This article changed my mind on Ecudor's extradition. As much as I despise what wikileaks has become, and I think Assange is to blame for a lot of his own troubles, the author does lay a great...
This article changed my mind on Ecudor's extradition. As much as I despise what wikileaks has become, and I think Assange is to blame for a lot of his own troubles, the author does lay a great point about the punishment being about the publishing of documents; and if Assange can be jailed for merely publishing documents, it would be chilling for that to extend to journalists too.
There are many very sensible, necessary restrictions on speech. One of those is the ability to have some things actually be secret. Sure, that's something that can be misused and has been misused...
if Assange can be jailed for merely publishing documents
There are many very sensible, necessary restrictions on speech.
One of those is the ability to have some things actually be secret. Sure, that's something that can be misused and has been misused by some democracies post-9/11, but there are and should always be documents that you can be jailed for publishing.
Has Assange published documents that have been illegal to publish? I believe so.
If he's a whistleblower, or performing civil disobedience, the whole idea behind those things is that you either trust the protections afforded to you, or are willing to take the legal consequences for breaking laws you do not believe in.
To me, Wikileaks or Assage is neither here nor there in this issue. There should be equality before the law.
The problem with jailing journalists over publishing documents is that who gets to decide what documents are "secret" and which ones are actually secret? And then what would prevent the government...
The problem with jailing journalists over publishing documents is that who gets to decide what documents are "secret" and which ones are actually secret? And then what would prevent the government from simply classifying everything as secret? Transparency and overview are important parts of journalism, and the release of secret documents has often been enormously important for furthering this; for example, the PRISM leaks back in 2013 that pushed the national debate over mass surveillance via the internet to the mainstream. If data truly is massively important to national security, then I believe it's the government's responsibility to ensure that the public - and by extension, journalists - don't have access to it.
And whistleblower laws won't be nearly as effective; even if a whistleblower himself is protected under a judge, which is rather arbitrary, the newspapers that published his info may not be, and so they wouldn't be willing to publish what he says anyways. With our government being filled with scandals, a president who has made it very clear he would prefer it if a free press didn't exist, and less transparency and accountability then ever, I think it's especially important that we safeguard journalists... And if that means Assange goes free, then so be it...
The thing about transparency is that it allows your adversaries/enemies to see what is happening too, and that transparency will be giving them the opportunity to exploit your plans, priorities,...
The thing about transparency is that it allows your adversaries/enemies to see what is happening too, and that transparency will be giving them the opportunity to exploit your plans, priorities, and sensitive communications. So in that sense there is (and will always be) a public interest to keep certain documents private. Yes, there will also always be the ability to abuse this sort of power and classification should probably be reviewed by a judiciary or legislative branches (as already happens in some cases). It need not be reviewed by the public to institute a reasonable check to abusing the power to keep documents secret, but the main thing for the US is that standards for what documents count as protected and what do not should be standardized between the myriad of agencies. It is a pain point when you have different agencies getting into a territorial pissing match over what standards to use for counting a document as sensitive.
It seems the question is this: has the government been justified in declaring the documents Assange has leaked classified? If so, prosecute away. If not, then our government will be setting a...
It seems the question is this: has the government been justified in declaring the documents Assange has leaked classified? If so, prosecute away. If not, then our government will be setting a moral and public precedent that allows them to declare any material off limits.
I don't think that you need to prove that the government was justified in keeping all of the documents Assange as published classified. If any should have been, that would be enough. But what's...
I don't think that you need to prove that the government was justified in keeping all of the documents Assange as published classified. If any should have been, that would be enough.
But what's more, for Assange, he should be held accountable for any other crimes he may have committed, and his status as a sanctimonious "journalist" shouldn't protect him from that sort of comeuppance.
It is the sexual assault charges I'm referring to, some of which were dropped. It is important to say why the charges were dropped: too much time passed under Swedish law. It had nothing to do...
It is the sexual assault charges I'm referring to, some of which were dropped. It is important to say why the charges were dropped: too much time passed under Swedish law. It had nothing to do with the truth or lack thereof behind the charges. Instead, Julian has been waiting out the charges.
You know putin agreed to allow the indicted Russian citizens to be interviewed too. There are a lot of catches that make it not the fair deal it sounds like it would be. In november of 2016 (after...
You know putin agreed to allow the indicted Russian citizens to be interviewed too. There are a lot of catches that make it not the fair deal it sounds like it would be. In november of 2016 (after lesser charges had to be dropped because of time), he was interviewed. It had all the same catches that Putin’s offer has: as the interview is in Equador’s diplomatic space, only equadorian lawyers could ask questions and represent Assange. A swedish prosecutor was present but only to watch.
Yeah, I bet Swedish prosecutors would also love not to have to deal with recognizing the legal jurisdiction of the Euqadorian embassy. Alas, that’s a feature of the international order, not a mere formality to be ignored.
This is not about jailing journalists, he was working for Russia. Look at the indictments by Mueller, Wikileaks is almost mentioned by name as working with them.
This is not about jailing journalists, he was working for Russia. Look at the indictments by Mueller, Wikileaks is almost mentioned by name as working with them.
"Oh, it's ok for us to jail this one person for doing this thing we don't like. We won't use that as precedent to jail other people. We double-pinky swear."
"Oh, it's ok for us to jail this one person for doing this thing we don't like. We won't use that as precedent to jail other people. We double-pinky swear."
Again, this is not about jailing journalists, he's a traitor. It's about jailing him for being a traitor and working with and/or for the Russians. Edit:...
Again, this is not about jailing journalists, he's a traitor. It's about jailing him for being a traitor and working with and/or for the Russians.
Edit:
The 11-count, 29-page indictment describes in granular detail a carefully planned and executed attack on the information security of Democrats, as Russian government hackers implanted hundreds of malware files on Democrats’ computer systems to steal information. The hackers then laundered the pilfered material through fake personas called DC Leaks and Guccifer 2.0, as well as others, to try to influence voters.
One of their conduits, identified in the indictment only as “Organization 1,” was WikiLeaks, the global anti-secrecy group led by Julian Assange, according to people familiar with the case. The indictment describes WikiLeaks communicating with Guccifer 2.0 to obtain material.
Julian Assange is not a United States citizen, and therefore cannot be held criminally liable for treason in the U.S. as there's no condition for which he would otherwise owe allegiance. There's a...
Julian Assange is not a United States citizen, and therefore cannot be held criminally liable for treason in the U.S. as there's no condition for which he would otherwise owe allegiance.
There's a case to be made that he's committed espionage, but he's not a traitor, for several reasons in addition to non-citizen/non-resident status.
You're right, that was incorrect of me to call him officially a traitor. He did not betray the US as a citizen. Regardless, his journalist status and whether or not journalists should be jailed is...
You're right, that was incorrect of me to call him officially a traitor. He did not betray the US as a citizen. Regardless, his journalist status and whether or not journalists should be jailed is beside the point and a distraction. He is working with Russians and their goals. While the journalist thing is an issue, it's not the main issue in my mind, and it seems to be pointed out repeatedly to change the narrative IMO.
The phrase you're looking for is a Red Herring. However I don't think its applicable in this case. Julian Assange is not an isolated issue, if he is extradited and convicted for merely releasing...
The phrase you're looking for is a Red Herring. However I don't think its applicable in this case. Julian Assange is not an isolated issue, if he is extradited and convicted for merely releasing articles that he himself did not steal, than the ramifications for journalists are huge.
Edit: I should've added that its important to see what the US charges him with, if they proceed with charging him at all. Its seems likely given that both the Obama and Trump administrations have made it clear that they want him extradited, but as far as we know there hasn't been an official order yet.
That is the key point, we don't know what we don't know. Mueller pointed at him and Wikileaks in the indictments, there is something there or he wouldn't have done that IMO.
publicly available information
That is the key point, we don't know what we don't know. Mueller pointed at him and Wikileaks in the indictments, there is something there or he wouldn't have done that IMO.
The Justice Department's indictment Friday of 12 Russian military intelligence officers undermines those denials. And if the criminal charges are proved, it would show that WikiLeaks (referred to as "Organization 1" in the indictment) received the material from Guccifer 2.0, a persona directly controlled by Russia's Main Intelligence Directorate of the General Staff, also known as GRU, and even gave the Russian hackers advice on how to disseminate it.
Whether Assange knew that those behind Guccifer 2.0 were Russian agents is not addressed in the indictment. But it seems unlikely that Assange, a former hacker who once boasted of having compromised U.S. military networks himself, could have missed the extensive coverage blaming the Kremlin for the DNC hack.
Assange told Hannity he exercised exclusive control over WikiLeaks' releases.
"There is one person in the world, and I think it's actually only one, who knows exactly what's going on with our publications and that's me," Assange said.
Innocent until proven guilty. A mention in an indictment is not a conviction. If Mueller has something on Assange he can bring it forward in court. Until then asserting things we don't know is...
Innocent until proven guilty. A mention in an indictment is not a conviction. If Mueller has something on Assange he can bring it forward in court. Until then asserting things we don't know is just speculation.
I might be going a bit off topic here, but I have to say that I find this American narrative of blaming Russia for everything that happens in USA extremely worrying. Assange is a Russian shill,...
I might be going a bit off topic here, but I have to say that I find this American narrative of blaming Russia for everything that happens in USA extremely worrying. Assange is a Russian shill, Trump is a Russian shill, everyone you perceive as somehow undermining American power for whatever reason is a Russian shill. I noticed this is mostly coming from American moderates / center-left people, which makes it especially worrying. It's a sign of the whole country moving even further to the right.
If you guys want to change anything in your country, you will first have to admit that the fuck ups are entirely your own, and that Russia isn't nearly as all-powerful as you portray it to be. Conspiracy theories aren't going to help you. I wouldn't be surprised if this was the worst state that the American left has ever been in.
I think that's a strawman argument - I don't think anyone I know actually thinks "if it weren't for Russia, everything would be fine." It's more like "argh, on top of all the issues the country...
I think that's a strawman argument - I don't think anyone I know actually thinks "if it weren't for Russia, everything would be fine." It's more like "argh, on top of all the issues the country has atm, other people are purposefully trying to stir up shit on top of that." You can both admit problems at home and acknowledge that there are outside influences as well.
I don't know, I don't live in the US, so you might be right. My opinion is based on what I see on the news, online forums, comments etc. Those sources definitely aren't balanced and consistently...
I don't know, I don't live in the US, so you might be right. My opinion is based on what I see on the news, online forums, comments etc. Those sources definitely aren't balanced and consistently portray Russia as root of all evil and main culprit of America's current problems.
I mean, yeah. Without Russian involvement they would have gotten Hillary, who would have kept things mostly business as usual, maybe with a few nods to the leftist ideas. Instead we have someone...
I mean, yeah. Without Russian involvement they would have gotten Hillary, who would have kept things mostly business as usual, maybe with a few nods to the leftist ideas. Instead we have someone who is actively trashing their relationships with their allies, throwing trade up in the air, and shitstirring in a bunch of other ways. Russian interference in the 2016 election caused a major inflection point in the direction the USA is going.
Keeping business as usual in context of USA is a pretty bad thing. It means starting a new pointless war every several years and giving zero shits about common people's standards of living. I'm...
Keeping business as usual in context of USA is a pretty bad thing. It means starting a new pointless war every several years and giving zero shits about common people's standards of living. I'm personally simply not buying the story that Trump would lose if it wasn't for Russian meddling. They might have helped him a little, but they sure as hell couldn't have got him to such high support among voters. And it's not like no one predicted something like this would happen years ago before Trump was even a presidential candidate.
It is quite likely that russia supplied the DNC emails. Wikipedia claims that the DNC emails might have been acquired by a russian government affiliated group, and were then supplied to wikileaks,...
It is quite likely that russia supplied the DNC emails. Wikipedia claims that the DNC emails might have been acquired by a russian government affiliated group, and were then supplied to wikileaks, which published them for maximum effect as a october surprise. Subsequently, trump's chance of winning doubled according to fivethirtyeight. And we haven't talked about their astroturfing (which is much harder to quantify).
I wouldn't dismiss the russian impact just so easily. But of course, they didn't get him into the White House single-handedly.
I think the media has been so keen on reporting Russia related issues because it is a major point of political contention here. I can not think of any home-grown issue that has caused such an...
I think the media has been so keen on reporting Russia related issues because it is a major point of political contention here. I can not think of any home-grown issue that has caused such an emotional response.
Keep in mind a lot of the far-right parties in major EU countries (UK(IP), France/FN, Germany/AfD, some others in other countries) are funded in big part by russia. It is no coincidence that all...
Keep in mind a lot of the far-right parties in major EU countries (UK(IP), France/FN, Germany/AfD, some others in other countries) are funded in big part by russia. It is no coincidence that all these parties also reject the EU. My takeaway from this is that Russia wants to destabilize the EU - which would naturally play into their hands.
Russia sure isn't the root of all evil. But the muller investigation seems very much justified and a good deal of skepticism of russia is warranted.
Additionally, Trump, suspected to have been aided by Putin, has been very... generous to the man, throwing EU allies under the bus but declaring him 'muricas new best friend. At this point it's not a conspiracy theory anymore, the question is merely how far it reaches. Did Trump know? Did EU far right parties change their platforms as a result of receiving russian funding?
Here's what happened. It's pretty pathetic. Assange said he'd surrender if Obama gave clemency to Manning. Obama did. As is usually the case with such things, the act of clemency was to take...
Here's what happened. It's pretty pathetic.
Assange said he'd surrender if Obama gave clemency to Manning. Obama did. As is usually the case with such things, the act of clemency was to take effect after a 120-day transition period, thus allowing Ms. Manning the time to make arrangements, find lodgings, etc.
Assange's reaction: "I was only gonna do it if the clemency was immediate."
The Independent completely neglected to say that Assange had already agreed to let the Swedish prosecutors interview him from within the embassy. This is just one example of many where the...
Julian Assange has been inside the Ecuadorian Embassy in London since summer 2012, refusing to meet prosecutors in Sweden, where he is wanted on a rape allegation. He has said that he fears that if he leaves he will be extradited to the US on espionage charges.
The Independent completely neglected to say that Assange had already agreed to let the Swedish prosecutors interview him from within the embassy.
This is just one example of many where the independent has interjected their own bias into the news. I'm not trying to say that your source was bad for these purposes, I just wanted to make everyone aware.
This article changed my mind on Ecudor's extradition. As much as I despise what wikileaks has become, and I think Assange is to blame for a lot of his own troubles, the author does lay a great point about the punishment being about the publishing of documents; and if Assange can be jailed for merely publishing documents, it would be chilling for that to extend to journalists too.
There are many very sensible, necessary restrictions on speech.
One of those is the ability to have some things actually be secret. Sure, that's something that can be misused and has been misused by some democracies post-9/11, but there are and should always be documents that you can be jailed for publishing.
Has Assange published documents that have been illegal to publish? I believe so.
If he's a whistleblower, or performing civil disobedience, the whole idea behind those things is that you either trust the protections afforded to you, or are willing to take the legal consequences for breaking laws you do not believe in.
To me, Wikileaks or Assage is neither here nor there in this issue. There should be equality before the law.
The problem with jailing journalists over publishing documents is that who gets to decide what documents are "secret" and which ones are actually secret? And then what would prevent the government from simply classifying everything as secret? Transparency and overview are important parts of journalism, and the release of secret documents has often been enormously important for furthering this; for example, the PRISM leaks back in 2013 that pushed the national debate over mass surveillance via the internet to the mainstream. If data truly is massively important to national security, then I believe it's the government's responsibility to ensure that the public - and by extension, journalists - don't have access to it.
And whistleblower laws won't be nearly as effective; even if a whistleblower himself is protected under a judge, which is rather arbitrary, the newspapers that published his info may not be, and so they wouldn't be willing to publish what he says anyways. With our government being filled with scandals, a president who has made it very clear he would prefer it if a free press didn't exist, and less transparency and accountability then ever, I think it's especially important that we safeguard journalists... And if that means Assange goes free, then so be it...
The thing about transparency is that it allows your adversaries/enemies to see what is happening too, and that transparency will be giving them the opportunity to exploit your plans, priorities, and sensitive communications. So in that sense there is (and will always be) a public interest to keep certain documents private. Yes, there will also always be the ability to abuse this sort of power and classification should probably be reviewed by a judiciary or legislative branches (as already happens in some cases). It need not be reviewed by the public to institute a reasonable check to abusing the power to keep documents secret, but the main thing for the US is that standards for what documents count as protected and what do not should be standardized between the myriad of agencies. It is a pain point when you have different agencies getting into a territorial pissing match over what standards to use for counting a document as sensitive.
It seems the question is this: has the government been justified in declaring the documents Assange has leaked classified? If so, prosecute away. If not, then our government will be setting a moral and public precedent that allows them to declare any material off limits.
I don't think that you need to prove that the government was justified in keeping all of the documents Assange as published classified. If any should have been, that would be enough.
But what's more, for Assange, he should be held accountable for any other crimes he may have committed, and his status as a sanctimonious "journalist" shouldn't protect him from that sort of comeuppance.
I'm unaware of any crimes that are not directly related to reporting save the dropped sexual assault charges. Have any links?
It is the sexual assault charges I'm referring to, some of which were dropped. It is important to say why the charges were dropped: too much time passed under Swedish law. It had nothing to do with the truth or lack thereof behind the charges. Instead, Julian has been waiting out the charges.
You know putin agreed to allow the indicted Russian citizens to be interviewed too. There are a lot of catches that make it not the fair deal it sounds like it would be. In november of 2016 (after lesser charges had to be dropped because of time), he was interviewed. It had all the same catches that Putin’s offer has: as the interview is in Equador’s diplomatic space, only equadorian lawyers could ask questions and represent Assange. A swedish prosecutor was present but only to watch.
Yeah, I bet Swedish prosecutors would also love not to have to deal with recognizing the legal jurisdiction of the Euqadorian embassy. Alas, that’s a feature of the international order, not a mere formality to be ignored.
This is not about jailing journalists, he was working for Russia. Look at the indictments by Mueller, Wikileaks is almost mentioned by name as working with them.
"Oh, it's ok for us to jail this one person for doing this thing we don't like. We won't use that as precedent to jail other people. We double-pinky swear."
Again, this is not about jailing journalists, he's a traitor. It's about jailing him for being a traitor and working with and/or for the Russians.
Edit:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/rod-rosenstein-expected-to-announce-new-indictment-by-mueller/2018/07/13/bc565582-86a9-11e8-8553-a3ce89036c78_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.6f72fdf2e2d3
Julian Assange is not a United States citizen, and therefore cannot be held criminally liable for treason in the U.S. as there's no condition for which he would otherwise owe allegiance.
There's a case to be made that he's committed espionage, but he's not a traitor, for several reasons in addition to non-citizen/non-resident status.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-treason/2017/02/17/8b9eb3a8-f460-11e6-a9b0-ecee7ce475fc_story.html?utm_term=.fabd495cf36f
You're right, that was incorrect of me to call him officially a traitor. He did not betray the US as a citizen. Regardless, his journalist status and whether or not journalists should be jailed is beside the point and a distraction. He is working with Russians and their goals. While the journalist thing is an issue, it's not the main issue in my mind, and it seems to be pointed out repeatedly to change the narrative IMO.
The phrase you're looking for is a Red Herring. However I don't think its applicable in this case. Julian Assange is not an isolated issue, if he is extradited and convicted for merely releasing articles that he himself did not steal, than the ramifications for journalists are huge.
Edit: I should've added that its important to see what the US charges him with, if they proceed with charging him at all. Its seems likely given that both the Obama and Trump administrations have made it clear that they want him extradited, but as far as we know there hasn't been an official order yet.
That is the key point, we don't know what we don't know. Mueller pointed at him and Wikileaks in the indictments, there is something there or he wouldn't have done that IMO.
LOL, I'm in good company: Charges against Russians undermine Assange denials about hacked email origins
Innocent until proven guilty. A mention in an indictment is not a conviction. If Mueller has something on Assange he can bring it forward in court. Until then asserting things we don't know is just speculation.
I might be going a bit off topic here, but I have to say that I find this American narrative of blaming Russia for everything that happens in USA extremely worrying. Assange is a Russian shill, Trump is a Russian shill, everyone you perceive as somehow undermining American power for whatever reason is a Russian shill. I noticed this is mostly coming from American moderates / center-left people, which makes it especially worrying. It's a sign of the whole country moving even further to the right.
If you guys want to change anything in your country, you will first have to admit that the fuck ups are entirely your own, and that Russia isn't nearly as all-powerful as you portray it to be. Conspiracy theories aren't going to help you. I wouldn't be surprised if this was the worst state that the American left has ever been in.
I think that's a strawman argument - I don't think anyone I know actually thinks "if it weren't for Russia, everything would be fine." It's more like "argh, on top of all the issues the country has atm, other people are purposefully trying to stir up shit on top of that." You can both admit problems at home and acknowledge that there are outside influences as well.
I don't know, I don't live in the US, so you might be right. My opinion is based on what I see on the news, online forums, comments etc. Those sources definitely aren't balanced and consistently portray Russia as root of all evil and main culprit of America's current problems.
I mean, yeah. Without Russian involvement they would have gotten Hillary, who would have kept things mostly business as usual, maybe with a few nods to the leftist ideas. Instead we have someone who is actively trashing their relationships with their allies, throwing trade up in the air, and shitstirring in a bunch of other ways. Russian interference in the 2016 election caused a major inflection point in the direction the USA is going.
Keeping business as usual in context of USA is a pretty bad thing. It means starting a new pointless war every several years and giving zero shits about common people's standards of living. I'm personally simply not buying the story that Trump would lose if it wasn't for Russian meddling. They might have helped him a little, but they sure as hell couldn't have got him to such high support among voters. And it's not like no one predicted something like this would happen years ago before Trump was even a presidential candidate.
It is quite likely that russia supplied the DNC emails. Wikipedia claims that the DNC emails might have been acquired by a russian government affiliated group, and were then supplied to wikileaks, which published them for maximum effect as a october surprise. Subsequently, trump's chance of winning doubled according to fivethirtyeight. And we haven't talked about their astroturfing (which is much harder to quantify).
I wouldn't dismiss the russian impact just so easily. But of course, they didn't get him into the White House single-handedly.
I think the media has been so keen on reporting Russia related issues because it is a major point of political contention here. I can not think of any home-grown issue that has caused such an emotional response.
Keep in mind a lot of the far-right parties in major EU countries (UK(IP), France/FN, Germany/AfD, some others in other countries) are funded in big part by russia. It is no coincidence that all these parties also reject the EU. My takeaway from this is that Russia wants to destabilize the EU - which would naturally play into their hands.
Russia sure isn't the root of all evil. But the muller investigation seems very much justified and a good deal of skepticism of russia is warranted.
Additionally, Trump, suspected to have been aided by Putin, has been very... generous to the man, throwing EU allies under the bus but declaring him 'muricas new best friend. At this point it's not a conspiracy theory anymore, the question is merely how far it reaches. Did Trump know? Did EU far right parties change their platforms as a result of receiving russian funding?
Does anyone know what happened of his promise to surrender himself once Manning is free? Far as I can see, he broke that promise, right?
Here's what happened. It's pretty pathetic.
Assange said he'd surrender if Obama gave clemency to Manning. Obama did. As is usually the case with such things, the act of clemency was to take effect after a 120-day transition period, thus allowing Ms. Manning the time to make arrangements, find lodgings, etc.
Assange's reaction: "I was only gonna do it if the clemency was immediate."
I wish I was kidding.
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/julian-assange-chelsea-manning-barack-obama-hand-in-embassy-arrest-extradition-us-a7533911.html
The Independent completely neglected to say that Assange had already agreed to let the Swedish prosecutors interview him from within the embassy.
This is just one example of many where the independent has interjected their own bias into the news. I'm not trying to say that your source was bad for these purposes, I just wanted to make everyone aware.