Assange Arrested

[Captainant 27448]

2 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

 

lol she's placed in isolation for 22 hours a day.

https://shadowproof.com/2019/03/25/chelsea-manning-once-again-in-solitary-and-denied-due-process-to-challenge-mistreatment/

Not torture, she's actually having a blast.

Hey slugger, my source is dated April 5 2019. I did the courtesy of reading yours, you should at least read the actual journalistic publication I linked

[Fozzz 152]

1 minute ago, Captainant said:

Hey slugger, my source is dated April 5 2019. I did the courtesy of reading yours, you should at least read the actual journalistic publication I linked

lol the brief AP snippet from your "actual journalistic publication" is just parroting the fucking jailors.  The information from the article I quoted is sourced from Chelsea herself.  

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

What kind of asshole wants to live in the Ecuadorian embassy his entire life?  

[GRHorn 105]

10 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

What kind of asshole wants to live in the Ecuadorian embassy his entire life?  

Depends. How often is Pam visiting?

[maninblack 7974]

[Disco Strangler 1865]

19 minutes ago, maninblack said:

Dude looks like what would happen if Coach Pop butt-fucked David Letterman.

[WhatTheBuck 28710]

3 hours ago, Calihorn said:

Say hi (and then bye) to Sugar everybody.

What happened to the 50 rep count minimum to post in CR? Did old socks get grandfathered?

[F250 28682]

Chelsea was moved out of solitary confinement last week after spending 28 days in isolation but still remains incarcerated. She already served time in prison and received a Presidential pardon but she gets locked up again and spends about a month in solitary confinement and is finally rewarded with being put into general population. Yeah, Snowden should turned himself in. LOL

Meanwhile, somewhere Dick Cheney is drinking scotch and smoking a cigar bought with Haliburton blood money and laughing about the time he shot that dude in the face.

 

[maninblack 7974]

[NowThis 931]

feel very bad for Assange, for his miserable existence, when he has done nothing wrong. Looks terrible, aged 30 years in 8.  What kind of pressure was put on Ecuador by Trump? 

[bad_teammate 13132]

3 minutes ago, NowThis said:

feel very bad for Assange

Somebody's got to, I guess.

[tantric superman 4667]

16 minutes ago, maninblack said:

Is the fat guy supposed to be a younger Bill Barr?

[bad_teammate 13132]

LOVE YOU JEZZA

 

[maninblack 7974]

49 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

LOVE YOU JEZZA

 

You don't care about Assange but cheer someone that does. Weird.

[LongestHorn 759]

[NowThis 931]

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

Somebody's got to, I guess.

why do you dislike ? 

[Bama Chick 28596]

Guy shouldn’t have been tweeting as a diversion this morning instead of catching an earlier flight.



Nice use of the “witch hunt” talking point though.

[F250 28682]

1 hour ago, Bama Chick said:

 

 

Guy shouldn’t have been tweeting as a diversion this morning instead of catching an earlier flight.



Nice use of the “witch hunt” talking point though.

The dude is extremely talented and has dedicated his career to developing open source software along with medical projects to improve cancer research and pharmacology, huge advocate of privacy and is pretty much focused on making the world a better place. With his talent he could be raking in massive amounts of cash but chooses to work on non-commercial projects instead. His career has been salt of the earth type stuff.

Why are you taking a shot at the guy?

 

 

[TwiceHorn 31269]

Surly schizophrenia. He's a Trump ally. Wait, he's a Trump enemy. See his friend said witch hunt. Only Trump has ever used that term. 

[maninblack 7974]

[maninblack 7974]

The dude is extremely talented and has dedicated his career to developing open source software along with medical projects to improve cancer research and pharmacology, huge advocate of privacy and is pretty much focused on making the world a better place. With his talent he could be raking in massive amounts of cash but chooses to work on non-commercial projects instead. His career has been salt of the earth type stuff.
Why are you taking a shot at the guy?

Subservience to the State

[Nice Guy Eddie 13411]

Even if you believe that Assange provided a public good, that doesn’t mean he doesn’t have to answer for breaking the law. 

[bad_teammate 13132]

57 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Even if you believe that Assange provided a public good, that doesn’t mean he doesn’t have to answer for breaking the law. 

Not if the law is unjust or unjustly applied, which depends on the facts in play.

What if someone in Manning's position was trying to hack into whatever system she was hacking into, asked for and received a friend's help, and did it all with the purpose of finding an embarrassing picture of a co-worker to tease him or her with? Would those two people go to jail? Solitary confinement?

I don't know for sure, but I'm thinking the answer is no. Fired, put on a blacklist, something like that, but there is no rationally denying that the severity of their treatment is heavily influenced by the journalistic intentions and results of their actions.

[Fozzz 152]

Although the indictment mentions an attempt to crack a password (using linux? lol), the count doesn't seem to actually require an attempt to crack a password in order to incur liability.  That information might have been thrown in just to give the MSM and shitlibs cover to screech about how Assange "wasn't doing journalism" or whatever, and thus deserves to be extradited to the US (where God knows what the US will end up actually doing).  

 

 

Edited April 12, 2019 by Fozzz

[Fozzz 152]

10 hours ago, NowThis said:

feel very bad for Assange, for his miserable existence, when he has done nothing wrong. Looks terrible, aged 30 years in 8.  What kind of pressure was put on Ecuador by Trump? 

Kevin Poulsen has a good article on what likely happened.  Basically, the president of Ecuador (Moreno) suspects WL blew the whistle on a corrupt deal between him and a Chinese firm.  

https://www.thedailybeast.com/assange-how-ecuador-finally-got-sick-of-wikileaks-founder-and-ended-his-refuge-at-the-embassy-in-london

 

[David Dennison 18655]

1 minute ago, Fozzz said:

Kevin Poulsen has a good article on what likely happened.  Basically, the president of Ecuador (Moreno) suspects WL blew the whistle on a corrupt deal between him and a Chinese firm.  

https://www.thedailybeast.com/assange-how-ecuador-finally-got-sick-of-wikileaks-founder-and-ended-his-refuge-at-the-embassy-in-london

 

Maybe don't trust government?

[Captainant 27448]

57 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

Although the indictment mentions an attempt to crack a password (using linux? lol), the count doesn't seem to actually require an attempt to crack a password in order to incur liability.  That information might have been thrown in just to give the MSM and shitlibs cover to screech about how Assange "wasn't doing journalism" or whatever, and thus deserves to be extradited to the US (where God knows what the US will end up actually doing).  

 

 

You're deliberately misstating what assange helped do with the rainbow table attack. It's a cryptographic attack to decrypt a password. That password was to a classified system. 

...

Do you think we shouldn't charge people for cracking passwords into classified systems? The whole point of them cracking a password was to hide their tracks of what was being taken, which speaks to their motives and malfeasance. What's being prosecuted in the black and white reading of the indictment isn't the release of the info, but the conspiring to gain unauthorized access to a classified system through a means designed to hide their tracks.

Don't fucking try and tell me that's what good journalism looks like.

[bad_teammate 13132]

2 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Do you think we shouldn't charge people for cracking passwords into classified systems?

My support for the prosecution of these people is heavily contingent on their motives and goals.

If it were a foreign national intent on selling secrets to the Russians, I would personally support their prosecution. Since they were trying to expose secrets that the public deserved to know, I do not personally support their prosecution.

"BUT IT'S THE LAW!!!"

We know it's the law. We know. We just don't respect it.

Quote

Don't fucking try and tell me that's what good journalism looks like.

Good journalism is basically anything that gets important information out into the public. If someone breaks into a building to steal secret files that are in the public's interest to have and that person's purpose is to make sure the public knows, I fully support that person and oppose their prosecution. They did a good journalism and should be applauded for it.

"Good journalism" has absolutely nothing at all to do with comporting to law. They are separate concepts.

[TwiceHorn 31269]

It is a little unclear how necessary the failed attempt to crack the password (by Assange) is to the indictment.  Or, more accurately,. to securing a conviction for the conspiracy.  Without it, it's getting kind of close to criminalizing journalism.  I suppose it will get sorted out.

I saw some coverage of this on Vice and all these Brits were clamoring about his First Amendment rights.  That made me laugh.  How he ought not be extradited to the US because rights that he has only in the US won't be protected in the US.  Bahahaha. 

Edited April 12, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

2 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

Not if the law is unjust or unjustly applied, which depends on the facts in play.

What if someone in Manning's position was trying to hack into whatever system she was hacking into, asked for and received a friend's help, and did it all with the purpose of finding an embarrassing picture of a co-worker to tease him or her with? Would those two people go to jail? Solitary confinement?

I don't know for sure, but I'm thinking the answer is no. Fired, put on a blacklist, something like that, but there is no rationally denying that the severity of their treatment is heavily influenced by the journalistic intentions and results of their actions.

...?

 

It would be a totally different crime.  That's not espionage.      What if, instead of killing and eating people, Jeffrey Dahmer flicked boogers on them?  I take the bold position we shouldn't try him for murder in that case. -- Deep thoughts from Dr. bad-teammate.

 

Chelsea's charges include:

(e)

Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United Statesor to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or

and

(1)

[Whoever] having knowingly accessed a computer without authorization or exceeding authorized access, and by means of such conduct having obtained information that has been determined by the United States Government pursuant to an Executive order or statute to require protection against unauthorized disclosure for reasons of national defense or foreign relations, or any restricted data, as defined in paragraph y. of section 11 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, with reason to believe that such information so obtained could be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation willfully communicates, delivers, transmits, or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer oremployee of the United States entitled to receive it;

[bad_teammate 13132]

4 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

It would be a totally different crime.  That's not espionage

I was speaking about the password cracking as a discrete event. You know that.

I would dispute the supposed "injury" to the US that the information disclosure resulted in. I wouldn't consider national embarrassment a legitimate "injury" in this case.

As for transmitting to an unauthorized person, that seems to definitely be true and Manning seems definitely guilty of it in a technical sense.

[TwiceHorn 31269]

Also with respect to Manning, we probably ought to clarify that she is presently incarcerated for contempt of court for refusing to cooperate with/testify before a grand jury, which is an entirely separate deal from the espionage sentence that was commuted by Obama.

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

9 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

I was speaking about the password cracking as a discrete event. You know that.

I would dispute the supposed "injury" to the US that the information disclosure resulted in. I wouldn't consider national embarrassment a legitimate "injury" in this case.

As for transmitting to an unauthorized person, that seems to definitely be true and Manning seems definitely guilty of it in a technical sense.

You have the most confused impression of the law.  A crime has a series of elements.  Take some out, and you don't have that crime any more.  The discrete events don't make sense to analyze w/r/t the judicial effect or the punishment. 

Steal something.  How much trouble are you in?  Well, it depends on what you stole.

[bad_teammate 13132]

Just now, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

Steal something.  How much trouble are you in?  Well, it depends on what you stole.

Sure, and whether or not you are prosecuted can depend on why you stole it.

[Captainant 27448]

3 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Sure, and whether or not you are prosecuted can depend on why you stole it.

So, you're saying that stealing classified information to disseminate to an organization that US military intelligence considers an adversarial intelligence agency is a good example of good journalism?

You're ignoring what wikileaks is my dude

[bad_teammate 13132]

17 minutes ago, Captainant said:

So, you're saying that stealing classified information to disseminate to an organization that US military intelligence considers an adversarial intelligence agency is a good example of good journalism?

In this case: Yes, obviously.

Quote

You're ignoring what wikileaks is my dude

At the time of the events in question, what was Wikileaks?

[Brisketexan 104597]

Lots of facts to be sorted out, and a whole lot of "it depends."

For example, if a journalist gets his hands on something that a US person illegally obtained/leaked (e.g., the Pentagon Papers), but did not actively participate in extracting that information from its classified location, most of us would agree that is protected.

But what if those US DOD documents were obtained not by a US person (an insider), but rather by an arm of a hostile foreign power.  Say, for example, during WWII a Japanese spy managed to get into our documents and find some information that made the US command in the Pacific look bad for not catching the planned attack on Pearl Harbor.  That enemy spy then not only gives the material to a third party, but coordinates its release to be as damaging as possible.  Or, as an alternate scenario, the journalist gets the info from a US person, but then disseminates it at first NOT to the public at large, but rather to a Japanese spy so HE can decide when to release it to be as damaging as possible.  Seems like a rather different situation.

The big fly in the ointment to me in this case is the involvement of a hostile foreign intel service, the GRU.  That makes the whole damned thing stink to high heaven. That doesn't mean that the ultimate finding should necessarily be against Assange -- let's see how the evidence actually plays out.  But working with an actual agency of a hostile foreign state sure as shit looks like a bridge too far.

Edited April 12, 2019 by Brisketexan

[bad_teammate 13132]

Is there something to indicate that Assange was working with the GRU anywhere near the time of the Manning relationship?

[Nice Guy Eddie 13411]

Did anyone ever believe that the US or UK were just going to forget about Assange? His confinement in that tiny consulate was completely his fault. When you're wanted, you will face justice at some point. He should have walked out years ago.   

When you accept political asylum, you are at the mercy of that country and its changing leaders. Ecuador was always going to eventually kick him out. There was never any doubt that it would eventually happen.

Snowden will also find himself in US custody at some point. He will either willingly decide to come back OR Russia will trade him.  Eventually Snowden will have zero value to Russia so why keep him around.

[TwiceHorn 31269]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

Lots of facts to be sorted out, and a whole lot of "it depends."

For example, if a journalist gets his hands on something that a US person illegally obtained/leaked (e.g., the Pentagon Papers), but did not actively participate in extracting that information from its classified location, most of us would agree that is protected.

But what if those US DOD documents were obtained not by a US person (an insider), but rather by an arm of a hostile foreign power.  Say, for example, during WWII a Japanese spy managed to get into our documents and find some information that made the US command in the Pacific look bad for not catching the planned attack on Pearl Harbor.  That enemy spy then not only gives the material to a third party, but coordinates its release to be as damaging as possible.  Or, as an alternate scenario, the journalist gets the info from a US person, but then disseminates it at first NOT to the public at large, but rather to a Japanese spy so HE can decide when to release it to be as damaging as possible.  Seems like a rather different situation.

The big fly in the ointment to me in this case is the involvement of a hostile foreign intel service, the GRU.  That makes the whole damned thing stink to high heaven. That doesn't mean that the ultimate finding should necessarily be against Assange -- let's see how the evidence actually plays out.  But working with an actual agency of a hostile foreign state sure as shit looks like a bridge too far.

This is not the DNC emails we're talking about.  This is Assange's complicity in what Manning did originally.  There is no involvement by a foreign power in this particular instance.

[GW Hayduke 1952]

Assange is whiny pussy. Hiding in an embassy. Scared to face the music. Acting like a child as police haul him out.

We are going to see more whiny pussyness from Assange as he tries to sway UK public opinion that extradition to the US would be mean

[bad_teammate 13132]

4 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

Assange is whiny pussy. Hiding in an embassy. Scared to face the music. Acting like a child as police haul him out.

We are going to see more whiny pussyness from Assange as he tries to sway UK public opinion that extradition to the US would be mean

he should be a BIG TOUGH MAN and FIGHT secretive, unaccountable spy agencies with LOGIC and GORILLA MINDSET

[GW Hayduke 1952]

10 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

he should be a BIG TOUGH MAN and FIGHT secretive, unaccountable spy agencies with LOGIC and GORILLA MINDSET

Or just own your shit. Don’t break the law if you are scared to do the time. Don’t act as a cutout to hostile foreign meddling in democracy and then cry when your card gets punched.

Why so much victimhood these day? Presidential Harassment! Bernie was treated so unfairly! White men are the real victims!

Actions have consequences. Being a pussy should have consequences also

Edited April 12, 2019 by GW Hayduke

[bad_teammate 13132]

1 minute ago, GW Hayduke said:

Don’t break the law if you are scared to do the time.

Have you turned yourself in for every rule you've broken? Confessed every sin? Admitted every crime?

[GW Hayduke 1952]

Just now, bad_teammate said:

Have you turned yourself in for every rule you've broken? Confessed every sin? Admitted every crime?

Jesus. Constant fallacious logic is embarrassing.  “Either you turn yourself in for everything you have done or you are whiny pussy!” 

You don’t always have to bend backwards to defend Assange and Bernie. It looks bad.

[bad_teammate 13132]

Just now, GW Hayduke said:

Jesus. Constant fallacious logic is embarrassing.  “Either you turn yourself in for everything you have done or you are whiny pussy!”

You said, "Don’t break the law if you are scared to do the time."

I responded with some fairly simple questions. Which you didn't answer.

Sad.

[Irwin F Fletcher 3550]

5 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

Not if the law is unjust or unjustly applied, which depends on the facts in play.

What if someone in Manning's position was trying to hack into whatever system she was hacking into, asked for and received a friend's help, and did it all with the purpose of finding an embarrassing picture of a co-worker to tease him or her with? Would those two people go to jail? Solitary confinement?

I don't know for sure, but I'm thinking the answer is no. Fired, put on a blacklist, something like that, but there is no rationally denying that the severity of their treatment is heavily influenced by the journalistic intentions and results of their actions.

I'm curious, what color is the sky in the world that you live in?

[GW Hayduke 1952]

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

You said, "Don’t break the law if you are scared to do the time."

I responded with some fairly simple questions. Which you didn't answer.

Sad.

Of course I wouldn’t act like a whiny pussy if I broke the law. Just like I wouldn’t use fallicious logic to defend a whiny pussy

[bad_teammate 13132]

Just now, GW Hayduke said:

Of course I wouldn’t act like a whiny pussy if I broke the law. Just like I wouldn’t use fallicious logic to defend a whiny pussy

That's not what I asked.

Have you turned yourself in for every rule you've broken? Confessed every sin? Admitted every crime?

[UncleCharlie 334]

Dude is 47.  Get your vitamin D levels checked people...