4 ms·

If the US government loses (it should based on the Pentagon Papers precedent, but who really knows how the conservative-stacked Supreme Court will rule), then i

by mtgx 7y ago

If the US government loses (it should based on the Pentagon Papers precedent, but who really knows how the conservative-stacked Supreme Court will rule), then it should settle hopefully once and for all that these sort of cases can't be prosecuted under the Espionage Act. The US government has kept threatening all national security whistleblowers with the Espionage Act so they take the 5-10 years in prison plea deals for the past couple of decades. Considering it's very unlikely Assange will take a plea deal on this one, I hope he gets to win, for all future national security whistleblowers' sake.

gamblor956 7y ago
Assange is not a journalist, and thus is not protected by legal cases protecting members of the press. (Posting unverified documents without making any attempts to verify them is not a journalistic activity.) EDIT: downvotes don't change reality...Courts have analyzed what makes someone a journalist for purposes of these laws, and at a minimum, whether investigation/research or discourse (i.e., writing or video reporting) is involved, they all agree that analysis of the investigated/researched material is required. Assange put no effort into analyzing the materials he received; he simply published everything (except the Trump stuff).
- SamuelAdams 7y ago
  I suspect you are being downvoted because you have not provided any sources. Can you reference specific court cases for this claim? > Courts have analyzed what makes someone a journalist for purposes of these laws, and at a minimum, whether investigation/research or discourse (i.e., writing or video reporting) is involved, they all agree that analysis of the investigated/researched material is required.
- SkyBelow 7y ago
  >except the Trump stuff Assuming this is true, doesn't that prove he analyzed it and decided what he thought relevant to be published? You may not like the metric he used in his analysis, but have the courts ever up held standards as to what metrics used count?
- Fjolsvith 7y ago
  > (Posting unverified documents without making any attempts to verify them is not a journalistic activity.) Seems like main stream media in the US proved the last few years that they were not journalistic by not making any attempt to verify the Steele Dossier.
  - sleepybrett 7y ago
    They verified the source and voracity of the dossier, the dossier was the news the findings of the dossier were not presented as fact initially. Eventually some of the findings from the dossier were verified.
    - Fjolsvith 7y ago
      Hmm. I didn't read that in the Mueller report, and yet, I though the Mueller investigation was initiated with a FISA warrant request based on the unverified Steele Dossier.
      - threeseed 7y ago
        That is nonsense you hear on Fox News. Investigation started because Trump sacked Comey and so Rod Rosenstein appointed Mueller to lead a special counsel: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Counsel_investigation_(2017–2019) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Counsel_investigation_...
        Fjolsvith 7y ago
        The FISA application declassification will make it all clear.
  - threeseed 7y ago
    They absolutely tried to verify it. And actually there aren't any parts that have been categorically disproven.
    - 7y ago
- Fjolsvith 7y ago
  It looks like this thread was shadowbanned. It no longer appears in the parent: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19995363 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19995363
fullshark 7y ago
The charge is that Assange helped Manning access classified material, not that he published classified materials. The distinction is important. It's why I can't hack into a CIA office, publish the materials online and claim I'm a journalist so I can't be prosecuted.
- monocasa 7y ago
  17 new charges, nine of which are Unauthorized Disclosure of National Defense Information.
wickoff 7y ago
I think that anybody who thinks that US government can lose, that the outcome for such a high profile case isn't predetermined is naive.
- AnimalMuppet 7y ago
  I think you're naive. The US lost the Pentagon Papers case. The independent judiciary is a real thing, and it really matters.
  - threeseed 7y ago
    They are not naive. They are being deliberately disingenuous.
  - anthuman 7y ago
    The "US" didn't lose. Nixon lost because he went up against the establishment powers who backed the NYTimes. So the "US" won. The supreme court isn't an "independent judiciary". They are part of the power structure. The supreme court is a political court filled with political appointees. It's why appointments to the supreme court are political fiascos. Somehow I don't think assange is going to get the same treatment as the nytimes since he doesn't have the backing of political or media bigshots that the nytimes does. Assange is the enemy of both the republican and democratic parties. He is the enemy of the nytimes, wapo and all establishment media. Assange will get no more a fair trial in the US than a ugyhur would get in a chinese court. Just like the Pentagon Papers ruling was a sure thing long before Nixon decided to go after the NYTimes. Assange's fate is sealed.
    - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
      You seem to be defining the "US power structure" as "what won those cases". Then the "US power structure" always wins, by definition. It's hard to see what evidence would be sufficient to persuade you that your view is mistaken. For those who don't share your initial assumption, however, your argument is completely unpersuasive.
  - 7y ago

by mtgx 7y ago

gamblor956 7y ago

Assange is not a journalist, and thus is not protected by legal cases protecting members of the press. (Posting unverified documents without making any attempts to verify them is not a journalistic activity.) EDIT: downvotes don't change reality...Courts have analyzed what makes someone a journalist for purposes of these laws, and at a minimum, whether investigation/research or discourse (i.e., writing or video reporting) is involved, they all agree that analysis of the investigated/researched material is required. Assange put no effort into analyzing the materials he received; he simply published everything (except the Trump stuff).

SamuelAdams 7y ago
I suspect you are being downvoted because you have not provided any sources. Can you reference specific court cases for this claim? > Courts have analyzed what makes someone a journalist for purposes of these laws, and at a minimum, whether investigation/research or discourse (i.e., writing or video reporting) is involved, they all agree that analysis of the investigated/researched material is required.
SkyBelow 7y ago
>except the Trump stuff Assuming this is true, doesn't that prove he analyzed it and decided what he thought relevant to be published? You may not like the metric he used in his analysis, but have the courts ever up held standards as to what metrics used count?
Fjolsvith 7y ago
> (Posting unverified documents without making any attempts to verify them is not a journalistic activity.) Seems like main stream media in the US proved the last few years that they were not journalistic by not making any attempt to verify the Steele Dossier.
- sleepybrett 7y ago
  They verified the source and voracity of the dossier, the dossier was the news the findings of the dossier were not presented as fact initially. Eventually some of the findings from the dossier were verified.
  - Fjolsvith 7y ago
    Hmm. I didn't read that in the Mueller report, and yet, I though the Mueller investigation was initiated with a FISA warrant request based on the unverified Steele Dossier.
    - threeseed 7y ago
      That is nonsense you hear on Fox News. Investigation started because Trump sacked Comey and so Rod Rosenstein appointed Mueller to lead a special counsel: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Counsel_investigation_(2017–2019) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Counsel_investigation_...
      - Fjolsvith 7y ago
        The FISA application declassification will make it all clear.
- threeseed 7y ago
  They absolutely tried to verify it. And actually there aren't any parts that have been categorically disproven.
  - 7y ago
Fjolsvith 7y ago
It looks like this thread was shadowbanned. It no longer appears in the parent: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19995363 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19995363

fullshark 7y ago

The charge is that Assange helped Manning access classified material, not that he published classified materials. The distinction is important. It's why I can't hack into a CIA office, publish the materials online and claim I'm a journalist so I can't be prosecuted.

monocasa 7y ago
17 new charges, nine of which are Unauthorized Disclosure of National Defense Information.

wickoff 7y ago

I think that anybody who thinks that US government can lose, that the outcome for such a high profile case isn't predetermined is naive.

AnimalMuppet 7y ago
I think you're naive. The US lost the Pentagon Papers case. The independent judiciary is a real thing, and it really matters.
- threeseed 7y ago
  They are not naive. They are being deliberately disingenuous.
- anthuman 7y ago
  The "US" didn't lose. Nixon lost because he went up against the establishment powers who backed the NYTimes. So the "US" won. The supreme court isn't an "independent judiciary". They are part of the power structure. The supreme court is a political court filled with political appointees. It's why appointments to the supreme court are political fiascos. Somehow I don't think assange is going to get the same treatment as the nytimes since he doesn't have the backing of political or media bigshots that the nytimes does. Assange is the enemy of both the republican and democratic parties. He is the enemy of the nytimes, wapo and all establishment media. Assange will get no more a fair trial in the US than a ugyhur would get in a chinese court. Just like the Pentagon Papers ruling was a sure thing long before Nixon decided to go after the NYTimes. Assange's fate is sealed.
  - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
    You seem to be defining the "US power structure" as "what won those cases". Then the "US power structure" always wins, by definition. It's hard to see what evidence would be sufficient to persuade you that your view is mistaken. For those who don't share your initial assumption, however, your argument is completely unpersuasive.
- 7y ago