7 ms·

It amazes me that so many people care more about the act of whistleblowing, which informs us, the citizens, about what our governments are doing that's illegal,

It amazes me that so many people care more about the act of whistleblowing, which informs us, the citizens, about what our governments are doing that's illegal, than about the illegal activities themselves. What does that say about those people? Are they easily led by emotion? They certainly don't care about the rule of law, if breaking the law by others can so easily be ignored. They aren't particularly patriotic, if they think that subverting the checks and balances in their preferred kind of government is fine. I'm glad this partiular episode will be finished soon.

tene 2y ago
You've got it exactly right, many people in the US care far more about compliance with and respect for authority than they do about rule of law.
- KobeQueef 2y ago
  [dead]
slg 2y ago
>It amazes me that so many people care more about the act of whistleblowing... This is true in both directions and Assange is the perfect example of that. Someone being a whistleblower is not a get out of jail free card and there are still laws regarding how whistleblowing should be handled and what qualifies. Assange leaked a lot of important stuff that qualifies, but that wasn't all he leaked or did. A shockingly few number of people seem willing to engage this issue with the nuance that is requires and either label Assange a hero or a villain when he clearly is somewhere in between.
- protocolture 2y ago
  I am not aware of anything he has leaked being problematic. In fact, the US couldnt demonstrate that he had lead to the death of any soldiers or spies. And in a lot of cases, the spying was certainly unjustified. I find it troubling that people dont have the nuance to identify that hes a bit of a smelly housemate and problematic manager but ultimately a clear net benefit to mankind.
  - sanderjd 2y ago
    > In fact, the US couldnt demonstrate that he had lead to the death of any soldiers or spies. Isn't "it's difficult to prove that people literally died because of his actions" a pretty low bar to set?
    - protocolture 2y ago
      Not when the claim being made was that his leaks would lead to death.
      - sanderjd 2y ago
        ... no, "possibly didn't actually get anybody killed" is still a low bar, even when the claim is that it might.
        protocolture 2y ago
        "Could not demonstrate with 15 years to gather that data and present it" is a bit more than "Possibly"
      - dralley 2y ago
        Julian Assange, on his leaking of the names of hundreds of Afghan civilian informants into the hands of the Taliban: "Well, they're informants. So, if they get killed, they've got it coming to them. They deserve it." I personally don't see much moral need to, for example, somehow obtain proof that the Taliban actually killed people based specifically off of his actions. He obviously doesn't actually care if they did.
        sanderjd 2y ago
        Well put. This is the point I was trying to make, but I was more glib. It is perfectly reasonable to criticize someone for jeopardizing peoples' lives, without waiting to find people who were provably killed as a direct consequence.
- boomboomsubban 2y ago
  First, Assange isn't a whistleblower, nor a leaker. He was a publisher. Wikileaks received leaked documents from whistleblowers and published them. Or at least received documents from somewhere and published them. In the beginning Assange tried to vet the leaks he published. He contacted the US over the Manning leaks to go over them so he could publish without risk, the US refused. So Assange set up a huge team of journalists to comb through the documents to see what was safe to publish. One of those journalists working for The Guardian proceeded to publish the key to the entire database, ensuring everything was leaked Shortly after, he ends up in embassy and was unable or unwilling to do similar things.
  - akoboldfrying 2y ago
    There's nuance here that I didn't originally appreciate, thanks! Interested in any links you could provide, too.
    - boomboomsubban 2y ago
      The Wikipedia article handles it adequately, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks#Unredacted_cable_release https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks#Unredacted_cable_rel... If you want a deeper dive, I'm sure something exists but I don't remember where it would be.
  - slg 2y ago
    >Shortly after, he ends up in embassy and was unable or unwilling to do similar things. Are you suggesting with this "unable or unwilling to do similar things" part that he should be excused because he tried to do it initially? Should we forgive a lapse in journalistic ethics from that point forward because he started out on the right path and just couldn't stick to it?
    - StanislavPetrov 2y ago
      Being forced into taking refuge in a tiny foreign embassy because the country whose war crimes you exposed is trying to lock you in a dungeon for life and/or assassinate you isn't, "a lapse in journalistic ethics". Our government has been the bad guy every step of the way in this whole affair.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- gizmo 2y ago
  Julian Assange published evidence of war crimes committed by the US Army. Both the leaker/whistleblower (Manning) and Julian Assange got their lives ruined over it. What is the lesson here? That if you value your life you should look the other way when you come across evidence of serious malfeasance? That killing innocent people is not a real crime but embarrassing those in power is the worst crime imaginable? This is much bigger than Assange.
  - rootusrootus 2y ago
    > What is the lesson here? At least part of that lesson is that if you engage in partisan politics with your 'journalism' then you instantly become a great deal less sympathetic with about half the population. That includes a bunch of people in positions with enough power to make your life complicated.
    - rightbyte 2y ago
      Almost every newspaper or channel is partisan...
  - lukan 2y ago
    "Julian Assange published evidence of war crimes committed by the US Army." I assume you mean the famous "collateral murder" videos? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_12,_2007,_Baghdad_airstrike https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_12,_2007,_Baghdad_airstri... That is my biggest issue with the whole wikileaks thing. Because it might borderline a warcrime by being careless - but it was no murder. Yet it was framed as the US army just killing journalists for fun. But it was not at all like this. There was active fighting, the journalists that were killed were embedded with active fighters - and their camera misstaken for an RPG. Those things can happen, especially if the journalists do not mark themself as journalists. "The cameras could easily be mistaken for slung AK-47 or AKM rifles, especially since neither cameraman is wearing anything that identifies him as media or press" The second attack while civilians evacuated and the children killed in the van - that was the bad thing. But it was still in the context of US troops receiving fire. So not at all allright, dirty war in a urban area - but not intentional murder. It was collateral damage in a wrong war.
wmf 2y ago
I wish the US had offered whistleblowers reasonable plea deals and they had taken them. Unfortunately that's not the world we live(d) in. The US pursued a policy of vindictive and extralegal punishment against "enemy combatants" that made a lot of people doubt whether they could get fair treatment.
- impossiblefork 2y ago
  Plea deals aren't a solution. No matter how reasonable. This agreement itself is a plea deal, but involves the agreement in principle that Assange has committed a crime by publishing this information. That in itself is an enormous problem for people seeking out government wrongdoing.
  - wmf 2y ago
    Yeah, it's not at all clear to me that Assange did anything illegal and if he was offered a deal 12 years ago he probably would have rejected it. But Snowden and Manning definitely broke the law and I don't think it's a good look for anyone involved to have Snowden being a fugitive and cause celebre in exile for life.
NoPicklez 2y ago
I think people like the idea of whistleblowing because we have a lack of trust in Governments and corporations. Whistleblowing "lifts the lid" so to speak on potential large breaches of trust and breaches of the law to a greater degree of perceived damage than whistleblowing. Essentially uncovering hypocrisy in the way our Governments and corporations works. People can both care about the act of whistleblowing and the illegal actions incurred as a result. But it's all nuanced, there's whistleblowing and then there's whistleblowing in a way that puts other innocent people at risk.
- thomassmith65 2y ago
  The Wikileaks affair opened my eyes. I used to think an informed public was a good thing. Turns out it just means they vote for Morton Downey Jr.
kyleyeats 2y ago
Julian's not a whistleblower, he's a journalist. Whistleblowers are people within the organization.
- threeseed 2y ago
  He's also not a journalist by traditional definitions i.e. no formal training, no accreditation, no redaction to protect innocent parties, no protection of sources. He's more akin to an activist.
  - grecy 2y ago
    > He's also not a journalist by traditional definitions The year is 2024 and we've had the internet for a good while now. I think it's safe to say that "tradition definitions" are long, long dead and we need to get on with what the reality actually is. Who cares what "journalists" were defined as in 1980.
  - caseyy 2y ago
    Hmm, this is the definition — https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/journalist https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/journali... > a person who writes news stories or articles for a newspaper or magazine or broadcasts them on radio or television
    - threeseed 2y ago
      By your own definition this doesn't apply to Assange. Simply dumping files on a website doesn't make you a journalist and US courts agree.
    - Ylpertnodi 2y ago
      This is 'a' definition. Cambridge.org needs to wake up. The various yt auditors around - especially in the US - all class themselves as journalists.
      - blitzar 2y ago
olalonde 2y ago
Which illegal government activities did the Manning/Assange leaks uncover? The only thing I can recall is that "collateral damage" helicopter footage but it was an isolated incident and was deemed legal following investigation.
- Ylpertnodi 2y ago
  I remember that footage. "Deemed illegal", sounds rubber-stamped. The fact that you put "collateral damage" in quotes, has the same value as me putting "Murdered by COD players, just for carrying a camera" in quotes. I stand to be corrected regarding the video in question.
- instagib 2y ago
  “On April 5, 2010, the attacks received worldwide coverage and controversy following the release of 39 minutes of classified gunsight footage by WikiLeaks.[6] The video, which WikiLeaks titled Collateral Murder,[7][8] showed the crew firing on a group of people and killing several of them, including two Reuters journalists, and then laughing at some of the casualties, all of whom were civilians.[15] An anonymous U.S. military official confirmed the authenticity of the footage,[16] which provoked global discussion on the legality and morality of the attacks.” From: https://wikipedia.org/wiki/July_12,_2007,_Baghdad_airstrike https://wikipedia.org/wiki/July_12,_2007,_Baghdad_airstrike 3 attacks. Two 30mm cannons and one hellfire. There is tons of video out there and sometimes leaked of the drone strike recordings. The hostage video section of high side is creepily advertised also for inspiration or idk.
  - bandrami 2y ago
    The gunship crew literally talk about how annoying it is to have to wait for them to pick up a gun (at which point they aren't civilians)
- faizmokh 2y ago
  Yeah "collateral" and "isolated" incident. They hate you because of your "freedom" anyway.
duk3luk3 2y ago
No, this is actually extremely simple to square up: In order for the rule of law to be protected, and to allow the public to hold government accountable for what it does in their names, it is necessary that the actions of the government are held to a much higher standard of legal scrutiny than individual citizens or the public. This means that whistleblower immunity should be extremely strong and anything the government wants to do to prosecute whistleblower should have to pass many hurdles. This doesn't conflict with the concept of checks and balances, rather it has to be an integral part of the checks and balances. In fact, this rationale is so simple and self-evident to anyone who asks themselves how the rule of law can be upheld in the face of the potential for unlawful conduct by government actors that one should ask themselves if coming to the opposite conclusion does not require a strong dose of motivated reasoning.
photochemsyn 2y ago
It's safe to assume that 'so many people' includes a whole lot of covert actors trying to peddle the government's point of view on Assange and Wikileaks. Regardless, the exposures are exactly what journalists and publishers should be doing - government agencies went out of control under the umbrella of the Patriot Act, and the results, from fabricated claims of WMDs in Iraq to who knows what, have been disastrous. Also, Wikileaks did pretty responsible journalism for example on the explosive Vault 7 leaks: https://wikileaks.org/ciav7p1/ https://wikileaks.org/ciav7p1/ > "Wikileaks has also decided to redact and anonymise some identifying information in "Year Zero" for in depth analysis. These redactions include ten of thousands of CIA targets and attack machines throughout Latin America, Europe and the United States. While we are aware of the imperfect results of any approach chosen, we remain committed to our publishing model and note that the quantity of published pages in "Vault 7" part one (“Year Zero”) already eclipses the total number of pages published over the first three years of the Edward Snowden NSA leaks."
doubloon 2y ago
when your whistle blowing only reveals secrets of one side, then i am very skeptical of motivations. where are the dumps from north korea. where is kim jong un's private communications with Xi Jinping. Where is Putin's communications with Lukashenko. Where are internal memos from the people's liberation army. Where are the leaks from the Ayatollahs. Also yes the targets were western governments. What about western corporations? Where are leaks from Boeing about their issues? Where are leaks from Facebook about PTSD of their moderators? Where are the leaks about Peter Thiel or Elon Musk or whatever? The targets WL chose were basically the "evil west", you know, the only reason Ukraine has not been reduced to a prison complex.
- cortic 2y ago
  The motivations of a person who disproportionately helps western governments is troubling to you? Or is it that you don't consider exposing criminal conduct helpful?

tene 2y ago

You've got it exactly right, many people in the US care far more about compliance with and respect for authority than they do about rule of law.

KobeQueef 2y ago
[dead]

slg 2y ago

>It amazes me that so many people care more about the act of whistleblowing... This is true in both directions and Assange is the perfect example of that. Someone being a whistleblower is not a get out of jail free card and there are still laws regarding how whistleblowing should be handled and what qualifies. Assange leaked a lot of important stuff that qualifies, but that wasn't all he leaked or did. A shockingly few number of people seem willing to engage this issue with the nuance that is requires and either label Assange a hero or a villain when he clearly is somewhere in between.

protocolture 2y ago
I am not aware of anything he has leaked being problematic. In fact, the US couldnt demonstrate that he had lead to the death of any soldiers or spies. And in a lot of cases, the spying was certainly unjustified. I find it troubling that people dont have the nuance to identify that hes a bit of a smelly housemate and problematic manager but ultimately a clear net benefit to mankind.
- sanderjd 2y ago
  > In fact, the US couldnt demonstrate that he had lead to the death of any soldiers or spies. Isn't "it's difficult to prove that people literally died because of his actions" a pretty low bar to set?
  - protocolture 2y ago
    Not when the claim being made was that his leaks would lead to death.
    - sanderjd 2y ago
      ... no, "possibly didn't actually get anybody killed" is still a low bar, even when the claim is that it might.
      - protocolture 2y ago
        "Could not demonstrate with 15 years to gather that data and present it" is a bit more than "Possibly"
    - dralley 2y ago
      Julian Assange, on his leaking of the names of hundreds of Afghan civilian informants into the hands of the Taliban: "Well, they're informants. So, if they get killed, they've got it coming to them. They deserve it." I personally don't see much moral need to, for example, somehow obtain proof that the Taliban actually killed people based specifically off of his actions. He obviously doesn't actually care if they did.
      - sanderjd 2y ago
        Well put. This is the point I was trying to make, but I was more glib. It is perfectly reasonable to criticize someone for jeopardizing peoples' lives, without waiting to find people who were provably killed as a direct consequence.
boomboomsubban 2y ago
First, Assange isn't a whistleblower, nor a leaker. He was a publisher. Wikileaks received leaked documents from whistleblowers and published them. Or at least received documents from somewhere and published them. In the beginning Assange tried to vet the leaks he published. He contacted the US over the Manning leaks to go over them so he could publish without risk, the US refused. So Assange set up a huge team of journalists to comb through the documents to see what was safe to publish. One of those journalists working for The Guardian proceeded to publish the key to the entire database, ensuring everything was leaked Shortly after, he ends up in embassy and was unable or unwilling to do similar things.
- akoboldfrying 2y ago
  There's nuance here that I didn't originally appreciate, thanks! Interested in any links you could provide, too.
  - boomboomsubban 2y ago
    The Wikipedia article handles it adequately, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks#Unredacted_cable_release https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks#Unredacted_cable_rel... If you want a deeper dive, I'm sure something exists but I don't remember where it would be.
- slg 2y ago
  >Shortly after, he ends up in embassy and was unable or unwilling to do similar things. Are you suggesting with this "unable or unwilling to do similar things" part that he should be excused because he tried to do it initially? Should we forgive a lapse in journalistic ethics from that point forward because he started out on the right path and just couldn't stick to it?
  - StanislavPetrov 2y ago
    Being forced into taking refuge in a tiny foreign embassy because the country whose war crimes you exposed is trying to lock you in a dungeon for life and/or assassinate you isn't, "a lapse in journalistic ethics". Our government has been the bad guy every step of the way in this whole affair.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
gizmo 2y ago
Julian Assange published evidence of war crimes committed by the US Army. Both the leaker/whistleblower (Manning) and Julian Assange got their lives ruined over it. What is the lesson here? That if you value your life you should look the other way when you come across evidence of serious malfeasance? That killing innocent people is not a real crime but embarrassing those in power is the worst crime imaginable? This is much bigger than Assange.
- rootusrootus 2y ago
  > What is the lesson here? At least part of that lesson is that if you engage in partisan politics with your 'journalism' then you instantly become a great deal less sympathetic with about half the population. That includes a bunch of people in positions with enough power to make your life complicated.
  - rightbyte 2y ago
    Almost every newspaper or channel is partisan...
- lukan 2y ago
  "Julian Assange published evidence of war crimes committed by the US Army." I assume you mean the famous "collateral murder" videos? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_12,_2007,_Baghdad_airstrike https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_12,_2007,_Baghdad_airstri... That is my biggest issue with the whole wikileaks thing. Because it might borderline a warcrime by being careless - but it was no murder. Yet it was framed as the US army just killing journalists for fun. But it was not at all like this. There was active fighting, the journalists that were killed were embedded with active fighters - and their camera misstaken for an RPG. Those things can happen, especially if the journalists do not mark themself as journalists. "The cameras could easily be mistaken for slung AK-47 or AKM rifles, especially since neither cameraman is wearing anything that identifies him as media or press" The second attack while civilians evacuated and the children killed in the van - that was the bad thing. But it was still in the context of US troops receiving fire. So not at all allright, dirty war in a urban area - but not intentional murder. It was collateral damage in a wrong war.

wmf 2y ago

I wish the US had offered whistleblowers reasonable plea deals and they had taken them. Unfortunately that's not the world we live(d) in. The US pursued a policy of vindictive and extralegal punishment against "enemy combatants" that made a lot of people doubt whether they could get fair treatment.

impossiblefork 2y ago
Plea deals aren't a solution. No matter how reasonable. This agreement itself is a plea deal, but involves the agreement in principle that Assange has committed a crime by publishing this information. That in itself is an enormous problem for people seeking out government wrongdoing.
- wmf 2y ago
  Yeah, it's not at all clear to me that Assange did anything illegal and if he was offered a deal 12 years ago he probably would have rejected it. But Snowden and Manning definitely broke the law and I don't think it's a good look for anyone involved to have Snowden being a fugitive and cause celebre in exile for life.

NoPicklez 2y ago

I think people like the idea of whistleblowing because we have a lack of trust in Governments and corporations. Whistleblowing "lifts the lid" so to speak on potential large breaches of trust and breaches of the law to a greater degree of perceived damage than whistleblowing. Essentially uncovering hypocrisy in the way our Governments and corporations works. People can both care about the act of whistleblowing and the illegal actions incurred as a result. But it's all nuanced, there's whistleblowing and then there's whistleblowing in a way that puts other innocent people at risk.

thomassmith65 2y ago
The Wikileaks affair opened my eyes. I used to think an informed public was a good thing. Turns out it just means they vote for Morton Downey Jr.

kyleyeats 2y ago

Julian's not a whistleblower, he's a journalist. Whistleblowers are people within the organization.

threeseed 2y ago
He's also not a journalist by traditional definitions i.e. no formal training, no accreditation, no redaction to protect innocent parties, no protection of sources. He's more akin to an activist.
- grecy 2y ago
  > He's also not a journalist by traditional definitions The year is 2024 and we've had the internet for a good while now. I think it's safe to say that "tradition definitions" are long, long dead and we need to get on with what the reality actually is. Who cares what "journalists" were defined as in 1980.
- caseyy 2y ago
  Hmm, this is the definition — https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/journalist https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/journali... > a person who writes news stories or articles for a newspaper or magazine or broadcasts them on radio or television
  - threeseed 2y ago
    By your own definition this doesn't apply to Assange. Simply dumping files on a website doesn't make you a journalist and US courts agree.
  - Ylpertnodi 2y ago
    This is 'a' definition. Cambridge.org needs to wake up. The various yt auditors around - especially in the US - all class themselves as journalists.
    - blitzar 2y ago

olalonde 2y ago

Which illegal government activities did the Manning/Assange leaks uncover? The only thing I can recall is that "collateral damage" helicopter footage but it was an isolated incident and was deemed legal following investigation.

Ylpertnodi 2y ago
I remember that footage. "Deemed illegal", sounds rubber-stamped. The fact that you put "collateral damage" in quotes, has the same value as me putting "Murdered by COD players, just for carrying a camera" in quotes. I stand to be corrected regarding the video in question.
instagib 2y ago
“On April 5, 2010, the attacks received worldwide coverage and controversy following the release of 39 minutes of classified gunsight footage by WikiLeaks.[6] The video, which WikiLeaks titled Collateral Murder,[7][8] showed the crew firing on a group of people and killing several of them, including two Reuters journalists, and then laughing at some of the casualties, all of whom were civilians.[15] An anonymous U.S. military official confirmed the authenticity of the footage,[16] which provoked global discussion on the legality and morality of the attacks.” From: https://wikipedia.org/wiki/July_12,_2007,_Baghdad_airstrike https://wikipedia.org/wiki/July_12,_2007,_Baghdad_airstrike 3 attacks. Two 30mm cannons and one hellfire. There is tons of video out there and sometimes leaked of the drone strike recordings. The hostage video section of high side is creepily advertised also for inspiration or idk.
- bandrami 2y ago
  The gunship crew literally talk about how annoying it is to have to wait for them to pick up a gun (at which point they aren't civilians)
faizmokh 2y ago
Yeah "collateral" and "isolated" incident. They hate you because of your "freedom" anyway.

duk3luk3 2y ago

No, this is actually extremely simple to square up: In order for the rule of law to be protected, and to allow the public to hold government accountable for what it does in their names, it is necessary that the actions of the government are held to a much higher standard of legal scrutiny than individual citizens or the public. This means that whistleblower immunity should be extremely strong and anything the government wants to do to prosecute whistleblower should have to pass many hurdles. This doesn't conflict with the concept of checks and balances, rather it has to be an integral part of the checks and balances. In fact, this rationale is so simple and self-evident to anyone who asks themselves how the rule of law can be upheld in the face of the potential for unlawful conduct by government actors that one should ask themselves if coming to the opposite conclusion does not require a strong dose of motivated reasoning.

photochemsyn 2y ago

It's safe to assume that 'so many people' includes a whole lot of covert actors trying to peddle the government's point of view on Assange and Wikileaks. Regardless, the exposures are exactly what journalists and publishers should be doing - government agencies went out of control under the umbrella of the Patriot Act, and the results, from fabricated claims of WMDs in Iraq to who knows what, have been disastrous. Also, Wikileaks did pretty responsible journalism for example on the explosive Vault 7 leaks: https://wikileaks.org/ciav7p1/ https://wikileaks.org/ciav7p1/ > "Wikileaks has also decided to redact and anonymise some identifying information in "Year Zero" for in depth analysis. These redactions include ten of thousands of CIA targets and attack machines throughout Latin America, Europe and the United States. While we are aware of the imperfect results of any approach chosen, we remain committed to our publishing model and note that the quantity of published pages in "Vault 7" part one (“Year Zero”) already eclipses the total number of pages published over the first three years of the Edward Snowden NSA leaks."

doubloon 2y ago

when your whistle blowing only reveals secrets of one side, then i am very skeptical of motivations. where are the dumps from north korea. where is kim jong un's private communications with Xi Jinping. Where is Putin's communications with Lukashenko. Where are internal memos from the people's liberation army. Where are the leaks from the Ayatollahs. Also yes the targets were western governments. What about western corporations? Where are leaks from Boeing about their issues? Where are leaks from Facebook about PTSD of their moderators? Where are the leaks about Peter Thiel or Elon Musk or whatever? The targets WL chose were basically the "evil west", you know, the only reason Ukraine has not been reduced to a prison complex.

cortic 2y ago
The motivations of a person who disproportionately helps western governments is troubling to you? Or is it that you don't consider exposing criminal conduct helpful?