
Assange indictment fails to mention video that exposed US 'war crimes' in Iraq - throwaway888abc
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/jun/15/julian-assange-indictment-fails-to-mention-wikileaks-video-that-exposed-us-war-crimes-in-iraq
======
fit2rule
It is going to be _very_ interesting to watch how this trial proceeds - if
indeed, Julian doesn't succumb to the Belmarsh torture and perishes, before
the trial can run its course.

For those of us who have been paying attention to Julian for decades, the
turning of public opinion against him has been a _very_ fascinating lesson in
Western hubris.

I think the most important conclusion of all of this is that a) the US
government thinks it has what it takes to continue to commit war crimes and
other crimes against humanity with impunity, and b) those who pick up the
mantel from Julian's passing will have learned a lot from his case.

Most important of all, I believe that c) the leaks will continue. It is going
to be a very rough time, given todays climate, for those who continue to
slavishly support the US military industrial pharmaceutical complex' crimes
against humanity. Julians' heinous treatment just means, when the leaks
continue, it'll be with the gloves off. There won't be a loud, obvious
flamboyant cult figurehead to depose - more than likely, the leaker strategy
going forward from this point onwards, will be a lot more effective.

One can hope, anyway. Until the American people prosecute their war criminals
and faces justice for the crimes against humanity committed in their name, and
for which they are thus responsible, the American people will continue to
suffer as well. A nation ruled by war criminals is a victim of its own
cowardice.

~~~
zepto
I don’t see where your optimism about c) comes from. Julian Assange’s
flamboyance and charisma are the reason he wasn’t disappeared a long time ago.

Quiet leakers will surely FB dispensed with quietly and much less pleasantly
than Assange.

~~~
fit2rule
The real reason he wasn't disappeared long ago, is that he had access to such
gargantuan quantities of very real evidence of very real crimes that he was
able to surf the shock wave, and he successfully leaked it in a way that would
guarantee _some_ light on the case - clearly not enough, but he did not
disappear into darkness after the first war crimes were revealed. His followup
was his defence, and the only reason he got caught in a web of intrigue is
that he stopped focusing on the mission and got caught in a honeypot.

Julians flamboyance and charisma are the reason the general public are
complacent about his torturous treatment. His character was weaponised against
him by those with immense resources to do so.

However, you can't dispense with leakers you don't see. And here is the
weakness in the US Governments' strategy of disappearing Julian - Its not the
leaker: its the leaks.

And since the West has committed war crimes at such stupendous scale, these
leaks are not going away.

~~~
zepto
Ok - but leaks must become public if they are going to be effective, and then
they can be traced back to the source and the ‘invisible’ source can be
subjected to judicial processes with none of the scrutiny and publicity that
Assange is receiving.

~~~
fit2rule
Sure, the leaks must become public. But the leakers don't.

And the outrage over the crimes committed is _so large_ that I am fairly
confident, within a year, we will see the American public tearing those
responsible into shreds. If, that is, America survives another year with its
war criminals running free without tearing _itself_ into shreds ...

~~~
mistermann
Any damning enough leak can be declared to be a conspiracy theory with an
accompanying half-assed debunking and the well-trained public will ignore it.

------
rayiner
An indictment sets forth the government’s allegations regarding the charged
crimes. The government’s case is that Assange crossed the line from receiving
illegally leaked materials to facilitating the illegal leak. The content of
the email isn’t relevant to the charged crime except that the information
needs to be classified.

The fact that the leaked information contained evidence of arguable war crimes
is at most a moral (but not legal) justification. There is a good argument
that the government should have exercised its prosecutorial discretion not to
pursue this case in that basis. But an indictment does not need to include
evidence that might be morally exculpatory. (It doesn’t even have to include
legally relevant exculpatory evidence; the prosecutor is just required to
disclose that to the defense attorney.) Assange will definitely raise this
video and other evidence in his defense.

The Guardian article twists the narrative—alleging the government “failed to
include” to evidence, as if it had a duty to do so—to artificially bolster its
premise. You can say that the government should hold back in a prosecution
because conduct, though technically illegal, was justified. But reasonable
people may or may not agree with that. So instead, the author takes it a step
further to try and make it look like the government “failed” to disclose
information it was obligated to include (conduct that’s much harder to agree
with.)

------
kyle_morris_
_The prosecution case alleges Assange risked American lives by releasing
hundreds of thousands of US intelligence documents._

I'm not passing judgement here on Assange or the US's case against him. Just
noting that the prosecution case seems to focus on the fact that US
intelligence docs being released puts _American lives_ at risk.

The prosecution's case doesn't seem to imply that this video is not evidence
of _war crimes_ but that its release doesn't absolve him of the crime of
releasing other documents.

The linked article seems pretty light on details so it's difficult to make
much out of it directly.

~~~
fit2rule
>American lives at risk

Failing to prosecute legitimate war crimes puts American lives at risk.

This is duplicity at its finest.

Assange is not really on trial here. The Wests' public opinion of American war
criminals is, however.

~~~
javajosh
I would argue that the West's willingness to go after Assange, Snowden,
Manning, and (sorry to him if he doesn't want to be in this list) Alex Vindman
even after their revelations showed serious problems in American foreign
policy and behavior. Both Obama and Trump showed a profound disinterest in
evidence of a lack of self-restraint and self-governance. That was the test,
and I think we have failed spectacularly. Of course, these days, there seem to
be much bigger fish to fry, but I worry that "flooding the zone with bs"
achieves precisely this constant feeling that _this_ problem cannot be solved
because there are more pressing matters.

Apart from climate change, a government incapable of addressing it's own
crimes is our biggest threat. Note that I don't expect government to never
commit crime, I just expect it to admit to it and take corrective action when
it happens.

~~~
fit2rule
>a government incapable of addressing it's own crimes is our biggest threat

I agree with you, with one caveat: it is the _people_ who must prosecute the
governments crimes. Lets see if America today is brave enough to do so...

------
hhfy5332
> US prosecutors have failed to include one of WikiLeaks’ most shocking video
> revelations in the indictment against Julian Assange, a move that has
> brought accusations the US doesn’t want its “war crimes” exposed in public.

There's a reason "war crimes" has to be in scare quotes there.

~~~
danharaj
Could you elaborate?

~~~
hhfy5332
The article doesn't elaborate on what "war crimes" are alleged because the
video actually just shows a highly unfortunate mistake.

~~~
ahelwer
Let's consider the factors which decided the death sentence of these
journalists and their companions (and so many others in the middle east):

1) They were military-age males

Say you have the ability to rain death miles above at whim. Do you think
"military-age male" is a robust separator of who lives and who dies? Would you
fit in this category? There but for the grace of god go you.

The video doesn't show a mistake at all. It shows a very deliberate action,
carried out with great success. That these people were "innocent" in that some
westerners cared whether they lived or died is the only reason you're here now
defending their murder.

~~~
hhfy5332
You forgot

2) they were in an group of armed men on a battlefield and were pointing the
long barrel of a telephoto lens at American Humvees from behind cover.

~~~
ahelwer
There was nothing to indicate these men were insurgents beyond them being
armed. The order to fire was already given before Namir pointed his camera at
the humvees. One charitably supposes you wouldn't be quite so cavalier with
ending the lives of those around you for similar reasons, so why are you
defending it here?

------
tedunangst
I'll probably regret asking, but why would it?

~~~
fit2rule
>I'll probably regret asking, but why would it?

Because it is evidence of a crime being committed - i.e. that Assange obtained
secret military materials and then illegally published them.

Assange is being held for extradition to face charges in the USA of publishing
military secrets. This is a military secret that he published.

The fact of its exclusion demonstrates that the US Government doesn't want its
crimes further exposed to the world, and that it doesn't believe that Assange
illegally published this material - or else, it would have to be admitted as
evidence. This omission demonstrates that he is not being targeted for the
reason of publishing military secrets, or else it would have been included in
the case as evidence.

Julian Assange is being illegally detained and criminally prosecuted for
publishing the fact of America's war crimes and embarrassing the War
Coalition.

The USA has, with this omission, essentially admitted guilt for its own war
crimes.

~~~
labster
Isn’t the US system of justice adversarial in nature? Why would the prosecutor
make the defense’s argument for free?

~~~
krustyburger
It’s one thing to avoid making arguments and another to intentionally omit
certain “crimes” because drawing attention to them discredits the moral basis
of your argument, while emphasizing “crimes” that are identical except for
lacking that baggage. It speaks to a fundamental disinterest in the law and
its uniform enforcement.

~~~
fit2rule
You know what else speaks to a fundamental disinterest in the law and its
uniform enforcement?

The Gunship Video itself.

