3 ms·

Trying to help someone evade detection whilst committing a crime is not really 'attempting to save someone from terrible treatment'. To save Manning from being

Trying to help someone evade detection whilst committing a crime is not really 'attempting to save someone from terrible treatment'. To save Manning from being punished Assange could've guided her to only expose documents related to specific wrongdoing. That would've at least given Manning a plausible whistleblower defense. That defense may not have succeeded, but it probably would've led to a much, much shorter sentence if it failed than what she originally got. But by trying to help her gain illegal access to an account for the purpose of enabling her to steal more classified information, Assange now has to content with conspiracy to commit hacking charges himself.

boomboomsubban 8y ago
>But by trying to help her gain illegal access to an account for the purpose of enabling her to steal more classified information, This is not what happened. Access to the account provided no additional information, it just would have protected her identity somewhat. >To save Manning from being punished Assange could've guided her to only expose documents related to specific wrongdoing. That would've at least given Manning a plausible whistleblower defense. That defense may not have succeeded, but it probably would've led to a much, much shorter sentence if it failed than what she originally got. This already happened. For example, only 75,000 of the 91,000 Afghanistan war documents have ever been released. The defense used this in her trial.
- ausecpro 7y ago
  >This is not what happened. Access to the account provided no additional information, it just would have protected her identity somewhat. doesnt matter; it's still a CFAA violation. if the facts as they have been presented are correct, assange is guilty of conspiracy.
  - boomboomsubban 7y ago
    If the facts as presented are correct, ruling Assange's actions as illegal would violate the rights of a free press. Which is why the distinction is important, protecting a source is the duty of the press while trying to acquire additional information is not.

boomboomsubban 8y ago

>But by trying to help her gain illegal access to an account for the purpose of enabling her to steal more classified information, This is not what happened. Access to the account provided no additional information, it just would have protected her identity somewhat. >To save Manning from being punished Assange could've guided her to only expose documents related to specific wrongdoing. That would've at least given Manning a plausible whistleblower defense. That defense may not have succeeded, but it probably would've led to a much, much shorter sentence if it failed than what she originally got. This already happened. For example, only 75,000 of the 91,000 Afghanistan war documents have ever been released. The defense used this in her trial.

ausecpro 7y ago
>This is not what happened. Access to the account provided no additional information, it just would have protected her identity somewhat. doesnt matter; it's still a CFAA violation. if the facts as they have been presented are correct, assange is guilty of conspiracy.
- boomboomsubban 7y ago
  If the facts as presented are correct, ruling Assange's actions as illegal would violate the rights of a free press. Which is why the distinction is important, protecting a source is the duty of the press while trying to acquire additional information is not.