Why is Biden Prosecuting Assange for Telling the Truth about Afghanistan?
www.newsweek.com
Julian Assange warned the public that the goal in Afghanistan "is to have an endless war, not a successful war."

Two of us, Ellsberg and Noam Chomsky, testified for Assange at his extradition hearing last year. In Ellsberg’s words then, the WikiLeaks publications that Assange is being charged for are “amongst the most important truthful revelations of hidden criminal state behavior that have been made public in U.S. history.” The American public “needed urgently to know what was being done routinely in their name, and there was no other way for them to learn it than by unauthorized disclosure.”

    • Zrybew@lemmy.mlEnglish
      854·
      1 year ago

      I don’t know in which reality you live that state secret takes precedent over criminal activity.

      How are you going to handle Trump’s indictments then?

      • SCB@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1813·
        1 year ago

        Please enlighten me as to how strategically leaking Hillary Clinton’s email to hurt her election chances is reporting on “criminal activity”

        Assange leaked shit to manipulate opinions in a way he directed, and was fed info and money from Russia to do so. Nearly all of what he leaked was meaningless info meant solely to influence optics.

        That’s rather a significant difference from investigative reporting.

        • uniqueid198x@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
          245·
          1 year ago

          Thats not what he is being prossecuted for. He is being prosecuted for publishing secrets given to him by someone else, an activity that American journalists have engaged in forever and part of standard journalism.

          Its also concerning because Assange is not a US citizen and was not in the US at the time he published. So he is being prosecuted for sonething which may not be a crime, which was done in a place the US has no jurisdiction, by a foreign citizen.

        • SaakoPaahtaa@lemmy.worldEnglish
          529·
          1 year ago

          Looking at the downvotes to this I cant help but to feel lemmy is just a higher octane reddit tbh. My man is literally stating facts that no one seems to disagree with

    • cbarrick@lemmy.worldEnglish
      23·
      1 year ago

      The first amendment gives freedom of the press.

      Journalists can publish whatever they want, as long as it’s true, even if it contains state secrets.

    • jimmydoreisalefty@lemmus.orgOP
      244·
      1 year ago

      We see the world in different ways.

      I see it as exposing corruption within our institutions of power.

      I think you see it as, just crimes… and you miss the importance of what these people have risked to inform the public.

      It was ground breaking everytime these leaks happen. The problem is that propaganda machines and MSM twist it to lessen the impact everytime. Pitting the common people against those that help see the truth.

      edit: words

        • jimmydoreisalefty@lemmus.orgOP
          52·
          1 year ago

          I tend to somewhat stay hopeful:

          Hope and optimism are different. Optimism tends to be based on the notion that there’s enough evidence out there to believe things are gonna be better, much more rational, deeply secular, whereas hope looks at the evidence and says, “It doesn’t look good at all. Doesn’t look good at all. Gonna go beyond the evidence to create new possibilities based on visions that become contagious to allow people to engage in heroic actions always against the odds, no guarantee whatsoever.” That’s hope. I’m a prisoner of hope, though. Gonna die a prisoner of hope. -Cornel West

          Take the wins with the losses.

          Coming together to learn and teach, like we do on social media, by talking and interacting with people of different views and backgrounds.

          This is a more hopeful than ignoring or name calling people we do not agree with.

        • jimmydoreisalefty@lemmus.orgOP
          32·
          1 year ago

          To me, I try to stay some what hopeful:

          Hope and optimism are different. Optimism tends to be based on the notion that there’s enough evidence out there to believe things are gonna be better, much more rational, deeply secular, whereas hope looks at the evidence and says, “It doesn’t look good at all. Doesn’t look good at all. Gonna go beyond the evidence to create new possibilities based on visions that become contagious to allow people to engage in heroic actions always against the odds, no guarantee whatsoever.” That’s hope. I’m a prisoner of hope, though. Gonna die a prisoner of hope. -Cornel West

          Here ae more quotes, if you are interested: Source where I found the one above.

          https://www.azquotes.com/author/15512-Cornel_West

          Need to take the wins where we can,

      • mars296@kbin.social
        82·
        1 year ago

        No ot wasn’t. The break in was not in the name of the US Government. It was in the name of a presidential candidate.

        • pjhenry1216@kbin.social
          61·
          1 year ago

          The information given to the reporters was confidential information. I don’t know how to tell you this other than that confidential information held by the government is a state secret. There’s no actual term “state secret”. There’s just public and non-public information and various tiers within that framework.

          • mars296@kbin.social
            3·
            1 year ago

            Yeah you make good points. I think Watergate is still very different because the initial crime wasn’t on behalf of or sanctioned by the government. The wider cover-up was to an extent. I think there is some gray area too. Like you say there is no “state secret”. But when is confidential information held by the government vs individuals within the government holding confidential information? An individual within the government can keep a secret from both the broader government and the public.

            • pjhenry1216@kbin.social
              1·
              1 year ago

              The information Felt released wasn’t just something only he knew. It’s simply that it wasn’t enough on its own and no one was chasing down the proper leads due to the coverup in play. The White House is the government. The administration partook in the coverup. Its just fewer people in the government being part of a coverup. Anything that’s illegal is still illegal. The government is behind both, it’s simply a matter of how much and what parts of the government.

    • SLfgb@feddit.nlEnglish
      21·
      1 year ago

      When states hide crimes by making them secret, that is called a cover up. Cover-ups are illegal. Publishing documentation of crimes is not.

    • Preußisch Blau@lemmy.caEnglish
      33·
      1 year ago

      “The post-conventional level [of morality], also known as the principled level, is marked by a growing realization that individuals are separate entities from society, and that the individual’s own perspective may take precedence over society’s view; individuals may disobey rules inconsistent with their own principles. Post-conventional moralists live by their own ethical principles—principles that typically include such basic human rights as life, liberty, and justice. People who exhibit post-conventional morality view rules as useful but changeable mechanisms—ideally rules can maintain the general social order and protect human rights. Rules are not absolute dictates that must be obeyed without question. Because post-conventional individuals elevate their own moral evaluation of a situation over social conventions, their behavior, especially at stage six, can be confused with that of those at the pre-conventional level.

      Kohlberg has speculated that many people may never reach this level of abstract moral reasoning.”

      • pjhenry1216@kbin.social
        4·
        1 year ago

        That I can find two ways to apply this here and get opposing results, I’m curious to know what context you’re sharing this.

        • Preußisch Blau@lemmy.caEnglish
          1·
          1 year ago

          Interesting, I don’t see the other one. I meant to imply that this guy seems to like to conflate the law with morality with regards to the outrage over Assange, as if he has not reached the post-conventional stage. “Why are people outraged, he broke the law, you can disagree but the law’s the law.” is how I interpret his thinking, and I think that’s childish.