Looking at the transcripts behind the indictment, Assange gave assistance to Manning to log in as a different user to protect his identity as a source.
It's standard for journalists to give material support to their sources in whistleblower circumstances in order to help protect their identity.
> It's standard for journalists to give material support to their sources in whistleblower circumstances in order to help protect their identity.
I don't think it's standard for journalists to give material support for the criminal acts of their sources. For instance: what if Assange had assisted Manning by giving him a gun so he could kill someone who'd discovered that he had blown the whistle, in order to help protect his identity?
I think the key question is, did Assange help Manning commit any crimes, or did he merely report the information resulted from Manning's un-assisted crimes?
While your metaphor is merely intended as a comparison of aiding a crime, it's made hazier by the introduction of a crime of a grisly nature (murder) committed directly (the source pulls the trigger; it is not a murder caused by a third party without the knowledge of the source and the journalist)
A better comparison would be a journalist buying a wrench that can pry open a certain box, or conversely, a lock that makes it very hard to open a certain box.
> Assange gave assistance to Manning to log in as a different user to protect his identity as a source.
Except that the "different user" was an admin account that had the needed permissions to access the data Manning wanted to upload to wikileaks, and the "assistance" was attempting to crack the admin password using a Windows SAM file Manning had provided.
There's more to it than that, but IMO even that doesn't matter.
So let's talk about this in 1970s terms.
A whistleblower knows there are documents of import in a locked room. They take a picture of the locked door and give it the journalist. The journalist gives them instructions of how to pick the specific lock in a way that won't be traced back to them. The whistleblower then uses that information to break into the room and take the documents. Did the journalist commit a crime?
I mean, conspiracy to commit theft of documents to whistleblow is exactly the kind of thing that's protected by the first amendment's freedom of the press provision.
You are absolutely, completely wrong. That in no way is protected by the first amendment. The first amendment does not give the press the right to commit theft, of documents or of anything else.
'Conspiracy to commit theft' isn't 'theft'. Conspiracy is exactly the kind of charge that is protected or else you couldn't talk to a whistleblower until they had already acquired the documents.
Just because you say 'you're wrong' doesn't make it true.
And just because you say you're right, that doesn't make it true, either.
No, conspiracy to commit theft isn't theft. It's still illegal, and it's not protected in any way.
You're trying to use logic and the way you think the world works, or at least ought to work. You need to look at what the law actually says, and how it's actually applied.
I'm going (in part) of off the legal opinion of the Obama DoJ (which had no love for Assange) that they didn't pursue these specific charges for the reasons I've outlined.
On the other end, can you cite either true legal opinion, or better yet case law, showing conspiracy charges sticking against a journalist in a whistleblower situation?
Can I show case law? No - either way. IANAL, and I am not aware of any cases in which the question came up that are specifically against a journalist in a whistleblower situation. There probably is case law that says that conspiracy to commit theft is a valid charge for actions similar to this.
The question, then, is whether "but press" is a valid get-out-of-jail-free card (literally) for this kind of action. I'm pretty sure the answer is no, just like the answer would be no for outright burglary by the press. That's how I think the symmetry between "X" and "conspiracy to X" works.
No, “the press” in “freedom of the press” is the printing press, not the institutional media. It protects the right to print and distribute information; it's the “in print” extension of the right to speech, needed because the 18th Century norm was for print to be more tightly regulated than speech itself, so it would not without explicit listing be clear that free speech extended to expression in print.
It is not a get-out-of-generally-applicable-crimes free card for people engaged in media-related activity.
That would be amusing, but that's not what I said. I said that's what he word “the press” refers directly to, not the modern usage of the term for the institutional media; what it applies to is publishing and distribution on a fixed form (rather than ephemeral speech). What it doesn't apply to is violations of otherwise-valid laws to gather information that is intended for publication.
That’s true. I guess the problem for me is that Obama pardoned Manning who did the actual law breaking, some and supporters cheered. Now those same people are eager to see Assange pay for the crime of telling Manning how to log on as a different user.
Manning was not pardoned, his sentence was commuted. People gave it a pass because Manning was clearly mentally ill and therefore the Army was partly responsible by putting him in a position to do what he did.
Slightly pedantic, but you are right. Sentence communicated by the Obama Admin; effectively pardoned considering the life in jail possibility.
Oh, but now there is an issue. Are trans people mentally ill according to you - or just Manning? Because he committed a crime, then became a she - they no longer are responsible for their actions? Not bad enough to lock up, but bad enough to punish associates for.
By that reasoning, Assange allegedly helped someone that doesn’t exist anymore, commit a crime that no one pays for. Seems like my original point.
Edit: Remembering that not only would Assange not now how ill Manning was (to head off any claims of exploitation) but the info Wikileaks has published has all been true and most users here celebrated its release. That if you agree with the US Gov here you are arguing that supplying information like that on encryption cracking or hacking or any topic that someone could abuse should leave you vulnerable to their misuses, that sure seems like a bad policy.
The central point of this article is that there's a fundamental difference in a person's culpability if they help someone to procure secrets, vs if they just receive and publish those secrets. Therefore (the idea goes) he's not entitled to be seen as a "journalist" any longer. Besides the fact that there's no such legal status as "journalist" in criminal law anyway, it's clearly a pretty shallow and disingenuous attempt to try establish an arbitrary line between Assange and other journalists.
By analogy, there's no real difference in knowingly receiving stolen property, vs assisting in stealing it yourself. They're both crimes that you can be put on trial for.
Journalists could have been accused of helping Snowden get away with it too, but the media closed ranks around them for some reason. What's the real reason Assange is being thrown under the bus?
> Journalists could have been accused of helping Snowden get away with it too, but the media closed ranks around them for some reason. What's the real reason Assange is being thrown under the bus?
Because, under US law, there is a legal difference between receiving whistle-blower information, even if it was stolen, and assisting in the stealing. That distinction actually matters legally - it's not just people "throwing Assange under the bus".
27 comments
[ 2.5 ms ] story [ 72.2 ms ] threadIt's standard for journalists to give material support to their sources in whistleblower circumstances in order to help protect their identity.
I don't think it's standard for journalists to give material support for the criminal acts of their sources. For instance: what if Assange had assisted Manning by giving him a gun so he could kill someone who'd discovered that he had blown the whistle, in order to help protect his identity?
I think the key question is, did Assange help Manning commit any crimes, or did he merely report the information resulted from Manning's un-assisted crimes?
A better comparison would be a journalist buying a wrench that can pry open a certain box, or conversely, a lock that makes it very hard to open a certain box.
Except that the "different user" was an admin account that had the needed permissions to access the data Manning wanted to upload to wikileaks, and the "assistance" was attempting to crack the admin password using a Windows SAM file Manning had provided.
So let's talk about this in 1970s terms.
A whistleblower knows there are documents of import in a locked room. They take a picture of the locked door and give it the journalist. The journalist gives them instructions of how to pick the specific lock in a way that won't be traced back to them. The whistleblower then uses that information to break into the room and take the documents. Did the journalist commit a crime?
Just because you say 'you're wrong' doesn't make it true.
No, conspiracy to commit theft isn't theft. It's still illegal, and it's not protected in any way.
You're trying to use logic and the way you think the world works, or at least ought to work. You need to look at what the law actually says, and how it's actually applied.
On the other end, can you cite either true legal opinion, or better yet case law, showing conspiracy charges sticking against a journalist in a whistleblower situation?
Can I show case law? No - either way. IANAL, and I am not aware of any cases in which the question came up that are specifically against a journalist in a whistleblower situation. There probably is case law that says that conspiracy to commit theft is a valid charge for actions similar to this.
The question, then, is whether "but press" is a valid get-out-of-jail-free card (literally) for this kind of action. I'm pretty sure the answer is no, just like the answer would be no for outright burglary by the press. That's how I think the symmetry between "X" and "conspiracy to X" works.
But as I said, IANAL.
It is not a get-out-of-generally-applicable-crimes free card for people engaged in media-related activity.
I would love to read a legal opinion that freedom of the press only applies to literal physical printing presses.
(Though in fairness, I've been doing it too...)
Seems, selective.
Oh, but now there is an issue. Are trans people mentally ill according to you - or just Manning? Because he committed a crime, then became a she - they no longer are responsible for their actions? Not bad enough to lock up, but bad enough to punish associates for.
By that reasoning, Assange allegedly helped someone that doesn’t exist anymore, commit a crime that no one pays for. Seems like my original point.
Edit: Remembering that not only would Assange not now how ill Manning was (to head off any claims of exploitation) but the info Wikileaks has published has all been true and most users here celebrated its release. That if you agree with the US Gov here you are arguing that supplying information like that on encryption cracking or hacking or any topic that someone could abuse should leave you vulnerable to their misuses, that sure seems like a bad policy.
By analogy, there's no real difference in knowingly receiving stolen property, vs assisting in stealing it yourself. They're both crimes that you can be put on trial for.
Journalists could have been accused of helping Snowden get away with it too, but the media closed ranks around them for some reason. What's the real reason Assange is being thrown under the bus?
Because, under US law, there is a legal difference between receiving whistle-blower information, even if it was stolen, and assisting in the stealing. That distinction actually matters legally - it's not just people "throwing Assange under the bus".