
Why You Should Care About the Julian Assange Case - wolfgke
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/taibbi-julian-assange-case-wikileaks-758883/
======
chrissam
I think the Assange/wikileaks indictment is a misstep by the justice
department/current administration.

My understanding is that it's far from clear how a case again
Assange/wikileaks would play out in court. Like the article mentions, the New
York Times and others have published classified information repeatedly -- how
can Assange be indicted but not the NYT? Assange also isn't an American
citizen and he hasn't leaked information himself, just published it. I think
there's a good chance Assange would be acquitted.

I also think it's a bizarre exagerration to argue that an attempted
prosecution of Assage would result in "broad new powers to put Trump’s media
'enemies' in jail".

Don't get me wrong -- I don't much care for Assange. It seems to me that
there's a lot of hot air coming from him and he appears to have quite an ego.
Also, though I understand there is disagreement about this, I think countries
keep secrets for a reason and I consider it naive utopianism to expect
everything to be brought into the open. In an ideal world, sure, but the world
is not ideal.

While I don't think Assange/wikileaks are necessarily "siding with Russia," I
do think that Russia has made use of wikileaks. Wikileaks is heavily promoted
in Russian propaganda, and it seems _at least plausible_ that Russia could
obtain information and leak it through wikileaks. This is a problem for
wikileaks: if you're all about freedom of information and you make public
everything passed onto you, it's totally possible for state actors -- the same
state actors whose behavior you find reprehensible -- to use you as a tool to
further their own interests.

~~~
will4274
> Don't get me wrong -- I don't much care for Assange [...]

Why has this blase paragraph become so common? Want to defend Trump's actions
on X as consistent with a past president? Include a paragraph on how you don't
like him. Want to attack academia for being too much of an echo chamber
("grievance studies")? Make sure to have two paragraph digression on how
you're a liberal, not one of those icky conservatives.

Why is it necessary to explain that defending an ethical norm in the case of a
certain individual does not imply endorsement for all of that individual's
actions? Can't we consider ethical arguments on their own merits, without
regard to the underlying ideology of the speaker? Is it a garlic clove to ward
off American hyperpartisanship?

It's my perception that such garlic cloves have become ubiquitous, where only
a decade ago they were much rarer.

~~~
dahdum
The far right and the far left are so overrepresented in the media and online
discourse that it's necessary to distance yourself or be assumed one of them.

~~~
will4274
> The far right and the far left are so overrepresented in the media and
> online discourse

I don't think so, no. Not on mainstream forums. They certainly have a lot of
their own special forums, but on Reddit, and Facebook, and HackerNews, I find
that most commenters are pretty much who you'd expect - random, middle of the
road people.

> it's necessary to distance yourself or be assumed one of them

Have you considered the possibility that you only think these people are
overrepresented because you assume anybody without a disclaimer is one of
them?

~~~
Natsu
It's more like anyone who doesn't leave a disclaimer (and some of those who
do) have angry partisans jump down their throats.

------
mr_overalls
> "If you hate Assange because of his role in the 2016 race, please take a
> deep breath and consider what a criminal charge that does not involve the
> 2016 election might mean."

\--- Why? There is mounting evidence that Assange - whatever his idealistic
intentions might have been with Wikileaks - has become an active conspirator
in working with the Russians (and unsavory Americans) in undermining US
democracy.

~~~
ratsmack
Please elaborate extensively on the evidence the shows Russia to be complicit
in election meddling. I've been watching endlessly for some hint the Russia
was a compelling force in anything related to the 2016 election. And the same
goes for the alleged Wikileaks connection to Russia, because all I've seen is
unwarranted speculation and conjecture in this regard.

Personally, I'm waiting until all the cards are revealed before I solidify my
opinion on this.

~~~
gdubs
Extensive evidence like the nearly 30 page indictment citing 12 Russian
intelligence officers filed by Mueller? [1]

1: [https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/13/us/politics/mueller-
indic...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/13/us/politics/mueller-indictment-
russian-intelligence-hacking.html)

~~~
ratsmack
Indictments are merrily formal accusations and are not proof of wrongdoing, so
again, please supply substantial evidence of Russian meddling.

~~~
mr_overalls
You're asking for proof beyond a reasonable doubt, not evidence.

~~~
ratsmack
Credible evidence must be provable, otherwise it is just speculation.

~~~
mr_overalls
You might be interested in what's in the headlines today.

[https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/27/manafort-
hel...](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/27/manafort-held-secret-
talks-with-assange-in-ecuadorian-embassy)

------
gomijacogeo
I think there's a spectrum of behaviors that range from legitimate news
gathering to something very much like espionage.

Scenario 1: Leaker: Hi, I'm XXX, I work for YYY and I'm witness to event ZZZ
that I think must be exposed. I have classified documents to back up what I
have to tell you. Reporter: I'm going to stop you there and make sure my
editor, owner, and lawyers are on board with this and determine how to
proceed. Please do not communicate any classified material at this time.

Scenario 2: Leaker: Hi, I'm unhappy with the general state of things and am
willing to exfiltrate any secure data I can get my hands on. Reporter: Great!
What do you have access to? No, better, just send me a listing of everything.
Here's a secure server and software that should crawl your net and get it out
without raising any eyebrows. No wait, even better, I'll send you a USB dongle
that will look like a keyboard to the hw event logger with everything you'll
need on it.

Not saying Assange did exactly scenario #2, but I think the press can be only
so much of an active participant before they incur some liability for the
removal of classified information.

------
scelerat
Can someone please explain or point to what Assange is being indicted for?

~~~
dilap
no one knows! but probably something line "publishing secrets mumble mumble
national security mumble mumble"

~~~
happytoexplain
Why the snark? I too would like to know if there's a probable reason that's
more specific - you're saying nobody knows, but then you're saying there is a
probable reason, but then you're apparently mocking that probable reason. But
you haven't provided any substance on the probable reason or why you're
mocking it.

~~~
dilap
Not trying to be too snarky, just my best guess of what the charges will be. I
think "national security" is the nose in the camel's tent that's being used to
shift the government in a more authoritarian direction.

------
craftyguy
> An Assange prosecution could give the Trump presidency broad new powers to
> put Trump’s media “enemies” in jail, instead of just yanking a credential or
> two

I don't understand how a prosecution of something completely unrelated to what
he has done on/with wikileaks automagically translates into donald having
'broad new powers' to start throwing journalists in jail. If Assange is blamed
for and/or convicted of some sexual misconduct or whatever (again, unrelated
to his 'journalism' work), does the author think that all journalists are
guilty of this and subject to imprisonment?

Edit: thanks for the explanations. I look forward to the incoming HN bury
brigade, since I asked a question based on a false pretense. Such is the
reddit^H^H^H^H^H^Hhackernews way.

~~~
seagullz
It is extremely unlikely that US prosecutors are after him for any alleged
"backroom talk/act". WSJ reported that the charges against him “ may involve
the Espionage Act, which criminalizes the disclosure of national defense-
related information.”[0] Accordingly, the implications on journalism are real
and far-reaching [1].

[0] [https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-is-optimistic-it-will-
prose...](https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-is-optimistic-it-will-prosecute-
assange-1542323142)

[1] [https://theintercept.com/2018/11/16/as-the-obama-doj-
conclud...](https://theintercept.com/2018/11/16/as-the-obama-doj-concluded-
prosecution-of-julian-assange-for-publishing-documents-poses-grave-threats-to-
press-freedom/)

