6 ms·

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

by 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.
- impossiblefork 2y ago
  There was actually a war crime though, namely the double tap. All the other stuff in the video is either legal or something which could be an honest mistake.
  - lukan 2y ago
    You mean the second strike? I tend to agree, the problem is, this was not a conventional war, for which the concept of war crime was made for. The combatants were not wearing uniforms. The van was not marked as an ambulance. All civilians and some had weapons - and on the other hand US soldiers thinking only in terms of conventional combat, where there might have been an rpg still around for an enemy to retrieve and fire at them. "Well, it’s their fault for bringing their kids into a battle" But they happened to live there. They did not visited a battlefield for fun. So yes, the video showed quite well to the world the reality of urban fighting against an uprising. Dirty as hell.
    - impossiblefork 2y ago
      Yes. But partisans and resistance movements are normal part of war and something you have to accept when you invade and occupy a foreign country. It is permissible to use all means available to one when resisting foreign occupation. The Van wasn't an ambulance. It was, I suppose you say, people helping wounded people, and those people are protected, whether they are marked or not.
      - lukan 2y ago
        Yes, I said I think it was a wrong war and that the "ambulance" wasn't marked as one because it was just some civilian trying to help people. But otherwise there are some rules for engagement in partisan warfare. For example they must be marked as combatants by uniform or some other clear sign. Exactly for this reason, to be able to divide between combatants and civilians. The more the partisans ignore that, the more civilians will die. Which is why it is also frequently used as a dirty tactic to raise more civilian uproar and more joining the partisans.

by gizmo 2y ago

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.

impossiblefork 2y ago
There was actually a war crime though, namely the double tap. All the other stuff in the video is either legal or something which could be an honest mistake.
- lukan 2y ago
  You mean the second strike? I tend to agree, the problem is, this was not a conventional war, for which the concept of war crime was made for. The combatants were not wearing uniforms. The van was not marked as an ambulance. All civilians and some had weapons - and on the other hand US soldiers thinking only in terms of conventional combat, where there might have been an rpg still around for an enemy to retrieve and fire at them. "Well, it’s their fault for bringing their kids into a battle" But they happened to live there. They did not visited a battlefield for fun. So yes, the video showed quite well to the world the reality of urban fighting against an uprising. Dirty as hell.
  - impossiblefork 2y ago
    Yes. But partisans and resistance movements are normal part of war and something you have to accept when you invade and occupy a foreign country. It is permissible to use all means available to one when resisting foreign occupation. The Van wasn't an ambulance. It was, I suppose you say, people helping wounded people, and those people are protected, whether they are marked or not.
    - lukan 2y ago
      Yes, I said I think it was a wrong war and that the "ambulance" wasn't marked as one because it was just some civilian trying to help people. But otherwise there are some rules for engagement in partisan warfare. For example they must be marked as combatants by uniform or some other clear sign. Exactly for this reason, to be able to divide between combatants and civilians. The more the partisans ignore that, the more civilians will die. Which is why it is also frequently used as a dirty tactic to raise more civilian uproar and more joining the partisans.