BREAKING: #Assange removed from embassy - video pic.twitter.com/qsHy7ZVPg5
— Ruptly (@Ruptly) April 11, 2019
According to the NYT article about the arrest, Ecuador's President Lenín Moreno said Assange would no longer be sheltered because of "his repeated violations to international conventions and daily-life protocols." Ecuador had protected Assange since 2012.
पोस्ट्स
११३ टिप्पण्या:
Why are they arresting David Letterman?
Be nice if Trump pardoned him...
Daily-life protocols: "Mr. Moreno, in a video statement, said that Mr. Assange had exhausted the patience of his hosts, outlining of litany of grievances: the installation of electronic interference equipment, the blocking of security cameras, and attacks on guards."
It will be interesting to see if Assange will be protected as a journalist or treated as a spy. I actually don't know what to think, although I'm sure personally he's a despicable weasel.
Now we’ll get those emails.
Trump can't pardon him. He didn't do anything wrong, not being a US citizen.
That's not to say there won't be show trials by some prosecutors trying to advance political careers.
Then there's the "That's rape in Sweden" charge he faces in Sweden.
@MikeR
...and repeated attempts to contravene his host's stipulations that he cease and desist all further 'file-sharing' activity.
I don't think what the man did originally was illegal in the slightest considering his role as a conduit, but honestly he really kept pushing boundaries that made it impossible for his hosts to keep brushing away their liability in his activities, hence the counter-spying op on him.
He'd be a purer martyr if he'd given his hosts more cover.
You've got to wonder what his 'Doomsday' scenario is. He's known this day was hanging out there as a very real possibility for years. He has to have something he's holding back- as leverage, or as just purely a weapon- to use after his arrest, depending on the direction this goes.
Sleeper files.
People love to observe and comment how quickly Presidents age in office. But the stress of the White House is apparently nothing to the rigors of the Ecuadorean Embassy.
The Empire Strikes Back!
Doesn't Trump need a new White House Communications Director? First Julian will need a week or two at Mar a Lago where he can get a shave, haircut and a facial and some new clothes, Then Kellyann can take him with her on a few combative CNN interviews to discuss Seth Rich and the stolen thumb drive.
All it took was to air the dirty laundry of one penny ante politician
I've had houseguests who overstayed their welcome, but seven years -- never.
Temujin beat me to it. The 1st thing I thought of, Asange has files that will dump unless he stops it. I bet a series of files. Small fish, than some bigger fish. Maybe 8 levels, leaving no doubt that powerful persons reputation lay at the end of Asange's rainbow of information. We might see a plea deal after several reveals that will astound and confuse those that do not follow such things.
Time will tell.
He was arrested by British police.
"It will be interesting to see if Assange will be protected as a journalist or treated as a spy. I actually don't know what to think, although I'm sure personally he's a despicable weasel."
How can you be "sure personally he's a despicable weasel?"
In my opinion, Assange is one of the great heroes of our age, as contrasted with the despicable shits of which most of our government and media is comprised.
Most interesting is what exactly he will be charged with and under what rationale will he remain in custody. Officially, he was arrested today for "failing to surrender to the court" for a 2012 appearance. Presumably the USA has an extradition request out there for him, but we really don't know for what, do we?
"Trump can't pardon him. He didn't do anything wrong, not being a US citizen."
Even if he were a US citizen, he didn't do anything wrong. Publishers may publish information provided to them by others.
"Then there's the 'That's rape in Sweden' charge he faces in Sweden."
No charges were ever filed against Assange. The investigation was dropped.
He's not an American, folks. But that won't keep the corrupt democratic HIllary-Brennan deep state from collecting a scalp.
"Most interesting is what exactly he will be charged with and under what rationale will he remain in custody. Officially, he was arrested today for "failing to surrender to the court" for a 2012 appearance. Presumably the USA has an extradition request out there for him, but we really don't know for what, do we?"
Yes, we do know that. In fact, it was mentioned in the news reports this morning. (The extradition request was secretly filed a year or so back, but it was revealed by accident by our government in some other public statements it made on another matter.)
"Images of Ecuador's ambassador inviting the UK's secret police into the embassy to drag a publisher of--like it or not--award-winning journalism out of the building are going to end up in the history books. Assange's critics may cheer, but this is a dark moment for press freedom."
-Edward Snowden
Maybe it is me being paranoid, but it seems like folks in the media are VERY CAREFUL not to bring up Assange's name or case.
my prime example is Scott Adams. perhaps i am mistaken, but as I can recall, the couple of times that the subject came up on his periscope, he gently, skillfully (deliberately) moved right on by the subject.
That is to say, there is more weighing down this story that folks in-the-know avoid touching it, kind of like anyone talking plainly about Saudi Arabia.
Is that your impression?
May both Assange and the US be safer and healthier through all of this pain.
his repeated violations to international conventions and daily-life protocols.
Daily life protocols? This made me laugh.
What? Is he not bathing or brushing his teeth. Stinking up the joint. Trashing his room like a basement dwelling nerd with bags of Cheetos and empty Mountain Dew cans. Strews his dirty laundry everywhere. Leaves the toilet seat up. Doesn't flush properly.
Ecuador's President Lenín Moreno said Assange would no longer be sheltered because of "his repeated violations to international conventions and daily-life protocols."
Never underestimate the value of a daily shower and shave.
Edward Snowden tweeted from Russia about how horrible it is to see Assange arrested by the ‘secret police’ in the UK and that today is a dark day for freedom of the press. From Russia he said this.
Sadly the Brits give this some credence by arresting people for saying things.
MayBee said...
It will be interesting to see if Assange will be protected as a journalist or treated as a spy. I actually don't know what to think, although I'm sure personally he's a despicable weasel.
Agreed. The hiding out actually started when he was dodging a sexual assault charge. But whatever he did, 7 years of house arrest seems like enough punishment. As far as Wikileaks, if there is a crime in there, I think he should be pardoned. And I'm hoping he gives up the DNC source. Another nail in the RUSSIA!!! coffin.
...but we really don't know for what, do we?
An emolument offered to Bradley Manning to encourage more leaks? That's suborning espionage, is it not?
Daily life protocols = not obeying the corrupt leftwing world order agenda.
"An emolument offered to Bradley Manning to encourage more leaks? That's suborning espionage, is it not?
Do you know that he did that?"
Well, maybe I'm not... "the norm"!
This entire thing is being done by Britain on behalf of the U.S. This is why Assange fled to the embassy to begin with. He was sure if he were arrested by Britain in 2012 he would be swiftly extradited to the U.S., where he feared he would be disappeared and subjected to a secret trial. Britain is simply acting as our office clerk in this matter.
2012 was when our fearless leader Obama was in office, btw.
He can answer all the questions about Seth Rich.
Protect him from Hillary.
"Most interesting is what exactly he will be charged with and under what rationale will he remain in custody. Officially, he was arrested today for "failing to surrender to the court" for a 2012 appearance. Presumably the USA has an extradition request out there for him, but we really don't know for what, do we?"
Yes, we do know that. In fact, it was mentioned in the news reports this morning. (The extradition request was secretly filed a year or so back, but it was revealed by accident by our government in some other public statements it made on another matter.)
What I mean is that it's time for the 'secret' extradition request to see the light of day in British courts. We should know what the USA is extraditing him for. Or does that remain secret too?
Assange is being held for his own protection.
"What I mean is that it's time for the 'secret' extradition request to see the light of day in British courts. We should know what the USA is extraditing him for. Or does that remain secret too?"
I guess we'll find out...if we're going to find out or not!
Then there's the "That's rape in Sweden" charge he faces in Sweden.
Fake News.
The rape allegation never amounted to anything more than an investigation, which was dropped over a year ago.
Why now? What changed? Pressure from who on Ecuador or on the Brits? Seems connected to FBI spying corruption?
Well they are arresting preaching for speaking the Word so hes in good company.
The Chinese hold the whip hand over cerna.
It was about Iraq war documents which would later contain evidence of wmd use.
"Why now? What changed? Pressure from who on Ecuador or on the Brits? Seems connected to FBI spying corruption?"
A new president took office in Ecuador in 2017. He's been saying for a while he was not interested in continuing the diplomatic asylum for Assange.
Will someone please explain to me the love triangle of Assange, Russia and the old time hard left (i.e Communist). Glenn Greenwald demonstrates it as does Cookie here in the comment section. Of the three I trust the hard left the most (not that I agree with them but they seem earnest and consistent). Assange and Russia I trust as far as I can throw them.
Blogger rhhardin said...
Then there's the "That's rape in Sweden" charge he faces in Sweden.
I always found this charge interesting. He is not charged with "rape" but what the Swedes call "Sex by surprise"
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is facing arrest for violating a Swedish law about sex without condoms, rather than a mainstream interpretation of “rape.” Yet that’s the charge reports often levy against him. Behold the smear campaign.
The New York Times wrote about the case on Thursday, noting that Swedish authorities were hunting Assange on charges of “rape, sexual molestation, and unlawful coercion.”
It commented on the alleged offense, stating claims by two women that
“each had consensual sexual encounters with Mr. Assange that became
nonconsensual.”
The Swedish charges aren’t exactly new, though. Some of the
media had reported “rape” allegations back in August, and the Daily Mail
even asserted the first alleged illegal act occurred when a condom
broke, and the woman concerned “whatever her views about the incident,”
then “appeared relaxed and untroubled at the seminar the next day.” At
this seminar, Assange met the second alleged victim and “a source close
to the investigation said the woman had insisted he wear a condom, but
the following morning he made love to her without one.”
https://www.fastcompany.com/1707146/anatomy-smear-wikileaks-assange-wanted-sex-surprise-not-rape
I am hoping that there is a deadman's switch on the archive and that now that Assange is in custody, they will be released.
I still don't understand that US law was broken by Assange.
John Henry
I'm waiting for MSM journos to come to the defense of their colleague and freedom of the press.
I always found this charge interesting. He is not charged with "rape" but what the Swedes call "Sex by surprise"
Again, Assange has never been charged with anything, until today.
I really wish people would stop repeating this disinformation.
Very sad. The only trustworthy investigative outlet is Wikileaks.
What's the over/under on how many days Assange has left to live?
If you saw the video with the sound off you'd think they finally captured Gollum's grampa.
Assange is being indicted for helping Private Manning hack the password on a defense database.
If true, that goes beyond publishing stolen Igor stion, which is legal as long as the journalist/publisher didn’t participate in the theft.
Of course, Obama pardoned Manning after a few years in the brig. So this prosecution is fairly pointless. Hard to take the DOJ seriously when the main culprit gets let go early to score some Woke Points.
Obama also let his friend Job Corzine off. Corzine stoke $1.6 billion but the DOJ didn’t indict him. The CFTC brought a civil action against him instead.
The Rule of Law is a joke.
People should know Sweden dropped the case years ago. There is no rape or sex by surprise for assange.
I did see an indictment today on Twitter by the USA for Assange that dated back to 2018. It was something to do with Manning. And the comment on the indictment was the penalty for the crime carried a maximum of 5 years in prison. Some sort of conspiracy.
Why hide out for 7 years to avoid a maximum 5 year prison sentence?
Lame.
Ray - SoCal said...
Be nice if Trump pardoned him...
So that would be "nice"?!?
"I love Wikileaks!"
Why hide out for 7 years to avoid a maximum 5 year prison sentence?
I think for one thing Assange was able to continue operating Wikileaks from the embassy.
Plus the Ecuadorian staff wasn't hovering in the shower room, waiting for him to drop the soap, which was nice.
Here's a link to the info on the actual indictment.
Basically it amounts to Assange helping Manning crack a password to a classified DoD computer back in March 2010. I think it's 18 U.S. Code § 1030.
I hope at minimum he gets a fair and open trial and isn't disappeared somewhere.
Now we’ll get those emails.
And a lot more I expect, He may bargain with them, of course.
Cook's paranoia is topping out.
By now we should have spotted the Trump team's method of prosecuting the 30 year Deep State treason supporting Deep State crime sprees. First they arrest and charge a friendly witness to the actions being prosecuted. Then they arrange him a guilty plea to a small process matter conditioned on his giving hundreds of hours of sworn testimony on everything he knows about everybody else. Thus is a sworn court record accumulated to be used in prosecuting the others. Military Tribunals anyone?
He's an australian not in the US so he's free to do whatever he wants without being subject to US law.
If I post Islam is a retarded social system, and it makes its way, as it does, to the UK, I'm not subject to UK hate speech law. I'm not in the UK and I'm not a UK citizen.
Blogger rhhardin said...
He's an australian not in the US so he's free to do whatever he wants without being subject to US law.
If I post Islam is a retarded social system, and it makes its way, as it does, to the UK, I'm not subject to UK hate speech law. I'm not in the UK and I'm not a UK citizen.
4/11/19, 10:40 AM
I'm pretty sure if you're Australian and you Rob a US bank, the US can still prosecute for violating it's laws.
Nonapod said...
Here's a link to the info on the actual indictment.
Basically it amounts to Assange helping Manning crack a password to a classified DoD computer back in March 2010. I think it's 18 U.S. Code § 1030.
I hope at minimum he gets a fair and open trial and isn't disappeared somewhere.
4/11/19, 10:38 AM
I find myself in the middle on this one.
On one side we have the assange fans who are purposefully mischaracterizing this as punishing journalism. But since when does journalism include helping people hack top secret info?
On the other side we have people already pronouncing him guilty.
I think I'm in the middle because I'd like to see the legal process play out and I'm fine either way. If he is guilty, punish him. If he's innocent, great!
So yesterday Barr officially announces that the Trump campaign was under FBI surveillance and today Assange is arrested? Interesting.
I'm pretty sure if you're Australian and you Rob a US bank, the US can still prosecute for violating it's laws.
Not if you're not in the US when you do it. It's an action by a foreigner in a foreign place.
Always think reciprocity - what of what you do in the US can be prosecuted by Iran, for instance.
At least the US will pay for Julian to become Juliana
Not if you're not in the US when you do it. It's an action by a foreigner in a foreign place.
Nonsense. They charge and extradite foreign hackers who've hacked domestic targets from a foreign location all the time.
Ohio governor to sign heartbeat bill - so abortion can become illegal before a woman knows she's pregnant. Obviously Pennsylvania abortions will go up, but would the woman be subject to Ohio law.
Bad bill, deciding on a point in pregnancy that's not agreed as reasonable by enough people. You've got to sell it rather than finagle it. That was the original Roe vs Wade mistake.
Nonsense. They charge and extradite foreign hackers who've hacked domestic targets from a foreign location all the time.
That's a mistake unless it's a crime in the place they did it. The hacking problem is the fault of the place hacked - leaving the door open in this or that way.
Perhaps you'll write something that is illegal to write in some foreign country and they'll extradite you.
"Why hide out for 7 years to avoid a maximum 5 year prison sentence?
"Lame."
Because Assange did not know what the U.S. might charge him with, and he feared, with good cause, he could be railroaded into a decades-long sentence.
It's very hard to understand the dynamics between Assange and the US Government, so I do not pretend to be an expert. I get him confused with Snowden, but not Manning (the transgendered Army guy).
But on a very superficial level:
1. In 2010, it looks like Assange greatly pissed off the Obama administration (when Hillary was Sec State) by disclosing the Manning leaks. He was indicted by AG Holder; and, then, of course, fled to various embassies, seeking asylum, avoiding prosecution.
2. In 2016, he exacted revenge by slamming Hillary with the Wikileaks release of the DNC emails, showing Hillary's efforts to hamstring Bernie. This pissed off many Bernie Bros, who either stayed home on election night, or, amazingly, voted for Trump. This may have been the chief factor in her losing the close race to Trump.
3. This made some powerful enemies even madder.
As for details and context, and subleties and warring factions, I have no clue nor insight.
"2. In 2016, he exacted revenge by slamming Hillary with the Wikileaks release of the DNC emails, showing Hillary's efforts to hamstring Bernie. This pissed off many Bernie Bros, who either stayed home on election night, or, amazingly, voted for Trump. This may have been the chief factor in her losing the close race to Trump."
I doubt very much that any Bernie Bros voted for Trump. I'd bet that virtually all who voted for Trump had made up their mind to do so well in advance of the election.
rhhardin said...
I'm pretty sure if you're Australian and you Rob a US bank, the US can still prosecute for violating it's laws.
Not if you're not in the US when you do it. It's an action by a foreigner in a foreign place.
Always think reciprocity - what of what you do in the US can be prosecuted by Iran, for instance.
4/11/19, 10:59 AM
So if I go to Mexico, get online, hack into Bank of America and steal everyone's money (bank robbery) the USA can do nothing because im not present in the USA when I committed my crime?
I'm pretty sure, likewise, you can't hack the US Military, or conspire to hack the US Military and later use the excuse of, "Well, I wasn't in the USA when I did it, so, innocent."
One of the things I'm seeing from Assange fans, they're all saying this will be a secret trial wherein Assange and his lawyers won't even get to see the evidence against him because of national security.
I hope this is conspiracy theory nonsense.
You are mistaken. I have made any paranoid comments on this thread.
The CIA stole a word.
"Cook's paranoia is topping out."
You are mistaken. I have not made any paranoid comments on this thread.
(Correct comment.)
So if I go to Mexico, get online, hack into Bank of America and steal everyone's money (bank robbery) the USA can do nothing because im not present in the USA when I committed my crime?
You're a US citizen still. A Mexican would get away with it, unless it's against Mexican law.
Think what crimes foreigners can prosecute you for if you're a US citizen in the US. None, would be a good answer.
Blogger rhhardin said...
So if I go to Mexico, get online, hack into Bank of America and steal everyone's money (bank robbery) the USA can do nothing because im not present in the USA when I committed my crime?
You're a US citizen still. A Mexican would get away with it, unless it's against Mexican law.
Think what crimes foreigners can prosecute you for if you're a US citizen in the US. None, would be a good answer.
4/11/19, 11:24 AM
I see.
You're saying I need to rob Mexican banks while in the usa.
Brilliant!
Blogger eric said...
rhhardin said...
I'm pretty sure if you're Australian and you Rob a US bank, the US can still prosecute for violating it's laws.
Not if you're not in the US when you do it. It's an action by a foreigner in a foreign place.
If you are Australian, whatever you do don't call 911. That is not tolerated. Unless you are Somali.
"You've got to wonder what his 'Doomsday' scenario is. He's known this day was hanging out there as a very real possibility for years. He has to have something he's holding back- as leverage, or as just purely a weapon- to use after his arrest, depending on the direction this goes.
Sleeper files."
I actually doubt he has this. It has been apparent for some time that he was no longer in control of Wikileaks, and hasn't been for years- probably lost control some time shortly after he fled into the embassy.
Like some of the commenters above, it is going to interesting to see how he is tried. In the US, if the NYTimes published hacked/leaked material, they would face no criminal charges. As far as I can tell, Wikileaks is a conduit for such material, and as such enjoys that same journalism privilege, at least in the US. To convict him, I think they will have to show that Assange himself was directly connected to, at least, hacking.
Cook sez: "I doubt very much that any Bernie Bros voted for Trump. I'd bet that virtually all who voted for Trump had made up their mind to do so well in advance of the election."
According to NPR, 12% of Bernie voters went for Trump..
The electorate has some odd bedfellows. It adds color to the equation.
Robert Cook wrote:
"In my opinion, Assange is one of the great heroes of our age, as contrasted with the despicable shits of which most of our government and media is comprised."
I don't know what to think of the man himself- there are things that trouble me about him- but his work and Wikileaks' work is something I fully support, so I more or less agree with the sentiment of your comment. Such private watchdogs are a necessary and vitally important thing, especially given the mainstream media's utter and obvious corruption.
Supporting Assange is supporting Manning, and Manning is a shitbag of the highest order. Do you have any idea how many billions of dollars and millions of man-hours went into keeping the trove of information that they disseminated a secret? Fucking decades of OpSec and every other kind of Sec blown up by a dude who doesn't know he's a dude, and an Australian nutjob who can't be bothered to bathe. Fuck them both. And fuck Obama for aiding and abetting shitbag Manning.
Lincoln,
No, Manning did was illegal and unethical. What Wikileaks did with the information Manning gave them isn't. If Manning had gone to the NYTimes with the same information, neither the NYTimes nor it's owners, nor it's management would have faced criminal charges in the US.
There is a difference, and an important one.
Blogger Yancey Ward said...
Lincoln,
No, Manning did was illegal and unethical. What Wikileaks did with the information Manning gave them isn't. If Manning had gone to the NYTimes with the same information, neither the NYTimes nor it's owners, nor it's management would have faced criminal charges in the US.
There is a difference, and an important one.
4/11/19, 11:55 AM
Unless it's true WikiLeaks worked with Manning to obtain the information.
So Manning kills a guy, and Assange disposes of the body, that's close to the parallel I'm seeing. But he disposes the body in such a way that he causes many more deaths (remember, some of that info. was acted upon and resulted in allies being killed).
Trump said just moments ago that he “doesn’t know anything about Wikileaks”, it’s not his “thing”. He mentioned them over 100 times while on the campaign trail.
“We learn so much from Wikileaks!”
Trump
This pissed off many Bernie Bros, who either stayed home on election night, or, amazingly, voted for Trump.
People who voted for “change we can believe in” and waiting eight years for real change that never arrived, might well have supported Bernie Sanders in the primaries but Donald Trump in the general. That they were pissed off at the DNC and the Hillary campaign wouldn’t have been a determining factor, but certainly wouldn’t have caused them to decide against voting for Trump.
I read conflicting claims about what he is charged with. So I do not know where I stand yet. But I trust Greenwald and I do not trust NBC.
Eric,
There is no evidence Wikileaks "worked with Manning" to "obtain" the leaked material- Manning had access to all of it and leaked it on personal initiative. All Wikileaks did was publicize it. You are free to argue that there is no privilege for Wikileaks to do so, but US law and it's adjudication would argue otherwise, and I agree with the precedent in this case. What I actually fear is going to happen is that the government is going to carve out some special privilege for organs like the NYTimes and WaPo that doesn't apply to the rest of us. This is why I am pushing back.
"So Manning kills a guy, and Assange disposes of the body, that's close to the parallel I'm seeing."
That is a fallacious argument. There is no question that disposing of a body is a crime as recognized in the criminal code. However, there is a body of law and interpretation that supports the right of journalists to publicly disclose leaked and even classified information. It is fine with me if you propose altering this privilege- I won't support such a change, but I would recognize it as a logical point of argumentation. What I absolutely won't support, though, is allowing this privilege for officially "recognized" jounalists, but not anyone else.
Yancey, wouldn't the evidence that Wikileaks worked with Manning to steal the information be that they communicated before and during the espionage? I believe that is the case, but verified information is hard to come by.
I'd bet that virtually all who voted for Trump had made up their mind to do so well in advance of the election.
Cookie,
Based on the comments here, many Trump's voters decided to vote for him at the last minute, mostly because he was not HRC.
I did not make up my mind until Election Day. I was strongly in favor of voting Libertarian but realized that would be a vote for Hillary.
I am very pleasantly surprised by Trump's presidency. You probably not so much.
Blogger Yancey Ward said...
Eric,
There is no evidence Wikileaks "worked with Manning" to "obtain" the leaked material-
If this is true, then Assange will go free.
But the indictment claims he conspired with Manning to hack US Military secrets.
I hope you're wrong about the carve outs. That would destroy our first amendment. Unless SCOTUS overturned such a thing.
Lincoln,
That isn't my definition of "working with". Had Manning been in contact with NYTimes reporters before, during, and after, it would change nothing about the NYTimes having the 1st amendment right to publish it. Wikileaks isn't facilitating Manning's access to the information, they are just discussing what they might do with it if Manning gives it to them. This isn't different from what Neil Sheehan and Daniel Ellsberg did in the Pentagon Papers case.
Blogger Lincolntf said...
Yancey, wouldn't the evidence that Wikileaks worked with Manning to steal the information be that they communicated before and during the espionage? I believe that is the case, but verified information is hard to come by.
4/11/19, 12:28 PM
This is my take also.
And Sweden is considering taking up the rape investigation again. That'll be interesting.
"So Manning kills a guy, and Assange disposes of the body, that's close to the parallel I'm seeing. But he disposes the body in such a way that he causes many more deaths (remember, some of that info was acted upon and resulted in allies being killed)."
You have no idea if this is true, but it does not appear to be.
Among the things Manning did reveal was a war crime: a video of a helicopter crew murdering citizens on the ground, and then murdering others who came to their aid, all the while joking and whooping it up.
And this stuff, too.
That's a mistake unless it's a crime in the place they did it. The hacking problem is the fault of the place hacked - leaving the door open in this or that way.
They passed a law back in 2001 in the wake of 911 that allows for the prosecution of foreign hackers who hacked US targets from foreign places. It was and is contraversial. Personally I'm not saying it's a good or bad law. I'm just saying it exists.
And even with such a law, hackers often are difficult to identify and difficult to get extradited from their countries. And in many cases they're state sponsered obviously.
"I am very pleasantly surprised by Trump's presidency. You probably not so much."
No, not surprised, pleasantly or otherwise. I knew whichever of the two shitty human being running for the office won, we would have a shitty president.
Well, Eric, perhaps "conspiracy" will work, but did Sheehan conspire with Ellsberg to leak the Pentagon Papers? Sheehan wasn't even charged with conspiracy, and Ellsberg eventually escaped prosecution and conviction on technicalities, even though he was absolutely guilty of leaking classified material.
I don't like the idea using conspiracy charges if one of the parties has no control, access, or isn't even offering technical assistance to the first individual in gaining such over the information in question. A conspiracy charge should be proving that Wikileaks actually helped Manning. I don't see any evidence this is the case at all.
Blogger Yancey Ward said...
Lincoln,
That isn't my definition of "working with". Had Manning been in contact with NYTimes reporters before, during, and after, it would change nothing about the NYTimes having the 1st amendment right to publish it.
This is way too soon to judge.
We only know the US Government is implicating Assange in conspiracy to help hack the US Military. No such accusations was leveled during the Pentagon papers.
We have no idea what the communication was. Suppose Assange had techniques for hacking? Or, suppose he had ways to help Manning cover his tracks in the system?
There can be dozens of ways Assange could have conspired with Manning wherein Assange has no privilege to claim he is just a journalist innocently doing his job.
I'll wait and see what comes out.
At this point, I'm undecided and Yancey, I think you're assuming too much.
Sorry, Cook, I may not be the regular at this site that I once was, but I still remember that following your links is a fool's errand. Credibility, once it's lost, it's gone forever.
I don't like the idea using conspiracy charges if one of the parties has no control, access, or isn't even offering technical assistance to the first individual in gaining such over the information in question. A conspiracy charge should be proving that Wikileaks actually helped Manning. I don't see any evidence this is the case at all.
And if you're right. Ok.
But I think there isn't enough information.
If no evidence comes, he should be set free.
Eric,
I am not assuming anything. I am making judgment based on what is physically in front of me as evidence. Perhaps the government has the goods on Assange, but I won't assume that just because they intend to charge him that they actually do have such pertinent conspiracy evidence. I have learned from experience that the federal government really does like to bring indictments that aren't actually supported by evidence. One of the big tells is a "conspiracy" charge, and lately the addition of "to defraud the US government".
Look, if the government can make an actual case with evidence that Assange actually, physically aided Manning, for example, I will admit to being wrong in this case.
"Sorry, Cook, I may not be the regular at this site that I once was, but I still remember that following your links is a fool's errand. Credibility, once it's lost, it's gone forever."
1. My credibility has never been impeached.
2. That's just a way of avoiding confronting your own mistaken assumptions.
Consider it impeached now, conviction to follow shortly.
They passed a law back in 2001 in the wake of 911 that allows for the prosecution of foreign hackers who hacked US targets from foreign places.
The US can't pass a law making US law extend to foreign places. It would have to pass another law making US laws extending US law to foreign places extend to foreign places, and so forth.
Nothing starts the validity process.
You're saying I need to rob Mexican banks while in the usa.
Unless it's also against US law, in which case you're screwed. It's not Mexican law that gets you.
Look, if the government can make an actual case with evidence that Assange actually, physically aided Manning, for example, I will admit to being wrong in this case.
I dont think we disagree.
What I'm hearing though, and I can't decide if it's just crazy pants or what, but, I'm hearing all sorts of stuff about secret trials and gulags and torture etc.
And this seems to be the major divide here. Assange supporters are absolutely convinced he won't get a fair trial. Therefore, we all have to stand up now and defend him and have him released and pardoned otherwise we are on the side of the fascists.
The US can't pass a law making US law extend to foreign places.
Well, evidently they did just that. Again, I'm not saying I agree with it. But it exists.
"Even if he were a US citizen, he didn't do anything wrong."
He's charged specifically with attempting to assist Manning with breaking someone else's password on a secure and classified government computer system. The attempt failed. They have communications between Assange and Manning documenting this attempt. That's a federal crime on the part of Assange.
Manning had access to the system but the password hack would have allowed him to cover his tracks.
Here's a good article by the Guardian on Assange.
What Rabel says right above. The Indictment is that Assange did more than just publish classified stuff (legal - see Pentagon Papers), he worked with Manning to obtain the classified stuff (which is illegal, and for which Manning was convicted, sentenced to 35 years, but had such sentence commuted by Obama).
So, although it is a sprawling issue, and although Assange has done some great things by exposing some fascinating items of the Deep State, if he conspired with Manning to, essentially, steal classified stuff, that's a big legal, potential 35-year problem. But maybe Trump would commute his sentence, like Obama did for Manning.
I imagine they'll take him to a black box somewhere and we won't see him again.
About the whole thing, I'm conflicted, I dislike leaking as a method of news-dissemination, but with the western media, there is often no other way to counter the "narrative". Also I dislike the amount of surveillance and control our governments exert and seek to exert over us, so anything that exposes their overstepping I consider a bonus.
He's charged specifically with attempting to assist Manning with breaking someone else's password on a secure and classified government computer system. The attempt failed. They have communications between Assange and Manning documenting this attempt. That's a federal crime on the part of Assange.
Assange isn't within federal jurisdiction.
Let it be known Cook provided 2 links above and neither redirects to Counterpunch.
Progress!
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा