Assange has been arrested

[blankslate]

2m 38 sec.
Ari Melber: "....historically when the government wants to jail journalists, they don't start with the most popular ones. They start, often with the most reviled, the easiest ones to make some sort of example out of. [this] indictment of Assange isn't about 2016, or anything recent.
It's a single charge of conspiracy to hack in 2010."

3m 02sec.
Michael Brooks: "If you read the indictment, it does not in any way demonstrate any specifics of that one particular aspect of the charge. What it does have, is multiple uh, sort of areas of the indictment which would cover any form investigative whistleblower journalism writ large."

Trump is setting the stage to go after journalists by going after the once popular Leaker who disclosed War Crimes committed under the Bush administration but since he dared to leak DNC e-mails (mind you the validity of which was never afaik contested by anyone in the DNC) he is a Russian Tool despite having leaked Russian documents since 2016.
Partisan much?


__________

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Trump is setting the stage to go after journalists by going after the once popular Leaker who disclosed War Crimes committed under the Bush administration but since he dared to leak DNC e-mails (mind you the validity of which was never afaik contested by anyone in the DNC) he is a Russian Tool despite having leaked Russian documents since 2016.
Partisan much?


__________

Reporters can’t assist in a crime to then report on the crime. This is pretty basic stuff to understand.

 

[Commodus]

The irony is that Obama avoided going after Assange because of concerns about the implications for actual journalists (i.e. not Assange) if he was charged, but Trump? No compunctions. The person Assange intended to help is the reason he's likely being extradited to the US.

Mind you, that's kind of the golden rule for Trump... it's just a matter of when he screws you over, not if.

 

[blankslate]

Reporters can’t assist in a crime to then report on the crime. This is pretty basic stuff to understand.

again...

3m 02sec.
Michael Brooks: "If you read the indictment, it does not in any way demonstrate any specifics of that one particular aspect of the charge. What it does have, is multiple uh, sort of areas of the indictment which would cover any form investigative whistleblower journalism writ large."

so it's funny that you talk about easy to understand....

6. Between in or around January 2010 and May 2010, Manning downloaded four, nearly complete databases from departments and agencies of the United States. These databases contained approximately 90,000 Afghanistan war-related significant activity reports, 400,000 Iraq war-related significant activities reports, 800 Guantanamo Bay detainee assessment briefs, and 250,000 U.S. Department of State cables. Many of these records were classified pursuant to Executive Order No. 13526 or its predecessor orders. Manning provided the records to agents of WikiLeaks so that WikiLeaks could publicly disclose them on its website. WikiLeaks publicly released the vast majority of the classified records on its website in 2010 and 201 I.

7. On or about March 8, 2010, Assange agreed to assist Manning in cracking a password stored on United States Department of Defense computers connected to the Secret Internet Protocol Network, a United States government network used for classified documents and communications, as designated according to Executive Order No. 13526 or its predecessor orders.

10. Cracking the password would have allowed Manning to log onto the computers under a usemame that did not belong to her. Such a measure would have made it more difficult for investigators to identify Manning as the source of disclosures of classified information.

11. Prior to the formation of the password-cracking agreement, Manning had already provided WikiLeaks with hundreds of thousands of classified records that she downloaded from departments and agencies of the United States, including the Afghanistan war-related significant activity reports and Iraq war-related significant activities reports.

^from the .pdf of the Assange indictment

Manning had already given Wikileaks many many documents and the indictment indicates a reason Manning wanted to have access to another set of login credentials besides her own. Helping Hide their sources identity is something that journalists do.

Again the left liked Wikileaks when they leaked about Bush not so much after 2016.


_________

 

[Fanatical Meat]

again...


so it's funny that you talk about easy to understand....


_________

Then post the indictment & the court documents

I did part of it for you, read #7

https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1153486/download

 

[blankslate]

Then post the indictment & the court documents

I did part of it for you, read #7

https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1153486/download

read number 10 and 11 from my edit.

Manning already gave Wikileaks documents before they discussed cracking the partial hash. Which gives weight to the hypothesis that it was primarily for the purposes of hiding Mannings Identity which investigative Journalists have done with their sources before

https://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

– Consider sources’ motives before promising anonymity. Reserve anonymity for sources who may face danger, retribution or other harm, and have information that cannot be obtained elsewhere. Explain why anonymity was granted.

– Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information unless traditional, open methods will not yield information vital to the public.

Again easy enough to understand and you refuse.


__________

 

[Fanatical Meat]

read number 10 and 11 from my edit.

Manning already gave Wikileaks documents before they discussed cracking the partial hash. Which gives weight to the hypothesis that it was primarily for the purposes of hiding Mannings Identity which investigative Journalists have done with their sources before

https://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp



Again easy enough to understand and you refuse.


__________

I'll wait for the trial to see facts. Hell maybe I'm wrong but as of today I don't think that will be the case.

 

[blankslate]

I'll wait for the trial to see facts. Hell maybe I'm wrong but as of today I don't think that will be the case.

There are enough examples of people who should be acquitted being convicted and vice versa.


____________

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I'm not sure what U.S. laws he broke

I'm not either but it is possible that espionage could be one basis. As that is a possibility and the penalty for that may be execution there is probably a case to be made against extradition to the US

 

[Jhhnn]

Helping Hide their sources identity is something that journalists do.

To be legal, that's done after the fact, after the information has been obtained by the source. It's obviously illegal for journalists to assist in the acquisition or to conspire to do so. Assange knew that going in. His only plausible defense is that he was humoring Manning, a form of deception.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I'm not either but it is possible that espionage could be one basis. As that is a possibility and the penalty for that may be execution there is probably a case to be made against extradition to the US

Pure speculation but my guess is Assange hooked Manning up with a Russian hacker group and there will be documentation of doing so.
Again pure guess, we will see during the trial.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Pure speculation but my guess is Assange hooked Manning up with a Russian hacker group and there will be documentation of doing so.
Again pure guess, we will see during the trial.

Might that constitute espionage?

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Might that constitute espionage?

Not sure, I'm no legal expert. Looking at it as what is reasonable, if you or I set someone up to be able to obtain lets say Trumps tax returns and you or I refer the guy to a French hacker group that turns out to be staffed by a bunch of French espionage guys who assisted in breaking into a secure server to get the tax documents. I'd speculate we'd be in trouble. Writing about it on the web won't protect either of us.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Not sure, I'm no legal expert. Looking at it as what is reasonable, if you or I set someone up to be able to obtain lets say Trumps tax returns and you or I refer the guy to a French hacker group that turns out to be staffed by a bunch of French espionage guys who assisted in breaking into a secure server to get the tax documents. I'd speculate we'd be in trouble. Writing about it on the web won't protect either of us.

No argument about that however what MIGHT the ultimate charges be? We know that "hacking" is the stated issue, but if the powers that be change their minds after Assange is in the US?

That's a legit legal issue with handing Assange over to the US as it isn't legal to extradite to a nation that might execute a prisoner (Someone can correct me on UK and EU policies if I am in error).

If that is a possibility and my understanding about extradition prohibitions, then what happens? I really don't know how to have Assange he AND guarantee that things won't be switched once we have him in our power.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

No argument about that however what MIGHT the ultimate charges be? We know that "hacking" is the stated issue, but if the powers that be change their minds after Assange is in the US?

That's a legit legal issue with handing Assange over to the US as it isn't legal to extradite to a nation that might execute a prisoner (Someone can correct me on UK and EU policies if I am in error).

If that is a possibility and my understanding about extradition prohibitions, then what happens? I really don't know how to have Assange he AND guarantee that things won't be switched once we have him in our power.

I *think* the execution punishment can be waived. Essentially the US asks that Assange is extradited and in that request waives the right to execute him.
Again I'm not an expert but I sort of remember that from some other thing.

 

[Jhhnn]

read number 10 and 11 from my edit.

Manning already gave Wikileaks documents before they discussed cracking the partial hash. Which gives weight to the hypothesis that it was primarily for the purposes of hiding Mannings Identity which investigative Journalists have done with their sources before

https://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp



Again easy enough to understand and you refuse.


__________

That's bullshit. Manning was already vulnerable to discovery from the computer logs of her accessing the leaked material. The purpose of cracking passwords was to facilitate anonymous future theft, possibly with a higher level of access to computer files. That's a crime of conspiracy no matter who's doing it to whom or why they're doing it.

 

[allisolm]

It's a start.

"Julian Assange has been sentenced to just under a year in a UK prison on Wednesday after he was found guilty of violating his bail conditions when he entered Ecuador's London embassy to avoid extradition to Sweden in 2012."

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/01/uk/julian-assange-court-gbr-intl/index.html

 

[dud]

It's a start.

"Julian Assange has been sentenced to just under a year in a UK prison on Wednesday after he was found guilty of violating his bail conditions when he entered Ecuador's London embassy to avoid extradition to Sweden in 2012."

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/01/uk/julian-assange-court-gbr-intl/index.html

And then comes the extradition:

"The sentence does not end British legal proceedings. On Thursday, there will be hearing in another London court as part of a U.S. extradition case.
“Tomorrow...is the start of the big and most important fight,” Kristinn Hrafnsson from WikiLeaks said outside court. “What is at stake there? It could be a question of life and death for Mr Assange.”"

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...-british-jail-for-skipping-bail-idUSKCN1S73H9

 

[Jhhnn]

And then comes the extradition:

"The sentence does not end British legal proceedings. On Thursday, there will be hearing in another London court as part of a U.S. extradition case.
“Tomorrow...is the start of the big and most important fight,” Kristinn Hrafnsson from WikiLeaks said outside court. “What is at stake there? It could be a question of life and death for Mr Assange.”"

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...-british-jail-for-skipping-bail-idUSKCN1S73H9

"Life & death" is total hyperbole as is the reference to Gitmo.

 

[blankslate]

Send him to Sweden first to face the sexual assault charges imo.


____________

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Send him to Sweden first to face the sexual assault charges imo.


____________

Sweden’s dropped those charges to my knowledge. That’s the irony of the whole situation. Assange is now in trouble for avoiding a court summons that likely wouldn’t have gone anywhere.

 

[Jhhnn]

Sweden’s dropped those charges to my knowledge. That’s the irony of the whole situation. Assange is now in trouble for avoiding a court summons that likely wouldn’t have gone anywhere.

He feared US extradition all along & figured it would be easier to fight in the UK. The charge in Sweden wasn't the real issue.

 

[blankslate]

Sweden’s dropped those charges to my knowledge. That’s the irony of the whole situation. Assange is now in trouble for avoiding a court summons that likely wouldn’t have gone anywhere.

Maybe I am mistaken but I heard that if he ever was arrested Sweden might reinstate the charges unless it was a very long time since the initial charges.

*edited 2 add*
the statute of limitations on the most serious charge Sweden has against doesn't expire until sometime in 2020. Three lesser charges related to the allegations of sexual assault have expired.


____________

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Maybe I am mistaken but I heard that if he ever was arrested Sweden might reinstate the charges unless it was a very long time since the initial charges.


____________

I easily could be wrong, just working off memory on this.
Also I know the point to avoid Sweeded was to avoid being extradited.

 

[Jhhnn]

Maybe I am mistaken but I heard that if he ever was arrested Sweden might reinstate the charges unless it was a very long time since the initial charges.


____________

I suppose they could. It seems unlikely they'd bother to complicate the situation anytime RSN. Assange will do his UK time, get extradited to the US, then stay locked up until trial some while later, then likely serve time in the US. They'll just let that play out before they do anything.