33 ms·

>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. Som

by 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.
        KobeQueef 2y ago
        [dead]
      - KobeQueef 2y ago
        [dead]
- slg 2y ago
  >I am not aware of anything he has leaked being problematic. I hesitate to even bring it up because it tends to poison any online discussion, but the DNC leaks were a pretty obvious one. Even if we give him the benefit of the doubt that the leaks were truly whistleblowing despite not actually revealing any illegal behavior, the way he continued to insinuate that Seth Rich was his source despite Assange still being in contact with the source after Rich's death should make it clear that Assange was not acting ethically. >but ultimately a clear net benefit to mankind. And this was exactly my original point. This isn't how the law works. We don't throw the good and bad on the scales of justice to see which side is heaviest. He did plenty of good things. He committed some crimes. The good things don't excuse the crimes.
  - 6502nerdface 2y ago
    > This isn't how the law works. We don't throw the good and bad on the scales of justice to see which side is heaviest. Shoot, there goes the argument I was planning to deploy against Saint Peter at the Pearly Gates.
  - mr_toad 2y ago
    I’m pretty sure your founding fathers committed what would be considered by the law of the land at the time to be treason and sedition. So did people like Nelson Mandela and Ghandi. And on the other hands there are Nazis who just followed legal orders.
  - mensetmanusman 2y ago
    We kind of do look at the big picture when deciding a proper punishment.
  - protocolture 2y ago
    > DNC leaks Assange is a journalist. The DNC leaks were public interest. The fact that they occurred during an election heightened that public interest. They were 100% justified in the US in moral and legal terms under 1A. Unless you are still tilting at forgotten politicians its really really weird to keep harping on about. >This isn't how the law works. What has law got to do with morality, other than often standing in the way of morality? He has consistently maintained that the crime they charged him with "Soliciting covert information" should be protected under 1a. Or at least otherwise protected as journalism. He isnt even a US citizen mind, but US law doesnt give a shit. Law should follow morality. Any normal right thinking human bean should understand that its literally the job of journalists to solicit and expose public interest information. If the government is committing crimes, if the government is acting in a way counter to their domestic narrative (which you base your vote on), if the government is treating its foreign partners especially shittily, the public has a right to know. That the US had made doing so a crime, is a matter for the US electorate to deal with. They should remove the dumb as dogdoodoo law, or remove the government that opposes removing that law, physically if necessary. That he failed to abide by a set of stupid rules in doesn't suddenly make his actions amoral. Its not that on balance he did some good and some crimes. Its that his crimes were in the public interest, so the law that made his actions criminal, is at fault not he. I actually don't understand why this has to be brought up. I don't understand why people cling to law as a substitute for morality. Governments are very often wrong.
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.

by slg 2y ago

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.
      - KobeQueef 2y ago
        [dead]
    - KobeQueef 2y ago
      [dead]
slg 2y ago
>I am not aware of anything he has leaked being problematic. I hesitate to even bring it up because it tends to poison any online discussion, but the DNC leaks were a pretty obvious one. Even if we give him the benefit of the doubt that the leaks were truly whistleblowing despite not actually revealing any illegal behavior, the way he continued to insinuate that Seth Rich was his source despite Assange still being in contact with the source after Rich's death should make it clear that Assange was not acting ethically. >but ultimately a clear net benefit to mankind. And this was exactly my original point. This isn't how the law works. We don't throw the good and bad on the scales of justice to see which side is heaviest. He did plenty of good things. He committed some crimes. The good things don't excuse the crimes.
- 6502nerdface 2y ago
  > This isn't how the law works. We don't throw the good and bad on the scales of justice to see which side is heaviest. Shoot, there goes the argument I was planning to deploy against Saint Peter at the Pearly Gates.
- mr_toad 2y ago
  I’m pretty sure your founding fathers committed what would be considered by the law of the land at the time to be treason and sedition. So did people like Nelson Mandela and Ghandi. And on the other hands there are Nazis who just followed legal orders.
- mensetmanusman 2y ago
  We kind of do look at the big picture when deciding a proper punishment.
- protocolture 2y ago
  > DNC leaks Assange is a journalist. The DNC leaks were public interest. The fact that they occurred during an election heightened that public interest. They were 100% justified in the US in moral and legal terms under 1A. Unless you are still tilting at forgotten politicians its really really weird to keep harping on about. >This isn't how the law works. What has law got to do with morality, other than often standing in the way of morality? He has consistently maintained that the crime they charged him with "Soliciting covert information" should be protected under 1a. Or at least otherwise protected as journalism. He isnt even a US citizen mind, but US law doesnt give a shit. Law should follow morality. Any normal right thinking human bean should understand that its literally the job of journalists to solicit and expose public interest information. If the government is committing crimes, if the government is acting in a way counter to their domestic narrative (which you base your vote on), if the government is treating its foreign partners especially shittily, the public has a right to know. That the US had made doing so a crime, is a matter for the US electorate to deal with. They should remove the dumb as dogdoodoo law, or remove the government that opposes removing that law, physically if necessary. That he failed to abide by a set of stupid rules in doesn't suddenly make his actions amoral. Its not that on balance he did some good and some crimes. Its that his crimes were in the public interest, so the law that made his actions criminal, is at fault not he. I actually don't understand why this has to be brought up. I don't understand why people cling to law as a substitute for morality. Governments are very often wrong.

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.