Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Media News

Media Groups Urge US To Drop Julian Assange Charges (theguardian.com) 100

Posted by BeauHD from the publishing-is-not-a-crime dept.
The US government must drop its prosecution of the WikiLeaks co-founder Julian Assange because it is undermining press freedom, according to the media organizations that first helped him publish leaked diplomatic cables. The Guardian reports: Twelve years ago today, the Guardian, the New York Times, Le Monde, Der Spiegel, and El Pais collaborated to release excerpts from 250,000 documents obtained by Assange in the "Cablegate" leak. The material, leaked to WikiLeaks by the then American soldier Chelsea Manning, exposed the inner workings of US diplomacy around the world. The editors and publishers of the media organizations that first published those revelations have come together to publicly oppose plans to charge Assange under a law designed to prosecute first world war spies. "Publishing is not a crime," they said, saying the prosecution is a direct attack on media freedom.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Media Groups Urge US To Drop Julian Assange Charges More

Media Groups Urge US To Drop Julian Assange Charges

Comments Filter:

  • Choose Slashdot... (Score:3, Funny)

    by jddj ( 1085169 ) on Monday November 28, 2022 @08:50PM (#63087258) Journal

    For the best in news scraped from the front page of the Washington Post.

    • The US wont drop the charges. His best chance was at the end of the Trump administration. Julian was a prime target of VP Biden at the time under the Obama administration.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Obama/Biden went easy on them. Manning had her sentence commuted, while if it were Trump, she likely would have been tossed in Leavenworth for the rest of her days.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by Rujiel ( 1632063 )
          "Went easy on them" my ass. the Obama administration repeatedly tortured Manning with solitary confinement. They did everything they coild to go after Assange, short of doing a drone strike on him like HRC wanted. So I have no idea where you got that take

        • Re: Choose Slashdot... (Score:4, Interesting)

          by LostMyBeaver ( 1226054 ) on Tuesday November 29, 2022 @03:16AM (#63087780)
          It would have set a bad precedent for Trump. He seemed to be in favor of posting classified military intelligence on Twitter

    • The Guardian leaked the password (Score:5, Insightful)

      by aberglas ( 991072 ) on Monday November 28, 2022 @10:19PM (#63087412)

      To Assanges unredacted trove. They just put it in an article. Idiots. Assange did not dump secrets, the Guardian did.

      And then The Guardian and others turned on Assange the moment the dubious rape charges were raised.

      And what happened to those charges. Mysteriously disappeared. Some minor ones may have expired, but not the main rape charges.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Rujiel ( 1632063 )
        All you would hear from the shills on here 10 years ago was that he was a rapist and would never be extradited to the US. Now that has all fallen apart, where are those people? Turns out they were just as insincere as those cheering on Assange's cruel and unusual punishment now.

        • If the US wanted him so bad, why would they get Sweden to put out fake rape allegations? Extradition from the UK to the US is a hell of a lot easier than from Sweden to the US. You're a fucking moron if you believe otherwise. None of the other WikiLeaks people even believe that stupid narrative. They know Assange is an attention whore and will say anything to his stupid little personality cult, you included, to make himself look much better than he actually is.

          The Ecuadorian embassy kicked him out because t

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Rujiel ( 1632063 )
            "If the US wanted him so bad" I'm not sure what year you are posting from--is it the year 2013? Because the UK has been working to extradite Assange to the US at its behest for years now. UK police extracted him from the embassy almost four years ago. Wake up "why would they get Sweden to put out fake rape allegations" The US undeniably got Sweden to pursue Assange for jumping bail over his sexual assault case--not for rape for removing a condom during sex. The plaintiff didn't want the case to continue

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Rujiel ( 1632063 )

            "If the US wanted him so bad"

            I'm not sure what year you are posting from--is it the year 2013? Because the UK has been working to extradite Assange to the US at its behest for years now. UK police extracted him from the embassy almost four years ago. Wake up

            "why would they get Sweden to put out fake rape allegations"

            The US undeniably got Sweden to pursue Assange for jumping bail over his sexual assault case--not for rape for removing a condom during sex. The plaintiff didn't want the case to continue and th

            • I'm not sure what year you are posting from--is it the year 2013? Because the UK has been working to extradite Assange to the US at its behest for years now.

              Actually the US had made no attempt to do so until at least about 2018. Between 2010 and then, you idiots kept saying that the US just wanted him to go to Sweden so that they could extradite him to the US. Stop pretending that you and the rest of his stupid fans weren't. And yes, it was just as stupid then as it is now.

              UK police extracted him from the embassy almost four years ago. Wake up

              I never said otherwise you stupid moron.

              The US undeniably got Sweden to pursue Assange for jumping bail over his sexual assault

              If it's undeniable, then prove it. Or shut up already.

              case--not for rape for removing a condom during sex. The plaintiff didn't want the case to continue and the state pursued it anyway. That case fell apart completely and now all that they have is the claim that he helped someone crack a password.

              Even if that were true, then ask Sweden why that happened. The US had nothing to do with it. To s

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by l810c ( 551591 )

        Slashdot Needs a LIKE icon

      • And what happened to those charges. Mysteriously disappeared. Some minor ones may have expired, but not the main rape charges.

        That is what happens when you wait out the statute of limitations, and the women drop the charges, the case falls apart.

        • The statutes of limitations only applied to minor charges, not the rape one. And he could have been charged long ago, the Swedish police chose not too.

          The women have not dropped the charges, citation please.

          Pretty sure Assange behaved badly, two women at once. But then an aggro Swedish policewoman tried to beat it up into rape. Then, after the fact, the USA saw this as an opportunity to get Assange. The policewoman could then quietly drop the case without having to front up with evidence of an actual ra

          • Then, after the fact, the USA saw this as an opportunity to get Assange.

            Speaking of things with no basis in reality. The US would have a harder time getting him in Sweden than in UK, there is no reason to believe that the Swedish charges had anything to do with the US. That was Assange's take, but since he is paranoid, and there is not evidence for it, it is just a conspiracy theory, and it doesn't even make sense.

            Pretty sure Assange behaved badly, two women at once.

            He was accused of having sex with a woman without a condom after telling her he would, also, it was while she was asleep, which means that she could not provide con

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Rujiel ( 1632063 )
      Oh yeah sure, because slashdot has NEVER covered assange or wikileaks before right? Herp derp https://www.google.com/search?... [google.com]

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by jddj ( 1085169 )

        It's really not the Assange thing.

        It's just that I'm a Post subscriber, and I can about count on seeing the Post's verbatim headline in Slashdot about a day later on things with the most tenuous connection to "news for nerds", and a link to the Post's story.

        I don't think that makes Slashdot an ultimate evil or something. It's just kind of lame that it gets scraped and no context or alternate sourcing gets provided. ./ is a shadow of its former self.

        • I am wondering, when slashdot was recognised as an influential site was it sold or changed ownership?

          I noticed mostly echoing of establishment media in recent years, plus what is obviously personnel employed to be here either shitting up conversation or downmodding when commenters say what is actually going on.

          Just too consistent to be a handful of idiots.

          Slashdot's allowing people to post as anonymous coward even though registered is a good way of making it difficult to identify consistent shitposters/sock

          • Re: Choose Slashdot... (Score:5, Interesting)

            by jddj ( 1085169 ) on Tuesday November 29, 2022 @06:49AM (#63088008) Journal

            /. got its cheese moved.

            It was one of the first movers in human curation of news ("news for nerds, stuff that matters"), but then others picked up on it. First sites like reddit, then the broader social media world. Twitter was initially very good at this, before they started using algorithms to promote tweets.

            Eventually everyone was curating and /. became less special, the owners sold and got out while they could, and it's now owned by an SEO company who I guess is being paid to drive traffic to sites.

  • I agree with the media outlets. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Otis B. Dilroy III ( 2110816 ) on Monday November 28, 2022 @09:03PM (#63087282)
    But it would help immensely if Julian wasn't such a sleazy little weenie.

    • Re: I agree with the media outlets. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by sg_oneill ( 159032 ) on Monday November 28, 2022 @09:08PM (#63087300)

      Yeah I'm not a fan of the man (I bumped into him a few times in Melbourne before he got famous, he's a ..... weird dude) but there is a principle here that shouldn't be forgotten that press freedoms are important

      • I feel sorry for his kids. Imagine growing up knowing that your parents decided to have you despite knowing the chances of your ever having a normal life are effectively zero.

      • Re: I agree with the media outlets. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by phantomfive ( 622387 ) on Monday November 28, 2022 @11:58PM (#63087540) Journal

        If freedom of speech doesn't protect weirdos, then it's not free speech.

        • The war on whistleblowers and journalists highlights how making speech unfree works out for all of us.... ... another war based on lies, billions of tax dollars transferred to war profiteers... people don't learn because speech isn't free....

    • The fact that dogshit like this gets voted up goes to show how manipulated the moderation is here. would you even have the integrity to say what you're accusing him of? Yeah, didn't think so

    • ....And how was THAT opinion informed eh?

      Think on that if you want to be honest with yourself.

    • Excuse him for not being a stereotypical broad-chested, square-chinned cape-clad hero, but he still is a hero.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by gweihir ( 88907 )

      Well, yes. But to defend freedom, you have to defend all kinds of unsavory or not very nice people. Otherwise they will be used as the way in for those that want to erode freedoms. And this strategy unfortunately works. Also refer to "First they came for xyz, and I said nothing..."

  • That's not what he's being charged for.. (Score:5, Informative)

    by poptix ( 78287 ) on Monday November 28, 2022 @09:05PM (#63087288) Homepage

    He's being charged for unlawfully obtaining and disclosing classified documents related to national defense, conspiracy, aiding and abetting, and unauthorized access (they cracked a password).

    https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr... [justice.gov]

    • It doesn't matter much what the actual charges are.

      • Re:That's not what he's being charged for.. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Richard_at_work ( 517087 ) on Monday November 28, 2022 @09:30PM (#63087344)

        It does, because it establishes that even journalists have lines they cannot legally cross in the pursuit of a story - can you imagine it being legal to bribe someone to obtain Trumps tax records from the IRS, or Bidens health records etc?

        Even the police aren't allowed to break the law to obtain evidence - why should journalists?

        • Even the police aren't allowed to break the law to obtain evidence - why should journalists?

          To begin with, police can arrest you and journalists can't. They are in different categories.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by trawg ( 308495 )

            Journalists can, and have, run stories about people that have ruined their lives though.

            If course, journalists have run stories that have also saved lives, or exposed massive wrongs, and all sorts of other stuff that's a net benefit to society.

        • It was Bradley/Chelsea Manning wo primary broke the law and not Assange so he should be free'ed.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Ormy ( 1430821 )

          I agree with your point but you picked a terrible example (followed by a much better example). Obtaining trump's tax records through bribery would be fine by me assuming there is some way to verify that the records are genuine and not faked. When you're the leader of a nation your tax records should be publicly available to everyone to scrutinise, if you can't pay your fair share of tax you shouldn't have any political power at all. Medical records are a different issue, they should be private for everyo

        • Even the police aren't allowed to break the law to obtain evidence - why should journalists?

          The police have powers that journalists simply don't have. They can put you in prison for life, they can even go to your house and shoot you without too many consequences, all they need is some flimsy excuse - "It looked like he was reaching for something!".

          The police need as many "checks and balances" as possible.

        • Even the police aren't allowed to break the law to obtain evidence - why should journalists?

          Lick harder, there's still some leather left on that foot.

    • What he's charged for and what he did are not the same.

      He did good, then he went nuts. I'm still not sure which side I'm on, but you're pointing out the other side of the argument, which remains to be proven.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      He's being charged for unlawfully obtaining and disclosing classified documents related to national defense, conspiracy, aiding and abetting, and unauthorized access (they cracked a password).

      And why the fuck should a non-American outside of America be subjected to American law at all?

      Would you like being sent to middle east for violating Sharia law in the US?

      • Re:That's not what he's being charged for.. (Score:4, Insightful)

        by BardBollocks ( 1231500 ) on Tuesday November 29, 2022 @01:31AM (#63087664)

        THIS.

        Not to mention he revealed warcrimes and crimes of states. As well as corporations, all over the world.

        This rabid demonisation of Assange to distract from the contents Wikileaks gave to History and to the human race is AMAZING to watch. Historians are going to have a heyday laughing at parts of this society, and hopefully teaching about what happens when government agencies start creating content for the internet...

    • Re:That's not what he's being charged for.. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by bill_mcgonigle ( 4333 ) * on Monday November 28, 2022 @10:52PM (#63087464) Homepage Journal

      This was settled in Pentagon Papers.

      Obama's DoJ concluded there was no way to charge him without also ensnaring NYT, WaPO, etc.

      Trump did it anyway.

    • He's being charged for unlawfully obtaining and disclosing classified documents related to national defense, conspiracy, aiding and abetting, and unauthorized access (they cracked a password).

      Ummm, he's not an American citizen so why would that be unlawful?

      I bet you'd be praising him if it was Russian or Chinese secrets that were leaked, amiright?

    • Yes, but the problem is that the crimes that he helped made public have not been investigated or prosecuted. So we know exactly that he is prosecuted for making those stories public, not for breaking any law.

    • You have to remember these laws are made by the same people who are hiding stuff we should know about, and it can be argued that they are there simply to protect illegal ativities within the Goverment. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to allow the people to have the tools to fight an oppresive Government, in the modern age where there is a continuos information war those rights need to be extened to allowing the poeple the right to access hidden information. This is different from hacking to deface or ga

  • Absolutely not (Score:1, Insightful)

    by hdyoung ( 5182939 )
    Immediate downmod incoming, but you don't get to call yourself a journalist and suddenly you've got a free pass to do whatever you want, with whomever you want, to whomever you want, at any time you want, with zero consequences. the world doesn't work that way

    Last time I checked, you don't to claim to be a journalist just because you stand up your own website and write whatever you please. Journalistic credentials come with certain protections, but Assange has NONE of those.

    In addition, he's publicl
    • I'd say the cases are comparable in many ways, but like you, I 'd say his motives were self centered and sketchy... also as you and others point out he did a crime to obtain the information. But the idea that his motives we're pure just doesn't resonate. In Snowdon's case though I would put some weight on the importance of the revelations. Surveillance is real. And Nobody can really get their head around the negatives of massive automation, Amazon style. Example. AWS. For government? It saves moolah. So eas

    • Re:Absolutely not (Score:5, Informative)

      by bill_mcgonigle ( 4333 ) * on Monday November 28, 2022 @10:54PM (#63087466) Homepage Journal

      > Last time I checked, you don't to claim to be a journalist just because you stand up your own website and write whatever you please.

      Wrong. SCOTUS ruled precisely the opposite of your claim. Check again.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Rujiel ( 1632063 )
      "Journalistic credentials come with certain protections, but Assange has NONE of those." That's a complete lie. Anyone can do journalistic work without credentials. The rest of your post is equally as shit. Someone put his life on the line to open up the truth about how our wars are siphoning away our money to a transnational elite, and you're more insulted about how he obtained the info with a password. "I'm perfectly happy to see the US intelligence apparatus yank him back and forth like a rottweiler wi

      • Right.

        I want to know, because we KNOW governments employ P.R. agents to guide discourse on influential websites, how many of the people repeating the same lies are being paid to do so, during the course of their job.

        Do they give a fuck they are repeating misinformation, or are they so institutionalised they believe the lies they are repeating?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by BardBollocks ( 1231500 )

      Not claiming to be a journalist. IS a journalist. AND a member of the Australian Journalists union.

      When you start your argument with a lie, you betray your motivation.

      • A Russian FSB agent comes into the US, registers with some "journalist guild", creates as webpage that totally looks journalistic, and has a resume that says JOURNALIST in all caps at the top. A journalist? By your standards, absolutely. The US will still revoke his visa and kick his ass out of the country.

        Assange was clearly an agent working for the benefit og a hostile foreign power, and he was pretty outspoken and proud about it. They guy hates the US with a passion, and the feeling is mutual.

        Lik

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Rujiel ( 1632063 )
          Sounds like you would You seem to care a lot more about obtaining expected outcomes from a fucked power structure that will torture people and deny them proper care for all the world to see. IF Manning is mentally ill then it's because the state held him without trial and tortured him for years. But if you're saying he's mentally ill because he's trans, then please find a bag of dicks to eat
          • Your first sentence was completely incomprehensible. I literally read it three times and couldnt understand what you were trying to convey.

            Regarding the accusation of homophobia: f*&k off. I’m saying Manning is mentally ill because of her long history of mental problems and violent outbursts at work, which included physically assaulting supervisors. Her LGBTQ+ status is a completely separate issue. I dont know a ton of trans people but, within the small group I know, a reasonable fraction of
    • Assange had a pretty popular publication, and in this case was working with a major British newspaper. He had previous worked as a researcher for a mainstream book on computer hacking.

      So even if there were requirements for journalistic credentials, Assange had them.

    • Last time I checked, you don't to claim to be a journalist just because you stand up your own website

      What do you have against crowdsourced journalism? Why are you on your knees for the NYT?

    • I'm perfectly happy to see the US intelligence apparatus yank him back and forth like a rottweiler with a chew toy.

      Seriously? You're actually cheering for the spy agencies using trumped-up charges on someone as blatant revenge for exposing their secrets? 'Yay, my country's secret police can totally destroy a man's life because he revealed their secrets better than any other country's secret police! USA number one!'

      Incidentally, that's not even true. Mossad would probably just have him shot, the Saudis strangled, Russian FSB poisoned with something radioactive. Most people would be happy with their country's intelligence

  • How do we know some asshole terrorist didn't set him up?

    Or worse, blackmail the authorities into trumping up the charges?

    Someone tried to impeach the AG during the criminal investigation of the January 6th riot

    You don't fucking fire the sheriff in the middle of a bank robbery!

    Something stinks big time and if anything they'd have better luck going after him as a material witness to whoever spilled the beans.

    If he could crack a password THAT FUCKING EASILY I would consider it dereliction of duty for

  • Went From Admire to Never Forgive! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by BrendaEM ( 871664 ) on Monday November 28, 2022 @11:07PM (#63087476) Homepage
    I thought it was a good thing that he released footage of a helicopter accidentally gunning down civilians, but I cannot forgive him for helping install Trump, that POS!

    • obvious troll is obvious.

      You know nothing John Snow.

    • Too bad that was a doctored video, that edited together two sections from an hour apart to trick you into thinking that even happened.

      In the full video, they were firing on militants with RPGs.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Rujiel ( 1632063 )

        Big surprise for you: many people in that part of the world have guns for their own defense. Would it be acceptable for an invading army in your country to blow up anyone they see who has a gun?

        Additionally the same operators in that video shot up a van injuring children hiding inside, and when they learned such on the recording, they didn't give a shit. sounds like you wouldn't feel remors either if you were the one blowing up and shooting civilians.

        The military didn't even acknowledge killing the Reuters

  • Sad But True (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jamander4 ( 2684679 ) on Tuesday November 29, 2022 @12:16AM (#63087576)
    The suppression of free speech is not a bug of current policy it is a feature. The US government does nor want anyone else to do what Assange did. Assange did a service to the US population and the world but the powers that be are committed acting in secret to do things that shock the conscience. As a practical matter some secrets need to be kept. Far too many things are secret and many of the secrets threaten the vary concept of democracy. Where the line is should be drawn is a difficult problem. No matter what happens to Assange I thank him for his effort

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Ormy ( 1430821 )
      This. I gather from everything I've read he's not the most socially pleasant gentleman around, but his services to democracy, truth and transparency deserve our deepest gratitude despite his personality flaws.
  • First, the man is NOT a reporter or part of the press. So, their pushing for this is total BS.
    Secondly, what crime did he commit? He did not steal the information. Manning did and should have served a very long sentence at Leavenworth for that. He lucked out that Obama commuted his sentence. However, Assange is not American, was not on American soil, and therefore should not be charged by us. OTOH, if he suddenly commits suicide by putting a gun to the back of his head, or he decides to garrot his own thro

    • He did not steal the information.

      An accomplice is guilty of the same thing as the person they're standing behind. He's accused of doing the thing. That's just a fact. Don't be an ignoramus.

  • What did Assange do, that the NYT has not done? (Score:3, Informative)

    by walterbyrd ( 182728 ) on Tuesday November 29, 2022 @12:17PM (#63088642)

    MSM leaks classified information all the time. Bay of Pigs invasion. Pentagon Papers.
    During the first year of the Trump administration there were, at least, 140 such leaks.
    Now the classified documents the FBI took from Trump are being selectively leaked all the time.

    Why is it okay for the MSM to leak classified information, but not Assange? Especially since, unlike MSM reporters, Assange is not even a US citizen.

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close