4 ms·

I think the Assange/wikileaks indictment is a misstep by the justice department/current administration. My understanding is that it's far from clear how a case

I think the Assange/wikileaks indictment is a misstep by the justice department/current administration. My understanding is that it's far from clear how a case again Assange/wikileaks would play out in court. Like the article mentions, the New York Times and others have published classified information repeatedly -- how can Assange be indicted but not the NYT? Assange also isn't an American citizen and he hasn't leaked information himself, just published it. I think there's a good chance Assange would be acquitted. I also think it's a bizarre exagerration to argue that an attempted prosecution of Assage would result in "broad new powers to put Trump’s media 'enemies' in jail". Don't get me wrong -- I don't much care for Assange. It seems to me that there's a lot of hot air coming from him and he appears to have quite an ego. Also, though I understand there is disagreement about this, I think countries keep secrets for a reason and I consider it naive utopianism to expect everything to be brought into the open. In an ideal world, sure, but the world is not ideal. While I don't think Assange/wikileaks are necessarily "siding with Russia," I do think that Russia has made use of wikileaks. Wikileaks is heavily promoted in Russian propaganda, and it seems at least plausible that Russia could obtain information and leak it through wikileaks. This is a problem for wikileaks: if you're all about freedom of information and you make public everything passed onto you, it's totally possible for state actors -- the same state actors whose behavior you find reprehensible -- to use you as a tool to further their own interests.

js8 8y ago
"I think the Assange/wikileaks indictment is a misstep by the justice department/current administration." That is how power is gained, by taking risks. Maybe this will fail in court, maybe it won't. If it won't, the government will get more power. "how can Assange be indicted but not the NYT?" To demonstrate power, you don't need to be fair. In fact, not being fair is much more scary. "I do think that Russia has made use of wikileaks" To me, this begs a question, why was USA so inept in not making use of Wikileaks themselves? If it is an "independent" organization up for grabs. Perhaps to get more power, you need a good enemy, too. That's why.
- bad_user 8y ago
  > To me, this begs a question No it doesn't :-) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
- ArchTypical 8y ago
  > why was USA so inept in not making use of Wikileaks themselves? The USA is inept as an organization. In some areas, by design (eg Patent Office, various Courts, Gerrymandering). There are very few areas where it's not completely hypocritical and demonstrates externally rational behavior. "Using wikileaks" would require multiple departments coordinating. That's been impractical for decades.
will4274 8y ago
> Don't get me wrong -- I don't much care for Assange [...] Why has this blase paragraph become so common? Want to defend Trump's actions on X as consistent with a past president? Include a paragraph on how you don't like him. Want to attack academia for being too much of an echo chamber ("grievance studies")? Make sure to have two paragraph digression on how you're a liberal, not one of those icky conservatives. Why is it necessary to explain that defending an ethical norm in the case of a certain individual does not imply endorsement for all of that individual's actions? Can't we consider ethical arguments on their own merits, without regard to the underlying ideology of the speaker? Is it a garlic clove to ward off American hyperpartisanship? It's my perception that such garlic cloves have become ubiquitous, where only a decade ago they were much rarer.
- ryanwaggoner 8y ago
  Is it a garlic clove to ward off American hyperpartisanship? I think so, yes. I find myself doing it. You can't critique anyone or anything these days without whoever you're talking to automatically assuming you're a diehard fan of the other side.
- dahdum 8y ago
  The far right and the far left are so overrepresented in the media and online discourse that it's necessary to distance yourself or be assumed one of them.
  - will4274 8y ago
    > The far right and the far left are so overrepresented in the media and online discourse I don't think so, no. Not on mainstream forums. They certainly have a lot of their own special forums, but on Reddit, and Facebook, and HackerNews, I find that most commenters are pretty much who you'd expect - random, middle of the road people. > it's necessary to distance yourself or be assumed one of them Have you considered the possibility that you only think these people are overrepresented because you assume anybody without a disclaimer is one of them?
    - 8y ago
gadders 8y ago
I had a look through the article, but is there any evidence this indictment came from the current administration? Could it not date to pre-2016?
- elif 8y ago
  JA's lawyers have long believed the sealed indictment existed, without revealing their reasoning. Likely some off-the-record stuff. I think it's a pretty safe bet that this goes back to Obama.
Bartweiss 8y ago
> I also think it's a bizarre exagerration to argue that an attempted prosecution of Assage would result in "broad new powers to put Trump’s media 'enemies' in jail". I think this depends almost entirely on what Assange is prosecuted for. It's true that prosecutions of reporters began (after a post-Nixon lull) under Bush, and largely don't rely on anything that an Assange trial would determine. But there are at least two things Assange could be tried for which would seriously erode protections for reporters. The article points out that the NYT has published classified information - that's basically the problem. Those publications aren't actually guaranteed to be legal. The Pentagon Papers case rejected a prior restraint argument for barring publication, but left open both the possibility of other prior restraint suits and the possibility of simple charges for mishandling classified information. A court case against Assange could be used to set either of those precedents, settling a currently-ambiguous question about press freedoms in the US under a Supreme Court that might well walk back the NYT v US interpretation. (And Assange can be indicted while the NYT isn't because that's discretionary - the DoJ is free to charge whoever they think is most likely to get them a convenient court ruling, however hypocritical that may be.) Less likely but more even more frightening, some Congressmen have previously talked about charging Assange under the Espionage Act. In fact, a few people have specifically talked about having him subpoenaed without charge so that he could be extradited easily, then invoking Espionage Act once the capital punishment provision wouldn't cause complications. Convicting a non-resident non-citizen of espionage for sharing someone else's leaks would be a fairly shocking decision, but if it happened it would extend legal risk to reporters worldwide. Edit: I was wrong about the lack of precedent here. A noncitizen has already been successfully charged for acts taken outside the United States which did not involve direct access to US resources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Zehe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Zehe I haven't seriously followed what charges could be brought over the 2016/Russia question, since it seems relatively unlikely that a Trump DoJ would bring a case there. A subpoena over 2016 could potentially have come out of Congress, but that's not likely to lead to a criminal charge at present.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > Convicting a non-resident non-citizen of espionage for sharing someone else's leaks would be a fairly shocking decision The usual foreign intelligence case officer is a non-citizen, often non-resident, whose main business is soliciting, recieving, and redistributing other people's leaks of sensitive information. It is, to say the least, not at all unheard of for such people to be convicted of espionage, as they are literally the primary target of espionage laws. > I haven't seriously followed what charges could be brought over the 2016/Russia question, since it seems relatively unlikely that a Trump DoJ would bring a case there. “Trump DoJ” is too simple of a model; both the Special Counsel's Office at DoJ and other DoJ offices (notably SDNY) are bringing indictments politically uncomfortable to Trump, stemming from (but not always specific to) the “2016/Russia question”.
livueta 8y ago
> Also, though I understand there is disagreement about this, I think countries keep secrets for a reason and I consider it naive utopianism to expect everything to be brought into the open. The article obliquely addresses this concern: > Ronald Reagan’s executive secretary for the National Security Council, Rodney McDaniel, estimated that 90 percent of what was classified didn’t need to be. The head of the 9/11 commission put the number at 75 percent. > This created a huge amount of tension between so-called “real secrets” — things that really should never be made public, like military positions and the designs of mass-destruction weapons — and things that are merely extremely embarrassing to people in power and should come out. The bombing of civilian targets in Iraq was one example. The mistreatment of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay was another. While I'm sure that advocates of naively utopian absolute transparency do exist, a much stronger position is that perfectly legitimate reasons of security have been abused to protect bad actors in power. It's a lot easier to argue against leakers and for the necessity of classified information when the system for designating state secrets doesn't conspicuously lack integrity. Rather than "no secrets ever", the argument posits the necessity of leakers in an environment where the majority of secret info should not be secret.

js8 8y ago

"I think the Assange/wikileaks indictment is a misstep by the justice department/current administration." That is how power is gained, by taking risks. Maybe this will fail in court, maybe it won't. If it won't, the government will get more power. "how can Assange be indicted but not the NYT?" To demonstrate power, you don't need to be fair. In fact, not being fair is much more scary. "I do think that Russia has made use of wikileaks" To me, this begs a question, why was USA so inept in not making use of Wikileaks themselves? If it is an "independent" organization up for grabs. Perhaps to get more power, you need a good enemy, too. That's why.

bad_user 8y ago
> To me, this begs a question No it doesn't :-) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
ArchTypical 8y ago
> why was USA so inept in not making use of Wikileaks themselves? The USA is inept as an organization. In some areas, by design (eg Patent Office, various Courts, Gerrymandering). There are very few areas where it's not completely hypocritical and demonstrates externally rational behavior. "Using wikileaks" would require multiple departments coordinating. That's been impractical for decades.

will4274 8y ago

> Don't get me wrong -- I don't much care for Assange [...] Why has this blase paragraph become so common? Want to defend Trump's actions on X as consistent with a past president? Include a paragraph on how you don't like him. Want to attack academia for being too much of an echo chamber ("grievance studies")? Make sure to have two paragraph digression on how you're a liberal, not one of those icky conservatives. Why is it necessary to explain that defending an ethical norm in the case of a certain individual does not imply endorsement for all of that individual's actions? Can't we consider ethical arguments on their own merits, without regard to the underlying ideology of the speaker? Is it a garlic clove to ward off American hyperpartisanship? It's my perception that such garlic cloves have become ubiquitous, where only a decade ago they were much rarer.

ryanwaggoner 8y ago
Is it a garlic clove to ward off American hyperpartisanship? I think so, yes. I find myself doing it. You can't critique anyone or anything these days without whoever you're talking to automatically assuming you're a diehard fan of the other side.
dahdum 8y ago
The far right and the far left are so overrepresented in the media and online discourse that it's necessary to distance yourself or be assumed one of them.
- will4274 8y ago
  > The far right and the far left are so overrepresented in the media and online discourse I don't think so, no. Not on mainstream forums. They certainly have a lot of their own special forums, but on Reddit, and Facebook, and HackerNews, I find that most commenters are pretty much who you'd expect - random, middle of the road people. > it's necessary to distance yourself or be assumed one of them Have you considered the possibility that you only think these people are overrepresented because you assume anybody without a disclaimer is one of them?
  - 8y ago

gadders 8y ago

I had a look through the article, but is there any evidence this indictment came from the current administration? Could it not date to pre-2016?

elif 8y ago
JA's lawyers have long believed the sealed indictment existed, without revealing their reasoning. Likely some off-the-record stuff. I think it's a pretty safe bet that this goes back to Obama.

Bartweiss 8y ago

> I also think it's a bizarre exagerration to argue that an attempted prosecution of Assage would result in "broad new powers to put Trump’s media 'enemies' in jail". I think this depends almost entirely on what Assange is prosecuted for. It's true that prosecutions of reporters began (after a post-Nixon lull) under Bush, and largely don't rely on anything that an Assange trial would determine. But there are at least two things Assange could be tried for which would seriously erode protections for reporters. The article points out that the NYT has published classified information - that's basically the problem. Those publications aren't actually guaranteed to be legal. The Pentagon Papers case rejected a prior restraint argument for barring publication, but left open both the possibility of other prior restraint suits and the possibility of simple charges for mishandling classified information. A court case against Assange could be used to set either of those precedents, settling a currently-ambiguous question about press freedoms in the US under a Supreme Court that might well walk back the NYT v US interpretation. (And Assange can be indicted while the NYT isn't because that's discretionary - the DoJ is free to charge whoever they think is most likely to get them a convenient court ruling, however hypocritical that may be.) Less likely but more even more frightening, some Congressmen have previously talked about charging Assange under the Espionage Act. In fact, a few people have specifically talked about having him subpoenaed without charge so that he could be extradited easily, then invoking Espionage Act once the capital punishment provision wouldn't cause complications. Convicting a non-resident non-citizen of espionage for sharing someone else's leaks would be a fairly shocking decision, but if it happened it would extend legal risk to reporters worldwide. Edit: I was wrong about the lack of precedent here. A noncitizen has already been successfully charged for acts taken outside the United States which did not involve direct access to US resources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Zehe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Zehe I haven't seriously followed what charges could be brought over the 2016/Russia question, since it seems relatively unlikely that a Trump DoJ would bring a case there. A subpoena over 2016 could potentially have come out of Congress, but that's not likely to lead to a criminal charge at present.

dragonwriter 8y ago
> Convicting a non-resident non-citizen of espionage for sharing someone else's leaks would be a fairly shocking decision The usual foreign intelligence case officer is a non-citizen, often non-resident, whose main business is soliciting, recieving, and redistributing other people's leaks of sensitive information. It is, to say the least, not at all unheard of for such people to be convicted of espionage, as they are literally the primary target of espionage laws. > I haven't seriously followed what charges could be brought over the 2016/Russia question, since it seems relatively unlikely that a Trump DoJ would bring a case there. “Trump DoJ” is too simple of a model; both the Special Counsel's Office at DoJ and other DoJ offices (notably SDNY) are bringing indictments politically uncomfortable to Trump, stemming from (but not always specific to) the “2016/Russia question”.

livueta 8y ago

> Also, though I understand there is disagreement about this, I think countries keep secrets for a reason and I consider it naive utopianism to expect everything to be brought into the open. The article obliquely addresses this concern: > Ronald Reagan’s executive secretary for the National Security Council, Rodney McDaniel, estimated that 90 percent of what was classified didn’t need to be. The head of the 9/11 commission put the number at 75 percent. > This created a huge amount of tension between so-called “real secrets” — things that really should never be made public, like military positions and the designs of mass-destruction weapons — and things that are merely extremely embarrassing to people in power and should come out. The bombing of civilian targets in Iraq was one example. The mistreatment of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay was another. While I'm sure that advocates of naively utopian absolute transparency do exist, a much stronger position is that perfectly legitimate reasons of security have been abused to protect bad actors in power. It's a lot easier to argue against leakers and for the necessity of classified information when the system for designating state secrets doesn't conspicuously lack integrity. Rather than "no secrets ever", the argument posits the necessity of leakers in an environment where the majority of secret info should not be secret.