8 ms·

You Don't Have to Like Assange to Defend Him

219 points by zwieback 8y ago

onedognight 8y ago
Assange is accused of working with Manning to crack a Linux password hash of a government computer so Manning could gain access. It’s not about publishing any data obtained; he was, it seems, not a passive receiver. https://games-cdn.washingtonpost.com/notes/prod/default/documents/3add1fee-2dcb-40d9-b260-a5bf4eee3e56/note/584d0e06-4701-4fee-ad79-82c4e6509c83.pdf https://games-cdn.washingtonpost.com/notes/prod/default/docu...
- ordinaryradical 8y ago
  This is the critical difference. If the NY Times stole the Pentagon Papers themselves, they committed a crime regardless of whether or not they choose to publish the material. If Daniel Ellsberg steals the Pentagon Papers and the Times and Washington Post choose to publish them as part of their reporting on the Vietnam War, they are not somehow made accessories to his crime through publication. Assange can publish whatever he wants* (*according to the US laws that govern freedom of speech, etc.) but as soon as he becomes actively involved in the exfiltration of classified material he is breaking the law.
  - deogeo 8y ago
    > *according to the US laws that govern freedom of speech, etc. He's an Australian currently in the UK though. I don't like the global reach of US laws.
    - ameister14 8y ago
      Well, he allegedly attempted to hack into US computers, right? If a US citizen hacked into Australian servers, they could be extradited from the UK as well.
      - drewmol 8y ago
        True. If the hack was related to divulging accurate but classified information detailing Australia's recent invasion and topple of two sovereign nations, against recommendation by the majority of the UN, it would likely play out different.
    - ordinaryradical 8y ago
      The US isn't special in this regard. Many nations have extradition treaties with each other and they are often invoked in cases of espionage. To paint that as US law "reaching the globe" is a bit facetious; everyone is entangled in everyone else's law—especially when it comes to espionage.
      - deogeo 8y ago
        I couldn't find any good comparative statistics, but I hear about people being extradited to the US a lot more than from, giving the appearance of a rather one-sided relationship. The treaties may be the same, but they don't seem to be used the same.
        yorwba 8y ago
        According to the UK's Home Office, the US requests more extraditions of UK citizens than vice versa, but that might be due to the relative population sizes. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/extradition-requests-between-the-uk-and-us-from-april-2007-to-may-2014/extradition-requests-between-the-uk-and-us-from-april-2007-to-may-2014 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/extradition-reque...
        lamarpye 8y ago
        Your link doesn't list the reason for extradition, doing some research on this issue, I see parental kidnapping generates a fair number of extradition requests.
        GlenTheMachine 8y ago
        That’s partially because the US is a espionage target to a far greater extent than most other countries.
        jnaddef 8y ago
        Well, following Snowden's revelations we learned that NSA was spying on European countries' citizens and administrations, the US president (Obama at the time) just said that spying on allies was a perfectly natural thing. This is definitely a one-sided relationship. You can be sure that the US will never extradite anyone for that at least.
    - roywiggins 8y ago
      1. He's charged with conspiring with an American to hack into an American network. 2. The UK signed an extradition agreement with the US of its own accord 3. Extradition is very common. This situation is what extradition treaties are for.
  - drivingmenuts 8y ago
    I understand the basis for the charges: Assange supposedly committed a crime against the US and so we claim jurisdiction, but does he have Constitutional rights, not just the ones extending from treaties and agreements?
    - MBCook 8y ago
      I believe ANYONE facing a US court gets US constitutional rights. Otherwise we could run roughshod over any foreigners we wanted. (Yeah yeah, extraordinary rendition, etc. I know.)
      - krapp 8y ago
        >Otherwise we could run roughshod over any foreigners we wanted. That's the justification for (and purpose of) Guantanamo Bay, that the US can get around respecting (foreign and domestic) prisoners' Constitutional rights and obeying laws against indefinite detainment without trial and torture because it's not "technically" American, but Cuban.
        jcranmer 8y ago
        That was what the Bush administration tried to do, but they were unsuccessful. The Supreme Court ruled that it was still unconstitutional, and the prisoners had the same rights under the US Constitution.
        JetSpiegel 8y ago
        And yet they are still there...
      - chasd00 8y ago
        i think that's important but how exactly is that specified? Does the US Constitution to apply to anyone on US soil?
        roywiggins 8y ago
- devoply 8y ago
  At the end of the day they are going to send him away for life. The reason being that he did in no way apologize for his actions or feel any remorse. I am sure they have a litany of ways of doing that. This is just one of them. I am sure by the time this goes to trial there will be many more charges or if he beats one charge they will try him on something else. You can't escape the long arm of the US law.
  - cheez 8y ago
    This is the key thing. You cannot escape law by "being right". If you have to be punished for some reason, they will find a reason. Show me the man, and all that. That being said: I hope it's just a few years. That's fair for what he is accused of.
- ninjin 8y ago
  Sure, but would you be equally damning of the actions of the Citizens' Commission to Investigate the FBI? [1] We are talking about breaking into a physical office in that case and I admit that it is different in that they mailed the documents anonymously to journalists, but let us not pretend that things are as black and white as active vs passive – would it have been okay if Manning and Assange had provided the documents to another media outlet? [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens%27_Commission_to_Investigate_the_FBI https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens%27_Commission_to_Inve... Update (no replies yet): I should clarify that I care very little about the legal aspects as there are obviously legal implications, rather I think this is an interesting question from a moral standpoint.
  - ameister14 8y ago
    I think it's important to note that if the Citizen's Commission members were identified within the 5 years after the theft, they would have been tried and jailed. That's the risk you take. They kept their silence about their identities for over 40 years.
    - ninjin 8y ago
      Certainly, but would it have been morally (not legally) correct to have had them tried and jailed? Personally, I would have said no, in that their actions were clearly in the interest of the greater public and uncovered illegal actions on the part of the state. This is a difficult question though; I have not made up my mind entirely as to where the boundary lies.
      - ameister14 8y ago
        I think it would have been morally acceptable to have them tried and jailed, and morally acceptable for them to be pardoned afterwards.
- CogitoCogito 8y ago
  That indictment is pretty interesting. It is short and pretty clear, but I'm still having trouble understanding what the indictment actually alleges he did. > 7. On or about March 8, 2010, Assange agreed to assist Manning in cracking a password... > 25. [...] Assange indicated that he had been trying to crack the password by stating that he had "no luck so far." It seems to me that essentially the entire indictment discusses what Manning was doing. Is this all they have on Assange? I mean is the only evidence that he helped crack the password that single statement of his? He could have just said that and never done anything. I mean sure presumably there is more evidence, but this indictment seems pretty thin to me.
  - maxlybbert 8y ago
    The indictment just has to establish enough to arrest the person. And many prosecutors work hard to make sure it contains no more than enough to meet that standard. They’ll get a chance to amend the indictment before trial.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > The indictment just has to establish enough to arrest the person. The indictment doesn't actually have to do that, that's what has to be done to get to the indictment, but the indictment doesn't need to actually recapitulate the evidence that supports it, only the factual allegations that the grand jury found that the evidence supported.
      - maxlybbert 8y ago
        Thank you for the correction.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    Indictments are summaries of the allegations for which the grand jury has found probable cause based on evidence. They don't need to contain any evidence themselves, as their purpose isn't to prove charges but to state them. > I mean sure presumably there is more evidence, but this indictment seems pretty thin to me. All criminal conspiracy legally needs is a agreed common purpose which is itself criminal and a concrete act by any of the participants to advance the common purpose.
- EthanHeilman 8y ago
  This isn't about Assange trying to crack a password this is about punishing Assange for journalistic work he did. Since such journalism is not a crime in itself they have found some other minor crime which they can make a federal case out of.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - matthewmarkus 8y ago
    Yes, this is another example of a dual-track justice system. Note how CIA officers aren't prosecuted for hacking the Senate [1, 2], but an activist is indicted for allegedly failing to decrypt some files. [1] https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/national-security/article24770296.html https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/natio... [2] https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/gvy537/the-cia-hacked-senate-computers-lied-about-it-and-no-one-is-getting-fired https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/gvy537/the-cia-ha...
sugerman 8y ago
The idea that Wikileaks and Assange are members of the "free media" is a joke.
- deogeo 8y ago
  Yeah, if the free media is told something is classified, they will do the responsible thing and not pursue the matter any further. They know the government has everybody's best interest at heart, and that if something is classified, it's probably classified for your own good.
  - rjplatte 8y ago
    > They know the government has everybody's best interest at heart, and that if something is classified, it's probably classified for your own good. I really hope you're being facetious
    - deogeo 8y ago
      I think I laid it on pretty thick.
      - msla 8y ago
        Poe's Law. It's impossible to lay it on so thick that someone doesn't already believe that version.
    - fxbl0i 8y ago
      I really hope you're being facetious when you say you wonder whether the other guy was being facetious ;P
  - threeseed 8y ago
    This is the real world here. It's not just black/white. So you can still ensure that illegal acts are made known to the public without revealing intelligence sources and methods.
- 8y ago
gwbas1c 8y ago
I love this quote: > Assange may be an asshole. Scratch that, Assange is an asshole. But we’re going to have to stand up for him anyway. That being said, the more I read into the story, the harder and harder it is to defend him.
peteradio 8y ago
I don't have to defend him either.
JohnFen 8y ago
True, I don't have to like him to defend him. I do, however, have to feel confident that I know the facts -- and I don't feel confident at all about that.
- awakeasleep 8y ago
  Actually this is the opposite of the American system of justice. People are presumed innocent until the facts are known. So it's only afterwards that we should, according to our culture, give up his defense.
  - JohnFen 8y ago
    > People are presumed innocent until the facts are known. Inside the justice system, yes. I am not a part of the justice system, and I have every right to have my own opinion. I'm suspending my personal judgement until I feel I have a better handle on what's happened.
  - ameister14 8y ago
    No - you don't need to defend someone to withhold judgement.
  - jcranmer 8y ago
    The judicial system presumes innocence. The media, and public opinion, does not. It's debatable if the court of public opinion should presume innocence as well.
    - mLuby 8y ago
      It should but does not. The court of public opinion should be subordinate to the judicial system. When it isn't, you end up with a kind of cognitive dissonance where someone is legally declared not guilty but still suffers social consequences due to bad optics.
      - JohnFen 8y ago
        > The court of public opinion should be subordinate to the judicial system. I don't think I agree with this. The legal system decides whether or not an action was legal, not whether or not an action was acceptable in society. The court of public opinion decides whether or not an action was acceptable in society, not whether or not it was legal. They address two different things, and I think that's proper. You don't really want the legal system deciding social mores, and you also don't really want legality to be determined based on the public's emotional reaction to things.
jmull 8y ago
I don't think the fact that he once worked with a sincere whistleblower to release information in the public interest should automatically excuse anything else he may have done.
- stale2002 8y ago
  Well, he is only being extradited to the US because of the time that he worked with the sincere whistleblower. He hasn't been charged for anything else "bad" that you think he has done. So it seems like it would be pretty easy to denounce this extradition, because it specifically relates to the sincere whistleblower "crime".
  - aeturnum 8y ago
    It would be unfair to say that we must grapple with the particular, legal questions of the current charges but don't have to speak about the general, not-necessarily-legal, questions of Assange's overall behavior. Al Capone was indicted under charges of tax fraud, though that was not primarily why authorities wanted him. We must consider both consider the justice of those particular charges as well as the justice of general punishment of Capone, whatever the source. What I mean is that we have to consider both things separately and simultaneously. You're correct that we need to think about if we agree with this particular charge. I'd also say that you have a similar responsibility to say if Assange should be charged for, as you said, "anything else 'bad'" he's done.
    - nailer 8y ago
      Are you saying that, like Al Capone, Assange has somehow threatened people with knowledge of some greater crime? If you're referring to the Swedish allegations, keep in mind Assange constantly made himself available to the Swedish prosecutor to answer questions at any time the prosecutor asked: via video conference, in person or otherwise. The prosecutor declined. To compare that behavior to Al Capone is odd.
      - wybiral 8y ago
dragonwriter 8y ago
> The effort to extradite and prosecute the WikiLeaks founder threatens the free media. No, it doesn't; press freedom is the right to publish, not the right to actively participate in breaches of non-social (e.g., physical or technical) security measures. > The charges leveled against Assange stem from the 2010 Manning leaks, which were judged to have been in the public interest by some of the world’s most significant and thoughtful news publishers, who ran some of the revelations in their pages. News publishers don't have any binding authority to decide what is in the public interest; there is no Constitutional prerogative to an institutional press pardon for criminal offenses. Further, this claim is outright dishonest: the decision to publish some of the information as being information whose publication was in the public interest is not a judgement that the leaks themselves were, on balance, in the public interest.
- 13415 8y ago
  It is absolutely ridiculous how the US government were able to spin public opinion into this absurd direction and how gullible some people are. Just make up a rape charge based on false evidence by a woman working pretty much overtly for the CIA, and that's enough for some people to change their opinion. It's sad. Next, they probably indict someone for high treason because he wrote a password cracker.
  - pdabbadabba 8y ago
    The fundamental problem with this sort of accusation is that I could write the same about a person with your attitude towards the situation. "It's absolutely ridiculous how easy it is for Assange (and/or foreign governments with an interest in supporting him) to make gullible people on the internet believe that the CIA somehow ginned up the rape charges in Sweden just because Assange leaked a video that makes the U.S. military look (very) bad--the very same government that commuted almost all of his source's sentence...." And so on. And no, not "high treason." But knowingly conspiring to access a U.S. Government computer to obtain classified information without authorization, the actual offense listed in the indictment? Sounds about right, if the allegations are true.
michaelmcmillan 8y ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDnt_CYDiuE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDnt_CYDiuE This debate totally changed the way I look at Assange. So no, I don't have to defend him.
- JudgeWapner 8y ago
  glad you're persuaded by a one-sided "debate".
  - michaelmcmillan 8y ago
    Congratulations on finding yourself in a bubble, where no argument can persuade you. Maybe you should watch the whole debate before declaring it one-sided.
heyyyouu 8y ago
I think there is the small chance the extradition won't go through.The UK courts are particularly considerate when it comes to extraditions -- when compared to other countries, it's not just a a hand-stamp (usually). In fact, Google the term "uk refuses to extradite" and there's pages upon pages of results. It's probably his best hope. The current charges are thin -- based on one statement he made to manning -- and the feds know this. BUT the reason you never talk to the feds is that it is way, way to easy for them to get you on other charges: purgery (generally the main one if they can't get you for anything else), conspiracy, racketeering, and of course with this one they have a litany of government security charges they can cherry pick as well. If he doesn't have excellent legal representation (even with) he's in real trouble. His best shot is to fight to not come here in the first place -- if he can make a case that they may bait and switch the charges to national security, and somewhere put the death penalty into play, that could work. Note that I don't know how it works being that he is actually an Australian citizen -- does the UK care if it's not one of its citizens facing what their courts would consider unfair charges overseas? (which is their standard for denying extradition -- I'm not judging the charges either way)
- fmihaila 8y ago
  > ... purgery (generally the main one if they can't get you for anything else) Perjury (for the benefit of those who were as confused as I was).
  - arthurcolle 8y ago
    A rather spooky Freudian slip that suggests purging Assange...
    - heyyyouu 8y ago
      I won't fix it for that reason...
- macinjosh 8y ago
  It would be interesting to know the number of refused extraditions the UK has by the country requesting it. I imagine an extradition request from the US would be more likely to be filled than one from a less powerful/friendly country. The US has a "special" relationship [0] with the UK after all. [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-SlDs59wKg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-SlDs59wKg
tssva 8y ago
> As an organization that believed in radical transparency, WikiLeaks wanted all the material in the public domain. Wikileaks and Assange only believe in radical transparency when it isn't applied to themselves.
matt4077 8y ago
Being given government secrets and publishing them for the public interest should not be a crime, and it isn't. The New York Times won that case 8-1 or 9-0 at the Supreme Court for the Pentagon Papers. Assisting with the exfiltration of that data is clearly a different beast. Professional journalists know the difference, and stay clear of it to protect themselves, their employer, and the trust journalists are granted. Helping to crack a password clearly crosses the line, even if it's minor in the scheme of things, or unsuccessful. There will be endless handwringing here on HN over the precise definition of "assistance", because somehow the tech community cannot handle the ambiguity of non-binary real world situations. Would it be material assistance to let your whistleblower use your USB stick? What if you bought them a coffee on the morning they did the deed? etc... But the inability to precisely define the single tree that makes the forest doesn't stop us from making any "forest or desert?" decisions. Of course this sets an ugly precedent. To the ignorant, it suddenly becomes far less extraordinary to see a publisher of secrets in jail. The Atlantic is rightly worried here, because who knows how long the courts will still operate independently, considering the current trajectory of other institutions like DoJ?
- alexandercrohde 8y ago
  So he helped crack a password like, what a decade ago? Time served for having to live in an embassy for the last several years? You're right, it's illegal, but it just doesn't feel that bad to me. Not even remotely on the level of the problems we face as a country this day. It almost feels petty.
  - dahdum 8y ago
    He didn’t have to live in the embassy. Sweden was by all accounts far less likely to extradite him, but he choose to flee rather than face his rape charges. Even if he had been convicted in Sweden he would have been out by now.
- mLuby 8y ago
  Good comment. Though I expect the handwringing will be less over the nature of assistance and more whether an illegal act (cracking a password) is justified by the greater good (whistleblowing).
madrox 8y ago
There was no principle at play when Assange choose to publish the material he did. I fail to see what principles we're defending by choosing to defend him.
throwaway66666 8y ago
Barrack Obama pardoned Manning on his last day in office. If Assange's only crime is assisting Manning, and Manning's sentence has been commuted by the very President of the United States and is now free, why are we on a hunt for Assange? It may sound a bit silly but is an honest question. It's like... if I commit a robbery and you drive the getaway vehicle, I am (the actual robber) deemed innocent and let go, but you still go to prison for being an accomplice. It makes little sense?
- sl1ck731 8y ago
  IANAL but maintaining precedence seems reasonable, the same reason Manning was commuted and not pardoned. Not giving the green light for future offenses.
- leetcrew 8y ago
  a president commuting a sentence is orthogonal to whether or not a crime actually occurred. imo, the president was reacting to the political reality that, in the public eye, manning was becoming a sympathetic character and had already been punished enough. there's no particular reason why the same deal would be extended to assange, who has essentially spent the last several years thumbing his nose at the US government. > it's like... if I commit a robbery and you drive the getaway vehicle, I am (the actual robber) deemed innocent and let go, but you still go to prison for being an accomplice. It makes little sense? it could easily be the case that there's enough evidence to show that a robbery occurred and that I drove the getaway car, but not enough to convict you of the robbery itself. the fact that one of the accused in an alleged conspiracy is found not guilty really has no bearing on whether others can still be convicted.
  - throwaway66666 8y ago
    Got it, thanks for your comment. Makes sense.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
calhoun137 8y ago
The attempt of the US government to prosecute Assange is the gravest possible threat to press freedom imaginable. People are talking about a hashed password like its something new, but this is not new information at all. The Obama justice department had all the same chat logs - no new evidence has been discovered since then - and knew all about this but decided they couldn't prosecute without endangering press freedom.[1] So if you don't think this is a major assault on press freedom, you should at least realize you are disagreeing not only with me but literally the Obama justice department which looked at this for years. Why is it that they came to this conclusion and never moved forward with the case, but now the TRUMP administration is pursuing it anyway? It's not just american journalists that are at risk, but this is meant to send a chilling message to anyone anywhere on earth that you better not report on the US government negatively or else we will have you extradited, prosecuted as a spy, and thrown in solitary. Anyone cheering on the US government as they try to set a precedent for prosecuting journalists as spies needs to think more carefully about this issue. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/julian-assange-unlikely-to-face-us-charges-over-publishing-classified-documents/2013/11/25/dd27decc-55f1-11e3-8304-caf30787c0a9_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.871739c8b0c9 https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/julia...
- dahdum 8y ago
  The article you posted highlights exactly what's happening here, he's being charged with hacking, not publishing. > One former law enforcement official said the U.S. government could bring charges against Assange if it discovered a crime, such as evidence that he directly hacked into a U.S. government computer. But the Justice officials said he would almost certainly not be prosecuted for receiving classified material from Manning.
  - calhoun137 8y ago
    The indictment is not only about hacking, but about aiding the source in avoiding detection, and encouraging them for more documents. There is zero allegation of hacking. Rather they are saying Manning sent a hashed password and Julian said in the chat he sent it to his team and then it never went anywhere. Calling this hacking is a big stretch. This article from 2011 shows the Obama justice department knew all about this[1], check out the last two paragraphs which I will post here: "In the exchange prosecutors showed in the courtroom, Manning appeared to have sent Assange a “hash,” or encrypted, password. Assange said he’d passed it on to members of his team, but the exchange prosecutors showed did not indicate whether WikiLeaks ever actually helped Manning with the password. That chat could be a critical one for the parallel criminal investigation the Justice Department is pursuing into Assange and WikiLeaks. If Assange gave Manning advice or assistance in breaking into computer systems, that could transform Assange’s role from a mere recipient of secret data to a conspirator in efforts to steal it." I am curious why you think the Trump administration is pursuing this now whereas the Obama DOJ declined to prosecute sighting the "new york times problem" as described in the previous link. [1] https://www.politico.com/story/2011/12/defense-manning-was-overcharged-070787?paginate=false https://www.politico.com/story/2011/12/defense-manning-was-o...
norin 8y ago
I don't think we have all the facts, though I think he's going away longer than Noriega when the US gets their hands on him.
trpc 8y ago
Imagine these comments in pre-Obama era, I remember when the left and liberals considered Assange a hero because he exposed the American right wing government back then, no wonder that the tech industry is so left wing to an unbearable and dishonest degree, just because they lost an election to a TV celebrity that they can't imagine despite controlling the entire media and government, the American people could dare challenge them and elect an outsider even if he's a joke like Trump, it must be a Russian conspiracy! it must be everything except that there are other people with other views, right?! The people can't have a another view when we control everything? how dare they? We must destroy even the heroes we made to make sure the people don't dare and have a choice we don't like again ever!
goldcd 8y ago
Indeed - I don't like him (but on this basis I'm not a great fan of myself either) - but what wikileaks exposed is important. I'm not even saying it's true, or of importance, or of anything. Just, as an example: https://collateralmurder.wikileaks.org/ https://collateralmurder.wikileaks.org/ Here's something I hadn't seen before. I didn't see this on my "morning news" - and I'd really just like to know if this is: a) true b) if it is, somebody I've employed will step up and defend/explain it.
- hlurhhh 8y ago
  What do you mean is this true?
cmroanirgo 8y ago
What I particularly don't understand is how his government, my government, Australia, has left him hanging for all this time with never a reproach about the situation. I can only assume that the 5 eyes network is so tightly knit that it's inconceivable to our politicians to do the right thing and say "No, he's one of ours: you might have grievance with him -- but tough luck". Instead, he's been holed up in the embassy of a country that initially had the fortitude to say just that. But since the Equidorian political landscape had shifted, so has the message it has sent. Sadly it shifted to what the Australian government has been doing all along, and has colluded in hanging him out to dry. Tragically, when he arrives on US soil I suspect he in for a very bad time. I don't particularly agree with Assange's methodology, but I find the actions of the Australian and UK political landscape utterly deplorable.
irrational 8y ago
I don't dislike him, but I won't defend him. I feel that what he did was wrong.

219 points by zwieback 8y ago

Assange is accused of working with Manning to crack a Linux password hash of a government computer so Manning could gain access. It’s not about publishing any data obtained; he was, it seems, not a passive receiver. https://games-cdn.washingtonpost.com/notes/prod/default/documents/3add1fee-2dcb-40d9-b260-a5bf4eee3e56/note/584d0e06-4701-4fee-ad79-82c4e6509c83.pdf https://games-cdn.washingtonpost.com/notes/prod/default/docu...

ordinaryradical 8y ago
This is the critical difference. If the NY Times stole the Pentagon Papers themselves, they committed a crime regardless of whether or not they choose to publish the material. If Daniel Ellsberg steals the Pentagon Papers and the Times and Washington Post choose to publish them as part of their reporting on the Vietnam War, they are not somehow made accessories to his crime through publication. Assange can publish whatever he wants* (*according to the US laws that govern freedom of speech, etc.) but as soon as he becomes actively involved in the exfiltration of classified material he is breaking the law.
- deogeo 8y ago
  > *according to the US laws that govern freedom of speech, etc. He's an Australian currently in the UK though. I don't like the global reach of US laws.
  - ameister14 8y ago
    Well, he allegedly attempted to hack into US computers, right? If a US citizen hacked into Australian servers, they could be extradited from the UK as well.
    - drewmol 8y ago
      True. If the hack was related to divulging accurate but classified information detailing Australia's recent invasion and topple of two sovereign nations, against recommendation by the majority of the UN, it would likely play out different.
  - ordinaryradical 8y ago
    The US isn't special in this regard. Many nations have extradition treaties with each other and they are often invoked in cases of espionage. To paint that as US law "reaching the globe" is a bit facetious; everyone is entangled in everyone else's law—especially when it comes to espionage.
    - deogeo 8y ago
      I couldn't find any good comparative statistics, but I hear about people being extradited to the US a lot more than from, giving the appearance of a rather one-sided relationship. The treaties may be the same, but they don't seem to be used the same.
      - yorwba 8y ago
        According to the UK's Home Office, the US requests more extraditions of UK citizens than vice versa, but that might be due to the relative population sizes. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/extradition-requests-between-the-uk-and-us-from-april-2007-to-may-2014/extradition-requests-between-the-uk-and-us-from-april-2007-to-may-2014 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/extradition-reque...
        lamarpye 8y ago
        Your link doesn't list the reason for extradition, doing some research on this issue, I see parental kidnapping generates a fair number of extradition requests.
      - GlenTheMachine 8y ago
        That’s partially because the US is a espionage target to a far greater extent than most other countries.
      - jnaddef 8y ago
        Well, following Snowden's revelations we learned that NSA was spying on European countries' citizens and administrations, the US president (Obama at the time) just said that spying on allies was a perfectly natural thing. This is definitely a one-sided relationship. You can be sure that the US will never extradite anyone for that at least.
  - roywiggins 8y ago
    1. He's charged with conspiring with an American to hack into an American network. 2. The UK signed an extradition agreement with the US of its own accord 3. Extradition is very common. This situation is what extradition treaties are for.
- drivingmenuts 8y ago
  I understand the basis for the charges: Assange supposedly committed a crime against the US and so we claim jurisdiction, but does he have Constitutional rights, not just the ones extending from treaties and agreements?
  - MBCook 8y ago
    I believe ANYONE facing a US court gets US constitutional rights. Otherwise we could run roughshod over any foreigners we wanted. (Yeah yeah, extraordinary rendition, etc. I know.)
    - krapp 8y ago
      >Otherwise we could run roughshod over any foreigners we wanted. That's the justification for (and purpose of) Guantanamo Bay, that the US can get around respecting (foreign and domestic) prisoners' Constitutional rights and obeying laws against indefinite detainment without trial and torture because it's not "technically" American, but Cuban.
      - jcranmer 8y ago
        That was what the Bush administration tried to do, but they were unsuccessful. The Supreme Court ruled that it was still unconstitutional, and the prisoners had the same rights under the US Constitution.
        JetSpiegel 8y ago
        And yet they are still there...
    - chasd00 8y ago
      i think that's important but how exactly is that specified? Does the US Constitution to apply to anyone on US soil?
      - roywiggins 8y ago
devoply 8y ago
At the end of the day they are going to send him away for life. The reason being that he did in no way apologize for his actions or feel any remorse. I am sure they have a litany of ways of doing that. This is just one of them. I am sure by the time this goes to trial there will be many more charges or if he beats one charge they will try him on something else. You can't escape the long arm of the US law.
- cheez 8y ago
  This is the key thing. You cannot escape law by "being right". If you have to be punished for some reason, they will find a reason. Show me the man, and all that. That being said: I hope it's just a few years. That's fair for what he is accused of.
ninjin 8y ago
Sure, but would you be equally damning of the actions of the Citizens' Commission to Investigate the FBI? [1] We are talking about breaking into a physical office in that case and I admit that it is different in that they mailed the documents anonymously to journalists, but let us not pretend that things are as black and white as active vs passive – would it have been okay if Manning and Assange had provided the documents to another media outlet? [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens%27_Commission_to_Investigate_the_FBI https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens%27_Commission_to_Inve... Update (no replies yet): I should clarify that I care very little about the legal aspects as there are obviously legal implications, rather I think this is an interesting question from a moral standpoint.
- ameister14 8y ago
  I think it's important to note that if the Citizen's Commission members were identified within the 5 years after the theft, they would have been tried and jailed. That's the risk you take. They kept their silence about their identities for over 40 years.
  - ninjin 8y ago
    Certainly, but would it have been morally (not legally) correct to have had them tried and jailed? Personally, I would have said no, in that their actions were clearly in the interest of the greater public and uncovered illegal actions on the part of the state. This is a difficult question though; I have not made up my mind entirely as to where the boundary lies.
    - ameister14 8y ago
      I think it would have been morally acceptable to have them tried and jailed, and morally acceptable for them to be pardoned afterwards.
CogitoCogito 8y ago
That indictment is pretty interesting. It is short and pretty clear, but I'm still having trouble understanding what the indictment actually alleges he did. > 7. On or about March 8, 2010, Assange agreed to assist Manning in cracking a password... > 25. [...] Assange indicated that he had been trying to crack the password by stating that he had "no luck so far." It seems to me that essentially the entire indictment discusses what Manning was doing. Is this all they have on Assange? I mean is the only evidence that he helped crack the password that single statement of his? He could have just said that and never done anything. I mean sure presumably there is more evidence, but this indictment seems pretty thin to me.
- maxlybbert 8y ago
  The indictment just has to establish enough to arrest the person. And many prosecutors work hard to make sure it contains no more than enough to meet that standard. They’ll get a chance to amend the indictment before trial.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > The indictment just has to establish enough to arrest the person. The indictment doesn't actually have to do that, that's what has to be done to get to the indictment, but the indictment doesn't need to actually recapitulate the evidence that supports it, only the factual allegations that the grand jury found that the evidence supported.
    - maxlybbert 8y ago
      Thank you for the correction.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  Indictments are summaries of the allegations for which the grand jury has found probable cause based on evidence. They don't need to contain any evidence themselves, as their purpose isn't to prove charges but to state them. > I mean sure presumably there is more evidence, but this indictment seems pretty thin to me. All criminal conspiracy legally needs is a agreed common purpose which is itself criminal and a concrete act by any of the participants to advance the common purpose.
EthanHeilman 8y ago
This isn't about Assange trying to crack a password this is about punishing Assange for journalistic work he did. Since such journalism is not a crime in itself they have found some other minor crime which they can make a federal case out of.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- matthewmarkus 8y ago
  Yes, this is another example of a dual-track justice system. Note how CIA officers aren't prosecuted for hacking the Senate [1, 2], but an activist is indicted for allegedly failing to decrypt some files. [1] https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/national-security/article24770296.html https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/natio... [2] https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/gvy537/the-cia-hacked-senate-computers-lied-about-it-and-no-one-is-getting-fired https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/gvy537/the-cia-ha...

sugerman 8y ago

The idea that Wikileaks and Assange are members of the "free media" is a joke.

deogeo 8y ago
Yeah, if the free media is told something is classified, they will do the responsible thing and not pursue the matter any further. They know the government has everybody's best interest at heart, and that if something is classified, it's probably classified for your own good.
- rjplatte 8y ago
  > They know the government has everybody's best interest at heart, and that if something is classified, it's probably classified for your own good. I really hope you're being facetious
  - deogeo 8y ago
    I think I laid it on pretty thick.
    - msla 8y ago
      Poe's Law. It's impossible to lay it on so thick that someone doesn't already believe that version.
  - fxbl0i 8y ago
    I really hope you're being facetious when you say you wonder whether the other guy was being facetious ;P
- threeseed 8y ago
  This is the real world here. It's not just black/white. So you can still ensure that illegal acts are made known to the public without revealing intelligence sources and methods.
8y ago

gwbas1c 8y ago

I love this quote: > Assange may be an asshole. Scratch that, Assange is an asshole. But we’re going to have to stand up for him anyway. That being said, the more I read into the story, the harder and harder it is to defend him.

peteradio 8y ago

I don't have to defend him either.

JohnFen 8y ago

True, I don't have to like him to defend him. I do, however, have to feel confident that I know the facts -- and I don't feel confident at all about that.

awakeasleep 8y ago
Actually this is the opposite of the American system of justice. People are presumed innocent until the facts are known. So it's only afterwards that we should, according to our culture, give up his defense.
- JohnFen 8y ago
  > People are presumed innocent until the facts are known. Inside the justice system, yes. I am not a part of the justice system, and I have every right to have my own opinion. I'm suspending my personal judgement until I feel I have a better handle on what's happened.
- ameister14 8y ago
  No - you don't need to defend someone to withhold judgement.
- jcranmer 8y ago
  The judicial system presumes innocence. The media, and public opinion, does not. It's debatable if the court of public opinion should presume innocence as well.
  - mLuby 8y ago
    It should but does not. The court of public opinion should be subordinate to the judicial system. When it isn't, you end up with a kind of cognitive dissonance where someone is legally declared not guilty but still suffers social consequences due to bad optics.
    - JohnFen 8y ago
      > The court of public opinion should be subordinate to the judicial system. I don't think I agree with this. The legal system decides whether or not an action was legal, not whether or not an action was acceptable in society. The court of public opinion decides whether or not an action was acceptable in society, not whether or not it was legal. They address two different things, and I think that's proper. You don't really want the legal system deciding social mores, and you also don't really want legality to be determined based on the public's emotional reaction to things.

jmull 8y ago

I don't think the fact that he once worked with a sincere whistleblower to release information in the public interest should automatically excuse anything else he may have done.

stale2002 8y ago
Well, he is only being extradited to the US because of the time that he worked with the sincere whistleblower. He hasn't been charged for anything else "bad" that you think he has done. So it seems like it would be pretty easy to denounce this extradition, because it specifically relates to the sincere whistleblower "crime".
- aeturnum 8y ago
  It would be unfair to say that we must grapple with the particular, legal questions of the current charges but don't have to speak about the general, not-necessarily-legal, questions of Assange's overall behavior. Al Capone was indicted under charges of tax fraud, though that was not primarily why authorities wanted him. We must consider both consider the justice of those particular charges as well as the justice of general punishment of Capone, whatever the source. What I mean is that we have to consider both things separately and simultaneously. You're correct that we need to think about if we agree with this particular charge. I'd also say that you have a similar responsibility to say if Assange should be charged for, as you said, "anything else 'bad'" he's done.
  - nailer 8y ago
    Are you saying that, like Al Capone, Assange has somehow threatened people with knowledge of some greater crime? If you're referring to the Swedish allegations, keep in mind Assange constantly made himself available to the Swedish prosecutor to answer questions at any time the prosecutor asked: via video conference, in person or otherwise. The prosecutor declined. To compare that behavior to Al Capone is odd.
    - wybiral 8y ago

dragonwriter 8y ago

> The effort to extradite and prosecute the WikiLeaks founder threatens the free media. No, it doesn't; press freedom is the right to publish, not the right to actively participate in breaches of non-social (e.g., physical or technical) security measures. > The charges leveled against Assange stem from the 2010 Manning leaks, which were judged to have been in the public interest by some of the world’s most significant and thoughtful news publishers, who ran some of the revelations in their pages. News publishers don't have any binding authority to decide what is in the public interest; there is no Constitutional prerogative to an institutional press pardon for criminal offenses. Further, this claim is outright dishonest: the decision to publish some of the information as being information whose publication was in the public interest is not a judgement that the leaks themselves were, on balance, in the public interest.

13415 8y ago
It is absolutely ridiculous how the US government were able to spin public opinion into this absurd direction and how gullible some people are. Just make up a rape charge based on false evidence by a woman working pretty much overtly for the CIA, and that's enough for some people to change their opinion. It's sad. Next, they probably indict someone for high treason because he wrote a password cracker.
- pdabbadabba 8y ago
  The fundamental problem with this sort of accusation is that I could write the same about a person with your attitude towards the situation. "It's absolutely ridiculous how easy it is for Assange (and/or foreign governments with an interest in supporting him) to make gullible people on the internet believe that the CIA somehow ginned up the rape charges in Sweden just because Assange leaked a video that makes the U.S. military look (very) bad--the very same government that commuted almost all of his source's sentence...." And so on. And no, not "high treason." But knowingly conspiring to access a U.S. Government computer to obtain classified information without authorization, the actual offense listed in the indictment? Sounds about right, if the allegations are true.

michaelmcmillan 8y ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDnt_CYDiuE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDnt_CYDiuE This debate totally changed the way I look at Assange. So no, I don't have to defend him.

JudgeWapner 8y ago
glad you're persuaded by a one-sided "debate".
- michaelmcmillan 8y ago
  Congratulations on finding yourself in a bubble, where no argument can persuade you. Maybe you should watch the whole debate before declaring it one-sided.

heyyyouu 8y ago

I think there is the small chance the extradition won't go through.The UK courts are particularly considerate when it comes to extraditions -- when compared to other countries, it's not just a a hand-stamp (usually). In fact, Google the term "uk refuses to extradite" and there's pages upon pages of results. It's probably his best hope. The current charges are thin -- based on one statement he made to manning -- and the feds know this. BUT the reason you never talk to the feds is that it is way, way to easy for them to get you on other charges: purgery (generally the main one if they can't get you for anything else), conspiracy, racketeering, and of course with this one they have a litany of government security charges they can cherry pick as well. If he doesn't have excellent legal representation (even with) he's in real trouble. His best shot is to fight to not come here in the first place -- if he can make a case that they may bait and switch the charges to national security, and somewhere put the death penalty into play, that could work. Note that I don't know how it works being that he is actually an Australian citizen -- does the UK care if it's not one of its citizens facing what their courts would consider unfair charges overseas? (which is their standard for denying extradition -- I'm not judging the charges either way)

fmihaila 8y ago
> ... purgery (generally the main one if they can't get you for anything else) Perjury (for the benefit of those who were as confused as I was).
- arthurcolle 8y ago
  A rather spooky Freudian slip that suggests purging Assange...
  - heyyyouu 8y ago
    I won't fix it for that reason...
macinjosh 8y ago
It would be interesting to know the number of refused extraditions the UK has by the country requesting it. I imagine an extradition request from the US would be more likely to be filled than one from a less powerful/friendly country. The US has a "special" relationship [0] with the UK after all. [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-SlDs59wKg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-SlDs59wKg

tssva 8y ago

> As an organization that believed in radical transparency, WikiLeaks wanted all the material in the public domain. Wikileaks and Assange only believe in radical transparency when it isn't applied to themselves.

matt4077 8y ago

Being given government secrets and publishing them for the public interest should not be a crime, and it isn't. The New York Times won that case 8-1 or 9-0 at the Supreme Court for the Pentagon Papers. Assisting with the exfiltration of that data is clearly a different beast. Professional journalists know the difference, and stay clear of it to protect themselves, their employer, and the trust journalists are granted. Helping to crack a password clearly crosses the line, even if it's minor in the scheme of things, or unsuccessful. There will be endless handwringing here on HN over the precise definition of "assistance", because somehow the tech community cannot handle the ambiguity of non-binary real world situations. Would it be material assistance to let your whistleblower use your USB stick? What if you bought them a coffee on the morning they did the deed? etc... But the inability to precisely define the single tree that makes the forest doesn't stop us from making any "forest or desert?" decisions. Of course this sets an ugly precedent. To the ignorant, it suddenly becomes far less extraordinary to see a publisher of secrets in jail. The Atlantic is rightly worried here, because who knows how long the courts will still operate independently, considering the current trajectory of other institutions like DoJ?

alexandercrohde 8y ago
So he helped crack a password like, what a decade ago? Time served for having to live in an embassy for the last several years? You're right, it's illegal, but it just doesn't feel that bad to me. Not even remotely on the level of the problems we face as a country this day. It almost feels petty.
- dahdum 8y ago
  He didn’t have to live in the embassy. Sweden was by all accounts far less likely to extradite him, but he choose to flee rather than face his rape charges. Even if he had been convicted in Sweden he would have been out by now.
mLuby 8y ago
Good comment. Though I expect the handwringing will be less over the nature of assistance and more whether an illegal act (cracking a password) is justified by the greater good (whistleblowing).

madrox 8y ago

There was no principle at play when Assange choose to publish the material he did. I fail to see what principles we're defending by choosing to defend him.

throwaway66666 8y ago

Barrack Obama pardoned Manning on his last day in office. If Assange's only crime is assisting Manning, and Manning's sentence has been commuted by the very President of the United States and is now free, why are we on a hunt for Assange? It may sound a bit silly but is an honest question. It's like... if I commit a robbery and you drive the getaway vehicle, I am (the actual robber) deemed innocent and let go, but you still go to prison for being an accomplice. It makes little sense?

sl1ck731 8y ago
IANAL but maintaining precedence seems reasonable, the same reason Manning was commuted and not pardoned. Not giving the green light for future offenses.
leetcrew 8y ago
a president commuting a sentence is orthogonal to whether or not a crime actually occurred. imo, the president was reacting to the political reality that, in the public eye, manning was becoming a sympathetic character and had already been punished enough. there's no particular reason why the same deal would be extended to assange, who has essentially spent the last several years thumbing his nose at the US government. > it's like... if I commit a robbery and you drive the getaway vehicle, I am (the actual robber) deemed innocent and let go, but you still go to prison for being an accomplice. It makes little sense? it could easily be the case that there's enough evidence to show that a robbery occurred and that I drove the getaway car, but not enough to convict you of the robbery itself. the fact that one of the accused in an alleged conspiracy is found not guilty really has no bearing on whether others can still be convicted.
- throwaway66666 8y ago
  Got it, thanks for your comment. Makes sense.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

calhoun137 8y ago

The attempt of the US government to prosecute Assange is the gravest possible threat to press freedom imaginable. People are talking about a hashed password like its something new, but this is not new information at all. The Obama justice department had all the same chat logs - no new evidence has been discovered since then - and knew all about this but decided they couldn't prosecute without endangering press freedom.[1] So if you don't think this is a major assault on press freedom, you should at least realize you are disagreeing not only with me but literally the Obama justice department which looked at this for years. Why is it that they came to this conclusion and never moved forward with the case, but now the TRUMP administration is pursuing it anyway? It's not just american journalists that are at risk, but this is meant to send a chilling message to anyone anywhere on earth that you better not report on the US government negatively or else we will have you extradited, prosecuted as a spy, and thrown in solitary. Anyone cheering on the US government as they try to set a precedent for prosecuting journalists as spies needs to think more carefully about this issue. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/julian-assange-unlikely-to-face-us-charges-over-publishing-classified-documents/2013/11/25/dd27decc-55f1-11e3-8304-caf30787c0a9_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.871739c8b0c9 https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/julia...

dahdum 8y ago
The article you posted highlights exactly what's happening here, he's being charged with hacking, not publishing. > One former law enforcement official said the U.S. government could bring charges against Assange if it discovered a crime, such as evidence that he directly hacked into a U.S. government computer. But the Justice officials said he would almost certainly not be prosecuted for receiving classified material from Manning.
- calhoun137 8y ago
  The indictment is not only about hacking, but about aiding the source in avoiding detection, and encouraging them for more documents. There is zero allegation of hacking. Rather they are saying Manning sent a hashed password and Julian said in the chat he sent it to his team and then it never went anywhere. Calling this hacking is a big stretch. This article from 2011 shows the Obama justice department knew all about this[1], check out the last two paragraphs which I will post here: "In the exchange prosecutors showed in the courtroom, Manning appeared to have sent Assange a “hash,” or encrypted, password. Assange said he’d passed it on to members of his team, but the exchange prosecutors showed did not indicate whether WikiLeaks ever actually helped Manning with the password. That chat could be a critical one for the parallel criminal investigation the Justice Department is pursuing into Assange and WikiLeaks. If Assange gave Manning advice or assistance in breaking into computer systems, that could transform Assange’s role from a mere recipient of secret data to a conspirator in efforts to steal it." I am curious why you think the Trump administration is pursuing this now whereas the Obama DOJ declined to prosecute sighting the "new york times problem" as described in the previous link. [1] https://www.politico.com/story/2011/12/defense-manning-was-overcharged-070787?paginate=false https://www.politico.com/story/2011/12/defense-manning-was-o...

norin 8y ago

I don't think we have all the facts, though I think he's going away longer than Noriega when the US gets their hands on him.

trpc 8y ago

Imagine these comments in pre-Obama era, I remember when the left and liberals considered Assange a hero because he exposed the American right wing government back then, no wonder that the tech industry is so left wing to an unbearable and dishonest degree, just because they lost an election to a TV celebrity that they can't imagine despite controlling the entire media and government, the American people could dare challenge them and elect an outsider even if he's a joke like Trump, it must be a Russian conspiracy! it must be everything except that there are other people with other views, right?! The people can't have a another view when we control everything? how dare they? We must destroy even the heroes we made to make sure the people don't dare and have a choice we don't like again ever!

goldcd 8y ago

Indeed - I don't like him (but on this basis I'm not a great fan of myself either) - but what wikileaks exposed is important. I'm not even saying it's true, or of importance, or of anything. Just, as an example: https://collateralmurder.wikileaks.org/ https://collateralmurder.wikileaks.org/ Here's something I hadn't seen before. I didn't see this on my "morning news" - and I'd really just like to know if this is: a) true b) if it is, somebody I've employed will step up and defend/explain it.

hlurhhh 8y ago
What do you mean is this true?

cmroanirgo 8y ago

What I particularly don't understand is how his government, my government, Australia, has left him hanging for all this time with never a reproach about the situation. I can only assume that the 5 eyes network is so tightly knit that it's inconceivable to our politicians to do the right thing and say "No, he's one of ours: you might have grievance with him -- but tough luck". Instead, he's been holed up in the embassy of a country that initially had the fortitude to say just that. But since the Equidorian political landscape had shifted, so has the message it has sent. Sadly it shifted to what the Australian government has been doing all along, and has colluded in hanging him out to dry. Tragically, when he arrives on US soil I suspect he in for a very bad time. I don't particularly agree with Assange's methodology, but I find the actions of the Australian and UK political landscape utterly deplorable.

irrational 8y ago

I don't dislike him, but I won't defend him. I feel that what he did was wrong.