5 ms·

The only way you, or the UN, can justify these perspectives is if you grant 0 probability that Assange was involved in the theft of state secrets or if you thin

The only way you, or the UN, can justify these perspectives is if you grant 0 probability that Assange was involved in the theft of state secrets or if you think he was involved, but it was okay because "the US is evil". Fine. But you can't expect the US government and its allies to accept that theory...

einpoklum 7y ago
Like I wrote above - being a political prisoner does not make you a better person. And it doesn't make your cause just, or the state which you oppose evil. Having said that: 1. Part of a journalist's job is to obtain state secrets and publish them. Obtaining them is often some form or another of theft. But journalism is important enough even to property-ownership-sanctifying democracies that journalists get a free pass on "borderline theft". 2. If the US had though Assange had assisted in stealing state secrets, it would have: (a) Made that accusation earlier than 13 years after the fact and (b) Demanded his extradition fair at that time. US government statements in recent years, especially Pompeo's characterization of Wikileaks, suggests other motives for the current action. 3. If you'll read the linked-to story you'll see that it is quite unlikely that Assange is guilty of what's attributed to him, even regardless of the circumstances I mentioned.
- FireBeyond 7y ago
  > 2. If the US had though Assange had assisted in stealing state secrets, it would have: (a) Made that accusation earlier than 13 years after the fact What? The original exfiltration of data happened in 2010: "In early 2010, she leaked classified information to WikiLeaks and confided this to Adrian Lamo, an online acquaintance." So I have no idea where you're coming up with "13 years after the fact". And are you also trying to claim that the US government has NOT, until now, claiming that Assange had assisted? In fact, the number is closer to 2 years, if that: "Julian Assange was allegedly investigated by the Eastern District of Virginia grand jury for computer-related crimes committed in the U.S. in 2012. His request for asylum was granted and he remained a resident in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London since 2012. In 2019, an indictment from 2017 was made public". > But journalism is important enough even to property-ownership-sanctifying democracies that journalists get a free pass on "borderline theft". Journalism ethics preclude "encouraging the committing of further crimes" (exfiltrating additional data, using third party credentials to "cover tracks", possibly implicating innocent parties), nor actively committing crimes (actively assisting in gaining additional access to classified systems), in any way shape or form. What you refer to is an acknowledgement that a journalist is not guilty of a crime _merely_ because someone passed them stolen information.
  - einpoklum 7y ago
    The exfiltrated information was from 2007 IIANM. But - you're right, I got the year wrong. So, 9 years after the exfiltration. Now, as for whether this happened 3 years ago or last year, this depends on what you're counting. The extradition request was filed last year. The secret indictment in itself nefarious; but it "doesn't count", in the sense that no public indictment for 9 years means 9 years of increasing obsolescence. About the 2012 investigation - that just strengthens my point. An investigation in 2012 did not lead to an indictment. The Trump administration did not suggest, let alone establish, that the investigation was a cover-up or otherwise inappropriately conducted. > Journalism ethics preclude "encouraging the committing of further crimes" ... in any way shape or form That's not true. If leaking secret information is a crime, encouraging a source to leak information is perfectly ethical. Not to mention, in many world states, even reporting secret information is a crime. Or even publishing an unauthorized newspaper... Regardless, the US doesn't have evidence to even prima-facie establish Assange having commited such crimes. I mean, they're shaking down Manning for it, but she's resisting.
    - FireBeyond 7y ago
      I'm confused about your understanding of events. Two years after the events (entirely reasonable in the investigation of such a thing), there was indictments being issued. These are a necessary precursor for extradition. Wheels of justice (and let's abstract this for a moment, whether you feel this particular case warrants it or not) turn slowly, especially when they involve classified information and potential defendants in asylum in third party countries. "At the same time, an independent investigation by the FBI was going on regarding Assange's release of the Manning documents, and according to court documents dated May 2014, he was still under active and ongoing investigation." I think you're trying to state that he should have been indicted years ago. What would have been the response then? That the US raced to indictment without a complete investigation? I think the general preference is towards more thorough investigations. > If leaking secret information is a crime, encouraging a source to leak information is perfectly ethical. There is a difference between: "investigating criminal activities, and encouraging sources to come forth with evidence thereof" and "actively encouraging sources to commit _additional_, _unrelated_ crimes", if not "actively helping them do so" (attempting to crack passwords of third party accounts on their behalf). It's legal and ethical for a journalist to report on crimes. It is not legal, for example, for a journalist to break into a building to steal information on crimes, however valid that information may be. > Regardless, the US doesn't have evidence to even prima-facie establish Assange having commited such crimes. I'd argue that that is entirely false. Chat and email logs between Manning and Assange _repeatedly_ show them talking about covering tracks, and about Assange actively trying, by his own words, to crack passwords for unrelated accounts in classified systems. That is the very definition of _prima facie_.

einpoklum 7y ago

Like I wrote above - being a political prisoner does not make you a better person. And it doesn't make your cause just, or the state which you oppose evil. Having said that: 1. Part of a journalist's job is to obtain state secrets and publish them. Obtaining them is often some form or another of theft. But journalism is important enough even to property-ownership-sanctifying democracies that journalists get a free pass on "borderline theft". 2. If the US had though Assange had assisted in stealing state secrets, it would have: (a) Made that accusation earlier than 13 years after the fact and (b) Demanded his extradition fair at that time. US government statements in recent years, especially Pompeo's characterization of Wikileaks, suggests other motives for the current action. 3. If you'll read the linked-to story you'll see that it is quite unlikely that Assange is guilty of what's attributed to him, even regardless of the circumstances I mentioned.

FireBeyond 7y ago
> 2. If the US had though Assange had assisted in stealing state secrets, it would have: (a) Made that accusation earlier than 13 years after the fact What? The original exfiltration of data happened in 2010: "In early 2010, she leaked classified information to WikiLeaks and confided this to Adrian Lamo, an online acquaintance." So I have no idea where you're coming up with "13 years after the fact". And are you also trying to claim that the US government has NOT, until now, claiming that Assange had assisted? In fact, the number is closer to 2 years, if that: "Julian Assange was allegedly investigated by the Eastern District of Virginia grand jury for computer-related crimes committed in the U.S. in 2012. His request for asylum was granted and he remained a resident in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London since 2012. In 2019, an indictment from 2017 was made public". > But journalism is important enough even to property-ownership-sanctifying democracies that journalists get a free pass on "borderline theft". Journalism ethics preclude "encouraging the committing of further crimes" (exfiltrating additional data, using third party credentials to "cover tracks", possibly implicating innocent parties), nor actively committing crimes (actively assisting in gaining additional access to classified systems), in any way shape or form. What you refer to is an acknowledgement that a journalist is not guilty of a crime _merely_ because someone passed them stolen information.
- einpoklum 7y ago
  The exfiltrated information was from 2007 IIANM. But - you're right, I got the year wrong. So, 9 years after the exfiltration. Now, as for whether this happened 3 years ago or last year, this depends on what you're counting. The extradition request was filed last year. The secret indictment in itself nefarious; but it "doesn't count", in the sense that no public indictment for 9 years means 9 years of increasing obsolescence. About the 2012 investigation - that just strengthens my point. An investigation in 2012 did not lead to an indictment. The Trump administration did not suggest, let alone establish, that the investigation was a cover-up or otherwise inappropriately conducted. > Journalism ethics preclude "encouraging the committing of further crimes" ... in any way shape or form That's not true. If leaking secret information is a crime, encouraging a source to leak information is perfectly ethical. Not to mention, in many world states, even reporting secret information is a crime. Or even publishing an unauthorized newspaper... Regardless, the US doesn't have evidence to even prima-facie establish Assange having commited such crimes. I mean, they're shaking down Manning for it, but she's resisting.
  - FireBeyond 7y ago
    I'm confused about your understanding of events. Two years after the events (entirely reasonable in the investigation of such a thing), there was indictments being issued. These are a necessary precursor for extradition. Wheels of justice (and let's abstract this for a moment, whether you feel this particular case warrants it or not) turn slowly, especially when they involve classified information and potential defendants in asylum in third party countries. "At the same time, an independent investigation by the FBI was going on regarding Assange's release of the Manning documents, and according to court documents dated May 2014, he was still under active and ongoing investigation." I think you're trying to state that he should have been indicted years ago. What would have been the response then? That the US raced to indictment without a complete investigation? I think the general preference is towards more thorough investigations. > If leaking secret information is a crime, encouraging a source to leak information is perfectly ethical. There is a difference between: "investigating criminal activities, and encouraging sources to come forth with evidence thereof" and "actively encouraging sources to commit _additional_, _unrelated_ crimes", if not "actively helping them do so" (attempting to crack passwords of third party accounts on their behalf). It's legal and ethical for a journalist to report on crimes. It is not legal, for example, for a journalist to break into a building to steal information on crimes, however valid that information may be. > Regardless, the US doesn't have evidence to even prima-facie establish Assange having commited such crimes. I'd argue that that is entirely false. Chat and email logs between Manning and Assange _repeatedly_ show them talking about covering tracks, and about Assange actively trying, by his own words, to crack passwords for unrelated accounts in classified systems. That is the very definition of _prima facie_.