Reply With Quote
Life in prison=death sentence. SameThey released the same stuff.
Actually US citizen would be in more trouble as they can be charged with treason. They cant with assange
They released the same stuff.Yeah go easy on a non citizen who has broken however many laws but let’s execute a citizen because....hater.
Actually US citizen would be in more trouble as they can be charged with treason. They cant with assange
Life in prison=death sentence. SameThey released the same stuff.
Actually US citizen would be in more trouble as they can be charged with treason. They cant with assange
Im sure you would disagree if facing those
Anyway lets pray none of that happens thanks to a Corbyn takeover
:pray
Explain how Corbyn could just deny an extradition request.Im sure you would disagree if facing those
Anyway lets pray none of that happens thanks to a Corbyn takeover
:pray
I don’t agree with the death penalty. Far too many innocent people unjustifiably get it for me to be comfortable with it.Im sure you would disagree if facing those
Anyway lets pray none of that happens thanks to a Corbyn takeover
:pray
Life in prison serves the same purpose imo.
could claim Assange at risk of execution
And then the US takes it off the table.
Then what?
They will not seek the death penalty.
Snowflakes willing to lose press freedoms forever just for a loooong shot to down Donald Trump
ing pathetic bas s
Jack Goldsmith in The Weekly Standard.
It's not easy to tease out how what Wikileaks does is materially different from ordinary national security reporting.
https://www.weeklystandard.com/jack-...american-mediaJournalists publish stolen information all the time without worrying about the legality of the source’s method for obtaining the information. They published and analyzed the Snowden do ents, the Manning material, the hacked Sony emails, the Panama Papers, and the leaked NSA and CIA offensive cyber tools, to take just a few examples. In all of these examples, and thousands more, publication and analysis of stolen material may incentivize, and legitimize, the theft.
And yet such material is the lifeblood of reporting, especially national security reporting. If publication of the DNC materials raises ethical issues, so too does the broader commonplace practice of publishing stolen information.
Does the motive of the leaker matter?
What would the Times do in a situation where it had important truthful information but did not know the source? We know the answer to this question from the Trump tax return story: It would do everything in its power to verify and corroborate the truth of the information, and then publish. The iden y and motive of the source did not matter because the Times did not have that information.
Even when journalists know the source, it is hard to see how the source’s motives can be the touchstone.
as to whether it makes any difference whether the leaker is a foreign intelligence service or an affiliate thereof, it seems clear that newspapers have already concluded that there is no legal consequence for divulging classified information, so long as lives are not at stake or it is at least arguable that they are not.
Intuitions differ on these questions, I realize. But if you think information stolen by Russia should be out of bounds and not published, should that ban apply to information stolen by all intelligence agencies? Or only to information stolen by adversarial intelligence services? What about information that comes from sources known to have connections to foreign intelligence services? Or information that comes from citizens from adversary nations? What about information published by WikiLeaks? It is very hard to know where journalists should draw the line beyond the usual one of insisting that the information be truthful and newsworthy, and of disclosing the source of the information.
Whatever the right answer should be, I have little doubt that the Times and other elite news outlets will continue to report truthful and newsworthy information leaked by foreign intelligence services. Indeed, in three ways the Times has organized itself in the last decade to invite such information from foreign intelligence services.
First, the Times has lowered the bar on the publication of classified information in recent years. One reason it has done so, as Assistant General Counsel, David McCraw, acknowledged (47:30 ff.), is that the WikiLeaks and Snowden experiences convinced the Times legal team “that there is no legal consequence from publishing leaks” of classified information, at least where lives are not clearly at stake
Last edited by Winehole23; 11-17-2018 at 09:44 AM.
motive?
If leaks expose criminal activity, then why not?
If wikileaks exposes DNC/Podesta emails to American so-called democratic voting, what crime is being exposed?
good-faith leaking/whisteblowing crimes (eg Pentagon Papers) versus bad-faith political (paid) rat ing to subvert voting?
false equivalence.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 11-17-2018 at 10:09 AM.
in short, journalism of record has come to resemble Wikileaks.
Inferentially, the prosecution of Assange will be chilling for national security reporting in general.
the Times practically invites foreign intelligence services to give it stolen information through its secure drop. The Times boasts that secure drop does “not ask for or require any identifiable information” or “track or log information surrounding our communication.” It also says that information sent via secure drop is stored in encrypted format on its servers and is decrypted and read on a computer unconnected to the Internet.In all three of these respects, the Times has—under pressure from outlets such as WikiLeaks—become very much like WikiLeaks. Yes, the Times curates and edits and analyzes better than WikiLeaks, and is more selective in what it publishes. But it publishes secret stolen information that it never would have published in the past, and it has set up fancy encrypted mechanisms to solicit such stolen information anonymously.
And yet re ed snowflakes will be cheering Assanges crucifixion like its a small W over Trump
pretty much.
snowflakes on the other side would have done the same had GWB brought Assange into the dock 12 years ago.
Well maybe Trump and his dumbass family shouldn’t have been in cahoots with Wikileaks.And yet re ed snowflakes will be cheering Assanges crucifixion like its a small W over Trump
IMO this “accidental” leak of the charging of Assange is not so accidental
Its a test balloon. And based on the re ed response by snowflakes, they will probably proceed. They will use this “getting at Trump” ruse to cut that national security reporting freedom at the bone.
We will forget about any reporting of leaks in the near future.
And snowflakes will still celebrate this as some kind of W.
Assange should wait out Corbyn or off himself. Why give the government the satisfaction of using him to do away with nat sec reporting for good?
USA needs him to set legal precedent
Journalists do not hack into private bank accounts and government lists containing SS numbers etc... and then leak this info. Assange started out with a noble idea and then got full of himself. It's not up to him to fund hacking and then solely decide what is leaked. He got a big massive "I will save the world" head, was told by his own people how the road they were traveling could be very dangerous for perfectly innocent people, and lied to his paid hackers and released stuff in his whimsical way. He acted as judge and jury.
He is a crook. Go to jail.
Executed... what a crock of overblown bull-hockey.
what laws did he break and how is what he does any different than NYT's secure drop facility?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
