4 ms·

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...
        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...
      - 5y ago