10 ms·

This is the most important part of the indictment, and it's right on page one: > ASSANGE encouraged sources to (i) circumvent legal safeguards on information;

This is the most important part of the indictment, and it's right on page one: > ASSANGE encouraged sources to (i) circumvent legal safeguards on information; (ii) provide that protected information to WikiLeaks for public dissemination; and (iii) continue the pattern of illegally procuring and providing protected information to WikiLeaks for distribution to the public. The main charge here is that Assange actively encouraged people to break the law. Since he wasn't a US citizen and had not signed a non-disclosure agreement with the United States, many of the laws protecting classified information do not apply to him directly. The first section of the indictment describes the various ways in which Assange and/or Wikileaks said, more or less, "gee, it sure would be nice if someone got these classified documents for us." The next section, titled "B. Chelsea Manning Responded to ASSANGE'S Solicitation and Stole Classified Documents from the United States", explains how Assange's solicitation lead directly to the criminal acts committed by Manning. Finally, we have a section labeled "C. ASSANGE Encouraged Manning to Continue Her Theft of Classified Documents and Agreed to Help Her Crack a Password Hash to a Military Computer". This described how Assange provided Chelsea Manning with tools allowing her to circumvent passwords and other protections on classified computers. So this isn't as simple as "a journalist received classified information and is being prosecuted for it." This indictment lays out a very specific crime, which is (Assange) directly encouraging and enabling another individual (Manning) to commit a crime (Espionage) on his behalf. You can argue about the validity of these charges, even the validity of the classifications levels assigned to some of the material given to Assange, but we should be clear about exactly what is being claimed by the government, as well.

TomMckenny 7y ago
The charge could have been limited to working on cracking the password. Instead it explicitly describes activity common to reporters and critical for democracy: publishing information the source obtained "illegally". In quotes because a government with something to hide will generally hide it under a national security secrets act. Why make charges that could destroy journalism when you could charge with something that doesn't? It's hard to understand, unless of course the press is "the enemy of the people".
- duxup 7y ago
  It describes cracking and then leaking it. I don't think you could manage the same legal challenge with just the latter. Often charges describe all sorts of things that themselves aren't illegal.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
This would criminalize a huge amount of investigative journalism in the United States. Journalists who work in this field solicit classified information all the time. They cultivate connections inside government, and ask for information. They aren't all just sitting back and waiting for sources to fall into their lap. When sources do come to them, they encourage those sources to share more information. That's how the business works, and if the US government wins its case against Assange, that business will be illegal.
- sleepybrett 7y ago
  It's quite probable that he will only be convicted on the circumvention charges, helping to crack the password/cover her tracks.
- gamblor956 7y ago
  The major difference is that journalists do not ask their sources to break the law to obtain information. Assange did, and that makes all the difference.
  - DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
    Whenever a journalist asks their source for classified information, which they do all the time, they're asking their source to break the law. The legal theory being advanced here would basically outlaw investigative journalism into the activities of the US government, even by foreign journalists.
    - gamblor956 7y ago
      Whenever a journalist asks their source for classified information, which they do all the time, they're asking their source to break the law. That's not true but I don't have time to run through an exhaustive legal explanation of why. In a nutshell: the source is responsible for maintaining security of information, because third parties like journalists don't know the bounds of what is covered by confidentiality. Moreover, asking for information is not the same thing as soliciting information. Asking is fine, soliciting is not (in this context, soliciting means offering them something of value in exchange for the information).
fma 7y ago
Being tongue and cheek...but would it be like when Trump asked Russia to find Hilary's e-mail...
yakshaving_jgt 7y ago
You are right, we should be clear about what is being claimed by the government. However, is there any legitimate alternative method for a whistleblower to expose the US government of warcrimes, as WikiLeaks did? It seems quite unfair for a government to murder innocent civilians and then protect itself by putting the evidence behind a password.
- DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
  To be clear, the evidence was not behind a password (at least, it was already accessible to Manning). The purpose of cracking the password was to allow Manning to download the information from a different account, in order to obfuscate the source of the leak.
  - mklarmann 7y ago
    This makes an important difference!
  - plugger 7y ago
    That's incorrect. Assange was trying to brute force the administrator password on a DoD system to give Manning elevated access on the host that she didn't have at the time. It wasn't an obfuscation exercise, it was an attempt to uncover classified information Manning wasn't privy to with her current account access. *Edit: and it was done after Manning had handed over everything she could access with her own account. At least that's what the charge is in the initial indictment.
anarazel 7y ago
> The first section of the indictment describes the various ways in which Assange and/or Wikileaks said, more or less, "gee, it sure would be nice if someone got these classified documents for us." A lot of news orgs, and individual reporters, have explicitly asked for information about specific topics. Yes, usually not by explicitly mentioning it being classified, but for plenty topics that's basically implied. By my read the indictment doesn't formulate any limiting principles on the more broad charges that could be levied against many reporters. > Finally, we have a section labeled "C. ASSANGE Encouraged Manning to Continue Her Theft of Classified Documents and Agreed to Help Her Crack a Password Hash to a Military Computer". This described how Assange provided Chelsea Manning with tools allowing her to circumvent passwords and other protections on classified computers. Which is why the previous version, which had only this charge, was much less heavily criticized.
CorvusCrypto 7y ago
At face value it doesn't seem so crazy to charge him for this. I mean it is committing a crime by proxy as opposed to passively obtaining information from a source (the latter of which journalists should be protected for). If I give tools and a robbery checklist to someone and tell them to rob a bank, surely I'm still able to be charged and probably for a higher crime right? At least that's how these charges seem to me. I guess I don't see how it's invalid. I do however see how this could set a dangerous precedent should the courts allow loose interpretation of the outcome to mean "reporting leaked information is illegal"
- JudgeWapner 7y ago
  what "crime by proxy" ? Manning was an agent of the US. He (must have) had some level of secret clearance. Just because he didn't know the password to a database doesn't make it a crime. Those databases are illegal for non-government employees to access. If Manning had secret clearance for database {A, B, and C} but not D, it's an internal IT violation between him (at the time he was male) and his boss. If you or I (presuming you're not a gov employee) tried it, we don't have clearance and therefore it would be a crime, aka hacking.
  - CorvusCrypto 7y ago
    Yes that she was an agent at the time. But no that she had access to those materials. There are various levels of government access. Even if documents are marked "secret" and you have secret clearance if you don't have the passwords you don't have access. And actually in government sometimes you do have the passwords and still don't have granted access. Any tampering with a computer to gain access you didn't have approval for from your supervisors is considered hacking. Yes it's an internal IT violation, but at a government office which makes it a government offense. I hope that makes sense. It's not like a normal company where you get repercussion from that entity alone at these sorts of government orgs.
freeflight 7y ago
> So this isn't as simple as "a journalist received classified information and is being prosecuted for it." This indictment lays out a very specific crime, which is (Assange) directly encouraging and enabling another individual (Manning) to commit a crime (Espionage) on his behalf. Nothing about that interpretation is new, thus plenty of high-profile journalists, and journalistic NGO [0] have already responded to that particular "charge" back in April. Like Glenn Greenwald pointing out that "massaging sources" is a major part of investigative journalistic work [1]. [0] https://rsf.org/en/news/rsf-calls-uk-protect-role-journalistic-sources-treatment-julian-assange https://rsf.org/en/news/rsf-calls-uk-protect-role-journalist... [1] 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...
- partiallypro 7y ago
  Massaging resource isn't the same as telling someone exactly how to break into a computer system, and Greenwald knows that.
  - thatoneuser 7y ago
    I really fail to see how it's criminal for someone in another country to explain how to hack a computer system our govt has. I fail to see how it's criminal for them to even encourage someone to hack the system. They aren't our citizen, they don't get our benefits and rights, they don't have to act the way we want them to. This isn't different than the Chinese govt demanding us citizens be surrendered who break Chinese social laws.
    - knodi123 7y ago
      > I really fail to see how it's criminal Seems like classical, straight-up espionage. The only confounding factor is that Assange wasn't (as far as we know) working on behalf of a foreign power. But these days, that's what spies are - not James Bond, but merely a guy who coerces and helps his assets to gain access to and then exfiltrate secret information. Espionage.
Iv 7y ago
Only the last section has any legitimacy IMO. And I suspect it is something along the lines "well, you can google for something called John The Ripper". And about "gee, it sure would be nice if someone got these classified documents for us." As long as the POTUS is not charged for asking the exact same things to Russians publicly, it would be a shame that a foreign person be charged in US for that.

TomMckenny 7y ago

The charge could have been limited to working on cracking the password. Instead it explicitly describes activity common to reporters and critical for democracy: publishing information the source obtained "illegally". In quotes because a government with something to hide will generally hide it under a national security secrets act. Why make charges that could destroy journalism when you could charge with something that doesn't? It's hard to understand, unless of course the press is "the enemy of the people".

duxup 7y ago
It describes cracking and then leaking it. I don't think you could manage the same legal challenge with just the latter. Often charges describe all sorts of things that themselves aren't illegal.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

DiogenesKynikos 7y ago

This would criminalize a huge amount of investigative journalism in the United States. Journalists who work in this field solicit classified information all the time. They cultivate connections inside government, and ask for information. They aren't all just sitting back and waiting for sources to fall into their lap. When sources do come to them, they encourage those sources to share more information. That's how the business works, and if the US government wins its case against Assange, that business will be illegal.

sleepybrett 7y ago
It's quite probable that he will only be convicted on the circumvention charges, helping to crack the password/cover her tracks.
gamblor956 7y ago
The major difference is that journalists do not ask their sources to break the law to obtain information. Assange did, and that makes all the difference.
- DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
  Whenever a journalist asks their source for classified information, which they do all the time, they're asking their source to break the law. The legal theory being advanced here would basically outlaw investigative journalism into the activities of the US government, even by foreign journalists.
  - gamblor956 7y ago
    Whenever a journalist asks their source for classified information, which they do all the time, they're asking their source to break the law. That's not true but I don't have time to run through an exhaustive legal explanation of why. In a nutshell: the source is responsible for maintaining security of information, because third parties like journalists don't know the bounds of what is covered by confidentiality. Moreover, asking for information is not the same thing as soliciting information. Asking is fine, soliciting is not (in this context, soliciting means offering them something of value in exchange for the information).

fma 7y ago

Being tongue and cheek...but would it be like when Trump asked Russia to find Hilary's e-mail...

yakshaving_jgt 7y ago

You are right, we should be clear about what is being claimed by the government. However, is there any legitimate alternative method for a whistleblower to expose the US government of warcrimes, as WikiLeaks did? It seems quite unfair for a government to murder innocent civilians and then protect itself by putting the evidence behind a password.

DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
To be clear, the evidence was not behind a password (at least, it was already accessible to Manning). The purpose of cracking the password was to allow Manning to download the information from a different account, in order to obfuscate the source of the leak.
- mklarmann 7y ago
  This makes an important difference!
- plugger 7y ago
  That's incorrect. Assange was trying to brute force the administrator password on a DoD system to give Manning elevated access on the host that she didn't have at the time. It wasn't an obfuscation exercise, it was an attempt to uncover classified information Manning wasn't privy to with her current account access. *Edit: and it was done after Manning had handed over everything she could access with her own account. At least that's what the charge is in the initial indictment.

anarazel 7y ago

> The first section of the indictment describes the various ways in which Assange and/or Wikileaks said, more or less, "gee, it sure would be nice if someone got these classified documents for us." A lot of news orgs, and individual reporters, have explicitly asked for information about specific topics. Yes, usually not by explicitly mentioning it being classified, but for plenty topics that's basically implied. By my read the indictment doesn't formulate any limiting principles on the more broad charges that could be levied against many reporters. > Finally, we have a section labeled "C. ASSANGE Encouraged Manning to Continue Her Theft of Classified Documents and Agreed to Help Her Crack a Password Hash to a Military Computer". This described how Assange provided Chelsea Manning with tools allowing her to circumvent passwords and other protections on classified computers. Which is why the previous version, which had only this charge, was much less heavily criticized.

CorvusCrypto 7y ago

At face value it doesn't seem so crazy to charge him for this. I mean it is committing a crime by proxy as opposed to passively obtaining information from a source (the latter of which journalists should be protected for). If I give tools and a robbery checklist to someone and tell them to rob a bank, surely I'm still able to be charged and probably for a higher crime right? At least that's how these charges seem to me. I guess I don't see how it's invalid. I do however see how this could set a dangerous precedent should the courts allow loose interpretation of the outcome to mean "reporting leaked information is illegal"

JudgeWapner 7y ago
what "crime by proxy" ? Manning was an agent of the US. He (must have) had some level of secret clearance. Just because he didn't know the password to a database doesn't make it a crime. Those databases are illegal for non-government employees to access. If Manning had secret clearance for database {A, B, and C} but not D, it's an internal IT violation between him (at the time he was male) and his boss. If you or I (presuming you're not a gov employee) tried it, we don't have clearance and therefore it would be a crime, aka hacking.
- CorvusCrypto 7y ago
  Yes that she was an agent at the time. But no that she had access to those materials. There are various levels of government access. Even if documents are marked "secret" and you have secret clearance if you don't have the passwords you don't have access. And actually in government sometimes you do have the passwords and still don't have granted access. Any tampering with a computer to gain access you didn't have approval for from your supervisors is considered hacking. Yes it's an internal IT violation, but at a government office which makes it a government offense. I hope that makes sense. It's not like a normal company where you get repercussion from that entity alone at these sorts of government orgs.

freeflight 7y ago

> So this isn't as simple as "a journalist received classified information and is being prosecuted for it." This indictment lays out a very specific crime, which is (Assange) directly encouraging and enabling another individual (Manning) to commit a crime (Espionage) on his behalf. Nothing about that interpretation is new, thus plenty of high-profile journalists, and journalistic NGO [0] have already responded to that particular "charge" back in April. Like Glenn Greenwald pointing out that "massaging sources" is a major part of investigative journalistic work [1]. [0] https://rsf.org/en/news/rsf-calls-uk-protect-role-journalistic-sources-treatment-julian-assange https://rsf.org/en/news/rsf-calls-uk-protect-role-journalist... [1] 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...

partiallypro 7y ago
Massaging resource isn't the same as telling someone exactly how to break into a computer system, and Greenwald knows that.
- thatoneuser 7y ago
  I really fail to see how it's criminal for someone in another country to explain how to hack a computer system our govt has. I fail to see how it's criminal for them to even encourage someone to hack the system. They aren't our citizen, they don't get our benefits and rights, they don't have to act the way we want them to. This isn't different than the Chinese govt demanding us citizens be surrendered who break Chinese social laws.
  - knodi123 7y ago
    > I really fail to see how it's criminal Seems like classical, straight-up espionage. The only confounding factor is that Assange wasn't (as far as we know) working on behalf of a foreign power. But these days, that's what spies are - not James Bond, but merely a guy who coerces and helps his assets to gain access to and then exfiltrate secret information. Espionage.

Iv 7y ago

Only the last section has any legitimacy IMO. And I suspect it is something along the lines "well, you can google for something called John The Ripper". And about "gee, it sure would be nice if someone got these classified documents for us." As long as the POTUS is not charged for asking the exact same things to Russians publicly, it would be a shame that a foreign person be charged in US for that.