1961

DId this ever actually happen? What useful information did the leak provide to people whose loved ones had been murdered during the war?

What sort of punishment do you think Manning and Assange are really in line for?

1962
1963

I literally just used the definition you offered.

Now if you want to retract that statement, fine. Otherwise you made the rules and I’m just playing by them.
It’s not a strawman, it’s Devil’s Advocate.

1964

Hi @antlers, great question. I don’t have alot of info about this, mostly because I don’t live in Iraq, but if you take a look at some articles e.g.:


You’ll see that the logs: i) the logs record 109,032 deaths, ii) 15,000 were previously unknown, iii) many of those logs contain detail on how and/or why the person died, iv) some of the logs contain names, and v) the iraq body count group has been trying to use these logs + other info to give details to locals ("“There will be thousands of names in these files which will help families trace their missing loved ones. There are no memorials listing all the names of civilians killed in the course of this conflict – our ultimate aim is to help achieve this,” he says.")

1965

Sorry I can see the misunderstanding, I was not trying to write “the definition of a whistleblower is X”, with that sentence I was just trying to communicate that a whistleblower can be someone whistleblowing against a private or public organization. Any definition of a whistleblower must include that they are exposing unlawful or unethical conduct. There is of course going to be judgement involved when assessing the degree to which something must be ‘unethical’ to count.

1966

You realize that those weren’t people killed by US forces, right?

I mean, that’s not some kind of whistleblowing of some kind of crime committed by US warfighters. That’s, at best, an… Interesting factoid you can use to attack the decision to engage in the war? And that’s justification to break the law?

Although, again, that wasn’t the motivation for either Manning or Assange, anyway.

1967

Of course I know that most of the violent deaths recorded were not the ‘direct’ result of US forces, but you seem to be unaware that some were and in terrible circumstances (I write ‘some’, but in any other context it would be called a great many). I am not sure how that invalidates what I am saying, how many direct murders are required to constitute an actual crime that deserves transparency and justice?

I’m really not sure what to write here, as I feel like we would lack even the beginnings of a mutual understanding.

1968

Chelsea Manning revealed stuff that people in a Democracy should know their government is doing, and therefore performed a public service. Chelsea Manning also committed a crime. The government, as it is wont to do, overreacted to the crime by pretending that Chelsea Manning was an agent of espionage, by imposing cruel and unusual punishment, and by alleging all kinds of negative consequences of her revelations, almost all of which consequences are either unsupported by any evidence or outright fabrication.

Both these things can be true!

Also, too: @Timex, Manning is a woman, so maybe check your pronouns?

1969

Yes, the criminal that the Obama administration refused to extradite for fear of setting up a precedent for an attack on the free press is just being extradited by the administration that calls the press “the enemy of the people” for the good reasons.

1970

When did the Obama administration have an opportunity to extradite Assange?

1971

Anytime they wanted to? They chose not to because they didn’t want to wrangle with the first amendment implications of doing so.

The current white house doesn’t care.

Assange is not a good guy, but freedom of information is.

1972

Again, Assange is not charged with distributing information.

In other news…

1973
1974

Regardless of whatever vile rhetoric is now being spewed against Assange he represents a journalistic endeavor that released important information that was in the public interest. He should be protected and the freedom of the press upheld.

I feel deeply ashamed of my country (UK) for our treatment of him. I hope (but with little faith) that extradition will be denied.

Just look at Wikileaks body of work and try to tell me it was not worthwhile and should not be protected.

1975

“vile rhetoric” = facts and data

Assange is a fascist enabler and facilitator, not a hero. He’s only a hero to the far right supporters of Trump and Farage and their ethno-nationalist, racist movements.

The indictment describes an “Organization 1,” whose description and behavior matches WikiLeaks: “The Conspirators also used the Guccifer 2.0 persona to release additional stolen documents through a website maintained by an organization (‘Organization 1’), that had previously posted documents stolen from U.S. persons, entities, and the U.S. government.”

Whatever he did before is irrelevant, cancelled out by his work with Putin, Farage, Brexits leave campaign and Trump

1976

I don’t know what this means. At what point during the Obama administration was Assange under indictment in the US while also in the custody of another government with which we had an extradition treaty, which government had not granted him asylum?

I’m not saying it ain’t so. I’m asking when it was so, because I don’t recall it.

1977

Where do you draw the line? If he killed someone to get information you think is in the public interest, is he a journalist or a murderer?

1978

Assange has fled rape charges, stand credibly accused of conspiring to commit crimes, and is a GRU asset actively working to destabilize the west. As long as the prosecution doesn’t overreach, let the narcissistic blowhard have it with both barrels.

Also, this picture of Gandalf the Cray made me giggle:

1979

I don’t know what you are even arguing about?

So, governments, right, like the US government can indict people that they have decided committed a crime, so that the person can have a trial. If that person is outside the US they can be extradited if the country they are in will work with the US in arresting that person.

The Obama administration didn’t do any of that, but they could have, as they were in charge of the government at the time.

As for the arrest being for hacking, they brought Capone in on tax charges, they got what they wanted whatever way they could.

I will say I agree with the ACLU on this one.

1980

This is my confusion. They never indicted him, so it’s not surprising they never tried to extradite him. I thought you were saying he had been indicted, but that they declined to try to extradite him.