4 ms·

- the alleged crimes were committed against the US, i.e his participation in the exfiltration of secret data from US government. Surely his physical location wh

- the alleged crimes were committed against the US, i.e his participation in the exfiltration of secret data from US government. Surely his physical location when committing these crimes should have no bearing on whether it's a criminal matter. - calling him a journalist is a mighty stretch even before he started, let's call it his "full-stack collaboration" with the Russians - Manning served the time and is thus free. Assange did not serve time, so from the perspective of the US justice system is a few steps back in the process of paying for his crime. Regardless of guilt or innocence, nothing seems strange about this concept itself. If you're caught for a crime committed with others back in the 90s you're also gonna go to prison, even if your co-conspirators are out free already.

lb0 5y ago
So no matter what the US does criminal against its own or international law (yeah I know, US give a fuck about Geneva conventions and also Den Haag.. another shame) - if they declared it "secret data" they can declare a foreign journalist helping in uncovering that crime himself committing crimes and require extradition? Just so backwards... Yeah I know, we can argue endless forever about the details, real lawyers too.. but to be honest on a higher level: It is such a shame for the US as a country claiming "democracy", "freedom" and more to go on with this ridiculous show trail, just such a ridiculous shame. For the UK the same, of course. Just read that overspecific prepared weasel language... I cannot stand it. > But in their ruling on Friday, they sided with the US authorities after a near-unprecedented package of assurances were put forward that Assange would not face those strictest measures either pre-trial or post-conviction unless he committed an act in the future that required them. We all know what will happen.. as a Westerner ashamed myself :(
93po 5y ago
>- calling him a journalist is a mighty stretch even before he started, let's call it his "full-stack collaboration" with the Russians This is wildly unsubstantiated and at best fear mongering propaganda. >- the alleged crimes were committed against the US, i.e his participation in the exfiltration of secret data from US government. Surely his physical location when committing these crimes should have no bearing on whether it's a criminal matter. It absolutely should matter. Why should someone who's not a citizen and wasn't located in the US be held to US laws? Does every person on the planet now need to memorize the laws of every country and fear extradition if I were to accidentally view gay porn, which is illegal in Saudi Arabia?
- kspacewalk2 5y ago
  >It absolutely should matter. Why should someone who's not a citizen and wasn't located in the US be held to US laws? Does every person on the planet now need to memorize the laws of every country and fear extradition if I were to accidentally view gay porn, which is illegal in Saudi Arabia? Your example doesn't really work because it is illegal to view gay porn in Saudi Arabia. If Saudi Arabia decided to outlaw viewing gay porn worldwide, and then another country's government decided that its extradition treaty with Saudi Arabia covers this law, and then you decided to visit such a country and viewed gay porn - yes, you should fear extradition in that case. By your logic, all one needs to do to hack into US companies and, say, steal trade secrets or money with impunity, or demand ransom, is to be outside the US. But that's not how the world works. In addition, you gotta find a country that doesn't extradite to the US on charges of fraud, and/or theft of trade secrets. Or, in Assange's case, actively and persistently convincing and coaching someone to exfiltrate top secret data from a US government computer system. Something that, BTW, I look forward to hearing which country in the world does not outlaw and pursue criminal convictions for. The framework is logically and legally sound, a good idea and a good thing. As to the inputs to the process - quality of laws, wording of extradition treaties - that does vary, so choose travel destinations and elected officials carefully.
choward 5y ago
> calling him a journalist is a mighty stretch even before he started, let's call it his "full-stack collaboration" with the Russians How is he not a journalist? What's your definition? Is the garbage that CNN, MSNBC and Fox News spews out journalism? Is Chris Cuomo a journalist? Where is you evidence of Russian collaboration? Or did you hear that from a "journalist"? It seems you have no clue what journalism is.
- kspacewalk2 5y ago
  I restrict my definition to investigative reporting and neutral reporting of current affairs. People who write op-eds, or engage in propaganda, or (in this case) are an outlet for strategically timed leaks by foreign governments, coordinated beforehand with said outlet - that's not journalism, whatever else it happens to be. The evidence of Russian collaboration is detailed in the Mueller indictment, numerous investigative pieces about e.g. the kinds of people who visited Assange in the embassy, the obviously coordinated timing of DNC leaks, etc. etc. A preponderance of available evidence, let's call it.
sumedh 5y ago
> Manning served the time Didnt Obama commute his sentence?
- CRConrad 5y ago
  A) Her sentence. B) Only after she'd served most of it, AFAICR.

lb0 5y ago

So no matter what the US does criminal against its own or international law (yeah I know, US give a fuck about Geneva conventions and also Den Haag.. another shame) - if they declared it "secret data" they can declare a foreign journalist helping in uncovering that crime himself committing crimes and require extradition? Just so backwards... Yeah I know, we can argue endless forever about the details, real lawyers too.. but to be honest on a higher level: It is such a shame for the US as a country claiming "democracy", "freedom" and more to go on with this ridiculous show trail, just such a ridiculous shame. For the UK the same, of course. Just read that overspecific prepared weasel language... I cannot stand it. > But in their ruling on Friday, they sided with the US authorities after a near-unprecedented package of assurances were put forward that Assange would not face those strictest measures either pre-trial or post-conviction unless he committed an act in the future that required them. We all know what will happen.. as a Westerner ashamed myself :(

93po 5y ago

>- calling him a journalist is a mighty stretch even before he started, let's call it his "full-stack collaboration" with the Russians This is wildly unsubstantiated and at best fear mongering propaganda. >- the alleged crimes were committed against the US, i.e his participation in the exfiltration of secret data from US government. Surely his physical location when committing these crimes should have no bearing on whether it's a criminal matter. It absolutely should matter. Why should someone who's not a citizen and wasn't located in the US be held to US laws? Does every person on the planet now need to memorize the laws of every country and fear extradition if I were to accidentally view gay porn, which is illegal in Saudi Arabia?

kspacewalk2 5y ago
>It absolutely should matter. Why should someone who's not a citizen and wasn't located in the US be held to US laws? Does every person on the planet now need to memorize the laws of every country and fear extradition if I were to accidentally view gay porn, which is illegal in Saudi Arabia? Your example doesn't really work because it is illegal to view gay porn in Saudi Arabia. If Saudi Arabia decided to outlaw viewing gay porn worldwide, and then another country's government decided that its extradition treaty with Saudi Arabia covers this law, and then you decided to visit such a country and viewed gay porn - yes, you should fear extradition in that case. By your logic, all one needs to do to hack into US companies and, say, steal trade secrets or money with impunity, or demand ransom, is to be outside the US. But that's not how the world works. In addition, you gotta find a country that doesn't extradite to the US on charges of fraud, and/or theft of trade secrets. Or, in Assange's case, actively and persistently convincing and coaching someone to exfiltrate top secret data from a US government computer system. Something that, BTW, I look forward to hearing which country in the world does not outlaw and pursue criminal convictions for. The framework is logically and legally sound, a good idea and a good thing. As to the inputs to the process - quality of laws, wording of extradition treaties - that does vary, so choose travel destinations and elected officials carefully.

choward 5y ago

> calling him a journalist is a mighty stretch even before he started, let's call it his "full-stack collaboration" with the Russians How is he not a journalist? What's your definition? Is the garbage that CNN, MSNBC and Fox News spews out journalism? Is Chris Cuomo a journalist? Where is you evidence of Russian collaboration? Or did you hear that from a "journalist"? It seems you have no clue what journalism is.

kspacewalk2 5y ago
I restrict my definition to investigative reporting and neutral reporting of current affairs. People who write op-eds, or engage in propaganda, or (in this case) are an outlet for strategically timed leaks by foreign governments, coordinated beforehand with said outlet - that's not journalism, whatever else it happens to be. The evidence of Russian collaboration is detailed in the Mueller indictment, numerous investigative pieces about e.g. the kinds of people who visited Assange in the embassy, the obviously coordinated timing of DNC leaks, etc. etc. A preponderance of available evidence, let's call it.

sumedh 5y ago

> Manning served the time Didnt Obama commute his sentence?

CRConrad 5y ago
A) Her sentence. B) Only after she'd served most of it, AFAICR.