4 ms·

It's remarkable that so many news outlets are permitted to discuss the content of these obviously actively strategically important leaks while assange rots in s

by elif 4y ago

It's remarkable that so many news outlets are permitted to discuss the content of these obviously actively strategically important leaks while assange rots in solitary for revealing war crimes.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> remarkable that so many news outlets are permitted to discuss the content of these obviously actively strategically important leaks while assange rots in solitary for revealing war crimes Discussing leaked material isn’t a crime. Leaking material is.
- iso1631 4y ago
  Did Assange leak material? Manning did, and she was in jail because of it. (edit - was)
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - tzs 4y ago
    Manning was released from jail in early 2017 after her sentence was commuted by President Obama.
  - dwheeler 4y ago
    My understanding is that there are big differences. Manning was an Army Private First Class, that is, enlisted military, who had specifically signed agreements to not disclose classified information. It's not exactly the same thing, but similar things happen in private industry. If an employee of a company posted a trade secret the employee had agreed to keep secret, that's legally actionable, while others sharing it without any agreement with the company generally can't be sued. That said, IANAL. If you need legal advise, I'm not it :-).
    - iso1631 4y ago
      Assange presumably hadn't signed anything like that, nor is he a US citizen. He did however skip bail, and rightly paid for that. I was disappointed by the high court's view to allow extradition, especially given the one-sided approach to extradition that US takes with its citizens, but it was hardly surprising given how far up the US's ass the UK is. Of course a decade ago it was all "I don't want to go to Sweden because I'll be extradited", despite that easily being the case from the UK.
      - monocasa 4y ago
        I don't think he was scared of the normal extradition process in Sweden, but instead how in the past Sweden has just straight up assisted CIA operatives in kidnapping Swedish residents, contrary to their own legal system. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_of_Ahmed_Agiza_and_Muhammad_al-Zery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_of_Ahmed_Agiza_an... The UK at least follows their own legal system for such matters.
        iso1631 4y ago
        That particular rendition relied on the UK refueling the planes. Seems a very tenuous link to me - the idea that the US would illegally kidnap someone from the streets in Sweden but not do the same thing in the UK Hell nowadays the UK would not just allow, but probably pay the US to take asylum seekers somewhere else https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/editorials/iraq-war-torture-rendition-jack-straw-tony-blair-us-intelligence-agencies-a8421636.html https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/editorials/iraq-war-tor...
        monocasa 4y ago
        > That particular rendition relied on the UK refueling the planes. That particular rendition didn't rely on UK refueling the planes; the CIA's planes don't need to be refueled from somewhere as close as Sweden. And it was a minor scandal when it came out that the UK even allowed rendition flight refueling on one of it's territories in the Indian ocean. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/feb/22/ciarendition.foreignpolicy1 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/feb/22/ciarendition.f... > Seems a very tenuous link to me - the idea that the US would illegally kidnap someone from the streets in Sweden but not do the same thing in the UK Then you should be able to produce an example of this happening. The big difference is that for western Europe, the US gov generally requires that the host country cooperates with renditions. Sweden cooperates with renditions, the UK requires the normal extradition process.
  - rshannon3 4y ago
    Assange is accused of aiding and/or directing Manning in how to acquire the data from classified networks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indictment_and_arrest_of_Julian_Assange https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indictment_and_arrest_of_Julia...
    - iso1631 4y ago
      ChatGPT can do that, and I'm sure has been used to enable people to commit crimes. Will the US extradite the creators of ChatGPT?
- nocsi 4y ago
  The documents are still classified even if they’re public now. For example, people with clearances can’t technically read these. They’d lose their jobs lol
- hammock 4y ago
  Did Assange leak material? Didn't realize that. Pretty sure he was the recipient of leaked material (just like these other journalists in question)
- drc500free 4y ago
  The key distinction for reporters is that conspiring with someone before the fact to remove classified material is a crime. This includes giving advice to someone considering leaking on how to circumvent access controls. Reporting on it after the fact when you had nothing to do with the removal of classified material in the first place is not.
mrandish 4y ago
I agree that Assange has been subject to "aggressive targeted prosecution" (at the very least), he was repeatedly playing close to the edge and intelligence community bureaucrats were threatened by politically embarrassing info appearing in western media and decided to make an example of him. IMHO, determining whether he was actually guilty of the crimes he was charged with isn't all that clear since it depends on some fairly subtle interpretation. Suffice to say, that without the intense high-level political pressure being constantly applied Assange would not be incarcerated today as he would either have won in court or convicted on a substantially lesser crime. Thus, I don't think it matters much whether he's technically guilty. To me, the key meta-point is that the things Assange leaked weren't of much actionable value to the military enemy. Most of what Assange (and Snowden) leaked were already known or reasonably assumed by military adversaries.
ratg13 4y ago
I agree with you, but this is also just an opinion. The reality is that he is officially being charged with conspiracy to commit computer intrusion for coaching Manning on how to get around the military's encryption.

by elif 4y ago

It's remarkable that so many news outlets are permitted to discuss the content of these obviously actively strategically important leaks while assange rots in solitary for revealing war crimes.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago

> remarkable that so many news outlets are permitted to discuss the content of these obviously actively strategically important leaks while assange rots in solitary for revealing war crimes Discussing leaked material isn’t a crime. Leaking material is.

iso1631 4y ago
Did Assange leak material? Manning did, and she was in jail because of it. (edit - was)
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- tzs 4y ago
  Manning was released from jail in early 2017 after her sentence was commuted by President Obama.
- dwheeler 4y ago
  My understanding is that there are big differences. Manning was an Army Private First Class, that is, enlisted military, who had specifically signed agreements to not disclose classified information. It's not exactly the same thing, but similar things happen in private industry. If an employee of a company posted a trade secret the employee had agreed to keep secret, that's legally actionable, while others sharing it without any agreement with the company generally can't be sued. That said, IANAL. If you need legal advise, I'm not it :-).
  - iso1631 4y ago
    Assange presumably hadn't signed anything like that, nor is he a US citizen. He did however skip bail, and rightly paid for that. I was disappointed by the high court's view to allow extradition, especially given the one-sided approach to extradition that US takes with its citizens, but it was hardly surprising given how far up the US's ass the UK is. Of course a decade ago it was all "I don't want to go to Sweden because I'll be extradited", despite that easily being the case from the UK.
    - monocasa 4y ago
      I don't think he was scared of the normal extradition process in Sweden, but instead how in the past Sweden has just straight up assisted CIA operatives in kidnapping Swedish residents, contrary to their own legal system. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_of_Ahmed_Agiza_and_Muhammad_al-Zery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_of_Ahmed_Agiza_an... The UK at least follows their own legal system for such matters.
      - iso1631 4y ago
        That particular rendition relied on the UK refueling the planes. Seems a very tenuous link to me - the idea that the US would illegally kidnap someone from the streets in Sweden but not do the same thing in the UK Hell nowadays the UK would not just allow, but probably pay the US to take asylum seekers somewhere else https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/editorials/iraq-war-torture-rendition-jack-straw-tony-blair-us-intelligence-agencies-a8421636.html https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/editorials/iraq-war-tor...
        monocasa 4y ago
        > That particular rendition relied on the UK refueling the planes. That particular rendition didn't rely on UK refueling the planes; the CIA's planes don't need to be refueled from somewhere as close as Sweden. And it was a minor scandal when it came out that the UK even allowed rendition flight refueling on one of it's territories in the Indian ocean. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/feb/22/ciarendition.foreignpolicy1 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/feb/22/ciarendition.f... > Seems a very tenuous link to me - the idea that the US would illegally kidnap someone from the streets in Sweden but not do the same thing in the UK Then you should be able to produce an example of this happening. The big difference is that for western Europe, the US gov generally requires that the host country cooperates with renditions. Sweden cooperates with renditions, the UK requires the normal extradition process.
- rshannon3 4y ago
  Assange is accused of aiding and/or directing Manning in how to acquire the data from classified networks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indictment_and_arrest_of_Julian_Assange https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indictment_and_arrest_of_Julia...
  - iso1631 4y ago
    ChatGPT can do that, and I'm sure has been used to enable people to commit crimes. Will the US extradite the creators of ChatGPT?
nocsi 4y ago
The documents are still classified even if they’re public now. For example, people with clearances can’t technically read these. They’d lose their jobs lol
hammock 4y ago
Did Assange leak material? Didn't realize that. Pretty sure he was the recipient of leaked material (just like these other journalists in question)
drc500free 4y ago
The key distinction for reporters is that conspiring with someone before the fact to remove classified material is a crime. This includes giving advice to someone considering leaking on how to circumvent access controls. Reporting on it after the fact when you had nothing to do with the removal of classified material in the first place is not.

mrandish 4y ago

I agree that Assange has been subject to "aggressive targeted prosecution" (at the very least), he was repeatedly playing close to the edge and intelligence community bureaucrats were threatened by politically embarrassing info appearing in western media and decided to make an example of him. IMHO, determining whether he was actually guilty of the crimes he was charged with isn't all that clear since it depends on some fairly subtle interpretation. Suffice to say, that without the intense high-level political pressure being constantly applied Assange would not be incarcerated today as he would either have won in court or convicted on a substantially lesser crime. Thus, I don't think it matters much whether he's technically guilty. To me, the key meta-point is that the things Assange leaked weren't of much actionable value to the military enemy. Most of what Assange (and Snowden) leaked were already known or reasonably assumed by military adversaries.

ratg13 4y ago

I agree with you, but this is also just an opinion. The reality is that he is officially being charged with conspiracy to commit computer intrusion for coaching Manning on how to get around the military's encryption.