IANAL but he’s awaiting trial for hacking, not being a journalist. Whether or not the charges are true will be one for the courts to figure out.
A grand jury has already decided that: that's what an indictment means.
US doesn’t exactly have a strong track record of successfully extraditing people from the UK for hacking the military.
Manning, by the way, who had their sentence commuted by president Obama...
No, releasing documents is not conduct that he is charged with.
> Manning, by the way, who had their sentence commuted by president Obama...
Commutation is not a pardon; it is merely a limitation on punishment. Now, a pardon still wouldn't invalidate the Assange charges, but the idea that the fact that a coconspirator got less punishment than their original sentence negates the validity of charges against someone else in the conspiracy is laughable.
edit: I don't really care about the difference between pardon an commuted sentence because they both are a get out of jail free card.
If he did attempt to break the password hash, he conspired to hack military systems. I don't see why someone who attempted to break a password hash for access to classified documents shouldn't be prosecuted, journalist or not.
Presumably there are quite a few reasonable people who disagree on the necessity of prosecuting “crimes” like this. Why’s your way the right way?
Here's a better lens: Assange attempted to solve a math problem.
Solving a hash is not the same as breaking a physical lock, or attempting entry.
He's only charged with one crime, not multiple, and the “one password” is an integral part of the one crime he is charged with. What “supposed crimes” beside that are you referring to?
Read the section "Manners and Means of the Conspiracy"[1] in the indictment. If you removed the second half of bullet 18 (the only part pertaining to the password), this could be used against almost any journalist.
[1] https://www.lawfareblog.com/document-julian-assange-indictme...
Yeah, it's normal for journalists to engage with sources and to acquire information from them, sometimes information that the sources have themselves obtained illegally. But it crosses a bright line for them to collaborate in the illegal acquisition.
Now, you might argue that but for the agreement about the password, the “manner and means” section is largely descriptive of normal journalistic practice. But the manner and means, while necessary description and support, aren't the heart of a conspiracy charge. The “purpose and object” is, and the password is the key part of the manner and means supporting the distinction of the purpose and object from what occurs in normal journalistic practice.
The password isn't a side issue; it's what distinguishes this from “I talked to a source and got copies of documents they stole from safe deposit boxes at the bank where they work” and “I was let into the bank by the source and tried to drill out the lock of a safe deposit box he lacked the key for”.
The former is within the scope of journalism. The latter is not.
If you don't agree with this, what do you take that to mean?
The "Purpose and Object of the Conspiracy" section is not a collection of acts that constitute the conspiracy. It's the objective of the conspiracy. An objective is not an act.
I agree that actually attempting to crack a password so that a source can cover his/her tracks is beyond the actions of a journalist.
And as far as "collaborate in advance" not being a journalistic activity- do you not consider "cultivating sources"[1] to be a core journalistic activity?
Let's say a source/whistleblower reaches out to an NYT journalist. They communicate over "Signal" an encrypted chat. The source worries about being detected in passing the confidential material they've obtained. The NYT journalists assists the source by providing a link to this NYT article "How to tell us a secret"[2].
You could then remove the second half of section 18- add in some other part about the journalist conspiring to assist the source in covering his/her tracks, and reuse this indictment.
That's the threat to journalism.
[1] https://ijnet.org/en/story/developing-and-cultivating-source... [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/19/reader-center/confidentia...
That's not collaboration in advance in the source illegally gaining access to the material. Were the collaboration about delivery from the source alone, I'd agree that there was a potential threat to routine journalistic activity, but that is not the case here.