4 ms·

So you're saying he... conspired to do something illegal?

by ABCLAW 8y ago

ryanlol 8y ago
Yes, but where I'm from you need to actually do something in furtherance of the conspiracy to face prosecution. I'm not trying to make a legal argument, this just feels fundamentally wrong to me.
- ABCLAW 8y ago
  https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030#b https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030#b "(b) Whoever conspires to commit or attempts to commit an offense under subsection (a) of this section shall be punished as provided in subsection (c) of this section." Seems pretty straightforward. 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. This was a bit snarky before my edit - please excuse me.
- belltaco 8y ago
  Assange wrote in a chat "No luck so far" to Manning. Where you are from, can you go around trying to pick locks on front doors and are only prosecuted if you succeed? And the same with cars?
  - nocturnial 8y ago
    This is a very poor analogy and I think you know it. Cracking the password isn't the same as using it to log in. There are still some extra steps required. In the case of picking locks there are no extra steps, you gain access immediately. I'm only critizing the analogy, what he did, or tried is still illegal but it's barely a hack attempt and it's obvious they are desperate to charge him with anything, no matter how small the charge.
    - roywiggins 8y ago
      That's how conspiracies work. Each participant does only a part of the overall conspiracy. If I forge a document and give it to you so you can sneak into a secure area and commit a murder, I am not just guilty of forgery, I am guilty of conspiracy to murder. They guy who drives the getaway car is guilty of murder as much as the people who walk into the building. This is the entire point of conspiracy law. Driving a car is not a crime! But it is if you're conspiring with other people who are committing crimes. Otherwise, you would be able to take part in a murder and be let off, because all you did was act as lookout. If you and a friend plan to poison someone, and you buy the poison and give it to your friend who then poisons the target, you are guilty of conspiracy to murder, even though buying the poison may not actually be a crime. Prosecutors may legitimately not have anything else on you because that's "all" you did!
      - nocturnial 8y ago
        I think you read over the part where I said it was illegal. You don't need to invent scenarios, you can use the facts of this case. Manning already had access and didn't need the password to be cracked. Wikileaks already received information from Manning. Someone in the chat log told Manning they would pass the hash to someone else. They then told Manning "no luck so far". Keep in mind, they haven't provided any proof that the person Manning was talking to was Assange. They haven't provided any proof that Assange did in fact try to crack it He never wrote that he would try, only that he would pass it on. Or that he actually send the hash to someone else to crack it, and that this person did in fact tried to crack it. And to top it all off, Manning did not need the password in the first place! People keep forgetting this. The case against Assange appears to be very weak and is probably only intended to get him on US soil to question him about things other than what he is charged with.
        belltaco 8y ago
        >Or that he actually send the hash to someone else to crack it, Still a crime. >And to top it all off, Manning did not need the password in the first place! People keep forgetting this. Still a crime.
- roywiggins 8y ago
  I suppose Assange's defense will be that he never actually even tried to crack the password- if he was lying or bloviating, he would not have actually done anything in furtherance of the conspiracy. If that turned out to be the case I'd be with you. But if you have chat logs saying "I will do the thing to try and help you commit a crime" then that sure seems like evidence that you did the thing, or at least tried to.

So you're saying he... conspired to do something illegal?

by ABCLAW 8y ago

So you're saying he... conspired to do something illegal?

Yes, but where I'm from you need to actually do something in furtherance of the conspiracy to face prosecution. I'm not trying to make a legal argument, this just feels fundamentally wrong to me.

ABCLAW 8y ago
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030#b https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030#b "(b) Whoever conspires to commit or attempts to commit an offense under subsection (a) of this section shall be punished as provided in subsection (c) of this section." Seems pretty straightforward. 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. This was a bit snarky before my edit - please excuse me.
belltaco 8y ago
Assange wrote in a chat "No luck so far" to Manning. Where you are from, can you go around trying to pick locks on front doors and are only prosecuted if you succeed? And the same with cars?
- nocturnial 8y ago
  This is a very poor analogy and I think you know it. Cracking the password isn't the same as using it to log in. There are still some extra steps required. In the case of picking locks there are no extra steps, you gain access immediately. I'm only critizing the analogy, what he did, or tried is still illegal but it's barely a hack attempt and it's obvious they are desperate to charge him with anything, no matter how small the charge.
  - roywiggins 8y ago
    That's how conspiracies work. Each participant does only a part of the overall conspiracy. If I forge a document and give it to you so you can sneak into a secure area and commit a murder, I am not just guilty of forgery, I am guilty of conspiracy to murder. They guy who drives the getaway car is guilty of murder as much as the people who walk into the building. This is the entire point of conspiracy law. Driving a car is not a crime! But it is if you're conspiring with other people who are committing crimes. Otherwise, you would be able to take part in a murder and be let off, because all you did was act as lookout. If you and a friend plan to poison someone, and you buy the poison and give it to your friend who then poisons the target, you are guilty of conspiracy to murder, even though buying the poison may not actually be a crime. Prosecutors may legitimately not have anything else on you because that's "all" you did!
    - nocturnial 8y ago
      I think you read over the part where I said it was illegal. You don't need to invent scenarios, you can use the facts of this case. Manning already had access and didn't need the password to be cracked. Wikileaks already received information from Manning. Someone in the chat log told Manning they would pass the hash to someone else. They then told Manning "no luck so far". Keep in mind, they haven't provided any proof that the person Manning was talking to was Assange. They haven't provided any proof that Assange did in fact try to crack it He never wrote that he would try, only that he would pass it on. Or that he actually send the hash to someone else to crack it, and that this person did in fact tried to crack it. And to top it all off, Manning did not need the password in the first place! People keep forgetting this. The case against Assange appears to be very weak and is probably only intended to get him on US soil to question him about things other than what he is charged with.
      - belltaco 8y ago
        >Or that he actually send the hash to someone else to crack it, Still a crime. >And to top it all off, Manning did not need the password in the first place! People keep forgetting this. Still a crime.
roywiggins 8y ago
I suppose Assange's defense will be that he never actually even tried to crack the password- if he was lying or bloviating, he would not have actually done anything in furtherance of the conspiracy. If that turned out to be the case I'd be with you. But if you have chat logs saying "I will do the thing to try and help you commit a crime" then that sure seems like evidence that you did the thing, or at least tried to.