
US efforts to jail Assange for espionage are a grave threat to a free media - rrgmitchell
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/may/26/prosecuting-julian-assange-for-espionage-poses-danger-freedom-of-press
======
cyphar
I find it incredible that it took the Guardian 7 years to decide to write this
article. EDIT: In fact, it's not even by the Guardian -- it's an opinion piece
by an ex-Guardian editor who was (at least implicitly) part of the smear
campaign against Julian Assange "back in the day".

Let's not forget that the Guardian sent Julian Assange _a basket with soap and
socks_ when he took refuge in the Ecuadorian Embassy[1]. What kind of a
message does that send? They also didn't tell anyone involved in the Snowden
revelations when GCHQ forced them to destroy their copies. They also (through
their tehnical incompetence) leaked documents that WikiLeaks had not
published, then blamed WikiLeaks and Julian Assange for the disclosure. Not to
mention the ludicrously false and harmful articles they published about him
meeting Manafort and co-ordinating disclosures with the Trump campaign
alongside many other government puff pieces disguised as "journalism".

Now, all of a sudden, they feel it's a good idea to try to help him. It's too
late for that. The right time to try to help him was 7 years ago. Doing it now
is for the birds, it's pure political theater so they can pretend (in 15
years) that they were "on the right side of history". Absolute bullshit.

Then again, saying something is better than nothing. Here in Australia there
is no public discussion about Julian Assange (an _Australian citizen and
journalist being tried under US terrorism laws_ ). Even more ironic is that we
recently had a bit of a "freedom of the press" scuffle because the ABC was
raided by the Australian Federal Police because of some coverage from 2017
over Australian Army war crimes. I find it incredible that _nobody_ mentioned
Julian. At all. What an absolute disgrace today's press is.

[1]:
[https://youtu.be/vwjazrixP1Q?t=5255](https://youtu.be/vwjazrixP1Q?t=5255)

~~~
chrisseaton
> a basket with soap and socks

Does this have some cultural significance? It a symbolic snub of some kind?

The speaker in the video says that they sent him this care package and then
pauses and stares into space like it's the most obviously terrible thing they
could have done and needs no further comment.

I don't get it?

~~~
devoply
If I had to guess it's something (socks) you might give to a homeless person.

~~~
cyphar
No, the problem is that it is literally the least useful form of "help" they
could've given someone who is facing political persecution from the most
powerful government on Earth. It's basically a really underhanded way of
saying "you're on your own on this one".

------
mc32
I wish people would just focus on the part that regards journalism, free
press, free speech, sources and releasing leaked information.

All the rest will fall along political lines. Liked or disliked for the
effects on political allies and foes. It’s obvious if you have followed this
case.

Three years ago the right loathed him, today they love him and conversely
today the left loathes him but 3 years ago they loved him. The state apparatus
however still see this as an adversarial act.

So, instead let’s discuss the implications of censorship (state and self-
imposed) and journalism this case has.

~~~
bryanlarsen
I disagree; much of the right still seems to be calling for him to be locked
away for a long time despite his role in getting Trump elected. Much of the
left (including the Guardian in this article) is calling for charges to be
dropped.

~~~
Miner49er
True, many leftist news organizations have been consistently defending him and
calling this out as an attack on free speech. For example, the Intercept,
Democracy Now, Jacobin, etc.

~~~
pessimizer
But that's the marginal class-based left; the liberal left, meaning the ones
with any sort of power (e.g. Democratic Party, the Guardian, WaPo, NYT,
etc...) generally have a history of condemning him while sometimes at the same
moment profiting from publishing his leaks.

~~~
Miner49er
This is true. Words matter, if OP meant liberals they should've said liberals,
not "the left".

------
jtr_47
What I don't understand is the the following.

1\. Julian is not a United States of America Citizen. So USA laws don't apply
to him, unless he is in the USA and has committed a crime or offense of some
kind

2\. Julian is a citizen of another country. How do the laws of USA all of a
sudden encompass people outside of the USA? Yes, wikileaks did receive
"secret" stuff, but the exposure of these events is for the greater good and
exposes how the USA is corrupt and "evil." The USA needs to be held
accountable for their actions. The USA has no business in other countries,
killing, maiming, destroying their homes and lives. Regardless of what
happened on 9/11, which I was present on NYC when it happened. Yes, it was
horrible, but our own government and their meddling in the affairs of other
nations is to blame

Is there some kind of unknown laws of the USA that apply to people and
countries not part of the USA (non-citizens and other countries)?

Peace

~~~
sbov
> So USA laws don't apply to him, unless he is in the USA and has committed a
> crime or offense of some kind

Physical presence is an odd requirement. So if I pay people to deliver bombs
to people in the USA, but I'm not in the USA, I haven't committed a crime?

~~~
woliveirajr
Well... Depends. It might not be a crime in the country "X" where you are. It
might be a crime in the USA, but country "X" won't extradict you because it
doesn't consider it to be a crime. Even if you are a citzen from country "B",
where B and USA consider it a crime.

International crimes depend on a lot of factors.

------
leftyted
It remains to be seen whether the charges under the Espionage Act stick. They
may not and I don't think they should. But it seems a bit breathless to
declare these charges a "threat to journalism". Assange participated in the
leaking of classified documents, which is different than simply publishing.

There's a sharp divide in how people view Assange. Some buy into his hipster-
tech-Jesus persona. These people think the rape (read: surreptitious condom
removal) allegations were materialized by the US government, somehow
overlooking the fact that nearly everyone who has interacted with Assange has
a negative opinion of him personally (see -
[https://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n05/andrew-
ohagan/ghosting](https://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n05/andrew-ohagan/ghosting)).

I see Assange as a tragic figure. Publishing the "Collateral Murder" video was
good. But Assange's worldview is basically incoherent. "All information should
be open" is a naive position and there's a > 0 chance that Assange was used by
Russia. When you publish everything, you're obviously putting yourself in a
position in which you can be used. Further, states are allowed to have secrets
for the same reason people are allowed to have secrets. It isn't possible for
governments to conduct foreign policy with everything in the open. Basically,
Assange did not "publish responsibly" and I believe his motivation was mostly
personal fame. I'd contrast Assange with Daniel Ellsberg rather than comparing
them as this article does.

That said, I think the US government would have been better off not pursuing
him at all. Now that they have him, I hope he just gets a slap on the wrist.

~~~
cyphar
> Assange participated in the leaking of classified documents, which is
> different than simply publishing.

This is an accusation made by the US government, it's not a fact. WikiLeaks
accepted leaked documents and published them after verifying they were true.
This is basically what journalists do (though they usually write articles that
summarise the leaks).

Also, WikiLeaks _did_ redact documents on many ocassions (in some cases even
asking the US State Department what information should not be published).
Everyone remembers the mostly-unredacted leaks of the war logs, but most
people haven't followed up and seen that they did start redacting more things
after the backlash. Though they never redacted sources or methods because
those things have proven to help people in the past.

~~~
mike10010100
> This is an accusation made by the US government, it's not a fact.

Are you claiming the chat logs that show Assange offering assistance cracking
passwords are fake?

------
jillesvangurp
Better late than never. The appropriate time for an article like this and
coming to his defense would have been last month when Assange moved from the
Ecuadorian embassy to a UK prison. Especially considering that they benefited
from collaborating with Assange and wikileaks for the very same things he's
currently being held prison (and lets not get started on the BS. charges from
Sweden).

The Guardian would do well to call on the UK government to release this man
immediately.

~~~
lordlimecat
Assange isn't in a UK prison because of leaking documents, but because he
jumped bail.

~~~
jillesvangurp
Pretending this has nothing to do with Wikileaks is very disingenuous/naive.
The Swedes would likely have quickly dropped the case if they hadn't been
pressured by the US to not do so. The amount of press this case got in Sweden
almost from day 1 was very unusual. The Swedes normally don't commit character
murder like this without a trial. Yet, Assange was named and shamed in public,
lots of details were leaked, and when the prosecutor dropped the case, she was
overruled. It's not normal for high level politicians to get involved with
cases like this in Sweden.

From what I understand, it was never actually a really strong case. Yet, the
Swedes went all out on this. Likewise, the UK would never have put as much
effort in pursuing such a minor matter had it not been for the Wikileaks
thing. Nor would the Ecuadorians have considered hosting him for seven years.
Both the US and UK have repeatedly pressured Sweden to not drop their
extradition request and arrest warrant.

The fact that he's now being extradited to the US rather than Sweden only
confirms that Wikileaks is the only reason all this stuff happened to Assange.
Otherwise he'd be on his way to Sweden now. This was about the Swedish
extradition request right until he walked out of the embassy.

------
dharma1
The extradition request was just signed by the UK home secretary -
[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48624024](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48624024)

Now the court system will decide over the coming months/years whether or not
to hand him over to the US, where he has a good chance of being imprisoned for
a very long time.

~~~
sschueller
I think that just means the request valid (correctly filled out form). If it
is legal gets decided in the courts.

~~~
makomk
It means that the current government has decided they want to support his
extradition on these grounds. That's why the Home Secretary has to approve the
request - there's a political aspect to extradition.

------
duxup
I don't really buy it.

The crime he was accused of by the US is helping someone try to break into a
laptop. That's beyond most journalistic standards for conduct and a criminal
act.

We'll see what can be proved in court from here.

~~~
cyphar
He is also being accused of 17 counts of breaching the Espionage Act with a
maximum sentence of several lifetimes in prison. The _conspiracy_ to break the
CFAA charge was just the taster -- and I would argue that it was done
tactically so that the discussion of Julian would be "he's a hacker not a
journalist". If I was working for the DoJ that's without question what I
would've done -- whether the accusations were true or not.

We live in a society based on the presumption of innocence. Just because the
US government says something (which happens to be incredibly helpful for their
narrative) does not make it true.

Also, he wasn't accused of trying to break into a laptop. He was accused of
allegedly offering to help Chelsea Manning crack a password hash (which he
never did). Aside from the fact that johntheripper is free software and is so
trivial to use that teenagers know about it (making the entire story seem
suspect on its face) it completely ignores that this is ridiculously minor
compared to the Espionage Act indictments.

~~~
duxup
I think the espionage act topic is worthy of discussion.

The question about the laptop is pretty settled to me. It's against the law to
help someone try to break into something like that. I think that is a valid
law, doing so is step well outside what a journalist should do, and all of
that is regardless if you are successful or not. Also we'll see what he says
in court about that, I could have sworn he or his lawyer already noted their
lack of success, that sounded like they were talking about actually trying to
do it.

I do think in my mind the two topics are tied together, if someone is not
behaving as a journalist then I think the context of the charges changes
dramatically.

~~~
cyphar
> The question about the laptop is pretty settled to me.

Why do you keep repeating that he "hacked into laptop"? As I mentioned above,
the accusation is related to _Chelsea Manning_ asking him to help them crack a
password hash that Manning acquired by dual-booting on a Linux machine and him
agreeing to (and Assange never did help Manning crack it).

As I said, I seriously question the truth of such a claim because anyone even
slightly technical knows that there's effectively just one tool you use to
crack Unix hashes -- johntheripper. I knew that _in high-school_.

~~~
duxup
>Why do you keep repeating that he "hacked into laptop"?

I think there might be some confusion here. I didn't say that. You misquoted
me in the other reply as well.

We'll see in court if he can prove he did or didn't help.

I don't think how well you know the application in question really has
anything to do with the viability of the claim.

~~~
cyphar
> I don't think how well you know the application in question really has
> anything to do with the viability of the claim.

My point is that Assange knows what johntheripper is. Any 15-year-old that has
downloaded Kali Linux knows what it is. So it seems incredibly strange to act
as though breaking a hash is any more complicated than just running
johntheripper (or hashcat, or any other brute-force tool) on it.

Assuming their claim is true (that he did actually offer to do it), I would
think it most likely he was lying to Manning in order to get them to leak more
things. According to most accounts he isn't a particularly nice person, so
that seems far more in-character to me.

------
bufferoverflow
Ironically, TheGuardian is smearing Jordan Peterson's new free speech platform
before it even launched.

[https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jun/13/jordan-
pe...](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jun/13/jordan-peterson-
launches-anti-censorship-site-thinkspot)

------
spsrich2
Amazing the guardian are complaining. Their editorial line usually comes from
MI6

------
josefresco
Just because Assange did one (or more) good things (Collateral Murder) does
not make everything else he does, also good. Assange is not a journalist, and
ceased being a journalist when he decided to enforce personal agendas and
_arguably_ work with nation-states to harm other nation-states. Even if you
believe he's a journalist, journalists should not be above the law even if
part of their work is for the good of the people.

~~~
ANPEQ-1
Thank you. There is such thing as legitimate secrets. The threat of jail for
wholesale and thoughtless release of top secret information... is a good
threat. Professional journalists know this and shouldn't jump on the Assange
bandwagon; they understand that their power comes a duty of care.

~~~
rplst8
Secrets are just that, secrets. Not some legally protected object. If you
don't want your secrets getting out, then don't tell people them, or better
yet - don't do bad things. Making secrets legally protected for those that
have not signed an NDA and do not participate in government inner-workings or
aren't even citizens of that country is a dangerous precedent that erodes the
first amendment.

What would stop a government from making something "classified" ex post facto
just to silence and/or jail nay-sayers, political opponents, or oppressed
peoples? The answer is nothing, and this is exactly why this cannot stand.

~~~
jmpman
So, a journalist could publish the design documents for the F-35? The newest
hydrogen bomb? Information on how we are spying on the North Koreans? Proof
that military intelligence isn’t always 100% correct and has bombed groups
incorrectly? Proof that we are spying on suspected terrorists who have
recently been granted US citizenship? I believe there is a line somewhere in
the above scenarios, and journalists are responsible for determining where
that line exists. Assange appears to have a different interpretation of where
that line is from the US government officials.

------
skilled
Apparently not big enough of a threat to organize protests as big as those in
Hong Kong right now.

------
magwa101
Title response, no it's not.

~~~
nkozyra
This is reductive and not particularly useful. If the dissemination of
information in this way is itself criminalized it puts shackles on the media's
abilities to provide insight into the inner workings of the government.

------
ryanmercer
There's a pretty big difference between:

'free media'

and

'doxing individuals who's identities were protected because if they are
publicly revealed not only are their lives at serious risk but it also exposes
their close family and friends to rape/murder/torture until a time at which
they are found and violently murdered because terrorists and hostile
governments actually do this sort of thing to their perceived enemies, just
like what happened to journalists (not informants/spies) like Jamal Khashoggi
and many of the REAL journalists listed at
[https://cpj.org/data/killed/](https://cpj.org/data/killed/) '

~~~
syn0byte
The irony in your argument is absolutely breath taking. The footage of the US
Military murdering a dozen people, of which 2 worked for the press, was part
of leaks for which he now faces charges.

"How dare he show the US murdering journalists! That could lead to more
journalist getting murdered."

~~~
foldr
No, the comment refers to Wikileaks releasing the names of American informants
in Iraq, potentially endangering their lives.

~~~
cyphar
Future WikiLeak publications took more care redacting documents (even asking
the US State Department for advice). So I disagree with what WikiLeaks did in
that instance, and it's clear they adjusted their ways.

But it should also be made very clear that there is zero evidence that anyone
was harmed as a result of the leak. Yes, this may have been luck or lots of
effort by the US State Department, but it still something to consider.

~~~
foldr
That's an extraordinarily mild way to respond to a massive and thoughtless
leak of extremely sensitive information. I wonder if you are so charitable
towards the US government! They no doubt would also have claim to have mended
their ways since the release of the "collateral murder" video.

>even asking the US State Department for advice

A disingenuous request.

>and it's clear they adjusted their ways.

This is actually far from clear.

~~~
cyphar
> That's an extraordinarily mild way to respond to a massive and thoughtless
> leak of extremely sensitive information.

I said that I disagree with what that aspect of what they did, and had I been
in that situation I would've redacted many more things. But I agree with their
publishing of the documents. I'm not sure what response you'd like me to have
-- call for him to be in prison for the rest of his life?

> I wonder if you are so charitable towards the US government!

They are the most powerful government in the world, and are blatantly
violating the Nuremberg convention and their own constitution. Julian Assange
and WikiLeaks are not.

> They no doubt would also have claim to have mended their ways since the
> release of the "collateral murder" video.

They haven't claimed that (Obama claimed that they "tortured folks" and have
stopped, but Guantanamo Bay is still "open for business"). But even if they
did claim it, we have plenty of evidence they haven't. But we do have evidence
that WikiLeaks did start redacting more documents -- because many of their
subsequent leaks had more heavily redacted documents.

> A disingenuous request.

So what would've made you happy? That they don't publish anything? Newspapers
ask the government to help redact leaked documents all the time (the Guardian
even did line-by-line redactions of the Snowden documents with GCHQ). I really
don't understand what your bar for "responsible journalism" is, if doing what
other journalists do is not enough.

~~~
foldr
> I'm not sure what response you'd like me to have -- call for him to be in
> prison for the rest of his life?

I think endangering the lives of multiple people ought to merit some kind of
punishment, yes.

> That they don't publish anything?

That they make a serious attempt to redact sensitive info that it's not in the
public interest to reveal. Their official reason for not doing so with the
Afghan cables was, essentially, that they couldn't be bothered. Assange
plainly and openly didn't give a crap if anyone was hurt as a result. Has
there ever been an apology from Wikileaks?

Come on, you don't need cooperation from the US authorities to blank out the
name of someone who's mentioned as being, say, a CIA informant.

~~~
cyphar
> I think endangering the lives of multiple people ought to merit some kind of
> punishment, yes.

That is definitely a valid point-of-view (and it's not one that I necessarily
disagree with), but that's simply not what he is being charged with.

> Assange plainly and openly didn't give a crap if anyone was hurt as a
> result.

If you're referring to the claim that he said "informants deserve what they
get", this quote could not be corroborated with anyone else who was involved
in the conversation where he apparently said that. Given what lies David Leigh
went on to say about Julian Assange afterwards it seems likely this claim was
also a lie.

> Come on, you don't need cooperation from the US authorities to blank out the
> name of someone who's mentioned as being, say, a CIA informant.

One of the main concerns was that due to the technical manner in which
diplomatic cables are written, you actually do need to have an expert figure
out whether there is any implied references to a particular informant that
doesn't mention their name. The Guardian and other newspapers did spend lots
of time doing this for a very small number of documents.

But again, that doesn't change that they should've done more to redact them.
And in future leaks, they did.

~~~
foldr
"I reviewed the statement of someone that a London paper claimed to be
speaking for some part of the Taliban. Remember, the Taliban is actually not a
homogenous group. And the statement, as far as such things go, was fairly
reasonable, which is that they would not trust these documents; they would use
their own intelligence organization's investigations to understand whether
those people were defectors or collaborators, and if so, after their
investigations, then they would receive appropriate punishment. Now, of
course, that is — you know, that image is disturbing, but that is what happens
in war, that spies or traitors are investigated."

[https://www.democracynow.org/2010/8/3/julian_assange_respond...](https://www.democracynow.org/2010/8/3/julian_assange_responds_to_increasing_us)

>but that's simply not what he is being charged with.

I didn't say that it was.

>But again, that doesn't change that they should've done more to redact them.

Correct. I don't believe that they actually have been more careful
subsequently, but it's irrelevant in any case.

