Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection • Hacker News Board

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#461

Post by belltaco » Wed, Apr 17, 2019, 5:15 AM UTC

burfog wrote: post #450

belltaco wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you're saying Assange is implying that Seth Rich is the leaker, and that he is indeed the leaker?

It seems to be so. Assange and his mother both hinted at it. One interview Assange did is particularly notable; he practically said the leaker was Seth Rich and then backed off a bit. It was like he was struggling with his promise to not reveal sources. Seth Rich had the means to leak, being an IT person just like Snowden was. Seth Rich had the motive to leak, being a very upset Bernie supporter. In one of John Podes…

There is no evidence that Seth Rich was a Bernie supporter at all, forget about being an upset one. Him being an IT person means nothing because did not have access to all DNC emails. Snowden had high level access.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#462

Post by KorematsuFred » Thu, Apr 18, 2019, 7:19 AM UTC

tyingq wrote: post #227

KorematsuFred wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

American law can not apply to non-Americans abroad.

Maybe "should not". "Can not" has been disproved many times.

Either cases it is irrelevant if the parent country of that person supports that individual. Like how it happens with a lot of Chinese citizens that US routinely tries to entrap.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#463

Post by tssva » Thu, Apr 18, 2019, 11:00 AM UTC

AnaniasAnanas wrote: post #394

tssva wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is false. US Government employees have whistleblower protections under the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 and PPD-19 which Obama issued in 2012.

Does it not also apply to Snowden then?

First since the original comment was about government employees it is important to point out that Snowden was a contractor and not a government employee.

Although no form of protection from employment retaliation was in place at the time of Snowden's information release the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998 did provide a process for intelligence community employees and contractors to raise issues. Snowden didn't follow the procedures of the act and his direct release of classified material is not protected by the act nor would any laws passed since to strengthen whistleblower protection provide any defense for such a release of classified material.

Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998 requires a whistleblower to raise any issues to the Department of Justice for review. The DoJ evaluates any issues raised and if they determine they may be credible will report the issues and supporting material to the Senate and House Intelligence committees along with starting their own investigation. If the DoJ determines they issues are not credible the employee and contractor can present the issue and any supporting classified documentation to the Senate and House Intelligence committees themselves.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#464

Post by tssva » Thu, Apr 18, 2019, 11:04 AM UTC

Lowkeyloki wrote: post #41

tssva wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is false. US Government employees have whistleblower protections under the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 and PPD-19 which Obama issued in 2012.

Unfortunately too late for Chelsea Manning.

Chelsea Manning's release would still be a crime and not afforded whistleblower protection under current law. There were and are specific processes to be followed to qualify for whistleblower protection.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#465

Post by kbenson » Fri, Apr 19, 2019, 8:49 PM UTC

jonfw wrote: post #459

kbenson wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'd like to hear how you know that Assange knew that they had nothing to do with it? Because your argument seems to hinge on that idea. I'm not sure who "they" are in this question. I assume Assange knows who his sources are, and as someone who claims to be a journalist and run a journalistic enterprise, he would not accuse people of something he had no evidence of. At this point, there's plenty of investigations a…

You are 100% sure that Seth Rich wasn't murdered in a conspiracy because Wikipedia said so? I'm not saying that he was murdered by the DNC because I haven't seen enough evidence that supports that theory. But to act like the theory has been conclusively disproven because of a wikipedia article that cites the Washington Post, Snopes, and Politifact is rather naive.

> You are 100% sure that Seth Rich wasn't murdered in a conspiracy because Wikipedia said so?

No. Why would anyone be 100% about this unless they were part of it? I definitely know what I think is most likely based on the evidence though.

> But to act like the theory has been conclusively disproven because of a wikipedia article that cites the Washington Post, Snopes, and Politifact is rather naive.

And "The Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia" and "People who worked with Rich" and a "Rich family representative", all with citations. The very first sentence of that section does metion fact checking websites, such as Politifact.com, snopes.com and factcheck.org, but after it mentions (with two citations) "The conspiracy theories have been debunked by law enforcement".

I can only conclude you are seeing what you want to see, since you're leaving out very compelling evidence that was not only mentioned first in the initial explanatory sentence, but also first below where items were discussed in detail.

I think I've explained myself sufficiently, and I think your reply wasn't exactly formulated in a way conducive to productive discussion, so I think this will be my last comment on the topic here.