4 ms·

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 Guns

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.
    - fit2rule 6y ago
      Indeed, there is very little actual evidence of him having committed crimes in order to function as a publisher - and yet there is massive amounts of evidence of him functioning perfectly well in his capacity as a journalist and a publisher without committing crimes, at all.
  - zepto 6y ago
    Why won’t the defense simply include the video? Why would you expect the prosecution to make the defense case?
    - fit2rule 6y ago
      Will the defence include the video? I hope they do.
- alasdair_ 6y ago
  Intent matters. Wikileaks was explicit about publishing the documents to document US war crimes and war crimes were indeed documented. The Pentagon Papers were 4,100 pages. Not every single one of them was individually proof of a war crime. Imagine the US government sued Daniel Ellsberg for the publication of all the parts of the papers that didn't explicitly prove war crimes, but skipped the bits that proved them - that's the equivalent of what is happening here.
  - slg 6y ago
    Wikileaks intent was not to document war crimes, it was seemingly to reveal all state secrets. They have published countless leaks that have nothing to do with war crimes. Hypothetically let's imagine a scenario in which someone was able to get their hands on every single state secret the US had and published them all. Should that be protected as long as a single misdeed was revealed? Assange defenders seem to often point to his good deeds as an excuse to ignore his misdeeds. The law doesn't and shouldn't work like that.
    - fit2rule 6y ago
      >Wikileaks intent was not to document war crimes, it was seemingly to reveal all state secrets. That is your opinion but its not the truth. Wikileaks own manifesto states: WikiLeaks is a multi-national media organization and associated library. It was founded by its publisher Julian Assange in 2006. WikiLeaks specializes in the analysis and publication of large datasets of censored or otherwise restricted official materials involving war, spying and corruption. It has so far published more than 10 million documents and associated analyses. War, spying and corruption. And, that is precisely what it has done: exposed war, spying and corruption. But those aren't the only things governments want kept secret.
      - slg 6y ago
        The comment I was responding to said their intent was to reveal war crimes. Spying and corruption are not war crimes. Corruption is an incredibly vague term that Wikileaks can and has used to publish almost whatever they want. It is also worth noting that revealing war crimes, spying, and corruption is possible with a more targeted approach rather than Wikileaks approach of publishing large batches of semi-related documents. This shotgun approach seems to be done in service of overall transparency rather than revealing the specific wrongdoings that Wikileaks claims it is against. Hence my comment that they seem to care more about revealing secrets in general than specifically war crimes.

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.
  - fit2rule 6y ago
    Indeed, there is very little actual evidence of him having committed crimes in order to function as a publisher - and yet there is massive amounts of evidence of him functioning perfectly well in his capacity as a journalist and a publisher without committing crimes, at all.
- zepto 6y ago
  Why won’t the defense simply include the video? Why would you expect the prosecution to make the defense case?
  - fit2rule 6y ago
    Will the defence include the video? I hope they do.
alasdair_ 6y ago
Intent matters. Wikileaks was explicit about publishing the documents to document US war crimes and war crimes were indeed documented. The Pentagon Papers were 4,100 pages. Not every single one of them was individually proof of a war crime. Imagine the US government sued Daniel Ellsberg for the publication of all the parts of the papers that didn't explicitly prove war crimes, but skipped the bits that proved them - that's the equivalent of what is happening here.
- slg 6y ago
  Wikileaks intent was not to document war crimes, it was seemingly to reveal all state secrets. They have published countless leaks that have nothing to do with war crimes. Hypothetically let's imagine a scenario in which someone was able to get their hands on every single state secret the US had and published them all. Should that be protected as long as a single misdeed was revealed? Assange defenders seem to often point to his good deeds as an excuse to ignore his misdeeds. The law doesn't and shouldn't work like that.
  - fit2rule 6y ago
    >Wikileaks intent was not to document war crimes, it was seemingly to reveal all state secrets. That is your opinion but its not the truth. Wikileaks own manifesto states: WikiLeaks is a multi-national media organization and associated library. It was founded by its publisher Julian Assange in 2006. WikiLeaks specializes in the analysis and publication of large datasets of censored or otherwise restricted official materials involving war, spying and corruption. It has so far published more than 10 million documents and associated analyses. War, spying and corruption. And, that is precisely what it has done: exposed war, spying and corruption. But those aren't the only things governments want kept secret.
    - slg 6y ago
      The comment I was responding to said their intent was to reveal war crimes. Spying and corruption are not war crimes. Corruption is an incredibly vague term that Wikileaks can and has used to publish almost whatever they want. It is also worth noting that revealing war crimes, spying, and corruption is possible with a more targeted approach rather than Wikileaks approach of publishing large batches of semi-related documents. This shotgun approach seems to be done in service of overall transparency rather than revealing the specific wrongdoings that Wikileaks claims it is against. Hence my comment that they seem to care more about revealing secrets in general than specifically war crimes.