Julian Assange and Wikileaks

Except that’s not what was being asked.

Recall, from above, this little bit of legal precedent:

If a Russian agent passed information to CNN and they reported on it, that would be protected under law.

That wasn’t the question.

If a Russian asset working in the US stole classified information and then published it in its entirety on his blog, would you consider that journalism? What if they did it specifically to harm the US, not out of some journalistic desire for the truth? What if they did it at the direct behest of the Russian government?

Edited by archonspeaks on Sep 14th 2019 at 8:46:55 AM

@Charles Phipps: I'm asking if the KGB agent should be protected, not the CNN reporter. Assange is the KGB agent in this scenario.

Isn't he currently being charged with espionage specifically because he participated in Manning getting the information rather than just doing research and/or receiving it from Manning after she got the info herself?

Like, I thought the prosecution was specifically because the current DOJ judged him to have been part of the crime here and not just telling us the outcome?

In this case, he'd be a guy hired by the KGB as he's not an actual agent.

And we're getting to, again, the fact his espionage was publishing publicly information for the world.

Edited by CharlesPhipps on Sep 14th 2019 at 9:22:09 AM

So your bar here is “literally a formal agent of an enemy intelligence apparatus”?

Well, it’s good to know you’re casting a wide net at least. I’ll remind you that many of the most successful enemy spies in US history weren’t foreign employees but rather people who’d been subverted or otherwise made accomplices.

It’s essentially academic, though, as what Assange did still isn’t journalism regardless. And you’ve now demonstrated that you’ll defend actual spies as well.

Most of what he’s being charged with is “disclosure of national defense information”. The exact law says this:

The crime here is the disclosure of information. Reporters have protection when it comes to doing their jobs, so if you disclosed classified information to a reporter and they wrote about it the crime would be you disclosing it to them, not them reporting it. Of course, Assange published it himself, and he’s not a reporter.

Edited by archonspeaks on Sep 14th 2019 at 9:38:17 AM

That's the issue, making a crime from the disclosure.

Did you miss the bit earlier where I asked Charles if he’d consider an ISIS agent to qualify as deserving protection and he basically said yes?

There’s a reason I dropped the conversation after that, Charles has been very clear that he opposes the espionage act being used on anyone who publicly revealed their stolen information, be they Assange, a KGB spy or a member of ISIS.

, So, Charles, let me get this straight: your position is that disclosing classified information (something that is always illegal in, like, every country on earth) should be fully legal for anyone to do, even if the content of the information has no journalistic value and only harms people, and you will defend literally anyone who does it including hostile enemy agents and actual terrorists?

Words can’t even begin to describe how utterly absurd that position is.

Edited by archonspeaks on Sep 15th 2019 at 3:21:21 AM

Telling everyone doesn't make it not-espionage. Indeed, the big reason why the government needs to keep information secret is because telling the general public is effectively the same as telling the enemy.

I think the issue is that you keep focusing on Assange. I keep focusing on the fact that its the legal precedent.

The ISIS example was, "Do I support making someone a journalist a crime even if they have repellent beliefs, versus actual membership in a terrorist organization?" If ISIS ran a news agency or the Nazis returned from the grave, I'd want them arrested as Nazis not journalists.

And then you say, "Assange is not a journalist."

And I go, "Do you have a way to define a journalist that isn't usable against people who protest the government?"

Edited by CharlesPhipps on Sep 15th 2019 at 7:37:49 AM

No, I’m curious. Would you defend an ISIS member if they posted classified info damaging to the US online? Where’s your line here?

Will you in fact defend literally any person who releases classified information? You’ve been eagerly jumping to Assange’s defense for a while now, so don’t turn around and pretend it’s suddenly just about the law.

Or better yet, why don’t you explain what your issue with this precedent and statute is specifically, rather than some vague “it’ll destroy freedom” thing.

Edited by archonspeaks on Sep 15th 2019 at 7:37:25 AM

...Who else are you supposed to focus on in a thread literally titled "Julian Assange and Wikileaks"?

An ISIS member who is also a reporter is a terrorist.

You don't NEED to arrest him for his journalism.

You can arrest him for being an ISIS member.

Assange should stand trial for the rapes he committed.

But the issue is people want to charge him as a spy. Which is what I object to. Of course Assange is the person who I keep defending because he's the person that people are trying to criminalize the actions of to make it impossible for leakers, whistle blowers, and the people who work with them to operate.

The various editorials have all agreed on one thing that I do as well, "Receiving classiifed information from a source then publishing it should not be treated with a law designed around dealing with enemies of the state." Because that means the government can decide anything can be kept from the public in the national interest.

I'd come up with examples but I don't need to because the stuff Assange published is walls of war crimes, double dealings, and serious failings. People were endangered by what he did and names should have been redacted but that is not why this is happening.

Edited by CharlesPhipps on Sep 15th 2019 at 7:52:26 AM

I still cannot believe anyone is defending someone who is nothing but a glorified doxxer.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/04/11/julian-assange-six-wikileaks-most-memorable-revelations/3434371002/

And

Not to mention the USA condoning the torture of prisoners by Iraqi forces.

These alone are worth justifying Assange's journalist status.

Edited by CharlesPhipps on Sep 15th 2019 at 7:57:15 AM

He didn't report anything. He released a ton of unredacted info online. Actual journalists reported on that.

Someone who just releases a ton of info willynilly like that isn't a journalist. By that logic any doxxer who releases personal info online for the express purpose of making others look bad or hurting them is a journalist.

Edited by M84 on Sep 15th 2019 at 10:57:10 PM

As the Obama DOJ pointed out, that was done using the information provided by Assange.

Peter Thiel paid for Hulk Hogan's legal defense because he was outed as a gay man by Gawker while in Saudia Arabia. I can understand his anger. The thing is that a shit ton of that material is in the national interest to know.

Edited by CharlesPhipps on Sep 15th 2019 at 7:59:44 AM

And hey, if Assange had simply delivered that info confidentially to the Washington Post or something, it'd have been a different situation.

The Post's writers at least would probably have redacted info and been more responsible and ethical.

Assange is a journalist in the same sense as a homeopath is a doctor.

Edited by M84 on Sep 15th 2019 at 11:01:42 PM

You don't have to say they might be because they did post a bunch of redacted articles and material despite it being out in public.

You seem to assume I can't think simultaneously:

• Think Assange is a creep
• Think Assange is a rapist who should serve time for what he did
• Think Assange is a journalist
• Think he fucked up posted unredacted documents in terms of names
• Think its a very good thing most of those articles are out in the open
• Think Assange shouldn't be charged with the Espionage Act

Edited by CharlesPhipps on Sep 15th 2019 at 8:02:48 AM

The point is that if all Assange cared about was the truth and was careful to avoid risking anyone's safety, he'd have simply delivered that info to real journalists. Instead, he made it all public.

If I stumbled across compromising photos of someone and posted them online, I wouldn't get very far by trying to argue I was just doing journalism.

Edited by M84 on Sep 15th 2019 at 11:05:12 PM

Okay, I’m getting the sense now that you’re a little confused about the Espionage Act.

Are you aware that it’s a group of laws that cover many different things, and that it’s been in force for over a hundred years now? It covers quite a few things, that name doesn’t mean he’s literally being charged with espionage. Numerous people have been prosecuted under it for doing things very similar to what Assange has done. So, you could say these actions are already criminalized.

I’m still interested to hear how you think this will destroy journalism and end liberty, though. As I’ve pointed out to you about a dozen times now, journalists have special protection under the law and Assange is not a journalist.

One more time: Assange is not a journalist.

You have to do journalism to be a journalist, which he has not done.

Edited by archonspeaks on Sep 15th 2019 at 8:18:58 AM

I feel like you assume I'm merely ignorant and not understanding here.

Here is my position:

Do not treat Assange as a spy.

And I have yet to hear a single coherent argument as to why he isn't. The lack of editorializing?

Then do photo journalists not count?

Edited by CharlesPhipps on Sep 15th 2019 at 8:20:52 AM

...did you read that post above? I can’t tell if you’re genuinely confused or just have no interest in having a good faith argument.

“Espionage Act” is the name for a group of laws. It doesn’t mean Assange is being charged with espionage, or being treated as a spy. If you disrupt a military exercise the law you’re charged with comes from the Espionage Act, it covers a wide range of things.

Edited by archonspeaks on Sep 15th 2019 at 8:22:19 AM

Yes, I've read the series of laws.

...

That are meant to deal with spies.

Because "Espionage Act."

And before you say I'm being ignorant, I should point out that legal experts under Obama have already stated they didn't think that Assange qualified to be charged under them.

Why do you disagree?

Edited by CharlesPhipps on Sep 15th 2019 at 8:23:10 AM

This is getting a little unbelievable. I feel like I’m talking to a wall.

The Espionage Act covers many different things. Being charged under it does not automatically mean you are a spy, or are being accused of spying. Even being charged with releasing classified information doesn’t mean you’re a spy, as you can still be charged under the Espionage Act for negligently releasing information you had legal access to, for example leaving a folder out.

Please read that three times and comprehend it.

The Obama admin didn’t think these charges would pass a court muster at the time. Given everything that’s happened since, I think it’s highly likely they would now. At this point it can be pretty clearly articulated that Assange was acting in the interest of a hostile foreign power, with the specific intent to harm the US. The Obama admin was very clear that he wasn’t a journalist, which is still true, meaning the only issue was the intent as his releases were not protected journalistic speech.

Now, I’m still waiting for an explanation as to how these charges will destroy freedom. So far all you’ve said is that it shouldn’t happen, which is just a statement, and that if it did happen the government could hide anything, which they already can. Your journalist sources agree that the main impact on journalism would be discouraging future leaks, so it’s not exactly destroying freedom of the press either.

Also, that’s exactly why this is happening. If he had handed his documents over to actual journalists like most sources do he wouldn’t be in this problem.

Edited by archonspeaks on Sep 15th 2019 at 8:35:33 AM