16 ms·

For someone who has not followed Assange news for a long time, what is the general accusation of his crimes? Is it just that he published secret material that h

by daenz 5y ago

For someone who has not followed Assange news for a long time, what is the general accusation of his crimes? Is it just that he published secret material that he received from other sources?

fossuser 5y ago
No, that’s not illegal for somebody without a clearance. The crime he’s charged with is that he was willing to (and I think did?) assist in breaking into a computer system to get the docs. I think under the CFAA. They have communication records of this because the person he was talking to was working for the USG. Had he just been accepting docs as he was initially that would have been fine. It’s hard to know the truth here though when nation state interests are at play. To what extent were the sex related charges against him political or flared up by nation state meddling? At some point Russia was also using Wikileaks as a place to target the USG with some plausible deniability and Assange’s personal anti-US politics became a corrupting influence too. So, who knows?
- NaturalPhallacy 5y ago
  >The crime he’s charged with is that he was willing to (and I think did?) assist in breaking into a computer system to get the docs. I think under the CFAA. They have communication records of this because the person he was talking to was working for the USG. The US government claims this, but it's not been proven. >At some point Russia was also using Wikileaks as a place to target the USG with some plausible deniability and Assange’s personal anti-US politics became a corrupting influence too. This is just more Russiagate nonsense: https://pics.me.me/russiagate-explained-wikileaks-posted-the-dnc-emails-that-showed-they-34778084.png https://pics.me.me/russiagate-explained-wikileaks-posted-the... >To what extent were the sex related charges against him political or flared up by nation state meddling? There are no charges. There never were any charges. There was an investigation and that's as far as it went. >UPDATE GREAT NEWS: Swedish prosecutors are about to announce the dropping of the investigation into Julian Assange on sexual offence allegations. There never were any charges and the allegations were always nonsense, as detailed in the below article I wrote a month ago: https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2017/05/no-rape-charges-julian-assange-sweden-espionage-charges-julian-assange-usa/ https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2017/05/no-rape-char...
  - fossuser 5y ago
    I think you’re overconfident in what you believe to be true based on the evidence that exists. The Russian bit can be politically inconvenient for you and yet also be true.
    - pstuart 5y ago
      It is interesting that apparently the GOP's email server was hacked as well, but nothing was ever released publicly. I'm no fan at all of the DNC but if "all politicians are dirty" is a thing, then why did no dirt spill out from the other side? Was it more valuable as kompromat?
      - zionic 5y ago
        Highly misleading. The DNC’s mail servers got hacked and they got everything done The “RNC hack” was one guy’s old laptop with a years out of date local outlook db. Not even in the same league.
        pstuart 5y ago
        > The “RNC hack” was one guy’s old laptop with a years out of date local outlook db. You have proof of that? This says otherwise. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/09/us/obama-russia-election-hack.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/09/us/obama-russia-election-... I'm replying for the sake of challenging your statement but I know it's likely not possible to have an honest discussion about it because you appear to be taking a partisan stance. I have no love for either party, and even if I did love the Dems, I'd be more than happy to acknowledge any and all failings of theirs. Can you say the same thing?
        ta2162 5y ago
        That article literally agrees with the GP that the RNC was not hacked but the DNC was...
        pstuart 5y ago
- johnchristopher 5y ago
  > At some point Russia was also using Wikileaks as a place to target the USG with some plausible deniability and Assange’s personal anti-US politics became a corrupting influence too. There's a passage in Sarah Kendzior's book (Hiding in plain sight: the invention of Donald Trump and the erosion of America) which clicked (to me): ultimately things like wikileaks damage societies and governments that are transparent. You will always find more dirt and problems in public/accessible records than in dictatorships. These initiatives are doomed to be used at some points as tools against healthy democracies/open states. edit: the passage > Among the few who saw the threat clearly was computer scientist Jaron Lanier, who, in 2010, warned the public of a new danger: WikiLeaks. At the time, free speech advocates were hailing WikiLeaks, and its founder, Julian Assange, as defenders of government transparency. Their lionization of the leaker organization was largely due to frustration with the criminal impunity of the Bush administration. In February 2010, soldier Chelsea Manning exposed war crimes by sending classified documents to WikiLeaks, which WikiLeaks then published online. The emphasis on civilian victims led human rights advocates to believe that WikiLeaks would prove a formidable opponent for autocratic regimes. But after WikiLeaks dropped hacked documents from the US State Department in November, Lanier predicted the opposite—that WikiLeaks would ultimately ally with dictators and that social media networks would abet them: >> The WikiLeaks method punishes a nation—or any human undertaking—that falls short of absolute, total transparency, which is all human undertakings, but perversely rewards an absolute lack of transparency. Thus an iron-shut government doesn’t have leaks to the site, but a mostly-open government does. >> If the political world becomes a mirror of the Internet as we know it today, then the world will be restructured around opaque, digitally delineated power centers surrounded by a sea of chaotic, underachieving openness. WikiLeaks is one prototype of a digital power center, but others include hedge funds and social networking sites. >> This is the world we are headed to, it seems, since people are unable to resist becoming organized according to the digital architectures that connect us. The only way out is to change the architecture. > Social media sites didn’t change the architecture. Instead, over the course of the 2010s, the architecture changed us. The calculus of post–Cold War politics—that democracy spreads through engagement, that technology enhances freedom—was reversed. Hostile states used digital technology not only to attack their own citizens but to attempt to transform foreign democracies into dictatorships. We saw this with Russian influence operations in elections in the United States, France, and in the Brexit referendum, among others.10 The social media corporations that had once bragged of the internet’s liberating power now helped the hijackers of democracy. Networks like Facebook abetted, whether intentionally or not, the “iron triangles” of organized crime, state corruption, and corporate criminality, and they were aided by complicit Western actors content to let their own countries die while turning a profit.
- Miner49er 5y ago
  > No, that’s not illegal for somebody without a clearance. Yeah, but that's not stopping the US for charging him with the Espionage act for it anyway. Most of his charges are for leaking/seeking secret info. The charge for assisting Manning is 5 potential years of the 175 he faces.
- h_anna_h 5y ago
  His crime was that he ran hashcat https://blog.erratasec.com/2019/04/assange-indicted-for-breaking-password.html https://blog.erratasec.com/2019/04/assange-indicted-for-brea... > Had he just been accepting docs as he was initially that would have been fine. They would just invent something else.
- FireBeyond 5y ago
  > It’s hard to know the truth here though when nation state interests are at play. To what extent were the sex related charges against him political or flared up by nation state meddling? I think that, even in and of itself, if a nation state intelligence agency is attempting a smear campaign or outright character assassination, and the very best they can manage is "may have had sex that was consensual but unprotected without agreement"? That's one hell of a sad state of affairs for that intelligence agency. Like beyond "never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity", "government incompetence" cliches. Like amazingly pathetic. I can't fathom that being the line they'd go for. "Sir, we came up with a plan to destroy his character in the public's eye!" "Great, what is it?" "Well, uhh, he had a bit of a threesome-like affair, and he may not have used a condom even though he said he would... we can spin that so well that everyone will disown him!" "..."
  - freeflight 5y ago
    > I can't fathom that being the line they'd go for. That's literally the line they went for, thanks to Snowden we do know Five Eyes runs programs exactly for these kinds of character assassinations [0]. Or why do you think we had all these amazing headlines about how badly Assange allegedly treats his cat and how dirty his bathroom is? How is that of relevance to anybody on a global scale? It's all pure ad-hominem to keep the narrative about him as a person, and not what he actually did and blew the whistle on. [0] https://theintercept.com/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/ https://theintercept.com/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/
- raxxorrax 5y ago
  > It’s hard to know the truth here though when nation state interests are at play. Not really and not after they faked witness reports. It is completely in line with what was published and there was no alternative in acquiring this information, which there certainly being enough public interest.
sneak 5y ago
They are trying to get him on the conspiracy with Manning's unauthorized access, based on chat logs AIUI. They have already done a great job turning public opinion against him, though: the completely false claim that he was charged with rape is widely believed and repeated. Anyone who has fallen for this false narrative is encouraged to read the exact words of the women involved. He has also been effectively imprisoned without trial for about a decade now. Mostly he just serves as an example to what happens to people extrajudicially for fucking in any way with the US surveillance state and war apparatus.
- plandis 5y ago
  > He has also been effectively imprisoned without trial for about a decade now. It’s a bit dishonest to claim he’s been imprisoned without a trial when he skipped on bail in 2012 and chose to stay in an embassy instead of turn himself in to the UK government. He was arrested in 2019 and promptly convicted of skipping on bail in the same year by the UK government.
  - sneak 5y ago
    Not at all. The UN's human rights department has found it to be so: from https://news.un.org/en/story/2016/02/521632-wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-arbitrarily-detained-sweden-and-uk-un-panel https://news.un.org/en/story/2016/02/521632-wikileaks-founde... > The founder of the WikiLeaks website, which published confidential diplomatic information, has been arbitrarily detained by Sweden and the United Kingdom since his arrest in London in December 2010, as a result of the legal action against him by both Governments, the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention said today. Skipping bail to seek asylum in a country that will attempt to preserve your human rights, when not skipping bail means you get extradited to a country that will torture you via extended solitary confinement prior to trial is not what most people mean when they use the phrase "skipping bail". If any description is dishonest here, it's that. A sham trial that you get tortured before getting to attend is always something to be avoided. Let's not forget that Manning was tortured to the point of multiple suicide attempts in prison prior to trial, as well as being declared guilty in public by a sitting US president (also before trial). Several senior officials in the US government called for Assange's summary execution for publishing. There is approximately zero chance that he will receive a fair trial or humane treatment in the USA.
Miner49er 5y ago
Pretty much, he's been indicted for 17 counts of violating the Espionage Act, which yeah, is just for seeking/leaking confidential info. It's a huge attack on freedom of the press. The press has always been allowed to cover leaked stuff, the Espionage act has only been used against sources in the past, not reporters. He's also facing a very minor charge (max 5 years in prison) for conspiracy to commit computer intrusion for allegedly helping Manning attempt to hack a computer.
- fossuser 5y ago
  I thought the latter CFFA charge is what helps to enable to former? IANAL though so I could easily be wrong about this. Basically helping to break into the computer system moves you out of the realm of journalist and into the realm of political enemy which now makes you vulnerable to espionage. I think there isn’t much case law around this stuff though.
- breakfastduck 5y ago
  While I widely agree, if we're fair there's a difference between a Journalist covering leaked stuff and literally releasing the full unredacted documents to the public. Otherwise I agree. His treatment comes down to nothing other than the fact the USA govt want to make it very, very clear that they are willing to totally destroy anyone's lives who dare publish the horrific things they're doing.
  - k1m 5y ago
    > if we're fair there's a difference between a Journalist covering leaked stuff and literally releasing the full unredacted documents to the public. It was actually senior Guardian journalists who compromised the cables by publishing the password Assange had entrusted them with. That's what led to the unredacted copies being made available. Jonathan Cook has written about it here: https://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2020-09-26/guardian-assange-denial-deceptions/ https://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2020-09-26/guardian-assan... > The Guardian book let the cat out of the bag. Once it gave away Assange’s password, the Old Bailey hearings have heard, there was no going back. > Any security service in the world could now unlock the file containing the cables. And as they homed in on where the file was hidden at the end of the summer, Assange was forced into a desperate damage limitation operation. In September 2011 he published the unredacted cables so that anyone named in them would have advance warning and could go into hiding – before any hostile security services came looking for them. > Yes, Assange published the cables unredacted but he did so – was forced to do so – by the unforgivable actions of Leigh and the Guardian.
kingsuper20 5y ago
>what is the general accusation of his crimes? Realistically, he simply pissed off members of the ruling class of the US. Their presence has become significantly more obvious in recent years. Other than that, I'd say it's mostly a 'show me the man, I'll show you the crime' sort of thing.
- res0nat0r 5y ago
  In reality he laundered hacked materials he knowingly received from an adversarial to the USA nation state actor, and released it deliberately to interfere with the US election process to damage a POTUS candidate he didn't like.
  - the_optimist 5y ago
    1) You cannot even come close to proving your statement, and 2) None of this would even be illegal if it weren't for intel agencies acting as political hit squads.
    - res0nat0r 5y ago
      It has already been documented and laid out in the Mueller Report, and summarized here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_National_Committee_email_leak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_National_Commi...
      - the_optimist 5y ago
        We have all read the Mueller report. It entirely fails on the points above. It’s right there in the link you sent. Do you care to differentiate between unsubstantiated allegations and reality? You just want everyone to pretend your conspiratorial story, based strictly on allegations, is true?
        res0nat0r 5y ago
        It is true and substantiated, and detailed in the Mueller report. Just because you don't like these facts don't make them false.
2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
From Wikipedia: >The charges stem from the allegation that Assange attempted and failed to crack a password hash so that Chelsea Manning could use a different username to download classified documents and avoid detection.[41] This allegation had been known since 2011 and was a factor in Manning's trial; the indictment did not reveal any new information about Assange. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indictment_and_arrest_of_Julian_Assange https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indictment_and_arrest_of_Julia... I don't believe it counts as journalism if you help someone commit a crime- that's the crux of the issue. Notice that real journalists who are passive receivers of information do not get criminally charged.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
lazulicurio 5y ago
I think the extradition ruling[1] from the UK judge assigned to the case provides a pretty good overview. (In general, I'd suggest trying to find primary sources as much as you can, because there's a lot of misinformation flying about about the case) Below are some of the allegations not related to Thordarson: > It is alleged that WikiLeaks solicited material by publishing a list of information it wished to obtain, its “Most Wanted Leaks”. In November 2009 this list included: “Bulk Databases” including “Intellipedia”, (a non-public CIA database) and classified “Military and Intelligence” documents. In December 2009, Mr. Assange and a WikiLeaks affilia te gave a presentation to the 26th Chaos Communication Congress in which WikiLea ks described itself as “the leading disclosure portal for classified, restricted or legally threatened publications.” In 2009 Mr. Assange spoke at the “Hack in the Box Security Conference” in Malaysia in which he made reference to a “capture the flag” hacking contest and noted that WikiLeaks had its own list of flags that it wanted captured. > Between November 2009 and May 2010, Ms. Manning was in direct contact with Mr. Assange using a chatlog (the “Jabber communications”). On 8 March 2010, it is alleged that Mr. Assange agreed to assist Ms. Manning in cracking a password hash stored on a DoD computer. Mr. Assange indicated that he was "good" at "hash-cracking" and that he had rainbow tools (a tool used to crack Microsoft password hashes). Ms. Manning provided him with an alphanumeric string. This was identical to an encrypted password hash stored on the Systems Account Manager (SAMS) registry file of a SIPRNet computer, used by Ms. Manning, and associated with an account that was not assigned to any specific user. Mr. Assange later told her that he had no luck yet and asked for more “hints.” It is alleged that, had they succeeded in cracking the encrypted password hash, Ms. Manning might have been able to log on to computers connected to the classified SIPRNet network under a username that did not belong to her, making it more difficult for investigators to identify her as the source of the disclosures. It is specifically alleged that Mr.Assange entered into this agreement to assist Ms Manning’s ongoing efforts to steal classified material. > On 31 December 2011, WikiLeaks tweeted “#antisec owning Law enforcement in 2012.” It included links to emails and databases confirming that Hammond and AntiSec had hacked two US state police associations. On 3 January 2012, WikiLeaks tweeted a link to information which LulzSec/AntiSec had hacked and published in 2011 headed,“Anonymous/Antisec/Luzsec releases in 2011.” In January 2012, Hammond told Sabu that “JA” had provided Hammond with a script to search the emails stolen from Intelligence Consulting Company, and that “JA” would provide the script to associates of Hammond as well. Hammond also introduced Sabu via Jabber to “JA.” In January and February 2012, Sabu used the chatlog Jabber to communicate with Mr.Assange. On 27 February 2012, WikiLeaks began publishing emails that Hammond and others hacked from the Intelligence Consulting Company. On 27 February 2012 Hammond told Sabu, “we started giving JA” materials that had been obtained from other hacks. On 28 February 2012 Hammond complained to Sabu that the incompetence of his fellow hackers was causing him to fail to meet estimates he had given to Mr. Assange about the amount of hacked information he expected to provide to WikiLeaks, stating, “can’t sit on all these targets dicking around when the booty is sitting there ... especially when we are asked to make it happen with WL. We repeated a 2TB number to JA. Now turns out it’s like maybe 100GB. Would have been 40-50GB if I didn’t go and get all the mail from [foreign cybersecurity company].” Hammond then asked for help with ongoing computer intrusion committe d by his associates against victims including a US law enforcement entity, a US political organisation, and a US cybersecurity company. In March 2012, Hammond was arrested. > In June 2013, media outlets reported that Edward J. Snowden had leaked numerous documents taken from the National Security Agency and was in Hong Kong. It is alleged that, to encourage leakers and hackers to provide stolen materials to WikiLeaks, Mr.Assange and others at WikiLeaks openly displayed their attempts to assist Snowden to evade arrest. [1] https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/USA-v-Assange-judgment-040121.pdf https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/USA-v-As...

by daenz 5y ago

For someone who has not followed Assange news for a long time, what is the general accusation of his crimes? Is it just that he published secret material that he received from other sources?

fossuser 5y ago

No, that’s not illegal for somebody without a clearance. The crime he’s charged with is that he was willing to (and I think did?) assist in breaking into a computer system to get the docs. I think under the CFAA. They have communication records of this because the person he was talking to was working for the USG. Had he just been accepting docs as he was initially that would have been fine. It’s hard to know the truth here though when nation state interests are at play. To what extent were the sex related charges against him political or flared up by nation state meddling? At some point Russia was also using Wikileaks as a place to target the USG with some plausible deniability and Assange’s personal anti-US politics became a corrupting influence too. So, who knows?

NaturalPhallacy 5y ago
>The crime he’s charged with is that he was willing to (and I think did?) assist in breaking into a computer system to get the docs. I think under the CFAA. They have communication records of this because the person he was talking to was working for the USG. The US government claims this, but it's not been proven. >At some point Russia was also using Wikileaks as a place to target the USG with some plausible deniability and Assange’s personal anti-US politics became a corrupting influence too. This is just more Russiagate nonsense: https://pics.me.me/russiagate-explained-wikileaks-posted-the-dnc-emails-that-showed-they-34778084.png https://pics.me.me/russiagate-explained-wikileaks-posted-the... >To what extent were the sex related charges against him political or flared up by nation state meddling? There are no charges. There never were any charges. There was an investigation and that's as far as it went. >UPDATE GREAT NEWS: Swedish prosecutors are about to announce the dropping of the investigation into Julian Assange on sexual offence allegations. There never were any charges and the allegations were always nonsense, as detailed in the below article I wrote a month ago: https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2017/05/no-rape-charges-julian-assange-sweden-espionage-charges-julian-assange-usa/ https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2017/05/no-rape-char...
- fossuser 5y ago
  I think you’re overconfident in what you believe to be true based on the evidence that exists. The Russian bit can be politically inconvenient for you and yet also be true.
  - pstuart 5y ago
    It is interesting that apparently the GOP's email server was hacked as well, but nothing was ever released publicly. I'm no fan at all of the DNC but if "all politicians are dirty" is a thing, then why did no dirt spill out from the other side? Was it more valuable as kompromat?
    - zionic 5y ago
      Highly misleading. The DNC’s mail servers got hacked and they got everything done The “RNC hack” was one guy’s old laptop with a years out of date local outlook db. Not even in the same league.
      - pstuart 5y ago
        > The “RNC hack” was one guy’s old laptop with a years out of date local outlook db. You have proof of that? This says otherwise. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/09/us/obama-russia-election-hack.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/09/us/obama-russia-election-... I'm replying for the sake of challenging your statement but I know it's likely not possible to have an honest discussion about it because you appear to be taking a partisan stance. I have no love for either party, and even if I did love the Dems, I'd be more than happy to acknowledge any and all failings of theirs. Can you say the same thing?
        ta2162 5y ago
        That article literally agrees with the GP that the RNC was not hacked but the DNC was...
      - pstuart 5y ago
johnchristopher 5y ago
> At some point Russia was also using Wikileaks as a place to target the USG with some plausible deniability and Assange’s personal anti-US politics became a corrupting influence too. There's a passage in Sarah Kendzior's book (Hiding in plain sight: the invention of Donald Trump and the erosion of America) which clicked (to me): ultimately things like wikileaks damage societies and governments that are transparent. You will always find more dirt and problems in public/accessible records than in dictatorships. These initiatives are doomed to be used at some points as tools against healthy democracies/open states. edit: the passage > Among the few who saw the threat clearly was computer scientist Jaron Lanier, who, in 2010, warned the public of a new danger: WikiLeaks. At the time, free speech advocates were hailing WikiLeaks, and its founder, Julian Assange, as defenders of government transparency. Their lionization of the leaker organization was largely due to frustration with the criminal impunity of the Bush administration. In February 2010, soldier Chelsea Manning exposed war crimes by sending classified documents to WikiLeaks, which WikiLeaks then published online. The emphasis on civilian victims led human rights advocates to believe that WikiLeaks would prove a formidable opponent for autocratic regimes. But after WikiLeaks dropped hacked documents from the US State Department in November, Lanier predicted the opposite—that WikiLeaks would ultimately ally with dictators and that social media networks would abet them: >> The WikiLeaks method punishes a nation—or any human undertaking—that falls short of absolute, total transparency, which is all human undertakings, but perversely rewards an absolute lack of transparency. Thus an iron-shut government doesn’t have leaks to the site, but a mostly-open government does. >> If the political world becomes a mirror of the Internet as we know it today, then the world will be restructured around opaque, digitally delineated power centers surrounded by a sea of chaotic, underachieving openness. WikiLeaks is one prototype of a digital power center, but others include hedge funds and social networking sites. >> This is the world we are headed to, it seems, since people are unable to resist becoming organized according to the digital architectures that connect us. The only way out is to change the architecture. > Social media sites didn’t change the architecture. Instead, over the course of the 2010s, the architecture changed us. The calculus of post–Cold War politics—that democracy spreads through engagement, that technology enhances freedom—was reversed. Hostile states used digital technology not only to attack their own citizens but to attempt to transform foreign democracies into dictatorships. We saw this with Russian influence operations in elections in the United States, France, and in the Brexit referendum, among others.10 The social media corporations that had once bragged of the internet’s liberating power now helped the hijackers of democracy. Networks like Facebook abetted, whether intentionally or not, the “iron triangles” of organized crime, state corruption, and corporate criminality, and they were aided by complicit Western actors content to let their own countries die while turning a profit.
Miner49er 5y ago
> No, that’s not illegal for somebody without a clearance. Yeah, but that's not stopping the US for charging him with the Espionage act for it anyway. Most of his charges are for leaking/seeking secret info. The charge for assisting Manning is 5 potential years of the 175 he faces.
h_anna_h 5y ago
His crime was that he ran hashcat https://blog.erratasec.com/2019/04/assange-indicted-for-breaking-password.html https://blog.erratasec.com/2019/04/assange-indicted-for-brea... > Had he just been accepting docs as he was initially that would have been fine. They would just invent something else.
FireBeyond 5y ago
> It’s hard to know the truth here though when nation state interests are at play. To what extent were the sex related charges against him political or flared up by nation state meddling? I think that, even in and of itself, if a nation state intelligence agency is attempting a smear campaign or outright character assassination, and the very best they can manage is "may have had sex that was consensual but unprotected without agreement"? That's one hell of a sad state of affairs for that intelligence agency. Like beyond "never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity", "government incompetence" cliches. Like amazingly pathetic. I can't fathom that being the line they'd go for. "Sir, we came up with a plan to destroy his character in the public's eye!" "Great, what is it?" "Well, uhh, he had a bit of a threesome-like affair, and he may not have used a condom even though he said he would... we can spin that so well that everyone will disown him!" "..."
- freeflight 5y ago
  > I can't fathom that being the line they'd go for. That's literally the line they went for, thanks to Snowden we do know Five Eyes runs programs exactly for these kinds of character assassinations [0]. Or why do you think we had all these amazing headlines about how badly Assange allegedly treats his cat and how dirty his bathroom is? How is that of relevance to anybody on a global scale? It's all pure ad-hominem to keep the narrative about him as a person, and not what he actually did and blew the whistle on. [0] https://theintercept.com/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/ https://theintercept.com/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/
raxxorrax 5y ago
> It’s hard to know the truth here though when nation state interests are at play. Not really and not after they faked witness reports. It is completely in line with what was published and there was no alternative in acquiring this information, which there certainly being enough public interest.

sneak 5y ago

They are trying to get him on the conspiracy with Manning's unauthorized access, based on chat logs AIUI. They have already done a great job turning public opinion against him, though: the completely false claim that he was charged with rape is widely believed and repeated. Anyone who has fallen for this false narrative is encouraged to read the exact words of the women involved. He has also been effectively imprisoned without trial for about a decade now. Mostly he just serves as an example to what happens to people extrajudicially for fucking in any way with the US surveillance state and war apparatus.

plandis 5y ago
> He has also been effectively imprisoned without trial for about a decade now. It’s a bit dishonest to claim he’s been imprisoned without a trial when he skipped on bail in 2012 and chose to stay in an embassy instead of turn himself in to the UK government. He was arrested in 2019 and promptly convicted of skipping on bail in the same year by the UK government.
- sneak 5y ago
  Not at all. The UN's human rights department has found it to be so: from https://news.un.org/en/story/2016/02/521632-wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-arbitrarily-detained-sweden-and-uk-un-panel https://news.un.org/en/story/2016/02/521632-wikileaks-founde... > The founder of the WikiLeaks website, which published confidential diplomatic information, has been arbitrarily detained by Sweden and the United Kingdom since his arrest in London in December 2010, as a result of the legal action against him by both Governments, the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention said today. Skipping bail to seek asylum in a country that will attempt to preserve your human rights, when not skipping bail means you get extradited to a country that will torture you via extended solitary confinement prior to trial is not what most people mean when they use the phrase "skipping bail". If any description is dishonest here, it's that. A sham trial that you get tortured before getting to attend is always something to be avoided. Let's not forget that Manning was tortured to the point of multiple suicide attempts in prison prior to trial, as well as being declared guilty in public by a sitting US president (also before trial). Several senior officials in the US government called for Assange's summary execution for publishing. There is approximately zero chance that he will receive a fair trial or humane treatment in the USA.

Miner49er 5y ago

Pretty much, he's been indicted for 17 counts of violating the Espionage Act, which yeah, is just for seeking/leaking confidential info. It's a huge attack on freedom of the press. The press has always been allowed to cover leaked stuff, the Espionage act has only been used against sources in the past, not reporters. He's also facing a very minor charge (max 5 years in prison) for conspiracy to commit computer intrusion for allegedly helping Manning attempt to hack a computer.

fossuser 5y ago
I thought the latter CFFA charge is what helps to enable to former? IANAL though so I could easily be wrong about this. Basically helping to break into the computer system moves you out of the realm of journalist and into the realm of political enemy which now makes you vulnerable to espionage. I think there isn’t much case law around this stuff though.
breakfastduck 5y ago
While I widely agree, if we're fair there's a difference between a Journalist covering leaked stuff and literally releasing the full unredacted documents to the public. Otherwise I agree. His treatment comes down to nothing other than the fact the USA govt want to make it very, very clear that they are willing to totally destroy anyone's lives who dare publish the horrific things they're doing.
- k1m 5y ago
  > if we're fair there's a difference between a Journalist covering leaked stuff and literally releasing the full unredacted documents to the public. It was actually senior Guardian journalists who compromised the cables by publishing the password Assange had entrusted them with. That's what led to the unredacted copies being made available. Jonathan Cook has written about it here: https://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2020-09-26/guardian-assange-denial-deceptions/ https://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2020-09-26/guardian-assan... > The Guardian book let the cat out of the bag. Once it gave away Assange’s password, the Old Bailey hearings have heard, there was no going back. > Any security service in the world could now unlock the file containing the cables. And as they homed in on where the file was hidden at the end of the summer, Assange was forced into a desperate damage limitation operation. In September 2011 he published the unredacted cables so that anyone named in them would have advance warning and could go into hiding – before any hostile security services came looking for them. > Yes, Assange published the cables unredacted but he did so – was forced to do so – by the unforgivable actions of Leigh and the Guardian.

kingsuper20 5y ago

>what is the general accusation of his crimes? Realistically, he simply pissed off members of the ruling class of the US. Their presence has become significantly more obvious in recent years. Other than that, I'd say it's mostly a 'show me the man, I'll show you the crime' sort of thing.

res0nat0r 5y ago
In reality he laundered hacked materials he knowingly received from an adversarial to the USA nation state actor, and released it deliberately to interfere with the US election process to damage a POTUS candidate he didn't like.
- the_optimist 5y ago
  1) You cannot even come close to proving your statement, and 2) None of this would even be illegal if it weren't for intel agencies acting as political hit squads.
  - res0nat0r 5y ago
    It has already been documented and laid out in the Mueller Report, and summarized here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_National_Committee_email_leak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_National_Commi...
    - the_optimist 5y ago
      We have all read the Mueller report. It entirely fails on the points above. It’s right there in the link you sent. Do you care to differentiate between unsubstantiated allegations and reality? You just want everyone to pretend your conspiratorial story, based strictly on allegations, is true?
      - res0nat0r 5y ago
        It is true and substantiated, and detailed in the Mueller report. Just because you don't like these facts don't make them false.

2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago

From Wikipedia: >The charges stem from the allegation that Assange attempted and failed to crack a password hash so that Chelsea Manning could use a different username to download classified documents and avoid detection.[41] This allegation had been known since 2011 and was a factor in Manning's trial; the indictment did not reveal any new information about Assange. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indictment_and_arrest_of_Julian_Assange https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indictment_and_arrest_of_Julia... I don't believe it counts as journalism if you help someone commit a crime- that's the crux of the issue. Notice that real journalists who are passive receivers of information do not get criminally charged.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

lazulicurio 5y ago

I think the extradition ruling[1] from the UK judge assigned to the case provides a pretty good overview. (In general, I'd suggest trying to find primary sources as much as you can, because there's a lot of misinformation flying about about the case) Below are some of the allegations not related to Thordarson: > It is alleged that WikiLeaks solicited material by publishing a list of information it wished to obtain, its “Most Wanted Leaks”. In November 2009 this list included: “Bulk Databases” including “Intellipedia”, (a non-public CIA database) and classified “Military and Intelligence” documents. In December 2009, Mr. Assange and a WikiLeaks affilia te gave a presentation to the 26th Chaos Communication Congress in which WikiLea ks described itself as “the leading disclosure portal for classified, restricted or legally threatened publications.” In 2009 Mr. Assange spoke at the “Hack in the Box Security Conference” in Malaysia in which he made reference to a “capture the flag” hacking contest and noted that WikiLeaks had its own list of flags that it wanted captured. > Between November 2009 and May 2010, Ms. Manning was in direct contact with Mr. Assange using a chatlog (the “Jabber communications”). On 8 March 2010, it is alleged that Mr. Assange agreed to assist Ms. Manning in cracking a password hash stored on a DoD computer. Mr. Assange indicated that he was "good" at "hash-cracking" and that he had rainbow tools (a tool used to crack Microsoft password hashes). Ms. Manning provided him with an alphanumeric string. This was identical to an encrypted password hash stored on the Systems Account Manager (SAMS) registry file of a SIPRNet computer, used by Ms. Manning, and associated with an account that was not assigned to any specific user. Mr. Assange later told her that he had no luck yet and asked for more “hints.” It is alleged that, had they succeeded in cracking the encrypted password hash, Ms. Manning might have been able to log on to computers connected to the classified SIPRNet network under a username that did not belong to her, making it more difficult for investigators to identify her as the source of the disclosures. It is specifically alleged that Mr.Assange entered into this agreement to assist Ms Manning’s ongoing efforts to steal classified material. > On 31 December 2011, WikiLeaks tweeted “#antisec owning Law enforcement in 2012.” It included links to emails and databases confirming that Hammond and AntiSec had hacked two US state police associations. On 3 January 2012, WikiLeaks tweeted a link to information which LulzSec/AntiSec had hacked and published in 2011 headed,“Anonymous/Antisec/Luzsec releases in 2011.” In January 2012, Hammond told Sabu that “JA” had provided Hammond with a script to search the emails stolen from Intelligence Consulting Company, and that “JA” would provide the script to associates of Hammond as well. Hammond also introduced Sabu via Jabber to “JA.” In January and February 2012, Sabu used the chatlog Jabber to communicate with Mr.Assange. On 27 February 2012, WikiLeaks began publishing emails that Hammond and others hacked from the Intelligence Consulting Company. On 27 February 2012 Hammond told Sabu, “we started giving JA” materials that had been obtained from other hacks. On 28 February 2012 Hammond complained to Sabu that the incompetence of his fellow hackers was causing him to fail to meet estimates he had given to Mr. Assange about the amount of hacked information he expected to provide to WikiLeaks, stating, “can’t sit on all these targets dicking around when the booty is sitting there ... especially when we are asked to make it happen with WL. We repeated a 2TB number to JA. Now turns out it’s like maybe 100GB. Would have been 40-50GB if I didn’t go and get all the mail from [foreign cybersecurity company].” Hammond then asked for help with ongoing computer intrusion committe d by his associates against victims including a US law enforcement entity, a US political organisation, and a US cybersecurity company. In March 2012, Hammond was arrested. > In June 2013, media outlets reported that Edward J. Snowden had leaked numerous documents taken from the National Security Agency and was in Hong Kong. It is alleged that, to encourage leakers and hackers to provide stolen materials to WikiLeaks, Mr.Assange and others at WikiLeaks openly displayed their attempts to assist Snowden to evade arrest. [1] https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/USA-v-Assange-judgment-040121.pdf https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/USA-v-As...