>except for the one password

If he did attempt to break the password hash, he conspired to hack military systems. I don't see why someone who attempted to break a password hash for access to classified documents shouldn't be prosecuted, journalist or not.

Don't mil guys have DoD cards or some such? Why would hacking a password help anything? You still need to have a card for you account, no?

At least back then SIPRNet had a password login for normal users. I've been out for nearly a decade, so I don't know if the situation has changed.

Well, there are lots of jurisdictions in the world where it’s not a crime to conspire.

Presumably there are quite a few reasonable people who disagree on the necessity of prosecuting “crimes” like this. Why’s your way the right way?

What countries allow their journalists to attempt to hack the country's military without consequence?

Well this one apparently allows it's soldiers given the pardon of the co-conspirator. And, yes I think it should be severely punished in either case, but seeing both go free is a lot less scary than seeing unequal justice handed down because one was a thorn in the governments side.

It wasn't a pardon, it was a commuting of sentence. Huge difference.

The law doesn't necessarily agree, but that doesn't mean its analogous reasoning is just, or even technically correct.

Here's a better lens: Assange attempted to solve a math problem.

Solving a hash is not the same as breaking a physical lock, or attempting entry.

> The article goes to great length to show that the supposed crimes (except for the one password, maybe) are things that journalists do.

He's only charged with one crime, not multiple, and the “one password” is an integral part of the one crime he is charged with. What “supposed crimes” beside that are you referring to?

You're correct that he's charged with one crime. OP means "of the alleged acts that constitute the crime," all but the password one are things that journalists do routinely.

Read the section "Manners and Means of the Conspiracy"[1] in the indictment. If you removed the second half of bullet 18 (the only part pertaining to the password), this could be used against almost any journalist.

[1] https://www.lawfareblog.com/document-julian-assange-indictme...

No, it couldn't. It is not a journalistic norm to collaborate in advance on the criminal acquisition of material by a leaker, and if a journalist does do that they are relying on political factors, not the law, to protect them from prosecution afterward.

Yeah, it's normal for journalists to engage with sources and to acquire information from them, sometimes information that the sources have themselves obtained illegally. But it crosses a bright line for them to collaborate in the illegal acquisition.

Now, you might argue that but for the agreement about the password, the “manner and means” section is largely descriptive of normal journalistic practice. But the manner and means, while necessary description and support, aren't the heart of a conspiracy charge. The “purpose and object” is, and the password is the key part of the manner and means supporting the distinction of the purpose and object from what occurs in normal journalistic practice.

The password isn't a side issue; it's what distinguishes this from “I talked to a source and got copies of documents they stole from safe deposit boxes at the bank where they work” and “I was let into the bank by the source and tried to drill out the lock of a safe deposit box he lacked the key for”.

The former is within the scope of journalism. The latter is not.

I'm taking the "Manners and Means Section" to be equivalent to "these are the acts that taken together constitute the crime." That is the context of my post.

If you don't agree with this, what do you take that to mean?

The "Purpose and Object of the Conspiracy" section is not a collection of acts that constitute the conspiracy. It's the objective of the conspiracy. An objective is not an act.

I agree that actually attempting to crack a password so that a source can cover his/her tracks is beyond the actions of a journalist.

And as far as "collaborate in advance" not being a journalistic activity- do you not consider "cultivating sources"[1] to be a core journalistic activity?

Let's say a source/whistleblower reaches out to an NYT journalist. They communicate over "Signal" an encrypted chat. The source worries about being detected in passing the confidential material they've obtained. The NYT journalists assists the source by providing a link to this NYT article "How to tell us a secret"[2].

You could then remove the second half of section 18- add in some other part about the journalist conspiring to assist the source in covering his/her tracks, and reuse this indictment.

That's the threat to journalism.

[1] https://ijnet.org/en/story/developing-and-cultivating-source... [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/19/reader-center/confidentia...

> Let's say a source/whistleblower reaches out to an NYT journalist. They communicate over "Signal" an encrypted chat. The source worries about being detected in passing the confidential material they've obtained. The NYT journalists assists the source by providing a link to this NYT article "How to tell us a secret"[2].

That's not collaboration in advance in the source illegally gaining access to the material. Were the collaboration about delivery from the source alone, I'd agree that there was a potential threat to routine journalistic activity, but that is not the case here.

Chelsea Manning's sentence was commuted but she was not pardoned - https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/17/us/politics/obama-commute...

That's a big exception, and his co-conspirator was not pardoned.

Manning was not pardoned, she had her sentence commuted.