5 ms·

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,

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).
        vidarh 6y ago
        It's not an obvious answer at all, given that the most reasonable implication of biased behaviour by the judged during the extradition hearing would be if there is pressure from the US behind the scenes. As such, whether or not you agree that the judges behaviour actually is biased, if the judge is biased there is no reason to trust the US courts will be unbiased either.
- 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.

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).
        vidarh 6y ago
        It's not an obvious answer at all, given that the most reasonable implication of biased behaviour by the judged during the extradition hearing would be if there is pressure from the US behind the scenes. As such, whether or not you agree that the judges behaviour actually is biased, if the judge is biased there is no reason to trust the US courts will be unbiased either.
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.