A British judge has ordered the extradition of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange to the United States, where he faces a 175-year sentence. The final decision on Assange’s extradition will now be made by U.K. Home Secretary Priti Patel. Amnesty International’s Simon Crowther spoke outside the courthouse prior to today’s ruling.

Simon Crowther: “Julian Assange is being prosecuted for espionage for publishing sensitive material that was classified. And if he is extradited to the U.S. for this, all journalists around the world are going to have to look over their shoulder, because within their own jurisdiction, if they publish something that the U.S. considers to be classified, they will face the risk of being extradited.”

  • @wazowski@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    122 years ago

    fucking tragic, really hope this doesn’t go through

    dear brits, i trust in your protest potential, if extradition is “officially” completely approved, pls don’t be silent, this is a once first in a lifetime precedent that’s going to establish this terrible practice

    • @guojing@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      72 years ago

      Most “journalists” are at zero risk because they just parrot what their governments say.

      • @pingveno@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        -62 years ago

        Reading through the indictment, I think a lot of the fury is because Assange didn’t redact vulnerable sources, and when confronted had a very callous attitude about threats to the life or liberty of people who were mentioned. A responsible journalist would redact information like that to protect them from reprisals. Like, there are plenty of journalists that criticize the government in the West and receive leaks, but they’re not having the US government chasing them across the Atlantic.

            • Joe BidetOP
              link
              fedilink
              42 years ago

              thanks for admitting it. speaks volumes about your intelligence! <3

              • @pingveno@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                32 years ago

                I mod a subreddit where that’s a big point of the subreddit, so I would hope I’m willing to put my ego aside in favor of accuracy.

        • @guojing@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          52 years ago

          There hasnt been a single case of anyone being hurt based on wikileaks documents. So this is just an excuse for attacks on freedom of press.

        • Joe BidetOP
          link
          fedilink
          42 years ago

          You may have got a couple of facts wrong:

          https://www.laprogressive.com/the-media-in-the-united-states/wrong-about-assange

          "Wikileaks had hundreds of thousands of documents it had gotten from Manning – the war logs and State Department cables — for a considerable period in 2010 and went to “extraordinary lengths to publish them in a responsible and redacted manner,” the submissions to a lower U.K. court said. WikiLeaks held back information while it formed media partnerships with news organizations such as The Guardian, The New York Times and DER SPIEGEL to manage the release of the material. Assange’s legal team cited named witnesses, various journalists who worked with Assange on the process. Those witnesses testified to the rigor of the redaction effort.

          The media partners’ work on the Afghan war logs included approaching the White House before releasing them. In July 2010, Wikileaks also entered dialogue with the White House about redacting names. On July 25, 2010, WikiLeaks held back publication of 15,000 documents on Afghanistan to safeguard its “harm minimization process” even after its media partners published stories.

          Redaction of the Iraq War diaries was likewise “painstakingly approached” and involved the development of special redaction software. Publication was delayed in August 2010 despite this annoying some media partners because Assange didn’t want to rush.

          Un-redacted publication of the State Department cables in September 2011 was undertaken by parties unconnected to WikiLeaks, and despite WikiLeaks’ efforts to prevent it, the legal submissions state. Those who revealed un-redacted cables have never been prosecuted nor requested to remove them from the internet.

          [Ed.: John Young, founder of Cryptome, testified at Assange’s hearing that he published the unredacted cables before WikiLeaks but was never questioned by police. The password to the unredacted cables was published by Guardian journalists Luke Harding and David Leigh before Cryptome did.]"

  • @pingveno@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    -42 years ago

    I’m scratching my head over most of the charges. There is one charge where he was attempting to help Chelsea Manning break a password hash (unsuccessfully). Based on their conversation, that seems like a slam dunk case of intrusion that crosses the line from journalist to hacker.

    But when I was reading through the expanded indictment with 18 counts, I was… unimpressed. I got a massive cringe out of this:

    The portion of the password hash Manning gave to ASSANGE to crack was stored as a “hash value” in a computer file that was accessible only by users with adminstrative-level privileges. Manning did not have administrative-level privileges, and used special software, namely a Linux operating system, to access the computer file and obtain the portion of the password provided to ASSANGE.

    Linux is special software? That’s… news.

    The are a couple of things I will say in favor of this indictment. The first is that it managed to not misgender Chelsea Manning. It should be a minimum standard of acceptable human behavior, but I’ve seen plenty of people not manage that. The second is that they make a pretty good case that Assange was careless in handling extremely sensitive material. Whereas a responsible journalist would have redacted things like the names of local sources in dangerous or repressive regions, Assange did not, painting a target on their back. Translation: he got people killed or hurt. He acknowledged this and basically said he didn’t care.

    The expanded indictment is troublesome because of its potential to affect press freedom, which is why the Obama administration originally only included the hacking charges. Still, the deeper I dig the harder I find it to defend Assange and his callous disregard for human life.

    • Joe BidetOP
      link
      fedilink
      62 years ago

      The names that were in the warlogs were classified as “confidential” not “secret” or “top secret”. they were in SIPRnet where millions of ppl had access to it. If anyone endangered their sources, translators etc. it’s the US army itself.

      • during Manning’s court martial, US officials (a general if i recall) testified under oath that they couldnt’ link one death to the publication.

      It’s pure propaganda to say that Assange “endangered people” when he helped reveal the most important trove of documents that actually helped shift public opinion (and therefore slowing down) this war; while at the same time the US was killing and displacing 100.000s.

      (+ it’s true that by helping the US army, those informants, sources, translators etc… were already taking a risk in a coutry at war…)