Assange Indicted Under Espionage Act, Raising First Amendment Issues

Obviously the poor have no money to buy ads with, but we're not talking about the poor here. Nobody seriously running for office is poor. This is a battle between people who are rich enough to buy ads on a TV network and people who are rich enough to buy the TV network, and Citizens United is a win for the "little guy" in that situation.

The big problem we have in elections isn't that someone can be heard too well, it's that some people can't be heard well enough. But the answer to that is public financing of elections, which doesn't require restricting private speech in any way.

There are lots of people in the US that believe strongly in the rule of law.

Edit: turns out we do, but it has to be actually illegal behavior as opposed to just unethical.

Technically correct. Ellsberg faced the threat of prosecution for many years after the leak.

How do we protect forces providing oversight and sunlight to parts of the government that we the people really should know about to be informed voters? How do we reasonably protect 'watchers', and how can we have reasonable oversight of the 'watchers'?

Part of the issue is that there is not a clear standard that must be adhered to; where does selection bias count as an editorial action and where does it count as being an agent of a foreign power? If someone is a completely dumb conduit that does not evaluate the data but republishes it without inner knowledge do they have more or less protections than someone that evaluates and 'publishes' the content (I.E. in technical terms 'the press', even if not part of something traditionally obvious as a news organization.)?

Assuming Ellsberg is the gold standard, his behavior would be sufficient, but not necessary, to be in the clear. Put another way, just because you don't live up to his standard, it doesn't necessarily mean you've done something wrong.

I agree that Assange is no saint. Assuming the allegations of rape are credible, he should stand trial and be punished if convicted. His motivations across a wide variety of leaks are certainly open for questioning.

But did he break any laws with regard to this specific leak? If he did actually assist Manning in cracking passwords (or whatever is alleged), then he should be held accountable for that. If not, he should go free (for that particular charge). It's that simple.

Of course, I don't trust the US gov't to give him a fair trial. I wouldn't be surprised if they'd manufacture evidence in a case like this; my belief is that they'll take any measures necessary when it comes to deterring people from leaking classified information, especially classified information they find embarrassing or damaging.

I suspect more centralization could help with accountability ironically but there are other issue there including harmonizing different needs and values by region and deciding "who is right".

The three things to optimize and balance are "sensitive to local demands" (treating water by conservation needs in the desert or by great lakes or demands of road salt by road area regardless of climate would be a terrible idea), "ability to scale and administrate effectively" and "respectful of rights" - and all three may clash or agree.

The state of California has a higher population than Canada...there's very little reason that California shouldn't be able to almost entirely self-govern. At the same time, there's very little reason to assume a policy that makes sense in California and will likely be popular with the people there...will make sense in other parts of the country.

Yet we constantly see people unwilling to simply settle for state level policy wins and instead feel the need to force policy nationally. We don't need that any more than we need politicians from South Carolina trying to force national policy that will affect California.

We'd all be a heck of a lot happier if we could stop at the level of just talking about how backwards we all think each other to be rather than constantly fighting to keep the backwardness away.

That isn't true. The trivial system is the one where everyone has a broadcast transmitter and transmits constantly even when there isn't a real message.

The implementation of that over the internet is full mesh, which is impractical, but it's a spectrum trading off anonymity for bandwidth and there are potentially interesting points along that spectrum between Tor and full mesh, where they use more bandwidth but then a global passive adversary can't learn anything. Something like virtual circuit switching could potentially work for example.

It is remarkable how often zealots are eager to sacrifice the lives and well-being of others to achieve their 'liberty'.

Liberty isn't enhanced by enhancing the ability those who wish to harm us to do so. We have laws and law enforcement for a reason. Untraceable communication is a tremendous force multiplier for crime, terrorism, and foreign political de-stabilization operations. That you want to increase the effectiveness of those things is very scary.

Are you going to hold them accountable, or is this just a convenient stick to smack Assange with?

It's also interesting that, at least so far, no stories have surfaced about the grave consequences for these listed sources. Considering this would have been huge news, one might want to conclude that no smoke means no fire here.

Let's be real here, he never would have made it to Sweden. One way or another, Assange's fear that leaving the embassy would end in him in an American courtroom was neither irrational nor dishonest.

I have no idea why the poster above you is choosing to attack him specifically, though.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11043329

Stuff could happen in Ecuador too. Sweeden still seems like a far better bet, legally, and visibility wise.

Granted, that's a very human thing to do. He's not alone... politicians all the time.

Back in the day when there was a wikileaks facebook page, if you followed up asking about "hey you said you'd release X" after they talked something up and did nothing ... they'd just delete your comment.

The UK doesn't from their soil. There's good reason to think they don't have a issue with extraordinary rendition in the global sense; I think they just don't like the idea of a former colony subverting their legal system. But all of that means that it's more likely for Assange to stay in the legal system in the UK rather than being black bagged.

This statement is not accurate. There were not, and are not, any charges in Sweden against Assange. There is only an investigation.

Even if guilty and they can prove it, a Swedish jail is probably nicer than a US one and I doubt he would go down for longer for the alleged crimes in Sweden than for those in the US. What was it - sex without a condom? Versus the espionage in the US?

Whether or not they were provably right at the time is not the issue. They were right. They could read between the lines, and they were right.

The claim, all along, was that as soon as he is out of the embassy that the US will bring out their espionage charges.

And he just got out of the embassy,and guess what happened? He recieved espionage charges. Exactly as predicted.

Previous speculation about USG extraditing Assange was solidly grounded in looking at underlying motivations and capabilities. Claiming that there would be no extradition was essentially implying that Assange couldn't be charged under US law, presumably due to some combination of the first amendment and jurisdictional issues. To anybody that pays attention to how USG actually operates, this was at best naive. Now the reality has finally been demonstrated.

This tendency to malign a non-official narrative as "crazy" for lack of a smoking gun demonstrates exactly why leakers are so vital. The conversation of 2012 would have looked much different if "he's hiding in the embassy simply to escape a rape charge" had been a completely nonsensical position. But as it was, it provided a basis for FUD while the "Assange bad" drums pushed people into thinking that it's right for something bad to happen to him.

There is evidence (here-say) that he fired a rifle during a military confrontation and dug a trench, and according to the guards he said some nasty things to them during his extra-judicial detention, but I don’t see any charges enumerating the laws he broke:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4422825.stm

At the end of the day, the conspiracy theorists were right.

Regardless of all the lies that the US government made, they were always going to make an extradiction request the moment Assange stepped out of the embassy.

There's video.

(A) Ecuador received a $4.2B loan from the US-dominated IMF, which was approved around the same time Assange was dragged out of the embassy, and

(B) President Moreno was caught up in the INA Papers scandal where many personal photos, messages, and documents were published, and Moreno accused Assange of involvement shortly before evicting Assange.

Change of Government, new person is power was always anti-assange. Government changed, Assange out.

  Assange violated the terms of his asylum.

The reality is that Latin American governments often make deceptive and untrue claims to support activities that benefit them.

In this case, Ecuador made several unsubstantiated claims ostensibly designed to humiliate Assange, which fall short of any reasonable attempt to prove that Assange violated the terms of his asylum.

One side was arguing he was hiding from a rape charge, the other side argued he was hiding from a possible extradition order. Both of those have to do with Assange's likely motivation and are to some degree independent of the facts on the ground - as you point out, the facts of one argument are so far unprovable.

The hiding-from-rape argument has been pretty much debunked by the 7 year timeframe. I don't know what Assange was up for in Sweden, but it beggars belief that he would get more than 7 years jail for a non-violent crime. A fine and community service, maybe. Most aspects of the case must be almost evidence-free and would be a struggle to prove if he says 'didn't happen that way'.

Whatever the truth, he was clearly hiding from a greater threat than the charges the Swedes were bringing against him.

Either way, extradition is a very different thing.

Depends. But sometimes yes. "Criminal activity" is often times country specific.

In China it's against the law to publicly criticise the government. Should the US extradite people to China to face the penalties for violating that law?

USA

China

Russia

and their respective allies / blocs ?

That's not true but I don't have time to run through an exhaustive legal explanation of why. In a nutshell: the source is responsible for maintaining security of information, because third parties like journalists don't know the bounds of what is covered by confidentiality.

Moreover, asking for information is not the same thing as soliciting information. Asking is fine, soliciting is not (in this context, soliciting means offering them something of value in exchange for the information).

So yes, you are correct and this trust the government gets to declare something a secret has been abused and the ONLY way to get to the truth was what Assange and Manning did. That this is the ONLY way is pretty important for the legal defense.

And even if he had been a journalist for purposes of these laws, he crossed the line when he helped Manning trying to crack the password. It doesn't matter that he failed--the problem is the attempt.

To use your bank analogy, the scenario would be that a guy without a bank account at the bank wanted money from the vault and helped the bank employee figure out the combo. Both the employee and the guy are guilty. On the other hand, if the employee had just given the guy some money from the vault, the guy isn't guilty of anything.

This indictment does not criminalize journalism and does not run directly contrary to the 1st Amendent. Period. Full stop.

There is a SCOTUS case on why journalists can publish classified information without fear of reprisal. That same case is why Assange is SOL.

Gleen Greenwald was the former, Snowden was more the latter.

Seems like classical, straight-up espionage. The only confounding factor is that Assange wasn't (as far as we know) working on behalf of a foreign power. But these days, that's what spies are - not James Bond, but merely a guy who coerces and helps his assets to gain access to and then exfiltrate secret information. Espionage.

https://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?stor...

The Espionage Act is framed within the confines of the Constitution, including the First Amendment. Being a journalist (i.e. taking an active role in curating and analyzing the materials) has historically mattered to the courts (e.g. around Deep Throat).

> The leak exposed massive corruption by Daniel Arap Moi, and the Kenyan people sat up and took notice. In the ensuing elections, in which corruption became a major issue, violence swept the country. "1,300 people were eventually killed, and 350,000 were displaced. That was a result of our leak," says Assange.

The leak informed major corruption by the government. That's what the leak has done and I don't think any person in their right mind argues it's a wrong thing to do.

Even the U.S. has whistle blower protection laws to allow such leaks. I'd argue that this would be a very good example of WikiLeaks doing good.

I come from a corrupt, third world country (Iran), who has recently had it's share of corruption and violent election issues.

Anyone exposing those crimes of the government would be a champion. What happens after the leaks, the uprising and violence, is not the responsibility of whistle blower but people who commit those specific crimes.

Also, think analytically about what “probably in the hands of the NSA” contributes other than fearmongering: the data in question belonged to the U.S. State Department — if the NSA wanted it, they can just ask! (Or brute-force it, in all likelihood) It’s everyone else who would be interested in the archive.

No.

Is there a difference? Might be my non-USA-citizen point of view, so please correct me if I'm wrong from a USA perspective and this is not retaliation for embarrassment, but the USA government is still the USA government. If the CIA tortured people in Iraq under Obama* , I don't expect it would cease to be done under Trump. (Also not if he says so, since of course you would say that. It's inhumane, and yet it happens.)

* There have been so many scandals, forgive me if the torture one wasn't actually in Iraq or wasn't under Obama or something. It's just meant as an example of the inhumane stuff that is revealed about the USA thanks to people like Chelsea Manning, Julian Assange, etc.

Even if it is expressly told, in private, by the Home Secretary, that it doesn't have to, even while the UK government claims a different policy in public, as has apparently already happened in this other case? Also, the Home Office could make an exception at the very last minute if it wants to. There would be questions asked, but it would be largely moot if he is already out of the country.

What then? He’s dead, and US-UK relations are basically unaffected. Where is the recourse? Who would seek it? No one would be punished, just as for the other violent crimes being discussed in this thread.

Or, what’s worse: they don’t kill him quickly, but instead torture him to death like they tried (and almost succeeded in doing) to Manning. They could even do it in the context of a multi-year protracted non-capital trial, making it seem like they were intending to comply with their promise.

Their goal is suffering and intimidation, make no mistake. Death or not, they are within sight of their endgame. Once he is in their custody, his life will become very, very painful, regardless of what the law says or whether or not he is given a trial or whether or not he is convicted or whether or not is is fair or just. He will suffer, and probably die.

Remember, he is the adversary of the organization who hacked their own Senate to avoid oversight. (No legal repercussions for that, either. The CIA is allowed to hack the legislature.) They give zero fucks about the law, because they know it doesn’t apply to them.

(To add insult to injury: that oversight they were avoiding? It was because they torture people.)

Even Mengele didn’t have that kind of carte blanche.

Literally no law in any country practically applies to the US military intelligence machine at this point.

"Yet, 10 months after the probe started and a month after Robert Mueller was named special counsel in the Russia probe, Comey cast doubt on the the Steele dossier, calling it “unverified” and “salacious” in sworn testimony before Congress.

Former FBI lawyer Lisa Page further corroborated Comey’s concerns in recent testimony before House lawmakers, revealing that the FBI had not corroborated the collusion charges by May 2017, despite nine months of exhaustive counterintelligence investigation." [1]

1. https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/419901-fbi-email-chain-may...

"Newly unearthed memos show a high-ranking government official who met with Steele in October 2016 determined some of the Donald Trump dirt that Steele was simultaneously digging up for the FBI and for Hillary Clinton’s campaign was inaccurate, and likely leaked to the media.

The concerns were flagged in a typed memo and in handwritten notes taken by Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Kathleen Kavalec on Oct. 11, 2016.

Her observations were recorded exactly 10 days before the FBI used Steele and his infamous dossier to justify securing a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant to spy on Trump campaign adviser Carter Page and the campaign’s contacts with Russia in search of a now debunked collusion theory." [1]

I have a theory about the Steele Dossier. I posit that Comey and company didn't bother with trying to verify it because they knew ahead of time it would bear out to be unproven. Why would they know that? Perhaps they helped Steele write it.

1. https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/442944-fbis-steele-s...

It's hard to see what evidence would be sufficient to persuade you that your view is mistaken. For those who don't share your initial assumption, however, your argument is completely unpersuasive.