Australian MP's - Democracy Threatened By Treatment Of Assange

Finally some Australian MP's like Andrew Wilkie and George Christensen have the courage to blast the treatment of Assange, who faces up to 175 years in prison for his role in publishing classified documents in 2010 and 2011 that reveal war crimes by US occupation forces. The charges are espionage, yet how can it be espionage when according to the dictionary a spy is: ​

"...A person who secretly collects and reports information on the activities, movements, and plans of an enemy or competitor..."​

What activities, movements or plans has Assange disclosed to an enemy, since the war crimes were past events and not future events? Also who is the enemy? It can't be Iraq or any other country that I know of. The only foreign entity that the US would be concerned about by the disclosure, is the International Court of Justice at UN since the torture was illegal - And yet we control the Hague, so that's doubtful.

What we don't control though is the opinion of the American people - so is that why Assange is being tortured? Is it a warning to others not to reveal anything to the American people unless it has Washington's approval?

But isn't that what journalism, freedom of speech and democracy all about,

​

https://www.fort-russ.com/2020/02/a...nt-of-julian-assange-as-athreat-to-democracy/

 

Your short answer....

Leaking classified info can also reveal its source. While the info itself might not sensitive any longer the source of that info very well might be.

 

Well then, the question would then be when should journalists be allowed to share/publish information when government does not want that information shared?

If the government collects information, and then classifies it, is it okay for a journalist to share that information as long as they got it from another source?

Can government lay ownership claim to information? Do voters have a right to know what government is up to?

 

1. They should not be allowed to publish classified information.

2. If info that is classified by the govt is obtained some way other than a leak of that info then yes the journalist should be able to publish it barring any legal blocking of such like a NDA or court ruling etc. I signed a 75 year NDA in 1988 with the govt. So I will not be able to say anything until that has expired. Just to be clear, I really do not have anything to share of intrest

3. Yes the govt can claim ownership of info, and no voters do not always have the right know what the govt is doing. That is not practical nor a functional way to run a country.

Do you think you as a voter should have access to any police investigation you would like? That would police work ineffective.

Do I have the right to know exact info about where our intel assets are and how they function as a voter? Of course not as it would make them ineffective and endanger them.

 

Then government could prevent anything they don't want published by classifying it.

In other words the information can't come from government workers, basically you're saying.
So what other options could there be to see what's going on?

Government workers who leak already are subject to punishment, but some people want to punish the journalists too, for bringing that information to the public.

 

There is some inherent tension between transparency and pragmatic government secrecy in a democracy.

You can't run a functional democracy when government can ban the press from publishing information about what government is doing.

A free press goes hand in hand with democratic system of government.

 

I'm glad the Australians went t see him, I think history would have reflected badly on Australia if they didn't. I hope something can be worked out to help Julian, personally I think he's suffered enough, he's been under "Embassy arrest" for years and still locked up today. He also has just reason to believe he will not receive a fair trial in the US. At least someone is trying to approach (too early to call it untangle) this mess, good on Wilkie and Christensen for their efforts.

 

No

A free press is a much different thing than a press that can publish anything freely.

You think the press should be free to publish classified information about how we obtain intel about enemies of this country? That would not only dry up that source of intel it very well may result in someone dying if the source was a person.

 

The question should be, does the US government have the right to try a citizen of another country when they disclose information that Washington does not want disclosed? Would the same whole true if an American citizen disclosed information about China that Beijing did not want disclosed? Would China then have the right to ask S. Korea to jail him and extradite him to China to be tried? Also what would our reaction be if the American was slowly killed in a S. Korean jail?

Anyway that's the official story, but the unofficial one is that he disclosed the information given him by Seth Rich and it caused Hillary to lose the election. Seth Rich lost his life over it, as many have before him who dared to go against the Clinton Crime family.

 

As I understand it, the official pretext for trying to get him extradited is the accusation that he encouraged Manning to provide him with information, and provided Manning with information about how to conceal his/her identity when accessing the information.
Allegedly someone sent Manning some messages through Wikileaks.
However, the evidence that it was actually Assange who did this is very flimsy, and once they have him in the US, it is very likely he will then be hit with "Espionage" charges.


Sorry, the whole story is a little bit too complicated to cover all the details here.
For example, Manning already had the ability to access the information, as part of his/her government job. But the alleged assistance was so she could access it with a fake log-in so that her employer would not be able to know that is was him/her who was the one who accessed it.
Manning is also transgender, which makes it excessively complicated to refer to him/her with a usual simple pronoun. Making a casual telling of this story even more cumbersome.

 

Trial starts today.

 

Balderdash, Assange is a traitor just trying to justify his actions as a journalist, there useful idiots are jumping on board. What war crimes did he expose exactly?

 

The dictionary definition is irrelevant, legal charges are based on legal definitions. Also, he isn't simply charged with "espionage", it's just that many of the changes are under the Espionage Act. Like many criminal codes, an Act is likely to include a range of offences that are related to the core offence. For example, a Terrorism Act might include offences of sharing terrorist materials or a Fraud Act might include penalties for banks not carrying out checks against fraud.

There is a core issue here with what Wikileaks actually is. Their basic function appears to be as a raw information dump – people can anonymously provide data and Wikileaks will publish it to the world. Regardless of whether you think that is a good thing or not, it isn’t journalism. Journalism involves investigating the raw data, seeking supporting information and other sources and, significantly, only publishing what is actually relevant to the story in question.

If Wikileaks had limited itself to releasing the records directly related to the alleged war crimes, I very much doubt Assange would be in the position he is now. What they did is gather as much information as they could get their hands on, regardless of whether it revealed anything untoward or not and Assange is accused of direct involvement with seeking to access that data.

There are all sorts of messy political and personal conflicts mixed up here and none of this is to say Assange should face trial in the US for what he has been indicted for, but the idea that he is just a normal innocent journalist and that this is some generic attack on free speech and democracy (somehow!) is simply wrong.

 

He made the mistake of embarrassing powerful people. I thought you knew that.

 

Publishing evidence of government crimes is never wrong. Indeed, it is one's civic duty.

 

Of course people know that and when necessary that is the job of whistleblowers. When we were actively working as Democracies, this would have been so obvious right from the beginning, that the people would have strongly been on the back of whoever was reporting. This would have had the result that those acting badly would have had to make changes so that they acted in the name of those to whom they owe their right to serve.

 

Publishing of classified information is a crime as it should be. You can’t allow “end justify the means” with a case by case mentality without totally destroying the concept of classified information.

 

Oddly, I view Assange as a whistleblower just like you do. I was merely reminding you of why he met such a powerful response.

 

Classified material finding it's way into the hands of a foreign journalist means our government didn't take the proper precautions. If anyone should be blamed, it should be those in charge of the information. Instead they're throwing the blame on a foreign recipient of the information who believes he's doing a public service.

If we looked at what this country is doing to him, with the same eyes that we did towards the Nazis during the Nuremburg trials, we are the ones who are guilty as hell. Not only for our war crimes, but for trying to torture a man to death for daring to reveal those crimes.

 

Its a rare occasion when we agree, even though you add your usual nazi rhetoric and US bashing.

Remember when you spill the information as you do for example when you mention Orthodoxy or Ruthenians and how Russians helped them, remember that this forum has people from all over the world. Like me who lives right next to the people you mention.

You are a liar, but I agree with you on this.

 

So if I leave my door unlocked by mistake that means it’s my fault if you steal my belongings? Not yours? You’ve no criminal repercussions? Insanity.

Why is it the left have this obsessions with equating the US govt with Nazis? It’s a pathetic and lazy attempt to name call. At least be original.

 

Not a trial, an extradition hearing to see if he will be forcibly sent to the US and be put under jurisdiction there.

 

The law in the US does not make it clear that publishing classified information is a crime. If it was, it would fall under the vague definition of "espionage".
According to many legal experts in the US, it should not be a crime.

Because of that, they are likely going to try to use a different pretext to get him extradited to the US.
Then, once they have him secure in their clutches, they can apply whatever other convoluted legal theory they want with additional criminal charges.

 

Clutches? I'm guessing your not trying to appear objective....

It is clearly illegal to knowing publish classified information. It is a crime as it should be.

I guess the left's aversion to borders not only applies to geographic borders, we should not have any "borders" around classified info as well.

 

That is not objectively true. I believe you are mistaken.

It is illegal for government employees to leak information when they had signed non-disclosure agreements. However, journalists/reporters publishing that information if they get ahold of it is a separate matter.

Trying to apply "Espionage" law against reporters publicly publishing information runs into serious First Amendment issues.