Around the 2016 Guccifer and DNC leaks I don't accept he was acting as a mere journalist. He was, at best, and I think this strains intellectual credulity, an unwitting Russian asset. In reality, he was likely a willing Russian asset based on the evidence. It walks and quacks like a duck based on its behavior. If he wasn't an active and willing Russian asset I would be surprised. He played a key role in the DNC hack. Here he may, possibly, be ethically clean, but his behavior and the timing of the leaks was morally bankrupt and actively trying to influence US elections in a particular direction benefitting a particular party. I don't see how anyone can support that sort of behavior. There isn't enough evidence in the public sphere to convict him of crimes, so I think that is a miscarriage of justice and the legal system, but the continued white knighting of Assange in technocratic circles continues to amuse me.
I don't believe that the comment to which you replied mentioned disinformation.
I don't know about you, but I'd be pretty pissed if my email was splashed across the Internet, regardless of who did it or why they did so.
Why don't we image all your storage devices, then post everything you've written, every site you've browsed, everywhere you've been, etc., etc., etc.
It's not disinformation, so it's okay to do so right?
You're right, we're talking about the members of a private organization that has no governmental role.
Are those people not entitled to the same level of privacy to which you and I are?
And if those folks aren't entitled to privacy, who is?
How about all those celebrities[0] whose iCloud accounts were hacked and naked photos and private messages spread far and wide?
Are they entitled to privacy? If so, why them and not others? If not, why not?
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICloud_leaks_of_celebrity_phot...
When can I stop by to take those images of your devices?
is this any different than Fox news or CNN's behavior.
Based on what evidence? Assange stated that "our source is not the Russian government or any state party." So I'm curious what evidence you've seen to say it was.
> ...his behavior and the timing of the leaks was morally bankrupt and actively trying to influence US elections in a particular direction benefitting a particular party.
I assume by this you mean he was trying to help Trump. Again, I don't see any evidence for this. See for example this article by Caitlin Johnstone which outlines why this isn't plausible: https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/assange-smear-18-he-was-a...
She writes:
> In July 2016 Assange compared the choice between Clinton and Trump to a choice between cholera and gonorrhea, saying, “Personally, I would prefer neither.” When a Twitter user suggested to Assange in 2017 that he start sucking up to Trump in order to secure a pardon, Assange replied, “I’d rather eat my own intestines.”
Not to mention of course that it's now the Trump administration that's pursuing him and trying to send him to a US prison.
Assange being an unsympathetic figure is largely a result of the fierce media campaign to paint him as one. Most of us have never met him, have only read about him in hostile media. Noam Chomsky and Alice Walker made the point well, I think:
> When setting a gravely dangerous precedent, governments don't typically persecute the most beloved individuals in the world. They target those who can be portrayed as subversive, unpatriotic – or simply weird. Then they actively distort public debate by emphasizing those traits.
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/julian-assange-trial-us...
You write:
> The manning case in particular is an area where I believe he crossed the line and was actively assisting and encouraging Manning.
Have you read the testimony of experts about this? See for example Eric Lewis, a practising US attorney and former law professor:
> [Prosectuor] James Lewis QC: Do you accept that a government insider who leaks classified information may be prosecuted?
> Eric Lewis: Yes.
> James Lewis QC: Do you accept that a journalist may not aid such a person to break the law?
> Eric Lewis: No. It is normal journalistic practice to cultivate an official source and encourage them to leak. Seymour Hersh would have to be prosecuted under such an idea.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/09/your-man-in-...
Here's investigative journalist Nicky Hager:
> [Prosecutor] Lewis: You have as a journalist merely been the passive recipient of official information. Presumably you have never done anything criminal to obtain government information?
> Hager: You said “passive”. That is not the way we work. Journalists not only actively work our sources. We go out and find our sources. The information might come in documents. It might come on a memory stick. In most cases our sources are breaking the law. Our duty is to help protect them from being caught. We actively help them cover their backs sometimes.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/09/your-man-in-...