How should it have been "handled" in your opinion? 'Protect the whistleblower' or take out the 'threat to national interests'?

> How should it have been "handled" in your opinion? 'Protect the whistleblower' or take out the 'threat to national interests'?

Congratulating them for their great work towards human rights and publicly expelling and denouncing the perpetrators of atrocities. You know, leading by example.

In both cases, it would be in US' national interests to put the long term consequences before the short term gains.

Long term consequences as 'preventing other secrets from being leaked' or 'maintaining an image as a trustworthy and ethical actor' on the world stage?

Will not 'maintaining an image as a trustworthy and ethical actor' be the most efficient way of 'preventing other secrets from being leaked'?

Leakers are insiders, they know what's happening regardless of the image perceived by the public. I am skeptical of this consequentiality, but I recognize that it's an argument someone in the government could believe in.

I mean, if you don't let your government gas civilians, it's not like there's anything there worth leaking.

> or take out the 'threat to national interests'?

Isn't that what we did in Iraq, blindly listen to the IC? Ha, that was an A++ operation. All those lives lost - for absolutely nothing. I mean sure there was "Iraqi democracy" but where did the WMD's go? The solution being proposed is to literally kill the messenger. It's a two-party induced cognitive dissonance where you would rather be lied to than have your political affiliation be embarrassed.

And also Julia Gillard, she was very unsympathetic, even hostile to him.

Julia Gillard [then PM of Australia, 0]. The Australian governments mild condemnation of Assange as the situation unfolded was as disappointing as it was predictable. US lap-dogs and all that.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julia_Gillard