5 ms·

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 f

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.
  - cachvico 5y ago
    That is an extremely enlightening link.
  - nappy 5y ago
    Before the cables, there were the leaks on Afghanistan and Iraq that were unredacted.
    - DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
      Both the Iraq and Afghanistan leaks were redacted.
      - nappy 5y ago
        According even to Wikileaks, no, they were not redacted https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/aug/10/afghanistan-war-logs-wikileaks-human-rights-groups https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/aug/10/afghanistan-wa...
        DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
        > WikiLeaks withheld around 15,000 reports to protect informants. The accusation was that the Afghan documents were not sufficiently redacted, but they were redacted. The Iraq War documents, released later, were more heavily redacted.
    - efdee 5y ago
      Unsufficiently redacted, not unredacted. And mostly because the Pentagon refused to assist in the redacting.
mywacaday 5y ago
Are there any whistleblower protections in the US or why would they not apply to Assange?
- DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
  The Espionage Act of 1917 is an extremely broad - and almost certainly unconstitutional - law passed during WWI, which gives the government broad power to go after anyone who publishes government secrets, including journalists. WWI was a low point in the history of freedom of expression in the US, and this law is a holdover from that era. It's bad enough that there's a law on the books that allows the US government to go after American journalists, but in this case, the US government is asserting the right to prosecute a foreign journalist who operated from outside the US. As far as I understand it, if Julian Assange is extradited, he will not be able to argue in court that WikiLeaks' publications were in the public interest.
  - syshum 5y ago
    >>The Espionage Act of 1917 ... almost certainly unconstitutional Good luck getting the Supreme Court agreeing with that. That greatest disappointment in the entire American Experiment has to be the US Supreme Court. That was the founders greatest mistake, vesting soo much power in this single branch
    - jfengel 5y ago
      In a lot of ways, they vested practically nothing in that branch. It's by far the shortest section of the Constitution, which basically comes down to "Supreme Court: We oughta have one." They made up their own powers. There's nothing about judicial review in the Constitution. They basically decided that they had that power, and everybody else agreed with them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison So perhaps their greatest mistake wasn't vesting too much, but vesting too little. That left the court open to write its own job description. And also to create lifetime appointments, in theory to de-politicize it, but in practice to enshrine ideologies for many decades.

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.
- cachvico 5y ago
  That is an extremely enlightening link.
- nappy 5y ago
  Before the cables, there were the leaks on Afghanistan and Iraq that were unredacted.
  - DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
    Both the Iraq and Afghanistan leaks were redacted.
    - nappy 5y ago
      According even to Wikileaks, no, they were not redacted https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/aug/10/afghanistan-war-logs-wikileaks-human-rights-groups https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/aug/10/afghanistan-wa...
      - DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
        > WikiLeaks withheld around 15,000 reports to protect informants. The accusation was that the Afghan documents were not sufficiently redacted, but they were redacted. The Iraq War documents, released later, were more heavily redacted.
  - efdee 5y ago
    Unsufficiently redacted, not unredacted. And mostly because the Pentagon refused to assist in the redacting.

mywacaday 5y ago

Are there any whistleblower protections in the US or why would they not apply to Assange?

DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
The Espionage Act of 1917 is an extremely broad - and almost certainly unconstitutional - law passed during WWI, which gives the government broad power to go after anyone who publishes government secrets, including journalists. WWI was a low point in the history of freedom of expression in the US, and this law is a holdover from that era. It's bad enough that there's a law on the books that allows the US government to go after American journalists, but in this case, the US government is asserting the right to prosecute a foreign journalist who operated from outside the US. As far as I understand it, if Julian Assange is extradited, he will not be able to argue in court that WikiLeaks' publications were in the public interest.
- syshum 5y ago
  >>The Espionage Act of 1917 ... almost certainly unconstitutional Good luck getting the Supreme Court agreeing with that. That greatest disappointment in the entire American Experiment has to be the US Supreme Court. That was the founders greatest mistake, vesting soo much power in this single branch
  - jfengel 5y ago
    In a lot of ways, they vested practically nothing in that branch. It's by far the shortest section of the Constitution, which basically comes down to "Supreme Court: We oughta have one." They made up their own powers. There's nothing about judicial review in the Constitution. They basically decided that they had that power, and everybody else agreed with them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison So perhaps their greatest mistake wasn't vesting too much, but vesting too little. That left the court open to write its own job description. And also to create lifetime appointments, in theory to de-politicize it, but in practice to enshrine ideologies for many decades.