Julian Assange free

[SassyLady]

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/06/breaking-julian-assange-be-freed-after-reaching-plea/

[revelarts]

this is great and unexpected news.

the only shade on this is that it seems they still charged him with something, but say his sentence is covered under "time served".
So it still puts whatever they think he did in the criminal category. making it possible to arrest him or other who do similar again.
do similar means REPORT THE FACTS ABOUT govt corruption & murders.

[fj1200]

^Helped along by his admittance.


The charges he will plead guilty to fall under “Conspiracy To Obtain and Disclose National Defense Information.”

[SassyLady]

^Helped along by his admittance.

What info was that? Other than Clinton's corruption what was the threat to national defense?

[fj1200]

What info was that? Other than Clinton's corruption what was the threat to national defense?

Did he commit a crime? Did he plead guilty to it?

[revelarts]

Did he commit a crime?
no.



Did he plead guilty to it?
maybe.

[SassyLady]

Correct me if I'm wrong. He didn't steal anything. He just published what was given to him.

[revelarts]

Correct me if I'm wrong. He didn't steal anything. He just published what was given to him.
that's my understanding.

[revelarts]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GQ_kOiCWsAE1Vb-?format=jpg&name=small

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GQ_kdOKXsAAjETP?format=jpg&name=small

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GQ_keYGWsAE0Ee2?format=jpg&name=small

[fj1200]

no.

maybe.


Correct me if I'm wrong. He didn't steal anything. He just published what was given to him.


that's my understanding.

That seemed to be a whole lot of pleading to a crime he apparently didn't commit.

[Kathianne]

That seemed to be a whole lot of pleading to a crime he apparently didn't commit.

He recruited those who stole the info, then he published it.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-did-julian-assange-do-wikileaks-most-significant-document-dumps/

[revelarts]

He recruited those who stole the info, then he published it.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-did-julian-assange-do-wikileaks-most-significant-document-dumps/

Is that what the article says he plead guilty too?
"RECRUITING" those who "STOLE"?

[Gunny]

Is that what the article says he plead guilty too?
"RECRUITING" those who "STOLE"?Why would he plead guilty if he did no wrong? Did he plead to whatever was offered for a lesser sentence? Did what he plead to reflect what he did?

[revelarts]

Why would he plead guilty if he did no wrong? Did he plead to whatever was offered for a lesser sentence? Did what he plead to reflect what he did?

the guys been basically under arrest on the run for 14 years from the U.S. gov't. for no real crime. He's not a U.S. Citizen. the CIA is on public record looking for ways to kill him. They threw the book at him & offered him a plea deal.

so we're to assume that He's guilty of "SOMETHING!" because the gov't and courts said so.
Trump was more guilty of a crime under the "law":rolleyes: than Assange ever was.
& you call me naive.

[fj1200]

the guys been basically under arrest on the run for 14 years from the U.S. gov't. for no real crime. He's not a U.S. Citizen. the CIA is on public record looking for ways to kill him. They threw the book at him & offered him a plea deal.

so we're to assume that He's guilty of "SOMETHING!" because the gov't and courts said so.
Trump was more guilty of a crime under the "law":rolleyes: than Assange ever was.
& you call me naive.

Moreso because he said so. He had 14 years to prove his innocence.

[revelarts]

Moreso because he said so. He had 14 years to prove his innocence.

"He had 14 years to prove his innocence"
wow

[SassyLady]

"He had 14 years to prove his innocence"
wow

Yeah .. what happened to "innocent until proven guilty". I would try to hide from the CIA as well if I had dirt on Clinton and Obama.

I think he agreed to hand over everything still in his possession and on his servers for the plea deal. What if he has already given everything to someone else to keep?

[fj1200]

"He had 14 years to prove his innocence"
wow


Yeah .. what happened to "innocent until proven guilty". I would try to hide from the CIA as well if I had dirt on Clinton and Obama.

I think he agreed to hand over everything still in his possession and on his servers for the plea deal. What if he has already given everything to someone else to keep?

Fair point. He had 14 years to face the charges and wait to be proven not guilty. You two do understand that he plead guilty? I'm not sure that it can be true that he committed no crime yet plead guilty to charges. You could show the crime that he plead guilty to and how he is either innocent or it's an unconstitutional law or otherwise.

[Kathianne]

Is that what the article says he plead guilty too?
"RECRUITING" those who "STOLE"?

I don't really give a damn. It's a conspiracy charge, I've no clue what they charged him with
It really is wrong to sell or give government secrets.

[fj1200]

It's easy to posts memes in other threads. :winning:

[revelarts]

I don't really give a damn. It's a conspiracy charge, I've no clue what they charged him with
It really is wrong to sell or give government secrets.


Fair point. He had 14 years to face the charges and wait to be proven not guilty. You two do understand that he plead guilty? I'm not sure that it can be true that he committed no crime yet plead guilty to charges. You could show the crime that he plead guilty to and how he is either innocent or it's an unconstitutional law or otherwise.


Question:
Do either of you think journalist should ever expose to "we the people" classified gov't documents that expose criminal activity by the govt?

If your answer is no.
Then he committed the crime he plead guilty to.
And you've just put a decent portion of journalist in prison or in jeopardy of prison.
Just like in Russia, the USSR & 3rd world countries.

If your answer is yes.
Then he committed no crime and law he was charged with is BS & unconstitutional.

If your answer is Maybe.
Then you have some bias/preference for when or how or who/what journalism should be allowed to expose.

It is interesting to me that the corporations mentioned in other threads here are literally selling WEAPONS to adversaries but they get a pass and every benny of the doubt from you both.
And the corporations who are tried & convicted ...plead guilty...for those crimes simply get fined but NO corporate head or tail goes to prison for treason for selling to enemies.

But exposing U.S.Gov't crimes, THAT's to horrific too stand he "broke the LAW!!!", they have to chase this guy around the freaking world.

[fj1200]

Question:
Do either of you think journalist should ever expose to "we the people" classified gov't documents that expose criminal activity by the govt?

If your answer is no.
Then he committed the crime he plead guilty to.
And you've just put a decent portion of journalist in prison or in jeopardy of prison.
Just like in Russia, the USSR & 3rd world countries.

If your answer is yes.
Then he committed no crime and law he was charged with is BS & unconstitutional.

If your answer is Maybe.
Then you have some bias/preference for when or how or who/what journalism should be allowed to expose.

It is interesting to me that the corporations mentioned in other threads here are literally selling WEAPONS to adversaries but they get a pass and every benny of the doubt from you both.
And the corporations who are tried & convicted ...plead guilty...for those crimes simply get fined but NO corporate head or tail goes to prison for treason for selling to enemies.

But exposing U.S.Gov't crimes, THAT's to horrific too stand he "broke the LAW!!!", they have to chase this guy around the freaking world.

At least you're starting to ask relevant questions. If he had faced his charges then there possibly could have been a showdown between the 1A and the Espionage Act. But now he's an admitted criminal.

But to your question, I'm sure it's not a good idea to have anyone conspiring to stealing state secrets. You either have state secrets or you don't. I think you look at things a bit to simplistically.

[SassyLady]

Fair point. He had 14 years to face the charges and wait to be proven not guilty. You two do understand that he plead guilty? I'm not sure that it can be true that he committed no crime yet plead guilty to charges. You could show the crime that he plead guilty to and how he is either innocent or it's an unconstitutional law or otherwise.


In the US, Assange was charged with conspiracy to obtain and disclose national defence information, following the massive Wikileaks disclosure in 2010.

Wikileaks had released a video from a US military helicopter which showed civilians being killed in the Iraqi capital Baghdad.
It also published thousands of confidential documents suggesting that the US military had killed hundreds of civilians in unreported incidents during the war in Afghanistan.
The revelations became a huge story, prompting reaction from all corners of the globe, and led to intense scrutiny of American involvement in foreign conflicts.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crgggyvp0j9o

This is what he did. He plead guilty to exposing government cover ups of war crimes.

[revelarts]

Wikileaks Clinton emails
https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/?q=syria&mfrom=&mto=&title=&notitle=&date_from=&date_to=&nofrom=&noto=&count=50&sort=0#searchresult

Amendment 1
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.

I'm not sure why the founders were so simplistic.

[fj1200]

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crgggyvp0j9o

This is what he did. He plead guilty to exposing government cover ups of war crimes.

Wow, you're still not correct. More accurately...


Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, pleaded guilty on Wednesday to a felony charge of violating the U.S. Espionage Act (https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/25/us/assange-plea-deal-press-freedom.html),
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/25/world/australia/julian-assange-plea-deal-guilty.html

Here's the indictment from 4 years ago.
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/wikileaks-founder-charged-superseding-indictment


Wikileaks Clinton emails
https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/?q=syria&mfrom=&mto=&title=&notitle=&date_from=&date_to=&nofrom=&noto=&count=50&sort=0#searchresult

Amendment 1
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.

I'm not sure why the founders were so simplistic.

Maybe they simplistically thought that the press shouldn't be able to freely commit crimes and then hide under the umbrella of 1A. Just a thought.

[revelarts]

Maybe they simplistically thought that the press shouldn't be able to freely commit crimes and then hide under the umbrella of 1A. Just a thought.

Sounds like what King Charles would say.

[fj1200]

Sounds like what King Charles would say.

Ridiculous. Is FoS absolute?

[revelarts]

Ridiculous. Is FoS absolute?

Not to you.

[Kathianne]

While this case doesn't hold a lot of interest to me, I do think that perhaps some reading is in order before passing pronouncements regarding patriotism, love of Constitution, and especially the first amendment. I didn't look far, just one of first to pop up:

https://www.npr.org/2024/06/26/nx-s1-5019518/what-julian-assanges-plea-deal-means-for-journalists-who-expose-government-secrets

[Black Diamond]

Sounds like manning betrayed the people/org she worked for.

[Black Diamond]

Also what does this all say about security of the government or lack thereof.

[revelarts]

Also what does this all say about security of the government or lack thereof.

"If they're not doing anything wrong then there's nothing to hide."

[Black Diamond]

"If they're not doing anything wrong then there's nothing to hide."

How do we define "wrong"?

[revelarts]

How do we define "wrong"?
With the numbers of laws on the books that's a real good question.
what do... um... 1% of cops sometimes say to folks,
"i can find something to charge you with."


But I'm thinking we can keep it less than that maybe typical crimes, murder, extortion, bribery, kidnapping, fixing elections, misuse of funds, favoritism, torture, and breaking various portions of the bill of rights.

[Black Diamond]

With the numbers of laws on the books that's a real go question.
what do... um... 1% of cops sometimes say to folks,
"i kind find something to charge you with."


But I'm thinking we can keep it less than that maybe typical crimes, murder, extortion, bribery, kidnapping, fixing elections, misuse of funds, favoritism, torture, and breaking various portions of the bill of rights.

I'm gonna nail you for picking your feet in Poughkeepsie

I think the percentage of cops who would say "i can find something to charge you with" is higher than one percent.

[Gunny]

the guys been basically under arrest on the run for 14 years from the U.S. gov't. for no real crime. He's not a U.S. Citizen. the CIA is on public record looking for ways to kill him. They threw the book at him & offered him a plea deal.

so we're to assume that He's guilty of "SOMETHING!" because the gov't and courts said so.
Trump was more guilty of a crime under the "law":rolleyes: than Assange ever was.
& you call me naive.

Isn't that how the law usually works?

Trump is guilty of crimes. He gets his day in court.

How is asking for information "naive"?

[fj1200]

Not to you.

I asked you.

[Gunny]

Moreso because he said so. He had 14 years to prove his innocence.Did I miss something? Or did he plead to something?

[Gunny]

Fair point. He had 14 years to face the charges and wait to be proven not guilty. You two do understand that he plead guilty? I'm not sure that it can be true that he committed no crime yet plead guilty to charges. You could show the crime that he plead guilty to and how he is either innocent or it's an unconstitutional law or otherwise.

That was what I was asking. Apparently that is naivete for non believers:rolleyes:

[Gunny]

I don't really give a damn. It's a conspiracy charge, I've no clue what they charged him with
It really is wrong to sell or give government secrets.

Therefore, you are naive apparently:rolleyes:

[fj1200]

While this case doesn't hold a lot of interest to me, I do think that perhaps some reading is in order before passing pronouncements regarding patriotism, love of Constitution, and especially the first amendment. I didn't look far, just one of first to pop up:


FOLKENFLIK: Well, the government alleged but didn't prove that he had taken actions to hack into government servers or government documents. That count was dropped. He did plead to and he confessed to conspiring to unlawfully obtain and disseminate classified information relating to, you know, national security documents. Well, you could apply that to journalists. They do that, too. The question is, do they direct the - what the government feels is the theft of those things?So journalists are, at once, cheering the fact that, you know, that matter wasn't fully adjudicated in court. That is, no judge said this definitely applies to journalists. But they are, you know, doing so while holding their noses because this clearly is an episode in which somebody who obtained information from a whistleblower within the government for national security documents was prosecuted and now is deemed officially a felon for having disseminated that publicly.

https://www.npr.org/2024/06/26/nx-s1-5019518/what-julian-assanges-plea-deal-means-for-journalists-who-expose-government-secrets

That's a good point. I don't think this is a ground breaking case because he wasn't convicted with the chance of appeal on constitutional grounds. He had that option and even brought it up when he appeared before the judge.


Sounds like manning betrayed the people/org she worked for.

He/she served time in jail. Commuted I believe by the (D)oddering fool.

[fj1200]

Did I miss something? Or did he plead to something?

Yeah, he plead to something. Probably just to end the nightmare of his current existence. Which I can understand.

[revelarts]

Ridiculous. Is FoS absolute?
There are legit laws on the books for slander.
Lying about someone. But Assange told the truth.

And there are legit laws on the books against spying.
Which Assange did not do.

If that = Free Speech Absolutism to you then Yes, it is.


But maybe that's too simply for you?

[Gunny]

Yeah, he plead to something. Probably just to end the nightmare of his current existence. Which I can understand.Who is Wikileaks' Julian Assange and what did he do? (bbc.com) (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68282613)

[fj1200]

There are legit laws on the books for slander.
Lying about someone. But Assange told the truth.

And there are legit laws on the books against spying.
Which Assange did not do.

If that = Free Speech Absolutism to you then Yes, it is.


But maybe that's too simply for you?

Restrictions on our rights codified in the Constitution? Say it ain't so.

Assange conspired to gain access to classified material by encouraging someone to break the law and their oath. Sorry if my code of ethics carries some level of complexity to understand that the press should not be able to hide behind 1A when breaking the law.

[revelarts]

Restrictions on our rights codified in the Constitution? Say it ain't so.

Assange conspired to gain access to classified material by encouraging someone to break the law and their oath. Sorry if my code of ethics carries some level of complexity to understand that the press should not be able to hide behind 1A when breaking the law.

I am sorry you're "code of ethics" makes the 1st amendment worthless against the gov't.
Sadly Gov't whistle blowers and journalist are now subject to your 3rd world dictator level of "complex" ethics.

"ju kno, we giv the nusPapers muchco freedum in our Conetree senior but you,
you and Predro here... God rest hes soul... u stole and conspired to geet des secret papers for your publication... dats agaainst de laaw mi amigo.
Ze freedum law carriez some level o complexity to understand amigo. se?"

[fj1200]

I am sorry you're "code of ethics" makes the 1st amendment worthless against the gov't.
Sadly Gov't whistle blowers and journalist are now subject to your 3rd world dictator level of "complex" ethics.

"ju kno, we giv the nusPapers muchco freedum in our Conetree senior but you,
you and Predro here... God rest hes soul... u stole and conspired to geet des secret papers for your publication... dats agaainst de laaw mi amigo.
Ze freedum law carriez some level o complexity to understand amigo. se?"

Ridiculous. The fact that you can't think of scenarios where there shouldn't be an absolute freedom, including committing crimes in securing material, shows me the vacuousness of your position.

[Black Diamond]

Restrictions on our rights codified in the Constitution? Say it ain't so.

Assange conspired to gain access to classified material by encouraging someone to break the law and their oath. Sorry if my code of ethics carries some level of complexity to understand that the press should not be able to hide behind 1A when breaking the law.

How did he encourage manning to break the oath and how/why is encouraging Manning illegal?

[fj1200]

How did he encourage manning to break the oath and how/why is encouraging Manning illegal?

I don't know the why necessarily but Manning was convicted of leaking classified material and Assange was in violation of the Espionage Act. Some folks think there's a conflict between 1A and the Espionage Act but the Assange case isn't going to clear it up.

[revelarts]

Ridiculous. The fact that you can't think of scenarios where there shouldn't be an absolute freedom, including committing crimes in securing material, shows me the vacuousness of your position.


The state will reward you for your loyalty FJ

But you might want to read the last paragrahs of the link kath posted from NPR.

[Black Diamond]

:popcorn:

[Black Diamond]

That's a good point. I don't think this is a ground breaking case because he wasn't convicted with the chance of appeal on constitutional grounds. He had that option and even brought it up when he appeared before the judge.



He/she served time in jail. Commuted I believe by the (D)oddering fool.

I don't understand commuting it. Part of me wanted manning strung up.
But the Assange part is interesting

[fj1200]

The state will reward you for your loyalty FJ

But you might want to read the last paragrahs of the link kath posted from NPR.



I read them. Do you know how you know that I read them? I posted them and acknowledged them when I replied to Kathianne. AFAIK there are very few journalists, probably even few real ones, currently being prosecuted under the Espionage Act or in jail period; perchance you could post a list in case I'm being caught unawares. Maybe I'll help you out with a current listing of journalists imprisoned.

https://cpj.org/data/imprisoned/2023/?status=Imprisoned&start_year=2023&end_year=2023&group_by=location

spoiler alert, currently 0 in the US. I think the hair-on-fire response to this is over the top.

But you also might want to check where you put your loyalties. Here's something a little more domestic and possibly relevant. How many times is trump mentioned?
https://www.cjr.org/analysis/2021-press-freedom-prior-restraint-arrests.php
and
https://pressfreedomtracker.us/

Who is threatening the press? Here's a good one.

https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/court-blocks-trump-subpoena-over-stormy-daniels-documentary-on-nbc/

and

https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/republican-house-member-calls-for-the-jailing-of-journalists/

She's shaking things up. Good on her right?

A link to Espionage Act violations:

https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/?tags=Espionage Act


Hale is the seventh person to be investigated (https://pressfreedomtracker.us/leak-case/?categories=7) by the Trump Justice Department for allegedly sharing confidential information with the press. The Trump administration is on pace to surpass the Obama administration’s record of the most prosecutions of alleged journalistic sources. During President Obama’s eight years in office, the Department of Justice brought charges against eight people (https://freedom.press/news/obama-used-espionage-act-put-record-number-reporters-sources-jail-and-trump-could-be-even-worse/) accused of leaking to the media.
https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/former-intelligence-analyst-charged-leaking-classified-documents-reporter/

I haven't followed every link but I haven't seen any journalists in jail in violation of the Espionage Act. Interesting stuff.

[fj1200]

I don't understand commuting it. Part of me wanted manning strung up.
But the Assange part is interesting

Woke got her commuted of his crimes.

[Black Diamond]

How would Judith Miller compare to Assange?

[Kathianne]

I read them. Do you know how you know that I read them? I posted them and acknowledged them when I replied to Kathianne. AFAIK there are very few journalists, probably even few real ones, currently being prosecuted under the Espionage Act or in jail period; perchance you could post a list in case I'm being caught unawares. Maybe I'll help you out with a current listing of journalists imprisoned.

https://cpj.org/data/imprisoned/2023/?status=Imprisoned&start_year=2023&end_year=2023&group_by=location

spoiler alert, currently 0 in the US. I think the hair-on-fire response to this is over the top.

But you also might want to check where you put your loyalties. Here's something a little more domestic and possibly relevant. How many times is trump mentioned?
https://www.cjr.org/analysis/2021-press-freedom-prior-restraint-arrests.php
and
https://pressfreedomtracker.us/

Who is threatening the press? Here's a good one.

https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/court-blocks-trump-subpoena-over-stormy-daniels-documentary-on-nbc/

and

https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/republican-house-member-calls-for-the-jailing-of-journalists/

She's shaking things up. Good on her right?

A link to Espionage Act violations:

https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/?tags=Espionage Act


https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/former-intelligence-analyst-charged-leaking-classified-documents-reporter/

I haven't followed every link but I haven't seen any journalists in jail in violation of the Espionage Act. Interesting stuff.

Exactly. The one that comes to my mind is Catherine Herridge who's been in court for protecting a source for a few years. FOX Corp is paying for her defense, otherwise she could have been jailed. She's being find, held while under appeal, $800 a day. Odds are the courts will eventually rule for her.

[Kathianne]

Exactly. The one that comes to my mind is Catherine Herridge who's been in court for protecting a source for a few years. FOX Corp is paying for her defense, otherwise she could have been jailed. She's being find, held while under appeal, $800 a day. Odds are the courts will eventually rule for her.

She's not up for espionage or conspiracy, it's protecting a source. Her and the source though did not commit crime or at least not accused of such, just exposed some information for public consumption-not classified or secret and she's not accused of encouraging the source to do anything illegal.

[fj1200]

How would Judith Miller compare to Assange?

Not sure what you mean. She appeared to have spent time in jail for refusing to reveal her source. It doesn't look like she received any top secret info.

[Black Diamond]

Not sure what you mean. She appeared to have spent time in jail for refusing to reveal her source. It doesn't look like she received any top secret info.

In seriousness, danger, etc. But not necessarily legal vs illegal

[revelarts]

Are you guys really calling Manning a "She"?

[Black Diamond]

Are you guys really calling Manning a "She"?

Not me. No.

[Black Diamond]

revelarts i had forgotten about the tranny part of the saga. So i may have called him a she earlier.

[fj1200]

Are you guys really calling Manning a "She"?

I was joking a bit. But that's your takeaway from the direction this thread went?

[revelarts]

@revelarts (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=1760) i had forgotten about the tranny part of the saga. So i may have called him a she earlier.

yep, stories a mess all around.

[fj1200]

Exactly. The one that comes to my mind is Catherine Herridge who's been in court for protecting a source for a few years. FOX Corp is paying for her defense, otherwise she could have been jailed. She's being find, held while under appeal, $800 a day. Odds are the courts will eventually rule for her.


“The Court recognizes both the vital importance of a free press and the critical role that confidential sources play in the work of investigative journalists like Herridge,” Cooper wrote in the ruling. “But applying the binding case law of this Circuit, the Court concludes that Chen’s need for the requested evidence overcomes Herridge’s qualified First Amendment privilege in this case.”
https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/02/media/catherine-herridge-deposition-reliable-sources/index.html

Seems a specious ruling to breach 1A over a civil case.

[fj1200]

But you might want to read...

Seriously, nothing?


I read them. Do you know how you know that I read them? I posted them and acknowledged them when I replied to Kathianne. AFAIK there are very few journalists, probably even few real ones, currently being prosecuted under the Espionage Act or in jail period; perchance you could post a list in case I'm being caught unawares. Maybe I'll help you out with a current listing of journalists imprisoned.

https://cpj.org/data/imprisoned/2023/?status=Imprisoned&start_year=2023&end_year=2023&group_by=location

spoiler alert, currently 0 in the US. I think the hair-on-fire response to this is over the top.

But you also might want to check where you put your loyalties. Here's something a little more domestic and possibly relevant. How many times is trump mentioned?
https://www.cjr.org/analysis/2021-press-freedom-prior-restraint-arrests.php
and
https://pressfreedomtracker.us/

Who is threatening the press? Here's a good one.

https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/court-blocks-trump-subpoena-over-stormy-daniels-documentary-on-nbc/

and

https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/republican-house-member-calls-for-the-jailing-of-journalists/

She's shaking things up. Good on her right?

A link to Espionage Act violations:

https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/?tags=Espionage Act


https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/former-intelligence-analyst-charged-leaking-classified-documents-reporter/

I haven't followed every link but I haven't seen any journalists in jail in violation of the Espionage Act. Interesting stuff.

[Kathianne]

https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/02/media/catherine-herridge-deposition-reliable-sources/index.html

Seems a specious ruling to breach 1A over a civil case.

Indeed. More:

https://www.rcfp.org/herridge-contempt-legal-question/#:~:text=On%20Feb.,but%20notable%20when%20they%20o ccur.

[revelarts]

Seriously, nothing?

...

spoiler alert, currently 0 in the US. I think the hair-on-fire response to this is over the top.
...
I haven't followed every link but I haven't seen any journalists in jail in violation of the Espionage Act. Interesting stuff.

When the patriot act was passed it was just for spying on and arresting "foreign" evil terrorist,
But somehow the intel agencies decided that the spying applied to all potential terrorist and "suspects" foreign & domestic... in fact anyone, can't be too careful. Including journalist btw, under the Obama admin..

Most here said my hair was on fire when I warned that ALL of the NEW powers given could be/would be turned on ANYone. Did i need a crystal ball to see that? no.
It's in any honest interpretation of the laws/rules themselves. ANY judge can make it work anyway they want. It's in the text and the legal rulings.
It's unconstitutional but it's "legal".

What laws did they bring up when they wanted to mass vaccinate the country?
"WE DO IT IN SCHOOLS NOW!" so it's legal.

I repeat it in my sig line every time I post
"It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties.The freeman of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents." James Madison


FJ it seems you want to WAIT until journalist are hauled off to court enmase before you think MAYBE there might be a problem. And wait for the court rulings even then.
You've already said you don't think the 1st Amendment is absolute.
And when i post the limits I think are legal you seem to take that as evidence that there ARE NO real limits to how much the the LAW or the COURTS can (should?) limit our RIGHTS. Since it's not "absolute".
Or that you'll be satisfied by WHATEVER any court says and that you are satisfied with what's been done so far.
Because clearly you're upset and bewildered that i'd dare to question the prosecution, law & courts on this issue.
So much so that you feel compelled to correct my "extreme" views.

You posture as if you'll be concerned if you see a few journalist jailed.
But you see no problem with the current harassments, arrests, prosecutions & loose precedents set.
It's just interesting to you.

You're even trying to distant the Assange case as somewhat out of bounds of the 1st amendment because he's a foreigner. Which is EXACTLY what folks were saying about foreign terror 'suspects'... harassment, spying without warrants, arrest without warrants, no right to council, indefinite detentions, torture & extrajudicial executions.
But now ... surprise surprise... we see (new normal) the list generally/nearly applies to anyone who the govt decides is a "domestic terrorist". "Domestic" being the only term in that phrase that has a set legal definition.

So, Look, if you're cool waiting for courts to willy nilly decide based on ideas/laws/precedents OTHER than & ABOVE the Broadest reading of the 1st amendment, fine, Ok.
We simply disagree.

And before you start crying about a laundry list.
You're not stupid.
I'm talking about ONE principle that APPLIES across our collective SET of rights. You're a sharp guy, you can understand that.
And not pretend that I'm talking about completely disparate issues that you can't get your head around to discuss.
the point is clear.
"It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties.The freeman of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents."

This applies to ALL the amendments.
1st amendment forward.
Just as we saw rights whittled away in the name of "security" and safety before, the SAME BS excuses are used here.
But for some reason the same trick works EVERY TIME on some people.
This time it's MORE of the 1st amendment.

[fj1200]

When the patriot act was passed it was just for spying on and arresting "foreign" evil terrorist,
But somehow the intel agencies decided that the spying applied to all potential terrorist and "suspects" foreign & domestic... in fact anyone, can't be too careful. Including journalist btw, under the Obama admin..

Most here said my hair was on fire when I warned that ALL of the NEW powers given could be/would be turned on ANYone. Did i need a crystal ball to see that? no.
It's in any honest interpretation of the laws/rules themselves. ANY judge can make it work anyway they want. It's in the text and the legal rulings

What laws did they bring up when they wanted to mass vaccinate the country?
"WE DO IT IN SCHOOLS NOW!" so it's legal.

I repeat it in my sig line every time I post



FJ it seems you want to WAIT until journalist are hauled off to court enmase before you think MAYBE there might be a problem. And wait for the court rulings even then.
You've already said you don't think the 1st Amendment is absolute.
And when i post the limits I think are legal you seem to take that as evidence that practically there ARE NO limits to how much the the LAW or the COURTS can (should?) limit the RIGHT.
Or that you'll be satisfied by WHATEVER any court says and that you are satisfied with what's been done so far.
Because clearly you're upset and bewildered that i'd dare to question the prosecution, law & courts on this issue.
So much so that you feel compelled to correct my extreme views.

You posture as if you'll be concerned if you see a few journalist jailed.
But you see no problem with the current harassments, arrests, prosecutions & loose precedents set.
It's just interesting.

You're even trying to distant the Assange case as somewhat out of bounds of the 1st amendment because he's a foreigner. Which is EXACTLY what folks were saying about foreign terror 'suspects'... harassment, spying without warrants, arrest without warrants, no right to council, indefinite detentions, torture & extrajudicial executions.
But now ... surprise surprise... we see (new normal) the list generally/nearly applies to anyone who the govt decides is a "domestic terrorist". "Domestic" being the only term in that phrase that has a set legal definition.

So, Look, if you're cool waiting for courts to willy nilly decide based on ideas/laws/precedents OTHER than & ABOVE the Broadest reading of the 1st amendment, fine, Ok.
We simply disagree.

And before you start crying about a laundry list.
You're not stupid.
the analogy is clear.


This applies to ALL the amendments.
1st amendment forward.

Just as we saw rights whittled away in the name of "security" and safety before, the SAME BS excuses are used here.
But for some reason the same trick works EVERY TIME on some people.
This time it's MORE of the 1st amendment.

Man, I try to give you the benefit of the doubt but then you go posting some really stupid crap (see bold). I said NOTHING about him being a foreigner. I do question his "editor-in-chief" and "journalist" status because he doesn't really edit anything but I can let that slide. And I can't bring up your laundry list garbage when you start posting about vaccines and the Patriot Act? Please. Keep it on track.

You yourself agreed, and brought up even, limits to 1A and limits don't really stop at the First do they? Probably every right in the Constitution has some limit baked in or eventually decided by SCOTUS decisions; some I agree with and some I don't I'm guessing but that tells you the country in which we live where even the black and white of the Constitution gets argued about and eventually decided. Nevertheless I posted some links, that you apparently get to decide are not on topic apparently (but vaccines are :rolleyes: ), that indicate that there really is no hair on fire here now or even really in the future IMO. Assange had the opportunity to test his theory in court but he didn't avail himself of the opportunity; perhaps someone else will in the future.

I'm not sure if you didn't pick up on, or just ignored, that your favored populists of the day don't seem to be as concerned about Freedom of the Press as you are.

[revelarts]

..Please. Keep it on track. Maybe I give you more credit than I should.
.


You yourself agreed, and brought up even, limits to 1A and limits don't really stop at the First do they? Probably every right in the Constitution has some limit baked in or eventually decided by SCOTUS decisions; some I agree with and some I don't I gave you specific lines in the sand. do you have any? or is it as a said.
willy nilly court rulings. waiting for the courts to rule.
And posturing as if you'll have a problem if more than a few get arrested.


I'm not sure if you didn't pick up on, or just ignored, that your favored populists of the day don't seem to be as concerned about Freedom of the Press as you are.
My favorite populist? who might that be?
Do you mean James Madison? George Mason?
I'm thinking they and several others are in fact spinning in their graves

[fj1200]

Maybe I give you more credit than I should.

Oh for #$%^&* sake.


I gave you specific lines in the sand. do you have any? or is it as a said.
willy nilly court rulings. waiting for the courts to rule.
And posturing as if you'll have a problem if more than a few get arrested.

Hmmm.


Assange conspired to gain access to classified material by encouraging someone to break the law and their oath. Sorry if my code of ethics carries some level of complexity to understand that the press should not be able to hide behind 1A when breaking the law.


My favorite populist? who might that be?
Do you mean James Madison? George Mason?
I'm thinking him and several others are in fact spinning in their graves

Their populist street cred isn't stipulated to at this time (there's a thread where you can make the case) but they aren't exactly of the day are they? I guess I misread your appreciation for trump and MTG; that's on me I guess. You don't seem to have a compunction against voting for one of the worst offenders in US history (I wouldn't be surprised if Wilson was the worst).

[Black Diamond]

Oh for #$%^&* sake.



Hmmm.





Their populist street cred isn't stipulated to at this time (there's a thread where you can make the case) but they aren't exactly of the day are they? I guess I misread your appreciation for trump and MTG; that's on me I guess. You don't seem to have a compunction against voting for one of the worst offenders in US history (I wouldn't be surprised if Wilson was the worst).

Was Wilson the first neocon? :cool:

[Black Diamond]

What if the press is lying or is using unreliable sources/information and the story ends up being completely false?

[fj1200]

Was Wilson the first neocon? :cool:

First fascist.


What if the press is lying or is using unreliable sources/information and the story ends up being completely false?

Weeeeellllllll

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fs.hdnux.com%2Fphotos%2F01%2F27%2F 45%2F24%2F22959402%2F5%2FrawImage.jpg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=cc8305ad9dc24da68773d0b2d97a050ab347aeb9e0138a c7c0118898d63b1211&ipo=images

[Black Diamond]

First fascist.



Weeeeellllllll

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fs.hdnux.com%2Fphotos%2F01%2F27%2F 45%2F24%2F22959402%2F5%2FrawImage.jpg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=cc8305ad9dc24da68773d0b2d97a050ab347aeb9e0138a c7c0118898d63b1211&ipo=images

That should apply to cnn other msm sources. It should set a precedent.

[revelarts]

What if the press is lying or is using unreliable sources/information and the story ends up being completely false?
Like, Biden's Laptop is Fake. Classic Russian disinfo tactic, the vaccine is safe and effective, Saddam has WMDs & mobile Anthrax units, yellow cake from Africa, Hidden Mountain fortresses in Afghanistan, Pat Tilman Jessica Lynch, Assad gassed his own people, “THE GHOST OF KIEV”, Incubator babies left on the floor to die, Ivermectin is horse medicine don't use it, MASK WORK!, Hillary Has a 98% Chance of Winning!, "J6 is the worst attack since the civil war!". "Covid came from a wet market!" ...
We can do this all day.

And most of that false info came FROM the gov't.
But I can't think of ONE news source that hasn't presented "Fake News" at one time or another.
But some news sources are definitely more consistent and generous with their fakery.

Which is why we need a free press so there's at least a chance that the reality will come out somewhere sometime.
unless we want to trust the gov't to tell us the truth.

BTW Alex Jones was more correct on the list above than all of the MSM.
And has been in general.

BTW the record shows historically that Most often the gov'ts go after journalist because they are telling the TRUTH. not because they've told lies.

[Black Diamond]

revelarts. I can't get the quote function to work on this tiny phone. Does unlimited freedom of the press include the right of the press to lie?

[revelarts]

@revelarts (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=1760). I can't get the quote function to work on this tiny phone. Does unlimited freedom of the press include the right of the press to lie?
http://1000words.fatcow.com/box8/pol%20-%20fox%20right%20to%20misinform.png

[Black Diamond]

https://youtu.be/Bb7CWXk9puk?si=ShW5fdiU4y2zZB6i

[fj1200]

That should apply to cnn other msm sources. It should set a precedent.

I shall point you to Richard Jewell, Nicholas Sandmann, Kyle Rittenhouse maybe, etc.

[Black Diamond]

I shall point you to Richard Jewell, Nicholas Sandmann, Kyle Rittenhouse maybe, etc.

May it continue and may they succeed

[revelarts]

even the NYT has managed to see the problem to a degree
Assange’s Plea Deal Sets a Chilling Precedent, but It Could Have Been Worse
The deal brings an ambiguous end to a legal saga that has jeopardized the ability of journalists to report on military, intelligence or diplomatic information that officials deem secret.
https://archive.is/R7pj3

[Gunny]

even the NYT has managed to see the problem to a degree
Assange’s Plea Deal Sets a Chilling Precedent, but It Could Have Been Worse
The deal brings an ambiguous end to a legal saga that has jeopardized the ability of journalists to report on military, intelligence or diplomatic information that officials deem secret.
https://archive.is/R7pj3

I don't see the problem. Classified information is classified information for a reason. You are not entitled to it just because you think you are.

[Black Diamond]

I don't see the problem. Classified information is classified information for a reason. You are not entitled to it just because you think you are.

Okay but how did Julian force the tranny to obtain the information?

[Gunny]

Okay but how did Julian force the tranny to obtain the information?Don't know.

What I DO know is mishandling/disclosing classified information is against the law. Doesn't matter how you got it. Speaking naive, I'm not so naive as to believe Assange didn't know what he had and dumped it out there willingly and purposefully. He is a perfect example of why the government has secrets to begin with. Some self-righteous idiot thinking he has a gotcha that "the people have a right to know" can endanger this entire nation.

What's more important? His ego? Or the nation? Rhetorical. I know what the answer is for people who support this kind of crap and it's wrong. Without the Nation, there is no "you" or your "rights" and vice versa. It's a codependency that should be based on trust. Neither seems very worthy from my porch.

[Black Diamond]

Don't know.

What I DO know is mishandling/disclosing classified information is against the law. Doesn't matter how you got it. Speaking naive, I'm not so naive as to believe Assange didn't know what he had and dumped it out there willingly and purposefully. He is a perfect example of why the government has secrets to begin with. Some self-righteous idiot thinking he has a gotcha that "the people have a right to know" can endanger this entire nation.

What's more important? His ego? Or the nation? Rhetorical. I know what the answer is for people who support this kind of crap and it's wrong. Without the Nation, there is no "you" or your "rights" and vice versa. It's a codependency that should be based on trust. Neither seems very worthy from my porch.

It really bothers me that manning was commuted and that.. It wasn't strung up to be honest. Lot more betrayal on its part than Julian's imo.

[revelarts]

I don't see the problem. Classified information is classified information for a reason. You are not entitled to it just because you think you are.

(1) Who says? "my" gov't?

(2) when criminal acts are "classified" do they have the same legal cover in your view?

I'm sure they have "reasons". And that's fine.
But once it's in the wind ANYONE can publish it. And should be able to without fear of the gov't retribution.
As an American citizen somehow i do have this crazy thought that I'm entitled to see the work and documents that MY gov't produces on OUR behalf. Especially if a gov't employee thinks it's so important that they'd risk stealing & breaking oaths to give to us.
No one is handing out classified docs willy nilly.
Most of that stuff shouldn't be "classified" in the 1st place. this has LONG been an issue.

Plus, "if they have nothing to hide, they have nothing to fear". right?
Gov't's spying up are arses daily but somehow the gov't's "houses, papers, and effects" ARE protected "against unreasonable searches and seizures" but ours aren't?
that is 100% BASS AKWARD

[Black Diamond]

(1) Who says? "my" gov't?

(2) when criminal acts are "classified" do they have the same legal cover in your view?

Certainly if one's in the military one should keep it quiet

[Black Diamond]

(1) Who says? "my" gov't?

(2) when criminal acts are "classified" do they have the same legal cover in your view?

I'm sure they have "reasons". And that's fine.
But once it's in the wind ANYONE can publish it. And should be able to without fear of the gov't retribution.
As an American citizen somehow i do have this crazy thought that I'm entitled to see the work and documents that MY gov't produces on OUR behalf. Especially if a gov't employee thinks it's so important that they'd risk stealing & breaking oaths to give to us.
No one is handing out classified docs willy nilly.

If Julian had been given nuclear codes, he should have the green light to release them?
Where would we draw the line? What constitutes "willy nilly" in the future?

[revelarts]

If Julian had been given nuclear codes, he should have the green light to release them?
Where would we draw the line? What constitutes "willy nilly" in the future?

1st Practically speaking, i dont know but, wouldn't the nuke codes be changed? I hope they are changed regularly.

But lets say it was a list of deep cover DEA in a South American Cartel... or CIA moles working in the Chinese Gov't.
Personally I'd say make a special law that craves out exposing the names of spies.
and let that law be tested in court.
rather than using the broad brush idea that because something "classified" was released & printed that it's means the gov't can swoop in claiming "espionage" or "conspiracy" with threats of prison.

[revelarts]

Certainly if one's in the military one should keep it quiet
I'm not sure if this is a joke or not.

[Black Diamond]

1st Practically speaking, i dont know but, wouldn't the nuke codes be changed? I hope they are changed regularly.

But lets say it was a list of deep cover DEA in a South American Cartel... or CIA moles working in the Chinese Gov't.
Personally I'd say make a special law that craves out exposing the names of spies.
and let that law be tested in court.
rather than using the broad brush idea that because something "classified" was released & printed that it's means the gov't can swoop in claiming "espionage" or "conspiracy" with threats of prison.
Yeah. Substitute nuclear secrets for nuclear codes. Rosenbergs type stuff

[Black Diamond]

I'm not sure if this is a joke or not.

It's not a joke.i would be way more lenient on a civilian than someone betraying the organization/group he's a part of.
*semi related * I have more respect for G Gordon Liddy than i do for all the Watergate clowns who sang like canaries. Rats.....

[revelarts]

It's not a joke.i would be way more lenient on a civilian than someone betraying the organization/group he's a part of.
*semi related * I have more respect for G Gordon Liddy than i do for all the Watergate clowns who sang like canaries. Rats.....

So if 1 soldier in your unit kills 100 civilians for no reason. and has habit of it.
And another soldier in the unit releases a video of it to the brass and they do nothing.
Then he releases the video to the press.
We're more upset with the rat than the murderer?

[Black Diamond]

So if 1 soldier in your unit kills 100 civilians for no reason. and has habit of it.
And another soldier in the unit releases a video of it to the brass and they do nothing.
Then he releases the video to the press.
We're more upset with the rat than the murderer?

The soldier who shot the video.... Has he participated in illegal killings?

[Black Diamond]

Also what do these civilians know? I feel like we are discussing the movie Platoon

[Black Diamond]

How do you define "for no reason"? Do you actually mean for no reason or do you mean "for no good reason in your opinion?"

[revelarts]

The soldier who shot the video.... Has he participated in illegal killings?

Jimmy used to tell me it doesn't matter if one person is imprisoned and another isn't, even if they did the same or more crime.
As long as the the one in prison committed the crime, it's a-ok.
overall fairness in the targeting system doesn't matter. but hey, that's a different beef.


But Ok
scenario 1 Yes he did.
scenario 2 no he did not.

[revelarts]

Also what do these civilians know?..

Civilian says

https://media1.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPTc5MGI3NjExejV0ZXl4cm4xcDR6Zzlsaml6Y3lpdHd 4eDJwYTVoeWw5dmo4Z2huciZlcD12MV9pbnRlcm5hbF9naWZfY nlfaWQmY3Q9Zw/82UCveCZQUypa/giphy.webp

[Black Diamond]

Jimmy used to tell me it doesn't matter if one person is imprisoned and another isn't, even if they did the same or more crime.
As long as the the one in prison committed the crime, it's a-ok.
overall fairness in the targeting system doesn't matter. but hey, that's different beef.


But Ok
scenario 1 Yes he did.
scenario 2 no he did not.
This is a lot harder than Watergate.
Scenario 1 the guy is a hypocrite and a traitor to his unit.
Scenario 2 assuming it really is for no reason... What would the consequences be for ratting?

[fj1200]

even the NYT has managed to see the problem to a degree
Assange’s Plea Deal Sets a Chilling Precedent, but It Could Have Been Worse
The deal brings an ambiguous end to a legal saga that has jeopardized the ability of journalists to report on military, intelligence or diplomatic information that officials deem secret.
https://archive.is/R7pj3

Meh. For reasons stated previously.

[fj1200]

Yeah. Substitute nuclear secrets for nuclear codes. Rosenbergs type stuff

Or get soldiers killed. Those would be IMO why Assange is hiding behind journalist and editor-in-chief. Information for information sake is the action of a hacker and not looking for a story.

[revelarts]

Meh. For reasons stated previously.
previously:
"I think the hair-on-fire response to this is over the top."

"But you also might want to check where you put your loyalties. Here's something a little more domestic and possibly relevant. "

"I do question his "editor-in-chief" and "journalist" status because he doesn't really edit anything but I can let that slide."


So "meh" = not worried because:
•You don't think it's a problem since few or no journalist have been tried or jailed... yet.
•Because Assange is not really "domestic". As in foreign? Not as "relevant." Not as relevant to the 1st amendment? Not as relevant because he's foreign?
•Because you don't think Assange is really a journalist... but you'll let it slide.... until you don't? Unless the courts say so?

[fj1200]

previously:
"I think the hair-on-fire response to this is over the top."

"But you also might want to check where you put your loyalties. Here's something a little more domestic and possibly relevant. "

"I do question his "editor-in-chief" and "journalist" status because he doesn't really edit anything but I can let that slide."


So "meh" = not worried because:
•You don't think it's a problem since few or no journalist have been tried or jailed... yet.
•Because Assange is not really "domestic". As in foreign? Not as "relevant." Not as relevant to the 1st amendment? Not as relevant because he's foreign?
•Because you don't think Assange is really a journalist... but you'll let it slide.... until you don't? Unless the courts say so?

You're not very good at context. I never said anything about him being foreign. I was showing links to journalists jailed in other countries and then I had to look domestically because there are zero journalists jailed in the US according to that link. And then I showed actual threats to journalists in the US and there were exceedingly few and some of the ones mentioned were because of people you apparently support or at least show appreciation for (still waiting on your comments to some of those).

So, meh, because I have faith in this country and it's Constitutional processes and no journalists have been tried or jailed for their chosen professions as journalists in the media, read: no hackers.

So, meh, because I don't care if he's a foreigner or not and if he hadn't engaged in criminal behavior then this would likely be a non-story.

And finally, meh, because I don't think he qualifies as a journalist but also, meh, I don't think it mattered to the facts of the case.