3 ms·

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

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.
  - slg 2y ago
    > because the country whose war crimes you exposed is trying to lock you in a dungeon for life and/or assassinate you Maybe the plea deal should be an opportunity to reevaluate these hyperbolic claims regarding the potential punishment that awaited Assange. >Our government has been the bad guy every step of the way in this whole affair. And that was the exact lack of nuance I was criticizing. One side being a bad guy does not make the other side a good guy. There is no excuse for the way Assange eventually abandoned any form of journalistic ethics.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
lukan 2y ago
"One of those journalists working for The Guardian proceeded to publish the key to the entire database, ensuring everything was leaked" It might have been somewhat leaked before, maybe because of misscomunication/individual action. But it was not known widely before - still, Wikipedia made the decision to publish all unredacted on their own: "WikiLeaks said that on 2 September it would publish the entire, unredacted archive in searchable form on its website"
- boomboomsubban 2y ago
  The key had unquestionably leaked, and though it wasn't wide spread at the time, it inevitably would be. Things were already starting Wikileaks said their decision to publish was to prevent third parties from tampering with the leaks creating false stories, but it was likely primarily that Assange and Wikileaks wanted the credit for the leak. Not a noble reason, but it still wasn't their fault they were in that shitty situation.
  - lukan 2y ago
    "Not a noble reason, but it still wasn't their fault they were in that shitty situation." Not so sure about that. I recall some of the journalists working with him on the release said, they were shocked to here, that Assange said he does not care at all about the life of the informants, as they were working for the US. (source, some article from "Spiegel", would be quite some work to dig that up) So I do not trust, that he seriously was concerned about their lifes, making serious security considerations.
    - boomboomsubban 2y ago
      There was disagreement about the decision, but again the leaks were already out there. As you mentioned, Wikileaks published them on the second. Cryptome published them on the first. Every possible decision after the keys were leaked was shitty. Maybe Wikileaks could have picked a less shitty one, but they were still in a terrible situation because of somebody else's actions.

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.
- slg 2y ago
  > because the country whose war crimes you exposed is trying to lock you in a dungeon for life and/or assassinate you Maybe the plea deal should be an opportunity to reevaluate these hyperbolic claims regarding the potential punishment that awaited Assange. >Our government has been the bad guy every step of the way in this whole affair. And that was the exact lack of nuance I was criticizing. One side being a bad guy does not make the other side a good guy. There is no excuse for the way Assange eventually abandoned any form of journalistic ethics.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

lukan 2y ago

"One of those journalists working for The Guardian proceeded to publish the key to the entire database, ensuring everything was leaked" It might have been somewhat leaked before, maybe because of misscomunication/individual action. But it was not known widely before - still, Wikipedia made the decision to publish all unredacted on their own: "WikiLeaks said that on 2 September it would publish the entire, unredacted archive in searchable form on its website"

boomboomsubban 2y ago
The key had unquestionably leaked, and though it wasn't wide spread at the time, it inevitably would be. Things were already starting Wikileaks said their decision to publish was to prevent third parties from tampering with the leaks creating false stories, but it was likely primarily that Assange and Wikileaks wanted the credit for the leak. Not a noble reason, but it still wasn't their fault they were in that shitty situation.
- lukan 2y ago
  "Not a noble reason, but it still wasn't their fault they were in that shitty situation." Not so sure about that. I recall some of the journalists working with him on the release said, they were shocked to here, that Assange said he does not care at all about the life of the informants, as they were working for the US. (source, some article from "Spiegel", would be quite some work to dig that up) So I do not trust, that he seriously was concerned about their lifes, making serious security considerations.
  - boomboomsubban 2y ago
    There was disagreement about the decision, but again the leaks were already out there. As you mentioned, Wikileaks published them on the second. Cryptome published them on the first. Every possible decision after the keys were leaked was shitty. Maybe Wikileaks could have picked a less shitty one, but they were still in a terrible situation because of somebody else's actions.