US Government Admits It Doesn't Know If Assange Cracked Password For Manning (vice.com) 364
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Motherboard: The U.S. government does not have any evidence that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange succeeded in cracking a password for whistleblower Chelsea Manning, according to a newly unsealed affidavit written by an FBI agent. Last week, Assange was escorted out of the Ecuadorian embassy in London, and arrested for breaching bail in connection to allegations of sexual misconduct in Sweden. The day of Assange's arrest, the U.S. government unsealed an indictment against Assange with a hacking conspiracy charge. The Department of Justice accused WikiLeaks' founder of agreeing to help Manning crack a password that would have helped the former military analyst get into a classified computer system under a username that did not belong to her, making it harder for investigators to trace the eventual leak.
On Monday, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia unsealed the affidavit, which is dated December 21, 2017. The document contains more details on the interactions between Assange and Manning. And, most significantly, contains the admission that the U.S. government -- as of December of 2017 -- had no idea whether Assange actually cracked the password. Until now, we knew that the U.S. was aware that Assange attempted to crack a password for Manning once, but didn't know if it had more evidence of further attempts or whether it thought Assange was successful. "Investigators have not recovered a response by Manning to Assange's question, and there is no other evidence as to what Assange did, if anything, with respect to the password," FBI agent Megan Brown said in the affidavit. According to lawyers, the simple offer to help can be considered part of a conspiracy to violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
"For purposes of a conspiracy charge, it is not necessary for the action to be successful. All that is needed is an overt action in furtherance of the conspiracy, namely Assange's efforts to crack the password for Manning," Bradley, a lawyer at the Mark Zaid P.C law firm in Washington, DC, told Motherboard via email. "That he failed is irrelevant."
On Monday, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia unsealed the affidavit, which is dated December 21, 2017. The document contains more details on the interactions between Assange and Manning. And, most significantly, contains the admission that the U.S. government -- as of December of 2017 -- had no idea whether Assange actually cracked the password. Until now, we knew that the U.S. was aware that Assange attempted to crack a password for Manning once, but didn't know if it had more evidence of further attempts or whether it thought Assange was successful. "Investigators have not recovered a response by Manning to Assange's question, and there is no other evidence as to what Assange did, if anything, with respect to the password," FBI agent Megan Brown said in the affidavit. According to lawyers, the simple offer to help can be considered part of a conspiracy to violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
"For purposes of a conspiracy charge, it is not necessary for the action to be successful. All that is needed is an overt action in furtherance of the conspiracy, namely Assange's efforts to crack the password for Manning," Bradley, a lawyer at the Mark Zaid P.C law firm in Washington, DC, told Motherboard via email. "That he failed is irrelevant."
does it matter? (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, very much (Score:3)
If he crossed that line at any point then he's done for. This is one of the reasons you go to school for Journalism. A big part of your education is law. You have to know exactly what you can and can't publish.
Re:does it matter? (Score:5, Insightful)
But him saying he would isn't proof that he actually tried, either.
Wasn't Assange just the leaker? (Score:5, Insightful)
The story I always heard was that Assange came into contact with the material way through the means of an anonymous collection process, which forms the basis of how Wikileaks is supposed to work? Or is that all BS too? All the "hacking" was done on Manning's side, which isn't hacking because his job was analyst for the military and working with cables was his job, didn't he just used his own access to steal the information in the first place?
Or have I got it all wrong here?
Re:Wasn't Assange just the leaker? (Score:4, Informative)
That was my understanding.
I am no fan of Assange, but Manning is the real criminal/hero (depending on your point of view) for the leaks. Assange, is just a glorified blogger who is just full of himself.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I never stated it was. I just don't like Assange, it doesn't mean I think he needs to go to jail.
Re:Wasn't Assange just the leaker? (Score:4, Informative)
But now they're saying they don't have evidence of a crime.
Try reading TFS:
"For purposes of a conspiracy charge, it is not necessary for the action to be successful. All that is needed is an overt action in furtherance of the conspiracy, namely Assange's efforts to crack the password for Manning," Bradley [Moss], a lawyer at the Mark Zaid P.C law firm in Washington, DC, told Motherboard via email. "That he failed is irrelevant."
They're saying they have evidence (to the point of proof) that he attempted to crack the password. They don't have any evidence that he succeeded, but they don't need it for this charge.
Re: (Score:2)
The Pentagon Papers and press freedom is on the side of any US publisher.
Re: (Score:3)
You have it partly wrong.
Everything you've described Assange doing is either legal or traditionally-protected journalism. Assange was certainly an asshole about it, but there's nothing that would have been successfully prosecuted in the US...
The part you didn't mention, which is what Assange is actually charged with, is that at some point in the events, he allegedly offered to help crack a password for Manning. That's not "anonymous collection" anymore. That's a conspiracy to commit an offense (the offense
Re: (Score:2)
My understanding is they are trying to hit him with a conspiracy change. "Oh you need help? This is how you do blah." He is now involved in the hack.
Re:Wasn't Assange just the leaker? (Score:5, Insightful)
That was the story until this indictment was unsealed.
Now, the US government is claiming Assange helped in the leak, which means he's crossed the line into a criminal act. We'll have to see what evidence gets shown in order to evaluate that claim.
All the "hacking" was done on Manning's side, which isn't hacking because his job was analyst for the military and working with cables was his job
First, access is not authorized access.
Second, the UCMJ is not the same as civilian law. Soldiers sign away many constitutional rights as part of joining the military. Part of that is the UCMJ handles leaking classified information differently than civilian law, and can do so because soldiers don't have as strong first amendment rights as civilians.
For example, if Snowden had just stayed in the US, he probably could not have been charged with espionage. He'd be legally similar to Ellsberg. Once he accepted Russia's asylum offer, he could be charged because he accepted "something of value" from another country - leaking isn't illegal, leaking for money is.
Manning did not have to accept "something of value" to be charged, because she was subject to the UCMJ and it make the leak itself illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
If Manning wasn't cleared to view the information, then viewing or even attempting to is illegal.
I'm less clear on Assange's charge:
Does that mean that Assange
Re: (Score:2)
I could attempt to clarify the chronology, but not for an AC (who was only revealed by the tab).
Actual attempt? (Score:2)
It's not clear to me if Assangs actually attempted to crack the password of simply said he would in a chat.
This is the differentiator (Score:5, Insightful)
If the US actually has correspondence between Assange and Manning, where Assange offers to crack a password (successful or not), then it would completely destroy Wikileak's pure journalism claims and Assange is guilty of attempted espionage.
The question at hand is whether they actually have that hard evidence or if they just finally broke Manning, who was tortured for years in a solitary + lack of sleep environment, and got her to say that Assange offered to assist.
Re:This is the differentiator (Score:5, Interesting)
If the US actually has correspondence between Assange and Manning, where Assange offers to crack a password (successful or not), then it would completely destroy Wikileak's pure journalism claims and Assange is guilty of attempted espionage.
Not at all. Journalism does sometimes involved doing things without authorization in order to expose greater crimes. Examples include secret recordings, trespassing, and taking prohibited photographs. For example, it would be impossible to report on some of the things that happen in North Korea if journalists obeyed all NK laws.
Re:This is the differentiator (Score:5, Insightful)
And those are still crimes. The journalist runs the risk of being arrested for them, regardless of their justification for wanting info (which is subjective opinion). A state sponsored "journalist" certainly isn't working for the greater good if they trespass to get info.
Also, there's an even bigger difference between trespassing to get info and picking a lock before you trespass.
Re:This is the differentiator (Score:4, Insightful)
You're skirting a fine line there. Assange and Wikileaks were in active communication with Manning and helping her hack into systems or at least offering to do so. If a Washington Post reporter did the same thing and had the same evidence trail, they would be arrested and likely convicted as well. Being a member of the press is not a magic get out a jail free card or blanket immunity against being convicted for crimes.
Coercing someone to hack into a system to see what's there isn't really journalism. Helping someone do the hacking also isn't journalism. Simply publishing the hacked documents with no redaction or concern for PII in them (that can lead to retaliation against informants etc) also isn't journalism. Chelsea Manning was just angry/disaffected and wanted to lash out against the Army/USG. That again isn't journalism. If I hacked into a server at work and stole of random documents and dumped them online that wouldn't be journalism either.
Re: (Score:2)
It's one of those grey areas. Technically it's a crime, and is one of the reasons why journalists are allowed to protect their sources where freedom of the press is strong. But also it's understood that if some serious crimes are uncovered in the process it's unlikely that a jury would convict the journalist anyway, i.e. jury nullification, or in countries like the UK the Crown may decide the prosecution is not in the public interest.
Re: (Score:2)
We don't know that as fact. That's what the prosecution is claiming, but no evidence supporting that claim has been presented. Considering who he is to the U.S. government, they have motive to lie about this, so the evidence needs to be rock solid.
Re: (Score:2)
Examples include secret recordings, trespassing, and taking prohibited photographs
And if a journalist does those, they can be charged with making an unauthorized recording, trespassing and taking prohibited photographs.
They can't be charged (in the US) with publishing the result of those acts.
Assange is currently charged with conspiracy for unauthorized access to a computer system. He can't be charged with espionage (based on what information is currently public).
Re: (Score:3)
But if Assange participated in cracking the secrets, then he is no longer functioning entirely in the capacity of a journalist (publicizing important information). Actively participating in cracking the secrets is espionage, and goes beyond journalistic license.
I sup
Re: (Score:2)
It's a gamble for journalists. If they suspect there is evidence of a crime and think that they could expose it by committing a minor offence they may choose to do so, and either accept the consequences or argue that their actions were in the public interest so no punishment should be metered out.
Technically a lot of journalists broke the law by publishing some of the documents that Manning and Snowden provided. They were harassed but not prosecuted in the UK. Where Assange's defence is weak is that he didn
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No
Time for Assange to use a Trump defense? (Score:2)
Of the 13 comments currently moderated as insightful, I think yours [fourtythirteen's] is probably the highest concentration. I feel like your underlying analysis is probably similar to mine as of several days ago, and you led me to a new thought:
Why doesn't Assange use a Trumpish defense? Either "I was only joking when I suggested Manning commit a crime" or "I was just telling Manning what some other people say about how to hack passwords".
My real objective is to find comments offering a better analysis th
Not a real question (Score:2)
Just my 2 cents
Re: (Score:2)
Conspiracy (Score:2)
Re:Bradley (Score:5, Informative)
Even if you think so the name is still Chelsea Manning.
Re: (Score:2)
At the time of the incident, the suspect's name was Bradley. Not sure what the legal procedure is when a suspect changes their name in the middle of a case, but I can see how it would be confusing if half of the documents had one and and half the other.
Re:Bradley (Score:4, Funny)
Maybe its 'the suspect formerly known as' like prince...
Re: (Score:3)
At the time of the incident, the suspect's name was Bradley. Not sure what the legal procedure is when a suspect changes their name in the middle of a case, but I can see how it would be confusing if half of the documents had one and and half the other.
In such cases, you often find "AKA" listed in the header (or at least near the top) of subsequent documents, and all previous names, aliases, and (popular-enough) nicknames listed after that.
Re:Bradley (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm missing the basis of the funny mod, even after digging back into the thread. It may be because I'm confused whether you mean "not guilty of any crime" versus "not guilty of all of the crimes in the set of accusations". Which is it? Or some other meaning? Or is it irrelevant to the joke, whatever that is?
(However I'm actually searching for comments offering a better analysis than my comment in the poll a few days ago. I'd like to think that should be easy, especially since that was a kind of snap judgmen
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Gender dysphoria is a mental illness.
That has no effect on the legality of the name change.
Re:Bradley (Score:4, Insightful)
No his name is Chelsea, he legally changed it. We let people do that. We always have. Lots people have lots of reasons for wanting a different name than they were given.
I agree you can't make a woman out of man by cutting things off and pumping him full of hormones. You just get a mutilated man. I would also agree that in the vast vast vast majority of cases when no physical abnormality is present, its probably more a political decision to treat gender dysphoria thru conformation than anything based on science. Most of the statics show these people are not 'happier' after and just as likely to harm themselves. So conformation surgeries are expensive, dangerous, unproductive treatments. That said he is an adult he should be allowed to make decisions about his own medical care. Its the people doing this crap to kids that I think ought you should focus your outrage at.
At the end of the day though we should 'try' to be respectful of others and recognize the boundaries. Its not fair for manning to insist you see him as female. He has no right to tell you not believe your own eyes or otherwise demand you acquiesce to any specific perception of him. But his name is his name. If he wants to be called Chelsea the respectful thing is to run with.
If someone demands you use pronouns that you do not believe are appropriate for them, I suggest you respond with: I will address you by your legal name then.
and do so. This is a reasonable compromise that respects everyone's rights.
Re: (Score:2)
Had I not commented I would mod you up. The most well put manner I have seen this discussed in. And respectful. Thank you.
Re: (Score:2)
> At the end of the day though we should 'try' to be respectful of others and recognize the boundaries
Using the word "should" is a condescension. The GP does not know better than anyone else and it would be more honest for them to say "I think", because that's all it is. One person's opinion.
Re:Bradley (Score:4, Insightful)
But his name is his name.
Why is it okay to insist you use her actual, legal name, but not her actual, legal gender and associated pronouns?
And if we are talking about being respectful, is it right to be discussing her body in this manner? What right do you have to inspect her body or check her medical history so that you can make up your mind on which pronouns to use?
Anyway, your eyes are not reliable instruments for determining gender. Chances are you have met trans people without realizing it, and assumed a cis woman with unusual physical proportions was trans when she wasn't. You are welcome to your personal arbitrary definition of gender, but you have no right to force it on other people or treat them in any way that dehumanizes them.
Re:Bradley (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is it okay to insist you use her actual, legal name, but not her actual, legal gender and associated pronouns?
Let me say up front that I just go ahead and use people's chosen pronouns so long as they are male, female, or neither, because it costs me nothing. (I don't use the made-up ones, like sie or hir, though, because I'd actually have to think about that, and then it makes me think about the whole ridiculous situation. I use its.) But it's perfectly logical not to see someone who has had gender conversion surgery as actually being that other gender. They aren't, necessarily. They've just had their bits swapped. The only [hypothetical] time in which I'm inclined on a scientific basis to call someone by the pronouns of the gender they've swapped to is when their sex was indeterminate at birth, they were assigned a gender, and they actually turned out to have more of the characteristics of the other gender.
The whole argument is just sad anyway. Not stupid, but sad. It's sad because who gives a flying fuck? If you're not having sex with someone, who gives a shit what their gender is? Why don't we have a genderless way to refer to people? Its is for objects, their is for groups. The language assumes that we will always know the gender of the addressed object, which is plainly false, and also gender-biased.
The only times it matters what someone's gender is: when police are trying to ID someone, when you're trying to fuck someone, or when someone is trying to qualify for gender-specific sports. In the first case, there are only four legitimate genders: male, female, both, and none. In the second case, it doesn't matter what they have as long as you like it, and if you're having sex for procreative purposes, if your parts + their parts = baby. In the latter sense, it's up to the regulators. Gender-specific sports leagues should write a gender definition. And they should have the right to apply their definition so long as they're not getting any public funding. What's the point of having a women's sports league if someone who was born a man can transition and then demand inclusion? The whole point was to feature (and serve) women, not men-who-chose-to-become-women. Forcing women's sporting leagues to permit trans women is like forcing a women's gym to permit men. It defeats the whole purpose.
Anyway, your eyes are not reliable instruments for determining gender.
Yes, that's why we need non-plural, non-gendered forms of address. So we can stop referring to people by their apparent gender. It would solve a number of conversational problems which existed before gender reassignment surgery.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
They've just had their bits swapped.
Surgery is just one relatively small part of the transition process. It's mostly about living as your gender in day-to-day life. Imagine if you, as a man, decided to dress in women's clothing, shave your legs, put on make-up, get a feminine hair-cut, speak with a feminine voice, and ask that people use female pronouns, for the rest of your life. Imagine you were quite successful and people treated you just like any other woman. How much difference would it make in most of your daily interactions if you hadn
Re: (Score:3)
Surgery is just one relatively small part of the transition process. It's mostly about living as your gender in day-to-day life.
That doesn't require surgery.
You refuse you to use new pronouns like ze and hir, but ask why we don't have a genderless way to refer to people.
Because they are stupid. Hir should only refer to people who are both genders, not people of indeterminate gender, because the word itself implies both male and female. Ze sounds like someone is doing a bad French accent. Sie has the same problem as Hir.
Richard Stallman wrote an interesting article about this, where he suggests "person", "per" and "pers".
That at least makes some kind of sense. Maybe I'll try those out.
In some sports gender doesn't or shouldn't matter,
What? Name one.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
How about snooker? Or chess? Or darts? Or eSports?
My wider point was that maybe we should ditch the gender categories, and come up with other ones to match athletes of similar skill/ability levels? That's the point isn't it, to create a competitive field?
Re: (Score:2)
Women can't compete on level terms with men in any of those sports. There is occasionally a single woman capable of entering top-tier tournaments, but when it comes to outliers Damore was right.
My wider point was that maybe we should ditch the gender categories, and come up with other ones to match athletes of similar skill/ability levels?
We already have those. Take football, you can play in the Premier League and Champions League, or you can play on a Sunday on a muddy bog by the pub.
Women's football excludes men so that women don't all end up playing on a muddy bog by the pub, because if they tried playing against men that's the level they'd find th
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not familiar with bowling or curling but snooker and frisbee both heavily favour men.
I'm not sure why snooker so much but good luck finding a woman competing in the World Championship when it starts at the weekend.
Re:Bradley (Score:4, Insightful)
What's the point of having a women's sports league if someone who was born a man can transition and then demand inclusion? The whole point was to feature (and serve) women, not men-who-chose-to-become-women. Forcing women's sporting leagues to permit trans women is like forcing a women's gym to permit men. It defeats the whole purpose.
The majority of your post is insightful, educated, sensitive, and accurate. This part - I've recently learned - isn't accurate though you're trying to be fair.
Disclosure: my source is last week's Jim Jefferies Show. Though the show is comedic in nature and leans towards Trump-bashing, Jim does tend to present interesting and informed arguments. And this is a case where I absolutely was wrong until educated. The argument was presented in an informative manner, convincing enough to change my mind.
Turns out that gender reassignment (surgery and hormone therapy) does a number on a body. As in, born-male athletes who go through gender reassignment end up physically able to perform in the general range of born-female athletes. As in, they lose their "male edge". Similarly, born-female athletes who go through gender reassignment tend to end up in the general range of born-male athletes. Obviously individual bodies vary, just as they do in birth-gendered competitors, but the interesting - and absolutely not obvious - thing is that the consequences of gender reassignment are so vast that the overall athletic performance capacity usually changes to the post-reassignment gender.
Point is that after reassignment treatment is completed, an athlete should be competing with their post-treatment gender.
Re: Bradley (Score:3)
Re:Bradley (Score:4, Insightful)
In spite of what your English teacher may have said, the pronouns they, their, them have long been used for gender non-specific reference to individuals in the English language.. Much less clumsy than he/she or any made-up pronouns.
Re: (Score:2)
In spite of what your English teacher may have said, the pronouns they, their, them have long been used for gender non-specific reference to individuals in the English language.. Much less clumsy than he/she or any made-up pronouns.
They, their, them work naturally for groups of people, but they are awkward for individuals. We don't seem to have an established genderless way to refer to *individuals* - or genderless singular pronouns.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're not having sex with someone, who gives a shit what their gender is?
For many people you have set the bar unreasonably high anyway. A mouth is a mouth, and an ass is an ass :)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Someone complaining about these issues is looking to be offended, not a victim
Indeed, but why are they so offended that woman born in a man's body is now able to live as her rightful gender?
I don't understand their need to shout about this.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Bradley (Score:5, Informative)
Because people are assigned names, not born with them. Yes, there are definitely intersex individuals but barring those people everyone else is assigned a gender based upon sex.
Human history is full of societies who have recognized additional genders outside of a simple male/female dichotomy. Some such as eunuchs were created (usually at a young age), other from birth.
Re: Bradley (Score:2)
Human history is full of societies who have recognized additional genders outside of a simple male/female dichotomy.
That's a good one!
Re: (Score:2)
Eunuch isn't a gender. Similarly castrato isn't a gender.
Cutting someone's testicles off doesn't stop them being a man. Eunuchs are men with no balls.
Re: (Score:3)
Sure, just have someone cut off your testicles.
Re:Bradley (Score:5, Insightful)
Most of the statics show these people are not 'happier' after and just as likely to harm themselves.
Maybe because people such as yourself refuse to accept or refer to them as their new and preferred gender? The external stimuli hasn't really changed, so why would you assume the emotional response to that stimuli would? If people started treating trans people as their preferred gender, I bet you those "statics" (sic) would show something much different. It doesn't affect you at all, so if someone who may have been born male prefers to be referred to by female pronouns and expresses/presents themselves as a female, just do it. The world is crappy enough for everyone already, no need to make it even worse for someone.
Re:Bradley (Score:5, Insightful)
At the end of the day though we should 'try' to be respectful of others and recognize the boundaries. Its not fair for manning to insist you see him as female. He has no right to tell you not believe your own eyes or otherwise demand you acquiesce to any specific perception of him.
You've tried very hard to sound reasonable, but you should go beyond merely sounding reasonable and actually be reasonable: Call them whatever they want to be called and be done with it. You don't have to agree with their claimed gender perceptions, but why do you even care? Call them what they want to be called, and expect them to reciprocate by calling you what you want to be called.
I will grant that I have a hard time with people who consider themselves non-binary and therefore want to be called by the "they/their" pronouns. Not because I actually care, but because using plural pronouns in singular sentences leads to odd grammatical constructions that require significant effort on my part. But "she/hers" requires no more effort on my part than "he/his", so why in the world would I make a fuss about it?
Re: (Score:2)
because using plural pronouns in singular sentences leads to odd grammatical constructions that require significant effort on my part.
We suffer from the fact that the creators of English failed to create the proper super/subclass object types to contain a singular instance of either gender. But this is Slashdot, which is largely populated by software geeks. By now an effort should be underway to create a new language which properly handles this construct.
But odds are that language would give white space syntactic meaning. Which is sort of like my wife staring at me, expecting me to understand the message.
Re: (Score:2)
you should go beyond merely sounding reasonable and actually be reasonable
The neckbeard thrives on the cognitive dissonance of the host. If they attempt too much reason they'll be flooded with adrenaline and cortisol and they'll start lashing out randomly.
That is also why removal is so dangerous.
Re: (Score:3)
its probably more a political decision to treat gender dysphoria thru conformation than anything based on science.
And there's where you're wrong.
fMRI studies have demonstrated differences between "male" and "female" brains. Transgendered people in these studies were between the two.
Most of the statics show these people are not 'happier' after and just as likely to harm themselves
And in reality, the suicide rate plummets after treatment. Full SRS is generally not required and not always advisable anyway, since it's pretty risky (and utterly ineffective in transgender men).
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm, no. Most transgender people get on with their lives.
Don't mistake the noisy transtrenders on the internet for genuine transgender people.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Speculation: He were probably more worried about being convicted of rape. His narcissistic tendencies combined with PR makes being a "martyr" for many years better than spending a year or so in prison if convicted, add the ridiculous crap about Swedish collaboration with USA plus torture plus death penalty etc. which are obvious bullshit feeding his ego.
Now while these things are true and he offered to help crack a code that would perhaps be worthy of a conspiracy charge however he wasn't on US soil at the
Re: Yet Assange kept himself in prison for 7 years (Score:2)
however he wasn't on US soil at the time and so for the civilized world the USA can't have jurisdiction.
Where was the US Gov't server they attempted to hack?
In a very publicized case the US Govt is charging a couple dozen Russians (sorry, RUSSIANS! ) that never set foot on US soil with charges surrounding attempts to influence The US election in 2016, so I think someone that specifically targeted a US govt server falls within the IS's jurisdiction.
Let's see if UK courts are reasonable.
Meaning if they agree with your layman's interpretation of jurisdiction and extradition they are "reasonable"? If that's the definition of reasonable then I'm hoping they are "unreasonable"!
Re: (Score:3)
Now while these things are true and he offered to help crack a code that would perhaps be worthy of a conspiracy charge however he wasn't on US soil at the time and so for the civilized world the USA can't have jurisdiction
That's not how jurisdiction works. Your physical location at the time of the crime does not matter. The physical location of the crime itself does.
Re: Yet Assange kept himself in prison for 7 years (Score:2)
Re:Yet Assange kept himself in prison for 7 years. (Score:5, Insightful)
Speculation: you're a huge fan of Bari Weiss. You know, the NYT reporter who called Tulsi Gabbard an 'Assad toady' without being able to define or even spell the word. [youtu.be]
Because the Swedes handing people over to the Americans to be tortured? Yeah, that actually happened. [hrw.org] Sweden going to great lengths to get someone extradited to Sweden where they are promptly interrogated (for weeks in solitary confinement with no outside contact or even a lawyer) for an alleged crime in another country. Another country they were deported to, which mean that was the plan the entire time - that also happened. [theguardian.com] The UK police spending millions of pounds on a mere bail jumping case while pressuring Sweden not to drop charges against Assange - yes, that also happened. [apnews.com]
Finally, Assange has long offered to return to Sweden voluntarily if the country promised they wouldn't hand Assange over to the United States. A promise that could easily be made, given the fact that Sweden is a signatory to the UN Convention Against Torture, which forbids extraditing prisoners to regimes that practice torture. Regimes like the United States.
So, in summary, Assange was just proven to be right all this time, and his haters should eat shit for throwing journalists under the bus to support criminal leaders and politicians.
Re: (Score:2)
I just laid out eighteen ways till Sunday how Assange was right and his haters have no idea wtf they're talking about. With citations. Which means you're like those Russiagate dead enders who would still be insisting Trump was a Putin Puppet if Trump had ICMB's in the air on their way to Moscow.
For the sake of our species, please don't breed.
Re: (Score:3)
On the same basis that would mean its fine for China to extradite US journalists for conspiracy as well.
Legally, there's nothing stopping China from making that extradition request. There's also nothing requiring the US to comply with that extradition request.
There are reasons for extradition hearings, and one is to give one country an option to say "No".
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You think the federal government doesn't have cases fall apart on them all the time? Hint: they do. Do you believe that juries ALWAYS side with the prosecutors in cases? Juries can and do disagree on cases...
Despite what you may think the US government isn't a monolith of people that completely agree with the exact same thing.
Even with all of that said, Assange would be facing how much time exactly in a prison in the US? The real irony would be that Assange put himself in a prison of his own design and
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This is less being up against "prosecutors" and more "the federal government".
The Law is designed to be weaponized as necessary, superfluously equipped then your "three felonies a day" are selectively enforced, since yours were surely victimless, trivial ones. Yet technically illegal.
If you're up against another commoner, there's no monolith to fear. If you're up against an eight-figure legal team, expect them to surgically box your precious jury. If you're up against a determined actor who owns the very bo
Re: (Score:2)
There's little reason to believe that the US would limit themselves to only those charges once he was in US hands. I think there's a rule against this, but the US is often willing to flaunt those rules.
Re: (Score:3)
Obama let Chelsea Manning off so he/she has nothing to lose or gain to help any one.
With trump it may of been death by firing squad
Actually she does. Since she would be a witness and not a defendent shew can be compelled to testify concerning events, although she could plead the fifth in regards to specific criminal activities she may have engaged in. Since she was not pardoned she may be able to invoke the fifth more readily; since a pardon would have prevented further prosecution for wjhat she did, depending on its scope.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Bro, you can have a lethal injection of lead.
Captcha: flowed
Re:Obama let Chelsea Manning off so he/she has (Score:4, Funny)
Jesus its 'for all in tents and purple sits' don't any of you know english?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't know the spaniards were vikings!
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody called them Vikings anymore after they converted to "hey zeus."
Don't you know any History of Western Civilization?
Re: (Score:2)
I know the history back to 1987. But most of the olden shit is too weird for me, so I just pretend it doesn't exist. This way I can view life the way I want and All of the old people something something. fuck I lost it. I was on a roll and, well. I just can't think by today's standards enough to even come up with a joke.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, that reference is lost on me. Something I should know about?
Re: (Score:2)
JESUS CHRIST. Not he/she it is a HE. HE WAS BORN A DUDE. I can dress a pig as a cow doesnt change the fact it is a pig!
Funny how most folks who have an issue with the LBGTQ set try to bring god into the argument.
Re: (Score:2)
Which science?
The science that recognises multiple chromosomal variants that exist in nature?
The science that recognises that brains differ by gender?
The science that recognises people can be born with one or more sets of genitalia?
Or the science that you've just made up, mislabelled 'science' and are trying to use to justify basic bigotry?
Re: (Score:2)
For the same reason that the rest of the world controls people's behaviour in the USA. Extradition treaties are not one sided and the typical condition for extradition to be successful is that the alleged crime is a crime in both the country where it took place and the extraditing country.
So no, the US isn't controlling shit.
Re: (Score:3)
If I break into your bank's computers from the USA and steal all your money, you'd probably like your government to actually charge me with a crime. 'Cause If the bank doesn't have a US branch, the US doesn't have jurisdiction to charge me.
Re: Overreach of power (Score:2)
So it's fine for someone in another country to crack US computers, infect them with ransomware, SWAT Americans, blackmail them, or any number of awful things that can be done remotely?
Sounds like a fair deal to me, in light of past US internatinal involvement.
Re: (Score:2)
He couldn't commission a crime that had already been committed. He was only asking that the emails, that had already been copied from the server, be released. Unless the Russian knew (no just guessed) in advance that Trump was going to ask them to release the emails (assuming they are the ones who had them), his after the fact request can't be commission of a crime.
All Trump was doing (like any good politican) is make the event (illicit server being hacked) more memorable so it would continue to hang over h
state dept was hacked (Score:2)
I would purposely have hacked email servers, especially for the state dept. I'd use obscure things for serious work but a lot of the stuff you know the big government spy agencies know already would be just fine on there. Just so long as they do not know you know they are listening. Nobody ever seems to even remotely suggest that it may have been intentional (it's just normal email after all, WTF? who'd trust normal email??!) and naturally a fuss has to be made about your ignorance while dirty politicians
Re:then trump commissioned a crime (Score:4, Interesting)
Why was that a crime?
From the summary:
According to lawyers, the simple offer to help can be considered part of a conspiracy to violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
"For purposes of a conspiracy charge, it is not necessary for the action to be successful."
It also doesn't matter the contents of what was accessed.
This is the part where you say that Trump wasn't offering to help. No, but he was soliciting the activity. And when the fruits of that activity were offered to Trump Jr. he accepted it.
Re: (Score:2)
Seemed to be the most interesting of the comments so modded, but looking at the thread leads me to conclude you're just arguing with a clever, possibly even witty, troll.
Whenever someone drags Hillary or REAL President Obama into a defense of Trump, you know (1) They are trying to change the subject because their own position is untenable, and (2) They are trapped in a paradox of attributing superpowers and supervillainy to someone who, if the attributions were correct, would have long since used those supe
Re: (Score:2)
Seemed to be the most interesting of the comments so modded, but looking at the thread leads me to conclude you're just arguing with a clever, possibly even witty, troll.
Yes, but the only way to counter the big lie is to point it out every time it's repeated. It sucks, but it's a game of attrition and persistence.
Re: (Score:2)
I wish it were so easy, but I think the timing is against you (and me). The worst liars are just playing games with the timing. Of course the truth will ultimately come out, but they don't care as long as they cashed in their chips (or equities) before the lie collapsed. Another phrasing is "He who dies with the most toys wins", though I beg to differ.
I think a better approach involves discrediting the liars in advance. I don't want to go into all the details of MEPR (Mutlidimensional Earned Public Reputati
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, because foreign intelligence would have ignored Clinton's servers if not for Trump's encouragement. I guess it's a good thing the servers were already exposed and offline because Judicial Watch wanted to know why there was no emails for the secretary of state available for their FOIA requests. Unless the Russians have time travel?
But the suggestion that Russians take the top secret and SAP classified information they would find from the unsecured server, and provide that to the news media, is the real
Re: (Score:3)
If Trump asked for it to be done, and then it was done, it could be conspiracy to access a computer without authorization. If Trump heard that Russia had already done it and was thus not actually involved in the process, then it's not.
Doesn't matter if Clinton was utterly incompetent when it comes to IT security. The access was still unauthorized.
Trump jokingly asked the Russians to provide copies of the emails that they already had to U.S. officials.
Nope. Clinton only turned over emails that she felt were "work related". There were additional emails she did not turn over to the government.
The government ga
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, It's a conspiracy even if he does not try. They only need to prove he agreed to help.
Let's say you can't drive, and want to rob a bank. You talk with me, and I agree to drive the get-away car....and then I do nothing. I don't get a car, I'm not in the same city as you and the bank, and so on.
I can still be charged with conspiracy to rob a bank. Even if you don't end up robbing the bank because I wasn't there.
Re: (Score:2)
it is not necessary for the action to be successful
0000
0001
0002
0003
Have I got your luggage combo yet?
Re: (Score:2)
Technically it doesn't matter. They just need to demonstrate 'reasonable suspicion' to justify extradition.