6 ms·

> 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

> 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.
- chuckee 5y ago
  While you give an (afaik) accurate retelling of how Assange got in legal trouble, it amounts to little more than "might makes right" (hidden behind a layer of "might makes the laws"). Whereas I believe the GP was making a moral argument, that Assange deserves it because he leaked US secrets. There's also the issue of US jurisdiction expanding into other countries being given a level of casual acceptance not afforded to any other country. As another commenter pointed out, these allyships can be very one-sided: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK%E2%80%93US_extradition_treaty_of_2003 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK%E2%80%93US_extradition_trea...
  - asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
    I guess I don't really see the moral angle here, in one direction or the other. Why shouldn't an entity try to impose its understanding of law and ethics where it can afford to? Why should a country's laws end at its own borders, if they don't have to? If the country views its laws as right, it seems to me it ought to attempt to see those laws enforced as widely as possible. (One other case where the US does this: child sex tourism. The US will prosecute its own citizens if it finds they travelled abroad to have sex with a minor, even if the violation of the law takes place entirely in another country, even if the other country declines to prosecute the crime or even if it sees it as not being a crime. Prosecuting these crimes that are done abroad seems eminently moral to me. I suspect the actual objection to prosecuting Assange is probably more truly centered in whether what he did was even a crime, or wrong. The question of whether the US ought to be able to prosecute him is really a proxy argument.)
    - depr 5y ago
      >I guess I don't really see the moral angle here, in one direction or the other. You're only looking from one angle though. Try looking at it from Assange's perspective as GP suggested: >Whereas I believe the GP was making a _moral_ argument, that Assange deserves it because he leaked US secrets.
      - 5y ago
zz865 5y ago
> 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? Should someone in another country be able to publish your personal secrets? Sure if its North Korea you can't do much but a organization in a friendly country should not be allowed to do so esp if they're important nationally classified material.
- dim0r 5y ago
  War crimes committed by a superpower != personal secrets
- jazzyjackson 5y ago
  > Should someone in another country be able to publish your personal secrets? Well, i suppose that depends if the country that someone is in has a law against it.

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.

chuckee 5y ago
While you give an (afaik) accurate retelling of how Assange got in legal trouble, it amounts to little more than "might makes right" (hidden behind a layer of "might makes the laws"). Whereas I believe the GP was making a moral argument, that Assange deserves it because he leaked US secrets. There's also the issue of US jurisdiction expanding into other countries being given a level of casual acceptance not afforded to any other country. As another commenter pointed out, these allyships can be very one-sided: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK%E2%80%93US_extradition_treaty_of_2003 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK%E2%80%93US_extradition_trea...
- asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
  I guess I don't really see the moral angle here, in one direction or the other. Why shouldn't an entity try to impose its understanding of law and ethics where it can afford to? Why should a country's laws end at its own borders, if they don't have to? If the country views its laws as right, it seems to me it ought to attempt to see those laws enforced as widely as possible. (One other case where the US does this: child sex tourism. The US will prosecute its own citizens if it finds they travelled abroad to have sex with a minor, even if the violation of the law takes place entirely in another country, even if the other country declines to prosecute the crime or even if it sees it as not being a crime. Prosecuting these crimes that are done abroad seems eminently moral to me. I suspect the actual objection to prosecuting Assange is probably more truly centered in whether what he did was even a crime, or wrong. The question of whether the US ought to be able to prosecute him is really a proxy argument.)
  - depr 5y ago
    >I guess I don't really see the moral angle here, in one direction or the other. You're only looking from one angle though. Try looking at it from Assange's perspective as GP suggested: >Whereas I believe the GP was making a _moral_ argument, that Assange deserves it because he leaked US secrets.
    - 5y ago

zz865 5y ago

> 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? Should someone in another country be able to publish your personal secrets? Sure if its North Korea you can't do much but a organization in a friendly country should not be allowed to do so esp if they're important nationally classified material.

dim0r 5y ago
War crimes committed by a superpower != personal secrets
jazzyjackson 5y ago
> Should someone in another country be able to publish your personal secrets? Well, i suppose that depends if the country that someone is in has a law against it.