3 ms·

So did he commit espionage, or expose war crimes? Let’s hope the courts decide wisely, because this case will settle the question of whether governments and mil

So did he commit espionage, or expose war crimes? Let’s hope the courts decide wisely, because this case will settle the question of whether governments and militaries can be held accountable by their people.

Causality1 7y ago
Both.
- JumpCrisscross 7y ago
  To expand, he exposed war crimes. But he also exposed a bunch of unrelated, not-war-crime stuff due to his refusal to redact. Contrast that with e.g. Snowden or the Panama Papers leakers, who disclosed information more carefully.
  - maxlybbert 7y ago
    I don’t think you have to make the distinction. Espionage is espionage regardless of what you’re looking for or what you find. Having pure motives doesn’t matter. It is true those things could influence whether charges are filed, or pardons granted. IIRC, it’s the legal difference between an affirmative defense and simply being innocent.
    - JumpCrisscross 7y ago
      > Espionage is espionage regardless of what you’re looking for or what you find. Having pure motives doesn’t matter. The Espionage Act is framed within the confines of the Constitution, including the First Amendment. Being a journalist (i.e. taking an active role in curating and analyzing the materials) has historically mattered to the courts (e.g. around Deep Throat).
auntienomen 7y ago
It's not an exclusive or. Assange worked with a number of people (including Manning) to obtain classified information. Some of that classified information detailed war crimes. Some did not; some of it was diplomatic cables, lists of informants, etc. Publishing the latter stuff almost certainly got people killed. Maybe we can agree to forgive him for the portion of the espionage which exposed war crimes, but I see no reason he should be given blanket immunity for everything he's done.
- emilsedgh 7y ago
  > Publishing the latter stuff almost certainly got people killed Citation Needed? Also, were those people involved in those [war crimes]?
  - christophclarke 7y ago
    "1,300 people were eventually killed, and 350,000 were displaced. That was a result of our leak" - Julian Assange https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/aug/01/julian-assange-wikileaks-afghanistan https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/aug/01/julian-assange...
    - emilsedgh 7y ago
      That's a quote out of context with bad faith. > The leak exposed massive corruption by Daniel Arap Moi, and the Kenyan people sat up and took notice. In the ensuing elections, in which corruption became a major issue, violence swept the country. "1,300 people were eventually killed, and 350,000 were displaced. That was a result of our leak," says Assange. The leak informed major corruption by the government. That's what the leak has done and I don't think any person in their right mind argues it's a wrong thing to do. Even the U.S. has whistle blower protection laws to allow such leaks. I'd argue that this would be a very good example of WikiLeaks doing good. I come from a corrupt, third world country (Iran), who has recently had it's share of corruption and violent election issues. Anyone exposing those crimes of the government would be a champion. What happens after the leaks, the uprising and violence, is not the responsibility of whistle blower but people who commit those specific crimes.
- monocasa 7y ago
  > Publishing the latter stuff almost certainly got people killed. That was all greatly overstated https://web.archive.org/web/20101129044151/https://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/11/28/104404/officials-may-be-overstating-the.html https://web.archive.org/web/20101129044151/https://www.mccla...
  - 7y ago
pablooliva 7y ago
"their people" ... Assange is not an American citizen nor has he ever resided in the U.S. How does U.S. law even apply to him?

Causality1 7y ago

Both.

JumpCrisscross 7y ago
To expand, he exposed war crimes. But he also exposed a bunch of unrelated, not-war-crime stuff due to his refusal to redact. Contrast that with e.g. Snowden or the Panama Papers leakers, who disclosed information more carefully.
- maxlybbert 7y ago
  I don’t think you have to make the distinction. Espionage is espionage regardless of what you’re looking for or what you find. Having pure motives doesn’t matter. It is true those things could influence whether charges are filed, or pardons granted. IIRC, it’s the legal difference between an affirmative defense and simply being innocent.
  - JumpCrisscross 7y ago
    > Espionage is espionage regardless of what you’re looking for or what you find. Having pure motives doesn’t matter. The Espionage Act is framed within the confines of the Constitution, including the First Amendment. Being a journalist (i.e. taking an active role in curating and analyzing the materials) has historically mattered to the courts (e.g. around Deep Throat).

auntienomen 7y ago

It's not an exclusive or. Assange worked with a number of people (including Manning) to obtain classified information. Some of that classified information detailed war crimes. Some did not; some of it was diplomatic cables, lists of informants, etc. Publishing the latter stuff almost certainly got people killed. Maybe we can agree to forgive him for the portion of the espionage which exposed war crimes, but I see no reason he should be given blanket immunity for everything he's done.

emilsedgh 7y ago
> Publishing the latter stuff almost certainly got people killed Citation Needed? Also, were those people involved in those [war crimes]?
- christophclarke 7y ago
  "1,300 people were eventually killed, and 350,000 were displaced. That was a result of our leak" - Julian Assange https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/aug/01/julian-assange-wikileaks-afghanistan https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/aug/01/julian-assange...
  - emilsedgh 7y ago
    That's a quote out of context with bad faith. > The leak exposed massive corruption by Daniel Arap Moi, and the Kenyan people sat up and took notice. In the ensuing elections, in which corruption became a major issue, violence swept the country. "1,300 people were eventually killed, and 350,000 were displaced. That was a result of our leak," says Assange. The leak informed major corruption by the government. That's what the leak has done and I don't think any person in their right mind argues it's a wrong thing to do. Even the U.S. has whistle blower protection laws to allow such leaks. I'd argue that this would be a very good example of WikiLeaks doing good. I come from a corrupt, third world country (Iran), who has recently had it's share of corruption and violent election issues. Anyone exposing those crimes of the government would be a champion. What happens after the leaks, the uprising and violence, is not the responsibility of whistle blower but people who commit those specific crimes.
monocasa 7y ago
> Publishing the latter stuff almost certainly got people killed. That was all greatly overstated https://web.archive.org/web/20101129044151/https://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/11/28/104404/officials-may-be-overstating-the.html https://web.archive.org/web/20101129044151/https://www.mccla...
- 7y ago

pablooliva 7y ago

"their people" ... Assange is not an American citizen nor has he ever resided in the U.S. How does U.S. law even apply to him?