He did significant help in showing a major war crime that was covered up. That is, without doubt, more important.

As a journalist, you sometimes have to jump a fence - that is generally, and legally, accepted. Else writing 'do not view or publish' on your crime diary would be sufficient to conceal it.

The video that showed the deaths of journalists in Iraq was not an example of a war crime.

Just because it's tragic, and maybe one might not like 'the war' etc. doesn't make it a 'war crime'.

It was a glimpse into the horrors of war for many and that can be enlightening, but doesn't necessarily justify whistelblowing, even if the information does materially shape our views.

The issue with Assange boils down a bit to whether or not Assange 'published' or 'stole' the information along with Manning, there's a material difference there.

I'll gather he was on the side of publishing, not stealing, but I have not seen the evidence.

Well, Wikileaks also revealed the US involvement in funding bacha bazi "parties." Warcrime-a-licious.

it is also worth noting that julian didnt jump any fence. He received and published data full stop. The only espionage was on part of the whistleblowers.

> In 2010, Assange gained unauthorized access to a government computer system of a NATO country. In 2012, Assange communicated directly with a leader of the hacking group LulzSec (who by then was cooperating with the FBI), and provided a list of targets for LulzSec to hack. With respect to one target, Assange asked the LulzSec leader to look for (and provide to WikiLeaks) mail and documents, databases and pdfs. In another communication, Assange told the LulzSec leader that the most impactful release of hacked materials would be from the CIA, NSA, or the New York Times. WikiLeaks obtained and published emails from a data breach committed against an American intelligence consulting company by an “Anonymous” and LulzSec-affiliated hacker. According to that hacker, Assange indirectly asked him to spam that victim company again.

> In addition, the broadened hacking conspiracy continues to allege that Assange conspired with Army Intelligence Analyst Chelsea Manning to crack a password hash to a classified U.S. Department of Defense computer.

10 seconds of perusing the indictment against Assange alleges he actively did things other than merely publish data that was given to him.

> leader of the hacking group LulzSec (who by then was cooperating with the FBI)

Is this the same hacker who has gone on public record that he got paid by the FBI to lie , and as a result was later redacted from the court documents?

Paying for false witnesses is such a classic and really makes for a strong case.

using an indictment as a form of evidence is intellectually bankrupt.

Using the language of the prosecution's summary of a classified indictment issued by a state shown to have orchestrated 2 failed false indictments on this individual in the last decade particularly does not convey considerable confidence.

> Assange will face a trial like everyone else

It's worth noting that Manning, his alleged co-conspirator in this thing, was declared guilty by Obama, in public, before her trial ever began (when she was, under the law, to be presumed innocent). She was also tortured in jail prior to conclusion of the trial, to such an extent that she attempted suicide twice.

The extradition is only rational, legal, and judicially legitimate if he can be expected to receive a fair trial and not be tortured before/during/after. None of these assumptions hold true in the United States, as we both know.

"was declared guilty by Obama, in public, before her trial ever began "

That's not how it works. Biden made similar public declarations about Rittenhouse, who was subsequently found not guilty.

Now, none of them should be talking about, but that they did does not imply a miscarriage of justice.

The extradition is legitimate, and Assange will receive a fair trial in the US where the whole world will see the evidence against him.

The points you make are orthogonal to the fact that there is no way that Assange will receive a fair trial in the USA.

> because he did the right thing, not the wrong thing.

And who defines the right or wrong? Assange revealed among many things how CIA collects data of US citizens abusing patriot act without warrants.

"And who defines the right or wrong?"

The Law under the purview of the Justice System, which is why they are pressing for a trial.

If you believe that The Law defines what is right and wrong, then surely it can never be right to change The Law? Maybe you don't actually believe that, but I think it is important to consider just how large the gap between The Law and What Is Right has been, at various times in the past, and in various places.

The Law is how we define 'Right and Wrong' in the civil sense, it's all we have.

Obviously, we us a moral sensibility in the community, but that's more nuanced.

Laws change all of the time, especially as different cases with different characteristics are brought before the courts and they set precedent.

Assange is accused of working with people to hack into sensitive systems in which gigabytes of arbitrary government data were stolen and published.

If true, this is definitely within the realm of what we would generally accepted to be illegal, there's not going to be much controversy there.

The issue is whether or not Assange has actually committed a crime, and to what extent his prosecution is political.

I suggest we'll be able to get a sense for that when he is put on trial and the evidence is presented.

If it turns out the FBI paid a guy to lie about him, and that's all the evidence they have, then Assange will walk away a free man, but otherwise we'll have to wait to see the evidence.

The Abu Gharib whistleblower's name was supposed to not be released, but instead Donald Rumsfeld himself leaked it, and his family had to be put into protective custody because of the constant death threats they were receiving from other service members and families of service members.

Donald Rumsfeld then later wrote a letter to the whistleblower telling him to stop telling people that Rumsfeld had been the one to leak his name.

That there are irresponsible actions taken by political actors (possibly mistakenly so) doesn't imply a lack of integrity in the system overall.

The Abu Garib leaker was treated as a true whistleblower, because he was, not a criminal.

In your very comment you indicate that the Justice System even went out of their way to protect him.

In the case of Assange, they are after him, so we'll wait to see what kind of evidence they have.

I believe someone else (Manning) broke in. Assange was the conduit for the information.

You may now look at the disparity in treatment.

Well that is the claim that Assange is making. The government claims he tangibly helped. That has always been the line. You can't give your source burglary tools, ask them to break into something particular and then claim you were just a reporter. You may believe the claims from the prosecution are wrong or lies, but they don't seem on their surface to be crazy

> You can't give your source burglary tools, ask them to break into something particular and then claim you were just a reporter.

Drop the analogy, what did Assange actually do to help Manning?

I’d maintain that it’s not unreasonable for a journalist to ask a leaker for documents about a particular topic.

Presumably this will be addressed at the trial, and a jury will decide whether the materialness of the assistance was criminal.

Of course, but that doesn’t mean we can’t talk about it in the interim. My parent comment claims (through analogy) that Assange gave secret proprietary hacking tools to Manning. I don’t believe that’s remotely true.

No, sorry I think the analogy was a bit too extreme meant only to show that under some circumstances arresting him would be fine. I think according to Wikipedia the specific claim is

> The charges stem from the allegation that Assange attempted and failed to crack a password hash so that Chelsea Manning could use a different username to download classified documents and avoid detection.

Again, the disparity is what interests me. Surely Manning is at as least guilty of "hacking" as Assange. And yet ... different treatment.

In what was is there different treatment? Manning stood trial, was imprisoned, and is now free. Assange has not.

It's gonna be super neat to find out. Are you of the opinion that Assange will be eventually set free?

I'm not an expert, but if following @popehat on twitter has taught me anything, it would lead me to conclude yes.

He's charged with 18 counts, each with a 10 year maximum sentence, except 1 with a 5 year sentence. Manning faced 22 charges, including one that carried a potential death penalty, so broadly speaking Assange is facing fewer and less serious charges. If we take Manning's sentencing as a reasonable upper bound, he'd face 35 years in prison, with potential for early release. He's 50 now, so there's a chance he'd die in prison, but I'd give him better than even odds. And that's assuming what I'd argue is a worse than could be expected sentencing.

But in general the likelyhood of him facing a life sentence (or what amounts to a life sentence, 50+years) is low.

Would you feel the same if it was the Chinese or Russian government who wanted to prosecute a foreigner for allegedly helping one of their whistleblowers, or for just criticizing their government? Unless you want Americans sent to Beijing for violating the Hong Kong national security law, which applies to everyone in the world according to the Chinese government, I don't see how you can invoke 'the law' against Assange.

Regardless, laws are completely irrelevant to what's right or wrong. Laws are basically just threats, and it's not wrong to do something just because someone threatens to harm you. It doesn't matter if that someone is the Chinese government, the US government, the Taliban government, or some local street gang.

Neither of these sentiments are true.

There is a material difference between 'Whistleblowing' and 'Stealing and Releasing Data Because You Want To'.

Those releasing documents regarding arbitrary imprisonment of people because of their ethnicity are 'Whistleblowers'. I would argue that the release of the video showing US accidental killing of Journalistgs in the friendly fire incident, may fall under that.

But the diplomatic cable leaks I don't think constitute whistle blowing.

"Laws are basically just threats,"

Total rubbish, I can't fathom that someone would believe this.

The Law is the most foundational aspect of civilization, probably more important than democracy itself.

It's a set of codified rules that we roughly agree upon, or at least are aware of, that we are all equally subject to, not one above the other - or at least it's supposed to be, and when it's not, we consider that a form of corruption.

Assange is possibly guilty of the crime of breaking into private government systems to release arbitrary data to the public, which is probably a crime.

When the trial starts, we'll get to see the evidence, one of the advantages of living in a Western Liberal Democracy is that most of this information is available to anyone, another key aspect of a functional Judicial System BTW.

> you absolutely do not have the right to break into systems of national security and release arbitrary information

These are two very different things. Is Assange suspected of doing the first? The second I wonder how it can be a crime if it is a non-US citizen doing it on non-US soil.

> you absolutely do not have the right to break into systems of national security

He didn’t do that, he didn’t help Manning get any additional access, the whole basis of their case is in Assange agreeing to look at some stuff for Manning and then never getting back to him. Assange didn’t hack or crack anything.

In part of the indictment he’s accused of literally helping Manning to crack password hashes she obtained illegally.

> The superseding indictment alleges that Manning and Assange engaged in real-time discussions regarding Manning’s transmission of classified records to Assange. The discussions also reflect that Assange actively encouraged Manning to provide more information and agreed to crack a password hash stored on U.S. Department of Defense computers connected to the Secret Internet Protocol Network (SIPRNet), a United States government network used for classified documents and communications. Assange is also charged with conspiracy to commit computer intrusion for agreeing to crack that password hash.