Does anyone doubt that Assange did the basic act he is being accused of?
That is requesting and then participating in the theft of classified information.
That is requesting and then participating in the theft of classified information.
Assange had no clearance and took no oaths regarding this information. Converting "working with a source" into "conspiracy to access an information system" because the files were on a computer instead of in a drawer should fail the smell test.
Ellsberg's charges were dismissed because of gross government misconduct, that doesn't settle anything.
NYT vs US established that its totally OK to publish documents you receive. They're trying to make Assange a 'conspirator' in the exfiltration for working with Manning. Apparently the extent of his alleged direct involvement was receiving a password hash but not actually cracking or doing anything with it: https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1153486/downl...
The idea that this is espionage (what he is being charged with) is ludicrous.
This is an uncomfortable topic for his detractors.
Even more uncomfortable given that Obama worried it was unconstitutional and criminalized journalism.
If this happened to a Russian citizen in Russia finding evidence of Russian war crimes not one of his detractors would argue that he was guilty.
I agree that the espionage charges are ridiculous and dangerous for actual investigative journalists.
If you say so.
i.e. what is the differentiator that makes Assange innocent of espionage and would make someone else guilty?
Whatever definition is used if it includes leaking war crimes to the public and youre ok with that you are signing up to putting the pieces in place for a fascist dictatorship. That is not an exaggeration.
Not particularly good, IMO: Knowledge of what resources you have where seems pretty damn important, and that's neither "tactics, techniques or technology" AFAICS.
> Whatever definition is used if it includes leaking war crimes to the public and youre ok with that you are signing up to putting the pieces in place for a fascist dictatorship.
This ever so conveniently ignores the crux of the matter, namely that he (at least according to his accusers) leaked so much more than just "war crimes".
> That is not an exaggeration.
Given the above, it's a huge exaggeration.
Sure, add that to the list. It doesnt change anything.
It was a definition I came up with on the spur of the moment. If you're picking minor holes in it then you missed my broader point: if your country's legal definition of aiding and abetting the enemy includes exposing war crimes to the world at large then it's deliberately not about espionage at all.
>This ever so conveniently ignores the crux of the matter, namely that he (at least according to his accusers) leaked so much more than just "war crimes".
It's not convenient in the slightest. Leaking evidence of American war crimes is all he is on trial for.
>Given the above, it's a huge exaggeration.
It's not an exaggeration in the slightest. This prosection is a giant klaxon warning bell signaling impeding fascism.
Not just the prosecution itself, but how little support there is for dropping the case.
To be clear, I have no problem with the publication part. But to frame investigative journalism as being dependent on criminal activity to survive is ignoring decades of groundbreaking, hard hitting reporting done completely within the bounds of the law.
That's a little hyperbolic. I'm certain it's possible to do so within the law, but when it comes to corruption or cover-ups at a government or corporate level, there's simply no other way for a journalist to do their work without leaks. This requires some protection by the law, and once such protection is taken away, it would be nigh-on impossible to get it back. There may be some legal peculiarities about JA's case that make him different from a journalist in some way - IANAL - but I worry that even a technical distinction would be unfair, as he has uncovered much that is of public interest.
This isn't about legal peculiarities. When Assange was offering help to crack passwords and encouraging Manning to access unauthorized material, he wasn't being a whistleblower or a journalist. He was conspiring to commit a crime. He knew that. He'd already been charged with hacking as a teenager. It was a choice he made having weighed up the risks and benefits.
Ellsberg only got off because the prosecution was bungled, but they sure wanted to imprison him, just like they really want to imprison Assange.
You are using this word as a taint, free of context. In the way people toss away drug users because after all possessing drugs is a crime. Therefore, they are a criminal.
You don't ask, why is this a crime? Should we respect this law? Forget all that, obviously someone made up this great law and people who don't follow it are bad.
Classification blocks real journalists from pursuing stories all the time. It works. It literally almost worked in Watergate. The fist hearings into Nixon's dirty money machine closed with little to show because of government secrecy. The government classifies millions of documents per year. It's not just state secrets. It's anything that could be embarrassing, anything that might undermine a government position, etc.
To be clear, I don't have a clear opinion on whether he committed those crimes or not. I do think there's enough evidence to support an indictment.
No such "offer" was extended, nor is there any evidence that cracked passwords were ever used to obtain any data. If you're suggesting that merely talking about password cracking is a crime, well then you've just criminalised a lot of discussions here on HN and reddit.
> encouraging further network intrusion is not a crime
Cite the transcript entries [1] where this alleged encouragement happened.
> I do think there's enough evidence to support an indictment
And you formed this opinion from actually reading the official transcripts [1]?
[1] https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/886185-pe-123.html#d...
dawgnetwork@jabber.ccc.de 2010 03 08 15 55:28 any good at lm hash cracking?
pressassociation@jabber.ccc.de 2010 03 08 16:00:29 yes
pressassociation@jabber.ccc.de 2010 03 08 16:02:23 we have rainbow tables for lm
dawgnetwork@jabber.ccc.de 2010 03 08 16:04:14 80c11049faebf441d524fb3c4cd5351c
…
dawgnetwork@jabber.ccc.de 2010 03 08 16:05:07 I think its lm + lmmnt
…
dawgnetwork@jabber.ccc.de 2010 03 08 16:09:06 not even sure if thats the hash...l had to hexdump a SAM file,since I dont have the system file...
pressassociation@jabber.ccc.de 2010 03 08 16:10:06 what makes you think its lm?
pressassociation@jabber.ccc.de 2010 03 08 16:10:19 its from a SAM?
dawgnetwork@jabber.ccc.de 2010 03 08 16:10:24 yeah
pressassociation@jabber.ccc.de 2010 03 08 16:11:26 passed it onto our lm guy
dawgnetwork@jabber.ccc.de 2010 03 08 16:11:40 thx
> Cite the transcript entries where this alleged encouragement happened.
dawgnetwork@jabber.ccc.de 2010 03 08 06:31:42 after this upload,thats all I really have got left
pressassociation@jabber.ccc.de 2010 03 0806:32:15 curious eyes never run dry in my experience
Yes I'm familiar with the exchange. I ask again, where is the offer to crack the password exactly? Assange claims an ability to crack, and claims that he passed the hash on, but notice the complete absence of promises to attempt to crack, or statements of intent to use it to compromise computer systems, or corroborating evidence that Assange actually passed it on or actually attempted to crack the password. Assange could be lying or exaggerating or any number of other things.
And you think this constitutes sufficient evidence for an indictment? If so, you have really low standards of evidence.
> Cite the transcript entries where this alleged encouragement happened.
And where is the encouragement? All I see is you projecting an unjustified interpretation.
Even if I steelman your position and we both agree that Assange was encouraging further leaks, are you suggesting that a journalist cannot ask their sources to continue feeding them information? Because if so, you are suggesting we indict every journalist with a source.
Pull the other one, it's got bells on.
Well of course, everybody knows for it to be a real extortion attempt first you have to fill out a 543B detailing payment options, severity of firebombing in case of failure to comply and ancillary terms & conditions. Otherwise it's just a couple of guys exploring some hypotheticals like they do on HN and Reddit all the time.
Honestly, if this is what the defense is going to look like it's not hard to see why they're reluctant to try it out in front of a judge.
1) That's what a court is for deciding.
2) If you and Assange are so sure of this, he should welcome and relish his chance to show so in court.
3) He obviously isn't, and neither are you. Why not?