Surprise Eviction For Assange

[Forty Two]

If there is one thing that the last 20 years of "leaking" of all the "top secret" and "sensitive" and "national security" type documents reveals, it's that 99% of documents that are supposedly secret, confidential, sensitive and important to national security, well... aren't any of that. Most of it is kept secret to protect wrongdoing, and things that the public wouldn't like.

Well, that's gotta be a guess, because the stuff's classified.

The stuff leaked was made public. Kinda the whole point of Wikileaks, etc.

I'd be interested in who's doing the guessing, so I can gauge how educated their guess is.

You mean, all the leaks by Wikileaks didn't actually leak?

[Joe]

I mean, what's the source of your 99% number?

You made it up, and now your're dodging the question, aren't you?

Well, at least I know how educated the guess is.

[Forty Two]

I mean, what's the source of your 99% number?

You made it up, and now your're dodging the question, aren't you?

Well, at least I know how educated the guess is.

Sure, 99% isn't a real number - it stands in for "the vast majority."

Now, let's talk about all the horrible outcomes that have resulted from the millions of pages of leaked "secret" government documents over the last 20 years. I'm sure national security must have seriously compromised in many ways.

[Joe]

I mean, what's the source of your 99% number?

You made it up, and now your're dodging the question, aren't you?

Well, at least I know how educated the guess is.

Sure, 99% isn't a real number - it stands in for "the vast majority."

Now, let's talk about all the horrible outcomes that have resulted from the millions of pages of leaked "secret" government documents over the last 20 years. I'm sure national security must have seriously compromised in many ways.

And "the vast majority" isn't a real number either sadly.

Now, let's talk about the difference between arguments based on evidence, and those based on made-up stuff.

[Forty Two]

I mean, what's the source of your 99% number?

You made it up, and now your're dodging the question, aren't you?

Well, at least I know how educated the guess is.

Sure, 99% isn't a real number - it stands in for "the vast majority."

Now, let's talk about all the horrible outcomes that have resulted from the millions of pages of leaked "secret" government documents over the last 20 years. I'm sure national security must have seriously compromised in many ways.

And "the vast majority" isn't a real number either sadly.

Now, let's talk about the difference between arguments based on evidence, and those based on made-up stuff.

LOL - post noted for future reference.

I wonder. I are you aware of a single instance where the revelation of confidential government documents has caused any injury or damage to national security?

[Joe]

I mean, what's the source of your 99% number?

You made it up, and now your're dodging the question, aren't you?

Well, at least I know how educated the guess is.

Sure, 99% isn't a real number - it stands in for "the vast majority."

Now, let's talk about all the horrible outcomes that have resulted from the millions of pages of leaked "secret" government documents over the last 20 years. I'm sure national security must have seriously compromised in many ways.

And "the vast majority" isn't a real number either sadly.

Now, let's talk about the difference between arguments based on evidence, and those based on made-up stuff.

LOL - post noted for future reference.

I wonder. I are you aware of a single instance where the revelation of confidential government documents has caused any injury or damage to national security?

Sure I am. Why aren't you?

Seriously Forty Two, have you ever heard of Robert Hanssen, Aldrich Ames, or Julius and Ethel Rosenberg? Revealing classified information was what they did. The harm done is well documented.

Does the name Plame ring a bell? I wonder how much more we'd know about WMD in the Middle East if that lady was still working.

You just never know what might be a clue to our enemies. In fact, it appears you can be outed by Google. Read the whole thing to get the scope of the fiasco, and take note that the Obama administration got the ball rolling by revealing what it knew.

Loose lips sink ships my friend.

[Joe]

Assange Indicted Under Espionage Act, Raising First Amendment Issues

Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks leader, has been indicted on 17 counts of violating the Espionage Act for his role in obtaining and publishing secret military and diplomatic documents in 2010, the Justice Department announced on Thursday — a novel case that raises profound First Amendment issues.

The new charges were part of an expanded indictment obtained by the Trump administration that significantly raised the stakes of the legal case against Mr. Assange, who is already fighting extradition proceedings in London based on an earlier hacking-related count brought by federal prosecutors in Northern Virginia.

The charges are the latest twist in a career in which Mr. Assange has morphed from a crusader for radical transparency to fugitive from a Swedish sexual assault investigation, to tool of Russia’s election interference, to criminal defendant in the United States.

Mr. Assange vaulted to global fame nearly a decade ago as a champion of openness about what governments secretly do. But with this indictment, he has become the target for a case that could open the door to criminalizing activities that are crucial to American investigative journalists who write about national security matters.

The case has nothing to do with Russia’s election interference in 2016, when Mr. Assange’s organization published Democratic emails stolen by Russia as part of its covert efforts to help elect President Trump. Instead, it focuses on Mr. Assange’s role in the leak of hundreds of thousands of State Department cables and military files by the former Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning.

Justice Department officials did not explain why they decided to charge Mr. Assange under the Espionage Act — a step also debated within the Obama administration but ultimately not taken. Although the indictment could establish a precedent that deems actions related to obtaining, and in some cases publishing, state secrets to be criminal, the officials sought to minimize the implications for press freedoms.

They noted that most of the new charges were related to obtaining the secret document archives, as opposed to publishing them. In the counts that deemed the publication of the files a crime, prosecutors focused on a handful of documents revealing the names of people who provided information to the United States in dangerous places like war zones.