4 ms·

You can see the 18-count indictment here: https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1289641/download https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1289641

You can see the 18-count indictment here: https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1289641/download https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1289641/downl... The short version is they're accusing him of encouraging and engaging in illegal acts to obtain documents, not just publishing the documents. EDIT: Updated link as per acqq's comment. Old link: https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1165556/download https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1165556/downl...

alex_young 6y ago
What illegal acts are you referring to? There are a lot of allegations of things like implying he couldn’t decrypt something and encouraging a source to whistleblow about war crimes. It doesn’t seem obvious that these are illegal activities for a foreign journalist to engage in to me, but maybe I’m missing something?
- smeeth 6y ago
  There is a legalistic difference between asking someone to give you information if they already have the information (legal? I think?) and before they have the information (definitely illegal). If the source doesn't have the information yet then you are asking them to steal government secrets, the crime for which is conspiracy to steal government secrets. That's traditionally what spies do, not journalists, which is why the crime exists.
  - dx87 6y ago
    I read before that another thing he did was tell Manning what software to use to crack passwords to gain access to more info. That definitely seems like crossing the line from just receiving information, to actively helping someone commit a crime.
    - mindslight 6y ago
      Pointing someone to a specific program is a crime in the same way as a doctor helping a career criminal regain their strength while they boast about committing new crimes. That is to say, not at all. Our field has a duty of care to help people actualize themselves in the digital realm.
      - wavefunction 6y ago
        Wouldn't a more accurate analogy be a doctor offering them advice on how to better or successfully commit a crime? There's nothing illegal about a doctor offering medical treatment to someone (obviously it depends on the nature of the medical treatment and licensing and etc.)
        mindslight 6y ago
        There is nothing illegal about security education in the abstract, just as there is nothing illegal about providing medical care. Physical strength is a necessary component of committing a crime in my analogy, and the doctor is supplying it even though they know the person is likely to use it in furtherance of illegal acts. Still it is the doctor's duty to heal their patient, and the patient's responsibility whether to commit more crimes or not. Even though they're helping their patient, the doctor is not conspiring to rob a convenience store.
        smeeth 6y ago
        I think this conversation would benefit from moving away from analogy and back into the factual realm. The crime of conspiracy has two requirements. 1) That two people make an agreement to commit a crime and 2) that at least one person takes an "overt act" in furtherance of the crime. Count 18 of the indictment [0] charges that Assange and Manning "conspir[ed] to commit computer intrusion." The first condition of agreement was easy to show, they clearly agreed they were going to break into a government system. More challenging are the overt acts: they allege that Manning stole the password hash and sent it to Assange, who tried to break it himself, saying "No luck so far." So both the analogies of providing medical care and advice are irrelevant here - Assange didn't just provide information, he allegedly actually participated in the "overt acts" of criminal conspiracy by trying to crack the password. In your analogy, the doctor joined the criminal on the heist. [0] https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1165556/download https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1165556/downl...
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
acqq 6y ago
Weren't the claims conveniently for the prosecution changed shortly before the trial this year, and the defense complained that they based their defense on that May 2019 document that you link? https://shadowproof.com/2020/09/07/judge-railroads-assange-as-legal-team-objects-to-fresh-extradition-request/ https://shadowproof.com/2020/09/07/judge-railroads-assange-a... "On June 24, [2020] the defense learned when a press release was published that Assange would soon face a third indictment. It was their belief that the indictment only added narrative details and expanded the timeline from 2010-2011 to 2010-2015. The U.S. government served the indictment to the defense, but not the court, on July 2. Then, on August 12, a fresh extradition request based on the third indictment was issued. (It was dated July 17.) Prosecutors notified the defense on August 21 that the third indictment does not include any additional charges, contrary to the defense’s understanding, the new details are not “mere narrative.” They “constitute the conduct upon which this court is entitled, and indeed must now determine [whether] an extradition offense is made out” under the relevant law. Mark Summers, a lawyer for Assange, referred to two general allegations—Count 1, which involves an alleged conspiracy to release “national defense information,” and Count 2, which is an alleged conspiracy to commit computer intrusions under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. By adding new material, prosecutors believe they can extradite Assange, even if they do not convince the court that publishing disclosures from Pfc. Chelsea Manning was a criminal act."
- ChrisSD 6y ago
  Ok, I updated the link to be the latest version I can find. It's dated June 2020. There are no new indictments per se but it does add the allegation that Assange and wikileaks recruited hackers to commit computer crimes.

alex_young 6y ago

What illegal acts are you referring to? There are a lot of allegations of things like implying he couldn’t decrypt something and encouraging a source to whistleblow about war crimes. It doesn’t seem obvious that these are illegal activities for a foreign journalist to engage in to me, but maybe I’m missing something?

smeeth 6y ago
There is a legalistic difference between asking someone to give you information if they already have the information (legal? I think?) and before they have the information (definitely illegal). If the source doesn't have the information yet then you are asking them to steal government secrets, the crime for which is conspiracy to steal government secrets. That's traditionally what spies do, not journalists, which is why the crime exists.
- dx87 6y ago
  I read before that another thing he did was tell Manning what software to use to crack passwords to gain access to more info. That definitely seems like crossing the line from just receiving information, to actively helping someone commit a crime.
  - mindslight 6y ago
    Pointing someone to a specific program is a crime in the same way as a doctor helping a career criminal regain their strength while they boast about committing new crimes. That is to say, not at all. Our field has a duty of care to help people actualize themselves in the digital realm.
    - wavefunction 6y ago
      Wouldn't a more accurate analogy be a doctor offering them advice on how to better or successfully commit a crime? There's nothing illegal about a doctor offering medical treatment to someone (obviously it depends on the nature of the medical treatment and licensing and etc.)
      - mindslight 6y ago
        There is nothing illegal about security education in the abstract, just as there is nothing illegal about providing medical care. Physical strength is a necessary component of committing a crime in my analogy, and the doctor is supplying it even though they know the person is likely to use it in furtherance of illegal acts. Still it is the doctor's duty to heal their patient, and the patient's responsibility whether to commit more crimes or not. Even though they're helping their patient, the doctor is not conspiring to rob a convenience store.
        smeeth 6y ago
        I think this conversation would benefit from moving away from analogy and back into the factual realm. The crime of conspiracy has two requirements. 1) That two people make an agreement to commit a crime and 2) that at least one person takes an "overt act" in furtherance of the crime. Count 18 of the indictment [0] charges that Assange and Manning "conspir[ed] to commit computer intrusion." The first condition of agreement was easy to show, they clearly agreed they were going to break into a government system. More challenging are the overt acts: they allege that Manning stole the password hash and sent it to Assange, who tried to break it himself, saying "No luck so far." So both the analogies of providing medical care and advice are irrelevant here - Assange didn't just provide information, he allegedly actually participated in the "overt acts" of criminal conspiracy by trying to crack the password. In your analogy, the doctor joined the criminal on the heist. [0] https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1165556/download https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1165556/downl...
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

acqq 6y ago

Weren't the claims conveniently for the prosecution changed shortly before the trial this year, and the defense complained that they based their defense on that May 2019 document that you link? https://shadowproof.com/2020/09/07/judge-railroads-assange-as-legal-team-objects-to-fresh-extradition-request/ https://shadowproof.com/2020/09/07/judge-railroads-assange-a... "On June 24, [2020] the defense learned when a press release was published that Assange would soon face a third indictment. It was their belief that the indictment only added narrative details and expanded the timeline from 2010-2011 to 2010-2015. The U.S. government served the indictment to the defense, but not the court, on July 2. Then, on August 12, a fresh extradition request based on the third indictment was issued. (It was dated July 17.) Prosecutors notified the defense on August 21 that the third indictment does not include any additional charges, contrary to the defense’s understanding, the new details are not “mere narrative.” They “constitute the conduct upon which this court is entitled, and indeed must now determine [whether] an extradition offense is made out” under the relevant law. Mark Summers, a lawyer for Assange, referred to two general allegations—Count 1, which involves an alleged conspiracy to release “national defense information,” and Count 2, which is an alleged conspiracy to commit computer intrusions under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. By adding new material, prosecutors believe they can extradite Assange, even if they do not convince the court that publishing disclosures from Pfc. Chelsea Manning was a criminal act."

ChrisSD 6y ago
Ok, I updated the link to be the latest version I can find. It's dated June 2020. There are no new indictments per se but it does add the allegation that Assange and wikileaks recruited hackers to commit computer crimes.