3 ms·

It really is a disgrace that the US continues to ruin a mans life for being a journalist. People need to own up to ignoring this human rights violation.

ChumpGPT 3y ago
[flagged]
- postalrat 3y ago
  Agent of what? Information?
  - dr-detroit 3y ago
    [dead]
  - one_level_deep2 3y ago
    He was an agent of the information he preferred to leak because he had an agenda. It has been well documented. [1] https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/17/wikileaks-turned-down-leaks-on-russian-government-during-u-s-presidential-campaign/#cookie_message_anchor https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/17/wikileaks-turned-down-l... [2] https://theintercept.com/2018/02/14/julian-assange-wikileaks-election-clinton-trump/ https://theintercept.com/2018/02/14/julian-assange-wikileaks... [3] https://www.cnn.com/2017/01/10/politics/comey-republicans-hacked-russia/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2017/01/10/politics/comey-republicans-ha...
ogogmad 3y ago
Leaking national secrets needs to be punished to deter people from doing it. You can do it, but you must also be willing to defend your actions in a court. This seems necessary, as an organisation can't operate without keeping some secrets. I think the punishment should depend on what was leaked. If the contents were a clear injustice, then there should be no negative consequences for the leaker. But they must still stand up for their decision in court. What is certainly not acceptable is trying to flee from consequences. This should merit a punishment, which is what happened here.
- cheeseomlit 3y ago
  Why would he or anyone else in his position have any faith that they'd get a fair trial in a US court? He'll get thrown in a detention cell and treated like a POW as he awaits trial for years, only to be eventually told the court does not consider him a journalist and he's fucked for life, no matter how important or valid the leaks were. If the leaks were embarrassing to someone important enough, which they were, then he's done. For him to sacrifice himself on the altar of 'justice' he knows he won't receive is not a reasonable expectation.
  - ogogmad 3y ago
    Yeah, I guess he's not a US citizen, but an Australian citizen based in the UK. That said, Australia and the UK have clear obligations to their allies. I think maybe sending him to a neutral territory might result in a fairer trial. That might be a better way of dealing with whistleblowers. The Hague? [edit] Possibly ECJ?
- user_7832 3y ago
  And what solution do you have, when the courts and justice system has significant political influence from the executive/legislative arms, and is pushed by them? I'm neither arguing for or against Julian, I'm just saying that "have unbiased judge" requires an unbiased/uninfluenced judge.
- mrkeen 3y ago
  But there's pretty recent precedent about how the US treats leakers. I can't choose an excerpt - but it's a quick read: https://theintercept.com/2020/01/02/chelsea-manning-torture-prison-united-nations/ https://theintercept.com/2020/01/02/chelsea-manning-torture-...
- guitarbill 3y ago
  Seems sensible... except who gets to decide what's a secret and for how long? And by "defend your actions in a court", you likely mean a court of the country who's secret you leaked? Or no? So would you for example agree to be extradited to Russia for saying there's a war with Ukraine? Or to China for mentioning the Uyghur genocide? It's a secret after all. Also, just being able to threaten journalists with court in general would have a chilling effect - especially in a place like the US where it costs so much money. By the way, the first and sealed indictment of Assange was not for leaking secrets. Make of that what you will.
Terr_ 3y ago
> ruin a mans life for being a journalist No: Real journalists do not do the things Assange is indicted for. [Allegedly] Manning asked for help cracking password hashes, and Assange agreed to provide Manning fresh passwords to log in as other users. That isn't "journalism", and it doesn't become protected/regular/normal journalism even if the prosecution is overzealous in other ways.

ChumpGPT 3y ago

[flagged]

postalrat 3y ago
Agent of what? Information?
- dr-detroit 3y ago
  [dead]
- one_level_deep2 3y ago
  He was an agent of the information he preferred to leak because he had an agenda. It has been well documented. [1] https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/17/wikileaks-turned-down-leaks-on-russian-government-during-u-s-presidential-campaign/#cookie_message_anchor https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/17/wikileaks-turned-down-l... [2] https://theintercept.com/2018/02/14/julian-assange-wikileaks-election-clinton-trump/ https://theintercept.com/2018/02/14/julian-assange-wikileaks... [3] https://www.cnn.com/2017/01/10/politics/comey-republicans-hacked-russia/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2017/01/10/politics/comey-republicans-ha...

ogogmad 3y ago

Leaking national secrets needs to be punished to deter people from doing it. You can do it, but you must also be willing to defend your actions in a court. This seems necessary, as an organisation can't operate without keeping some secrets. I think the punishment should depend on what was leaked. If the contents were a clear injustice, then there should be no negative consequences for the leaker. But they must still stand up for their decision in court. What is certainly not acceptable is trying to flee from consequences. This should merit a punishment, which is what happened here.

cheeseomlit 3y ago
Why would he or anyone else in his position have any faith that they'd get a fair trial in a US court? He'll get thrown in a detention cell and treated like a POW as he awaits trial for years, only to be eventually told the court does not consider him a journalist and he's fucked for life, no matter how important or valid the leaks were. If the leaks were embarrassing to someone important enough, which they were, then he's done. For him to sacrifice himself on the altar of 'justice' he knows he won't receive is not a reasonable expectation.
- ogogmad 3y ago
  Yeah, I guess he's not a US citizen, but an Australian citizen based in the UK. That said, Australia and the UK have clear obligations to their allies. I think maybe sending him to a neutral territory might result in a fairer trial. That might be a better way of dealing with whistleblowers. The Hague? [edit] Possibly ECJ?
user_7832 3y ago
And what solution do you have, when the courts and justice system has significant political influence from the executive/legislative arms, and is pushed by them? I'm neither arguing for or against Julian, I'm just saying that "have unbiased judge" requires an unbiased/uninfluenced judge.
mrkeen 3y ago
But there's pretty recent precedent about how the US treats leakers. I can't choose an excerpt - but it's a quick read: https://theintercept.com/2020/01/02/chelsea-manning-torture-prison-united-nations/ https://theintercept.com/2020/01/02/chelsea-manning-torture-...
guitarbill 3y ago
Seems sensible... except who gets to decide what's a secret and for how long? And by "defend your actions in a court", you likely mean a court of the country who's secret you leaked? Or no? So would you for example agree to be extradited to Russia for saying there's a war with Ukraine? Or to China for mentioning the Uyghur genocide? It's a secret after all. Also, just being able to threaten journalists with court in general would have a chilling effect - especially in a place like the US where it costs so much money. By the way, the first and sealed indictment of Assange was not for leaking secrets. Make of that what you will.

Terr_ 3y ago

> ruin a mans life for being a journalist No: Real journalists do not do the things Assange is indicted for. [Allegedly] Manning asked for help cracking password hashes, and Assange agreed to provide Manning fresh passwords to log in as other users. That isn't "journalism", and it doesn't become protected/regular/normal journalism even if the prosecution is overzealous in other ways.