5 ms·

The reason he is in prison is because he sabotaged Hillary's campaign and because he has actually committed crimes.

cryptica 5y ago
What crimes? He just published leaked documents just like New York Post and The Guardian did. Wikileaks just happened to be first. There is no evidence of hacking since this key witness admitted that it was made up.
- cookie_monsta 5y ago
  I thought the hacking charges arose from the chat logs with Manning?
  - jessaustin 5y ago
    They have tortured Manning for decades and she hasn't corroborated that theory. She already had full access. She wouldn't have contacted Wikileaks in the first place if she hadn't seen the horrible "secret" material.
    - cookie_monsta 5y ago
      > They have tortured Manning for decades You need to check your timeline > She already had full access. No. These are basic facts.
      - jessaustin 5y ago
        Oh, of course. She was only tortured for eight years. How silly of me! Surely everyone would be happy to receive that amount of torture! Assange is only accused of trying to help Manning circumvent. Ergo, even evil USA prosecutors don't allege that he did help circumvent. Ergo, Manning had the same access after contact with Assange that she had had before contact with Assange. You are wrong and you should feel bad about it.
        cookie_monsta 5y ago
        Was it eight years or was it decades? Did she have full access or is Assange accused of trying to help her get it? My original post here was partially about how Assange's supporters don't do their cause any good by exaggerating facts and distorting reality. My opinion of Assange's actions seems a lot more nuanced than many here - no doubt I am wrong on some points. But I refuse to feel bad just because you're trying to strawman me.
        jessaustin 5y ago
        You are more "nuanced" than the my-country-love-it-or-leave-it troglodytes upthread. If you like, you can confirm that Assange didn't give Manning any access she didn't already have simply by reading the indictment. [0] In the section "ASSANGE Encouraged Manning to Continue Her Theft of Classified Documents and Agreed to Help Her Crack a Password Hash to a Military Computer", you can read: 17. The portion of the password hash Manning gave to ASSANGE to crack was stored as a "hash value" in a computer file that was accessible only by users with administrative-level privileges. Manning did not have administrative-level privileges, and used special software, namely a Linux operating system, to access the computer file and obtain the portion of the password provided to ASSANGE. 18. Had Manning retrieved the full password hash and had ASSANGE and Manning successfully cracked it. Manning may have been able to log onto computers imder a usemame that did not belong to her. Such a measure would have made it more difficult for investigators to identify Manning as the source of disclosures of classified information. 19. Prior to the formation of the password-cracking agreement, Manning had already provided WikiLeaks with hundreds of thousands of documents classified up to the SECRET level that she downloaded from departments and agencies of the United States, including the Afghanistan war-related significant activity reports and Iraq war-related significant activity reports. Keep in mind that indictments only give the prosecution's opinion of the case, and are not evidence of any defendant having done or not done anything. However, if they only claim (without evidence) that he agreed to crack a hash, we can be sure they have no evidence he did crack the hash. It took me literally three minutes to find this document and another five to find the relevant section. Maybe some people are tempted to on-the-one-hand-on-the-other this case because it's confusing and that seems somehow fair. The case is inherently unbalanced, however. On one side is a man who, by himself, has suffered isolation and imprisonment for years and faces the prospect of "decades" more of the same. On the other is the giant secret bureaucracy who inhabit the forever-face-stomping boot. No one on that side will spend a day in prison. Their obvious overreach and abuse of process should mean that Assange doesn't either. Normal cases in which investigators and prosecutors violate the Constitution are thrown out by judges. [0] https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1165556/download https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1165556/downl...
- busymom0 5y ago
  Not just that. PV also released audio recordings of Assange actually phone calling the State Department and warning them that a disgruntled ex-employee of Wikileaks was going to release un-redacted documents and the State Department should be aware of that. He didn't want anyone's life at risk because of the un-redacted release. Yet the State Department ignored his warning. He's proven to be one of the best journalists of the modern era and he's paying for it.
f1refly 5y ago
He did not sabotage anything. Hillary sabotaged her campaign all by herself creating those documents.
- ben_w 5y ago
  On the one hand, yes, I too am unimpressed with politicians who try to win by turning their opponents into clowns rather than by having their own positive message; on the other, that quote about ten lines from the hand of an honest man and finding something in them to hang him by.
  - f1refly 5y ago
    so... your suggestion is to "let it slip" instead of using wikileaks as it was meant to be? I'd say theres a reason a guy like Julien runs Wikileaks instead of a guy like you.
    - ben_w 5y ago
      I don’t even understand what you’re claiming I’m suggesting. FWIW, WikiLeaks isn’t the only way to get important secrets into the public domain, not even the first — most internationally famous western newspapers have done this at some point — it merely specialised in this.
boomboomsubban 5y ago
None of the charges against him are about anything that happened past 2014, and the only crime he has been convicted of is skipping bail, for which his prison term has already been served.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  Yes, but had he not skipped bail, he would probably be on bail until extradited, so he’s in prison now because of the crime of skipping bail (not as part of the punishment for that crime, though.)
pooya13 5y ago
No the reason he is in prison is because of the Iraq war revelations. It has nothing to do with the 2016 email leaks.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
jesterson 5y ago
Would you provide any proof for your unsubstantiated claims? Particularly about the "crimes" he had committed.
- KaiserPro 5y ago
  skipping bail, which is why he's in jail now, its also why he's in jail waiting fora extradition hearing.
- CRConrad 5y ago
  Isn't that what trials are for? If only he hadn't spent the last however many years evading trial, then -- since all you fans of his seem so sure he's innocent -- then he'd have put all this behind him all those years ago, now wouldn't he? So there was absolutely no sensible reason for him to avoid trial by holing up in an embassy for a decade, was there?!? Unless, of course, you aren't really so sure, after all...?

What crimes? He just published leaked documents just like New York Post and The Guardian did. Wikileaks just happened to be first. There is no evidence of hacking since this key witness admitted that it was made up.

cookie_monsta 5y ago
I thought the hacking charges arose from the chat logs with Manning?
- jessaustin 5y ago
  They have tortured Manning for decades and she hasn't corroborated that theory. She already had full access. She wouldn't have contacted Wikileaks in the first place if she hadn't seen the horrible "secret" material.
  - cookie_monsta 5y ago
    > They have tortured Manning for decades You need to check your timeline > She already had full access. No. These are basic facts.
    - jessaustin 5y ago
      Oh, of course. She was only tortured for eight years. How silly of me! Surely everyone would be happy to receive that amount of torture! Assange is only accused of trying to help Manning circumvent. Ergo, even evil USA prosecutors don't allege that he did help circumvent. Ergo, Manning had the same access after contact with Assange that she had had before contact with Assange. You are wrong and you should feel bad about it.
      - cookie_monsta 5y ago
        Was it eight years or was it decades? Did she have full access or is Assange accused of trying to help her get it? My original post here was partially about how Assange's supporters don't do their cause any good by exaggerating facts and distorting reality. My opinion of Assange's actions seems a lot more nuanced than many here - no doubt I am wrong on some points. But I refuse to feel bad just because you're trying to strawman me.
        jessaustin 5y ago
        You are more "nuanced" than the my-country-love-it-or-leave-it troglodytes upthread. If you like, you can confirm that Assange didn't give Manning any access she didn't already have simply by reading the indictment. [0] In the section "ASSANGE Encouraged Manning to Continue Her Theft of Classified Documents and Agreed to Help Her Crack a Password Hash to a Military Computer", you can read: 17. The portion of the password hash Manning gave to ASSANGE to crack was stored as a "hash value" in a computer file that was accessible only by users with administrative-level privileges. Manning did not have administrative-level privileges, and used special software, namely a Linux operating system, to access the computer file and obtain the portion of the password provided to ASSANGE. 18. Had Manning retrieved the full password hash and had ASSANGE and Manning successfully cracked it. Manning may have been able to log onto computers imder a usemame that did not belong to her. Such a measure would have made it more difficult for investigators to identify Manning as the source of disclosures of classified information. 19. Prior to the formation of the password-cracking agreement, Manning had already provided WikiLeaks with hundreds of thousands of documents classified up to the SECRET level that she downloaded from departments and agencies of the United States, including the Afghanistan war-related significant activity reports and Iraq war-related significant activity reports. Keep in mind that indictments only give the prosecution's opinion of the case, and are not evidence of any defendant having done or not done anything. However, if they only claim (without evidence) that he agreed to crack a hash, we can be sure they have no evidence he did crack the hash. It took me literally three minutes to find this document and another five to find the relevant section. Maybe some people are tempted to on-the-one-hand-on-the-other this case because it's confusing and that seems somehow fair. The case is inherently unbalanced, however. On one side is a man who, by himself, has suffered isolation and imprisonment for years and faces the prospect of "decades" more of the same. On the other is the giant secret bureaucracy who inhabit the forever-face-stomping boot. No one on that side will spend a day in prison. Their obvious overreach and abuse of process should mean that Assange doesn't either. Normal cases in which investigators and prosecutors violate the Constitution are thrown out by judges. [0] https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1165556/download https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1165556/downl...
busymom0 5y ago
Not just that. PV also released audio recordings of Assange actually phone calling the State Department and warning them that a disgruntled ex-employee of Wikileaks was going to release un-redacted documents and the State Department should be aware of that. He didn't want anyone's life at risk because of the un-redacted release. Yet the State Department ignored his warning. He's proven to be one of the best journalists of the modern era and he's paying for it.

f1refly 5y ago

He did not sabotage anything. Hillary sabotaged her campaign all by herself creating those documents.

ben_w 5y ago
On the one hand, yes, I too am unimpressed with politicians who try to win by turning their opponents into clowns rather than by having their own positive message; on the other, that quote about ten lines from the hand of an honest man and finding something in them to hang him by.
- f1refly 5y ago
  so... your suggestion is to "let it slip" instead of using wikileaks as it was meant to be? I'd say theres a reason a guy like Julien runs Wikileaks instead of a guy like you.
  - ben_w 5y ago
    I don’t even understand what you’re claiming I’m suggesting. FWIW, WikiLeaks isn’t the only way to get important secrets into the public domain, not even the first — most internationally famous western newspapers have done this at some point — it merely specialised in this.

boomboomsubban 5y ago

None of the charges against him are about anything that happened past 2014, and the only crime he has been convicted of is skipping bail, for which his prison term has already been served.

dragonwriter 5y ago
Yes, but had he not skipped bail, he would probably be on bail until extradited, so he’s in prison now because of the crime of skipping bail (not as part of the punishment for that crime, though.)

pooya13 5y ago

No the reason he is in prison is because of the Iraq war revelations. It has nothing to do with the 2016 email leaks.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

jesterson 5y ago

Would you provide any proof for your unsubstantiated claims? Particularly about the "crimes" he had committed.

KaiserPro 5y ago
skipping bail, which is why he's in jail now, its also why he's in jail waiting fora extradition hearing.
CRConrad 5y ago
Isn't that what trials are for? If only he hadn't spent the last however many years evading trial, then -- since all you fans of his seem so sure he's innocent -- then he'd have put all this behind him all those years ago, now wouldn't he? So there was absolutely no sensible reason for him to avoid trial by holing up in an embassy for a decade, was there?!? Unless, of course, you aren't really so sure, after all...?