4 ms·

So I have a few thoughts on Assange: 1. I think the US has pretty much succeeded in their goal of essentially canceling Julian Assange. Being holed up for year

by cletus 6y ago

So I have a few thoughts on Assange: 1. I think the US has pretty much succeeded in their goal of essentially canceling Julian Assange. Being holed up for years in the Ecuadorian Embassy had to have taken a toll mentally. As much as some might say it's not prison, it effectively is. 2. There's an interesting question of where the line is between journalist and not journalist. As much as some might argue otherwise, being a "journalist" doesn't mean you can break the law. And yes there's a difference between publishing classified material that comes to you vs actively engaging in, supporting and enabling the behaviour that led to obtaining that material. Assange clearly had prior knowledge of Manning's actions and was more of an accomplice. Being a "journalist" isn't a defense here, at least not a legal one; 3. Here's my other issue with treating Assange as a journalist: he was clearly playing politics. You saw this in the Democratic email hacking and publication. This undermines the whole theory that Wikileaks was somehow different, impartial or open. It is and always was another tool to further a political end. At some point you aren't a journalist anymore; 4. The UK court upheld all the prosecution's points of law so it really was simply a matter of health grounds. I honestly don't know how an appeals court will treat that. I guess we'll see. 5. Interestingly I think Brexit works against Assange here. I don't believe this case can be appealed to the European Court of Human Rights (or Justice?). Obviously the UK isn't in the EU anymore but I don't know the law well enough here. Like it might be that the case was brought while the UK was an EU member so it's possible the ECHR/ECJ has jurisdiction? Probably not but it's not impossible. 6. It's unlikely the incoming Biden administration is going to be sympathetic towards Assange. There's probably no will to spend political capital on that and the Democrats are probably still made about Assange's (active) role in the email hacking and the 2016 election.

ed25519FUUU 6y ago
> Here's my other issue with treating Assange as a journalist: he was clearly playing politics. You saw this in the Democratic email hacking and publication. This undermines the whole theory that Wikileaks was somehow different, impartial or open. It is and always was another tool to further a political end. At some point you aren't a journalist anymore; How should 2016 Bernie supporters feel seeing the leaked emails showing the establishment conspiring against him? “Political” in the pejorative really depends on which side you’re one. Wikileaks is/was a threat to the establishment. That’s why he’s currently locked up. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/damaging-emails-dnc-wikileaks-dump/story?id=40852448 https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/damaging-emails-dnc-wikileak...
unilynx 6y ago
ECHR is not an EU institution but a Council of Europe institution (not to be confused with the European Council, of course) The ECHR still has jurisdiction over the UK, at least until the UK cancels the relevant treaties which it now can do outside the EU
mariusor 6y ago
Addressing point 2 from your post: during the extradition hearing, a couple of witnesses declared that sometimes journalists are actively helping sources to avoid detection. See on Craig's Murray blog[1], I remember Daniel Ellsberg also had a similar comment but I can't find it at the moment: > Lewis You have as a journalist merely been the passive recipient of official information. Presumably you have never done anything criminal to obtain government information? > Hager You said “passive”. That is not the way we work. Journalists not only actively work our sources. We go out and find our sources. The information might come in documents. It might come on a memory stick. In most cases our sources are breaking the law. Our duty is to help protect them from being caught. We actively help them cover their backs sometimes. In point 3 you're convinced that the timing for releasing the Democratic papers was related to undermining the presidential bid intentionally. However I think it's perfectly reasonable to assume that an impartial journalist would release sooner rather than later documents that pertain to a current developing event. Withholding them would have been "actively" getting involved in the presidential election. I think the blame for the leak lays solely with the people that leaked them, not with Wikileaks or Assange. (Also, I see that someone else already clarified the situation about the European Court of Human Rights.) [1] https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/09/your-man-in-the-public-gallery-assange-hearing-day-13/ https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/09/your-man-in-...

by cletus 6y ago

ed25519FUUU 6y ago

> Here's my other issue with treating Assange as a journalist: he was clearly playing politics. You saw this in the Democratic email hacking and publication. This undermines the whole theory that Wikileaks was somehow different, impartial or open. It is and always was another tool to further a political end. At some point you aren't a journalist anymore; How should 2016 Bernie supporters feel seeing the leaked emails showing the establishment conspiring against him? “Political” in the pejorative really depends on which side you’re one. Wikileaks is/was a threat to the establishment. That’s why he’s currently locked up. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/damaging-emails-dnc-wikileaks-dump/story?id=40852448 https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/damaging-emails-dnc-wikileak...

unilynx 6y ago

ECHR is not an EU institution but a Council of Europe institution (not to be confused with the European Council, of course) The ECHR still has jurisdiction over the UK, at least until the UK cancels the relevant treaties which it now can do outside the EU

mariusor 6y ago

Addressing point 2 from your post: during the extradition hearing, a couple of witnesses declared that sometimes journalists are actively helping sources to avoid detection. See on Craig's Murray blog[1], I remember Daniel Ellsberg also had a similar comment but I can't find it at the moment: > Lewis You have as a journalist merely been the passive recipient of official information. Presumably you have never done anything criminal to obtain government information? > Hager You said “passive”. That is not the way we work. Journalists not only actively work our sources. We go out and find our sources. The information might come in documents. It might come on a memory stick. In most cases our sources are breaking the law. Our duty is to help protect them from being caught. We actively help them cover their backs sometimes. In point 3 you're convinced that the timing for releasing the Democratic papers was related to undermining the presidential bid intentionally. However I think it's perfectly reasonable to assume that an impartial journalist would release sooner rather than later documents that pertain to a current developing event. Withholding them would have been "actively" getting involved in the presidential election. I think the blame for the leak lays solely with the people that leaked them, not with Wikileaks or Assange. (Also, I see that someone else already clarified the situation about the European Court of Human Rights.) [1] https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/09/your-man-in-the-public-gallery-assange-hearing-day-13/ https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/09/your-man-in-...