3 ms·

So it appears that the author of this piece and the authors of the nearly identical Intercept piece [0] are skeptical of the "conspiracy to hack" charges brough

So it appears that the author of this piece and the authors of the nearly identical Intercept piece [0] are skeptical of the "conspiracy to hack" charges brought against Assange. From what I understand, the action conspired towards was gaining access to an account on a government network that neither Assange nor Manning had access to ordinarily, with the goal of better covering Mannong's tracks (the other account had just as much file access rights as Manning). I understand the claim that this was an effort by Assange to protect his information source, but should it really not be considered Bad to login to someone else's account on a government network and spoof your actions with their name attached? Is it so unreasonable to believe that that's somehow too far? [0] https://theintercept.com/2019/04/11/the-u-s-governments-indictment-of-julian-assange-poses-grave-threats-to-press-freedoms/ https://theintercept.com/2019/04/11/the-u-s-governments-indi...

acqq 8y ago
> should it really not be considered Bad to login to someone else's account That is not the story here. The story here is a narrative. The apparent "democratic institutions" instead of protecting freedom of the press directly press more whole countries in order to "as a discouraging example" punish a person who managed to expose some of the serious and actual misdeeds of the governments. In short, what they do is as tyrannical, whimsical and dictatorial as we could imagine, like in the movies about the older times "bring me the head of that guy." And they try to pretend this is simply and "normally" "lawful" whereas there's no other person with such a minor actual punishment in that land that would cause spending a million of pounds for "guards" to get him as soon as he leaves the Embassy, to plan everything that was planned to get him, etc. So now it's using the minor technicalities, which were before correctly recognized as not enough to charge him because of the potential effects on the freedom of the press, to "bring them his head." Exactly as the Intercept article explains, and the major line is: "the huge step this indictment represents in the Trump administration’s explicitly stated goal to criminalize journalism that involves reporting on classified information." Note that Obama's administration already broke some records in that direction.
partiallypro 8y ago
The Intercept has slowly turned into a Russian mouthpiece, which is sad because the original idea was very good.
- int_19h 8y ago
  I don't think it can be meaningfully described that way. It certainly publishes a lot of material that is inconvenient for US authorities, and that is also certainly convenient to the Russian authorities, because they can then engage in their favorite game of "and you're lynching Negroes!". The only problem is that the stuff that The Intercept digs out is still true. If we don't find it to our liking, then we should stop our government from behaving in a manner that embarrasses it and us whenever it is exposed in public. And then we wouldn't debate the morality of imprisoning someone who exposed a war crime cover up in a reckless manner than endangered other people.
  - partiallypro 8y ago
    No, that kind of thing is fine...the issues is the it often acts as an apologist to certain Russian policies that are clearly human rights violations or counter to democracy/a free society.

acqq 8y ago

> should it really not be considered Bad to login to someone else's account That is not the story here. The story here is a narrative. The apparent "democratic institutions" instead of protecting freedom of the press directly press more whole countries in order to "as a discouraging example" punish a person who managed to expose some of the serious and actual misdeeds of the governments. In short, what they do is as tyrannical, whimsical and dictatorial as we could imagine, like in the movies about the older times "bring me the head of that guy." And they try to pretend this is simply and "normally" "lawful" whereas there's no other person with such a minor actual punishment in that land that would cause spending a million of pounds for "guards" to get him as soon as he leaves the Embassy, to plan everything that was planned to get him, etc. So now it's using the minor technicalities, which were before correctly recognized as not enough to charge him because of the potential effects on the freedom of the press, to "bring them his head." Exactly as the Intercept article explains, and the major line is: "the huge step this indictment represents in the Trump administration’s explicitly stated goal to criminalize journalism that involves reporting on classified information." Note that Obama's administration already broke some records in that direction.

partiallypro 8y ago

The Intercept has slowly turned into a Russian mouthpiece, which is sad because the original idea was very good.

int_19h 8y ago
I don't think it can be meaningfully described that way. It certainly publishes a lot of material that is inconvenient for US authorities, and that is also certainly convenient to the Russian authorities, because they can then engage in their favorite game of "and you're lynching Negroes!". The only problem is that the stuff that The Intercept digs out is still true. If we don't find it to our liking, then we should stop our government from behaving in a manner that embarrasses it and us whenever it is exposed in public. And then we wouldn't debate the morality of imprisoning someone who exposed a war crime cover up in a reckless manner than endangered other people.
- partiallypro 8y ago
  No, that kind of thing is fine...the issues is the it often acts as an apologist to certain Russian policies that are clearly human rights violations or counter to democracy/a free society.