7 ms·

OK this is the case about whether he committed sexual assault in Sweden - which may be exaggerated or fake is just to extradite him to the US. There is no doub

by zz865 5y ago

OK this is the case about whether he committed sexual assault in Sweden - which may be exaggerated or fake is just to extradite him to the US. There is no doubt that he really is guilty of leaking US secrets.

dragonwriter 5y ago
> OK this is the case about whether he committed sexual assault in Sweden No, this is a witness whose testimony is related to late additions to the US charges.
nkrisc 5y ago
> There is no doubt that he really is guilty of leaking US secrets. That’s for a court to decide. It’s why we have trials: to determine if someone is guilty or not.
- rileymat2 5y ago
  I find the jurisdictional issues interesting as well. He is not a U.S. citizen, he was not in the United States. Obviously, I would propose that someone who hacks U.S. interests having never set foot in the United States should be held accountable by U.S. courts, but he was even on the fringe of that in the promotion of it.
  - lostlogin 5y ago
    > Obviously, I would propose that someone who hacks U.S. interests having never set foot in the United States should be held accountable by U.S. courts. I don’t necessarily disagree, but where this gets difficult is the inverse. When a US citizen commits a crime in a foreign country, will the US let the their citizen be tried outside the US?
    - ComputerGuru 5y ago
      > When a US citizen commits a crime in a foreign country, will the US let the their citizen be tried outside the US? If they’re just another Joe Schmoe, they’ll be hung to dry. If they have connections, they not only won’t be extradited, they’ll be smuggled out of the country they committed bald-faced murder in to turn it into a question of extradition when it was not. (Look up Anne Sacoolas.)
      - lostlogin 5y ago
        > Anne Sacoolas This was front and centre of my thinking, along with some of the war-crimes scenarios that have played out.
guilhas 5y ago
He is guilty of demonstrating USA government/military were complicit in committing and covering crimes Is that the government we want? Expert in killing and hiding the body? Because it might backfire
pydry 5y ago
Usually that's called journalism.
rafale 5y ago
> There is no doubt that he really is guilty of leaking US secrets. How is it different from the Washington Post leaking the Pentagon papers? Honest question, not snarky.
- ChrisKnott 5y ago
  I don't think they actually published the papers, they just wrote stories using the papers as the source. Assange is also accused of assisting his source in attempting (unsuccessfully) to crack a password hash, thereby (the prosecution alleges) taking on more the Daniel Ellsberg role rather than the Washington Post role. Not commenting on the appropriateness or not of prosecuting Assange, but the situations have significant differences.
  - himinlomax 5y ago
    > I don't think they actually published the papers, they just wrote stories using the papers as the source. "The New York Times began publishing excerpts on June 13, 1971" -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers#Leak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers#Leak
  - ZoomerCretin 5y ago
    He assisted his source in a failed attempt to crack a password hash? This is the "significant difference" you think makes him worthy of prosecution? He was a journalist exposing war crimes. He is not a US citizen and is not subject to US laws. If China extended their ban on youths playing video games for more than a few hours in a week to the world, you would probably have a problem with them forcing authorities in a country you're vacationing in to arrest your children and extradite them to China.
    - ChrisKnott 5y ago
      > This is the "significant difference" Yes, one of them, the other being that he published the full documents and not just stories using them as a source. > you think makes him worthy of prosecution It was so obvious I would get downvoted by Assange stans for answering the GP's question, that I literally preemptively stated I wasn't saying this. Wasn't enough apparently.
GeekyBear 5y ago
> There is no doubt that he really is guilty of leaking US secrets. He did no such thing. He published secrets somebody else leaked. Just like journalists have done for decades.
- SavantIdiot 5y ago
  He had secrets A0...An, and B0...Bn. A0...An were for political candidate A. B0...Bn were for opposing political candidate B. Political candidate B in conjunction with an aligned foreign country paid him to publish only the material on A. Some elements of A were false and constructed by Candidate B to smear Candidate A. He knew this. He chose sides, while simultaneously claiming he is neutral. I have not judged, I have only stated the facts. EDIT: We also do not know how both sets of secrets were acquired. There are claims he was involved with the exfiltration, a statement that has not been proven or disproven yet since there has been no trial. EDIT #2: He also has at least one motivation to help Candidate B as Candidate A has stated a desire to prosecute him heavily.
  - TeeMassive 5y ago
    > He chose sides, while simultaneously claiming he is neutral. Which is not a crime.
    - RugnirViking 5y ago
      Exactly. If what Assange did was a crime, the New York times commits the same crime every couple of months. This "New York times problem" was shown to be a frequent point of internal discussion in the recent leaks regarding the US plans for kidnapping Assange
  - sva_ 5y ago
    > Political candidate B in conjunction with an aligned foreign country paid him to publish only the material on A. Could you provide a source on those claims?
    - 5y ago
chuckee 5y ago
> There is no doubt that he really is guilty of leaking US secrets. Lets say he is. He is not a US citizen, and he didn't do the leaking on US soil - what duty does he have to keep US secrets secret? In fact, without a confidentiality agreement, I think even US citizens are allowed to leak them. Something to do with the 1st amendment. If you published secret information given to you by a Russian dissident, would you expect to be extradited to Russia? Even if you had encouraged/helped that dissident?
- mike_d 5y ago
  While he was not a US citizen, he is involved in a crime committed in the US. Just like if an American had hired an art thief to steal a painting from a European gallery. The legal concept of extraterritorial jurisdiction is extremely complex and nuanced, but primarily falls upon the diplomatic power of the country that believes you broke their laws. (If you find this interesting you might enjoy reading about US v. Van Der End, in which a Dutch smuggler was arrested and charged in the US for sailing drugs to Canada) However all of this is moot because he made the mistake of traveling to the UK and is currently being held by the British. In addition to leaking US secrets he also leaked GCHQ secrets and can be charged under the Official Secrets Act if extradition fails.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
  If the US believes that he has a duty, and the US has the power and will to enforce that belief, then for all practical purposes, he does have that duty. That's all duties are, really. What gives the US the power to enforce their views here are a combination of many different factors. The fact the crime in question was committed against the US and in the US (even if Assange was not physically located in the US, the crime happened here, and Assange is accused of being an accessory to that crime). The fact that Assange is physically located in the territory of a close ally of the US. The fact that that ally has no particular love of Assange either. And many other smaller things.
pvaldes 5y ago
> There is no doubt that he really is guilty of leaking US secrets. The problem is that illegal activites and blatant murder are being protected under the concept of "secrets". We are not talking about leaking plans to made a nuclear bomb here or trademark secrets. We are talking about proofs of obstruction to justice and violation of international laws by part of US. If a senator would be caught red-handed importing and selling cocaine, could just shout "but, but, this was a secret!! to the police?". Probably not.

by zz865 5y ago

dragonwriter 5y ago

> OK this is the case about whether he committed sexual assault in Sweden No, this is a witness whose testimony is related to late additions to the US charges.

nkrisc 5y ago

> There is no doubt that he really is guilty of leaking US secrets. That’s for a court to decide. It’s why we have trials: to determine if someone is guilty or not.

rileymat2 5y ago
I find the jurisdictional issues interesting as well. He is not a U.S. citizen, he was not in the United States. Obviously, I would propose that someone who hacks U.S. interests having never set foot in the United States should be held accountable by U.S. courts, but he was even on the fringe of that in the promotion of it.
- lostlogin 5y ago
  > Obviously, I would propose that someone who hacks U.S. interests having never set foot in the United States should be held accountable by U.S. courts. I don’t necessarily disagree, but where this gets difficult is the inverse. When a US citizen commits a crime in a foreign country, will the US let the their citizen be tried outside the US?
  - ComputerGuru 5y ago
    > When a US citizen commits a crime in a foreign country, will the US let the their citizen be tried outside the US? If they’re just another Joe Schmoe, they’ll be hung to dry. If they have connections, they not only won’t be extradited, they’ll be smuggled out of the country they committed bald-faced murder in to turn it into a question of extradition when it was not. (Look up Anne Sacoolas.)
    - lostlogin 5y ago
      > Anne Sacoolas This was front and centre of my thinking, along with some of the war-crimes scenarios that have played out.

guilhas 5y ago

He is guilty of demonstrating USA government/military were complicit in committing and covering crimes Is that the government we want? Expert in killing and hiding the body? Because it might backfire

pydry 5y ago

Usually that's called journalism.

rafale 5y ago

> There is no doubt that he really is guilty of leaking US secrets. How is it different from the Washington Post leaking the Pentagon papers? Honest question, not snarky.

ChrisKnott 5y ago
I don't think they actually published the papers, they just wrote stories using the papers as the source. Assange is also accused of assisting his source in attempting (unsuccessfully) to crack a password hash, thereby (the prosecution alleges) taking on more the Daniel Ellsberg role rather than the Washington Post role. Not commenting on the appropriateness or not of prosecuting Assange, but the situations have significant differences.
- himinlomax 5y ago
  > I don't think they actually published the papers, they just wrote stories using the papers as the source. "The New York Times began publishing excerpts on June 13, 1971" -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers#Leak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers#Leak
- ZoomerCretin 5y ago
  He assisted his source in a failed attempt to crack a password hash? This is the "significant difference" you think makes him worthy of prosecution? He was a journalist exposing war crimes. He is not a US citizen and is not subject to US laws. If China extended their ban on youths playing video games for more than a few hours in a week to the world, you would probably have a problem with them forcing authorities in a country you're vacationing in to arrest your children and extradite them to China.
  - ChrisKnott 5y ago
    > This is the "significant difference" Yes, one of them, the other being that he published the full documents and not just stories using them as a source. > you think makes him worthy of prosecution It was so obvious I would get downvoted by Assange stans for answering the GP's question, that I literally preemptively stated I wasn't saying this. Wasn't enough apparently.

GeekyBear 5y ago

> There is no doubt that he really is guilty of leaking US secrets. He did no such thing. He published secrets somebody else leaked. Just like journalists have done for decades.

SavantIdiot 5y ago
He had secrets A0...An, and B0...Bn. A0...An were for political candidate A. B0...Bn were for opposing political candidate B. Political candidate B in conjunction with an aligned foreign country paid him to publish only the material on A. Some elements of A were false and constructed by Candidate B to smear Candidate A. He knew this. He chose sides, while simultaneously claiming he is neutral. I have not judged, I have only stated the facts. EDIT: We also do not know how both sets of secrets were acquired. There are claims he was involved with the exfiltration, a statement that has not been proven or disproven yet since there has been no trial. EDIT #2: He also has at least one motivation to help Candidate B as Candidate A has stated a desire to prosecute him heavily.
- TeeMassive 5y ago
  > He chose sides, while simultaneously claiming he is neutral. Which is not a crime.
  - RugnirViking 5y ago
    Exactly. If what Assange did was a crime, the New York times commits the same crime every couple of months. This "New York times problem" was shown to be a frequent point of internal discussion in the recent leaks regarding the US plans for kidnapping Assange
- sva_ 5y ago
  > Political candidate B in conjunction with an aligned foreign country paid him to publish only the material on A. Could you provide a source on those claims?
  - 5y ago

chuckee 5y ago

> There is no doubt that he really is guilty of leaking US secrets. Lets say he is. He is not a US citizen, and he didn't do the leaking on US soil - what duty does he have to keep US secrets secret? In fact, without a confidentiality agreement, I think even US citizens are allowed to leak them. Something to do with the 1st amendment. If you published secret information given to you by a Russian dissident, would you expect to be extradited to Russia? Even if you had encouraged/helped that dissident?

mike_d 5y ago
While he was not a US citizen, he is involved in a crime committed in the US. Just like if an American had hired an art thief to steal a painting from a European gallery. The legal concept of extraterritorial jurisdiction is extremely complex and nuanced, but primarily falls upon the diplomatic power of the country that believes you broke their laws. (If you find this interesting you might enjoy reading about US v. Van Der End, in which a Dutch smuggler was arrested and charged in the US for sailing drugs to Canada) However all of this is moot because he made the mistake of traveling to the UK and is currently being held by the British. In addition to leaking US secrets he also leaked GCHQ secrets and can be charged under the Official Secrets Act if extradition fails.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
If the US believes that he has a duty, and the US has the power and will to enforce that belief, then for all practical purposes, he does have that duty. That's all duties are, really. What gives the US the power to enforce their views here are a combination of many different factors. The fact the crime in question was committed against the US and in the US (even if Assange was not physically located in the US, the crime happened here, and Assange is accused of being an accessory to that crime). The fact that Assange is physically located in the territory of a close ally of the US. The fact that that ally has no particular love of Assange either. And many other smaller things.

pvaldes 5y ago

> There is no doubt that he really is guilty of leaking US secrets. The problem is that illegal activites and blatant murder are being protected under the concept of "secrets". We are not talking about leaking plans to made a nuclear bomb here or trademark secrets. We are talking about proofs of obstruction to justice and violation of international laws by part of US. If a senator would be caught red-handed importing and selling cocaine, could just shout "but, but, this was a secret!! to the police?". Probably not.