Assange is being charged under the US 1917 Espionage Act.
How can the US reasonably charge him with espionage? Has Assange ever even been to the US?
If we can charge a foreign reporter with espionage for the mere publication of something we consider secret, and force their international extradition, how would we feel about a foreign government doing the same to one of our citizens?
For instance, if Australia were to coerce the UK to arrest and extradite the publisher of the New York Times for prosecution under their laws for printing a story they didn't like for some reason.
> If we can charge a foreign reporter with espionage for the mere publication of something we consider secret
He’s not being charged with espionage for “the mere publication” of secrets. He’s being charged with actively assisting a leaker in bypassing security systems: illegal conduct that took place in the US.
The attempt to gussy this up overlooks how Assange, if he did what he’s accused of doing, clearly crossed the line. The rules in the US are already very liberal here. If you’re really just publishing materials you got from a leaker, you’re protected. Going even further and saying someone should be protected even when they actively assist a leaker in obtaining materials illegally is a huge step further.
> Assange, if he did what he's accused of doing, clearly crossed the line
He exposed criminal actions that the U.S. was doing.
He did so by using a source that had fully legal means of obtaining that evidence.
>The rules in the US are already very liberal here.
Why is Snowden in Russia then?
Why is it that those people who are actually experienced with the US government, choose other countries rather than the protection of whistle-blower laws?
Perhaps it's because the people who run our country don't actually abide by any laws and are instead just criminals?
Pause a second: I keep seeing the same arguments again and again about Assange. All of them have surfaced and settled. Next step should have been to invent some sort of court where those arguments are debated, dismissed or retained, and we should tally the arguments and determine who’s wrong.
The justice system has existed from before Napoleon and it still seems it’s the fourth wheel of the shopping cart. Its role is to fix things in society by sanctioning malevolent people a posteriori, to prevent them from acting further and discourage candidates to malevolence, and determine where is the line in cases where there is no winner. So when is the last time our justice system fixed anything in our society, and why have we stopped innovating in terms of democratic advances?
It seems clear that the release of the material was endorsed by Russia, whether they knew about it or not. Trump is not demanding his return. And Russia is not going to send him back because it would show a bad example for anybody else contemplating "doing a Snowden".
>He’s being charged with actively assisting a leaker in bypassing security systems: illegal conduct that took place in the US.
He's charged with attempting to assist his source hide her identity while acquiring files she already had access too. While he was allegedly doing this, neither individual was in the US. Assange was in Europe while Manning was in Iraq on March 8th, the date the conversation took place.
They might be arguing the opposite, but my understanding is that he gave some tips for how to protect Manning's safety and maybe encouraged getting more documents if they were so inclined. That's something any journalist might do in the course of normal human behavior and legitimately so.
All these documents turned out to reveal war crimes. The state shouldn't be able to hide behind these flimsy secrecy claims when they are murdering people.
Assertions of an indictment must be based on evidence or things the prosecutor has reason to believe the evidence will prove. In the numbered paragraphs where the indictment refers to specific events with quoted statements, that means there are documents that support those allegations.
I'd draw your attention to paragraph 4-6, where Assange recruited hackers to collect a "most wanted" list of confidential material and explained how he had exploited a vulnerability in the Congressional Research Service to get copies of draft reports. Also paragraphs 19-22, where communications between Assange and Manning indicate that Assange was trying to help Manning log into the system with a different login than her own, by getting a password from a hash. Whether or not he actually succeeded, if he actually attempted to crack the password, that would be an illegal conspiracy. (Conspiracy doesn't require being successful--it's enough to take the first step towards an illegal goal, in this case logging into the DOD network using someone else's account.)
Rather than go over these claims point by point, I'd direct your attention to the case of Katherine Gun in the UK (admittedly a different legal system).
Gun was a GCHQ agent (a UK citizen that agreed to the restrictions that come with being a government intelligence analyst) that leaked evidence of the US plan to rig the UN vote around the Iraq War. She got off because the crown declined to prosecute because her defense strategy was one of necessity, showing that the government knew what they were doing was illegal and that it would imminently result in the deaths of innocents.
"Some of the information that would have been revealed at her trial, in particular Lord Goldsmith’s “conflicting arguments” as to the legality of the invasion, did not fully emerge until the publication of the report of the Chilcot inquiry in 2016. In its absence, Tony Blair won another election in 2005. Gun is grimly amused to see his current return to the moral high ground over Brexit."
In Mr. Assange's case, he is neither a US citizen nor a sworn intelligence analyst. He did in fact reveal crimes that horrified the world. They are trying to get him for running some code on a computer to see what the criminals were saying. Those people were knocking over countries and killing innocent people (something that he was able to show live in the helicopter gunship video).
The US standard for this case compared to Kat Gun is mind blowingly authoritarian and criminalizes effective dissent.
Given that we can plainly see from the chat logs that the allegations in 19-22 are baseless, why is it reasonable to believe that the allegations in 4-6 are supported by evidence?
It seems just as likely to me that Assange was advocating for hackers to spend some of their time looking for documents he feels are in the public interest. I'm just speculating here, but isn't it likely that the congressional records system was not hacked but rather documents posted on it were simply difficult to find, and that if Assange could convince hackers to spend their time researching this then more information could be reported to the public?
Given how badly the prosecution has outright lied and also twisted facts to fit its narrative in this case, and how it has abused process and procedure, why should we give it any benefit of the doubt? Who says this indictment is based on evidence? It's not as if the prosecutor is going to be punished at all when he turns out to be lying.
I just watched the conference it is alluded to in paragraphs 4-6. Well, that does not look to me like 'recruiting'... (particularly not 'hackers', when he insists that hacking expertise is not really relevant) I also see that the documents in the "most wanted list" are documents that any investigative journalists would be interested in obtaining - i.e., the list is to trivial to be novel or original. I would say that Trump has uttered many more statements that could in the same vein be seen as "Conspiracy" and emboldening others to conspire.
Also, when reading paragraphs 19-22, it really looks to me that the supposedly criminal acts performed by Assange (attempted cracking of a password hash) was to protect the anonymity of the source - and that impression comes from the text of the indictment itself "Such a
measure would have made it more difficult for investigators to identify Manning as the source of
unauthorized disclosures of classified information."
There is a comical piece within the indictment that HN readers will enjoy:
"Manning did not have-administrative-level privileges, and used special software, namely a Linux operating
system, to access the computer file"
Which points do you find most troubling? It's a very long document and the beginning is filled with flim flam. It says he tried to crack a hash and didn't succeed and therefore didn't even give Manning anything useful. While cracking and giving info back could be problematic, getting info and cracking it is certainly not. In any case, it certainly does not rise to this level of indictment.
> It says he tried to crack a hash and didn't succeed and therefore didn't even give Manning anything useful.
The indictment isn't clear whether he succeeded or not. But if you look at the March 10th communication, it's clear that Assange tried to crack the hash. If so, that constitutes an illegal conspiracy.
Say your friend asks you to pick a lock so he can rob someone's house. You try to pick the lock and fail. Even though you haven't robbed the house yet, you're both guilty of conspiracy to rob the house. The attempted lock-picking is an "overt act" that completes the conspiracy: https://www.justia.com/criminal/offenses/inchoate-crimes/con...
> Finally, in most states, conspiracy requires an “overt act” taken in furtherance of the crime. This overt act does not have to be the crime itself, nor does it have to be an act that is illegal. Rather, the act must merely be a step taken in furtherance of the criminal objective, such as buying a weapon or holding a meeting to plan an attack. The act must also take place after the group of individuals has agreed to conspire.
> Say your friend asks you to pick a lock so he can rob someone's house
If you looks at the logs, that is just not what happened. I see various discussions of it that sort of make up a story that isn't there. The actual chat is like this:
Bob> How big is that upload?
Alice> 440MB
Alice> It's a lot of scanned documents
Alice> How's your finances these days?
Alice> Hey are you any good at lock picking?
Bob> Yes [unclear if yes, scanned documents would account for that size, or yes, I'm good at lock picking, or something else]
Bob> Our finances are doing okay, but have trouble with some payments
Bob> We have extensive lock picking knowledge
Alice> [Sends photo of something, not clear what]
Alice> I think this is a lock, but I'm not sure. I pointed the camera at the door and took that photo.
Bob> What makes you think that's a lock?
Bob> Is it attached to a door?
Alice> Yeah
Bob> Sent the photo to someone who knows about locks
Alice> Thanks
[2 days later]
Bob> Any more hints about this picture you sent me?
Bob> No luck so far [not clear if luck with talking to the lock expert, or if the expert couldn't recognize this as a lock, or if tried to crack it... or if didn't send it anywhere at all and just mentioning it because he wants Alice to think he's helping her so that she keeps telling him what's going on]
In my view this is not even close to an overt act and that we can be sure of that given the context of all the other stuff they chat about. I'd expect some discussion of progress and technical details.
[PS. I think this is the third comment of yours I've replied to in this discussion. I don't mean to stalk you. Your points are well articulated even though I disagree with them]
My knowledge on the Assange case is limited (I have not read any leaked documents), but from the press I get the impression that he uncovered illegal acts.
If true, it would be more like this:
A friend sees that an illegal act is committed inside a house and asks you to pick the lock in order to go in and stop it.
Better example, what if a journalist made a copy of a key for you so that you could continue to access a room containing classified documents after hours, as was the case for the pentagon papers?
The first part of what you're saying is true. I think the defense in this case has challenged that actually took place, and there's some questions about compelling the US to produce evidence or the UK courts considering the US's statements in trials as evidence to Assange's innocence.
http://johnpilger.com has lots of detailed information about all the proceedings and the complete lack of any semblance of a fair hearing in the UK.
I’ve said this before, but I think people focus on the wrong thing with the Assange case. They 100% can do this, because the U.K. signed a treaty that let them do so without _even_ getting reciprocal rights.
I mean, congratulations to the US negotiators but the UK 100% should not have agreed to it.
The US has fought some interesting cases that have extended US law outside of the United States and cases that allow foreign nationals to use US law outside of the United States. A good example of the latter is when Iraqi citizens were able to sue Blackwater in a US court or where asylum seekers were able to sue governments and cartel members in a US court.
The way I see it, as a largely uneducated-about-the-formalities-of-law citizen, is that this exemplifies the need for a world court who has proper interests and jurisdiction to hold fair trials for international matters.
My understanding is that Assange is alleged to have conspired with people in the USA to release classified information. One might compare it to collaborating with someone in the US to commit fraud (or perpetrating the fraud via the internet); being outside the country does not make you immune from prosecution.
Or one may compare it with the way journalists collaborate with sources. In fact, it has been discussed in the hearing how Assange behavior is exactly what journalists do to get access to privileged information.
It actually isn’t, at least how it has been determined in case law. Dan Ellsberg, famed leaker of the Pentagon Papers, testified about this just a few days ago in the Assange extradition hearing.
Whistleblowing isn’t stealing or the illegal revelation of secrets. You have to actually prove it’s not whistleblowing for it to be possible to consider it theft.
That’s why the US government rushed to add last minute new indictments against Assange for violating the Espionage Act by putting US interests in harm’s way - they knew their case in terms of possession, theft or publishing was complete b.s.
In the legal sense of "obstruction" (which is narrower than the colloquial sense) it's different. The law makes a distinction between refusing to help law enforcement, and actively hindering or deceiving law enforcement. It's not a crime to refuse to provide helpful information to law enforcement. The government can serve you with a subpoena for that information, but that's a civil process. While you can be held in civil contempt for refusing to comply with a subpoena, it's not a crime, and there are lots of circumstances under which people are "privileged" from having to comply with such subpoenas. (Lawyer-client, doctor-patient, between spouses, etc.) Journalists are generally held to be protected by a similar privilege.
Those privileges don't protect you from actively assisting in a cover-up or concealment of evidence of a crime, which is itself a crime. A lawyer doesn't have to tell a prosecutor where to find relevant evidence, but he can't help his client hide that evidence in the first place.
That is pretty much irrelevant. You can easily break a law of a country without ever going there e.g. paying an assassin, selling weapons/drugs, stealing credit card information, breaking into a server to steal sensitive information, etc.
The Hong-Kong protests started after a murderer chopped up his girlfriend and flew to Hong-Kong for safety.
Hong-Kong is part of China. Borders do matter, I have no idea what world you live in where ordering something as extreme as an assassination isn't done more safely with a border between you and the person you're assasinating. All that being said...that's NOT what Assange did, Assange is being tried for upholding the law. The U.S. was illegally torturing people and murdering civilians, wikileaks leaked it, wikileaks did so legally, now the U.S. is trying to drum-up a technicality that doesn't exist from a case that happened 7 years ago. A case they waited to try him for for 7 years, while denying him counsel and spying on his counsel.
Assange is alleged to have sought classified material from the US, and for aiding and abetting Manning in obtaining classified material.
This would be like is Australia asked the UK to extradite someone who recruited Australians to rob a bank and then materially helped said Australians actually rob the aforementioned bank.
Nation states do not have a right to privacy. Robbing a bank is not equivalent to acquiring state secrets (especially those involving illegal activity). Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Why do people say ‘nation states’ when they mean countries? Neither the UK nor the US are ‘nation states’. They’re both examples I would give of things that are not nation states in fact.
Sorry, it was simply because my "country" is actually a nation state composed of various countries and that's what I've been used to saying. No other reason I'm afraid. In fact, the correct term which I should have used is "sovereign states". So no, I don't think it's cooler and, matter of fact, I wouldn't say I fully understand international law enough to say "I know what I'm talking about" when it comes to what a nation state or a sovereign state is, what the difference is, or such nuances. But if I'm pressed, I can probably speak at length on why my first comment, in its entirety, is a perfectly reasonable conclusion we can all arrive at, regardless of the type of politics of said state (democratic or not).
I don't think that the phrase "sovereign states don't have rights" is even controversial at all. I also think think that any adult that has gone through any decent education will probably be familiar with the phrase or concept, even if they can't ELI5 it, the same way we are familiar with or have heard of other related concepts like democracy, separation of powers, habeas corpus, human rights, individual rights, sovereignty, etc. In fact, sovereignty is perhaps where the debate should live because sovereignty is, after all, the right of a "state" over itself, which seems to contradict the idea that sovereign states have no rights (it doesn't). Anyway, enough of that.
My first comment was short because it was simply intended as a nudge or reminder that hey, before we go down the road of overthinking why the USA has a right to hold some secrets, let's just remember that the idea itself is difficult to defend, especially in a democracy.
Yeh I agree there's nothing about the term nation state that applies...all the more if Scotland has a separate heritage & tradition. I think the problem is less about pretentiousness though. A "nation" isn't necessarily something with a border or a language...it's a tradition of governance within a special kind of community. But at the same time, what we call a nation in the "global power" sense is also different. At no point previously in human history would we think of one State as having the ability to unilaterally control different aspects of other States like the European powers did when they conquered the world. And I'd say the current structure of the international money systems which allows the U.S. treasury to freeze foreign bank accounts is not typical of a mere "State" I'd say there should be another world entirely.
>Doesn’t this just emphasise that the UK is not a nation state?
What would you use to refer to UK then? Because if Scotland is a country, and Scotland is a part of UK, that feels kinda weird to call an entity composed of multiple countries a country.
Well certainly not 'nation state' of all things. The UK literally has 'the Nations'. And the US literally has the 'Native Nations'. By their own description and common sense they aren't nation states.
Does the 'United...' part of their names not give it away?
Call them 'sovereign states' if you want to mean something independent on a global scale.
Assange is being charged under the US 1917 Espionage Act.
How can the US reasonably charge him with espionage? Has Assange ever even been to the US?
If we can charge a foreign reporter with espionage for the mere publication of something we consider secret, and force their international extradition, how would we feel about a foreign government doing the same to one of our citizens?
For instance, if Australia were to coerce the UK to arrest and extradite the publisher of the New York Times for prosecution under their laws for printing a story they didn't like for some reason.