Court document refers to U.S. charge against Julian Assange; source says prosecution planned

[Ryuthrowsstuff]

Yeah Assange is totally blameless in what his organization, subordinates and close associates have done in his name. And the same’s complete rejection of journalistic standards of any kind. Yup. Not him at all.

And I pretty specifically said Wikileaks. In total, not Assange specifically. And linked to the logs I was talking about.

@zathras

Multiply the evilness of a government

You know what, you are totally correct. It is entirely fine to actively, publicly, and personally participate with the “evil” acts of an unethical government. Even when they’re exactly the sort of acts you’ve taken a public stand on, and exactly the sort of government you claim to be opposed to. While ignoring their overall disposition, the vast bulk of their heinous actions, and the risks involved.

And it’s perfectly FINE to work to place politicians in power, in the nation you most criticize, who have repeatedly promised to restrict civil rights and commit human rights abuses. Who have a particular animus against the press. There is nothing hypocritical or dangerous about that in the least.

Also I hear Assange doesn’t wash his ass. So there’s that.

[zathras]

@Ryuthrowsstuff

Yeah Assange is totally blameless in what his organization, subordinates and close associates have done in his name. And the same’s complete rejection of journalistic standards of any kind. Yup. Not him at all.

And I pretty specifically said Wikileaks . In total, not Assange specifically. And linked to the logs I was talking about.

Wait, Adrian Lamo was part of Wikileaks? Since when? In what universe?

[Brainspore]

@zathras

But if the world’s most powerful nation is a plutocratic oligarchy claiming to be a democracy, it’s a good thing if its power is limited by another nation also claiming to be a democracy.

Are you seriously trying to suggest “conspiring with Putin’s Russia to help put an almost comically corrupt plutocrat in the White House” was somehow a GOOD thing for transparency and democracy?

[Ryuthrowsstuff]

You know working to put a fascist in the White House doesn’t make you a fascist at all. And it’s totally going to prevent the US from doing evil things.

Definitely.

Yup. That’s how it works.

[d_r]

@zathras

The consensus among European media, after a lot of debate, was that the edited version did not distort the facts.

Here’s what the European press thinks of Assange. Of course now he thinks they’re all part of a Jewish conspiracy, so whatever.

[FFabian]

@d_r

Here’s what the European press thinks of Assange. Of course now he thinks they ’re all part of a Jewish conspiracy, so whatever.

The Guardian article you linked isn’t refuting the argument zathras made.

@beschizza

Julian Assange has been charged with crime in the U.S

Actually that’s a step up in relation to the extrajudicial calls for assassination by US politicians in the past.

[d_r]

@FFabian

The Guardian article you linked isn’t refuting the argument zathras made.

Zathras didn’t make an argument, he made an assertion. At least I provided a link to support my statement.

the extrajudicial calls for assassination by US politicians

Are irrelevant.

[FFabian]

What you did was creating a straw man.

@d_r

Are irrelevant.

As irrelevant as your reply to the argument zathras made?

[zathras]

@d_r

Zathras didn’t make an argument, he made an assertion.

… to which you responded by providing a link where a British paper has an opinion that is irrelevant to my assertion.

I was quite explicitly referring to media opinions on the collateral damage video, not on the cables or anything that came after.

@d_r

At least I provided a link to support my statement.

Very well:

So in 2017, Die Zeit editorializes on Manning’s release:

Chelsea Manning: Glückliches Ende, miese Bilanz

Their judgement is that the Wikileaks release of Manning’s leaks were “important in the media, but not politically” because they failed to change much. They acknowledge that Wikileaks’ Iraq War publications never endangered US soldiers or others (contrary to what had been claimed at the time), and they lament that the helicopter crew has never had to face any consequences.
They are much more critical about the publication of the diplomatic cables.

Or in Italy:

Wikileaks, condannato il soldato Manning Ma «non è stato connivente con il...

This article is mostly about Manning’s trial, but it mentions the “Collateral Murder” video. “l’ormai famoso video chiamato «Collateral murder» che mostra come un elicottero americano in un raid uccida civili e reporter in Iraq nel 2007.” - again, the video is accepted as fact, not as disproved manipulation, several years after the publication.

Or in 2015, le monde in france writes about the history of whistleblowing:

Des « Pentagon papers » aux « Frenchleaks », 40 ans de...

" WikiLeaks publie une vidéo datant de 2007, où l’on voit une frappe aérienne américaine tuer par erreur deux journalistes de l’agence Reuters, puis une famille irakienne venue tenter d’aider, ce qui peut constituer un crime de guerre. A l’époque, l’armée américaine avait indiqué que les victimes avaient été tuées lors de combats avec des insurgés. La vidéo démontre le mensonge. "

So the video is showing something that “can constitute a war crime” and it exposed a lie by the American miltiary.

---

The above were the first things I found on the topic of “Collateral Murder” from various European newspapers, and I think they quite nicely support my assertion that “The consensus among European media […] was that [the “Collateral Murder” video] did not distort the facts.”

I did fail to spell out explicitly that by “European media” these days I tend to mean those from the continent, as Britain is part of the big echo chamber that is formed by the English language. I’d expect the general opinion in British media to be somewhere “in between”. But then, here, The Guardian also fails to doubt the veracity of the video, so maybe the difference between Britain and continental Europe is not even relevant.

[Kyberian]

Well, Assange himself made a number of posts on Twitter a while back about how feminism and contraception are killing off the white race and how white women need to have more babies.

Which was a great look on someone accused of rape by tampering with the conditions of consent, with Scandinavian women.

[Ryuthrowsstuff]

And there’s nothing more progressive and defensible than white genocide conspiracy theories!

[d_r]

@FFabian

What you did was creating a straw man.

No, just to counter any suggestion that the European papers (still) support Assange. I agree that it is a different point from the one about the editing.

Are irrelevant.

As irrelevant as your reply to the argument zathras made?

Zathras didn’t make an argument. And a few posturing US politicians are irrelevant.

@zathras

I was quite explicitly referring to media opinions on the collateral damage video, not on the cables or anything that came after.

The US attack and the killing of the journalists was a matter of fact; the distortion in the editing was to remove any evidence that the attack was provoked. That the latter happened is also a matter of fact; JA himself has confirmed that the intent was to change the narrative, both in his interview with Colbert and in a Ted talk. The articles you cite don’t address the editing at all, so hardly can be considered evidence of a consensus supporting it.

In any event, the point in my original post was to expand one small part of @Ryuthrowsstuff’s post, not to engage in yet another debate with the Church of Assange.