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
some of us have a bit of cognitive dissonance with assange, where we maybe don’t think he should be prosecuted but holy cow are we enjoying seeing him get pwned by trumps administration after he helped trump get elected.
they can't break there law and get away with it. what gives them the right to decide what's secret or not? the state is not wholly good, nor are people. but that's okay, a lot of good still gets done. attacking such a system is wrong. attacking it under delusion of moral righteousness, then continuing to live in the shadow of the freedom it provides, is morally bankrupt. it's also stupid. I totally have the authoritarian mindset you refer to, and it's a good thing.
now we just have to get Snowden and Kim dot com.
isn't supporting these idiots the same as supporting me to break into your house, install a monitoring product, go through how you act in your relationships with your spouse and kids, what you do in private, then decide which of that I personally am offended by or think is wrong or you would be embarrassed by, and publishing it?
it seems so obvious to me that idiots like this are driven by ego and arrogance, and the hunger for power they hope to achieve by holding the powerful hostage. it's also obvious to me that they will fail.
finally it seems highly likely to me that these useful idiots were used as pawns by factions within the intelligence community to be the mouthpiece for deliberate leaks. The funny thing is these people thought they were revealing secrets about casualties in wars, but in the end they are just casualties in a political turf warf that made fools of them.
They believe that partisanship makes them moral people, but really it just makes their party morally bankrupt.
When the Democrats got to sit back and watch wars they secretly liked, under cover of Republican administrations, Julian Assange was a hero who would speak truth to big bad Republican power. Now that they think Julian Assange's public service helped Americans choose the current President, they view him as a villain.
A seeming majority of the mainstream press in the U.S. is staffed by Democrat partisans, so it's no wonder that they say whatever they can to defend it.
Yes, First Amendment protections apply to non-Americans. However, as you say, Assange is being prosecuted for conspiracy to hack computers, not for his speech.
The US Constitution protects US Persons regardless of where they may be. This is a broader category than US Citizens. It includes, for example, green card holders. The US Constitution also protects, to a certain extent, non US Persons, but only in the US or on US territory.
> 1st amendment protection even applicable to foreigners on foreign soil?
It seems to do so.
>The Constitution does distinguish in some respects between the rights of citizens and noncitizens: the right not to be discriminatorily denied the vote and the right to run for federal elective office are expressly restricted to citizens.12 All other rights, however, are written without such a limitation. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment due process and equal protection guarantees extend to all "persons." The rights attaching to criminal trials, including the right to a public trial, a trial by jury, the assistance of a lawyer, and the right to confront adverse witnesses, all apply to "the accused." And both the First Amendment's protections of political and religious freedoms and the Fourth Amendment's protection of privacy and liberty apply to "the people."
>What part of the first amendment exonerates knowingly attempting to crack NTLM keys of US military logins?
The whole First Amendment, which explicitly exists to defend the freedom of the press. What sort of person thinks that its legal, desirable, or consistent with a free society for the government to tell individuals at the point of a gun what they are allowed to do or say? What sort of sick society do we live in where a significant portion of the populace thinks that its acceptable that government claims of secrecy are sacrosanct and beyond question? The whole case against Assange is based on Wikileaks' exposure of US war crimes via the Bradley/Chelsea Manning leak almost a decade ago. None of the war criminals exposed by those leaks have been prosecuted - only those who exposed their crimes. Anyone who isn't absolutely outraged and disgusted by this is a blot on society and a moral failure in every way.
For someone who isn’t a citizen of the United States, it’s not illegal to fight against the military of the United States. It’s not possible for Assange to have committed a crime here.
Would you suggest indicting a drone operator of the US Air Force for violating Afghanistan’s law against murdering people?
> What part of the first amendment exonerates knowingly attempting to crack NTLM keys of US military logins?
Is doing math a form of expression? Breaking a password amounts to thinking for a very long time about all the ways you could rearrange some bits, and choosing one. I'd call it an expression of preference for certain possible results over others, by way of saving one and letting the rest go.
I know, I'm laughing at the thought of framing a cracked password because you're so proud of your expressive art. Still, I am deeply uncomfortable with a government having the authority to say, "You may not run that program."
As a layman on the subject, I guess cryptographers are attempting to crack keys every day...
With house locks, it's a plain distinction between breaking into a lock and breaking into a house. With cryptography, I imagine that distinction is really problematic?
Though I'm aware in Assange's case they do have proof of intent, but I wonder if it sets bad precedent, or is a case where they just dug up either far-reaching, obscure, or some law which is practically never really enforced?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I agree with Greenwald: “The DOJ says part of what Assange did to justify his prosecution - beyond allegedly helping Manning get the documents - is he encouraged Manning to get more docs for him to publish. Journalists do this with sources constantly: it's the criminalization of journalism”
As far as I understood WikiLeaks was purely a publishing platform. Not sure if this is the case back then but they have had claimed anonymity through the submission process (via proxies, and encryption)... to protect both themselves and whistle blowers.
If all they were doing was publishing... that should be protected by first amendment.
If Assange conspired with manning that would be a different story, but it doesn't seem to be the case.
I have a lot of issues with Assange, particularly as it pertains to Wikileaks handling of the DNC leaks, and Assange's collaboration with nationalist parties around the world... but despite my distaste for the guy...in this case I don't think he committed a crime.
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.
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.
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).
You have to choose: either the sexual assault charges are being investigated by an independent judiciary, or it is all part of some conspiracy to put him in jail.
Judging by how much emphasis on the second option, I find it hard to not read an implied dismissal of the sexual assault charge in your comment.
I think we have a lot of growing up to do regarding the Swedish law concerning equality. My suspicion is that Sweden are 50 - 100 years ahead of the UK and the rest of the English speaking world when it comes to treating women with respect as a society and in law.
In our own mis-spent youths we assume some laws don't apply to us, it can be a simple thing like riding a bicycle on a pavement (sidewalk). Then we might flatten an elderly person as they step out their door, putting them in hospital and to no longer have their health. Only then does the penny drop and that the law is not a petty thing. Before that happens we might assume the policeman ticking us off for riding on a pavement is a 'jobsworth' who should be 'out catching murderers'. But no, the law - even this small one does matter.
I am hoping that aside from the Wikileaks circus that something good can come from this regarding how we see women. 'Well, she was asking for it' attitudes should not wash, regardless of how big the ego is. There was no evidence that the original charges were a pretext to nab Assange and send him off to some US courtroom. Assange should have faced the music and apologised for his conduct, then moved on as a free man having paid whatever fines/community service/prison spell the judged deemed appropriate.
If you are in a hole, stop digging. Assange kept digging.
Much has been made of the benefits of the Wikileaks sideshow but I don't see it that way. If someone had some important information to leak they might easily be discouraged to do so given how Wikileaks had monopolised that 'business' (and made it into a monetized business).
It is not rocket science to create a web page and post documents online, the idea you need Wikileaks for that - to filter it for you - is ridiculous. But Wikileaks created a black hole where any secret documents had to go to in order to be perceived by journalists and the public as a legitimate scandal worthy leak.
The idea that Assange has a 'dead man's switch' is also interesting. Imagine that he did have the crown jewels of leaked information stashed away, let's imagine it was something like the identity of the killer in a murder case, withholding that information from the family of the deceased would put him on the same side as the murderer, harbouring them in effect. This would be morally wrong. So we will see what the leverage he has turns out to be.
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 http://www.gupta-leaks.com/ had to flee their homes and country, paid for by "private money", to protect them from government. I have huge sympathy for Assange
In my opinion, Assange lost his moral high ground after it came out that he was communicating with Trump Jr. and helping the Trump campaign. And that he delayed and timed the DNC and Podesta leaks to cause maximum advantage to Trump, instead of just releasing them when ready.
Not to mention that DNC and Podesta were private entities, not government officials and zero illegality was revealed by those leaks. He later was asking Trump Jr to ask Trump to recommend himself as the Aussie ambassador to the US as payment for helping Trump win.
The problem is that Assange repeatedly angers and alienates his friends. The journalistic establishment won't support him because they don't like him.
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.
Wouldn't that person would be the best to test the constitution? If everybody loves you, you don't need the protection of the law. And if the law only works when everybody likes you, what good is it?
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.
> The publication of The Pentagon Papers set a precedent
The Times was allowed to publish the Pentagon Papers, but they didn't facilitate their theft. Ellsberg was charged for the theft, but of course the Nixon admin's misconduct resulted in the charges being dismissed.
Perhaps leaks of war crimes and the like could actually be a catalyst for greater government transparency? The way I see it, the status quo is unlikely to change without a pretty big nudge.
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.
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.
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."
[+] [-] calhoun137|7 years ago|reply
https://www.salon.com/2010/12/24/wikileaks_23/
[+] [-] jancsika|7 years ago|reply
1. Start with the set of all potentially serious journalists.
2. Filter out the ones who put forth arguments which downplay the dangers to the press of prosecuting Assange.
3. Filter out the ones who don't explicitly argue against prosecuting Assange on 1st Amendment grounds.
Follow the small group that survives #3 to get a variety of (probably) high-quality perspectives from serious journalists.
Use set from #2 as a casual guide for when to prick your ears up and listen to the news.
[+] [-] gameswithgo|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dosy|7 years ago|reply
now we just have to get Snowden and Kim dot com.
isn't supporting these idiots the same as supporting me to break into your house, install a monitoring product, go through how you act in your relationships with your spouse and kids, what you do in private, then decide which of that I personally am offended by or think is wrong or you would be embarrassed by, and publishing it?
it seems so obvious to me that idiots like this are driven by ego and arrogance, and the hunger for power they hope to achieve by holding the powerful hostage. it's also obvious to me that they will fail.
finally it seems highly likely to me that these useful idiots were used as pawns by factions within the intelligence community to be the mouthpiece for deliberate leaks. The funny thing is these people thought they were revealing secrets about casualties in wars, but in the end they are just casualties in a political turf warf that made fools of them.
they're not heroes they're idiots.
[+] [-] microcolonel|7 years ago|reply
When the Democrats got to sit back and watch wars they secretly liked, under cover of Republican administrations, Julian Assange was a hero who would speak truth to big bad Republican power. Now that they think Julian Assange's public service helped Americans choose the current President, they view him as a villain.
A seeming majority of the mainstream press in the U.S. is staffed by Democrat partisans, so it's no wonder that they say whatever they can to defend it.
[+] [-] belltaco|7 years ago|reply
Or is the reasoning that the law should give him special treatment and exemptions not given to others?
Also, is the 1st amendment protection even applicable to foreigners on foreign soil?
[+] [-] apsec112|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tomohawk|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ehaliewicz2|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nabla9|7 years ago|reply
It seems to do so.
>The Constitution does distinguish in some respects between the rights of citizens and noncitizens: the right not to be discriminatorily denied the vote and the right to run for federal elective office are expressly restricted to citizens.12 All other rights, however, are written without such a limitation. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment due process and equal protection guarantees extend to all "persons." The rights attaching to criminal trials, including the right to a public trial, a trial by jury, the assistance of a lawyer, and the right to confront adverse witnesses, all apply to "the accused." And both the First Amendment's protections of political and religious freedoms and the Fourth Amendment's protection of privacy and liberty apply to "the people."
https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?a...
[+] [-] unknown|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] StanislavPetrov|7 years ago|reply
The whole First Amendment, which explicitly exists to defend the freedom of the press. What sort of person thinks that its legal, desirable, or consistent with a free society for the government to tell individuals at the point of a gun what they are allowed to do or say? What sort of sick society do we live in where a significant portion of the populace thinks that its acceptable that government claims of secrecy are sacrosanct and beyond question? The whole case against Assange is based on Wikileaks' exposure of US war crimes via the Bradley/Chelsea Manning leak almost a decade ago. None of the war criminals exposed by those leaks have been prosecuted - only those who exposed their crimes. Anyone who isn't absolutely outraged and disgusted by this is a blot on society and a moral failure in every way.
[+] [-] unknown|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] ryanlol|7 years ago|reply
I can’t really imagine a less serious offense than (maybe) trying and failing to crack hash.
[+] [-] decebalus1|7 years ago|reply
If the US can prosecute foreigners doing foreign things on foreign soil, it should also strip them of all their rights. Is that your reasoning?
[+] [-] gnu8|7 years ago|reply
Would you suggest indicting a drone operator of the US Air Force for violating Afghanistan’s law against murdering people?
[+] [-] abugheratwork|7 years ago|reply
Is doing math a form of expression? Breaking a password amounts to thinking for a very long time about all the ways you could rearrange some bits, and choosing one. I'd call it an expression of preference for certain possible results over others, by way of saving one and letting the rest go.
I know, I'm laughing at the thought of framing a cracked password because you're so proud of your expressive art. Still, I am deeply uncomfortable with a government having the authority to say, "You may not run that program."
[+] [-] wallace_f|7 years ago|reply
With house locks, it's a plain distinction between breaking into a lock and breaking into a house. With cryptography, I imagine that distinction is really problematic?
Though I'm aware in Assange's case they do have proof of intent, but I wonder if it sets bad precedent, or is a case where they just dug up either far-reaching, obscure, or some law which is practically never really enforced?
Edit: my original comment was written poorly
[+] [-] txru|7 years ago|reply
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?
[0] https://www.wired.com/2017/01/russia-hacked-older-republican...
[+] [-] doe88|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ausbah|7 years ago|reply
what..?
[+] [-] oedmarap|7 years ago|reply
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.
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.
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.
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.
[+] [-] the_watcher|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] luxuryballs|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cphoover|7 years ago|reply
If all they were doing was publishing... that should be protected by first amendment.
If Assange conspired with manning that would be a different story, but it doesn't seem to be the case.
I have a lot of issues with Assange, particularly as it pertains to Wikileaks handling of the DNC leaks, and Assange's collaboration with nationalist parties around the world... but despite my distaste for the guy...in this case I don't think he committed a crime.
[+] [-] chiefalchemist|7 years ago|reply
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.
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).
[+] [-] josteink|7 years ago|reply
The accusation is having sex without a condom[1]. In Sweden this is a crime, but it’s not like it’s actual rape.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange...
[+] [-] unknown|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] SiempreViernes|7 years ago|reply
Judging by how much emphasis on the second option, I find it hard to not read an implied dismissal of the sexual assault charge in your comment.
[+] [-] Theodores|7 years ago|reply
In our own mis-spent youths we assume some laws don't apply to us, it can be a simple thing like riding a bicycle on a pavement (sidewalk). Then we might flatten an elderly person as they step out their door, putting them in hospital and to no longer have their health. Only then does the penny drop and that the law is not a petty thing. Before that happens we might assume the policeman ticking us off for riding on a pavement is a 'jobsworth' who should be 'out catching murderers'. But no, the law - even this small one does matter.
I am hoping that aside from the Wikileaks circus that something good can come from this regarding how we see women. 'Well, she was asking for it' attitudes should not wash, regardless of how big the ego is. There was no evidence that the original charges were a pretext to nab Assange and send him off to some US courtroom. Assange should have faced the music and apologised for his conduct, then moved on as a free man having paid whatever fines/community service/prison spell the judged deemed appropriate.
If you are in a hole, stop digging. Assange kept digging.
Much has been made of the benefits of the Wikileaks sideshow but I don't see it that way. If someone had some important information to leak they might easily be discouraged to do so given how Wikileaks had monopolised that 'business' (and made it into a monetized business).
It is not rocket science to create a web page and post documents online, the idea you need Wikileaks for that - to filter it for you - is ridiculous. But Wikileaks created a black hole where any secret documents had to go to in order to be perceived by journalists and the public as a legitimate scandal worthy leak.
The idea that Assange has a 'dead man's switch' is also interesting. Imagine that he did have the crown jewels of leaked information stashed away, let's imagine it was something like the identity of the killer in a murder case, withholding that information from the family of the deceased would put him on the same side as the murderer, harbouring them in effect. This would be morally wrong. So we will see what the leverage he has turns out to be.
[+] [-] artur_makly|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ezoe|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] peter_retief|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thatoneuser|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] belltaco|7 years ago|reply
Not to mention that DNC and Podesta were private entities, not government officials and zero illegality was revealed by those leaks. He later was asking Trump Jr to ask Trump to recommend himself as the Aussie ambassador to the US as payment for helping Trump win.
[+] [-] kstenerud|7 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] luckylion|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dragonwriter|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chmaynard|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] favorited|7 years ago|reply
The Times was allowed to publish the Pentagon Papers, but they didn't facilitate their theft. Ellsberg was charged for the theft, but of course the Nixon admin's misconduct resulted in the charges being dismissed.
[+] [-] robertAngst|7 years ago|reply
Given the corruptness of government, Freedom of Information can be bad.
Unredacted data sounds dangerous, but it asks the question-
"Why is the government doing it to begin with?"
[+] [-] Lowkeyloki|7 years ago|reply
If we could refactor the government, I think that question would be on my short list of things to define in such a way that it guides everything else.
[+] [-] rorykoehler|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] GordonS|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fallingfrog|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] roguecoder|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tyingq|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jeffdavis|7 years ago|reply
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.
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.
[+] [-] dzonga|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 8bitsrule|7 years ago|reply