He released it indiscriminately to journalists who made it available to the entire world, foreign powers and enemies of the US included.
I don’t blame the journalists for going public with the leaked information - as a free and independent press they have the right to do so, and they’re not responsible for the crimes committed by the person who stole the data (as per New York Times v. US).
Why Ecuador? It’s not at all clear that Julian Assange did anything prohibited by US law.
As for Snowden, wouldn’t sanctions be pretty extreme? Has the US ever vigorously pursued the extradition of a former spy from the country they spied for?
I, for one, don’t have a problem with Assange. He’s a misguided grandstander, but as a journalist he has the right to publish what he likes regardless of where and how his sources acquired it. If he’d personally ordered or assisted Manning in stealing data, that’d be another matter, but that’s not the case here.
His legal problems are with the Swedish government, are completely unrelated to WikiLeaks, and would have been done with long ago if he hadn’t insisted in holing up in an embassy and making a spectacle of himself.
I would guess that is exactly why he hates Assange and Snowden so much.
They undermine his blind trust in the government of the US.
They show that the US is not the shining city on the hill, something he desperately wants to be true.
Snowden yes. Assange no. He’s not a US citizen and he never signed any confidentially agreements or had any security clearance to break. Can’t charge him with Treason (he’s not a US citizen), similarly not sure you can charge him with espionage (he didn’t break into computers and take anything, he’s only publishing things other people give him). As far as I can tell Aiding and abetting the enemy only applies to military personal not civilians.
He’s an Australian citizen, who is currently residing in the Ecuadorian embassy in the UK. Assuming you can get him out of the embassy what are you going to charge him with exactly?
I dunno, receiving stolen property?
Here’s my proposal for the OP: clearly the United States needs to bomb the Internet. We will bomb it in a yooooge way, and then everyone will be scared to leak documents. Believe me. And we’re gonna waterboard the Internet, too, to find out what it knows.
And make the Internet pay for it, too !
IMO, Snowden did mostly the right thing in a really dumb, probably national security damaging way. However, I don’t feel like he should be treated like a criminal even if he technically violated the law. I’d pardon him but also never let him work at a government agency (or government contractor handling info more secret than a new toaster design) again.
Assange is more complex. On one hand important information can come out of Wikileaks, even things as important as Snowden’s information. On the other hand, Assange feels like he has an agenda a lot of times, and him holing up in the Ecuadorean embassy causes some serious concerns about the neutrality of the information he posts (i.e. is he only posting certain things at certain times because it makes his caretakers happy, and was he EVER posting things that didn’t advance whatever his personal agenda was at the time?) I’d probably at least put him on some sort of trial if we (“we” being “his home country and its allies, including the US” in this case) got our hands on him, but I think assassination is unwarranted. In any event, even if Assange disappeared most of this info would almost certainly be released on other channels and found by the populace just as quickly.
It’s a common trope in thriller / espionage fiction that a whistleblower will rig his stash of vital blackmailing documents in a system designed to broadcast them to the public if the whistleblower doesn’t check in periodically - e.g., has been captured or killed.
Maybe you should look up how the Constitution defines “treason.”
The big question is how should we handle the situation where a person technically broke the law, but did the country a great service by doing so? My opinion is that the President should pardon him.
Wait, so let me get this straight, because he caused this country the grave harm and embarrassment of revealing to the world that we were covertly analyzing phone records of American citizens without due process, you want to make it clear to the world that we covertly assassinate American citizens without due process?
Your cure is well worse that the disease.
I personally don’t like Snowden and find disturbing the idea that a low level individual can decide on his own for the entire government what should or should not be classified. But there does need to be a way for an individual to responsibly whistle blow when he acquires evidence of the government overstepping their legal bounds. If I ran the circus, I would propose that there be an independent institutional review board that consists of security experts and members of the public and press with security clearances, that a whistle blower could go to with his evidence and lay out his case that the activities should be made public., and the government can make their case why it shouldn’t be If a substantial portion (possibly not even a majority) agree with him then it will be revealed by the review board, otherwise it remains classified. In either case the whistle blower who follows this procedure should be immune for retribution.
I mean, it worked for Iran-Contra. I might have missed the “great service” there, but still…
You’re confusing two separate concepts, here: whistleblowing, and blackmailing. A blackmailer relies on the information he’s using to remain secret, otherwise he doesn’t have leverage over anyone. A whistleblower specifically wants the information they have to become public. They don’t need complicated dead-drop schemes, they just release the information as soon as they have access to a regulatory body, or (when the regulatory body is ineffective or corrupt) to an appropriate media outlet. The first thing Snowden did when he got out of the country was turn everything he had over to Glenn Greenwald of the Guardian.
Actually both Snowden and Assange claim to have “dead mans switches”, mass drops of information that will be released to the public if they are killed. They’ve been selective in whats released, Greenwald carefully choose the information that highlights illegal activity by the US government and didn’t just release everything. Wikileaks also redacts some information before publishing.
In Wikileak’s case its an encrypted torrent file they make available for public download that many people have mirrored and if Assange is killed or arrested the key will be released. In Snowden’s case apparently the full cache of everything he took is encrypted and with several people privately, again with instructions to release it if he’s killed.
Info on their deadman’s switches:
You’re right, I meant blackmailing - although, once a whistleblower has leaked all the incriminating documents that he has to leak, he’s of no further use to anyone and has no ‘insurance policy’ remaining.
That last link was what I was wondering; doesn’t this make them kill targets for people who DO want to see all the docs leaked?
Well yeah, but I guess they made the judgement that the people who want the documents suppressed have more power and assets than the ones that want them released to the public. I do respect Snowden’s initial decision to leak info on illegal surveillance but I suspect he probably was debriefed in depth by the SVR and gave them more information than he publicly released, which is why Russia is protecting him.
Your use of the present tense is odd.
Do you have any evidence that Snowden leaked anything secret after he flew to Moscow on June 23, 2013? That would be big news, considering he claimed to not have taken anything secret with him.
(Note: I am referring here to Snowden leaking something after that date, not to journalists later releasing info that had already left possession of Snowden prior to the flight on June 23, 2013.)
I’m aware of the Constitutional definition. That’s why he’s only being charged with espionage. I still consider it to be treason.
Some of the posts here frighten me because it seems having the central intelligence dumbasses murder people is wrong more because it is impractical, rather than being straight up evil. Political assasinations are what monsters do.