9 ms·

> I seem to recall a whole bunch of people arguing that Assange wasn't going to be extradited to the United States once they extracted him from the embassy. At

> I seem to recall a whole bunch of people arguing that Assange wasn't going to be extradited to the United States once they extracted him from the embassy. At the time a fairly extensive collection of polemic was written that liberally used the word "paranoid". The argument from his opponents seems to have mostly shifted towards "yeah, but he deserves it".

chippy 6y ago
Worth also highlighting that this "whole bunch of people" can still be found here on HN. Often they are still very frequent posters and very well known members of HN. Some, however have given "I didn't know" or "the situation changed" half-apologies since.
- toyg 6y ago
  > Some, however have given "I didn't know" or "the situation changed" half-apologies since. I hope some people will take this as their "Iraq" moment, where the mechanisms of consensus-building by propaganda are laid bare. This is how powerful interests work: they push people to take sides with selected (or no) information, and by the time the full picture emerges, it's too late.
  - AndrewBissell 6y ago
    Anyone who bought the line that Assange didn't need to fear extradition probably will transition seamlessly from "the idea that Assange will be extradited if he leaves the embassy is a baseless conspiracy theory" to "well, he's accused of breaking the law, so it will be a good thing to extradite him to face trial in the U.S."
  - Consultant32452 6y ago
    Have you noticed how no one who led us into the Iraq war, whether they be government, media, etc. has faced any consequence whatsoever? Even the few who have admitted a "mistake" talk about it as if it's a mistake like I forgot my wallet and not a mistake like I killed 100k+ people. The major red pills in approximate order are 1) I'm being misled systematically 2) I've been misled since school 3) They are fully aware of what they are doing 4) Given the choice, they would prefer me dead over defiant
    - AndrewBissell 6y ago
      5) They prefer you dead anyway, so might as well go with defiant
- armitron 6y ago
  I remember Thomas Ptacek (tptacek) being particularly vocal and unjustifiably venomous towards Assange. One could say he went out of his way (on HN and social media) to broadcast his egregious views on the matter. Has he apologised? This is just one instance: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11043329 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11043329 Also, pasted from a different comment in this thread: https://twitter.com/tqbf/status/821766035401572352 https://twitter.com/tqbf/status/821766035401572352
  - dane-pgp 6y ago
    We all make mistakes, but his comments you link to do show a huge error in judgement. The intention of the US government to capture Assange has been well documented since 2010: > "It's certainly my belief, based on what the attorney general said, that they have already got an arrest warrant for him and they are just waiting for the appropriate moment in the appropriate country," Toobin said. [0] (I can't help but find it ironic that in a thread about trying to silence a whistleblower, your comment trying to hold someone accountable for their past mistakes is being voted down). [0] http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/12/01/sweden.interpol.assange/index.html http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/12/01/sweden.interp...
tome 6y ago
If you have some to hand, links to examples of this extensive collection would substantially increase the utility of your comment.
- blame_lewis 6y ago
  Googling for "julian assange paranoid" will give you some examples. I'm hesitant to point the finger at a specific example, because I wasn't thinking of one in particular.
- throwaway810 6y ago
  You don’t have to look too hard, though. Here’s one from 2017: https://twitter.com/SwiftOnSecurity/status/821475382905991169 https://twitter.com/SwiftOnSecurity/status/82147538290599116...
  - AndrewBissell 6y ago
    Some in the opsec community seem to have had particularly poor takes on the question of extradition: https://twitter.com/tqbf/status/821766035401572352 https://twitter.com/tqbf/status/821766035401572352
    - slim 6y ago
      most of the well known people among those guys have security clearances to be able to work with US gov. which means they are under obligation to report on a regular basis about the people they meet. which means we can say they are part of the "intelligence community" (or if we are less charitable we can call them snitches)
      - tome 6y ago
        > they are under obligation to report on a regular basis about the people they meet Intriguing. People with a security clearance are required to give intelligence reports about people they have contact with?
foldr 6y ago
>The argument from his opponents seems to have mostly shifted towards "yeah, but he deserves it". This is roughly true of me. My opinion shifted to "he deserves it" because there appears to be strong evidence that he committed a crime. Why should my opinion not change based on new information? (Is this something you are not open to? Do you intend to defend Assange whatever information about him comes to light?) That being said, if you read more carefully, what people were actually saying is that he was unlikely to be extradited to the US for leaking classified information, as it would be hard to prosecute someone in the US merely for doing that. But he is now charged with other crimes that are more clear cut.
- marcus_holmes 6y ago
  He's an Australian citizen who was in various countries while operating Wikileaks. What crime(s) did he commit? It's not a crime to break USA secrecy laws (or, in fact, any US laws) while not being a citizen or resident of the USA. With the caveat that the behaviour is not also illegal in whatever country the alleged perpetrator is actually a citizen/resident of.
  - foldr 6y ago
    One of the crime's he's charged with is hacking. What you are saying underlines my point. It was indeed unlikely that Assange would be extradited merely for leaking classified information, as it is difficult for even a US citizen to be successfully prosecuted for doing that. But he is being charged with other crimes.
    - marcus_holmes 6y ago
      I think you're missing the point of TFA. This is a show trial, not a legitimate extradition of a criminal. The fact that he's been charged with crimes doesn't make him guilty of them, and he, like everyone, deserves a fair hearing in court to determine that. The original charges against him would have resulted in a failed extradition (as the prosecution admit). So the US government changed the charges during the trial to "better" ones that were more likely to succeed. Without giving the defence any time to prepare a case defending against those new charges. This isn't justice. I'm ashamed as a UK citizen that we're not able to stand up to the USA and conduct an extradition hearing that is actually just. Especially since the USA refuses to extradite one of its citizens to the UK when charged with murder. I'm furious as an Australian citizen (I'm dual-national) that we're not fighting to prevent such gross injustice to one of our own citizens. The Aussie government has done nothing, said nothing, about any of it. It's pathetic and infuriating.

chippy 6y ago

Worth also highlighting that this "whole bunch of people" can still be found here on HN. Often they are still very frequent posters and very well known members of HN. Some, however have given "I didn't know" or "the situation changed" half-apologies since.

toyg 6y ago
> Some, however have given "I didn't know" or "the situation changed" half-apologies since. I hope some people will take this as their "Iraq" moment, where the mechanisms of consensus-building by propaganda are laid bare. This is how powerful interests work: they push people to take sides with selected (or no) information, and by the time the full picture emerges, it's too late.
- AndrewBissell 6y ago
  Anyone who bought the line that Assange didn't need to fear extradition probably will transition seamlessly from "the idea that Assange will be extradited if he leaves the embassy is a baseless conspiracy theory" to "well, he's accused of breaking the law, so it will be a good thing to extradite him to face trial in the U.S."
- Consultant32452 6y ago
  Have you noticed how no one who led us into the Iraq war, whether they be government, media, etc. has faced any consequence whatsoever? Even the few who have admitted a "mistake" talk about it as if it's a mistake like I forgot my wallet and not a mistake like I killed 100k+ people. The major red pills in approximate order are 1) I'm being misled systematically 2) I've been misled since school 3) They are fully aware of what they are doing 4) Given the choice, they would prefer me dead over defiant
  - AndrewBissell 6y ago
    5) They prefer you dead anyway, so might as well go with defiant
armitron 6y ago
I remember Thomas Ptacek (tptacek) being particularly vocal and unjustifiably venomous towards Assange. One could say he went out of his way (on HN and social media) to broadcast his egregious views on the matter. Has he apologised? This is just one instance: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11043329 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11043329 Also, pasted from a different comment in this thread: https://twitter.com/tqbf/status/821766035401572352 https://twitter.com/tqbf/status/821766035401572352
- dane-pgp 6y ago
  We all make mistakes, but his comments you link to do show a huge error in judgement. The intention of the US government to capture Assange has been well documented since 2010: > "It's certainly my belief, based on what the attorney general said, that they have already got an arrest warrant for him and they are just waiting for the appropriate moment in the appropriate country," Toobin said. [0] (I can't help but find it ironic that in a thread about trying to silence a whistleblower, your comment trying to hold someone accountable for their past mistakes is being voted down). [0] http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/12/01/sweden.interpol.assange/index.html http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/12/01/sweden.interp...

tome 6y ago

If you have some to hand, links to examples of this extensive collection would substantially increase the utility of your comment.

blame_lewis 6y ago
Googling for "julian assange paranoid" will give you some examples. I'm hesitant to point the finger at a specific example, because I wasn't thinking of one in particular.
throwaway810 6y ago
You don’t have to look too hard, though. Here’s one from 2017: https://twitter.com/SwiftOnSecurity/status/821475382905991169 https://twitter.com/SwiftOnSecurity/status/82147538290599116...
- AndrewBissell 6y ago
  Some in the opsec community seem to have had particularly poor takes on the question of extradition: https://twitter.com/tqbf/status/821766035401572352 https://twitter.com/tqbf/status/821766035401572352
  - slim 6y ago
    most of the well known people among those guys have security clearances to be able to work with US gov. which means they are under obligation to report on a regular basis about the people they meet. which means we can say they are part of the "intelligence community" (or if we are less charitable we can call them snitches)
    - tome 6y ago
      > they are under obligation to report on a regular basis about the people they meet Intriguing. People with a security clearance are required to give intelligence reports about people they have contact with?

foldr 6y ago

>The argument from his opponents seems to have mostly shifted towards "yeah, but he deserves it". This is roughly true of me. My opinion shifted to "he deserves it" because there appears to be strong evidence that he committed a crime. Why should my opinion not change based on new information? (Is this something you are not open to? Do you intend to defend Assange whatever information about him comes to light?) That being said, if you read more carefully, what people were actually saying is that he was unlikely to be extradited to the US for leaking classified information, as it would be hard to prosecute someone in the US merely for doing that. But he is now charged with other crimes that are more clear cut.

marcus_holmes 6y ago
He's an Australian citizen who was in various countries while operating Wikileaks. What crime(s) did he commit? It's not a crime to break USA secrecy laws (or, in fact, any US laws) while not being a citizen or resident of the USA. With the caveat that the behaviour is not also illegal in whatever country the alleged perpetrator is actually a citizen/resident of.
- foldr 6y ago
  One of the crime's he's charged with is hacking. What you are saying underlines my point. It was indeed unlikely that Assange would be extradited merely for leaking classified information, as it is difficult for even a US citizen to be successfully prosecuted for doing that. But he is being charged with other crimes.
  - marcus_holmes 6y ago
    I think you're missing the point of TFA. This is a show trial, not a legitimate extradition of a criminal. The fact that he's been charged with crimes doesn't make him guilty of them, and he, like everyone, deserves a fair hearing in court to determine that. The original charges against him would have resulted in a failed extradition (as the prosecution admit). So the US government changed the charges during the trial to "better" ones that were more likely to succeed. Without giving the defence any time to prepare a case defending against those new charges. This isn't justice. I'm ashamed as a UK citizen that we're not able to stand up to the USA and conduct an extradition hearing that is actually just. Especially since the USA refuses to extradite one of its citizens to the UK when charged with murder. I'm furious as an Australian citizen (I'm dual-national) that we're not fighting to prevent such gross injustice to one of our own citizens. The Aussie government has done nothing, said nothing, about any of it. It's pathetic and infuriating.