4 ms·

I believe that is incorrect. Assange is accused of helping Manning cover her tracks rather than extract the information in the first place. I.e. he was trying t

by agd 6y ago

I believe that is incorrect. Assange is accused of helping Manning cover her tracks rather than extract the information in the first place. I.e. he was trying to protect his source. In addition, multiple journalists have spoken out to the effect that encouraging sources to leak is standard journalistic practice.

rayiner 6y ago
“Protecting your source” means that you don’t disclose your source. It doesn’t mean you help your source cover up a crime. This is not a difficult line drawing exercise. Lawyers do it all the time: you’re protected from disclosing client confidences. But it’s highly illegal to actually assist your client in obstructing an investigation!
- agd 6y ago
  Journalists have already testified in this case to the contrary of what you said. I.e. They do help sources stay undetected, providing advice and sometimes help where appropriate.
  - rayiner 6y ago
    Journalistic practice doesn’t define what is and isn’t illegal in connection with collaborating with a source.
    - contingencies 6y ago
      Similarly, military and political practice don't define what is and isn't illegal in connection to launching and justifying wars, frequently and repeatedly killing innocents and journalists, setting up a highly illegal system of secret sites and covert armies explicitly for the purpose of abducting people globally (including random innocent members of the general public) and torturing and killing them, conspiring to lie about it all to the general public, then phoning up your cronies and launching a transparent international extra-legal persecution of someone who has embarrassed you.
    - kazagistar 6y ago
      But it should. The law should follow morality, ethics, and common practice. If the US law is beyond that, then it is overreaching and tyrannical. But of course, especially with these leaks, we already knew that.
      - rayiner 6y ago
        > The law should follow morality, ethics, and common practice Whose morality, ethics, and common practice? The fact that this leaked and almost nobody cares means that people have made a decision. They want the government to have wide latitude to protect them from terrorism, and they care more about that than prosecuting this purported wrongdoing.
        torified 6y ago
        >The fact that this leaked and almost nobody cares means that people have made a decision. Most people have made the decision that the government is corrupt, Assange is an asshole, and there's nothing they can do about any of it because their elected officials are also corrupt. That is hardly an endorsement of all the horrible things that the US government has been secretly doing in their name.
        ineedasername 6y ago
        Yes, two things can be true at the same time: The US does some bad things, and Assange was trying to break a supposed hash to help Chelsea Manning steal more stuff.
      - ineedasername 6y ago
        Morality and ethics are not universally shared among people within a country. Consider debates in the US about abortion, same sex marriage, imprisonment of illegal immigrants... The list could go on for a while.
    - Zak 6y ago
      That may not be the case when the first amendment is applied. Consider Heller vs DC, in which the Supreme Court ruled that firearms in common use for lawful purposes couldn't be banned under the second amendment. Standard practice can be a factor when constitutional protections are at issue.
- thefucnjosh 6y ago
  The only crime being committed that matters is what he uncovered. If a Journalist walked on to private property to find an officer peeing on evidence or torturing an innocent person and then took that to the press, you wouldn't charge the journalist for trespassing.
  - ncmncm 6y ago
    Even, torturing a guilty person. The US executed people for torture after WWII. (None of its own people, though. That is acknowledged as an unfortunate failing.)
ineedasername 6y ago
Assange is accused of more than that. Manning gave him something they thought was a hashed password. Assange tried to crack it so that Manning could use it to steal more data. A journalist can receive information from a thief, but if the journalist starts helping the thief cracks safes to steal more stuff, that is a whole other story.
- boomboomsubban 6y ago
  >Assange tried to crack it so that Manning could use it to steal more data. *so Manning could steal the same amount of data with a bit more secrecy. The account in question was a generic Windows account that only had access to thing Manning had clearance for.
  - ineedasername 6y ago
    It doesn't need to have been successful or useful or practical. Assange stepped over the line of receiving leaked data into providing assistance for the person leaking that data break into more things. Please note that I'm not saying Assange deserves to be prosecuted for any of this by the US government. Saying he stepped over the line (or may have stepped, since he's not proven guilty) is only step 1. The next step to ask is "is that a crime?" Yes, in the US it is. But then comes the next question: "Was Assange subject to US law when he did this?" That is much less clear. I don't know where he was physically located when he was involved with this, or international law to know where jurisdictional issues land on this. Personally, I don't think he should be subject to US when he's not a US citizen and wasn't located in the US when he did this. I don't like the idea that countries could prosecute someone for doing something illegal when what they did was legal in their location. To take a simple example, within, within the US that would be like saying that Utah could charge & extradite someone who smoked weed in Colorado, where it's legal, to Utah, where it is not legal. And more questions after this too, like "Did crossing the line actually provide significant material aid?" In this, I don't think it did.
    - boomboomsubban 6y ago
      >Assange stepped over the line of receiving leaked data into providing assistance for the person leaking that data break into more things I can understand your point, but Assange never provided assistance that allowed Manning to break into more things. The assistance provided, if successful, would only let Manning access the data she already had access to, just not leave a log saying she was the one who accessed it. To use a physical analogy, Manning already had access to a file cabinet and was committed to leaking every document inside, and Assange gave her a pair of gloves to hide her fingerprints. His actions in no way enabled her act, but was an attempt to prevent retaliation.

by agd 6y ago

rayiner 6y ago

“Protecting your source” means that you don’t disclose your source. It doesn’t mean you help your source cover up a crime. This is not a difficult line drawing exercise. Lawyers do it all the time: you’re protected from disclosing client confidences. But it’s highly illegal to actually assist your client in obstructing an investigation!

agd 6y ago
Journalists have already testified in this case to the contrary of what you said. I.e. They do help sources stay undetected, providing advice and sometimes help where appropriate.
- rayiner 6y ago
  Journalistic practice doesn’t define what is and isn’t illegal in connection with collaborating with a source.
  - contingencies 6y ago
    Similarly, military and political practice don't define what is and isn't illegal in connection to launching and justifying wars, frequently and repeatedly killing innocents and journalists, setting up a highly illegal system of secret sites and covert armies explicitly for the purpose of abducting people globally (including random innocent members of the general public) and torturing and killing them, conspiring to lie about it all to the general public, then phoning up your cronies and launching a transparent international extra-legal persecution of someone who has embarrassed you.
  - kazagistar 6y ago
    But it should. The law should follow morality, ethics, and common practice. If the US law is beyond that, then it is overreaching and tyrannical. But of course, especially with these leaks, we already knew that.
    - rayiner 6y ago
      > The law should follow morality, ethics, and common practice Whose morality, ethics, and common practice? The fact that this leaked and almost nobody cares means that people have made a decision. They want the government to have wide latitude to protect them from terrorism, and they care more about that than prosecuting this purported wrongdoing.
      - torified 6y ago
        >The fact that this leaked and almost nobody cares means that people have made a decision. Most people have made the decision that the government is corrupt, Assange is an asshole, and there's nothing they can do about any of it because their elected officials are also corrupt. That is hardly an endorsement of all the horrible things that the US government has been secretly doing in their name.
        ineedasername 6y ago
        Yes, two things can be true at the same time: The US does some bad things, and Assange was trying to break a supposed hash to help Chelsea Manning steal more stuff.
    - ineedasername 6y ago
      Morality and ethics are not universally shared among people within a country. Consider debates in the US about abortion, same sex marriage, imprisonment of illegal immigrants... The list could go on for a while.
  - Zak 6y ago
    That may not be the case when the first amendment is applied. Consider Heller vs DC, in which the Supreme Court ruled that firearms in common use for lawful purposes couldn't be banned under the second amendment. Standard practice can be a factor when constitutional protections are at issue.
thefucnjosh 6y ago
The only crime being committed that matters is what he uncovered. If a Journalist walked on to private property to find an officer peeing on evidence or torturing an innocent person and then took that to the press, you wouldn't charge the journalist for trespassing.
- ncmncm 6y ago
  Even, torturing a guilty person. The US executed people for torture after WWII. (None of its own people, though. That is acknowledged as an unfortunate failing.)

ineedasername 6y ago

Assange is accused of more than that. Manning gave him something they thought was a hashed password. Assange tried to crack it so that Manning could use it to steal more data. A journalist can receive information from a thief, but if the journalist starts helping the thief cracks safes to steal more stuff, that is a whole other story.

boomboomsubban 6y ago
>Assange tried to crack it so that Manning could use it to steal more data. *so Manning could steal the same amount of data with a bit more secrecy. The account in question was a generic Windows account that only had access to thing Manning had clearance for.
- ineedasername 6y ago
  It doesn't need to have been successful or useful or practical. Assange stepped over the line of receiving leaked data into providing assistance for the person leaking that data break into more things. Please note that I'm not saying Assange deserves to be prosecuted for any of this by the US government. Saying he stepped over the line (or may have stepped, since he's not proven guilty) is only step 1. The next step to ask is "is that a crime?" Yes, in the US it is. But then comes the next question: "Was Assange subject to US law when he did this?" That is much less clear. I don't know where he was physically located when he was involved with this, or international law to know where jurisdictional issues land on this. Personally, I don't think he should be subject to US when he's not a US citizen and wasn't located in the US when he did this. I don't like the idea that countries could prosecute someone for doing something illegal when what they did was legal in their location. To take a simple example, within, within the US that would be like saying that Utah could charge & extradite someone who smoked weed in Colorado, where it's legal, to Utah, where it is not legal. And more questions after this too, like "Did crossing the line actually provide significant material aid?" In this, I don't think it did.
  - boomboomsubban 6y ago
    >Assange stepped over the line of receiving leaked data into providing assistance for the person leaking that data break into more things I can understand your point, but Assange never provided assistance that allowed Manning to break into more things. The assistance provided, if successful, would only let Manning access the data she already had access to, just not leave a log saying she was the one who accessed it. To use a physical analogy, Manning already had access to a file cabinet and was committed to leaking every document inside, and Assange gave her a pair of gloves to hide her fingerprints. His actions in no way enabled her act, but was an attempt to prevent retaliation.