4 ms·

The Assange case seems relevant and topical. And regardless, what side of the fence would you expect somebody writing an article about press freedom and censors

The Assange case seems relevant and topical. And regardless, what side of the fence would you expect somebody writing an article about press freedom and censorship to be on? To support extraditing to the US somebody who has never lived or worked there, after it was revealed US officials literally planned to kidnap and/or assassinate him? [1]. And only for the charge of revealing war crimes (apart from some trumped up “hacking” charges that the key witness now admitted lying about? [2]). I really do think somebody would have to be either hopelessly, desperately naive or deliberately lying to themselves to believe Assange could receive a fair trial in the US, and I don’t think it’s reasonable to assert that the US has any kind of jurisdiction over him. 1. https://www.theverge.com/2021/9/27/22696436/cia-kidnap-julian-assange-assassination-pompeo-trump https://www.theverge.com/2021/9/27/22696436/cia-kidnap-julia... 2. https://stundin.is/grein/13627/ https://stundin.is/grein/13627/

vkou 5y ago
> And only for the charge of revealing war crimes (apart from some trumped up “hacking” charges that the key witness now admitted lying about? [2]). I've read the allegations. If the allegations are true, he's guilty of hacking. It does not seem to be a case of the law being perverted past its intent. I'm sure the extradition and prosecution is politically motivated, but the problem with doing something that's squarely, dead-to-rights illegal that also happens to piss off the government is that they are within their rights to put you away for doing it. It'd be one thing if his supporters accepted the dead-to-rights-guilty part, and were making the claim that it was something akin to civil disobedience - illegal, but in service to a higher cause. Unfortunately, most of them are instead bending over backwards to argue that he can't actually guilty of anything. It's not very convincing. Probably because the most noteworthy accomplishment of that higher cause seems to be 'spending the next decade being a shill for the Kremlin' and 'helping Trump win 2016'. Sorry, but not sorry - I can't say I have an iota of sympathy for the architects of either.
- mistermann 5y ago
  > It'd be one thing if his supporters accepted the dead-to-rights-guilty part, and were making the claim that it was something akin to civil disobedience - illegal, but in service to a higher cause. Unfortunately, most of them are instead bending over backwards to argue that he can't actually guilty of anything. It's not very convincing. Who, precisely, are you referring to here?
  - vkou 5y ago
    People like the sibling posters. Plenty of them on every thread that mentions Assange.
    - mistermann 5y ago
      So, a tautological, non-quantitative categorization: only the subset, of unknown size, that are like this?
- pasabagi 5y ago
  > I've read the allegations. If the allegations are true, he's guilty of hacking. This is kind of interesting. To me, it seems convenient to the point of being totally unbelievable that the person who leaked evidence of US war crimes, who the US has been hounding for a decade now, is also dead-to-rights guilty of a charge that justifies the extradition they've been gunning for the whole time. Not being particularly engaged in the case, or the guy, it seems that this must be obvious to everyone. What's weird about it is that using a spurious charge as a form of harassment for a political dissident is a really big no-no for a liberal democracy. And that's exactly what this appears to be. I honestly expected some check or balance to step in at some point and point out that, no matter what you think about this guy, manipulating the legal system in such a blatant manner to produce a predetermined result is corrosive to legitimacy on every scale.
  - vkou 5y ago
    I don't know if the allegations are true. I just think that they are very serious, if they are. Fortunately, we have a process, called a trial, that can determine whether or not they are.
    - jdironman 5y ago
      Sometimes. I personally (personal opinion) feel he would have a hard time getting a fair trial.
    - pasabagi 5y ago
      You don't believe, and in fact nobody believes, that the exclusive reason for charging Assange with the hacking charges is that he's a hacker. It's obvious to everybody that he is being charged because of legitimate political speech, and this was just what they felt they could 'get him for'. Whether or not he is guilty, that means that the legal system is being used for political ends. What's wild to me is that so many people are OK with this. Politically motivated prosecution is not normal in a democracy.
      - dijit 5y ago

vkou 5y ago

> And only for the charge of revealing war crimes (apart from some trumped up “hacking” charges that the key witness now admitted lying about? [2]). I've read the allegations. If the allegations are true, he's guilty of hacking. It does not seem to be a case of the law being perverted past its intent. I'm sure the extradition and prosecution is politically motivated, but the problem with doing something that's squarely, dead-to-rights illegal that also happens to piss off the government is that they are within their rights to put you away for doing it. It'd be one thing if his supporters accepted the dead-to-rights-guilty part, and were making the claim that it was something akin to civil disobedience - illegal, but in service to a higher cause. Unfortunately, most of them are instead bending over backwards to argue that he can't actually guilty of anything. It's not very convincing. Probably because the most noteworthy accomplishment of that higher cause seems to be 'spending the next decade being a shill for the Kremlin' and 'helping Trump win 2016'. Sorry, but not sorry - I can't say I have an iota of sympathy for the architects of either.

mistermann 5y ago
> It'd be one thing if his supporters accepted the dead-to-rights-guilty part, and were making the claim that it was something akin to civil disobedience - illegal, but in service to a higher cause. Unfortunately, most of them are instead bending over backwards to argue that he can't actually guilty of anything. It's not very convincing. Who, precisely, are you referring to here?
- vkou 5y ago
  People like the sibling posters. Plenty of them on every thread that mentions Assange.
  - mistermann 5y ago
    So, a tautological, non-quantitative categorization: only the subset, of unknown size, that are like this?
pasabagi 5y ago
> I've read the allegations. If the allegations are true, he's guilty of hacking. This is kind of interesting. To me, it seems convenient to the point of being totally unbelievable that the person who leaked evidence of US war crimes, who the US has been hounding for a decade now, is also dead-to-rights guilty of a charge that justifies the extradition they've been gunning for the whole time. Not being particularly engaged in the case, or the guy, it seems that this must be obvious to everyone. What's weird about it is that using a spurious charge as a form of harassment for a political dissident is a really big no-no for a liberal democracy. And that's exactly what this appears to be. I honestly expected some check or balance to step in at some point and point out that, no matter what you think about this guy, manipulating the legal system in such a blatant manner to produce a predetermined result is corrosive to legitimacy on every scale.
- vkou 5y ago
  I don't know if the allegations are true. I just think that they are very serious, if they are. Fortunately, we have a process, called a trial, that can determine whether or not they are.
  - jdironman 5y ago
    Sometimes. I personally (personal opinion) feel he would have a hard time getting a fair trial.
  - pasabagi 5y ago
    You don't believe, and in fact nobody believes, that the exclusive reason for charging Assange with the hacking charges is that he's a hacker. It's obvious to everybody that he is being charged because of legitimate political speech, and this was just what they felt they could 'get him for'. Whether or not he is guilty, that means that the legal system is being used for political ends. What's wild to me is that so many people are OK with this. Politically motivated prosecution is not normal in a democracy.
    - dijit 5y ago