MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
|
|
|
From the Readers
- barefooted 9 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
Creative corner
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
From the Dagbloggers
- Michael Wolraich 1 year 23 hours ago
- Danny Cardwell 3 years 3 months ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 2 days ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 1 month ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 1 month ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 1 month ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 2 months ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 2 months ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 3 months ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 3 months ago
First they came for Wikileaks...
By Obey on Fri, 04/21/2017 - 3:56am |URL:
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/apr/21/arresting-julian-assange-is-a-priority-says-us-attorney-general-jeff-sessions
- Add new comment
- 8050 reads
Comments
On the legal precedent it provides for attacking press freedoms:
https://www.wired.com/2017/04/us-charging-julian-assange-put-press-freedom-trial/
by Obey on Fri, 04/21/2017 - 5:04am
Weak. The First Amendment & Freedom of the Press is not carte blanche to espionage, murder or rape. They don't mention the cases of John Kiriakou or James Risen which were likely more troubling. Stealing & trading in *NON-PUBLIC* information such as Podesta's email & DNC + DCCC files.
Gizmodo would have likely been prosecuted for paying for stolen property had the initial search been legal (the guys who sold the iPhone they found *did* end up with probation, fine & community service). Assange apparently helping Manning crack a password doesn't help his case either.
by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 04/21/2017 - 5:41am
I don't think murder and rape charges are what the US is basing their charges on. It is the kind of action that can get classified as espionage that creates the wedge into undermining the foundation of the first amendment. And if they are charging him with espionage on the basis of publication of government secrets, then that door opens wide to charge any newspaper collaborating with whistle-blowers, especially if they do anything more than merely passively receive the information.
by Obey on Fri, 04/21/2017 - 6:14am
The level of cooperation/collusion with foreign governments and spy branches helps differentiate press from spy. Also, the press cannot steal trade secrets legally, as I noted in the Gizmodo case, as 1 example of press free speech limitations.
by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 04/21/2017 - 6:36am
The Wired article has sensationalistic headlines but the second half actually makes it clear as a bell for me: hacking has nothing to do with Freedom of the Press. All depends upon what they would indict him for. If they indict him for aiding hackers, I don't see any danger to Freedom of the Press.
And note the mention of the statute of limitations on that. Which brings to mind for me that he may have been thinking this all along: to wait out the statute of limitations in the embassy.
Also, the following came to mind while reading about how Obama's Justice Dept. decided not to go after him on the Manning relationship because of the difficulty of any case (I am not sure which article, maybe WaPo's) because big newspapers were involved in publishing as well. It follows that all the crap we read about the sexual charges years ago, how the Swedish accusers must be CIA operatives or similar just to get Assange available for extradition from Sweden for Obama was just that: crap.
by artappraiser on Fri, 04/21/2017 - 8:00am
Thanks for the feedback AA and PP. My thoughts, if the charges are for aiding hackers it's not relevant to vault 7 nor the dnc/Podesta emails. If it's related to the emails, it's not espionage to the extent that it isn't government secrets that were leaked. (unless consulting the Russians on the timing in the release of non-public data can amount to espionage). Finally if it relates to Vault 7, I thought the CIA were hunting for an in-house leaker, i.e. not an enemy state actor. Unless it turns out something ties that leaker to a state actor. But they can't know that yet, can they? I.e. why the confidence that they have a case now?
So I can't see a legal foundation for charges that don't erode 1st amendment rights.
by Obey on Fri, 04/21/2017 - 8:15am
What 1st Amendment rights are there to hack someone's private emails and publish them?
The only supposed issue is where "oh, I didn't steal it, the thief just gave it to me" - that makes it okay if it's not direct collusion, only ad hoc collusion? Not in the iPhone case, dealing with a publisher (i.e. can they publish Apple's trade secrets based not on a stolen phone but left-in-a-bar). If they gave the emails to Yellow Pages or Google listing, is that free press to, since Google listings are kind of like a published document? In which case, people can steal anything and put it on Youtube, because they're a broadcaster.
The case of Bradley Manning's more whistle-blower, and still he didn't get much leniency.
by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 04/21/2017 - 9:57am
The ethics of publishing the emails of a quasi-government official are hightly debatable of course, but given that the NYT and Politico themselves published much of the content of the mails, I assume they felt they were on solid legal ground before doing so.
by Obey on Fri, 04/21/2017 - 10:44am
Weren't the NYT documents on the Wikileaks website, so it was available to the general public.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/world/29editornote.html
by rmrd0000 on Fri, 04/21/2017 - 10:50am
Yes, but as per Dick Day below, I don't know if that exonerates them.
by Obey on Sat, 04/22/2017 - 5:59am
Hi Obey!
Yeah, I repeat a lie and I might be, by common law liable for slander or libel or defamation I suppose.
But this takes us all back to Daniel Elsberg off course. hahahah
Such a prosecution is not a slam dunk.
Oh, and how does one define 'secret' let alone a government 'secret'.
Oh and the great NYT and Politico; are they really ever on solid ground.
hahahah
by Richard Day on Fri, 04/21/2017 - 6:44pm
Hey Maître Dick Day! Nice to have the input of a man of the law. Not sure how first amendment rights apply here if at all, but the Justice department made a point of noting that, irrespective of whatever justifications Assange may offer, he is not protected under the first amendment because he is not a US citizen. So that is what makes him easier to prosecute I guess.
Thank goodness Rupert Murdoch got US citizenship eh!
by Obey on Sat, 04/22/2017 - 5:58am
A rerminder that Bradley Manning was court martialed, it wasn't a civilian crime. In effect one gives up certain free speech rights when signing to join the military and taking the oath that goes with it (and also when getting security clearances.) When you take that oath and sign on the dotted line, and then for example you are told you must remain silent on your orders or where you are being sent, even with your family you remain silent or you commit a military crime.
In civilian world, even before special protection whistle blower laws, one could whistle blow with corporate documents one has seen and only be subject to losing a job or a civil suit (anyone can sue anyone for anything, one of a sued leaker's defenses for leaking might be free speech and public good etc..)
by artappraiser on Fri, 04/21/2017 - 3:12pm
In the corporate world you can certainly be sued and possibly imprisoned for making off with or exposing internal documents - as noted, the guys who found the not-yet-released iPhone and sold access pleaded no contest and were fined with probation, slap on the wrist as it was even though the prosecutor asked for jail time. There is certainly leeway for reporting crimes, whether animal cruelty for factory farming, pharmaceutical testing / trials coverups for big pharma, or Manning's exposing outright targeting of civilians (crimes against humanity) or torture.
I'm not sure where "Hillary was mean to Bernie" falls on that scale, but I'm sure it's pretty high up there, as was Wikileaks' quiz on "what might be ailing Hillary".
PS to add: they obviously won't try to indict Assange for leaking Hillary info - has to be tied to state secrets and abetting Russian espionage or other high level crimes, nothing that can be considered "journalism".except by the usual lunatic supporters.
by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 04/21/2017 - 5:13pm
Which brings me back to my original point. I haven't dug deep into the Vault 7 story, but the revelations seem not very earth-shattering from a public interest point of view, whereas it may harm the IC's offensive cyberwarfare capabilities. And given that Assange is at best an unpleasant asshole, the worry is that the Justice department may think there will be little public pushback if they charge him. And that would clearly - to me - be an erosion of press freedoms, whether or not you consider what he does 'journalism'. I don't think you need to be a lunatic to worry about that.
Of course, maybe they do have evidence of active collusion with the Russian government, but all the emphasis by the DOJ about Assange not being protected by the first amendment as a foreigner suggests that they don't have the goods on bona-fide espionage
by Obey on Sat, 04/22/2017 - 6:12am
The NYT and others wouldn't publish "the dossier" because they couldn't confirm that it was factual but Wikkeleaks publishes people's emails and they are EVERYWHERE without any corroboration.
How is that justified?
by CVille Dem on Sun, 04/23/2017 - 1:44pm
P.S. : The Manning case was not about hacking.If they indict him for that without proof of inciting or colluding with Manning to leak, they are crossing the line into Freedom of the Press, because Manning was not a hacker, he was leaking a classified database. And they will eventually lose. .As I trust the New York Times' lawyers on knowing what leaks they could publish once leaked and what they couldn't.
This clarification is in the Wikipedia entry on Manning
by artappraiser on Fri, 04/21/2017 - 8:15am
An interested party wants to contribute to our discussion that:
by artappraiser on Sun, 04/23/2017 - 6:43pm
So they thought about it for a day or two and decided to that uppity was the way to go:
WikiLeaks releases top-secret CIA documents as US considers charges against Julian Assange
A 31-page manual on how to use the CIA's 'Weeping Angel' surveillance software is now available online
By Caroline Mortimer @ The Independent, 23 April 2017 20:16 BST
by artappraiser on Sun, 04/23/2017 - 6:48pm
Fox News doing a classic Murdoch thing with this:
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2017/04/25/pamela-anderson-writes-about-her-special-relationship-with-julian-assange.html
Maybe more in their future....ET channel is so tired, so yesterday....
by artappraiser on Tue, 04/25/2017 - 5:16pm