Major News Outlets Urge U.S. to Drop Its Charges Against Assange

[brooklynite]

New York Times

WASHINGTON — The New York Times and four European news organizations called on the United States government on Monday to drop its charges against Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks founder, for obtaining and publishing classified diplomatic and military secrets.

In a joint open letter, The Times, The Guardian, Le Monde, Der Spiegel and El País said the prosecution of Mr. Assange under the Espionage Act “sets a dangerous precedent” that threatened to undermine the First Amendment and the freedom of the press.

“Obtaining and disclosing sensitive information when necessary in the public interest is a core part of the daily work of journalists,” the letter said. “If that work is criminalized, our public discourse and our democracies are made significantly weaker.”

Mr. Assange, who has been fighting extradition from Britain since his arrest there in 2019, is also accused of participating in a hacking-related conspiracy. The letter notably did not urge the Justice Department to drop that aspect of the case, though it said that “some of us are concerned” about it, too.

[OneBro]

1. Nah. Colluding with Russia is no small thing.

He should stand trial in the light of day.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/04/22/mueller-report-confirms-it-assange-is-not-whistleblower-or-journalist/

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/04/julian-assange-got-what-he-deserved/587008/

[chriscan64]

2. Letting anyone slide for squirreling away classified documents

is exactly the precedent I do not want to see at the moment.

[Hortensis]

3. Nope. A line has to be drawn between journalism and gathering and disclosure

of information for political, espionage, etc. purposes. It's not in democracy's interest for malign agents and whackjobs to be able to obtain legal protection for subversive activities simply by creating an identity as a journalist.

Extensive evidence, including that detailed in the Mueller Report and the bipartisan senate report, reveals extensive nonjournalistic activities and purposes, including receiving and disseminating hacked information provided to him by Russuan intelligence to, for instance, interfere in U.S. elections.

Given some of the worst of the NYT's own activities around national elections, its management might well be concerned about a future court decision deciding a dishonest article was election interference, not journalism, but every organization that signed this knows exactly how to avoid that risk and the duty journalistic ethics confer to do so.

[Hope22]

4. Normalization of these activities...

To make @#ump look normal. No how, no way!

[CentralMass]

8. +1

[Kid Berwyn]

5. Freedom of the Press

Locking up Assange for publishing government documents that cast a negative light on the Obama Administration is un-American. It doesn’t matter if the source was Russia or Victoria N.: We will be criminalizing journalism. We will be going against what makes the United States unique in all history — the First Nation to protect freedom of the press.

[Hortensis]

10. But, WAS it journalism? And WHO's the journalist -- Putin, someone

in his intelligence service? Russian intelligence sent Assange espionage material as ordered by Putin. Specifically, Russia decided what information to have Assange disseminate and provided it to him.

Maybe Assange's role was more that of IT manager of the WikiLeaks counterespionage propaganda operation developed by Russia.

[Kid Berwyn]

22. I understand that. Putin is my nation's mortal enemy -- and mine.

The thing is, once we start locking people up for speaking their mind or for publishing bull feathers — even if it’s stolen, fabricated or weaponized disinformation — we will no longer be the United States of America.

Top Secret and sensitive defense information is another matter. The State Department cables and emails Assange published, we’ve been told, had neither.

[JohnSJ]

6. NY Times. The paper of Judy Miller, and pushing the lie that the email investigation was being

reopened, blaming “the hubris” of President Obama for causing republicans to reject global warming, etc.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/03/us/politics/republican-leaders-climate-change.html

[Hortensis]

13. All part of a big pattern. Including the OCTOBER31, 2016 (!!!) article

summarizing (for America's electorate!!!) the entire tRump-Russia investigation as having found nothing of note and apparently winding up for lack of anyting to find.

[JohnSJ]

33. Thank-you

[2naSalit]

7. Okay...

You guys just run along and be concerned while we protect our democracy.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

9. Who is surprised by this?

So the NYT isa again supporting Russia

[oioioi]

11. It's about time. NYT silence on this has been shameful.

The charges all pertain to receiving information from Manning, who turned it over voluntarily - asking for it to be published. There is absolutely nothing to do with Russia contained in these charges. Nothing whatsoever.

The NYT and other major news outlets collaborated with Assange to release information

The leak that people here are so upset about was the hacking of John Podesta's email which was supposedly facilitated by a Russian operative. What that leak showed was that the DNC was stacking the deck against Bernie Sanders during the primaries - which was true - this caused Debbie Wasserman to resign.

But sure, let's go ahead and shoot the messenger anyway...

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE

[emulatorloo]

14. Bernie and Weaver stacked the deck against Bernie. Your conspiracy theory has been debunked over

and over.

[oioioi]

17. Is that so? I would welcome further enlightenment on this matter...

Debbie Wasserman Schultz Resigns As Democratic Party Chair

"The final push to derail her came from an email leak last week, which revealed that DNC staffers actively tried to obstruct Sanders’ primary campaign against eventual nominee Hillary Clinton. In response to the leak, party officials announced that Wasserman Schultz would play a minimal role in this week’s Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia. However, according to her statement, she will address and chair the convention."

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/debbie-wasserman-schultz-resigns_n_5795044ae4b0d3568f8397f7

"Burn her anyway!"

[emulatorloo]

20. I've read the emails. They were annoyed Weaver et al weren't meeting deadlines. They were written

After Bernie had already statistically eliminated and there was no statistical possibility he would win.

Bernie and Weaver had already DERAILED BERNIE’S Campaign themselves through piss poor strategy.

I supported Bernie in 2016 and I suggest you look at the absolute failure of Jeff Weaver at broadening Bernie’s base so that he could attract enough voters to win the nomination.

Instead idiotically Weaver threw more and more off-the-wall ‘red meat’ at Bernie’s hard core base. Which served to alienate other potential Bernie voters.

Weaver should never been let anywhere near a national campaign.

[oioioi]

25. Respectfully, this isn't about the primary - it's about the fact that Assange is reviled here

for stuff he isn't even charged with.

Just because somebody is obnoxious and objectionable doesn't mean it's OK to let the Feds throw them into a gulag.

I'm only pointing out that Assange is being reviled in this thread for political reasons. That's all. The charges have NOTHING to do with Russia, the DNC leak or anything except the material that was VOLUNTARILY provided to Assange by Manning.

[emulatorloo]

29. He's not in a "gulag." Extreme hyperbole is not an argument, it is just a poor rhetorical device.

He could have his day in court if only he were man enough to face up to it. I have no doubt he’ll have some powerful lawyers by his side.

[oioioi]

30. gulag n. 3. A network of prisons used especially for political dissidents.

https://www.wordnik.com/words/gulag

As to "his day in court", he is not an American citizen and the alleged crimes did not take place in the US. The only person who broke US law was Chelsea Manning and she was convicted and did her time. The NYT and other major news outlets cooperated with Assange in the release of the very information he's charged over. That's why they are obliged to call for the charges to be dropped - they are under an ethical and moral obligation to do so.

The charges are a sham. He's a political prisoner.

Folks hating on Assange here are on the wrong side of this from a politically progressive standpoint. I understand he's an asshole, but he's not a criminal. The hatred for him here is illogical, unfounded and usually based on factually incorrect assertions that he's charged for collusion with Russia.

Fake justice from the puppet-masters: The persecution of Julian Assange
Assange revealed the secrets of the national security Leviathan, and it wants revenge. That will not stop with him

WASHINGTON — Merrick Garland and those who work in the Department of Justice are the puppets, not the puppet masters. They are the façade, the fiction, that the longstanding persecution of Julian Assange has something to do with justice. Like the High Court in London, they carry out an elaborate judicial pantomime. They debate arcane legal nuances to distract from the Dickensian farce where a man who has not committed a crime, who is not a U.S. citizen, can be extradited under the Espionage Act and sentenced to life in prison for the most courageous and consequential journalism of our generation.

https://www.salon.com/2022/10/12/fake-justice-from-the-puppet-masters-the-persecution-of-julian-assange/

[emulatorloo]

39. Ah Chris Hedges, the master of extreme hyperbolic nonsense. Now I get it.

Have a nice week.

[oioioi]

41. Thanks, you too. If you can provide anything substantive in the future I'd be happy to consider.

Take care.

[emulatorloo]

42. You too.

[Hortensis]

43. Emulator's correct, of course, that these Russia-fostered conspiracy theories

have been thoroughly debunked by many private and government investigators and investigations.

The truth has been readily available for years now. Frankly, I believe Bernie Sanders has a duty to continue to refute these Big Lies ADEQUATELY for those whose commitment to them is too unwavering to accept truth from other sources.

Months after Russian assistance to the tRump and Sanders campaigns was known to the candidates, our intelligence services revealed it to the public. Russian assistance to Sanders included targeting his followers with the very conspiracy theories you mention. Senator Sanders's admission that it was happening came far too late to help save the 2016 election and to prevent the damage done to the minds of many who had had a right to trust him to tell them the truth. And still do.

As for asking to be pointed to sources of information, why not start with the Mueller Report?

REPORT ON THE INVESTIGATION INTO RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE
IN THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION https://www.justice.gov/archives/sco/file/1373816/download

Also, the

SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE UNITED STATES SENATE ON
RUSSIAN ACTIVE MEASURES CAMPAIGNS AND INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 U.S. ELECTION
VOLUME 5: COUNTERINTELLIGENCE THREATS AND
VULNERABILITIES
https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Report_Volume2.pdf
https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/report_volume5.pdf

Both documents are searchable. By now there are also long rows of honest, well regarded studies on this subject. I have this one by two experts of high repute, engrossing for lay readers (me!), and addresses much of what you mentioned:

RUSSIAN ROULETTE
The Inside Story of Putin’s War on America and the Election of Donald Trump
By Michael Isikoff and David Corn

https://www.amazon.com/Russian-Roulette-Inside-America-Election/dp/1538728753/ref=sr_1_1?crid=NSU8LYI32A6O&keywords=Russian+Roulette%3A+The+Inside+Story+of+Putin%27s+War+on+America+and+the+Election+of+Donald+Trump&qid=1669666337&s=books&sprefix=russian+roulette+the+inside+story+of+putin%27s+war+on+america+and+the+election+of+donald+trump+%2Cstripbooks%2C144&sr=1-1

[oioioi]

44. OK and understood. Thank you...

I accept that the DNC leak is much more nuanced and complex than I summarily represented - however I think it's important to emphasize that this action is the main reason for the hatred directed at Assange here - but it's not relevant to the criminal case against him.

The basis for the criminal charges against Assange, his ongoing imprisonment and proposed extradition pertain only to his interactions with Manning and the dissemination of material that Manning provided around 2010 - they don't relate to anything that occurred in 2016 - which was my original point.

It's apparent that Assange probably - and likely unknowingly - accepted the stolen email via a Russian operative in 2016, but he isn't charged for the stuff you're referencing - and the stuff that he is charged with should not be used as a rationale for imprisonment and extradition. The NYT and other outlets published it at the same time and collaborated in its release - that's why they must support the charges being dropped - because it's the correct ethical and moral position to take.

[Hortensis]

45. But, oioioi, why should our condemnation be limited to

only ONE of his destructive and immoral actions? Do we look at mass shooters and decide to only hold them accountable for some of those they killed?

And we really should speak of deaths and other consequences to sufferers in discussing him. I never think of what people like Assange did while claiming noble, protective motives for their Russia-serving espionage without wondering how many people died, or are "disappeared" into prisons, as a direct result. (And of course all the indirect suffering and deaths as a consequence of the 2016 election.)

Claims of the highest motives are belied when pursued by illegal and immoral methods, followed by depraved indifference to consequences to others. In a world of billions, we can't weep for everyone who dies, but isn't it extremely wrong to excuse the Assanges and others engaging in espionage for hostile foreign intelligence services -- and refuse to even consider their victims? (And no, we'll never know who most were, or are, but does that excuse endorsing his indifference? We can use the Tomb of the no-longer-Unknown Soldier to represent them.)

As for the Russian hack of the DNC, Assange's role in that part of Russia's political warfare was actually very small potatoes compared to the roles of those both left and right who accepted Russia's help defeating Democrats. Those who did had to have been extremely disappointed by the truth -- that Russia's hack of the DNC did not provide anything of real significance. And that should have been the end of it.

But they made it work. THEY, not Assange, mined it for everything they could turn into claims of crimes and bundled those into their own Big Lie that (with Russia's continued assistance over months of campaign!) successfully delivered the nation to the Republicans.

We're not going to excuse Assange, oioioi. He's guilty of colluding in espionage by a hostile power against our nation. But also because we have to overcome the power of the lies that are destroying us. And we don't do that by encouraging people to see Russia's asset as a noble teller of truth, and thus all the Big Lies that depend on that.

[oioioi]

46. Thanks again but there are some important facts missing from your summary

ALL of the vilification here is directed at Assange because he was unwittingly used by Russian intelligence to disseminate the stolen DNC emails - which, as you point out, was "small potatoes". The DNC leak has nothing to do with the legal case against him or the reason he's currently imprisoned.

The charges against Assange - and the basis for his ongoing imprisonment - pertain to the unauthorized release of information which was deliberately provided by Chelsea Manning. Assange collaborated in good faith with the NYT, Guardian, et al. to redact and release the information provided by Manning in way that protected the named sources in the cables. It was a Guardian journalist who published the password that was provided to protect sources (1) - why is Assange being charged for this when it was Manning who dropped the classified info onto the internet in the first place? If Assange is being charged for releasing the info he received from Manning, then why isn't the Guardian journalist who actually allowed the unredacted info to be accessed equally, if not moreso, responsible?

The true reason Assange is persecuted is because he allowed Manning to deliberately expose the cynicism and deliberate falsehoods that were troubling Manning's conscience. You say that "we have to overcome the power of the lies that are destroying us" - I am quite sure you'd find common cause with Julian Assange on this. Why then are you so intent on shooting the messenger?

With respect to your analogy, Manning was the culprit - and she's already been held accountable.

(1) https://assangedefense.org/hearing-coverage/wikileaks-redaction-process-and-the-unredacted-cables/

[Hortensis]

47. We'll have to accept that we disagree.

I hope that's not always the case. Still a lot of this history to be uncovered and written.

[emulatorloo]

12. No. Putin asset.

[marble falls]

15. Screw Julian Assange. He's no Journalist. He'd make a fine inmate for 10 or so years.

[oioioi]

18. You're right - he's not a journalist - he's a political prisoner.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trial

[marble falls]

19. He's no political prisoner, either. He is a criminal. He's a self agrandiser and he deserves ...

... everything he's facing in a court.

[oioioi]

26. He may well be a self aggrandiser but he's not a criminal.

Presumption of innocence and all that.

Also, what he's facing in court has nothing to do with any of the rhetoric being tossed around in this thread. The charges pertain to his interactions with Manning:

Why Assange was initially arrested

The U.S. indictment against Assange stems from WikiLeaks’ publication in 2010 and 2011 of hundreds of thousands of U.S. military reports about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as American diplomatic communications. The material was originally leaked to WikiLeaks by former Army analyst Chelsea Manning.

The indictment includes one count of conspiracy to hack a computer to disclose classified information that “could be used to injure” the U.S. According to the indictment, Assange “conspired” with Manning by helping her crack a Defense Department computer password in March 2010 that provided access to a U.S. government network that stored classified information and communications.

Manning had already supplied Assange and WikiLeaks with other classified U.S. information she had access to as an Army analyst. Manning went on to transmit all the material to WikiLeaks, which published the massive trove in a series of posts between 2010 and 2011.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/the-charges-against-julian-assange-explained

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-12-13/julian-assange-father-pleas-for-government-help/11788198

[lame54]

32. I don't presume Trump innocent

[oioioi]

35. It may seem dreadfully inconvenient in his case...

But it's pretty fundamental to the legal system

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence

the presumption of innocence is a legal right of the accused in a criminal trial. It is also an international human right under the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 11.

[lame54]

37. OJ was presumed innocent then acquitted by a jury of his peers...

So, why do we still give him so much shit?

BECAUSE HE'S FUCKING GUILTY AND WE KNOW IT

That term is not always the discussion ender you think it is

[oioioi]

40. Well, it most certainly is in this instance - have a good one.

[emulatorloo]

24. Yay, more conspiracy theories. Try the "Creative Speculation" page.

[oioioi]

27. Please reconsider your position - the only conspiracy here is against Assange

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/the-charges-against-julian-assange-explained

"This indictment sets a dangerous precedent, and threatens to undermine America's First Amendment and the freedom of the press," editors and publishers of the Guardian, the New York Times, Le Monde, Der Spiegel, and El Pais said in an open letter.

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/world-news/leading-media-outlets-urge-us-to-end-prosecution-of-julian-assange/articleshow/95836238.cms

[Orrex]

28. This

[iemanja]

38. and sycophant for Putin and Trump

[GoCubsGo]

16. That's easy to say when it's not your country that he fucked over.

Dear said "major news outlets," get bent.

[treestar]

21. Then challenge the law Julian

as to its constitutionality. The Americans can work to repeal it. But if it was against the law, he's not above it. Where were they when the law was passed. Do they care about national security at all?

[48656c6c6f20]

23. Ahh no.

Mr. Vladimir Assange needs to avail himself to the courts and make the state produce evidence to support the alleged crime. That's the fucking way shit works.

[Initech]

31. Seriously, have we learned nothing from 2016?

It seems like we've totally forgot about all of the shit that happened in the last 5 years. We can't afford to go through it again.

[Samrob]

36. NOPE!!