3 ms·

A hypothetical Australian citizen who did things in Britain which are legal there but illegal in the U.S. would simply not be detained at all. It doesn’t matte

A hypothetical Australian citizen who did things in Britain which are legal there but illegal in the U.S. would simply not be detained at all. It doesn’t matter whether Assange committed these so-called crimes because he was never under obligation to follow U.S. law in the first place. I don’t see why Russian private citizens who broke U.S. election law should be detained either. I don’t approve of their behavior from an ethics perspective, but from a legal perspective it’s not their responsibility to follow laws in a country where they have no rights. If I conspired, from California, with people in Tibet to circumvent Chinese law, I also would not expect to be detained by U.S. police.

colechristensen 7y ago
Assange broke that veil by conspiring with Manning who was very much inside US jurisdiction.
dragonwriter 7y ago
> A hypothetical Australian citizen who did things in Britain which are legal there but illegal in the U.S. would simply not be detained at all. I'm pretty sure the US-UK extradition agreement uses the double illegality rule, so Assange is safe from extradition if the British court finds that what he is accused of by the US is legal in the UK.
gamblor956 7y ago
Most of the US charges against Assange, like hacking, are also crimes in the UK. He made himself subject to the jurisdiction of the US when he decided to try and decrypt US classified information. This is also why the Russians were detained. They made themselves subject to US law when they decided to get involved in US elections. If I conspired, from California, with people in Tibet to circumvent Chinese law, I also would not expect to be detained by U.S. police. That is because the US does not have an extradition treaty with China, so it doesn't matter what Chinese crimes you are accused of committing. Though generally, the US would not extradite for political crimes, so if your Tibetan activities involved organizing political resistant or independence movements, you would be protected by the First Amendment while in the US.
- effie 7y ago
  Isn't obtaining and decrypting classified information what journalists are expected to do in America? The onus is on the government to keep the secret secret. If they are unable to do that, why lash out on journalists?
  - gamblor956 7y ago
    Isn't obtaining and decrypting classified information what journalists are expected to do in America Part of the government trying to keep things secret is using the procedures set forth by our laws to enforce secrets. Prosecuting those who leak classified information is one of those procedures... Obtaining and publishing classified information is permissible if the information is a matter of the public interest, i.e., war crimes, embezzlement, violations of constitutional rights, etc.. Journalists are expected, and required, to use their discretion in determining what information is appropriate to publish. Indiscriminately posting classified information is not protected, especially when releasing that information puts hundreds of lives at risk.
    - amanaplanacanal 7y ago
      Do we actually have anybody who has been convicted simply for posting information? I'm not sure your analysis is correct. Also, note that Assange is charged with computer crimes.

colechristensen 7y ago

Assange broke that veil by conspiring with Manning who was very much inside US jurisdiction.

dragonwriter 7y ago

> A hypothetical Australian citizen who did things in Britain which are legal there but illegal in the U.S. would simply not be detained at all. I'm pretty sure the US-UK extradition agreement uses the double illegality rule, so Assange is safe from extradition if the British court finds that what he is accused of by the US is legal in the UK.

gamblor956 7y ago

Most of the US charges against Assange, like hacking, are also crimes in the UK. He made himself subject to the jurisdiction of the US when he decided to try and decrypt US classified information. This is also why the Russians were detained. They made themselves subject to US law when they decided to get involved in US elections. If I conspired, from California, with people in Tibet to circumvent Chinese law, I also would not expect to be detained by U.S. police. That is because the US does not have an extradition treaty with China, so it doesn't matter what Chinese crimes you are accused of committing. Though generally, the US would not extradite for political crimes, so if your Tibetan activities involved organizing political resistant or independence movements, you would be protected by the First Amendment while in the US.

effie 7y ago
Isn't obtaining and decrypting classified information what journalists are expected to do in America? The onus is on the government to keep the secret secret. If they are unable to do that, why lash out on journalists?
- gamblor956 7y ago
  Isn't obtaining and decrypting classified information what journalists are expected to do in America Part of the government trying to keep things secret is using the procedures set forth by our laws to enforce secrets. Prosecuting those who leak classified information is one of those procedures... Obtaining and publishing classified information is permissible if the information is a matter of the public interest, i.e., war crimes, embezzlement, violations of constitutional rights, etc.. Journalists are expected, and required, to use their discretion in determining what information is appropriate to publish. Indiscriminately posting classified information is not protected, especially when releasing that information puts hundreds of lives at risk.
  - amanaplanacanal 7y ago
    Do we actually have anybody who has been convicted simply for posting information? I'm not sure your analysis is correct. Also, note that Assange is charged with computer crimes.