Assange is declared "enemy" of the United States

[Solomon2]

I don't like much of what Assange did at all but I'll say this for him: he does have a core of integrity, as he didn't falsify the stuff he released that apparently was from Manning, and he released it in such a way as to make sure nobody else could get away with doing so, either. It would have been so easy for him to insert a lie here and there and the damage to the United States' reputation could have been irreversible. As it stands now while there has been damage to national security and diplomatic confidentiality in the leaks the U.S. comes out looking pretty good in its conduct of military and diplomatic affairs - not necessarily wise, but honest and even trustworthy.

 

[T-Rex]

the U.S. comes out looking pretty good in its conduct of military and diplomatic affairs - not necessarily wise, but honest and even trustworthy.

Is that the reason why the US brands the truth as the enemy? Assange hasn't said anything on his his own, he just revealed the truth and for that he has been branded as the enemy of the state. Thus, the US has basically branded the truth as harmful to its diabolical existence. After that when one argues that the US has come out looking good, I just wonder what "looking good" really means to a moron?

 

[Banu Umayyah]

It doesn't matter if he is a journalist or not and it doesn't matter if he is an American or not.

He received documents which were obtained by theft and he then distributed these stolen items.

It would be like me breaking into your house, stealing things and then saying "oh, don't arrest me for stealing, i'm just practicing free speech"

That doesn't make any sense.
First of all, Manning didn't steal anything. Otherwise, he would be charged for theft. List of charges against Bradley Manning - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Second, as a journalist, Assange has the right to publish the documents regardless of how they were obtained, information can NOT be treated as material goods. Also, you analogy is false, since it doesn't relate to Assange, he wasn't the one who did the "breaking in".

 

[Icecreamcart]

Both 'journalist' and 'publisher' are genuine professions that have DIRECT association with information and the dissemination of information. A gossip monger, the kind that each of us occasionally are, are not so considered, not because we do not disseminate information in the technical sense, but that the information we disseminate are unrefined and interesting only to us but boring to most.

So I am not saying that Assange does not have the right to exercise his freedom of the press, aka play 'journalist', for a while. I am saying that even though he disseminate information in the technical sense, he had not performed any deeds that we normally associate with professional journalists, such as interviewing people and dissect their responses or investigate if claims can be verified into facts. Assange is not in the same class as Amanpour. Calling him a 'journalist' is an insult to professional journalists but am sure all of the real journalists bite their tongues in order to preserve their profession. Between Assange and me, it is only the impact of Wikileaks that made him a more worthy figure of the freedom of the press than me and my petty gossip.

Why not? Now he is a DIRECT participant in the fleshing out of information, not just an inactive recipient of it.

Assange did host a show interviewing various people of importance for RT, presumably to boost his 'journalist' credentials, if I follow your line of thinking.

There's a calculated reasoning in trying to assert that Assange is not a journalist. This implies he is not liable for protection under the First amendment. If a trial goes ahead, the prosecutors have to make a case that Assange is not a journalist based not on personal standards of what constitutes as journalism, but a definition which comes from a constitutional basis.

As well, Wikileaks is not simply a site to dump and relay information for whistleblowers. There's a concerted effort to catalog each piece of information and separate fictitious submissions from real entries. Is this not fact-checking? Wikileaks plays a passive role, dissecting information it receives or gathers.

Bottom line is this: Assange made himself and his organization a purposeful conduit for information related to governments. That much we know. What we do not know -- and should know -- is the 'how' that he made possible this conduit. And that is why Assange ran, not because of the sexual crimes alleged to him. The Watergate reporters Woodward and Bernstein broke no laws. All they did was persuade, think, and persuade people some more. It is beginning to look suspicious to the public that Assange may have done more than just persuade.

It is possible he is fleeing because of his implicit role aiding the theft of confidental information. But this is all speculation without any hard evidence. And at this point people rely more on their political views over evidence in deciding whether Assange is culpable for the leaks than a journalist receiving confidential information from a government source.

I could equally say that Assange is afraid of extrajudicial action by the United States, especially now that he is elevated to the same status as foreign terrorists such as Al Qaeda. The possibility of being held in detention without trial is a good enough reason to run. And depending on how cynical you are on the government, whether or not political concerns will influence any trial and evidence in question.

 

[xdrive]

That doesn't make any sense.
First of all, Manning didn't steal anything. Otherwise, he would be charged for theft. List of charges against Bradley Manning - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Second, as a journalist, Assange has the right to publish the documents regardless of how they were obtained, information can NOT be treated as material goods. Also, you analogy is false, since it doesn't relate to Assange, he wasn't the one who did the "breaking in".

Read your own link.

UCMJ 134 (General article): 24 counts. Most of these counts incorporate civilian statutes from the United States Code:

18 U.S.C. § 641: Embezzlement and Theft of Public Money, Property or Records. The government has claimed that various sets of records that Manning transferred were 'things of value' and has thus charged him under this statute.

Information isn't physical, no, but it is still considered theft when you steal it. You are taking something of value from someone else who does not give you permission ie theft.

Assange received this stolen information and then distributed it. It would be the same as if someone broke into your house, stole your tv, gave it to me and then i sold it again. I would get in trouble because im knowingly receiving stolen goods.

You are trying to make the argument that it's not theft because it's not a physical item, that's invalid.

 

[fallstuff]

From Merriam-Webster,

Definition of JOURNALISM
1
a : the collection and editing of news for presentation through the media
b : the public press
c : an academic study concerned with the collection and editing of news or the management of a news medium
2
a : writing designed for publication in a newspaper or magazine
b : writing characterized by a direct presentation of facts or description of events without an attempt at interpretation
c : writing designed to appeal to current popular taste or public interest

Journalism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Nowhere it states that he/she has to be a card carrying journalist or associated with the likes of CNN, FOX or other MSM.