WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange stops in Bangkok on his way to a US court and later freedom

[Stevicus]

WikiLeaks’ Assange pleads guilty to publishing US military secrets in deal that secures his freedom

The plea was entered Wednesday morning in federal court in Saipan, the capital of the Northern Mariana Islands, a U.S. commonwealth in the Pacific.

apnews.com

A plea deal has been made in which he will plead guilty, be credited with time served, and then be given his freedom. He will attend a hearing in US Federal court in Saipan, then be allowed to go home to Australia.

The guilty plea, which must be approved by a judge, brings an abrupt conclusion to a criminal case of international intrigue and to the U.S. government’s yearslong pursuit of a publisher whose hugely popular secret-sharing website made him a cause célèbre among many press freedom advocates who said he acted as a journalist to expose U.S. military wrongdoing. Investigators, in contrast, have repeatedly asserted that his actions broke laws meant to protect sensitive information and put the country’s national security at risk.

What do you think of Julian Assange? Is he a hero, a traitor, or just a journalist seeking attention and notoriety? Or none of the above?

Does the release and publishing of classified information put U.S. national security at risk? Is there any evidence to show this risk and any actual harm that came from it?

There have been similar cases where someone released classified information, such as the Pentagon Papers case, Deep Throat (who spilled the beans on Watergate), Christopher Boyce (who didn't go to the press but sold secrets to the USSR). Boyce's story was told in "The Falcon and the Snowman," and it was said that he didn't want to go public with the information because, in his mind, it was already public. And there is some truth to that, in that the public has likely heard a lot of stories about government mischief and malfeasance.

How much does the public have a right to know?

Does the public even need to know? Shouldn't it be enough that the government is protecting them, and they don't need to know the how or why? On the other hand, does the public have cause to wonder if the U.S. government has its best interests at heart? When government officials speak of our country's national security, what exactly are they talking about, and are they speaking in good faith?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

All ready another thread about it.

 

[Stevicus]

All ready another thread about it.

Yeah, I started writing this one before the other one was posted.

 

[McBell]

WikiLeaks’ Assange pleads guilty to publishing US military secrets in deal that secures his freedom

The plea was entered Wednesday morning in federal court in Saipan, the capital of the Northern Mariana Islands, a U.S. commonwealth in the Pacific.

apnews.com

A plea deal has been made in which he will plead guilty, be credited with time served, and then be given his freedom. He will attend a hearing in US Federal court in Saipan, then be allowed to go home to Australia.



What do you think of Julian Assange? Is he a hero, a traitor, or just a journalist seeking attention and notoriety? Or none of the above?

Does the release and publishing of classified information put U.S. national security at risk? Is there any evidence to show this risk and any actual harm that came from it?

There have been similar cases where someone released classified information, such as the Pentagon Papers case, Deep Throat (who spilled the beans on Watergate), Christopher Boyce (who didn't go to the press but sold secrets to the USSR). Boyce's story was told in "The Falcon and the Snowman," and it was said that he didn't want to go public with the information because, in his mind, it was already public. And there is some truth to that, in that the public has likely heard a lot of stories about government mischief and malfeasance.

How much does the public have a right to know?

Does the public even need to know? Shouldn't it be enough that the government is protecting them, and they don't need to know the how or why? On the other hand, does the public have cause to wonder if the U.S. government has its best interests at heart? When government officials speak of our country's national security, what exactly are they talking about, and are they speaking in good faith?

Personally, it looks like nothing more than mountain being made of a mole hill.
A whole lot of hype over nothing.
Much ado about not much.
Etc.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

WikiLeaks’ Assange pleads guilty to publishing US military secrets in deal that secures his freedom

The plea was entered Wednesday morning in federal court in Saipan, the capital of the Northern Mariana Islands, a U.S. commonwealth in the Pacific.

apnews.com

A plea deal has been made in which he will plead guilty, be credited with time served, and then be given his freedom. He will attend a hearing in US Federal court in Saipan, then be allowed to go home to Australia.



What do you think of Julian Assange? Is he a hero, a traitor, or just a journalist seeking attention and notoriety? Or none of the above?

Does the release and publishing of classified information put U.S. national security at risk? Is there any evidence to show this risk and any actual harm that came from it?

There have been similar cases where someone released classified information, such as the Pentagon Papers case, Deep Throat (who spilled the beans on Watergate), Christopher Boyce (who didn't go to the press but sold secrets to the USSR). Boyce's story was told in "The Falcon and the Snowman," and it was said that he didn't want to go public with the information because, in his mind, it was already public. And there is some truth to that, in that the public has likely heard a lot of stories about government mischief and malfeasance.

How much does the public have a right to know?

Does the public even need to know? Shouldn't it be enough that the government is protecting them, and they don't need to know the how or why? On the other hand, does the public have cause to wonder if the U.S. government has its best interests at heart? When government officials speak of our country's national security, what exactly are they talking about, and are they speaking in good faith?

As for the general question about in effect whistleblowers, I really don't know. There are pros and cons.

 

[Stevicus]

Personally, it looks like nothing more than mountain being made of a mole hill.
A whole lot of hype over nothing.
Much ado about not much.
Etc.

I guess the U.S. government thought it was a big deal to be hounding him over this for so many years. I heard that Kissinger blew a gasket over Ellsberg, so it was probably something like that.

 

[McBell]

I guess the U.S. government thought it was a big deal to be hounding him over this for so many years. I heard that Kissinger blew a gasket over Ellsberg, so it was probably something like that.

Government also thinks that requiring schools to display a specific set of the ten commandments is a big deal.

So I do not hold much to what the government thinks is important.

 

[Stevicus]

As for the general question about in effect whistleblowers, I really don't know. There are pros and cons.

A lot of it might be situational and depend on the context. Back in school, nobody liked a "snitch." That kind of mentality tends to linger on well into adulthood for a lot of people.

However, I wouldn't consider Assange to be a snitch or a whistleblower. He was merely publishing information that was sent to him by whistleblowers.

 

[libre]

Hero.

I never thought I'd live to see the day he walked. Surprised to see it happen seemingly out of the blue.

Interesting times we live in, Chelsea, Julian and Ed all able to go on living. Probably makes me more optimistic than any other news in recent times.

 

[Estro Felino]

What do you think of Julian Assange? Is he a hero, a traitor, or just a journalist seeking attention and notoriety? Or none of the above?

A hero.
Thirsty for justice.
Blessed are those who are thirsty for justice, for they will be filled.

Does the release and publishing of classified information put U.S. national security at risk? Is there any evidence to show this risk and any actual harm that came from it?

It has definitely destroyed the image of certain US élites, who have been preaching about "exporting democracy" into other countries.
When Wikileaks clearly shows that squalid economic interests are behind all these wars and military operations.

How much does the public have a right to know?

The public has the right to know everything.
The public pays the taxes...it's not the other way around, that governments are deities. They are the servants. Public servants.

Does the public even need to know?

Yes. So they can know who they are voting for.
They have the right to know whether a politician works for an elitist cabal of warmongers that in order to triple their already billionaire assets, are disposed to sacrifice the life of millions and millions of soldiers and civilians.

Shouldn't it be enough that the government is protecting them, and they don't need to know the how or why?

In this case it deals with squalid economic interests.
And considering how many American soldiers died in Iraq, I call it massacre, not protection.

On the other hand, does the public have cause to wonder if the U.S. government has its best interests at heart? When government officials speak of our country's national security, what exactly are they talking about, and are they speaking in good faith?

In bad faith.
By national security they mean that they are terrified that the people revolts against these élites.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The public has the right to know everything.
The public pays the taxes...it's not the other way around, that governments are deities. They are the servants. Public servants.

That seems foolish, to me. It cannot be forgotten that there are nations with malign intent towards one another, and sometimes defense requires a measure of secrecy. And it is also true that the more people who know a secret, the harder it is to keep that secret. When the entire public knows it, it can hardly be called a secret anymore.

 

[Estro Felino]

That seems foolish, to me. It cannot be forgotten that there are nations with malign intent towards one another, and sometimes defense requires a measure of secrecy.

Exactly. The NATO had a malign intent towards Libya, so the secrecy was necessary to commit their shameful war crimes.

And it is also true that the more people who know a secret, the harder it is to keep that secret. When the entire public knows it, it can hardly be called a secret anymore.

Exactly. A gang of bank robbers must keep all details of the planned robbery secret. Otherwise it will go awry.

 

[Heyo]

Does the public even need to know? Shouldn't it be enough that the government is protecting them, and they don't need to know the how or why?

Excuse frequently used by criminals who want to escape responsibility.

 

[Stevicus]

Excuse frequently used by criminals who want to escape responsibility.

Yes, I've noticed a certain paternalistic and condescending attitude when it comes to people explaining U.S. foreign or military policy to Americans. It's also become somewhat of a trope in popular culture, as seen here with this meme from A Few Good Men.

I recall attending a lecture by G. Gordon Liddy, who was on the lecture circuit at the time. He started off by suggesting that most Americans (particularly college-aged youth in the early 1980s) had no real conception of the world. He said something like "The world is not like Palm Springs or Beverly Hills. The world is more like the South Bronx." Basically, he described most of the rest of the world as some kind of wretched hive of scum and villainy. This, in his view, justified spending more on national defense and taking a more aggressive posture in dealing with all the "scum" around the world.

As Westerners growing up in relatively insular and "safe" surroundings, we would not typically see or know about this "scum" first-hand, so how could we possibly handle the "truth" of that? Liddy seemed to imply that it's sometimes necessary to cross the line of illegality when there's a higher purpose involved.

However, when you cut away all the sloganeering, the BS, the intrigue, the dirty little secrets, and the patriotic ideals of the U.S. - all that's really left as the foundation of US foreign/military policy is this perception that most of the outside world is like the South Bronx, just filled with scum and villainy. The central notion is that, whatever the US government and military do for our national interests should be accepted, since the rest of the world is so much worse.

 

[Heyo]

However, when you cut away all the sloganeering, the BS, the intrigue, the dirty little secrets, and the patriotic ideals of the U.S. - all that's really left as the foundation of US foreign/military policy is this perception that most of the outside world is like the South Bronx, just filled with scum and villainy. The central notion is that, whatever the US government and military do for our national interests should be accepted, since the rest of the world is so much worse.

Yep. But nobody says that openly. Towards the public, the military and the agencies maintain a facade of lawfulness and responsibility. And they don't like it when someone is scratching the facade. Especially the Cocaine Import Association is basically a state sponsored criminal organization.

 

[F1fan]

Well any nation has a right to have its national security secrets. These leaks may have had negative consequences, and frankly it's been so long agoi I don't know what affect they had. If anything it means the USA has to be more careful about who has access to classified files.

That said Trump has shown himself to be a national security threat, and has mishandled documents himself. He should acknowledge that a plea deal is possible. For Assanage my guess is this closes the door on a long open case against him. If he has any more documents that could be released this plea may be a way to secure them from release.

 

[Stevicus]

Well any nation has a right to have its national security secrets. These leaks may have had negative consequences, and frankly it's been so long agoi I don't know what affect they had. If anything it means the USA has to be more careful about who has access to classified files.

That said Trump has shown himself to be a national security threat, and has mishandled documents himself. He should acknowledge that a plea deal is possible. For Assanage my guess is this closes the door on a long open case against him. If he has any more documents that could be released this plea may be a way to secure them from release.

I can see it in times of war or other national crisis. Looking back in previous eras, I don't think the US had any real kind of international spy agency or even that much of a military presence prior to the World Wars. It wasn't really seen as needed. As for national security secrets, I suppose there may have been some back in those days, but not to the level of what would later take place during the Cold War and beyond. That's when it got beyond proportion. The activities of the CIA, FBI, and NSA - along with the US military itself - went beyond the pale. After Vietnam and Watergate, in the post-Nixon era, I think they made some efforts to rein that in and bring it under better control, although it's hard to say.

If we're talking about the plans for some super-secret wonder weapon - or anything involving any current issue, there might need to be some level of discretion and secrecy. That's perfectly understandable, but if it's used as a pretext for covering up wrongdoing or any kind of criminal, morally-questionable behavior, then I would see that as among the worst and most flagrant abuses of power.

 

[Estro Felino]

Well any nation has a right to have its national security secrets. These leaks may have had negative consequences, and frankly it's been so long agoi I don't know what affect they had. If anything it means the USA has to be more careful about who has access to classified files.

Very negative consequences for the US.
The pro-Putin and pro-Russia sentiment rose by 90% in my country.

 

[Wirey]

My only real problem with Assange is the description of him as a journalist. He's not, he's a whistle blower. The two, to my way of thinking, are quite different.

 

[libre]

My only real problem with Assange is the description of him as a journalist. He's not, he's a whistle blower. The two, to my way of thinking, are quite different.

How would you define the two and why does Assange meet the criteria of the latter?