Has someone actually read the charges to see what Assange is accused of? Surely it's something more than "publishing secret documents." Are they accusing him of exercising free speech, or accusing him of actual crimes?
The short version is they're accusing him of encouraging and engaging in illegal acts to obtain documents, not just publishing the documents.
EDIT: Updated link as per acqq's comment. Old link: https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1165556/downl...
If the source doesn't have the information yet then you are asking them to steal government secrets, the crime for which is conspiracy to steal government secrets. That's traditionally what spies do, not journalists, which is why the crime exists.
Physical strength is a necessary component of committing a crime in my analogy, and the doctor is supplying it even though they know the person is likely to use it in furtherance of illegal acts. Still it is the doctor's duty to heal their patient, and the patient's responsibility whether to commit more crimes or not. Even though they're helping their patient, the doctor is not conspiring to rob a convenience store.
The crime of conspiracy has two requirements. 1) That two people make an agreement to commit a crime and 2) that at least one person takes an "overt act" in furtherance of the crime.
Count 18 of the indictment [0] charges that Assange and Manning "conspir[ed] to commit computer intrusion." The first condition of agreement was easy to show, they clearly agreed they were going to break into a government system. More challenging are the overt acts: they allege that Manning stole the password hash and sent it to Assange, who tried to break it himself, saying "No luck so far."
So both the analogies of providing medical care and advice are irrelevant here - Assange didn't just provide information, he allegedly actually participated in the "overt acts" of criminal conspiracy by trying to crack the password. In your analogy, the doctor joined the criminal on the heist.
[0] https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1165556/downl...
I was specifically responding to the idea that telling someone about a program was furthering a crime. You're arguing a different point. And to me it's completely uninteresting to argue over what USG can technically charge him with, because we already know that USG is adept at crafting and twisting law to justify its own actions.
https://shadowproof.com/2020/09/07/judge-railroads-assange-a...
"On June 24, [2020] the defense learned when a press release was published that Assange would soon face a third indictment. It was their belief that the indictment only added narrative details and expanded the timeline from 2010-2011 to 2010-2015.
The U.S. government served the indictment to the defense, but not the court, on July 2. Then, on August 12, a fresh extradition request based on the third indictment was issued. (It was dated July 17.)
Prosecutors notified the defense on August 21 that the third indictment does not include any additional charges, contrary to the defense’s understanding, the new details are not “mere narrative.” They “constitute the conduct upon which this court is entitled, and indeed must now determine [whether] an extradition offense is made out” under the relevant law.
Mark Summers, a lawyer for Assange, referred to two general allegations—Count 1, which involves an alleged conspiracy to release “national defense information,” and Count 2, which is an alleged conspiracy to commit computer intrusions under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
By adding new material, prosecutors believe they can extradite Assange, even if they do not convince the court that publishing disclosures from Pfc. Chelsea Manning was a criminal act."
There are no new indictments per se but it does add the allegation that Assange and wikileaks recruited hackers to commit computer crimes.
We would be loosing our minds of how China has audacity to even try shit like that.
The one hacking charge is 5years total sentence of 125yrs that us is seeking.
HK case is completely different where China tried to pass far reaching law based on a murder case, that was the reason people did protested (on top of other power grab by CHinese government).
> Hong Kong police have issued arrest warrants for six overseas-based democracy activists
> US national Chu, who is the managing director of the Hong Kong Democracy Council, a Washington DC-based advocacy group promoting freedom and autonomy for Hong Kong, appears to be the first known non-Hong Kong citizen to be targeted under the new security law.
> In recent weeks, several countries have suspended their extradition treaties with Hong Kong, including the United Kingdom and Australia. On Friday, Germany joined that list
Based on what I read (might be biased) he's charged for helping Chelsea Manning getting the documents (hacking) and publishing the documents before they were fully redacted to remove names and things that could help identify people - to protect the safety of people involved (common practice). This is debatable because he worked hard to redact name (together with the big newspapers), but other people published the raw documents before him and in the end Wiki Leaks release raw documents as well.
All this is pieced together based on Craig Murray's blog [1], which is often flagged here on HN.
This is how it works everywhere that has theoretically free speech, but not practical free speech. The principle itself is rarely attacked, rather the surrounding activities are criminalized.
For example, these are actual excerpts from The PRC's Constitution (http://www.npc.gov.cn/zgrdw/englishnpc/Constitution/2007-11/...):
> Article 35 Citizens of the People’s Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession and of demonstration.
> Article 36 Citizens of the People’s Republic of China enjoy freedom of religious belief.
Does that sound like the practical situation in mainland China? How do you imagine a PRC court verdict about protesting reads?
They're accusing him of helping and encouraging the "stealing" of state secrets, which he then exposed.
And follow the trial updates to see the issues. Day 17 is particularly risible.