116
An article over a year old isn’t “news”…
Thanks. I was about to unleash a “too little too late “ rant.
Until the US drops the charges it's relevant to Julian's imminent extradition from the UK. Was it posted here when it was published? It might be news to some. Where do you suggest I post it instead?
Probably a community that isn’t about recent events?
Somewhere where people are more sympathetic to Russian assets
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.
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.
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
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
You mean the site co-founded by Assange who signed a SF312?
That's a lie. Of course they didn't. Nobody says they did.
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.
(Swedish =/= Swiss.)
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.
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.
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.
While I'm glad this post did so well, I do apologies to anyone I may have offended by posting a barely 1yr old article in a news community. Please let me explain. My understanding is that news is information about current events. The letter written by the editors and publishers of: The New York Times, The Guardian, Le Monde, Der Spiegel, El País, which were WikiLeaks' media partners, attempts to protect investigative journalism as an institution, which is still threatened by the persecution of Julian Assange is a current event: in fact, now is a critical moment, with his last-gasp UK appeal in the extradition-fight set for 2 months from now. When an event happens in slow-motion, such as this slow-motion torture-to-death, we have to widen our field of vision to get a clear picture of what's going on. If you want more recent criticism of the case by prominent journalists, the US just had another Belmarsh Tribunal. I posted about it here: https://aussie.zone/post/5092162
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The US government must drop its prosecution of the WikiLeaks co-founder Julian Assange because it is undermining press freedom, according to the media organisations that first helped him publish leaked diplomatic cables.
Twelve years ago today, the Guardian, the New York Times, Le Monde, Der Spiegel, and El País collaborated to release excerpts from 250,000 documents obtained by Assange in the “Cablegate” leak.
He had spent the previous seven years living inside the diplomatic premises to avoid arrest after failing to surrender to a UK court on matters relating to a separate case.
Twelve years ago, on November 28th 2010, our five international media outlets – the New York Times, the Guardian, Le Monde, El País and Der Spiegel – published a series of revelations in cooperation with WikiLeaks that made the headlines around the globe.
“Cablegate”, a set of 251,000 confidential cables from the US state department, disclosed corruption, diplomatic scandals and spy affairs on an international scale.
This group of editors and publishers, all of whom had worked with Assange, felt the need to publicly criticise his conduct in 2011 when unredacted copies of the cables were released, and some of us are concerned about the allegations in the indictment that he attempted to aid in computer intrusion of a classified database.
The original article contains 728 words, the summary contains 214 words. Saved 71%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
this post was submitted on 18 Dec 2023
116 points (100.0% liked)
World News
32326 readers
594 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS