> So this isn't as simple as "a journalist received classified information and is being prosecuted for it." This indictment lays out a very specific crime, which is (Assange) directly encouraging and enabling another individual (Manning) to commit a crime (Espionage) on his behalf.
Nothing about that interpretation is new, thus plenty of high-profile journalists, and journalistic NGO [0] have already responded to that particular "charge" back in April. Like Glenn Greenwald pointing out that "massaging sources" is a major part of investigative journalistic work [1].
I really fail to see how it's criminal for someone in another country to explain how to hack a computer system our govt has. I fail to see how it's criminal for them to even encourage someone to hack the system. They aren't our citizen, they don't get our benefits and rights, they don't have to act the way we want them to.
This isn't different than the Chinese govt demanding us citizens be surrendered who break Chinese social laws.
So, if China were to steal our plans for the thermonuclear weapons, the F-35 and F-22 by using and instructing a US asset...China is off the hook, even though they facilitated the entire operation? How is this not espionage? Is it suddenly not espionage because Wikileaks made their findings public? So what if China did that? What if Russia did that? How is this any different than Mueller charging Russian nationals (nationals we know Russia will not extradite,) in regards to election interference? That was ultimately published information in regards to Podesta and Clinton emails. The people indicted were not all hackers, some of them just instructed...so I guess they are innocent? Your argument makes no sense.
China and other countries do steal our IP routinely and get away with it no punishment. What point are you trying to make?
My argument makes plenty of sense and it's very easy to ingest - if you aren't a member of my country and receive no privileges as tho you're a member of my country then you shouldn't be punished like you're a member of my country. What about that are you exactly arguing against?
e.g. if a journalist (in the usa or outside) knows your employer (gov or private) committed crimes against the population and kept proofs of it inside a toy safe, that you can open easily just by fiddling with it, and the journalist motivates you to go fiddle with the children's toy safe to get the evidence, is it:
a) you and the journalists high profile spy-hackers?
b) you employer a criminal, and incopetent at security?
Seems like classical, straight-up espionage. The only confounding factor is that Assange wasn't (as far as we know) working on behalf of a foreign power. But these days, that's what spies are - not James Bond, but merely a guy who coerces and helps his assets to gain access to and then exfiltrate secret information. Espionage.
Nothing about that interpretation is new, thus plenty of high-profile journalists, and journalistic NGO [0] have already responded to that particular "charge" back in April. Like Glenn Greenwald pointing out that "massaging sources" is a major part of investigative journalistic work [1].
[0] https://rsf.org/en/news/rsf-calls-uk-protect-role-journalist...
[1] https://theintercept.com/2019/04/11/the-u-s-governments-indi...