Apart from crazy people like Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich --- who claimed that Assange is an "active enemy of the American people", thus implying that everyone who donated money to Wikileaks has given material support to our enemies --- who is seriously claiming that Assange is a "traitor"? From my perspective, the theme that unites all the "formal" claims against Wikileaks is that they are all ludicrous. What crime could he have commited?
Manning is a different story. Someone upthread compared him to Ellsberg (it doesn't help that Ellsberg did, too). But Ellsburg's act was deliberate and carefully planned. Manning, on the other hand, is accused of scooping up vast buckets of documents off SIPRnet servers and then handing them off to complete strangers. Amnesty, the Soros Open Society Institute (to which WL applied for a grant), and the ICG all criticized Wikileaks --- the whole organization --- for not being careful enough in redacting documents. Yet we're to believe that a single private in the military could possibly have judged the impact of what he was handing to Wikileaks?
Adrian Lamo --- who I don't know from Adam, and whose story I've never followed --- took a vast helping of shit for exposing Manning. I don't know what his motives were and I don't care. But I will say that if Manning was even modestly competent with technology, Lamo may have saved his life by stopping him.
Hmm, I didn't realize Newt Gingrich was crazy. I wonder if your list of crazy people includes virtually everyone not in your preferred political party.
"Yet we're to believe that a single private in the military could possibly have judged the impact of what he was handing to Wikileaks"
Err, you take thousands of documents labeled "private" or "secret" and release them to the media and think what? That it is no big deal?
Yes, when you imply that thousands of Americans are guilty of giving material aid to an active enemy of the United States (a federal crime) because they've donated money to someone who posted documents that were handed to him --- when you, in effect, suggest that the New York Times is an accessory to an act of war on the United States ("act of war", by the way, being Newt's own words) --- yeah, I get to call you a crazy person. You are of course free to disagree.
No, suggesting that Julian Assange might not in fact be an active enemy of the United States and that his supporters might not be stepping close to the line of committing treason does not mean that I think Wikileaks is no big deal.
My favorite part about WL --- a subject I would happily support banning from Hacker News --- is how aggressively it tries to co-opt people into one of two factions. On this side, you have people who believe consent-based sexual assault legal frameworks are an tool of US hegemony, and on the other side you have people who believe that patriotism requires supporting the notion of guy with a bunch of leaked documents being assassinated. It's just a catalyst for drama.
The irony to this subthread? I was agreeing with you.
Manning is a different story. Someone upthread compared him to Ellsberg (it doesn't help that Ellsberg did, too). But Ellsburg's act was deliberate and carefully planned. Manning, on the other hand, is accused of scooping up vast buckets of documents off SIPRnet servers and then handing them off to complete strangers. Amnesty, the Soros Open Society Institute (to which WL applied for a grant), and the ICG all criticized Wikileaks --- the whole organization --- for not being careful enough in redacting documents. Yet we're to believe that a single private in the military could possibly have judged the impact of what he was handing to Wikileaks?
Adrian Lamo --- who I don't know from Adam, and whose story I've never followed --- took a vast helping of shit for exposing Manning. I don't know what his motives were and I don't care. But I will say that if Manning was even modestly competent with technology, Lamo may have saved his life by stopping him.