Fucking finally. The Obama administration declined to go after Assange because they knew how bad it would look for press freedoms in the US.
If they went after Assange, they could rightly go after the New York Times as well. NYT general counsel has said as much for years. Letting the case continue as-is was setting up for long term disaster regarding press freedoms.
The Trump administration had zero qualms about killing press freedoms. I gotta be at least reasonably thankful the Biden administration is trying to find a less severe offramp for what the Trump admin started.
Whatever you think of Assange (it is perfectly valid to not like him or what he does), this case was a dangerous precedent for press freedom in the US, so having it downgraded to less severe charges would be a good thing.
There were some very deluded people during the Trump years who thought Assange would get special treatment for his vendetta against Hillary Clinton helping to get Trump elected. But you nailed it right on the head – killing press freedoms and not paying debts are even bigger parts of Donald’s brand than gaudy letters on the sides of buildings.
But don’t get it twisted. Then Secretary of State Clinton went hard against Assange, and it did look bad for press freedoms in the US. You have to remember the State Department did not take press freedom seriously at all, abusing the espionage act left and right. They put more journalists sources in prison than any other previous president. They went after journalists families, like when they detained Glenn Greenwald’s partner in Heathrow. That should always be remembered as part of Barack Obama’s legacy.
The Trump “Fake News” era was absolutely devastating to journalism, so it’s easy to see Obama’s administration through rose tinted glasses. But it’s important to remember the damage they did that contributed to where we are today.
Now now, I am not saying Obama or Biden administrations are paragons of freedom of press, but a lot of that had very little directly to do with Assange’s case.
Greenwald’s partner, for example, had far more to do with the US trying to catch Snowden. They brought down a foreign Presidents plane to try to catch Snowden, no less.
My point is simply that the Grand Jury that was impaneled to look at Assange during the Obama years chose not to prosecute because they couldn’t disentangle other media outlets. If they charged Assange, it would be open season on the New York Times, which also published the documents. I think that was a wise decision.
Now the US establishment was all too happy to smear Assange during this time, especially in regards to the Swedish case and his claims of worries of extradition, but legally, they didn’t actually pursue him, for valid reasons. Legal pursuit came during the Trump administration, which was happy to destroy the future of press freedoms tenfold.
the Grand Jury that was impaneled to look at Assange during the Obama years chose not to prosecute because they couldn’t disentangle other media outlets
You’re right, it was during the Trump administration. For some reason I thought the first indictment had been made and then sealed during Obama’s tenure. Trump’s attack was a major escalation.
I don’t see any reference to a Grand Jury in the linked article, and I can’t find anything in Google about “assange grand jury 2010”. Are you thinking about this section?
Justice officials said they looked hard at Assange but realized that they have what they described as a “New York Times problem.” If the Justice Department indicted Assange, it would also have to prosecute the New York Times and other news organizations and writers who published classified material, including The Washington Post and Britain’s Guardian newspaper.
It seems to indicate that they didn’t even bother to assemble a grand jury, which is even better for Obama.
Thanks. Yeah, I think I heard about this jury, but only that its deliberation was secret, and I never found out what was decided. When the indictment was unsealed, I assumed it was the revelation of this Jury’s decision.
Do you remember when the decision of the 2011 grand jury was revealed? If they kept it secret to scare Assange, that’s still a pretty outrageous form of press intimidation.
Almost everywhere in this country the city officials are in bed with the local police. Sometimes literally.
I live in the northwest, in a very progressive city. Quickly after the murder of George Floyd the city council tried to act like they gave a damn and claimed to have a plan on the way to prevent local police from using tear gas at protests. Then the George Floyd protests got bigger, which made city officials nervous, so they took it back, because they wanted the police to have bigger guns to protect themselves from unhappy citizens.
City officials are always way more willing to let the cops brutalize the citizens as long as it means some cops protect them from the citizens they claim to represent.
Regardless of the sourcing, it’s important to have open eyes about these things. While don’t think many outside of Lemmygrad would argue that there isn’t a clear moral difference between the defenders and aggressors in this war (and Prigozhin didn’t exactly name his organization the Wagner Group out of a deep artistic appreciation for German opera, either), Ukraine has also been willing to take help from unsavory groups, particularly in the original Azov Brigade and the RVC. I won’t condemn Ukrainian leadership for engaging in realpolitik while fighting for their nation’s right to exist, but they and their Western allies all need to be careful that fascist elements within Ukraine don’t get the opportunity to leverage the war for greater power and influence.
theintercept.com
Active