Unless you would consider setting up a secure drop box under your imaginary (6).
Get informed about the case.
Sure except for attempting to brute force the LM hashes and offer to get Manning a burner phone Assange provided no material aid to Manning at all. [0]
You don't get to vacillate between James Bond and Bob Woodward as it suits you. Assange has no reasonable claims of protection that an actual journalist might.
[0] https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/886185-pe-123.html
The case on Manning is not the only time [0] that Assange played spymaster while hiding behind claims of being a journalist.
[0] https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/6/25/julian-assange-cons...
Not GP, but I'm not sure I understand what you mean about "picking a side."
Facts:
Assange published stolen documents;
Chelsea Manning illegally (whether that was moral/right depends on your belief system. Personally, I'm glad she did) appropriated classified government documents. That's a crime;
The US government alleges (note the term 'alleges') that Assange conspired with Manning and assisted her in illegally obtaining the aforementioned documents;
The US Department of Justice (DoJ) sought and received an indictment for the stuff they allege (there's that word again) Assange did.
// End list of facts.
From a personal perspective, I'm glad that much (not all) of this stuff was revealed.
What's more, publishing information that's newsworthy and/or in the public interest is pretty much what journalism is all about.
That said, the circus surrounding all this is mostly of Assange's making.
Even more, unless I'm called to sit on the jury at Assange's trial, I don't really have much else to say about it.
If (and that's a big 'if') the DoJ can prove beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury that Assange violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, then it's likely he'll be sentenced to a maximum of five years in prison.
The other charges (based on the Espionage Act of 1917) against him aren't credible and no journalist has ever been convicted of such charges in the US. As such, it's unlikely in the extreme that Assange will be.
So. Which "side" am I on, in your estimation?
I'd say I'm on the only side that matters -- the side of facts, evidence and the rule of law.
What say you?
The DoJ obviously believes these charges will stick, otherwise it'd be in the administration's best interest to not actually see trial and keep the threat viable.
Prosecutorial overcharging[0] is pretty much de rigueur and happens all the time.
[Citation needed]
Prosecutors are very aware of when they're on the grey side of the law, and when it's clear they're up against a defense that has a chance of clear precedent against them, prosecutors start acting much more conservatively.
> Assange published stolen documents;
Ever heard of the Washington Post, the New York Times, and the Pentagon papers?
There's a few "facts" you might want to get yourself acquainted with.
Yes. And the Washington Post and the New York Times also published stolen documents (in that case, as you stated, the Pentagon Papers).
Assange published stolen documents. So did WaPo and NYT. So what?
I don't see a difference there. Publishing stuff that's newsworthy or in the public interest is journalism.
Clearly I'm missing your point. Do you think that by stating that particular fact, I was taking a swipe at Assange? Or do you not believe that those documents were stolen? Or are you trying to make some other, still opaque to me, point?
Do tell.
>What say you?
I would say that same side had some points a few years ago how all that mattered were the Swedish accusations and it was absurd to think they were just sham accusations to get Assange extradited. I would say that that side's naiveness and wishful thinking is actually harmful to justice as a higher concept.
And what do the facts, evidence and rule of law say about those accusations?
The immoral actions of an unchecked imperialist power are not of Assange's making.
He released them to a group of newspaper publishers to redact and publish, didn't he?
It would be interesting to see him identify his "LM guy" while under oath. Is the act of passing the hash over to a LM cracking expert a criminal act unbecoming of a journalist?
That's a time-stamped conversation. I wonder if the US captured any other comms to/from Assange around that time so they could already guess who the "LM guy" is. Very concerning.