WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange returned to his homeland Australia aboard a charter jet on Wednesday, hours after pleading guilty to obtaining and publishing U.S. military secrets in a deal with Justice Department prosecutors that concludes a drawn-out legal saga.

The criminal case of international intrigue, which had played out for years, came to a surprise end in a most unusual setting with Assange, 52, entering his plea in a U.S. district court in Saipan, the capital of the Northern Mariana Islands. The American commonwealth in the Pacific is relatively close to Assange’s native Australia and accommodated his desire to avoid entering the continental United States.

Assange was accused of receiving and publishing hundreds of thousands of war logs and diplomatic cables that included details of U.S. military wrongdoing in Iraq and Afghanistan. His activities drew an outpouring of support from press freedom advocates, who heralded his role in bringing to light military conduct that might otherwise have been concealed from view and warned of a chilling effect on journalists. Among the files published by WikiLeaks was a video of a 2007 Apache helicopter attack by American forces in Baghdad that killed 11 people, including two Reuters journalists.

Assange raised his right fist as he emerged for the plane and his supporters at the Canberra airport cheered from a distance. Dressed in the same suit and tie he wore during his earlier court appearance, he embraced his wife Stella Assange and father John Shipton who were waiting on the tarmac.

    • NOT_RICK@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      4 months ago

      A real journalist would have redacted the names of Afghani informants so they wouldn’t run the risk of being killed by the Taliban

      • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        17
        ·
        4 months ago

        that doesn’t make him not a real journalist. sloppy, unprofessional, maybe, but he’s still a real journalist.

          • Psychodelic@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            4 months ago

            I’m sorry if this is a bit too unrelated but would you say the same about Snowden?

            I’m not as well informed on Assange but I tend to find the “espionage” criticism lacking, personally, since it seems to mainly favor the generally terrible foreign policy actions of the US empire and not so much the people of the US who are for the most part against those actions but have little recourse what with the 2 party system and having a plutocratic system of government

              • Psychodelic@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                4 months ago

                Oh weird, that was not the impression I got from the many comments you made criticizing them for their brave actions.

                I would tend to blame any negative fallout on the US government, personally. If they weren’t committing atrocities regular people wouldn’t have had to take the huge risk/be put at risk.

                It’s like getting upset at a victim of police brutality for not working with the police

                • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  4 months ago

                  Their actions were brave until they became clouded by fame. Then both of them made it about leverage and made crucial mistakes that lead to threatened lives. I supported them in the past, prior to their dangerous missteps. I no longer comment in support of either of them.

                  A good example of responsible whistleblowing would be from the recent resignations from the Department of Defense. They gave very detailed accounts of information suppression while they were tasked with collecting information on civilian casualties in Gaza. None of the information they disclosed exposed confidential informants or put lives at risk.

                  It’s not just possible to be a responsible whistleblower, it’s imperative.

                  • Psychodelic@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    4
                    ·
                    4 months ago

                    You’re saying they should’ve just resigned? How would we have learned about PRISM without evidence?

                    I don’t know what you’re referring to about info suppression. Did we learn anything or just that we don’t know everything? How is that more helpful? Or, for who is it more helpful?

            • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              13
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              4 months ago

              He leaked unredacted confidential information that directly led to the assassination of Afghani informants.

              That’s a little more than just “sloppy journalism.”

            • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              4 months ago

              He helped a government get the candidate of their choice elected by manipulation of data dumps and spent a month before the election screaming how he had more dirt on one candidate.

                • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  Don’t gaslight me. I remember that Russian agent in October 2016 yelling about Hillary Clinton and stuff he said he had on her. Literally every single time I heard, read, or watched the news his fucking face was there going on and on about the embassy bombing or the emails.

                  Sorry your boy sucks Putin off but I am willing to bet when he does the condom doesn’t mysteriously break.

                  • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    4 months ago

                    it’s not gaslighting. you are making assumptions about motivations that directly contradict what he has said.

              • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                4 months ago

                I object to the supposition that Russia wanted trump to win. I believe Russia wanted Americans divided and trump was simply a means to that end.

        • NOT_RICK@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          4 months ago

          Sloppy would be missing some punctuation and grammar. The guy has blood on his hands just like the US government does. Also, he aided (some would say manipulated) Manning in her leak of the documents in a way that no journalist would or should do. Journalists report the story, Assange has repeatedly shown himself to be a self aggrandizer that is the story.

            • NOT_RICK@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              4 months ago

              I never said it was. Aiding someone in exfiltrating classified documents on the other hand decidedly is. Not something journalists make a habit of doing, either.

              • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                7
                ·
                4 months ago

                Aiding someone in exfiltrating classified documents on the other hand decidedly is.

                but shouldn’t be if the goal is to expose wrongdoing in a journalistic publication.

              • girlfreddy@lemmy.caOP
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                9
                ·
                4 months ago

                Journalists do it all the time. That’s where they used unnamed sources and have gone to jail to protect those sources. Or maybe you’re too young to remember Deep Throat.

                • NOT_RICK@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  7
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  I know who deep throat is. There’s a big difference between refusing to cooperate with an investigation and name names of confidential sources that have provided information versus actively aiding a person in absconding with information. The courts agree with me too, considering John Lawrence was released after a day by an appellate court. Also notable that his charge was merely contempt whereas Assange’s was espionage.

                  • girlfreddy@lemmy.caOP
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    5
                    ·
                    4 months ago

                    Please explain how Assange ‘actively aided’ his source in getting the info.

                    I’ll wait.

                • NOT_RICK@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  I’d say because most follow an ethics code, as much as I feel there was a public interest in those documents coming out, but with proper sanitation to protect lives.

      • girlfreddy@lemmy.caOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        17
        ·
        4 months ago

        As stated by ikidd above, it was up to the publishers to clean up the releases before printing/posting them.

    • ganksy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      31
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      Journalists do not pick sides. He had email from the RNC and DNC via Russian government sponsored hacks. He chose to release only DNC emails to the benefit of pro Putin candidate Trump. Edit word

      Edit edit: can’t find any info on RNC hacks parallel to the DNC ones

      • ralphio@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        Could you explain why Russia would give him the RNC emails if they didn’t want them published? I’ve seen this claim go unchallenged many times.

        • ganksy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          I can’t explain their motives. I can only say WikiLeaks had them but did not release.

          Edit: nope can’t say that. Apparently that was just an embolism. Nothing to see here just mopping up my pride.

          • ralphio@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            4 months ago

            Typing this into duckduckgo shows me nothing about the them having the RNC emails:

            did wikileaks have rnc emails

            Not a single link. Please provide the link that says they had them. If you can’t read in between the lines, I’m saying what you said is untrue but gets repeated constantly.

            • ganksy@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              4 months ago

              You’re right. I absolutely cannot find that wikileaks had RNC info. I’ve searched quite a bit determined to find what I remember but nada.

              There is this but about DCLeaks having but releasing a bit of republican info on Trump’s primary challengers

              On August 12, 2016, DCLeaks released roughly 300 emails from Republican targets, including the 2016 campaign staff of Arizona Senator John McCain, South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham, and 2012 presidential candidate and former Minnesota Representative Michele Bachmann.[13] The release included 18 emails from the Illinois Republican Party.[18]

              But that is not what I remember and certainly doesn’t help my case.

              I apologize. Either my memory fails me or I was mislead (or both). Certainly does not refute Assange being a channel for Russia to get trump elected but does make me look like a tool.

              • ralphio@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                4 months ago

                Appreciate the reply. And sorry for being a bit of a dick about it. It’s just one of my pet peeves since seeing it repeated for years.

                • ganksy@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  I think you were perfectly reserved in your response. It helped me not dig in or just blow it off and not respond. Thanks!

      • luckystarr@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        Deutsch
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        4 months ago

        Journalists do and can pick sides. If you only ever report the opinion of the ruling party you’re a spokesperson and no journalist.

        The “sides” may be political, moral or ideological. You’re still a journalist.

        If this were not the case, Fox News world have been shuttered long ago.

        • ganksy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          4 months ago

          You don’t report for any party. You report the truth that you find by linking the facts you uncover.

        • ganksy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 months ago

          Well shit. That is what I remember. All my searches: ‘russia hack RNC’, ‘republican hack’ , ‘RNC hack’, etc. were flooded with 2021 results from a different hack. Nothing from WikiLeaks, DCLeaks, Gucifer, 2016 presidential hack, or 2016 Russia interference yielded anything fruitful.

          Thank you! At least I feel less crazy.