Pence sees Aussie as guilty
of disseminating classified data
Most of the press is avoiding telling the public that Julian Assange had to be slapped with a shaky terrorism charge in order for the government to get past the five-year limit for filing of a computer intrusion charge.
The New York Times was among a handful of media outlets that did mention the terror charge. It did so in an "explainer" story, calling the charge an "oddity" -- while evidently being blind to the threat to media people everywhere of a precedent for using a trick terrorism charge in order to punish someone for publishing something. After all, what was the "act of terror"? It was the act of publishing, since quite obviously the feds would not have seen any "terrorism" if WikiLeaks hadn't published leaked documents.
The Times wrote, "There is an oddity: As part of the USA Patriot Act after the Sept. 11 attacks, Congress added [a] provision to a list of crimes that get an eight-year limit under a separate law titled 'extension of statute of limitation for certain terrorism offenses.' While Mr. Assange’s case involves national security, it is not about terrorism. The 'terrorism' heading most likely makes no legal difference, however — just as prosecutors can use the words of the Espionage Act to charge leakers, not just spies."
Well, maybe the Times is right, but even so, why is there such a gigantic blackout on this pesky li'l fact?
Could it be that the Powers that Be fear the citizenry would laugh at the feds for accusing Assange of engaging in terrorism merely in order to have a legal gimmick for nailing him?
Right now, of course, the feds are unlikely to unseal an indictment against Dean Baquet, editor of The New York Times, for publishing something that upsets high officials. Only a few marginalized journalists will get slapped with terror indictmnents. But, the trickle is bound to turn into a gusher and in a few years no one will be surprised if an FBI swat team seizes Baquet at his home in the dead of night.
You think that's paranoid thinking? That proves you are altogether too trusting, and probably too lazy to take a hard look at the vast "Deep State" conspiracy to nullify the Number One American liberty: freedom of speech, press and religion.
U.S. prepares to add charges
In any case, the bogus terror charge may not matter. U.S. prosecutors have just under two months to present British authorities with a final and detailed criminal case to justify the possible extradition of Assange, an unnamed federal official told Reuters Friday.
So if the terror charge gets tossed out, thus ending the cyber intrusion case, other charges will be used to make sure to find some pretext to try Assange. The difficulty will be satisfying the British government that the charges are politically palatable in Britain.
The official, who asked for anonymity when discussing the case, said U.S. authorities had already sent Britain a provisional arrest warrant regarding Assange’s extradition to the United States.
U.S. officials have said that as far leaks go, the disclosure of details about the CIA's abilities to perform electronic surveillance and cyber warfare was potentially far more damaging to U.S. government activities than anything Bradley (now Chelsea) Manning made available to WikiLeaks, Reuters noted. Yet, many of the intelligence techniques mentioned in the CIA document had already appeared in the press. Hence, such disclosures would have done the agency little harm because adversaries would have assumed the CIA was at least aware of such techniques as soon as they showed up in the press, well before WikiLeaks got involved.
Pence spills the beans re media's peril
Friday on CNN Vice President Mike Pence said the United States was “going to bring Julian Assange to justice” for being "involved in disseminating classified information."
Pence denied that statements by President Trump, in which he praised WikiLeaks during the 2016 U.S. election campaign, were in any way “an endorsement of an organization that we now understand was involved in disseminating classified information.”
From Pence's statement, one can see immediately that news organizations like The New York Times, The Washington Post and The Guardian, which have been "involved in disseminating classified information," are considered legitimate targets for federal prosecution.
The New York Times was among a handful of media outlets that did mention the terror charge. It did so in an "explainer" story, calling the charge an "oddity" -- while evidently being blind to the threat to media people everywhere of a precedent for using a trick terrorism charge in order to punish someone for publishing something. After all, what was the "act of terror"? It was the act of publishing, since quite obviously the feds would not have seen any "terrorism" if WikiLeaks hadn't published leaked documents.
The Times wrote, "There is an oddity: As part of the USA Patriot Act after the Sept. 11 attacks, Congress added [a] provision to a list of crimes that get an eight-year limit under a separate law titled 'extension of statute of limitation for certain terrorism offenses.' While Mr. Assange’s case involves national security, it is not about terrorism. The 'terrorism' heading most likely makes no legal difference, however — just as prosecutors can use the words of the Espionage Act to charge leakers, not just spies."
Well, maybe the Times is right, but even so, why is there such a gigantic blackout on this pesky li'l fact?
Could it be that the Powers that Be fear the citizenry would laugh at the feds for accusing Assange of engaging in terrorism merely in order to have a legal gimmick for nailing him?
Right now, of course, the feds are unlikely to unseal an indictment against Dean Baquet, editor of The New York Times, for publishing something that upsets high officials. Only a few marginalized journalists will get slapped with terror indictmnents. But, the trickle is bound to turn into a gusher and in a few years no one will be surprised if an FBI swat team seizes Baquet at his home in the dead of night.
You think that's paranoid thinking? That proves you are altogether too trusting, and probably too lazy to take a hard look at the vast "Deep State" conspiracy to nullify the Number One American liberty: freedom of speech, press and religion.
U.S. prepares to add charges
In any case, the bogus terror charge may not matter. U.S. prosecutors have just under two months to present British authorities with a final and detailed criminal case to justify the possible extradition of Assange, an unnamed federal official told Reuters Friday.
So if the terror charge gets tossed out, thus ending the cyber intrusion case, other charges will be used to make sure to find some pretext to try Assange. The difficulty will be satisfying the British government that the charges are politically palatable in Britain.
The official, who asked for anonymity when discussing the case, said U.S. authorities had already sent Britain a provisional arrest warrant regarding Assange’s extradition to the United States.
U.S. officials have said that as far leaks go, the disclosure of details about the CIA's abilities to perform electronic surveillance and cyber warfare was potentially far more damaging to U.S. government activities than anything Bradley (now Chelsea) Manning made available to WikiLeaks, Reuters noted. Yet, many of the intelligence techniques mentioned in the CIA document had already appeared in the press. Hence, such disclosures would have done the agency little harm because adversaries would have assumed the CIA was at least aware of such techniques as soon as they showed up in the press, well before WikiLeaks got involved.
Pence spills the beans re media's peril
Friday on CNN Vice President Mike Pence said the United States was “going to bring Julian Assange to justice” for being "involved in disseminating classified information."
Pence denied that statements by President Trump, in which he praised WikiLeaks during the 2016 U.S. election campaign, were in any way “an endorsement of an organization that we now understand was involved in disseminating classified information.”
From Pence's statement, one can see immediately that news organizations like The New York Times, The Washington Post and The Guardian, which have been "involved in disseminating classified information," are considered legitimate targets for federal prosecution.
No comments:
Post a Comment