see url: https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-look-possible-assange-charges
Could this Wikileaks be a privately owned world espionage organisation
under the jurisdiction of outer or inner space, perhaps based on the
moon or Mars? Probably funded by the CIA and other world intelligence
services as a way of sharing information with the public. Could Assange
be a World Spy...or a Spy on the World for gain, profit or charitable
purpose, purely for the good and credibility of it all...one
wonders...:-). Could Assange be charged with treasonable behaviour for
disguising Green Cheese as a whitewashing agent for the US government?
The trouble with the UK/US Extradition agreement is that one needs an
expert to interpret it, unlike the Swedish one which appears to be quite
clear and spells out what is and what is not. I shall do some more work
on it but I feel unqualified and inadequate as to what section or part
Assange could be the basis for his extradition from the UK. However,
such vagueness does make it easier to extradite him for some cooked up
reason or another. Perhaps a journalist is just an expert at purveying
On 18/11/2018 17:35, John Young wrote:
Twice Cryptome has been rejected as a journalist due to not being a
"commercial publisher." Providing free information does not qualify.
Well established is threat to moneymaking as the means for controlling
journalism. All "reputable" news outlets check with authorities before
publishing official secrets. Boards of directors, editors, investors
and journalists just will not jeopardize profits and regulators know
that is their Achilles Heel.
Information broker is a new one to us. Appears to be a means to negate
constitutional privilege of the press. Problem with it is that every
professional is an information broker, so too governments, religions,
educators, politician, all shading their information for sales. In the
end so are journalists since by fundamental intention their
information is lurid, enticing, slanted, biased, "truthy," forever
"breaking," headline-hawked, censorious, chaste or sexual,
crime-and-war-loving, scandalous, puerile, time-wasting, above all
WikiLeaks is angelic by comparison with self-obsessed devilish
journalism, business, spies and governments. Therefore it must be
banished, Assange publicly burned at the stake.
An alternative to being BBQ'd, Assange could revert to his original
operation of disparaging journalism as a corrupt industry, forgo
hiding behind royal privilege. Popular support could return rather
than wither and applaud his losing The Lottery (vite Shirley Jackson).
A government pardon of Assange would commit him to the zoo-cage of New
York Times/Washington Post performing monkeys of Ellsberg, Manning and
via Putin, Snowden.
Still, pervasive loathing of craven, complicit, vainglorious, greedy
publishers and propagandistic columnists by hard-bitten, ill-paid
journalists remains promising.
At 11:48 AM 11/18/2018, you wrote:
Question:Â What is the difference between an "information broker" and a
"journalist"?Â Could be important in US law if Assange were to be found
guilty of espionage or whatever other charges the US Justice Department
care to throw at him... It appears that journalists have more rights
under the US Constitution than information brokers.Â I don't know why.Â
Could I for instance, call myself an information broker or a
journalist.Â What would qualify me for either, under US Law?
Just a thought...
On 18/11/2018 16:34, Douglas Rankine wrote:
Courtesy via Cryptomehttps://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/16/us/politics/trump-administration-assange-wikileaks.html