3 ms·

>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 deserve

by 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.
    - foldr 6y ago
      It seems to me quite likely that he is guilty of the hacking charges (though I am open minded on this point). For it to be a show trial there would have to be no realistic possibility of the jury finding him not guilty. I don't see why that should be the case.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - marcus_holmes 6y ago
        well, for a start there's no jury. A magistrate, who is already clearly showing bias and a tendency to read verdicts from a laptop rather than actually decide them, is the sole arbiter of whether he gets extradited or not.
        foldr 6y ago
        I am talking about the trial following his (probable) extradition. If you'll forgive a little semantic pedantry, an extradition hearing is neither a trial nor (in the UK) a proceeding that's televized, so it would be quite a stretch to describe an extradition hearing as a 'show trial'.
        vidarh 6y ago
        Why should we trust he will get a fair hearing at the actual trial if he's not even getting a fair hearing at the extradition hearing?
        foldr 6y ago
        I don't agree with your premise. But the obvious answer would be that the the trial will take place in another country under a different legal system involving none of the same people (except Assange himself).
        6y ago
  - btilly 6y ago
    He is charged with hacking for receiving a hashed password and failing to successfully crack it. There is absolutely no way that this would be pursued if it were not for his running Wikileaks. This is a clear case of using selective enforcement to enforce a rule that could not be created on a law. (Given the first amendment, what he did that we really don't like is very squarely protected by the Constitution.)
    - foldr 6y ago
      All laws are selectively enforced. I think the more interesting question is whether he's guilty. I don't know. But if he did it, it's pretty clearly illegal, and it's reasonable to charge him. Note that it's completely irrelevant that he failed to crack the password. Failure to successfully carry out a crime to completion just means that you're incompetent, not that you're innocent.
      - btilly 6y ago
        The only evidence we have that he is guilty is what is claimed to be an intercepted IM. Were I on a jury, I would refuse to convict because I would consider there to be a reasonable doubt that the IM was real and not invented by the government to make their case.
        foldr 6y ago
        Oh, do you have a friend on the prosecution team who’s presented the entire prosecution case to you before the trial? Or do you mean that that’s the only evidence that’s publicly known at the moment?
        btilly 6y ago
        That's the only evidence that's publicly known at the moment. And, given the extraordinary lengths that the USA has gone to to persecute Assange, it would take a high bar before I'd believe the government at this point. What Assange is actually guilty of is running Wikileaks with the explicit purpose of making it hard for interest groups within the government to conduct "business as usual" against the interests of both the world and the American public. On the positive side, Wikileaks helped convince the USA to get out of Iraq, and helped cause the Arab Spring uprisings that removed several dictatorships. On the downside, Wikileaks has become a pawn used by foreign espionage groups attempting to manipulate the US public. See the DNC email dumps which appear to be the work of Russian hackers attempting to manipulate the US election. Go ahead and charge him with what he actually did, and convince the world that on the balance it does more harm than good. But don't manipulate governments around the world to pursue him by dishonest means.
colejohnson66 6y ago
Now, before people crucify me for saying what’s ahead, I want to make it clear that I do not support the Espionage Act; it is a terrible attack on our Freedom of Speech and the Press. However, I am simply refuting a point using the law as it stands today. Also, IANAL. > 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. The Espionage Act of 1917[0] covers that situation quite well. It’s what all whistleblowers are charged with. We’ve even put a few people in prison for it, and the Supreme Court upheld its constitutionality in two cases in 1919[1][2]. Snowden is wanted for it. As for how it covers this situation, the text of the act[3§1] says: > That (a) whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States, or [...] It does list other reasons such as aiding the enemy, but I feel that this part is what the prosecution would argue. Now, would the US have jurisdiction to even argue this as the crime happened outside the US? That I do not know, but I have a feeling the courts would say they do as the crime was against the (federal) state. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917 [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debs_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debs_v._United_States [3]: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_States_Statutes_at_Large/Volume_40/65th_Congress/1st_Session/Chapter_30 https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_States_Statutes_at_Lar...
- foldr 6y ago
  Yes fair enough. I'm not trying to offer a legal opinion, just noting that there is some precedent for journalistic privilege in releasing such information (e.g. the Pentagon papers).
  - colejohnson66 6y ago
    That is actually a very valid argument/question: Is Assange (through WikiLeaks) “press”? I feel that he is, but the US is claiming he aided Manning in hacking; In that case, he (Assange) isn’t innocent (whether it’s true or not is a different question).
nix23 6y ago
>leaking classified information The problem is, he is NOT a US-Citizen, by that fact he cannot be a traitor. A Agent? No because he did not acquired that information, by that actual definition every country and every press outlet is a agent. So what has he done? MAYBE endanger the life of US Citizens, which is really not important since he is NOT a US-Citizen.
- foldr 6y ago
  Did you read the second paragraph of my post at all? I agree with you.
raxxorrax 6y ago
Do you have taken any consequences for the narrative spun around the Iraq war? That cost hundreds of thousands of lives. Assange didn't kill anyone just for your information and claiming ignorance can only get you so far before it becomes a lie.

by foldr 6y ago

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.
  - foldr 6y ago
    It seems to me quite likely that he is guilty of the hacking charges (though I am open minded on this point). For it to be a show trial there would have to be no realistic possibility of the jury finding him not guilty. I don't see why that should be the case.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - marcus_holmes 6y ago
      well, for a start there's no jury. A magistrate, who is already clearly showing bias and a tendency to read verdicts from a laptop rather than actually decide them, is the sole arbiter of whether he gets extradited or not.
      - foldr 6y ago
        I am talking about the trial following his (probable) extradition. If you'll forgive a little semantic pedantry, an extradition hearing is neither a trial nor (in the UK) a proceeding that's televized, so it would be quite a stretch to describe an extradition hearing as a 'show trial'.
        vidarh 6y ago
        Why should we trust he will get a fair hearing at the actual trial if he's not even getting a fair hearing at the extradition hearing?
        foldr 6y ago
        I don't agree with your premise. But the obvious answer would be that the the trial will take place in another country under a different legal system involving none of the same people (except Assange himself).
        6y ago
- btilly 6y ago
  He is charged with hacking for receiving a hashed password and failing to successfully crack it. There is absolutely no way that this would be pursued if it were not for his running Wikileaks. This is a clear case of using selective enforcement to enforce a rule that could not be created on a law. (Given the first amendment, what he did that we really don't like is very squarely protected by the Constitution.)
  - foldr 6y ago
    All laws are selectively enforced. I think the more interesting question is whether he's guilty. I don't know. But if he did it, it's pretty clearly illegal, and it's reasonable to charge him. Note that it's completely irrelevant that he failed to crack the password. Failure to successfully carry out a crime to completion just means that you're incompetent, not that you're innocent.
    - btilly 6y ago
      The only evidence we have that he is guilty is what is claimed to be an intercepted IM. Were I on a jury, I would refuse to convict because I would consider there to be a reasonable doubt that the IM was real and not invented by the government to make their case.
      - foldr 6y ago
        Oh, do you have a friend on the prosecution team who’s presented the entire prosecution case to you before the trial? Or do you mean that that’s the only evidence that’s publicly known at the moment?
        btilly 6y ago
        That's the only evidence that's publicly known at the moment. And, given the extraordinary lengths that the USA has gone to to persecute Assange, it would take a high bar before I'd believe the government at this point. What Assange is actually guilty of is running Wikileaks with the explicit purpose of making it hard for interest groups within the government to conduct "business as usual" against the interests of both the world and the American public. On the positive side, Wikileaks helped convince the USA to get out of Iraq, and helped cause the Arab Spring uprisings that removed several dictatorships. On the downside, Wikileaks has become a pawn used by foreign espionage groups attempting to manipulate the US public. See the DNC email dumps which appear to be the work of Russian hackers attempting to manipulate the US election. Go ahead and charge him with what he actually did, and convince the world that on the balance it does more harm than good. But don't manipulate governments around the world to pursue him by dishonest means.

colejohnson66 6y ago

Now, before people crucify me for saying what’s ahead, I want to make it clear that I do not support the Espionage Act; it is a terrible attack on our Freedom of Speech and the Press. However, I am simply refuting a point using the law as it stands today. Also, IANAL. > 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. The Espionage Act of 1917[0] covers that situation quite well. It’s what all whistleblowers are charged with. We’ve even put a few people in prison for it, and the Supreme Court upheld its constitutionality in two cases in 1919[1][2]. Snowden is wanted for it. As for how it covers this situation, the text of the act[3§1] says: > That (a) whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States, or [...] It does list other reasons such as aiding the enemy, but I feel that this part is what the prosecution would argue. Now, would the US have jurisdiction to even argue this as the crime happened outside the US? That I do not know, but I have a feeling the courts would say they do as the crime was against the (federal) state. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917 [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debs_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debs_v._United_States [3]: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_States_Statutes_at_Large/Volume_40/65th_Congress/1st_Session/Chapter_30 https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_States_Statutes_at_Lar...

foldr 6y ago
Yes fair enough. I'm not trying to offer a legal opinion, just noting that there is some precedent for journalistic privilege in releasing such information (e.g. the Pentagon papers).
- colejohnson66 6y ago
  That is actually a very valid argument/question: Is Assange (through WikiLeaks) “press”? I feel that he is, but the US is claiming he aided Manning in hacking; In that case, he (Assange) isn’t innocent (whether it’s true or not is a different question).

nix23 6y ago

>leaking classified information The problem is, he is NOT a US-Citizen, by that fact he cannot be a traitor. A Agent? No because he did not acquired that information, by that actual definition every country and every press outlet is a agent. So what has he done? MAYBE endanger the life of US Citizens, which is really not important since he is NOT a US-Citizen.

foldr 6y ago
Did you read the second paragraph of my post at all? I agree with you.

raxxorrax 6y ago

Do you have taken any consequences for the narrative spun around the Iraq war? That cost hundreds of thousands of lives. Assange didn't kill anyone just for your information and claiming ignorance can only get you so far before it becomes a lie.