Well... He would know. He's from activist land, and probably still has a lot of friends from the punk rock scene, became a serious environmental lobbyist and fr

Well... He would know. He's from activist land, and probably still has a lot of friends from the punk rock scene, became a serious environmental lobbyist and from there to being a centrist MP. I'm sure he had an interesting journey. Smart guy. I actually met him several times. Seems kind of like an alien in person. I didn't know about his Nuclear Disarmament Party. >> Or was it essentially a militant communist faction Best guess, it was mostly young radicals from University of Melbourne. But... I don't think this falls into the "other people using it for their own purposes" bucket either. Wikileaks & Assange are from this (specific) resistance clique themselves. It was their neighborhood. Both the organisation and the man have always represented themselves as hard left activists. Still do. This was back in the Bush-Howard days, or just after. As with Garret's Nuclear Disarmament Party (I assume) there's a dynamic between progressive and radical thought that often leaves them in no man's land... or radical land. Like I said, being politically weird doesn't mean you lose rights or can't be a journalist. So, I'm justifying anything. I'm noting that journalists and journalistic organisations, especially those reporting on war, should not blur lines between press and "not press" themselves. Press freedom is premised on you being press. Make that unchallengeable, and obvious at first sight. Contrast this with Snowden, who knows what he is, what categories he falls into. As such, he always expected to face trial or exile. He wants to return and face trial, just with open proceedings. His was an act of civil disobedience. Meanwhile, not protected like the journalists he leaked to. They never blurred the lines between them.