Can you cite any evidence to support that speculation, or any cases that remotely resmeble the US treatment of Julian Assange? — Janus

I think @Wayfarer has been making good points. The Watergate scandal and the related film that Wayfarer has mentioned is one example ("The Post"). If you look at the prominent court cases relating to laws like the Espionage Act or the Sedition Act other examples can be found (e.g. the Schenck or Abrams cases). As even your article notes, Obama was quite aggressive on this front.

But the point here is that the speculation is yours, not mine. It is extremely counterintuitive to claim that leaking classified documents results in no consequences, or that the government has no interest in addressing or punishing such leaks. I don't know where such a theory would even come from. Everyone who engages in these leaks takes extreme caution to try to counteract the dangers they are inviting.

It is extremely counterintuitive to claim that leaking classified documents results in no consequences, or that the government has no interest in addressing or punishing such leaks. — Leontiskos

I haven't claimed that the leaker of such information would not be prosecuted, I believe they almost certainly would be, but I'm questioning the claim that news outlets that published such leaked documents would be prosecuted. I'm also wondering whether any such leaks have been published by news media and if that has occurred whether they were prosecuted. I can research that myself if no one provides ready information, but I don't have time right now.

Hardly constitutes conclusive evidence.

from wh.gov:
"DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
The mission of the Department of Justice (DOJ) is to enforce the law and defend the interests of the United States according to the law; to ensure public safety against threats foreign and domestic; to provide federal leadership in preventing and controlling crime; to seek just punishment for those guilty of unlawful behavior; and to ensure fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans.

"The DOJ is made up of 40 component organizations, including the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the U.S. Marshals, and the Federal Bureau of Prisons. The Attorney General is the head of the DOJ and chief law enforcement officer of the federal government. The Attorney General represents the United States in legal matters, advises the President and the heads of the executive departments of the government, and occasionally appears in person before the Supreme Court.

"With a budget of approximately $25 billion, the DOJ is the world’s largest law office and the central agency for the enforcement of federal laws."

Nobody in the US takes the DOJ lightly. No one should.

Mere statements, however fear-inducing they might be designed to be, don't cut it for me.

Is it the case that media outlets have never published leaked government documents? If it is not the case and leaked dicuments have been published, were the publishers prosecuted?

Is it the case that media outlets have never published leaked government documents? If it is not the case and leaked dicuments have been published, were the publishers prosecuted? — Janus

Yes, the NY Times published leaked documents. No, they weren't prosecuted.

:up:

:grin: The NYT is protected by the first amendment. In the 1970s, the Supreme Court ruled that this extends to embarrassing military secrets. We all know that has limits. We expect the NYT to restrain itself in cases where American lives or national security is at risk.

Assange is not a beneficiary of any of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. It would have been cool if he had stood up for the idea of a global free press. In doing so, he might have inspired his own country to make that right official. I guess he had personal issues that made that impossible?

We all know that has limits. We expect the NYT to restrain itself in cases where American lives or national security is at risk. — frank

The claim that the publishing of personal details of many operatives put them at significant risk is weakened by the fact that apparently none of them suffered on that account. It is arguable that Assange was negligent in not redacting those personal details, and he could perhaps have been held to account if one of the any of the operatives had suffered injury or death, but people are generally not prosecuted for negligence unless that negligence causes personal harm.

Assange is not a beneficiary of any of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. It would have been cool if he had stood up for the idea of a global free press. — frank

I would have thought that rights guaranteed by the constitution apply to all individuals and corporations without prejudice. If Assange is not entitled to those rights on account of not being a citizen of the US, then it would seem to be inconsistent to claim that he should be subject to US law.

I imagine that Assange does stand for the idea of a global free press. Is there anything that leads you to think otherwise?

The claim that the publishing of personal details of many operatives put them at significant risk is weakened by the fact that apparently none of them suffered on that account. — Janus

That’s what Assange’s supporters say, but the truth can’t be known. Many of those whose names were disclosed were in places like Iraq and Afghanistan where record-keeping is hardly exemplary.

Again it’s a balance of press freedom versus the right of governments to keep secrets, and it will always be a difficult balance. Unless of course the whole world decides to lay down arms, cease all conflict, turn their swords into ploughshares and join hands to sing Kumbaya.

If Assange is not entitled to those rights on account of not being a citizen of the US, then it would seem to be inconsistent to claim that he should be subject to US law. — Janus

Life isn't fair.

Life isn't fair. — frank

True that!

That’s what Assange’s supporters say, but the truth can’t be known. Many of those whose names were disclosed were in places like Iraq and Afghanistan where record-keeping is hardly exemplary. — Wayfarer

Doesn't matter, you need evidence in order to prosecute.

Again it’s a balance of press freedom versus the right of governments to keep secrets, and it will always be a difficult balance. — Wayfarer

It's not really a matter of that. I agree that publishing information that puts people's lives at risk is not ideal and should not be done unless some greater issue, such as military coverups of war-crimes, is at stake.

I don't know why Assange's organization did not redact the personal details of operatives, but I agree that it seems to be a case of negligence at best. If it could be shown that it was something worse than mere negligence, then Assange, as head of Wikileaks, would have something to answer to.

Do you believe the US response would have been any different if Wikileaks had redacted those personal details and published the rest?

I said when the thread was re-opened, that Assange has effectively served his time and that it was good that he has been able to return to Australia. But I also said that I think lionising him as first amendment martyr and returning hero is over the top. That’s about all I have to say on it for now.

I believe Assange was well aware of the risks he was taking. I think what he did deserves admiration for the courage it must have taken to do what he did. Few of us are willing to put our personal safety at risk for social justice. Most of us just pay lip service.

Excellent profile in today’s SMH https://www.smh.com.au/national/difficult-paranoid-and-polarising-dissecting-the-contradiction-that-is-julian-assange-20240628-p5jpjn.html

Cheers mate, I'll have a read...

Another less-than-complimentary profile in today's Herald.

Andrew O'Hagan was contracted to ghost-write a bio of Assange. The project fell apart due to Assange's lack of co-operation (@Tom Storm mentioned O'Hagan's essay on the matter which is here.) O'Hagan's take: 'He wants to be famous, but not scrutinised.' Ironic, considering that scrutiny of others is his basic stock-in-trade.

Scrutiny of governments and their cover-ups is not the same as scrutiny of individuals—trying to get dirt on them—a game very familiar in politics. When you have someone like Assange garnering public attention and admiration, you will also always have those who want to discredit the hero and cut him down to size.

He certainly gives them plenty of ammo.

Hey there's a remark in today's Herald story which caught my eye, concerning the allegations of sexual assault in Sweden:

The two women who accused him of assault had both had consensual sex with Assange – one alleged he had been rough with her, and had removed a condom without her knowledge, an act known as “stealthing”, which is criminalised in most Australian jurisdictions, as well as in Sweden.

There are cases like this all the time nowadays, claiming that a condom had been removed without consent. My question is, how the f*** is the judicial system supposed to be able to ascertain the truth or falsity of such allegations beyond reasonable doubt??

O'Hagan's take: 'He wants to be famous, but not scrutinised.' Ironic, considering that scrutiny of others is his basic stock-in-trade. — Wayfarer

Assange seems problematic at best. A very mixed character. One could argue that he did some good, but I don't think it is any longer possible to dismiss his significant shortcomings. I thought the We Steal Secrets documentary did a good job showing this.

He certainly gives them plenty of ammo. — Wayfarer

By some accounts he is a flawed character. Some reports say he is autistic, on the spectrum and so on. The way I see it we don't rightly judge people but the acts they are known to have committed, and what they, as public figures, stand for. If they are inconsistent, guilty of hypocrisy, then of course that should be exposed. Most of what Assange has been accused of and criticized for seems to be little more than hearsay.

My question is, how the f*** is the judicial system supposed to be able to ascertain the truth or falsity of such allegations beyond reasonable doubt?? — Wayfarer

The answer is that they cannot.