5 ms·

This would criminalize a huge amount of investigative journalism in the United States. Journalists who work in this field solicit classified information all the

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).
    - DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
      Journalists normally know full well that they're asking sources for classified information. Asking for classified information is absolutely routine in investigative journalism. > Asking is fine, soliciting is not (in this context, soliciting means offering them something of value in exchange for the information). Assange didn't purchase the information. The theories you're supporting would make reporting on US government secrets illegal. You should stop and think about how fundamentally this would undermine the freedom of the press and the ability of the public to know about what their government does in secret.
      - gamblor956 7y ago
        The theories you're supporting would make reporting on US government secrets illegal. You should stop and think about how fundamentally this would undermine the freedom of the press and the ability of the public to know about what their government does in secret. Black-and-white/yes-or-no/kindergarten level of analysis? Sure, that's correct. In the real world? It's not correct at all. For starters, it's perfectly legal to ask for classified information, because it's well understood that a source generally will not provide any classified information (because the source would face criminal sanction if they do). However, if the source is willing to reveal said information, and the journalist did not solicit it, then the journalist is free to publish it because journalists are not covered by classified information laws (in the US). If, however, the journalist solicits the information (by offering something of value, not necessarily monetary), or by assisting in the acquisition of the information, then they have violated various US laws, because they've crossed the line. Assange is alleged to have performed acts that could be construed as attempts to access classified information, beyond merely asking for it--specifically, it is alleged that he assisted Manning with attempting to acquire and decrypt classified documents. That is the heart of the issue--if Assange had merely accepted a document dump from Manning (as he generally did with most other sources), he wouldn't be facing 18 charges today. However, Assange is also not protected by free press rulings. Because he's not a journalist. He's just a parrot. A parrot merely passes on what's given to them. A journalist verifies their sources, the information they've received, and exercises some sort of analysis and judgment in deciding what to publish. Assange literally did none of those things until it came time to interfere in the Trump-Clinton election, when he chose to bury the Trump documents he received and time the release of Clinton-related documents, most of which are now known to have been partial or whole-scale forgeries by the Russian intelligence agencies.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- sneak 7y ago
  I don’t agree. Personally I don’t feel that the government is entitled to have secrets from the governed, as the government derives its power from the consent of the governed, and you cannot consent unless you are informed. A government with secrets from those it requires the consent of to govern is illegitimate and corrupt. The fact that some claim that it is or should be illegal to tell someone to collect evidence of uninvestigated and unpunished war crimes for publication for the edification of the public shows you just how far down we’ve slipped down the slope.
  - partiallypro 7y ago
    So, if the government had a weapon plan with the power of a nuclear bomb, and could easily be created with certain instructions...that should be leaked because something something the government has no entitlement to have secrets from the governed...even if it's to protect those it governs.
    - bshipp 7y ago
      There idea wide gulf between completely open government and one where secrecy is the default reaponse with very few checks and balances to ensure that those items marked top secret have a valid rationale for being labelled as such. I would argue that countries like the USA have moved too far in the latter direction and could use a good shove back to the middle.
    - sneak 7y ago
      How can we even be sure such a weapon exists or can exist if we can’t review the workings of it? This whole “it’s for your own safety, let us protect you with it, trust us (no you can’t read it)” is not informed consent and no amount of mental gymnastics will make it informed consent. The government requires the consent of the governed or it is illegitimate. Secrets preclude informed consent. There is nothing special or unique about the humans in the government that entitle them to access to secrets whilst denying the governed that same access.
      - partiallypro 7y ago
- JudgeWapner 7y ago
  I'm not convinced that his source broke the law. At the time, Manning was a legal agent of the US gov and presumably had the clearance to view confidential information. The information he attempted to obtain was password protected, but putting a password on a file doesn't doesn't make it a crime to access it if you have legal secret clearance. The crime was handing the info to Assange, which was committed by Manning and who was prosecuted for it. By analogy, an employee at a bank isn't a criminal for spinning the dial on the vault. They are a bank employee, they have permission to work on-site with the bank's money, be in the vault, and operate their teller station which has the vault's money. it may be against the bank's regulation to open the vault without authorization, but a guy on the outside asking a bank employee to try a vault combo isn't breaking the law if the bank employee was previously authorized to access it. The crime is taking the green papers from the vault and transporting them off bank premises.
  - dx87 7y ago
    Just because you have a secret clearance, and the information is classified at the secret level, doesn't mean you're authorized to view it. You also need to have a "need to know", and considering that Manning wasn't given the password, I doubt she needed to know what was in the document.
    - JudgeWapner 7y ago
      Oh, I get that. Unauthorized access is a violation of Manning's military policy. But she was cleared to view confidential information and had access to other military networks. I contend it's not a crime for Assange to aide her in breaking an employment policy, not an espionage law.
  - gamblor956 7y ago
    It was a crime (on Manning's end) to hand the information over, but it would not have been a crime on Assange's end to receive it...if he had been protected as a journalist. And even if he had been a journalist for purposes of these laws, he crossed the line when he helped Manning trying to crack the password. It doesn't matter that he failed--the problem is the attempt. To use your bank analogy, the scenario would be that a guy without a bank account at the bank wanted money from the vault and helped the bank employee figure out the combo. Both the employee and the guy are guilty. On the other hand, if the employee had just given the guy some money from the vault, the guy isn't guilty of anything.
- StanislavPetrov 7y ago
  Clearly you aren't a journalist. Journalists solicit leaks all the time from people who would be breaking the law by leaking that information. There is no difference. This indictment specifically criminalizes journalism and runs directly contrary to the 1st Amendment - period.
  - gamblor956 7y ago
    Clearly you don't know anything about the law, which is what matters here. This indictment does not criminalize journalism and does not run directly contrary to the 1st Amendent. Period. Full stop. There is a SCOTUS case on why journalists can publish classified information without fear of reprisal. That same case is why Assange is SOL.
    - StanislavPetrov 7y ago
      The Constitution is the ultimate law of the land.
- thatoneuser 7y ago
  In that case you and other Americans probably break laws in China and Russia. Should you be handed over to those countries because of that? Because that's what you're saying here
bb88 7y ago
No actually it wouldn't. It's already a crime to encourage people to act illegally -- that's technically a conspiracy. Journalists that have ethical standards wouldn't do this.
- DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
  > Journalists that have ethical standards wouldn't do this. Then all journalists who publish classified information - which are most investigative journalists of any note who cover government - have no ethical standards.
  - bb88 7y ago
    There's a difference between merely publishing classified materials and conspiring to access a classified computer system. Gleen Greenwald was the former, Snowden was more the latter.
    - DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
      If this goes through with Assange, there's nothing preventing the government from also putting Glenn Greenwald behind bars, along with half of the investigative journalists in Washington, DC. Let me lay out the case to you. Glenn Greenwald conspired with a government employee to access classified information. He knew that Snowden was offering classified information. He hatched a conspiracy with Snowden to meet in Hong Kong, beyond the reach of the United States government. They intentionally obfuscated their communications. They set up a secret meeting point. They decided on a secret signal that would allow Greenwald to identify Snowden. This looks very much like a conspiracy in which Greenwald knows that Snowden is breaking the law, and in which Greenwald is helping Snowden work out a way to do so. Of course, prosecuting Greenwald for the Snowden leaks would be a disaster for democracy. Prosecuting Assange would also be disastrous. I have the feeling that a lot of Democrats have decided to throw in their lot with the intelligence agencies that want Snowden behind bars, because they can't forgive him for publishing Hillary and the DNC's emails. For them, this is political payback. If we start throwing journalists to the wolves because we don't like them politically, that will be a very dark day for democracy.

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).
  - DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
    Journalists normally know full well that they're asking sources for classified information. Asking for classified information is absolutely routine in investigative journalism. > Asking is fine, soliciting is not (in this context, soliciting means offering them something of value in exchange for the information). Assange didn't purchase the information. The theories you're supporting would make reporting on US government secrets illegal. You should stop and think about how fundamentally this would undermine the freedom of the press and the ability of the public to know about what their government does in secret.
    - gamblor956 7y ago
      The theories you're supporting would make reporting on US government secrets illegal. You should stop and think about how fundamentally this would undermine the freedom of the press and the ability of the public to know about what their government does in secret. Black-and-white/yes-or-no/kindergarten level of analysis? Sure, that's correct. In the real world? It's not correct at all. For starters, it's perfectly legal to ask for classified information, because it's well understood that a source generally will not provide any classified information (because the source would face criminal sanction if they do). However, if the source is willing to reveal said information, and the journalist did not solicit it, then the journalist is free to publish it because journalists are not covered by classified information laws (in the US). If, however, the journalist solicits the information (by offering something of value, not necessarily monetary), or by assisting in the acquisition of the information, then they have violated various US laws, because they've crossed the line. Assange is alleged to have performed acts that could be construed as attempts to access classified information, beyond merely asking for it--specifically, it is alleged that he assisted Manning with attempting to acquire and decrypt classified documents. That is the heart of the issue--if Assange had merely accepted a document dump from Manning (as he generally did with most other sources), he wouldn't be facing 18 charges today. However, Assange is also not protected by free press rulings. Because he's not a journalist. He's just a parrot. A parrot merely passes on what's given to them. A journalist verifies their sources, the information they've received, and exercises some sort of analysis and judgment in deciding what to publish. Assange literally did none of those things until it came time to interfere in the Trump-Clinton election, when he chose to bury the Trump documents he received and time the release of Clinton-related documents, most of which are now known to have been partial or whole-scale forgeries by the Russian intelligence agencies.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
sneak 7y ago
I don’t agree. Personally I don’t feel that the government is entitled to have secrets from the governed, as the government derives its power from the consent of the governed, and you cannot consent unless you are informed. A government with secrets from those it requires the consent of to govern is illegitimate and corrupt. The fact that some claim that it is or should be illegal to tell someone to collect evidence of uninvestigated and unpunished war crimes for publication for the edification of the public shows you just how far down we’ve slipped down the slope.
- partiallypro 7y ago
  So, if the government had a weapon plan with the power of a nuclear bomb, and could easily be created with certain instructions...that should be leaked because something something the government has no entitlement to have secrets from the governed...even if it's to protect those it governs.
  - bshipp 7y ago
    There idea wide gulf between completely open government and one where secrecy is the default reaponse with very few checks and balances to ensure that those items marked top secret have a valid rationale for being labelled as such. I would argue that countries like the USA have moved too far in the latter direction and could use a good shove back to the middle.
  - sneak 7y ago
    How can we even be sure such a weapon exists or can exist if we can’t review the workings of it? This whole “it’s for your own safety, let us protect you with it, trust us (no you can’t read it)” is not informed consent and no amount of mental gymnastics will make it informed consent. The government requires the consent of the governed or it is illegitimate. Secrets preclude informed consent. There is nothing special or unique about the humans in the government that entitle them to access to secrets whilst denying the governed that same access.
    - partiallypro 7y ago
JudgeWapner 7y ago
I'm not convinced that his source broke the law. At the time, Manning was a legal agent of the US gov and presumably had the clearance to view confidential information. The information he attempted to obtain was password protected, but putting a password on a file doesn't doesn't make it a crime to access it if you have legal secret clearance. The crime was handing the info to Assange, which was committed by Manning and who was prosecuted for it. By analogy, an employee at a bank isn't a criminal for spinning the dial on the vault. They are a bank employee, they have permission to work on-site with the bank's money, be in the vault, and operate their teller station which has the vault's money. it may be against the bank's regulation to open the vault without authorization, but a guy on the outside asking a bank employee to try a vault combo isn't breaking the law if the bank employee was previously authorized to access it. The crime is taking the green papers from the vault and transporting them off bank premises.
- dx87 7y ago
  Just because you have a secret clearance, and the information is classified at the secret level, doesn't mean you're authorized to view it. You also need to have a "need to know", and considering that Manning wasn't given the password, I doubt she needed to know what was in the document.
  - JudgeWapner 7y ago
    Oh, I get that. Unauthorized access is a violation of Manning's military policy. But she was cleared to view confidential information and had access to other military networks. I contend it's not a crime for Assange to aide her in breaking an employment policy, not an espionage law.
- gamblor956 7y ago
  It was a crime (on Manning's end) to hand the information over, but it would not have been a crime on Assange's end to receive it...if he had been protected as a journalist. And even if he had been a journalist for purposes of these laws, he crossed the line when he helped Manning trying to crack the password. It doesn't matter that he failed--the problem is the attempt. To use your bank analogy, the scenario would be that a guy without a bank account at the bank wanted money from the vault and helped the bank employee figure out the combo. Both the employee and the guy are guilty. On the other hand, if the employee had just given the guy some money from the vault, the guy isn't guilty of anything.
StanislavPetrov 7y ago
Clearly you aren't a journalist. Journalists solicit leaks all the time from people who would be breaking the law by leaking that information. There is no difference. This indictment specifically criminalizes journalism and runs directly contrary to the 1st Amendment - period.
- gamblor956 7y ago
  Clearly you don't know anything about the law, which is what matters here. This indictment does not criminalize journalism and does not run directly contrary to the 1st Amendent. Period. Full stop. There is a SCOTUS case on why journalists can publish classified information without fear of reprisal. That same case is why Assange is SOL.
  - StanislavPetrov 7y ago
    The Constitution is the ultimate law of the land.
thatoneuser 7y ago
In that case you and other Americans probably break laws in China and Russia. Should you be handed over to those countries because of that? Because that's what you're saying here

bb88 7y ago

No actually it wouldn't. It's already a crime to encourage people to act illegally -- that's technically a conspiracy. Journalists that have ethical standards wouldn't do this.

DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
> Journalists that have ethical standards wouldn't do this. Then all journalists who publish classified information - which are most investigative journalists of any note who cover government - have no ethical standards.
- bb88 7y ago
  There's a difference between merely publishing classified materials and conspiring to access a classified computer system. Gleen Greenwald was the former, Snowden was more the latter.
  - DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
    If this goes through with Assange, there's nothing preventing the government from also putting Glenn Greenwald behind bars, along with half of the investigative journalists in Washington, DC. Let me lay out the case to you. Glenn Greenwald conspired with a government employee to access classified information. He knew that Snowden was offering classified information. He hatched a conspiracy with Snowden to meet in Hong Kong, beyond the reach of the United States government. They intentionally obfuscated their communications. They set up a secret meeting point. They decided on a secret signal that would allow Greenwald to identify Snowden. This looks very much like a conspiracy in which Greenwald knows that Snowden is breaking the law, and in which Greenwald is helping Snowden work out a way to do so. Of course, prosecuting Greenwald for the Snowden leaks would be a disaster for democracy. Prosecuting Assange would also be disastrous. I have the feeling that a lot of Democrats have decided to throw in their lot with the intelligence agencies that want Snowden behind bars, because they can't forgive him for publishing Hillary and the DNC's emails. For them, this is political payback. If we start throwing journalists to the wolves because we don't like them politically, that will be a very dark day for democracy.