> just to be clear, the perpetrators of those barbarous war crimes, and their superiors, never had to face justice.

This is the big one. I can totally see how Assange handled some of the data irresponsibly, and I can understand if he deserves a firm slap on the wrist for that. But they're asking for 175 years for this, while the war crimes he reported on go unpunished, and that is the real injustice here.

The US clearly doesn't care about war crimes anymore, but it does not tolerate criticism of crimes committed in service of the government.

Thanks for making that short summary for the people who have not followed the saga since the beginning. I believe wikileaks bother many/much more people (remember paypal and visa not taking donation for the site) but what you added is short and concise to put someone up to speed quickly.

He mentioned a single thing that Assange has done. That's not bringing people up to speed. Its disingenuous because its a more complicated situation than that one thing describes. And that statement stands whether a person supports him or is hell bent on seeing his life permanently ruined or ended.

Sure, it's more complicated, but that the basic truth. That's why everything stated. Then people can dig all the details and the 10 years of twist and turns.

Its a tiny part of the basic truth that leaves out any criticism of Assange. It doesn't entirely revolve around the leaking of a single video of a US helicopter killing civilians.

There is absolutely tons of justified criticism of Assange. And there are tons more details about the crimes he reported on. But going into all of that requires a massive article that doesn't fit into a short comment; this stuff is documented elsewhere.

Despite all of Assange's many flaws, it boils down to this: he reported on war crimes, those crimes go unpunished and uninvestigated, but the US wants to punish Assange, severely, despite the fact that he is not American and never even set foot there.

Wikileaks is a crusader outlet supporting basically anyone anti-American (and generally anti Western liberal) at expense of anyone else.

> revealed and gave clear proof of American war crimes in Iraq

Honest question: are these crimes under U.S. law?

Yes, unprovoked killing of civilians could be prosecuted as murder, AFAIK. Prosecution does not equal conviction necessarily - see eg:

https://www.aa.com.tr/en/americas/us-military-jury-acquits-s...

War crimes would generally refer to breaching international treaty and/or conventions. The "Patriot" Act rebranded torture/abduction so as to not fall foul of these. "Advanced interrogation techniques" ....

> War crimes would generally refer to breaching international treaty and/or conventions

Understood. But there are international laws and conventions with no binding effect, and there are those ratified and incorporated into the domestic bodies of law of its members. I’m curious if Assange’s allegations are in respect of the former or the latter.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2441 "18 U.S. Code § 2441 - War crimes"

> (a) Offense.— Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described in subsection (b), shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death.

> (b) Circumstances.— The circumstances referred to in subsection (a) are that the person committing such war crime or the victim of such war crime is a member of the Armed Forces of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act).

> (c) Definition.—As used in this section the term “war crime” means any conduct— (1) defined as a grave breach in any of the international conventions signed at Geneva 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party; (2) prohibited by Article 23, 25, 27, or 28 of the Annex to the Hague Convention IV, Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, signed 18 October 1907; (3) which constitutes a grave breach of common Article 3 (as defined in subsection (d)) when committed in the context of and in association with an armed conflict not of an international character; or (4) of a person who, in relation to an armed conflict and contrary to the provisions of the Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices as amended at Geneva on 3 May 1996 (Protocol II as amended on 3 May 1996), when the United States is a party to such Protocol, willfully kills or causes serious injury to civilians.

(...)

Thank you.

If a terrorist is hiding amongst civilians and is engaged, is the collateral damage a war crime? If an operator attacks someone she believes to be a terrorist in a war zone but ends up being civilian is it a war crime?

There are not easy questions to answer when you consider the difficulties of operating in war. Many times, people in those situations are moving on incomplete or even incorrect information and lives of their fellow soldiers hang in the balance. It’s easy to look back at hindsight and judge it harshly but in the moment, put yourselves in their shoes, what would you have done?

The UN has a nice document explaining what war crimes are and how they matter: https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/war-crimes.shtml

Assange revealed no such thing. Reuters had published a transcript of the same video before Assange released it.

Don't touch that dial... You've got KOME on your radio!

Cry me a river. The vendetta clearly went both ways given what Assange was willing to do to sabotage her campaign.

Assange reported on information. That's what journalists do. Hillary sabotaged her own campaign by the actions she/her team/the DNC took. You can't put the blame on the journalist.

Ah, yes. Collaborating with hackers to publish internal campaign emails, exactly the behavior of an upstanding journalist

Are you really saying the appropriate response to a "political opponent" trying to stop you from being elected is murder?

The masks are really coming off.

Is this a comment not just on Assange's extradition, but on current COVID-19 events too?

No, it refers entirely to the despicable sentiment expressed above by 'seoaeu. Once upon a time Americans would have pretended to value speech and journalism enough to feign concern at the prospect of vote-for-every-war chickenhawks assassinating a news editor via remote deathdrone just to distract from and cease reporting of their own crimes. Many Americans no longer pretend to value freedom: the masks are coming off.

That loathsome comment wasn't even [flagged]! Good grief.

Remind me again what institutional power Assange had to murder that politician? I'll wait...

Unproven.

“I spread misinformation to others without doing due diligence,” phone8675309 said.

Also unproven

That war hawk has been openly calling for Assange to "answer for what he's done" for years; ever since he showed people just how bought she is with her own campaign manager's emails.

And on this "who has lied more" chart, we can see Hillary is up there in the hundred of verified lies area, while Assange and Wikileaks are on 0 verified lies.