7 ms·

Yes. The journalist in your example should not be accessory to a crime. If Manning asked for gloves to hide her fingerprints, Assange should have answered "se

Yes. The journalist in your example should not be accessory to a crime. If Manning asked for gloves to hide her fingerprints, Assange should have answered "send me the documents when you have them, but I can't help you hiding your fingerprints" If you imagine the hack being another crime, maybe it's clearer. Imagine Manning told Assange she could get the files but in order to get them she had to kill the guards at the door and asked Assange if he had a gun.

ClumsyPilot 6y ago
'she had to kill the guards at the door' . Why stop there, while we are at it, imagine she had to commit a terrorist attack and a genocide at once and Assange volunteered to help
- africanboy 6y ago
  A crime is a crime, justice doesn't care. A journalist should not be accessory to a crime when receiving infornations. I made that example to make it clearer, but if you don't like it I can make another one: to get the documents she needed to open the door, so she Asked Assange if he had a crowbar. The simple fact that he didn't say "no, I can't help you with that" is the problem.
  - boomboomsubban 6y ago
    >crime is a crime, justice doesn't care. Which is why all the war crimes detailed in Manning's leaks have been prosecuted with the criminals behind bars. Further, a crime isn't just a crime. A journalist attempting to protect their source is an essential part of their freedom of the press. Prosecuting them for that action infringes on their rights, making it unconstitutional. Even if you disagree with my assessment of Assange's actions, it should be clear that justice does care about the context.
    - africanboy 6y ago
      > Further, a crime isn't just a crime. A journalist attempting to protect their source is an essential part of their freedom of the press What Assange is accused of is not that. > Even if you disagree with my assessment of Assange's actions, it should be clear that justice does care about the context. It doesn't. Protecting a source is not a crime, hence a journalist cannot be prosecuted for that. Nobody is forced to reveal a criminal activity, people have the right to remain silent. Another thing entirely is if someone actively participated in committing the crime (for example helping a thief to hide their fingerprints) Also, I don't believe Assange should be extradited, but from a legal point it doesn't matter if he looked for gloves because Manning wanted to hide her fingerprints or a gun, if (and it's a big if) he said "I'll help you" that's a problem.
      - h_anna_h 6y ago
        Assange is accused of basically running hashcat. I am sure that a fair percentage of HN would be criminals under this logic.
        africanboy 6y ago
        I'm very sad to say this, but HN as a Place to discuss is not up to the standards people say it is. I'm being downvoted for basically stating the obvious and, worse than that, by people that do not stop a second to think about what other people wrote. I'm not putting Assange on trial, I'm not a judge, this is not a tribunal, I was just clarifying what he's been accused of! Having said that: yes, if you are the driver in a Bank robbery, you can get arrested for "basically driving a car" The crime is not driving, is helping other criminals to commit the crime. Which is what Assange is accused of. He's not accused of running hashcat. Even if he did the decryption with pen and paper and failed he would be an "accessory to the crime" (allegedly, because he's only accused of doing it) To put it in other words, he is accused of being > a person who knowingly and voluntarily participates in the commission of a crime. Regardless of the crime, the simple fact that he (allegedly) helped is a crime.
        6y ago
  - Closi 6y ago
    Don't get too downhearted by the downvotes. I get the feeling people in this thread are getting mixed up between the difference of what people think is right or should be right and what the courts and laws say. I think Assange was a hero. At the same time, the claim that he tried to help crack a US military hash to assist with extracting files does sound pretty illegal on the face of it, despite its good intentions and positive outcomes for truth and journalism. Just because you did good by breaking the law, or that you broke the law in the name of journalism, doesn't provide you protection from the courts in the eyes of the law (And particularly not at a magistrates court!).
    - chillwaves 6y ago
      Is he a journalist or an intelligence asset? In my mind, he can't be both. Once you pick a side, you lose the right to press protection.
      - h_anna_h 6y ago
        I don't see why journalists should have some sort of special protection that should not apply to the "peasants".
        chillwaves 6y ago
        seems like a function of their role in the 4th estate as the watchdogs of government. In practical terms, a journalist covering a protest should not be treated the same by security forces as a protestor. I am sure other, similar scenarios can be imagined.
        h_anna_h 6y ago
        I would say that they should, both the protestor and the journalists should be treated with respect. Even then though, a non-journalist that is not a protestor should be able to cover a protest just as well as professional journalists can. > as the watchdogs of government. More like dogs of the government. The ones willing to go against it in any meaningful manner are few and sidelined.
  - antihero 6y ago
    If justice had any say we wouldn't be blowing up civilians with helicopters and laughing about it.

ClumsyPilot 6y ago

'she had to kill the guards at the door' . Why stop there, while we are at it, imagine she had to commit a terrorist attack and a genocide at once and Assange volunteered to help

africanboy 6y ago
A crime is a crime, justice doesn't care. A journalist should not be accessory to a crime when receiving infornations. I made that example to make it clearer, but if you don't like it I can make another one: to get the documents she needed to open the door, so she Asked Assange if he had a crowbar. The simple fact that he didn't say "no, I can't help you with that" is the problem.
- boomboomsubban 6y ago
  >crime is a crime, justice doesn't care. Which is why all the war crimes detailed in Manning's leaks have been prosecuted with the criminals behind bars. Further, a crime isn't just a crime. A journalist attempting to protect their source is an essential part of their freedom of the press. Prosecuting them for that action infringes on their rights, making it unconstitutional. Even if you disagree with my assessment of Assange's actions, it should be clear that justice does care about the context.
  - africanboy 6y ago
    > Further, a crime isn't just a crime. A journalist attempting to protect their source is an essential part of their freedom of the press What Assange is accused of is not that. > Even if you disagree with my assessment of Assange's actions, it should be clear that justice does care about the context. It doesn't. Protecting a source is not a crime, hence a journalist cannot be prosecuted for that. Nobody is forced to reveal a criminal activity, people have the right to remain silent. Another thing entirely is if someone actively participated in committing the crime (for example helping a thief to hide their fingerprints) Also, I don't believe Assange should be extradited, but from a legal point it doesn't matter if he looked for gloves because Manning wanted to hide her fingerprints or a gun, if (and it's a big if) he said "I'll help you" that's a problem.
    - h_anna_h 6y ago
      Assange is accused of basically running hashcat. I am sure that a fair percentage of HN would be criminals under this logic.
      - africanboy 6y ago
        I'm very sad to say this, but HN as a Place to discuss is not up to the standards people say it is. I'm being downvoted for basically stating the obvious and, worse than that, by people that do not stop a second to think about what other people wrote. I'm not putting Assange on trial, I'm not a judge, this is not a tribunal, I was just clarifying what he's been accused of! Having said that: yes, if you are the driver in a Bank robbery, you can get arrested for "basically driving a car" The crime is not driving, is helping other criminals to commit the crime. Which is what Assange is accused of. He's not accused of running hashcat. Even if he did the decryption with pen and paper and failed he would be an "accessory to the crime" (allegedly, because he's only accused of doing it) To put it in other words, he is accused of being > a person who knowingly and voluntarily participates in the commission of a crime. Regardless of the crime, the simple fact that he (allegedly) helped is a crime.
        6y ago
- Closi 6y ago
  Don't get too downhearted by the downvotes. I get the feeling people in this thread are getting mixed up between the difference of what people think is right or should be right and what the courts and laws say. I think Assange was a hero. At the same time, the claim that he tried to help crack a US military hash to assist with extracting files does sound pretty illegal on the face of it, despite its good intentions and positive outcomes for truth and journalism. Just because you did good by breaking the law, or that you broke the law in the name of journalism, doesn't provide you protection from the courts in the eyes of the law (And particularly not at a magistrates court!).
  - chillwaves 6y ago
    Is he a journalist or an intelligence asset? In my mind, he can't be both. Once you pick a side, you lose the right to press protection.
    - h_anna_h 6y ago
      I don't see why journalists should have some sort of special protection that should not apply to the "peasants".
      - chillwaves 6y ago
        seems like a function of their role in the 4th estate as the watchdogs of government. In practical terms, a journalist covering a protest should not be treated the same by security forces as a protestor. I am sure other, similar scenarios can be imagined.
        h_anna_h 6y ago
        I would say that they should, both the protestor and the journalists should be treated with respect. Even then though, a non-journalist that is not a protestor should be able to cover a protest just as well as professional journalists can. > as the watchdogs of government. More like dogs of the government. The ones willing to go against it in any meaningful manner are few and sidelined.
- antihero 6y ago
  If justice had any say we wouldn't be blowing up civilians with helicopters and laughing about it.