[cyphar]

> I think endangering the lives of multiple people ought to merit some kind of punishment, yes.

That is definitely a valid point-of-view (and it's not one that I necessarily disagree with), but that's simply not what he is being charged with.

> Assange plainly and openly didn't give a crap if anyone was hurt as a result.

If you're referring to the claim that he said "informants deserve what they get", this quote could not be corroborated with anyone else who was involved in the conversation where he apparently said that. Given what lies David Leigh went on to say about Julian Assange afterwards it seems likely this claim was also a lie.

> Come on, you don't need cooperation from the US authorities to blank out the name of someone who's mentioned as being, say, a CIA informant.

One of the main concerns was that due to the technical manner in which diplomatic cables are written, you actually do need to have an expert figure out whether there is any implied references to a particular informant that doesn't mention their name. The Guardian and other newspapers did spend lots of time doing this for a very small number of documents.

But again, that doesn't change that they should've done more to redact them. And in future leaks, they did.

[foldr]

"I reviewed the statement of someone that a London paper claimed to be speaking for some part of the Taliban. Remember, the Taliban is actually not a homogenous group. And the statement, as far as such things go, was fairly reasonable, which is that they would not trust these documents; they would use their own intelligence organization's investigations to understand whether those people were defectors or collaborators, and if so, after their investigations, then they would receive appropriate punishment. Now, of course, that is — you know, that image is disturbing, but that is what happens in war, that spies or traitors are investigated."

https://www.democracynow.org/2010/8/3/julian_assange_respond...

>but that's simply not what he is being charged with.

I didn't say that it was.

>But again, that doesn't change that they should've done more to redact them.

Correct. I don't believe that they actually have been more careful subsequently, but it's irrelevant in any case.