New US charges against Julian Assange could spell decades behind bars

Publishing confidential information obtained from a source is not criminal.

 

I'm just saying you seem to be making the automatic assumption that jury trials are fair.

So you can't just say he needs to be brought to America and we'll let any questions be sorted out there.
If you want to extradite him, I think there needs to be a debate and adequate legal safeguards in place before that happens.

If the Chinese wanted you for some alleged Chinese crime you committed in America, would you be okay with America just handing you over to the Chinese, no questions asked, and letting the Chinese determine what should happen to you?

 

Anyone who bailed out Trump is evil -
Soros bailed Trump out -
Soros is Evil !!

 

See post 72. If information has breached security - and the Gov't does not know about the breach - this constitutes a great harm to the lives of the undercover operatives.

Once the Gov't knows about the breach - actions can be taken to remove those operatives from harm.

Assange did the Gov't a favor.

 

Some of the charges against Assange appear to presuppose that it is, and would set a precedent, if the prosecutor was able to convince the jury to convict on those charges.

These laws use words that have broad meanings, so it's not always the most clear whether the laws actually make things in certain situations illegal or not.

Depending on the interpretation, some of these laws could make free speech illegal.

 

In this case - releasing the information served to prevent murder.

A better analogy would then be giving the person that released information that prevented murder the same penalty as the person who stole that information - information which could have led to murder.

If the Gov't does not know that security has been breached - and that info is sold to a foreign intelligence agency who then proceeds to dispatch the folks on that list - this is grave harm.

As soon as the information is released publicly - the Gov't can then get the operatives out of harms way.

 

Also to point out, some of these charges still don't tell us exactly what Assange is being accused of.
He could be accused of a charge for different reasons, so there are different potential reasons.

For example, it might turn out that he is not being accused of sending that email to Manning, but the prosecutor will still try to hold him responsible for it, since it was connected to the Wikileaks site. That is very possible.
Or the prosecutor might try arguing there is a "good chance" Assange may have been the one that sent that email, but even in the absence of evidence for that the jury should still convict because Assange is still legally responsible for that email being sent. Both of these possibilities may fall under the same law.
In other words, even if the jury votes guilty for a charge, it still does not necessarily tell us exactly what that jury believes he did.

 

Exactly - Freedom of information, Freedom of the press is at stake. It puts freedom of speech/press into such a grey zone that reporters are then coerced into not publishing on the basis of fear that they could be put in jail. This is the biggest danger.

The law must be clear. Either you have the right to publish classified material or you don't.

There is already precedent on the books - news outlets have been publishing leaks of classified information for decades - and this has been ruled legal. To now rule this illegal then contradicts the initial ruling - leaving this issue in a state of "who knows land".

 

The government might be wanting to set the precedent that publication of classified material is acceptable in some situations but not in others, and leave it ill-defined.

For it to be usually okay, but not in extreme cases.

That would still leave a lot of ambiguity about the law, but might also be the most pragmatic, since sometimes it's hard to define exactly what should be allowed in the wording of a law.
There are a lot of particular situations that are hard to foresee or anticipate.

Obviously many people believe Wikileaks took things too far, but not everyone agrees.

 

I get what the Gov't wants to do - it wants to clamp down on free speech which is exactly what such ambiguity would do. Who gets to define "extreme" ? The effect of such law would result in reporters defaulting to not publishing.

Giving the nonsense narratives coming out of these clown pundits - it is no surprise that people believe that something went to far.

The claim that "lives were put at risk" is a nonsense narrative - as illustrated in my previous posts. Manning put those lives at risk - not Assange.

 

I understand your point. But besides from that trivial point, whatever lives Manning put at risk, Assange did so to.

The difference is that what Manning did was illegal, because he was a government employee and under obligation to hold the information in secrecy. (i.e. If the government gives you access to secret information, you don't have free speech rights to that information)

 

Telling someone how to do something on a computer isn't a crime? That Manning committed a crime by using the information he was given, should have no bearing on Assange.

Also Manning is an American, so he is a traitor. If he didn't like what our government was doing, he should have quit his position - but to be honest, I just think he wanted the money.

As for the lives Manning and Assange put at risk, that's just an excuse to cover up the real reason, which is that Assange published information detrimental to the Clinton campaign. If the US was so concerned about lives, our foreign policy would be a lot different.

 

Would you say the same if it was theft of Russian data by an American in Germany or Italy? Do you think that Germany or Italy should extradite the American to Russia to be tried?

Sounds crazy doesn't it, but it shouldn't, it's the same thing.

 

There is a saying; 'if you are guilty and want to go free, then choose a jury. If you are innocent and do not want to go to jail, then opt for a judge'. If Assange does come here, then a judge would be better.

 

Let a jury decide!
Remember the Peter Zenger trial. If not look it up
Judge ordered the jury to find one way and they did it there way.
Contrary to popular belief, in the final analysis a judge does not
command a jury.
Yet attorneys are not allowed to remind juries of this fact. Some racket.


Assange innocent by jury defending the Constitution, not judges instructions.
Manning innocent by jury defending the Constitution, not judges instructions.
Imagine the implications yet legality!

Releasing secrets or just embarrassed?
What really qualifies as "classified"? The unauthorized office lunch at gov't expense?

 

In the fact that neither Assange nor any of my examples do.

 

I would not have a problem with that.

 

Because you're not an American - except maybe by citizenship.

 

I disagree with the claim that Assange put lives at risk. Further - that the risk was comparable to Mannings actions is demonstrably false IMO

First off - at what point did the Gov't realize Manning had taken the info ? Was it before or after Assange released that information. If it is after - then the claim that Assange put lives at risk is bogus. As soon as the Gov't realized the identity of an individual was compromised they should retrieve this individual.

If I tell you - "that bridge is unsafe" - and you let your sister walk over that bridge - who is responsible for putting your sister at risk ?

The Gov't also does not know who else Manning gave the info to so as soon as the leak is discovered - it is up to the Gov't to protect its operatives. It is not up to the press to keep that information a secret. Once the info is out there - its out there.

You are attributing after the fact release - to Assange = the info was already "Out there" prior to Assange publishing that information.

No one was actually harmed - why ? because the Gov't took the operatives out of harms way. Release of information after this was done - can not be said to then be putting these folks in harms way - as is being suggested.

If the Gov't did not know of the leak -and the info on some secret operative in Iran was given to Iran - this would put the operative in harms way.

 

The main problem for Assange is that the information he published was illegally obtained. If he was an investigating journalist who did the research himself and came to/published some conclusion based on his own finding he would have been ok. But journalist aren't above the law. They can't steal documents and publish them. This has been upheld by courts in most modern countries.

 

I must have misunderstood your post. If you agree that Assange has not endangered national security then we are on the same page.

 

Yes, we are. I was being sarcastic and you didn't realize it. None of the examples I gave have anything to do with 'national security' nor did Assange do anything that threatens that security.

 

Assange is not the one who actually stole them.

The concern is that a precedent is being set here to criminalize journalists publishing information that is classified.
In some cases there might be good reason for the journalist to bring it to the attention of the public, if there was government abuse, or things that would be shocking to the public and members of Congress and would be likely to result in political change once that information comes to light.

In the case of Assange, the argument can be made both for and against that the public had a right to know about those things, and it's not a simple black & white case because many things were leaked and it's not so simple whether everything that was leaked was justified.

 

Dealing in stolen goods is also a crime. You don't get to be exempt from the law because you're a journalist.

Real investigating journalist don't use stolen material, they discover the truth by doing an actual investigation, interviewing peoples, you know actual journalistic work...
As I said, journalist who use stolen goods do get punish for it.

 

Yes but I think the federal government doesn't care about that.