11 ms·

Assange was a non-U.S. citizen working outside the U.S. - I don't get what gives the U.S. jurisdiction to try him in the first place. If China tried to extradit

by zugi 5y ago

Assange was a non-U.S. citizen working outside the U.S. - I don't get what gives the U.S. jurisdiction to try him in the first place. If China tried to extradite a U.S. citizen acting within the U.S. who published leaked information allegedly in violation of Chinese law, we'd laugh them out of the courtroom, and rightly so. Adding insult to injury, publishing leaked military secrets is not even illegal in the U.S. due to the first amendment right to a free press. When the New York Times publishes leaked classified information, there's no trial or extradition. In the U.S., those who will have legitimate access to classified information first sign legally binding agreements not to disseminate it, and those who violate that agreement can be prosecuted. And in this case, that already happened: Manning served 7 years in jail for leaking the very information that Assange is being extradited over. With the leaker found and prosecuted, convicted, and sentence served, the U.S. Department of Justice should congratulate itself on a job well-done and move on to other things. It's absurd that they continue to pursue the publisher of the information almost a decade later.

2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
> I don't get what gives the U.S. jurisdiction to try him in the first place. Complex foreign policy. The U.S. has jurisdiction because the country who has him says that they do. They could just as easily tell the U.S. to jump in a lake. > publishing leaked military secrets is not even illegal in the U.S. Then he will win. He is also charged with hacking though.
- bakuninsbart 5y ago
  The idea that there could be anything resembling a fair trial is simply laughable. The US has been trying to kill Assange for more than a decade, he will be basically dead as soon as they get their filthy hands on him.
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
    > he will be basically dead as soon as they get their filthy hands on him. I admire your impartiality
- PoignardAzur 5y ago
  > Then he will win. He is also charged with hacking though. That charge is laughable. The US government is very much going for the "throw everything at the wall and see what sticks" approach, backed by humongous amounts of soft power. I don't see how anyone looking at the facts of the affair (the false rape charge, the grievous violations of international law, the amazing procedural irregularities of the first extradition hearing) can see this as anything but a thinly-veiled attempt to make an example out of a political opponent.
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
    Laughable? Okay then, he should easily win in court.
    - derekjdanserl 5y ago
      He should, but he won’t.
    - PoignardAzur 5y ago
      You're blatantly ignoring the "backed by humongous amounts of soft power" part.
hulitu 5y ago
US is the world police.
londons_explore 5y ago
Assange publicly promised to turn himself in if Manning was freed. [1] Manning was freed early (presidential intervention). This is the USA getting Assange to hold up his end of the deal. Doesn't seem unreasonable to me... If he didn't want this, he shouldn't have made a deal with the world's largest superpower. [1]: https://fortune.com/2016/09/16/julian-assange-chelsea-manning/ https://fortune.com/2016/09/16/julian-assange-chelsea-mannin...
cletus 5y ago
> Assange was a non-U.S. citizen working outside the U.S. - I don't get what gives the U.S. jurisdiction to try him in the first place. There are tons of examples of this. Examples: - If a US citizen conspires to insider trading with another US citizen on US soil regarding an Australian company, the Australian government will claim jurisdiction through the Corporations Act because it is an Australian security; - There is a "sex tourism" problem in several South-East Asian countries that involves children. These pedophiles have historically been rarely if ever prosecuted in those countries for various reasons. The Australian government passed a law saying that if you are an Australian citizen and engage in this sort of activity you can be criminally charged in Australia. > Adding insult to injury, publishing leaked military secrets is not even illegal in the U.S. due to the first amendment right to a free press It's not as simple as that. Let me give you some escalating hypotheticals: 1. A journalist receives some classified material in the mail and publishes it after vetting it (eg journalists typically won't publish details that will risk the lives of those currently in the field); 2. A journalist meets with a source that has access to classified material and asks for anything concerning, say, Benghazi. These materials have already been obtained; 3. A journalist looks for and finds such a source; 4. A journalist tells a source what to look for and these materials have not yet been obtained; 5. The journalist provides direction on what to find and leak and provides material aid in that effort. This could include providing hacking tools, contacts, security protocols, etc. (1) is a journalist. (5) has committed a crime. The line between criminal and journalist is somewhere in between that we debate. My point is that the first amendment isn't a universal shield. Assange is much closer to (6) than (1) here. EDIT: corrected list numbering.
- realce 5y ago
  I'm sorry to be short in reply to such a well written post but - the first amendment doesn't matter, he's not an American, it's not his right to be protected or prosecuted over.
  - ProAm 5y ago
    The bill or rights protects all people not just US citizens.
arp242 5y ago
> And in this case, that already happened: Manning served 7 years in jail for leaking the very information that Assange is being extradited over. With the leaker found and prosecuted, convicted, and sentence served, the U.S. Department of Justice should congratulate itself on a job well-done and move on to other things. It's absurd that they continue to pursue the publisher of the information almost a decade later. That's not really how the justice system works, or should work. If two people commit a crime together, one of them is caught right away and punished for the crime, and the second is caught ten years later, would you expect the second person to go free because the first person was already caught? Of course not. I don't think Assange should be extradited by the way, but this is a very bad argument, in addition to some of the criticism of various sibling comments.
- jazzyjackson 5y ago
  Two people didn’t commit a crime together. Parent’s argument is that Assange didn’t commit any crime, because publishing secrets isn’t illegal, only when you’ve agreed to keep it secret (security clearance) can you be prosecuted. Assange is not party to such an agreement.
  - joshuajill 5y ago
    No the accusation is conspiring with Chelsea basically for intrusion, but there is no evidence that such happen. Chelsea was willing and capable of doing it on her own.
    - monocasa 5y ago
      2 of the 18 counts are conspiracy. The other 16 are not.
tinus_hn 5y ago
> the U.S. Department of Justice should congratulate itself on a job well-done I wouldn’t consider the successful prosecution of someone who exposed the truth ‘a job well-done’ unless I was very cynical about the departments job.
jollybean 5y ago
If there were no extradition treaties, then every murderer would just leave one country and go to the next, and live life. So when a UK man murders some guy and jumps to the US, the US sends him back to the UK. ... "Publishing leaked military secrets is not even illegal in the U.S. due to the first amendment right to a free press." This is false. ... "With the leaker found and prosecuted, convicted, and sentence served, the U.S. Department of Justice should congratulate itself on a job well-done " Multiple people can commit crimes. In particular, the question is whether or not Assange was party to a crime. Hence the trial.
tw04 5y ago
> If China tried to extradite a U.S. citizen acting within the U.S. who published leaked information allegedly in violation of Chinese law, we'd laugh them out of the courtroom, and rightly so. Right, because China isn’t an ally. If a US citizen leaked confidential secrets from Japan or the UK it would be a very different story. For instance, if this has happened in China there’s no chance they are extradited. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/01/business/carlos-ghosn-escape-extradition-japan.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/01/business/carlos-ghosn-esc...
bingohbangoh 5y ago
The US has "bigger guns diplomacy" here -- they can kind of do whatever they want to unless the country really wants to put up a fight. There's a lot of non-empty threats the US will make. France for instance will protect her own citizens at all costs. It's why Roman Polanski, a convicted rapist, still walks around a free man there. [0] [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Polanski_sexual_abuse_case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Polanski_sexual_abuse_ca...
- wavefunction 5y ago
  It's more that the UK and US have an extradition treaty and as long as the request meets the terms of the treaty then the extradition will proceed, barring some sort of domestic political issue. It's not like the US is threatening to attack the UK if Assange is not handed over.
  - bingohbangoh 5y ago
    Yes but that treaty was signed because of the "bigger guns" diplomacy part.
    - wavefunction 5y ago
      I guess I would consider that an opinion --though of course rationally it makes sense-- without evidence that the UK officials who agreed to the treaty were intimidated into signing it due to a fear of violence (actual or financial or...) towards the UK from the US. My opinion is that the sort of people who signed the 2003 treaty were not particularly concerned about preserving civil rights for British citizens, and the 2003 treaty did normalize evidentiary standards between the two countries that had been lopsided in the UK's favor since 1870.
    - gizmo686 5y ago
      On what do you base this. I just skimmed the treaty [0], and it seems completly symmetrical. It even has a clause allowing a nation to not extradite when the death penelty is involved, which I believe was included as an anti-us provision. The only special consideration I found for the us was defining "Competent Authority", which is left undefined for the other signatories. [0] https://www.congress.gov/treaty-document/108th-congress/23/document-text https://www.congress.gov/treaty-document/108th-congress/23/d...
Buttons840 5y ago
> publishing leaked military secrets is not even illegal in the U.S. due to the first amendment right to a free press How does him not being a citizen affect this? Granted, I won't be too surprised if the double speak is that he's not protected by law, but simultaneously subject to our laws.

by zugi 5y ago

2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago

> I don't get what gives the U.S. jurisdiction to try him in the first place. Complex foreign policy. The U.S. has jurisdiction because the country who has him says that they do. They could just as easily tell the U.S. to jump in a lake. > publishing leaked military secrets is not even illegal in the U.S. Then he will win. He is also charged with hacking though.

bakuninsbart 5y ago
The idea that there could be anything resembling a fair trial is simply laughable. The US has been trying to kill Assange for more than a decade, he will be basically dead as soon as they get their filthy hands on him.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
  > he will be basically dead as soon as they get their filthy hands on him. I admire your impartiality
PoignardAzur 5y ago
> Then he will win. He is also charged with hacking though. That charge is laughable. The US government is very much going for the "throw everything at the wall and see what sticks" approach, backed by humongous amounts of soft power. I don't see how anyone looking at the facts of the affair (the false rape charge, the grievous violations of international law, the amazing procedural irregularities of the first extradition hearing) can see this as anything but a thinly-veiled attempt to make an example out of a political opponent.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
  Laughable? Okay then, he should easily win in court.
  - derekjdanserl 5y ago
    He should, but he won’t.
  - PoignardAzur 5y ago
    You're blatantly ignoring the "backed by humongous amounts of soft power" part.

hulitu 5y ago

US is the world police.

londons_explore 5y ago

Assange publicly promised to turn himself in if Manning was freed. [1] Manning was freed early (presidential intervention). This is the USA getting Assange to hold up his end of the deal. Doesn't seem unreasonable to me... If he didn't want this, he shouldn't have made a deal with the world's largest superpower. [1]: https://fortune.com/2016/09/16/julian-assange-chelsea-manning/ https://fortune.com/2016/09/16/julian-assange-chelsea-mannin...

cletus 5y ago

> Assange was a non-U.S. citizen working outside the U.S. - I don't get what gives the U.S. jurisdiction to try him in the first place. There are tons of examples of this. Examples: - If a US citizen conspires to insider trading with another US citizen on US soil regarding an Australian company, the Australian government will claim jurisdiction through the Corporations Act because it is an Australian security; - There is a "sex tourism" problem in several South-East Asian countries that involves children. These pedophiles have historically been rarely if ever prosecuted in those countries for various reasons. The Australian government passed a law saying that if you are an Australian citizen and engage in this sort of activity you can be criminally charged in Australia. > Adding insult to injury, publishing leaked military secrets is not even illegal in the U.S. due to the first amendment right to a free press It's not as simple as that. Let me give you some escalating hypotheticals: 1. A journalist receives some classified material in the mail and publishes it after vetting it (eg journalists typically won't publish details that will risk the lives of those currently in the field); 2. A journalist meets with a source that has access to classified material and asks for anything concerning, say, Benghazi. These materials have already been obtained; 3. A journalist looks for and finds such a source; 4. A journalist tells a source what to look for and these materials have not yet been obtained; 5. The journalist provides direction on what to find and leak and provides material aid in that effort. This could include providing hacking tools, contacts, security protocols, etc. (1) is a journalist. (5) has committed a crime. The line between criminal and journalist is somewhere in between that we debate. My point is that the first amendment isn't a universal shield. Assange is much closer to (6) than (1) here. EDIT: corrected list numbering.

realce 5y ago
I'm sorry to be short in reply to such a well written post but - the first amendment doesn't matter, he's not an American, it's not his right to be protected or prosecuted over.
- ProAm 5y ago
  The bill or rights protects all people not just US citizens.

arp242 5y ago

> And in this case, that already happened: Manning served 7 years in jail for leaking the very information that Assange is being extradited over. With the leaker found and prosecuted, convicted, and sentence served, the U.S. Department of Justice should congratulate itself on a job well-done and move on to other things. It's absurd that they continue to pursue the publisher of the information almost a decade later. That's not really how the justice system works, or should work. If two people commit a crime together, one of them is caught right away and punished for the crime, and the second is caught ten years later, would you expect the second person to go free because the first person was already caught? Of course not. I don't think Assange should be extradited by the way, but this is a very bad argument, in addition to some of the criticism of various sibling comments.

jazzyjackson 5y ago
Two people didn’t commit a crime together. Parent’s argument is that Assange didn’t commit any crime, because publishing secrets isn’t illegal, only when you’ve agreed to keep it secret (security clearance) can you be prosecuted. Assange is not party to such an agreement.
- joshuajill 5y ago
  No the accusation is conspiring with Chelsea basically for intrusion, but there is no evidence that such happen. Chelsea was willing and capable of doing it on her own.
  - monocasa 5y ago
    2 of the 18 counts are conspiracy. The other 16 are not.

tinus_hn 5y ago

> the U.S. Department of Justice should congratulate itself on a job well-done I wouldn’t consider the successful prosecution of someone who exposed the truth ‘a job well-done’ unless I was very cynical about the departments job.

jollybean 5y ago

If there were no extradition treaties, then every murderer would just leave one country and go to the next, and live life. So when a UK man murders some guy and jumps to the US, the US sends him back to the UK. ... "Publishing leaked military secrets is not even illegal in the U.S. due to the first amendment right to a free press." This is false. ... "With the leaker found and prosecuted, convicted, and sentence served, the U.S. Department of Justice should congratulate itself on a job well-done " Multiple people can commit crimes. In particular, the question is whether or not Assange was party to a crime. Hence the trial.

tw04 5y ago

> If China tried to extradite a U.S. citizen acting within the U.S. who published leaked information allegedly in violation of Chinese law, we'd laugh them out of the courtroom, and rightly so. Right, because China isn’t an ally. If a US citizen leaked confidential secrets from Japan or the UK it would be a very different story. For instance, if this has happened in China there’s no chance they are extradited. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/01/business/carlos-ghosn-escape-extradition-japan.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/01/business/carlos-ghosn-esc...

bingohbangoh 5y ago

The US has "bigger guns diplomacy" here -- they can kind of do whatever they want to unless the country really wants to put up a fight. There's a lot of non-empty threats the US will make. France for instance will protect her own citizens at all costs. It's why Roman Polanski, a convicted rapist, still walks around a free man there. [0] [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Polanski_sexual_abuse_case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Polanski_sexual_abuse_ca...

wavefunction 5y ago
It's more that the UK and US have an extradition treaty and as long as the request meets the terms of the treaty then the extradition will proceed, barring some sort of domestic political issue. It's not like the US is threatening to attack the UK if Assange is not handed over.
- bingohbangoh 5y ago
  Yes but that treaty was signed because of the "bigger guns" diplomacy part.
  - wavefunction 5y ago
    I guess I would consider that an opinion --though of course rationally it makes sense-- without evidence that the UK officials who agreed to the treaty were intimidated into signing it due to a fear of violence (actual or financial or...) towards the UK from the US. My opinion is that the sort of people who signed the 2003 treaty were not particularly concerned about preserving civil rights for British citizens, and the 2003 treaty did normalize evidentiary standards between the two countries that had been lopsided in the UK's favor since 1870.
  - gizmo686 5y ago
    On what do you base this. I just skimmed the treaty [0], and it seems completly symmetrical. It even has a clause allowing a nation to not extradite when the death penelty is involved, which I believe was included as an anti-us provision. The only special consideration I found for the us was defining "Competent Authority", which is left undefined for the other signatories. [0] https://www.congress.gov/treaty-document/108th-congress/23/document-text https://www.congress.gov/treaty-document/108th-congress/23/d...

Buttons840 5y ago

> publishing leaked military secrets is not even illegal in the U.S. due to the first amendment right to a free press How does him not being a citizen affect this? Granted, I won't be too surprised if the double speak is that he's not protected by law, but simultaneously subject to our laws.