6 ms·

My understanding is that a journalist can receive and publish unlawfully obtained material, but they can’t incite or assist someone to obtain it. Does sufficie

My understanding is that a journalist can receive and publish unlawfully obtained material, but they can’t incite or assist someone to obtain it. Does sufficient evidence exist that Assange broke US law? If so it would seem that he’s extraditable - and I’m not sure how the ‘bigger picture’ (‘Whistleblower’ public interest, ‘time served’ in the Embassy) overrides UK’s legal obligations here.

dalbasal 6y ago
>"* Does sufficient evidence exist that Assange broke US law*" I don't believe this is the full extent of extradition conditions.
hutzlibu 6y ago
"Does sufficient evidence exist that Assange broke US law?" It used to be, that you only can break a state law, if you are within that state. (with rare exceptions). That seems to be history.
- type0 6y ago
  > It used to be, that you only can break a state law, if you are within that state. (with rare exceptions). US is that rare exception today, who knows, tomorrow it might be China. The chilling effect is enough to freeze your brains.
  - pieno 6y ago
    This reminds me of a huge diplomatic dispute between Belgium and the United States when a complaint was filed in Belgium against a US Army General for war crimes alleged to have been committed by US troops in Iraq. Belgium has long had a very broad international scope for its crimes against humanity criminal laws, requiring almost no connection with Belgium for such crimes to be punishable there. This law has for example been used in connection with the genocide in Rwanda, torture ordered by Pinochet in Chile, etc. Following diplomatic pressure by the US, the law was first amended to allow the Belgian Government to “refer” the case to another country that would be “more appropriate” to pursue the matter. This mechanism was put to work right away: the case at hand was referred to the US and nothing really came out of it thereafter. But this was not enough for the US: they further pressured (some say “bullied”) Belgium to abolish the international scope of their crimes against humanity laws altogether. The US threatened to use their diplomatic influence to move the NATO headquarters out of Belgium if they would not comply. Belgium complied and now only accepts jurisdiction if a victim is a Belgian citizen or has lived there for at least three years (and in cases where the suspect is a Belgian citizen/resident or the alleged crime took place in Belgium, obviously). The EU Observer has a pretty good short summary here: https://euobserver.com/justice/11820 https://euobserver.com/justice/11820
    - pjc50 6y ago
      The US is very particular in defending its right to commit war crimes, yes.
      - monocasa 6y ago
        Yep. See also the "Hague Invasion Act". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Protection_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr...
  - golem14 6y ago
    Didn't the new Hong Kong security law specifically include actions taken outside of HongKong ?
- maxlybbert 6y ago
  The FBI investigated Daniel Pearl’s beheading because the ransom email was routed through a US server. I thought it was weird that they didn’t claim jurisdiction based on Pearl’s citizenship, but I’ve given up on trying to figure out the reasoning behind a lot of legal actions.
sneak 6y ago
Free countries are morally obligated to prevent extradition to places where human beings will not receive a fair trial, or end up being tortured.
- dane-pgp 6y ago
  If people don't believe the UN report that "Bradley Manning's treatment was cruel and inhuman"[0] then they should at least be aware of this: "He was also credited with serving 112 days of his sentence after Judge Lind ruled that he was improperly treated during his detainment at a facility in Quantico, Virginia."[1] [0] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/mar/12/bradley-manning-cruel-inhuman-treatment-un https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/mar/12/bradley-mannin... [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/08/21/sentenced-to-35-years-bradley-manning-faces-longest-ever-u-s-prison-term-for-leak-to-media/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/08/21/senten...
severine 6y ago
You can read a different take here: https://www.emptywheel.net/2020/09/07/the-us-government-formed-a-new-understanding-of-wikileaks-after-2016/ https://www.emptywheel.net/2020/09/07/the-us-government-form... (edited to remove editorializing)
- DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
  That "nuanced take" takes some really outrageous positions, such as agreeing with Pompeo's description of WikiLeaks as a hostile, non-state intelligence agency. Intelligence agencies aren't in the business of publishing documents for the public. They're in the business of collecting documents for their own governments.
  - peu4000 6y ago
    Russia, almost certainly, used Wikileaks to dump hacked documents in order to influence the 2016 election. The CIA is also accused of hack and dump operations more recently -- welcome to the 21st century.
    - DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
      If what you're claiming is true, how is that even a problem? The documents were of interest to the public, so WikiLeaks was right to publish them. They showed that the DNC was trying to kneecap Bernie Sanders' campaign. Should WikiLeaks have helped cover that up? News influences elections. There's nothing wrong with that.
- raxxorrax 6y ago
  It isn't a nuanced take at all. The supposed intelligence infrastructure targeting the US is not supported by evidence. Even mentioning Trump and hinting to alleged hypocrisy is pretty laughable and betray the author. > in addition, the allegations of involvement in Russia in all this are well-founded. The folks involved in the LulzSec chatrooms now incorporated into Assange’s CFAA charge acknowledge there were Russians there as well, though explain that the whole thing was so chaotic [...] Unsensible. We may find law and you can nail him on intricacies of it and extradite him, but I doubt it leads to justice for showing evidence of an illegal war of aggression. He basically just released info to the public. If that is a crime, the judiciary might be in deep trouble indeed.
zaarn 6y ago
That's not how extradition works. It doesn't matter to the court in this hearing if Assange did it or if there is good evidence. No extradition court cares if there is good evidence. The only thing they care about is A) is the crime a crime in both local and foreign law and B) will the extraditee receive a fair trial or is there an ulterior motive. Section B is what you will have to prove to the court if section A is true.
jonathanstrange 6y ago
His actions don't even fall under US jurisdiction. It's a farce, as is the potential punishment with which they threaten him. They (secretely) charged a non-US citizen who acted outside the US for alleged acts of espionage he committed outside the US, and now want to put him into solitary confinement and get him condemned by a some kangaroo court to 175 years in prison. All of that after having illegally spied on him and his lawyer within the embassy of another sovereign nation to find better angles to indict him. It's ridiculous that UK courts haven't dismissed this case right from the start.
- DanBC 6y ago
  > It's ridiculous that UK courts haven't dismissed this case right from the start. That's not how courts work here.
  - jonathanstrange 6y ago
    Of course, they could dismiss the extradition request as being unfounded. That's definitely how courts work in the UK and they have all the power to do so. Even the government could block extradition, if they wanted to.
    - Cthulhu_ 6y ago
      "If they wanted to" being the key here; handing over Assange would give them a lot of goodwill and political credit, and with Brexit about to end badly when it comes to UK / Europe relationships, they're looking towards the US for trade deals. They're already pretty far along in selling / privatizing the NHS [1] and getting rid of European food standards so they can import the US' bleached chicken and eggs [2], etc. note: did not check if The Guardian is an unbiased source in this case. It's not owned by News Corp / Murdoch at least. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/11/nhs-us-health-care-trade-deal-uk-election https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/11/nhs-us... [2] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/25/why-chlorinated-chicken-is-centre-of-the-table-in-uk-eu-talks https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/25/why-chlorin...

dalbasal 6y ago

>"* Does sufficient evidence exist that Assange broke US law*" I don't believe this is the full extent of extradition conditions.

hutzlibu 6y ago

"Does sufficient evidence exist that Assange broke US law?" It used to be, that you only can break a state law, if you are within that state. (with rare exceptions). That seems to be history.

type0 6y ago
> It used to be, that you only can break a state law, if you are within that state. (with rare exceptions). US is that rare exception today, who knows, tomorrow it might be China. The chilling effect is enough to freeze your brains.
- pieno 6y ago
  This reminds me of a huge diplomatic dispute between Belgium and the United States when a complaint was filed in Belgium against a US Army General for war crimes alleged to have been committed by US troops in Iraq. Belgium has long had a very broad international scope for its crimes against humanity criminal laws, requiring almost no connection with Belgium for such crimes to be punishable there. This law has for example been used in connection with the genocide in Rwanda, torture ordered by Pinochet in Chile, etc. Following diplomatic pressure by the US, the law was first amended to allow the Belgian Government to “refer” the case to another country that would be “more appropriate” to pursue the matter. This mechanism was put to work right away: the case at hand was referred to the US and nothing really came out of it thereafter. But this was not enough for the US: they further pressured (some say “bullied”) Belgium to abolish the international scope of their crimes against humanity laws altogether. The US threatened to use their diplomatic influence to move the NATO headquarters out of Belgium if they would not comply. Belgium complied and now only accepts jurisdiction if a victim is a Belgian citizen or has lived there for at least three years (and in cases where the suspect is a Belgian citizen/resident or the alleged crime took place in Belgium, obviously). The EU Observer has a pretty good short summary here: https://euobserver.com/justice/11820 https://euobserver.com/justice/11820
  - pjc50 6y ago
    The US is very particular in defending its right to commit war crimes, yes.
    - monocasa 6y ago
      Yep. See also the "Hague Invasion Act". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Protection_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr...
- golem14 6y ago
  Didn't the new Hong Kong security law specifically include actions taken outside of HongKong ?
maxlybbert 6y ago
The FBI investigated Daniel Pearl’s beheading because the ransom email was routed through a US server. I thought it was weird that they didn’t claim jurisdiction based on Pearl’s citizenship, but I’ve given up on trying to figure out the reasoning behind a lot of legal actions.

sneak 6y ago

Free countries are morally obligated to prevent extradition to places where human beings will not receive a fair trial, or end up being tortured.

dane-pgp 6y ago
If people don't believe the UN report that "Bradley Manning's treatment was cruel and inhuman"[0] then they should at least be aware of this: "He was also credited with serving 112 days of his sentence after Judge Lind ruled that he was improperly treated during his detainment at a facility in Quantico, Virginia."[1] [0] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/mar/12/bradley-manning-cruel-inhuman-treatment-un https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/mar/12/bradley-mannin... [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/08/21/sentenced-to-35-years-bradley-manning-faces-longest-ever-u-s-prison-term-for-leak-to-media/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/08/21/senten...

severine 6y ago

You can read a different take here: https://www.emptywheel.net/2020/09/07/the-us-government-formed-a-new-understanding-of-wikileaks-after-2016/ https://www.emptywheel.net/2020/09/07/the-us-government-form... (edited to remove editorializing)

DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
That "nuanced take" takes some really outrageous positions, such as agreeing with Pompeo's description of WikiLeaks as a hostile, non-state intelligence agency. Intelligence agencies aren't in the business of publishing documents for the public. They're in the business of collecting documents for their own governments.
- peu4000 6y ago
  Russia, almost certainly, used Wikileaks to dump hacked documents in order to influence the 2016 election. The CIA is also accused of hack and dump operations more recently -- welcome to the 21st century.
  - DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
    If what you're claiming is true, how is that even a problem? The documents were of interest to the public, so WikiLeaks was right to publish them. They showed that the DNC was trying to kneecap Bernie Sanders' campaign. Should WikiLeaks have helped cover that up? News influences elections. There's nothing wrong with that.
raxxorrax 6y ago
It isn't a nuanced take at all. The supposed intelligence infrastructure targeting the US is not supported by evidence. Even mentioning Trump and hinting to alleged hypocrisy is pretty laughable and betray the author. > in addition, the allegations of involvement in Russia in all this are well-founded. The folks involved in the LulzSec chatrooms now incorporated into Assange’s CFAA charge acknowledge there were Russians there as well, though explain that the whole thing was so chaotic [...] Unsensible. We may find law and you can nail him on intricacies of it and extradite him, but I doubt it leads to justice for showing evidence of an illegal war of aggression. He basically just released info to the public. If that is a crime, the judiciary might be in deep trouble indeed.

zaarn 6y ago

That's not how extradition works. It doesn't matter to the court in this hearing if Assange did it or if there is good evidence. No extradition court cares if there is good evidence. The only thing they care about is A) is the crime a crime in both local and foreign law and B) will the extraditee receive a fair trial or is there an ulterior motive. Section B is what you will have to prove to the court if section A is true.

jonathanstrange 6y ago

His actions don't even fall under US jurisdiction. It's a farce, as is the potential punishment with which they threaten him. They (secretely) charged a non-US citizen who acted outside the US for alleged acts of espionage he committed outside the US, and now want to put him into solitary confinement and get him condemned by a some kangaroo court to 175 years in prison. All of that after having illegally spied on him and his lawyer within the embassy of another sovereign nation to find better angles to indict him. It's ridiculous that UK courts haven't dismissed this case right from the start.

DanBC 6y ago
> It's ridiculous that UK courts haven't dismissed this case right from the start. That's not how courts work here.
- jonathanstrange 6y ago
  Of course, they could dismiss the extradition request as being unfounded. That's definitely how courts work in the UK and they have all the power to do so. Even the government could block extradition, if they wanted to.
  - Cthulhu_ 6y ago
    "If they wanted to" being the key here; handing over Assange would give them a lot of goodwill and political credit, and with Brexit about to end badly when it comes to UK / Europe relationships, they're looking towards the US for trade deals. They're already pretty far along in selling / privatizing the NHS [1] and getting rid of European food standards so they can import the US' bleached chicken and eggs [2], etc. note: did not check if The Guardian is an unbiased source in this case. It's not owned by News Corp / Murdoch at least. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/11/nhs-us-health-care-trade-deal-uk-election https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/11/nhs-us... [2] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/25/why-chlorinated-chicken-is-centre-of-the-table-in-uk-eu-talks https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/25/why-chlorin...