6 ms·

> 17 out of the 18 charges that Julian Assange has been indicted for are for espionage. Espionage is the quintessential, textbook example of a political offence

> 17 out of the 18 charges that Julian Assange has been indicted for are for espionage. Espionage is the quintessential, textbook example of a political offence Could someone explain this to me? It seems to me ridiculous to claim espionage is a textbook example of a political offence.

onli 6y ago
Espionage is often used like that. It's the charge North Korea, China and Iran use to imprison European or US-tourists and journalists.
dpwm 6y ago
Espionage is a crime against the state. Just like treason or terrorism, the very definition of the crime and its interpretation is by the entity that claims to have been wronged. Crimes against the state are widely abused by despots for silencing political dissidents.
shoo 6y ago
> political crime or political offence is an offence involving overt acts or omissions, which prejudice the interests of the state, its government, or the political system > States will define as political crimes any behaviour perceived as a threat, real or imagined, to the state's survival, including both violent and non-violent oppositional crimes. A consequence of such criminalisation may be that a range of human rights, civil rights, and freedoms are curtailed, and conduct which would not normally be considered criminal per se (in other words, that is not antisocial according to those who engage in it) is criminalised at the convenience of the group holding power. > At one extreme, crimes such as treason, sedition, and terrorism are political because they represent a direct challenge to the government in power. Espionage is usually considered a political crime. But offenders do not have to aim to overthrow the government or to depose its leaders to be acting in a way perceived as "political". A state may perceive it threatening if individuals advocate change to the established order, or argue the need for reform of long-established policies, or engage in acts signifying some degree of disloyalty, e.g. by burning the nation's flag in public. > Because a political offender may be fighting against a tyrannical government, treaties have usually specified that a person cannot be extradited for a political offense. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_crime https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_crime
implements 6y ago
Q: If someone robs a bank to get money to fund terrorism then does that crime become a political offence, and should that person be immune from extradition? Q: If someone attacks a politician is that crime political and not extraditable? Does it matter which politician? My point is that it’s a horrible slippery slope and political partisanship is unavoidable. Colonel Alexander Vindman blew the whistle both lawfully and in a morally correct way - Assange didn’t.
- phyalow 6y ago
  Q: If the New York Times publishes leaked classified information should the editor of the New York Times be charged with espionage?
- dpwm 6y ago
  > Q: If someone robs a bank to get money to fund terrorism then does that crime become a political offence, and should that person be immune from extradition? Robbing a bank is a crime against the bank. You can be extradited for that. There may be an additional political charge. > Q: If someone attacks a politician is that crime political and not extraditable? Does it matter which politician? That is a crime against the person. You can be extradited for that. There may also be a political charge. We are talking here about extradition for purely political crimes – because they can be and are often completely made up. You may be interested in checking some of your assumptions about the nature of the case and revisiting your opinion. I did, and I found that a lot of what I "knew" about this case was wrong. Specifically, from RSF (Reporters without Borders): > Crucially, the prosecution - for the US government - failed to produce any evidence of actual physical harm caused to anyone as the result of Wikileaks’ publication of leaked documents, severely undermining their claim that Assange knowingly put sources at risk. Testimony from Khaled El-Masri argued that to the contrary, the information published by Wikileaks exposed the atrocities to which he was subjected and has served as important evidence in his pursuit of justice. [0] From the same article: > Journalist John Goetz testified that Wikileaks had republished the unredacted diplomatic cables, which had been published in the first instance by website Cryptome and a number of media outlets. None of these outlets have faced adverse legal consequences for publishing the documents - only Wikileaks. A statement read into the record by Cryptome founder John Young confirmed that the unredacted files remain on the website to this day, and that Cryptome has never been approached by US law enforcement suggesting their publication was illegal. Then we have the deliberate stifling of access to the hearing: > However, at the start of proceedings on 7 September, RSF received a further communication from the court, stating: “The judge has regretfully decided not to grant requests for members of the public to attend the Julian Assange hearing via CVP...she is concerned about her ability to maintain the integrity of the court if members of the public are able to attend the hearing remotely.” On 8 September, Vincent nonetheless attempted to access the CVP via the link that had been provided, and was admitted to the waiting room before being removed and unable to log in again. Amnesty International and other NGOs also reported having their access revoked, along with a number of political observers. [0] https://rsf.org/en/news/usuk-julian-assanges-extradition-hearing-marred-barriers-open-justice https://rsf.org/en/news/usuk-julian-assanges-extradition-hea...
DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
Extradition treaties generally have an exemption for "political offenses," which in this context has historically meant crimes against the state, such as espionage, treason, sedition and rebellion. Even acts that would normally be criminal can be exempt from extradition if they were carried out as part of a larger political crime (like rebellion). These sorts of exemptions date all the way back to the mid-1800s, and are standard, in my limited understanding. The US-UK extradition treaty goes even further and states that extradition will not be granted when the charges are politically motivated: > extradition shall not be granted if the competent authority of the Requested State determines that the request was politically motivated I don't think anyone can deny with a straight face that the prosecution of Assange is politically motivated. 1. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/extradition-treaty-between-the-uk-and-the-usa-with-exchange-of-notes https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/extradition-treat...

onli 6y ago

Espionage is often used like that. It's the charge North Korea, China and Iran use to imprison European or US-tourists and journalists.

dpwm 6y ago

Espionage is a crime against the state. Just like treason or terrorism, the very definition of the crime and its interpretation is by the entity that claims to have been wronged. Crimes against the state are widely abused by despots for silencing political dissidents.

shoo 6y ago

> political crime or political offence is an offence involving overt acts or omissions, which prejudice the interests of the state, its government, or the political system > States will define as political crimes any behaviour perceived as a threat, real or imagined, to the state's survival, including both violent and non-violent oppositional crimes. A consequence of such criminalisation may be that a range of human rights, civil rights, and freedoms are curtailed, and conduct which would not normally be considered criminal per se (in other words, that is not antisocial according to those who engage in it) is criminalised at the convenience of the group holding power. > At one extreme, crimes such as treason, sedition, and terrorism are political because they represent a direct challenge to the government in power. Espionage is usually considered a political crime. But offenders do not have to aim to overthrow the government or to depose its leaders to be acting in a way perceived as "political". A state may perceive it threatening if individuals advocate change to the established order, or argue the need for reform of long-established policies, or engage in acts signifying some degree of disloyalty, e.g. by burning the nation's flag in public. > Because a political offender may be fighting against a tyrannical government, treaties have usually specified that a person cannot be extradited for a political offense. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_crime https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_crime

implements 6y ago

Q: If someone robs a bank to get money to fund terrorism then does that crime become a political offence, and should that person be immune from extradition? Q: If someone attacks a politician is that crime political and not extraditable? Does it matter which politician? My point is that it’s a horrible slippery slope and political partisanship is unavoidable. Colonel Alexander Vindman blew the whistle both lawfully and in a morally correct way - Assange didn’t.

phyalow 6y ago
Q: If the New York Times publishes leaked classified information should the editor of the New York Times be charged with espionage?
dpwm 6y ago
> Q: If someone robs a bank to get money to fund terrorism then does that crime become a political offence, and should that person be immune from extradition? Robbing a bank is a crime against the bank. You can be extradited for that. There may be an additional political charge. > Q: If someone attacks a politician is that crime political and not extraditable? Does it matter which politician? That is a crime against the person. You can be extradited for that. There may also be a political charge. We are talking here about extradition for purely political crimes – because they can be and are often completely made up. You may be interested in checking some of your assumptions about the nature of the case and revisiting your opinion. I did, and I found that a lot of what I "knew" about this case was wrong. Specifically, from RSF (Reporters without Borders): > Crucially, the prosecution - for the US government - failed to produce any evidence of actual physical harm caused to anyone as the result of Wikileaks’ publication of leaked documents, severely undermining their claim that Assange knowingly put sources at risk. Testimony from Khaled El-Masri argued that to the contrary, the information published by Wikileaks exposed the atrocities to which he was subjected and has served as important evidence in his pursuit of justice. [0] From the same article: > Journalist John Goetz testified that Wikileaks had republished the unredacted diplomatic cables, which had been published in the first instance by website Cryptome and a number of media outlets. None of these outlets have faced adverse legal consequences for publishing the documents - only Wikileaks. A statement read into the record by Cryptome founder John Young confirmed that the unredacted files remain on the website to this day, and that Cryptome has never been approached by US law enforcement suggesting their publication was illegal. Then we have the deliberate stifling of access to the hearing: > However, at the start of proceedings on 7 September, RSF received a further communication from the court, stating: “The judge has regretfully decided not to grant requests for members of the public to attend the Julian Assange hearing via CVP...she is concerned about her ability to maintain the integrity of the court if members of the public are able to attend the hearing remotely.” On 8 September, Vincent nonetheless attempted to access the CVP via the link that had been provided, and was admitted to the waiting room before being removed and unable to log in again. Amnesty International and other NGOs also reported having their access revoked, along with a number of political observers. [0] https://rsf.org/en/news/usuk-julian-assanges-extradition-hearing-marred-barriers-open-justice https://rsf.org/en/news/usuk-julian-assanges-extradition-hea...

DiogenesKynikos 6y ago

Extradition treaties generally have an exemption for "political offenses," which in this context has historically meant crimes against the state, such as espionage, treason, sedition and rebellion. Even acts that would normally be criminal can be exempt from extradition if they were carried out as part of a larger political crime (like rebellion). These sorts of exemptions date all the way back to the mid-1800s, and are standard, in my limited understanding. The US-UK extradition treaty goes even further and states that extradition will not be granted when the charges are politically motivated: > extradition shall not be granted if the competent authority of the Requested State determines that the request was politically motivated I don't think anyone can deny with a straight face that the prosecution of Assange is politically motivated. 1. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/extradition-treaty-between-the-uk-and-the-usa-with-exchange-of-notes https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/extradition-treat...