‘Publishing is not a crime’: media groups urge US to drop Julian Assange charges
www.theguardian.com
First outlets to publish WikiLeaks material, including the Guardian, come together to oppose prosecution
  • Klypto@lemmy.world
    4·
    11 months ago

    Title is a pretty dumb take.

    Publishing is not a crime, which is correct.

    I cannot be charged with a crime for making posts on Reddit, Lemmy or wiki pages. (I absolutely can be charged by publishing to wiki leaks though under agreements)

    Publishing classified information is treason under Title 18 of the U.S. Code, Section 798

    This is just stupidly obvious.

    The only good thing he did was bring to focus the problem with over classification of information. We now have Controlled Unclassified Information thanks to that.

    • oahi@aussie.zoneOP
      3·
      11 months ago

      Publishing classified information is treason

      Tell that to the Guardian and the New York Times, who publish classified information routinely.

      Oh, wait, seems like they got the message when they read the Assange indictment and wrote a whole editorial about how it threatens the 1st Amendment of (I’ll assume you’re from the US) your constitution.

      • Klypto@lemmy.world
        3·
        11 months ago

        Those newspapers did not sign a legally binding SF312 CLASSIFIED INFORMATION NONDISCLOSURE AGREEMENT of which every single person who holds a clearance must sign.

        The very first sentence is:

        Intending to be legally bound, I hereby accept the obligations contained in this Agreement in consideration of my being granted access to classified information.

        Other parts being

        I hereby agree that I will never divulge classified information to anyone unless: (a) I have officially verified that the recipient has been properly authorized by the United States Government to receive it; or (b) I have been given prior written notice of authorization from the United States Government Department or Agency (hereinafter Department or Agency) responsible for the classification of information or last granting me a security clearance that such disclosure is permitted. I understand that if I am uncertain about the classification status of information, I am required to confirm from an authorized official that the information is unclassified before I may disclose it, except to a person as provided in (a) or (b), above. I further understand that I am obligated to comply with laws and regulations that prohibit the unauthorized disclosure of classified information

        In addition, I have been advised that any unauthorized disclosure of classified information by me may constitute a violation, or violations, of United States criminal laws, including the provisions of sections 641, 793, 794, 798, *952 and 1924, title 18, United States Code; *the provisions of section 783(b}, title 50, United States Code; and the provisions of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982. I recognize that nothing in this Agreement constitutes a waiver by the United States of the right to prosecute me for any statutory violation.

        Unless and until I am released in writing by an authorized representative of the United States Government, I understand that all conditions and obligations imposed upon me by this Agreement apply during the time I am granted access to classified information, and at all times thereafter.

        This contract is binding FOR LIFE unless waived by an official.

        https://www.gsa.gov/reference/forms/classified-information-nondisclosure-agreement-1

        • oahi@aussie.zoneOP
          3·
          11 months ago

          Those newspapers did not sign a legally binding SF312 CLASSIFIED INFORMATION NONDISCLOSURE AGREEMENT of which every single person who holds a clearance must sign.

          Neither did WikiLeaks doi

    • HumanPenguin@feddit.ukEnglish
      1·
      11 months ago

      Makes one wonder why the US needed to reopen a closed Swiss rape allagation rather then the obvious facts you state. To convince an allied nation to extradite then?

      Its fairly clear that the law is a little less direct then you claim when talking extradition.

      • Klypto@lemmy.world
        1·
        11 months ago

        Correct on that last part.

        Why should foreign nations care about US laws? Any extradition by any nation is a courtesy at best.

        However it is ludicrous to say US should drop charges.

        • HumanPenguin@feddit.ukEnglish
          1·
          11 months ago

          Bit more then a curtasy as we have treaties to ensure rules.

          But the UK will only do so if it is also a crime here. And not if the death sentence is likely. As our laws prohibit rhat. (For now).

          But it is interesting that tue garedian and telegraph also published this data. And the US is ignoring them. Seems more of a power play against the idea of wiki lwaks then any actual risk to the US.

        • HumanPenguin@feddit.ukEnglish
          1·
          11 months ago

          Opps.

          Honestly i do tend to muddle them up. Also been a few years so will use that as an excuse. Lame one but ah.

    • Zippy@lemmy.world
      0·
      11 months ago

      I am on the fence on this one. Personally I don’t think he should be charged as he was somewhat discriminating. That being said, people more support him because he published stuff that made the US look bad.

      But to put this different. If all our personal health records were stolen, would people be fine if Fox or CNN were given a copy and they published it? Likely not.

      Lastly he really is a guy that is hard to like. But that shouldn’t factor.