4 ms·

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-necess

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
  The Capone comparison is probably because there is speculation (for good reason) that the US wants to punish Assange for things unrelated to the hacking conspiracy charge he was actually indicted for... But since they can't do that directly they've chosen a different crime to snag him on.
- aeturnum 8y ago
  > Are you saying that, like Al Capone, Assange has somehow threatened people with knowledge of some greater crime? I'm not sure what you mean by this, so I'm not sure how to answer - if you expand I'm happy to respond. I'm not an expert on Assange or Capone. I invoked the example because I understand that people dislike Assange for reasons related that are unevenly covered by the law. That seemed similar to Capone who, as I understand, operated at a time where little of his actual behavior violated the law (though he was at the top of a violent criminal organization). The things people dislike Assange for may or may not be narrowly legal - but their feelings towards him will affect how they treat these charges against him. > The prosecutor declined. This is a longer discussion, which we can have. Generally, for the Swedish legal system to be able to take action, it must have power over the object of its action. Saying you will "cooperate" as long as you aren't subject to the power of a process which demands power over you seems, to me, like a rhetorical maneuver than genuine effort to engage. His arrest illustrates why he was nervous about leaving the embassy, of course, but doesn't make evasive representations more true.
  - nailer 8y ago
    > I'm not sure what you mean by this, so I'm not sure how to answer - if you expand I'm happy to respond. People were unwilling to testify against Capone due to fear of violent retribution. That's the basis of going after him for tax evasion. Saying you must have power over someone before you can talk to them gives the lie to the Swedish prosecutor aim being determining the facts of the Ardin case
mindslight 8y ago
Sorry, no. The ideal behind the rule of law is to specifically detail behavior that we've managed to formalize and agree upon should be punished, not as a haystack of justifications in which to find something to go after people who are unliked. False negatives based on unequal enforcement are prevalent enough, we don't need to be encouraging false positives. That the Al Capone thing gets trotted out as an example of reasonable government behavior really only demonstrates how accepting society is of corruption serving popular opinion.
- wybiral 8y ago
  But Capone DID commit the crime of tax evasion. And Assange appears to have committed the crime of conspiring to hack a Department of Defense system. You're talking about it like they're innocent, but really they just got more attention towards their crimes because they did other things which they were more notorious for. And frankly, that's always the case. If you want to get away with a crime don't make a name for yourself as being a criminal.
  - mindslight 8y ago
    > And Assange appears to have committed the crime of conspiring to hack a Department of Defense system. No, that is USG's argument - an argument which has yet to be proven or really even fleshed out. Given its reliance on a tenuous concept of nexus that USG stretches further and further, I think it's tough for it to "appear" to anyone that this spooky action at a distance is immediately criminal - USG's general ability to eventually justify extracting blood notwithstanding. But back to the specific argument - What GP appears to be advocating is that while considering this possible crime, we should "simultaneously" be thinking of what a general twit Assange is, lest we forget that the real goal is to punish him somehow. That is directly contrary to the rule of law.
    - wybiral 8y ago
      So your position is that the US government can't be trusted on anything so there's no point in justice or laws?

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
The Capone comparison is probably because there is speculation (for good reason) that the US wants to punish Assange for things unrelated to the hacking conspiracy charge he was actually indicted for... But since they can't do that directly they've chosen a different crime to snag him on.
aeturnum 8y ago
> Are you saying that, like Al Capone, Assange has somehow threatened people with knowledge of some greater crime? I'm not sure what you mean by this, so I'm not sure how to answer - if you expand I'm happy to respond. I'm not an expert on Assange or Capone. I invoked the example because I understand that people dislike Assange for reasons related that are unevenly covered by the law. That seemed similar to Capone who, as I understand, operated at a time where little of his actual behavior violated the law (though he was at the top of a violent criminal organization). The things people dislike Assange for may or may not be narrowly legal - but their feelings towards him will affect how they treat these charges against him. > The prosecutor declined. This is a longer discussion, which we can have. Generally, for the Swedish legal system to be able to take action, it must have power over the object of its action. Saying you will "cooperate" as long as you aren't subject to the power of a process which demands power over you seems, to me, like a rhetorical maneuver than genuine effort to engage. His arrest illustrates why he was nervous about leaving the embassy, of course, but doesn't make evasive representations more true.
- nailer 8y ago
  > I'm not sure what you mean by this, so I'm not sure how to answer - if you expand I'm happy to respond. People were unwilling to testify against Capone due to fear of violent retribution. That's the basis of going after him for tax evasion. Saying you must have power over someone before you can talk to them gives the lie to the Swedish prosecutor aim being determining the facts of the Ardin case

mindslight 8y ago

Sorry, no. The ideal behind the rule of law is to specifically detail behavior that we've managed to formalize and agree upon should be punished, not as a haystack of justifications in which to find something to go after people who are unliked. False negatives based on unequal enforcement are prevalent enough, we don't need to be encouraging false positives. That the Al Capone thing gets trotted out as an example of reasonable government behavior really only demonstrates how accepting society is of corruption serving popular opinion.

wybiral 8y ago
But Capone DID commit the crime of tax evasion. And Assange appears to have committed the crime of conspiring to hack a Department of Defense system. You're talking about it like they're innocent, but really they just got more attention towards their crimes because they did other things which they were more notorious for. And frankly, that's always the case. If you want to get away with a crime don't make a name for yourself as being a criminal.
- mindslight 8y ago
  > And Assange appears to have committed the crime of conspiring to hack a Department of Defense system. No, that is USG's argument - an argument which has yet to be proven or really even fleshed out. Given its reliance on a tenuous concept of nexus that USG stretches further and further, I think it's tough for it to "appear" to anyone that this spooky action at a distance is immediately criminal - USG's general ability to eventually justify extracting blood notwithstanding. But back to the specific argument - What GP appears to be advocating is that while considering this possible crime, we should "simultaneously" be thinking of what a general twit Assange is, lest we forget that the real goal is to punish him somehow. That is directly contrary to the rule of law.
  - wybiral 8y ago
    So your position is that the US government can't be trusted on anything so there's no point in justice or laws?