Julian Assange's extradition hearing in London has been ongoing for weeks with seemingly no end in sight. Today the Wall Street Journal reports that the US is considering a plea deal that would eliminate the 18 espionage charges against him, leaving only a single charge of computer hacking:
If prosecutors allow Assange to plead to a U.S. charge of mishandling classified documents—something his lawyers have floated as a possibility—it would be a misdemeanor offense. Under such a deal, Assange potentially could enter that plea remotely, without setting foot in the U.S. The time he has spent behind bars in London would count toward any U.S. sentence, and he would likely be free to leave prison shortly after any deal was concluded.
This would be the right thing to do. Fred Kaplan describes a bit of the history here:
In 2019, the Department of Justice issued a single-count indictment against Assange, charging him—under a completely different statute—with conspiring to break into a computer containing classified information. The evidence was mountainous that he not only encouraged but instructed people with security clearances and a desire to leak secrets precisely how to tap into codewords and compartments to which they did not have legitimate access.
This charge was probably reasonable. The other 18 charges, however, were solely about obtaining and disseminating classified documents—something that ordinary journalists do all the time without repercussions. Just because Assange doesn't work for the New York Times doesn't mean he should be treated any differently.
Limiting the prosecution to the single charge of hacking makes sense. And since Assange has already spent five years in prison, it also makes sense not to impose any more time on him. Whether you like Assange personally or not, this has all gone on quite long enough.
My understanding is Assange didn’t simply receive the documents out of the blue like a random NYT journalist. He actively engaged in the how.
However, the apparently immunity we grant journalists in these cases also needs to be revisited.
If a leaker in the CIA gives Kevin the names of US spies in Russia and he emails them to the FSB he can go to prison for life.
If instead he publishes them in this blog he is a journalist and immune from prosecution.
That is ridiculous. The next time the NYT publishes a classified document that they should clearly have known would injure the United States the DOJ should prosecute them just as if they were Assange.
And, yes, Assange needs a life sentence. His disclosures seriously injured the United States.
Read the link KawSunflower provided. Real journalists, including those at the NYT and Guardian, take careful, precautionary steps before publishing, so that they do not endanger individuals or violate national-security laws. The NYT submits pre-publication copy to the relevant government official(s) for comment, and it will strike parts that it is persuaded are harmful, but the editors make the decisions. Neither the government nor the press has challenged the ruling in New York Times Co. v. United States in the fifty-plus years since.
Does The Intercept take careful precautionary steps? What about The Revolutionary Worker?
Where do you draw the line? There is no line.
The editors of the NYT are not our elected representatives ACD were not appointed by them. they do not get to make these decisions.
There is no journalism immunity under federal law, only under state law.
I see a conundrum. Doctors and lawyers have protections (confidentiality, e.g.) — these are straightforward, because the practitioners are licensed by state-approved bodies. We want journalists to be independent to serve as watchdogs for misconduct by officials and agencies; that is incompatible with being subject to the authorities for certification. It is probably best to leave things as they are. MF is exactly wrong; neither elected nor appointed officials should decide what gets published. Having the press decide risks irresponsible publishers causing occasional harm; but prior restraint by the government invites worse and persistent harm, as the courts have said.
Let's don't go there: The exception for journalists has very sound reasons.
Anyhow, giving info to a foreign agent exclusively is far worse than making it available to all. No comparison.
How exactly?
If you post the names of CIA agents in Russia on the Internet instead of emailing them to the FSB how does that mitigate the harm?
The lesson of the Assange case (to me) is this: if you're OK with *publishing* the state secrets you steal from the USA, then go wild! Steal anything you want, b/c it's just "journalism" amirite!?!?! Sigh.
I agree that it is (past) time to close that down. And I agree that Julian* doesn't deserve more punishment.
But Kevin seriously downplays what he was up to. He was at the very least collaborating with Russian intelligence to elect Trump - this much is public. We also know he chose not to publish some pretty damaging leaks about Russian government corruption around the same time. Make of that what you will, but pretending he's no different than an NYT reporter is being very unfair to either the reporter or Assange, depending on how you look at it.
* I haven't interacted with him much, but I've been on mailing lists he's on since thing 90s. I'm very familiar with his public persona, views, and interests.
So now he will just go right back to being a tool of Russia while claiming to be a martyr, and with a motivated fanbase of leftist wingnuts eager to believe how victimized he's been.
He can have cult retreats with Tulsi Gabbard.
Perhaps they'd like to invite Glenn Greenwald for company.
His soothing dark metal theremin recital.
Maybe the Swedish prosecutor’s statement that the accusation of sexual assault was ‘credible and reliable’ will diminish his fanbase somewhat ….
If it hasn't yet it never will. The persistence of Russian disinformation campaigns is miraculous. They have a real cultural genius for it.
The swedish sexual assault claim was a ridiculous joke. His condom fell off while engaging in consensual sex.
Is this a first-hand report? You witnessed the event?
There were complaints from two women about two different events.
Oddly, that's not what the two women involved said. But you'd know better than them, right?
Preach
This is the part that I remember as being the most damning thing about his self-righteous attitude. I realize that there are many who call him a hero, but I simply cannot agree, however much he has suffered. You may consider it to have been excessive punishment already, but the likely cost to others may have been fatal.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2010/aug/10/afghanistan-war-logs-wikileaks-human-rights-groups
No side in this affair has clean hands, but he certainly made it possible that more hands got bloody, and for that his punishment should continue.
Thanks for this link. I didn’t have a favorable view of Assange before, but he really comes across badly in that account. Threatening Amnesty? What an entitled pr*ck.
Wow, I've been wavering back and forth on this...my memory has grown misty on Mr Assange....so I was in damned if I know, territory.
But the posters above me have educated me again...so thank you. Best Wishes, Traveller
Life must be good in Orange County if Kevin is willing to just let Assange off the hook.
After a 5 year prison term.
This is a horrible take.
His, "let's start drip releasing meaningless Clinton campaign emails that were stolen by Russian hackers 6 hours after the Trump access Hollywood tape" is not even mentioned.
Well, because that was not a crime.
Are you suggesting he should go to prison because he embarrassed Hillary Clinton but not because he conspired with leakers to release US secrets to our enemies?
Both?
The crime I am referring to isn't "embarass Hillary Clinton"
The crime is "use information acquired illegally by a foreign power to interfere in US elections"
That also is not a crime.
It may not be mentioned in criminal law but interfering in elections is always a crime morally.
Except, he is not a journalist. Does being a journalist matter as many organizations argue? It surely does, as 1A applies, and I think most people and courts accept this as a fact. If this weren't the case, then, there would be no need for whistleblower protection laws and all classification/theft of classified materials laws would be moot.
Secondly, Assange never applied any journalistic discretion to the publishing of information, though he did apply discretion with regards to his political bias and beliefs, targeting people and countries.
Third, he's a shithead dick. IDK how he became one, but his ego is so high in the sky, he can't help himself from being a shithead dick. Every time he speaks, he speaks with the bullshittery righteousness of a Jim Jordan. Is it illegal to prosecute people based on who is/isn't a shithead dick? Maybe. But prosecutors and judges take such attitudes into account when it comes to leniency. Try being a shithead dick in front of any judge and see what the outcome is.
Nonetheless, he's been either confined or locked up for roughly 8 years and that seems like a long enough sentence for crimes of his nature, but for good measure, two more to make it a decade and call it good. The next crime he commits, deport him to Russia.
Make flipping on Russia a condition of his release.
"Except, he is not a journalist." The primary point of freedom of the press is that everyone is entitled to be a journalist. A distinction between real journalist and not journalist is explicitly unconstitutional.
Equality only applies in situations of equality. A professional journalist working with a professional editor is not equal to some random Joe and may enjoy special protections if they are in the common interest--which they clearly are in this case.
Being entitled to be a journalist is not the same as everyone being a journalist. And if you were correct, then the authors of the First Amendment would not have distinguished the "freedom of speech" from "or of the press".
And as I said, if we assume everyone is a journalist, then it is unnecessary to have whistleblower laws and laws protecting classified documents are unconstitutional.
It's weird that there has been a lot of focus on Assange for the past decade and almost none on Snowden, who is and always was a Russian spy. I know he is "safe" in Putin's Russia now, but if there is anyone I'd like to see prosecuted for espionage, it's him.
What a ridiculous take. Maybe you have evidence? The only thing I have ever seen offered as "evidence" of Snowden being a Russian spy is the fact that that is where he is. But that requires some pretty remarkable mental gymnastics considering just how he ended up there.
I remain flabergasted at how when an individual makes such an extreme personal sacrifice to expose egregious and illegal government behaviour, people are outraged at the individual and not the government.
His confinement has been due to his own efforts to avoid accountability. Simply that he might be out of jail now if he hadn't done that seems beside the point.
But if you're feeling humane, deport him to North Korea and ban him from international travel.
Thanks! I've been waiting for someone to notice that most of Assange's "imprisonment" has been through his own efforts to escape prosecution. Holed up in various embassies, making a nuisance of himself, for year after year after year? Changing citizenship over and over? And finally ending up in an actual British prison, which is still better than having a trial and getting it over with in the US?
But North Korea? No. Just NO. I wouldn't send a dog to North Korea. It would end up as barbecue or in a hot pot.
He could still be in that embassy if he hadn't made such a massive jerk of himself, so the Koreans can eat him for all I care.
I would have some sympathy for Assange: He is a uniquely terrible human being. I could forgive him for making info public that is inconvenient for the government, someone has to do that sometimes (like Ellsberg; the Irak war era certainly was one of those times). But Assange published reams of documents without checking if harm could come to bystanders, without in fact having a precise idea what the information was. Moreover he helped Trump win in 2016 by not only releasing the Democrat's e-mails but also timing the release for Trump's needs. No decent journalist would dare doing that.
I say keep him locked up. He is not worth any compassion.
I agree with this in that the best course of action would be whatever results in my never hearing about or from this person and his martyr complex ever again.