but unproven allegations.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

it was a deliberate understatement for comic effect.

Still, though, 12 years is only considered proportionate because the the government sets the law and the government was embarrassed.

Its not a complete defence of Assange, his behaviors, his sketchy connections to Russia - but it is me saying that whistle-blowers are disproportionately punished not because it's in the public interest

[–] disguy_ovahea 8 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

I disagree that embarrassment was the motivation.

Leaking the details of classified foreign intelligence operations is considered espionage or treason. Some of those leaks resulted in the execution of informants. Those are not small crimes.

According to the Espionage Act of 1917, he could have been executed. Imprisonment is standard, but 12 years is far better than the maximum of life in prison.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage

[–] ralphio 9 points 4 months ago

Some of those leaks resulted in the execution of informants.

This is speculation by the US, they were never able to prove this.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Yes but you're saying "it's a big crime because the people who stand to benefit from it being a big crime say it's a big crime."

While I'm not saying all and any espionage/treason is good, I'm asking why one would think these memoranda are worth more than human life?

Were they? Would the world be better off with Assange dead?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago (3 children)

For the operatives put in danger and/or killed, it was worth human life?

You seem to be ignoring that Assange either knowingly or unknowingly risked peoples' lives, people who had often given those lives into great risk in service of their country.

When the leaks first happened, I was supportive of Wikileaks (a natural position for an anti-war person like me). Later, when it was revealed that there had been no or little due diligence to ensure the information had been vetted and scrubbed, I realized how extreme it can be on both ends of the political spectrum.

Stop trying to paint this with some large political brush.

Assange is not a hero. The US government is not innocent.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago

Ah yes the poor innocent Cia agents

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

Risk, yes, but we know now that no one was hurt. It's very different when you know what the consequences are.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago

In service of their country? Did the US make them US citizens?

Because most US informants were working against their countries in some cases even after the US invaded.