10 ms·

What happens when the US government's whole case against Assange collapses? Presumably they will find another unreliable witness to lie for them? It's incredib

by lhnz 5y ago

What happens when the US government's whole case against Assange collapses? Presumably they will find another unreliable witness to lie for them? It's incredibly worrying that this he has been trapped in this situation for so many years, with the prosecution seemingly having the upper hand despite supporting their case with lies.

supergirl 5y ago
the CIA probably has a deck of "witnesses". I bet next theme of accusations will be something related to Russia
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> What happens when the US government's whole case against Assange collapses? He walks a free man. Problematic as the American justice system is, Assange’s isolation was a function of his fugitive status. Nothing about U.S. detention per se. It’s high time, either way, for both sides to be heard in court.
- thaumasiotes 5y ago
  > It’s high time, either way, for both sides to be heard in court. This is one of those positions that is designed to sound reasonable by appealing to "the middle ground" for its own sake. It's not time for both sides to be heard in court. It never was. To bring someone into court, you need to make the case that they did something wrong first.
  - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
    > To bring someone into court, you need to make the case that they did something wrong first I’m not a fan of our espionage laws. But they are, indisputably, laws. There has been a lot of evaluation of the questions of jurisdiction and standing. Barring wild, new evidence, I don’t see good reason to question that string of precedence.
    - pydry 5y ago
      It is a little awkward that your "espionage" laws give free reign to the state to punish journalists in a different country for doing journalism. The laws that do this are indisputably laws, as you say.
      - jimkleiber 5y ago
        As far as I understood what was happening is that he may have broken the law by how he got the information, not by releasing the info. I think the accusation is that he essentially encouraged someone to hack into computers, which sounds similar to encouraging someone to break into someone's home or office, to retrieve info. I haven't followed the case too closely so maybe I'm wrong on that. But if that's what they're accusing him of doing, I struggle to see how that's just doing journalism. Maybe journalistic methods to extract info aren't so black and white and some do similar things and yet I imagine there is a line where that info gathering becomes illegal.
        boomboomsubban 5y ago
        > I think the accusation is that he essentially encouraged someone to hack into computers, which sounds similar to encouraging someone to break into someone's home or office, to retrieve info. He told Manning "curious eyes never run dry," but more importantly that is one of the eighteen charges he faces. The others are all for publishing classified documents. If he only faced that one charge, I'd still disagree that it matters but I would understand your point of view. As is, they're using that charge to justify an attack on the free press.
        pydry 5y ago
        No, he broke the espionage law by releasing the info. It is ludicrously broad. It's the same reason Snowden refuses to come home. He's repeatedly promised to come home if they tighten the definition of the espionage to include, y'know, just espionage. Congress refuses.
        jimkleiber 5y ago
  - jimkleiber 5y ago
    AFAIK, in the US, the government can bring criminal trials based on indictments either by prosecutorial discretion or by grand jury, both of which require a belief that there is enough evidence to convict but neither having to prove the guilt before the case. I'm not sure what counts in the Assange case as it relates to someone outside of the US, however I believe many people have been tried in US courts for hacking into American companies from overseas. I don't believe one has to physically be in the US to break American laws and be tried for them, just as a company doesn't have to be in Europe to violate GDPR.
    - himinlomax 5y ago
      > just as a company doesn't have to be in Europe to violate GDPR. What a fallacious comparison.
      - jimkleiber 5y ago
        I'm confused why you see it as fallacious. My logic was comparing the jurisdiction to charge a person for a crime they committed digitally upon a geographic region without having to be in that geographic region. Could you say more why you see it as a fallacious comparison?
        himinlomax 5y ago
        GDPR fines companies that operate in the EU. If you don't operate in the EU, you don't have to comply. The only penalty possible in that case is that your operations that are in the EU will be fined. You won't be deported, and also it applies to corporations, not individuals.
        jimkleiber 5y ago
        I think the analogy is still apt for having laws that charge someone outside of one's geographic region or citizenship. I do agree with you that the analogy does not go much further than that, as GDPR is not for individuals, does not have incarceration as a punishment, and does not have extradition to seek that punishment. I guess my analogy was specifically targeting whether one government could have a law governing someone's behavior outside of that region, because I was responding to the assumption that he hasn't done anything wrong, and I think in regard to the current laws of the US government, he may have.
- himinlomax 5y ago
  His current isolation has nothing to do with being a fugitive and everything to do with the US extradition request.
- boomboomsubban 5y ago
  >It’s high time, either way, for both sides to be heard in court. As most of the charges against Assange are related to espionage, it's very likely he will not even be presented an opportunity to defend himself in court, like what happened with Ellsberg. It's nice to think that the courts might ultimately make a fair ruling, but the amount of government misconduct means that will never happen. They've already compromised the attorney-client privlage, a fair case is already impossible.
- pnt12 5y ago
  This travesty of a case prooves that his reasons for fleeing were entirely valid. In an unjust system, it's naive to say he should just face the courts and there will be justice.

by lhnz 5y ago

supergirl 5y ago

the CIA probably has a deck of "witnesses". I bet next theme of accusations will be something related to Russia

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

JumpCrisscross 5y ago

> What happens when the US government's whole case against Assange collapses? He walks a free man. Problematic as the American justice system is, Assange’s isolation was a function of his fugitive status. Nothing about U.S. detention per se. It’s high time, either way, for both sides to be heard in court.

thaumasiotes 5y ago
> It’s high time, either way, for both sides to be heard in court. This is one of those positions that is designed to sound reasonable by appealing to "the middle ground" for its own sake. It's not time for both sides to be heard in court. It never was. To bring someone into court, you need to make the case that they did something wrong first.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > To bring someone into court, you need to make the case that they did something wrong first I’m not a fan of our espionage laws. But they are, indisputably, laws. There has been a lot of evaluation of the questions of jurisdiction and standing. Barring wild, new evidence, I don’t see good reason to question that string of precedence.
  - pydry 5y ago
    It is a little awkward that your "espionage" laws give free reign to the state to punish journalists in a different country for doing journalism. The laws that do this are indisputably laws, as you say.
    - jimkleiber 5y ago
      As far as I understood what was happening is that he may have broken the law by how he got the information, not by releasing the info. I think the accusation is that he essentially encouraged someone to hack into computers, which sounds similar to encouraging someone to break into someone's home or office, to retrieve info. I haven't followed the case too closely so maybe I'm wrong on that. But if that's what they're accusing him of doing, I struggle to see how that's just doing journalism. Maybe journalistic methods to extract info aren't so black and white and some do similar things and yet I imagine there is a line where that info gathering becomes illegal.
      - boomboomsubban 5y ago
        > I think the accusation is that he essentially encouraged someone to hack into computers, which sounds similar to encouraging someone to break into someone's home or office, to retrieve info. He told Manning "curious eyes never run dry," but more importantly that is one of the eighteen charges he faces. The others are all for publishing classified documents. If he only faced that one charge, I'd still disagree that it matters but I would understand your point of view. As is, they're using that charge to justify an attack on the free press.
      - pydry 5y ago
        No, he broke the espionage law by releasing the info. It is ludicrously broad. It's the same reason Snowden refuses to come home. He's repeatedly promised to come home if they tighten the definition of the espionage to include, y'know, just espionage. Congress refuses.
        jimkleiber 5y ago
- jimkleiber 5y ago
  AFAIK, in the US, the government can bring criminal trials based on indictments either by prosecutorial discretion or by grand jury, both of which require a belief that there is enough evidence to convict but neither having to prove the guilt before the case. I'm not sure what counts in the Assange case as it relates to someone outside of the US, however I believe many people have been tried in US courts for hacking into American companies from overseas. I don't believe one has to physically be in the US to break American laws and be tried for them, just as a company doesn't have to be in Europe to violate GDPR.
  - himinlomax 5y ago
    > just as a company doesn't have to be in Europe to violate GDPR. What a fallacious comparison.
    - jimkleiber 5y ago
      I'm confused why you see it as fallacious. My logic was comparing the jurisdiction to charge a person for a crime they committed digitally upon a geographic region without having to be in that geographic region. Could you say more why you see it as a fallacious comparison?
      - himinlomax 5y ago
        GDPR fines companies that operate in the EU. If you don't operate in the EU, you don't have to comply. The only penalty possible in that case is that your operations that are in the EU will be fined. You won't be deported, and also it applies to corporations, not individuals.
        jimkleiber 5y ago
        I think the analogy is still apt for having laws that charge someone outside of one's geographic region or citizenship. I do agree with you that the analogy does not go much further than that, as GDPR is not for individuals, does not have incarceration as a punishment, and does not have extradition to seek that punishment. I guess my analogy was specifically targeting whether one government could have a law governing someone's behavior outside of that region, because I was responding to the assumption that he hasn't done anything wrong, and I think in regard to the current laws of the US government, he may have.
himinlomax 5y ago
His current isolation has nothing to do with being a fugitive and everything to do with the US extradition request.
boomboomsubban 5y ago
>It’s high time, either way, for both sides to be heard in court. As most of the charges against Assange are related to espionage, it's very likely he will not even be presented an opportunity to defend himself in court, like what happened with Ellsberg. It's nice to think that the courts might ultimately make a fair ruling, but the amount of government misconduct means that will never happen. They've already compromised the attorney-client privlage, a fair case is already impossible.
pnt12 5y ago
This travesty of a case prooves that his reasons for fleeing were entirely valid. In an unjust system, it's naive to say he should just face the courts and there will be justice.