[HN Gopher] Julian Assange can be extradited to the US, court rules
___________________________________________________________________
Julian Assange can be extradited to the US, court rules
Author : goodcanadian
Score : 622 points
Date : 2021-12-10 10:24 UTC (12 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.bbc.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.bbc.com)
| realce wrote:
| Fabricate a narrative that allows your country to murder tens of
| thousands of people == fine and not illegal.
|
| Tell soldier how cryptographic maths work == double castration
| and the CIA tries to assassinate you.
|
| Don't forget that the Collateral Murder video showed not only
| Iraqi citizens but also Reuters journalists being machine-gunned
| from the sky. No person has ever been criminally charged for
| these murders.
| queuebert wrote:
| As an American, I find it very hard to decide what to think
| about these issues.
|
| Our military certainly makes mistakes, and people should be
| held accountable, but on the other hand the U.S. upholds much
| stricter rules of engagement than any of its enemies (hell,
| even stricter than our cops). Should credit not be given for
| that?
| pozdnyshev90 wrote:
| >but on the other hand the U.S. upholds much stricter rules
| of engagement than any of its enemies
|
| And where did you hear that from? Our "independent" papers of
| record aka state department stenographers?
| mongol wrote:
| Yes but credit should not be given for their mistakes.
| realce wrote:
| > but on the other hand the U.S. upholds much stricter rules
| of engagement than any of its enemies (hell, even stricter
| than our cops). Should credit not be given for that?
|
| In all honesty and at the very minimum, being criticized
| openly and fairly for atrocities is the cost of being seen as
| capable of virtuous military action.
|
| The older I get though, the less objective distinction I see.
| I'm sure that's how the dead felt in their last moment as
| well. Just look at the last US bombing in Afghanistan where
| they hit the car full of water and children. We like to act
| like there's a higher standard, but who will ever be held
| accountable for that mistake? Nobody.
| queuebert wrote:
| I'm ashamed to admit I forgot about that once the news
| cycle moved on. Someone should definitely be held
| accountable, especially since all evidence points to it not
| even being an honest mistake, but rather a PR move made
| against the advice of ground commanders.
| tinco wrote:
| It was Biden who was accountable. What are we gonna do,
| hold re-elections? Just after the democracy was shaken to
| its core by the January 6th attack? Hand over the control
| to the republicans who have shown themselves to be
| absolutely incapable of formulating rational thought or
| speaking the truth to their own voter base? Admit that
| the democratic party is so thoroughly corrupt that even
| after losing the easiest election in US history to a
| buffoon, they could not come up with a candidate with the
| smallest amount of integrity or backbone, and pushed up
| some guy who would step over the bodies of children just
| for a shot of giving the illusion that the US is actually
| in control of the rushed evacuation from a war he's been
| losing for a decade.
| dundarious wrote:
| If a country uses military force beyond its borders far more
| than any other nation (let's ignore actual border/territorial
| disputes), I don't think it deserves much credit for being,
| let's say, only 90% as brutal (which I would dispute as well,
| but it would take really getting into the weeds -- start off
| with some examples from https://archive.md/20211006055938/htt
| ps://www.newyorker.com/...).
| tinco wrote:
| As awful as the cops relatively often are, I've never heard
| of one "accidentily" killing a bunch of kids because they
| were near a white pick-up truck. The wrong pick-up truck by
| the way, it didn't even have terrorists in it.
|
| And that's just one example from dozens many we only know
| about because of Assange's hard work.
|
| And with regards to the enemies of the U.S., and their "rules
| of engagement" it's quite likely they don't adhere to any,
| but I don't know how much worse that is than "attack without
| warning on there being a 1/100 chance of you being a
| terrorist who is not even near any US asset".
| lawn wrote:
| > the U.S. upholds much stricter rules of engagement than any
| of its enemies (hell, even stricter than our cops).
|
| Is that a joke?
| janto wrote:
| A free media forms part of what keeps a Western military to
| stricter rules of engagement.
| choward wrote:
| > the U.S. upholds much stricter rules of engagement than any
| of its enemies
|
| Where is your evidence of this? I can't remember the last
| time a drone attacked US soil and killed innocent civilians.
| And have you actually seen the main video that Assange
| released with Apaches killing civilians?
| rogerian wrote:
| Really saddened that the UK not able to stand up to the US on
| this
| the_optimist wrote:
| The US is murdering international journalists.
| catlikesshrimp wrote:
| Pushing towards suicide. Not the same.
| sleepysysadmin wrote:
| >The US is murdering international journalists.
|
| The USA is in 4 ongoing wars crossing 3 different
| administrations.
|
| The USA likes killing international people.
| randomNumber7 wrote:
| It's seems they have a preference for goatherds though....
| Ekaros wrote:
| Yeah, bully the weak... Never really going against the big
| boys...
| ben_w wrote:
| When I'm feeling particular caustic about politics, I feel
| this sort of thing is LARPing Civilization but with the
| difficulty set to "Easy".
| jtdev wrote:
| Raytheon approves!
| ddtaylor wrote:
| "It creates jobs"
| randomNumber7 wrote:
| Nono. Only saudi arabia and russia are doing this. US is just
| following the law. Nothing wrong with that, right?
| bostik wrote:
| In other news, journalism is now an international crime and a
| capital offense.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Only saudi arabia and russia are doing this_
|
| Khashoggi didn't get a public court hearing nor a jury of
| civilians.
| kwere wrote:
| USA play nice only when the odds are goods, abu omar case
| shows another face
| deelly wrote:
| China too.
| juanani wrote:
| Dont forget Iran and North Korea
| 1cvmask wrote:
| Obama droned them. The Judge Dredd of Presidents:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposition_Matrix
| ynth7 wrote:
| If only someone, anyone, had been warning us about the military
| industrial complex.
|
| You think America secures all the resources you rely on by
| being nice?
|
| "My way of life is built on military imperialism. Why is my
| government awful?"
|
| Shit n hellfire. The adults are just turning off Sesame Street
| sally_glance wrote:
| Good thing we have the Summit for Democracy [1] going on right
| now where they will surely discuss the threat of imprisoning
| journalists and whistleblowers. /s
|
| [1] https://www.state.gov/summit-for-democracy/
| pier25 wrote:
| Do you think this is just momentum from US justice system or
| maybe someone or some group is inflicting pressure for this to
| happen?
| jl6 wrote:
| Shocking as it was, the Collateral Murder video was nothing
| exceptional. It didn't reveal any secret truth or grand
| conspiracy. The unfortunate fact is that this is just what war is
| like.
|
| War means high-stakes decision-making using low-quality
| information by agents who are human and therefore fallible. War
| means chaos and brutality and unjust death on a grand scale. When
| you vote for war, this is what you get, no matter how good your
| intentions. It happens every day in every war. The only
| difference here is that it was caught on camera and released.
|
| So what did Assange achieve by releasing this video? We already
| knew war is bad. The existence of the video just evidences that
| the US military is good at record-keeping, which if anything
| points to an institution that cares about the actions of its
| soldiers and is capable, in principle, of holding them to
| account, rather than just unleashing men with guns to do random
| unsupervised violence, which is what war looks like in many
| corners of the world.
|
| The people to get angry with are the politicians and media
| pundits who who rush other peoples' kids to war for trumped up
| jingoistic reasons, not the kids who inevitably fuck up the
| operation on the ground.
| peppermint_tea wrote:
| 100% agree on everything you said. I would just add that all
| this violence should be shown without any kind of censorship to
| (in this case) the american people at supper time. I wonder how
| fast the public opinion would change then...
| the_optimist wrote:
| A pretty smart guy once said, "if wars can be started by
| lies, perhaps peace can be started by the truth."
| busymom0 wrote:
| For those unaware, that was said by Assange.
| frabbit wrote:
| Those kids don't just fuck operations -- they fuck up other
| people.
|
| Then they get home and become cops.
|
| When are the suppressed Abu Ghraib tapes coming out?
|
| It's all terribly sad isn't it?
|
| Best thing we can do it sweep it under the carpet and make sure
| it's easy for all the people who might be upset by it to not
| see it.
| pessimizer wrote:
| Why report on, or even prevent war crimes? You can't help but
| commit war crimes, and you can't help but cover them up, even
| if your intentions were wonderful. What's important is that
| we're theoretically capable of holding people to account, even
| if in practice we're burning videotapes of torture.
| jimmySixDOF wrote:
| So begins the turning of the screw for him to reveal Guccifer 2.0
| details just in time for some election or another
| jetsetgo wrote:
| Americans so aggressive to cry China bad yet do this stuff to
| their whistle blowers.
| johnson42 wrote:
| For further context I highly suggest the articles from Nils
| Melzer (UN Special Rapporteur on Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman
| or Degrading Treatment or Punishment):
|
| https://www.republik.ch/2020/01/31/nils-melzer-about-wikilea...
|
| https://medium.com/@njmelzer/demasking-the-torture-of-julian...
|
| https://medium.com/@njmelzer/response-to-open-letter-of-1-ju...
|
| https://www.democracynow.org/2019/11/22/nils_melzer_julian_a...
| harabat wrote:
| From
| https://www.democracynow.org/2019/11/22/nils_melzer_julian_a...
|
| > "He will be certainly exposed to an arbitrary trial, if he --
| in the U.K., extradition trial. The choreography is clear.
| Whatever his lawyers say, in the end, the U.K. judges will say,
| "Yes, of course, we cannot extradite him if there's death
| penalty or torture or treatment, so, please, U.S., make
| assurances." The U.S. will obviously make these assurances, and
| then the U.K. will say, "Then we have no reason not to trust
| the U.S." And they will extradite him to the U.S. That's what I
| foresee. And that's what he expect he will hear. And that's the
| crux here. In addition to the ill treatment he has already
| suffered, I am absolutely convinced that he will not get a fair
| trial. He'll get a show trial in East Virginia, and he'll end
| up in prison under inhumane conditions for the rest of his
| life. That needs to be prevented."
|
| The whole article is worth reading: Melzer initially was
| extremely opposed to even looking into Assange's case (his
| negative view of Assange having been molded by media, as he
| states), and describes how his view evolved immediately after
| starting working on this, assessing him, etc.
| throwrqX wrote:
| A particular note on the famous "Collateral Murder" video that
| Wikileaks released. Despite many saying this shows cold blooded
| murder or something similar even a cursory look at the wikipedia
| page[1] shows the context was that the military men thought they
| saw a group with several people having weapons (in this case
| AK-47s and RPGs, something Assange himself agreed with) and
| combined with the fact there was a firefight nearby decided these
| people are terrorists and thus killed them. Not to deter from any
| legal consequences this seems to be an accident stemming from
| incorrect identification and the drone operators acted thinking
| this group were terrorists, not that they just randomly killed
| these people for fun like many people believe.
|
| [1]:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_12,_2007,_Baghdad_airstri...
| 1cvmask wrote:
| Joe Biden was not kidding around when he said America is back.
| Much better than Trump who was a clowinish buffonish sheep in
| wolf's clothing obsessed with his twitter account. He was so
| incompetent he could not start one new war.
|
| Meanwhile there is a twitter blackout on following the Ghislaine
| Maxwell case.
| unknownus3r wrote:
| What do you mean by the blackout of the Maxwell case? Do you
| mean that maxwell trial tracker was banned? That account was
| from a guy who isn't at the trial heavily editorializing and
| frankly bullshitting and speculating about the case. You can
| see the sort of fabricated nonsense he's posting on gab if you
| want. If Twitter is going after true, factual accounts of the
| trial I would be very interested to know that
| kwere wrote:
| his incompetence as outsider was the best thing of his
| administration, truly an eye opener of the big gov selfserving
| nature
| kstenerud wrote:
| This should be a sobering view of how the world really works.
| Above a certain threshold, every veneer of civilization vanishes
| no matter what the country (some have a higher threshold than
| others).
|
| At this level, only power matters. And the first rule of power
| is: Don't embarrass the powerful unless you can call on a lot of
| power to defend yourself.
|
| Laws can't protect you; they can be thwarted and bent, and the
| legal process "guided" to the required outcome.
|
| International organizations can't protect you; they can only
| register complaints that will be duly ignored by everyone if the
| champion is important enough.
|
| Even countries can't protect you at this level; they're beholden
| to power themselves after a certain point.
|
| This is the message to would-be activists anywhere: Stay out of
| the big boy pool or we'll make you regret it.
| mercy_dude wrote:
| The most infuriating among all of them has been our media -
| specifically mainstream media. They have played the entire saga
| down and in many cases many mainstream media pundits actively
| espoused for Assanges punishment [1].
|
| I no longer hold the view that our media deserves the first
| amendment protection that it does. Mainstream media right now
| has no other purpose other than being active vehicle of the
| powerful and billionaire oligarchs to control the narrative.
| When 70% of the media empire are owned by billionaires why are
| we pretending otherwise? How different is that than state
| sponsored media in North Korea?
|
| [1] https://greenwald.substack.com/p/julian-assange-loses-
| appeal...
| rendall wrote:
| > _I no longer hold the view that our media deserves the
| first amendment protection that it does_
|
| I'm sure if you thought through the implications of removing
| Constitutionally recognized, _inalienable_ rights, you wouldn
| 't say this. Let's assume it is done, the press is now
| stripped of its rights, and ask some questions about the
| world and political reality thereupon:
|
| Do individuals still have this right to free speech or is it
| only media that no longer does?
|
| Does an individual who becomes a journalist still have the
| right to free speech?
|
| Who would oversee the speech of journalists? Would it be you
| or right-thinking people like you who decide what is
| acceptable for the media to say? Or would it be whichever
| political party were in power at the time? Or billionaire
| oligarchs?
|
| How would this oversight work? A "free speech oversight"
| committee? How does one get into the committee? Appointment?
| By whom? Election?
|
| If I want to run for election in the committee, can I say
| unpleasant things about my incumbent opponents? Or will the
| committee declare this speech to be out of bounds? What if
| they become corrupt? Who can report the truth about that
| corruption?
|
| If I dislike the committee for some reason, can the committee
| oversee my criticism, declare it out of bounds?
|
| Could the legal precedence of overriding the _inalienable_
| right to free speech also be used to override other
| inalienable rights? My right not to have to barracks soldiers
| in my house, for instance.
| Mezzie wrote:
| Nah, they should keep the 1st Amendment for the journalists.
| The medias' marketing departments and execs, however, should
| be regulated to within an inch of their lives. If they let
| their journos spout shit, they should be legally on the hook
| if they EVER claim truth. If they lie, don't allow them to
| take advertiser or subscriber money.
|
| You can say whatever you want, but you can't charge people
| for it and you can't lie and pretend you're selling one thing
| (truth) when you're selling another (self-righteous
| feelings).
|
| Won't ever happen because the government and media are in bed
| with one another, but that's what I'd like to see.
| joshuamorton wrote:
| Who decides who is lying?
|
| If the media and government are in bed today, won't that
| get worse when the government can arbitrate what truth is
| harming the not mainstream media?
| Mezzie wrote:
| At this point I think the best chance of implementation
| would be something like the Board of Labor, OSHA, or some
| open source bug reporting where specific lies can be be
| reported and fined/punished for. Maybe random audits like
| the IRS. I'd like the determination to lie with the
| public, but the issue is coupling determination from
| enforcement given how intertwined information control is
| with power.
|
| Right now? It wouldn't work. It's an angry pipe dream.
| dotnet00 wrote:
| A ministry that decides on truths? I wonder what that
| could be called!
| Mezzie wrote:
| The Ministry of Lies, obviously.
|
| Point taken.
| justbored123 wrote:
| Dude google "Operation Mockingbird" and Chomsky's "Controlled
| opposition" talks (don't do it in google, the term
| "Controlled opposition" is shadow banned because is heavily
| used by the "fake news" crowd. Compare googles result's to
| Duck Duck Go, you'll love it).
|
| The main media is a main target in the information wars so
| both local and foreign power players (mainly intelligence
| agencies) are going to fight to compromise the people in
| charge of it, so they can set the agenda and control
| information and perception. That is a given. That is the
| purpose of places like "Epstein's Island" and it has always
| been like that, at least from the time of J Edgar Hoover.
|
| Any time that you have a strategically important target like
| that (for example Google or any similar key information hub)
| the power players are going to strive to control it and a
| simple way to control it is to get to the people in charge of
| those organizations. So that is what they do.
| nextaccountic wrote:
| > I no longer hold the view that our media deserves the first
| amendment protection that it does.
|
| Free speech is the only thing that makes it slightly possible
| to not parrot the official government narrative.
| Imnimo wrote:
| >I no longer hold the view that our media deserves the first
| amendment protection that it does. Mainstream media right now
| has no other purpose other than being active vehicle of the
| powerful and billionaire oligarchs to control the narrative.
| When 70% of the media empire are owned by billionaires why
| are we pretending otherwise? How different is that than state
| sponsored media in North Korea?
|
| If you take away the first amendment protection, doesn't that
| just mean that the government controls 100% of the media
| instead of 70% or whatever you think the number is?
| Der_Einzige wrote:
| The mass holding of such a view is exactly what's going to
| end up with me as an American refugee in Canada sometime in
| the next 10 years. I grew up in Democracy and I plan to die
| in it. Watching the USA backslide and imagining the very real
| risk of Trump refusing to give up power when he inevitably
| gets it in 2024 is sobering... to say the least
| ceejayoz wrote:
| > I no longer hold the view that our media deserves the first
| amendment protection that it does.
|
| That, uh, might be a bit of an overcorrection.
| mercy_dude wrote:
| Well can you elaborate why you think it is? Because the way
| I see it, it gives unwavering and constitutionally
| guaranteed way for billionaires to control the narratives -
| in addition to the power they already have been wielding
| through owning politicians using lobbyists and having
| protection through section 230 in all the stakes they own
| in the social media companies.
|
| That's what has been happening in the media space -
| Murdochs, Turners and Bezos now own vast sum of media
| sphere. And social medias just use them as proxy for "fact
| checks".
| ceejayoz wrote:
| > Well can you elaborate why you think it is?
|
| Because "we'll revoke your First Amendment rights if we
| don't like how you're using them" is a very big step on a
| very steep and very slippery slope.
|
| Assange's defense is likely to revolve around the First
| Amendment. Weakening it would hurt him, even.
| mercy_dude wrote:
| My point is the way founding fathers envisioned first
| amendment protection, they never foresaw the rise of a
| small billionaires oligarchs owning large stake of media
| and newspapers to promote views favouring their
| narratives. I am not speaking of first amendment of
| individuals which I think is also under attack by the
| same group of people, look how the mainstream media would
| love to cancel certain people they don't like.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > My point is the way founding fathers envisioned first
| amendment protection, they never foresaw the rise of a
| small billionaires oligarchs owning large stake of media
| and newspapers to promote views favouring their
| narratives.
|
| The founders largely _were_ oligarchs, heirs of
| oligarchs, or married into the families of oligarchs,and
| certainly were not people to whom the idea of someone, or
| some group, within that class investing heavily in media
| to promote their political ideas would be surprising.
|
| > look how the mainstream media would love to cancel
| certain people they don't like.
|
| Both before and after independence, political cancel
| culture in the early US involved much more forceful, and
| often permanent and total, cancellation than what is
| complained about today.
| austhrow743 wrote:
| That journalists and individuals have separate first
| amendment rights guaranteed by the constitution is a lie
| created by the same mainstream media you've lost faith
| in.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| The idea that people who lived in a time of _tarring-and-
| feathering people_ couldn 't anticipate cancel culture is
| a bit silly.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Brown_(loyalist)
|
| > Brown requested the liberty to hold his own opinions,
| saying that he could "never enter into an Engagement to
| take up arms against the Country which gave him being",
| and finally met their demands with pistol and sword. The
| crowd seized him and struck him with the butt of a
| musket, fracturing his skull. Taken prisoner, he was tied
| to a tree where he was roasted by fire and scalped before
| being tarred and feathered. Brown was then carted through
| a number of nearby settlements and forced to verbally
| pledge himself to the Patriot cause before being
| released. This mistreatment resulted in the loss of two
| toes and lifelong headaches.
|
| Cancelling someone is also known as freedom of
| association.
|
| _edit:_ Media stirring shit up was a thing pre-
| Revolution, too, including at least two Founding Fathers
| _participating_ themselves! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki
| /Boston_Massacre#Media_battle
| joshuamorton wrote:
| Not to mention fairly regular extrajudicial lynchings.
| The rule of law is respected far more today than it was
| in the 1770s.
| njarboe wrote:
| What I find inspiring about the Boston massacre is that
| founding father, John Adams, defended the British
| soldiers involved in it and doing so did not prevent him
| from becoming president in the future. The values of the
| electorate were quite a bit different in those days and
| really are knowing about and emulating the better parts.
| 8note wrote:
| the founding fathers _were_ those oligarchs for their
| time
| munificent wrote:
| _> My point is the way founding fathers envisioned first
| amendment protection, they never foresaw the rise of a
| small billionaires oligarchs owning large stake of media
| and newspapers to promote views favouring their
| narratives._
|
| That sounds to me like a problem with the existence of
| billionaire oligarchs and not a problem with the first
| amendment.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| There seems to be a push reject all news as of late. It's
| scary.
| fredstarr wrote:
| Overcorrection? No it is not. They enjoy misleading and
| diverting attention away from the things that really
| matter. Just take a look at these lawsuits:
|
| https://greenwald.substack.com/p/a-court-ruled-rachel-
| maddow...
|
| https://www.businessinsider.com/fox-news-karen-mcdougal-
| case...
|
| Look, these talking heads are simply well-paid entertainers
| - nothing more. All they spew is lies, propaganda and
| downplay the things that are really happening.
| Unfortunately they have a willing audience in the majority
| of Americans who cannot see through all the bullshit. I
| personally cannot recall when last I tuned in to any of the
| mainstream media outlets.
|
| So I'd recommend that they be stripped of all of those
| protections and get the same punitive treatment that we,
| the People (we are the ones who pay taxes, BTW), get when
| we talk shit. Trust me, that'll make them sit up.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| Of course, the problem with removing First Amendment
| protections is you only know about these lawsuits because
| Business Insider and Glenn Greenwald enjoy First
| Amendment protections.
|
| That having been said: the First Amendment is not
| absolute, and there are exceptions to the general
| principle that people are free to say what they feel
| (Assange, for example, could be tried on espionage if
| he's extradited). But in general, exceptions are carved
| with a jeweler's chisel, and only when extremely
| necessary and when there are no other possible remedies.
|
| In this case, the sickness you've highlighted has several
| potential non-first-amendment remedies, including
| enforcing monopoly laws, passing new monopoly laws, and
| taxing billionaires at a rate that would make it
| difficult for them to keep the surplus cash-on-hand to
| buy 70% of the US's newspapers. And changing the market
| via law to find a new way to pay for news since the
| Internet era has completely ingested and digested their
| traditional advertising model.
| fredstarr wrote:
| Y'all are really taking this shit serious! LMAO. I think
| my own First Amendment rights should be revoked,
| actually! LOL
|
| Jokes aside, I'm against censorship. I think information
| should be available to all but maybe with caveats and
| accountability.
|
| BTW, I agree with the proposed remedies. But - Who's
| gonna bell the cat though? It ain't going to be any of
| y'all's Senators, CongressPeople or the Executive Branch.
| And we all know for damn sure that it's never going to be
| the Supreme Court.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| "The powers not delegated to the United States by the
| Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are
| reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
|
| ... emphasis on the last part.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| > Look, these talking heads are simply well-paid
| entertainers - nothing more.
|
| Entertainers have First Amendment rights, too.
|
| > They enjoy misleading and diverting attention away from
| the things that really matter.
|
| If I feel _your_ argument does that, do I get to revoke
| your rights?
|
| > So I'd recommend that they be stripped of all of those
| protections and get the same punitive treatment that we,
| the People (we are the ones who pay taxes, BTW), get when
| we talk shit.
|
| We, the People, are similarly protected by the First
| Amendment. Weakening it would impact us, too.
| fredstarr wrote:
| Wow! You actually took my shit serious! LOL. Of course,
| I'm just being overly dramatic and would never support
| censorship in any way, shape or form. If you can't sense
| the sarcasm in my comment, I don't know what else to say
| :)
| Slow_Hand wrote:
| Being sarcastic on the internet is generally a bad idea
| and creates confusion as to whether you truly believe
| what you're saying. If you want to make a sarcastic point
| it's best to be explicit about it, or else risk being
| taken seriously.
|
| Nobody here knows what you actually believe. Without the
| benefit of that shared context, a sly vocal intonation,
| or a wink of the eye all we can do is take you at face
| value as someone who actually believes what you're
| saying.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law
|
| There's no way to tell these days. I feel bad for The
| Onion, really. Parody is dead.
| StanislavPetrov wrote:
| >I no longer hold the view that our media deserves the first
| amendment protection that it does.
|
| I think the Assange case is an excellent reminder that "our
| media" doesn't really have any First Amendment protection.
| You don't need First Amendment protection if you are spewing
| DC blob talking points all day. And if you challenge the DC
| blob, like Assange did (or Gary Webb and others), it very
| quickly becomes clear that those protections don't exist at
| all.
| brightstep wrote:
| You have to remember that the first amendment was written to
| protect people like the founders - wealthy, bourgeois,
| powerful men. It was never intended to create a press that
| challenges state power.
| hellojesus wrote:
| Source? I'm pretty sure that state challenges were
| accounted for in 1a's derivations. The entire point of
| three branches was to keep the gov in check with itself. 1a
| helps to ensure it can be in check with its citizens as
| well.
| zoe4883 wrote:
| It took 10 years for most powerful entity on earth, I would
| call that success for Snowden.
|
| Real moral of this story is from how it started. With a date
| and broken condom.
| tata71 wrote:
| How many errors can fit into such a short comment!
| zoe4883 wrote:
| Call it what you want. But I think international rules and
| his rights, were respected reasonably well. Only charges he
| faced for very long time were for rape. If he kept his
| zipper closed, while going against US gov, he could freely
| travel and argue political imprisonment as a journalist. He
| would be now drinking vodka with Snowden.
| hulitu wrote:
| > This is the message to would-be activists anywhere: Stay out
| of the big boy pool or we'll make you regret it.
|
| You also need to take care of your big boy pool. When you make
| friends by force they will leave you the moment another
| stronger friend will come. And when you eroded all your
| credibility will be a bit difficult to regain it back. Of
| course you think you have control over everything.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| In short... One should not assume the powers-that-be provide
| tools freely to disassemble the powers-that-be. "For the
| master's tools will never dismantle the master's house," as the
| quote goes.
| vbezhenar wrote:
| There are countries which do not bend before others. Russia,
| China, Iran to name a few examples. They can protect those
| fleeing from the West. Just like West can protect people from
| those countries. World is not unipolar.
| stevespang wrote:
| Surely, look no further than Edward Snowden.
| seanw444 wrote:
| Can't imagine why anyone would want to run to China to hide
| from the U.S. of all places, in this scenario.
|
| "I'm going to flee from one dystopian state, to another even
| more dystopian/technocratic/autocratic state!"
| toiletfuneral wrote:
| True, but at least they have housing & healthcare
| iechoz6H wrote:
| I'm not sure technocratic means what you think it means:
|
| https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/technoc
| r...
|
| i.e it's a net positive to have a technocratic state,
| deferring decision making to those with the technical
| skills to do it.
| licebmi__at__ wrote:
| That's one interpretation. Other one is that a
| technocracy regime is done IRL to push highly biased and
| ideological policies on the guise of being the only/best
| choice by the experts.
| ByteJockey wrote:
| > it's a net positive to have a technocratic state,
| deferring decision making to those with the technical
| skills to do it.
|
| Deferring to the technical experts is great when you want
| to know how to do something.
|
| Deferring to them when you're deciding what to do is not
| necessarily as good.
| hekette wrote:
| It depends on which state is going to imprison you. Being
| in prison in the U.S. is worse than living out of prison in
| Chian or Russia.
| krisrm wrote:
| Protect? Or use them as tokens in international tit-for-tat
| diplomacy?
| ls15 wrote:
| Both?
| beebmam wrote:
| Is this a joke? The entirety of those countries citizens are
| subject to their own government's tyrannical rule
| shadowgovt wrote:
| Edward Snowden is currently hiding from US power projection
| in Russia. He is of course beholden to Russian law; I
| assume if he were gay he'd be having a much worse time of
| it. But the specific point here is that it is possible to
| hide from the US in the territory of a country that does
| not answer to the US.
| ahartmetz wrote:
| Bend _before others_. In other words, they aren 't follower
| members of a block. That says nothing about citizens or
| what exactly these countries are doing.
| nannal wrote:
| Let's ask Litvinenko his opinion?
| nosianu wrote:
| No, because it is clear? He was fleeing from Russian
| government. And they poisoned him.
|
| That has nothing to do with the subject of people feeling
| from the US influence.
|
| This kind of argument that you attempted is a bit tiring,
| don't you think? If you flee from Russian government, go to
| the West. And vice versa. One does not invalidate the
| other.
| Dah00n wrote:
| His opinion on fleeing from the US? What are you on about?
| plandis wrote:
| Let me ask you: have you actually read the indictment against
| Assange that the DOJ has published?
|
| You are aware he is alleged to have pointed Manning to which
| files to illegally obtain and offered to help her cover her
| tracks, right? These are real crimes -- not, as you allege, for
| embarrassing the US government.
| jobu wrote:
| > _Above a certain threshold, every veneer of civilization
| vanishes no matter what the country (some have a higher
| threshold than others)._
|
| > _At this level, only power matters. And the first rule of
| power is: Don 't embarrass the powerful unless you can call on
| a lot of power to defend yourself._
|
| Steven Donziger is another great example of this rule:
| https://theintercept.com/2020/01/29/chevron-ecuador-lawsuit-...
|
| Chevron has decided to make an example of him by ruining his
| life in return for a $9.5 billion judgement he won against them
| in Ecuador.
| pwillia7 wrote:
| Whatever happened to our benevolent anonymous hacker groups
| that were supposed to be so organic and decentralized they
| could never be ended?
| bopbeepboop wrote:
| There was a falling out:
|
| The libertarians got jobs in security and the neo-fascists
| are now pwning Parler on behalf of political parties, as
| part of Antifa.
|
| Anonymous was only stable as long as the US power structure
| remained as it was: they splintered between the factions
| trying to fix the US and those trying to destroy it to pave
| the way for revolution.
| dmoy wrote:
| They never got law degrees with which to pursue judgments
| in court. Turns out it's hard to pass the bar while
| remaining anonymous.
| e12e wrote:
| War on terror?
| jazzyjackson wrote:
| probably got caught hacking something else for fun and
| profit, e.g. lulzsec
| [deleted]
| jollybean wrote:
| This is ridiculous.
|
| Assange is alleged to have cooperated with a member of the US
| forces to release gigabytes of diplomatic cables etc. - which
| is possibly a crime.
|
| In all but rare cases, you absolutely do not have the right to
| break into systems of national security and release arbitrary
| information under the guise of 'journalism'.
|
| His extradition is perfectly rational, legal and judicially
| legitimate.
|
| The Abu Garib whistleblower didn't face criminal charges, and
| has been relocated and protected by US Justice System, because
| he did the right thing, not the wrong thing.
|
| Assange will face a trial like everyone else, he is not above
| the law.
|
| While I think he's probably not guilty in this scenario, there
| is evidence made public that possibly points to criminality,
| I'm looking forward to seeing the facts of the case.
| mongol wrote:
| > you absolutely do not have the right to break into systems
| of national security and release arbitrary information
|
| These are two very different things. Is Assange suspected of
| doing the first? The second I wonder how it can be a crime if
| it is a non-US citizen doing it on non-US soil.
| nickysielicki wrote:
| > you absolutely do not have the right to break into systems
| of national security
|
| He didn't do that, he didn't help Manning get any additional
| access, the whole basis of their case is in Assange agreeing
| to look at some stuff for Manning and then never getting back
| to him. Assange didn't hack or crack anything.
| [deleted]
| plandis wrote:
| In part of the indictment he's accused of literally helping
| Manning to crack password hashes she obtained illegally.
|
| > The superseding indictment alleges that Manning and
| Assange engaged in real-time discussions regarding
| Manning's transmission of classified records to Assange.
| The discussions also reflect that Assange actively
| encouraged Manning to provide more information and agreed
| to crack a password hash stored on U.S. Department of
| Defense computers connected to the Secret Internet Protocol
| Network (SIPRNet), a United States government network used
| for classified documents and communications. Assange is
| also charged with conspiracy to commit computer intrusion
| for agreeing to crack that password hash.
| at_a_remove wrote:
| I believe someone _else_ (Manning) broke in. Assange was the
| conduit for the information.
|
| You may now look at the disparity in treatment.
| space_fountain wrote:
| Well that is the claim that Assange is making. The
| government claims he tangibly helped. That has always been
| the line. You can't give your source burglary tools, ask
| them to break into something particular and then claim you
| were just a reporter. You may believe the claims from the
| prosecution are wrong or lies, but they don't seem on their
| surface to be crazy
| nickysielicki wrote:
| > You can't give your source burglary tools, ask them to
| break into something particular and then claim you were
| just a reporter.
|
| Drop the analogy, what did Assange _actually_ do to help
| Manning?
|
| I'd maintain that it's not unreasonable for a journalist
| to ask a leaker for documents about a particular topic.
| joshuamorton wrote:
| Presumably this will be addressed at the trial, and a
| jury will decide whether the materialness of the
| assistance was criminal.
| nickysielicki wrote:
| Of course, but that doesn't mean we can't talk about it
| in the interim. My parent comment claims (through
| analogy) that Assange gave secret proprietary hacking
| tools to Manning. I don't believe that's remotely true.
| space_fountain wrote:
| No, sorry I think the analogy was a bit too extreme meant
| only to show that under some circumstances arresting him
| would be fine. I think according to Wikipedia the
| specific claim is
|
| > The charges stem from the allegation that Assange
| attempted and failed to crack a password hash so that
| Chelsea Manning could use a different username to
| download classified documents and avoid detection.
| at_a_remove wrote:
| Again, the _disparity_ is what interests me. Surely
| Manning is at as _least_ guilty of "hacking" as Assange.
| And yet ... different treatment.
| joshuamorton wrote:
| In what was is there different treatment? Manning stood
| trial, was imprisoned, and is now free. Assange has not.
| at_a_remove wrote:
| It's gonna be _super_ neat to find out. Are you of the
| opinion that Assange will be eventually set free?
| joshuamorton wrote:
| I'm not an expert, but if following @popehat on twitter
| has taught me anything, it would lead me to conclude yes.
|
| He's charged with 18 counts, each with a 10 year maximum
| sentence, except 1 with a 5 year sentence. Manning faced
| 22 charges, including one that carried a potential death
| penalty, so broadly speaking Assange is facing fewer and
| less serious charges. If we take Manning's sentencing as
| a reasonable upper bound, he'd face 35 years in prison,
| with potential for early release. He's 50 now, so there's
| a chance he'd die in prison, but I'd give him better than
| even odds. And that's assuming what I'd argue is a worse
| than could be expected sentencing.
|
| But in general the likelyhood of him facing a life
| sentence (or what amounts to a life sentence, 50+years)
| is low.
| sneak wrote:
| > _Assange will face a trial like everyone else_
|
| It's worth noting that Manning, his alleged co-conspirator in
| this thing, was declared guilty by Obama, in public, before
| her trial ever began (when she was, under the law, to be
| presumed innocent). She was also tortured in jail prior to
| conclusion of the trial, to such an extent that she attempted
| suicide twice.
|
| The extradition is only rational, legal, and judicially
| legitimate if he can be expected to receive a fair trial and
| not be tortured before/during/after. None of these
| assumptions hold true in the United States, as we both know.
| jollybean wrote:
| "was declared guilty by Obama, in public, before her trial
| ever began "
|
| That's not how it works. Biden made similar public
| declarations about Rittenhouse, who was subsequently found
| not guilty.
|
| Now, none of them should be talking about, but that they
| did does not imply a miscarriage of justice.
|
| The extradition is legitimate, and Assange will receive a
| fair trial in the US where the whole world will see the
| evidence against him.
| sneak wrote:
| The points you make are orthogonal to the fact that there
| is no way that Assange will receive a fair trial in the
| USA.
| mafuy wrote:
| He did significant help in showing a major war crime that was
| covered up. That is, without doubt, more important.
|
| As a journalist, you sometimes have to jump a fence - that is
| generally, and legally, accepted. Else writing 'do not view
| or publish' on your crime diary would be sufficient to
| conceal it.
| elif wrote:
| it is also worth noting that julian didnt jump any fence.
| He received and published data full stop. The only
| espionage was on part of the whistleblowers.
| plandis wrote:
| > In 2010, Assange gained unauthorized access to a
| government computer system of a NATO country. In 2012,
| Assange communicated directly with a leader of the
| hacking group LulzSec (who by then was cooperating with
| the FBI), and provided a list of targets for LulzSec to
| hack. With respect to one target, Assange asked the
| LulzSec leader to look for (and provide to WikiLeaks)
| mail and documents, databases and pdfs. In another
| communication, Assange told the LulzSec leader that the
| most impactful release of hacked materials would be from
| the CIA, NSA, or the New York Times. WikiLeaks obtained
| and published emails from a data breach committed against
| an American intelligence consulting company by an
| "Anonymous" and LulzSec-affiliated hacker. According to
| that hacker, Assange indirectly asked him to spam that
| victim company again.
|
| > In addition, the broadened hacking conspiracy continues
| to allege that Assange conspired with Army Intelligence
| Analyst Chelsea Manning to crack a password hash to a
| classified U.S. Department of Defense computer.
|
| 10 seconds of perusing the indictment against Assange
| alleges he actively did things other than merely publish
| data that was given to him.
| jollybean wrote:
| The video that showed the deaths of journalists in Iraq was
| not an example of a war crime.
|
| Just because it's tragic, and maybe one might not like 'the
| war' etc. doesn't make it a 'war crime'.
|
| It was a glimpse into the horrors of war for many and that
| can be enlightening, but doesn't necessarily justify
| whistelblowing, even if the information does materially
| shape our views.
|
| The issue with Assange boils down a bit to whether or not
| Assange 'published' or 'stole' the information along with
| Manning, there's a material difference there.
|
| I'll gather he was on the side of publishing, not stealing,
| but I have not seen the evidence.
| at_a_remove wrote:
| Well, Wikileaks also revealed the US involvement in
| funding bacha bazi "parties." Warcrime-a-licious.
| mercy_dude wrote:
| > because he did the right thing, not the wrong thing.
|
| And who defines the right or wrong? Assange revealed among
| many things how CIA collects data of US citizens abusing
| patriot act without warrants.
| jollybean wrote:
| "And who defines the right or wrong?"
|
| The Law under the purview of the Justice System, which is
| why they are pressing for a trial.
| monocasa wrote:
| The Abu Gharib whistleblower's name was supposed to not be
| released, but instead Donald Rumsfeld himself leaked it, and
| his family had to be put into protective custody because of
| the constant death threats they were receiving from other
| service members and families of service members.
|
| Donald Rumsfeld then later wrote a letter to the
| whistleblower telling him to stop telling people that
| Rumsfeld had been the one to leak his name.
| MichaelMoser123 wrote:
| is it possible, that the system is getting more and more
| vindictive and less liberal? I mean, Assange isn't saying more
| radical things than Chomsky, yet they tolerated Chomky somehow,
| for whatever reasons....
| echopurity wrote:
| The big boy pool... Where they murder innocent people? I think
| that's the sociopath pool.
| pydry wrote:
| I suspect Assange doesn't regret this.
|
| I kind of get the impression that becoming a martyr was a
| sacrifice he was prepared to make if he managed to rip off the
| mask and expose the unbridled imperialist evil lurking
| underneath the "civilized press conference veneer" presented by
| the US government.
| mariusor wrote:
| Even if that was the case at any point, I doubt that
| currently he's still willing to be a martyr. He now has
| children and a partner that I imagine he'd like to spend time
| with.
| mrsuprawsm wrote:
| It's a bit of a sad sacrifice, though. Nothing (significant)
| has changed about the US's imperialism as a result of his
| disclosures, it's just mildly more acknowledged.
| pydry wrote:
| I think he probably had more of an effect than is obvious.
| Activism raises the political price to governments of
| making bad decisions. When the powerful change their
| position as a result of activism, they _always_ try conceal
| it - the effect is far in excess of what they let on.
|
| In that light, I always found this story of the 6 scared,
| cold, humiliated and alone mothers of soldiers protesting
| outside the White House preventing nuclear war with Vietnam
| somewhat inspiring.
|
| https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/johann-
| har...
|
| (The connection is tenuous, but it's not completely
| unreasonable.)
| sharikous wrote:
| It very much depends on the context. In this particular
| case the US government managed to establish a deterrence
| too my making him an example.
|
| So I would say the effect is actually in the other
| direction. That is less activism of that type, not more.
|
| And the connection is not only tenuous. You are making a
| very general mild claim based on scant evidence. Your
| consideration is valid but very weak.
| Retric wrote:
| _Activism isn't the point._
|
| Yes, governments make it hard and will go so far as to
| actually kill people. It's still a moderating influence
| and a feedback mechanism before civil war. I may not
| agree with them or even care about the issue, but I still
| respect the sacrifice.
| zepto wrote:
| In assange'e case, the opposite is true. They were
| avoiding paying the cost before his leaks. Now the
| reputational damage is done and so there is less for them
| to avoid.
| hota_mazi wrote:
| You're forgetting he tried to reach asylum but was stopped
| midway, and while he was stuck in limbo, he applied for
| multiple asylums, all of which were rejected.
|
| Not really the mark of someone who wanted to be a martyr as
| opposed to someone like Navalny, for example.
|
| More an indication of someone who didn't really know what
| he's doing and became an accidental but very effective
| Russian agent who ended up being a major contributor to
| shaking the very foundations of democracy in America.
| chx wrote:
| This is what so many people forget -- he almost surely
| (but frankly, even the contrary wouldn't surprise me any
| more) didn't start out as a Russian agent but most
| certainly became one.
| h0l0cube wrote:
| Much was made of upholding the promise to withdraw troops
| from the Middle East in the last US election. You can bet
| Collateral Murder and a number of other Wikileaks
| publications helped sway public opinion of the US military
| presence in the Middle East
| [deleted]
| lenkite wrote:
| Most left journalists were dancing in joy when Assange got
| arrested. They never forgave him for exposing the Clinton
| emails and ensured he was heavily character assassinated
| over the next several years. He also became a victim of the
| #MeToo movement at its height. He was openly called
| evil/narcissist/etc in many "opinion" pieces.
|
| All the other important stuff he revealed never got the
| level of attention it deserved.
| pessimizer wrote:
| Democratic-party affiliated journalists. Even left-of-
| center journalists. But the Clinton emails were an
| exposure of attacks against _Sanders._
|
| It's so bizarre that Glenn Beck's view of the world,
| making Wall Street Iraq Warriors who ended welfare as we
| knew it and who put more black people in prison than
| anyone while deregulating everything into basically
| Lenin, ate up even the libertarian right.
| Lucasoato wrote:
| What a different world we would be living in if Bernie
| Sanders had won the US presidential elections.
| jessaustin wrote:
| I fear we'd just be in another JFK situation. We're only
| allowed so much representative government.
| maybelsyrup wrote:
| 100%. Sanders wouldn't have made it to his own
| inauguration. They would have never allowed it.
| cwkoss wrote:
| I'm suspicious that Bernie's heart attack was not
| natural, but actually the CIA's doing with something like
| this:
|
| https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/45vsg1/ti
| l_c...
|
| (He's old, so a natural heart attack is certainly
| plausible. But, the powers that be had means, motive and
| opportunity)
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| Why make him a martyr when they could have done the same
| to him as they did to Trump?
| jessaustin wrote:
| Well, sure, they would have _tried_ the smears employed
| against Trump and, more relevantly, Corbyn. In fact,
| forget "would have", that was actually done. [0] I'm
| just not sure the accusations would have seemed important
| to voters. Trump's myriad misdeeds have been salient to
| public attention for decades. "Collaboration" with Russia
| may have been one of a few awful actions he hadn't
| actually attempted over his life, which is exactly why it
| was emphasized. The go-to war media criticisms of
| Sanders, e.g. "he thinks healthcare should be provided to
| all, even during a pandemic!" probably wouldn't have
| seemed so bad to normal humans. But sure, our enemies
| have a certain low cunning in addition to their complete
| control of popular media. They could have surprised us
| with their choice of smears.
|
| [0] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/18
| /the-ri...
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| "Supports single payer healthcare" is used against
| Sanders in the primary to instill fear in Democratic
| primary voters that he'll be too far to the left for
| moderates and then lose to a Republican. It wouldn't be
| effective, or attempted, if he was already the President.
|
| They could easily have used the same style of attacks
| that were used against Trump. "Kids in cages" was the
| case under Obama, and Trump, and Biden, but we only heard
| about it under Trump.
|
| They wouldn't have used the same issues because those are
| the issues you use against a Republican, but the same
| format works against anyone. Under Sanders there would
| have been huge concerns about the deficit. Any tax
| increase impacting the middle class would be condemned
| but the middle class would inherently have to pay more to
| have single payer healthcare, so you fight it with "tax
| increase bad" not "healthcare bad." Not having to pay
| health insurance premiums would either be ignored or
| condemned as a giveaway to employers.
|
| They'd find some black families who support school
| vouchers to go on TV and accuse him of being a racist for
| supporting existing "racist public schools" and things
| along those lines.
|
| The general idea is to be horrified to learn that things
| that have been happening for years have suddenly been
| discovered happening under the target administration, but
| choose the things related to the direction they want to
| move. As if the Overton window is not only not covering
| what they want to change, it no longer even covers the
| status quo, and we have to go in the opposite direction
| or he's literally Hitler (or, presumably, Stalin). So you
| burn up all their political capital just to stand still
| while turning the viewer against them no matter what they
| do. Then four years later the status quo remains intact.
| jessaustin wrote:
| Well that ruined my day... you're right of course.
| Putting it that way just confirms my belief that the best
| course is to dissolve this union. Let's chop it into
| about a dozen pieces. That would be better for Americans,
| and also for non-Americans. Raytheon would lose some
| business...
| ch4s3 wrote:
| I'm not so sure a Sanders presidency with a Republican
| congress would have been super different. He promised to
| also crack down on immigration, impose tariffs, end trade
| deals, and pull out of Afghanistan. He is/was also very
| skeptical of longstanding alliances and NATO. With not
| power to legislate, he'd have likely done some similar
| things as an executive.
|
| Would he have been as embarrassing and corrupt, probably
| not, but there more to an administration than all of
| that.
| varelse wrote:
| He is a great demagogue but his Congressional record
| indicates he is not so good at dealmaking. I think he
| would have been a progressive Perot that got angry a lot
| but those tantrums would lead to great sound bites.
|
| Or TLDR if you're not going to get good at making sausage
| stop applying for positions at the sausage factory.
| ch4s3 wrote:
| > TLDR if you're not going to get good at making sausage
| stop applying for positions at the sausage factory.
|
| This is 100% a perfect distillation of a great criticism
| of Sanders from the left and on merits.
|
| I think it's often also undersold how often he's been
| terribly wrong about foreign policy in the past and how
| he almost never walks it back.
| nebula8804 wrote:
| There are a lot of things you can do at the executive
| level that recent administration don't have the guts to
| do. Declare a medical emergency on account of COVID-19
| and bam, there is a provision in the laws that allows you
| to expand medicare to the entire population. That alone
| would guarantee re-election. Free all non-violent
| marijuana prisoners, Forgive student debt. That alone
| would be a boost to the economy as a generation saddled
| with debt would get a reset. There are more he could do
| by executive order that can bypass congress. He will be
| attacked, but so what? The population overwhelming wants
| these proposals anyway.
| varelse wrote:
| I think you deeply underestimate the influence of the
| corporate media in influencing the opinions of the
| masses. But apparently America went through something
| like this right after the Civil War where everyone had an
| opinion on everything and all that led to was
| corporations amassing power for a half century.
| pitaj wrote:
| > It's so bizarre that Glenn Beck's view of the world,
| making Wall Street Iraq Warriors who ended welfare as we
| knew it and who put more black people in prison than
| anyone while deregulating everything into basically
| Lenin, ate up even the libertarian right.
|
| Wat. Is this GPT3 or something?
| nebula8804 wrote:
| Looking at his other comments, it seems like it. There is
| an email in his account. Maybe you should send off an
| email asking. :)
| _jal wrote:
| > They never forgave him for exposing the Clinton emails
|
| The issue there was precisely how he was emphatically not
| acting as a journalist.
|
| Journalists do not coordinate news releases with their
| preferred candidates.
|
| Political operatives do.
| cwkoss wrote:
| I think this is a naive and unrealistic perspective.
| Journalists coordinate with their preferred candidates
| all the time to gain better access. They shouldn't but
| they do.
|
| (And, whether wikileaks meaningfully coordinated with
| trump campaign is debatable)
| dpwm wrote:
| > Journalists do not coordinate news releases with their
| preferred candidates.
|
| No, they would never do anything like that:
|
| https://greenwald.substack.com/p/article-on-joe-and-
| hunter-b...
| marcus_holmes wrote:
| not only because of the left/right politics, but also
| because defending Assange as a "journalist" caused them
| grief. The definition of journalism is at stake: if
| someone who just posts to the internet is a journalist
| and can defend their actions as necessary for the
| operation of a free press, then that includes bloggers[0]
| and all sorts of riff-raff.
|
| Craig Murray's trial had a similar outcome: he's not a
| "proper" journalist because he doesn't work for a
| media/newspaper company. And the judge gave an opinion
| that bloggers should get tougher sentences than
| journalists[1].
|
| It'll come back to bite the journos, and some of them
| know this and are saying it. But most are keen to carve
| out special exemptions for themselves from laws that the
| rest of us have to follow.
|
| [0] In journalism circles, "blogger" is an insult.
| Source: I used to run a newspaper.
|
| [1] https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2021/06/the-
| mind-of-...
| xanaxagoras wrote:
| Your comment reminds me of CNN's special-in-their-own-
| minds status where laws are "different for the media."
| [0]
|
| I agree that powerful media orgs see this as the
| definition of journalism at stake, and their assessment
| is close to self awareness in a way that falls comically
| short. The irony is the harder they fight the despicable
| internet bloggers the more credibility they lose - near
| zero at this point in my eyes. The media ideally is a
| group of citizens exercising their first amendment rights
| as a bulwark to government abuse; the media we've ended
| up today is a group of powerful entities aligned with the
| government. They are always on their best behavior to
| preserve their access to the latest carefully curated
| "leaks" and fat and happy in their position as lapdogs.
| Bloggers, citizen/independent journalists, etc. are the
| media, and what we call the media is at this point little
| more than the ministry of truth. Anyone whose worldview
| could consider Don Lemon a journalist and Glenn Greenwald
| a fringe internet blogger should be laughed out of
| whatever room they are in, I just can't take this
| position seriously.
|
| [0]
| https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/787749893649600512
| myohmy wrote:
| Yeah this is why laws, and even constitutions don't
| matter at this point. Only the anointed CIA affiliated
| "papers of record" are given protection. Despite the
| beautifully clear language in the US constitution.
|
| Just so you know, if you think this is new, its not.
| Communist speech has been deemed illegal, and upheld by
| the supreme court, since the McCarthy era. This is not
| presented as a political view on Communism vs Capitalism,
| just as a fact that the constitution doesn't matter.
|
| For more recent events, I challenge you to find where a
| "curfew" on peaceful protests, or "free speech zones"
| appear in the constitution. Again, not an endorsement of
| the protest, merely pointing out that laws don't matter.
|
| Also remember that the journalist that exposed the Panama
| papers mysteriously died in a freak car explosion. Very
| sad.
|
| I'll take off my tinfoil hat now...
| marcosdumay wrote:
| That's how a well articulated propaganda campaign looks
| like.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| That's what a poorly articulated propaganda campaign
| looks like.
|
| The better ones you can't tell so easily.
| elif wrote:
| Yep. 100% this.
|
| After 2016, i went from getting "oh you radical crazy
| commie" looks wearing a wikileaks shirt to immediately
| "oh you're a republican, let me guess you listen to alex
| jones and joe rogan?"
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| > After 2016, i went from getting "oh you radical crazy
| commie" looks wearing a wikileaks shirt to immediately
| "oh you're a republican, let me guess you listen to alex
| jones and joe rogan?"
|
| The flip side of this is that we're apparently focusing
| on the wrong things.
|
| Assange was prosecuted under Trump, now he's being
| prosecuted under Biden. Who were we realistically
| supposed to vote for in order to make this stop? If this
| is the only front then we lost before there was even a
| vote.
| cwkoss wrote:
| The US effectively has one party with two costumes.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| That's not it. There are meaningful differences. Which
| party represents the oil industry? Which party represents
| Hollywood? It's not the same party.
|
| The real problem is, which party represents the finance
| industry? Both of them. Which party is the party of small
| business? Neither of them. Strong antitrust enforcement?
| Reducing the scope of wasteful bureaucracy, as distinct
| from regulatory capture? It's not on the ballot.
|
| How do we fix it? Maybe start here:
|
| https://www.starvoting.us/
| alexvoda wrote:
| I believe somewhere in here lies a fundamental problem
| with today's society. We have reached an absurd level of
| polarization. Any opinion you hold that is in
| contradiction with someone else's opinion, qualifies you
| for membership of the opposing camp.
|
| We should really work on depolarisation.
| user743 wrote:
| The establishment is the enemy, not each other.
|
| Also, I'm not sure where this "keep friends and family
| separate from business" idealogy came from, but business
| is just organizing production. If we're not going to try
| to hold those keys with our friends and family, then
| elites will hold them for us.
|
| Side note-no actual progress can come until there is
| sound money again.
| TakuYam wrote:
| > The establishment is the enemy, not each other.
|
| The problem with the premise that the establishment is a
| lot like The Matrix. Some people are so hopelessly
| enamoured with the establishment that they will do
| whatever it takes to defend it.
| user3939382 wrote:
| The sad part is how few people even know what he published,
| especially juxtaposed with his sacrifice. If I go talk to
| the average person about Snowden or Assange they know
| little to nothing about what they revealed.
| [deleted]
| enriquto wrote:
| > If I go talk to the average person about Snowden or
| Assange they know little to nothing about what they
| revealed.
|
| You are doing good, then. Need to keep talking to more
| people!
| hellojesus wrote:
| I agree, but to me it's troubling so many people simply
| don't care.
|
| Every time I try to talk to my wife about what the
| government's doing/has done, she stops me and says, "I
| really don't care. So long as I can keep living my life
| without interference, why would I care?"
|
| This also happens when I try to explain basic economics
| to her.
|
| I find most people I talk to simply don't care so long as
| they get to enjoy living their dreamy lives.
| goodpoint wrote:
| > mildly more acknowledged
|
| This is already a very big achievement for just one
| individual.
|
| How many people, activist or not, have been killed without
| anybody noticing?
| vanusa wrote:
| What matters here is rule of law (and the fact that we live
| in a time where it is being increasingly eroded) - not
| Assange's internal psychological machinations.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| Rule of law is being followed. A lower court judge ruled
| that there was a risk that Assange's well-being could not
| be safeguarded in the American system. A higher court judge
| reversed that ruling on assurances from the US that his
| well-being would be guarded. Now they have an opportunity
| to an appeal to a still-higher UK Court.
|
| What's inconvenient here is that the rule of law is
| operating in the context that the US and UK are allies and
| therefore take each other's statements on good faith. The
| United States assures he will be protected, they are not an
| enemy nation, and there are extradition treaties between
| the US and the UK. Unless the UK has some kind of carve-out
| for countries with bad track records of keeping their word,
| that might be sufficient to satisfy the rule of law.
| vanusa wrote:
| It is perfectly fine to debate the prudence, or lack
| thereof, of the High Court's decision.
|
| My point is that, in this context, speculations as to
| whether Assange secretly desired this outcome, due to
| some supposed martyr complex ... are plainly irrelevant.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| My sense, and I don't think it is a popular opinion on HN,
| was that Assange became, perhaps unwittingly, a pawn of
| Russia. Selectively releasing documents, which is how I see
| it, doesn't show an even hand of justice exposing "the
| unbridled imperialist evil".
|
| I'm no fan of Assange. But I also have not read a lot about
| Assange so I may be ignorant.
| fredestine wrote:
| yeah, a pawn of russia. just like trump. yet it is biden
| who said yes to the biggest russian infrastructure project
| for germany with the pipeline.
|
| the narrative of being a russian pawn doesnt work. everyone
| loved assange until he underlined the oblivious corruption
| of clinton and hence contributed to make her loose
| rightfully so the election. I am no trump fan and I am for
| a non partisan vision of the world. a vision where freedom
| means telling the truth even if it hurts yourself or your
| political leaders. Assange is a victim of usa and it is sad
| to bring russia to the equation
| willis936 wrote:
| Everyone loved Assange until he [entered politics, played
| favorites with information disclosure, and demonstrated
| that he is more mercenary than martyr]. I wonder why.
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| Putin would assassinate him if he exposed too much. That's
| incentive enough to cater to Russian interests.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| If he was willing to be a martyr, he would not have holed up
| in an embassy seeking asylum for years.
| hekette wrote:
| Willing to be a martyr does not mean that he wouldn't try
| to avoid it.
| dane-pgp wrote:
| It's remarkable how casually people demand sacrifices of
| others as a condition for taking their activism seriously.
|
| There's basically no limit to how much someone can demand,
| e.g. "Well, if he was really committed to transparency, he
| would have tried breaking into the White House with a
| camera", or "If he was really prepared to risk dying to
| bring these leaks to people's attention, he should have
| self-immolated in front of the US embassy".
|
| Personally, the metric I use is, if someone has achieved
| more for a good cause than me, and suffered more for it
| than I would, then they are a martyr for that cause and
| deserve my respect.
| jollybean wrote:
| "he managed to rip off the mask and expose the unbridled
| imperialist evil lurking"
|
| That's a bit absurd given showed the total opposite:
|
| Gigabytes of diplomatic cables of highly sensitive data
| revealed a US Diplomatic Corps trying to do a decent job in a
| world rife with ugly corruption.
|
| The 'Arab Street' saw the information and they saw the US
| trying to assuage and nudge brutally corrupt leaders.
|
| The cables didn't unite Arabs against the US - they exposed
| the ruthless corruption of their own governments and 'united'
| them against their own governments.
|
| I was in Tunisia near the time of the revolts and I can tell
| you the thing that pissed them off the most was probably the
| fact that their disgraced PM had Canadian citizenship (i.e.
| citizen of convenience, as many do) and simply flew to
| Montreal to enjoy Canadian Constitutional protections and
| avoid prosecution.
|
| It's shocking that someone could read about Arab governments
| doing 'very bad things', the US government trying to stop
| them, and then come away with the notion that the US is the
| bad actor.
|
| It speaks to some kind of deeply held ideology or perspective
| that can make facts that point one way, seem like they point
| in the other direction.
|
| Assange will have to face trial given the fact that he may
| have explicitly helped Manning break into systems of National
| Security, which is definitely illegal. I don't think he did,
| but there's been some evidence made public that indicates
| that it's possible. Soon we'll have a court case and see the
| evidence.
| fossuser wrote:
| This is basically my takeaway, I think Snowden has a lot
| stronger of an argument frankly.
|
| Assange also editorialized his leaks to be damaging towards
| the US rather than just leak them. IIRC this lead to
| conflict within the org. The CM video was awful, but as I
| understand it was a mistake made within the bounds of
| acceptable ROE? Similar to the recent drone strike mistake
| in Afghanistan. War sucks and these accidents are awful,
| but we live in an imperfect universe. These things don't
| really say much in isolation. If anything the cables showed
| the US in a positive light (most on HN probably didn't
| actually read them).
|
| I found the US's media response to be stupid as it often
| is, rather than engage honestly on these issues. Over the
| years Wikileaks went from something that could have had a
| genuine media purpose to a way for intelligence agencies
| hostile to the US to leak hacked materials to the world
| with plausible deniability. It was no longer a neutral
| actor (and frankly the editorialization by Assange in the
| "CM" video wasn't neutral either).
|
| He crossed the line with aiding the hack which gave legal
| recourse - this is the rule of law bit, we'll see what
| happens.
|
| I do think the "sex crimes" stuff could have been Intel
| doing stupid shit (imo) but that's just speculation on my
| part.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| > revealed a US Diplomatic Corps trying to do a decent job
| in a world rife with ugly corruption.
|
| This, too, is journalism. Showing that the world isn't
| black and white, that sometimes the US does bad things that
| we should work against and sometimes they do the right
| thing, that's important too. Secrecy is harmful to
| democracy.
|
| It's obvious why the state department tries to keep their
| internal communications secret, but it's also obvious why
| journalists have a public interest in trying to reveal
| them. We should let them both make their attempt instead of
| bringing criminal charges against one side for doing the
| job we need them to do.
|
| Notice that the job is the same regardless of what's in the
| cables, because you (along with the public) don't know that
| ahead of time.
|
| But to be clear, a strong argument against your point is
| that he's being prosecuted. All the government insiders who
| leak classified information to the media in order to
| advance the government's interests are not sitting next to
| him in a cell, are they?
| jollybean wrote:
| It's not 'journalism' to release arbitrary secrets even
| if the transparency might be beneficial.
|
| Secrecy can be harmful in some cases but it's also
| essential in many ways, it's really not an argument at
| all. Nobody would be able to do their jobs otherwise.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| > It's not 'journalism' to release arbitrary secrets even
| if the transparency might be beneficial.
|
| Uncovering and publishing secrets is the core of
| journalism.
|
| > Secrecy can be harmful in some cases but it's also
| essential in many ways
|
| Then they should do a better job of keeping the important
| things secret. But it's _good_ that they occasionally
| fail.
| hekette wrote:
| You won't be able to trust any evidence they present.
| They've already exposed numerous times to have lied.
| pydry wrote:
| >The cables didn't unite Arabs against the US - they
| exposed the ruthless corruption of their own governments
|
| I'm sensing that you believe that this is something you
| think that should have been concealed from them for their
| own good.
|
| >It's shocking that someone could read about Arab
| governments doing 'very bad things', the US government
| trying to stop them, and then come away with the notion
| that the US is the bad actor.
|
| Collateral murder is mostly what people are condemning.
| Also what this extradition was all about.
|
| It's weird that you seem to believe that the war crimes are
| not relevant to the discussion about whether the US is "the
| bad actor".
|
| Well, perhaps not that weird. Your reply suggests that you
| may have been part of the institution that committed and
| covered up the war crimes (unless you were in tunisia for a
| different reason).
|
| >Assange will have to face trial given the fact that he may
| have explicitly helped Manning break into systems of
| National Security, which is definitely illegal.
|
| Oh yes. Exposing US war crimes IS definitely illegal -
| _more_ illegal than committing them, apparently.
|
| Just like Rosa Parks sitting at the back of a bus - that
| was illegal too.
| rhino369 wrote:
| To play devil's advocate, there is at least some value in
| US diplomatic cables being secret. It allows our
| diplomats to pass around honest impression and sensitive
| information back to our government.
|
| If all diplomatic channels were transparent, diplomats
| would treat it like a twitter account. If the US's Saudi
| Ambassador thought the Saudi leadership was unstable,
| they'd never write that in a cable if it was going to be
| released publicly.
|
| And nobody would tell our diplomats uncomfortable truths.
| jollybean wrote:
| "Your reply suggests that you may have been part of the
| institution that committed and covered up the war crimes
| "
|
| Oh no, you outed me! I'm a CIA plant!
|
| How were you able to slyly prove my complicity in war
| crimes from a mere comment about travelling abroad?
|
| A testament to brilliant and rational deductive thinking
| and logical inference, that must prove 'America is Evil'
| as well of course ...
| brandelune wrote:
| I suspect Assange does not want to be tortured and murdered
| and thus does not want this. Are you insane ?
| zepto wrote:
| I doubt the US intends to murder him.
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| They intend, fully, to make an example out of him.
|
| Why murder him when he's no threat to them anymore, and
| they can drag him through more hell for the next decade
| in order to show what happens when you cross the line?
| zepto wrote:
| They committed to letting him serve his prison term in
| Australia, if convicted.
| dane-pgp wrote:
| I'm afraid you may have fallen for the deliberately
| misleading words of the supposed assurances given by the
| US. Here's what the Guardian[0] says of that particular
| claim (with my emphasis):
|
| "and _could apply_ , if convicted, to be transferred to a
| prison in Australia."
|
| My understanding is that his application could be denied,
| without any recourse, by the DoJ (of whichever
| administration is in power at the time), and probably by
| the Australian government too.
|
| [0] https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/dec/10/julian-
| assange...
| antihero wrote:
| Except the time they were plotting to murder him, of
| course.
| zepto wrote:
| Yes, when he was a fugitive potentially in possession of
| state secrets.
|
| I'm not saying it's ok - just that now he's in custody
| it's a little different.
| josteink wrote:
| > I doubt the US intends to murder him.
|
| And Epstein committed suicide. Right?
| jonnybgood wrote:
| How is Epstein at all relevant? I believe the conspiracy
| theory is around powerful people trying to keep their
| secrets secret. Meaning not let the US government know
| their secrets so they can avoid prosecution. So the US
| government would want Epstein alive. Why do you think the
| US government is prosecuting Ghislane Maxwell right now?
| disambiguation wrote:
| There are worse things than dying.
| mmcwilliams wrote:
| It might be the case right now but it came out earlier
| this year that the CIA was entertaining this idea in
| 2017. This [0] appears to be the originating story and
| there are corroborating accounts in many other outlets.
|
| [0] https://news.yahoo.com/kidnapping-assassination-and-
| a-london...
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > It might be the case right now but it came out earlier
| this year that the CIA was entertaining this idea in
| 2017.
|
| CIA, DoD, and lots of agencies "entertain" lots of ideas,
| and even develop plans, for lots of things that never get
| close to being policy.
| kdomanski wrote:
| Planning to commit a murder or a terrorist attack is a
| felony that will put an individual in prison for a long
| time.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > Planning to commit a murder or a terrorist attack is a
| felony that will put an individual in prison for a long
|
| Unless it is with other people and, more critically, at
| least one of the people involved _goes beyond planning
| and takes some concrete step to advance the execution of
| the plan_ (at which point it becomes the separate crime
| of conspiracy), no, planning a crime, even of that
| seriousness, is not itself a crime.
| zepto wrote:
| Yes, but whether it is a murder or not is decided in
| court, not by you. Not all assassination are murder.
| eof wrote:
| Not wanting what's coming, and regretting his choices are
| not the same thing. He fought the good fight, I hope that's
| worth something to him.
| pelasaco wrote:
| From the article:
|
| "The US had offered four assurances, including that Mr
| Assange would not be subject to solitary confinement pre or
| post-trial or detained at the ADX Florence Supermax jail -
| a maximum security prison in Colorado - if extradited.
|
| Lawyers for the US said he would be allowed to transfer to
| Australia to serve any prison sentence he may be given
| closer to home.
|
| And they argued Mr Assange's mental illness "does not even
| come close" to being severe enough to prevent him from
| being extradited."
|
| So assuming that the international community cannot avoid
| his extradition, to make sure that those assurances are
| true and can be hold, would be already a win, no?
| josteink wrote:
| I'm sure Epstein was offered assurances as well.
|
| US assurances aren't worth the toilet-paper they're
| written on.
| adgjlsfhk1 wrote:
| the "assurances" had an unless we feel like it exemption.
| JCharante wrote:
| Well nobody has ever died while in custody of US law
| enforcement, so this seems reasonable
| papito wrote:
| "Laws are people, and I can manage people."
|
| - Logan Roy, Succession, HBO
|
| "How do you ensure the green? You can't. As in life, in
| traffic, you leave yourself an out... You move diagonal, you
| turn the wheel when you hit a red light. You don't try down
| Broadway to get to Broadway. You are going to butt heads with
| these friends of ours? You are going to come at them head on?
| They got lives, Freddy, families."
|
| - Cop Land
| nnvvhh wrote:
| Funny, I was thinking of a Logan Roy quote: "Life's not
| knights on horseback. It's a number on a piece of paper. It's
| a fight for a knife in the mud."
| rich_sasha wrote:
| This is in micro scale, so perhaps this is why the power
| imbalance is so painfully clear. This is one guy against the
| whole might of the US.
|
| Of course events like this have been happening for centuries,
| recent decades included. The people in various countries caught
| up in wars had their lives ruined or lost. At best, this was
| despite all efforts to safeguard them and a price to pay for
| some greater good, at worst footnote to some uncaring Grand
| Plan. The end result is the same though.
|
| The machine of Western Democracy devours those who cross it
| hard enough. Maybe to protect those inside the bubble, or maybe
| because it's still floating in the same Big Bad World as the
| less democratic counterparts around the world.
| 2Gkashmiri wrote:
| if "laws" cannot protect one man, why bother with the sham
| that is "democracy"? its not just in the US but rest of the
| countries as well. when "pride" of a democracy is greater
| than the life of a human, it is no better than china or north
| korea. there at least you have the expectation of their
| intentions, that you are on your own. "democracies" are
| supposed to protect the little guy regardless of the
| adversary. as the other commenter said, this sets the
| precedent for the rest of the world. now india can go ahead
| and do the same to its dissenters because america could do
| it.
| isk517 wrote:
| I would argue we bother with the sham because it is
| superior to the alternatives, the issue is human nature
| prevents us from ever truly reaching an ideal society. As
| long as there is someone standing is 3ft of shit for us to
| laugh we are comfortable and happy despite the fact that we
| ourselves are standing in 2ft of shit.
| 2Gkashmiri wrote:
| sure, we are willing to sacrifice assange for the greater
| good
| akagusu wrote:
| So is it OK for you if we sacrifice you for the greater
| good?
| akagusu wrote:
| The truth is we are not better than China or North Korea,
| we just hide our shit better.
| FpUser wrote:
| >"The machine of Western Democracy"
|
| While statistically better the democracy on its own does not
| stand for being "humane". Masses love government "being
| tough" and do not care much about them destroying lives.
| quest88 wrote:
| It sets precedent. One guy today, more tomorrow.
| tootie wrote:
| That might be relevant if Assange wasn't doing it at the behest
| of Russia
| leto_ii wrote:
| > That might be relevant if Assange wasn't doing it at the
| behest of Russia
|
| [citation needed]
| ozim wrote:
| That is why Edward Snowden beeing still free is important.
|
| Don't get me wrong. If there will be a good deal from US -
| Russia is going to hand him over in a blink of an eye.
|
| But he is an example that you still can play it out between big
| boys and not all is lost.
| RivieraKid wrote:
| But you're assuming that the UK court made a decision that is
| against their law. Why is extradition an incorrect decision?
| vanusa wrote:
| For example - given the ample (and basically) record of U.S.
| authorities in regard to their treatment of so-called High
| Value Detainees -- and even of very low-value detainees at is
| borders, as we have seen in recent years -- the High Court
| had no reason whatsoever to lend credence to the so-called
| "assurances" they cited in their ruling:
|
| _The High Court said Friday that it had received appropriate
| assurances from the U.S. to meet the threshold for
| extradition, including:_
|
| _Assange will not be subject to "special administrative
| measures" or be held in a notorious maximum security prison
| in Florence, Colorado._
|
| _Assange, if convicted, will be permitted to serve out his
| sentence in his native Australia._
|
| _Assange will receive appropriate clinical and psychological
| treatment in custody._
| ChrisKnott wrote:
| Specifically which of these assurances are you saying will
| be broken?
| boomboomsubban wrote:
| They openly admit their willingness to break all three if
| "future acts" deem them necessary, not to mention they're
| free to stick him in another terrible jail with other
| restrictive measures even with the assurances.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| Hello old friend.
|
| Why are you outraged about things that have not happened?
| Has the US Govt broken those promises? Y/n?
| boomboomsubban wrote:
| Because if we wait for them to be violated, Assange could
| already be dead? And for the nth time, why should I
| expect them to hold to these promises when they've
| already violated his right to a free trial?
| Dah00n wrote:
| yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy
| yyyyyyyy
| tremon wrote:
| Who is going to oversee and enforce these promises? The
| UK High Court? When the US violates their promises, will
| the High Court Judge personally fly to the US to collect
| Assange and bring him back to the UK?
| ChrisKnott wrote:
| They have no means to enforce it, the judgement is what
| they think will happen. If, say, North Korea gave
| assurances on how they would treat a prisoner their
| judgement would probably be different.
|
| The point is, saying the judgement is wrong is logically
| equivalent to stating that one of these assurances is
| going to be broken, which is an actual falsifiable
| proposition - I'm just asking which one you think is
| going to be broken.
| vanusa wrote:
| _Saying the judgement is wrong is logically equivalent to
| stating that one of these assurances is going to be
| broken_
|
| No - that plainly does not follow.
|
| All that is needed is to apply the standard of reasonable
| doubt: in this case, that the party in question (the U.S.
| government) can be trusted not to act contrary their
| assurances on these matters.
|
| Which we are compelled to adopt, based on the very ample
| track record of their conduct in this regard.
| ChrisKnott wrote:
| The judgement relied (in part) on the Diplomatic Note
| (No. 169), in which the US stated;
|
| > _" The United States has provided assurances to the
| United Kingdom in connection with extradition requests
| countless times in the past. In all of these situations,
| the United States has fulfilled the assurances it
| provided."_
|
| Are you saying this is false? What track record of
| breaking assurances are you referring to?
| vanusa wrote:
| _What track record of breaking assurances are you
| referring to?_
|
| We're going in circles. This was already referred to in
| my original entry into this thread, 5 or 6 levels up.
|
| The fact that the U.S. may keep some of its assurances to
| some parties (if in fact this is the case) does not
| obviate the fact that frequently and brazenly breaks many
| other assurances it makes in this regard. It is this,
| much bigger fact (which is pretty obvious and doesn't
| need substantiation as to the particulars) which takes
| precedence.
| ChrisKnott wrote:
| Your original comment refers to the fact that the USA
| generally treats detainees poorly, not that it "brazenly
| breaks many other assurances it makes in this regard".
|
| You haven't convinced me why the court is wrong to
| believe the USA on this point. You just seem to
| repeatedly state that it's ridiculous without saying why.
|
| But anyway, ultimately we will be able to see whether or
| not the USA does let Assange (if convicted) serve his
| sentence in Australia or not.
| vanusa wrote:
| _not that it "brazenly breaks many other assurances it
| makes in this regard"._
|
| Are you referring to the CIA's famous "We don't do
| torture" promise, here?
|
| Or the implicit promise to the peoples of Iraq and
| Afghanistan that they would be treated humanely when they
| came in contact with our armed forces and their
| surrogates? And most certainly when they ended up in our
| ... detention centers?
|
| Or to the migrants detained by the ICE, who were told
| they were merely being "detained"... not that they would
| one day find an officer
|
| _" sitting on her like one would on a horse", with his
| "erect penis on her butt"_
|
| to quote just one of 1,224 reports of recent sexual abuse
| at these facilities?
| elif wrote:
| UK extradition requires generally that it also be a crime to
| commit in the UK.
|
| It is dubious that soliciting government documents and
| publishing them would be illegal in the UK.
| HPsquared wrote:
| People think (and have throughout history thought) that they
| live outside of history and "this time it's different".
|
| Hard to see the forest for the trees, I suppose
| raverbashing wrote:
| "sobering view of how the world really works" for whom this is
| unexpected, which is to say, the most naive.
|
| Laws don't go beyond who enforces them. And this is as
| expected, they're not an omnipotent/divine construct.
|
| The general public view of Assange is not so great and it went
| down with time. Manning is probably viewed more favourably.
|
| States that were too tolerant with those who "skirt the rules"
| (or just do very serious crimes) usually end up regretting it
| (or not living to regret it, which is worse). I would be very
| happy if those involved in some January events at D.C. got a
| similar treatment.
| sneak wrote:
| > _" sobering view of how the world really works" for whom
| this is unexpected, which is to say, the most naive._
|
| I think perhaps you're giving too many people too much
| credit. I would assume that the vast majority of people in
| the USA think it's a functioning democracy, subject to the
| rule of law, with human rights.
|
| None of these things are true, and, yet, these beliefs are
| very widely held.
| raverbashing wrote:
| It certainly beats the majority of other countries in this
| aspect
|
| We wouldn't be talking about Assange having legal recourse
| had he got in the wrong way of a lot of other places.
|
| The buck stops somewhere, no system is perfect and special
| cases are special cases. As again per the last paragraph in
| my initial response.
| sneak wrote:
| Imagine a parent that physically abuses their young child
| way less than all of the other parents on their block.
|
| It's not really a defense. The USA, and in particular the
| parts of the USA that have the most power, do not really
| care at all about human rights, and are not held
| accountable for not caring about human rights.
| psychlops wrote:
| The jackrabbit always wins.
| impendingchange wrote:
| There is a deeper level to this event. Discovery is a bitch.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| Your entire post is opinion and contains no information,
| factual or otherwise.
| marmaduke wrote:
| Isn't a court ruling an opinion and not fact? Is it necessary
| to oppose one opinion not with another but a fact?
| [deleted]
| Dah00n wrote:
| So, just like yours? How does this add anything?
| newbamboo wrote:
| It's not much different at other levels. You only have public
| opinion and Assange wasn't able to best Clinton in that realm.
| There's a lesson about optics and choosing your enemies to be
| learned as well as the lesson about power.
| jMyles wrote:
| The thing I don't understand, given all this - and I say this
| with substantial study in Political Science, including a degree
| - is why then we still see such widespread admiration of the
| notion that states are legitimate organizational structures?
|
| Ostensibly they are different than corporations and other
| private entities specifically in that the standard by which
| their mandate exists is a public one. But once we see that
| that's not true (and we have seen it throughout history, but
| with astonishing clarity in the past two decades), isn't it
| time to move on?
| sneak wrote:
| > _is why then we still see such widespread admiration of the
| notion that states are legitimate organizational structures?_
|
| Because the states (indirectly, carefully, and tactfully)
| guide the media in those states, and the majority of people
| uncritically assume that the narratives they hear over and
| over again ("land of the free", "rule of law", "innocent
| until proven guilty", "justice is blind", "a free press") are
| true and correct, simply because they've been repeated at
| them so often.
|
| Information that contradicts those beliefs is ignored,
| discredited, or discarded.
| ilrwbwrkhv wrote:
| Big guns policy. Whoever has the highest number of guns is in
| charge. We are still tribal monkeys after all with a thin
| veneer of civilization.
| [deleted]
| FredPret wrote:
| Ultimately, right and wrong, good and evil are human judgments,
| sometimes acted upon by humans using human power. There's
| nothing transcendent about it.
|
| The international rules-based order is safeguarded by powerful
| entities... because it's in their best interest. One goes
| against that self-interest at one's peril.
| jtdev wrote:
| Epstein literally molested children and engaged in child sex
| trafficking, but was powerful enough that he was able to
| continue doing this - with implied protection from the state
| - for many years. Only after intense public pressure was
| Epstein seriously prosecuted.
|
| Assange TELLS THE TRUTH and is crucified internationally for
| years.
|
| Assange had no power, Epstein was the epitome of corrupt
| power.
| leto_ii wrote:
| > right and wrong, good and evil are human judgments
|
| This is nonsense that opens up the possibility to justify
| pretty much any kind of abuse or atrocity.
|
| > The international rules-based order is safeguarded by
| powerful entities... because it's in their best interest.
|
| If the international order was actually rules-based it would
| have been safeguarded by international institutions, not by a
| single capricious superpower.
|
| > One goes against that self-interest at one's peril.
|
| This one eludes me. Who's going against who's interest?
| FredPret wrote:
| > This is nonsense that opens up the possibility to justify
| pretty much any kind of abuse or atrocity.
|
| Hilarious. Do you think there's big judge in the sky that
| determines what's good and bad? There is only human
| conscience, and powerful people who decide to enforce their
| conscience.
|
| > If the international order was actually rules-based it
| would have been safeguarded by international institutions,
| not by a single capricious superpower.
|
| If there's an international institution that can enforce
| rules, then that institution is the capricious superpower,
| and woe betide those that mess with that institution.
| leto_ii wrote:
| > Hilarious. Do you think there's big judge in the sky
| that determines what's good and bad?
|
| Mankind has reached a point where it realized that
| certain rights (natural rights [1]) are not really
| arbitrary cultural constructs, but more akin to the laws
| of nature. We're still not at a point where we fully
| understand the "moral laws of nature" (e.g. I suspect if
| we stick around as a species we will end up extending
| more rights to certain other species), but we're
| improving (at least on paper).
|
| > powerful people who decide to enforce their conscience
|
| Again an attitude that can be used to justify anything.
| If the powerful people decide it's ok to have slaves? Or
| that a certain ethnicity should be cleared off the face
| of the earth?
|
| Luckily, post WW2 we have established international
| institutions (the UN for one) that at least on paper
| provide legal underpinning for what the right rules
| should be and for how they should be enforced.
|
| > If there's an international institution that can
| enforce rules, then that institution is the capricious
| superpower, and woe betide those that mess with that
| institution.
|
| This is simply insane warmongering. Since you throw such
| threats around casually I suspect you might be a US
| citizen. I can assure you that to the rest of us seeing
| this kind of attitude coming from your
| political/economic/intellectual leaders can be a very
| scary thing indeed.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law
| jonnybgood wrote:
| > Mankind has reached a point where it realized that
| certain rights (natural rights [1]) are not really
| arbitrary cultural constructs, but more akin to the laws
| of nature.
|
| It's a moral system just like how Big Judge in Sky is a
| moral system. You're only determining what's good and bad
| in accordance with this one moral system. And most of
| humanity does not.
|
| > Again an attitude that can be used to justify anything.
|
| Of course, but only if its in their interest to do so
| like slavery, or if they believe it's in their interest
| to do so like committing genocide.
|
| Have you noticed that slavery and genocide have actually
| never stopped in the world? Because they can do it and
| nobody can really stop them. See China's actions on the
| Uyghurs.
|
| > This is simply insane warmongering. Since you throw
| such threats around casually I suspect you might be a US
| citizen. I can assure you that to the rest of us seeing
| this kind of attitude coming from your
| political/economic/intellectual leaders can be a very
| scary thing indeed.
|
| You should address the factuality of the statement
| instead of bordering on an ad hominem. Every hegemonic
| power in history have exhibited the same characteristics:
| securing its interests. European powers have done it.
| Asian powers have done it and are currently trying to do
| it (China). Americas, Africa, and Middle East too.
| leto_ii wrote:
| > It's a moral system just like how Big Judge in Sky is a
| moral system. You're only determining what's good and bad
| in accordance with this one moral system. And most of
| humanity does not.
|
| Well, at the very least "Big Judge in Sky" is not in the
| Universal Declaration of Human Rights, so there's that.
|
| The fact that most of humanity most of the time fails
| short of our best understanding of morality doesn't mean
| that that understanding is a relative cultural construct.
| To make a parallel, even if all of humanity believed that
| the Sun revolved around the Earth, that still wouldn't
| matter one bit. The Earth would still do its thing. It's
| kind of like that with morality too.
|
| It was wrong to have slaves even when having slaves was
| accepted. It was wrong to rape and pillage even when that
| was the norm in conquest etc.
|
| > You should address the factuality of the statement
| instead of bordering on an ad hominem.
|
| It's possible I misunderstood parent's intent. I actually
| took this part "woe betide those that mess with that
| institution" to mean smth like "don't you dare mess with
| the US". That would be an out of place, over the top
| threat. If I misunderstood the intent I'm sorry.
|
| > Every hegemonic power in history have exhibited the
| same characteristics: securing its interests.
|
| I don't disagree with you on this one (at least if by
| "its interests" we understand: "the interests of that
| nation's ruling elite"). It doesn't however mean that
| that's morally right. It is entirely possible that all
| hegemonic powers are acting immorally all the time.
| guilhas wrote:
| Going back to the land of the free!
|
| USA the country with the most jailed in the world, even China
| with 5x more population
|
| It is baffling how they keep lecturing the world
| echopurity wrote:
| That explains the recent propaganda about journalists in China.
| bladegash wrote:
| The framing of Assange as an innocent "journalist" being
| persecuted for just doing his job is, in my opinion,
| disingenuous.
|
| I do not necessarily agree with all the actions the US Government
| has taken with him, or their handling of some of the information
| that was leaked.
|
| However, I do not agree that a "journalist" should be able to
| enable espionage, let alone encourage/incite it. In case my point
| is unclear, I consider setting up a website purely designed to
| encourage leaking of potentially classified information and
| assisting with the ability to do so as being no different than
| any other criminal conspiracy.
|
| Further, I am of the opinion, being someone who was quite
| literally in Afghanistan when he leaked the information he did,
| that any probative value of the information Manning leaked was
| overshadowed by the indiscriminate way in which it was done.
|
| Assange is an activist, not a journalist. He should not be
| treated as such and much of the consequences he suffers now
| (e.g., confinement during appeal) is directly related to his own
| actions (e.g., fleeing to an Embassy).
| busymom0 wrote:
| By your definition, 99.9% of "journalists" aren't journalists
| because they are all activists. Assange is the purest form of
| journalist, especially considering things he published were
| mass reported by other journalists who got awards for their
| reporting.
| boomboomsubban wrote:
| >that any probative value of the information Manning leaked was
| overshadowed by the indiscriminate way in which it was done.
|
| Shouldn't you be pushing for the prosecution of the Guardian
| journalist that published the encryption keys then? Not Assange
| who actively worked to get both press and government help to
| ensure safe disclosure.
| TomSwirly wrote:
| > being someone who was quite literally in Afghanistan when he
| leaked the information he did,
|
| The US invasion of Afghanistan was a complete failure and one
| that allowed the actual guilty party, Osama Bin Laden, to
| escape.
|
| The Taliban offered twice to give up Bin Laden but Bush refused
| even to discuss it with them.
| https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.te...
|
| Both the CIA and the FBI concluded that no one in the Taliban
| had any idea of 9/11 before it happened, which is very logical,
| because you aren't successful at conspiracies by telling
| everyone.
|
| And yet Bush invaded Afghanistan, because he needed to invade
| somewhere and couldn't invade the actual culprits, Saudi Arabia
| - Al Qaeda being founded, funded, manned and managed by Saudis.
|
| ---
|
| Participating in a great war crime that killed hundreds of
| thousands of mostly innocent people _and completely failed
| militarily, economically, diplomatically, and strategically_
| should not be a matter of pride.
| y-c-o-m-b wrote:
| What does it matter if he's an "activist" or "journalist"? He
| exposed war crimes. He IS being persecuted and that fact is
| being waved in our face out in the open. The punishment doesn't
| fit the crime, that's the problem.
|
| > I consider setting up a website purely designed to encourage
| leaking of potentially classified information and assisting
| with the ability to do so as being no different than any other
| criminal conspiracy.
|
| He exposed crimes committed by war criminals. "Criminal
| conspiracy" is disingenuous. Furthermore the "classified" label
| is defined by the organization that committed those crimes. Do
| you think murdering innocent civilians indiscriminately should
| be classified?
|
| You seem to be arguing semantics more than establishing any
| sort of moral or ethical argument against what he did.
| unknownus3r wrote:
| Rational take
| [deleted]
| yesbut wrote:
| Assange is more of an editor / publisher. This is akin to the
| Washington Post publishing the Pentagon Papers.
|
| As a reminder, this is why the US wants to punish Assange:
|
| > Wikileaks reveals video showing US air crew shooting down
| Iraqi civilians >
| https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/apr/05/wikileaks-us-a...
| hota_mazi wrote:
| This can definitely be _one_ reason but I find your cherry
| picking very disingenuous.
|
| His disclosures have shown a consistent bias to damage the
| Democrats, support the Republicans, Trump, and the Putin
| regime. He also endangered the lives of multiple assets by
| revealing their names and locations.
|
| It's a lot more nuanced than you portray it.
| yesbut wrote:
| This is completely untrue. He used to be loved by the
| Democrats when he was exposing Bush's war crimes. The claim
| that he was working with Russia to help Trump came from the
| Hillary campaign.
| darkerside wrote:
| Editors/publishers exercise judgement and take responsibility
| for what they put out into the world. AFAICT, Assange's best
| argument for his innocence is that he bears no responsibility
| because... he neither took nor accepts any responsibility.
| hulitu wrote:
| You should take a look at Kissinger. A real responsible
| person.
| yesbut wrote:
| I'm pretty sure it is everyone's responsibility to inform
| the world about war crimes when that information is brought
| to our attention.
| darkerside wrote:
| Everyone is responsible for everything that is
| unacceptable, but it doesn't really help to try to
| enforce that.
|
| Scoping to a reasonable level, publishers' primary job is
| to review and filter information for quality, safety, and
| fitness for mass consumption. Assange and WikiLeaks
| explicitly do not do that. At best, they are a
| distributor.
| jasonlotito wrote:
| Wikileaks, which Assange leads, is more than just an editor
| and/or publisher.
|
| WikiLeaks helped arrange Snowden's escape to Russia from Hong
| Kong. A WikiLeaks editor also accompanied Snowden to Russia,
| staying with him during his 39-day enforced stay at a Moscow
| airport and living with him for three months after Russia
| granted Snowden asylum.
|
| As a reminder, the post you show isn't when the aggression
| against Wikileaks escalated. You reminder is not true.
| bladegash wrote:
| If you think that is the information that he is being
| punished for is that video, you clearly did not look at what
| he leaked closely enough.
|
| Likewise, if you think leaking the pentagon papers is the
| same as leaking all diplomatic cables and operational
| communications from a period of time is the same thing, not
| sure I can say much to change your opinion.
| pessimizer wrote:
| > Likewise, if you think leaking the pentagon papers is the
| same as leaking all diplomatic cables and operational
| communications from a period of time is the same thing, not
| sure I can say much to change your opinion.
|
| It would be very difficult, because you believe that
| journalists enabling the distribution of secret government
| documents means they're not journalists, they're activists.
| That equally condemns the Pentagon Papers and Wikileaks.
| You _agree_ with their opinion, which is why you can 't say
| much to change it.
|
| edit:
|
| _Daniel Ellsberg: "Whatever Julian Assange is guilty of,
| I'm guilty of."_
|
| https://www.exberliner.com/features/julian-assange-
| trial-202...
| btczeus wrote:
| I am sorry but you are confused here. The irresponsible
| leak of all the unredacted cables was not done by Wikileaks
| but by a Guardian journalist.
| https://wikileaks.org/Guardian-journalist-negligently.html
| yesbut wrote:
| These espionage charges aren't about "Hillary's emails".
|
| https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/05/28/indictmen
| t...
| bladegash wrote:
| I am not talking about Hillary's emails. He leaked
| diplomatic cables.
|
| [1] https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wikileaks-releases-
| classifie...
| tchalla wrote:
| Very interesting. The actual war crimes are brushed aside
| but the person who revealed those war crimes are
| punished. I wonder how this would have played out if
| China or Russia did it.
| jessaustin wrote:
| So what? A private citizen has no obligation to secrecy.
| gampleman wrote:
| Let alone a citizen of a different country...
| deelowe wrote:
| I'm guessing that's about to be tested in court.
|
| The overarching question is at what point does a private
| citizen/activist become culpable. Developing technologies
| and social networks (old school kind, not facebook) which
| are explicitly designed to enable the stealing/leaking of
| state secrets would seem to be skirting pretty close to
| the line of "I'm just a private citizen/journalist." This
| is doubly true if said leaks end up putting military
| personnel and government assets in harms way.
| jessaustin wrote:
| _This is doubly true if said leaks end up putting
| military personnel and government assets in harms way._
|
| We don't need to consider that possibility. It has been
| over a decade since this information was released. If
| anyone about whom USA government cares had ever suffered
| any harm (even if they actually deserved it) as a result,
| the USA war media would have crowed about it until we had
| all memorized all details. Not even a rumor exists of
| anything like that, so we know it didn't happen.
| TomSwirly wrote:
| Which revealed war crimes.
| yesbut wrote:
| He leaked war crimes.
| bladegash wrote:
| He leaked war crimes AND he leaked the information I
| mentioned.
| yesbut wrote:
| He shouldn't be in prison and we should have a public
| holiday in his honor for informing the American public
| about the war crimes our government commits in our name
| and with our tax dollars.
| pydry wrote:
| >If you think that is the information that he is being
| punished for is that video, you clearly did not look at
| what he leaked closely enough.
|
| If you think it _wasn 't_ about that you clearly didn't
| follow the lawsuit.
| pydry wrote:
| >However, I do not agree that a "journalist" should be able to
| enable espionage, let alone encourage/incite it. In case my
| point is unclear, I consider setting up a website purely
| designed to encourage leaking of potentially classified
| information and assisting with the ability to do so as being no
| different than any other criminal conspiracy.
|
| Your point is pretty clear. You designated exposing war crimes
| a criminal conspiracy no different from any other.
|
| This view isn't compatible with a belief in human rights and
| democracy.
| bladegash wrote:
| No, that is not what I said, nor is that what my point
| is/was.
|
| To reiterate, "Further, I am of the opinion, being someone
| who was quite literally in Afghanistan when he leaked the
| information he did, that any probative value of the
| information Manning leaked was overshadowed by the
| indiscriminate way in which it was done."
|
| You cannot look at just one small part of what was leaked and
| ignore the rest. If all that was leaked was the war crimes,
| then we would not be having this discussion.
| shkkmo wrote:
| > the indiscriminate way in which it was done.
|
| What was indiscriminate about it? Wikileaks reached out to
| other journalists to sort through and publish the
| information. The full release of the diplomatic cables
| happened only after some of those journalists (David Leigh
| and Luke Harding of The Guardian) failed to keep that
| content secure.
| pydry wrote:
| >No, that is not what I said, nor is that what my point
| is/was.
|
| I see no substantial difference.
|
| >To reiterate, "Further, I am of the opinion, being someone
| who was quite literally in Afghanistan when he leaked the
| information he did, that any probative value of the
| information Manning leaked was overshadowed by the
| indiscriminate way in which it was done."
|
| I really don't understand what you being in Afghanistan is
| supposed to prove. If anything it suggests that you place a
| higher value on loyalty to the institution you belonged to
| that _committed_ these war crimes _and_ covered them up
| than you do on human rights.
|
| Is that not the case?
|
| >If all that was leaked was the war crimes, then we would
| not be having this discussion.
|
| Oh, we _absolutely_ would. The case was built specifically
| around the leak of collateral murder.
|
| American espionage law criminalizes leaking evidence of war
| crimes. Snowden has offered to come home if its scope was
| tightened to only include _actual_ espionage. Congress
| demurred.
|
| This is what you were fighting for in Afghanistan like it
| or not - for a group of elites who would toss you in prison
| for exposing their war crimes without a second's thought.
| bladegash wrote:
| The comment about being in Afghanistan was intended to
| convey that assuming information was released putting
| people in harms way, that I and people I cared about
| would have been directly impacted.
| pydry wrote:
| I was aware of your implication. The US has similarly
| noisily _hinted_ that people may have been put in harm 's
| way but then they would, wouldnt they?
|
| That is, unless there were somebody they could point to
| who was dead as a result. Then they would describe what
| happened.
|
| Or stay silent - if there were no examples.
| y-c-o-m-b wrote:
| Your comment basically confirms what he said
|
| > If anything it suggests that you place a higher value
| on loyalty to the institution you belonged to that
| committed these war crimes and covered them up than you
| do on human rights.
|
| You realize you were the invader right?
| pessimizer wrote:
| No, they do not. Additionally, they think that we should
| decide what is right for us by what most effectively
| protects them.
| bladegash wrote:
| No, my comment does nothing of the sort and neither you,
| or him, know anything about me. Believe it or not, the
| world is not black and white and people do the best they
| can given a variety of factors in front of them.
|
| However, I am glad you are able to with criticize and
| judge a person with 20/20 hindsight, while simultaneously
| offering nothing of value to the conversation.
|
| Thank you for taking the time to offer your opinion and I
| wish you nothing but the best.
| y-c-o-m-b wrote:
| > the world is not black and white
|
| Yet your comment history on this subject ("activist" vs
| "journalist") indicates that's how you see the world. My
| contribution is to expose the cognitive dissonance
| surrounding your comments.
|
| I've yet to see anything that makes your time in
| Afghanistan relevant to this conversation. In fact
| another person already posted a source debunking the
| claims that anyone's life was in danger due to the
| Wikileaks releases.
| bladegash wrote:
| Glad they were in Afghanistan and had any kind of level
| of understanding beyond superficial to make that
| evaluation.
|
| Aside from that, I did not ask about, nor do I care, what
| you think of my time in Afghanistan. I am more than
| capable of evaluating my own life choices through a
| critical and charitable lens.
|
| Thank you for taking the time to contribute to the
| discussion and wish you the best.
| monocasa wrote:
| I'm not sure how you get to a less superficial
| understanding than
|
| > Brigadier general Robert Carr, a senior counter-
| intelligence officer who headed the Information Review
| Task Force that investigated the impact of WikiLeaks
| disclosures on behalf of the Defense Department, told a
| court at Fort Meade, Maryland, that they had uncovered no
| specific examples of anyone who had lost his or her life
| in reprisals that followed the publication of the
| disclosures on the internet.
| monocasa wrote:
| During the Manning trial and sentencing, the prosecution
| and their witnesses finally admitted that there was no
| evidence that anyone was harmed from the releases.
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/31/bradley-
| mannin...
| ben_w wrote:
| Complicated.
|
| I feel that an Australian citizen should not expect to be
| extradited to the USA for publishing information the USA would
| rather not be published. Still true even if he is an activist,
| would still be true even for someone genuinely trying to
| systematically destroy America and American values, if it's
| just publication. Free speech etc.
|
| For encouraging Americans to break American laws, which _I
| think_ is the non-legalese summary of the accusation? I don't
| know how I feel. The internet (telecoms in general) breaks
| borders and jurisdiction in ways that are not yet settled even
| in my own head.
|
| Fleeing to an embassy definitely looked dumb to me at the time,
| and still does now. If someone is told to eat oranges, refuses
| because they are afraid oranges might be poisoned, volunteers
| to eat apples instead, runs away when someone tries to force
| them to eat an orange, then gets given a poisoned apple... I
| still don't understand why people say this vindicates the
| original no-oranges stance.
| bladegash wrote:
| Thank you for the thoughtful response and I especially liked
| the way you put the dilemma related to how the internet
| breaks borders. Similar to you, it's challenging to wrap my
| head around and is a pretty big paradigm shift in terms of
| the sovereignty of countries, let alone the legal
| implications of that shift.
| pydry wrote:
| >For encouraging Americans to break American laws, which I
| think is the non-legalese summary of the accusation?
|
| Were Gandhi/MLK/Rosa Parks wrong when they made a point of
| breaking unjust laws and encouraging others to follow along?
|
| Many liberals at the time thought yes - "the law being the
| law" and all that. It does sound like you're making the same
| argument they were?
| axiolite wrote:
| > Were Gandhi/MLK/Rosa Parks wrong when they made a point
| of breaking unjust laws and encouraging others to follow
| along?
|
| Your question of right/"wrong" is a matter of morality, not
| legality. Stealing bread to feed a starving person might be
| morally good, but legally wrong, and nobody should expect
| to avoid legal consequences because of it.
|
| In the case of civil disobedience, those involved do NOT
| attempt to flee from justice. Being arrested and facing the
| legal system is an integral part.
|
| Assange may just get his chance to emulate Ghandi by
| spending years in prison...
| pydry wrote:
| >In the case of civil disobedience, those involved do NOT
| attempt to flee from justice. Being arrested and facing
| the legal system is an integral part.
|
| You think Oskar Schindler was wrong not to hand himself
| in?
| ben_w wrote:
| Judging if any given law is or isn't just is too far
| outside my skills to have strong feeling about what Assange
| did one way or the other.
|
| I do know that rule of law _doesn't function_ if everyone
| gets to decide for themselves what is and isn't an unjust
| law, even though I can say with the benefit of hindsight
| that Rosa Parks deserved her Congressional Gold Medal, and
| that I hope I would've recognised the law as unjust at the
| time.
|
| The reference that comes to mind is the four boxes of
| liberty: soap, ballot, jury and cartridge, which should be
| used in this order. Breaking unjust laws counts as #3,
| normal journalism is #1, Assange didn't have the option of
| #2 with regard to the USA.
| pydry wrote:
| >I hope I would've recognised the law as unjust at the
| time.
|
| I'd have hoped so too, but from what you've written it
| sounds like you would have slotted in with the liberal
| whites who declared support-for-ending-segregation-in-
| theory but would also say that "this isn't the right way"
| or "this isn't the right time".
|
| They made rather similar arguments to yours about the
| primacy of the rule of law as a principle.
| ben_w wrote:
| I _hope_ I am the sort of person would have supported
| Rosa Parks -- if I'd been on a jury, I want to be the
| sort of person who would have voted "not guilty" by way
| of jury annulment.
|
| Four boxes is a reason to take things slow, not a reason
| to say "no not like that" when the first steps have
| failed. And when the law bites someone for breaking it,
| if you think the law is wrong you should support the
| victim of the law; but that's not the same as saying the
| law should not bite at all. A court case is by itself a
| powerful bite for most people, even without conviction.
|
| I can also see that someone who is constantly being
| ground down and dehumanised by the law isn't going to
| care about an end to the rule of law. I can't expect
| someone in that situation to care if rule of law is
| damaged, because it never protected them in the first
| place. I suspect the feeling the law is a bludgeon rather
| than a shield is the cause of the current "ACAB" and
| "defund the police" slogans.
|
| But is Assange even in that category? I don't think so,
| so I do not feel confident predicting how I would vote if
| I was hypothetically on a jury. I _do_ think the Guardian
| newspaper in the UK was in the "law is wrong" category,
| and that it was wrong for the UK government to destroy
| their copy of what Snowden gave them.
|
| Like I said, complicated.
| pydry wrote:
| >Four boxes is a reason to take things slow
|
| Yeah, that's what I was referring to. MLK had a specific,
| rather famous riposte to this attitude because of how
| common it was:
|
| "I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian
| and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the
| past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the
| white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable
| conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his
| stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's
| Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate,
| who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who
| prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension
| to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who
| constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek,
| but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action";
| who paternalistically believes _he can set the timetable
| for another man 's freedom who lives by a mythical
| concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to
| wait for a "more convenient season."_ Shallow
| understanding from people of good will is more
| frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of
| ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering
| than outright rejection."
|
| Emphasis mine.
| tiahura wrote:
| Assange as Ghandhi. Wow.
|
| Remind me about how Rosa Parks ran and hid?
| tgv wrote:
| It might have been partially activist, that still doesn't
| justify the extradition. The US had no standing, as I believe
| it's called. They can declare whatever they want "top secret",
| but that doesn't make a crime for a citizen of another country
| to publish it. The hacking and conspiracy claims have been
| added to make it appear as if they have standing, but these are
| empty. It's another triumph for big budget lawyer corporations,
| and an actual loss for the freedom of the press.
| bladegash wrote:
| I do not think it is a loss for freedom of the press, I think
| it is an opportunity for the courts to define what a
| journalist actually is, vs. not. Perhaps the courts will side
| with Assange and we will find that this is First Amendment
| protected activity. I personally do not believe it is, but I
| do think that this situation is a bit unique to modern times
| and is likely to set precedent one way or the other.
| tgv wrote:
| I think it shows that you can put a lid on foreign
| journalism by drawing your chequebook. Just add a few
| indictments from the extradition agreement. The UK courts
| clearly haven't sided with Assange.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| Zeems awfully convenient to label anything that embarrases
| the government as 'secret national security matter'. The
| government can literally get away with murder
| pydry wrote:
| Russia also does this. Inconvenient journalists are
| designated "foreign agents", for instance.
|
| Redefining journalist can let you imprison any and every
| journalist.
| gdy wrote:
| "Russia also does this. Inconvenient journalists are
| designated "foreign agents", for instance."
|
| Inconvenient journalists financed from abroad. And
| "foreign agents" are not imprisoned, they just obligated
| by the law to remind their readers about this fact.
| bladegash wrote:
| Sure, that could happen and be the result out of all
| this. I think that is jumping to the worst possible
| conclusion though and the result will be a bit more
| nuanced than that.
| pydry wrote:
| If a Russian citizen exposed evidence that the Beslan
| massacre of schoolchildren was staged by the government
| and Putin tossed them in prison under an espionage law
| that explicitly criminalizes leaks, would you consider
| that situation "nuanced"?
| fallingknife wrote:
| Why is it that there should be a legal class of
| "journalist" that has more rights than the rest of us?
| ttybird2 wrote:
| _" However, I do not agree that a "journalist" should be able
| to enable espionage"_
|
| "Espionage" like publishing warcrimes.
|
| _" I consider setting up a website purely designed to
| encourage leaking of potentially classified information and
| assisting with the ability to do so as being no different than
| any other criminal conspiracy"_
|
| Transparency is a government duty. It is a shame but totally
| justified that private citizens have to enforce it. As for
| "criminal", sounds like yet another victimless crime. If
| anything they are exposing crimes.
|
| _" being someone who was quite literally in Afghanistan when
| he leaked the information he did"_
|
| Thank you for disclosing that. How many people did you kill
| (directly or indirectly) and why didn't you try to expose
| warcrimes?
|
| _" Assange is an activist, not a journalist. He should not be
| treated as such"_
|
| Activists, journalists, and regular citizens should all be
| treated the same.
|
| _" is directly related to his own actions (e.g., fleeing to an
| Embassy)."_
|
| Yet given how the events turned out it seems that he was right.
| He was hiding in the embassy in fear that they would try to
| send him to the US.
| bsimpson wrote:
| Spelling like a 9 year old who just discovered an Internet
| chat room undercuts your credibility, as does attacking the
| person you're replying to.
|
| Your question is abhorrently tasteless and irrelevant, which
| is about all I can say without violating the forum guidelines
| myself.
| ttybird2 wrote:
| I am a non-native english speaker typing on a phone without
| a spellchecher. I also have dislexia. If you have some
| specific complaints then please do point them out, I would
| love to improve.
|
| I am not sure why you think that this is the case given
| that the person that I am replying to literally worked for
| an organisation made for killing people and with a known
| record of torture and warcrimes. Would you welcome a proud
| ISIS fighter? I would not.
|
| If they killed nobody then they just can say so. I just do
| not wish to talk to people who murdered people in illegal
| invasions.
| bladegash wrote:
| "Yet given how the events turned out it seems that he was
| right. He was hiding in the embassy in fear that they would
| try to send him to the US."
|
| If only we could all flee when faced with consequences for
| breaking laws that we disagree with.
|
| "Transparency is a government duty. It is a shame but totally
| justified that private citizens have to 3nforce it. As for
| "criminal", sounds like yet another victimless crime. If
| anything they are exposing crimes."
|
| There are absolutely reasons for state secrecy and the
| breadth of information crossed a line between what was
| necessary for informing the public, versus damaging to the
| diplomatic relations and ability to conduct diplomacy with
| much of the rest of the world.
|
| "Thank you for disclosing that. How many people did you kill
| (directly or indirectly) and why didn't you try to expose
| warcrimes?"
|
| Oh, goodness. Thanks for adding to taking the time to provide
| your perspective and add to the discussion.
| ttybird2 wrote:
| "If only we could all flee when faced with consequences for
| breaking laws that we disagree with."
|
| These who can flee the overreach of foregin countries
| trying to enforce their unjust laws on them, do so.
|
| "versus damaging to the diplomatic relations and ability to
| conduct diplomacy with much of the rest of the world."
|
| Yeah, if a country commits horrible warcrimes then most of
| the world will not want to deal with them. It was not
| assange who was responsible for this but the US itself. One
| would not accuse a rape victim of ruining the reputation of
| their abuser.
|
| "Oh, goodness. Thanks for adding to taking the time to
| provide your perspective and add to the discussion."
|
| Pray tell. If it is zero then you can just say so, and if
| you did try to expose warcrimes I will take it back.
| klibertp wrote:
| > If only we could all flee
|
| Tell that to Snowden.
|
| > There are absolutely reasons for state secrecy and
|
| Sorry, I have to: that's just, like, your opinion man. Have
| you ever thought that you might be wrong on this? How about
| the state stops doing the things they need to keep secret?
| You may call it naive, but some will call it being just,
| you know?
| bladegash wrote:
| Fortunately you and I do not individually make that
| decision. Society does and it has deemed, through
| democratically elected leaders and participation in a
| social contract that there is a case to be made to state
| secrets.
| klibertp wrote:
| The fact that something can be done doesn't mean it
| should.
|
| At one point, society deemed it acceptable to amputate
| various parts of a body as a form of punishment. Imagine
| you have a time machine and get to go watch a public
| torture and execution ca. 1200AD. Would you consider
| literally frying someone slowly into charcoal something
| you can "make a case" for? Why not? The social contract
| of there and then says it's fine?
|
| There are places today where the social contract is still
| pretty much the same it was throughout human history:
| "we'll murder our way to any resources we need, and if
| you try to stop us you're dead (and if not, we might even
| share a bit)". Would you say this contract is good and
| just? Would you support it? And if not, why should _we_
| support _yours_ , if it's precisely how your own "social
| contract" looks like to _anyone that is not you_?
|
| Which part of the Afghan society voted you and your
| friends in? Why is _your_ social contract important and
| just, yet theirs doesn 't mean anything to you? Moreover,
| you went there _specifically to break_ their contract:
| there 's no way a full-scale invasion doesn't break at
| least the guarantee of single jurisdiction. So, your
| social contract - good; their - bad. Because terrorists?
|
| On a related note: "society does and it has deemed"
| sounds to me like "and God said it was good". It's not an
| argument, it's an observation at best, but most often
| utterly empty. If you want to tell us that killing
| civilians with an attack helicopter should be kept under
| wraps, you should really give us the reasons why _you_
| personally think so. You really cannot speak for the
| "society", now can you? Or are you Borg?
| harry8 wrote:
| A journalist is /any/ citizen engaging in journalism. ANY. As
| soon as you have to "qualify" to be a "journalist" and can't be
| an "activist" What you have is state controlled media.
|
| Indiscriminate publishing. So you think the vetting done in
| partnership with the Washington Post and the New York Times was
| not journalism and the employees of the NYT and WaPo who are
| now not journalists should be prosecuted along side him? That's
| pretty radical.
| frabbit wrote:
| Do you think that the comments that are furiously ignoring
| this and pretending that there is some sort of official
| journalist title are genuinely ignorant or trying to sow
| confusion?
| the_optimist wrote:
| I respect your perspective but wholly disagree with your
| conclusion. There is not a viable concept such as whether a
| journalist "enables espionage." Journalism is necessarily
| adversarial, not pliant.
| mhh__ wrote:
| I think it's a test of what you think of him - i.e. whether
| you consider it strictly journalism or activism.
|
| As far as I'm aware his activities regarding the whole
| guccifer, Seth rich, etc. affair make me think a mere
| journalist he is not.
| bladegash wrote:
| Thank you for the tactful disagreement and I appreciate your
| perspective. I also believe journalism is necessarily
| adversarial and should be allowed to exist with little
| encumbrance. However, I do think there is a line that needs
| to be drawn at some point as to what is journalism, versus
| what is propaganda for a specific agenda masquerading as
| journalism.
| the_optimist wrote:
| There's no way to draw this line. The vast majority of
| commercial journalism is propaganda, unsubstantiated by
| tangible facts and portrayed in directions strictly
| favorable to power and pleasing to the audience. Far from
| jesters speaking truth to power, commercial media are
| largely courtesans.
| kodablah wrote:
| > However, I do think there is a line that needs to be
| drawn at some point as to what is journalism, versus what
| is propaganda for a specific agenda masquerading as
| journalism.
|
| Why does the intent/purpose of the publisher matter here in
| any way from a legal prospective? I fear that your opinion
| of his purpose is forming your opinion of its legality.
| jasonlotito wrote:
| > Why does the intent/purpose of the publisher matter
| here in any way from a legal prospective?
|
| Motive is incredibly important from a legal perspective.
| It's the difference between self-defense and murder. I
| believe you have the burden of proof suggesting why
| motive shouldn't be considered from a legal perspective,
| and I believe you'll have an uphill battle doing so.
| bladegash wrote:
| You do not draw a distinction in intent between informing
| the public and furthering the goals of a foreign
| adversary? Not saying he was, just an example, of how
| intent absolutely does matter from a legal perspective.
| Karunamon wrote:
| What if accomplishing the first thing necessarily
| accomplishes the second thing? For example, informing on
| any nation's heretofore unknown war crimes hurts them on
| the world stage.
| bladegash wrote:
| That's a good question and I am not 100% sure where I
| would personally/morally draw the line. I think the
| conversation would be much different if all that were
| released was the evidence of what people consider to be a
| war crime. However, there was a lot more than that
| released than just that. Whether A (benefit to society)
| is greater than B (risk/damage) is always a hard
| distinction to make and up for significant
| discussion/analysis.
| Supermancho wrote:
| > That's a good question and I am not 100% sure where I
| would personally/morally draw the line.
|
| What benefits or harms a country is orthogonal to what is
| factual. Any law that claims a moral high ground in
| protecting facts from being publicized, is used as a club
| to suppress speech. That is the moral issue, not some
| misguided idea that you are beholden to where and when
| you were born over reality to make statements. When you
| chase people after the fact (information is already
| published), you're doubling the moral insult. This isn't
| he ruin of the US, so it's transparently a petty
| vendetta.
|
| There are practical problems (like state secrets in
| larger war games, ie Game Theory), which countries have
| historically forgone any nuance for the club, in the
| interest of expediency and simplicity. This isn't so
| complicated. Everyone understands. This is not a
| justification for totalitarian behavior, regardless of
| how dressed up the process is.
| roenxi wrote:
| 1. If the interests of the public and US adversaries
| coincide, then there may not be a distinction. For
| example, if the US government had gone rogue and was
| spying on literally everyone (as, indeed, appears to have
| happened) then it is useful to both the public at large
| _and_ the US 's adversaries to know about it. It is good
| journalism to report on it. Ditto war crimes and all
| sorts of other shenanigans that Wikileaks has uncovered.
|
| 2. I don't think Assange is accused specifically of
| furthering the goals of a foreign adversary. If there was
| evidence of that then he would presumably have been
| charged with it somewhere.
| shkkmo wrote:
| How do you draw a clear line between what Assange disband
| what other journalists do? Most journalists have agendas,
| if we allow our government to prosecute journalists with
| agendas they don't like, then we don't have a free press.
| dukeofdoom wrote:
| If publishing leaked information is punishable by the state,
| than what kind of press would you have? Its precisely the most
| contentious things that the state wants to hide, is what often
| the public needs to know about.
|
| The modern corporate press is bad enough as it is. But do you
| really want to live in a country where legit journalists are
| jailed for publishing things the government does not want you
| to know about.
|
| Just this week, state prosecutor blanked out almost all the
| names on Epstein flight logs. Fairly obvious its in the public
| interest to know which powerful people went there. But powerful
| people will try to protect other powerful people.
| TomSwirly wrote:
| Lots of words. What crime do you think Assange has committed,
| specifically?
|
| > Assange is an activist, not a journalist.
|
| Assange has broken two of the biggest stories of our era and
| literally hundreds of stories each of which would be a
| reputation-maker for a lesser individual.
|
| Just because you don't like the truths that Assange reveals,
| doesn't mean he isn't a journalist.
|
| > any probative value of the information Manning leaked was
| overshadowed by the indiscriminate way in which it was done.
|
| Wikileaks tried to get cooperation from the US government to
| redact the sensitive parts. They refused to cooperate.
|
| Your way would have meant nothing at all.
|
| Can you explain what harm you believe these leaks caused,
| compared to their value in knowing that the US engages in war
| crimes and covers them up?
| pessimizer wrote:
| Being an activist doesn't make you not a journalist, any more
| than being employed by companies that share portfolio space
| with the companies that get all of their revenue from supplying
| war material doesn't mean you're not a journalist.
|
| > However, I do not agree that a "journalist" should be able to
| enable espionage
|
| Then you don't really believe that 99% of journalists are
| journalists, because they would disagree with you. I'm thankful
| that I don't live in the completely bowdlerized history that
| would have been the result if more journalists agreed with you.
| VictorPath wrote:
| > Further, I am of the opinion, being someone who was quite
| literally in Afghanistan when he leaked the information he did,
| that any probative value of the information Manning leaked was
| overshadowed by the indiscriminate way in which it was done.
|
| It's funny to me that you were marauding around Afghanistan a
| couple of years ago and would use the word indiscriminate to
| describe Assange.
| HeckFeck wrote:
| The modern security state has made an example. Be silent and
| compliant and they might leave you alone.
| A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote:
| 'First they came for' definitely applies. The chilling message
| it sends is hard to mistake by anything other than a warning.
| unobatbayar wrote:
| Wish he revealed the secrets of China or Russia, not the United
| States.
| catlikesshrimp wrote:
| He is in jail, he can't.
|
| And the right thing to do is to denounce evil as it comes.
| Journalism is a requirement for democracy.
| realce wrote:
| Rules for thee, not for me.
| bouncycastle wrote:
| They have released plenty of things on Russia too, eg
| https://wikileaks.org/spyfiles/russia/
| mikeyouse wrote:
| They're not a neutral actor, which is a damn shame;
|
| https://www.dailydot.com/debug/wikileaks-syria-files-
| syria-r...
| wazoox wrote:
| "Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed:
| everything else is public relations."
|
| George Orwell
| xaduha wrote:
| Surely he has some sort of a dead man's switch aka doomsday files
| that US doesn't want out there, there was something about
| encrypted 'insurance' files. I don't think US is doing it out of
| principle, they want to have a deal with him. Or maybe that data
| is no longer relevant or was a bluff to begin with.
| rado wrote:
| Just in time: "US announces funds to support independent
| journalism and reporters targeted for their work"
| fallingknife wrote:
| If it's supported by government funds it's not "independent
| journalism" anymore.
| qart wrote:
| I noticed that too. Strange games, the US is playing.
| jessaustin wrote:
| Everything on this page seems kind of pathetic now:
|
| https://www.state.gov/subjects/press-freedom/
| juanani wrote:
| Reads like the onion, thanks!
| White_Wolf wrote:
| fixed it for you: "US announces funds to support <the right>
| independent journalism and reporters targeted for their work"
| criley2 wrote:
| The histrionics, conspiracy theories and outright lies in this
| thread are outrageous. The US justice system is not the same as
| despotic countries like Russia or China.
|
| Reality Winner will be released from prison soon. Chelsea
| Manning, who leaked the info to him, the actual whistleblower who
| broke the laws, is a free woman. (Could you imagine if Chelsea
| tried to transition to a woman in Russia or China or other
| nations that are coming up in this thread in comparison? Just
| goes to show how fundamentally different these societies are,
| that she could transition to a woman while incarcerated!)
|
| If Assange hadn't played his games avoiding the court for the
| better part of a decade, the dude would probably already have
| done his time and be free.
|
| Although it's entertaining to read the astronomically terrible
| takes in this thread, I did hope to see a little more
| intelligence in this community.
| throwamon wrote:
| Is this the kind of thing you'd call a conspiracy theory?
|
| https://news.yahoo.com/kidnapping-assassination-and-a-london...
| choward wrote:
| So it's okay to murder people as long as you're woke?
| throwaway21_ wrote:
| Why would he do any time at all? Because the people who
| actually should be doing time are the people in power so they
| are somehow immune?
|
| Also, Chelsea could transition to a woman without prison too.
| The fact that they ended/will end in prison while people who
| actually committed crimes that these two (and Snowden) exposed
| speaks volumes about how fundamentally different USA is.
| criley2 wrote:
| Well "throwaway21", interesting that every time this topic
| comes up, brand new accounts come out of the woodwork. I'm
| not going to accuse you of being a political actor, but I
| would point out that Wikileaks exists as part of a new realm
| of state-funded and state-coordinated private intelligence
| services created to retain plausible deniability. When
| certain state funded operations come up, the comment sections
| do always seem to fill with oddly named brand new accounts,
| on this website and many others! What a weird coincidence.
|
| As per his crimes, he is charged with a relatively minor
| criminal offense stemming from his assistance in attempting
| to crack a password hash to gain unauthorized access to
| military computers -- a crime that would also be charged in
| any other western nation. Imagine hiding from a 5 year max
| sentence for 10 years. Oof.
|
| As for Reality, she really could not have transitioned in
| Russia and China regardless of prison, that was the point you
| missed. But as to her crime, yes I do think that the idea of
| classification and state secrets have merit and that members
| of the military who violate that can be punished.
| shkkmo wrote:
| > I'm not going to accuse you of being a political actor,
|
| Then don't bring it up, it doesn't add to the discussion.
|
| > he is charged with a relatively minor criminal offense
| stemming from his assistance in attempting to crack a
| password hash to gain unauthorized access to military
| computers
|
| That was only the first charge he was indicted on.
|
| > Imagine hiding from a 5 year max sentence for 10 years.
|
| Assange currently faces up to 170 years in prison.
|
| He was hiding from a one of the worlds largest perpetrators
| of targeted assassination, one which we know has debated
| assassinating him at its highest levels.
|
| > As for Reality, she really could not have transitioned in
| Russia and China regardless of prison, that was the point
| you missed.
|
| You seem to be confused. Reality Winner did not change
| genders and was not working for the military when she
| leaked documents to the Intercept.
|
| > I do think that the idea of classification and state
| secrets have merit
|
| Just because there is merit to the idea doesn't mean that
| everything that gets classified deserves that
| classification, nor does it mean that the government
| doesn't use that classification infrastructure to hide
| things that the American public needs to know about. The
| prosecution of Assange absolutely represents an
| unacceptable expansion of the USA'a ability to suppress
| such information.
| revolvingocelot wrote:
| A whole paragraph dedicated to how anonymous internet
| commenters could be fake spin delivery vehicles, then the
| suggestion that Assange has been charged with "a relatively
| minor criminal offence", completely eliding a bunch of
| politically-motivated now-dismissed sexual assault charges
| that were the _actual impetus_ for him to hide in a foreign
| embassy for years.
|
| It'd be one thing if he was hiding from a "5 year max"
| charge of "assistance in attempting to crack a password
| hash to gain unauthorized access to military computers",
| but despite your comment clearly implying that this was the
| case, it's not.
|
| I'm not going to accuse you of being a political actor, but
| what a weird coincidence.
| ChrisKnott wrote:
| > _" completely eliding a bunch of politically-motivated
| now-dismissed sexual assault charges that were the actual
| impetus for him to hide in a foreign embassy for years"_
|
| Isn't this the total opposite of what Assange and his
| supporters were saying? He was claiming that we _wasn 't_
| avoiding the sexual offence EAW, but hiding in the
| embassy because of the US indictment, to which the
| Swedish allegations were (he claimed) somehow connected.
|
| The evidence revealed during the US case has basically
| shown that the Obama DOJ in fact had decided against
| prosecuting him, so at the time this UK->Sweden->USA
| scheme could never have happened because there wasn't, at
| that point, a US indictment (ignoring that fact it made
| no sense when he could have always simply gone UK->USA).
| notahacker wrote:
| Yep. The Assange story that he was totally willing to
| answer to the rape charges but had to flee to a country
| that wouldn't extradite him to the US for something else
| isn't really helped by him being extradited by the "safe"
| country for charges filed years later after a change of
| government. I'm not convinced of the merits of the DOJ
| case against Assange either technically or politically,
| but its notable how many other people publicly known to
| have been involved in the dissemination of the Collateral
| Murder video have continued to do investigative
| journalism without having charges of any sort filed
| against them, never mind two separate Wikileaks
| supporters accusing them of sex offences ...
| criley2 wrote:
| Julian Assange getting away with his sexual assault of a
| woman due to his politics is very reminiscent of how
| Donald Trump avoids blame for his sexual crimes through
| the lens of politics. Very smart tool to ensure you can
| never be guilty of anything and your supporters will deny
| any wrongdoing as politically motivated. It's no surprise
| that Assanage and Trumps people communicated and
| coordinated, as these devious tactics sure look familiar.
|
| Reminds me of Assange's "Seth Rich" gamble, how he
| supercharged a heinous conspiracy theory on behalf of
| fake news purely to earn political approval and gain
| loyalty from folks who, like you, will not do their
| homework to validate the claims they make.
|
| >It'd be one thing if he was hiding from the charge
| "assistance in attempting to crack a password hash to
| gain unauthorized access to military computers", but
| despite your comment clearly implying that this was the
| case, it's not.
|
| Julian's sexual assault crimes have nothing to do with
| the United States or his extradition here, as the
| original charges were espionage related. It's a red
| herring for you to bring it up, and I think either
| evidence of ignorance (you thought the US was extraditing
| him for his sexual crimes in Sweden ...?) or malfeasance
| (you know it was espionage, but you brought this up to
| muddy the waters intentionally).
|
| >I'm not going to accuse you of being a political actor,
| but what a weird coincidence.
|
| It's always cute when people try to repeat your lines
| back to you as a weak "gotcha" but completely fail.
| You're not going to make that accusation because I'm
| obviously not.
|
| I will accuse you of being a victim of fake news and
| implicit supporter of sexual violence though.
| revolvingocelot wrote:
| >Julian's sexual assault crimes have nothing to do with
| the United States or his extradition here, as the
| original charges were espionage related [...] I think
| either evidence of ignorance (you thought the US was
| extraditing him for his sexual crimes in Sweden ...?) or
| malfeasance (you know it was espionage, but you brought
| this up to muddy the waters intentionally).
|
| No, that's not true. It's easily shown that Assange's
| first charges were laid in Sweden in November 2010 [0].
| He was granted political asylum in Ecuador's British
| embassy precisely because it was so clear that the
| charges weren't about sexual assault but rather about his
| involvement in leaking things. The Yanks were still
| investigating him at this time [1][2], and didn't lay
| charges until years afterwards [3], in 2018.
|
| Since you've accused me of being a victim of fake news, I
| assume you've got the Real Truth hidden away. You've got
| actual reasons to claim the things you've claimed, which
| AFAICT are just lies, right? You're not just muddying the
| waters intentionally?
|
| [0] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-11803703
|
| [1]
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange#cite_ref-
| Holder...
|
| [2] http://archive.boston.com/news/nation/washington/arti
| cles/20...
|
| [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indictment_and_arrest_o
| f_Julia...
| shkkmo wrote:
| > Julian Assange getting away with his sexual assault of
| a woman due to his politics
|
| This is far from an accurate representation of the
| events. You seem consistently misinformed on key points.
| Perhaps you should do some more research before spreading
| that misinformation further.
|
| > Julian's sexual assault crimes have nothing to do with
| the United States or his extradition here, as the
| original charges were espionage related. It's a red
| herring for you to bring it up,
|
| You are the one who brought it up. Assange faces up to 5
| years for the "assistance in attempting to crack a
| password hash" and up to 170 years for the crimes he is
| being charged with under the espionage act.
| [deleted]
| realce wrote:
| Reality Winner and Manning are American citizens. Assange is
| not.
|
| What "games" would YOU play to get out of being extradited to a
| foreign country for crimes of publishing factual information?
| Your consolation is that it's _only_ a decade or so of his life
| in a cage unjustly, no big deal?
|
| You think it is the definition of intelligence to submit to
| that?
| criley2 wrote:
| >"What "games" would YOU play to get out of being extradited
| to a foreign country for crimes of publishing factual
| information?"
|
| The crime he is charged with has nothing to do with
| publication of anything, it's a charge stemming from his help
| attempting to crack a password hash of military computer
| accounts to help gain unauthorized access to military
| systems.
|
| Are foreigners allowed to hack military networks in your
| country?
|
| > You think it is the definition of intelligence to submit to
| that?
|
| Considering that you're giving me an emotional tale of "CRIME
| OF PUBLISHING" which is completely contrary to the facts, I
| would say that the definition of intelligence at the very
| least includes setting your emotions aside and learning the
| basic information of a situation before coming to a
| conclusion
| realce wrote:
| > Are foreigners allowed to hack military networks in your
| country?
|
| Yes, it happens all day every day. Assange didn't even
| "hack" anything, he allegedly helped educate Manning, no
| different than a text file or a 2600 article. Manning
| committed the crime, she was the one bound by US laws, not
| Assange. We could hand over every journo who has aided
| classified foreign information being published in US media,
| it's the same thing.
|
| The crime of publishing is the truth, not an emotional
| tale, regardless of the official charges, unless your
| definition of intelligence is believing the charging
| documents of the American government as truth.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| Assange received a hashed password and said he passed it
| onto his "LM guy"
|
| He later asks for the status on the hash.
|
| Do reporters usually help people break the law?
| realce wrote:
| > Do reporters usually help people break the law?
|
| Truthfully that question is hard to answer, you must be
| specific - do you mean reporters helping people jaywalk?
| Source the law that this Australian citizen ran afoul of.
| Greenwald provided protection and services to Snowden
| where the case for espionage is much stronger, we do not
| consider him a criminal however.
| Ekaros wrote:
| So will USA extradite let's say Israeli hackers to Iran? If
| not they are purely hypocritical.
| meepmorp wrote:
| Did those people commit a crime under US law? Does the US
| have an extradition treaty with Iran?
|
| Since the answer to both of these questions is no, what
| does it have to do with Assange's situation?
| criley2 wrote:
| The US does not have an extradition treaty with Iran, so
| no, they will not extradite folks there.
|
| I do hope the US files charges against Israeli hackers who
| have targeted American organizations though. No country
| should get a free pass.
| mhh__ wrote:
| There is a lot of "he will be killed" in this thread. I suppose
| that's not impossible, but it seems remarkably brazen for almost
| no real benefit to the government.
| DoItToMe81 wrote:
| The US government has already discussed murdering him, which
| tends to leave people shocked and suspicious.
| iam-TJ wrote:
| "Kidnapping, assassination and a London shoot-out: Inside the
| CIA's secret war plans against WikiLeaks" [0] 26th September
| 2021
|
| Yahoo News Kidnapping, assassination and a London shoot-out:
| Inside the CIA's secret war plans against WikiLeaks Zach
| Dorfman, Sean D. Naylor and Michael Isikoff September 26, 2021,
| 10:00 AM*39 min read In this article:
|
| In 2017, as Julian Assange began his fifth year holed up in
| Ecuador's embassy in London, the CIA plotted to kidnap the
| WikiLeaks founder, spurring heated debate among Trump
| administration officials over the legality and practicality of
| such an operation.
|
| Some senior officials inside the CIA and the Trump
| administration even discussed killing Assange, going so far as
| to request"sketches"or"options"for how to assassinate him.
| Discussions over kidnapping or killing Assange occurred at the
| highest levels"of the Trump administration, said a former
| senior counterintelligence official. "There seemed to be no
| boundaries."
|
| [0] https://news.yahoo.com/kidnapping-assassination-and-a-
| london...
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| Talk is cheap. Did they carry it out?
| mhh__ wrote:
| My thoughts exactly.
| anon012012 wrote:
| Having hidden agendas and hidden organizations is an act of War
| and government officials should be dealt with the harshest
| sanction for the crime of Treason to Humanity. I'm not even
| trolling, and I'm not even started.
| choward wrote:
| What are you talking about? The US government? I agree that
| many in the government have hidden agendas and are traitors.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| Christmas came early. This is great news.
| publiush wrote:
| It is thanks to Julian that we know how important information is.
| kingcharles wrote:
| One problem is that he likely won't be held in a prison, he'll be
| held in a pre-trial detention facility. The conditions in pre-
| trial detention in the USA, on the whole, are considerably worse
| than any prison because they are designed for "short-term"
| holding only.
|
| I did a deposition a few years back with the warden of a
| detention facility and asked him why the conditions were so bad.
| "The average stay here is 30 days", which justified everything.
| That figure came because a large number of people were able to
| bond out on day one and skewed the average he was using. It did
| not take into account the significant number of people who were
| in the facility for close to a decade or more awaiting trial. For
| instance, at the Cook County Jail in Chicago there are several
| people who have been waiting over 11 years and still have no
| trial in sight.
|
| A lot of pre-trial facilities do not have any access to sunlight.
| I was held in a windowless room for five years with 24x7
| fluorescent lighting and no access to sunlight or fresh air. Then
| I was held at another facility for three years that had a sealed
| "window" but also, essentially, no access to sunlight or fresh
| air.
|
| In prisons you will generally find that you can get outside
| several times a week. But prisons are usually only used for those
| who have been convicted of a crime, and not those presumed
| innocent.
| Zigurd wrote:
| Assange knowingly became a front for a Russian disinformation op
| against the US. he was a factor in helping Putin bring the US to
| its darkest days politically. He also released a lot of important
| factual information Americans did not know. Both are true. One
| does not negate the other.
| beeboop wrote:
| This is all entirely unsubstantiated. There is no evidence for
| any of this, and it's very blatantly misinformation and
| propaganda. It keeps getting repeated so frequently as to look
| like astroturfing.
| lawn wrote:
| The same bullshit is also repeated every time Snowden is
| mentioned.
| guilhas wrote:
| Going back to the land of the free
|
| USA the country with the most jailed in the world, even China has
| less with 4x more population
| guilhas wrote:
| Going back to the land of the free!
|
| USA the country with the most jailed in the world, even China
| with 5x more population
|
| It is baffling how they keep lecturing the world
| foxyv wrote:
| Assange is sort of my barometer for US politicians views on the
| 1st amendment. If they don't support a pardon, clemency, or an
| end to the harassing investigation into him then I know they are
| bereft of any moral compass and will happily shred the US
| constitution for campaign contributions.
| torcete wrote:
| I always compare this case with Pinochet, when he visited the UK
| and a Spanish court asked for his extradition for crimes against
| humanity. Of course, he wasn't and returned to Chile.
| Starlevel001 wrote:
| ITT: hacker news users grappling with the consequences of their
| own ideology
| guilhas wrote:
| Going back to the land of the free!
|
| USA the country with the most jailed in the world
|
| It is baffling how they keep lecturing the world
| atomashpolskiy wrote:
| What's with people's opinion on this? E.g.
|
| https://www.change.org/p/free-julian-assange-before-it-s-too...
|
| Signed by 666,000 people.
|
| I even donated 10 bucks or so back in the day to advance this
| petition.
|
| Did UK court take this public opinion into consideration when
| when ruling the verdict?
|
| I'm pissed as hell. What are the realistic options for ordinary
| people like me to stop Julian's torture?
| busymom0 wrote:
| I don't think those change dot org petitions ever achieve
| anything.
| [deleted]
| kome wrote:
| Young people IMHO have no idea what's going on. In one line:
|
| Assange in 2010 revealed and gave clear proof of American war
| crimes in Iraq
| https://wikileaks.org/wiki/Collateral_Murder,_5_Apr_2010 - now
| the US wants him dead.
|
| That's how imperialism works. Today is a sad day for all freedom
| and peace lovers.
|
| Edit: just to be clear, the perpetrators of those barbarous war
| crimes, and their superiors, never had to face justice.
| mcv wrote:
| > just to be clear, the perpetrators of those barbarous war
| crimes, and their superiors, never had to face justice.
|
| This is the big one. I can totally see how Assange handled some
| of the data irresponsibly, and I can understand if he deserves
| a firm slap on the wrist for that. But they're asking for 175
| years for this, while the war crimes he reported on go
| unpunished, and that is the real injustice here.
|
| The US clearly doesn't care about war crimes anymore, but it
| does not tolerate criticism of crimes committed in service of
| the government.
| DonHopkins wrote:
| Don't touch that dial... You've got KOME on your radio!
| phone8675309 wrote:
| "Can't we just drone this guy?" -- about Julian Assange from
| the candidate in the 2016 presidential election that got the
| largest share of the popular vote
| reducesuffering wrote:
| Unproven.
|
| "I spread misinformation to others without doing due
| diligence," phone8675309 said.
|
| Also unproven
| mandmandam wrote:
| That war hawk has been openly calling for Assange to
| "answer for what he's done" for years; ever since he showed
| people just how bought she is with her own campaign
| manager's emails.
|
| And on this "who has lied more" chart, we can see Hillary
| is up there in the hundred of verified lies area, while
| Assange and Wikileaks are on 0 verified lies.
| seoaeu wrote:
| Cry me a river. The vendetta clearly went both ways given
| what Assange was willing to do to sabotage her campaign.
| hnfong wrote:
| Are you really saying the appropriate response to a
| "political opponent" trying to stop you from being elected
| is murder?
| jessaustin wrote:
| The masks are really coming off.
| beeboop wrote:
| Assange reported on information. That's what journalists
| do. Hillary sabotaged her own campaign by the actions
| she/her team/the DNC took. You can't put the blame on the
| journalist.
| seoaeu wrote:
| Ah, yes. Collaborating with hackers to publish internal
| campaign emails, exactly the behavior of an upstanding
| journalist
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _revealed and gave clear proof of American war crimes in
| Iraq_
|
| Honest question: are these crimes under U.S. law?
| e12e wrote:
| Yes, unprovoked killing of civilians could be prosecuted as
| murder, AFAIK. Prosecution does not equal conviction
| necessarily - see eg:
|
| https://www.aa.com.tr/en/americas/us-military-jury-
| acquits-s...
| HamburgerEmoji wrote:
| It's pure journalism. And why would he even have to worry
| about the laws of a country he wasn't in when he did the
| activities anyway? It's like worrying about whether what one
| is doing is legal in Bhutan.
| krageon wrote:
| The UN has a nice document explaining what war crimes are and
| how they matter:
| https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/war-crimes.shtml
| unknownus3r wrote:
| If a terrorist is hiding amongst civilians and is engaged, is
| the collateral damage a war crime? If an operator attacks
| someone she believes to be a terrorist in a war zone but ends
| up being civilian is it a war crime?
|
| There are not easy questions to answer when you consider the
| difficulties of operating in war. Many times, people in those
| situations are moving on incomplete or even incorrect
| information and lives of their fellow soldiers hang in the
| balance. It's easy to look back at hindsight and judge it
| harshly but in the moment, put yourselves in their shoes,
| what would you have done?
| jm547ster wrote:
| War crimes would generally refer to breaching international
| treaty and/or conventions. The "Patriot" Act rebranded
| torture/abduction so as to not fall foul of these. "Advanced
| interrogation techniques" ....
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _War crimes would generally refer to breaching
| international treaty and /or conventions_
|
| Understood. But there are international laws and
| conventions with no binding effect, and there are those
| ratified and incorporated into the domestic bodies of law
| of its members. I'm curious if Assange's allegations are in
| respect of the former or the latter.
| e12e wrote:
| https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2441 "18 U.S.
| Code SS 2441 - War crimes"
|
| > (a) Offense.-- Whoever, whether inside or outside the
| United States, commits a war crime, in any of the
| circumstances described in subsection (b), shall be fined
| under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of
| years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall
| also be subject to the penalty of death.
|
| > (b) Circumstances.-- The circumstances referred to in
| subsection (a) are that the person committing such war
| crime or the victim of such war crime is a member of the
| Armed Forces of the United States or a national of the
| United States (as defined in section 101 of the
| Immigration and Nationality Act).
|
| > (c) Definition.--As used in this section the term "war
| crime" means any conduct-- (1) defined as a grave breach
| in any of the international conventions signed at Geneva
| 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to
| which the United States is a party; (2) prohibited by
| Article 23, 25, 27, or 28 of the Annex to the Hague
| Convention IV, Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on
| Land, signed 18 October 1907; (3) which constitutes a
| grave breach of common Article 3 (as defined in
| subsection (d)) when committed in the context of and in
| association with an armed conflict not of an
| international character; or (4) of a person who, in
| relation to an armed conflict and contrary to the
| provisions of the Protocol on Prohibitions or
| Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other
| Devices as amended at Geneva on 3 May 1996 (Protocol II
| as amended on 3 May 1996), when the United States is a
| party to such Protocol, willfully kills or causes serious
| injury to civilians.
|
| (...)
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| Thank you.
| peppermint_tea wrote:
| Thanks for making that short summary for the people who have
| not followed the saga since the beginning. I believe wikileaks
| bother many/much more people (remember paypal and visa not
| taking donation for the site) but what you added is short and
| concise to put someone up to speed quickly.
| varjag wrote:
| Wikileaks is a crusader outlet supporting basically anyone
| anti-American (and generally anti Western liberal) at expense
| of anyone else.
| chevill wrote:
| He mentioned a single thing that Assange has done. That's not
| bringing people up to speed. Its disingenuous because its a
| more complicated situation than that one thing describes. And
| that statement stands whether a person supports him or is
| hell bent on seeing his life permanently ruined or ended.
| kome wrote:
| Sure, it's more complicated, but that the basic truth.
| That's why everything stated. Then people can dig all the
| details and the 10 years of twist and turns.
| chevill wrote:
| Its a tiny part of the basic truth that leaves out any
| criticism of Assange. It doesn't entirely revolve around
| the leaking of a single video of a US helicopter killing
| civilians.
| mcv wrote:
| There is absolutely tons of justified criticism of
| Assange. And there are tons more details about the crimes
| he reported on. But going into all of that requires a
| massive article that doesn't fit into a short comment;
| this stuff is documented elsewhere.
|
| Despite all of Assange's many flaws, it boils down to
| this: he reported on war crimes, those crimes go
| unpunished and uninvestigated, but the US wants to punish
| Assange, severely, despite the fact that he is not
| American and never even set foot there.
| nextstep wrote:
| If Assange is transferred to US custody, there is a strong chance
| he will be killed (and possibly in a way that makes it look
| "accidental"). The CIA was actively planning for such scenarios
| in 2017: https://news.yahoo.com/kidnapping-assassination-and-a-
| london...
| meepmorp wrote:
| There's no point in killing him. He's done his damage;
| punishing him by letting him rot in prison is worse.
| sschueller wrote:
| "But judges ruled the risk of suicide was removed by assurances
| from the US."
|
| Like Epstein?
|
| Let this be a point, there is no press freedom in the United
| States.
| mattzito wrote:
| Except the article is from the bbc?
| caslon wrote:
| They're talking about how Assange broke no laws yet is
| getting tortured by the US and has been for years now for
| publishing media.
| DonaldFisk wrote:
| > Like Epstein?
|
| Exactly. You can't prevent prison suicides.
|
| In 2012, when she was home secretary, Theresa May stopped Gary
| McKinnon's extradition to the USA, on the grounds that he was a
| high suicide risk, and therefore the extradition violated his
| human rights. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_McKinnon). If
| only I had similar expectations of our current home secretary.
| [deleted]
| iso1631 wrote:
| What a crazy world where Theresa May is deemed to be a good
| home sec.
|
| I wonder how much pressure the Lib Dems put on her.
| ben_w wrote:
| Seeing how much she changed from Home Secretary to Prime
| Minister, I think the problem is with the office rather
| than the person.
| antihero wrote:
| If you are Home Secretary your job is basically to be a
| humungeous authoritarian piece of shit, because if
| something happens due to the country's security being
| breached in whatever manner, your head is on the chopping
| block.
| hk1337 wrote:
| If we're talking about murder veiled in suicide then this has
| a good point but what about an individual's right to end
| their own life, to choose how their life should end?
| hulitu wrote:
| > Like Epstein? Yes. And like Milosevic. And like Saddam. It's
| funny how some people choose to commit suicide just before
| trial.
| tokai wrote:
| What? Saddam was executed.
| not1ofU wrote:
| Epstein is either still alive and retired to some other island,
| OR, Maxwell is actually the Puppet Master and he was a fall
| guy. - I think the 2nd is the most likely option, given her
| family history, and that she hasn't been epstiened. And she is
| likely to get off, under the excuse of being controlled and in
| an abusive relationship.
| chevill wrote:
| There's a 0% chance that Epstein is alive and a 0% chance she
| walks on those charges. Miscarriages of justice do happen but
| for the most part life is not a poorly written TV drama.
| Taurenking wrote:
| keep watching
| mcv wrote:
| Have you watched the past 5 seasons of real life? It was
| incredibly poorly written.
| Ensorceled wrote:
| This second option ... may actually be true.
| kingcharles wrote:
| Having just recently got out of jail, I can tell you it is
| infinitely easy to kill yourself. You would not believe the
| ingenuity of some of those attempts and successes.
|
| If the institution gets a hint that you are suicidal you will
| be placed in some sort of anti-suicide cell, which generally
| means that you are in solitary, you wear a paper or foam suit
| with no other clothing, you have no bed linen or any paper
| materials in your cell, and all your food comes on foam trays
| without any cutlery and has to be eaten with your fingers.
| Hitton wrote:
| Such measures would make you want to commit suicide even if
| you weren't suicidal before.
| kingcharles wrote:
| Yes, indeed.
|
| I also failed to mention the light in the cell will be set
| to bright and will be on 24x7 and your cell will almost
| certainly have a completely glass door and you will be
| under camera and guard surveillance 24x7 to make sure you
| don't do anything stupid. If you are very lucky, some of
| these cells have a small wall in front of the toilet so you
| can at least get a tiny amount of privacy - they'll only be
| able to see you from the waist up.
| afandian wrote:
| Heard an intesting analysis of this on BBC news. The court was
| more or less bound to accept the 'assurances', as they were an
| underlying predicate for the whole extradition framework. To
| challenge that would be to unpick a lot more politics.
|
| I'm not sure the judges were naive enough to believe the US
| government, but they probably had no choice.
| oauea wrote:
| Guaranteed he's dead within a year.
| meepmorp wrote:
| Unless he kills himself, not a chance. He's done his damage,
| unlike Epstein who had whole houses of closets with skeletons
| in them; nobody wants him dead.
|
| Prison is worse.
| petra wrote:
| He'll be in solitary confinement. Maybe worse than death.
| hnfong wrote:
| What do you mean _in_ the US?
|
| This is global jurisdiction and enforcement, that's what the
| extradition is about.
| pulse7 wrote:
| So here we go again... Number of journalists in jail reaches
| global high (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29495145) and
| United States would like to contribute to this high number...
| callamdelaney wrote:
| That's basically bollocks, isn't it?
| lettergram wrote:
| To fully appreciate the context:
|
| - he's not a us citizen
|
| - none of the "crimes" happened on US soil
|
| - he's a world famous journalist with prior work
|
| - was charged with bogus crimes in Europe in an attempt to arrest
| him. All dropped
|
| - the person who stole the files he released is already free and
| the tax payers paid for their transition
| stjohnswarts wrote:
| Yeah the fact that it all happened outside of the USA and by
| someone who is not beholden to the USA is kind of amazing.
| Putin and Xi will now be able to demand (with a straight face)
| any government leaks out of their nation as criminal and demand
| that US journalists publishing such "state secrets" immediately
| be extradited to said countries and face charges in court.
| goodpoint wrote:
| > the tax payers paid for their transition
|
| Is this a criticism to tax policies or an underhanded insult to
| trans people?
| emilecantin wrote:
| As a non-US citizen, that's what I find most troubling about
| this. Change the countries and it's immediately apparent how
| absurd it is: Imagine a US citizen living in Mexico exposed
| some Peruvian state secrets (doing something which isn't a
| crime in Mexico), and now Peru is applying pressure to
| extradite the guy. Chances are everybody involved would laugh
| in Peru's face, so why does the UK entertain this in Assange's
| case? Why doesn't Australia get involved?
| bennyp101 wrote:
| Now is a good time for a power grab? COVID is tightening
| restrictions on the public, it's nearly christmas, and in the
| UK we have the PM's Xmas Party to talk about.
|
| What better time to slip Uncle Sam a favour?
| kitd wrote:
| Right now, we're also trying to get the US steel tariffs
| removed too.
| derlvative wrote:
| This sounds like the "mashing together whatever two things
| are going on at the moment together and claiming they're
| related" theory of politics.
| bennyp101 wrote:
| A hint of tongue in cheek with my comment :)
| Quekid5 wrote:
| Poe's Law. Also... phew! :)
| oefrha wrote:
| Welcome to international politics? Any kind of moral or
| justice is a farce, it's all about power.
| q1w2 wrote:
| Extradition treaties are carefully worded, but yes, they
| are rooted in power politics.
|
| The judge in this case, followed the rule of the
| extradition treaty law...
|
| ...but then again, ALL laws are rooted in the initial power
| politics that set them in motion.
| michael1999 wrote:
| Because the UK, and Australia are eager US vassals in this
| instance. They want to cooperate with the US government. The
| judges job here is to provide a fig-leaf of argument to
| justify what the executive clearly prefers.
| the_other wrote:
| AUKUS
|
| The timelines of the extradition and the submarine deal don't
| match up exactly... but the idea that the English-speaking
| countries can rely on one another runs deep and long.
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| > As a non-US citizen, that's what I find most troubling
| about this.
|
| Extradition isn't unique to the United States, though. It's a
| common feature of most large country's legal systems.
|
| This doesn't mean that any country can prosecute foreign
| people with arbitrary laws at their leisure, though. Most
| extradition agreements would require that the offense be a
| crime in both countries, for example, and require a
| reasonable expectation that the punishment will be
| proportional to the crime (i.e. not petty political
| retribution).
|
| In your US-Mexicon-Peru example, Mexico would indeed be
| likely to hand over the US citizen to Peru if (and only if)
| the accused criminal act was a crime in both countries.
| Mexico has additional constraints that would forbid the
| extradition if the death penalty was a likely outcome, but if
| the likely sentence was a prison term, the evidence was
| sufficient, and the crime was reasonably serious then the
| person would be on their way.
| stjohnswarts wrote:
| Sure but it generally involves someone fleeing a country
| where they committed the crime.
| pydry wrote:
| >This doesn't mean that any country can prosecute foreign
| people with arbitrary laws at their leisure, though. Most
| extradition agreements would require that the offense be a
| crime in both countries, for example.
|
| Ok but Anne Sacoolas ran over and killed a kid (definitely
| a crime here) and she _wasn 't_ extradited.
|
| While Julian Assange exposed a US war crime and is
| extradited because US espionage law literally counts that
| as spying. Not a crime in the UK.
|
| It really does appear that "at their leisure" is
| _precisely_ how it works. There 's the exercise of raw
| power with a thin veneer of false legal pretext on top
| designed to manufacture consent and convince those
| susceptible to the just world fallacy.
| asdfasgasdgasdg wrote:
| Plenty of people get extradited from the US to face
| charges abroad. Sacoolas is more an exception than a
| rule. Likely the only reason why she would not be
| extradited is because she's a "diplomat" (aka a spook or
| the wife of a spook). It kinda sucks that the US protects
| members of its intelligence services from criminal
| charges abroad, but the fact that it does that is kinda
| irrelevant to whether other, unrelated extraditions
| should go forward.
|
| I have to admit though it would be interesting if the UK
| played a game of tit for tat here. We will extradite
| Assange, but only after you send us Sacoolas. But they
| probably won't because Assange being prosecuted is also
| in their national interest, whereas Sacoolas facing her
| charges has little bearing on UK national interests.
| pydry wrote:
| >Plenty of people get extradited from the US to face
| charges abroad.
|
| Sure. People whom the US doesn't give a fuck about.
|
| "At their leisure" and "one rule for us; another for you"
| still applies. Sacoolas wasn't an exception in any
| meaningful sense. She is very much the rule.
| asdfasgasdgasdg wrote:
| I guess my point is that this goes for all countries.
| "Diplomats" are often not prosecuted or extradited for
| crimes committed abroad. It's not just the US that takes
| advantage of this system -- and I haven't even seen
| evidence that the US is an exception to the norm in this
| space. The "uses and abuses" section of the relevant page
| on Wikipedia has plenty of examples, and there are
| probably many more that don't make the news. It is not a
| novel thing and is basically irrelevant to whether
| Assange ought to be extradited.
| Dah00n wrote:
| How about a diplomats wife? They can clearly also escape
| extradition. It has nothing to do with what title you
| hold but if the US state gives a fuck or not.
| SeanLuke wrote:
| Anne Scoolas had diplomatic immunity, right? That's an
| entirely different ball of wax. Perhaps Scoolas isn't a
| good example for your case.
| InvertedRhodium wrote:
| Sure, despite there being a formal agreement that people
| at that specific base _not_ receive diplomatic immunity.
|
| I'm my opinion though, this just reinforces the idea that
| it didn't matter what the rules were - people in power
| were sufficiently motivated to justify what they wanted
| to do, they just needed a way to make it relatively
| palatable to the general public.
| rhino369 wrote:
| >Sure, despite there being a formal agreement that people
| at that specific base _not_ receive diplomatic immunity.
|
| At least one UK court disagreed with your interpretation.
| AND the US and UK re-wrote the agreement after the
| incident, which strongly suggests the agreement did
| originally allow families to receive immunity.
| akmarinov wrote:
| The UK is basically a US state at this point, so not sure why
| that's surprising.
| OtomotO wrote:
| Because the United States are a super power, the current
| Imperium even.
|
| There were often such empires around the world. Rome for
| example.
| kspacewalk2 wrote:
| - the alleged crimes were committed against the US, i.e his
| participation in the exfiltration of secret data from US
| government. Surely his physical location when committing these
| crimes should have no bearing on whether it's a criminal
| matter.
|
| - calling him a journalist is a mighty stretch even before he
| started, let's call it his "full-stack collaboration" with the
| Russians
|
| - Manning served the time and is thus free. Assange did not
| serve time, so from the perspective of the US justice system is
| a few steps back in the process of paying for his crime.
| Regardless of guilt or innocence, nothing seems strange about
| this concept itself. If you're caught for a crime committed
| with others back in the 90s you're also gonna go to prison,
| even if your co-conspirators are out free already.
| lb0 wrote:
| So no matter what the US does criminal against its own or
| international law (yeah I know, US give a fuck about Geneva
| conventions and also Den Haag.. another shame) - if they
| declared it "secret data" they can declare a foreign
| journalist helping in uncovering that crime himself
| committing crimes and require extradition? Just so
| backwards...
|
| Yeah I know, we can argue endless forever about the details,
| real lawyers too.. but to be honest on a higher level: It is
| such a shame for the US as a country claiming "democracy",
| "freedom" and more to go on with this ridiculous show trail,
| just such a ridiculous shame.
|
| For the UK the same, of course.
|
| Just read that overspecific prepared weasel language... I
| cannot stand it.
|
| > But in their ruling on Friday, they sided with the US
| authorities after a near-unprecedented package of assurances
| were put forward that Assange would not face those strictest
| measures either pre-trial or post-conviction unless he
| committed an act in the future that required them.
|
| We all know what will happen.. as a Westerner ashamed myself
| :(
| choward wrote:
| > calling him a journalist is a mighty stretch even before he
| started, let's call it his "full-stack collaboration" with
| the Russians
|
| How is he not a journalist? What's your definition? Is the
| garbage that CNN, MSNBC and Fox News spews out journalism? Is
| Chris Cuomo a journalist?
|
| Where is you evidence of Russian collaboration? Or did you
| hear that from a "journalist"? It seems you have no clue what
| journalism is.
| kspacewalk2 wrote:
| I restrict my definition to investigative reporting and
| neutral reporting of current affairs. People who write op-
| eds, or engage in propaganda, or (in this case) are an
| outlet for strategically timed leaks by foreign
| governments, coordinated beforehand with said outlet -
| that's not journalism, whatever else it happens to be.
|
| The evidence of Russian collaboration is detailed in the
| Mueller indictment, numerous investigative pieces about
| e.g. the kinds of people who visited Assange in the
| embassy, the obviously coordinated timing of DNC leaks,
| etc. etc. A preponderance of available evidence, let's call
| it.
| 93po wrote:
| >- calling him a journalist is a mighty stretch even before
| he started, let's call it his "full-stack collaboration" with
| the Russians
|
| This is wildly unsubstantiated and at best fear mongering
| propaganda.
|
| >- the alleged crimes were committed against the US, i.e his
| participation in the exfiltration of secret data from US
| government. Surely his physical location when committing
| these crimes should have no bearing on whether it's a
| criminal matter.
|
| It absolutely should matter. Why should someone who's not a
| citizen and wasn't located in the US be held to US laws? Does
| every person on the planet now need to memorize the laws of
| every country and fear extradition if I were to accidentally
| view gay porn, which is illegal in Saudi Arabia?
| kspacewalk2 wrote:
| >It absolutely should matter. Why should someone who's not
| a citizen and wasn't located in the US be held to US laws?
| Does every person on the planet now need to memorize the
| laws of every country and fear extradition if I were to
| accidentally view gay porn, which is illegal in Saudi
| Arabia?
|
| Your example doesn't really work because it is illegal to
| view gay porn _in_ Saudi Arabia. If Saudi Arabia decided to
| outlaw viewing gay porn worldwide, and then another country
| 's government decided that its extradition treaty with
| Saudi Arabia covers this law, and then you decided to visit
| such a country and viewed gay porn - yes, you should fear
| extradition in that case.
|
| By your logic, all one needs to do to hack into US
| companies and, say, steal trade secrets or money with
| impunity, or demand ransom, is to be outside the US. But
| that's not how the world works. In addition, you gotta find
| a country that doesn't extradite to the US on charges of
| fraud, and/or theft of trade secrets.
|
| Or, in Assange's case, actively and persistently convincing
| and coaching someone to exfiltrate top secret data from a
| US government computer system. Something that, BTW, I look
| forward to hearing which country in the world does _not_
| outlaw and pursue criminal convictions for.
|
| The framework is logically and legally sound, a good idea
| and a good thing. As to the inputs to the process - quality
| of laws, wording of extradition treaties - that does vary,
| so choose travel destinations and elected officials
| carefully.
| tootie wrote:
| I dispute him being a journalist. He hosts a website for raw
| intel that is frequently stolen.
| ianhawes wrote:
| NYT, WP, ProPublica, etc all "host a website for raw intel
| that is frequently stolen".
| mpalmer wrote:
| Journalism involves synthesis and above all _vetting_ of
| source material, not hosting a glorified ftp server for
| whatever your sources send you.
| choward wrote:
| Your saying it's not journalism unless it is spun and
| someone gives their opinion on it? You have no idea what
| journalism is.
| rhino369 wrote:
| Hosting primary sources isn't really journalism, in and
| of itself, as that term is commonly used.
| tootie wrote:
| They will always vet, synthesize, secure and edit their
| material. That's what makes it journalism. There's a reason
| Snowden went to The Guardian and not WikiLeaks.
|
| Julian Assange is as much of a journalist as Mark
| Zuckerberg is.
| regnull wrote:
| > none of the "crimes" happened on US soil
|
| He is charged with helping Chelsea Manning to hack into a
| government computer which did happen on US soil.
|
| " they charged him with conspiring to commit unlawful computer
| intrusion based on his alleged agreement to try to help Ms.
| Manning break an encoded portion of passcode that would have
| permitted her to log on to a classified military network under
| another user's identity."
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/11/world/europe/julian-assan...
| choward wrote:
| There is no evidence he helped her. Their main witness was a
| pedophile who lied to try get his own charges lessened. There
| is no case against Assange. The allegations are bogus.
| jjulius wrote:
| > Their main witness was a pedophile who lied to try get
| his own charges lessened.
|
| As far as I understand it, that witness admitted to lying
| about a lot, but I can't find where he ever was the witness
| to Assange helping Manning, or that he even claimed it
| happened. The original article[1] that exposed Thordarson's
| lies doesn't even mention that; it's only tangentially tied
| to the claim that Assange was Manning's accomplice because
| they used it to say, "See? He helped Thordarson, too". As
| far as I know, _we don 't yet know_ what other proof the
| government may have that Assange helped Manning along the
| way simply because there hasn't been a trial yet. Until
| that happens, it's impossible to say that there is no
| proof.
|
| Please correct me if I'm wrong.
|
| [1]https://stundin.is/grein/13627/
| plandis wrote:
| Are you saying this after reviewing all the evidence that
| the department of justice has or...?
| 4bpp wrote:
| The implications of defining an action as "happening on US
| soil" whenever it had an effect that involved mere data that
| was situated on US soil also seem troubling, and it's easy to
| imagine only slightly less clear cause-and-effect
| relationships from actions to data that would, under this
| interpretation, suggest extradition to a hostile
| jurisdiction.
|
| For example, Germany is well known to strictly prohibit and
| penalise the public display of Nazi symbols. Suppose some US
| citizen posted unicode swastikas in a game chat (while living
| in the UK), as kids seem to like to do, and this chat log got
| replicated on a German server, putting it in violation of
| German law, and now Germany wanted to throw the book at them
| (3 years of jail or so). Should the UK extradite this person
| to Germany? Would it have any bearing on this whether the kid
| did this with the intention of trolling Germans in game (and
| perhaps the awareness that it is not legal for them to
| display the symbol)?
|
| For an even juicier version of this scenario, imagine that we
| are instead considering the case of an American journalist
| who tweeted some of the edgier activist-journalist rhetoric
| (of the "kill all $privileged_group" type) to weigh in on
| some German domestic dispute. This just so happened to fall
| afoul of Germany's domestic laws on inciting racial hatred,
| and the message got replicated on whatever servers Twitter's
| CDN has there. The intent (to reach Germans) would be there,
| and a crime (having a public-facing computer server display
| an incitement to racial hatred) would have happened on German
| soil. How would you feel about the US journalist being
| extradited from the UK to Germany to face jail time?
| ianhawes wrote:
| > He is charged with helping Chelsea Manning to hack into a
| government computer which did happen on US soil.
|
| IIRC Manning was in Iraq at this time. Were servers they
| accessed in the US? Probably. But that would be a crime
| Manning committed.
| zepto wrote:
| > a crime Manning committed.
|
| With Assange as an accomplice.
| choward wrote:
| There is no evidence of this.
| zepto wrote:
| I don't think you know that, and ultimately it will he
| decided in court.
| tristan957 wrote:
| The land that a foreign military base sits on is within the
| jurisdiction of the US.
| Dah00n wrote:
| That is irrelevant if the hacker isn't at the base or in
| the US. This here is US law being applied outside the US
| to someone doing something outside the US while not being
| a US citizen. There not a single way to twist and turn
| this where it is lawful to apply it to Assange. It's just
| another corrupt court bending its knee.
| jjulius wrote:
| >IIRC Manning was in Iraq at this time. Were servers they
| accessed in the US? Probably.
|
| Should the military personnel who were responsible for
| abusing prisoners in Abu Ghraib not have been charged with
| crimes because they weren't in the US?
| boomboomsubban wrote:
| I don't think they were tried for crimes in a US court,
| they faced a court martial.
| [deleted]
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| > - he's not a us citizen
|
| > - none of the "crimes" happened on US soil
|
| Not commenting on the legitimacy of the underlying accusations,
| but neither of these have ever been obstacles for extradition
| treaties.
|
| Generally, as long as the actions are a crime in _both_
| countries (the country where the crime was committed and the
| country where the person currently resides) then it would fall
| under most extradition treaties.
|
| There are additional hurdles such as sufficiently believing
| that punishment will be proportional tot he crime and that the
| trial will be fair, but simply being in a different country
| doesn't mean someone is free from the consequences of
| committing crimes against victims in other countries.
|
| Some countries do have exceptions that their _own_ citizens can
| 't be extradited for treaties in foreign countries, but that
| doesn't free the person from being prosecuted for the crime in
| their own country either.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| We're witnessing the difference between someone who faces
| justice head-on (Manning) and someone who spends a decade
| evading a court.
|
| The justice system can determine a person's guilt or innocence,
| but only when they're brought before it. The _enforcement_
| system may, depending on their cost / benefit analysis, spend
| disproportionate resources to make that happen.
| ynth7 wrote:
| To fully appreciate the context; Americans rely on cheap labor
| to have nice stuff
|
| Don't see any of you organizing when the context is "how I'm
| benefiting from immorality."
|
| I'll take high minded individuals seriously when they take
| themselves seriously
|
| You're all just meatbags with electricity and bullshit running
| through you
| micromacrofoot wrote:
| none of these things matter when charging someone with a crime?
| non-citizens are charged for hacking from foreign countries all
| the time. You're also making an unwarranted dig at trans
| people.
| cainxinth wrote:
| > "he's a world famous journalist with prior work"
|
| That's a claim not a fact. It's also possible he was an asset
| for a hostile intelligence service posing as a journalist.
|
| I'm not normally one to side with Mike Pompeo, but I agree with
| his assessment on this one:
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/13/us/politics/mike-pompeo-c...
|
| "'WikiLeaks walks like a hostile intelligence service and talks
| like a hostile intelligence service,' Mr. Pompeo said."
| gausswho wrote:
| You agree also with the use of 'hostile'? If not, do you
| agree the US is in the right to extradite non-US intelligence
| operators?
| vntok wrote:
| Yes I agree. He himself declared numerous times that his
| intention was to be hostile to the US (and going as far as
| naming the Clintons explicitely as a target of his
| campaign).
| gausswho wrote:
| Can you cite some of those declarations?
| harry8 wrote:
| It's a fact he's world famous. We've heard of him.
|
| It's a fact he's a journalist. We've all read his journalism
| or at least know of its existence. [1]
|
| It's a claim that "he was an asset for a hostile intelligence
| service" and one with zero evidence to back it up. Everything
| Assange has done the New York Times has also done. Every
| single thing he has been charged with in this case. That's
| also a fact.
|
| [1] https://www.newstatesman.com/author/julian-assange
|
| Pompeo walks and talks like a traitor. There, that's a claim,
| you might find the evidence a little more compelling.
| Ma8ee wrote:
| Just to nitpick on your logic a little. Your first two
| statements might be true without the statement that he is a
| world famous journalist is. Trump is world famous, and he's
| a golfer. But he's not a world famous golfer, at least not
| in the usual sense of the word.
| harry8 wrote:
| Just to nitpick right back at you, if Assange had not
| published his journalism and its source materials you'd
| never had heard of him and he would not qualify as
| famous. So that makes him a world famous journalist.
|
| The idea that Trump is famous for playing golf is risible
| is your point but it does not apply here. There is
| nothing else that gained Assange fame other than
| publishing more scoops than any other journalist ever
| has. by orders of magnitude. Your nitpick is like trying
| to claim Tiger Woods is world famous for being the victim
| of domestic violence who also happens to play golf.
| Ma8ee wrote:
| I knew him as the founder and director of Wikileaks, and
| that Wikileaks collaborates with a number of publications
| to get the content of some classified information known
| to the general public. I didn't know that Julian Assange
| wrote much himself and in similar fashion worked directly
| as a journalist. So I'd say that at least one person (me)
| knew about him without knowing him as a journalist.
|
| Your last sentence make it sound like understood the
| complete opposite of what I said.
|
| Anyway, I'm not interested in having a discussion about
| Julian Assange, where I think we probably are on the same
| side. I just wanted to make a the small side remark about
| the fault in the logic.
| harry8 wrote:
| The reason you heard of Wikileaks and Assange isn't for
| golf. It is for publishing journalism and in particular
| journalism containing a vast number of journalistic
| scoops. So many that it catapulted him to international
| fame.
|
| If you believed wikileaks and Assange were famous for
| golfing or hacking or leaking or baking pie I have
| sympathy because the smears on what they did and do have
| been as relentless as they have been obviously false,
| (one example that won't go away: "he's a leaker who never
| actually leaked anything but instead published leaks like
| the New York Times does which makes him a leaker").
|
| Now you know better. He's a worlds famous journalist and
| publisher. Without publishing and journalism you don't
| know him from a bar of soap.
|
| Another, separate point worth making. You don't have to
| like /him/ and support /him/ to support his rights which
| are also every person engaging in journalisms rights and
| also /your/ rights. You don't have to hate a government
| or a nation to oppose when it overreaches. This is a
| pretty big overreach.
| nostrebored wrote:
| I cannot recall a single journalistic work of Julian
| Assange.
|
| All I know is that he facilitated the dumping of US
| classified documents onto a publicly accessible webpage.
| Not making a moral judgment about that here, but that is
| _exclusively_ the way in which I know him.
| selectodude wrote:
| Half-assed document dumps aren't journalism. He's a
| leaker, he didn't put any of the documents in context.
| harry8 wrote:
| He leaked /nothing/. No really. Absolutely nothing.
|
| He published documents leaked by others as supporting
| evidence for his journalism and to allow other
| journalists to use the source material. The documents
| were redacted in partnership with the Guardian, New York
| Times, Washington Post, El Pais, Le Monde and various
| others who also linked the source documents.
|
| As soon as you have a standard for what doesn't qualify
| as journalism because you don't like it you have state
| controlled media.
|
| The sheer quantity of lies about what he did or didn't do
| is really quite mind-boggling - it's so easy to check.
| nostrebored wrote:
| Wait, are sources journalists now?
| cainxinth wrote:
| > It's a fact he's a journalist. We've all read his
| journalism or at least know of its existence.
|
| That's circular reasoning. He's a journalist because we
| read his journalism. And, ergo, his work is journalism
| because he's a journalist.
|
| It all works out... unless of course, he was just
| pretending to be a journalist/ activist and was actually
| working in concert with a hostile intelligence agency to
| other, less noble, ends.
| fallingknife wrote:
| First they said he was a rapist. Then that fell apart. Now
| they say he's part of a foreign intelligence service. I don't
| buy that either.
| pera wrote:
| Do you think siding with Pompeo on this issue is more
| sensible than "siding" with NGOs like ACLU, Amnesty
| International, Human Rights Watch, and Reporters Without
| Borders?
| tiahura wrote:
| What difference does it make if he's a journalist, an
| astronaut, or a haberdasher? Shouldn't the law apply equally
| regardless of your profession and level of celebrity?
| choward wrote:
| Did you just quote pompeo as evidence? You can't be serious.
| michael1999 wrote:
| What exactly is the bright line between a good newspaper and
| an intelligence service that broadcasts information? News is
| that which someone doesn't what known.
| revolvingocelot wrote:
| Pre-Trump, I used to _joke_ that American foreign policy was
| determined by oil companies and defense contractors. Then
| _Mike Pompeo_ became Secretary of State, and it wasn 't funny
| anymore. Well, it hadn't been funny since Trump; Pompeo took
| over, of course, from former ExxonMobile CEO Rex Tillerson,
| who headed the Department of State for the first Trump year.
|
| Given Pompeo's business history, I think it's fair to
| understand everything he says with the knowledge that he's an
| avatar of the American military-industrial complex [0]. With
| that lens in place, of course WikiLeaks is "hostile", have
| you seen Collateral Murder?!
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Pompeo#Early_career
| 93po wrote:
| > It's also possible he was an asset for a hostile
| intelligence service posing as a journalist.
|
| Also possible he's the flying spaghetti monster. There's
| equal evidence for both (none)
|
| Mike Pompeo sounds extremely salty about negative press
| coverage. Of course they're going to do their best to
| discredit Assange after he embarrassed them so thoroughly.
| shireboy wrote:
| - the CIA considered (and possibly attempted) targeting him for
| kidnapping/assassination https://news.yahoo.com/kidnapping-
| assassination-and-a-london...
|
| I don't see how the court can say he's not in danger of ill
| treatment by US given that fact alone.
| DonHopkins wrote:
| >- the person who stole the files he released is already free
| and the tax payers paid for their transition
|
| HER transition. Stop misgendering people. Since you used
| "he/he's/him" to refer to Assange four times, then you should
| have used "her" to refer to Manning, unless you were just
| trying to make the point that you're transphobic. And there are
| more polite ways of telling people you're transphobic than
| misgendering other people: just come out and admit it.
|
| Edit: changed the second "she" to "her", to match the initial
| all caps "HER", and included "he's" and "him". Happier?
| bennyp101 wrote:
| "the person who stole the files he released is already free
| and the tax payers paid for she transition "
|
| eh?
| jollybean wrote:
| "none of the "crimes" happened on US soil"
|
| This is essentially false as his ostensible crime relates to
| participating in the hacking of US systems.
|
| By your inference, Russians hacking into US Hosptials would not
| be committing a crime on 'US Soil' as though that would make a
| difference.
|
| Let's have the trial and see the evidence.
| hekette wrote:
| We won't see evidence that can be trusted.
| CommanderData wrote:
| The UK govnement has passed extremely draconian laws in the
| last year. The government is trying to to power grab while
| covid is still around and people are focused on covid.
|
| Laws banning protests, surveillance and others.
|
| This isn't a surprise but doesn't make it acceptable.
| BoxOfRain wrote:
| I really hope the scandal around Downing Street throwing
| raucous parties while the rest of the country suffered under
| a strict lockdown is the final straw that breaks the back of
| Johnson's government. At the very least he's being
| extraordinarily dishonourable by going on TV and lying
| through his teeth to the country about it while bringing in
| fresh restrictions to keep his hypocrisy out of the news (and
| fortunately failing) rather than resigning as soon as the
| scandal broke. He's presided over an accelerating slide into
| authoritarianism and oligarchy and will no doubt be
| remembered as one of the worst Prime Ministers to hold the
| office.
|
| When the politicians, media outlets, top civil servants, and
| other people in the corridors of power are drawn from the
| same Eton to Oxbridge to power pipeline you end up with a
| proper British Bulldog of a political culture: a creature so
| heavily inbred it can't even breath properly.
| dariosalvi78 wrote:
| but the populace has got "sovereignty" now, whatever that
| means...
| BoxOfRain wrote:
| The cynic in me says that the EU wouldn't have been able
| to do much about this anyway, the impression I get from
| episodes like the Greek debt crisis is that the EU as a
| political establishment has a similar strain of the
| disease Westminster has: the idea it's healthy and
| natural for a powerful socio-political clique to piss in
| the eyes of the plebs and tell them it's raining
| regardless of the humanitarian consequences. This
| paternalistic, hierarchical view of society is the source
| of so much banal evil in the world I think.
|
| The cure in my opinion is to break these cliques up by
| getting a far wider diversity of human experience into
| politics, my local MP is a former physics teacher for
| instance and I have nothing but respect for her
| especially compared to the line-up of the corrupt on the
| front benches. We can't expect the cadre of ex-Etonians
| who've had every advantage society has to offer to even
| understand the plight of the ordinary person much less
| empathise and use their power to do something about it.
| blackoil wrote:
| And this is why I find all the posts around China and why
| people/company should be ostracised for dealing with them
| hypocritical.
| myfavoritedog wrote:
| Imagine the level of whataboutism to cherry-pick Assange's case
| as being morally equivalent to the large-scale enslavement and
| genocide of the Uyghurs.
|
| I'm disgusted by what is happening to Assange. But what China
| is doing to the Uyghurs is Medieval. Even if you ignore the
| Uyghur situation, China has tens of thousands of political
| prisoners for every one Assange the USA has.
| marcinzm wrote:
| If only saints can point out the bad behaviors of others then
| you're going to be living in a pretty crappy society.
| catlikesshrimp wrote:
| The evil part of hypocricy is not pointing out and criticizing
| evil.
| tjpnz wrote:
| The hearings would've concluded far more quickly if they we're
| held in China, that's for certain.
| unknownus3r wrote:
| Hearings? lol, he'd have vanished in the middle of the night
| and that's it
| Ensorceled wrote:
| So if I post something criticizing China's policies towards,
| say, Tiawan or the Uyghurs, I must include some criticism of a
| random terrible US policy or I'm a hypocrite? Do I need to also
| include a criticism of, say, Russia's policies towards the
| Ukraine or is it only the US?
| mcv wrote:
| You must criticise every single injustice on Earth at once,
| or we just cannot take you seriously.
|
| (I shouldn't have to point out that was sarcasm, but I fear I
| need to, these days.)
| Ensorceled wrote:
| Yeah, whataboutism is pretty common on HN, unfortunately.
|
| I know it's a pretty common troll tactic on Reddit and
| Twitter, it's a shame to see it here.
| FpUser wrote:
| This depends. When it is reported as a news or one simply
| wants to discuss details sure there is no need to bring
| other's wrongdoings.
|
| But when it is used as at least partial propaganda (and it
| often does) in line of "look at good us and bad them" or
| comes from the government / affiliates then they better look
| in the mirror first. One thief has no standing criticizing
| the other. The fact that one had stolen $1000 and the other
| went for $2000 does not make much difference.
| goodpoint wrote:
| There is no hypocrisy in calling out bad behavior.
| Ekaros wrote:
| At least they should clean their own house first. Let say by
| punishing everyone who participated in or voted for wars and
| voted for politicians who voted for them...
| discordance wrote:
| It is OK to hold the US and China responsible for their actions
| without associating them
| wiz21c wrote:
| I totally agree. Democracies have their own ways of persecuting
| people...
| peppermint_tea wrote:
| relevant : https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2021/11/30/assange-
| and-th...
|
| Seems like the "assurances" given by the U.S should not be taken
| seriously. Previous actions speak (or should I say shout) much
| louder than words.
|
| P.S : Adding "FREE JULIAN ASSANGE" to my personal website, I
| encourage everyone to do the same
| iso1631 wrote:
| Is that one free with every order?
| kome wrote:
| > P.S : Adding "FREE JULIAN ASSANGE" to my personal website, I
| encourage everyone to do the same
|
| Great idea. I would suggest to link to this page
| https://defend.wikileaks.org/
| peppermint_tea wrote:
| done, thank you.
| rjsw wrote:
| The one-sided UK-US extradition treaty has never been a good
| idea, not sure how his defence team can argue against extradition
| with it in place.
| was_a_dev wrote:
| All deals with the US are one-sided. It's their foreign policy
| nickysielicki wrote:
| Surprisingly few technical people understand the extent to which
| the CFAA charges he faces are bullshit.
|
| It all goes back to a jabber log that they got from Manning. The
| gist of it is as follows:
|
| Manning: <some bytes from a hexdump>
|
| Manning: can you guys crack NTLM?
|
| Assange: we have rainbow tables. I'll forward it onto someone on
| our team.
|
| Few days later,
|
| Manning: any update on NTLM?
|
| Assange: no luck so far.
|
| And this is computer conspiracy. No additional access to any
| machine was had, and there's no real evidence that any cracking
| was attempted at all. He merely agreed to take a look and
| reported no progress on it. It's been a while since I looked at
| the details but I seem to recall that the pcap hexdump manning
| sent wasn't even the correct bytes to do an attack -- it wasn't
| even possible.
|
| There are so many explanations for why Assange could have said
| this while plausibly not attempting to crack the hash. Manning
| put him in a strange position to become complicit and he had to
| strike a balance between not saying to his source, "lol that's
| illegal no way, you're on your own dude" while simultaneously
| saying exactly that.
| ModernMech wrote:
| Criminal conspiracy in the US is defined in Title 18, U.S.C. SS
| 371: "If two or more persons conspire either to
| commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the
| United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any
| purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect
| the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this
| title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both."
|
| The elements of the crime of conspiracy are:
|
| 1. Two or more people
|
| 2. Intentionality
|
| 3. An agreement
|
| 4. An underlying crime
|
| 5. An overt act
|
| The discussion you post seems to point to all 5 being met,
| although additional evidence would be needed to prove it.
| Obviously there are two people here discussing "cracking"
| something. Assange agrees to the overt step of taking the data
| and forwarding it to his team, ostensibly with the intention
| that this team would do the cracking.
|
| When asked for an update, Assange states "no luck so far". Do
| we take that to mean they are currently working on it and have
| not succeeded? Or is Assange saying that there's no luck, but
| he hasn't _really_ done anything with the data? It really doesn
| 't matter according to the statute, which defines the overt act
| as _any act_ done to further the conspiracy. So it doesn 't
| matter if there was no other access to any machine or if there
| is no evidence cracking was attempted. If Assange took that
| data and sent it to anyone else, then he's part of the
| conspiracy.
|
| Actually, according to the statute, it doesn't even matter if
| he took an overt action. If he agreed with Manning to implement
| the crime, and Manning _on her own_ did the cracking, then
| Assange would still be part of the conspiracy due to the first
| 4 elements.
| jessaustin wrote:
| s/Assange/Nathaniel Frank/
|
| Manning was chatting with "Nathaniel Frank". That was
| understood to be a pseudonym for someone at Wikileaks, but
| there's no proof of any of that. So, these charges are even
| _more_ bullshit.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| So Assange can say, under oath, that he is not Nathaniel
| Frank. Boom. Case closed- US govt looks stupid. Assange
| walks.
|
| I do not care about the verdict of the trial. I care a lot
| that a trial takes place. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
| Everybody is presupposing the result of this and being
| outraged rather than waiting and seeing what happens. He is
| innocent until proven guilty.
| cwkoss wrote:
| I fully expect the US to select a judge for this case that
| will not give Assange the slightest bit of generosity. I
| hope you're right, but I'm much more cynical about the
| impartiality of the judiciary.
| dukeofdoom wrote:
| Legality of publishing leaked or stolen materials, is essential
| part of press freedom. So it will be an interesting case to watch
| to go through the US courts.
|
| Recently James Okeefe was raided by the FBI. The reason was that
| he was given Ashley Biden's Diary (President Biden's adult
| daughter), and published things in it. He offered to return the
| diary to Ashley's Lawyers, but that would have authenticated it.
| The FBI raided him, which I suppose they would not do for a
| fictional diary. But I think its fairly obvious journalists
| should be able to publish leaked information. Not so obvious who
| the FBI works for.
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/06/us/politics/james-okeefe-...
| roody15 wrote:
| Its sad but the ideals of Western Civilization / Democracy have
| really sunk in the last couple of decades. Most ideals of a free
| press and democratic rule appear to be nothing more than
| marketing tools that the powerful elite use to keep people
| compliant.
| andrewla wrote:
| This is not the end of the world -- he has not been convicted of
| any crimes in the United States; there is just sufficient prima
| facie evidence to warrant extradition.
|
| I'm hopeful that in a trial he'll be able to mount an effective
| defense and that in the end we'll get a wonderful victory for
| free speech. I'm looking forward to being able to donate to his
| legal defense fund; I see that there are some gofundme things out
| there, but I worry they might be scams so I'm waiting until I see
| something more official to contribute.
|
| Given his poor physical and mental health, however, that may not
| be in the cards; he may end up not making it to trial or
| compelled to accept a plea bargain for a lesser charge in order
| to put the matter to rest.
| kingcharles wrote:
| I'll leave this here...
|
| "The mood and temper of the public in regard to the treatment of
| crime and criminals is one of the most unfailing tests of the
| civilisation of any country." -- Winston S. Churchill
|
| https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1910/jul/...
| pjfin123 wrote:
| The only difference between what Assange did and what
| "legitimate" journalists do is to publish embarrassing truths
| about those in power instead of uncritically publishing what the
| national security apparatus intentionally leaks.
| tsimionescu wrote:
| This is devastating news.
|
| Seeing the injustice of how one of the greatest journalists of
| our age is being treated literally hurts. And not just by the US
| power system, but also most of the media, even people who pass as
| liberal like John Stewart are almost spitting in his face and
| treating the US repression as justified.
| tsimionescu wrote:
| Edit: not John Stewart, John Oliver...
| harabat wrote:
| From https://defend.wikileaks.org/, here are some ways to support
| Julian:
|
| - Donate to WikiLeaks Official Defence Fund:
| https://defend.wikileaks.org/donate
|
| - Sign petitions: https://bit.do/free-assange,
| https://bit.do/free-assange-uk (UK specifically)
|
| - Contact politicians, unions, charities to inform and urge to
| act
|
| - Inform yourself and others
|
| - Social media: #ProtectJulian, #FreeAssange
| unknownus3r wrote:
| I'm from the US and from my perspective he's certainly an enemy
| of my country and working to undermine it. A country cannot
| function if nameless underlings do not carry out the agenda set
| forth by the elected and appointed people in charge. There are
| many problems with entrenched bureaucracy but having secrets
| leaked weakens American power and our government's ability to
| handle the problems we face. If you see mudge's talk about him
| from way back when, the grudge he holds against the US may be
| just over funding research. Inciting and assisting Americans who
| have sworn to protect our secrets to leak them is something I
| think needs to be stopped as a National security threat. There
| are a lot of disingenuous comparisons calling this guy a
| journalist, he's a lot more than that. Assange is a former hacker
| and professor and present day activist. Undeniably bright and I
| respect his technical skills but he's working against the United
| States. I'll say this, though, he's probably the most trustworthy
| journalist that walks the earth, sadly
| mandmandam wrote:
| If you love America then why would you allow brazen warmongers
| to put us trillions in debt, profiting immensely while doing
| so? Do you have any idea how far America's international
| reputation has fallen? Do you have any conception of the debt
| that has been incurred in the name of the American taxpayer? Do
| the lives of millions of dead and tens of millions of displaced
| people around the world mean nothing to you?
|
| Assange showed America necessary truth, and even as you admit
| this you argue Americans would be better left ignorant,
| digesting whatever shit the billionaire class decide to feed
| them. That's not just short sighted, my friend, it's fucking
| evil. That's not hyperbole - that's evil by about every
| definition ever invented.
| unknownus3r wrote:
| I don't see what Assange really showed me that I didn't know
| from reading most anything else before his leaks. Your post
| is highly politically motivated, I'm not emotional about
| this, just thinking rationally. I agree that the US has
| overextended its military and is involved in a lot of
| conflicts and operations that seem very irrelevant and poorly
| reasoned. I want a revamp of the military industrial complex
| and a change to entrenched, unaccountable bureaucracy. I
| don't think any of those things have anything to do with
| Assange however, and I don't see any connection between them
| mandmandam wrote:
| Whatever and wherever you were reading about US war crimes
| with evidence, from Collateral Murder to how many other
| cases, chances are that the info was put through Wikileaks
| first; directly thanks to Assange.
|
| Your comment is so full of self contradiction I don't know
| where to start - you want a revamp to the MIC and a change
| to unaccountable bureaucracy, but don't think Assange has
| anything to do with that?
|
| ... Seriously? You fail to see the connection between
| accountability for war crimes, and the guy who provided
| documented evidence for war crimes at great personal
| sacrifice?
|
| *edited to remove flame, however deserved.
| peppermint_tea wrote:
| >> I agree that the US has overextended its military and is
| involved in a lot of conflicts and operations that seem
| very irrelevant and poorly reasoned
|
| translation : killed a lot of innocent people. Men, Women
| and Children.
|
| I am emotional about this, and rightly so.
| igammarays wrote:
| The problem is not that he's an enemy of US government
| interests. Sure he is. The problem is the hypocrisy. The US
| claims moral superiority, advocates for the non-persecution of
| journalists, free speech, rule of law and judicial due process,
| "democracy" etc. in other countries, but it's all lies and
| hypocrisy. The US criticizes "authoritarian regimes" like
| Russia in cases like Navalny, whereas the US is no different in
| treating those it deems to be enemies of the state.
| unknownus3r wrote:
| Please show me any country on this earth that doesn't have
| its share of hypocrisy. I cannot think of a single one. I
| know and agree that the US is hypocritical but abusing the
| law to get a guy who's inciting American security personnel
| to break their oaths is not the same as poisoning a citizen
| of the same country for disagreeing over politics and it's
| disingenuous of you to equate that. Just as many China
| boosters here are trying to equate Assange's treatment with
| concentration camps for millions of people
| spacechild1 wrote:
| There have been plans to kidnap and/or assissinate Assange:
| https://news.yahoo.com/kidnapping-assassination-and-a-
| london...
| spacechild1 wrote:
| > but he's working against the United States.
|
| Why do you think everybody on the world has to work in the
| interests of the United States? He is not a US citizen and he
| did not operate on US soil.
| jrsj wrote:
| American "democracy" is a facade and none of these people work
| for you. They think of you as livestock. There isn't any hope
| of this changing without challenging our corrupt government.
| Mvandenbergh wrote:
| This was inevitable to anyone who read the original ruling.
|
| What I said 11 months ago:
|
| " actually don't think this is such great news for him.
| Extradition was specifically blocked on the grounds of a
| particular regime he might be subjected to (to be fair, probably
| the only legal grounds on which he had any chance of succeeding).
| That leaves the US with a way out if they want to proceed with
| the extradition - guarantee a different set of circumstances.
|
| If the judge had found on more substantive grounds, those would
| have been much more resistant to that. For instance, all the
| claims based on language in the extradition treaty and other
| international agreements failed and they failed for pretty
| fundamental legal reasons. English courts only have regard for
| domestic law and it is for parliament to pass laws consistent
| with the treaties that have been signed, therefore claims based
| on treaty language won't work.
|
| That means that none of the claims on the political nature of his
| activities were upheld and those would have provided a much more
| robust and durable bar to extradition."
| DonHopkins wrote:
| If only Hillary Clinton were serving her second term, then
| maybe he'd have a chance with that argument.
| cyanydeez wrote:
| unfortunately he switched from citizen journalist to
| selective propaganda release and russian propaganda washing.
| tifadg1 wrote:
| are you denying he released the truth or are you saying he
| released the truth, but "others" behaved similarly yet he
| withheld the truth on them?
| DonHopkins wrote:
| Are you denying that he washed and selectively released
| Russian propaganda, and also worked with the Trump
| campaign? So do you believe Seth Rich was murdered then?
|
| Edit: roenxi: Spreading the propaganda that Seth Rich was
| murdered is not "aggressively telling the truth", it's
| aggressively and mendaciously lying. It's a bit awkward
| for you to suggest that it's true.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Seth_Rich#WikiLea
| ks_...
|
| >WikiLeaks statements
|
| >Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, fueled the
| speculation in an interview with Nieuwsuur published on
| August 9, 2016, which touched on the topic of risks faced
| by WikiLeaks' sources.[76] Unbidden, Assange brought up
| the case of Seth Rich. When asked directly whether Rich
| was a source, Assange said "we don't comment on who our
| sources are".[77] Subsequent statements by WikiLeaks
| emphasized that the organization was not naming Rich as a
| source, as they do with other leaks.[32] It subsequently
| came to light that WikiLeaks communicated with the Trump
| campaign over other issues.[78]
|
| >According to the Mueller Report, WikiLeaks had received
| an email containing an encrypted file named "wk dnc link
| I .txt.gpg" from the Guccifer 2.0 GRU persona on July 14,
| which was four days after Seth Rich died.[79][80][81] In
| April 2018, Twitter direct messages revealed that even as
| Assange was suggesting publicly that WikiLeaks had
| obtained emails from Seth Rich, Assange was trying to
| obtain more emails from Guccifer 2.0, who was at the time
| already suspected of being linked to Russian
| intelligence.[82] BuzzFeed described the messages as "the
| starkest proof yet that Assange knew a likely Russian
| government hacker had the Democrat leaks he wanted. And
| they reveal the deliberate bad faith with which Assange
| fed the groundless claims that Rich was his source, even
| as he knew the documents' origin."[82] Mike Gottlieb, a
| lawyer for Rich's brother, noted that WikiLeaks received
| the file of stolen documents from the Russian hackers on
| July 14, four days after Rich was shot. Gottlieb
| described the chronology as "damning".[83]
| roenxi wrote:
| It is impressive that the Russians manage to maintain
| such a stranglehold on the US consciousness given the
| number of special interest groups they have to keep in
| front of.
|
| It would appear that this "Russian propaganda" involves
| aggressively telling the truth. It is a bit awkward to
| suggest that is an effective tactic against the US.
| zepto wrote:
| The Soviet's had a newspaper called 'Truth'. This is a
| kind of journalism the Russians are experienced with.
| mdorazio wrote:
| Your argument is whataboutism. It's not a valid critique
| of the actual issue at hand.
| ruined wrote:
| seth rich probably had nothing to do with wikileaks, but
| there's no doubt that he was murdered.
|
| and honestly i can't hold it against assange for being on
| the lookout or even paranoid about things like that,
| given his circumstances. being wrong about that simply
| puts him in the company of a huge section of the
| political establishment that was promoting the case.
|
| i also don't really care if the source of the leak was a
| Russian hacker. the damning part is the data was real.
| mikeyouse wrote:
| Just to be more forceful on one point - Seth Rich had
| absolutely nothing to do with Wikileaks and it's
| extraordinarily shameful that Assange winked and nodded
| like he did.
|
| Rich was a low level staffer working for the DNC to help
| voters find polling stations - he wouldn't have had any
| access to their email systems (and of course wouldn't
| have had access to Podesta's emails since Podesta didn't
| even work for the DNC and it was his private Gmail that
| was compromised).
|
| Both Podesta's and the DNC's leaked emails came from
| targeted Spearfishing campaigns, some of the source
| emails for these were leaked alongside the rest of the
| contents. (e.g. Podesta's: https://cbsnews3.cbsistatic.co
| m/hub/i/r/2016/10/28/b4836dda-...)
| petesergeant wrote:
| > are you denying he released the truth
|
| Yes, 100%. I think the documents he released were all
| authentic, but that's a great distance from either being
| "the truth" or being in service of "the truth". The
| majority of propaganda is factual while attempting to
| subvert "the truth".
| pessimizer wrote:
| Propaganda isn't trying to subvert the truth, whether
| quoted or unquoted. Propaganda is trying to promote a
| particular position. Nobody has as a goal to subvert the
| truth, that's just a caricature of one's enemies.
|
| What we do is public relations, what they do is
| propaganda.
|
| It's just a rationalization to disregard the standards
| that one would normally use to judge information i.e. its
| accuracy.
| pohl wrote:
| _Nobody has as a goal to subvert the truth_
|
| Seriously? This is priority #1 of anyone with alignment
| with authoritarian goals. Does the phrase "alternative
| facts" ring a bell? Ever heard of Joseph Goebbels?
| mariusor wrote:
| Are you saying that just because they released truthful
| information that was supplied to them (and it happens to be
| against your preferred side of the political spectrum) they
| are guilty of propaganda, or is there any proof that
| wikileaks rejected authentic documents concerning "the
| other side"?
| swader999 wrote:
| Still waiting for her to serve her first term.
| queuebert wrote:
| She'd probably drone strike him. "We came, we saw, he died."
| kingcharles wrote:
| I don't know how other countries deal with treaties, but the
| USA tends to ignore all the treaties it has signed unless it
| has also created a statute in federal or state law to enforce
| it.
| Mvandenbergh wrote:
| The US is actually quite far in the "monist" side of the
| spectrum when it comes to ratified treaties but it has such a
| divided and dysfunctional political culture coupled with an
| executive which has wide latitude in foreign affairs that
| many agreements are signed up to by the executive without
| being ratified by the senate. Monism basically means that
| properly entered into, international treaties have force as
| domestic law as well.
|
| The UK is one of the world's most dualist countries. No
| treaty has any domestic legal standing whatsoever. Until
| 2010, the government of the day could ratify treaties without
| recourse to parliament although there has been an observed
| rule since the early 20th century called the Ponsonby rule
| that parliament have time to debate and vote on important
| treaties. The government cannot make domestic statute law
| without a parliamentary vote therefore dualism emerged.
|
| This means that the UK has to pass a "back to back" law to
| give legal effect to any treaty it signs where that is
| required. The US only has to do so when there are elements of
| the treaty that are plainly not "self executing" i.e. if the
| US signs a treaty creating a personal right for its own
| citizens then no further legislation is required but if it
| signs a treaty agreeing to do something that requires new
| appropriations, a new agency, or whatever then additional
| legislation is required.
|
| Quite a long-winded way of saying that Assange never had
| recourse to certain claims his legal team attempted to make
| about conflicts between his treatment and the extradition
| treaty - the extradition treaty does not directly drive UK
| domestic law on extradition.
| m-watson wrote:
| It isn't exactly ignore, they just all have to be ratified by
| the Senate. Otherwise it is just the executive branch making
| an agreement.
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_Clause
| enriquto wrote:
| We are creating really shameful times. History will not judge us
| lightly.
| b9be520d93286 wrote:
| History will be rewritten by the victors.
| pmontra wrote:
| History gets rewritten constantly. An example: Julius Caesar,
| hero, martyr or villain? Ask an Italian or a French, probably
| two different versions. But also ask to an Italian 50 years
| ago (probably a hero, maybe even a martyr) or today (maybe a
| war criminal to be judged in the International Court of
| Justice.)
|
| Of course a correct judgement should apply the mindset of
| when the facts happened.
| JohnWhigham wrote:
| How does one discern facts from 2000 years ago when all the
| sources we have are knowingly biased in one direction?
| hulitu wrote:
| The answer is in the question. From sources.
| A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote:
| I hear you, but why do we have to reduce this guy, of all
| people, to mere labels. Just reading story of him coming to
| power makes you gasp in awe at the sheer force of will and
| confidence that you are being destined for something
| greater.
|
| I dunno, I just like dislike this kind of, whats the word,
| reductionist approach to a human being. Million things made
| Julius the man that he was. If he ever had avocados, would
| we consider him proto-vegan?
|
| edit: I am only jesting.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| "correct judgement should apply the mindset of when the
| facts happened"
|
| That doesn't sound right either, we 'as in the himan race'
| done some fucked up shit because at the time it was
| cobsidered the right thing to do
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| Given rampant climate change, foreign debt crisis and sinking
| middle class, it doesn't sound like 'we' will be the victors
| thuccess129 wrote:
| History is fiction in the not-fiction area. 95% is missing
| taken to the grave in silence and the 5% that is allowed to be
| there is embellished according to a reinforcing narrative
| agenda of a kind that sells enough copies to make it
| worthwhile.
| actually_a_dog wrote:
| If we don't get on it soon, "history" will be written by
| archaeologists in about 4000 years.
| ekianjo wrote:
| As far as I know only Nazis and evil Japanese military leaders
| committed war crimes in WW2. According to the books. How is
| History working for you?
| hulitu wrote:
| You are partly right. Only _some_ Nazis and _some_ Japanese
| military leaders. The others lived on to become, for example
| "Americas most loved war criminal".
| hulitu wrote:
| As Frank Herbert said: "History is written by the historians".
| And they are part of the system. Just look at history books
| which are thought in schools.
| busymom0 wrote:
| This happening on Human Rights Day is ironic. Plus looks like US
| and the UK today also grandstanding by "sanctioning" countries
| with human rights abuse. It's all such a farce.
|
| This gov page is such a joke:
| https://www.state.gov/subjects/press-freedom/
| bob999 wrote:
| Lock him up and throw away the key, he's a sex offender
| skilled wrote:
| Since I don't understand this, I will ask it here and maybe
| someone can give me a clear answer.
|
| What exactly does this mean for Julian Assange? I mean, in terms
| of this repetitive circle of going to court and then coming back
| empty handed.
|
| How often can Assange's defense team appeal these decisions and
| at what point can we expect the "final" decision to be made? E.g.
| Julian is either released or he is extradited.
| zarzavat wrote:
| This was the US government's appeal because the US lost at
| first instance. However Assange will now also have his own
| cross-appeal because even though he won at first instance, the
| court rejected all but one of his arguments.
|
| Aside from that, it will go to the Court of Appeal and/or to
| the UK Supreme Court.
|
| So potentially 2 or 3 further appeals.
| checkyoursudo wrote:
| Possibly still the Euro Court of Human Rights as well.
| ttybird wrote:
| Does that mean that Anne Sacoolas will be extradited to the UK?
| pydry wrote:
| Small chance. Being the servile lap dog of the United States is
| official Tory policy.
| nathias wrote:
| RIP Assange, he sacrificed himself to reveal what everyone knew.
| I'm not sure that this was good, lately I think politicians just
| kind of stopped pretending and I liked it better when they at
| least put their human faces on for the public ...
| janmo wrote:
| Will he be tried by a common jury or a military one? No way a
| common jury finds him guilty.
| hutzlibu wrote:
| "No way a common jury finds him guilty."
|
| Quick search for numbers show:
|
| "53% of Americans say Julian Assange should be extradited to
| America"
|
| https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/20...
| vinay427 wrote:
| Exactly, with this relatively low support for extradition it
| would be surprising to see a jury conviction. And that's with
| abuse of the jury selection process, presumably in both
| directions.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| I think it's a little silly to extrapolate from a general
| opinion poll to a trial result. An honest poll on this
| subject would result in about 99% "I don't know much of
| anything about him", and jury selection is intended to find
| people without a set opinion already.
| AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote:
| > No way a common jury finds him guilty
|
| I wish I could still have your faith in my fellow countrymen.
| Sadly I believe yours won't survive this trial.
| tyingq wrote:
| Assuming he gets to trial, and has lawyers that understand
| how to use the media, I think it may be difficult to convince
| the entire jury to prosecute.
|
| Rehashing US war crimes, which would certainly come up, won't
| be great for the prosecution either.
| shkkmo wrote:
| > Rehashing US war crimes, which would certainly come up,
| won't be great for the prosecution either.
|
| Assuming the judge doesn't block that line of argument.
| tyingq wrote:
| He's charged with espionage for material related to a war
| crime. It's not a peripheral issue.
| shkkmo wrote:
| I've seen "non peripheral issues" blocked by hostile
| judges in plenty of cases, especially cases when
| classified information comes into play. I hope you're
| right, but think the USA will make sure this is heard by
| a judge who will happily toe their line.
| delusional wrote:
| Almost 50% of Americans voted for Trump. Almost 50% did it
| again a second time.
|
| It's not that Voting for Trump is in any way related to
| being against Assange (It's my understanding that Wikileaks
| is well liked within that community), but I've learned to
| to speculate on what Americans might do.
|
| I've taken to just expecting the worst possible outcome
| from any decision.
| DonHopkins wrote:
| Trump's feelings could get hurt at some perceived slight
| at any moment, and he could suddenly turn his cult
| against Assange on a dime, just like he did with
| Netanyahu. Like if he got the idea in his fat head that
| Assange didn't do enough to help him overturn the
| election that he lost due to his own incompetence and
| corruption.
|
| 'F*ck Him!' Trump Reportedly Furious With Netanyahu
| Congratulating Biden, Hasn't Spoken to Him Since
|
| https://www.mediaite.com/trump/fck-him-trump-reportedly-
| furi...
|
| >Former President Donald Trump is reportedly livid with
| Benjamin Netanyahu. At issue? Congratulations that former
| Israeli Prime Minister expressed to President Joe Biden
| following the 2020 general election.
|
| >This is according to a new book from Axios writer Barak
| Ravid who reports:
|
| >>Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu were the closest of
| political allies during the four years they overlapped in
| office, at least in public. Not anymore. "I haven't
| spoken to him since," Trump said of the former Israeli
| prime minister. "F*k him."
|
| >>What he's saying: Trump repeatedly criticized Netanyahu
| during two interviews for my book, "Trump's Peace: The
| Abraham Accords and the Reshaping of the Middle East."
| The final straw for Trump was when Netanyahu
| congratulated President-elect Biden for his election
| victory while Trump was still disputing the result.
|
| >"The first person that congratulated [Biden] was Bibi
| Netanyahu, the man that I did more for than any other
| person I dealt with. ... Bibi could have stayed quiet,"
| Trump is quoted by Ravid as saying. "He has made a
| terrible mistake."
| zthrowaway wrote:
| Almost 50% of Americans voted for Biden. Almost 50% did
| it again a second time.
|
| It's not that Voting for Biden is in any way related to
| being against Assange (It's my understanding that
| Wikileaks is well liked within that community), but I've
| learned to to speculate on what Americans might do.
|
| I've taken to just expecting the worst possible outcome
| from any decision.
| zepto wrote:
| Half the people I know who voted for Trump are pro-
| Assange.
| tyingq wrote:
| Right, but juries don't convict on a majority.
| AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote:
| The jury will be sequestered to avoid media influence. This
| is common practice in high-profile cases.
|
| The judge will set firm boundaries for what the jury can
| and cannot consider in their deliberations and while the
| jury is actually free to use any criteria they want, it
| will be very heavily implied that they cannot. The court
| will do everything in their power to make the jury believe
| they must convict based on the evidence presented and the
| rule of law.
|
| Similarly the court will put significant limitations on
| what can and cannot be presented as evidence. US's
| commission of war crimes is (arguably) irrelevant as
| regards the crime in question, so I won't be surprised to
| see that bringing it up will not be permitted.
|
| This is all fairly standard US court stuff.
| tyingq wrote:
| The media work starts before the trial starts.
| Hizonner wrote:
| ... and anybody who's been exposed to it is excluded from
| the jury.
|
| Yes, that means juries are usually composed of uninformed
| idiots. Lawyers mostly like it that way.
| tyingq wrote:
| I am skeptical the process really works that way. I'm
| sure they ask the right questions during selection. I
| doubt they get the right answers.
| tootie wrote:
| The internet has predicted the imminent assassination of
| every prominent opposition politician, journalist and speaker
| for as long as I've been online and it's never happened.
| Glenn Greenwood is fine, Sy Hersh is fine, Bernie Sanders and
| Ron Paul are fine. Meanwhile Julian Assange was happy to have
| people believe the DNC leak came from Seth Rich despite
| knowing he got it from Russia.
| supergirl wrote:
| there is no way he will ever be free. it's just 1 man vs
| multiple governments. US gov is in no rush to bring it to
| trial. they'll keep him in solitary to die waiting for a trial
| that will never come
| janmo wrote:
| I can only hope that they'll find him not guilty completely
| ridiculing the government and all those who were behind his
| prosecution.
| pmyteh wrote:
| He's entitled to a trial within 70 days of his first
| appearance in the US, if he demands one. Speedy Trial Act of
| 1974.
| jessaustin wrote:
| If he does eventually leave UK, we should all pray he does
| actually appear in USA at some point. Lots of "enemies"
| just disappear.
|
| This man is not a USA citizen, and was not in USA when he
| did the journalism that so offends the USA deep state. He
| will be extradited for purely political "crimes". Let's not
| pretend anymore that any of us live in societies governed
| by laws.
| kingcharles wrote:
| LOL. I've been waiting almost 9 years on a 120 day Speedy
| Trial. While you are 100% technically correct (minus COVID
| extensions), the defense team will need a bunch of
| extensions to go through everything and file motions. And
| that is where the delays will come from - the prosecutor
| and judge will make sure any motions take years to process
| and he'll languish in jail for infinity.
|
| He won't get a bond either because of all the stuff that
| happened with the Bolivian Embassy.
| pmyteh wrote:
| Agreed. But "in front of a jury quickly" might be
| forensically a better idea than "wait in jail for years"
| while the prosecutor drags things out. [Edit: assuming
| that his team are confident in getting at least one vote
| to acquit from somebody angry]
|
| Personally, I don't think we should extradite him simply
| because it's arguably a political 'crime'. The US/UK
| extradition treaty is so one-sided, though, and British
| extradition law so Executive-friendly, that that is
| essentially an impossible case to win if the Secretary of
| State wants to extradite.
| antocv wrote:
| 70 days is according to the new definition of very long
| days about 35 years
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Will he be tried by a common jury or a military one?_
|
| He is charged and being extradited under criminal code. As a
| non-combatant, I don't think he could be charged by an Article
| I court.
| the_optimist wrote:
| They apparently plan to stick him in the court in East
| Virginia, which is effectively an intelligence court given the
| group of people who live in that region and the political bias.
| He will not receive a fair trial.
| sleepysysadmin wrote:
| >Will he be tried by a common jury or a military one? No way a
| common jury finds him guilty.
|
| Neither. This is the Espionage Act, so he's going to the spy
| court. Those doors will be closed and the jury will consist of
| people who work for the government. The court case will be over
| way way faster than you might expect.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _so he 's going to the spy court_
|
| No, he isn't going to a FISA court, those don't try criminal
| cases...
| sleepysysadmin wrote:
| >No, he isn't going to a FISA court, those don't try
| criminal cases...
|
| Never said he was. He's going to the spy court in virginia.
| It's obviously not something you list on wikipedia.
|
| FISA is too monitored. The court he'll be going to always
| sides with the government.
|
| Assange is going to the same place Daniel Hale, Chelsea
| Manning, Paul Manafort, various terrorists.
|
| I wonder if Assange will ever see if he is guilty or not.
| Epstein treatment incoming. Though I do believe he will be
| treated properly, no enhanced torture or anything.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| Manning was court martialed, in Maryland.
|
| Manafort and Hale weren't tried in any sort of special
| court, and it's definitely on Wikipedia - https://en.wiki
| pedia.org/wiki/United_States_District_Court_f....
| Manafort proceedings were public; reporters live-tweeted
| it. Hale pled guilty pre-trial.
| the_optimist wrote:
| What rotten people are driving this, and how do we hold them
| accountable?
| b9be520d93286 wrote:
| The regime. Globalists. the same ones who flew on Lolita
| express and a lot worse. the rabbit hole goes deep....
| cyanydeez wrote:
| we tried to sanction russia, but its hard when they used
| 0uppets to help railroad democracy
| the_optimist wrote:
| "Freedom of the press" isn't about your favorite 2016
| candidate.
| OneTimePetes wrote:
| The people are just the cells of the same beast since ancient
| times. Empire. In all shapes and forms, it devours what it grew
| in and becomes the same brutish atrocity over and over again.
|
| And it stays alive as "wannabe big" again dream long after.
| This is why britains elite aligns so flawlessly with the
| atrocities of the usa imperial bloom. The institutions
| recognize themselves from 100 years ago, when the trampled and
| maimed people like ghandi.
| hvgk wrote:
| Usually at this point it's pitchforks and torches.
| myfavoritedog wrote:
| It's the same people/culture in the State Department, DOJ, and
| intelligence agencies who pushed that Clinton-funded Steele
| Dossier into the system to fabricate the Trump-Russia collusion
| hoax.
|
| Assange has exposed them time and again and they want payback.
| Mvandenbergh wrote:
| The elected governments of the US and UK and the laws they've
| passed?
| the_optimist wrote:
| Only in the sense of a Solzhenitsyn nightmare. There are
| breathing, ideologically-bent individuals pushing this. Who are
| they, and how do we hound them like they have hounded him.
| catlikesshrimp wrote:
| Doxxing only works agaisnt normal people.
|
| When someone lives inside one of several walled properties,
| hiding is unnecessary.
|
| Offtopic: doxxing is evil. Don't do it.
| Dracophoenix wrote:
| >>Offtopic: doxxing is evil. Don't do it.
|
| Devil's advocate: Doxxing isn't any more or less evil than
| investigative journalism or hiring a PI.
| dang wrote:
| Please don't take HN threads on ideological flamewar tangents.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
|
| We detached this subthread from
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29509343.
| the_optimist wrote:
| Okay.
| Mvandenbergh wrote:
| The entire US military and intelligence apparatus? If you want
| to know names, just look at the most senior people in the
| intelligence world. Good luck.
| fit2rule wrote:
| CFR <revolving door> Joint Chiefs of Staff.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _There are breathing, ideologically-bent individuals pushing
| this. Who are they..._
|
| For starters, there are the majority of Americans who believe
| he should be extradited. (In second place, those who don't
| care.)
| ekianjo wrote:
| majority of americans who are brainwashed by whatever they
| see on the mainstream media.
| wyattpeak wrote:
| While I'm not particularly sold on the shadowy organisation
| argument, what the majority of Americans want should be
| fairly irrelevant to a matter of British law.
|
| One would presume that Americans want possible crimes against
| them to be tried in their courts, but the purpose of an
| extradition hearing is to determine whether what the other
| country wants is acceptable.
| swiley wrote:
| It;s an international community that controls finance and
| media, they're bound together by race and religion much like
| the National Socialists were. Name them, unite against them,
| and drive them from our institutions.
| dang wrote:
| We've banned this account for breaking the site guidelines
| and ignoring our requests to stop. You can't do "race and
| religion" (to use your euphemism) flamewar on this site.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| tgv wrote:
| Or simply corrupt.
| sovietmudkipz wrote:
| Wait, if you don't know who they are then how do you know they
| are "breathing, ideologically bent individuals" right before
| asking who they are?
|
| What if instead they are ego fragile and angry at Assange for
| daring to challenge the unchallengeable order?
|
| Or what if this is a case of banal evil?
|
| I'm not suggesting any of qualities exist in the persons who
| are implicated in the question of "who."
|
| I do want to use this opportunity to point out that if you
| expect to find some quality in someone else you will find it,
| if it is truly there or even if it really isn't. This is
| motivated reasoning and if not handled appropriately then it
| can backfire in very serious ways.
|
| I hope this doesn't come off as insulting. @the_optimist I'm
| not a saint, I'm not perfect. My only hope, selfishly, is to
| surface desirable qualities (open to truth vs motivated
| reasoning) and hope my friends and family will echo the
| desirable qualities back when I inevitably stray.
| cormacrelf wrote:
| This is what the HN thread looked like last time. People were
| claiming the judge was corrupt, colluding with the Americans,
| and/or was herself deciding issues in a pre-determined way
| when she didn't accept the "political crimes" argument from
| his defence after her very thorough analysis of the treaty.
| It was pretty awful, and that was a judgment that denied his
| extradition! The truth is the issues in this case are simply
| out of the realm of understanding of most people. There's not
| much you can do.
| smolder wrote:
| The legal aspects may be hard to understand, and we may not
| precisely understand the underlying motivations of either
| Assange or the government, but the general dynamic is not
| hard to figure out. Assange spat in the face of the giant,
| and the law is now only an obstacle for the punishment they
| want to dole out. My country is throwing its weight around
| like a petulant bully.
|
| I'm starting to accept that lies grease the gears of
| society somewhat, that we can't always live up to the
| ideals we propagandize about. Sometimes tricking people is
| the best way to get them to behave.
|
| But I also think that the leaks themselves and the response
| to them show how far out of bounds our government is with
| its lies and liberties. The undermining of our diplomatic
| position began with our diplomacy, our military action. You
| can argue Assange released "too much", but that doesn't
| forgive the reaction.
|
| I expect a government with some integrity would admit
| mistakes and do some house cleaning to regain the lost
| trust. Maybe I'm not following well enough, and there was
| some of that? But it seems to me like they went straight to
| trying to punish Assange with dirty tricks; no real
| admissions of guilt or plans to improve. That speaks to a
| pervasive lack of integrity, and so has undermined
| confidence in the fairness of these legal proceedings.
| fit2rule wrote:
| Start with the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the membership of the
| Council on Foreign Relations. FOAF 3 or 4 levels deep, and you
| will find the people who are murdering millions of innocent
| human beings in your name, Americans.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-12-10 23:01 UTC)