All of this shit is intended to blur the line between "journalist" and "spy," which I take as MT's main point. It's intended to establish a legal precedent that a journalist who publishes information the regime doesn't want disclosed can be defined as a spy.
The distinction with Assange is actually much less ambiguous, in my opinion, than…
All of this shit is intended to blur the line between "journalist" and "spy," which I take as MT's main point. It's intended to establish a legal precedent that a journalist who publishes information the regime doesn't want disclosed can be defined as a spy.
The distinction with Assange is actually much less ambiguous, in my opinion, than the Ellsberg and Manning cases. Both Ellsberg and Manning were ultimately Pentagon functionaries, which is how they got access to the information they got access to. They signed off on the paperwork.
Assange isn't a US citizen, he never worked for DOD, and he never signed off on shit. Manning's in jail, and that's not nothing, but there seems to be an eagerness to burn Assange at the stake to redefine what the Western concept of "law" is -- i.e. it is whatever the biggest dog says it is.
All of this shit is intended to blur the line between "journalist" and "spy," which I take as MT's main point. It's intended to establish a legal precedent that a journalist who publishes information the regime doesn't want disclosed can be defined as a spy.
The distinction with Assange is actually much less ambiguous, in my opinion, than the Ellsberg and Manning cases. Both Ellsberg and Manning were ultimately Pentagon functionaries, which is how they got access to the information they got access to. They signed off on the paperwork.
Assange isn't a US citizen, he never worked for DOD, and he never signed off on shit. Manning's in jail, and that's not nothing, but there seems to be an eagerness to burn Assange at the stake to redefine what the Western concept of "law" is -- i.e. it is whatever the biggest dog says it is.