6 ms·

I'll probably regret asking, but why would it?

fit2rule 6y ago
>I'll probably regret asking, but why would it? Because it is evidence of a crime being committed - i.e. that Assange obtained secret military materials and then illegally published them. Assange is being held for extradition to face charges in the USA of publishing military secrets. This is a military secret that he published. The fact of its exclusion demonstrates that the US Government doesn't want its crimes further exposed to the world, and that it doesn't believe that Assange illegally published this material - or else, it would have to be admitted as evidence. This omission demonstrates that he is not being targeted for the reason of publishing military secrets, or else it would have been included in the case as evidence. Julian Assange is being illegally detained and criminally prosecuted for publishing the fact of America's war crimes and embarrassing the War Coalition. The USA has, with this omission, essentially admitted guilt for its own war crimes.
- labster 6y ago
  Isn’t the US system of justice adversarial in nature? Why would the prosecutor make the defense’s argument for free?
  - krustyburger 6y ago
    It’s one thing to avoid making arguments and another to intentionally omit certain “crimes” because drawing attention to them discredits the moral basis of your argument, while emphasizing “crimes” that are identical except for lacking that baggage. It speaks to a fundamental disinterest in the law and its uniform enforcement.
    - fit2rule 6y ago
      You know what else speaks to a fundamental disinterest in the law and its uniform enforcement? The Gunship Video itself.
- joshuamorton 6y ago
  > and that it doesn't believe that Assange illegally published this material This is not correct. They could believe this, and believe they have a strong enough case without this specific evidence that they need not include it.
  - fit2rule 6y ago
    Well, then its mis-trial time for Julian, because the claim made against him is that he illegally accessed state secrets and published them. However, the Gunship Video is evidence that he legally published the materials obtained - boosting the defence case that Assange is a publisher and therefore protected. I think the government is looking for an out, because it knows its case is hopeless, and it just gave Assange's team a clue. No doubt the defence is going to latch on the omission of this video, and it will prolong the proceedings - meaning they can keep Julian in limbo longer, and continue to subject him to the depravities of Belmarsh at their discretion.
    - slg 6y ago
      >However, the Gunship Video is evidence that he legally published the materials obtained It isn't a binary choice between everything published is either legal or illegal. He could have published some legally and some illegally. People can view this specific video as being published legally while other information was published illegally and therefore only the illegally published information is covered in the indictment.
      - fit2rule 6y ago
        Either he IS a journalist/publisher and thus protected from prosecution for revealing evidence of real crimes, or he isn't. The US Government, by omitting this video from evidence, is making a tacit admittance that he is a publisher. (He is a journalist and this trial is a sham.)
        joshuamorton 6y ago
        > The US Government, by omitting this video from evidence, is making a tacit admittance that he is a publisher. This doesn't, at all, follow. > Either he IS a journalist/publisher and thus protected from prosecution for revealing evidence of real crimes Not if he himself committed crimes to get the evidence.
- vntok 6y ago
  That is a non sequitur. Per the article: "The prosecution case alleges Assange risked American lives by releasing hundreds of thousands of US intelligence documents." The video is but one of those secret military materials. No need to include it in the indictment and risk debates or scrutiny on it, it's much more efficient to select bulletproof documents that show beyond doubt that he acted improperly.. of which there are already thousands.
  - fit2rule 6y ago
    >there are already thousands Are there? Got a reference to some of these bulletproof documents? EDIT: crickets ..
    - jessaustin 6y ago
      Yeah, we'll hear similar cricket chirping if we ask for an example of all those soldiers and collaborators whose lives and safety were risked by wikileaks. Someone silly might post some decades-old warning from Rumsfeld or whoever about all the thousands of people who will die because some warlord got someone's name off a list published by wikileaks, but that old warning coupled with the war media's interest in arguing their side just underlines the fact that no one has died in such a circumstance.
      - fit2rule 6y ago
        The fact is, as of today, there is NO EVIDENCE that any American life was put in danger by the leaks. There IS evidence that a LOT of American lives were put in danger by the war crimes and other crimes against humanity committed in their name. Basically, every single American alive today is in danger as a result of the war crimes for which they are responsible as citizens of the USA. Invading Iraq put every single American in much more dire danger than Wikileaks ever could.
- ryanmarsh 6y ago
  It’s more boring than that. It’s about making a slam dunk case for the jury. Criminal cases are not tried against a general moral standard. It begins with a reading of the specific statute offended. Including any evidence ancillary to the case, and that will not emotionally sway the jury for your case, undermines your case. There are several venues for trying “war crime” cases, this is not one of them. I think if anybody really cared about the journalists who died you’d see lawfare leveraging UCMJ, but I’ve yet to see that. Seems the outrage is rather performative.
  - fit2rule 6y ago
    An un-informed public cannot get outraged about its governments crimes nor serve as the final stop-gap against criminal behaviour by removing those responsible for the abuses of power required to commit crimes against humanity at such scale as we have seen the USA and its War Coalition commit in the last two decades. This is why publishers are important and should be protected. The Wests' citizens have been utterly scammed into complicity with these crimes against humanity - the imperative to mis-inform, and thus divert the outrage potential, is very, very high in this case.
dane-pgp 6y ago
Presumably the implication is that not mentioning the contents of the video which Assange is accused of illegitimately accessing is like not mentioning in an indictment for a thief that the object stolen was a loaf of bread to feed their starving family. Whether that is an apt analogy and whether this "failure to mention" represents a deficiency in an indictment is perhaps best left to the reader.
- fit2rule 6y ago
  Actually, its best left to the courts. Public opinion and support of Assange has already been diverted through malfeasance on the part of the US military. Omitting this video from their charges is an admission that this is not really about accessing military secrets illegally - but rather, punishing a legitimate publisher for exposing war crimes.
- vntok 6y ago
  That analogy would be more apt in "not mentioning in an indictment for a thief that in addition to thousands of precious pearls, emeralds, sapphires and diamonds, one of the objects stolen was a loaf of bread to feed their starving family."
  - JackFr 6y ago
    A better analogy would be a thief broke into my home, and stole cash, jewelry, electronics and also a handgun that had been used in a crime. The prosecutors are absolutely right to prosecute the thief, but upon discovering that I had the handgun used in a crime they really should look into that too.
    - vntok 6y ago
      Yours is a good analogy indeed. Sure, the prosecutors can and should refer the case of the smoking gun to their colleagues from a crime unit. But the thief still goes to prison for stealing cash, jewellery and electronics.
- E5JBK7UJPT 6y ago

>I'll probably regret asking, but why would it? Because it is evidence of a crime being committed - i.e. that Assange obtained secret military materials and then illegally published them. Assange is being held for extradition to face charges in the USA of publishing military secrets. This is a military secret that he published. The fact of its exclusion demonstrates that the US Government doesn't want its crimes further exposed to the world, and that it doesn't believe that Assange illegally published this material - or else, it would have to be admitted as evidence. This omission demonstrates that he is not being targeted for the reason of publishing military secrets, or else it would have been included in the case as evidence. Julian Assange is being illegally detained and criminally prosecuted for publishing the fact of America's war crimes and embarrassing the War Coalition. The USA has, with this omission, essentially admitted guilt for its own war crimes.

labster 6y ago
Isn’t the US system of justice adversarial in nature? Why would the prosecutor make the defense’s argument for free?
- krustyburger 6y ago
  It’s one thing to avoid making arguments and another to intentionally omit certain “crimes” because drawing attention to them discredits the moral basis of your argument, while emphasizing “crimes” that are identical except for lacking that baggage. It speaks to a fundamental disinterest in the law and its uniform enforcement.
  - fit2rule 6y ago
    You know what else speaks to a fundamental disinterest in the law and its uniform enforcement? The Gunship Video itself.
joshuamorton 6y ago
> and that it doesn't believe that Assange illegally published this material This is not correct. They could believe this, and believe they have a strong enough case without this specific evidence that they need not include it.
- fit2rule 6y ago
  Well, then its mis-trial time for Julian, because the claim made against him is that he illegally accessed state secrets and published them. However, the Gunship Video is evidence that he legally published the materials obtained - boosting the defence case that Assange is a publisher and therefore protected. I think the government is looking for an out, because it knows its case is hopeless, and it just gave Assange's team a clue. No doubt the defence is going to latch on the omission of this video, and it will prolong the proceedings - meaning they can keep Julian in limbo longer, and continue to subject him to the depravities of Belmarsh at their discretion.
  - slg 6y ago
    >However, the Gunship Video is evidence that he legally published the materials obtained It isn't a binary choice between everything published is either legal or illegal. He could have published some legally and some illegally. People can view this specific video as being published legally while other information was published illegally and therefore only the illegally published information is covered in the indictment.
    - fit2rule 6y ago
      Either he IS a journalist/publisher and thus protected from prosecution for revealing evidence of real crimes, or he isn't. The US Government, by omitting this video from evidence, is making a tacit admittance that he is a publisher. (He is a journalist and this trial is a sham.)
      - joshuamorton 6y ago
        > The US Government, by omitting this video from evidence, is making a tacit admittance that he is a publisher. This doesn't, at all, follow. > Either he IS a journalist/publisher and thus protected from prosecution for revealing evidence of real crimes Not if he himself committed crimes to get the evidence.
vntok 6y ago
That is a non sequitur. Per the article: "The prosecution case alleges Assange risked American lives by releasing hundreds of thousands of US intelligence documents." The video is but one of those secret military materials. No need to include it in the indictment and risk debates or scrutiny on it, it's much more efficient to select bulletproof documents that show beyond doubt that he acted improperly.. of which there are already thousands.
- fit2rule 6y ago
  >there are already thousands Are there? Got a reference to some of these bulletproof documents? EDIT: crickets ..
  - jessaustin 6y ago
    Yeah, we'll hear similar cricket chirping if we ask for an example of all those soldiers and collaborators whose lives and safety were risked by wikileaks. Someone silly might post some decades-old warning from Rumsfeld or whoever about all the thousands of people who will die because some warlord got someone's name off a list published by wikileaks, but that old warning coupled with the war media's interest in arguing their side just underlines the fact that no one has died in such a circumstance.
    - fit2rule 6y ago
      The fact is, as of today, there is NO EVIDENCE that any American life was put in danger by the leaks. There IS evidence that a LOT of American lives were put in danger by the war crimes and other crimes against humanity committed in their name. Basically, every single American alive today is in danger as a result of the war crimes for which they are responsible as citizens of the USA. Invading Iraq put every single American in much more dire danger than Wikileaks ever could.
ryanmarsh 6y ago
It’s more boring than that. It’s about making a slam dunk case for the jury. Criminal cases are not tried against a general moral standard. It begins with a reading of the specific statute offended. Including any evidence ancillary to the case, and that will not emotionally sway the jury for your case, undermines your case. There are several venues for trying “war crime” cases, this is not one of them. I think if anybody really cared about the journalists who died you’d see lawfare leveraging UCMJ, but I’ve yet to see that. Seems the outrage is rather performative.
- fit2rule 6y ago
  An un-informed public cannot get outraged about its governments crimes nor serve as the final stop-gap against criminal behaviour by removing those responsible for the abuses of power required to commit crimes against humanity at such scale as we have seen the USA and its War Coalition commit in the last two decades. This is why publishers are important and should be protected. The Wests' citizens have been utterly scammed into complicity with these crimes against humanity - the imperative to mis-inform, and thus divert the outrage potential, is very, very high in this case.

dane-pgp 6y ago

Presumably the implication is that not mentioning the contents of the video which Assange is accused of illegitimately accessing is like not mentioning in an indictment for a thief that the object stolen was a loaf of bread to feed their starving family. Whether that is an apt analogy and whether this "failure to mention" represents a deficiency in an indictment is perhaps best left to the reader.

fit2rule 6y ago
Actually, its best left to the courts. Public opinion and support of Assange has already been diverted through malfeasance on the part of the US military. Omitting this video from their charges is an admission that this is not really about accessing military secrets illegally - but rather, punishing a legitimate publisher for exposing war crimes.
vntok 6y ago
That analogy would be more apt in "not mentioning in an indictment for a thief that in addition to thousands of precious pearls, emeralds, sapphires and diamonds, one of the objects stolen was a loaf of bread to feed their starving family."
- JackFr 6y ago
  A better analogy would be a thief broke into my home, and stole cash, jewelry, electronics and also a handgun that had been used in a crime. The prosecutors are absolutely right to prosecute the thief, but upon discovering that I had the handgun used in a crime they really should look into that too.
  - vntok 6y ago
    Yours is a good analogy indeed. Sure, the prosecutors can and should refer the case of the smoking gun to their colleagues from a crime unit. But the thief still goes to prison for stealing cash, jewellery and electronics.
E5JBK7UJPT 6y ago