SLfgb

OP? Sorry, I'm new here and not familiar with all abbreviations...

The trial was mid-Nov 2023 and the judge ruled that the meaning of duty is to just follow your orders. This was a big part of the reason why he had to plead guilty.

Sorry, not a bot. Just the title of the video. David McBride is the Australian Defence/Military whistleblower.

The controversial Gessen quote is featured in Nachdenkseiten -> https://www.nachdenkseiten.de/?p=108755

Masha Gessen schreibt [transl. writes]:

"For the last seventeen years, Gaza has been a hyperdensely populated, impoverished, walled-in compound where only a small fraction of the population had the right to leave for even a short amount of time – in other words, a ghetto. Not like the Jewish ghetto in Venice or an inner-city ghetto in America, but like a Jewish ghetto in an Eastern European country occupied by Nazi Germany. In the two months since Hamas attacked Israel, all Gazans have suffered from the barely interrupted onslaught of Israeli forces. Thousands have died. On average, a child is killed in Gaza every ten minutes. Israeli bombs have struck hospitals, maternity wards, and ambulances. Eight out of ten Gazans are now homeless, moving from one place to another, never able to get to safety.

The term ‚open-air prison‘ seems to have been coined in 2010 by David Cameron, the British Foreign Secretary who was then Prime Minister. Many human rights organizations that document conditions in Gaza have adopted the description. But as in the Jewish ghettoes of occupied Europe, there are no prison guards – Gaza is policed not by the occupiers but by a local force. Presumably, the more fitting term ‚ghetto’ would have drawn fire for comparing the predicament of besieged Gazans to that of ghettoized Jews. It also would have given us the language to describe what is happening in Gaza now. The ghetto is being liquidated.”

It doesn't matter to you Hillary stole the primaries from Bernie, boosted Trump's visibility, and still lost against him? Polls at the time showed for Bernie vs Trump Bernie would've won. You can thank Hillary for giving you Trump for president. But I think you'd rather kill the messenger.

It doesn’t matter if it’s first amendment protected to assist a fascist to take power.

Again, the indicment relates to 2010/2011 publications only. Nothing to do with Trump.

You think this won't impact the work of journalists you like? Think again.

There is no impartiality clause in the 1A. He isn't charged with being biased but with publishing, disseminating truthful information relating to US wars to the public.

If you don't want to give him the benefit of the doubt, don't. Just read the indictment, take note of the wording of the charges and whenever you see his name, substitute it by "publisher". Then think about the implications for National Security reporting if a publisher from another country is extradited to a country he has barely ever even visited.

But even so, I mean, all of this is really irrelevant whether Julian's a journalist or not. The question is, is Julian accused of journalism? And he is. It is the activity that has been criminalized. Not whether he falls into a category or not. It's the category of the activity that is being criminalized. Receiving, obtaining, and communicating information to the public.

As a matter of fact, Julian has denied that the source was Russia. The reported 'offer' from the Trump admin was rejected because WikiLeaks NEVER reveals its sources.

Not that I agree with your assessment, but you'd be hard-pressed to find a news outlet that doesn't have a bias. This case isn't about whether you have sympathy for his perceived bias. It is about the threat to the ability of any outlet to publish true information in the public interest, anywhere in the world. The charges relate to 2010/2011 publications only: the diplomatic cables, guantanamo detainee assessment briefs, Iraq Rules of Engagement, and Iraq and Afghanistan war logs. The US' overreach in jurisdiction is already being copied by other nations such as Russia. It's the first amendment that's under threat.

P.S. that Wikipedia article is full of disinformation. A New York judge actually threw out the case against WikiLeaks publishing DNC emails as it is 1st amendment protected news in the public interest. It revealed how the DNC rigged the primaries. The Podesta emails also revealed Clinton's 'pied piper' strategy: she wanted to run against Trump, so got the media to boost coverage on him. She clearly underestimated him. Bernie could have won against him.

Instead, it’s thrown out any time an act of war appears to be particularly unfair or evil, often without full context or detail.

I often see news reports being quite careful and describing what appears in detailed evidence documenting murder by the military as 'apparent' war crimes.

I would argue that the credible accusation of war crimes, that is, with evidence available, requires a full investigation and trial full stop. If no trial occurs, and nobody sues for defamation, the papers can say whatever they feel confident enough to say. Except WikiLeaks...

In Australia there was the interesting defamation case recently with a civil court finding that the soldier who brought the defamation case had no case and did in fact commit war crimes in Afghanistan. He has not been charged with a crime. What does this say about impunity for war criminals? In contrast, Australian military whistleblower David McBride had to plead guilty last month for releasing evidence of war crimes and their cover-up by military leadership to a journalist with the state-broadcaster, the ABC. In both cases though, the news organisations publishing the news articles are seen to be in the right by the government and courts. (Although the ABC did get raided just a couple of months after Julian Assange was dragged out of the Ecuadorian Embassy, the journalist was not charged.)

And the Wikipedia is completely unbiased impartial neutral and aaaalways accurate