It's unsurprising that political leaders would want to convince people that the true criminals are those who expose acts of high-level political corruption and criminality, rather than those who perpetrate them. Every political leader would love for that self-serving piety to take hold. But what's startling is how many citizens and, especially, "journalists" now vehemently believe that as well. In light of what WikiLeaks has revealed to the world about numerous governments, just fathom the authoritarian mindset that would lead a citizen -- and especially a "journalist" -- to react with anger that these things have been revealed; to insist that these facts should have been kept concealed and it'd be better if we didn't know; and, most of all, to demand that those who made us aware of it all be punished (the True Criminals) while those who did these things (The Good Authorities) be shielded<p><a href="https://www.salon.com/2010/12/24/wikileaks_23/" rel="nofollow">https://www.salon.com/2010/12/24/wikileaks_23/</a>
What part of the first amendment exonerates knowingly attempting to crack NTLM keys of US military logins?<p>Or is the reasoning that the law should give him special treatment and exemptions not given to others?<p>Also, is the 1st amendment protection even applicable to foreigners on foreign soil?
Revealing unknown facts is a political act. It never occurs inside a vacuum. While it's frequently a good thing, the sort of broad statements you're making about politicians making criminals out of the 'good guys' just doesn't represent the political facts.<p>Assange almost certainly had access to hacked information related to both the DNC and the RNC[0]. Only the DNC hacked info got released. Are we supposed to thank him for withholding just the proper amount of information for us to make our voting decision? Or can we admit that he had an agenda in all of this that didn't align with the best interests of the American people?<p>[0] <a href="https://www.wired.com/2017/01/russia-hacked-older-republican-emails-fbi-director-says/" rel="nofollow">https://www.wired.com/2017/01/russia-hacked-older-republican...</a>
I tell you what, I'm moderate, some might say a bit coward, tonight I will sleep as usual, tomorrow I won't protest, never been in a single protest in my life. But I nonetheless think there is something wrong in our current western democracies. Instead of prosecuting people committing murders in a video, these are the men and women revealing these facts that are hunted down, for years. Meanwhile, these same people don't understand when citizens in desperate attempts to shake the system vote to the fringes failing or not wanting to acknowledge the current situation. It's not going to end well, that much I know.
> Since Assange has already published the leaks in question, he obviously cannot be stopped from publishing them now; all the government can do is prosecute him criminally for obtaining or publishing the leaks in the first place. To date, there never has been a criminal prosecution for this type of behavior. Obama’s Justice Department ultimately concluded that a prosecution of Assange would damage the First Amendment. Their decision effectively meant that Assange was entitled to the same constitutional protections given reporters.<p>IANAL but this seeming to be the crux of the article brings with it a lot of legal baggage such as constitutional precedent, being charged ex-post facto for releasing info that's now public/republished, and the proverbial "letter of the law vs. the sprit of the law" type argument.<p>I can understand any motive behind prosecuting Assange for leaking military secrets; these are strategic parts of a nation state's defence and sovereignty. Go figure.<p>However, and it's not a popular opinion but, I do believe that if you opt to run for and eventually serve in public office your correspondences (both intra and inter governmental) should be totally public. Secrecy in this area I think leads to corruption viz. misuse of power, brokering sweetheart deals with private companies, and facilitating lobbying by special interest groups all of which, inter alia, don't have the public interest at heart. The classified nature of these comms IMO is purposefully designed to be a grayer area and thicker line than it needs to be.<p>In that light I don't think he should be reprimanded for any charges surrounding political/cable leakages (which exposed some of the issues I just listed) as much as any journalist would be for exposing mal-intent of an elected official or diplomat.
He has First Amendment protections. That doesn't apply to what he's being charged with, which is conspiracy to gain unauthorized access to US military systems.
First, I want to say I'm not dismissing the validity of the sexual assault charge. That's a serious change, and it should be addressed via proper legal channels.<p>That said, having watched (the film) "Untouchables" for the Xth time, it's certainly possible given the powers involved he could be getting the Al Capone treatment.<p>Put another way, how or why he ends up in jail isn't nearly as important as him ending up in jail. The 1A issue is a non-issue in the sense it's also part of the reason for getting him locked down for some other reason(s).
While those who commit the war crime is walking the public street freely, those who reported the war crime was tortured. Another ordinary day in US of A.
Whistle blowers almost always pay a huge price for uncovering corruption. Let me give a quick example, the two people who uncovered massive international racketeering in an expose now known as guptaleaks <a href="http://www.gupta-leaks.com/" rel="nofollow">http://www.gupta-leaks.com/</a> had to flee their homes and country, paid for by "private money", to protect them from government. I have huge sympathy for Assange
The problem is that Assange repeatedly angers and alienates his friends. The journalistic establishment won't support him because they don't like him.<p>An unliked person is the worst thing for a constitutional test, because almost no one can separate their ideals from their emotions. There were similar likability problems with Larry Flint.
When is the theft of information justified? The publication of The Pentagon Papers set a precedent for this type of argument, but it's a slippery slope. My preference would be for us to promote much stronger freedom of information laws.
Woodward and Bernstein would never have been able to do what they did in 2019. They would have vanished into the secret court system, put in solitary for life, and we never would hear what happened to them.
The problem is that not only did he do something politically unpopular, he also allegedly conspired to commit a crime. If you know the cops are after you, don’t ride dirty kids.
I'm trying to understand the various ways lines can be drawn.<p>One line is passive versus active gathering of classified information. It's clear that the article doesn't think the line should be drawn here.<p>But where then? The article says: "If he explicitly agreed to act as a Russian agent, he should lose his First Amendment protection," but I don't understand what line is being drawn.
"The truth may be puzzling. It may take some work to grapple with. It may be counterintuitive. It may contradict deeply held prejudices. It may not be consonant with what we desperately want to be true. But our preferences do not determine what’s true."
I dunno how to handle this situation for those who are unlucky to live under US war-criminal regime. For others, I would like to propose to consider the following:<p>- convert your USD savings into other assets (e.g. EUR)<p>- sell US-related stocks<p>- boycott US-produced goods and services if there are replacements
Is there anymore information about the jabber conversation being exposed between Manning and Assange? I assume they has some sort of OpSec in place, I am curious how this was picked up.
Julian Assange would not need the first amendment rights if - with according to international laws - he would not be extradited to a country where he could face torture or the death penalty.
> <i>Additionally, Assange was arrested on Swedish rape charges in 2010; his current asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London began after the UK attempted to extradite him on those charges in 2012. In May 2017, Sweden dropped the charges.</i><p>This is factually inaccurate - Assange has not been charged with a crime by any country. There was an investigation in Sweden but no charges were brought.<p>Presumably he will be indicted in the US momentarily.<p>As yet, not a single country has charged him with a crime.<p>Edit: yes, the US has now indicted him on a conspiracy charge—his first.
I use to go back and forth on Julian, but at this point I think he should be punished, but what that punishment should be I don't know. I think Manning stealing the cables was an absolute wrong, and Assange facilitating that shows a level of culpability. He should not be afforded American protection. Crimes were committed, even if they were done with the best intentions, it was still a crime. We all count, or no one counts.
When WikiLeaks published their big "collateral murder" and this while shitstorm started, I happened to be in Melbourne. I came across a "free assange" petition manned by student activist types... and I assume WikiLeaks people. It think it's near their offices.<p>My take was that WikiLeaks is just doing what journalists do. Sourcing newsworthy information and publishing it. All the major papers, channels and such were republishing, in my mind proving the point. Meanwhile, assange was/is an Australian citizen and the efforts against him are clearly two faced. The charges against him weren't the reason for the charges against him.<p>Anyway... I walked over and read the petition, intending to sign it. Free Afghanistan! US out of Saudi Arabia. Down with the patriarchy! Capitalism must go! Fuck the zionist-imperialist deep state Etc^... it also had some stuff about assange.<p>My (long winded) point is that this is a microcosm of the wider affair.<p>WikiLeaks, assange and the leaks that got him in trouble are journalistic. I don't think <i>he</i> sees it that way though. I think he sees it in more political-activism terms. The journalism defense is mostly made by other people, for him.<p>I still think he should go free though.<p>^Made up specifics. I don't remember what all the stuff was. Just that it was typical left-radical student politics of the time and place. Iircc, voluntary student unionism was the (sort of parochial-australian-student issue of the day).
One part of the indictment is very troubling: #5 Assange, Who did not possess a security clearance or need to know, Was not authorized to receive classified information of the United States.
Ecuador's embassy is their country so the UK police have no jurisdiction. Assange's barrister should file for illegal arrest and get him freed.
I was a huge fan os Assange back when wikileaks was an equal-opportunity expose of government secrets. Unfortunately it didn't stay that way, and over time seemed to largely function at the behest of the Russian government.
When I took journalism in college, they taught us to things that is not protected by the first amendment. One of them is anything that effects national security which I assume his case falls under.<p>Edit: As I get down voted, I should clarify that I mean for a civilian. I believe my professor was talking about this case since it was relatively new at that time [1].<p>[1]<a href="https://www.rcfp.org/national-security-trumps-first-amendment-espionage-case/" rel="nofollow">https://www.rcfp.org/national-security-trumps-first-amendmen...</a>
This wasn't mentioned specifically in the article, but this reminds me how we have some legal protections for whistle-blowers in the United States (not nearly enough, IMHO) but none of those protections extend to government employees. It's as if the government thinks they're incapable of breaking their own laws.<p>If you do it to a privately held company, it's whistle-blowing. If you do it to the government, it's treason.
Uhm what? Non US citizens aren't covered by the Constitution.<p>Its why you never ever do anything illegal when you are in the US. I would try to smuggle a bag of heroine into Singapore before ignoring a red light in New York.