'Julian Assange Should Not Have Been Prosecuted In the First Place' (theguardian.com) 97
An anonymous reader quotes an op-ed written by Kenneth Roth, former executive director of Human Rights Watch (1993-2022) and a visiting professor at Princeton's School of Public and International Affairs: Julian Assange's lengthy detention has finally ended, but the danger that his prosecution poses to the rights of journalists remains. As is widely known, the U.S. government's pursuit of Assange under the Espionage Act threatens to criminalize common journalistic practices. Sadly, Assange's guilty plea and release from custody have done nothing to ease that threat. That Assange was indicted under the Espionage Act, a U.S. law designed to punish spies and traitors, should not be considered the normal course of business. Barack Obama's justice department never charged Assange because it couldn't distinguish what he had done from ordinary journalism. The espionage charges were filed by the justice department of Donald Trump. Joe Biden could have reverted to the Obama position and withdrawn the charges but never did.
The 18-count indictment filed under Trump accused Assange of having solicited secret U.S. government information and encouraged Chelsea Manning to provide it. Manning committed a crime when she delivered that information because she was a government employee who had pledged to safeguard confidential information on pain of punishment. But Assange's alleged solicitation of that information, and the steps he was said to have taken to ensure that it could be transferred anonymously, are common procedure for many journalists who report on national security issues. If these practices were to be criminalized, our ability to monitor government conduct would be seriously compromised. To make matters worse, someone accused under the Espionage Act is not allowed to argue to a jury that disclosures were made in the public interest. The unauthorized disclosure of secret information deemed prejudicial to national security is sufficient for conviction regardless of motive.
To justify Espionage Act charges, the Trump-era prosecutors stressed that Assange was accused of not only soliciting and receiving secret government information but also agreeing to help crack a password that would provide access to U.S. government files. That is not ordinary journalistic behavior. An Espionage Act prosecution for computer hacking is very different from a prosecution for merely soliciting and receiving secret information. Even if it would not withdraw the Trump-era charges, Biden's justice department could have limited the harm to journalistic freedom by ensuring that the alleged computer hacking was at the center of Assange's guilty plea. In fact, it was nowhere to be found. The terms for the proceeding were outlined in a 23-page "plea agreement" filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands, where Assange appeared by consent. Assange agreed to plead guilty to a single charge of violating the Espionage Act, but under U.S. law, it is not enough to plead in the abstract. A suspect must concede facts that would constitute an offense. "One effect of the guilty plea is that there will be no legal challenge to the prosecution, and hence no judicial decision on whether this use of the Espionage Act violates the freedom of the media as protected by the first amendment of the U.S. constitution," notes Roth. "That means that just as prosecutors overreached in the case of Assange, they could do so again."
"[M]edia protections are not limited to journalists who are deemed responsible. Nor do we want governments to make judgments about which journalists deserve First Amendment safeguards. That would quickly compromise media freedom for all journalists."
Roth concludes: "Imperfect journalist that he was, Assange should never have been prosecuted under the Espionage Act. It is unfortunate that the Biden administration didn't take available steps to mitigate that harm."
The 18-count indictment filed under Trump accused Assange of having solicited secret U.S. government information and encouraged Chelsea Manning to provide it. Manning committed a crime when she delivered that information because she was a government employee who had pledged to safeguard confidential information on pain of punishment. But Assange's alleged solicitation of that information, and the steps he was said to have taken to ensure that it could be transferred anonymously, are common procedure for many journalists who report on national security issues. If these practices were to be criminalized, our ability to monitor government conduct would be seriously compromised. To make matters worse, someone accused under the Espionage Act is not allowed to argue to a jury that disclosures were made in the public interest. The unauthorized disclosure of secret information deemed prejudicial to national security is sufficient for conviction regardless of motive.
To justify Espionage Act charges, the Trump-era prosecutors stressed that Assange was accused of not only soliciting and receiving secret government information but also agreeing to help crack a password that would provide access to U.S. government files. That is not ordinary journalistic behavior. An Espionage Act prosecution for computer hacking is very different from a prosecution for merely soliciting and receiving secret information. Even if it would not withdraw the Trump-era charges, Biden's justice department could have limited the harm to journalistic freedom by ensuring that the alleged computer hacking was at the center of Assange's guilty plea. In fact, it was nowhere to be found. The terms for the proceeding were outlined in a 23-page "plea agreement" filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands, where Assange appeared by consent. Assange agreed to plead guilty to a single charge of violating the Espionage Act, but under U.S. law, it is not enough to plead in the abstract. A suspect must concede facts that would constitute an offense. "One effect of the guilty plea is that there will be no legal challenge to the prosecution, and hence no judicial decision on whether this use of the Espionage Act violates the freedom of the media as protected by the first amendment of the U.S. constitution," notes Roth. "That means that just as prosecutors overreached in the case of Assange, they could do so again."
"[M]edia protections are not limited to journalists who are deemed responsible. Nor do we want governments to make judgments about which journalists deserve First Amendment safeguards. That would quickly compromise media freedom for all journalists."
Roth concludes: "Imperfect journalist that he was, Assange should never have been prosecuted under the Espionage Act. It is unfortunate that the Biden administration didn't take available steps to mitigate that harm."
Other Media Organizations (Score:4, Insightful)
WikiLeaks did not redact names of course which certainly can be deemed extremely cavalier but correct me if I am wrong, the charges were not specifically about that.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Is there a difference between sending a news crew out to record a house that's on fire versus sending a news crew and a producer with a can of gasoline, a box of matches, and an arsonist willing to do the deed as soon as they're given the tools.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I do believe that journalists are entitled to solicit facts. Information. Messages. This isn't complicated. Nor is it new.
Re: Other Media Organizations (Score:2)
Actually under some circumstances they are allowed to do this. For example if they use or solicit illegal methods to reveal information showing criminal activity by the state or very powerful organisations then they are unlikely to ever face prosecution. This is one of the benefits of the flexibility and discretionary nature of English common law.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Other Media Organizations (Score:5, Insightful)
Is there a difference between sending a news crew out to record a house that's on fire versus sending a news crew and a producer with a can of gasoline, a box of matches, and an arsonist willing to do the deed as soon as they're given the tools.
You must work in software, because that's one out-of-control metaphor that's completely lost touch with reality.
Assange showed us American soldiers gunning down friendlies and whooping and hollering while they did it. He did not, in FBI-like fashion, trick them into it. They are war criminals completely of their own volition.
Re: Other Media Organizations (Score:2)
He assisted Bradley Manning in collecting and decrypting classified data. The "giving the arsonist the gasoline" analogy applies perfectly here. This is considered espionage in literally every country on the planet.
Re: Other Media Organizations (Score:3)
Of course there is, but what does any of it have to do with Julian Assange ?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Other Media Organizations (Score:5, Informative)
I'll correct you on your claim that Wikleaks did not redact names. As a rule they did redact.
Here's discussion during the trial :
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk... [craigmurray.org.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Other Media Organizations (Score:4)
And if you read TFA, you would have learned that communicating with a source is apparently standard journalistic procedure.
Re: (Score:1)
Journalism (Score:1)
It may have started off as journalism to expose corruption and crimes amongst any and all states it had information on, but after around 2010 or so Wikileaks specifically targeted the US and the US only, and furthermore, Democrats.
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
And that has what to do with journalism, exactly?
I'm sure that the fact that the Democrats were in power at that point had nothing to do with the focus of Wikileaks, right? There were, of course, other things being addressed, but the media focused on what was identified with the US Democrats.
Considering how much of a relationship the things they uncovered have on where we are today, it's pretty apparent that he focused on where there was smoke, and found the fire.
If a responsible response addressing his fin
Re:Journalism (Score:4, Insightful)
You should be asking the National Endowment for Democracy, a front for the CIA set up during the Reagan administration to implement regime change among other things, about what happened in Ukraine. Also ask them about what they're up to in Hong Kong.
Washington loves playing dangerous games with nuclear powers. & again, both sides love wars.
Re: (Score:1)
It may have started off as journalism to expose corruption and crimes amongst any and all states it had information on, but after around 2010 or so Wikileaks specifically targeted the US and the US only, and furthermore, Democrats.
Gee, maybe there's a bit of temporal correlation at work there, since the Democrats took the administration in 2009, and therefore would have been in charge of whatever crimes that were being committed? Maybe the US was targeted as the US (and their proxies) were prosecuting war o
Re:Journalism (Score:4, Insightful)
after around 2010 or so Wikileaks specifically targeted the US and the US only, and furthermore, Democrats.
There is literally nothing wrong with that. If Democrats in the US are corrupt, then we are better off for knowing that.
Re: (Score:2)
There is literally nothing wrong with that. If Democrats in the US are corrupt, then we are better off for knowing that.
Are you really if a) it's mostly bullshit and b) helps get the even more corrupt party into power that ends up overturning democracy
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Point being, it went from objective journalism to a pointed sword to one target, and one target only. Ignoring absolutely everything else.
Re: Journalism (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Because Fox "News" told you so?
I think we all just died of irony.
He's entitled to his opinion (Score:2, Interesting)
But the adjudication should have occurred in a court.
But my opinion is that he (a) actively sought out classified information from PFC Manning. (b) used that information to influence public opinion, rather than releasing the entire batch all at once. (c) and in the process, by not redacting stuff, put people's lives at risk.
The 1st Amendment does not give legitimate journalists (see b above as the minimum reason why Assange doesn't qualify) the unbridled right to dig and disclose potentially harmful infor
Re:He's entitled to his opinion (Score:5, Insightful)
By your criteria, no journalist in the West today, aside from perhaps a couple like Glenn Greenwald, are legitimate journalists.
(I'd agree with you, at that. Most are activist-journalists, with an emphasis on activism over honest journalism.)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I remember hearing a journalist say "We're responsible for getting the facts and holding people accountable." To which I yelled back at the radio. "You're responsible for printing the facts. But you are NOT responsible for levying judgement on accountability. That is the responsibility of courts and the people in general." Journalists want UNBOUNDED right of access and publication without recourse.
And these days, we know that "Journalism" is now all about generating clicks and monetization.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
By your criteria, no journalist in the West today, aside from perhaps a couple like Glenn Greenwald, are legitimate journalists.
Glenn Greenwald is the farthest possible from a legitimate journalist
Re: (Score:2)
What has GG done, in your mind, which demonstrates behavior inconsistent with journalistic integrity?
Name one thing.
Re:He's entitled to his opinion (Score:5, Informative)
Is this 'putting lives at risk' thing something provable you think? OR was it "yeah nothing happened but there was a risk"?
It was never true that Wikileaks did not redact. They simply used another standard for publishing.
Instead of "only publish where the need to know is proven" Wikileaks used "only omit from publication when there is a good reason" and putting lives in danger was considered good reason and they put a lot of work in doing a good job there.
During the trial there was discussion of such cases:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk... [craigmurray.org.uk]
Re: (Score:1)
Is this 'putting lives at risk' thing something provable you think? OR was it "yeah nothing happened but there was a risk"?
Something catastrophic not happening doesn't mean things weren't risked needlessly.
If I shot a gun randomly on the street but didn't hit anyone, it doesn't mean I wasn't 'putting lives at risk'
Re:He's entitled to his opinion (Score:4, Informative)
That is true and totally missing the point.
The whole emphasis from the start has been on wikileaks acting irresponsibly, and just carelessly dumping data. That was a lie which developed into variants which cannot be disproven such as 'putting lives at risk'.
It has been proven, including in court, that while the threshold for declaring something suitable for publication was much lower than with Greenwald and Snowden, and there are serious disagreements between Greenwald and Assange on such policy, there are no disagreements that Wikileaks did competent vetting and withholding data to minimize risk to people on the ground and there were no cases where Wikileaks could be blamed for people being harmed through the leaks.
Re:He's entitled to his opinion (Score:4, Interesting)
But the adjudication should have occurred in a court.
But my opinion is that he (a) actively sought out classified information from PFC Manning. (b) used that information to influence public opinion, rather than releasing the entire batch all at once. (c) and in the process, by not redacting stuff, put people's lives at risk.
The 1st Amendment does not give legitimate journalists (see b above as the minimum reason why Assange doesn't qualify) the unbridled right to dig and disclose potentially harmful information. Now I know journalists believe they are solely and uniquely qualified to make judgements on 'potentially harmful.' That's another situation where I disagree.
But I'm sure this opinion won't be popular here. It's easy to call for 'no limits on information' if you don't work in a situation where that could have consequences. If you're doing anything but Open Source code, then you should look in the mirror.
Ok, I agree with the conclusion but not the reasoning.
Journalists are constantly trying to influence public opinion, and very often withhold parts of leaks for various reasons. As for not redacting sensitive stuff, that would make him an irresponsible journalist, but I think he's still qualify as a journalist.
The only part that doesn't make him a journalist is #1, the part where he actively solicited Manning for more information and offered some advice on password cracking [wikipedia.org].
A journalist can certainly go digging for sources, but only when leaking is legal (ie, an insider at a company talking about sketchy activities). But if the leaking is illegal (classified intel) then by soliciting the information the journalist is complicit in a crime.
I don't think Assange's solicitation was particularly strong so it shouldn't have been more than a slap on the wrist, but journalist or not, you can't go encouraging someone to commit criminal acts on your behalf (with some exceptions [nbcnews.com]).
Re:I agree (Score:5, Informative)
I know that is a consensus view but it is garbage.
UN Special Rapporteur on Torture (until not long ago) Nils Melzer
investigated the case and as soon as the Iraq leaks were published the system turned against him. Not just the financial system - he got stranded in Sweden and all his bankcards stopped workin - the legal system was wildly abused in order to destroy him.
Melzer , who in is function could demand documents from Sweden , tells about it here :
https://www.republik.ch/2020/0... [republik.ch]
People get the sequence wrong. They think Assange ruined things for himself. The actual sequence is that the US declared him an enemy and that means everyone in the media and the public was made to despise him. This has not stopped.
Re:I agree (Score:5, Insightful)
Assange shouldn't have been running from the law and actually faced the charges he had in front of him. This entire thing would have all been over much sooner.
But do note that journalism was alive and well, the actual journalists who disseminated the information weren't charged, only the one who helped the actual criminal offense of obtaining secret information.
I you live in the US and happen to transgress against a foreign nation, are you "running from the law" in that foreign nation when they accuse you of being a spy because of your journalism? No.
Likewise when an Australian writes about our dirty laundry, they're not "running from the law" here in the US.
Re: (Score:3)
Assange shouldn't have been running from the law and actually faced the charges he had in front of him. This entire thing would have all been over much sooner.
he would be very likely dead by now. he is indeed in very bad shape, but that's better than dead i guess.
the us offered the deal because the uk courts contested the extradition and didn't want blood on their hands. they have no case. but rather than wait out another few years for that to get sorted, assange chose to accept the deal of being freed immediately after declaring himself guilty of some pointless crap in some jurisdiction in the middle of nowhere so that the us can desist from vengeance and shove
Re: (Score:1)
Why face the charges when there's no chance of a proper trial? I don't believe he would have got a proper trial.
1. I agree that Assange/Wikileaks had an agenda that influenced what material they released and how.
2. So does every other journalist and publisher. I mean, I'd like to see everyone at Fox from Rupert on down get their comeuppance, but they are not outsiders. I'd argue the right-wing media assistance to Trump (etc) has done more harm to the US than a hundred Assanges could do.
3. If the US had got
No shit Sherlock (Score:2)
Prosecuted? (Score:1, Flamebait)
What kind of "prosecution" is "being held in solitary confinement in a supermax without trial?" I thought prosecution involved . . . you know . . . courts! Or at least "prosecutors."
Julian Assange was illegally politically persecuted. To hell with the UK, where law seems to be a whim!
He wasn't prosecuted (Score:1)
He fled to the UK, and Sweden sent an extradition request. Until that request was decided, he was released on bail. He then fled into the Ecuadorian embassy. Again, no prosecution. Fleeing while on bail is obviously illegal.
After some years, he left that embassy and was instantly arrested for breaking his bail conditions. Then the USA wanted him extradited. Most people could have left
Re:He wasn't prosecuted (Score:5, Informative)
"They could not prosecute him because he fled the country before he could be charged.": not quite true.
My memory of the events is that JS was first accused of rape, by having two supposed victims talk to the police about this. The police committed a grave mistake (by Swedish standards) when they questioned the supposed victims over the phone: the rules are very clear that rape victims are to be interviewed at the police station and the interview is to be recorded.
For some reason, when the charges against JA were brought up, the prosecutor thought it wise to inform JA by holding a press conference, so that JA found out about the charges by reading/hearing about them in the news.
JA was then taken into police custody (voluntarily or otherwise, I can't remember). He was then questioned, and let go. Between one and ten days later (my memory of the timeline is fading), JAs Swedish lawyer asked the police if he was free to leave the country. The lawyer was told that JA was free to leave the country, since the charges had been withdrawn.
JA then travelled to the UK. By this time, another prosecutor had decided to reopen the case. A very interesting detail here is that this new prosecutor (who has the initials MN) belongs the the same political party as one of JAs supposed victims. When this new prosecutor reopened the case, she wanted JA questioned a second time. JA was willing to be interrogated either by the British police, in the presence of Swedish police, or over internet. Neither option was acceptable to the Swedish prosecutor, for reasons that have either never been made public or that I have forgotten.
JA refused to return to Sweden, citing the possibility he would be extradited to the USA.
I can't see this timeline as JA "fleeing" anything in Sweden: he has given the Swedish authorities the possibility of questioning him, but for some reason they wanted to question him in Sweden, nowhere else would do.
----------
Apparently questioning a suspect when the suspect is in another country is not uncommon, although the proceedings are complicated by the fact that the "host" country is the one asking the questions, even if the questions are decided upon by the country wanting to question the suspect. The second Swedish prosecutor refused this, for whatever reason she had.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
First you give some reasons why Assange could (physically) leave Sweden before being charged. It seems Sweden believed that eventually he would be asked to come to a court in Sweden and he would do that. As most people would. When he didn't come back to Sweden they asked the UK to extradite him. So at that point in time there were definitely reasonable accusations against him. It seems that at some point his rape victim had enough of the whole
Re: (Score:2)
JA offered the Swedish police to question him in the UK. This is apparently something the Swedish police have done before, enough that there are established routines to follow. What makes this case surprising is that the Swedish police (or possibly the prosecutor) insisted that JA retur
Re: (Score:3)
"he brought it onto himself", that is still how our press sees it.
And it's nonsense. We live in a society where if the state targets someone for destruction it gets accompanied by a PR campaign.
It does not take long for the media to pick the side of the state and they start to pile on. In the end everything everyone thinks about the target is wrong. The media have let us down massively, the justice system has been abused massively, and nothing of that has been corrected.
In the case of Wikileaks in 2010 you
Honey Trap (Score:2)
Press AND jurisdiction. (Score:5, Insightful)
There's plenty of talk about press protections here. But there another very important reason Assange should never have been prosecuted: Jurisdiction.
Assange is not a US citizen. He is not a US resident. And I've never seen any claim that he was physically within the borders of the US when he "committed" his supposed "crimes." As such, he never had any legitimate obligation to obey the US's laws or to keep its secrets. As a US citizen sitting on my butt in California, I'm under no obligation to obey Saudi Arabian laws with regard to being gay, drinking alcohol or watching porn, any more than I'm obligated to obey China's laws regarding advocating for democracy, condemning Tiananmen Square, or reverencing Winnit the Pooh. Every other nation involved in the entire sordid affair... Australia, the UK, Sweden, Ecuador, and any others; should ALL have told the US to go pound sand. And every government official or judge or lawyer or LEO or anything else of their ilk, in any and all of those nations including the US, who took any part in the farce that was Assange's prosecution should be run out of office and permanently blacklisted from anything even resembling public service.
No country anywhere should be allowed to export its laws beyond its borders to non-citizens. Extradition is supposed to be for fugitives who've committed crimes within a nation's legitimate jurisdiction and then fled justice. It's not supposed to be a license to go fishing for every random person worldwide who annoyed some other government whilst not breaking the laws of the nations of their own citizenship and location. Hell, I'm not even on board with the laws of a person's citizernship following them. "What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas," as they say. If someone feels stifled by the laws in one place, they should be entirely free to go anywhere else that will have them and where the laws are more to their liking and follow those laws instead.
Re: (Score:2)
He single handedly defeated Clinton and gave the election to Trump.
That's too much. This sort of thing definitely helped [youtube.com].
That is why they went after him. He was never prosecuted for the Iraq stuff until the Clinton emails
That part is true. In terms of embarrassing America, other stuff he released was worse but no one cared. People around here cheered him on until they didn't like his (supposed) partisanship.
Re:Press AND jurisdiction. -- answer me this... (Score:1)
"No country anywhere should be allowed to export its laws beyond its borders to non-citizens."
So a state-sponsored hacker from Russia hacks a hospital and people die, hacks banks a people lose their life savings, or hacks a chemical plant and creates an environmental disaster. This person should not be subject to US laws?
A US sponsored agent hacks the EU and releases PI data for million of Europeans. The EU should have no legal recourse?
It seems to me that the alternative "system of justice" would be some
Re: (Score:2)
It seems to me that the alternative "system of justice" would be something along the lines of cladestine hit squads?
I agree there is a question of equality, in that US has more influence than most in getting their laws followed than other countries but this seems to be a broken approach.
Don't worry, Hillary was only kidding when she asked about killing Assange with a drone attack... right?
Re: (Score:2)
This doesn't work. It would give a free license to hack, defraud, money launder, etc. so long as it crossed a border. It would be acceptable to fire missiles at another country. A man could travel to certain Muslim countries, bring a woman with them, rape the woman, then return home together because it was not illegal there. I'm sure someone more evil can think of other ways this could be abused.
Re: (Score:3)
There's plenty of talk about press protections here. But there another very important reason Assange should never have been prosecuted: Jurisdiction.
Assange is not a US citizen. He is not a US resident. And I've never seen any claim that he was physically within the borders of the US when he "committed" his supposed "crimes." As such, he never had any legitimate obligation to obey the US's laws or to keep its secrets. As a US citizen sitting on my butt in California, I'm under no obligation to obey Saudi Arabian laws with regard to being gay, drinking alcohol or watching porn, any more than I'm obligated to obey China's laws regarding advocating for democracy, condemning Tiananmen Square, or reverencing Winnit the Pooh. Every other nation involved in the entire sordid affair... Australia, the UK, Sweden, Ecuador, and any others; should ALL have told the US to go pound sand. And every government official or judge or lawyer or LEO or anything else of their ilk, in any and all of those nations including the US, who took any part in the farce that was Assange's prosecution should be run out of office and permanently blacklisted from anything even resembling public service.
Your comparisons are muddled. Saudi Arabia has no business governing your personal conduct, especially outside Saudi Arabia.
But if you hire someone in Saudi Arabia to murder someone else in Saudi Arabia they're fully within their rights to prosecute and try and extradite you.
I've donated money to Ukraine that was hopefully used to help defend them from Russian invasion, if Russia knew they might want to arrest me (they wouldn't care), but I'm not going to Russia or any place that would extradite me to Russi
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
THIS. Wish I had some upvotes! Fuck off USA, you cannot expect foreign citizens to abide by your own laws!
The normal rule is that you can be prosecuted by country X for crimes that either happen in country X or have an effect in country X. For example the USA would rightfully prosecute someone who shoots from the other side of the Canadian or Mexican border and kills someone in the USA. Or someone in Germany sends a letter bomb to an office in the USA which explodes and kills someone in Heathrow, that would be prosecuted as endagering people in Germany, as murder in the UK, and as attempted murder in the USA.
What happened: (Score:2)
Just substitute 25 by 15 in the stratfor mail of 2010
https://wikileaks.org/gifiles/... [wikileaks.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Here's someone else 'linked to wiki' being persecuted, Ola Bini.
https://peoplesdispatch.org/20... [peoplesdispatch.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Where was the espionage. Manning sent him files he had downloaded from the SIPRNet system. ref [nbcbayarea.com]
Re: (Score:2)
AFAIK he wasn't paid for it, so that basically makes him a volunteer FSB agent. He was never charged for it, but that's pretty much what he was doing.
He clearly fancied himself a mover-and-shaker operating in the gray areas of the law, playing underhanded games in order to influence world events. It's fun to fantasize about. Edgy and sexy. It's al
Re: (Score:2)
So we can stop pretending we live in a Democracy and get to choose our own leaders.
WRONG (Score:2)
You don't get to classify a journalist simply because your FEELINGS towards him. They don't have to be nice people.
His motives to become the front man for an organization and become the primary target of one of the most powerful disinfo states on eath... might be heroic or a character flaw coming back to him.
He's still called a journalist or reporter AFTER he's fired, retired or jailed because that is what he did to get you to know he existed. Yeah, lets say nobody is a journalist when they are in prison b
Re: (Score:2)
But, come on, man, ca
Nah (Score:2)
BULLSHIT
Re: (Score:2)
If someone can copy such information to a DVD then it ain't by definition classified.
> What's worse is that Assange willfully released it
Assange gave the files to the guardian who leaked to to a Torrent.
> knowing full well that it would lead to the deaths of various listed informants - -and it did
There is no verifiable evidence such listed informants were leaked. Besides wh
Not mutually exclusive (Score:1)
It appears he's both a whistle-blower and a secrets spiller at the same time. They are not mutually exclusive. He handed out too much information; both whistle-blower info and secrets that should have stayed secret, including personal info (doxing).
Being a whistle blower doesn't buy you immunity from crimes in general.
Re: (Score:2)
If it was about Clinton then Trump would have pardoned him and probably mailed him a medal too
Re: (Score:2)
Assange was never a whistleblower, where do you get that idea.
Khashoggi (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"You're not upset about law enforcement yet you're upset about brutal murder?"
You are not a very smart fellow.
Re: (Score:2)
Sigh. (Score:2)
"Man who pleaded guilty is innocent"
"Man who LITERALLY breached UK bail in front of the entire world: innocent".
"Man who hid in an embassy for 7 years to 'escape assassination', but was dumb enough to make public appearances and get himself thrown out is a genius."
Please, stop the Musk-like love for this guy.
Common journalistic practices? (Score:2)
"As is widely known, the U.S. government's pursuit of Assange under the Espionage Act threatens to criminalize common journalistic practices."
I wasn't aware that it was a common practice to encourage people to steal stuff so that you could publish it. Maybe this guy learned about journalism from the guys involved in the british phone hacking scandal?
Spies are not Journalists (Score:1)
and a guy who rapes sex workers is simply a creep
Re: (Score:2)
Well, that is new to me -- where and when did anything about sex workers happen?
So now the two women who somehow caught wind of each other and then demanded he be tested by using the legal system spitefully / jealously and then DROPPED their claims because they got themselves tested as well as being turned into a political football they must be attacked and smeared as well?! Simply because they refused to stalk him for decades? It was another prosecutor that brought the case back from the dead because th