Julian Assange Wins Right To Seek Appeal Against Extradition To the US (cnet.com) 94
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange scored a small win in court in London on Monday, when a judge granted him the right to appeal to the UK's Supreme Court over his extradition to the US. From a report: The High Court ruled that Assange has points that Supreme Court justices may want to consider ahead of the UK extraditing him. Assange will now petition the UK's Supreme Court for a hearing, but there is no guarantee his request will be granted. As his case proceeds through the courts, his extradition will continue to be stalled and Assange will remain in Belmarsh Prison, where' has been held since leaving the Ecuadorian Embassy in London in 2019. "Today we won -- but Julian continues to suffer," said Stella Moris, Assange's fiancee, speaking outside the court on Monday. "Julian must be freed." Monday's decision follows a ruling by a High Court judge in December granting the US permission to go through with the extradition. It overturned a previous decision by a District Court judge that blocked Assange's extradition on mental health grounds. The WikiLeaks founder has raised a legal question about the circumstances in which the High Court received assurances from the US over the treatment he would receive in prison.
Re: (Score:2)
spoiler alert!
They break him out of prison telling him they're going to use him to plant a bomb, so he recruits his most trusted assistant, but really they detonate the bomb while he's transporting it, killing his assistant.(The true target) Then there is a 45 car, helicopter, train, airplane, boat, and bicycle chase while they escape from the Russian agents who were trying to foil the plan and recover their asset.
At the end of the movie Seagal reaches up and peels off his face mask, and it was really Jean-
Note that neither party will let him go (Score:5, Insightful)
Nothing tells you that there's a slim difference between both Republicans and Democrats than seeing administration after administration continue to try and go after this guy.
I really hope he wins his appeal, even better he should be freed and allowed to go about his business.
Re: (Score:1)
they can give him some Diesel Therapy
Re: (Score:2)
I'm still wondering where all those slashdotters who said that he'd never be extradited to the USA disappeared to.
Also the ones who said it was all about getting him to Sweden for "rape" charges.
Re: (Score:3)
We are still there, I am man enough to admit that my prediction was wrong.
Being that the appeal to not get extradited to the US, was approved, I expect the US in general has a weak case against him.
I have no love to Assange, I think he is a dick, who's brain is stuck in conspiracy theories and general hatred of western culture, and the exposure of the documents had put particular people in threat, because he didn't censor out individual names. However the bulk content he released wasn't really that big of
Re: (Score:2)
That said, he is not an American Citizen, and it just published info that he got from other sources, the likes of Snowden and Manning are the real criminals, who stole the information using their positions and security clearance.
Note that the specific allegation leading to the extradition hearing was that he provided support to Manning's activities and did not just publish what was provided to him--which (if true) puts him beyond the scope of the first amendment.
Re: (Score:1)
Most straigh up journalists will redact sensitive details of leaked documents, names of operatives, dates of planned invasions, etc. The supreme court has ruled that the free speech for journalism is allowed on leaked documents (the pentagon papers thing). But such documents were primarily embarassments rather than secrets important to national security.
Assange's leak had nothing redacted, and mostly it wasnt political or embarassing to the administration, but it did have sensitive information that could
Re: (Score:2)
Even bad journalists need to be protected? I used to think it was "Yes", but it's getting harder for me to be sure these years...
Re: Note that neither party will let him go (Score:2)
Personally, I think we should let Assange go with time served and then round up every "journalist" who wrote a "one weird trick" or "... Broke the Internet" or " secret hidden detail (that literally defines thing) found in thing" article.
They are the real threat to humanity.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd give you the Funny mod if I ever had a mod point to give. Or is it another case of Poe's Law? (Now I wish they had called it Nathan's Law...)
Re: Note that neither party will let him go (Score:2)
Id have hoped the /s was obvious.
But fuck I hate those shitty articles polluting the real news.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Except that this is both things. Because Manning did the equivalent of a smash-and-grab, he didn't know what was in the files. Assange did not curate or redact anything. So some stuff in the files may have been the despicable shit, but also there was a lot of miltary operational details you don't want Iraqi insurgents or terrorists to know about. And from Assange's works, he did not care, he felt that if there was some despicable a shit then he was the good guy by letting all the information out.
Re: (Score:1)
"Not a big deal" isn't a good defense when leaking classified data. The reason that both Democrat and Republican administrations are pursuing this is because the law is the law and you can't just excuse a high profile case like this without good reason. What message does it send when a foreign actor exposing shitloads of classified data and a president says "it's no big deal, it had a large chance of having our operatives killed but nothing seems to have happened, and because this guy has a big media pres
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Note that neither party will let him go (Score:5, Interesting)
Those charges were indeed for rape. Scare quotes for a legitimate accusation show your immaturity there. An accusation was filed and the alleged victim (who may indeed have been an actual victim) was denied their day in court in direct contravention of any meaningful right to justice. The same right to justice that should be protecting Julian from deportation to the US, I might add.
The Supreme Court has not issued a decision yet, so he might never be deported to the US. The UK Supreme Court is run largely by the House of Lords and they are far more neutral than the UK government. Being Lords means that Parliament has zero leverage. It's far harder to bribe someone in that position, you can't threaten their standing so easily, and they don't give a crap about polls so slander/libel has zero impact on them. The Lords have a track record of protecting the rights of the citizens, something Parliament almost never does. They've even protected someone claiming to be the reincarnation of King Arthur because he was more credible than the government of the time.
Now, having said that, this doesn't mean the Supreme Court will step in, or that they will favour Julian. It just means that Boris Johnson and his cronies have zero say in the matter, and that the US Government can't put a whole lot of pressure on anyone. Besides, the Supreme Court is very protective of its independence and - if anything - is liable to be hostile to Parliamentary pressure because of Boris wanting not only to have the power to reverse any Supreme Court judgement he likes for any reason he likes, but also to revoke the Supreme Court's power to enforce the Constitution. Tyrants don't tend to get much sympathy from the aristocracy. In part because it's their power the tyrants are taking.
So it seems credible that they'll take the case and well within their norms to beat the snot out of any dictatorial demands from government. But they'll also beat the snot out of Julian if he pulls any crap during the hearing.
I'll put the odds slightly in favour of Julian, maybe 60-40, unless one side or the other starts screaming. Then it's 10-90 against whoever screamed.
Re: (Score:2)
Those charges were indeed for rape. Scare quotes for a legitimate accusation show your immaturity there. An accusation was filed and the alleged victim (who may indeed have been an actual victim) was denied their day in court in direct contravention of any meaningful right to justice. The same right to justice that should be protecting Julian from deportation to the US, I might add.
After a lot of debate the final warrant was for "suspicion of rape of a lesser degree" although the amount of corruption and coercion evident in this case makes it hard to know what really happened, and nobody outside Sweden knows what "rape of a lesser degree" actually is.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Once judicial action is taken under one administration, it's very difficult to stop it, especially when the administration is taking a firm stance to not politicize the justice department. It's normally rare to just cancel ongoing criminal investigations when a new president takes office.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, Sweden just wanted to question Assange, it likely would have all gone away quickly. Except that Assange fell into a conspiracy theorist trap and felt that Sweden was a US puppet and that he'd be executed or disappeared or other nonsense. Assange is in some ways he own worst enemy.
Re: (Score:1)
um.. no, there was no rape, and no charges, and neither of the 'victims' wanted to pursue any kind of charges. You're repeating misinformation.
There was an invalid European Arrest Warrant issued (no charges, no warrant - and the UK administration has said they'll never accept the shenanigans used against Assange again).
Assange was told he was free to leave Sweden after already being interviewed. The investigating prosecutor closed the case. The the US tapped the shoulder of a corrupt Prosecutor looking for
Re: (Score:2)
There was rape (under Swedish law acts that aren't included in consent are non-consensual and thus third-degree rape), there were charges, and the victims did want to pursue charges. The misinformation is yours.
The arrest warrant was not invalid.
Frankly, your bullshit post is just that. Bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not one that said he'd never be extradited to the US.
I did point out that the UK is probably worse than Sweden when it comes to extraditing people.
But one could easily look at Sweden's history of extraditing people, and the UK's history of extraditing people, and come to their own conclusion.
Re: (Score:2)
Well to be fair, who could have predicted a Trump administration? All those people predicting that the US under a Republican administration would never arrange a peace deal with the Taliban were also wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
the UK's history of extraditing people, and come to their own conclusion.
My conclusion is that the US and the UK have an extradition treaty.
Re: (Score:2)
The US has extradition treaties with both the UK and with Sweden.
It is commonly reported that the US/Sweden extradition treaty is more limited than the US/UK treaty.
Re: (Score:2)
Good spies keep an extremely low profile. This guy got involved in espionage operations against the US, and shouted about it from the rooftop. Setting aside any disagreements about whether he's a hero, a villain, or a hapless stooge, the chance of this guy having a happy ending is zero. H
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing tells you that there's a slim difference between both Republicans and Democrats than seeing administration after administration continue to try and go after this guy.
I really hope he wins his appeal, even better he should be freed and allowed to go about his business.
Since you're a defender of Assange. please answer me this. Where exactly are the Wikileaks articles that expose bad things in Russia and China? Surely you are not arguing that both countries are so awesome that there's nothing to expose. I'm waiting.
My prediction - the US Supreme Court passes on his case. That doesn't mean that he can't win in court though. The US government has recently had some pretty high profile losses, which I attribute to an unwillingness to actually try cases and to t
Not the same (Score:1)
Where exactly are the Wikileaks articles that expose bad things in Russia and China?
Assange != Wikileaks.
I agree with you about Wikileaks, not Assange. you are sort of equating one reporter to an entire news organization.
Re: (Score:2)
Assange was the face of Wikileaks and a big part of the leadership, it's not unreasonable to conflate the two
Re: (Score:1)
I don't disagree entirely, but I still think the particular thing Assange is being punished for they should let go. We have plenty of other mouthpieces for foreign governments that act as if they are not, and no-one is in jail over what hey are doing.
Re: (Score:3)
Russia and China are neither here nor there. Nobody has a duty to be even-handed in their political actions. That may make them a hypocrite, but hypocrisy isn't a crime.
Every nation has legitimate needs to keep *some* things secret, so every nation has laws protecting those secrets. But we have to assume that every nation abuses those laws to hide embarrassing or illegal activities. In those cases defying national security laws is an act of civil disobedience.
In cases of civil disobedience you can't loo
Re: (Score:2)
If he were popular enough with the UK public, the UK government would find some pretext for not extraditing him.
It seems unlikely that the UK would do that. Do they want to continue the "special relationship" with the United States? Isn't that especially important, post-BREXIT. Wasn't that one of the pro-BREXIT arguments, that they could be closer to the US by leaving the EU? Do we have an extradition treaty, or not? If they really think there is no rule of law in the US, or that our Constitutional civil rights are below their standards, doesn't that do a lot of damage to the relationship? And why would they being tr
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Again it's probably irrelevant except in the court of public opinion. If Alice commits a crime against Bob and Bob responds with a crime against Alice, that doesn't excuse Alice.
Also, the discussions you allude to probably don't rise to the level of a *criminal* conspiracy in UK law, which require the guilty parties to actually agree to do something. Developing a scenario in which you commit crime is not sufficient. It follows that the US government wouldn't be guilty of conspiracy unless it decides to put
Re: (Score:2)
The issue here is that given the plans they had and steps they took in gross breach of the acc
Re: (Score:2)
Assange is only allowed to appeal about the US human rights standards, because that is how it was set up. Baraitser agreed with everything the US said except for the human rights part. From then on it became forbidden to bring up everything she agreed with and only the human rights issue could be challenged , and that is a weak argument because you can always keep arguing that even if Assange dies.
The US withheld their humanitarian assurances during the Baraitser process and only brought them up later when
Dems=Lower taxes for workers, Reps=Cuts for RIch (Score:1)
No diference (Score:1, Insightful)
Dems=Lower taxes for workers, Reps=Cuts for RIchM
It was Democrats most recently trying to cut taxes for the rich [nytimes.com], it was a Republican that capped the tax deduction the Democrats are trying to restore to be unlimited. [cnbc.com]
Trillion Dollar Tax Cut for the Rich is REAL. (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
The "trillion dollar tax cut" was for everyone, the SALT cap was a tax increase (effectively) that hurt only the wealthy - and that's the thing the Democrats were trying to specifically undo.
Yes some Democrats were also against removing SALT, just as every single Republican was...
The only reason they failed was because Republicans wouldn't support lowering taxes on the wealthy so you seem to be backwards on this.
I'll let you have the last response so you can keep defining the ultra-rich protection class of
Re: (Score:1)
I really hope he wins his appeal, even better he should be freed and allowed to go about his business.
I don't. He's a tosser who runs from all misdeeds he's done. Not content with running a leaking site he felt the need to assist someone hack a government network. Not content with having a leaking penis he felt the need to stick said penis into someone while they were sleeping.
The world is a better place for having wikileaks, but it can do without this tosser.
What is really at issue with Julian's extradition? (Score:5, Insightful)
A sad fact is that Wikileaks is now a ghost of their former past...mission accomplished by Governments to silence them.
Re: (Score:2)
and why have those who he exposed shooting people from the helicopter gunship [youtube.com] never been prosecuted ? Looks like double standards to me.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The short answer is because it was an act of war, conducted against combatants carrying arms.
Re:What is really at issue with Julian's extraditi (Score:5, Informative)
The short answer is because it was an act of war, conducted against combatants carrying arms.
Except they weren't carrying arms (cameras aren't arms), and some were providing medical care, so intentionally firing on them was a war crime.
Also, the government repeatedly lied about the existence of the recording, which was also a crime.
Re: (Score:3)
or the fact this this is an attempt to silence unbiased journalism
He's not being charged with journalism, he's being charged with assisted hacking of a government computer. You can publish what you want in the west, yes even in America. Just don't out yourself as the person who stole (or aided the theft of) the information.
Re:What is really at issue with Julian's extraditi (Score:4)
He's not being charged with journalism, he's being charged with assisted hacking of a government computer.
Liar.
... YOU FUCKING LIAR
17 of the 18 counts against him are for journalism, and 1 count is for supposed "hacking"
Re: (Score:1)
Liar, Liar, Pants On Fire, Hanging From a Telephone Wire!
The fact that you have to LIE about what he is accused of just shows that you know he's guilty, you just hate America and don't care.
Re: (Score:1)
17 of the 18 counts against him are for journalism, and 1 count is for supposed "hacking" ... YOU FUCKING LIAR
17 of the 18 counts against him are for espionage which have zero to do with publishing. Next time you feel the need to call someone a liar in all caps, consider that you may actually be not only wrong, but by hitting that submit button you look like a fucking moron.
Congrats. You played yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
The SC of the UK has protected hackers in the past, when they felt the US was liable to break commitments, partly because the aristocracy really resents outside bullying and are liable to kick the crap out of any side that tries. Including the UK government, if they have to. But also because they're less vulnerable to pressure than elected politicians and much more bound up in the whole tradition thing.
This doesn't mean they'll side with Julian, but it does mean the UK and US governments can't demand the re
Re:What is really at issue with Julian's extraditi (Score:5, Informative)
For folks who want to read the charging document for themselves:
Assange Superseding Indictment [documentcloud.org]
Count 1: 18 U.S.C. 793(g), Conspiracy To Receive National DefenseInformation
Counts 2-4: 18 U.S.C. 793(b) and 2, Obtaining National Defense Information
Counts 5-8: 18 U.S.C. 793(c) and 2, Obtaining National Defense Information
Counts 9-11: 18 U.S.C. 793(d) and 2, Disclosure of National Defense Information
Counts 12-14: 18 U.S.C. 793(e) and 2, Disclosure of National Defense Information
Counts 15-17: 18 U.S.C. 793(e), Disclosure of National Defense Information
Count 18: 18 U.S.C. 371 and 1030, Conspiracy To Commit Computer Intrusion
Re:What is really at issue with Julian's extraditi (Score:5, Insightful)
How many of these charges would apply to a non-US Citizen or a resident.
Re: (Score:2)
The laws are not explicitly limited in that regard, so what we are finding out is that the laws of all nations apply to all people (like it or not).
Re: (Score:2)
How many of these charges would apply to a non-US Citizen or a resident.
This is one of the interesting and important questions, isn't it. IANAL, and I won't pretend to know the answer, but a few quick searches make it seem that the US DOJ may be using the territorial principle [wikipedia.org] in that the theft of the documents occurred within the jurisdiction of the United States (e.g., were stored on servers within the US), and the protective principle [wikipedia.org] in that the stolen documents have a national security relevance.
The question of jurisdiction is definitely one that should be examined and ar
Re: (Score:2)
How many of these charges would apply to a non-US Citizen or a resident.
This is one of the interesting and important questions, isn't it. IANAL
It is never an interesting question, the United States doesn't have different sets of laws for people from different nations. It matters not one iota, not here, not ever.
The server that was unlawfully accessed was located on a US military base. That is all that matters.
Re:What is really at issue with Julian's extraditi (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm not an Assange fan, but I don't understand how he can commit a US crime outside of the US and as a non-citizen.
Re: (Score:2)
As I understand it, the jurisdiction of laws of any nation are globally applicable to all people (if not defined) and limited only by a nations capability to enforce them. If this is just or not is a different matter but this seems to be how laws work.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not an Assange fan, but I don't understand how he can commit a US crime outside of the US and as a non-citizen.
Right, so, you're just an Assange fan who is also a liar and pretends not to be. That's why you're posting stupid talking points.
US military bases are under US control, under US law. Done. Now you know, right?
Also, US law doesn't treat different people differently based on their nationality. See also: 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Being a citizen of one country or another is only an issue in countries without civil rights. And even then, why would being foreign give him protection
Re: (Score:2)
Do you assume everything is so black & white, that any defense of Assange must mean one is a fan? If someone claimed that Assange had the right to a fair trial, would that make them an Assange fan as well?
If an American outside of China shares sensitive information about abuses in China in violating of Chinese law, should they be deported?
What a
Re: (Score:2)
Extradition treaties usually have clauses about crimes needing to be crimes in both jurisdictions along with the severity and punishment being similar. So something like murder is simple as it is pretty well universally a crime with severe consequences, and even then Canada for instance won't extradite a murderer without a guarantee of no capital punishment. Something like religious crimes probably won't meet that standard unless the treaty is between 2 heavily Muslim countries for instance.
Usually the trea
Re:What is really at issue with Julian's extraditi (Score:4, Interesting)
Oh, wait, so you *do* think countries' laws only apply to their citizens!
Re: (Score:2)
So, you're a dumb fuck. So what? What about the Alamo? What about that?!
I mean, fuck an A! What a stupid argument. Do you think if a writer for the New York Times broke into an Iranian military base for information for a story they wouldn't get charged with espionage? Your argument is so dumb, you had to choose politicians to troll for idiot mods.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Alright, then let's extradite Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump to Iran, the first for being in gross breach of Sharia, the second for the murder of general Soleimani.
Oh, wait, so you *do* think countries' laws only apply to their citizens!
No, a non-citizen definitely can commit a crime inside a country and be subjected to that country's legal system. Trust me on this and do not go committing crimes while on vacation.
Also, a non-citizen can commit a crime outside of a country, sent to that country, and then subjected to that country's legal system. This process is called extradition, as in to extradite, a word you used correctly in a sentence.
If we did have an extradition treaty with Iran, and a US citizen defrauds an Iranian bank for examp
Ever heard of Mata Hari? (Score:2)
Remember the rules of international politics: there are no rules. If (for example) Russia invades the Ukraine and takes land, that's their right because they were able to do it. If (for example) other nations step in and do things to Russia to hurt them, that's their collective right. This isn't Hobbiton in The Shire where all is order and right. In fact, in international affairs Might make
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not an Assange fan, but I don't understand how he can commit a US crime outside of the US and as a non-citizen.
How is easy - fraud, theft, espionage, etc. Extradition is a legal and diplomatic thing. People get extradited to the US for drug trafficking even. Why? Why not? Look at El Chapo. We were begging to have him sent to the US, he escaped from a Mexican prison, got recaptured, THEN extradited to the US, you know, for safe keeping.
Re: (Score:2)
A big problem with his "unbiased" journalism was it started developing strong biases, especially around the 2016 election. Wikileaks had some good content, but they started trying sensationalize it with selective editing, then actually working with political groups to release info on their opponents.
There wasn't anything particularly ground breaking in the Clinton email hacks, but it fed right into the Russian and Republican propaganda that there was corruption or something going on. Notably missing were
A correct and insightful observation. (Score:2)
And no, I'm not thinking 'Gitmo' - well, I was, but I know better. Ineffective means of gaining intelligence, long-run costly, unethical and more. On the other hand, a choice between one of our find PITA prisons (where Julian would be considered very pre
Re: What is really at issue with Julian's extradit (Score:2)
The idea behind is that he tried to install some kind of accountability for the powers thay be and actually succeeded at it.
The example he's being made of is along the lines "Don't mess with us. We are going to tolerate some degree of criticism simply because that's what's expected of us. This because we want to keep up the democracy theater, as long as we still retain the usual back channels and hidden handshakes that allow us control what exactly, and how much of it, it is wer're pseudo-made accountable f
Re: (Score:2)
Never mind the journalism aspect. I don't believe for a second that Assange inarticulate, nor Wikileaks in general, is unbiased. OTOH, in the matters of exposing DC's malfeasance up to including straight up (collateral) murder, I'm 100% unequivocally on his side.
The real problem here... and in quite a lot of other stories that come up these days on slashdot... is countries exporting their laws outside their own borders and imposing them on people with no allegiance or duty to said country. Since Assange
Re: (Score:2)
Why the fuck would "allegiance" to the law be a prerequisite for being arrested for breaking it?
Why the fuck do you think US military bases aren't under US legal jurisdiction? That's just moronic.
Go break into a computer on an Australian military base and see if they say, "Oh, that's OK, you're not one of us so you can attack our computers."
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if I went to Australia and broke into a military base and damaged their kit; I would be within Australian jurisdiction and it would be just and appropriate for Australia to arrest me. But if I'm trotting maskless around in Santa Monica... which, being in California, is outside their borders and jurisdiction... in violation of Australia's laws on that matter [abc.net.au], then no, they have no business getting in my business.
"Allegiance" comes into play because there are certain conditions where your citizenship o
Re: (Score:2)
If I stood in Canada and shot someone across the border, I'd get extradited to America (with the condition of no capital punishment).
If I sat at my computer in Canada and broke into an American banks computer and illegally transferred money to me, I'd likewise get extradited.
Extradition treaties usually cover things like that, including breaking into a military computer. OTOH, smoking a joint in Canada would not get me extradited as it is perfectly legal in Canada and the crime does no harm to America and e
Who? (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Nice handle and pretty good joke, but the story has disappointed on Funny again.
Time Servered? (Score:2)
This seems to be normal for the USA. I wonder if a USA judge will consider this if it comes to that?
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. You do not receive "time served" for time spent awaiting extradition.
Fighting extradition is not really a legit legal strategy unless you're actually a different person than they say you are. In that case, it makes sense, but in most cases, it is not the correct venue to defend your rights. It is more of a refusal to defend your rights.
In any case, the US has agreed to let him serve his sentence in Australia, in the event he is convicted. He's already sidelined himself by trying to hide for longer tha
Re: (Score:2)
Everything is unique about that case. He got dragged out of the embassy and on the same day got sentenced to 50 weeks for jumping bail. That is unique in many respects: the caricature judgement in speed and in process, the extreme length, the fact that his time at the embassy did not count. Now he has spent 2 additional years in the worst jail in the UK just so that '' he would not run away while the US wants him. Another judge said he it was alright to extradite him against all journalistic principles but
Is this really journalism? (Score:1)
Is getting an insider to get hold of every data he can and then just dump all of it somewhere public actually journalism? If you're a spy and dump what secrets you find somewhere public, are you then a journalist who should be protected rather convicted?
This wasn't someone basing articles etc on data, after carefully perusing it, not publishing data that could put actual people in danger etc...
Also, just serving as a way for Russian intelligence to influence the US election doesn't exactly smell of an actua
Re: (Score:1)
They didn't just dump it somewhere, they edited the helicopter video so that words that were said 20 minutes apart appear to be from one conversation, in order to change what it appears happened.
Re: (Score:2)
Is getting an insider to get hold of every data he can and then just dump all of it somewhere public actually journalism? If you're a spy and dump what secrets you find somewhere public, are you then a journalist who should be protected rather convicted?
This wasn't someone basing articles etc on data, after carefully perusing it, not publishing data that could put actual people in danger etc...
Also, just serving as a way for Russian intelligence to influence the US election doesn't exactly smell of an actual journalist - or even a normal person with integrity.
I'd like to point out that I put Snowden in a completely different category. He first tried to raise concerns internally, and when he leaked the data, it was carefully selected - not a raw dump. I'm all for pardoning Snowden, while seeing Assanage as a completely different case.
Let this saga end already (Score:3)
Until we shoot him? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Debunking smears about Assange (Score:2)
I rarely use the word debunking but with all the garbage on this thread it's appropriate. I'll just post this link where someone has put an extraordinary amount of work in debunking smears about Assange. It is a good resource even though it is very incomplete, only addressing 30 smears and some could be better
https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2... [caitlinjohnstone.com]
The legal aspects have been discussed by Nils Melzer , here for instance: https://www.republik.ch/2020/0... [republik.ch]