This is much bigger than Assange.
I assume you mean the famous "collateral murder" videos?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_12,_2007,_Baghdad_airstri...
That is my biggest issue with the whole wikileaks thing. Because it might borderline a warcrime by being careless - but it was no murder. Yet it was framed as the US army just killing journalists for fun. But it was not at all like this.
There was active fighting, the journalists that were killed were embedded with active fighters - and their camera misstaken for an RPG. Those things can happen, especially if the journalists do not mark themself as journalists.
"The cameras could easily be mistaken for slung AK-47 or AKM rifles, especially since neither cameraman is wearing anything that identifies him as media or press"
The second attack while civilians evacuated and the children killed in the van - that was the bad thing. But it was still in the context of US troops receiving fire. So not at all allright, dirty war in a urban area - but not intentional murder. It was collateral damage in a wrong war.
All the other stuff in the video is either legal or something which could be an honest mistake.
I tend to agree, the problem is, this was not a conventional war, for which the concept of war crime was made for.
The combatants were not wearing uniforms. The van was not marked as an ambulance. All civilians and some had weapons - and on the other hand US soldiers thinking only in terms of conventional combat, where there might have been an rpg still around for an enemy to retrieve and fire at them.
"Well, it’s their fault for bringing their kids into a battle"
But they happened to live there. They did not visited a battlefield for fun. So yes, the video showed quite well to the world the reality of urban fighting against an uprising. Dirty as hell.
But partisans and resistance movements are normal part of war and something you have to accept when you invade and occupy a foreign country. It is permissible to use all means available to one when resisting foreign occupation.
The Van wasn't an ambulance. It was, I suppose you say, people helping wounded people, and those people are protected, whether they are marked or not.
But otherwise there are some rules for engagement in partisan warfare. For example they must be marked as combatants by uniform or some other clear sign.
Exactly for this reason, to be able to divide between combatants and civilians. The more the partisans ignore that, the more civilians will die. Which is why it is also frequently used as a dirty tactic to raise more civilian uproar and more joining the partisans.
One does have to put on a uniform or sign while performing direct attacks, but it's not required during sabotage operations. Then it's even permissible to use enemy uniforms.
No it is not. At least not under common international law. (And a sabotage mission is a direct attack)
"Not all uses of enemy uniforms are prohibited therefore; only “improper” uses. For example, wearing enemy uniforms in order to flee the fighting or escape capture does not run afoul of the law. On the other side of the spectrum, engaging in attacks while wearing the uniform of the enemy is flatly prohibited"
https://lieber.westpoint.edu/combatant-privileges-and-protec...
It is at least permissible to order the use of enemy uniforms for sabotage operations, provided that they be taken off before direct attacks.
I'm familiar with the video. Unfortunately, I don't see that WikiLeaks ever did publish that one.
And my general judgement of the war was quite clear I think.
So if you come to a different conclusion about the facts, then I am interested in your arguments.
At least part of that lesson is that if you engage in partisan politics with your 'journalism' then you instantly become a great deal less sympathetic with about half the population. That includes a bunch of people in positions with enough power to make your life complicated.