I’ll just quote the last paragraph to give you the flavor:
It is time for all members of our profession to acknowledge that mathematics is created by humans and therefore inherently carries human biases.

Actually, this paragraph does NOT give “the flavor” of the article. The article is mostly a critique of certain policies and positions of the Trump administration, for example regarding education. Now some may take the position that MAA officials should not make public statements on such matters. But one should not misrepresent the article by cherry-picking the most surprising sentence in it as representative, not least because that sentence may have been poorly worded.

Apologies for a misstatement. While I was reading the article before getting to the comments I was interrupted by an electrician working on some rewiring. On getting back to the article I evidently skipped an important paragraph or two and, when I was replying to jsinton, I was working from memory, so I wrote that American personnel at an earlier English pre(?)trial could not identify a single person who had been compromised by the unredacted release of State Department material, and that that had formed the basis of Assange’s claim. On just now rereading the article, which I should have done before continuing, I see that the part I inadvertently skipped clarifies the point and rectifies my faulty recollection. It was at a US trial of Chelsea Manning that the salient facts emerged, as reported in three paragraphs in the article beginning from “The initial bid to demonise Assange…”. I claim the partial exoneration of the question mark in “(pre?)trial”, but it was still a slipshod post. Apologies again.

The other thing that bothered me to no end was the sour-grapes release of the Vault 7 tools. He was trying to negotiate an “out” from the embassy, but it failed. Vault 7 tools were like nuclear cyber weapons. No one was helped by their release, they have done untold harm which we will never know.

My apologies; I see the other beef you have with Assange was the above release of the so-called “Vault 7” “cybertools”. When I got to your “He lies”, I erroneously assumed that that was the second. For completeness, to address your actual second point:

No one was helped by their release,

I have seen a considerable number of comments, on the Internet and in print, from people who could in no way be classified as anti-American, anti-NATO, etc., i.e. as “having a dog in the fight”, saying that the Vault 7 did help them gain a practical insight into the whole, nature of “cyberwar” (for many a quite opaque subject), and what their governments and its allies were doing about it on their behalf. These far outweigh comments to the contrary, such as yours, but that may for reasons not directly related to the intrinsics of the question in hand.

they have done untold harm which we will never know.

Exactly. As Donald Rumsfeld put it, paraphrasing others,

Reports that say that something hasn’t happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns—the ones we don’t know we don’t know…

and as you have noted, more succinctly, “harm which we will never know.” What we will never know, we just do not know. The release of the Vault 7 information might be of some value (as above), no value (as you guess), some harm, considerable harm, or “untold harm” (as you assert). Which, we do not know. Without such knowledge such assertions, in themselves, may be of some value, no value, some harm, considerable harm or untold harm. It’s anybody’s guess. You’ve made your guess, many others have made theirs, both agreeing with and contradicting yours. All are just guesses. As you, yourself, explicitly confirm, “we will never know”. Maybe time will tell, maybe not. We don’t know that either.

There are two things which Assange did that no self respecting journalist would ever have done. The first was to release the State Department cables unredacted. I hold him completely responsible for this breach. If anyone had bothered looking, they would find tens of thousands of names of innocent people who were compromised by this unredacted breach. He says “no one was harmed”. He lies.

He doesn’t lie and you have it wrong. In the order of your complaints:

Firstly, Assange did not release the unredacted State Department cables. He arranged at a meeting with the Guardian to send them the unredacted cables in securely encrypted form, so they could prepare them for responsible publication, redacting them accordingly. To protect himself against harassment he put a copy of that file, named “Insurance”, on a public website but did not provide the password except to colleagues inside Wikileaks (who had seen the file anyway) and who could use knowledge of the password as a negotiating tool with any potential harrassers.

It was two of The Guardian staff involved, David Leigh and Luke Harding, who had been entrusted with the file, who published the password in their book, “Inside Julian Assange’s War on Secrecy”, published by the Guardian. Read that if you want confirmation. That stupidity was also one of the main causes of the estrangement between The Guardian and Assange, who was outraged by the weakness of their excuse when they were confronted by it. That aspect was directly addressed by many computer security experts from around the world and the resultant universal condemnation of The Guardian’s breach of trust, for whatever reason, is still to be found in many locations across the Internet.

Secondly, at a (pre)trial at the time (which ended with his committal to house arrest with an electronic tracking tag) the US representatives in court were challenged by Assange’s lawyers to come up with a single instance in which even the unredacted files, so stupidly put into the public domain by The Guardian, had compromised or would compromise the safety of any named individual. They could not. If there is anyone to blame for Assange’s claim for his subsequent statements to that effect it is not a lie on his own behalf, it is the fault of the US representatives in court (who could always have approached the judge in confidence with any such sensitive data) or the fact that Assange’s claim is proven by their failure, not his arrogant dismissal of others’ security. Records on this point are not only also available on many Internet sites, they are part of the English court’s (pre)trial documents.

There remain other reasons why any US prosecutor or politician might wish to see Assange extradited for a further trial in the United States, but neither the specific points that you raise can be amongst them.

When the adverse effects on an individual could be as severe as those already inflicted on and still further sought by legal authorities, it assists the integrity of no legal process to have the mindless baying of an extraordinarily ill-informed lynch mob disturbing the peace outside the courthouse door.