Wikileaks Founder in Last-Ditch Bid To Avoid US Extradition (bbc.com) 215
An anonymous reader shares a report: Lawyers for Julian Assange have launched what could be his final bid to avoid extradition to the US to face trial over leaking military secrets. The two-day hearing at the High Court in London is hearing his team argue he should be allowed a full appeal. Edward Fitzgerald KC told the court his client was being prosecuted "for engaging in ordinary journalistic practice." If an appeal is turned down, Mr Assange could be handed over within weeks.
Supporters of the Wikileaks founder say he exposed wrongdoing, but the US says Mr Assange put lives at risk. The case is being heard by two judges, Dame Victoria Sharp and Mr Justice Johnson. As the hearing got under way, Mr Fitzgerald told them his client was "being prosecuted for engaging in ordinary journalistic practice of obtaining and publishing classified information, information that is both true and of obvious and important public interest." He also confirmed that Mr Assange would not be attending court as he is unwell. Some supporters of Assange started gathering outside court hours ahead of Tuesday's hearing, waving placards featuring the words "Drop the charges."
Supporters of the Wikileaks founder say he exposed wrongdoing, but the US says Mr Assange put lives at risk. The case is being heard by two judges, Dame Victoria Sharp and Mr Justice Johnson. As the hearing got under way, Mr Fitzgerald told them his client was "being prosecuted for engaging in ordinary journalistic practice of obtaining and publishing classified information, information that is both true and of obvious and important public interest." He also confirmed that Mr Assange would not be attending court as he is unwell. Some supporters of Assange started gathering outside court hours ahead of Tuesday's hearing, waving placards featuring the words "Drop the charges."
Uniparty in action (Score:5, Insightful)
It's things like this that make many people say we have 1 party with 2 names.
When something important comes up both parties are 100% in lockstep and it's always in a way bad for the Everyman and great for government.
99% the rest of the time they make lots of noise about being different but somehow there are enough crossover votes that nothing good happens.
The Assange case is one such "clear message to other troublemakers" with no legal basis and properly announced for many years that he's a bad guy including the usual rape charges from events years earlier that likely didn't happen. "Don't fuck with us or we'll destroy your life, motherfuckers!"
Re:Uniparty in action (Score:4)
It's crazy they pardoned the person who actually stole the stuff and sent it to be published, and are going after the publisher instead. It makes NO sense.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not crazy to me. Manning was condemned and did time in prison for violating his oaths and breaking the law. That he was pardoned afterwards afterwards does not change the fact that he was condemned. Assange (like Trump) thinks that he's above all laws and I hope both end up in prison to show them both that they are not.
Re:Uniparty in action (Score:5, Insightful)
He's not a US citizen and US laws are not international laws Assange is political prisoner and he's not going to get a fair trial.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
He wasn't in the US. This is like Russia coming after you for saying Putin did something bad.
Re: (Score:3)
Either the USA is "Team America - World Police" or it's not. You can't have it both ways. Either nab Assange and pony up the money Ukraine needs, and preferably tell Israel to go fuck themselves, or don't do any of those things and keep yourself out of everyone else's business.
Let me be crystal clear on one thing: America wants to be seen as world police. It's anything but. America is bullying governments and countries all over the world to pursue their own interests, not in an hypothetical search for justice.
They didn't lift a finger when Russia invaded Georgia for example. Or when China invaded Tibet. There are countless examples of this.
So, to answer your question, no, the USA is not "Team America - World Police" and has never been.
Re: (Score:3)
First, it's not aids, it's strong arming all banks in the world.
Second it's not against criminal activity, it's for the IRS.
If you do believe the US is benevolent and not at all strong arming all the other countries in the world for its own benefits (aka, an empire), I have a bridge from NY to LA to sell you. I'll even give you a 50% discount.
Re:Uniparty in action (Score:5, Interesting)
Assange (like Trump) thinks that he's above all laws
What laws did Assange break in the place where he was at the time when he published the information?
Re:Uniparty in action (Score:5, Interesting)
What laws did Assange break in the place where he was at the time when he published
I'm guessing they want to charge Assange with as a criminal conspirator in Manning's crime, Because Assange was alleged to have knowingly assisted in the criminal act by making an agreement to help them crack a password.
If the Jury finds it to be a fact that Assange knowingly assisted them in breaking into a system, then it's likely Assange will be going to prison for a long time, as it would make him criminally liable for furthering the enterprise -- this would also make Wikileaks' subsequent release part of that criminal act.
Re: (Score:3)
then it's likely Assange will be going to prison for a long time
The crime Assange is charged with carries a 5 year maximum sentence. That is all he is charged with at present. Honestly I hope he gets 3 years and then gets released. It would make a mockery of his entire attempt at evading the law.
this would also make Wikileaks' subsequent release part of that criminal act.
I think that one is on very shaky legal ground. Publishing something obtained illicitly typically falls under protection afforded to journalists. I doubt Wikileaks can be implicated any more than they already are.
Re:Uniparty in action (Score:5, Insightful)
Manning was not pardoned.
His sentence was commuted, so he didn't serve the full time.
He is still a convicted criminal, guilty of reporting a crime.
America is not kind to whistleblowers.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Why are you misgendering Chelsea Manning?
Re: Uniparty in action (Score:3, Insightful)
Because Bradley declared his gender as male when he enlisted. And when he commited the crimes for which he is doing time.
Re: (Score:2)
It actually works the other way around. If you declare that you are a man or not a foreign spy on an application, but later assert that you were a woman since birth or had been a deep cover agent, that's just another charge they can slap you with: Lying on a federal application.
Re: Uniparty in action (Score:5, Informative)
XY chromosome or having any Y sex chromosome sort of means male since the beginning of time.
Maleness is determined by the SRY gene [wikipedia.org]. It is normally on the Y chromosome but can migrate to other chromosomes.
So there are XX men: XX male syndrome [wikipedia.org], also known as de la Chapelle syndrome.
There are also XY females, usually caused by a mutation in the SRY gene. Swyer syndrome [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:3)
actually a full "pardon" does essentially 'undo' a conviction; at least legally speaking.
Having ones sentence commuted, still sometimes called a pardon simply relieves one from some or all of the legal consequences.
I forget what Manning got exactly.
Re: (Score:2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re:Uniparty in action (Score:5, Informative)
Could people actually bother to read the charges? He's not being charged with "being a publisher", or as his attorney dishonestly put it, "for engaging in ordinary journalistic practice." He's being charged with taking part in hacking. [justice.gov]
If you can't represent the case honestly, then you're either ignorant or being dishonest, and this site doesn't need either of those.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The TL/DR is: journalists are generally considered to be protected for publishing things, even if they were gained through illegal means, if the journalist in no way assisted in or solicited / encouraged the crime. Someone hacks a database and then sends what they find to a journalist? The journalist is fine.
But Assange actively took part in committing the crime. You can't commit a crime and then say, "But I'm a journalist, so it's okay!" The notion that that should be legal leads to absurd places. "Wel
Re:Uniparty in action (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm of two minds of this.
Yes, Assange participated in encouraging hacking.
On the flip side, Assange was outside of US jurisdiction.
So for the argument for absurdism, should everyone be subject to all laws in other countries?
I really don't want to open up the possibility that someone could run a murder-for-hire scheme from another country with lax laws. But I'd also rather not be extradited for saying something like "GLBT people deserve human rights", even if it's against the law in some countries.
Re:Uniparty in action (Score:5, Informative)
Cross-jurisdiction criminal activity is literally what the extradition system is for. You can't break crimes across jurisdictional boundaries and then go, "Ha ha, I can't be punished!"
Extradition is a high bar (significantly higher than for surrender under a EAW, for example). A key aspect of most extradition treaties is the principle of double criminality. That is, what the person is sought for must be a crime in both the sending state and receiving state. But unlike "saying GLBT people deserve human rights", hacking very much is. Had Assange done the exact same crime in the UK, it would have been just as illegal. So it's an extraditable offense.
Generally extradition treaties have two sides that need to sign off: the judicial system (with cases commonly being appealed up to the highest levels of the court system), and the government itself, which can commonly decide to deny extradition for any arbitrary reason it chooses, even if the courts rule that all legal standards for extradition have been upheld. That said, usually governments don't override their judicial systems on extradition cases.
In short, extradition is a very high hurdle to pass.
Re:Uniparty in action (Score:4, Insightful)
Assange promoted hacking for the purpose of uncovering crime.
Was it illegal under US law to promote that hacking? Sure.
Were the crimes uncovered by the hacking far more serious than the hacking? Also surely yes.
Perhaps you should develop the same level of support for punishing the war crimes that you have for punishing the crime of discovering the war crimes.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, yeah. That last paragraph of yours is not only true but oh so completely irrelevant to the discussion.
If Assange obtained the information illegally, he will have to be a martyr for it. That's how the world rolls.
The fact that this information didn't lead to any punishment is the people's incapability of holding their governmental service providers to anything. Tragic, but that has nothing to do with Assange.
Obviously the US wants to make an example of him. Is that reasonable and ethical? Hell no. But
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that this information didn't lead to any punishment is the people's incapability of holding their governmental service providers to anything. Tragic, but that has nothing to do with Assange.
I didn't imply that it did. What I was implying was that it had something to do with bootlickers like Rei. It's not only American citizens' shit opinions that are relevant here, since the USA knows it's not the only nation on the planet.
Obviously the US wants to make an example of him. Is that reasonable and ethical? Hell no. But once again, to keep the public servants ethical is the duty of the people and well, here we are.
Yes, and here we are with people more concerned about Assange than about war crimes. I'm glad you noticed, but that's literally what my comment was about, so I don't need you to recap it for me in the form of an objection.
Re: (Score:3)
Perhaps you should develop the same level of support for punishing the war crimes that you have for punishing the crime of discovering the war crimes.
That's known as whataboutism. Whether or not we support prosecution of warcrimes has nothing to do with Assange.
Re: (Score:3)
Is there a smoking gun that I missed? Or is the helicopter footage more damning than it appears?
More damning than it appears? It appears that they assassinated a journalist when even if they had been in danger, it would only have been because they were in unnecessary proximity to a hostile.
Did the soldiers know the journalist wasn't a hostile?
Re: (Score:3)
Did the soldiers know the journalist wasn't a hostile?
Did you watch the Collateral Murder video?
You mean the video of the helicopter shooting people? I did, many years ago. It wasn't clear to me how the helicopter pilots would have known that the journalists were journalists, but I don't remember it well and I could have missed something.
Re: (Score:2)
On the flip side, Assange was outside of US jurisdiction.
So for the argument for absurdism, should everyone be subject to all laws in other countries?
They are Not, but an overseas conspirator is still responsible for a criminal action on US soil which they had advanced.
For example, if a Person in France decided they want someone in the US to be unalived, so they hire another perpetrator who lives in the US (a paid hit). That person in France can still be extradited, to the US, and charged for that murde
Re: Uniparty in action (Score:2)
Assange was outside of US jurisdiction.
Where was the system he helped break into?
Re: (Score:3)
Society of Professional Journalists Code Of Ethics [spj.org]:
Re: (Score:3)
There was nothing fake about the sexual charges. The woman had consented on having safe, protected, sex. She had explicitly NOT consented to unsafe sex. Assange INTENTIONALLY broke the condom, and therefore, he had sex without her consent. Sex without consent is basically the definition of rape (yeah yeah, there might be corner cases, which makes it sexual abuse or similar, but you get the idea).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What do you believe Chelsea Manning thought Julian was going to do with the files? You really think Chelsea assumed Julian would act in the public interest and remove the sensitive information? That makes sense and is plausible to you?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Uniparty in action (Score:5, Insightful)
The clear message is actually - don't jump bail, or hide away in an embassy, or spend that time antagonizing the United States. Because doing vastly increases the chances the US will indict and try to extradite your ass. As Assange is finding out to his cost. And since he had prior form for bail jumping, he got to stew in prison while the extradition proceedings and his appeals wended their way through the courts. And I expect that his indictment is just a placeholder that satisfies extradition requirements and they'll drop a bunch of other charges on him for all the other shit he got up to while he was on the lam. Sucks to be him, but it is entirely self inflicted.
Re: (Score:3)
If he had surrendered himself to Sweden, he wouldn't have been disappeared. Chances are the rape charges would lead to nothing, or he would be freed after a trial or if found guilty spent a few years in prison. Chances are the US wouldn't even have bothered to indict him, and even if they had with far less certainly of success than in the UK. But he didn't do that and has enjoyed the consequences of his own actions ever since.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Uniparty in action (Score:5, Informative)
The timeline is basically this. 1) Assange accused of rape in Sweden, asked to go there from UK for questioning, 2) Sweden tries to extradite him from the UK, 3) Assange posts bail (or rather his followers do) in UK while extradition happens, 4) Assange skips bail, hides in Ecuadorian embassy, 5) UK now has arrest warrant for him, 6) Assange spends all his time in the embassy antagonizing the US, France, Spain etc and being a useful idiot for Russia, 7) Ecuador gets fed up and evicts him into the waiting hands of UK police, 8) Assange sentenced and serves time for jumping bail, 9) Meanwhile US indicts & launches extradition proceedings, 10) Assange being a bail jumper gets to enjoy prison while extradition process plays out, 11) US succeeds in extradition proceedings, 12) Last gasp attempt by Assange to avoid it (today).
So if Assange had basically hopped on a plane back at 1), then the questioning might have gone nowhere or even he was criminally charged resulted in a prison sentence of a few years. End of story. But he didn't and his own self inflicted time in the embassy does not count as time served for jumping bail in the first place.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
So if Assange had basically hopped on a plane back at 1), then the questioning might have gone nowhere or even he was criminally charged resulted in a prison sentence of a few years. End of story. But he didn't and his own self inflicted time in the embassy does not count as time served for jumping bail in the first place.
Had he gone to Sweden, he would very likely have been extradited to the US within a year, at most.
Sweden tends to be very keen to appease the US.
Source: I am Swedish.
Re:Uniparty in action (Score:5, Informative)
"Being Swedish" doesn't make you an expert on international law.
Under the terms of an EAW, any further extradition requires the authorisation of both the sending state AND the receiving state. In short, being in Sweden, it would have required TWO governments to sign off on extradition to the US rather than just one. And THREE court systems (UK, SV, and EHCR). All five of the above entities which can individually veto an extradition are are banned from extradition without binding legal assurances of no death penalty, abuse, and other such conditions. Sweden additionally is prohibited from extraditing for military or intelligence-related crimes. The ECHR exists *solely* to prevent political prosecutions and human rights abuses - that's its only job, and one that it's often accused of *overenforcing*.
Regardless of Assange's spin after he got charged digging up tangential counterexamples** and blowing them out of proportion and out of context, the very reason Assange was setting up a Wikileaks headquarters in Sweden at the time was because it was widely seen as the most whistleblower-friendly country on Earth. As an example: Edward Lee Howard was the only CIA agent to ever defect to the USSR, who gave them troves of information. He later fled to Sweden as the USSR was collapsing. The US sought his extradition from Sweden. This was one of the highest-profile extradition figures the US ever sought - they REALLY wanted him. The result? Nope. Sweden ruled that espionage was a "political offense" and refused to hand him over. Oh, and BTW, the prime minister at the time? Carl Bildt - the same Carl Bildt that Assange loved to spin at the centre of his conspiracy theories about how it was just a ruse to extradite him
** A single incident nearly two decades ago involving two people who had no right to be in the country, vs. Assange who has no right to NOT be in the country, who had been misidentified as terrorists and extradited.
Sweden is ranked #1 in the world by the World Justice Project [worldjusticeproject.org] in terms of fundamental rights, and their biggest rated weakness is letting criminals off too easily. In the past 50 years, Sweden has not once extradited a person to the US for intelligence or military-related crimes [samtycke.nu]. Not ONCE. It is ILLEGAL in Sweden to do so. Sweden has granted residency to over 430 US military deserters.
Re: (Score:3)
You seriously think Sweden is more keen to extradite than the UK? This a BS smokescreen emanating from supporters at the time so he could hide from sexual assault questioning. It stands no scrutiny. In fact, if his aim was truly to avoid extradition to the US, he would have immediately left the UK and flown to Sweden to answer questions and hope to be in and out before any extradition could be put together.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
1. Assange was in Sweden when initially accused, voluntarily submitted himself to police and was told after interview by prosecutors that no charges would be filed, case closed and he could leave the country. So he returns to UK.
2. Swedish prosecutor Nye decides, for no sufficiently plausible and adequate reasons given, to re-open the closed case, accusing Assange of having fled the country (false) and attempts to get an International Arrest Warrant.
3. Assange offers to talk to prosecutors in London. This i
Re: (Score:2)
Also notable is the distinct lack of Australia's interest in one of her citizens throughout all of this.
Australia's Parliament just called for Assange to be returned to Australia with the PM agreeing. One of many links,
https://www.reuters.com/world/... [reuters.com]
Re:Uniparty in action (Score:4)
1. Assange was in Sweden when initially accused, voluntarily submitted himself to police and was told after interview by prosecutors that no charges would be filed, case closed and he could leave the country. So he returns to UK.
Gross distortion of the chronology. The rape investigation was re-opened on September 1, 2010, promptly after the complaint's lawyer requested a review of the prosecutor's decision to close it. Then on September 27 Assange skipped out of Sweden.
2. Swedish prosecutor Nye decides, for no sufficiently plausible and adequate reasons given, to re-open the closed case, accusing Assange of having fled the country (false) and attempts to get an International Arrest Warrant.
Again, a gross distortion of the facts. You don't know what arguments were presented to convince the Prosecution Development Centre to override the prosecutor's decision to close the case, but you do know that they were sufficient. Assange did in fact fee Sweden on September 27.
I suppose the rest of your screen is about as accurate as your first two lies.
Re: (Score:3)
Your point 3 is the only valid criticism. But that was for reasons of prestige, on the side of both parties. People working in the legal system rarely negotiate with suspects, because their very high thoughts of themselves, and don't realise that states are morally indefensible institutions. But that is not specific for Sweden, that is a global phenomenon.
Re: (Score:3)
So if Assange had basically hopped on a plane back at 1), then the questioning might have gone nowhere or even he was criminally charged resulted in a prison sentence of a few years. End of story.
it's easy to talk in hindsight. showing up had a very high risk of him shortly landing in the u.s., the fear of an unfair trial was very real and explicitly stated, and the whole induction was an obvious plot for that to begin with. i would have skipped bail too.
if this is all that sustains your theory of "self inflicted" harm, hm ... it doesn't really float (not even in hindsight).
self inflicted was the decision to go ahead with the leaks. he knew what he was getting into but somehow thought it was worth i
Re: (Score:3)
Why should a high profile case like this risk being "unfair"? C.f., the case against A$AP Rocky, which was processed "by the book" by Swedish authorities.
Re:Uniparty in action (Score:4, Insightful)
Assange and Wikileaks know more than we do, having seen things that they did not publish and spoken to people on the inside. It's easy to say with hindsight, but at the time, based on the evidence they had, they made the best decision they could.
Assange is unlikely to get a far trial in the US, and there are human rights issues due to the nature of US prisons. It can be difficult to extradite people from countries that are signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights, when the requesting country can be shown to not respect those rights. For example, solitary confinement is considered to be a form of torture.
Re: (Score:2)
If he had surrendered himself to Sweden, he wouldn't have been disappeared. [...] Chances are the US wouldn't even have bothered to indict him
[citation needed]
The US has consistently come on like a hard on where it comes to Assange. On what basis do you imagine that they might not have indicted him?
Re: (Score:2)
I love my country but I am honest about the flaws.
If he ends up in a US court I fully expect him to be convicted after his defense is not allowed to make certain arguments, see certain evidence, present certain evidence, in a closed court with no public or reporters (for national security reasons) and then in 2-3 years there might be a short blurb about how he was reported to be depressed and suicided in prison. Investigation said nothing to see here. Case closed, end of story.
Re: (Score:2)
The US made statements at the time they weren't going to prosecute. I guess him spending his time in an embassy interfering with US politics (and French, Spanish et al) made them re-examine their intentions. To me it is obvious that this espionage indictment is a placeholder that serves its extradition purpose and more charges will drop on him as soon as he is over. And it serves him fucking right. Should have gone to Sweden.
Re: (Score:2)
Sweden has not had the best record about sending people into American hands to be tortured.
Re: Uniparty in action (Score:2)
"hard left⦠coronation of hillary"
rofl, i could see a state bureaucrat actually believing this. to me it sounds about as inane as the proud boys rallying for mitt romney.
Re: (Score:2)
When something important comes up both parties are 100% in lockstep
So you think what happens with Russia is not something important.
Re: (Score:2)
Your point?
I never said there weren't situations where (near) unanimous agreement was bad.
I said when something comes up that is good for them they always go for it even if it hurts normal people who an overwhelming majority are unhappy with that decision.
Re: (Score:2)
It's things like this that make many people say we have 1 party with 2 names.
When something important comes up both parties are 100% in lockstep and it's always in a way bad for the Everyman and great for government.
Laugh as you will about the notion of a "Deep State", but it exists, and the dominant wing of that state... the National Security wing... swore never to let a Daniel Ellsberg (Pentagon Papers) happen again. Assange will be the example made to any more would-be Ellsbergs.
Everybody seems to be forgetting... (Score:3)
that the so-called Uni-party (The Democrats and much of the Republican party, the so-called "Establishment Republicans") have one thing they agree on more than anything else, AND Julian Assange is entangled in it.
This explanation is going to veer into Trump-land because that's where the trail leads, NOT as a pro- or anti-Trump thing, so try to put your personal feelings about Trump aside and let me refresh your memories a bit.
The uniparty in Washington DC are anti-Trump. Think: Liz Cheney. Some hate him f
Re: (Score:2)
^^ Finally someone around here that gets it!
Re:Uniparty in action (Score:4, Informative)
What are the chances that that fact would matter to someone who's not a raging antisemite? Near-zero, I'd argue.
He didn't leak anything (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:He didn't leak anything (Score:4, Insightful)
He incited people specifically to obtain unauthorised access to classified military systems and publish it to himself, where he then disseminated it to the world, without redaction, analysis or reasonable protections.
He probably got people killed by doing so.
Sure, there were things in the leaks that were worth whistleblowing, but an awful lot that should never have been made public (which journalists are good at dealing with and separating so they... don't end up being locked up!).
Whistleblowing isn't the same as "just publish everything you can get your hands on, no matter the secrecy or relevance of the documents". If it was, secrecy would be pointless because everyone would claim journalistic / whistleblowing protections, even enemy states.
Journalism, no matter what impression the tabloid press might give it, comes with responsibilities and most professional journalists are extremely responsible. Assange was not.
Re:He didn't leak anything (Score:4, Insightful)
Journalists want scoops. Assange got one, through the leaked informaion. It happens that he published it online, instead of through a printed paper, which was more unusual at the time that it is now. Hence, the US claims that he might not be a journalist. He also was not in the US at the time, and is not a US citizen, so it's pretty far fetched for the US to claim he broke domestic laws. It is incredibly chicken-hearted of the UK not to have told the US to fsck off.
secrecy would be pointless because everyone would claim journalistic / whistleblowing protections, even enemy states.
Between Snowdon and Assange, it is pretty clear that secrecy is out of control in the US. "We don't torture" - no, we just do "extraordinary rendition". Prisoners have legal rights in the US, so the US imprisons them indefinitely in Gitmo in Cuba. Three-letter agencies are prohibited from mass spying on Americans, but if it's secret, maybe no one will find out. Or they swap with other five-eyes countries: you spy on ours, and we'll spy on yours.
Only through whistleblowers and journalists has some of this come to light. Thanks to them, we know that there are thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of military and civil employees of the US who have willfully violated or circumvented the law. Sadly, the rot goes all the way to the top, so the US government will never prosecute those responsible.
Re: (Score:3)
Journalists want scoops. Assange got one, through the leaked informaion.
No Assange didn't get leaked information. The entire basis of the charge was that he was directly involved in getting the information. He isn't being accused of anything which would protect any journalist. He is being accused of specifically aiding Manning obtain the information for him and of aiding Manning in covering his tracks.
It turns out leakers can still be punished for hacking offenses. Notice how literally no one else involved in running the resulting stories from this is being punished? The journa
Re: (Score:2)
Re:He didn't leak anything (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Not the way round that logic works I'm afraid
Actually, this is exactly how logic works [wikipedia.org], by definition you can't prove a negative, so the one who makes a positive statement (people were killed) has to bring evidence.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Other people leaked, he just published.
He did not "just" publish, and he is not being accused of publishing anything.
Law and justice are not always synonymous. (Score:2)
Reminds me why US Embassies look like fortresses (Score:2)
Always the bullet-proof glass, concrete barriers, and guys with sub-machine guns.
I know it is hard being the Wold Police, but do you really need to encourage that hatred?
Re: (Score:2)
Or sympathy? Not many people like the sort of people who attack American embassies.
Proof the US doesn't care about freespeech! (Score:4, Insightful)
Now in Canada, we don't have a right to free speech, we only have a right to government controlled and dictated expression, so in Canada this would absolutely be a crime with no defence. This means either the US is going to ignore the concept of free speech and try to use the Canadian controlled speech understanding, or, the courts will have to accept that Wikileaks practised free-speech.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
All Wikileaks did was publish documents that were relevant to the people, which is in essence the most fundamental understanding of the 1st amendment, communication for the people.
Wikileaks is not being charged here, neither is anyone being charged for publishing the information. Free speech is fine and well. The charge is specifically related to hacking. Computer intrusion remains a crime in many countries in the world and the *only* charge Assange is facing is related to directly assisting Manning in hacking.
You are still free to publish things like this. There are legal safeguards that protect you which is why no one got punished for running the story.
Re:Proof the US doesn't care about freespeech! (Score:4, Informative)
Now, I might be entirely wrong, but that's the summary I keep getting, so if I'm wrong then my bad.
Re: (Score:3)
Right but by assisting Manning, all Assange was doing, was effectively journalism.
Nope. Journalism does not involve assisting someone hacking. Journalism is limited to publishing something that was given to you. You can't just pull the journalism card to justify an criminal act as codified in law. The whole point is that Assange isn't "just a reporter" but had an active hand in assisting the exfiltration of data and the covering up of the tracks.
If Assange actually hacked the systems, then you have an issue, but Manning hacked them, Assange just assisted in acquiring the documentation.
The charge is that he actively assisted the hacking process itself including helping crack passwords. He lost the ability to play the journalism
How is this in US jurisdiction? (Score:2, Interesting)
Assange a crminal since he was a teen (Score:2)
Assange had been involved in criminal hacking incidents since he was a teenager. I love the "F the US" crowd who are cheering for this guy when he's pretty much been a criminal that's been pushing the envelope of doing time in prison since the 80's. And he finally pushed far enough to draw the attention of an adversary that would effectively make him a prisoner for about a quarter of his life (so far).
Rah rah.
Lost a lot of Supporters (Score:2)
Seems like he kind of blew it when he started acting as a Russian/Republican asset since he lost a lot of supporters that saw him as more neutral.
Wikileaks lost pretty much all of its credibility when it started cherry picking its submissions and doing political hit pieces
Navalny (Score:2)
Anyone else noticing the exact analogue between Assange and Navalny?
Only me? (Score:2)
Re:Well, well, well... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, they're still trying to punish the person who published those actions, so they don't seem to have accepted those consequences yet.
Re: (Score:2)
IIRC, the US does not want him for the publishing, but for "aiding" the dude who stole the files with "breaking passwords", as in they discussed password crackers in a chat over the Internet.
I have not actually read either the law, or the case, so I can't tell you how much of a stretch is the theory that Assange is potentially guilty of the offense in Britain, which would allow the extradition.
But then, I only have a GED in law ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't matter if he's a US citizen or not. What matters if whether the US suspects he committed an offence on US soil, and they have jurisdiction to prosecute him. Then they can use extradition treaties and present the case to courts in other countries to determine if he should be sent to the US to be put on trial. And so far the courts agree that he should.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why is he in trouble (Score:5, Insightful)
somebody sent him some files and he published it?
Not what he is being charged for. Read the charges.
Oh, that was Chelsea Manning who got a full pardon on condition he change his gender.
You got your timeline confused, to say nothing of the entire concept of causality.
Can't Assange declare himself black or something and get a pardon as well?
About as likely as you declaring yourself smart causing anyone here to not think you a complete moron after what you just wrote here.
Re:Why is he in trouble (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, it matters. Extraterritorial jurisdiction is a huge problem in the absence of a way to effectively defend oneself against state actor acting in bad faith.
The assumption is that extradition treaties provide protection, but you know the US can place significant political pressure beyond the legal requirements of the treaty, as has happened with the Assange case. That is doubly true in cases where the extraditing country is a small one, which authorities depend in various ways on good relationship with the US.
And it isn't the US only - I can give you similar example russian abuse of Interpol warrants, for example.
It is a complex issue with no simple and straightforward answers.
Re:Why is he in trouble (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Jogging across the border can get you in lots of trouble. [www.cbc.ca]
Re:Why is he in trouble (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, they absolutely could be - if the US chose to honour the extradition request from Iran. That's why so many conditions are put on extradition requests.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, they absolutely could be - if the US chose to honour the extradition request from Iran. That's why so many conditions are put on extradition requests.
No they couldn't be because fundamental to extradition is double criminality. You can be extradited to the US for shotting into it and killing someone there because it turns out murder is basically illegal in every country which shares a border with the USA. On the other hand it's not illegal to show your hair in the USA so even if the USA were a very friendly country which did extradite people (it isn't and doesn't) it couldn't because you can't extradite people for things that are not crimes in the jurisd
Re: (Score:2)
The vast majority of us would love to vote in good people, but that's not an option right now. I think our only (ridiculously slim) hope is Biden drops out or is forced out by party leaders and we get a good Democrat. Or maybe one of the two drops dead (more likely). Or both! :D
Also, Assange may have exposed some politically embarrassing things, but mostly he just exposed the identities of most of the brave people trying to help us fight Islamic extremism. It's likely he get a lot of people killed. He
Re:political prisoner (Score:5, Interesting)
Assange may have exposed some politically embarrassing things
Things like war crimes [theguardian.com] you mean?
Re: (Score:2)
They put 'war crimes' in quotes for really good reason, because it was no such thing. The article was simply reporting on the accusation, not claiming the terminology was an accurate description.
This was clearly an accident. The U.S. goes through enormous lengths to avoid such incidents. Nevertheless, they will happen and useful idiots will buy such anti-American propaganda readily.
You and Tucker Carlson should get together.
Re: (Score:3)
This was clearly an accident.
It's not clear to me. To me it is indistinguishable from the deliberate assassination of a journalist, with judged-acceptable collateral losses.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)