Genuinely curious: how did he improve the world? At least I heard more news about his Swedish affair than about anything significant disclosed by wikileaks (nicknames of the politicians aside).
A quote from this article as one example of a possible justification:
"Assange himself claimed publication of the cables helped shape uprisings in North Africa and the Middle East and said WikiLeaks was on the side of justice."
If you are of the belief that nothing has so far made much of a difference, there is still an argument that by pushing for more openness from Governments he is helping move towards a better, and potentially more peaceful, future.
For example, in order to make the right decisions when dealing with foreign affairs, a government needs accurate information from its diplomats and other agents. Already one diplomat (the US ambassador to Mexico) lost his job because he provided an honest assessment of Mexico's organized crime problem and the ineffectiveness of Mexico's attempts to deal with it in his reports back to Washington. Wikileaks leaked those reports, and that embarrassed Mexican officials. Ambassadors can't function if the host country is pissed off at them, so the Ambassador was withdrawn.
The major effect of these leaks is going to be for the government to become less open. Assuming Manning is indeed the source of most of these leaks, the reason he had access to all that information was because the government was trying to be more open internally. One of the findings of the 9/11 investigations was that collectively we had enough information to anticipate an stop the attack, but because the information was spread among several agencies, no one was able to put it all together and see the connections.
In response to that finding, the government purposefully started making information more widely available across agencies, and to more people in those agencies.
Surely that will be cut way back now, with much less sharing between agencies, and information only going to those who definitely need it.
I can see how people think that Assange represents a non-optimal extreme, but it's miles above the status quo. None of the costs you cite are worth a damn if governments lack motivation to act for the interests of their citizens.
1. About Mexican officials -- my understanding is that the ambassador did everything right -- unfortunately it cost him his job. Mexican officials were embarrassed, and they rightly should be. Hiding the truth of their situation and brushing it under the rug won't make anything better. The fact that it's in the open now hopefully will motivate.
2. About the government becoming less open -- they are incredibly closed off as it is (to the outside), how would they be any less open? If being more closed internally due to fear of leakage is worth the cost of potential poor communication across agencies and thus raising the risk of poor execution in times of crisis -- then that's a decision they have to make. Truthfully the risk has always been there, Wikileaks' actions don't change anything other than bring awareness to that risk. Personally I don't believe that fear is worth it.
Isn't this what was part of the discussion about Tunisia about?
Then they can re-instate the effective ambassador.
Who elected Brad Manning or Julian Assange (et al.) to make that decision?
As I don't have an answer here, let me just present an argument here for the sake of discussion: It's given that governments are fallible just as anything else on this planet, and can become corrupt to a point where internal correction becomes increasingly improbable. (I would say looking back to any stage in history proves the truth of this.) And so, as citizens (of a country, world) we all have a responsibility to keep government(s) in check, just as they have responsibilities towards the citizens.
Obviously Assange (et al.) didn't ask anyone if they could leak sensitive data -- and perhaps they should have (but how exactly would that have gone do you expect?) -- but I believe Assange is acting on this above principle. So does this responsibility exist outside of certain laws and expectations? Should it? Is it necessary that it does for it to be effective?
In fact, Assange has written down the principles he bases Wikileaks on: https://zunguzungu.wordpress.com/2010/11/29/julian-assange-a...
In summary, he treats government as a conspiracy (liberally defined to be a social network) whose total conspiratorial power (the sum of the weights of the edges of the social graph, where the nodes represent people and the edges the potential to share information) can be kept in check by increasing the cost of exchanging information -- which is exactly the effect of leaking classified material.
You know, people were saying the same thing before they gave it to Yassir Arafat, except for the part about him being the best man alive.
Read the newspaper much? WikiLeaks and Assange have been responsible for breaking more MAJOR stories than all of the media outlets combined. First we had the Collateral Murder video which showed a Baghdad airstrike where Iraqi civilians including 2 Reuters journalists killed. Then the Afghan War Diary followed by the Iraqi War Logs. Huge amounts of documents. Then the "US diplomatic cables leaks" which contained more than a few important stories, maybe you heard about them? These we followed by the The Guantánamo Files which revealed that hundreds of innocent Afghan farmers were held for years there without being charged. (If you don't know what any of these things are, I'm sure you know how to find out more about them).
If none of the above is significant to you, I don't know what to say. Anyway, sorry to be snarky, but your comment is either uninformed or the mainstream media and the state have done an good job planting seeds of doubt in your mind about the importance of people like Assange in a free society or both.
Now you can of course ask "What did Obama do to deserve the Nobel Peace Prize?". My answer would be "nothing" but many here will probably disagree with that. So to me it all just seems rather random who gets peace prizes and why: Is it a statement of encouragement, like a "preemptive" peace prize, in hopes more peace to come in the future? Or is it for specific past accomplishments, and then how does one measure that? What were Obama's accomplishments when he got his?
Over the next few years we will see if all these Middle Eastern countries become democratic and not under a heavy handed stifling regime/dictatorship. If most go democratic that is a win for all countries and ironically best for the U.S.
It's interesting that you would ask it that way. The only evidence I've heard of existing against him is just an unauthenticated plain text file provided by a convicted felon.
Possibly there's a solid case there, I'm just saying I haven't heard of it.
In the US system, the defendant is given the presumption of innocence and isn't obligated to issue public denials and such. So regardless of whether or not he did it, he's probably better off just not saying anything at all.
The fact that he's active-duty military changes a lot of things about the process too, but apparently not in the direction of making it into a public media trial.
Sleep deprivation does wonder to human brain. Water boarding doesn't leave any traces (and thus we can believe official statements not mentioning application of water boarding to Manning :) and does even more wonders to a human (anybody who don't believe that it is a torture - your comments are welcome after you spend 5 full minutes without breathing. Please ask a friend for help if you can't hold your breath for that long on your own.)
What's terrible is how long he's been held without trial, however.
Furthermore, according to Lt. Col. David Coombs, Manning's counsel:
“[Manning] is held in solitary confinement. For 23 hours per day, he sits in his cell. The guards check on him every five minutes by asking him if he is okay. He is required to respond in some affirmative manner. At night, if the guards can not see him clearly, because he has a blanket over his head or he is curled up towards the wall, they will wake him in order to ensure that he is okay. He receives each of his meals in his cell. He is not allowed to have a pillow or sheets. He is not allowed to have any personal items in his cell. He is only allowed to have one book or one magazine at any given time to read. The book or magazine is taken away from him at the end of the day before he goes to sleep. He is prevented from exercising in his cell. If he attempts to do push-ups, sit-ups, or any other form of exercise he will be forced to stop. He receives one hour of exercise outside of his cell daily. The guards take him to a room and allow him to walk. He usually walks in figure eights around the room. When he goes to sleep, he is required to strip down to his underwear and surrender his clothing to the guards.”[2]
According to an official at the Marine brig at Quantico, Va., the nudity is in fact happening[3][4].
Now, I'm not saying that all the aforementioned accusations are true, but it now seems clear that the solitary confinement and forced nudity at least are happening - over several months of illegal incarceration without due trial of any kind.
[1]: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/14...
[2]: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/03/04...
[3]: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/03/05...
[4]: https://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/05/world/05manning.html?_r=1
"PFC Manning was transferred to the Joint Regional Corrections Facility (JRCF) at Fort Leavenworth on April 20, 2011. I was able to tour the facility and meet with PFC Manning last week. PFC Manning is now being held in Medium Custody. He is no longer under Prevention of Injury watch and is no longer subjected to harsh pretrial confinement conditions.
Unlike at Quantico, PFC Manning cell has a large window that provides adequate natural light. His cell also has a desk, a bed, and a toilet. The cell is approximately 80 square feet. He is provided with a normal mattress, sheets and a pillow. None of his clothing is taken away from him at night. PFC Manning is able to have all of his personal items in his cell, which include his clothing, his legal materials, books and letters from family and friends. He is also able to have a pen and paper at all times in his cell, and is able to write whenever he chooses.
PFC Manning is housed in a special area of the confinement facility, along with other pre-trial detainees. Each pre-trial area (including PFC Manning’s) has four cells, and each pre-trial detainee is assigned to his own cell. The cells are connected to a shared common area, with a table, a treadmill, a television and a shower area. Click here in order to see photos of the JRCF area..."
http://www.armycourtmartialdefense.info/2011/05/typical-day-...
Edit: Sorry, it was the UN Special Rapporteur for Torture, not the Red Cross.
he'll get his trial as soon as :
- the treatment of him sends enough of deterrence message to any would be leaker (if Guantanamo is any indication, Manning has at least a couple more years to go)
- he is ready and happy to plead guilty. For example, in 1936-38 in Soviet Union people in mass were pleading guilty to any charges they were asked to just to end it and be shot quickly. Manning is kept on suicide watch for a reason - even this ultimate escape from whatever happens to him is unavailable to him.
Why am I hoping he is acquitted? Because his intentions really were those of a whistleblower, and I think he has done us citizens a service. Really, Manning should have been named in this prize along with Assange.
His supporters obviously don't know that he's innocent, so they're sensibly not saying he is. People can't know he did it, they too should sensibly not say he's guilty.
If I was a member of the jury I could not in good conscience return a guilty verdict to any organization the holds it's prisoners in the conditions that the US Military holds their prisoners.
The 5th amendment is very important and Manning's decision to use it is not an indicator of his guilt. Guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt and it must be for laws that are just. A plaintext log from a convicted felon does not push the bar over that threshold in my opinion.
When the commanding officer of ever jury member has instructed them that he is guilty it would raise doubts in my mind as to whether the laws that allow a trial to take place after such instruction are just. Also, the fact that you need to give up many of your rights in order to be eligible for treatment under the UCMJ raises many issues. The economic pressures and well as indoctrinal issues due to mandatory schooling and the content of that schooling raise questions as to whether Manning was of sound mind and free from duress when signing the UCMJ.
It's important to note that in the mandatory school system a class on critical thinking is not required, unlike some non-mandatory systems like IB where critical thinking is a required component.
What I am interested is how people like you get on the jury without being filtered out. You are certainly not someone the prosecution would want on. Are juries selected for authoritarianism and blind conformity, could you fake it through the selection process?