there's a confusion of terms here. "Lying by omission" is possible if the source claims something and uses half the truth to support it. Assange didn't claim an

there's a confusion of terms here. "Lying by omission" is possible if the source claims something and uses half the truth to support it. Assange didn't claim anything, he just released some facts X. The fact that he did not release stuff about the other side (which supposedly exists?) is totally irrelevant to the validity of facts X. > naive to trust wikileaks is impartial. Also irrelevant. Nobody should be imprisoned for being partial!