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.
The detail I was interested in:
“The plea deal required Assange to admit guilt to a single felony count but also permitted him to return to Australia without any time in an American prison. The judge sentenced him to the five years he’d already spent behind bars in the U.K. fighting extradition to the U.S. on an Espionage Act indictment that could have carried a lengthy prison sentence in the event of a conviction. He was holed up for seven years before that in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London.
The conclusion enables both sides to claim a degree of satisfaction.”
On one hand, Assange is a shitty person. One woman woke up to him sticking his dick in her without her consent and without a condom. On the same trip he’d had sex with a different woman who had also insisted on his using a condom, which he reluctantly did… but then the condom mysteriously broke. While a guest of the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, where he was hiding out to duck the Swedish charges, he smeared shit on the walls and refused to bathe. He also helped the Russian GRU interfere in the 2016 Presidential Election, either as a useful idiot or a willing collaborator.
On the other hand, as shitty as he is, he was effectively a journalist. With Wikileaks he released leaked footage of a US helicopter firing on civilians in Iraq. He released reports on corruption by Kenyan leaders. He released internal scientology documents. The world needs journalists who will publish stories about things that powerful people, governments and churches don’t want people to know.
On the other, other hand, at times he hung his sources out to dry, like he did with Bradley / Chelsea Manning.
The plea deal he agreed to is bullshit. The charge of “conspiracy to commit computer intrusion” was basically encouraging a source to leak information to him. That’s journalism. “Conspiracy to obtain and disclose national defence information” was again, journalism. He was encouraging whistleblowers to report on wrongdoing by the government.
Even the plea deal is bullshit. He pled to violating the espionage act for… what? He didn’t break into anything himself. He wasn’t given a security clearance which he then violated. He wasn’t even American, in America, or working for the government. He was acting as a journalist receiving information from a whistleblower.
So, IMO, there’s nothing much to celebrate here. A shitty person pled to a bullshit charge, setting a bad precedent for journalism, and is now free. Lose, lose.
You are a person with opinions.
Everyone capable of thought should have opinions.
I have conclusions.
That’s journalism.
Uh, no it fucking isn’t. Journalists absolutely are not permitted to entice people to commit crimes more than any other person. This is exactly why Greenwald and Poitras were not indicted, they didn’t ask Snowden to do anything, they just reported what he had already stolen.
The state calls everything it doesn’t want you to do a crime, including telling the people things they absolutely need to hear.
No shit, those are called laws. Journalists do not get a free pass to break laws. Imagine that was the case for a second. How quickly would the Sun or any other shit rag convince someone to murder someone so they can report on it?
This is an absurd stance. The dude broke the law, he has now had his day in court.
How do you suggest a whistleblower actually get and release the information they need to prove themselves if not by breaking bad laws that protect corruption?
Not trying to drum up an argument but I think your black and white stance is flawed.
That’s a straw man. We’re talking about journalists enticing someone to break the law. I already provided Greenwald and Poitras as examples of journalists who had a far larger impact with their coverage and did so without breaking the law.
My bad directing towards whistleblowers when you meant journos. And only about them encouraging others to break the law. Even talking about journalists though I think the same logic can apply. If one lives in for example, an authoritarian regime, any word spoken against the state is considered unlawful. If we apply the situation to less authoritarian government, that still have laws against disseminating information about the government, we run up against the same issues. It’s against the law to show your government doing wrong. So what recourse is left but to break the law in hopes that you can effect some change?
How is a journalist or a whistleblower to call out the worst without breaking the laws or discussing the same? I get that they can sometimes, your two examples, though I’m not familiar with the instances, I’m sure are great examples of when it all goes right. But some information that should be made known, will see the government pursuing the full extent of the law and potentially beyond, against individuals involved in its dissemination. Journalist, whistleblower, exfiltrator, won’t matter.
I can understand protecting innocent people by censoring what comes out. I think that Assange is a scumbag and don’t like how he operates, but I also think governments need to be held accountable for their actions and choices.
I’m really not sure what your argument is. Sometimes journalists and whistleblowers have to break the law? Sure. However, they are still breaking the law. Certainly, an adult who is breaking the law should know that they are subject to consequences and need to suck it up and live with those consequences. Rosa Parks had her day in court and was convicted of a crime. She accepted that she broke the law, regardless of how unjust it was, and did the time. That was enough to affect change.
If Assange, or anyone else, insists on breaking the law to be able to publish information, then they need to accept that they will be held accountable. Chelsea Manning served her time. Assange finally had his day in court. Snowden, hopefully, will get his day in court as well.
Unimportant, and probably unintelligent, question - does he have enough assets to go on with life or does he have to look for a job now? Does some easy position just get handed to him on name alone?
He has his name, that is his brand and he will probably use it to make bank as a public speaker
I WANT WHALE
Russia has his back, the US has an election coming up and it won’t meddle itself.
He sits down at the computer and immediately Tweets out that he has information about Hunter Biden’s laptop and Hillary’s emails.
So, I guess some art is saved¹ in this event
1
$45M [of] Masterpieces Risk for Assange’s Freedom: An artist threatens to destroy $45 million worth of masterpieces, including works by Picasso and Warhol, if WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange dies in prison, spotlighting the clash between art and activism.
Will be interesting to see how this plays out - really feels like it’s been in a holding pattern for 5+ years.
what do you mean? It just did play out. That’s the end.
As in, will the USA be still after him? What role will he play in the public sphere now that he is free?
Etc.
No and none.
He just walked out of a US district court. If they were going to grab him they would have.
He rolled the dice on being the world’s most well known “journalist” and he lost in the most spectacular way. He’s so incredibly lucky he got off as lightly as he did, having only lost 12 years of his life.
Do you think Assange is safe from assassination?
Do you think Assange has been tamed and will now live a quiet life going walkabout in the outback?
They would’ve assassinated him already.
Yes I think this has broken him. Quiet life in the burbs with the occasional phone interview on someone’s podcast.
They would’ve assassinated him already.
After Epstein? If he survives the first year without incident, then he’s safe.
Everything’s a conspiracy, even if it hasn’t happened yet.
ok.
Now, I’d die a happy person if I never have to hear about him or from any of his countless sycophants ever again. Thanks.
Hey, why don’t you shut up yourself?
Little bro doesn’t care about human rights.
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.
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?
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.
Some of those leaks resulted in the execution of informants.
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.
The man embarrassed the US by leaking their DMs.
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.
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.
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.
deleted by creator
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.
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
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 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.
Removed by mod
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.
Aiding someone in exfiltrating classified documents on the other hand decidedly is.
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.
Not something journalists make a habit of doing, either.
because most are cowards
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
On August 12, 2016, DCLeaks released roughly 300 emails from Republican targets, including the 2016 campaign staff of Arizona Senator John McCain, South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham, and 2012 presidential candidate and former Minnesota Representative Michele Bachmann.[13] The release included 18 emails from the Illinois Republican Party.[18]
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.
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
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.
