35 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. There are tons of examp

by 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.
  - cletus 5y ago
    That's true inside US jurisdictions. Outside of that, it's complicated [1]. [1]: https://inter-american-law-review.law.miami.edu/u-s-constitutions-reach/ https://inter-american-law-review.law.miami.edu/u-s-constitu...
    - ProAm 5y ago
      If he gets extradited and tried I think all those rights will be there.
      - manquer 5y ago
        That would only apply after the time he is here, not for activities before retroactively.
        monocasa 5y ago
        I believe it's an open legal question. That's one reason why the prison at gitmo is where it is, so that the prisoners there were never brought on to US soil where the court system has the potential to grant them more rights.
- tinus_hn 5y ago
  How is he subject to US law but not the US constitution?
  - colordrops 5y ago
    People somehow lose their ability to utilize Aristotelian logic when it comes to Assange. The unparalleled wave of propaganda unified against Assange makes people unable to question the narrative.
  - einpoklum 5y ago
    Because if a state goes against this principle then the US might just kick it off the inter-back clearance system (SWIFT), or invade it, or engineer a coup against its government, or a combination of the above.
  - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
    > How is he subject to US law but not the US constitution? The Constitutional rights of foreign foreign nationals is complicated [1]. Long story short, the Constitution may not protect them as fully as it does U.S. persons (Americans and foreigners on American soil). [1] https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1302&context=facpub https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?a...
    - bakuninsbart 5y ago
      Which is horrible and in desperate need of reform. If the law applies differently to foreigners, you are essentially a proto-fascist state.
    - zugi 5y ago
      Thanks for posting the article, it's pretty well summarized by: > ... it is not surprising that many members of the general public presume that noncitizens do not deserve the same rights as citizens. But the presumption is wrong in many more respects than it is right. While some distinctions between foreign nationals and citizens are normatively justified and consistent with constitutional and international law, most are not. Non-citizens don't have a fundamental right to vote, or to enter the country. Non-citizens cannot hold federal office. Non-citizens accused of crimes may be held in jail pending their trial in situations where citizens would be free pending trial. But that's a pretty short list. In fact nearly all fundamental freedoms of the Bill of Rights (speech/press/religion/assembly) and rights to a fair trial apply to citizens and non-citizens alike.
- jhgb 5y ago
  > the first amendment doesn't matter, he's not an American That makes no sense whatsoever to me. Where in the US Constitution is this restriction on the First Amendment?
  - krapp 5y ago
    The First Amendment is part of an American document describing American precepts of law for the American government. Specifically, it prevents the American legislative body known as Congress (who represents, exclusively, the American electorate) from passing laws abridging the freedom of speech. It's implied that the First Amendment only applies to Americans, for the same reason that, say, the laws of the EU or Russia don't apply to Americans. Governments only have sovereign authority over their citizens. Mind you, the First Amendment and freedom of speech are related, but not the same, and one can easily argue that freedom of speech is universal, but not the American Constitution.
    - monocasa 5y ago
      That's not the interpretation the courts have taken. Essentially you can't take the constitution as a whole and say it applies to Americans or not. There are rights specifically conveyed to citizens (like voting). Those are clearly American only. Then in contrast to that there are rights conveyed to people generally, and rights formed as blanket restrictions on government. Those are interpreted as equally applying to non Americans.
      - dragonwriter 5y ago
        > Those are interpreted as equally applying to non Americans. But, oddly, as not applying fully to acts of the American government taken outside of the borders of the United States, which is why Gitmo is used for sketchy War on Terror detentions, and not any place on sovereign US territory rather than territory notionally leased by the US from a foreign sovereign.
        monocasa 5y ago
- wavefunction 5y ago
  The 1st Amendment is a moot point as Assange is not being sought for "speech" he has made but for criminal conspiracy and providing material support in furtherance of a crime. The US Constitution does apply to anyone the US Federal Government interacts in my opinion, as it is a definition and limitation of the powers of the US Federal Government. I know it hasn't been applied in practice many times and there are Americans who disagree with this stance but they're wrong just like some people were wrong about slavery.
VRay 5y ago
That’s interesting, I didn’t know number 5 was actually a crime (other than the “hacking tools”). So maybe the US potentially does have an actual case.. I just assumed that we were having a witch hunt since people in power got mad at Assange
- joshuajill 5y ago
  There is no evidence of hacking tools used by Assange, or offered by Assange to Chelsea. Unless you consider secure drop hacking. But then many other journalists are hacking too. And that's the point - to have a chilling effect on the press.
  - candiodari 5y ago
    There's also many reasons why the content of the case itself doesn't matter. The UK has tortured Assange. This is proven. The UK has denied urgent medical care to him. Again, proven. The UK prosecutor has lied in court (to the point the judge yelled at them because it was too obvious). Proven, because it happened in court. The UK has denied Assange access to a lawyer. All of these would get the case thrown out, under normal circumstances, in the UK just as well as in the US.
    - chrisco255 5y ago
      > All of these would get the case thrown out, under normal circumstances, in the UK just as well as in the US. Depends on how powerful the people were that you pissed off, unfortunately.
    - ChrisKnott 5y ago
      I get really annoyed by rhetoric like this, I think it does a disservice to more serious victims of injustice. Like, come on, "denied access to a lawyer"? He is represented by essentially the best extradition barrister in the country...
      - hulahoof 5y ago
joshuajill 5y ago
1) there is no point (6) 2) Although the US is trying to accuse Assange of doing so, he did not offer material aid of any sort to Chelsea. She could handle the access issue herself. Unless you would consider setting up a secure drop box under your imaginary (6). Get informed about the case.
- giantrobot 5y ago
  > Get informed about the case. Sure except for attempting to brute force the LM hashes and offer to get Manning a burner phone Assange provided no material aid to Manning at all. [0] You don't get to vacillate between James Bond and Bob Woodward as it suits you. Assange has no reasonable claims of protection that an actual journalist might. [0] https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/886185-pe-123.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/886185-pe-123.html
  - colordrops 5y ago
    These are such weak claims. You'd say the same thing if Assange got Manning an Uber or a coffee. Assange is an individual journalist that prodded an endlessly powerful and secret intelligence apparatus and revealed their evil doings. Don't pick the wrong side, especially due to supposed technicalities.
    - giantrobot 5y ago
      If you knowingly participate in or act in furtherance of a crime, that's also a crime. No journalist has been convicted under the Espionage Act. The reason isn't because actual real journalists don't expose things that embarrass the US government. It's because they don't participate in the exfiltration of controlled documents or direct sources to gather specific information. The case on Manning is not the only time [0] that Assange played spymaster while hiding behind claims of being a journalist. [0] https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/6/25/julian-assange-conspired-with-anonymous-affiliated-hackers https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/6/25/julian-assange-cons...
    - nobody9999 5y ago
beckman466 5y ago
wow so you're essentially making a comparison between a.) a person who exposes serious war crimes by the leaders of the most militarily invested country in the world - where those leaders essentially committed mass-murder from a distance (let's be honest, Assange/Mannings's Collateral Murder drone strike footage is probably not the only footage that exists/existed, and neither is this the worst event in the US propertied class' illegitimate 'war on terror', it's just one of a few 'unlucky' bits of evidence that has leaked), and b.) sex tourists and pedophiles in south-east asia? serious question: how do you justify this in your mind?
- dimator 5y ago
  Those were two completely separate examples about separate questions, you're combining them so you can be outraged.
  - beckman466 5y ago
    they aren't, they are two examples of various extradition-justifications that the commenter above me was comparing. > you're combining them so you can be outraged. no, you're going to an ad hominem by trying to point to my supposed emotionality ("outraged").
    - seanw444 5y ago
      That's not an ad hominem.
    - beckman466 5y ago
      please can you elaborate on why my comment was flagged and thus censored for non-HN members? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29039983 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29039983 if it's: > those leaders essentially committed mass-murder from a distance are you condoning drone strikes? (serious question). i believe people (including elected bourgeois leaders) should be held accountable. the US govt. are accusing Snowden and Assange of being "high-tech terrorists" (Biden [1]), so why cannot i refer to these people as murderers? > US propertied class this is merely a fact. the people in power are predominantly those who own property or intellectual property. a lot of people do not own their homes and have to rent, neither do they own IP so they have to work for their money (receive a wage). i am referring to these power structures based on my own beliefs ("be ruthless to systems, be kind to people"). > US propertied class' illegitimate 'war on terror' at this point i'm pretty sure not many are claiming it is was a legitimate war... are you? was the flagging because of something else? if yes, please share. it just feels dishonest to censor stuff you don't personally agree with, especially since it received a bunch of upvotes. a 'don't make it political' stance seems naive to me because of course no system is (or ever can be) neutral, since there always many voices at the table. i don't think it's fun to write this, i just want to call you out on what i perceive are a few double standards you have. i appreciate the moderation and the space to discuss the role of tech in society, and it just surprises me when things get censored or the host party decides to interfere (especially a comment that isn't downvoted to hell or actively harmful to someone (or misogynistic, racist, homophobic or transphobic)). until we have a more distributed web a la ActivityPub, SSB, DAT, IPFS, holochain etc., we all have to make the most of this centralized tech. anyways, please could you restore my comment? [1] https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/dec/19/assange-high-tech-terrorist-biden https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/dec/19/assange-high-t...
einpoklum 5y ago
About your two examples: (I) This is a case where it's possible the act by the non-citizen is criminal in the US as well; plus the stock exchanges of the world are interlinked in various way, so it has some not-very-indirect negative impact on US companies and citizens. Also, do such things ever happen? (II) You're establishing GP's point, which is that a special law was needed for extradition in this case. ---------- About your Journalist vs Criminal dichotomy: * You only mentioned 5 scenarios but refer to a sixth... let's assume you mean just 5. * GP can't be construed as having discussed option (5), but rather options (1) - (3). * Something may be defined as a crime by law but be unconstitutional; and the law may yet be struck down by the courts. Law strike-downs happen occasionally in the US, after all. * Can you provide reference to the claim that (5) is squarely a (federal) crime in the US? That is, that established journalists have been found guilty of doing this? * Would you claim that scenario (6) is also a crime in the US, where in this scenario the journalist does not tell the source what to look for, and only provides guidance on how to use computing systems and networks discreetly and securely?
- cletus 5y ago
  > (II) You're establishing GP's point, which is that a special law was needed for extradition in this case. I beg to differ. A law was needed to establish jurisdiction and a crime just like a law is required for every such case. If you commit a similar crime on Australian soil, it's only illegal because a law exists to make it so (rightly). > Can you provide reference to the claim that (5) is squarely a (federal) crime in the US? My point is that every "right" in the US constitution is not absolute or without exceptions. Every single one. The above is a thought experiment to prove that. Put another way: the First Amendment is not a blanket defense. In procuring a story that you publish, you will reach a limit on your actions beyond which you've committed a crime and the First Amendment won't shield you from that. Like... that's just obvious. So what particular circumstances lead to a journalist committing a crime is irrelevant. The point is that there is a line, not what the particular line is.
skissane 5y ago
> 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. That example is irrelevant to the Assange case, because that is an application of the nationality principle, which is a principle of international law which gives sovereign states criminal jurisdiction over their citizens for acts done anywhere in the world. So legally Australia can pass a law saying "X is a crime when an Australian citizen does it anywhere in the world", which is exactly what Australia has done in the example you cite; and the US has done the exact same thing (PROTECT Act of 2003). But Assange is not a US citizen, so examples of nationality principle jurisdiction are irrelevant to any US prosecution of Assange, they would only be relevant if Australia tried to prosecute him under some law based on the nationality principle.
ClumsyPilot 5y ago
"- 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;" This is so wrong in so many ways: 1 - Corporations Act, neither in Australia nor it's UK equivalent, do not deal with securities fraud or insider trading - it's a separate body of law. 2 - Think about implications of your claim, when you buy shares of American, Chinese, British and Russian companies on Robinhood / Trading212, etc. you do not become bound by security exchange laws of four different countries. This would be legally absurd as the laws differ and conflict significantly 3 - it's not a cut-and-dry 'Australian security' - if the security is issued listed on a stock exchange, say NASDAQ, and it's issuance is governed by the laws of the country where stock exchange is located. But a general investor never even deals with a stock exchange. 4 - When some brokerage is offering financial instruments in UK, the contract is between yourself and their UK branch, and regulated by UK Financial Conduct Authority. There is no foreign jurisdiction involved. 5 - as a general rule, an average citizen is not expected to know laws of other countries they have never travelled to and generally cannot be tried by other countries for their actions in their home country. They may be tried by their home country for their actions abroad, but not the other way round. Almost every exception to this has been related to hacking, and where they did happen these cases are highly controversial even among legal scholars.

by cletus 5y ago

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.
- cletus 5y ago
  That's true inside US jurisdictions. Outside of that, it's complicated [1]. [1]: https://inter-american-law-review.law.miami.edu/u-s-constitutions-reach/ https://inter-american-law-review.law.miami.edu/u-s-constitu...
  - ProAm 5y ago
    If he gets extradited and tried I think all those rights will be there.
    - manquer 5y ago
      That would only apply after the time he is here, not for activities before retroactively.
      - monocasa 5y ago
        I believe it's an open legal question. That's one reason why the prison at gitmo is where it is, so that the prisoners there were never brought on to US soil where the court system has the potential to grant them more rights.
tinus_hn 5y ago
How is he subject to US law but not the US constitution?
- colordrops 5y ago
  People somehow lose their ability to utilize Aristotelian logic when it comes to Assange. The unparalleled wave of propaganda unified against Assange makes people unable to question the narrative.
- einpoklum 5y ago
  Because if a state goes against this principle then the US might just kick it off the inter-back clearance system (SWIFT), or invade it, or engineer a coup against its government, or a combination of the above.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > How is he subject to US law but not the US constitution? The Constitutional rights of foreign foreign nationals is complicated [1]. Long story short, the Constitution may not protect them as fully as it does U.S. persons (Americans and foreigners on American soil). [1] https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1302&context=facpub https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?a...
  - bakuninsbart 5y ago
    Which is horrible and in desperate need of reform. If the law applies differently to foreigners, you are essentially a proto-fascist state.
  - zugi 5y ago
    Thanks for posting the article, it's pretty well summarized by: > ... it is not surprising that many members of the general public presume that noncitizens do not deserve the same rights as citizens. But the presumption is wrong in many more respects than it is right. While some distinctions between foreign nationals and citizens are normatively justified and consistent with constitutional and international law, most are not. Non-citizens don't have a fundamental right to vote, or to enter the country. Non-citizens cannot hold federal office. Non-citizens accused of crimes may be held in jail pending their trial in situations where citizens would be free pending trial. But that's a pretty short list. In fact nearly all fundamental freedoms of the Bill of Rights (speech/press/religion/assembly) and rights to a fair trial apply to citizens and non-citizens alike.
jhgb 5y ago
> the first amendment doesn't matter, he's not an American That makes no sense whatsoever to me. Where in the US Constitution is this restriction on the First Amendment?
- krapp 5y ago
  The First Amendment is part of an American document describing American precepts of law for the American government. Specifically, it prevents the American legislative body known as Congress (who represents, exclusively, the American electorate) from passing laws abridging the freedom of speech. It's implied that the First Amendment only applies to Americans, for the same reason that, say, the laws of the EU or Russia don't apply to Americans. Governments only have sovereign authority over their citizens. Mind you, the First Amendment and freedom of speech are related, but not the same, and one can easily argue that freedom of speech is universal, but not the American Constitution.
  - monocasa 5y ago
    That's not the interpretation the courts have taken. Essentially you can't take the constitution as a whole and say it applies to Americans or not. There are rights specifically conveyed to citizens (like voting). Those are clearly American only. Then in contrast to that there are rights conveyed to people generally, and rights formed as blanket restrictions on government. Those are interpreted as equally applying to non Americans.
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > Those are interpreted as equally applying to non Americans. But, oddly, as not applying fully to acts of the American government taken outside of the borders of the United States, which is why Gitmo is used for sketchy War on Terror detentions, and not any place on sovereign US territory rather than territory notionally leased by the US from a foreign sovereign.
      - monocasa 5y ago
wavefunction 5y ago
The 1st Amendment is a moot point as Assange is not being sought for "speech" he has made but for criminal conspiracy and providing material support in furtherance of a crime. The US Constitution does apply to anyone the US Federal Government interacts in my opinion, as it is a definition and limitation of the powers of the US Federal Government. I know it hasn't been applied in practice many times and there are Americans who disagree with this stance but they're wrong just like some people were wrong about slavery.

VRay 5y ago

That’s interesting, I didn’t know number 5 was actually a crime (other than the “hacking tools”). So maybe the US potentially does have an actual case.. I just assumed that we were having a witch hunt since people in power got mad at Assange

joshuajill 5y ago
There is no evidence of hacking tools used by Assange, or offered by Assange to Chelsea. Unless you consider secure drop hacking. But then many other journalists are hacking too. And that's the point - to have a chilling effect on the press.
- candiodari 5y ago
  There's also many reasons why the content of the case itself doesn't matter. The UK has tortured Assange. This is proven. The UK has denied urgent medical care to him. Again, proven. The UK prosecutor has lied in court (to the point the judge yelled at them because it was too obvious). Proven, because it happened in court. The UK has denied Assange access to a lawyer. All of these would get the case thrown out, under normal circumstances, in the UK just as well as in the US.
  - chrisco255 5y ago
    > All of these would get the case thrown out, under normal circumstances, in the UK just as well as in the US. Depends on how powerful the people were that you pissed off, unfortunately.
  - ChrisKnott 5y ago
    I get really annoyed by rhetoric like this, I think it does a disservice to more serious victims of injustice. Like, come on, "denied access to a lawyer"? He is represented by essentially the best extradition barrister in the country...
    - hulahoof 5y ago

joshuajill 5y ago

1) there is no point (6) 2) Although the US is trying to accuse Assange of doing so, he did not offer material aid of any sort to Chelsea. She could handle the access issue herself. Unless you would consider setting up a secure drop box under your imaginary (6). Get informed about the case.

giantrobot 5y ago
> Get informed about the case. Sure except for attempting to brute force the LM hashes and offer to get Manning a burner phone Assange provided no material aid to Manning at all. [0] You don't get to vacillate between James Bond and Bob Woodward as it suits you. Assange has no reasonable claims of protection that an actual journalist might. [0] https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/886185-pe-123.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/886185-pe-123.html
- colordrops 5y ago
  These are such weak claims. You'd say the same thing if Assange got Manning an Uber or a coffee. Assange is an individual journalist that prodded an endlessly powerful and secret intelligence apparatus and revealed their evil doings. Don't pick the wrong side, especially due to supposed technicalities.
  - giantrobot 5y ago
    If you knowingly participate in or act in furtherance of a crime, that's also a crime. No journalist has been convicted under the Espionage Act. The reason isn't because actual real journalists don't expose things that embarrass the US government. It's because they don't participate in the exfiltration of controlled documents or direct sources to gather specific information. The case on Manning is not the only time [0] that Assange played spymaster while hiding behind claims of being a journalist. [0] https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/6/25/julian-assange-conspired-with-anonymous-affiliated-hackers https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/6/25/julian-assange-cons...
  - nobody9999 5y ago

beckman466 5y ago

wow so you're essentially making a comparison between a.) a person who exposes serious war crimes by the leaders of the most militarily invested country in the world - where those leaders essentially committed mass-murder from a distance (let's be honest, Assange/Mannings's Collateral Murder drone strike footage is probably not the only footage that exists/existed, and neither is this the worst event in the US propertied class' illegitimate 'war on terror', it's just one of a few 'unlucky' bits of evidence that has leaked), and b.) sex tourists and pedophiles in south-east asia? serious question: how do you justify this in your mind?

dimator 5y ago
Those were two completely separate examples about separate questions, you're combining them so you can be outraged.
- beckman466 5y ago
  they aren't, they are two examples of various extradition-justifications that the commenter above me was comparing. > you're combining them so you can be outraged. no, you're going to an ad hominem by trying to point to my supposed emotionality ("outraged").
  - seanw444 5y ago
    That's not an ad hominem.
  - beckman466 5y ago
    please can you elaborate on why my comment was flagged and thus censored for non-HN members? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29039983 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29039983 if it's: > those leaders essentially committed mass-murder from a distance are you condoning drone strikes? (serious question). i believe people (including elected bourgeois leaders) should be held accountable. the US govt. are accusing Snowden and Assange of being "high-tech terrorists" (Biden [1]), so why cannot i refer to these people as murderers? > US propertied class this is merely a fact. the people in power are predominantly those who own property or intellectual property. a lot of people do not own their homes and have to rent, neither do they own IP so they have to work for their money (receive a wage). i am referring to these power structures based on my own beliefs ("be ruthless to systems, be kind to people"). > US propertied class' illegitimate 'war on terror' at this point i'm pretty sure not many are claiming it is was a legitimate war... are you? was the flagging because of something else? if yes, please share. it just feels dishonest to censor stuff you don't personally agree with, especially since it received a bunch of upvotes. a 'don't make it political' stance seems naive to me because of course no system is (or ever can be) neutral, since there always many voices at the table. i don't think it's fun to write this, i just want to call you out on what i perceive are a few double standards you have. i appreciate the moderation and the space to discuss the role of tech in society, and it just surprises me when things get censored or the host party decides to interfere (especially a comment that isn't downvoted to hell or actively harmful to someone (or misogynistic, racist, homophobic or transphobic)). until we have a more distributed web a la ActivityPub, SSB, DAT, IPFS, holochain etc., we all have to make the most of this centralized tech. anyways, please could you restore my comment? [1] https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/dec/19/assange-high-tech-terrorist-biden https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/dec/19/assange-high-t...

einpoklum 5y ago

About your two examples: (I) This is a case where it's possible the act by the non-citizen is criminal in the US as well; plus the stock exchanges of the world are interlinked in various way, so it has some not-very-indirect negative impact on US companies and citizens. Also, do such things ever happen? (II) You're establishing GP's point, which is that a special law was needed for extradition in this case. ---------- About your Journalist vs Criminal dichotomy: * You only mentioned 5 scenarios but refer to a sixth... let's assume you mean just 5. * GP can't be construed as having discussed option (5), but rather options (1) - (3). * Something may be defined as a crime by law but be unconstitutional; and the law may yet be struck down by the courts. Law strike-downs happen occasionally in the US, after all. * Can you provide reference to the claim that (5) is squarely a (federal) crime in the US? That is, that established journalists have been found guilty of doing this? * Would you claim that scenario (6) is also a crime in the US, where in this scenario the journalist does not tell the source what to look for, and only provides guidance on how to use computing systems and networks discreetly and securely?

cletus 5y ago
> (II) You're establishing GP's point, which is that a special law was needed for extradition in this case. I beg to differ. A law was needed to establish jurisdiction and a crime just like a law is required for every such case. If you commit a similar crime on Australian soil, it's only illegal because a law exists to make it so (rightly). > Can you provide reference to the claim that (5) is squarely a (federal) crime in the US? My point is that every "right" in the US constitution is not absolute or without exceptions. Every single one. The above is a thought experiment to prove that. Put another way: the First Amendment is not a blanket defense. In procuring a story that you publish, you will reach a limit on your actions beyond which you've committed a crime and the First Amendment won't shield you from that. Like... that's just obvious. So what particular circumstances lead to a journalist committing a crime is irrelevant. The point is that there is a line, not what the particular line is.

skissane 5y ago

> 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. That example is irrelevant to the Assange case, because that is an application of the nationality principle, which is a principle of international law which gives sovereign states criminal jurisdiction over their citizens for acts done anywhere in the world. So legally Australia can pass a law saying "X is a crime when an Australian citizen does it anywhere in the world", which is exactly what Australia has done in the example you cite; and the US has done the exact same thing (PROTECT Act of 2003). But Assange is not a US citizen, so examples of nationality principle jurisdiction are irrelevant to any US prosecution of Assange, they would only be relevant if Australia tried to prosecute him under some law based on the nationality principle.

ClumsyPilot 5y ago

"- 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;" This is so wrong in so many ways: 1 - Corporations Act, neither in Australia nor it's UK equivalent, do not deal with securities fraud or insider trading - it's a separate body of law. 2 - Think about implications of your claim, when you buy shares of American, Chinese, British and Russian companies on Robinhood / Trading212, etc. you do not become bound by security exchange laws of four different countries. This would be legally absurd as the laws differ and conflict significantly 3 - it's not a cut-and-dry 'Australian security' - if the security is issued listed on a stock exchange, say NASDAQ, and it's issuance is governed by the laws of the country where stock exchange is located. But a general investor never even deals with a stock exchange. 4 - When some brokerage is offering financial instruments in UK, the contract is between yourself and their UK branch, and regulated by UK Financial Conduct Authority. There is no foreign jurisdiction involved. 5 - as a general rule, an average citizen is not expected to know laws of other countries they have never travelled to and generally cannot be tried by other countries for their actions in their home country. They may be tried by their home country for their actions abroad, but not the other way round. Almost every exception to this has been related to hacking, and where they did happen these cases are highly controversial even among legal scholars.