The Julian Assange Indictment, by Robert Gore
This is the full text of the article I published on Straight Line Logic, minus a picture of Julian Assange.
The death of the First Amendment
The US Department of Justice has brought an 18-charge indictment against Julian Assange. Seventeen of the counts are for violations of the Espionage Act. To much scorn and derision Wikileaks and Assange have been warning for years that this is exactly what the US government would do. They have been vindicated. Obama Justice Department lawyers, examining the exact same evidence as the Trump Justice Department lawyers, declined to press charges against Assange because they believed it would criminalize essential elements of journalism, one of which is disclosure of secrets the government would rather not have disclosed, and obliterate the First Amendment. The Obama lawyers were right.
The Trump administration is attempting to silence a journalist and organization that have acted as a clearinghouse for whistleblowers outside and inside governments who have courageously sought to reveal their governments' depredations and crimes. In this country, Assange and Wikileaks have embarrassed and infuriated both the left and right, Democrats and Republicans, and so they have no friends or protectors within the powers that be. An important point is that they have done their job mostly with documents and other materials produced by the perpetrators themselves. Telling the truth has indeed become a revolutionary act, which is always a hallmark of tyranny.
Once upon a time some of us hoped that voting for Donald Trump was a revolutionary act, but like most stories that begin with, "Once upon a time," that has proven a fairy tale. Unless Trump issues a full and unconditional pardon for Assange before he has to undergo years of legal proceedings fighting extradition in Europe and Britain, and then this indictment in the US, never again will I support Donald Trump. Nor will I support any other politician who either supports the indictment or refuses to make his or her opinion known about the matter. At this time, only Tulsi Gabbard has publicly supported Julian Assange, and if she continues to do so she has my vote in 2020, regardless of my complete disagreement with many of her other positions. She would be the first Democrat for whom I've ever voted.
That makes me a one-issue voter. I'm a writer and speaker, often writing and speaking about government and politics. I cherish my freedom and the threat to it is the issue most important to me. To all those who regard the First Amendment as subsidiary to other issues—foreign policy, the economy, immigration, the stock market, or the other headline grabbers—or who feel that the US can still be a "great" nation without the First Amendment I say this: you are fools, you fully deserve what's coming, and don't you dare bewail your fate or that of your country when what remains of the greatness of America is gone and it has become the tyrannical hellhole that appears to be its destiny.
The death of the First Amendment
The US Department of Justice has brought an 18-charge indictment against Julian Assange. Seventeen of the counts are for violations of the Espionage Act. To much scorn and derision Wikileaks and Assange have been warning for years that this is exactly what the US government would do. They have been vindicated. Obama Justice Department lawyers, examining the exact same evidence as the Trump Justice Department lawyers, declined to press charges against Assange because they believed it would criminalize essential elements of journalism, one of which is disclosure of secrets the government would rather not have disclosed, and obliterate the First Amendment. The Obama lawyers were right.
The Trump administration is attempting to silence a journalist and organization that have acted as a clearinghouse for whistleblowers outside and inside governments who have courageously sought to reveal their governments' depredations and crimes. In this country, Assange and Wikileaks have embarrassed and infuriated both the left and right, Democrats and Republicans, and so they have no friends or protectors within the powers that be. An important point is that they have done their job mostly with documents and other materials produced by the perpetrators themselves. Telling the truth has indeed become a revolutionary act, which is always a hallmark of tyranny.
Once upon a time some of us hoped that voting for Donald Trump was a revolutionary act, but like most stories that begin with, "Once upon a time," that has proven a fairy tale. Unless Trump issues a full and unconditional pardon for Assange before he has to undergo years of legal proceedings fighting extradition in Europe and Britain, and then this indictment in the US, never again will I support Donald Trump. Nor will I support any other politician who either supports the indictment or refuses to make his or her opinion known about the matter. At this time, only Tulsi Gabbard has publicly supported Julian Assange, and if she continues to do so she has my vote in 2020, regardless of my complete disagreement with many of her other positions. She would be the first Democrat for whom I've ever voted.
That makes me a one-issue voter. I'm a writer and speaker, often writing and speaking about government and politics. I cherish my freedom and the threat to it is the issue most important to me. To all those who regard the First Amendment as subsidiary to other issues—foreign policy, the economy, immigration, the stock market, or the other headline grabbers—or who feel that the US can still be a "great" nation without the First Amendment I say this: you are fools, you fully deserve what's coming, and don't you dare bewail your fate or that of your country when what remains of the greatness of America is gone and it has become the tyrannical hellhole that appears to be its destiny.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 2.
The First Amendment does not protect anyone who steals proprietary information, let along classified military information on protected, classified devices. The grandstanding, emotional claims to 'freedom of speech' bypass that fact. Protecting military secrets does not imply 'bad things and hiding them'. The charges against Assange are over the military protecting the effectiveness and lives of its sources of intelligence on a war. The claim that Assange can ignore that is an anarchist mentality declaring war on the military. Don't choose to be on that side.
Not sure I believe what the government claims happened, or what the "libertarians" claim about the first amendment. Seems to me that the purpose of the first amendment was to protect us FROM the government in the frist place, just as the second amendment was.
There are a lot of issues in this worth discussing, but the article suppressed the facts and invoked its own conclusion as the premise. It exploited the expected sympathy here for "freedom of speech", as if that were what the case is about, all to emotionally stampede people in the name of "straight line logic", which you can see through the page is what happened, including emotional rejection of any attempt to describe the facts.
The Grand Jury indictment is the prosecutor's charges, for which there is evidence on which the case is being brought. The outcome of the case after arguing the evidence remains to be seen, but the charges concern a serious violation of legitimate law that the article, and now you, are ignoring.
This is not about a vague claim that you can dismiss out of hand as "Whistleblowers are hated because they bring out truths" and the unsubstantiated claim that he "only provided the truth that the politicians wanted to hide". That does happen, but is not what this case is based on. The article misrepresented the indictment in a flourish of "libertarian" hyperbole unrelated to the facts.
Responses pointing out the facts, with links to the actual indictment omitted in the article, are now subjected to another 'downvote' spree as if facts and objectivity are irrelevant on an Ayn Rand forum.
BTW, if Assange was HELPING TO HACK into the computers, then he is guilty. It's one thing to be a reporter, and another to help a criminal before the act via skills/tools they do not already have!
In this case, the Justice Dept., with or without Trump's internal approval, is pursuing a case against Assange for his alleged involvement in stealing and disseminating military secrets.
Trump can't pardon Snowden because that would require acknowledging the unconstitutional nature of NSA (and collaborating agencies) mass surveillance of American citizens. Both Obama and Trump have made the surveillance worse since the Snowden document dump. Obama sympathesized with the treasonous radical Manning, but ratcheted up the statist mass surveillance of innocent American citizens.
A major difference between Snowden and Manning is that Snowden took great efforts to not disclose documents exposing individuals, making it a matter of government secret policy. (Subsequent leakers anonymously put out additional documents under cover of the Snowden dump.) Snowden said he did what he did with such enormous scope because previous whistle blowers attempting to use proper channels, like Binney, had been marginalized and persecuted, and that he realized that he would have to dump on a scope that could not be ignored. Manning in contrast, is a radical hater who sought to harm the military.
Blatant, open violation of the Espionage Act to steal and disseminate military secrets in wartime is not a matter of the euphemism of what "government would rather not have disclosed", and prosecution of that does not "obliterate the First Amendment". Obama was not "right" to ignore it and was not right to commute the sentence of the treasonous co-conspirator Manning and ignore Hilary Clinton's crimes under the same law. The Obama mentality is not a standard of argument here.
The government has never had the power to determine who is a journalist. The New York Times, Washington Post, et. al. published the same information as Wikileaks. Journalism is a function, not whatever the government says it is. Wikileaks, like the NYT and WP, was publishing information, the essential function of journalism. The First Amendment has never been held to not apply to foreign news organizations that publish matters of interest in the US.
The Justice Department press releases are extremely misleading. Only Counts 15-17 allege that Assange divulged names of intelligence sources. Counts 1 and 18 are essentially rehashes of the former one-count indictment. It is Counts 2-14 that are direct attacks on the First Amendment, essentially criminalizing receipt by a journalist of information the government has decided to classify and subsequent publication by the journalist.
This criminalization is unprecedented. It would have stopped the Pentagon Papers in its tracks and many other disclosures since of information the government would rather keep secret. By the logic of Counts 2-14, anything the government decides to classify (and spurious classification is rampant) cannot be disclosed and published, no matter how immoral, illegal, illicit, or just plain embarrassing the government actions disclosed may be, and no matter how irrelevant it may be to actual national defense or intelligence. That's the rationale of a police state--the government deciding which of its actions can be disclosed--not a free country.
I suggest you broaden your information sources away from Justice Department press releases and read some of the fine articles that have appeared in the alternative media since the superseding indictment. Some of them are posted on my website, http://straightlinelogic.com. Put "Julian Assange indictment" in the search box and they will be listed and linked. There have even been some decent articles in the mainstream media. They're finally waking up to the danger.
That Trump forced the issue to FREE Assange, and allow him to be Charged, and WALK FREE after the trial. Which would SOLIDIFY the 1st Amendment!
I am hopeful.
Citing the lack of action by the Obama administration and referring to the Espionage Act as if it were inherently evil as premises is not an argument. The Obama administration also pardoned the traitor Manning, and let Hilary Clinton off the hook for her violations of the Espionage Act in her reckless treatment of classified information and obstruction of justice in destroying evidence under subpoena.
The actual charges against Assange can be read at
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/wikile...
https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-rel...
https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-rel...
https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-rel...
"Some say that Assange is a journalist and that he should be immune from prosecution for these actions. The Department takes seriously the role of journalists in our democracy and we thank you for it. It is not and has never been the Department’s policy to target them for their reporting.
"Julian Assange is no journalist. This made plain by the totality of his conduct as alleged in the indictment — i.e., his conspiring with and assisting a security clearance holder to acquire classified information, and his publishing the names of human sources."
I know the following is off topic but it comes because of government making rules which are made outside, secretly until unveiled to the public, the public discussion.
On the local level where I live, there was far more freedom in 1955 with 750 population than today than today with near 2000 population. Though guns are legal I have not ever seen an open carry, air rifles and bow and arrows are not openly useable. I have a pellet gun but am not allowed to shoot it even in my basement because the projectile will land within village limits. The police said if I bought one, I should not let anyone know. Besides recreational use, I consider it more humane to euthanize dying pets myself rather than putting them through the ordeal of getting them to a vet, that is, into a carrier, driving to the vet, place on a table, and other frightening stuff to be poisoned to death. I have been told that the instant death by a pellet in the brain is very inhumane.
Today there is too much government secrecy.
I would like to see that only military secrecy where harm could come to citizens if not secret be instituted. All other government business should be open book.
Here in the village, the board of trusties have secret meetings that end in more taxation. We have had to get an ordinance passed that any expenditure over one million dollars had to be approved by referendum. They still seem to get away without using the referendum.
Wiki leak like organizations should become common and not made illegal. It should not be hard to determine whether a leak will harm the USA only and not just harm politicians.
I am also disappointed that trump is waging this stupid tariff war with China- that WE HAVE TO PAY FOR (not the Chinese)
Trump can’t do the things that really need to be done( like immigration reform and trade with Mexico and Canada and getting rid of Obamacare). Because the worthless establishment congress just obstructs. Pretty pathetic
Load more comments...