Julian Assange can be extradited to the US, court rules

One more time.

Chelsea Manning leaked the documents. Wikileaks _published_ the leaked documents leaked by Chelsea Manning along with commentary on those documents.

Wikileaks did _not_ leak - they had no access to anything to leak.

Once the doucments were sent to wikileaks they were leaked. They received the leaks and published. Just like the New York Times does. Just like the New York Times did for Donald Trump's tax returns where they did not know the source of the leak. Just like the New York Times did for the Pentagon Papers (where they did know the source) and the Post did for Watergate & "Deep Throat" where they did know and assisted to conceal the source of the stories that ended Nixon's presidency. Do you really not see this? No amount of "Assange is not a journalist!" Can possibly work unless you also make the New York Times journalists not journalists. Or you have politicians approving who is and isn't journalists just like Stalin used to. It's flipping amazing that we're looking at a Stalinist "you're not a journalist, gulag for you!" Approach in the USA. Un-flipping-believable to be honest.

"Ah but they helped their source not be found out..." Just like the New York Times does. The Washington Post. Or any serious news operation. Every one.

The actions taken by wikileaks are the exact same actions taken by the New York Times. Journalism is journalism. Any citizen can do journalism. Any citizen has the right to do journalism. Any citizen has the protections accorded by law for doing journalism. Unless you make journalism itself illegal.

What about Wikileaks secure, anonymous drop boxes for leaked documents where they don't even know who's sending them. The New York Times has that too and published the President's tax returns without knowing who provided them. Could it have been Russian Spies? Who knows! Authentic, newsworthy so publish has always been the test.

And that's the story here. Making journalism illegal.

You can keep trying to frame wikileaks as "not journalism" but if you do down that road you get state media because what the Times does, the Post, everything more than petty gossip magazines, ie actually breaking stories of corruption and illegal activity, as Wikileaks did, is /no/ different according to the whatever law you have.

Again you don't have to like Wikileaks or Assange to object to the massive overreach here impacting /your/ rights. Neither do you have to even so much as mildly dislike the USA to object to the massive overreach and actually defend what the USA and its armed forces are meant to stand for. You can do that if you love the USA and what it represents for sure.

I can't stand Michael Moore nor could I stand the late Rush Limbaugh. They both make my blood boil. But I'll absolutely support their rights because those rights belong to everyone. There's no "yeah but we'll take them away but just for this asshole."

The rights exist, even for those you loathe, or they don't exist, for you or everyone you love, like and respect.

The evidence pretty much all point to something other than suicide...

After partnering with the New York Times, The Guardian, Le Monde, El Pais, redacting anything putting people in danger and inviting the US Govt to tell them anything they wanted redacted (who did not suggest a single redaction, nothing) and then writing their own stories on it then, yes, they did put the source materials on the website so you /you/ can decide their and their partners' reporting is accurate, all of whom linked to specific source documents in their stories. About the Afghanistan war there doesn't seem much doubt anymore does there? Another decade of increased resources got nowhere with President Trump, then President Biden and a majority of Americans agreeing that it is a failed mission and withdrawal the correct option. The level corruption involved, snouts in the trough, is astounding.

The quantity of lies about Wikileaks is also astounding. They're as much like the printing press operators as your favorite goldfish. I doubt you're deliberately lying and pretending they didn't redact documents, nor partner with newspapers, nor write their own stories and you actually believe what you wrote there. How badly have you been lied to, it's astounding, huh? Why? Do you think another expensive in lives and money decade of the Afghanistan war had anything to do with it? Who did that benefit? The answer is many different parties for many different reasons all of whom /hated/ being called on it with very strong, published evidence.