Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[smjjames]

Theres a difference between investigative journalism and being a Russian shill.

Regardless, apparently engaging in political activities is not allowed when claiming asylum, and Euqador got finally fed up with him being a bad guest, so, the behavior is all on Assanage.

[sluissa]

I was going to say, given that Manning's sentence was commuted by Obama at the end of his term, that would be difficult. But apparently she's gotten herself locked up again through contempt of court for refusing to testify to a grand jury about wikileaks.

As much as I might have sympathy for her original sentencing being extreme and unfair... getting yourself locked up for contempt of court is a dumbass move. And given what sort of career path she's turned to lately, seems to be more publicity than anything that makes sense.

... ethical conviction and integrity might have something to do with it?.... maybe pay attention to their own public statements as to why they refused?

If what they want to ask her about is, as she says, the same stuff she testified about in 2013 during the court martial, then what's the point of refusing? She's already answered those questions. This is just being stubborn and wanting attention. There's a lot screwed up with the justice system, but arguing against the the subpoena power and ability to gather evidence and testimony is cutting pretty deep into "let's just get rid of the judicial branch" territory.

[SalmonGod]

Theres a difference between investigative journalism and being a Russian shill.

K...

So how much comfort do you think that sentiment is going to offer to journalists who have to re-evaluate what risks they are subjecting themselves to if they embarrass the U.S. government.

And how much do you expect authorities to respect that distinction, when they've got a handy new terminology to throw around that can easily describe any journalist they don't like as illegitimate and sinister.

[Starver]

Soooo...  Manning and Assange acted against Bush43 era actions, and the right-end of the political spectrum decried Manning's commuted release (and the... you know... whole Trans thing, which they probably hated more than the leaks) and have been calling for Manning's rearrest, yet have recently (obviously having caught a whiff of upcoming events) been increasing their calls to accuse the UK of false imprisonment of Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy(!), the place he was willingly staying increasingly less at the pleasure of the Ecuadorians, who he was pissing off for continuing to play his part in 'leaking information' that is Ok and proof of wider political machinations to some people if it's Fox/Infowars doing it, but not Ok and damaging/false when it's the NYT/CNN doing it.


So... Yeah.

[Doomblade187]

Tbh, the whole thing is a mess of conflicting emotions, but in summary, journalism's fucked.

Like yeah, I don't like that he seemingly targeted the clinton campaign in 2016, but the man has a right to leak shit.

[Frumple]

I mean, the unsealed charge isn't for the leaks themselves, for what that worth, it's for (allegedly, I guess) breaking the law to acquire the information. Something which hasn't at any point been protected journalistic practice, so far as I'm aware. If Assange/Wikileaks had done nothing but disseminate information, he probably would have pretty strong legal grounds to avoid or defend prosecution.

If/when more charges come out, the situation may change, but right now the apparent effect it's going to have on journalism is a reaffirmation you don't get to hack computer systems (or break into someone's house or something, for a rough non-digital equivalent), or help with/encourage someone to do so, and then turn around and try to play the journalism card to get out of legal trouble for doing it. Which is, y'know. No actual effect on journalism, since that shit ain't news.

I guess all I can say is I don't feel the same way, and it's hard for me not to see that sentiment as partisan in nature.  I sincerely doubt that if the targets of the leaks and the outcomes and the resentment for it were coming from the other side that the same people would be saying such things.

If things were different they'd be different, sure. But you're talking about an organization that, from what we seem to have available as information, communicated with trump's campaign staff (without, say, screaming it to the world, i.e. behind closed doors) and timed and targeted information release for political purpose. Corruption is potentially iffier, but given WL's fairly blatant russia connection and the general skeeviness of the whole situation, not by much. And they're now getting burned, in part, because they decided to engage in closed door bullshit to manipulate politics and ended up pissing off people that might actually give a vague damn about rule of law.

E: ... though that last one likely wouldn't include US intelligence folks or the general workings of our current administration. Assange should probably be hoping that Sweden decides to ask for the guy and the UK sends him that way instead

[SalmonGod]

I mean, the unsealed charge isn't for the leaks themselves, for what that worth, it's for (allegedly, I guess) breaking the law to acquire the information. Something which hasn't at any point been protected journalistic practice, so far as I'm aware. If Assange/Wikileaks had done nothing but disseminate information, he probably would have pretty strong legal grounds to avoid or defend prosecution.

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2018/feb/05/hacking-suspect-lauri-love-wins-appeal-against-extradition-to-us

If/when more charges come out, the situation may change, but right now the apparent effect it's going to have on journalism is a reaffirmation you don't get to hack computer systems (or break into someone's house or something, for a rough non-digital equivalent), or help with/encourage someone to do so, and then turn around and try to play the journalism card to get out of legal trouble for doing it. Which is, y'know. No actual effect on journalism, since that shit ain't news.

https://twitter.com/snowden/status/1116336550873317377?s=21&fbclid=IwAR0NTgckJuCk3-jaXBKpftMnXJAuVQNNO7RTuhESNeyTZDeGiEM2w-OBAyo
https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1116327854663503872

Also noteworthy that the hacking was for the purpose of trying to protect Manning, and in my opinion this is completely understandable and excusable behavior.  Considering what Manning was subjected to, she was absolutely justified in attempting to take such precautions to protect herself, and Wikileaks was doing what it promised and is obligated to do as a safe outlet for whistleblowing.

From the US DOJ Statement

Manning, who had access to the computers in connection with her duties as an intelligence analyst, was using the computers to download classified records to transmit to WikiLeaks. Cracking the password would have allowed Manning to log on to the computers under a username that did not belong to her. Such a deceptive measure would have made it more difficult for investigators to determine the source of the illegal disclosures.

Edit:

I'm really confused in general.  Because whistleblowing by its very nature is going to involve law-breaking most of the time, so your arguments are on some level implying an opposition to whistleblowing on principle.  But I'm grateful for it, so we're at an impasse there.  Fuck the law when it serves to cloak and protect and excuse fascism and corruption and war crimes.  And I place the blame on Hillary and the DNC for providing anything unsavory to leak.  You don't get a free pass on your behavior just because the other guy is worse.  Although I know you disagree on interpretations of the leaked content, but we've been over that in this thread many times already, so there's no point going there. 

[nenjin]

Assange seems to be a cipher for people's political beliefs. When he was leaking shit on Republican administrations, some people were like "Fuck yeah" other people were like "hang em." And then opinions flipped when he did the exact opposite later. It would appear he just likes leaking stuff about the American government, it doesn't appear to matter who, what, when, where or why. Ok, maybe the why factors in.

I personally don't see this as a blow to American Journalism. He's not an American. He's not a Journalist. He's not a whistleblower. He's a foreign actor using unofficial, clandestine and illegal channels to spread classified information. Whether you approve of that work, or think it's bad, I think he's decidedly outside of mainstream journalism.

[Cthulhu]

Loading up on popcorn while i wait to see if the dead man's switch files pop up, though I'm worried they wouldn't have arrested him if they were still a threat

[Starver]

You don't get a free pass on your behavior just because the other guy is worse.

In isolation, I note that "the other guy that is worse" is subjective, in this matter. It's a sentiment that could be flipped (this/the other guy) any which way across all kinds of party-pairs in this matter.

[Frumple]

I'm really confused in general.  Because whistleblowing by its very nature is going to involve law-breaking most of the time, so your arguments are on some level implying an opposition to whistleblowing on principle.

My argument there doesn't really have anything to do with whistleblowing per se, actually. That's a whole different kettle of fish compared to journalism and already shat on hard enough this particular situation is going to probably do sod all to its perils, which does by its nature tend to involve law breaking.

Rather the point is that journalism and journalistic protections, at the absolute least in the US, does not, has not, and by and large I have trouble conceiving a state of things where they would (as that would be basically giving free reign to all sorts of shit, so long as a veneer of reporting was slathered over it), receive a pass for criminal behavior in pursuit of a story. It's one of the reasons reporters tend to seek sources rather than do that sort of scut work themselves -- they have protections regarding dissemination and whatnot (i.e. journalism and reporting), but the protections they have for direct acquisition and assisting in it are much, much slimmer. Particularly when it involves breaking laws.

Which is to say what's currently aimed at Assange, if it goes through, would do bugger all to the state of journalism, even if you do accept unquestionably that he counts as a journalist. What he's getting hit with was already something protections didn't exist for. If he were extradited, charged, and somehow (presumably someone breaks out a hyperbolic time court) sentenced before Monday, nothing about the state of journalism in the US would have changed. Nothing. There would be no new precedent involved, no novel legal issues, just, as noted and at most, a reaffirmation that journalistic practice does not absolve you of criminal culpability. Which was just as true last week as it will be the week after whatever happens on the extradition front happens.

[Cthulhu]

Aside from further chilling effect on exposing the government's crimes?

In any case, the ACLU disagrees with you.

[Frumple]

The government did not cross that Rubicon with today’s indictment, but the worst case scenario cannot yet be ruled out.

it explicitly didn't

[Rolan7]

-

[Starver]

Loading up on popcorn while i wait to see if the dead man's switch files pop up, though I'm worried they wouldn't have arrested him if they were still a threat

Related?