7 ms·

I dislike Julian Assanage, I think he's reckless, and I think he's in it for celebrity and attention and power rather than his stated ideals. As an American, I

I dislike Julian Assanage, I think he's reckless, and I think he's in it for celebrity and attention and power rather than his stated ideals. As an American, I hope my government investigates any crimes he's committed and prosecutes him to the full extent of the law. However, tarring and feather his political/espionage/leaking work with personal allegations seems wrong to me. His work at Wikileaks and drunken party happenings don't bear any relation to each other. Pursue him for being reckless with stolen diplomatic materials and prosecute him for it if there's a case under the law. Don't tar and feather his reputation like this, I think it's the wrong way of going about it.

vaksel 16y ago
What crime has he committed under American law? And remember, he is an Australian citizen so the whole treason thing doesn't apply.
- fname 16y ago
  WikiLeaks founder could be charged under Espionage Act http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/29/AR2010112905973.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11...
  - vaksel 16y ago
    U.S. law does not apply to foreign citizens. It's the equivalent of you getting arrested for some vague Chinese law.
    - kgo 16y ago
      http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/usama-bin-laden/view http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/usama-bin-laden/view
    - ryanwaggoner 16y ago
      Disappointing that you're being up voted, as this just isn't true. Foreign citizens in the US are held to the standards of US law, just as US citizens are held to the legal standards of the countries they visit. So your blanket statement is immediately proven false. And even in this specific case, in espionage cases, the US can choose to prosecute and basically abduct anyone in the world they want, provided they're willing to put up with the political consequences. Not saying it's right, but if you think you can spy against the US (or many other countries) and face no consequences because you're not a US citizen, you might be in for a nasty surprise.
      - vaksel 16y ago
        yes in U.S. you follow U.S. law...but that's not the case here. And yes, the U.S. can kidnap him and bring him into U.S. so they can charge him with U.S. law...but they can't charge him in another country under U.S. law and expect him to get arrested...not unless they go through the whole extradition thing. But that's like saying, you fall under Chinese law, because they might send a hit squad to take you out for breaking their laws. Yes might generally equals right internationally, but for now they are trying to put up the pretense that U.S. cares about foreign relations.
      - rmc 16y ago
        And even in this specific case, in espionage cases, the US can choose to prosecute and basically abduct anyone in the world they want, provided they're willing to put up with the political consequences. The people who abducted the suspect might be operating under USA law, and they might not be guilty when they go to the USA. However just because it's legal to do it in USA doesn't mean it's legal in the country they do it in. They would still be breaking the law in that country. Would you like if a person broke a USA law while in the USA and then said "But it's OK, it's legal under Irish law?"
    - akamaka 16y ago
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_jurisdiction_over_international_defendants_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_jurisdiction_over_inte... To the person who posted this and those who upvoted this: you have power over the quality of the conversations on this site. Please give some thought to how you use it.
    - lucasjung 16y ago
      As my earlier post states, this is incorrect. It is generally true that the laws of any given country only apply to its citizens, and to non-citizens within its sovereign territory. However, many countries assert the right to prosecute people beyond those bounds for certain types of crimes. Espionage is especially high on the list of such crimes because (as wikiLeaks has so clearly demonstrated) an anti-espionage law that stops at the border is practically impotent. Usually, such crimes are tried in absentia because the prosecuting country has no way to get their hands on the defendant (e.g. Osama bin Laden), but sometimes countries will go to great lengths to seize a suspect, such as when U.S. Navy jets intercepted an airliner carrying Palestinian hijackers and forced it to land at NAS Sigonella. International law can be very quirky (IANAL, but my work sometimes requires me to deal very directly with particular specific aspects of international law). Much of it comes down to precedent: if you can enforce a claim consistently for a long enough time, it becomes accepted and legitimate international law, which is the reason for the U.S. military's Freedom of Navigation (FON) operations. Conversely, if you allow others to regularly violate your national sovereignty in a particular manner without responding (even if only by formal diplomatic protest), then those particular rights may come to be accepted as no longer belonging to your nation. A meta-observation: I've noted that posts saying, "he can't be prosecuted by the U.S." are generally getting many upvotes, while posts explaining how and why he could (not that he SHOULD, just that it's possible) are getting few or none. I can't know what other people are thinking, but it seems to me that people are voting based on what they would like to be true, rather than on what actually is true.
- lucasjung 16y ago
  Treason does not apply. Espionage does. Most countries have laws that provide for prosecution in absentia if the defendant refuses to appear in response to a summons. For espionage, the U.S. takes it one step further: our laws specifically give our federal law enforcement agencies permission to operate outside of normal international extradition processes for the purpose of arresting espionage suspects. In other words, if espionage charges were to be filed against Assange in the U.S., the FBI would be allowed to go wherever he is and more or less kidnap him. This would undoubtedly cause a huge international incident, as it would almost certainly violate the laws of the country where the arrest takes place, but it would be perfectly legal under U.S. law.
  - ryoshu 16y ago
    That's okay, the US would threaten the country where Assange would be kidnapped from: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/spy-talk/2010/11/leaked_cable_us_warned_germany.html http://voices.washingtonpost.com/spy-talk/2010/11/leaked_cab...
  - vaksel 16y ago
    I doubt he'll be charged with espionage, if the Russian spies that were caught this summer weren't charged, it'd be very telling if they charge him with that
    - RK 16y ago
      The difference is that those spies had a whole government behind them wanting to save face. I'm not sure many governments are very happy with Assange at the moment.
    - rms 16y ago
      The Russian spies were traded for US contacts detained in Russia.
  - cma 16y ago
    Would they go after The Guardian? The NYT? All were recipients of the documents. Manning is the only one who (supposedly) committed a crime.
megablast 16y ago
> I think he's reckless, and I think he's in it for celebrity and attention and power rather than his stated ideals. Then you are starting to believe all the misinformation that the government is trying to spread about him. This is how the discredit people and this information, since they can not actually deny it. I really believe that this is one of the greatest actions to happen to democracy in a long time, and everybody should be rejoicing in these leaks. We need more transparency in government, and there are people out there willing to do this, and get in all sorts of trouble for it. Fortunately he has left Australia, the government here would be more than happy to send him over to the USA on any trumped up charges.
- akamaka 16y ago
  I feel the same way as the original poster, and I don't see how government misinformation has anything to do with it. Do you remember when wikileaks launched, it was described as an anonymous organization "founded by Chinese dissidents, journalists, mathematicians and start-up company technologists, from the US, Taiwan, Europe, Australia and South Africa"? When their website had a raw archive of documents on the front page? The changes in wikileaks started happening before the government became very interested in them. They became much more focused on fund-raising, manipulating the media to their advantage, editorializing the leaked material, and Assange became the figurehead associated with every release of information.
  - prawn 16y ago
    And how much more attention have they received to their cause since then? Apple has Jobs. Microsoft has Gates. It was Jordan and the Bulls. Wales is calling for donations on Wikipedia.
    - akamaka 16y ago
      Yes, he has brought attention, and in a very reckless way, I believe. But I didn't come here to debate that, I just wanted to point out that it isn't some government campaign of misinformation that has shaped my view of Assange.
smokeyj 16y ago
These are old tactics, the FBI used it on MLK (yes, your guberment didn't like MLK either). How is someone making information available so offensive?
angrycoder 16y ago
celebrity and power? You know he is basically living as a fugitive, moving from place to place, working underground, etc.
- hugh3 16y ago
  Except he's never been actually under threat of arrest until now. He's been "living as a fugitive" and "moving from place to place" for attention-whoring purposes, not because he needs to.
  - cubix 16y ago
    How do you distinguish between living as a fugitive for "attention-whoring purposes," and having legitimate concerns for one's freedom and well-being? I would be pretty damned paranoid if I were in his shoes, even prior to the most recent release, and all of my hats are made of natural fiber.
    - hugh3 16y ago
      Well for one thing, if you're genuinely on the run then moving from country to country doesn't decrease your chances of getting nabbed, it significantly increases them.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
charlesattlan 16y ago
You do know there was a leak of Clinton telling her drones/diplomats to spy on anyone they could: biometric data, secure passwords, emails [1]. Even the UN was spied upon. Do not forget, Wikileaks is just a publishing company, people submit data, they release it. The rest of the world already knows that the US will break any law if it sees fit (GTMO anyone?) and is a morally and financially bankrupt state. I understand: if the US invades a country, it is "bringing democracy"; if the US spies and gets information it is foreign policy/diplomacy; if the US through buying oil and selling ammunitions supports a totalitarian regime like Saudi Arabia, it is business as usual, but if Wikileaks publishes damaging material a US soldier submitted without coercion, it is terrorism. [1] http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/11/clinton-ordered-diplomats-spy-un/ http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/11/clinton-ordered-diplomats...

vaksel 16y ago

What crime has he committed under American law? And remember, he is an Australian citizen so the whole treason thing doesn't apply.

fname 16y ago
WikiLeaks founder could be charged under Espionage Act http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/29/AR2010112905973.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11...
- vaksel 16y ago
  U.S. law does not apply to foreign citizens. It's the equivalent of you getting arrested for some vague Chinese law.
  - kgo 16y ago
    http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/usama-bin-laden/view http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/usama-bin-laden/view
  - ryanwaggoner 16y ago
    Disappointing that you're being up voted, as this just isn't true. Foreign citizens in the US are held to the standards of US law, just as US citizens are held to the legal standards of the countries they visit. So your blanket statement is immediately proven false. And even in this specific case, in espionage cases, the US can choose to prosecute and basically abduct anyone in the world they want, provided they're willing to put up with the political consequences. Not saying it's right, but if you think you can spy against the US (or many other countries) and face no consequences because you're not a US citizen, you might be in for a nasty surprise.
    - vaksel 16y ago
      yes in U.S. you follow U.S. law...but that's not the case here. And yes, the U.S. can kidnap him and bring him into U.S. so they can charge him with U.S. law...but they can't charge him in another country under U.S. law and expect him to get arrested...not unless they go through the whole extradition thing. But that's like saying, you fall under Chinese law, because they might send a hit squad to take you out for breaking their laws. Yes might generally equals right internationally, but for now they are trying to put up the pretense that U.S. cares about foreign relations.
    - rmc 16y ago
      And even in this specific case, in espionage cases, the US can choose to prosecute and basically abduct anyone in the world they want, provided they're willing to put up with the political consequences. The people who abducted the suspect might be operating under USA law, and they might not be guilty when they go to the USA. However just because it's legal to do it in USA doesn't mean it's legal in the country they do it in. They would still be breaking the law in that country. Would you like if a person broke a USA law while in the USA and then said "But it's OK, it's legal under Irish law?"
  - akamaka 16y ago
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_jurisdiction_over_international_defendants_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_jurisdiction_over_inte... To the person who posted this and those who upvoted this: you have power over the quality of the conversations on this site. Please give some thought to how you use it.
  - lucasjung 16y ago
    As my earlier post states, this is incorrect. It is generally true that the laws of any given country only apply to its citizens, and to non-citizens within its sovereign territory. However, many countries assert the right to prosecute people beyond those bounds for certain types of crimes. Espionage is especially high on the list of such crimes because (as wikiLeaks has so clearly demonstrated) an anti-espionage law that stops at the border is practically impotent. Usually, such crimes are tried in absentia because the prosecuting country has no way to get their hands on the defendant (e.g. Osama bin Laden), but sometimes countries will go to great lengths to seize a suspect, such as when U.S. Navy jets intercepted an airliner carrying Palestinian hijackers and forced it to land at NAS Sigonella. International law can be very quirky (IANAL, but my work sometimes requires me to deal very directly with particular specific aspects of international law). Much of it comes down to precedent: if you can enforce a claim consistently for a long enough time, it becomes accepted and legitimate international law, which is the reason for the U.S. military's Freedom of Navigation (FON) operations. Conversely, if you allow others to regularly violate your national sovereignty in a particular manner without responding (even if only by formal diplomatic protest), then those particular rights may come to be accepted as no longer belonging to your nation. A meta-observation: I've noted that posts saying, "he can't be prosecuted by the U.S." are generally getting many upvotes, while posts explaining how and why he could (not that he SHOULD, just that it's possible) are getting few or none. I can't know what other people are thinking, but it seems to me that people are voting based on what they would like to be true, rather than on what actually is true.
lucasjung 16y ago
Treason does not apply. Espionage does. Most countries have laws that provide for prosecution in absentia if the defendant refuses to appear in response to a summons. For espionage, the U.S. takes it one step further: our laws specifically give our federal law enforcement agencies permission to operate outside of normal international extradition processes for the purpose of arresting espionage suspects. In other words, if espionage charges were to be filed against Assange in the U.S., the FBI would be allowed to go wherever he is and more or less kidnap him. This would undoubtedly cause a huge international incident, as it would almost certainly violate the laws of the country where the arrest takes place, but it would be perfectly legal under U.S. law.
- ryoshu 16y ago
  That's okay, the US would threaten the country where Assange would be kidnapped from: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/spy-talk/2010/11/leaked_cable_us_warned_germany.html http://voices.washingtonpost.com/spy-talk/2010/11/leaked_cab...
- vaksel 16y ago
  I doubt he'll be charged with espionage, if the Russian spies that were caught this summer weren't charged, it'd be very telling if they charge him with that
  - RK 16y ago
    The difference is that those spies had a whole government behind them wanting to save face. I'm not sure many governments are very happy with Assange at the moment.
  - rms 16y ago
    The Russian spies were traded for US contacts detained in Russia.
- cma 16y ago
  Would they go after The Guardian? The NYT? All were recipients of the documents. Manning is the only one who (supposedly) committed a crime.

megablast 16y ago

> I think he's reckless, and I think he's in it for celebrity and attention and power rather than his stated ideals. Then you are starting to believe all the misinformation that the government is trying to spread about him. This is how the discredit people and this information, since they can not actually deny it. I really believe that this is one of the greatest actions to happen to democracy in a long time, and everybody should be rejoicing in these leaks. We need more transparency in government, and there are people out there willing to do this, and get in all sorts of trouble for it. Fortunately he has left Australia, the government here would be more than happy to send him over to the USA on any trumped up charges.

akamaka 16y ago
I feel the same way as the original poster, and I don't see how government misinformation has anything to do with it. Do you remember when wikileaks launched, it was described as an anonymous organization "founded by Chinese dissidents, journalists, mathematicians and start-up company technologists, from the US, Taiwan, Europe, Australia and South Africa"? When their website had a raw archive of documents on the front page? The changes in wikileaks started happening before the government became very interested in them. They became much more focused on fund-raising, manipulating the media to their advantage, editorializing the leaked material, and Assange became the figurehead associated with every release of information.
- prawn 16y ago
  And how much more attention have they received to their cause since then? Apple has Jobs. Microsoft has Gates. It was Jordan and the Bulls. Wales is calling for donations on Wikipedia.
  - akamaka 16y ago
    Yes, he has brought attention, and in a very reckless way, I believe. But I didn't come here to debate that, I just wanted to point out that it isn't some government campaign of misinformation that has shaped my view of Assange.

smokeyj 16y ago

These are old tactics, the FBI used it on MLK (yes, your guberment didn't like MLK either). How is someone making information available so offensive?

angrycoder 16y ago

celebrity and power? You know he is basically living as a fugitive, moving from place to place, working underground, etc.

hugh3 16y ago
Except he's never been actually under threat of arrest until now. He's been "living as a fugitive" and "moving from place to place" for attention-whoring purposes, not because he needs to.
- cubix 16y ago
  How do you distinguish between living as a fugitive for "attention-whoring purposes," and having legitimate concerns for one's freedom and well-being? I would be pretty damned paranoid if I were in his shoes, even prior to the most recent release, and all of my hats are made of natural fiber.
  - hugh3 16y ago
    Well for one thing, if you're genuinely on the run then moving from country to country doesn't decrease your chances of getting nabbed, it significantly increases them.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

charlesattlan 16y ago

You do know there was a leak of Clinton telling her drones/diplomats to spy on anyone they could: biometric data, secure passwords, emails [1]. Even the UN was spied upon. Do not forget, Wikileaks is just a publishing company, people submit data, they release it. The rest of the world already knows that the US will break any law if it sees fit (GTMO anyone?) and is a morally and financially bankrupt state. I understand: if the US invades a country, it is "bringing democracy"; if the US spies and gets information it is foreign policy/diplomacy; if the US through buying oil and selling ammunitions supports a totalitarian regime like Saudi Arabia, it is business as usual, but if Wikileaks publishes damaging material a US soldier submitted without coercion, it is terrorism. [1] http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/11/clinton-ordered-diplomats-spy-un/ http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/11/clinton-ordered-diplomats...