Hacker News Reader

There has been no evidence he hacked anything. Prosecutor cites him saying, "no luck with that" as evidence he did try instead of evidence he didn't.

The conspiracy stuff is also nonsense. Adrian Lamo logs show Manning contacted Assange with intent to leak. It is all selectively-selected and maliciously presented hogwash.

> Prosecutor cites him saying, "no luck with that" as evidence he did try instead of evidence he didn't.

Surely it's evidence of intent (to be an accomplice to hacking) though.

If you ask someone to provide you with what they think is the combination to a safe that you don't have permission to access, then saying "no luck with that" (after receiving it) could still be valid evidence that you were intending at some point to steal something.

The definition of conspiracy is just "agreeing to commit a crime in the future". It doesn't matter who initiates a conspiracy.

It looks like the record is fairly clear that Assange and Manning discussed what documents Assange would like access to and Manning agreed to provide them.

If it is criminal for Assange to obtain/receive/disclose the documents in question, then there's prima facie evidence of a conspiracy.

You can argue that the actual act was not criminal, and so the inchoate offense of conspiracy is also impossible, but it's unclear to me why you think the conspiracy charge, in particular, in nonsensical - could you elaborate?

Discussing with sources and encouraging them to leak is standard journalistic practice. It has been discussed extensively during the hearing with the help of several expert witnesses.

> If it is criminal for Assange to obtain/receive/disclose the documents in question

If it's so, you have to virtually prosecute every investigative journalist.

Not really. Prosecutorial discretion is a thing.

Does prosecuting advance the interests of justice? Is this prosecution an efficient use of the limited resources of the prosecutor's office? Given that not everyone is prosecuted, is this prosecution consistent with our own internal standards or rules? How strong is the evidence in the case? How severe was the offense? What is the historical conduct record of the defendant?

My impression of Assange and WL has always been that of the visible aspect of a dissenting clique within the security services of the fabled "international community".

The power clique in the West are setting a very clear example to disuade any future asset from accepting the reassurances of protection from a dissenting group.

Part of this demonstration naturally includes _blatant_ disregard for "values" and "laws" of the "international community". They are making a point and clearly wish to make a lasting impression.

This is the real problem. Whatever Assange did can be judged, but media blackout and turning the process into a joke on everyone really drives home just how little both authorities and the people supposed to relay information are actually caring about everyone but themselves.

I have no way to judge one way or another anything about Wikileaks, but when we get a constant unavoidable stream of utter bullshit day-in day-out regardless of the news sources we attempt to check, the complete silence about this says more than a million words.

The list on Shadowproof site is useful.

https://shadowproof.com/2020/09/21/guide-to-journalists-assa...

>these charges are all the "Espionage Act" charges for a non-US person doing obviously a journalistic work outside of the US.

Why is it that you think Wikileaks is 'obviously a journalistic work'?

I really do struggle with this idea, and I would prefer what follows to be considered in the spirit of engagement on this question, rather than a defense of the prosecution or a general opposition to Assange.

What prior examples of journalism are characterized by undifferentiated, unedited, mass dissemination of third-party documents?

I accept that many focal cases of journalism have revolved around disclosure of government secrets that have revealed malfeasance, and that many journalists have needed to work with government sources to get access to privileged information in order to write those stories.

But this is "access to secrets is sometimes needed to best write a story that's in the public interest". Wikileaks, on the other hand, seems to stake out the position that "access to secrets is in the public interest". There is no focus on story, only on disclosure, and that doesn't seem to be journalistic in nature.

If the theory is that this is a new kind of journalism, I think that theory calls for discussion on its own merits. I am initially very unconvinced that 'X is secret therefore X is newsworthy and leaking documents on X is journalism' is sustainable.

>But this is "access to secrets is sometimes needed to best write a story that's in the public interest". Wikileaks, on the other hand, seems to stake out the position that "access to secrets is in the public interest". There is no focus on story, only on disclosure, and that doesn't seem to be journalistic in nature.

The blog post, and the facts, seem to give the lie to your argument.

IIUC (and this was, presumably, the point of much of the testimony related in the blog post) Wikileaks kept the government documents encrypted and provided redacted versions to news organizations for publication and analysis.

That the journalist from The Guardian (his name escapes me at the moment) and not Assange/Wikileaks published a book which provided the decryption key for the unredacted documents, points to Assange/Wikileaks attempting to control the release of information through a number of journalists, without just dumping it all out onto the 'net.

In fact, the testimony relayed in the blog post states that explicitly.

As such, I'd argue that Assange/Wikileaks attempted to act as an archive for journalists to use in presenting the leaked documents.

If that's actually the case, it's difficult to accept the argument that Wikileaks just dumped everything out there willy-nilly.

Wikileaks is acting as source to journalists in the case you described above; not acting in a journalistic capacity itself. I would also ask you please to look at the broader pattern of behavior.

You have the Iraq War leaks, the Afghan War leaks, the Syria leaks, the DNC leaks, the Vault 7 leaks etc. These were all largely indiscriminate releases.

The whole debacle around Cablegate (David Leigh is the name of the journalist I think you're looking for) makes it hard to know what the plans for the State Dept cables was originally intended to be; as I understand it, the whole archive is now hosted by Wikileaks for public consumption.

For the cases where documents were withheld, Wikileaks generally makes it clear because these were demanded by their sources, rather decided upon by Wikileaks.

A reasonable assessment. Thank you.

I'd only add that my point was absolutely not that Wikileaks/Assange have always been responsible in their public releases of information. Rather it was that the testimony given (at least as reported by the blog post) gives at least the appearance that Assange/Wikileaks attempted to responsibly (for some values of the term) push these disclosures through journalistic outlets, who, at least at first attempted to provide context around the released, redacted documents.

Once there were multiple torrents and hosts for the un-encrypted, unredacted data, there was little point (and little publicity/exposure) in Wikileaks maintaining their encrypted archive.

As for other releases that Wikileaks has done both before and since, those aren't really relevant to the current extradition hearing.

IMHO, what you or I may think about the broader picture is relevant in a larger discussion, but not one about the current legal proceeding.

> The case is then clearly about 170 years worth of charges, not about hacking (the rest 5 years). And these charges are all the "Espionage Act" charges for a non-US person doing obviously a journalistic work outside of the US.

Why can't it also be about the 5 years?

I'm sympathetic to Assange publishing leaks. If wikileaks was just an organization that published, fine. But the government's argument is that Assange was not a "journalist" in that he was actively involved in convincing people to leak, directing hackers to steal secrets, and providing direct assistance to Manning.

Those charges sound plausible to me, though not open-and-shut. It should go to trial. 175 years is absurd, but 5-10 seems fine.

No charges brought under the US espionage act will ever see anything like a free trial. That is a part of how the espionage act works.

"Trevor Timm, executive director of the Freedom of the Press Foundation, said, 'basically any information the whistleblower or source would want to bring up at trial to show that they are not guilty of violating the Espionage Act the jury would never hear. It’s almost a certainty that because the law is so broadly written that they would be convicted no matter what.'"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917

>No charges brought under the US espionage act will ever see anything like a free trial. That is a part of how the espionage act works.

Given that no journalist has ever been convicted under the Espionage Act[0] in the US, it seems unlikely that Assange will be.

That's not a defense of the US or Assange/Wikileaks. Rather it's a statement of fact. While the US government is, and has been, leery of journalistic freedom for quite some time, the courts/juries have repeatedly smacked down attempts to prosecute journalists under the Espionage Act.

As such, it seems to me that Assange's future (whether or not in a US Federal prison) rests on the ability of US prosecutors to prove that Assange violated the CFAA[1].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917#Brandenb...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act

> But the government's argument is that Assange was not a "journalist" in that he was actively involved in convincing people to leak

Prosecution did try early on to paint Assange's work as something other than journalism. They've given up on that line now as it was very weak. Did you see this, for example, from the testimony of investigative journalist Nicky Hager.

'[Prosecutor] Lewis: You have as a journalist merely been the passive recipient of official information. Presumably you have never done anything criminal to obtain government information?

'Hager: You said “passive”. That is not the way we work. Journalists not only actively work our sources. We go out and find our sources. The information might come in documents. It might come on a memory stick. In most cases our sources are breaking the law. Our duty is to help protect them from being caught. We actively help them cover their backs sometimes.'

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/09/your-man-in-...

It seems "very weak" to you but not to me.

There's a line between being a journalist and engaging in a conspiracy. The quote you provided is an attempt to blur that line. But, as far as the law is concerned, that line exists...and it exists to protect journalists. There's a reason journalists have lawyers in the room when they make these kinds of decisions. It wouldn't be surprising if Julian Assange -- not known for his carefulness -- crossed that line.

> Why can't it also be about the 5 years?

Because the political forces, as documented in the very fine article, started what appears to be a purely political trial. The kind of which “everybody” would be outraged if it would be done somewhere without the support of the US, and for a common human more imaginable via works of art like Orwell’s and Kafka‘s than when trying to comprehend what is happening right now.

These political forces decided to make it be about 175 years.

> doing obviously a journalistic work

I don't think it's "obviously" journalistic work. Consider how little was redacted, the timing of the leaks, and the blatant bias.