26 ms·

Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

531 points by juliusmusseau 8y ago

sneak 8y ago
> Additionally, Assange was arrested on Swedish rape charges in 2010; his current asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London began after the UK attempted to extradite him on those charges in 2012. In May 2017, Sweden dropped the charges. This is factually inaccurate - Assange has not been charged with a crime by any country. There was an investigation in Sweden but no charges were brought. Presumably he will be indicted in the US momentarily. As yet, not a single country has charged him with a crime. Edit: yes, the US has now indicted him on a conspiracy charge—his first.
- favorited 8y ago
  He was charged and convicted of skipping on his bail in 2012.
chmaynard 8y ago
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.
- robertAngst 8y ago
  Freedom of Information only exists because government is historically corrupt and there needs to be a counterweight. 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?"
  - sigzero 8y ago
    Because there ARE secrets that governments need to keep.
    - airstrike 8y ago
      I find it amazing that this is actually downvoted, but then again this is probably a biased audience as far as that topic goes
    - rorykoehler 8y ago
      Then they should be held to account for abusing their powers to also cover up illegal activity.
- Lowkeyloki 8y ago
  When does information generated or collected by the government not belong to its people? 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.
  - henryfjordan 8y ago
    The government generated the nuclear launch codes. Do you think you should have access to those?
    - Lowkeyloki 8y ago
      I never said that all government information should belong to the people. I asked a question. I do believe there's a line. But I don't like where that line is now, in part because the line isn't well-defined. Although, if I did have nuclear launch codes, I doubt I could do anything meaningful with them. As it should be. Simply knowing the codes is not enough to authorize one to launch nuclear weapons. That would be a catastrophic single point of failure.
      - SiempreViernes 8y ago
        Indeed, you have to be the president too. That person should always be able to launch the nukes at any target whatsoever, and ensuring this is possible is the task of the United States Nuclear forces.
      - henryfjordan 8y ago
        Ahh, sorry I read your comment as more zealous than it was. To my knowledge (and I could be very wrong), Manning and Assange released info about then-current troop operations in the middle east. People's lives were endangered by the release of the info. You might not like where the line is, but I don't think they have too much of a leg to stand on either (assuming my understand is correct).
        Lowkeyloki 8y ago
- GordonS 8y ago
  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.
- favorited 8y ago
  > 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.
- rorykoehler 8y ago
  IF said information contains evidence of illegal activity then it should be exempt from secrecy laws. Start at the root and work out.
belltaco 8y ago
What part of the first amendment exonerates knowingly attempting to crack NTLM keys of US military logins? 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 8y ago
  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.
  - slg 8y ago
    Non-Americans are certainly protected by the Constitution while in the US, but I thought there was still a legal debate about whether the US Constitution fully applies to foreign nationals while outside the US. Hasn't that long been the legal excuse used for things like international mass surveillance and what goes on in Guantanamo Bay?
    - ceejayoz 8y ago
      The First Amendment doesn't apply to anyone while outside the US. A US citizen in Saudi Arabia doesn't have First Amendment protections there. For the US to prosecute Assange, they have to prosecute him in the US, where he does enjoy First Amendment protections, as the First Amendment limits what Congress (and via the Fourteenth, state/local as well) can do.
      - village-idiot 8y ago
        It also limits what speech congress can make illegal, effectively controlling what the executive branch can do because of speech.
      - oliveshell 8y ago
        Exactly. If a person is on trial in the U.S. for breaking U.S. law, then U.S. constitutional protections apply— regardless of citizenship or where the alleged crime took place.
hsnewman 8y ago
Why would a Australian be provided the rights of an US citizen?
- ikeboy 8y ago
  Everyone has constitutional rights, not just US citizens.
  - belltaco 8y ago
    Depends. A foreign citizen visiting or working in the US is not allowed to own guns regardless of the 2nd amendment.
    - throwawayjava 8y ago
      Green card holders may own and purchase guns, and non-permanent residents may also own and purchase guns (but it's complicated). This isn't really relevant to the point you're making in this thread, but figured I'd point it out anyways
    - ikeboy 8y ago
      https://blogs.findlaw.com/seventh_circuit/2015/09/non-citizens-have-a-right-to-bear-arms----with-1-major-catch.html https://blogs.findlaw.com/seventh_circuit/2015/09/non-citize... hm.
- mindcrime 8y ago
  https://www.maniatislawoffice.com/blog/2018/08/do-non-citizens-have-constitutional-rights.shtml https://www.maniatislawoffice.com/blog/2018/08/do-non-citize...
- colechristensen 8y ago
  The first amendment does not give freedoms to a citizen, it limits the government from abridging the freedom of speech.
Simulacra 8y ago
I use to go back and forth on Julian, but at this point I think he should be punished, but what that punishment should be I don't know. I think Manning stealing the cables was an absolute wrong, and Assange facilitating that shows a level of culpability. He should not be afforded American protection. Crimes were committed, even if they were done with the best intentions, it was still a crime. We all count, or no one counts.
- wallace_f 8y ago
  This comment reads like it was written by an algorithm.
  - sctb 8y ago
    Please don't post like this. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - viivaux 8y ago
      There is much more objectionable content in the original post.
    - wallace_f 8y ago
      Sorry about that. I wonder how to communicate that more politely. I took a quick look at roughly the last two dozen comments you've made to users regarding guideline infractions. I noticed in every single one that you named a specific rule within your complaint. I also noticed that they all appeared to be actually not just downvoted, but even flagged. By stsrk contrast, this comment here is actually upvoted. As another user pointed out here, the relative objectionable content of this comment is questionable. Yet, I'm actually happy to cooperate. I'd ask in the future that you offer me the same benefit of the doubt and entitlement to know what it is I am being charged with respect to the rules, as you do with every other user. As you might be aware, I've been receiving trolling, bullying and very suspicious, apparent downvote brigaiding by some users here, so I ask you consider my request in good faith as this would be helpful to have no doubts that the mods are not part of any hate, bullying or negativity.
peteradio 8y ago
Is anybody arguing he shouldn't? To my knowledge that's never been seriously questioned. What is he being charged again?
- waffleguy 8y ago
  He already has first amendment protection. You have an article above that explains the charges... you don’t even have to google and you’re lazy
  - peteradio 8y ago
    My questions are rhetorical read between the lines.
    - waffleguy 8y ago
      Rhetorical questions don’t work online. Read a book.
qrbLPHiKpiux 8y ago
One part of the indictment is very troubling: #5 Assange, Who did not possess a security clearance or need to know, Was not authorized to receive classified information of the United States.
Lowkeyloki 8y ago
This wasn't mentioned specifically in the article, but this reminds me how we have some legal protections for whistle-blowers in the United States (not nearly enough, IMHO) but none of those protections extend to government employees. It's as if the government thinks they're incapable of breaking their own laws. If you do it to a privately held company, it's whistle-blowing. If you do it to the government, it's treason.
- tssva 8y ago
  This is false. US Government employees have whistleblower protections under the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 and PPD-19 which Obama issued in 2012.
  - Lowkeyloki 8y ago
    Unfortunately too late for Chelsea Manning.
    - tssva 8y ago
      Chelsea Manning's release would still be a crime and not afforded whistleblower protection under current law. There were and are specific processes to be followed to qualify for whistleblower protection.
    - diminoten 8y ago
      Yeah, which is why her sentence was commuted (albeit later than would be ideal for her).
  - AnaniasAnanas 8y ago
    Does it not also apply to Snowden then?
    - tssva 8y ago
      First since the original comment was about government employees it is important to point out that Snowden was a contractor and not a government employee. Although no form of protection from employment retaliation was in place at the time of Snowden's information release the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998 did provide a process for intelligence community employees and contractors to raise issues. Snowden didn't follow the procedures of the act and his direct release of classified material is not protected by the act nor would any laws passed since to strengthen whistleblower protection provide any defense for such a release of classified material. Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998 requires a whistleblower to raise any issues to the Department of Justice for review. The DoJ evaluates any issues raised and if they determine they may be credible will report the issues and supporting material to the Senate and House Intelligence committees along with starting their own investigation. If the DoJ determines they issues are not credible the employee and contractor can present the issue and any supporting classified documentation to the Senate and House Intelligence committees themselves.
chiefalchemist 8y ago
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).
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- SiempreViernes 8y ago
  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.
  - antt 8y ago
    Everything and the kitchen sink has been thrown at Assange. Grooming children from the embassy, meeting Russians in the embassy, meeting Trumps team in the embassy. At what point does you bullshit detector go off and you think "there are at least three people organizing this character assaination, that is the definition of a conspiracy"?
    - belltaco 8y ago
      Can't say I'm too concerned after what he did. https://our.wikileaks.org/Pizzagate https://our.wikileaks.org/Pizzagate Leading to: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/john-podesta-pizzagate-766489/ https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/john...
    - freeflight 8y ago
      Don't forget "he doesn't clean his bathroom" and "doesn't take proper care of his cat". If Hitler wasn't dead, he'd probably be rumored to have bunked with Assange as a flatmate.
syntaxing 8y ago
When I took journalism in college, they taught us to things that is not protected by the first amendment. One of them is anything that effects national security which I assume his case falls under. Edit: As I get down voted, I should clarify that I mean for a civilian. I believe my professor was talking about this case since it was relatively new at that time [1]. [1]https://www.rcfp.org/national-security-trumps-first-amendment-espionage-case/ https://www.rcfp.org/national-security-trumps-first-amendmen...
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > When I took journalism in college, they taught us to things that is not protected by the first amendment. One of them is anything that effects national security You should get a refund on your tuition; a number of First Amendment protections have been articulated in national security related cases, notably the rule against prior restraint in the Pentagon Papers case which is what allowed their publication.
  - wallace_f 8y ago
    Im not 100% sure but I think parent comment needs just 1-2 more downvotes to be flagged/hidden which is kind of sad because combined with your comment, it is a valuable, relevant discussion. In other words, comment downvoting is used for disagreement, but the effect of silencing discussions will also silence information users may be able to use to know why such comments are disagreeable.
  - otterley 8y ago
    Attorney here! (Not offering legal advice, though - consult a licensed attorney in your state.) They key phrase here is "prior restraint." That's not the issue here; the information has been published already. So the holding in the Pentagon Papers case (aka _New York Times_) doesn't apply to this set of circumstances. Moreover, the Pentagon Papers case made no law. The opinion itself only reversed an appellate court decision and affirmed the judgment of a district court. Read it yourself: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/403/713/#tab-opinion-1949387 https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/403/713/#tab-opi... First Amendment law respecting the dissemination of classified information -- by "journalists" (whatever they may be), or otherwise -- is not as settled as people think, and it's my personal view that unless the Supreme Court concludes otherwise, Mr. Assange could find himself in very hot water, as Chelsea Manning did.
the_watcher 8y ago
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.
- cphoover 8y ago
  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.
  - amanaplanacanal 8y ago
    > If Assange conspired with manning that would be a different story, but it doesn't seem to be the case. I'm guessing that they have evidence that yes, he did conspire.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > If Assange conspired with manning that would be a different story, but it doesn't seem to be the case. That's literally the exactly what he is charged with.
- luxuryballs 8y ago
  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”
  - roguecoder 8y ago
calhoun137 8y ago
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 https://www.salon.com/2010/12/24/wikileaks_23/ https://www.salon.com/2010/12/24/wikileaks_23/
- microcolonel 8y ago
  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.
  - kbenson 8y ago
    There may be some truth to that for some people, but let's not discount the amount of people (I think a majority) that distinguish between exposing government actions and meddling with an election and colluding with a foreign power in dosing so. To be clear, whether they are guilty of that or not is irrelevant to the point that people beleive they are, and that can explain a lot of the difference in how they are perceived now. Ignoring that in favor of narrative where all the Democrats are complete hypocrites is no different than what you were accusing others of in your comment.
ryanlool 8y ago
>Please don't post about how the law works from your gut feelings about the matter. This forum is awash in people just imagining what the law is every time it comes up. Go look at the law itself. There's no requirement as you've imagined there is. I never made any claims about how US law works. Please do not misattribute such claims to me, it's not only dishonest but also quite rude.
- throwawayjava 8y ago
  In that case, consider rethinking your use of the word "supposed". Most native speakers from my part of the US will interpret that use to mean something similar to "ostensible". I.e., if you want to avoid confusion, don't ever say "supposedly X" if you actually do believe "X" is a fact. Oxford has this to say on supposedly: "used to show that you do not believe that something you have been told is true". Hope that helps
  - ryanlool 8y ago
    Surely it's a supposed or ostensible act until he's actually convicted?
- lazyasciiart 8y ago
  You haven't shown that you know how any law works.
  - ryanlol 8y ago
    That seems quite consistent with the fact that I have mostly avoided commenting on how laws work.
- ABCLAW 8y ago
  >I never made any claims about how US law works. Please do not misattribute such claims to me, it's not only dishonest but also quite rude. >The case against Assange appears to be very weak This is probably the easiest, most straightforward example.
Causality1 8y ago
I was a huge fan os Assange back when wikileaks was an equal-opportunity expose of government secrets. Unfortunately it didn't stay that way, and over time seemed to largely function at the behest of the Russian government.
thatoneuser 8y ago
Dark day to see so many people willingly claim assange deserves punishment.
- belltaco 8y ago
  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.
  - thatoneuser 8y ago
    Showed Hillary was cheating the dnc which she lied to the public about. There's plenty more justification but thats enough for me.
    - roguecoder 8y ago
      There he was just doing oppo research for Trump, corrdinated via Roger Stone. We don’t know whether he also conspired with that crime, as he is alleged to have done here, but we do know that if it was about public information we would have seen the RNC and Conway’s emails too. Since it was a crime and a possibly-unrelated disclosure both of which were acts of propaganda and information warfare and he has said it was motivated by his personal desire to change the outcome of the election, it is by definition neither motivated by not in service to educating the public.
      - thatoneuser 8y ago
        Conway or the rnc had zero impact on people's perception of trump. Trump was the forerunner and eventually became president and it was clear that was the only way a republican would be president by the time the dnc emails were leaked. What would it have accomplished to release those docs, assuming assange had possession of them? What exactly was the crime you're referring to and saying he's guilty of? If I have information about two candidates I can give it to others however I'd like.
Tsubasachan 8y ago
Uhm what? Non US citizens aren't covered by the Constitution. Its why you never ever do anything illegal when you are in the US. I would try to smuggle a bag of heroine into Singapore before ignoring a red light in New York.
- jessaustin 8y ago
  Please don't give travel advice (or legal advice I guess?) to anyone.
dzonga 8y ago
issue here is someone is getting arrested for exposing war criminals.
txru 8y ago
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? [0] https://www.wired.com/2017/01/russia-hacked-older-republican-emails-fbi-director-says/ https://www.wired.com/2017/01/russia-hacked-older-republican...
- ENGNR 8y ago
  That linked article doesn't say that Assange had any RNC emails, only that Russia probably has some. Given that Russia is very pro-Trump it's not hard to imagine Russia only providing Assange with the DNC ones to publish. And he has said that if he had RNC emails he'd have published them
  - txru 8y ago
    The Podesta leaks and the DNC emails came from Russia, and he must have known their intent. Either he's an active tool, or a passive and complicit one, but I think my point stands.
    - rocqua 8y ago
      There is a big difference between these two cases: 1. Here are DNC leaks, here are RNC leaks. Thanks, oh you want me to withhold on the RNC ones because you like those. Sure! 2. Here are DNC leaks, we have some RNC leaks, but we won't give them to you. Thanks, can I please have the RNC ones too? No. Okay. In the first case, one actively withholds important information. In the second case, one is publishing all information available. You might argue that in the second case, you should hold fast and say 'give me everything or I don't show anything' and therefore case 2 is bad. But you can't deny that case 1 is worse than case 2.
oedmarap 8y ago
> 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.
doe88 8y ago
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.
- ausbah 8y ago
  >Instead of prosecuting people committing murders in a video what..?
  - betterunix2 8y ago
    Possibly a reference to the "Collateral Murder" video released by Wikileaks, which showed a US military helicopter shooting people in Iraq.
  - josteink 8y ago
    Wikileaks uncovered blatant killing of civilians by US military personnel during the Iraqi war. To my knowledge, no one has been prosecuted for these murders.
  - roguecoder 8y ago
    Maybe the police shootings? Vallejo just had another one.
  - jonathanstrange 8y ago
    The collateral murder video showed how US military killed innocent unarmed civilians from the air and then shot other innocent and unarmed civilians who were trying to give first aid to the victims and get them to a hospital.
- techsin101 8y ago
  I'm right there with you
artur_makly 8y ago
Julian explains it himself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgU-L8oOFtA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgU-L8oOFtA
sys_64738 8y ago
Ecuador's embassy is their country so the UK police have no jurisdiction. Assange's barrister should file for illegal arrest and get him freed.
- bhelkey 8y ago
  > Scotland Yard said it was invited into the embassy on Thursday by the ambassador, following the Ecuadorian government's withdrawal of asylum. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-47891737 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-47891737
  - sys_64738 8y ago
    The U.K. Police are civilians in the Ecuadorian embassy. Assange was assaulted and illegally deported to U.K. Territory. That is an illegal arrest at best.
ezoe 8y ago
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.
dragonwriter 8y ago
Everyone deserves First Amendment protection, but what Assange is accused of is not protected.
tyingq 8y ago
Likely why he was specifically charged with the narrow accusation of a hacking conspiracy. That's easier to separate from the 1st amendment.
number6 8y ago
Julian Assange would not need the first amendment rights if - with according to international laws - he would not be extradited to a country where he could face torture or the death penalty.
- swish_bob 8y ago
  He is not being extradited under charges that could lead to the death penalty. If he were, British law is very clear that he could not be extradited.
roguecoder 8y ago
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.
jeffdavis 8y ago
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.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
kushti 8y ago
I dunno how to handle this situation for those who are unlucky to live under US war-criminal regime. For others, I would like to propose to consider the following: - convert your USD savings into other assets (e.g. EUR) - sell US-related stocks - boycott US-produced goods and services if there are replacements
peter_retief 8y ago
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/ 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
dalbasal 8y ago
When WikiLeaks published their big "collateral murder" and this while shitstorm started, I happened to be in Melbourne. I came across a "free assange" petition manned by student activist types... and I assume WikiLeaks people. It think it's near their offices. My take was that WikiLeaks is just doing what journalists do. Sourcing newsworthy information and publishing it. All the major papers, channels and such were republishing, in my mind proving the point. Meanwhile, assange was/is an Australian citizen and the efforts against him are clearly two faced. The charges against him weren't the reason for the charges against him. Anyway... I walked over and read the petition, intending to sign it. Free Afghanistan! US out of Saudi Arabia. Down with the patriarchy! Capitalism must go! Fuck the zionist-imperialist deep state Etc^... it also had some stuff about assange. My (long winded) point is that this is a microcosm of the wider affair. WikiLeaks, assange and the leaks that got him in trouble are journalistic. I don't think he sees it that way though. I think he sees it in more political-activism terms. The journalism defense is mostly made by other people, for him. I still think he should go free though. ^Made up specifics. I don't remember what all the stuff was. Just that it was typical left-radical student politics of the time and place. Iircc, voluntary student unionism was the (sort of parochial-australian-student issue of the day).
kstenerud 8y ago
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.
- luckylion 8y ago
  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?
fallingfrog 8y ago
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.
Fjolsvith 8y ago
Assange is being brought back to provide testimony to US Senate investigations into Ukrainian interference in elections.
taxidump 8y ago
Is there anymore information about the jabber conversation being exposed between Manning and Assange? I assume they has some sort of OpSec in place, I am curious how this was picked up.
8bitsrule 8y ago
"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."
rcchyssser 8y ago
You steal you go to jail.

531 points by juliusmusseau 8y ago

> Additionally, Assange was arrested on Swedish rape charges in 2010; his current asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London began after the UK attempted to extradite him on those charges in 2012. In May 2017, Sweden dropped the charges. This is factually inaccurate - Assange has not been charged with a crime by any country. There was an investigation in Sweden but no charges were brought. Presumably he will be indicted in the US momentarily. As yet, not a single country has charged him with a crime. Edit: yes, the US has now indicted him on a conspiracy charge—his first.

favorited 8y ago
He was charged and convicted of skipping on his bail in 2012.

chmaynard 8y ago

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.

robertAngst 8y ago
Freedom of Information only exists because government is historically corrupt and there needs to be a counterweight. 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?"
- sigzero 8y ago
  Because there ARE secrets that governments need to keep.
  - airstrike 8y ago
    I find it amazing that this is actually downvoted, but then again this is probably a biased audience as far as that topic goes
  - rorykoehler 8y ago
    Then they should be held to account for abusing their powers to also cover up illegal activity.
Lowkeyloki 8y ago
When does information generated or collected by the government not belong to its people? 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.
- henryfjordan 8y ago
  The government generated the nuclear launch codes. Do you think you should have access to those?
  - Lowkeyloki 8y ago
    I never said that all government information should belong to the people. I asked a question. I do believe there's a line. But I don't like where that line is now, in part because the line isn't well-defined. Although, if I did have nuclear launch codes, I doubt I could do anything meaningful with them. As it should be. Simply knowing the codes is not enough to authorize one to launch nuclear weapons. That would be a catastrophic single point of failure.
    - SiempreViernes 8y ago
      Indeed, you have to be the president too. That person should always be able to launch the nukes at any target whatsoever, and ensuring this is possible is the task of the United States Nuclear forces.
    - henryfjordan 8y ago
      Ahh, sorry I read your comment as more zealous than it was. To my knowledge (and I could be very wrong), Manning and Assange released info about then-current troop operations in the middle east. People's lives were endangered by the release of the info. You might not like where the line is, but I don't think they have too much of a leg to stand on either (assuming my understand is correct).
      - Lowkeyloki 8y ago
GordonS 8y ago
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.
favorited 8y ago
> 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.
rorykoehler 8y ago
IF said information contains evidence of illegal activity then it should be exempt from secrecy laws. Start at the root and work out.

belltaco 8y ago

What part of the first amendment exonerates knowingly attempting to crack NTLM keys of US military logins? 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 8y ago
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.
- slg 8y ago
  Non-Americans are certainly protected by the Constitution while in the US, but I thought there was still a legal debate about whether the US Constitution fully applies to foreign nationals while outside the US. Hasn't that long been the legal excuse used for things like international mass surveillance and what goes on in Guantanamo Bay?
  - ceejayoz 8y ago
    The First Amendment doesn't apply to anyone while outside the US. A US citizen in Saudi Arabia doesn't have First Amendment protections there. For the US to prosecute Assange, they have to prosecute him in the US, where he does enjoy First Amendment protections, as the First Amendment limits what Congress (and via the Fourteenth, state/local as well) can do.
    - village-idiot 8y ago
      It also limits what speech congress can make illegal, effectively controlling what the executive branch can do because of speech.
    - oliveshell 8y ago
      Exactly. If a person is on trial in the U.S. for breaking U.S. law, then U.S. constitutional protections apply— regardless of citizenship or where the alleged crime took place.

hsnewman 8y ago

Why would a Australian be provided the rights of an US citizen?

ikeboy 8y ago
Everyone has constitutional rights, not just US citizens.
- belltaco 8y ago
  Depends. A foreign citizen visiting or working in the US is not allowed to own guns regardless of the 2nd amendment.
  - throwawayjava 8y ago
    Green card holders may own and purchase guns, and non-permanent residents may also own and purchase guns (but it's complicated). This isn't really relevant to the point you're making in this thread, but figured I'd point it out anyways
  - ikeboy 8y ago
    https://blogs.findlaw.com/seventh_circuit/2015/09/non-citizens-have-a-right-to-bear-arms----with-1-major-catch.html https://blogs.findlaw.com/seventh_circuit/2015/09/non-citize... hm.
mindcrime 8y ago
https://www.maniatislawoffice.com/blog/2018/08/do-non-citizens-have-constitutional-rights.shtml https://www.maniatislawoffice.com/blog/2018/08/do-non-citize...
colechristensen 8y ago
The first amendment does not give freedoms to a citizen, it limits the government from abridging the freedom of speech.

Simulacra 8y ago

I use to go back and forth on Julian, but at this point I think he should be punished, but what that punishment should be I don't know. I think Manning stealing the cables was an absolute wrong, and Assange facilitating that shows a level of culpability. He should not be afforded American protection. Crimes were committed, even if they were done with the best intentions, it was still a crime. We all count, or no one counts.

wallace_f 8y ago
This comment reads like it was written by an algorithm.
- sctb 8y ago
  Please don't post like this. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - viivaux 8y ago
    There is much more objectionable content in the original post.
  - wallace_f 8y ago
    Sorry about that. I wonder how to communicate that more politely. I took a quick look at roughly the last two dozen comments you've made to users regarding guideline infractions. I noticed in every single one that you named a specific rule within your complaint. I also noticed that they all appeared to be actually not just downvoted, but even flagged. By stsrk contrast, this comment here is actually upvoted. As another user pointed out here, the relative objectionable content of this comment is questionable. Yet, I'm actually happy to cooperate. I'd ask in the future that you offer me the same benefit of the doubt and entitlement to know what it is I am being charged with respect to the rules, as you do with every other user. As you might be aware, I've been receiving trolling, bullying and very suspicious, apparent downvote brigaiding by some users here, so I ask you consider my request in good faith as this would be helpful to have no doubts that the mods are not part of any hate, bullying or negativity.

peteradio 8y ago

Is anybody arguing he shouldn't? To my knowledge that's never been seriously questioned. What is he being charged again?

waffleguy 8y ago
He already has first amendment protection. You have an article above that explains the charges... you don’t even have to google and you’re lazy
- peteradio 8y ago
  My questions are rhetorical read between the lines.
  - waffleguy 8y ago
    Rhetorical questions don’t work online. Read a book.

qrbLPHiKpiux 8y ago

One part of the indictment is very troubling: #5 Assange, Who did not possess a security clearance or need to know, Was not authorized to receive classified information of the United States.

Lowkeyloki 8y ago

This wasn't mentioned specifically in the article, but this reminds me how we have some legal protections for whistle-blowers in the United States (not nearly enough, IMHO) but none of those protections extend to government employees. It's as if the government thinks they're incapable of breaking their own laws. If you do it to a privately held company, it's whistle-blowing. If you do it to the government, it's treason.

tssva 8y ago
This is false. US Government employees have whistleblower protections under the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 and PPD-19 which Obama issued in 2012.
- Lowkeyloki 8y ago
  Unfortunately too late for Chelsea Manning.
  - tssva 8y ago
    Chelsea Manning's release would still be a crime and not afforded whistleblower protection under current law. There were and are specific processes to be followed to qualify for whistleblower protection.
  - diminoten 8y ago
    Yeah, which is why her sentence was commuted (albeit later than would be ideal for her).
- AnaniasAnanas 8y ago
  Does it not also apply to Snowden then?
  - tssva 8y ago
    First since the original comment was about government employees it is important to point out that Snowden was a contractor and not a government employee. Although no form of protection from employment retaliation was in place at the time of Snowden's information release the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998 did provide a process for intelligence community employees and contractors to raise issues. Snowden didn't follow the procedures of the act and his direct release of classified material is not protected by the act nor would any laws passed since to strengthen whistleblower protection provide any defense for such a release of classified material. Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998 requires a whistleblower to raise any issues to the Department of Justice for review. The DoJ evaluates any issues raised and if they determine they may be credible will report the issues and supporting material to the Senate and House Intelligence committees along with starting their own investigation. If the DoJ determines they issues are not credible the employee and contractor can present the issue and any supporting classified documentation to the Senate and House Intelligence committees themselves.

chiefalchemist 8y ago

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).

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
SiempreViernes 8y ago
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.
- antt 8y ago
  Everything and the kitchen sink has been thrown at Assange. Grooming children from the embassy, meeting Russians in the embassy, meeting Trumps team in the embassy. At what point does you bullshit detector go off and you think "there are at least three people organizing this character assaination, that is the definition of a conspiracy"?
  - belltaco 8y ago
    Can't say I'm too concerned after what he did. https://our.wikileaks.org/Pizzagate https://our.wikileaks.org/Pizzagate Leading to: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/john-podesta-pizzagate-766489/ https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/john...
  - freeflight 8y ago
    Don't forget "he doesn't clean his bathroom" and "doesn't take proper care of his cat". If Hitler wasn't dead, he'd probably be rumored to have bunked with Assange as a flatmate.

syntaxing 8y ago

When I took journalism in college, they taught us to things that is not protected by the first amendment. One of them is anything that effects national security which I assume his case falls under. Edit: As I get down voted, I should clarify that I mean for a civilian. I believe my professor was talking about this case since it was relatively new at that time [1]. [1]https://www.rcfp.org/national-security-trumps-first-amendment-espionage-case/ https://www.rcfp.org/national-security-trumps-first-amendmen...

dragonwriter 8y ago
> When I took journalism in college, they taught us to things that is not protected by the first amendment. One of them is anything that effects national security You should get a refund on your tuition; a number of First Amendment protections have been articulated in national security related cases, notably the rule against prior restraint in the Pentagon Papers case which is what allowed their publication.
- wallace_f 8y ago
  Im not 100% sure but I think parent comment needs just 1-2 more downvotes to be flagged/hidden which is kind of sad because combined with your comment, it is a valuable, relevant discussion. In other words, comment downvoting is used for disagreement, but the effect of silencing discussions will also silence information users may be able to use to know why such comments are disagreeable.
- otterley 8y ago
  Attorney here! (Not offering legal advice, though - consult a licensed attorney in your state.) They key phrase here is "prior restraint." That's not the issue here; the information has been published already. So the holding in the Pentagon Papers case (aka _New York Times_) doesn't apply to this set of circumstances. Moreover, the Pentagon Papers case made no law. The opinion itself only reversed an appellate court decision and affirmed the judgment of a district court. Read it yourself: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/403/713/#tab-opinion-1949387 https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/403/713/#tab-opi... First Amendment law respecting the dissemination of classified information -- by "journalists" (whatever they may be), or otherwise -- is not as settled as people think, and it's my personal view that unless the Supreme Court concludes otherwise, Mr. Assange could find himself in very hot water, as Chelsea Manning did.

the_watcher 8y ago

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.

cphoover 8y ago
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.
- amanaplanacanal 8y ago
  > If Assange conspired with manning that would be a different story, but it doesn't seem to be the case. I'm guessing that they have evidence that yes, he did conspire.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > If Assange conspired with manning that would be a different story, but it doesn't seem to be the case. That's literally the exactly what he is charged with.
luxuryballs 8y ago
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”
- roguecoder 8y ago

calhoun137 8y ago

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 https://www.salon.com/2010/12/24/wikileaks_23/ https://www.salon.com/2010/12/24/wikileaks_23/

microcolonel 8y ago
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.
- kbenson 8y ago
  There may be some truth to that for some people, but let's not discount the amount of people (I think a majority) that distinguish between exposing government actions and meddling with an election and colluding with a foreign power in dosing so. To be clear, whether they are guilty of that or not is irrelevant to the point that people beleive they are, and that can explain a lot of the difference in how they are perceived now. Ignoring that in favor of narrative where all the Democrats are complete hypocrites is no different than what you were accusing others of in your comment.

ryanlool 8y ago

>Please don't post about how the law works from your gut feelings about the matter. This forum is awash in people just imagining what the law is every time it comes up. Go look at the law itself. There's no requirement as you've imagined there is. I never made any claims about how US law works. Please do not misattribute such claims to me, it's not only dishonest but also quite rude.

throwawayjava 8y ago
In that case, consider rethinking your use of the word "supposed". Most native speakers from my part of the US will interpret that use to mean something similar to "ostensible". I.e., if you want to avoid confusion, don't ever say "supposedly X" if you actually do believe "X" is a fact. Oxford has this to say on supposedly: "used to show that you do not believe that something you have been told is true". Hope that helps
- ryanlool 8y ago
  Surely it's a supposed or ostensible act until he's actually convicted?
lazyasciiart 8y ago
You haven't shown that you know how any law works.
- ryanlol 8y ago
  That seems quite consistent with the fact that I have mostly avoided commenting on how laws work.
ABCLAW 8y ago
>I never made any claims about how US law works. Please do not misattribute such claims to me, it's not only dishonest but also quite rude. >The case against Assange appears to be very weak This is probably the easiest, most straightforward example.

Causality1 8y ago

I was a huge fan os Assange back when wikileaks was an equal-opportunity expose of government secrets. Unfortunately it didn't stay that way, and over time seemed to largely function at the behest of the Russian government.

thatoneuser 8y ago

Dark day to see so many people willingly claim assange deserves punishment.

belltaco 8y ago
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.
- thatoneuser 8y ago
  Showed Hillary was cheating the dnc which she lied to the public about. There's plenty more justification but thats enough for me.
  - roguecoder 8y ago
    There he was just doing oppo research for Trump, corrdinated via Roger Stone. We don’t know whether he also conspired with that crime, as he is alleged to have done here, but we do know that if it was about public information we would have seen the RNC and Conway’s emails too. Since it was a crime and a possibly-unrelated disclosure both of which were acts of propaganda and information warfare and he has said it was motivated by his personal desire to change the outcome of the election, it is by definition neither motivated by not in service to educating the public.
    - thatoneuser 8y ago
      Conway or the rnc had zero impact on people's perception of trump. Trump was the forerunner and eventually became president and it was clear that was the only way a republican would be president by the time the dnc emails were leaked. What would it have accomplished to release those docs, assuming assange had possession of them? What exactly was the crime you're referring to and saying he's guilty of? If I have information about two candidates I can give it to others however I'd like.

Tsubasachan 8y ago

Uhm what? Non US citizens aren't covered by the Constitution. Its why you never ever do anything illegal when you are in the US. I would try to smuggle a bag of heroine into Singapore before ignoring a red light in New York.

jessaustin 8y ago
Please don't give travel advice (or legal advice I guess?) to anyone.

dzonga 8y ago

issue here is someone is getting arrested for exposing war criminals.

txru 8y ago

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? [0] https://www.wired.com/2017/01/russia-hacked-older-republican-emails-fbi-director-says/ https://www.wired.com/2017/01/russia-hacked-older-republican...

ENGNR 8y ago
That linked article doesn't say that Assange had any RNC emails, only that Russia probably has some. Given that Russia is very pro-Trump it's not hard to imagine Russia only providing Assange with the DNC ones to publish. And he has said that if he had RNC emails he'd have published them
- txru 8y ago
  The Podesta leaks and the DNC emails came from Russia, and he must have known their intent. Either he's an active tool, or a passive and complicit one, but I think my point stands.
  - rocqua 8y ago
    There is a big difference between these two cases: 1. Here are DNC leaks, here are RNC leaks. Thanks, oh you want me to withhold on the RNC ones because you like those. Sure! 2. Here are DNC leaks, we have some RNC leaks, but we won't give them to you. Thanks, can I please have the RNC ones too? No. Okay. In the first case, one actively withholds important information. In the second case, one is publishing all information available. You might argue that in the second case, you should hold fast and say 'give me everything or I don't show anything' and therefore case 2 is bad. But you can't deny that case 1 is worse than case 2.

oedmarap 8y ago

> 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.

doe88 8y ago

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.

ausbah 8y ago
>Instead of prosecuting people committing murders in a video what..?
- betterunix2 8y ago
  Possibly a reference to the "Collateral Murder" video released by Wikileaks, which showed a US military helicopter shooting people in Iraq.
- josteink 8y ago
  Wikileaks uncovered blatant killing of civilians by US military personnel during the Iraqi war. To my knowledge, no one has been prosecuted for these murders.
- roguecoder 8y ago
  Maybe the police shootings? Vallejo just had another one.
- jonathanstrange 8y ago
  The collateral murder video showed how US military killed innocent unarmed civilians from the air and then shot other innocent and unarmed civilians who were trying to give first aid to the victims and get them to a hospital.
techsin101 8y ago
I'm right there with you

artur_makly 8y ago

Julian explains it himself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgU-L8oOFtA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgU-L8oOFtA

sys_64738 8y ago

Ecuador's embassy is their country so the UK police have no jurisdiction. Assange's barrister should file for illegal arrest and get him freed.

bhelkey 8y ago
> Scotland Yard said it was invited into the embassy on Thursday by the ambassador, following the Ecuadorian government's withdrawal of asylum. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-47891737 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-47891737
- sys_64738 8y ago
  The U.K. Police are civilians in the Ecuadorian embassy. Assange was assaulted and illegally deported to U.K. Territory. That is an illegal arrest at best.

ezoe 8y ago

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.

dragonwriter 8y ago

Everyone deserves First Amendment protection, but what Assange is accused of is not protected.

tyingq 8y ago

Likely why he was specifically charged with the narrow accusation of a hacking conspiracy. That's easier to separate from the 1st amendment.

number6 8y ago

Julian Assange would not need the first amendment rights if - with according to international laws - he would not be extradited to a country where he could face torture or the death penalty.

swish_bob 8y ago
He is not being extradited under charges that could lead to the death penalty. If he were, British law is very clear that he could not be extradited.

roguecoder 8y ago

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.

jeffdavis 8y ago

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.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

kushti 8y ago

I dunno how to handle this situation for those who are unlucky to live under US war-criminal regime. For others, I would like to propose to consider the following: - convert your USD savings into other assets (e.g. EUR) - sell US-related stocks - boycott US-produced goods and services if there are replacements

peter_retief 8y ago

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/ 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

dalbasal 8y ago

When WikiLeaks published their big "collateral murder" and this while shitstorm started, I happened to be in Melbourne. I came across a "free assange" petition manned by student activist types... and I assume WikiLeaks people. It think it's near their offices. My take was that WikiLeaks is just doing what journalists do. Sourcing newsworthy information and publishing it. All the major papers, channels and such were republishing, in my mind proving the point. Meanwhile, assange was/is an Australian citizen and the efforts against him are clearly two faced. The charges against him weren't the reason for the charges against him. Anyway... I walked over and read the petition, intending to sign it. Free Afghanistan! US out of Saudi Arabia. Down with the patriarchy! Capitalism must go! Fuck the zionist-imperialist deep state Etc^... it also had some stuff about assange. My (long winded) point is that this is a microcosm of the wider affair. WikiLeaks, assange and the leaks that got him in trouble are journalistic. I don't think he sees it that way though. I think he sees it in more political-activism terms. The journalism defense is mostly made by other people, for him. I still think he should go free though. ^Made up specifics. I don't remember what all the stuff was. Just that it was typical left-radical student politics of the time and place. Iircc, voluntary student unionism was the (sort of parochial-australian-student issue of the day).

kstenerud 8y ago

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.

luckylion 8y ago
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?

fallingfrog 8y ago

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.

Fjolsvith 8y ago

Assange is being brought back to provide testimony to US Senate investigations into Ukrainian interference in elections.

taxidump 8y ago

Is there anymore information about the jabber conversation being exposed between Manning and Assange? I assume they has some sort of OpSec in place, I am curious how this was picked up.

8bitsrule 8y ago

"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."

rcchyssser 8y ago

You steal you go to jail.