Jillian Assange Arrested

Dec 2016
5,101
2,620
Canada
#71
I'm going to restate my original position because you seem to want to go down rabbit holes.

Assange. And. Manning. Hacked. Into. US. Military. Database.

Their. Crime. Is. For. Hacking. Not. Leaking.
Let's see if you or anyone else has proof that Assange did the hacking! All you got right now are the whispers and deliberately leaked information coming out of the TRUMP Justice Dept. When Chelsea Manning originally came up for trial, the charges were for downloading classified information directly onto music CD's and uploading the information to Wikileaks. Same as Ed Snowden downloading information onto thumbdrives.....does that qualify as "hacking." I don't know and I don't really care, because....just as with Podesta and DNCLeaks, the focus should have been on what's revealed in the information/ not how they got it!

As of now, no one guilty of war crimes discovered by whistleblowers has ever been charged or convicted for their egregious offenses/ while ever since Obama Inc. the whistleblowers have been subject to the expanded version of the Espionage Act...............which was created back in WWI and widely regarded as a violation of the Constitution for decades until it was dusted off and brought back to life by The Empire!
 
Likes: Sabcat
Dec 2016
5,101
2,620
Canada
#73
It's not my position. It's the position of the DOJ under both the current and former president. Seriously, the endless attempt to defend a guy who put the lives of American soldiers is embarrassing

Breaking Down the Hacking Case Against Julian Assange

I'm done
I don't know if you read past the title of your source, but a couple of contributors point out that the 'hacking case against Assange 'won't be easy.' And nobody wants to deal with press freedom issues....especially a co-opted corporate owned press!

When Julian Assange and Wikileaks first became a front page international story, he declared in interviews that 'private citizens should have guarantees of privacy, not governments!' And my thoughts are similar. Just as we have often been told by powerful interests: 'if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear from state surveillance.' Well, why shouldn't that principle apply to governments! Starting with the biggest, most powerful government in the whole wide world: if the government has nothing to fear, then they should have nothing to hide either!' Since, if they are acting in accordance with their own and international law, they wouldn't have to fear leaks of secret torture programs, spying and collecting ALL information on private citizens, war crimes, embezzlement of funds etc..

So, what's in the Indictment?
The DOJ's Entire Case Against Assange Hinges On This One Critical Piece Of Evidence

In the Assange indictment, prosecutors claimed that after Manning had already handed over hundreds of thousands of documents to Wikileaks, Assange tried to help the former Army private and intelligence analyst crack a password that would have allowed her to access hundreds of thousands of documents.​
However, Assange never succeeded in cracking the password, at least not as far as prosecutors are aware. What he did allegedly do was conspire with Manning to transmit the documents she had succeeded in stealing, while - and this is key - encouraging Manning to turn over more documents when she expressed reluctance.​
To support its case, the government has obtained chat logs from March 2010 showing Manning communicating with a mysterious individual who alternatively went by the handles "Ox" and "pressassociation". The government believes this user was Assange. After transmitting hundreds of thousands of war logs from Iraq and Afghanistan and detainee assessment briefs from Guantanamo Bay, Manning said her stash of secret documents had run dry.​
"After this upload, that’s all I really have got left."
To which her co-conspirator replied: "Curious eyes never run dry in my experience."
The indictment also references a claim made by Manning during her court martial statement that she had discussed the value of the Guantanamo detainee assessments with the person alleged to be Assange.​
"During my conversation with Nathaniel, I asked him if he thought the DABs were of any use to anyone. Nathaniel indicated, although he did not believe that they were of political significance, he did believe that they could be used to merge into the general historical account of what occurred at Guantanamo."​

Manning added: "After this discussion, I decided to download the data."
That's it.​
As for how they intend to conclusively prove that Assange was the individual who corresponded with Manning on the Jabber chat service they were using...well...that hasn't yet been revealed.​
Meanwhile, Amnesty International has become the latest organization to warn the UK not to extradite Assange to the US, out of concern that he could face human rights violations while there, while adding that the legal mechanism that allowed British police to enter the embassy has not yet been made clear.​
“Amnesty International calls on the UK to refuse to extradite or send in any other manner Julian Assange to the USA where there is a very real risk that he could face human rights violations, including detention conditions that would violate the absolute prohibition of torture and other ill-treatment and an unfair trial followed by possible execution, due to his work with Wikileaks.​
“We are aware of allegations of rape and other sexual violence against Julian Assange, which should be properly investigated in a way that respects the rights of both the complainants and the accused and be brought to justice if there is sufficient evidence against him. If Sweden decides to pursue an extradition of Mr. Assange from the UK, there must be adequate assurances that he would not be extradited or otherwise sent to the USA.​
“It remains unclear what formal process took place to allow the UK authorities to enter the Ecuadorian embassy and detain Julian Assange, who had reportedly had his Ecuadorian citizenship suspended yesterday. We urge the UK authorities to comply with the assurances provided to Ecuador that he would not be sent anywhere he could face the death penalty, torture or other ill-treatment.”

As the Assange's legal team prepares to fight extradition, Manning is still sitting in a Virginia jail, after spending a month in solitary confinement, for refusing to cooperate with a grand jury, a tactic that the government is using to try and coerce answers out of her.​
But if there's one takeaway from this case, it's that the charges aren't what's important, as Tulsi Gabbard so eloquently pointed out.

.............and further from Caitlyn Johnstone:
How You Can Be Certain That The US Charge Against Assange Is Fraudulent

“There’s a huge myth being misreported about today’s indictment of Assange,” journalist Glenn Greenwald tweeted today. “The claim that Assange tried to help Manning circumvent a password to cover her tracks isn’t new. The Obama DOJ knew about it since 2011, but chose not to prosecute him. Story on this soon.”

“Holder chose not to prosecute Assange based on the same info Trump DOJ cited,” Greenwald added.

“The weakness of the US charge against Assange is shocking,” tweeted NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden. “The allegation he tried (and failed?) to help crack a password during their world-famous reporting has been public for nearly a decade: it is the count Obama’s DOJ refused to charge, saying it endangered journalism.”

This is all information that the Obama administration had access to(journalist Tim Shorrock observed that the alleged 2010 correspondence between Assange and Manning “looks like it came straight from NSA surveillance” of the two), yet it chose not to do what the Trump administration is currently doing because it would endanger press freedoms. This means that nothing has changed since that time besides (A) the fact that there is now a more overtly tyrannical administration in place, and (B) the fact that the public has been paced into accepting the prosecution of Assange by years of establishment propaganda.

Last year, after it was revealed that the Trump administration was seeking Assange’s arrest, Greenwald wrote the following:

“The Obama DOJ — despite launching notoriously aggressive attacks on press freedoms — recognized this critical principle when it came to WikiLeaks. It spent years exploring whether it could criminally charge Assange and WikiLeaks for publishing classified information. It ultimately decided it would not do so, and could not do so, consistent with the press freedom guarantee of the First Amendment. After all, the Obama DOJ concluded, such a prosecution would pose a severe threat to press freedom because there would be no way to prosecute Assange for publishing classified documents without also prosecuting the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Guardian and others for doing exactly the same thing.”​
Isn't it ironic that today's unprincipled and quick-shifting liberal Democrats have adopted the position of the Trump DOJ over that of the Obama Administration, while acting like it's all their idea all along!
 
Last edited:
Likes: Sabcat
Mar 2019
2,574
574
Texas
#74
I don't know if you read past the title of your source, but a couple of contributors point out that the 'hacking case against Assange 'won't be easy.' And nobody wants to deal with press freedom issues....especially a co-opted corporate owned press!

When Julian Assange and Wikileaks first became a front page international story, he declared in interviews that 'private citizens should have guarantees of privacy, not governments!' And my thoughts are similar. Just as we have often been told by powerful interests: 'if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear from state surveillance.' Well, why shouldn't that principle apply to governments! Starting with the biggest, most powerful government in the whole wide world: if the government has nothing to fear, then they should have nothing to hide either!' Since, if they are acting in accordance with their own and international law, they wouldn't have to fear leaks of secret torture programs, spying and collecting ALL information on private citizens, war crimes, embezzlement of funds etc..

So, what's in the Indictment?
The DOJ's Entire Case Against Assange Hinges On This One Critical Piece Of Evidence

In the Assange indictment, prosecutors claimed that after Manning had already handed over hundreds of thousands of documents to Wikileaks, Assange tried to help the former Army private and intelligence analyst crack a password that would have allowed her to access hundreds of thousands of documents.​
However, Assange never succeeded in cracking the password, at least not as far as prosecutors are aware. What he did allegedly do was conspire with Manning to transmit the documents she had succeeded in stealing, while - and this is key - encouraging Manning to turn over more documents when she expressed reluctance.​
To support its case, the government has obtained chat logs from March 2010 showing Manning communicating with a mysterious individual who alternatively went by the handles "Ox" and "pressassociation". The government believes this user was Assange. After transmitting hundreds of thousands of war logs from Iraq and Afghanistan and detainee assessment briefs from Guantanamo Bay, Manning said her stash of secret documents had run dry.​
"After this upload, that’s all I really have got left."
To which her co-conspirator replied: "Curious eyes never run dry in my experience."
The indictment also references a claim made by Manning during her court martial statement that she had discussed the value of the Guantanamo detainee assessments with the person alleged to be Assange.​
"During my conversation with Nathaniel, I asked him if he thought the DABs were of any use to anyone. Nathaniel indicated, although he did not believe that they were of political significance, he did believe that they could be used to merge into the general historical account of what occurred at Guantanamo."​

Manning added: "After this discussion, I decided to download the data."
That's it.​
As for how they intend to conclusively prove that Assange was the individual who corresponded with Manning on the Jabber chat service they were using...well...that hasn't yet been revealed.​
Meanwhile, Amnesty International has become the latest organization to warn the UK not to extradite Assange to the US, out of concern that he could face human rights violations while there, while adding that the legal mechanism that allowed British police to enter the embassy has not yet been made clear.​
“Amnesty International calls on the UK to refuse to extradite or send in any other manner Julian Assange to the USA where there is a very real risk that he could face human rights violations, including detention conditions that would violate the absolute prohibition of torture and other ill-treatment and an unfair trial followed by possible execution, due to his work with Wikileaks.​
“We are aware of allegations of rape and other sexual violence against Julian Assange, which should be properly investigated in a way that respects the rights of both the complainants and the accused and be brought to justice if there is sufficient evidence against him. If Sweden decides to pursue an extradition of Mr. Assange from the UK, there must be adequate assurances that he would not be extradited or otherwise sent to the USA.​
“It remains unclear what formal process took place to allow the UK authorities to enter the Ecuadorian embassy and detain Julian Assange, who had reportedly had his Ecuadorian citizenship suspended yesterday. We urge the UK authorities to comply with the assurances provided to Ecuador that he would not be sent anywhere he could face the death penalty, torture or other ill-treatment.”

As the Assange's legal team prepares to fight extradition, Manning is still sitting in a Virginia jail, after spending a month in solitary confinement, for refusing to cooperate with a grand jury, a tactic that the government is using to try and coerce answers out of her.​
But if there's one takeaway from this case, it's that the charges aren't what's important, as Tulsi Gabbard so eloquently pointed out.

.............and further from Caitlyn Johnstone:
How You Can Be Certain That The US Charge Against Assange Is Fraudulent

“There’s a huge myth being misreported about today’s indictment of Assange,” journalist Glenn Greenwald tweeted today. “The claim that Assange tried to help Manning circumvent a password to cover her tracks isn’t new. The Obama DOJ knew about it since 2011, but chose not to prosecute him. Story on this soon.”

“Holder chose not to prosecute Assange based on the same info Trump DOJ cited,” Greenwald added.

“The weakness of the US charge against Assange is shocking,” tweeted NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden. “The allegation he tried (and failed?) to help crack a password during their world-famous reporting has been public for nearly a decade: it is the count Obama’s DOJ refused to charge, saying it endangered journalism.”

This is all information that the Obama administration had access to(journalist Tim Shorrock observed that the alleged 2010 correspondence between Assange and Manning “looks like it came straight from NSA surveillance” of the two), yet it chose not to do what the Trump administration is currently doing because it would endanger press freedoms. This means that nothing has changed since that time besides (A) the fact that there is now a more overtly tyrannical administration in place, and (B) the fact that the public has been paced into accepting the prosecution of Assange by years of establishment propaganda.

Last year, after it was revealed that the Trump administration was seeking Assange’s arrest, Greenwald wrote the following:

“The Obama DOJ — despite launching notoriously aggressive attacks on press freedoms — recognized this critical principle when it came to WikiLeaks. It spent years exploring whether it could criminally charge Assange and WikiLeaks for publishing classified information. It ultimately decided it would not do so, and could not do so, consistent with the press freedom guarantee of the First Amendment. After all, the Obama DOJ concluded, such a prosecution would pose a severe threat to press freedom because there would be no way to prosecute Assange for publishing classified documents without also prosecuting the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Guardian and others for doing exactly the same thing.”​
Isn't it ironic that today's unprincipled and quick-shifting liberal Democrats have adopted the position of the Trump DOJ over that of the Obama Administration, while acting like it's all their idea all along!
It is all just a show. The charges are light and prosecutors do not hold back like this. I can think of several other crimes he could be charged for. Assange sold out his guy in eucador in return for being used by potus as protection for things in the mueller report
 
Dec 2015
16,063
14,932
Arizona
#75
It's not my position. It's the position of the DOJ under both the current and former president. Seriously, the endless attempt to defend a guy who put the lives of American soldiers is embarrassing

Breaking Down the Hacking Case Against Julian Assange

I'm done
AND you should be done---don't waste your time. RL is on another rant. It's not MY JOB or YOUR JOB to provide proof of Assange hacking. That decision will be up to the DOJ.
Assange is a criminal. A hacker. Assange’s indictment comes in at just six pages and charges him with a single count of conspiracy to commit computer intrusion. The indictment against Assange specifically mentions that the alleged hacking was “in furtherance” of two provisions of the Espionage Act involving obtaining and disclosing classified information.

In addition, Chelsea Manning, the former U.S. intelligence analyst whom Assange is accused of helping access Defense Department computers, was convicted at a 2013 court-martial on six Espionage Act counts involving classified government reports published by WikiLeaks. And even the hacking charge leveled at Assange on Thursday includes a violation that applies solely to “national defense” information and tracks closely with wording in the Espionage Act — one of the key statutes U.S. authorities use to prosecute leaks.

So let RL scream his head off. I can't even believe ANYONE would want to protect/defend Assange. He's malicious.
AND...He's a coward--hiding for 7 years in the embassy.
 
Mar 2019
2,574
574
Texas
#76
AND you should be done---don't waste your time. RL is on another rant. It's not MY JOB or YOUR JOB to provide proof of Assange hacking. That decision will be up to the DOJ.
Assange is a criminal. A hacker. Assange’s indictment comes in at just six pages and charges him with a single count of conspiracy to commit computer intrusion. The indictment against Assange specifically mentions that the alleged hacking was “in furtherance” of two provisions of the Espionage Act involving obtaining and disclosing classified information.

In addition, Chelsea Manning, the former U.S. intelligence analyst whom Assange is accused of helping access Defense Department computers, was convicted at a 2013 court-martial on six Espionage Act counts involving classified government reports published by WikiLeaks. And even the hacking charge leveled at Assange on Thursday includes a violation that applies solely to “national defense” information and tracks closely with wording in the Espionage Act — one of the key statutes U.S. authorities use to prosecute leaks.

So let RL scream his head off. I can't even believe ANYONE would want to protect/defend Assange. He's malicious.
AND...He's a coward--hiding for 7 years in the embassy.
The guy definitely missed out on the obama pardon.

Still i do not see much coming from this. You never know though. Maybe someone on the left will grow a set and release the unredacted report and we can see if i am wrong in my stance of potus using assange as a shield.
 
Jun 2018
5,343
1,247
South Dakota
#78
The guy definitely missed out on the obama pardon.

Still i do not see much coming from this. You never know though. Maybe someone on the left will grow a set and release the unredacted report and we can see if i am wrong in my stance of potus using assange as a shield.
Who will actually have an unredacted report to leak?
 
Mar 2019
2,574
574
Texas
#79
Who will actually have an unredacted report to leak?
NO one will have to leak the report. The law states very clearly that the judiciary committees are to be givin full copies unredacted of any such report. The dems could at any time push the issue. Instead they have folded and try to claim that those committees are bound by rule 6 but that is a blatant lie and not the way government checks and balances work. Rule 6 is about public release. They could at any time request for the judge that signed off on the investigation to order barr to release the report to them. They could easily hold barr in contempt and even charge him with obstruction. Any leak of the files would be illegal and subject to punishment.
 
Dec 2016
5,101
2,620
Canada
#80
It is all just a show. The charges are light and prosecutors do not hold back like this. I can think of several other crimes he could be charged for. Assange sold out his guy in eucador in return for being used by potus as protection for things in the mueller report
So far just rumours and innuendos! That's how many of the same fraudsters who were front and center on the Iraq Invasion in 03, were Democrats' favorite conservatives on Russiagate. And bought the same kind of product: https://www.blacklistednews.com/article/72093/same-people-behind-iraq-war-lies-pushed-russian.html
 

Similar Discussions