Trump Justice Department Crosses New Line, Charges Assange With Publishing U.S. Secrets

a reply to: Willtell

Can one say Assange is a journalist? Maybe. But the US power structure doesn't think so

I've been critical of every administration, and to be honest they've been working off of each other in all the wrong ways for me.

Foreign policy and domestic rights have been digressing exponentially, the former justifying the latter.

Julian Assange fits the bill of a journalist perfectly unless they can prove he worked for a foreign government. Whether or not he has ideology that has guided his decision making is irrelevant. Almost all journalism is agenda driven or has a bias. It's up to the consumer to determine that with critical thinking.

This is BS and everyone knows it. While this won't inevitably create an environment where you cannot embarrass or speak against the government for "national security" or the "espionage act", it certainly lays the ground work for it.

The silence on this is deafening. Anyone who acts like the constitution isn't being attacked, or that somehow we are the bastion of freedom is either ignorant or maliciously complacent for partisan agenda at this point.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
Julian Assange fits the bill of a journalist perfectly ....

These are evolving times and media platforms are not what they were in the past.
But I thought the Cheeto Benito loved Wikileaks?

I thought Assange and Trump where working together under the thumb of Vladimir Putin.

This is all getting confusing.

a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

People need to be fired over this.

originally posted by: DanDanDat
I thought Assange and Trump where working together under the thumb of Vladimir Putin.

This is all getting confusing.

Are you seriously throwing down some haha but muh Russia stuff right now?

That one is won my friend. Pick your ball off of that court and go to the next one.

We're playing defend the constitution on this one.

This is why I dislike partisans, as long as it's their team, they're silent or down right laughing as it'd happening. Turning a blind eye or cheering that their team is "winning".

It's a rag to those who hoist politicians above citizens.

originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

The justice department made this statement while indicting Assange. As per the article in the link.

The Justice Department immediately sought to draw a distinction between Assange and the press in a briefing for reporters announcing the new indictment.
“The department takes seriously the role of journalists in our democracy and we thank you for it,” said John Demers, head of the department’s National Security Division. “It has not and never has been the department’s policy to target them for reporting. But Julian Assange is no journalist.”
Demers cited WikiLeaks’ publication of the names of U.S. government sources, saying it endangered people in China, Iran, and Syria.

Can one say Assange is a journalist? Maybe. But the US power structure doesn't think so

Notice that statement they made as an ultimatum. "Assange is no journalist" as if just saying it makes it true. Offering nothing to back up that statement at all except them "saying" it.

I would say the current justice department is one that needs to be torn down and begin a new. Any government agency that becomes that pompous and full of their self anointed Godhood level arrogance should be destroyed. Reminds me of the same attitude they had during the corrupt Obama administration. Nothing has really changed.

Well Hillary Clinton would have droned him...so there is that.

Time will tell, but interesting timing once again, could be
a surprise in the wings.

Assange knows things.
Charge Assange.
Assange testifies
Assange gets probation.

I mean, at this point it would be more than Jussie got....

Why not? If you break the law you should be held accountable and if you help with other cases you can get leniency. I would be worried because the price on his head must be YUUGGGGEEEE....

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Oh, I apologize for making light of a topic you feel passionate about; I didn't intend to offend you.

"Lick Him Up" for the same crime Hillary Clinton committed during her service as secretary of state.

a reply to: Willtell

It's a assault against the 1st amendment.

a reply to: DanDanDat

Oh, I apologize for making light of a topic you feel passionate about; I didn't intend to offend you.

No harm no foul. Neither you or I have a say in the subject matter at hand. I get sassy over constitutional matters.

"Lick Him Up" for the same crime Hillary Clinton committed during her service as secretary of state.

Same game different pony. Partisans are willing to deflect from their own Eh? Use the other as an example of why they're vindicated. I put blast on them all.

The erosion of our rights isn't about a partisan team. If it's us vs them, I choose us.

originally posted by: LDragonFire
a reply to: Willtell

It's a assault against the 1st amendment.

Oh you might want to check with the Democrats and Trump
haters before you say such a thing.

Herrr Queen Hillary still has a marker on his head, how can you
be so conflicted?

a reply to: burntheships

Oh you might want to check with the Democrats and Trump
haters before you say such a thing.

Bush Jr = Obama = Trump.

Circlejerk.gif

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Their idea is that you don’t expose the secrets of the government unless you’re an American certified journalist.

They tried to get Daniel Ellsberg in the Pentagon papers case during Nixon’s term but that didn't work because they did so many sinister acts against Ellsberg the judge threw the case out.

During that period a very important SCOTUS decision allowed the NYT and Washington Post
the right to publish what Ellsberg leaked, the famous Pentagon Papers.


en.m.wikipedia.org...

New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971),[1] was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court on the First Amendment. The ruling made it possible for The New York Times and The Washington Post newspapers to publish the then-classifiedPentagon Papers without risk of government censorship or punishment.[1]

Assange doesn’t have the same case against the government spying on him as Ellsberg had like the feds breaking into his doctor’s office but he does have that SCOTUS decision on his side. He may beat the case. I’m sure there will be many top 1st amendment lawyers willing to take on his defense

I don't see how Assange should be bound by U.S. laws as he isn't a U.S. citizen. I consider this BS. I am not bound by British or French laws. This needs to stop.

originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Their idea is that you don’t expose the secrets of the government unless you’re an American certified journalist.

They tried to get Daniel Ellsberg in the Pentagon papers case during Nixon’s term but that didn't work because they did so many sinister acts against Ellsberg the judge threw the case out.

During that period a very important SCOTUS decision allowed the NYT and Washington Post
the right to publish what Ellsberg leaked, the famous Pentagon Papers.


en.m.wikipedia.org...

New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971),[1] was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court on the First Amendment. The ruling made it possible for The New York Times and The Washington Post newspapers to publish the then-classifiedPentagon Papers without risk of government censorship or punishment.[1]

Assange doesn’t have the same case against the government spying on him as Ellsberg had like the feds breaking into his doctor’s office but he does have that SCOTUS decision on his side. He may beat the case. I’m sure there will be many top 1st amendment lawyers willing to take on his defense

I hope he beats the rap. I think it should also be noted for the sake of discussion that in many of these cases where government retaliates when information is leaked, it has been information that the government illegally classified.

That is, they used the classification system in order to hide illegal actions by government, and classifying the information would keep those crimes from being exposed publicly. Internally it would be tolerated because of the corruption and those willing to play along. Just like operation Fast and Furious was totally illegal, immoral, and dangerous, and was thus classified to hide those aspects, plus the fact that it would have never been tolerated by any lawful conscious citizen if it had been public from the beginning.

Traditionally, those are the kind of things that lawful conscious citizens would be leaking to wiki---eaks in the first place, to expose corrupt government activities, otherwise there would be no motive or need to leak anything if government agencies and government employees, and elected officials in positions of public trust were not breaking laws behind the backs of the citizenry.

Assange's mission has never included simply leaking anything coming in, but only things which exposed illegal and immoral government activities. Not just in the USA, but all over the world.

TPTB entrenched within the intelligence agencies have made sure those aspects are not mentioned in the news, but only that Assange is damaging the country with the wanton leaking of classified intelligence.

Assange is indeed quite a journalist when you consider all the countries he has been involved in facilitating the exposure of corruption in many countries, but just not on that special approved list of fully controlled and bought off journalists that will never expose things they are warned away from.

I don't get this.

By adding espionage to the charges the US made it much easier for Assange to rely on the political offense exception clauses in the extradition treaties of both Sweden and UK.

Under the current exrradition treaties both countries cannot extradite because of alleged political offenses. Political offenses are universally understood as crimes against the state like espionage, sedition and treason. There is of course some wiggle room but Assange will be able to fight this thing for years and years up to the European Court of Human Rights.
Under the previous indicment, Assange would have had a tough time making the argument about a political offense. So the US did him a huge favor with these new charges. They're not getting him anytime soon and who knows if another administration will just end up dropping the charges anyway.

thinfoil: Trumps 4d chess at work lol

Julian Assange fits the bill of a journalist 

That misses the point. The 1st amendment doesn't create a class of people who are protected. "The press" isn't a class of journalists. It was the printing press. It was freedom of the method of expression-- not an occupation or career path. England mandated a license to publish materials. We wanted everyone to have the freedom to print their speech.

If one is given "freedom of the castle", it means you may roam the castle uninhibited or unrestricted. The castle grounds do not suddenly acquire rights. The person is given rights/access to the castle, and not restricted in movement. "The doctors said if she continued to make normal progress that they would give her the freedom of the grounds". The patient has freedom to move about the grounds. She is not confined. "The grounds" receive no rights.

It's in one clause, together: "or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press"

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Congress shall make no law --
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;
or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


We would never say freedom of speech only applies to accredited, professional speech-givers. It is an activity anyone is free to engage in. So is "the press". You are free to print/publish your ideas or writings or speech. You have freedom of access to "the press" without government interference. It is not a freedom granted to journalists or media companies, but to everyone.

So it is ok for the US government to kill millions and displace many millions more, but it is not ok to talk about it???

America is its own worst enemy, Julian is just someone to focus on and blame for all these warts. I am sure there is a mountain load of hate, anger and resentment going on around these wars. What better way to fix it than shoot the messenger and remain in your own delusion.

With all the reports Julian has gone through over the years, he does know better than most of us just how America works. Something would be wrong to not be scared of that. While he does have some good moral high ground to stand on, against a machine that lost it morals a while ago, god help us all.

a reply to: Willtell

What secrets did he publish ...... or is that a secret to... circular argument comes to mind.

Any damm fool could see that once the us got hold of him they were going to charge him with stealing and or publishing state secrets because that way the us doesn't have to prove a single bloody thing do they ..... as always

As always they will find him guilty on the basis of nothing more than an accusation - typical america yet they squel like a stuck pig when someone grabs one of theirs and does the same thing.

The credibility of the us is below ground level these days.