undefined | Better HN

0 pointsjazzyjackson1y ago0 comments

I don't think it materially changed anyones perception, maybe gave fuel to the fire and reminded people it was still going on

"Torture At Abu Ghraib" was published in 2004, Collatoral Murder not until 2010. Were there still fence-sitters at that point? I honestly can't recall the prevailing attitude of the time, besides Assange being an enemy of democracy who deserved to be brought in and shot. I think the reaction was most telling, the continued bloodlust for traitors who are doing little more than advertising the US's incompetence and aimlessness in that war. If collateral damage didn't make me any less patriotic, seeing our politicians harass an australian for treason (???) certainly did

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2004/05/10/torture-at-abu...

0 comments

ktallett1y ago

2004 was only a year after the war started, so yes many wouldn't have been swayed of their patriotic view. It was still too soon to know definitively it hadn't been worthwhile going to war. By 2010 it was extremely clear the Iraq war was a mistake and wikileaks only added to that.

Saying the above, the reason to release wasn't to sway patriotism, it was to get the truth out. For that reason it was the right decision even if it ended up with a portion of society disliking Assange for his so called 'treason' (which of course it wasn't as he isn't an American).

Anyone that has blind patriotism without any doubts, to the US military, after Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib can't be helped.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsjazzyjackson1y ago0 comments

I don't think it materially changed anyones perception, maybe gave fuel to the fire and reminded people it was still going on

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2004/05/10/torture-at-abu...

0 comments

ktallett1y ago

Anyone that has blind patriotism without any doubts, to the US military, after Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib can't be helped.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse