Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Hawkmoon on November 17, 2018, 12:27:01 PM
-
Apparently the U.S. government has filed charges against Julian Assange, but the charges are sealed by court order.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/11/16/julian-assange-charges-wikileaks-997122
I'm not even sure that's legal, but I guess a judge says it is. Catch-22: The way to show that it's not legal is to challenge it in court, but if it's a secret, you don't know it exists to be challenged.
Only a few months into Trump’s presidency, his attorney general, Jeff Sessions, said it would be a “priority” to stop leaks and arrest Assange. CNN reported in April 2017 that the U.S. was preparing charges to arrest Assange and that then-CIA Director Mike Pompeo characterized WikiLeaks as “a non-state hostile intelligence service often abetted by state actors like Russia.”
I don't understand why these two items have been made out to be joined at the hip. There are laws prohibiting leaking classified information. That's what Bradley Manning was convicted under. How does that extend to a journalist printing information he/she has been provided? I understand the need for security. I operated under a security clearance for much of my time in the Army. Leaking or otherwise disclosing classified information should be punished, severely. (Hello, Mrs. Clinton.) But freedom of the press is a higher law. If the .gov doesn't want to see classified information being published, then stop it -- by stopping the leaks. Prosecuting the journalists strikes me as shooting the messenger.
-
And now he has been arrested by the Brits.
https://www.foxnews.com/world/ecuador-withdraws-asylum-from-julian-assange-arrested-by-uk-police
-
What US law is an Australian living overseas even subject to?
-
Apparently the U.S. government has filed charges against Julian Assange, but the charges are sealed by court order.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/11/16/julian-assange-charges-wikileaks-997122
I'm not even sure that's legal, but I guess a judge says it is. Catch-22: The way to show that it's not legal is to challenge it in court, but if it's a secret, you don't know it exists to be challenged.
I don't understand why these two items have been made out to be joined at the hip. There are laws prohibiting leaking classified information. That's what Bradley Manning was convicted under. How does that extend to a journalist printing information he/she has been provided? I understand the need for security. I operated under a security clearance for much of my time in the Army. Leaking or otherwise disclosing classified information should be punished, severely. (Hello, Mrs. Clinton.) But freedom of the press is a higher law. If the .gov doesn't want to see classified information being published, then stop it -- by stopping the leaks. Prosecuting the journalists strikes me as shooting the messenger.
[tinfoil]Possibly they want him in court, so that all of his material is put on record, especially is much of it is damning to the last several administrations.
-
Is he the consolation prize, as they've failed to indict Trump?
-
Is he the consolation prize, as they've failed to indict Trump?
If by ‘consolation prize,’ you mean evidence of criminal activity by bushes, Clintons, Obamas, then yes.
-
It appears that The Atlantic is not fans of Assange.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/04/julian-assange-got-what-he-deserved/587008/
-
Government S**t-f***ery
Exactly.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1efOs0BsE0g
-
The Rageaholic did a video on it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLZQ_POiJks