15 ms·

Assange indictment fails to mention video that exposed US 'war crimes' in Iraq

tedunangst 6y ago
I'll probably regret asking, but why would it?
- fit2rule 6y ago
  >I'll probably regret asking, but why would it? Because it is evidence of a crime being committed - i.e. that Assange obtained secret military materials and then illegally published them. Assange is being held for extradition to face charges in the USA of publishing military secrets. This is a military secret that he published. The fact of its exclusion demonstrates that the US Government doesn't want its crimes further exposed to the world, and that it doesn't believe that Assange illegally published this material - or else, it would have to be admitted as evidence. This omission demonstrates that he is not being targeted for the reason of publishing military secrets, or else it would have been included in the case as evidence. Julian Assange is being illegally detained and criminally prosecuted for publishing the fact of America's war crimes and embarrassing the War Coalition. The USA has, with this omission, essentially admitted guilt for its own war crimes.
  - labster 6y ago
    Isn’t the US system of justice adversarial in nature? Why would the prosecutor make the defense’s argument for free?
    - krustyburger 6y ago
      It’s one thing to avoid making arguments and another to intentionally omit certain “crimes” because drawing attention to them discredits the moral basis of your argument, while emphasizing “crimes” that are identical except for lacking that baggage. It speaks to a fundamental disinterest in the law and its uniform enforcement.
      - fit2rule 6y ago
        You know what else speaks to a fundamental disinterest in the law and its uniform enforcement? The Gunship Video itself.
  - joshuamorton 6y ago
    > and that it doesn't believe that Assange illegally published this material This is not correct. They could believe this, and believe they have a strong enough case without this specific evidence that they need not include it.
    - fit2rule 6y ago
      Well, then its mis-trial time for Julian, because the claim made against him is that he illegally accessed state secrets and published them. However, the Gunship Video is evidence that he legally published the materials obtained - boosting the defence case that Assange is a publisher and therefore protected. I think the government is looking for an out, because it knows its case is hopeless, and it just gave Assange's team a clue. No doubt the defence is going to latch on the omission of this video, and it will prolong the proceedings - meaning they can keep Julian in limbo longer, and continue to subject him to the depravities of Belmarsh at their discretion.
      - slg 6y ago
        >However, the Gunship Video is evidence that he legally published the materials obtained It isn't a binary choice between everything published is either legal or illegal. He could have published some legally and some illegally. People can view this specific video as being published legally while other information was published illegally and therefore only the illegally published information is covered in the indictment.
        fit2rule 6y ago
        Either he IS a journalist/publisher and thus protected from prosecution for revealing evidence of real crimes, or he isn't. The US Government, by omitting this video from evidence, is making a tacit admittance that he is a publisher. (He is a journalist and this trial is a sham.)
        joshuamorton 6y ago
        > The US Government, by omitting this video from evidence, is making a tacit admittance that he is a publisher. This doesn't, at all, follow. > Either he IS a journalist/publisher and thus protected from prosecution for revealing evidence of real crimes Not if he himself committed crimes to get the evidence.
  - vntok 6y ago
    That is a non sequitur. Per the article: "The prosecution case alleges Assange risked American lives by releasing hundreds of thousands of US intelligence documents." The video is but one of those secret military materials. No need to include it in the indictment and risk debates or scrutiny on it, it's much more efficient to select bulletproof documents that show beyond doubt that he acted improperly.. of which there are already thousands.
    - fit2rule 6y ago
      >there are already thousands Are there? Got a reference to some of these bulletproof documents? EDIT: crickets ..
      - jessaustin 6y ago
        Yeah, we'll hear similar cricket chirping if we ask for an example of all those soldiers and collaborators whose lives and safety were risked by wikileaks. Someone silly might post some decades-old warning from Rumsfeld or whoever about all the thousands of people who will die because some warlord got someone's name off a list published by wikileaks, but that old warning coupled with the war media's interest in arguing their side just underlines the fact that no one has died in such a circumstance.
        fit2rule 6y ago
        The fact is, as of today, there is NO EVIDENCE that any American life was put in danger by the leaks. There IS evidence that a LOT of American lives were put in danger by the war crimes and other crimes against humanity committed in their name. Basically, every single American alive today is in danger as a result of the war crimes for which they are responsible as citizens of the USA. Invading Iraq put every single American in much more dire danger than Wikileaks ever could.
  - ryanmarsh 6y ago
    It’s more boring than that. It’s about making a slam dunk case for the jury. Criminal cases are not tried against a general moral standard. It begins with a reading of the specific statute offended. Including any evidence ancillary to the case, and that will not emotionally sway the jury for your case, undermines your case. There are several venues for trying “war crime” cases, this is not one of them. I think if anybody really cared about the journalists who died you’d see lawfare leveraging UCMJ, but I’ve yet to see that. Seems the outrage is rather performative.
    - fit2rule 6y ago
      An un-informed public cannot get outraged about its governments crimes nor serve as the final stop-gap against criminal behaviour by removing those responsible for the abuses of power required to commit crimes against humanity at such scale as we have seen the USA and its War Coalition commit in the last two decades. This is why publishers are important and should be protected. The Wests' citizens have been utterly scammed into complicity with these crimes against humanity - the imperative to mis-inform, and thus divert the outrage potential, is very, very high in this case.
- dane-pgp 6y ago
  Presumably the implication is that not mentioning the contents of the video which Assange is accused of illegitimately accessing is like not mentioning in an indictment for a thief that the object stolen was a loaf of bread to feed their starving family. Whether that is an apt analogy and whether this "failure to mention" represents a deficiency in an indictment is perhaps best left to the reader.
  - fit2rule 6y ago
    Actually, its best left to the courts. Public opinion and support of Assange has already been diverted through malfeasance on the part of the US military. Omitting this video from their charges is an admission that this is not really about accessing military secrets illegally - but rather, punishing a legitimate publisher for exposing war crimes.
  - vntok 6y ago
    That analogy would be more apt in "not mentioning in an indictment for a thief that in addition to thousands of precious pearls, emeralds, sapphires and diamonds, one of the objects stolen was a loaf of bread to feed their starving family."
    - JackFr 6y ago
      A better analogy would be a thief broke into my home, and stole cash, jewelry, electronics and also a handgun that had been used in a crime. The prosecutors are absolutely right to prosecute the thief, but upon discovering that I had the handgun used in a crime they really should look into that too.
      - vntok 6y ago
        Yours is a good analogy indeed. Sure, the prosecutors can and should refer the case of the smoking gun to their colleagues from a crime unit. But the thief still goes to prison for stealing cash, jewellery and electronics.
  - E5JBK7UJPT 6y ago
hhfy5332 6y ago
> US prosecutors have failed to include one of WikiLeaks’ most shocking video revelations in the indictment against Julian Assange, a move that has brought accusations the US doesn’t want its “war crimes” exposed in public. There's a reason "war crimes" has to be in scare quotes there.
- danharaj 6y ago
  Could you elaborate?
  - fit2rule 6y ago
    The magnitude of America's crimes against humanity is scary to comprehend - it is analogous to the situation of 1930's Nazi Germany and that is not hype. The sheer magnitude of the numbers of innocent victims is AN UTTER ATROCITY. Do you think the American public has the temerity to survive the shock of its own complicity in the murder of literally, millions of innocent people by their own armed forces? I don't think it will be good for America unless their war criminals are prosecuted - and we all know that isn't going to happen. Trouble is, the evidence of those crimes is not going away ... http://psr.org/blog/resource/body-count http://psr.org/blog/resource/body-count https://airwars.org https://airwars.org “I believe the perception caused by civilian casualties is one of the most dangerous enemies we face.” U.S. General Stanley A. McCrystal in his inaugural speech as ISAF Commander in June 2009.1
  - hhfy5332 6y ago
    The article doesn't elaborate on what "war crimes" are alleged because the video actually just shows a highly unfortunate mistake.
    - fit2rule 6y ago
      >highly unfortunate mistake A bit like what happened to the WTC in 2001. I mean, what were they doing, navigating those buildings into the path of a couple of innocent planes, eh?
kyle_morris_ 6y ago
The prosecution case alleges Assange risked American lives by releasing hundreds of thousands of US intelligence documents. I'm not passing judgement here on Assange or the US's case against him. Just noting that the prosecution case seems to focus on the fact that US intelligence docs being released puts American lives at risk. The prosecution's case doesn't seem to imply that this video is not evidence of war crimes but that its release doesn't absolve him of the crime of releasing other documents. The linked article seems pretty light on details so it's difficult to make much out of it directly.
- fit2rule 6y ago
  >American lives at risk Failing to prosecute legitimate war crimes puts American lives at risk. This is duplicity at its finest. Assange is not really on trial here. The Wests' public opinion of American war criminals is, however.
  - javajosh 6y ago
    I would argue that the West's willingness to go after Assange, Snowden, Manning, and (sorry to him if he doesn't want to be in this list) Alex Vindman even after their revelations showed serious problems in American foreign policy and behavior. Both Obama and Trump showed a profound disinterest in evidence of a lack of self-restraint and self-governance. That was the test, and I think we have failed spectacularly. Of course, these days, there seem to be much bigger fish to fry, but I worry that "flooding the zone with bs" achieves precisely this constant feeling that this problem cannot be solved because there are more pressing matters. Apart from climate change, a government incapable of addressing it's own crimes is our biggest threat. Note that I don't expect government to never commit crime, I just expect it to admit to it and take corrective action when it happens.
    - fit2rule 6y ago
      >a government incapable of addressing it's own crimes is our biggest threat I agree with you, with one caveat: it is the people who must prosecute the governments crimes. Lets see if America today is brave enough to do so...
fit2rule 6y ago
It is going to be very interesting to watch how this trial proceeds - if indeed, Julian doesn't succumb to the Belmarsh torture and perishes, before the trial can run its course. For those of us who have been paying attention to Julian for decades, the turning of public opinion against him has been a very fascinating lesson in Western hubris. I think the most important conclusion of all of this is that a) the US government thinks it has what it takes to continue to commit war crimes and other crimes against humanity with impunity, and b) those who pick up the mantel from Julian's passing will have learned a lot from his case. Most important of all, I believe that c) the leaks will continue. It is going to be a very rough time, given todays climate, for those who continue to slavishly support the US military industrial pharmaceutical complex' crimes against humanity. Julians' heinous treatment just means, when the leaks continue, it'll be with the gloves off. There won't be a loud, obvious flamboyant cult figurehead to depose - more than likely, the leaker strategy going forward from this point onwards, will be a lot more effective. One can hope, anyway. Until the American people prosecute their war criminals and faces justice for the crimes against humanity committed in their name, and for which they are thus responsible, the American people will continue to suffer as well. A nation ruled by war criminals is a victim of its own cowardice.
- zepto 6y ago
  I don’t see where your optimism about c) comes from. Julian Assange’s flamboyance and charisma are the reason he wasn’t disappeared a long time ago. Quiet leakers will surely FB dispensed with quietly and much less pleasantly than Assange.
  - fit2rule 6y ago
    The real reason he wasn't disappeared long ago, is that he had access to such gargantuan quantities of very real evidence of very real crimes that he was able to surf the shock wave, and he successfully leaked it in a way that would guarantee some light on the case - clearly not enough, but he did not disappear into darkness after the first war crimes were revealed. His followup was his defence, and the only reason he got caught in a web of intrigue is that he stopped focusing on the mission and got caught in a honeypot. Julians flamboyance and charisma are the reason the general public are complacent about his torturous treatment. His character was weaponised against him by those with immense resources to do so. However, you can't dispense with leakers you don't see. And here is the weakness in the US Governments' strategy of disappearing Julian - Its not the leaker: its the leaks. And since the West has committed war crimes at such stupendous scale, these leaks are not going away.
ahelwer 6y ago
The US military and its civilian leadership have been ruinous to world peace. This isn't just my opinion, it's the belief of basically every nation in the world except the US itself[0]. It should be disarmed and turned into a purely defensive force. Drone strikes must end; 90% of their victims are not the intended target[1]. This is not an accident. The lack of regard for civilian life in the countries the US is bombing (currently around seven?) is pervasive and disgusting. [0] https://chomsky.info/the-greatest-threat-to-world-peace/ https://chomsky.info/the-greatest-threat-to-world-peace/ [1] https://theintercept.com/drone-papers/the-assassination-complex/ https://theintercept.com/drone-papers/the-assassination-comp...
- viklove 6y ago
  > It should be disarmed and turned into a purely defensive force. Why not do this with all militaries? Why is your country (assuming it's not the US) special?
  - fit2rule 6y ago
    The USA is the #1 perpetrator of criminal atrocity and acts of war against other sovereign states today. By sheer statistics, it is the most important issue for citizens of the free world to address. >Why is your country (assuming it's not the US) special? Because actually, the USA has roped most of the Western states into complicity in its war crimes. It isn't Australia, clamouring for its bomb stocks to be replenished so that a core elite establishment can profit from Lockheed Martin or Boeing or Northrop Grumman or Raytheon stock boosts .. much as Australians might wish they could be invited to that party .. These are distinctly American companies and their grip on the war reigns MUST be wrestled from them. The fate of the world depends on it.
    - throwaway_dcnt 6y ago
      This is clearly false considering the crimes Russia and China are committing against their own people and against the world at large. And for USA's war adventures, if anything it uses one of the most restrained (and confused) deployment of force against its enemies - trying to minimize civilian casualties even at a cost of american lives stands in stark contradiction to Russian deployment of force in chechnya and chinese ethnic cleansing war against the uighers. Has America made mistakes? Yes, ofcourse. But we tend to learn from them and try to take corrective actions (like closing gitmo and even withdrawing from conflict zones once it becomes clear that the well intentioned intervention has back fired. Almost universally though, upon such a departure, chaos prevails. In fact, even when we don't intervene, chaos prevails - examples include china's economic games in africa, russian war games in syria and the ethnic cleansing of muslims in burma. I believe (and you can believe what you want), that outside of the iraqi and afghan adventures, American forces are usually deployed for morally justifiable reasons and even the most heinous of atrocities committed as part of such deployments pale in comparison to historic and contemporary use of force by any dominant or super power. And we continue to learn from our mistakes.
throwtruthaway3 6y ago
Look at the accounts being upvoted, they are clearly Astro turf accounts. Meanwhile I've been. Up banned. Again, opinion here is being managed by government agents with approval from the mods.
rayiner 6y ago
An indictment sets forth the government’s allegations regarding the charged crimes. The government’s case is that Assange crossed the line from receiving illegally leaked materials to facilitating the illegal leak. The content of the email isn’t relevant to the charged crime except that the information needs to be classified. The fact that the leaked information contained evidence of arguable war crimes is at most a moral (but not legal) justification. There is a good argument that the government should have exercised its prosecutorial discretion not to pursue this case in that basis. But an indictment does not need to include evidence that might be morally exculpatory. (It doesn’t even have to include legally relevant exculpatory evidence; the prosecutor is just required to disclose that to the defense attorney.) Assange will definitely raise this video and other evidence in his defense. The Guardian article twists the narrative—alleging the government “failed to include” to evidence, as if it had a duty to do so—to artificially bolster its premise. You can say that the government should hold back in a prosecution because conduct, though technically illegal, was justified. But reasonable people may or may not agree with that. So instead, the author takes it a step further to try and make it look like the government “failed” to disclose information it was obligated to include (conduct that’s much harder to agree with.)
- fit2rule 6y ago
  It is highly dangerous for citizens of the 5-eyes' War Coalition states to investigate their own governments war crimes. THAT is the message being conveyed. And the point of the article is to demonstrate that, indeed, the USA doesn't care about war crimes. It does care about its own PR, however - and that is a very curious conundrum. One wonders why it is so important for the US government to hide their war crimes away and distract the public from the real issue. It surely isn't for benign purposes. Someone is on the run, here. I wonder when we'll catch them, again ..
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]

I'll probably regret asking, but why would it?

fit2rule 6y ago
>I'll probably regret asking, but why would it? Because it is evidence of a crime being committed - i.e. that Assange obtained secret military materials and then illegally published them. Assange is being held for extradition to face charges in the USA of publishing military secrets. This is a military secret that he published. The fact of its exclusion demonstrates that the US Government doesn't want its crimes further exposed to the world, and that it doesn't believe that Assange illegally published this material - or else, it would have to be admitted as evidence. This omission demonstrates that he is not being targeted for the reason of publishing military secrets, or else it would have been included in the case as evidence. Julian Assange is being illegally detained and criminally prosecuted for publishing the fact of America's war crimes and embarrassing the War Coalition. The USA has, with this omission, essentially admitted guilt for its own war crimes.
- labster 6y ago
  Isn’t the US system of justice adversarial in nature? Why would the prosecutor make the defense’s argument for free?
  - krustyburger 6y ago
    It’s one thing to avoid making arguments and another to intentionally omit certain “crimes” because drawing attention to them discredits the moral basis of your argument, while emphasizing “crimes” that are identical except for lacking that baggage. It speaks to a fundamental disinterest in the law and its uniform enforcement.
    - fit2rule 6y ago
      You know what else speaks to a fundamental disinterest in the law and its uniform enforcement? The Gunship Video itself.
- joshuamorton 6y ago
  > and that it doesn't believe that Assange illegally published this material This is not correct. They could believe this, and believe they have a strong enough case without this specific evidence that they need not include it.
  - fit2rule 6y ago
    Well, then its mis-trial time for Julian, because the claim made against him is that he illegally accessed state secrets and published them. However, the Gunship Video is evidence that he legally published the materials obtained - boosting the defence case that Assange is a publisher and therefore protected. I think the government is looking for an out, because it knows its case is hopeless, and it just gave Assange's team a clue. No doubt the defence is going to latch on the omission of this video, and it will prolong the proceedings - meaning they can keep Julian in limbo longer, and continue to subject him to the depravities of Belmarsh at their discretion.
    - slg 6y ago
      >However, the Gunship Video is evidence that he legally published the materials obtained It isn't a binary choice between everything published is either legal or illegal. He could have published some legally and some illegally. People can view this specific video as being published legally while other information was published illegally and therefore only the illegally published information is covered in the indictment.
      - fit2rule 6y ago
        Either he IS a journalist/publisher and thus protected from prosecution for revealing evidence of real crimes, or he isn't. The US Government, by omitting this video from evidence, is making a tacit admittance that he is a publisher. (He is a journalist and this trial is a sham.)
        joshuamorton 6y ago
        > The US Government, by omitting this video from evidence, is making a tacit admittance that he is a publisher. This doesn't, at all, follow. > Either he IS a journalist/publisher and thus protected from prosecution for revealing evidence of real crimes Not if he himself committed crimes to get the evidence.
- vntok 6y ago
  That is a non sequitur. Per the article: "The prosecution case alleges Assange risked American lives by releasing hundreds of thousands of US intelligence documents." The video is but one of those secret military materials. No need to include it in the indictment and risk debates or scrutiny on it, it's much more efficient to select bulletproof documents that show beyond doubt that he acted improperly.. of which there are already thousands.
  - fit2rule 6y ago
    >there are already thousands Are there? Got a reference to some of these bulletproof documents? EDIT: crickets ..
    - jessaustin 6y ago
      Yeah, we'll hear similar cricket chirping if we ask for an example of all those soldiers and collaborators whose lives and safety were risked by wikileaks. Someone silly might post some decades-old warning from Rumsfeld or whoever about all the thousands of people who will die because some warlord got someone's name off a list published by wikileaks, but that old warning coupled with the war media's interest in arguing their side just underlines the fact that no one has died in such a circumstance.
      - fit2rule 6y ago
        The fact is, as of today, there is NO EVIDENCE that any American life was put in danger by the leaks. There IS evidence that a LOT of American lives were put in danger by the war crimes and other crimes against humanity committed in their name. Basically, every single American alive today is in danger as a result of the war crimes for which they are responsible as citizens of the USA. Invading Iraq put every single American in much more dire danger than Wikileaks ever could.
- ryanmarsh 6y ago
  It’s more boring than that. It’s about making a slam dunk case for the jury. Criminal cases are not tried against a general moral standard. It begins with a reading of the specific statute offended. Including any evidence ancillary to the case, and that will not emotionally sway the jury for your case, undermines your case. There are several venues for trying “war crime” cases, this is not one of them. I think if anybody really cared about the journalists who died you’d see lawfare leveraging UCMJ, but I’ve yet to see that. Seems the outrage is rather performative.
  - fit2rule 6y ago
    An un-informed public cannot get outraged about its governments crimes nor serve as the final stop-gap against criminal behaviour by removing those responsible for the abuses of power required to commit crimes against humanity at such scale as we have seen the USA and its War Coalition commit in the last two decades. This is why publishers are important and should be protected. The Wests' citizens have been utterly scammed into complicity with these crimes against humanity - the imperative to mis-inform, and thus divert the outrage potential, is very, very high in this case.
dane-pgp 6y ago
Presumably the implication is that not mentioning the contents of the video which Assange is accused of illegitimately accessing is like not mentioning in an indictment for a thief that the object stolen was a loaf of bread to feed their starving family. Whether that is an apt analogy and whether this "failure to mention" represents a deficiency in an indictment is perhaps best left to the reader.
- fit2rule 6y ago
  Actually, its best left to the courts. Public opinion and support of Assange has already been diverted through malfeasance on the part of the US military. Omitting this video from their charges is an admission that this is not really about accessing military secrets illegally - but rather, punishing a legitimate publisher for exposing war crimes.
- vntok 6y ago
  That analogy would be more apt in "not mentioning in an indictment for a thief that in addition to thousands of precious pearls, emeralds, sapphires and diamonds, one of the objects stolen was a loaf of bread to feed their starving family."
  - JackFr 6y ago
    A better analogy would be a thief broke into my home, and stole cash, jewelry, electronics and also a handgun that had been used in a crime. The prosecutors are absolutely right to prosecute the thief, but upon discovering that I had the handgun used in a crime they really should look into that too.
    - vntok 6y ago
      Yours is a good analogy indeed. Sure, the prosecutors can and should refer the case of the smoking gun to their colleagues from a crime unit. But the thief still goes to prison for stealing cash, jewellery and electronics.
- E5JBK7UJPT 6y ago

> US prosecutors have failed to include one of WikiLeaks’ most shocking video revelations in the indictment against Julian Assange, a move that has brought accusations the US doesn’t want its “war crimes” exposed in public. There's a reason "war crimes" has to be in scare quotes there.

danharaj 6y ago
Could you elaborate?
- fit2rule 6y ago
  The magnitude of America's crimes against humanity is scary to comprehend - it is analogous to the situation of 1930's Nazi Germany and that is not hype. The sheer magnitude of the numbers of innocent victims is AN UTTER ATROCITY. Do you think the American public has the temerity to survive the shock of its own complicity in the murder of literally, millions of innocent people by their own armed forces? I don't think it will be good for America unless their war criminals are prosecuted - and we all know that isn't going to happen. Trouble is, the evidence of those crimes is not going away ... http://psr.org/blog/resource/body-count http://psr.org/blog/resource/body-count https://airwars.org https://airwars.org “I believe the perception caused by civilian casualties is one of the most dangerous enemies we face.” U.S. General Stanley A. McCrystal in his inaugural speech as ISAF Commander in June 2009.1
- hhfy5332 6y ago
  The article doesn't elaborate on what "war crimes" are alleged because the video actually just shows a highly unfortunate mistake.
  - fit2rule 6y ago
    >highly unfortunate mistake A bit like what happened to the WTC in 2001. I mean, what were they doing, navigating those buildings into the path of a couple of innocent planes, eh?

kyle_morris_ 6y ago

The prosecution case alleges Assange risked American lives by releasing hundreds of thousands of US intelligence documents. I'm not passing judgement here on Assange or the US's case against him. Just noting that the prosecution case seems to focus on the fact that US intelligence docs being released puts American lives at risk. The prosecution's case doesn't seem to imply that this video is not evidence of war crimes but that its release doesn't absolve him of the crime of releasing other documents. The linked article seems pretty light on details so it's difficult to make much out of it directly.

fit2rule 6y ago
>American lives at risk Failing to prosecute legitimate war crimes puts American lives at risk. This is duplicity at its finest. Assange is not really on trial here. The Wests' public opinion of American war criminals is, however.
- javajosh 6y ago
  I would argue that the West's willingness to go after Assange, Snowden, Manning, and (sorry to him if he doesn't want to be in this list) Alex Vindman even after their revelations showed serious problems in American foreign policy and behavior. Both Obama and Trump showed a profound disinterest in evidence of a lack of self-restraint and self-governance. That was the test, and I think we have failed spectacularly. Of course, these days, there seem to be much bigger fish to fry, but I worry that "flooding the zone with bs" achieves precisely this constant feeling that this problem cannot be solved because there are more pressing matters. Apart from climate change, a government incapable of addressing it's own crimes is our biggest threat. Note that I don't expect government to never commit crime, I just expect it to admit to it and take corrective action when it happens.
  - fit2rule 6y ago
    >a government incapable of addressing it's own crimes is our biggest threat I agree with you, with one caveat: it is the people who must prosecute the governments crimes. Lets see if America today is brave enough to do so...

fit2rule 6y ago

It is going to be very interesting to watch how this trial proceeds - if indeed, Julian doesn't succumb to the Belmarsh torture and perishes, before the trial can run its course. For those of us who have been paying attention to Julian for decades, the turning of public opinion against him has been a very fascinating lesson in Western hubris. I think the most important conclusion of all of this is that a) the US government thinks it has what it takes to continue to commit war crimes and other crimes against humanity with impunity, and b) those who pick up the mantel from Julian's passing will have learned a lot from his case. Most important of all, I believe that c) the leaks will continue. It is going to be a very rough time, given todays climate, for those who continue to slavishly support the US military industrial pharmaceutical complex' crimes against humanity. Julians' heinous treatment just means, when the leaks continue, it'll be with the gloves off. There won't be a loud, obvious flamboyant cult figurehead to depose - more than likely, the leaker strategy going forward from this point onwards, will be a lot more effective. One can hope, anyway. Until the American people prosecute their war criminals and faces justice for the crimes against humanity committed in their name, and for which they are thus responsible, the American people will continue to suffer as well. A nation ruled by war criminals is a victim of its own cowardice.

zepto 6y ago
I don’t see where your optimism about c) comes from. Julian Assange’s flamboyance and charisma are the reason he wasn’t disappeared a long time ago. Quiet leakers will surely FB dispensed with quietly and much less pleasantly than Assange.
- fit2rule 6y ago
  The real reason he wasn't disappeared long ago, is that he had access to such gargantuan quantities of very real evidence of very real crimes that he was able to surf the shock wave, and he successfully leaked it in a way that would guarantee some light on the case - clearly not enough, but he did not disappear into darkness after the first war crimes were revealed. His followup was his defence, and the only reason he got caught in a web of intrigue is that he stopped focusing on the mission and got caught in a honeypot. Julians flamboyance and charisma are the reason the general public are complacent about his torturous treatment. His character was weaponised against him by those with immense resources to do so. However, you can't dispense with leakers you don't see. And here is the weakness in the US Governments' strategy of disappearing Julian - Its not the leaker: its the leaks. And since the West has committed war crimes at such stupendous scale, these leaks are not going away.

ahelwer 6y ago

The US military and its civilian leadership have been ruinous to world peace. This isn't just my opinion, it's the belief of basically every nation in the world except the US itself[0]. It should be disarmed and turned into a purely defensive force. Drone strikes must end; 90% of their victims are not the intended target[1]. This is not an accident. The lack of regard for civilian life in the countries the US is bombing (currently around seven?) is pervasive and disgusting. [0] https://chomsky.info/the-greatest-threat-to-world-peace/ https://chomsky.info/the-greatest-threat-to-world-peace/ [1] https://theintercept.com/drone-papers/the-assassination-complex/ https://theintercept.com/drone-papers/the-assassination-comp...

viklove 6y ago
> It should be disarmed and turned into a purely defensive force. Why not do this with all militaries? Why is your country (assuming it's not the US) special?
- fit2rule 6y ago
  The USA is the #1 perpetrator of criminal atrocity and acts of war against other sovereign states today. By sheer statistics, it is the most important issue for citizens of the free world to address. >Why is your country (assuming it's not the US) special? Because actually, the USA has roped most of the Western states into complicity in its war crimes. It isn't Australia, clamouring for its bomb stocks to be replenished so that a core elite establishment can profit from Lockheed Martin or Boeing or Northrop Grumman or Raytheon stock boosts .. much as Australians might wish they could be invited to that party .. These are distinctly American companies and their grip on the war reigns MUST be wrestled from them. The fate of the world depends on it.
  - throwaway_dcnt 6y ago
    This is clearly false considering the crimes Russia and China are committing against their own people and against the world at large. And for USA's war adventures, if anything it uses one of the most restrained (and confused) deployment of force against its enemies - trying to minimize civilian casualties even at a cost of american lives stands in stark contradiction to Russian deployment of force in chechnya and chinese ethnic cleansing war against the uighers. Has America made mistakes? Yes, ofcourse. But we tend to learn from them and try to take corrective actions (like closing gitmo and even withdrawing from conflict zones once it becomes clear that the well intentioned intervention has back fired. Almost universally though, upon such a departure, chaos prevails. In fact, even when we don't intervene, chaos prevails - examples include china's economic games in africa, russian war games in syria and the ethnic cleansing of muslims in burma. I believe (and you can believe what you want), that outside of the iraqi and afghan adventures, American forces are usually deployed for morally justifiable reasons and even the most heinous of atrocities committed as part of such deployments pale in comparison to historic and contemporary use of force by any dominant or super power. And we continue to learn from our mistakes.

throwtruthaway3 6y ago

Look at the accounts being upvoted, they are clearly Astro turf accounts. Meanwhile I've been. Up banned. Again, opinion here is being managed by government agents with approval from the mods.

rayiner 6y ago

An indictment sets forth the government’s allegations regarding the charged crimes. The government’s case is that Assange crossed the line from receiving illegally leaked materials to facilitating the illegal leak. The content of the email isn’t relevant to the charged crime except that the information needs to be classified. The fact that the leaked information contained evidence of arguable war crimes is at most a moral (but not legal) justification. There is a good argument that the government should have exercised its prosecutorial discretion not to pursue this case in that basis. But an indictment does not need to include evidence that might be morally exculpatory. (It doesn’t even have to include legally relevant exculpatory evidence; the prosecutor is just required to disclose that to the defense attorney.) Assange will definitely raise this video and other evidence in his defense. The Guardian article twists the narrative—alleging the government “failed to include” to evidence, as if it had a duty to do so—to artificially bolster its premise. You can say that the government should hold back in a prosecution because conduct, though technically illegal, was justified. But reasonable people may or may not agree with that. So instead, the author takes it a step further to try and make it look like the government “failed” to disclose information it was obligated to include (conduct that’s much harder to agree with.)

fit2rule 6y ago
It is highly dangerous for citizens of the 5-eyes' War Coalition states to investigate their own governments war crimes. THAT is the message being conveyed. And the point of the article is to demonstrate that, indeed, the USA doesn't care about war crimes. It does care about its own PR, however - and that is a very curious conundrum. One wonders why it is so important for the US government to hide their war crimes away and distract the public from the real issue. It surely isn't for benign purposes. Someone is on the run, here. I wonder when we'll catch them, again ..
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]