4 ms·

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 info

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.

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.