20 ms·

This should be a sobering view of how the world really works. Above a certain threshold, every veneer of civilization vanishes no matter what the country (some

This should be a sobering view of how the world really works. Above a certain threshold, every veneer of civilization vanishes no matter what the country (some have a higher threshold than others). At this level, only power matters. And the first rule of power is: Don't embarrass the powerful unless you can call on a lot of power to defend yourself. Laws can't protect you; they can be thwarted and bent, and the legal process "guided" to the required outcome. International organizations can't protect you; they can only register complaints that will be duly ignored by everyone if the champion is important enough. Even countries can't protect you at this level; they're beholden to power themselves after a certain point. This is the message to would-be activists anywhere: Stay out of the big boy pool or we'll make you regret it.

zoe4883 5y ago
It took 10 years for most powerful entity on earth, I would call that success for Snowden. Real moral of this story is from how it started. With a date and broken condom.
- tata71 5y ago
  How many errors can fit into such a short comment!
  - zoe4883 5y ago
    Call it what you want. But I think international rules and his rights, were respected reasonably well. Only charges he faced for very long time were for rape. If he kept his zipper closed, while going against US gov, he could freely travel and argue political imprisonment as a journalist. He would be now drinking vodka with Snowden.
impendingchange 5y ago
There is a deeper level to this event. Discovery is a bitch.
pydry 5y ago
I suspect Assange doesn't regret this. I kind of get the impression that becoming a martyr was a sacrifice he was prepared to make if he managed to rip off the mask and expose the unbridled imperialist evil lurking underneath the "civilized press conference veneer" presented by the US government.
- mrsuprawsm 5y ago
  It's a bit of a sad sacrifice, though. Nothing (significant) has changed about the US's imperialism as a result of his disclosures, it's just mildly more acknowledged.
  - goodpoint 5y ago
    > mildly more acknowledged This is already a very big achievement for just one individual. How many people, activist or not, have been killed without anybody noticing?
  - h0l0cube 5y ago
    Much was made of upholding the promise to withdraw troops from the Middle East in the last US election. You can bet Collateral Murder and a number of other Wikileaks publications helped sway public opinion of the US military presence in the Middle East
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - user3939382 5y ago
    The sad part is how few people even know what he published, especially juxtaposed with his sacrifice. If I go talk to the average person about Snowden or Assange they know little to nothing about what they revealed.
    - enriquto 5y ago
      > If I go talk to the average person about Snowden or Assange they know little to nothing about what they revealed. You are doing good, then. Need to keep talking to more people!
FredPret 5y ago
Ultimately, right and wrong, good and evil are human judgments, sometimes acted upon by humans using human power. There’s nothing transcendent about it. The international rules-based order is safeguarded by powerful entities… because it’s in their best interest. One goes against that self-interest at one’s peril.
- jtdev 5y ago
  Epstein literally molested children and engaged in child sex trafficking, but was powerful enough that he was able to continue doing this - with implied protection from the state - for many years. Only after intense public pressure was Epstein seriously prosecuted. Assange TELLS THE TRUTH and is crucified internationally for years. Assange had no power, Epstein was the epitome of corrupt power.
- leto_ii 5y ago
  > right and wrong, good and evil are human judgments This is nonsense that opens up the possibility to justify pretty much any kind of abuse or atrocity. > The international rules-based order is safeguarded by powerful entities… because it’s in their best interest. If the international order was actually rules-based it would have been safeguarded by international institutions, not by a single capricious superpower. > One goes against that self-interest at one’s peril. This one eludes me. Who's going against who's interest?
  - FredPret 5y ago
    > This is nonsense that opens up the possibility to justify pretty much any kind of abuse or atrocity. Hilarious. Do you think there’s big judge in the sky that determines what’s good and bad? There is only human conscience, and powerful people who decide to enforce their conscience. > If the international order was actually rules-based it would have been safeguarded by international institutions, not by a single capricious superpower. If there’s an international institution that can enforce rules, then that institution is the capricious superpower, and woe betide those that mess with that institution.
    - 5y ago
vbezhenar 5y ago
There are countries which do not bend before others. Russia, China, Iran to name a few examples. They can protect those fleeing from the West. Just like West can protect people from those countries. World is not unipolar.
- beebmam 5y ago
  Is this a joke? The entirety of those countries citizens are subject to their own government's tyrannical rule
  - ahartmetz 5y ago
    Bend before others. In other words, they aren't follower members of a block. That says nothing about citizens or what exactly these countries are doing.
  - shadowgovt 5y ago
    Edward Snowden is currently hiding from US power projection in Russia. He is of course beholden to Russian law; I assume if he were gay he'd be having a much worse time of it. But the specific point here is that it is possible to hide from the US in the territory of a country that does not answer to the US.
- nannal 5y ago
  Let's ask Litvinenko his opinion?
  - nosianu 5y ago
    No, because it is clear? He was fleeing from Russian government. And they poisoned him. That has nothing to do with the subject of people feeling from the US influence. This kind of argument that you attempted is a bit tiring, don't you think? If you flee from Russian government, go to the West. And vice versa. One does not invalidate the other.
  - Dah00n 5y ago
    His opinion on fleeing from the US? What are you on about?
papito 5y ago
"Laws are people, and I can manage people." - Logan Roy, Succession, HBO "How do you ensure the green? You can't. As in life, in traffic, you leave yourself an out... You move diagonal, you turn the wheel when you hit a red light. You don't try down Broadway to get to Broadway. You are going to butt heads with these friends of ours? You are going to come at them head on? They got lives, Freddy, families." - Cop Land
- nnvvhh 5y ago
  Funny, I was thinking of a Logan Roy quote: “Life's not knights on horseback. It's a number on a piece of paper. It's a fight for a knife in the mud.”
mercy_dude 5y ago
The most infuriating among all of them has been our media - specifically mainstream media. They have played the entire saga down and in many cases many mainstream media pundits actively espoused for Assanges punishment [1]. I no longer hold the view that our media deserves the first amendment protection that it does. Mainstream media right now has no other purpose other than being active vehicle of the powerful and billionaire oligarchs to control the narrative. When 70% of the media empire are owned by billionaires why are we pretending otherwise? How different is that than state sponsored media in North Korea? [1] https://greenwald.substack.com/p/julian-assange-loses-appeal-british https://greenwald.substack.com/p/julian-assange-loses-appeal...
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  > I no longer hold the view that our media deserves the first amendment protection that it does. That, uh, might be a bit of an overcorrection.
  - mercy_dude 5y ago
    Well can you elaborate why you think it is? Because the way I see it, it gives unwavering and constitutionally guaranteed way for billionaires to control the narratives - in addition to the power they already have been wielding through owning politicians using lobbyists and having protection through section 230 in all the stakes they own in the social media companies. That’s what has been happening in the media space - Murdochs, Turners and Bezos now own vast sum of media sphere. And social medias just use them as proxy for “fact checks”.
    - ceejayoz 5y ago
      > Well can you elaborate why you think it is? Because "we'll revoke your First Amendment rights if we don't like how you're using them" is a very big step on a very steep and very slippery slope. Assange's defense is likely to revolve around the First Amendment. Weakening it would hurt him, even.
      - 5y ago
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
jollybean 5y ago
This is ridiculous. Assange is alleged to have cooperated with a member of the US forces to release gigabytes of diplomatic cables etc. - which is possibly a crime. In all but rare cases, you absolutely do not have the right to break into systems of national security and release arbitrary information under the guise of 'journalism'. His extradition is perfectly rational, legal and judicially legitimate. The Abu Garib whistleblower didn't face criminal charges, and has been relocated and protected by US Justice System, because he did the right thing, not the wrong thing. Assange will face a trial like everyone else, he is not above the law. While I think he's probably not guilty in this scenario, there is evidence made public that possibly points to criminality, I'm looking forward to seeing the facts of the case.
- mercy_dude 5y ago
  > because he did the right thing, not the wrong thing. And who defines the right or wrong? Assange revealed among many things how CIA collects data of US citizens abusing patriot act without warrants.
  - jollybean 5y ago
    "And who defines the right or wrong?" The Law under the purview of the Justice System, which is why they are pressing for a trial.
    - dane-pgp 5y ago
      If you believe that The Law defines what is right and wrong, then surely it can never be right to change The Law? Maybe you don't actually believe that, but I think it is important to consider just how large the gap between The Law and What Is Right has been, at various times in the past, and in various places.
      - jollybean 5y ago
        The Law is how we define 'Right and Wrong' in the civil sense, it's all we have. Obviously, we us a moral sensibility in the community, but that's more nuanced. Laws change all of the time, especially as different cases with different characteristics are brought before the courts and they set precedent. Assange is accused of working with people to hack into sensitive systems in which gigabytes of arbitrary government data were stolen and published. If true, this is definitely within the realm of what we would generally accepted to be illegal, there's not going to be much controversy there. The issue is whether or not Assange has actually committed a crime, and to what extent his prosecution is political. I suggest we'll be able to get a sense for that when he is put on trial and the evidence is presented. If it turns out the FBI paid a guy to lie about him, and that's all the evidence they have, then Assange will walk away a free man, but otherwise we'll have to wait to see the evidence.
tootie 5y ago
That might be relevant if Assange wasn't doing it at the behest of Russia
- leto_ii 5y ago
  > That might be relevant if Assange wasn't doing it at the behest of Russia [citation needed]
RivieraKid 5y ago
But you're assuming that the UK court made a decision that is against their law. Why is extradition an incorrect decision?
- vanusa 5y ago
  For example - given the ample (and basically) record of U.S. authorities in regard to their treatment of so-called High Value Detainees -- and even of very low-value detainees at is borders, as we have seen in recent years -- the High Court had no reason whatsoever to lend credence to the so-called "assurances" they cited in their ruling: The High Court said Friday that it had received appropriate assurances from the U.S. to meet the threshold for extradition, including: Assange will not be subject to “special administrative measures” or be held in a notorious maximum security prison in Florence, Colorado. Assange, if convicted, will be permitted to serve out his sentence in his native Australia. Assange will receive appropriate clinical and psychological treatment in custody.
  - ChrisKnott 5y ago
    Specifically which of these assurances are you saying will be broken?
    - boomboomsubban 5y ago
      They openly admit their willingness to break all three if "future acts" deem them necessary, not to mention they're free to stick him in another terrible jail with other restrictive measures even with the assurances.
      - 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
        Hello old friend. Why are you outraged about things that have not happened? Has the US Govt broken those promises? Y/n?
        Dah00n 5y ago
rich_sasha 5y ago
This is in micro scale, so perhaps this is why the power imbalance is so painfully clear. This is one guy against the whole might of the US. Of course events like this have been happening for centuries, recent decades included. The people in various countries caught up in wars had their lives ruined or lost. At best, this was despite all efforts to safeguard them and a price to pay for some greater good, at worst footnote to some uncaring Grand Plan. The end result is the same though. The machine of Western Democracy devours those who cross it hard enough. Maybe to protect those inside the bubble, or maybe because it's still floating in the same Big Bad World as the less democratic counterparts around the world.
- quest88 5y ago
  It sets precedent. One guy today, more tomorrow.
- 2Gkashmiri 5y ago
  if "laws" cannot protect one man, why bother with the sham that is "democracy"? its not just in the US but rest of the countries as well. when "pride" of a democracy is greater than the life of a human, it is no better than china or north korea. there at least you have the expectation of their intentions, that you are on your own. "democracies" are supposed to protect the little guy regardless of the adversary. as the other commenter said, this sets the precedent for the rest of the world. now india can go ahead and do the same to its dissenters because america could do it.
  - isk517 5y ago
    I would argue we bother with the sham because it is superior to the alternatives, the issue is human nature prevents us from ever truly reaching an ideal society. As long as there is someone standing is 3ft of shit for us to laugh we are comfortable and happy despite the fact that we ourselves are standing in 2ft of shit.
    - 2Gkashmiri 5y ago
      sure, we are willing to sacrifice assange for the greater good
raverbashing 5y ago
"sobering view of how the world really works" for whom this is unexpected, which is to say, the most naive. Laws don't go beyond who enforces them. And this is as expected, they're not an omnipotent/divine construct. The general public view of Assange is not so great and it went down with time. Manning is probably viewed more favourably. States that were too tolerant with those who "skirt the rules" (or just do very serious crimes) usually end up regretting it (or not living to regret it, which is worse). I would be very happy if those involved in some January events at D.C. got a similar treatment.
- sneak 5y ago
  > "sobering view of how the world really works" for whom this is unexpected, which is to say, the most naive. I think perhaps you're giving too many people too much credit. I would assume that the vast majority of people in the USA think it's a functioning democracy, subject to the rule of law, with human rights. None of these things are true, and, yet, these beliefs are very widely held.
  - raverbashing 5y ago
    It certainly beats the majority of other countries in this aspect We wouldn't be talking about Assange having legal recourse had he got in the wrong way of a lot of other places. The buck stops somewhere, no system is perfect and special cases are special cases. As again per the last paragraph in my initial response.
    - sneak 5y ago
      Imagine a parent that physically abuses their young child way less than all of the other parents on their block. It's not really a defense. The USA, and in particular the parts of the USA that have the most power, do not really care at all about human rights, and are not held accountable for not caring about human rights.
newbamboo 5y ago
It’s not much different at other levels. You only have public opinion and Assange wasn’t able to best Clinton in that realm. There’s a lesson about optics and choosing your enemies to be learned as well as the lesson about power.
echopurity 5y ago
[dead]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
Your entire post is opinion and contains no information, factual or otherwise.
- marmaduke 5y ago
  Isn’t a court ruling an opinion and not fact? Is it necessary to oppose one opinion not with another but a fact?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- Dah00n 5y ago
  So, just like yours? How does this add anything?
  - ahahahahah 5y ago
    I think you might misunderstand the difference between opinion and fact.
hulitu 5y ago
> This is the message to would-be activists anywhere: Stay out of the big boy pool or we'll make you regret it. You also need to take care of your big boy pool. When you make friends by force they will leave you the moment another stronger friend will come. And when you eroded all your credibility will be a bit difficult to regain it back. Of course you think you have control over everything.
shadowgovt 5y ago
In short... One should not assume the powers-that-be provide tools freely to disassemble the powers-that-be. "For the master's tools will never dismantle the master's house," as the quote goes.
ilrwbwrkhv 5y ago
Big guns policy. Whoever has the highest number of guns is in charge. We are still tribal monkeys after all with a thin veneer of civilization.
jobu 5y ago
> Above a certain threshold, every veneer of civilization vanishes no matter what the country (some have a higher threshold than others). > At this level, only power matters. And the first rule of power is: Don't embarrass the powerful unless you can call on a lot of power to defend yourself. Steven Donziger is another great example of this rule: https://theintercept.com/2020/01/29/chevron-ecuador-lawsuit-steven-donziger/ https://theintercept.com/2020/01/29/chevron-ecuador-lawsuit-... Chevron has decided to make an example of him by ruining his life in return for a $9.5 billion judgement he won against them in Ecuador.
- pwillia7 5y ago
  Whatever happened to our benevolent anonymous hacker groups that were supposed to be so organic and decentralized they could never be ended?
  - dmoy 5y ago
    They never got law degrees with which to pursue judgments in court. Turns out it's hard to pass the bar while remaining anonymous.
  - e12e 5y ago
    War on terror?
  - bopbeepboop 5y ago
    [dead]
  - jazzyjackson 5y ago
    probably got caught hacking something else for fun and profit, e.g. lulzsec
MichaelMoser123 5y ago
is it possible, that the system is getting more and more vindictive and less liberal? I mean, Assange isn't saying more radical things than Chomsky, yet they tolerated Chomky somehow, for whatever reasons....
psychlops 5y ago
The jackrabbit always wins.
ozim 5y ago
That is why Edward Snowden beeing still free is important. Don't get me wrong. If there will be a good deal from US - Russia is going to hand him over in a blink of an eye. But he is an example that you still can play it out between big boys and not all is lost.
jMyles 5y ago
The thing I don't understand, given all this - and I say this with substantial study in Political Science, including a degree - is why then we still see such widespread admiration of the notion that states are legitimate organizational structures? Ostensibly they are different than corporations and other private entities specifically in that the standard by which their mandate exists is a public one. But once we see that that's not true (and we have seen it throughout history, but with astonishing clarity in the past two decades), isn't it time to move on?
- sneak 5y ago
  > is why then we still see such widespread admiration of the notion that states are legitimate organizational structures? Because the states (indirectly, carefully, and tactfully) guide the media in those states, and the majority of people uncritically assume that the narratives they hear over and over again ("land of the free", "rule of law", "innocent until proven guilty", "justice is blind", "a free press") are true and correct, simply because they've been repeated at them so often. Information that contradicts those beliefs is ignored, discredited, or discarded.
HPsquared 5y ago
People think (and have throughout history thought) that they live outside of history and "this time it's different". Hard to see the forest for the trees, I suppose
plandis 5y ago
Let me ask you: have you actually read the indictment against Assange that the DOJ has published? You are aware he is alleged to have pointed Manning to which files to illegally obtain and offered to help her cover her tracks, right? These are real crimes — not, as you allege, for embarrassing the US government.
d1lanka 5y ago
> This is the message to would-be activists anywhere: Stay out of the big boy pool or we'll make you regret it. Check your expenses before waging war. Or, you need to band together with an international band of investigative journalists like the ICIJ: https://www.icij.org https://www.icij.org (who released the Pandora Papers) or do it intelligently like Snowden. The most Ballsy of people in this category has to be the Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny: https://youtu.be/kHgI6um1BMc https://youtu.be/kHgI6um1BMc IMO.

zoe4883 5y ago

It took 10 years for most powerful entity on earth, I would call that success for Snowden. Real moral of this story is from how it started. With a date and broken condom.

tata71 5y ago
How many errors can fit into such a short comment!
- zoe4883 5y ago
  Call it what you want. But I think international rules and his rights, were respected reasonably well. Only charges he faced for very long time were for rape. If he kept his zipper closed, while going against US gov, he could freely travel and argue political imprisonment as a journalist. He would be now drinking vodka with Snowden.

impendingchange 5y ago

There is a deeper level to this event. Discovery is a bitch.

pydry 5y ago

I suspect Assange doesn't regret this. I kind of get the impression that becoming a martyr was a sacrifice he was prepared to make if he managed to rip off the mask and expose the unbridled imperialist evil lurking underneath the "civilized press conference veneer" presented by the US government.

mrsuprawsm 5y ago
It's a bit of a sad sacrifice, though. Nothing (significant) has changed about the US's imperialism as a result of his disclosures, it's just mildly more acknowledged.
- goodpoint 5y ago
  > mildly more acknowledged This is already a very big achievement for just one individual. How many people, activist or not, have been killed without anybody noticing?
- h0l0cube 5y ago
  Much was made of upholding the promise to withdraw troops from the Middle East in the last US election. You can bet Collateral Murder and a number of other Wikileaks publications helped sway public opinion of the US military presence in the Middle East
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- user3939382 5y ago
  The sad part is how few people even know what he published, especially juxtaposed with his sacrifice. If I go talk to the average person about Snowden or Assange they know little to nothing about what they revealed.
  - enriquto 5y ago
    > If I go talk to the average person about Snowden or Assange they know little to nothing about what they revealed. You are doing good, then. Need to keep talking to more people!

FredPret 5y ago

Ultimately, right and wrong, good and evil are human judgments, sometimes acted upon by humans using human power. There’s nothing transcendent about it. The international rules-based order is safeguarded by powerful entities… because it’s in their best interest. One goes against that self-interest at one’s peril.

jtdev 5y ago
Epstein literally molested children and engaged in child sex trafficking, but was powerful enough that he was able to continue doing this - with implied protection from the state - for many years. Only after intense public pressure was Epstein seriously prosecuted. Assange TELLS THE TRUTH and is crucified internationally for years. Assange had no power, Epstein was the epitome of corrupt power.
leto_ii 5y ago
> right and wrong, good and evil are human judgments This is nonsense that opens up the possibility to justify pretty much any kind of abuse or atrocity. > The international rules-based order is safeguarded by powerful entities… because it’s in their best interest. If the international order was actually rules-based it would have been safeguarded by international institutions, not by a single capricious superpower. > One goes against that self-interest at one’s peril. This one eludes me. Who's going against who's interest?
- FredPret 5y ago
  > This is nonsense that opens up the possibility to justify pretty much any kind of abuse or atrocity. Hilarious. Do you think there’s big judge in the sky that determines what’s good and bad? There is only human conscience, and powerful people who decide to enforce their conscience. > If the international order was actually rules-based it would have been safeguarded by international institutions, not by a single capricious superpower. If there’s an international institution that can enforce rules, then that institution is the capricious superpower, and woe betide those that mess with that institution.
  - 5y ago

vbezhenar 5y ago

There are countries which do not bend before others. Russia, China, Iran to name a few examples. They can protect those fleeing from the West. Just like West can protect people from those countries. World is not unipolar.

beebmam 5y ago
Is this a joke? The entirety of those countries citizens are subject to their own government's tyrannical rule
- ahartmetz 5y ago
  Bend before others. In other words, they aren't follower members of a block. That says nothing about citizens or what exactly these countries are doing.
- shadowgovt 5y ago
  Edward Snowden is currently hiding from US power projection in Russia. He is of course beholden to Russian law; I assume if he were gay he'd be having a much worse time of it. But the specific point here is that it is possible to hide from the US in the territory of a country that does not answer to the US.
nannal 5y ago
Let's ask Litvinenko his opinion?
- nosianu 5y ago
  No, because it is clear? He was fleeing from Russian government. And they poisoned him. That has nothing to do with the subject of people feeling from the US influence. This kind of argument that you attempted is a bit tiring, don't you think? If you flee from Russian government, go to the West. And vice versa. One does not invalidate the other.
- Dah00n 5y ago
  His opinion on fleeing from the US? What are you on about?

papito 5y ago

"Laws are people, and I can manage people." - Logan Roy, Succession, HBO "How do you ensure the green? You can't. As in life, in traffic, you leave yourself an out... You move diagonal, you turn the wheel when you hit a red light. You don't try down Broadway to get to Broadway. You are going to butt heads with these friends of ours? You are going to come at them head on? They got lives, Freddy, families." - Cop Land

nnvvhh 5y ago
Funny, I was thinking of a Logan Roy quote: “Life's not knights on horseback. It's a number on a piece of paper. It's a fight for a knife in the mud.”

mercy_dude 5y ago

The most infuriating among all of them has been our media - specifically mainstream media. They have played the entire saga down and in many cases many mainstream media pundits actively espoused for Assanges punishment [1]. I no longer hold the view that our media deserves the first amendment protection that it does. Mainstream media right now has no other purpose other than being active vehicle of the powerful and billionaire oligarchs to control the narrative. When 70% of the media empire are owned by billionaires why are we pretending otherwise? How different is that than state sponsored media in North Korea? [1] https://greenwald.substack.com/p/julian-assange-loses-appeal-british https://greenwald.substack.com/p/julian-assange-loses-appeal...

ceejayoz 5y ago
> I no longer hold the view that our media deserves the first amendment protection that it does. That, uh, might be a bit of an overcorrection.
- mercy_dude 5y ago
  Well can you elaborate why you think it is? Because the way I see it, it gives unwavering and constitutionally guaranteed way for billionaires to control the narratives - in addition to the power they already have been wielding through owning politicians using lobbyists and having protection through section 230 in all the stakes they own in the social media companies. That’s what has been happening in the media space - Murdochs, Turners and Bezos now own vast sum of media sphere. And social medias just use them as proxy for “fact checks”.
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    > Well can you elaborate why you think it is? Because "we'll revoke your First Amendment rights if we don't like how you're using them" is a very big step on a very steep and very slippery slope. Assange's defense is likely to revolve around the First Amendment. Weakening it would hurt him, even.
    - 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

jollybean 5y ago

This is ridiculous. Assange is alleged to have cooperated with a member of the US forces to release gigabytes of diplomatic cables etc. - which is possibly a crime. In all but rare cases, you absolutely do not have the right to break into systems of national security and release arbitrary information under the guise of 'journalism'. His extradition is perfectly rational, legal and judicially legitimate. The Abu Garib whistleblower didn't face criminal charges, and has been relocated and protected by US Justice System, because he did the right thing, not the wrong thing. Assange will face a trial like everyone else, he is not above the law. While I think he's probably not guilty in this scenario, there is evidence made public that possibly points to criminality, I'm looking forward to seeing the facts of the case.

mercy_dude 5y ago
> because he did the right thing, not the wrong thing. And who defines the right or wrong? Assange revealed among many things how CIA collects data of US citizens abusing patriot act without warrants.
- jollybean 5y ago
  "And who defines the right or wrong?" The Law under the purview of the Justice System, which is why they are pressing for a trial.
  - dane-pgp 5y ago
    If you believe that The Law defines what is right and wrong, then surely it can never be right to change The Law? Maybe you don't actually believe that, but I think it is important to consider just how large the gap between The Law and What Is Right has been, at various times in the past, and in various places.
    - jollybean 5y ago
      The Law is how we define 'Right and Wrong' in the civil sense, it's all we have. Obviously, we us a moral sensibility in the community, but that's more nuanced. Laws change all of the time, especially as different cases with different characteristics are brought before the courts and they set precedent. Assange is accused of working with people to hack into sensitive systems in which gigabytes of arbitrary government data were stolen and published. If true, this is definitely within the realm of what we would generally accepted to be illegal, there's not going to be much controversy there. The issue is whether or not Assange has actually committed a crime, and to what extent his prosecution is political. I suggest we'll be able to get a sense for that when he is put on trial and the evidence is presented. If it turns out the FBI paid a guy to lie about him, and that's all the evidence they have, then Assange will walk away a free man, but otherwise we'll have to wait to see the evidence.

tootie 5y ago

That might be relevant if Assange wasn't doing it at the behest of Russia

leto_ii 5y ago
> That might be relevant if Assange wasn't doing it at the behest of Russia [citation needed]

RivieraKid 5y ago

But you're assuming that the UK court made a decision that is against their law. Why is extradition an incorrect decision?

vanusa 5y ago
For example - given the ample (and basically) record of U.S. authorities in regard to their treatment of so-called High Value Detainees -- and even of very low-value detainees at is borders, as we have seen in recent years -- the High Court had no reason whatsoever to lend credence to the so-called "assurances" they cited in their ruling: The High Court said Friday that it had received appropriate assurances from the U.S. to meet the threshold for extradition, including: Assange will not be subject to “special administrative measures” or be held in a notorious maximum security prison in Florence, Colorado. Assange, if convicted, will be permitted to serve out his sentence in his native Australia. Assange will receive appropriate clinical and psychological treatment in custody.
- ChrisKnott 5y ago
  Specifically which of these assurances are you saying will be broken?
  - boomboomsubban 5y ago
    They openly admit their willingness to break all three if "future acts" deem them necessary, not to mention they're free to stick him in another terrible jail with other restrictive measures even with the assurances.
    - 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
      Hello old friend. Why are you outraged about things that have not happened? Has the US Govt broken those promises? Y/n?
      - Dah00n 5y ago

rich_sasha 5y ago

This is in micro scale, so perhaps this is why the power imbalance is so painfully clear. This is one guy against the whole might of the US. Of course events like this have been happening for centuries, recent decades included. The people in various countries caught up in wars had their lives ruined or lost. At best, this was despite all efforts to safeguard them and a price to pay for some greater good, at worst footnote to some uncaring Grand Plan. The end result is the same though. The machine of Western Democracy devours those who cross it hard enough. Maybe to protect those inside the bubble, or maybe because it's still floating in the same Big Bad World as the less democratic counterparts around the world.

quest88 5y ago
It sets precedent. One guy today, more tomorrow.
2Gkashmiri 5y ago
if "laws" cannot protect one man, why bother with the sham that is "democracy"? its not just in the US but rest of the countries as well. when "pride" of a democracy is greater than the life of a human, it is no better than china or north korea. there at least you have the expectation of their intentions, that you are on your own. "democracies" are supposed to protect the little guy regardless of the adversary. as the other commenter said, this sets the precedent for the rest of the world. now india can go ahead and do the same to its dissenters because america could do it.
- isk517 5y ago
  I would argue we bother with the sham because it is superior to the alternatives, the issue is human nature prevents us from ever truly reaching an ideal society. As long as there is someone standing is 3ft of shit for us to laugh we are comfortable and happy despite the fact that we ourselves are standing in 2ft of shit.
  - 2Gkashmiri 5y ago
    sure, we are willing to sacrifice assange for the greater good

raverbashing 5y ago

"sobering view of how the world really works" for whom this is unexpected, which is to say, the most naive. Laws don't go beyond who enforces them. And this is as expected, they're not an omnipotent/divine construct. The general public view of Assange is not so great and it went down with time. Manning is probably viewed more favourably. States that were too tolerant with those who "skirt the rules" (or just do very serious crimes) usually end up regretting it (or not living to regret it, which is worse). I would be very happy if those involved in some January events at D.C. got a similar treatment.

sneak 5y ago
> "sobering view of how the world really works" for whom this is unexpected, which is to say, the most naive. I think perhaps you're giving too many people too much credit. I would assume that the vast majority of people in the USA think it's a functioning democracy, subject to the rule of law, with human rights. None of these things are true, and, yet, these beliefs are very widely held.
- raverbashing 5y ago
  It certainly beats the majority of other countries in this aspect We wouldn't be talking about Assange having legal recourse had he got in the wrong way of a lot of other places. The buck stops somewhere, no system is perfect and special cases are special cases. As again per the last paragraph in my initial response.
  - sneak 5y ago
    Imagine a parent that physically abuses their young child way less than all of the other parents on their block. It's not really a defense. The USA, and in particular the parts of the USA that have the most power, do not really care at all about human rights, and are not held accountable for not caring about human rights.

newbamboo 5y ago

It’s not much different at other levels. You only have public opinion and Assange wasn’t able to best Clinton in that realm. There’s a lesson about optics and choosing your enemies to be learned as well as the lesson about power.

echopurity 5y ago

[dead]

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago

Your entire post is opinion and contains no information, factual or otherwise.

marmaduke 5y ago
Isn’t a court ruling an opinion and not fact? Is it necessary to oppose one opinion not with another but a fact?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
Dah00n 5y ago
So, just like yours? How does this add anything?
- ahahahahah 5y ago
  I think you might misunderstand the difference between opinion and fact.

hulitu 5y ago

> This is the message to would-be activists anywhere: Stay out of the big boy pool or we'll make you regret it. You also need to take care of your big boy pool. When you make friends by force they will leave you the moment another stronger friend will come. And when you eroded all your credibility will be a bit difficult to regain it back. Of course you think you have control over everything.

shadowgovt 5y ago

In short... One should not assume the powers-that-be provide tools freely to disassemble the powers-that-be. "For the master's tools will never dismantle the master's house," as the quote goes.

ilrwbwrkhv 5y ago

Big guns policy. Whoever has the highest number of guns is in charge. We are still tribal monkeys after all with a thin veneer of civilization.

jobu 5y ago

> Above a certain threshold, every veneer of civilization vanishes no matter what the country (some have a higher threshold than others). > At this level, only power matters. And the first rule of power is: Don't embarrass the powerful unless you can call on a lot of power to defend yourself. Steven Donziger is another great example of this rule: https://theintercept.com/2020/01/29/chevron-ecuador-lawsuit-steven-donziger/ https://theintercept.com/2020/01/29/chevron-ecuador-lawsuit-... Chevron has decided to make an example of him by ruining his life in return for a $9.5 billion judgement he won against them in Ecuador.

pwillia7 5y ago
Whatever happened to our benevolent anonymous hacker groups that were supposed to be so organic and decentralized they could never be ended?
- dmoy 5y ago
  They never got law degrees with which to pursue judgments in court. Turns out it's hard to pass the bar while remaining anonymous.
- e12e 5y ago
  War on terror?
- bopbeepboop 5y ago
  [dead]
- jazzyjackson 5y ago
  probably got caught hacking something else for fun and profit, e.g. lulzsec

MichaelMoser123 5y ago

is it possible, that the system is getting more and more vindictive and less liberal? I mean, Assange isn't saying more radical things than Chomsky, yet they tolerated Chomky somehow, for whatever reasons....

psychlops 5y ago

The jackrabbit always wins.

ozim 5y ago

That is why Edward Snowden beeing still free is important. Don't get me wrong. If there will be a good deal from US - Russia is going to hand him over in a blink of an eye. But he is an example that you still can play it out between big boys and not all is lost.

jMyles 5y ago

The thing I don't understand, given all this - and I say this with substantial study in Political Science, including a degree - is why then we still see such widespread admiration of the notion that states are legitimate organizational structures? Ostensibly they are different than corporations and other private entities specifically in that the standard by which their mandate exists is a public one. But once we see that that's not true (and we have seen it throughout history, but with astonishing clarity in the past two decades), isn't it time to move on?

sneak 5y ago
> is why then we still see such widespread admiration of the notion that states are legitimate organizational structures? Because the states (indirectly, carefully, and tactfully) guide the media in those states, and the majority of people uncritically assume that the narratives they hear over and over again ("land of the free", "rule of law", "innocent until proven guilty", "justice is blind", "a free press") are true and correct, simply because they've been repeated at them so often. Information that contradicts those beliefs is ignored, discredited, or discarded.

HPsquared 5y ago

People think (and have throughout history thought) that they live outside of history and "this time it's different". Hard to see the forest for the trees, I suppose

plandis 5y ago

Let me ask you: have you actually read the indictment against Assange that the DOJ has published? You are aware he is alleged to have pointed Manning to which files to illegally obtain and offered to help her cover her tracks, right? These are real crimes — not, as you allege, for embarrassing the US government.

d1lanka 5y ago

> This is the message to would-be activists anywhere: Stay out of the big boy pool or we'll make you regret it. Check your expenses before waging war. Or, you need to band together with an international band of investigative journalists like the ICIJ: https://www.icij.org https://www.icij.org (who released the Pandora Papers) or do it intelligently like Snowden. The most Ballsy of people in this category has to be the Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny: https://youtu.be/kHgI6um1BMc https://youtu.be/kHgI6um1BMc IMO.