Discussion: Feds Don't Know If Alleged Assange Hack Succeeded

Define ‘break the law’.

Again, he’s up for computer intrusion.

edited

1 Like

It is going to be very difficult if not impossible to prove Assange did anything illegal, which is why he has been convicted by the corporate media instead of a court of law. Cable TV talking heads routinely accuse Assange of treason, even though he isn’t an American!

1 Like

Of course, so did Ellsberg.

2 Likes

Hmmmm…

The Justice Department had several options in how to proceed with the Pentagon Papers case. One of its most powerful tools was the Espionage Act of 1917…

(snip)

In a telegram to the New York Times June 14, Attorney General John N. Mitchell said the material was protected by the Espionage Act and that “further publication of information of this character will cause irreparable injury to the defense interests of the United States.”

(snip)

The FBI chased Ellsberg for two weeks. When he ran out of copies to distribute, he surrendered and was indicted on June 30 by a grand jury in Los Angeles for violating the Espionage Act and for theft of government property. More charges, including conspiracy, were added in December. By Ellsberg’s accounting, he faced the possibility of 115 years in prison. Russo was named as a co-conspirator.

The whole Violating the Espionage Act Being Cool thing was soooooo 1971…

It’s 2019 now, and we have things like computers with passwords ‘n’ stuff, which makes it Totally Different now.

3 Likes

That seems to be the reasoning, although it’s not explained how the changes in technology should allow war crimes to remain a secret.

2 Likes

[quote=“inversion, post:86, topic:86848”]
I have a problem with war crimes and frankly this country is rather cheap in dealing with em (Fort Pillow is a great example).[/quote]

That’s good. Remarkably, I too have a problem with this. I also have problems with governments covering up said crimes, and lying in general, as well as withholding information, that would expose that and similar malfeasance. I know, I know, that’s crazy talk, but humor me a little, k?

Ooooookay, so, a hypothetical:

  1. Assume the IT we have in 2006-2019 existed in its current form in 1967-71. Most people do their everyday work on workstations, and they are password protected.

  2. The Pentagon Papers were kept in electronic form on a storage device on one said workstation, or on a central storage device accessible from same.

  3. The workstation was password protected.

  4. Ellsberg accessed and obtained a copy of the Papers by means of “cracking” the password on said workstation.

Does this make what he did somehow Not Whistleblowing?

4a) Assume the workstation was mistakenly left logged in. Ellsberg accessed and obtained a copy of the Papers by using this mistakenly-left-logged-in workstation or terminal.

4b) Alternatively, the document itself (the “Papers”, assuming a single document, or perhaps its containing directory) were password-protected, and only those with a password could access them.

4c) Alternatively again, Ellsberg had authorization to access the documents, but it was a felony to disclose them to “unauthorized persons”, such as the press. (This, of course, is the precise scenario of the Espionage Act, at least one of them.)

Same question as above.

Discuss.

2 Likes

Edit: No idea why this appeared twice. I had no initial indication that this had been posted. So use the second comment.

Adding this separately, from Daniel Ellsberg, for its contributions to the discussion:

One further note: It is frequently said in relation to the current trial of the former AIPAC employees that theirs is the first prosecution of someone for a leak who was not an official and did not have a clearance. That is false. Tony Russo was indicted on the exact same charges, with the exact same status. As is the case with the AIPAC employees, if he had been convicted on that basis, every journalist and even every newspaper reader who had possession of information that had been disclosed without authorization (that is, “leaked”) would be equally subject to prosecution. So it was crucial for freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and the public’s need to know that Tony was not convicted in our trial, by reason of governmental misconduct.

Adding this separately, [from Daniel Ellsberg][1], for its contribution to the discussion:

One further note: It is frequently said in relation to the current trial of the former AIPAC employees that theirs is the first prosecution of someone for a leak who was not an official and did not have a clearance. That is false. Tony Russo was indicted on the exact same charges, with the exact same status. As is the case with the AIPAC employees, if he had been convicted on that basis, every journalist and even every newspaper reader who had possession of information that had been disclosed without authorization (that is, “leaked”) would be equally subject to prosecution. So it was crucial for freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and the public’s need to know that Tony was not convicted in our trial, by reason of governmental misconduct.

Important to note that it was only the revelations of government misconduct that caused the dismissal of the charges. Had such misconduct not been revealed, both Ellsberg and Russo could well have been convicted.

Would you have agreed with that result?

What if the additional government misconduct had been discovered through “unauthorized” means? (Worth nothing is that government typically does not try to make its misconduct public.
[1]: http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2008/08/07/ellsberg-remembering-anthony-russo/

1 Like

True. But in most cases once you are convicted you, you are stuck. In this case she has the option to leave.

1 Like

k, just lemme know when and we can talk about America’s Filipino occupation,

Do I have to look back at the Manning case?

That’s not what was mentioned in those court documents.

It was revealed

Nope, next…

I…

Oh, any time you like. That, and several others. We don’t have to limit it to occupations, either – Guatamala and Iran, both 1954, IIRC, were rather nasty pieces of work. The Congo was rather bad as well. And, well, I could go on.

Of course, Vietnam and Iraq are most directly relevant to this discussion, given that it’s Manning, Assange and Ellsberg we’re talking about. But then, you knew that already.

1 Like

Are you speechless now?

Oh, well, at least it wasn’t a perplexed face animated gif.

I’d thought rather better of you. :*( Oh well.

1 Like

Ah, good. So what we have from Russo and Ellsberg is a pretty plain violation of the Espionage Act on its face – they did, after all, disclose classified information to the press and public. And you would not have agreed with their having been convicted.

Which brings us to Manning and Assange, and why that’s different. Ellsberg in particular is on record as saying it isn’t.

The floor is yours.

1 Like

Yeah. Here we are, indeed.

I especially like the parts where they say stuff like “Manning (or Snowden, or whoever) is no Daniel Ellsberg”, and then Daniel Ellsberg says, “uh, about that? Actually, yeah, they are.”

That she is. That she is.

2 Likes

Ah, yes. “Just comply, and all will be well. Otherwise, we will continue the torture.”

So simple! Why didn’t she think of that?

Putin would be proud. Vorks thees vay in any vell-run country!

Meanwhile, Orwell’s bones are spinning at Maximum Plaid, methinks.

1 Like

That’s called civil obedience.

We were discussing civil disobedience!

You can honor her choice but you cannot deny she has it which is better than not having it.

Since the indiscriminate release of everything including the identities of inoffensive individuals else where which may well have lead to their death and/ or torture without the option I have markedly less sympathy than I.might otherwise have had.

Comments are now Members-Only
Join the discussion Free options available