3 ms·

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

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.
    - asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
      The person who prefers a process that has the chance to land them in prison is rare indeed. But I'm not sure that's a moral argument, at least not as people think of it normally. Admittedly, there is a school, which I sometimes flirt with, that claims that moral statements are simply a specially coded statement of preference. But outside that context, I'm not sure exactly what aspect of Assange's perspective I'm meant to consider in this context.
  - chuckee 5y ago
    > 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. Suppose I view my diet and exercise regimen as right - should I try to impose (not just suggest) it on others? A country can view both its own laws, and the sovereignty of other countries, as just. Or look at it this way: Democratic countries tend to think highly of democracy. Higher than any single law resulting from democracy. By imposing your laws on the people of a different country, you are robbing them of that same democracy you so cherish. Would you give up democratic control of your government, if it resulted in passing a couple of laws you liked? (For certain extreme examples, such as when that country is engaging in genocide or extreme human rights abuses, I would answer yes. But nothing in this case even approaches such severity.)
    - asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
      > By imposing your laws on the people of a different country, you are robbing them of that same democracy you so cherish. That would be true only if the US were handling this process extrajudicially. I'm still not sure that would be morally bad, per se, but it would certainly require the exercise of much more power and will. But in this case, the process is being handled judicially. The people of the United Kingdom elected representatives, who through various means constructed the judicial system and entered into agreements with other countries, including the United States, concerning many things, including extradition. The process they set up to handle that is what is being followed today. This is why I don't really agree that the current situation is undemocratic. It may be that the UK's representatives didn't do exactly what the people would prefer in aggregate, but that is always a danger in representative democracy.
8note 5y ago
> The fact that that ally has no particular love of Assange either Many countries are bound by the rule of law, and can't do arbitrary bad things to people they don't like

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.
  - asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
    The person who prefers a process that has the chance to land them in prison is rare indeed. But I'm not sure that's a moral argument, at least not as people think of it normally. Admittedly, there is a school, which I sometimes flirt with, that claims that moral statements are simply a specially coded statement of preference. But outside that context, I'm not sure exactly what aspect of Assange's perspective I'm meant to consider in this context.
- chuckee 5y ago
  > 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. Suppose I view my diet and exercise regimen as right - should I try to impose (not just suggest) it on others? A country can view both its own laws, and the sovereignty of other countries, as just. Or look at it this way: Democratic countries tend to think highly of democracy. Higher than any single law resulting from democracy. By imposing your laws on the people of a different country, you are robbing them of that same democracy you so cherish. Would you give up democratic control of your government, if it resulted in passing a couple of laws you liked? (For certain extreme examples, such as when that country is engaging in genocide or extreme human rights abuses, I would answer yes. But nothing in this case even approaches such severity.)
  - asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
    > By imposing your laws on the people of a different country, you are robbing them of that same democracy you so cherish. That would be true only if the US were handling this process extrajudicially. I'm still not sure that would be morally bad, per se, but it would certainly require the exercise of much more power and will. But in this case, the process is being handled judicially. The people of the United Kingdom elected representatives, who through various means constructed the judicial system and entered into agreements with other countries, including the United States, concerning many things, including extradition. The process they set up to handle that is what is being followed today. This is why I don't really agree that the current situation is undemocratic. It may be that the UK's representatives didn't do exactly what the people would prefer in aggregate, but that is always a danger in representative democracy.

8note 5y ago

> The fact that that ally has no particular love of Assange either Many countries are bound by the rule of law, and can't do arbitrary bad things to people they don't like