Why are Amnesty International monitors not able to observe the Assange hearing? • Hacker News Board

Re: Why are Amnesty International monitors not able to observe the Assange hearing?

#201

Post by rayiner » Mon, Sep 21, 2020, 5:57 PM UTC

sneak wrote: post #189

rayiner wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not sure I parse things the way you do. Assange is accused of going beyond leaking into assisting Chelsea Manning get pass security systems. If he was not only the distributor of classified material, but actively participated in expropriating it, he’s on the wrong side of the law. Folks had been willing to overlook that, because they viewed him as sympathetic. But he’s undermined that with his connections to Russ…

This posits that it should be illegal to expose classified war crimes. Sometimes, the law is wrong, and should be broken. Nonviolent disobedience of the law is a moral obligation in many instances. There is a long and glorious history of this happening throughout modern history. This is why we have juries: to make that instance not illegal.

No it doesn’t. It posits that the purpose of “exposing classified war crimes” shouldn’t immunize conduct that’s otherwise illegal.

According to the indictment, Assange was running a whole operation where he was recruiting hackers to get sensitive data from protected computer systems. You’re positing that we should basically have vigilante hackers that expropriate and publish confidential data so long as they purport to be acting in the public interest. That’s an intriguing idea. Maybe that should be the law. But that definitely isn’t the law now. (And when it comes to a jury—we are still in the extradition stage, so the jury will come later—I suspect they won’t agree either.)

Re: Why are Amnesty International monitors not able to observe the Assange hearing?

#202

Post by plandis » Mon, Sep 21, 2020, 5:59 PM UTC

alex_young wrote: post #168

The idea of this law is really interesting to me. Assange is being charged under the US 1917 Espionage Act. How can the US reasonably charge him with espionage? Has Assange ever even been to the US? If we can charge a foreign reporter with espionage for the mere publication of something we consider secret, and force their international extradition, how would we feel about a foreign government doing the same to one of…

Assange is alleged to have sought classified material from the US, and for aiding and abetting Manning in obtaining classified material.

This would be like is Australia asked the UK to extradite someone who recruited Australians to rob a bank and then materially helped said Australians actually rob the aforementioned bank.

Re: Why are Amnesty International monitors not able to observe the Assange hearing?

#203

Post by mariusor » Mon, Sep 21, 2020, 6:01 PM UTC

rbanffy wrote: post #143

SubiculumCode wrote: post #123

Dang. The conversation here is toxic.

A lot of people seem to have little sympathy for Assange (I certainly don't, for his role in Trump's election) and don't seem to realize that any journalist that publishes a leak that involves a government can be threatened with the same accusations the US is making against him. This is not about Assange's personal life or him being a journalist or a hack. It's about the freedom to publish relevant news obtained from…

> don't seem to realize that any journalist that publishes a leak that involves a government can be threatened with the same accusations the US is making against him.

Some of the testimonies over the course of last week were exactly about this. How the US government didn't really try to prosecute US journalists for aiding sources to obtain classified material. See Craig Murray's[1] or Kevin Gosztola's reports on the examining of Pentagon Papers' publisher, Daniel Ellsberg.

[1] https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/09/your-man-in-...

[2] https://dissenter.substack.com/p/good-ellsberg-bad-assange-a...

Re: Why are Amnesty International monitors not able to observe the Assange hearing?

#204

Post by linuxftw » Mon, Sep 21, 2020, 6:02 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #179

alex_young wrote: post #168

The idea of this law is really interesting to me. Assange is being charged under the US 1917 Espionage Act. How can the US reasonably charge him with espionage? Has Assange ever even been to the US? If we can charge a foreign reporter with espionage for the mere publication of something we consider secret, and force their international extradition, how would we feel about a foreign government doing the same to one of…

> If we can charge a foreign reporter with espionage for the mere publication of something we consider secret He’s not being charged with espionage for “the mere publication” of secrets. He’s being charged with actively assisting a leaker in bypassing security systems: illegal conduct that took place in the US. The attempt to gussy this up overlooks how Assange, if he did what he’s accused of doing, clearly crossed t…

The first part of what you're saying is true. I think the defense in this case has challenged that actually took place, and there's some questions about compelling the US to produce evidence or the UK courts considering the US's statements in trials as evidence to Assange's innocence.

http://johnpilger.com has lots of detailed information about all the proceedings and the complete lack of any semblance of a fair hearing in the UK.

Re: Why are Amnesty International monitors not able to observe the Assange hearing?

#205

Post by zepto » Mon, Sep 21, 2020, 6:03 PM UTC

mariusor wrote: post #186

zepto wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It may be a weak rhetorical device, but it’s also informational. I have complex views of Assange. 1. I think the extradition hearings are bizarre and it’s hard to consider them a fair trial. 2. I support Assanges long term goal of western democracies being open and accountable, rather than being based on secrets and lies. 3. I don’t know whether Assange’s tactics are moving us towards or away from that goal. It seems…

> Calling Assange a journalist is like calling Rupert Murdoch a journalist. I think the comparison is not exactly right, Wikileaks is very far from being a media empire, and Assange is very far from using it as a tool in his own interest. In my opinion, calling Assange a journalist is like calling a news room editor a journalist, as in: he is one.

I take your point - Assange does not have a media empire and is not like Murdoch in that way.

However I disagree with your reframing. News room editors answer to the publisher (I.e. whoever owns the publishing organization), and generally have been promoted from the ranks of journalists.

None of that is true about Assange. He was never a journalist and never did investigative reporting, or any of the other things a journalist normally does.

He did not answer to a publisher. He built and controlled the publishing platform, and therefore is a publisher.

He was a publisher who was willing not to self-censor.

If we incorrectly call Assange a journalist, and we say that he served the public good by ‘reporting’ what other journalists would not, then we are laying the blame for the lack of accountability in our society at the feet of journalists.

That’s just not accurate.

Assange has only been able to accomplish anything because he is a publisher. Journalists simply cannot do what he did, because they answer to publishers.

Assange is not a journalist. He is a publisher.

Re: Why are Amnesty International monitors not able to observe the Assange hearing?

#206

Post by tehjoker » Mon, Sep 21, 2020, 6:04 PM UTC

gpm wrote: post #182

rayiner wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If we can charge a foreign reporter with espionage for the mere publication of something we consider secret He’s not being charged with espionage for “the mere publication” of secrets. He’s being charged with actively assisting a leaker in bypassing security systems: illegal conduct that took place in the US. The attempt to gussy this up overlooks how Assange, if he did what he’s accused of doing, clearly crossed t…

> If you’re really just publishing materials you got from a leaker, you’re protected. My understanding is that they (the US government) have actually argued the opposite during the hearings.

They might be arguing the opposite, but my understanding is that he gave some tips for how to protect Manning's safety and maybe encouraged getting more documents if they were so inclined. That's something any journalist might do in the course of normal human behavior and legitimately so.

All these documents turned out to reveal war crimes. The state shouldn't be able to hide behind these flimsy secrecy claims when they are murdering people.

Re: Why are Amnesty International monitors not able to observe the Assange hearing?

#207

Post by rayiner » Mon, Sep 21, 2020, 6:08 PM UTC

cmiles74 wrote: post #190

rayiner wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not sure I parse things the way you do. Assange is accused of going beyond leaking into assisting Chelsea Manning get pass security systems. If he was not only the distributor of classified material, but actively participated in expropriating it, he’s on the wrong side of the law. Folks had been willing to overlook that, because they viewed him as sympathetic. But he’s undermined that with his connections to Russ…

The US Department of Justice issued a press release in June that tries to summarize the charges in the superseding indictment.[0] For most of the document it's hard to tell what is part of the idictment and what may be simply a recap of other things the US DOJ believes he may have done. In regards to Chelsea Manning, that bit is quite short: "In addition, the broadened hacking conspiracy continues to allege that Assa…

Here is the superseding indictment itself: https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1289641/downl...

Assange is alleged to have actively recruited hackers and directed them to find particular information from particular sources. Among other things, agreed to assist Manning in deriving a password from a hash file. (It is irrelevant whether he succeeded or not—the crime of conspiracy is complete upon taking the first substantial step toward achieving the goal of the conspiracy, such as passing the hash to someone else for cracking.)

According to the indictment, he was closer to running an operation to expropriate sensitive data from all over the world than being a journalist neutrally publishing documents that people sent him.

Re: Why are Amnesty International monitors not able to observe the Assange hearing?

#208

Post by nabla9 » Mon, Sep 21, 2020, 6:10 PM UTC

SuoDuanDao wrote: post #128

nabla9 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People are divided into those who see hims as hero or villain. Is there anyone like me who considers him neither? For me, Assange is 1) Asshole 2) Possibly mentally ill at this point 3) Someone who once greatly advanced journalism and whistleblowing. Even bad journalist deserves protections of a journalist. 4) A person who might have crossed the line from journalism and even his own principles. If he did entangle him…

If it turns out to be true that he was offered a presidential pardon if he went on record denying Russia interfered with the US election, would any of your opinions change?

What of those opinions should change in your opinion?

Re: Why are Amnesty International monitors not able to observe the Assange hearing?

#209

Post by ciarannolan » Mon, Sep 21, 2020, 6:14 PM UTC

> ASSANGE Agrees to Help Manning Crack a Password [1]

Is this what Assange is accused of doing?

1. Receiving a password hash from Manning

2. Telling Manning he'll try to crack it

3. Following up asking for more info about it (related usernames or something)

4. Never actually cracking it and no further action

Does anyone have any more specifics on what Assange actually did here to break the law? The indictment is pretty vague on this and it seems to be the central issue.

[1] https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1289641/downl... (page 9)

Re: Why are Amnesty International monitors not able to observe the Assange hearing?

#210

Post by alasdair_ » Mon, Sep 21, 2020, 6:15 PM UTC

Assange is being charged under the CFAA. The charge carries a maximum penalty of five years. The statute of limitations for charges the CFAA is five years - the indictment was filed after eight years from the alleged incident.

The US is claiming that the reason the statute of limitations doesn't apply is "terrorism".

I'm not sure Assange meets any reasonable criteria of being a terrorist.

Secondly, the charge stems from a few lines of instant message conversations. Specifically, Manning said to Assange that she was unable to crack a password hash. Assange said he had rainbow tables that could be used. Manning sent Assange a password hash.

A couple of days later, Assange stated he had "no luck so far" with the hash. There is no other evidence Assange even attempted to crack the hash and definitely no evidence that it was successful or that it harmed the US in any way.

That's basically the entire case.

One other point: the case will be tried in East Virginia, which is home to the densest population of jurors that happen to work/ have worked in national security in the nation. This is intentional, of course and it's the same reason Snowden is also unwilling to return to a US trial - the jury is known to have strong pro-government views, strong ties to the national security apparatus.

EDIT: The bigger concern is that there are only four spots for the public to view the case and all of the online access was cut, so almost no public observers are allowed in. This is concerning given the broad implications of the trial and the fact that there is obviously enormous political pressure being brought to bear.