5 ms·

> Assange let himself be used by the Russians, either knowingly or naively, and he willingly jumped into a hyper partisan US election. Believing that narrative

by dpwm 7y ago

> Assange let himself be used by the Russians, either knowingly or naively, and he willingly jumped into a hyper partisan US election. Believing that narrative actually requires trusting the US security services, who may or may not have something to gain from a new cold war. There are simpler explanations with just as much evidence behind them. > There are lots of people in the US that believe strongly in the rule of law. And that it applies to foreign citizens who have – quite sensibly – never set foot on your soil?

microwavecamera 7y ago
> There are lots of people in the US that believe strongly in the rule of law. >And that it applies to foreign citizens who have – quite sensibly – never set foot on your soil? Of course it does. That's like saying a foreign terrorist can't be charged for an act of terrorism because they're not a U.S. citizen. Furthermore, because Assange is a foreign national, 1st Amendment protections do not apply in this situation.
- dpwm 7y ago
  > That's like saying a foreign terrorist can't be charged for an act of terrorism because they're not a U.S. citizen. One man's might-is-right flag-waving US exceptionalism is another man's terrorism.
  - kortilla 7y ago
    Everything is so relative man... /s
  - microwavecamera 7y ago
    Look I'm not defending anything our country does and what they did to Manning was unconscionable. I think Manning acted in good faith, she may have crossed the line some but the punishment far exceeded what the situation merited. But I can't say the same about Assange. Now I'll admit the espionage charge is very "odd" for attempting to crack a password. But Assange did some stupid dangerous crap and got himself caught up. Simultaneously embarrassing and royally pissing off the CIA, NSA and the DOD is an epically dumb thing to do. I don't know what he was expecting to happen or what his game plan was. What the hell was he thinking? Manning got thrown under the bus, Assange stood in the middle of the road and dared it to run him over. I don't know how sorry I should feel for him at this point.
    - raxxorrax 7y ago
      If Assange is beholden to hold up US law, why would that only be applicable to some of them? And what about the issue of war crimes?
    - belorn 7y ago
      We live in a world where if you criticize the government enough to piss off the espionage department of your country, your only choice is to run to east if you live in the west and west if you live in the east.
  - fit2rule 7y ago
    Yeah, the flip side to this argument is pretty heinous: American war criminals can be prosecuted any time, any place they show up outside of Americas' borders. Except, they can't, because the USA will protect them, even threatening to INVADE any country which attempts to reign their war criminals in. Duplicity is the order of the day.
- gnaritas 7y ago
  > Furthermore, because Assange is a foreign national, 1st Amendment protections do not apply in this situation. Not remotely true, the first amendment protects anyone and everyone from government infringement. All of the bill of rights applies to anyone, citizens or not. Try reading them, they say what the government cannot do, nowhere will you find it saying but only to citizens.
- kelnos 7y ago
  There's a [dead] reply that seems to refute this, and I'm not sure why it's dead. The First Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Nowhere in there does it mention "citizens". Only "people". And you don't need to be a US citizen to be a person. The first result[0] of a quick Google search suggests that federal courts do indeed believe that the Constitution protects to non-citizens. [0] https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2017/01/30/does-the-constitution-protect-non-citizens-judges-say-yes/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2017/01/30/does-th...
  - jolfdb 7y ago
    It should be obvious that that Constitution doesn't apply to people who aren't even in USA at all.
    - Zak 7y ago
      The Constitution applies to the government; it says what the government must, may, and mustn't. do. The government mustn't interfere with anyone's free speech.
  - rootusrootus 7y ago
    Can't say why it was downvoted to oblivion. But I personally don't know what the right answer is. We already rely on SCOTUS to tell us what the First Amendment really means and how it applies, since as written it just says "Congress shall make no law..." which is kinda specific. So it seems like we're past the point where we can interpret any other part of that clause literally. Now, all disclaimers given, I figure the Constitution ought to apply to anyone within it's jurisdiction, which to my mind means that if you are subject to our jursdiction for criminal purposes, you're subject to our constitution for it's protections as well.
    - drewmol 7y ago
      >I figure the Constitution ought to apply to anyone within it's jurisdiction, which to my mind means that if you are subject to our jursdiction for criminal purposes, you're subject to our constitution for it's protections as well. I fully agree, hopefully the SCOTUS will confirm this in a ruling at some point. Additionally the Declaration of Independence included this statement: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" I think the consent to be governed should be established whether implied or expressed in a way more specific that just being a person somewhere on earth.
rootusrootus 7y ago
> And that it applies to foreign citizens who have – quite sensibly – never set foot on your soil? There is a lot of precedent here. Break the law in another country, and you may very well find yourself tried in their courts if you ever step into their jurisdiction. It's not like the US is snatching him off the streets in a foreign country under cover of darkness and dragging him to our jurisdiction, we are using very well established legal channels.
- jolfdb 7y ago
  Assange was snatched from a foreign country.
  - rootusrootus 7y ago
    Was he? He's not in the US. He fled the UK's jurisdiction to accept the jurisdiction of Ecuador, but of course that carries the risk that Ecuador could change their mind and transfer him to another jurisdiction, which they did. Perhaps the next stop is Sweden, then the US. In any case all of it is being done through accepted legal channels. If the US wanted him on our soil without regards to consequences, we could certainly have him in a US jail in a matter of hours.
    - cyphar 7y ago
      Assange was refused the ability to travel to Ecuador (a country that he became a citizen of) from the UK, which might be a violation of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (Article 44) -- though I'm not a lawyer: > The receiving State must, even in case of armed conflict, grant facilities in order to enable persons enjoying privileges and immunities, other than nationals of the receiving State, and members of the families of such persons irrespective of their nationality, to leave at the earliest possible moment. It must, in particular, in case of need, place at their disposal the necessary means of transport for themselves and their property. There is an argument to be made that since he is not embassy personnel he isn't granted any such rights (in fact that's the most likely explanation). But then again, there is some grey area here -- in the 1984 someone in the Libyan embassy in the UK shot into a crowd killing a police officer[1]. The UK police weren't granted access to investigate whether the individual who did it was embassy personnel (and thus under diplomatic immunity) or not. The UK then cut diplomatic ties with Libya and all the personnel were forced to leave and return to Libya. However, if the UK had the legal right to refuse passage for non-embassy personnel then surely they would've done so and captured all non-embassy personnel for questioning. But they didn't do that. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Yvonne_Fletcher https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Yvonne_Fletcher

by dpwm 7y ago

microwavecamera 7y ago

> There are lots of people in the US that believe strongly in the rule of law. >And that it applies to foreign citizens who have – quite sensibly – never set foot on your soil? Of course it does. That's like saying a foreign terrorist can't be charged for an act of terrorism because they're not a U.S. citizen. Furthermore, because Assange is a foreign national, 1st Amendment protections do not apply in this situation.

dpwm 7y ago
> That's like saying a foreign terrorist can't be charged for an act of terrorism because they're not a U.S. citizen. One man's might-is-right flag-waving US exceptionalism is another man's terrorism.
- kortilla 7y ago
  Everything is so relative man... /s
- microwavecamera 7y ago
  Look I'm not defending anything our country does and what they did to Manning was unconscionable. I think Manning acted in good faith, she may have crossed the line some but the punishment far exceeded what the situation merited. But I can't say the same about Assange. Now I'll admit the espionage charge is very "odd" for attempting to crack a password. But Assange did some stupid dangerous crap and got himself caught up. Simultaneously embarrassing and royally pissing off the CIA, NSA and the DOD is an epically dumb thing to do. I don't know what he was expecting to happen or what his game plan was. What the hell was he thinking? Manning got thrown under the bus, Assange stood in the middle of the road and dared it to run him over. I don't know how sorry I should feel for him at this point.
  - raxxorrax 7y ago
    If Assange is beholden to hold up US law, why would that only be applicable to some of them? And what about the issue of war crimes?
  - belorn 7y ago
    We live in a world where if you criticize the government enough to piss off the espionage department of your country, your only choice is to run to east if you live in the west and west if you live in the east.
- fit2rule 7y ago
  Yeah, the flip side to this argument is pretty heinous: American war criminals can be prosecuted any time, any place they show up outside of Americas' borders. Except, they can't, because the USA will protect them, even threatening to INVADE any country which attempts to reign their war criminals in. Duplicity is the order of the day.
gnaritas 7y ago
> Furthermore, because Assange is a foreign national, 1st Amendment protections do not apply in this situation. Not remotely true, the first amendment protects anyone and everyone from government infringement. All of the bill of rights applies to anyone, citizens or not. Try reading them, they say what the government cannot do, nowhere will you find it saying but only to citizens.
kelnos 7y ago
There's a [dead] reply that seems to refute this, and I'm not sure why it's dead. The First Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Nowhere in there does it mention "citizens". Only "people". And you don't need to be a US citizen to be a person. The first result[0] of a quick Google search suggests that federal courts do indeed believe that the Constitution protects to non-citizens. [0] https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2017/01/30/does-the-constitution-protect-non-citizens-judges-say-yes/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2017/01/30/does-th...
- jolfdb 7y ago
  It should be obvious that that Constitution doesn't apply to people who aren't even in USA at all.
  - Zak 7y ago
    The Constitution applies to the government; it says what the government must, may, and mustn't. do. The government mustn't interfere with anyone's free speech.
- rootusrootus 7y ago
  Can't say why it was downvoted to oblivion. But I personally don't know what the right answer is. We already rely on SCOTUS to tell us what the First Amendment really means and how it applies, since as written it just says "Congress shall make no law..." which is kinda specific. So it seems like we're past the point where we can interpret any other part of that clause literally. Now, all disclaimers given, I figure the Constitution ought to apply to anyone within it's jurisdiction, which to my mind means that if you are subject to our jursdiction for criminal purposes, you're subject to our constitution for it's protections as well.
  - drewmol 7y ago
    >I figure the Constitution ought to apply to anyone within it's jurisdiction, which to my mind means that if you are subject to our jursdiction for criminal purposes, you're subject to our constitution for it's protections as well. I fully agree, hopefully the SCOTUS will confirm this in a ruling at some point. Additionally the Declaration of Independence included this statement: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" I think the consent to be governed should be established whether implied or expressed in a way more specific that just being a person somewhere on earth.

rootusrootus 7y ago

> And that it applies to foreign citizens who have – quite sensibly – never set foot on your soil? There is a lot of precedent here. Break the law in another country, and you may very well find yourself tried in their courts if you ever step into their jurisdiction. It's not like the US is snatching him off the streets in a foreign country under cover of darkness and dragging him to our jurisdiction, we are using very well established legal channels.

jolfdb 7y ago
Assange was snatched from a foreign country.
- rootusrootus 7y ago
  Was he? He's not in the US. He fled the UK's jurisdiction to accept the jurisdiction of Ecuador, but of course that carries the risk that Ecuador could change their mind and transfer him to another jurisdiction, which they did. Perhaps the next stop is Sweden, then the US. In any case all of it is being done through accepted legal channels. If the US wanted him on our soil without regards to consequences, we could certainly have him in a US jail in a matter of hours.
  - cyphar 7y ago
    Assange was refused the ability to travel to Ecuador (a country that he became a citizen of) from the UK, which might be a violation of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (Article 44) -- though I'm not a lawyer: > The receiving State must, even in case of armed conflict, grant facilities in order to enable persons enjoying privileges and immunities, other than nationals of the receiving State, and members of the families of such persons irrespective of their nationality, to leave at the earliest possible moment. It must, in particular, in case of need, place at their disposal the necessary means of transport for themselves and their property. There is an argument to be made that since he is not embassy personnel he isn't granted any such rights (in fact that's the most likely explanation). But then again, there is some grey area here -- in the 1984 someone in the Libyan embassy in the UK shot into a crowd killing a police officer[1]. The UK police weren't granted access to investigate whether the individual who did it was embassy personnel (and thus under diplomatic immunity) or not. The UK then cut diplomatic ties with Libya and all the personnel were forced to leave and return to Libya. However, if the UK had the legal right to refuse passage for non-embassy personnel then surely they would've done so and captured all non-embassy personnel for questioning. But they didn't do that. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Yvonne_Fletcher https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Yvonne_Fletcher