WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange returns to Australia a free man after US legal battle ends
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange returned to his homeland Australia aboard a charter jet on Wednesday, hours after pleading guilty to obtaining and publishing U.S. military secrets in a deal with Justice Department prosecutors that concludes a drawn-out legal saga.
The criminal case of international intrigue, which had played out for years, came to a surprise end in a most unusual setting with Assange, 52, entering his plea in a U.S. district court in Saipan, the capital of the Northern Mariana Islands. The American commonwealth in the Pacific is relatively close to Assange’s native Australia and accommodated his desire to avoid entering the continental United States.
Assange was accused of receiving and publishing hundreds of thousands of war logs and diplomatic cables that included details of U.S. military wrongdoing in Iraq and Afghanistan. His activities drew an outpouring of support from press freedom advocates, who heralded his role in bringing to light military conduct that might otherwise have been concealed from view and warned of a chilling effect on journalists. Among the files published by WikiLeaks was a video of a 2007 Apache helicopter attack by American forces in Baghdad that killed 11 people, including two Reuters journalists.
Assange raised his right fist as he emerged for the plane and his supporters at the Canberra airport cheered from a distance. Dressed in the same suit and tie he wore during his earlier court appearance, he embraced his wife Stella Assange and father John Shipton who were waiting on the tarmac.
Dude got off easy lol. He should spend the rest of his days counting his lucky stars or whatever god he believes in.
12 years in prison is more than you get for killing a child while drunk driving
The man embarrassed the US by leaking their DMs.
It’s a bit more than embarrassment. Some of what he exposed was absolutely horrific. Other leaks directly compromised confidential war and spy intelligence that directly led to the execution of informants. There had to be consequences for the latter. Had he responsibly redacted names, as a journalist should, I may have had a different opinion.
The intelligence leaks were via media outlets that didn't sanitize the publications. It was up to them to do what was needed on that front. And in the end, nobody has shown that those failures to censor information had anything like the consequences to intelligence assets that Libby/Cheney's leaks had.
He created Wikileaks and personally hosted classified information. The release of the unredacted Afghan War Diary directly resulted in the execution of Afghani informants.
https://wikileaks.org/
Source on the executions? I found that informants were named and when warned that this could result in their deaths Assange basically said, "lol, snitches get stitches."
That said, I couldn't find anything about the informants actually being executed.
See “Informants named”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_documents_leak_of_the_War_in_Afghanistan
The Insurance section on that article is extremely interesting. I wonder if/when we will be able to crack into that potential treasure trove. But maybe it's just 1.4GB of a picture of Julian's asshole
So, to clarify, since zero deaths are listed there—we don’t have a source for that claim?
Exactly my point; there have been no deaths attributed to these leaks by any credible source other than an administration that has variously tried to frame, imprison, assassinate and astroturf Assange, that is directly implicated in warcrimes and has done it's own leaks of intelligence assets that are actually provably murderous.
This is how this whole thing has gone since the start. We still have a group that's inconsolably upset that Wikileaks exposed their nomination tampering, and will move the goalposts at every turn that shows Assange was on the right side of history.
So, according to your own link, absolutely nothing but unproven allegations.
it was a deliberate understatement for comic effect.
Still, though, 12 years is only considered proportionate because the the government sets the law and the government was embarrassed.
Its not a complete defence of Assange, his behaviors, his sketchy connections to Russia - but it is me saying that whistle-blowers are disproportionately punished not because it's in the public interest
I disagree that embarrassment was the motivation.
Leaking the details of classified foreign intelligence operations is considered espionage or treason. Some of those leaks resulted in the execution of informants. Those are not small crimes.
According to the Espionage Act of 1917, he could have been executed. Imprisonment is standard, but 12 years is far better than the maximum of life in prison.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage
This is speculation by the US, they were never able to prove this.
Yes but you're saying "it's a big crime because the people who stand to benefit from it being a big crime say it's a big crime."
While I'm not saying all and any espionage/treason is good, I'm asking why one would think these memoranda are worth more than human life?
Were they? Would the world be better off with Assange dead?
For the operatives put in danger and/or killed, it was worth human life?
You seem to be ignoring that Assange either knowingly or unknowingly risked peoples' lives, people who had often given those lives into great risk in service of their country.
When the leaks first happened, I was supportive of Wikileaks (a natural position for an anti-war person like me). Later, when it was revealed that there had been no or little due diligence to ensure the information had been vetted and scrubbed, I realized how extreme it can be on both ends of the political spectrum.
Stop trying to paint this with some large political brush.
Assange is not a hero. The US government is not innocent.
Ah yes the poor innocent Cia agents
Risk, yes, but we know now that no one was hurt. It's very different when you know what the consequences are.
In service of their country? Did the US make them US citizens?
Because most US informants were working against their countries in some cases even after the US invaded.
When you do that to a nation about their classified intel, it's called espionage. It's a biiiit more serious than a social media hack.
In practical terms, espionage can affect thousands of lives directly and change the course of a war. Imagined the shitshow if someone released that kind of info now. It could jeopardize the Ukraine conflict. It's treated as more serious than murder because it can be.
Agreed in principle but it's been nigh on 20 years and we're yet to find someone that was killed as an upshot of the leak.
If you have information to the contrary I'd be keen to hear it.
DMs containing the identities of spies and assets.
He also managed to wriggle away from multiple rape charges in Sweden by waiting out the statute of limitations.
Heroes and villains alike have complex legacies.
And raping. You forgot the rape.
I ain't no god.
You say that but with you have a belt that lets you look directly at the sun while standing on Mercury, Dave.
I probably should know better than to argue with a random stranger on the Internet but I'll bite.. Why do you think he got off easy if he spend 7 years in the Ecuadorian embassy and 5 years in an UK prison, when his sentence is 5 years?
According to the Espionage Act of 1917, he could be sentenced to life imprisonment or executed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage
The US justice system is rarely that strict. For example, Donlad Trump could get sentenced to decades in prison, but likely won't spend anytime in jail.
Incarceration is the most extreme sentencing for nonviolent class E felonies without a prior record. The standard sentencing is a fine, community service, and/or probation.
The standard sentencing for espionage begins with incarceration. It’s just a question of how long, or if they’re deserving of execution.
if they could make espionage stick. The New York times didn't get prosecuted for publishing the Pentagon papers.
I know that's the norm but you'd think that even with it being the first time he was caught, the 30 count would warrant a more serious response. What would they do if he did this 30 times with a trial between each commitment of a felony? I think that should be a deciding factor even if it's not likely to be.
It’s thirty counts, but it’s still considered his first offense. They’re not considered consecutive. The only way he’ll see prison for that crime is if he proves to be at risk of committing more crime without “rehabilitative incarceration.” If Merchan reaches too far on his sentencing, it’ll just fuel the bias claim in Trump’s inevitable appeal.
I probably have the jargon wrong as I'm no lawyer. But I would still think the count severity should matter more than it does.
Me neither. I’m just repeating what attorneys and judges have publicly said on the matter. We’ll see when the time comes.
What is your point?
The point of this thread. He indeed got off easy.
12 years of confinement is not easy.
he's a journalist. he got one of the hardest deals any journalist has gotten.
A real journalist would have redacted the names of Afghani informants so they wouldn’t run the risk of being killed by the Taliban
that doesn't make him not a real journalist. sloppy, unprofessional, maybe, but he's still a real journalist.
*who committed espionage.
I'm sorry if this is a bit too unrelated but would you say the same about Snowden?
I'm not as well informed on Assange but I tend to find the "espionage" criticism lacking, personally, since it seems to mainly favor the generally terrible foreign policy actions of the US empire and not so much the people of the US who are for the most part against those actions but have little recourse what with the 2 party system and having a plutocratic system of government
Yes. I applaud them both for whistleblowing. They really fucked up by not redacting names. It’s reckless and dangerous. Assange should’ve known better, having been a professional journalist.
https://www.businessinsider.com/snowdens-cache-of-secrets-likely-means-life-or-death-for-several-people-2013-11
Oh weird, that was not the impression I got from the many comments you made criticizing them for their brave actions.
I would tend to blame any negative fallout on the US government, personally. If they weren't committing atrocities regular people wouldn't have had to take the huge risk/be put at risk.
It's like getting upset at a victim of police brutality for not working with the police
Their actions were brave until they became clouded by fame. Then both of them made it about leverage and made crucial mistakes that lead to threatened lives. I supported them in the past, prior to their dangerous missteps. I no longer comment in support of either of them.
A good example of responsible whistleblowing would be from the recent resignations from the Department of Defense. They gave very detailed accounts of information suppression while they were tasked with collecting information on civilian casualties in Gaza. None of the information they disclosed exposed confidential informants or put lives at risk.
It’s not just possible to be a responsible whistleblower, it’s imperative.
You're saying they should've just resigned? How would we have learned about PRISM without evidence?
I don't know what you're referring to about info suppression. Did we learn anything or just that we don't know everything? How is that more helpful? Or, for who is it more helpful?
No, I’m saying they shouldn’t have left the names unredacted in their leaks. That put people in danger.
Assange was a journalist. He wasn’t a government official.
Do you think they could've done that and chose not to?
It seems like you're saying they shouldn't have done what they did because it wasn't executed perfectly which feels awfully like what MLK was criticizing in his letter from a Birmingham jail, people that support things in theory but never in reality and that always seem to solely criticize the actions/methods of those fighting for justice
Absolutely. Assange especially. He is fully aware of the redaction standards in journalism.
They both started out as legitimate whistleblowers, disclosing government corruption responsibly. Once they became famous/infamous, they both went down the slippery slope of power corruption and risked people’s lives for clicks. I have no respect for it.
some might call it espionage. others might just call it journalism.
He leaked unredacted confidential information that directly led to the assassination of Afghani informants.
That’s a little more than just “sloppy journalism.”
that's your opinion.
He pled guilty. It’s his opinion too.
do you see another way for him to go home? i don't believe any guilty pleas, given how malicious prosecution is used as a cudgel.
That’s your prerogative, and your opinion. If he were responsible in his duties as a journalist, and redacted the names of informants and agents, I’d have a different opinion. I think his actions were reckless and irresponsible.
he isn't being prosecuted for failing to redact names
Chelsea Manning faced trial was convicted, and has been free since 2017, and she got to cuck Elon Musk, that is a true hero. She didn't handle leaking the information in the best way, and was given bad advice by Assange, but she didn't get kicked out of an embassy for running an election interference campaign.
this reads like 5 non-sequiturs.
Should have thought of that before taking Putin's side. Espionage is a messy business where the government that funds you will abandon you.
He helped a government get the candidate of their choice elected by manipulation of data dumps and spent a month before the election screaming how he had more dirt on one candidate.
I object to the supposition that Russia wanted trump to win. I believe Russia wanted Americans divided and trump was simply a means to that end.
Ok you reject it. Let me know how that goes for you.
going great, thanks!
Really? In what way? Be exact
Sloppy would be missing some punctuation and grammar. The guy has blood on his hands just like the US government does. Also, he aided (some would say manipulated) Manning in her leak of the documents in a way that no journalist would or should do. Journalists report the story, Assange has repeatedly shown himself to be a self aggrandizer that is the story.
TIL that self-aggrandizement is a federal offense.
I never said it was. Aiding someone in exfiltrating classified documents on the other hand decidedly is. Not something journalists make a habit of doing, either.
but shouldn't be if the goal is to expose wrongdoing in a journalistic publication.
Journalists do it all the time. That's where they used unnamed sources and have gone to jail to protect those sources. Or maybe you're too young to remember Deep Throat.
I know who deep throat is. There’s a big difference between refusing to cooperate with an investigation and name names of confidential sources that have provided information versus actively aiding a person in absconding with information. The courts agree with me too, considering John Lawrence was released after a day by an appellate court. Also notable that his charge was merely contempt whereas Assange’s was espionage.
Please explain how Assange 'actively aided' his source in getting the info.
I'll wait.
You can read about “Nathaniel” here and how the relationship between Manning and WL started. Manning herself implies the relationship was manipulative.
In their chat logs Nathaniel assisted Manning in attempting to crack a password hash to attempt to cover up the source of the leaks. Thats where the journalistic line was crossed in my eyes.
Thank you. I had not read this before.
No problem, there’s so much noise out there regarding this topic; it’s really hard to get a handle on what is real and what is someone just blowing smoke.
because most are cowards
I’d say because most follow an ethics code, as much as I feel there was a public interest in those documents coming out, but with proper sanitation to protect lives.
how was he supposed to protect anyone against the greatest surveillance state ever?
I was talking about protecting the Afghani informants from the Taliban.
— Zabihullah Mujahid
— Julian Assange
Assange is so casual about the potential human cost of his actions. The guy is a prick.
As stated by ikidd above, it was up to the publishers to clean up the releases before printing/posting them.
Journalists do not pick sides.
He had email from the RNC andDNC via Russian government sponsored hacks. He chose to releaseonlyDNC emails to the benefit of pro Putin candidate Trump. Edit wordEdit edit: can't find any info on RNC hacks parallel to the DNC ones
Could you explain why Russia would give him the RNC emails if they didn't want them published? I've seen this claim go unchallenged many times.
I can't explain their motives.
I can only say WikiLeaks had them but did not release.Edit: nope can't say that. Apparently that was just an embolism. Nothing to see here just mopping up my pride.
Typing this into duckduckgo shows me nothing about the them having the RNC emails:
did wikileaks have rnc emails
Not a single link. Please provide the link that says they had them. If you can't read in between the lines, I'm saying what you said is untrue but gets repeated constantly.
You're right. I absolutely cannot find that wikileaks had RNC info. I've searched quite a bit determined to find what I remember but nada.
There is this but about DCLeaks having but releasing a bit of republican info on Trump's primary challengers
But that is not what I remember and certainly doesn't help my case.
I apologize. Either my memory fails me or I was mislead (or both). Certainly does not refute Assange being a channel for Russia to get trump elected but does make me look like a tool.
Appreciate the reply. And sorry for being a bit of a dick about it. It's just one of my pet peeves since seeing it repeated for years.
I think you were perfectly reserved in your response. It helped me not dig in or just blow it off and not respond. Thanks!
Journalists do and can pick sides. If you only ever report the opinion of the ruling party you're a spokesperson and no journalist.
The "sides" may be political, moral or ideological. You're still a journalist.
If this were not the case, Fox News world have been shuttered long ago.
You don't report for any party. You report the truth that you find by linking the facts you uncover.
Russia hacked the RNC, not Wikileaks
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/nation-world/article/Russia-Hacked-Republican-Committee-but-Kept-Data-10787385.php
Well shit. That is what I remember. All my searches: 'russia hack RNC', 'republican hack' , 'RNC hack', etc. were flooded with 2021 results from a different hack. Nothing from WikiLeaks, DCLeaks, Gucifer, 2016 presidential hack, or 2016 Russia interference yielded anything fruitful.
Thank you! At least I feel less crazy.