6 ms·

I would not paint Julian Assange (or Chelsea Manning) as a blameless hero like Edward Snowden. But sometimes people do reprehensible things that are not (or oug

by mcherm 8y ago

I would not paint Julian Assange (or Chelsea Manning) as a blameless hero like Edward Snowden. But sometimes people do reprehensible things that are not (or ought not be) against the law. The primary objection against Julian Assange appears to be that he published true information that others (like the US Government and the Hillary Clinton campaign) did not want released. The US Government wants to extradite him because Chelsea Manning asked him to help crack a password and he allegedly said "yes" but never did assist in cracking it. I don't want to debate whether that IS a crime under US law, but certainly I will claim that it SHOULDN'T be. Yes, Atlantic - Julian Assange is not a nice person. And the Equadorian government had excellent motivation to withdraw the protection of their embassy. But no, Atlantic, that does not mean he deserves to be extradited and stand trial in the US.

kpU8efre7r 8y ago
Why do you think he shouldn't even stand trial or be charged?
- devhead 8y ago
  I'm not parent; possibly because he's not a US citizen and what he did falls under the umbrella of protections afforded to journalist?
  - kpU8efre7r 8y ago
    Well then he will be found innocent right? What's the big deal?
    - greedo 8y ago
      Because when you're wrongfully charged, you're often imprisoned, etc etc. And the cost of defending yourself can be astronomical.
      - DoreenMichele 8y ago
        A quick google suggests the maximum sentence for the crime Assange is accused of is 5 years. He has already spent nearly 7 years in an embassy, kind of under "house arrest" type conditions.
      - kpU8efre7r 8y ago
        >Wrongfully charged You've seen all the evidence?
        greedo 8y ago
        Nope, never said so at all. Just commented about the power imbalance between an individual and the government. There's no real negative outcome for the government when they wrongfully charge someone. Worst result is they lose the case. More often, they overload the charge sheet such that most cases end up in a plea agreement. For the defendant, the burden is incredible. Often you're jailed, so no income. Legal costs are high, and if you're middle class, ruinous. Then the nature of most trials is that despite "innocent until proven guilty," the government typically benefits from a favorable reputation in the jury room. Finally, look at what normally happens when the government and its agents falsify evidence? Normally a slap on the hand, a dismissal of the case, etc etc. The prosecution can treat the discovery process as if it's optional with no real repercussions. So imho, it's not even close to a fair match. Remeber Richlieu's boast? "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him."
    - hnbroseph 8y ago
      "innocent" of what? i'm sure prosecutors will have ten thousand pages of varied charges. the us wants to make an example of him very loudly and very publicly.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    Not being a US citizen doesn't seem relevant, and, what he is charged with is not within the “umbrella of protections afforded to journalists” (which mostly doesn't exist: the US protects the right to publish, but does not generally have special status-based or for journalists, though “freedom of the press” is sometimes misunderstood that way.)
    - lovich 8y ago
      Not being a US citizen doesn't seem relevant for being prosecuted under US laws in a US jurisdiction? You may not have been one of the group who said this but that's a hot take from a forum that almost imploded over the "violation of sovereignty" that was the EU applying their GPDR rules to US based companies
      - dragonwriter 8y ago
        > Not being a US citizen doesn't seem relevant for being prosecuted under US laws in a US jurisdiction? Correct. Very few US crimes are contingent on having US citizenship, and the one Assange is charged with is not one of them. > You may not have been one of the group who said this but that's a hot take from a forum that almost imploded over the "violation of sovereignty" that was the EU applying their GPDR rules to US based companies “A loud minority on HN said something on a different issue that can be viewed as contrary to what you said on this issue” is an accurate response to most HN comments, but not a particularly meaningful one to any.
        lovich 8y ago
        Forgive me for not being clear enough in the beginning. I understand that the US has the power to enforce their whim over much of the planet despite not being in charge of it. I disagree with your response that implies this is right and proper. Making a law that declares a crime over people not under your jurisdiction that happened on territory not under your jurisdiction is a mockery of the idea of sovreignty. The US might be able to enforce their will anyway due to their might, but they shouldn't do so as this will just ensure that the second they lose their advantage in power they will be treated as poorly as they treated others
0815test 8y ago
> (or Chelsea Manning) as a blameless hero like Edward Snowden. Well, let's see, one of them went to Russia, the other didn't. Who is closer to being "blameless"? And I thought that collusion with Russia is something that people are somewhat concerned about, lately. Also, why are you saying that Assange never made any attempt to crack that password? Why then would he ever want to actively mislead Manning by suggesting otherwise? That's a really fanciful scenario.
- colejohnson66 8y ago
  > Well, let's see, one of them went to Russia, the other didn't. Ah, the old “Snowden fled to Russia” trope. That’s false. He was in Russia when the US canceled his passport. As a consequence of that, he was unable to leave Russia.
  - jbharter 8y ago
    I've heard this too, looking for reputable source....
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - blihp 8y ago
      It was a very, very, very well covered story at the time: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/07/24/edward-snowden-russia-moscow-airport/2582189/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/07/24/edward-... (if you don't like USA Today, which was just the top news source listed in my search results, just poke around for 'snowden airport' around the same time period in your preferred news outlet's archives)
      - jbharter 8y ago
        Thanks, I was younger and not as interested in world news at the time.
  - 8y ago

by mcherm 8y ago

kpU8efre7r 8y ago

Why do you think he shouldn't even stand trial or be charged?

devhead 8y ago
I'm not parent; possibly because he's not a US citizen and what he did falls under the umbrella of protections afforded to journalist?
- kpU8efre7r 8y ago
  Well then he will be found innocent right? What's the big deal?
  - greedo 8y ago
    Because when you're wrongfully charged, you're often imprisoned, etc etc. And the cost of defending yourself can be astronomical.
    - DoreenMichele 8y ago
      A quick google suggests the maximum sentence for the crime Assange is accused of is 5 years. He has already spent nearly 7 years in an embassy, kind of under "house arrest" type conditions.
    - kpU8efre7r 8y ago
      >Wrongfully charged You've seen all the evidence?
      - greedo 8y ago
        Nope, never said so at all. Just commented about the power imbalance between an individual and the government. There's no real negative outcome for the government when they wrongfully charge someone. Worst result is they lose the case. More often, they overload the charge sheet such that most cases end up in a plea agreement. For the defendant, the burden is incredible. Often you're jailed, so no income. Legal costs are high, and if you're middle class, ruinous. Then the nature of most trials is that despite "innocent until proven guilty," the government typically benefits from a favorable reputation in the jury room. Finally, look at what normally happens when the government and its agents falsify evidence? Normally a slap on the hand, a dismissal of the case, etc etc. The prosecution can treat the discovery process as if it's optional with no real repercussions. So imho, it's not even close to a fair match. Remeber Richlieu's boast? "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him."
  - hnbroseph 8y ago
    "innocent" of what? i'm sure prosecutors will have ten thousand pages of varied charges. the us wants to make an example of him very loudly and very publicly.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  Not being a US citizen doesn't seem relevant, and, what he is charged with is not within the “umbrella of protections afforded to journalists” (which mostly doesn't exist: the US protects the right to publish, but does not generally have special status-based or for journalists, though “freedom of the press” is sometimes misunderstood that way.)
  - lovich 8y ago
    Not being a US citizen doesn't seem relevant for being prosecuted under US laws in a US jurisdiction? You may not have been one of the group who said this but that's a hot take from a forum that almost imploded over the "violation of sovereignty" that was the EU applying their GPDR rules to US based companies
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > Not being a US citizen doesn't seem relevant for being prosecuted under US laws in a US jurisdiction? Correct. Very few US crimes are contingent on having US citizenship, and the one Assange is charged with is not one of them. > You may not have been one of the group who said this but that's a hot take from a forum that almost imploded over the "violation of sovereignty" that was the EU applying their GPDR rules to US based companies “A loud minority on HN said something on a different issue that can be viewed as contrary to what you said on this issue” is an accurate response to most HN comments, but not a particularly meaningful one to any.
      - lovich 8y ago
        Forgive me for not being clear enough in the beginning. I understand that the US has the power to enforce their whim over much of the planet despite not being in charge of it. I disagree with your response that implies this is right and proper. Making a law that declares a crime over people not under your jurisdiction that happened on territory not under your jurisdiction is a mockery of the idea of sovreignty. The US might be able to enforce their will anyway due to their might, but they shouldn't do so as this will just ensure that the second they lose their advantage in power they will be treated as poorly as they treated others

0815test 8y ago

> (or Chelsea Manning) as a blameless hero like Edward Snowden. Well, let's see, one of them went to Russia, the other didn't. Who is closer to being "blameless"? And I thought that collusion with Russia is something that people are somewhat concerned about, lately. Also, why are you saying that Assange never made any attempt to crack that password? Why then would he ever want to actively mislead Manning by suggesting otherwise? That's a really fanciful scenario.

colejohnson66 8y ago
> Well, let's see, one of them went to Russia, the other didn't. Ah, the old “Snowden fled to Russia” trope. That’s false. He was in Russia when the US canceled his passport. As a consequence of that, he was unable to leave Russia.
- jbharter 8y ago
  I've heard this too, looking for reputable source....
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - blihp 8y ago
    It was a very, very, very well covered story at the time: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/07/24/edward-snowden-russia-moscow-airport/2582189/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/07/24/edward-... (if you don't like USA Today, which was just the top news source listed in my search results, just poke around for 'snowden airport' around the same time period in your preferred news outlet's archives)
    - jbharter 8y ago
      Thanks, I was younger and not as interested in world news at the time.
- 8y ago