13 ms·
Will alleged CIA misbehavior set Julian Assange free?
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- lallysingh 7y agoLooks like the government has to choose between national security (surveillance of legal discussions) and ability to prosecute in this case. They choose security, whether they like it or not.
- jamiemoles 7y agoWhat is more likely to set Assange free is the US State Departments refusal to extradite Anne Sacoolas back to the UK to face justice for the death of Harry Dunne. If the US don't want to send her back then the UK has every right to decide the rather one-sided extradition agreement in place isn't working for them anymore and they can release Assange and send him back home to Australia.
- dlgeek 7y agoUp until the Sacoolas case, the US hadn't denied any UK extradition requests but the UK had already denied 10 requests, so that would be an interesting position to take. (Source https://uk.usembassy.gov/our-relationship/policy-history/the-u-s-uk-extradition-treaty/frequently-asked-questions-on-the-us-uk-extradition-relationship/ https://uk.usembassy.gov/our-relationship/policy-history/the...)
- lukasm 7y agoWas it because death penalty?
- afthonos 7y agoA known exemption to extradition laws is the death penalty. Being that it is illegal in Europe, European countries will refuse to extradite people accused of capital crimes to the US unless the US government commits to taking the death penalty of the table. Old reference, might be out-of-date, but I think it’s still mostly true: https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/stories/u-s-death-penalty-could-prove-hurdle-to-extradition-of-terror-suspects-from-britain https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/stories/u-s-death-penalty-could...
- Crosseye_Jack 7y agoThe UK gov's own website is a good source ;-) https://www.gov.uk/guidance/extradition-processes-and-review https://www.gov.uk/guidance/extradition-processes-and-review > Extradition is prohibited by statute if: > the person could face the death penalty (unless the Secretary of State gets adequate written assurance that the death penalty will not be imposed or, if imposed, will not be carried out) EDIT: The UK has also denied extraction even though the death penalty is off the table. Example being Gary McKinnon. C+P from Wiki > On 16 October 2012, then-Home Secretary Theresa May announced to the House of Commons that the extradition had been blocked, saying that: > Mr McKinnon is accused of serious crimes. But there is also no doubt that he is seriously ill [...] He has Asperger's syndrome, and suffers from depressive illness. Mr McKinnon's extradition would give rise to such a high risk of him ending his life that a decision to extradite would be incompatible with Mr McKinnon's human rights.
- monocasa 7y agoThey've been finding interesting ways to soften that policy. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jul/23/is-the-uk-governments-stance-on-the-death-penalty-shifting https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jul/23/is-the-uk-gove...
- Crosseye_Jack 7y agoIts not policy, its law [0]. Changing that would have to be put past MPs. What happened in the case you linked was people with dual citizenship who lost their UK citizenship (Which can't happen if you don't have dual citizenship) were captured outside of the UK (not extradited from the UK) and the home secretary said they will not oppose the death penality. [0] http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/41/section/94 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/41/section/94
- monocasa 7y agoThey didn't have dual citizenship, only UK citizenship. The UK jumping through this hoop made them stateless, which is against international law. They are UK citizens, and only UK citizens, by birth. And there's all sorts of ways around the law here. Like tacking on a new charge once he's on US soil that they then seek the death penalty on. Then the state office goes "oh no, how could we have seen this coming", when it was the back room deal the whole time.
- jki275 7y agoAnne Sacoolas has diplomatic immunity. There's zero relation between the two kinds of discussions.
- samwillis 7y agoShe may have diolomatic immunity in theory (which is something that should exist and has very good reasons to), however this case shows quite clearly that there are circumstances where it is important to have exceptions. Diplomatic immunity is to protect diplomats from being influenced by their host country, this is about the death of a man and is in no way being used to influence her or her husband. The UK and US should come to some sort of compromise in this case, even if it is her standing trial remotely, via video, with the agreement that any sentence is cared out in the US.
- tialaramex 7y agoIt's also probably not actually true that she was entitled to immunity. Which is why she left. If she was entitled to immunity she wouldn't need to leave, the most a host country can do about actual diplomats is tell them they're not welcome any more ("persona non grata") and then their sponsor will arrange for them to leave. If she was still in the UK they'd have arrested her already because she isn't actually immune. Her husband was a spook. But spooks aren't diplomats even if they have paperwork which insists otherwise as part of their cover. He didn't work at an embassy, he worked at a US site specifically for spying, a site that exists because it suits the British and American governments to have American spies in Britain doing this sort of thing, no diplomacy involved.
- retrac 7y agoThe country sending a person with diplomatic immunity can waive said immunity to allow their diplomat to be prosecuted. It's actually pretty common to do so, when the alleged crime is serious, unrelated to their diplomatic service, and the ex-diplomat can expect a fair trial. At least between countries with reasonably good relations. Even where extradition isn't possible, cooperation in prosecution is usually expected. For example, a couple decades ago, a drunk-driving Russian diplomat killed a pedestrian in Ottawa. While Russia does not extradite their citizens, they did cooperate with the Canadian authorities to prosecute him for the crime in Russia, where he was convicted and imprisoned.
- mam2 7y agoNot sure he woule be better in Australia..
- teachrdan 7y agoI would cite Betteridge's Law here: "Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headlines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headline...
- wayoutthere 7y agoNumerous well-documented cases of CIA misbehavior in the past has resulted in basically nothing, so my money is on "no".
- wallace_f 7y agoYea, well I'm sorry, but I'm too busy being outraged by gay abortions or toxic masculinity to pay attention to this. And when it comes time to vote, I'm voting either on one inflammatory issue, or doing what's best for me and voting for whoever offers me more economic incentives.
- Nerdfest 7y agoWhat's best for you and what will give more financial reward are not always the same thing.
- wallace_f 7y agoThat was actually part of the point I was trying to make.
- wayoutthere 7y agoNot sure how that's relevant at all? The CIA has often operated far outside the law regardless of who is in office.
- dragonwriter 7y agoThe poster you were responding to seemed to be attempting to illustrate an explanation of why the CIA gets away with that regardless of whoever is in office, so your post explains exactly how it's relevant rather than offering a reason to doubt it's relevance.
- wayoutthere 7y agoAh, that's why I find sarcasm to be a pretty clumsy argumentation tactic -- it confuses the intent of a statement when used without knowledge of the position you're speaking from. Better to just come out and say what you mean.
- corndoge 7y agoNo. Uncle Sam will never let him go.
- mark-r 7y agoIf he does go free, I wouldn't be surprised to see him die within the year under mysterious circumstances.
- cm2187 7y agoExcept that when the CIA was said to be spying on Assange, he was actively trying to escape justice by taking refuge in a country (or rather its embassy) that provided a safe harbour. The CIA seemed to be perfectly in its role, particularly if he was suspected of preparing new leaks.
- Tarq0n 7y agoHow is that at all in the purview of an intelligence agency?
- compuguy 7y agoTo be fair, Assange has been accused of distributing emails that Russian intelligence agencies hacked/acquired during the 2016 election. Conspiring/working with foreign powers outside of the United States seems like something that would be in the ballpark of an intelligence agency.
- cm2187 7y agoI think the CIA was after him rather because of the diplomatic cable leaks, which is 100% in their purview.
- dragonwriter 7y ago> How is that at all in the purview of an intelligence agency? Spying on a hostile intelligence broker sheltering from the justice system of an allied power in a foreign embassy while continuing to run hostile intel and propaganda ops against the nation the intelligence agency works for and its allies? How is that not in the purview of an intelligence agency? Your question is like asking how frying chicken is in the purview of a KFC.
- compuguy 7y agoIt is within the purview of an intelligence agency. The big question is will it help/harm the extradition case that is currently going on...
- dolittle4 7y agoIts ok for Assange to hire people to steal information but its not ok for the government.
- jascii 7y agoDo you have any credible information that Assange "hired" people to "steal" information? And, yes, we "the people" grant far reaching powers to government, and thus have the right to put boundaries on those powers.
- FireBeyond 7y agoHe didn't hire people, to be sure, but he did actively encourage, _and_ _assist_ someone in doing so. The defenses against this ("he didn't _really_ tell him to do stuff, he was just talking" or "he wasn't _really_ helping crack those passwords, because if he wanted to he could") don't stand up to reasonability.
- gjmacd 7y agoThey have evidence of Assange offering help to Chelsea Manning to try and hack a government server.
- jascii 7y agoThat is the assertion of the extradition request. Whether there is evidence is yet to be determined.
- duxup 7y agoI think if Assange actually did help someone to try to access data that they shouldn't have .. that is a legitimate crime that is beyond what a member of the press does. Having said that, I've never heard that he "hired" anyone to do any such thing.
- 1234560 7y agohello sir this article really help me thankshttp://www.healthmenia.com/ http://www.healthmenia.com/
- gjmacd 7y agoA useful idiot for Putin through WikiLeaks won't be freed no matter how you want to frame this. This guy is responsible for screwing with elections in the US.
- jascii 7y agoWikipedia published information it received, would you say the same about any journalistic organization?
- compuguy 7y agoIf the journalistic organization knew that the information they acquired was from a foreign government (Russia) that wanted to manipulate another countries election, would they still publish here-said information?
- jascii 7y agoIf they can confirm a reasonable credibility, then yes, they should. Preferably with as much openness about the source as is safely possible. As far as I know Wikipedia has always maintained that they did not receive the information from russia, but from anonymous internal leaks. While I personally have some doubt about that, I feel it takes more than "personal doubt" to attack a journalistic organization.
- lawnchair_larry 7y agoIf it’s publishing authentic information, and this impacts voter choice, how is that a negative? This criticism has never made any sense to me, and usually regresses to a non-sequitur comment like, “they didn’t publish any emails from the Republicans or the Russians”. If people found out what Hillary’s campaign actually did and said, and decided that this didn’t align with their values in a President, that’s not Putin or Assange’s fault. That’s Hillary’s fault.
- sneak 7y agoNarratives about people’s motivations and goals seem to hold much more weight than the objective facts, which is that he published information that was true, that the public did not have prior.
- einpoklum 7y ago> Will alleged CIA misbehavior set Julian Assange free? If CIA misbehavior was setting people free, US jails would be empty by now. Also, isn't US misbehavior what got Assange in prison in the first place?
- ben_w 7y agoGiven the nature of the original complaint about him and how it was responded to, I suspect it was a combination of his misbehaviour and some part of the US government saying “Ah hah! Put some political pressure on Sweden to change their mind and actually prosecute this!” In general, based on what I have read, I believe most assault complaints don’t lead to prosecutions due to lack of evidence, and most that do don’t lead to convictions for the same reason — so even if I ignore the milder of the accusations (the ones nobody would use if their goal was any of what has since transpired) and focus only on the most serious ones, I’m still inclined to believe he’s guilty as accused, but also wouldn’t have been prosecuted if he hadn’t been politically problematic.
- SiempreViernes 7y agoNo, the Swedish government would much rather have avoided the whole mess rather than get all that negative publicity. The problem was he went after somoeone that could afford a lawyer to represent them with the prosecutor, and that he thought he could get away easily by just leaving the country.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- einpoklum 7y ago> the Swedish government would much rather have avoided the whole mess rather than get all that negative publicity. Sweden's actions indicate otherwise. > The problem was he went after somoeone Assange didn't "go after" anyone. > he thought he could get away easily by just leaving the country. 1. He had no criminal act to get away with. 2. He was questioned, denying the charges. Later, he asked whether he needs to stay for another interview, and was told he doesn't have to.
- dr-detroit 7y agoThose walls arent to keep him in its to keep me out.
- resters 7y agoA lot of Americans know about Assange, what he has done, how much he has risked to help Americans know the truth about our government. Yet in spite of this nobody really cares, and most are content to let Assange be extradited and punished. Other than for partisan reasons, few care a whole lot about any of the information Wikileaks published that revealed significant misdeeds and corruption by government officials, none of whom have been brought to justice.
- zapita 7y agoAssange perverted the original intent of Wikileaks, and warped it into a tool to serve his own ego and personal vendettas. He absolutely got what he deserved. The quicker we move on from him and his personality cult, the quicker a replacement emerge that gets the job done better.
- sneak 7y ago> Assange perverted the original intent of Wikileaks, and warped it into a tool to serve his own ego and personal vendettas. Citation needed. > He absolutely got what he deserved. Being egotistical (what you claimed) warrants permanent imprisonment without trial and torture? I find your words hard to take seriously after this claim.
- resters 7y agoYour point may or may not be true, but it doesn't matter. The kind of person with the courage and ambition to build something like Wikileaks is very rare, and he or she may in fact be a bit egotistical. You could say the same thing about people who become movie stars, presidents, social media influencers, etc. What your comment is doing is often known as shooting the messenger. While I do not personally believe that Assange is a bad human being in any way, it really doesn't matter. He revealed major fraud relating to the Iraq and Afghan wars, among many other important revelations. There has been a massively asymmetrical response that has focused on Assange and his character rather than on the major misdeeds by government. Imagine, for a moment, if there was a janitor who reported Jerry Sandusky's misdeeds, and upon investigation it turned out the janitor was involved in some kind of criminal activity. I would still want Jerry brought to justice and any foibles of the whistleblower would be merely incidental. What is hard for me to understand is why people such as yourself seem to focus only on Assange and ignore the much more significant crimes.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- osobo 7y agoBetteridge's law of headlines applies: The answer is probably 'no'.
- macinjosh 7y agoI am gonna file this under wishful thinking.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- rdtsc 7y agoCIA was spying on Congress as well under Brennan and nothing happened https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/31/cia-admits-spying-senate-staffers https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/31/cia-admits-spy... > “If I did something wrong,” Brennan continued in March, “I will go to the president, and I will explain to him exactly what I did, and what the findings were. And he is the one who can ask me to stay or to go.” Notice how brazen they are. "I didn't do anything, but even if I did, I'd have to be the one determining that. And even then, there is nothing you can do about it, since I work for the President and only he can fire me". That was n 2014 and Brennan was in office till 2017.
- Cuuugi 7y agoAssange is a foreigner in a foreign country. What you referenced is bad, real bad even, but not relevant.
- rdtsc 7y agoFair point. I was mainly saying that CIA can engage in all kinds illegal and/or immoral behavior without repercussions. So expecting this to somehow get Assange off the hook so speak is probably not realistic.