5 ms·

1) there is no point (6) 2) Although the US is trying to accuse Assange of doing so, he did not offer material aid of any sort to Chelsea. She could handle the

1) there is no point (6) 2) Although the US is trying to accuse Assange of doing so, he did not offer material aid of any sort to Chelsea. She could handle the access issue herself. Unless you would consider setting up a secure drop box under your imaginary (6). Get informed about the case.

giantrobot 5y ago
> Get informed about the case. Sure except for attempting to brute force the LM hashes and offer to get Manning a burner phone Assange provided no material aid to Manning at all. [0] You don't get to vacillate between James Bond and Bob Woodward as it suits you. Assange has no reasonable claims of protection that an actual journalist might. [0] https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/886185-pe-123.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/886185-pe-123.html
- colordrops 5y ago
  These are such weak claims. You'd say the same thing if Assange got Manning an Uber or a coffee. Assange is an individual journalist that prodded an endlessly powerful and secret intelligence apparatus and revealed their evil doings. Don't pick the wrong side, especially due to supposed technicalities.
  - giantrobot 5y ago
    If you knowingly participate in or act in furtherance of a crime, that's also a crime. No journalist has been convicted under the Espionage Act. The reason isn't because actual real journalists don't expose things that embarrass the US government. It's because they don't participate in the exfiltration of controlled documents or direct sources to gather specific information. The case on Manning is not the only time [0] that Assange played spymaster while hiding behind claims of being a journalist. [0] https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/6/25/julian-assange-conspired-with-anonymous-affiliated-hackers https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/6/25/julian-assange-cons...
  - nobody9999 5y ago
    >Don't pick the wrong side, especially due to supposed technicalities. Not GP, but I'm not sure I understand what you mean about "picking a side." Facts: Assange published stolen documents; Chelsea Manning illegally (whether that was moral/right depends on your belief system. Personally, I'm glad she did) appropriated classified government documents. That's a crime; The US government alleges (note the term 'alleges') that Assange conspired with Manning and assisted her in illegally obtaining the aforementioned documents; The US Department of Justice (DoJ) sought and received an indictment for the stuff they allege (there's that word again) Assange did. // End list of facts. From a personal perspective, I'm glad that much (not all) of this stuff was revealed. What's more, publishing information that's newsworthy and/or in the public interest is pretty much what journalism is all about. That said, the circus surrounding all this is mostly of Assange's making. Even more, unless I'm called to sit on the jury at Assange's trial, I don't really have much else to say about it. If (and that's a big 'if') the DoJ can prove beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury that Assange violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, then it's likely he'll be sentenced to a maximum of five years in prison. The other charges (based on the Espionage Act of 1917) against him aren't credible and no journalist has ever been convicted of such charges in the US. As such, it's unlikely in the extreme that Assange will be. So. Which "side" am I on, in your estimation? I'd say I'm on the only side that matters -- the side of facts, evidence and the rule of law. What say you?
    - monocasa 5y ago
      No journalist has been convicted under the espionage act _because_ no journalist has seen a courtroom under the espionage act. We're already in unprecedented territory with this action. Claiming that it's fine because the end goal has never been achieved when we've never gone this far in the first place seems specious. The DoJ obviously believes these charges will stick, otherwise it'd be in the administration's best interest to not actually see trial and keep the threat viable.
      - nobody9999 5y ago
        >The DoJ obviously believes these charges will stick, otherwise it'd be in the administration's best interest to not actually see trial and keep the threat viable. Prosecutorial overcharging[0] is pretty much de rigueur and happens all the time. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overcharging_(law) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overcharging_(law)
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
  Assange says he passed it onto his "LM guy". Do we know who that was? It would be interesting to see him identify his "LM guy" while under oath. Is the act of passing the hash over to a LM cracking expert a criminal act unbecoming of a journalist? That's a time-stamped conversation. I wonder if the US captured any other comms to/from Assange around that time so they could already guess who the "LM guy" is. Very concerning.

giantrobot 5y ago

> Get informed about the case. Sure except for attempting to brute force the LM hashes and offer to get Manning a burner phone Assange provided no material aid to Manning at all. [0] You don't get to vacillate between James Bond and Bob Woodward as it suits you. Assange has no reasonable claims of protection that an actual journalist might. [0] https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/886185-pe-123.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/886185-pe-123.html

colordrops 5y ago
These are such weak claims. You'd say the same thing if Assange got Manning an Uber or a coffee. Assange is an individual journalist that prodded an endlessly powerful and secret intelligence apparatus and revealed their evil doings. Don't pick the wrong side, especially due to supposed technicalities.
- giantrobot 5y ago
  If you knowingly participate in or act in furtherance of a crime, that's also a crime. No journalist has been convicted under the Espionage Act. The reason isn't because actual real journalists don't expose things that embarrass the US government. It's because they don't participate in the exfiltration of controlled documents or direct sources to gather specific information. The case on Manning is not the only time [0] that Assange played spymaster while hiding behind claims of being a journalist. [0] https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/6/25/julian-assange-conspired-with-anonymous-affiliated-hackers https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/6/25/julian-assange-cons...
- nobody9999 5y ago
  >Don't pick the wrong side, especially due to supposed technicalities. Not GP, but I'm not sure I understand what you mean about "picking a side." Facts: Assange published stolen documents; Chelsea Manning illegally (whether that was moral/right depends on your belief system. Personally, I'm glad she did) appropriated classified government documents. That's a crime; The US government alleges (note the term 'alleges') that Assange conspired with Manning and assisted her in illegally obtaining the aforementioned documents; The US Department of Justice (DoJ) sought and received an indictment for the stuff they allege (there's that word again) Assange did. // End list of facts. From a personal perspective, I'm glad that much (not all) of this stuff was revealed. What's more, publishing information that's newsworthy and/or in the public interest is pretty much what journalism is all about. That said, the circus surrounding all this is mostly of Assange's making. Even more, unless I'm called to sit on the jury at Assange's trial, I don't really have much else to say about it. If (and that's a big 'if') the DoJ can prove beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury that Assange violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, then it's likely he'll be sentenced to a maximum of five years in prison. The other charges (based on the Espionage Act of 1917) against him aren't credible and no journalist has ever been convicted of such charges in the US. As such, it's unlikely in the extreme that Assange will be. So. Which "side" am I on, in your estimation? I'd say I'm on the only side that matters -- the side of facts, evidence and the rule of law. What say you?
  - monocasa 5y ago
    No journalist has been convicted under the espionage act _because_ no journalist has seen a courtroom under the espionage act. We're already in unprecedented territory with this action. Claiming that it's fine because the end goal has never been achieved when we've never gone this far in the first place seems specious. The DoJ obviously believes these charges will stick, otherwise it'd be in the administration's best interest to not actually see trial and keep the threat viable.
    - nobody9999 5y ago
      >The DoJ obviously believes these charges will stick, otherwise it'd be in the administration's best interest to not actually see trial and keep the threat viable. Prosecutorial overcharging[0] is pretty much de rigueur and happens all the time. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overcharging_(law) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overcharging_(law)
2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
Assange says he passed it onto his "LM guy". Do we know who that was? It would be interesting to see him identify his "LM guy" while under oath. Is the act of passing the hash over to a LM cracking expert a criminal act unbecoming of a journalist? That's a time-stamped conversation. I wonder if the US captured any other comms to/from Assange around that time so they could already guess who the "LM guy" is. Very concerning.