9 ms·

Assange Hearing Day 10

126 points by k1m 6y ago

jjgreen 6y ago
"Counsel for the US government also argued that the famous Pentagon Papers supreme court judgement on the New York Times only referred to pre-publication injunction and specifically did not preclude prosecution under the Espionage Act." Wow
- tssva 6y ago
  The Supreme Court's ruling in the case said exactly this and the opinions of some justices implied the government should pursue such charges post publication.
  - evgen 6y ago
    The shock and pearl clutching by people who obviously have never read the relevant opinions and have nothing but second or third-hand understanding of the major points of the majority and concurring opinions. Ellsberg _should have gone to jail_ for what he did, he knew it, he was prepared for that outcome, and he would have spent years in prison if not for a completely bungled and borderline incompetent prosecution aided by criminal breakins by Liddy, Hunt, and the Whitehouse plumbers.
    - danarmak 6y ago
      While the law hasn't changed, the prosecution policy has. USG had not charged the NYT, WP etc. with criminal publication of the Pentagon Papers, and of the many leaked classified data published before and since. A consistent change in the policy (prosecuting the NYT and its individual journalists and editors, and not just Assange) would have a huge impact on politics. An inconsistent change, successfully prosecuting but only charging the journalists that the current government finds inconvenient, would have a different but also huge impact.
      - evgen 6y ago
        This argument does not address the conspiracy to commit computer intrusion charge. Please provide examples of the NYT, WP et al sending reporters out to do this and not being charged.
        danarmak 6y ago
        That's a separate matter, which shouldn't affect what I wrote.
      - tssva 6y ago
        The USG has threatened to prosecute both the NYT, WP and others in the past under both Democrat and Republican administrations. What has prevented it in the past has been the potential political fallout. I imagine that Assange taking active steps to help gather the classified information instead of just publishing material gathered independently and leaked is what changed the math in this case.
kace91 6y ago
I wonder if this turn of strategy could convince at least a part of the mainstream media to push the story. the "Assange is not a journalist" take was something they liked. The "any journalist can be punished anyway" take should raise some alarms.
- k1m 6y ago
  Yes, will be interesting to see if it changes anything, but I doubt it will. As Murray suggests, it's probably becuase prosecution has seen so little media interest in the court case that they've now changed tack: > The purpose of the earlier approach was plainly to reduce media support for Assange by differentiating him from other journalists. It had become obvious such an approach ran a real risk of failure, if it could be proved that Assange is a journalist, which line was going well for the defence. So now we have “any journalist can be prosecuted for publishing classified information” as the US government line. I strongly suspect that they have decided they do not have to mitigate against media reaction, as the media is paying no attention to this hearing anyway.
- specialist 6y ago
  Quoting Craig Murray TFA: "The Washington Post, the New York Times, and all the “great liberal media” of the USA are not in court to hear it and do not report it... Are they really so stupid as not to understand that they are next? Err, yes." NYT editorial defends the establishment. They are neither left nor right, liberal nor conservative. NYT is the status quo. Exactly and precisely, nothing more and nothing less. As Murray notes, you'd think their own instinct for self preservation would motivate them to care about US Govt applying the Espionage Act towards the journalists. But that's not what the NYT does. I don't know anything about WP, so can't comment. I'm totally fine with there being a "paper of record". I just wish people who should know better understood the role NYT plays.
- cskinner 6y ago
  IANAL, but I expect this is part of the prosecution's strategy from the start rather than a change. My understanding is that lawyers like to use a multiple lines of attack/defense approach. So in the context of this case, they would first argue that object A is not of type B (and hence not afforded any protection that type B might confer), and next argue that even if A is of type B, that all type Bs are subject to prosecution anyway. My guess is the next step of the prosecution's argument will be, even if A is of type B and type Bs are generally afforded protection from this type of prosecution, this case is an exemption because of "national security."
bainsfather 6y ago
Remarkable that the bbc website shows 1 article about the current hearings [0]. Meanwhile there are about 20 on Johnny Depp's recent libel case [1]. I'd love to see bbc reports on each day of Assange's hearings, in the sort of detail they did for Depp's case. But for some reason they are not reporting it. I wonder why? [0] https://www.bbc.com/news/topics/c82wm9yvv05t/julian-assange https://www.bbc.com/news/topics/c82wm9yvv05t/julian-assange [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/topics/c6jx58xrrnmt/johnny-depp https://www.bbc.com/news/topics/c6jx58xrrnmt/johnny-depp
- the-dude 6y ago
  I don't have the English canonical way at hand, in Dutch naar de bekende weg vragen. Are you asking what you already know? The idea the European public broadcasters are really independent, is false. I am Dutch and it is the same in NL.
  - bainsfather 6y ago
    Well, it is something that I didn't know until a few years ago - ok, I would often disagree with bbc articles, or think them a little biased. But this is something much worse. And I am still shocked that the bbc does this. Also, I am interested quite how the process works - who makes the decisions, how many are involved etc, what do the other bbc staff think, etc.
    - the-dude 6y ago
      I can't speak of the BBC, I know too little about the English context. Dutch : follow the money, political alignment and if they for example would air something over-the-line regarding our royals, they will get a call from someone from our deep-state and they will pull it. But for the most part, I think they are very well in-tune in what they should and shouldn't do. They need very litte instructions.
      - jjgreen 6y ago
        You cannot hope to bribe or twist (thank God!) the British journalist. But, seeing what the man will do unbribed, there’s no occasion to. Humbert Wolfe, "Over the Fire", in The Uncelestial City (1930).
jacknews 6y ago
I suspect we would be hearing almost nothing about this case except for the "Assange warned by judge over outburst" type soundbytes if it weren't for Craig Murray. Well done. IMHO he deserves support.
Synaesthesia 6y ago
"US Government explicitly argued that all journalists are liable to prosecution under the Espionage Act (1917) for publishing classified information, citing the Rosen case." ... The US government is now saying, completely explicitly, in court, those reporters (Daniel Ellsberg and other whistleblowers) could and should have gone to jail and that is how we will act in future. The Washington Post, the New York Times, and all the “great liberal media” of the USA are not in court to hear it and do not report it .. !
- evgen 6y ago
  They (the government) have _always_ said this and the courts have backed them up on it. Always. Ellsberg should have gone to jail and were it not for incompetent prosecutors and Liddy, Hunt, and the rest of the plumbers along with some FBI wiretapping Ellsberg would have been in prison until at least the Ford administration and possibly until Carter took office.
  - voxic11 6y ago
    Why was no one prosecuted for publishing or receiving the Snowden leaks then? I remember the Guardian and the NYT both receiving leaked information from Snowden. Can you give a single example where the courts backed them up? Even the prosecution in this Assange case seems to be agreeing that there has never been a successful prosecution.
    - evgen 6y ago
      Receiving and publishing are not specifically crimes and that is why the New York Times and Washington Post won in the Pentagon Papers case. Gathering the info or soliciting it are crimes. The latter is what Assange is being charged with the in US and the former is what Snowden would be charged with if he ever left Russia. The Espionage Act charges made against Assange are fairly weak and I expect them to eventually get dropped or any conviction to be overturned on appeal, but the conspiracy to commit computer intrusion charge is both an overt act and one that is not protected by any claim of being a 'journalist'.
motohagiography 6y ago
The jittery audio on the gallery link can hardly be considered public access to the proceeding. Whatever makes it on to the court transcript is not witnessed by anyone in the public, and while that's not a necessary condition for the transcript, in a case like this where the entire intelligence establishment has a huge interest in the outcome, since this is litigating the legitimacy of state secrets by proxy, it risks the credibility of the court. How much exculpatory evidence is marked <unintelligible>?

126 points by k1m 6y ago

"Counsel for the US government also argued that the famous Pentagon Papers supreme court judgement on the New York Times only referred to pre-publication injunction and specifically did not preclude prosecution under the Espionage Act." Wow

tssva 6y ago
The Supreme Court's ruling in the case said exactly this and the opinions of some justices implied the government should pursue such charges post publication.
- evgen 6y ago
  The shock and pearl clutching by people who obviously have never read the relevant opinions and have nothing but second or third-hand understanding of the major points of the majority and concurring opinions. Ellsberg _should have gone to jail_ for what he did, he knew it, he was prepared for that outcome, and he would have spent years in prison if not for a completely bungled and borderline incompetent prosecution aided by criminal breakins by Liddy, Hunt, and the Whitehouse plumbers.
  - danarmak 6y ago
    While the law hasn't changed, the prosecution policy has. USG had not charged the NYT, WP etc. with criminal publication of the Pentagon Papers, and of the many leaked classified data published before and since. A consistent change in the policy (prosecuting the NYT and its individual journalists and editors, and not just Assange) would have a huge impact on politics. An inconsistent change, successfully prosecuting but only charging the journalists that the current government finds inconvenient, would have a different but also huge impact.
    - evgen 6y ago
      This argument does not address the conspiracy to commit computer intrusion charge. Please provide examples of the NYT, WP et al sending reporters out to do this and not being charged.
      - danarmak 6y ago
        That's a separate matter, which shouldn't affect what I wrote.
    - tssva 6y ago
      The USG has threatened to prosecute both the NYT, WP and others in the past under both Democrat and Republican administrations. What has prevented it in the past has been the potential political fallout. I imagine that Assange taking active steps to help gather the classified information instead of just publishing material gathered independently and leaked is what changed the math in this case.

kace91 6y ago

I wonder if this turn of strategy could convince at least a part of the mainstream media to push the story. the "Assange is not a journalist" take was something they liked. The "any journalist can be punished anyway" take should raise some alarms.

k1m 6y ago
Yes, will be interesting to see if it changes anything, but I doubt it will. As Murray suggests, it's probably becuase prosecution has seen so little media interest in the court case that they've now changed tack: > The purpose of the earlier approach was plainly to reduce media support for Assange by differentiating him from other journalists. It had become obvious such an approach ran a real risk of failure, if it could be proved that Assange is a journalist, which line was going well for the defence. So now we have “any journalist can be prosecuted for publishing classified information” as the US government line. I strongly suspect that they have decided they do not have to mitigate against media reaction, as the media is paying no attention to this hearing anyway.
specialist 6y ago
Quoting Craig Murray TFA: "The Washington Post, the New York Times, and all the “great liberal media” of the USA are not in court to hear it and do not report it... Are they really so stupid as not to understand that they are next? Err, yes." NYT editorial defends the establishment. They are neither left nor right, liberal nor conservative. NYT is the status quo. Exactly and precisely, nothing more and nothing less. As Murray notes, you'd think their own instinct for self preservation would motivate them to care about US Govt applying the Espionage Act towards the journalists. But that's not what the NYT does. I don't know anything about WP, so can't comment. I'm totally fine with there being a "paper of record". I just wish people who should know better understood the role NYT plays.
cskinner 6y ago
IANAL, but I expect this is part of the prosecution's strategy from the start rather than a change. My understanding is that lawyers like to use a multiple lines of attack/defense approach. So in the context of this case, they would first argue that object A is not of type B (and hence not afforded any protection that type B might confer), and next argue that even if A is of type B, that all type Bs are subject to prosecution anyway. My guess is the next step of the prosecution's argument will be, even if A is of type B and type Bs are generally afforded protection from this type of prosecution, this case is an exemption because of "national security."

bainsfather 6y ago

Remarkable that the bbc website shows 1 article about the current hearings [0]. Meanwhile there are about 20 on Johnny Depp's recent libel case [1]. I'd love to see bbc reports on each day of Assange's hearings, in the sort of detail they did for Depp's case. But for some reason they are not reporting it. I wonder why? [0] https://www.bbc.com/news/topics/c82wm9yvv05t/julian-assange https://www.bbc.com/news/topics/c82wm9yvv05t/julian-assange [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/topics/c6jx58xrrnmt/johnny-depp https://www.bbc.com/news/topics/c6jx58xrrnmt/johnny-depp

the-dude 6y ago
I don't have the English canonical way at hand, in Dutch naar de bekende weg vragen. Are you asking what you already know? The idea the European public broadcasters are really independent, is false. I am Dutch and it is the same in NL.
- bainsfather 6y ago
  Well, it is something that I didn't know until a few years ago - ok, I would often disagree with bbc articles, or think them a little biased. But this is something much worse. And I am still shocked that the bbc does this. Also, I am interested quite how the process works - who makes the decisions, how many are involved etc, what do the other bbc staff think, etc.
  - the-dude 6y ago
    I can't speak of the BBC, I know too little about the English context. Dutch : follow the money, political alignment and if they for example would air something over-the-line regarding our royals, they will get a call from someone from our deep-state and they will pull it. But for the most part, I think they are very well in-tune in what they should and shouldn't do. They need very litte instructions.
    - jjgreen 6y ago
      You cannot hope to bribe or twist (thank God!) the British journalist. But, seeing what the man will do unbribed, there’s no occasion to. Humbert Wolfe, "Over the Fire", in The Uncelestial City (1930).

jacknews 6y ago

I suspect we would be hearing almost nothing about this case except for the "Assange warned by judge over outburst" type soundbytes if it weren't for Craig Murray. Well done. IMHO he deserves support.

Synaesthesia 6y ago

"US Government explicitly argued that all journalists are liable to prosecution under the Espionage Act (1917) for publishing classified information, citing the Rosen case." ... The US government is now saying, completely explicitly, in court, those reporters (Daniel Ellsberg and other whistleblowers) could and should have gone to jail and that is how we will act in future. The Washington Post, the New York Times, and all the “great liberal media” of the USA are not in court to hear it and do not report it .. !

evgen 6y ago
They (the government) have _always_ said this and the courts have backed them up on it. Always. Ellsberg should have gone to jail and were it not for incompetent prosecutors and Liddy, Hunt, and the rest of the plumbers along with some FBI wiretapping Ellsberg would have been in prison until at least the Ford administration and possibly until Carter took office.
- voxic11 6y ago
  Why was no one prosecuted for publishing or receiving the Snowden leaks then? I remember the Guardian and the NYT both receiving leaked information from Snowden. Can you give a single example where the courts backed them up? Even the prosecution in this Assange case seems to be agreeing that there has never been a successful prosecution.
  - evgen 6y ago
    Receiving and publishing are not specifically crimes and that is why the New York Times and Washington Post won in the Pentagon Papers case. Gathering the info or soliciting it are crimes. The latter is what Assange is being charged with the in US and the former is what Snowden would be charged with if he ever left Russia. The Espionage Act charges made against Assange are fairly weak and I expect them to eventually get dropped or any conviction to be overturned on appeal, but the conspiracy to commit computer intrusion charge is both an overt act and one that is not protected by any claim of being a 'journalist'.

motohagiography 6y ago

The jittery audio on the gallery link can hardly be considered public access to the proceeding. Whatever makes it on to the court transcript is not witnessed by anyone in the public, and while that's not a necessary condition for the transcript, in a case like this where the entire intelligence establishment has a huge interest in the outcome, since this is litigating the legitimacy of state secrets by proxy, it risks the credibility of the court. How much exculpatory evidence is marked <unintelligible>?