3 ms·

They might be arguing the opposite, but my understanding is that he gave some tips for how to protect Manning's safety and maybe encouraged getting more documen

They might be arguing the opposite, but my understanding is that he gave some tips for how to protect Manning's safety and maybe encouraged getting more documents if they were so inclined. That's something any journalist might do in the course of normal human behavior and legitimately so. All these documents turned out to reveal war crimes. The state shouldn't be able to hide behind these flimsy secrecy claims when they are murdering people.

rayiner 6y ago
Please read the indictment: https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1289641/download https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1289641/downl... Assange was doing far more than giving a few tips and encouragement.
- tehjoker 6y ago
  Which points do you find most troubling? It's a very long document and the beginning is filled with flim flam. It says he tried to crack a hash and didn't succeed and therefore didn't even give Manning anything useful. While cracking and giving info back could be problematic, getting info and cracking it is certainly not. In any case, it certainly does not rise to this level of indictment.
  - rayiner 6y ago
    > It says he tried to crack a hash and didn't succeed and therefore didn't even give Manning anything useful. The indictment isn't clear whether he succeeded or not. But if you look at the March 10th communication, it's clear that Assange tried to crack the hash. If so, that constitutes an illegal conspiracy. Say your friend asks you to pick a lock so he can rob someone's house. You try to pick the lock and fail. Even though you haven't robbed the house yet, you're both guilty of conspiracy to rob the house. The attempted lock-picking is an "overt act" that completes the conspiracy: https://www.justia.com/criminal/offenses/inchoate-crimes/conspiracy/ https://www.justia.com/criminal/offenses/inchoate-crimes/con... > Finally, in most states, conspiracy requires an “overt act” taken in furtherance of the crime. This overt act does not have to be the crime itself, nor does it have to be an act that is illegal. Rather, the act must merely be a step taken in furtherance of the criminal objective, such as buying a weapon or holding a meeting to plan an attack. The act must also take place after the group of individuals has agreed to conspire.
    - vbnaop 6y ago
      My knowledge on the Assange case is limited (I have not read any leaked documents), but from the press I get the impression that he uncovered illegal acts. If true, it would be more like this: A friend sees that an illegal act is committed inside a house and asks you to pick the lock in order to go in and stop it.
    - monocasa 6y ago
      Better example, what if a journalist made a copy of a key for you so that you could continue to access a room containing classified documents after hours, as was the case for the pentagon papers?
    - Canada 6y ago
      > Say your friend asks you to pick a lock so he can rob someone's house If you looks at the logs, that is just not what happened. I see various discussions of it that sort of make up a story that isn't there. The actual chat is like this: Bob> How big is that upload? Alice> 440MB Alice> It's a lot of scanned documents Alice> How's your finances these days? Alice> Hey are you any good at lock picking? Bob> Yes [unclear if yes, scanned documents would account for that size, or yes, I'm good at lock picking, or something else] Bob> Our finances are doing okay, but have trouble with some payments Bob> We have extensive lock picking knowledge Alice> [Sends photo of something, not clear what] Alice> I think this is a lock, but I'm not sure. I pointed the camera at the door and took that photo. Bob> What makes you think that's a lock? Bob> Is it attached to a door? Alice> Yeah Bob> Sent the photo to someone who knows about locks Alice> Thanks [2 days later] Bob> Any more hints about this picture you sent me? Bob> No luck so far [not clear if luck with talking to the lock expert, or if the expert couldn't recognize this as a lock, or if tried to crack it... or if didn't send it anywhere at all and just mentioning it because he wants Alice to think he's helping her so that she keeps telling him what's going on] In my view this is not even close to an overt act and that we can be sure of that given the context of all the other stuff they chat about. I'd expect some discussion of progress and technical details. [PS. I think this is the third comment of yours I've replied to in this discussion. I don't mean to stalk you. Your points are well articulated even though I disagree with them]
- ggrrhh_ta 6y ago
  Can you point us more specifically in the indictment? Must the assertions of an indictment be based on collected evidence?
  - rayiner 6y ago
    Assertions of an indictment must be based on evidence or things the prosecutor has reason to believe the evidence will prove. In the numbered paragraphs where the indictment refers to specific events with quoted statements, that means there are documents that support those allegations. I'd draw your attention to paragraph 4-6, where Assange recruited hackers to collect a "most wanted" list of confidential material and explained how he had exploited a vulnerability in the Congressional Research Service to get copies of draft reports. Also paragraphs 19-22, where communications between Assange and Manning indicate that Assange was trying to help Manning log into the system with a different login than her own, by getting a password from a hash. Whether or not he actually succeeded, if he actually attempted to crack the password, that would be an illegal conspiracy. (Conspiracy doesn't require being successful--it's enough to take the first step towards an illegal goal, in this case logging into the DOD network using someone else's account.)
    - tehjoker 6y ago
      Rather than go over these claims point by point, I'd direct your attention to the case of Katherine Gun in the UK (admittedly a different legal system). https://www.theguardian.com/film/2019/sep/22/katharine-gun-whistleblower-iraq-official-secrets-film-keira-knightley https://www.theguardian.com/film/2019/sep/22/katharine-gun-w... Gun was a GCHQ agent (a UK citizen that agreed to the restrictions that come with being a government intelligence analyst) that leaked evidence of the US plan to rig the UN vote around the Iraq War. She got off because the crown declined to prosecute because her defense strategy was one of necessity, showing that the government knew what they were doing was illegal and that it would imminently result in the deaths of innocents. "Some of the information that would have been revealed at her trial, in particular Lord Goldsmith’s “conflicting arguments” as to the legality of the invasion, did not fully emerge until the publication of the report of the Chilcot inquiry in 2016. In its absence, Tony Blair won another election in 2005. Gun is grimly amused to see his current return to the moral high ground over Brexit." In Mr. Assange's case, he is neither a US citizen nor a sworn intelligence analyst. He did in fact reveal crimes that horrified the world. They are trying to get him for running some code on a computer to see what the criminals were saying. Those people were knocking over countries and killing innocent people (something that he was able to show live in the helicopter gunship video). The US standard for this case compared to Kat Gun is mind blowingly authoritarian and criminalizes effective dissent.

rayiner 6y ago

Please read the indictment: https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1289641/download https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1289641/downl... Assange was doing far more than giving a few tips and encouragement.

tehjoker 6y ago
Which points do you find most troubling? It's a very long document and the beginning is filled with flim flam. It says he tried to crack a hash and didn't succeed and therefore didn't even give Manning anything useful. While cracking and giving info back could be problematic, getting info and cracking it is certainly not. In any case, it certainly does not rise to this level of indictment.
- rayiner 6y ago
  > It says he tried to crack a hash and didn't succeed and therefore didn't even give Manning anything useful. The indictment isn't clear whether he succeeded or not. But if you look at the March 10th communication, it's clear that Assange tried to crack the hash. If so, that constitutes an illegal conspiracy. Say your friend asks you to pick a lock so he can rob someone's house. You try to pick the lock and fail. Even though you haven't robbed the house yet, you're both guilty of conspiracy to rob the house. The attempted lock-picking is an "overt act" that completes the conspiracy: https://www.justia.com/criminal/offenses/inchoate-crimes/conspiracy/ https://www.justia.com/criminal/offenses/inchoate-crimes/con... > Finally, in most states, conspiracy requires an “overt act” taken in furtherance of the crime. This overt act does not have to be the crime itself, nor does it have to be an act that is illegal. Rather, the act must merely be a step taken in furtherance of the criminal objective, such as buying a weapon or holding a meeting to plan an attack. The act must also take place after the group of individuals has agreed to conspire.
  - vbnaop 6y ago
    My knowledge on the Assange case is limited (I have not read any leaked documents), but from the press I get the impression that he uncovered illegal acts. If true, it would be more like this: A friend sees that an illegal act is committed inside a house and asks you to pick the lock in order to go in and stop it.
  - monocasa 6y ago
    Better example, what if a journalist made a copy of a key for you so that you could continue to access a room containing classified documents after hours, as was the case for the pentagon papers?
  - Canada 6y ago
    > Say your friend asks you to pick a lock so he can rob someone's house If you looks at the logs, that is just not what happened. I see various discussions of it that sort of make up a story that isn't there. The actual chat is like this: Bob> How big is that upload? Alice> 440MB Alice> It's a lot of scanned documents Alice> How's your finances these days? Alice> Hey are you any good at lock picking? Bob> Yes [unclear if yes, scanned documents would account for that size, or yes, I'm good at lock picking, or something else] Bob> Our finances are doing okay, but have trouble with some payments Bob> We have extensive lock picking knowledge Alice> [Sends photo of something, not clear what] Alice> I think this is a lock, but I'm not sure. I pointed the camera at the door and took that photo. Bob> What makes you think that's a lock? Bob> Is it attached to a door? Alice> Yeah Bob> Sent the photo to someone who knows about locks Alice> Thanks [2 days later] Bob> Any more hints about this picture you sent me? Bob> No luck so far [not clear if luck with talking to the lock expert, or if the expert couldn't recognize this as a lock, or if tried to crack it... or if didn't send it anywhere at all and just mentioning it because he wants Alice to think he's helping her so that she keeps telling him what's going on] In my view this is not even close to an overt act and that we can be sure of that given the context of all the other stuff they chat about. I'd expect some discussion of progress and technical details. [PS. I think this is the third comment of yours I've replied to in this discussion. I don't mean to stalk you. Your points are well articulated even though I disagree with them]
ggrrhh_ta 6y ago
Can you point us more specifically in the indictment? Must the assertions of an indictment be based on collected evidence?
- rayiner 6y ago
  Assertions of an indictment must be based on evidence or things the prosecutor has reason to believe the evidence will prove. In the numbered paragraphs where the indictment refers to specific events with quoted statements, that means there are documents that support those allegations. I'd draw your attention to paragraph 4-6, where Assange recruited hackers to collect a "most wanted" list of confidential material and explained how he had exploited a vulnerability in the Congressional Research Service to get copies of draft reports. Also paragraphs 19-22, where communications between Assange and Manning indicate that Assange was trying to help Manning log into the system with a different login than her own, by getting a password from a hash. Whether or not he actually succeeded, if he actually attempted to crack the password, that would be an illegal conspiracy. (Conspiracy doesn't require being successful--it's enough to take the first step towards an illegal goal, in this case logging into the DOD network using someone else's account.)
  - tehjoker 6y ago
    Rather than go over these claims point by point, I'd direct your attention to the case of Katherine Gun in the UK (admittedly a different legal system). https://www.theguardian.com/film/2019/sep/22/katharine-gun-whistleblower-iraq-official-secrets-film-keira-knightley https://www.theguardian.com/film/2019/sep/22/katharine-gun-w... Gun was a GCHQ agent (a UK citizen that agreed to the restrictions that come with being a government intelligence analyst) that leaked evidence of the US plan to rig the UN vote around the Iraq War. She got off because the crown declined to prosecute because her defense strategy was one of necessity, showing that the government knew what they were doing was illegal and that it would imminently result in the deaths of innocents. "Some of the information that would have been revealed at her trial, in particular Lord Goldsmith’s “conflicting arguments” as to the legality of the invasion, did not fully emerge until the publication of the report of the Chilcot inquiry in 2016. In its absence, Tony Blair won another election in 2005. Gun is grimly amused to see his current return to the moral high ground over Brexit." In Mr. Assange's case, he is neither a US citizen nor a sworn intelligence analyst. He did in fact reveal crimes that horrified the world. They are trying to get him for running some code on a computer to see what the criminals were saying. Those people were knocking over countries and killing innocent people (something that he was able to show live in the helicopter gunship video). The US standard for this case compared to Kat Gun is mind blowingly authoritarian and criminalizes effective dissent.