4 ms·

It's kind of absurd that this has taken so long - and that's primarily down to Assange himself. I can understand that people genuinely think he did the right th

It's kind of absurd that this has taken so long - and that's primarily down to Assange himself. I can understand that people genuinely think he did the right thing, but he should at least have to defend his actions in court. I think it's pretty uncontroversial that publishing secret government documents should atleast potentially be illegal, and it's up to the justice system to decide whether he broke the law. I don't buy the idea that he won't get a fair trial. He might not be innocent, he may be guilty of a crime you don't think should be a crime, but we should still fundamentally adhere to the processes we have.

jakobnissen 4y ago
It depends on what you mean by a "fair trial". The standard argument for his trial not going to be fair is that he will convicted under the espionage act of 1915. The law behind this act has no exceptions that allow whistleblowing, or otherwise allows the defender to argue that he acted in the nation's interest. That means that Assange, in order to be found innocent, have to convince the court that he didn't leak any classified information in the first place, which is clearly beside the point. It is not enough to convince the court that he acted in good faith, or that what he did was the right thing.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
  You are presupposing the outcome.
  - polytely 4y ago
    I mean there is no other likely outcome when tried under this law, or do you suppose that he will not be tried under the espionage act? because if that is the case I have a bridge to sell you.
- SilverBirch 4y ago
  Yeah I mean I wouldn't call that an issue about not getting a fair trial, that's just an issue where you don't think the law is just. But you know, you don't get to just opt-out of the laws you don't like. At the end of the day this could be appealed right up to the Supreme Court, but you have to actually have the trial to find out whether it was fair.
  - jakobnissen 4y ago
    Ultimately it's a game of semantics. I'd say a trial is not fair if the law is intentionally built to not weigh any kind of moral defense. What, for example, would you say about extraditing Western journalists to China and have them stand trial for whether they criticized the CCP? Would that be a fair trial?
    - SilverBirch 4y ago
      I would say that the legal and constitutional frameworks of the US and China have some slight differences. In fact, basically I would say that if you're going to claim that the US laws and legal system won't give you a fair trial, you're essentially saying that there is no legal system in the world where you can get a fair trial and therefore you're advocating for Assange to essentially never face any legal scrutiny.
      - hulitu 4y ago
        > In fact, basically I would say that if you're going to claim that the US laws and legal system won't give you a fair trial, you're essentially saying that there is no legal system in the world where you can get a fair trial Team america, world police.
  - DiogenesKynikos 4y ago
    Assange is an Australian journalist who was outside the United States when he published this material. It doesn't matter what barbaric laws the United States has on the books to go after journalists. Assange should not be subject to the laws of whatever tin-pot regime wants to get their hands on him and punish him for airing their dirty laundry in public.
- abduhl 4y ago
  >> It is not enough to convince the court that he acted in good faith, or that what he did was the right thing. You’re right! Convincing a court that you acted in good faith or did the right thing is almost never enough in a criminal trial. “I killed that man because I really thought he was a bad guy” doesn’t make you innocent of murder and neither does “I was going 150 miles per hour in good faith” make you innocent of reckless driving. That’s how our justice system works. Your approach is completely untenable and would lead to wildly different results for two persons who each engage in the exact same illegal conduct. It might be enough to get a jury to nullify though.
  - jakobnissen 4y ago
    That is simply not correct. Nearly all laws have exceptions which mean you can be found innocent under the right circumstances, even if you admit to doing whatever you're charged of. For example, you can kill people in self-defense many places in the world. Ambulances and firetrucks can drive 150 mph if they are doing it to save people's life.
    - abduhl 4y ago
      These are defenses to a crime and they are explicitly provided for in the law. You don’t just get to assert a random defense just because you want to, which is what your approach is. There is no “good faith” or “did the right thing defense” to the law here, as you noted. Defenses are not required for all criminal laws and, in general, do not exist for crimes.
- dbbk 4y ago
  I think it's a good thing that he did it. However, there is no disputing that he had absolutely no authority to. He is guilty. And he knew that when he did it.
  - impossiblefork 4y ago
    How do you mean, did not have authority to? Assange was in Iceland at the time, and in Iceland there is a duty to assist people in distress. It is not unlikely that Assange had some hint that something like what was done to people like Khalid El-Masri was going on, and it was through his acts that this was revealed. Such laws generally justify basically anything, provided that you have a reasonable suspicion that a person is danger.
CogitoCogito 4y ago
> It's kind of absurd that this has taken so long - and that's primarily down to Assange himself. I’d personally say it’s due to the UK pursuing extradition instead of just dropping it, but your perspective is interesting as well.
- SilverBirch 4y ago
  Sorry, why would the UK drop it? The UK has an extradition treaty with the US, the US wanted Assange extradited, what would be the basis for the UK refusing?
  - CogitoCogito 4y ago
    The UK could have looked at the evidence and decided it wasn’t a crime according to UK law and hence he shouldn’t be extradited. I haven’t looked at the evidence for a while, but last I checked I didn’t even understand how his actions were a crime according to US law. So yeah the UK has leeway here. Why pretend otherwise? edit: Why would I receive downvotes for this? https://www.gov.uk/guidance/extradition-processes-and-review#extradition-from-the-uk-category-2-territories https://www.gov.uk/guidance/extradition-processes-and-review... Extradition hearing """ The extradition hearing before the District Judge is where most of the issues in the case are decided. The CPS will represent the requesting State in the proceedings. The judge must be satisfied that the conduct amounts to an extradition offence (dual criminality), that there is prima facie evidence of guilt (where applicable and in accusation cases), and that none of the bars to extradition apply, including that extradition would not breach the person’s human rights. """ The judge could both not believe that dual criminality is satisfied and could also believe the supposed evidence isn't good enough.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - SilverBirch 4y ago
      The UK did look at the evidence to the level of scrutiny as agreed in the extradition treaty and decided he should be extradited. This isn't some hypothetical, Assange got a fair hearing at every court in the land up to the supreme court, and the judges came to the conclusion that he should be extradited. This isn't some hypothetical, it is a matter of law that his extradition is legal. And just to put a real fine point on this: The UK judges all the way up to the Supreme court did look at the evidence, and decided against him. Which I would say is a much more reasonable approach than your argument that he shouldn't be extradited based on not having looked at the evidence for a while. It's not even like it's incomprehensible, they published their judgements at every single stage. Here, it's page 27 of this document: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/USA-v-Assange-judgment-040121.pdf https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/USA-v-As...
blitzar 4y ago
Remember the defence for not going to Sweden for questioning ... it was because if he went to Sweden it would enable extradition to the US (because Assange says the UK cant extradite people to the US despite doing it all the time). Well he never went to Sweden and it turns out that one of the easiest countries in the world to get extradited to the US is ... the UK. No idea why the lies, but so much of the persecution has been self persecution.
- mariusor 4y ago
  But conveniently when he was refusing to go to Sweden he was not on UK soil, he was in the Ecuadorean embassy which is sovereign, inviolable, and it doesn't have an extradition treaty with the US.
  - blitzar 4y ago
    >But conveniently when he was refusing to go to Sweden he was not on UK soil Except he wasnt. He was Wandsworth prison and later free on bail. For the avoidence of doubt, it is Her Majestys Prison Wandsworth, which is sovereign, inviolable, land of Her Majesty the Queen of the UK. The case was fought, in person at the Royal Courts of Justice, again sovereign, inviolable, land of Her Majesty the Queen of the UK. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/dec/16/julian-assange-freed-on-bail https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/dec/16/julian-assange... He fled to the Ecuadorean embassy after he failed to fight extradition and failed on appeal to be extradited to sweden. If the US wanted to file for extradition, the UK had him in custody in 2010.
    - mariusor 4y ago
      Good point, thank you for the correction.
  - dane-pgp 4y ago
    > the Ecuadorean embassy which is sovereign, inviolable Contrary to popular belief, embassies do not become the sovereign territory of the guest nation. https://time.com/5429365/saudi-consulate-sovereignty-territory-khashoggi/ https://time.com/5429365/saudi-consulate-sovereignty-territo...
kwere 4y ago
civil disobedience? like having a contry which permits war crimes, to then put proof under seals for decades to avoid any accountability if any. Should the youth who escaped military draft in apartheid SA have been extradited back? But the russia connection is another topic.
Maursault 4y ago
> It's kind of absurd that this has taken so long - and that's primarily down to Assange himself. He's terrified of US covert military operations. And he has a point.[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Hastings_(journalist)#Controversy_over_alleged_foul_play https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Hastings_(journalist)#...

jakobnissen 4y ago

It depends on what you mean by a "fair trial". The standard argument for his trial not going to be fair is that he will convicted under the espionage act of 1915. The law behind this act has no exceptions that allow whistleblowing, or otherwise allows the defender to argue that he acted in the nation's interest. That means that Assange, in order to be found innocent, have to convince the court that he didn't leak any classified information in the first place, which is clearly beside the point. It is not enough to convince the court that he acted in good faith, or that what he did was the right thing.

2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
You are presupposing the outcome.
- polytely 4y ago
  I mean there is no other likely outcome when tried under this law, or do you suppose that he will not be tried under the espionage act? because if that is the case I have a bridge to sell you.
SilverBirch 4y ago
Yeah I mean I wouldn't call that an issue about not getting a fair trial, that's just an issue where you don't think the law is just. But you know, you don't get to just opt-out of the laws you don't like. At the end of the day this could be appealed right up to the Supreme Court, but you have to actually have the trial to find out whether it was fair.
- jakobnissen 4y ago
  Ultimately it's a game of semantics. I'd say a trial is not fair if the law is intentionally built to not weigh any kind of moral defense. What, for example, would you say about extraditing Western journalists to China and have them stand trial for whether they criticized the CCP? Would that be a fair trial?
  - SilverBirch 4y ago
    I would say that the legal and constitutional frameworks of the US and China have some slight differences. In fact, basically I would say that if you're going to claim that the US laws and legal system won't give you a fair trial, you're essentially saying that there is no legal system in the world where you can get a fair trial and therefore you're advocating for Assange to essentially never face any legal scrutiny.
    - hulitu 4y ago
      > In fact, basically I would say that if you're going to claim that the US laws and legal system won't give you a fair trial, you're essentially saying that there is no legal system in the world where you can get a fair trial Team america, world police.
- DiogenesKynikos 4y ago
  Assange is an Australian journalist who was outside the United States when he published this material. It doesn't matter what barbaric laws the United States has on the books to go after journalists. Assange should not be subject to the laws of whatever tin-pot regime wants to get their hands on him and punish him for airing their dirty laundry in public.
abduhl 4y ago
>> It is not enough to convince the court that he acted in good faith, or that what he did was the right thing. You’re right! Convincing a court that you acted in good faith or did the right thing is almost never enough in a criminal trial. “I killed that man because I really thought he was a bad guy” doesn’t make you innocent of murder and neither does “I was going 150 miles per hour in good faith” make you innocent of reckless driving. That’s how our justice system works. Your approach is completely untenable and would lead to wildly different results for two persons who each engage in the exact same illegal conduct. It might be enough to get a jury to nullify though.
- jakobnissen 4y ago
  That is simply not correct. Nearly all laws have exceptions which mean you can be found innocent under the right circumstances, even if you admit to doing whatever you're charged of. For example, you can kill people in self-defense many places in the world. Ambulances and firetrucks can drive 150 mph if they are doing it to save people's life.
  - abduhl 4y ago
    These are defenses to a crime and they are explicitly provided for in the law. You don’t just get to assert a random defense just because you want to, which is what your approach is. There is no “good faith” or “did the right thing defense” to the law here, as you noted. Defenses are not required for all criminal laws and, in general, do not exist for crimes.
dbbk 4y ago
I think it's a good thing that he did it. However, there is no disputing that he had absolutely no authority to. He is guilty. And he knew that when he did it.
- impossiblefork 4y ago
  How do you mean, did not have authority to? Assange was in Iceland at the time, and in Iceland there is a duty to assist people in distress. It is not unlikely that Assange had some hint that something like what was done to people like Khalid El-Masri was going on, and it was through his acts that this was revealed. Such laws generally justify basically anything, provided that you have a reasonable suspicion that a person is danger.

CogitoCogito 4y ago

> It's kind of absurd that this has taken so long - and that's primarily down to Assange himself. I’d personally say it’s due to the UK pursuing extradition instead of just dropping it, but your perspective is interesting as well.

SilverBirch 4y ago
Sorry, why would the UK drop it? The UK has an extradition treaty with the US, the US wanted Assange extradited, what would be the basis for the UK refusing?
- CogitoCogito 4y ago
  The UK could have looked at the evidence and decided it wasn’t a crime according to UK law and hence he shouldn’t be extradited. I haven’t looked at the evidence for a while, but last I checked I didn’t even understand how his actions were a crime according to US law. So yeah the UK has leeway here. Why pretend otherwise? edit: Why would I receive downvotes for this? https://www.gov.uk/guidance/extradition-processes-and-review#extradition-from-the-uk-category-2-territories https://www.gov.uk/guidance/extradition-processes-and-review... Extradition hearing """ The extradition hearing before the District Judge is where most of the issues in the case are decided. The CPS will represent the requesting State in the proceedings. The judge must be satisfied that the conduct amounts to an extradition offence (dual criminality), that there is prima facie evidence of guilt (where applicable and in accusation cases), and that none of the bars to extradition apply, including that extradition would not breach the person’s human rights. """ The judge could both not believe that dual criminality is satisfied and could also believe the supposed evidence isn't good enough.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - SilverBirch 4y ago
    The UK did look at the evidence to the level of scrutiny as agreed in the extradition treaty and decided he should be extradited. This isn't some hypothetical, Assange got a fair hearing at every court in the land up to the supreme court, and the judges came to the conclusion that he should be extradited. This isn't some hypothetical, it is a matter of law that his extradition is legal. And just to put a real fine point on this: The UK judges all the way up to the Supreme court did look at the evidence, and decided against him. Which I would say is a much more reasonable approach than your argument that he shouldn't be extradited based on not having looked at the evidence for a while. It's not even like it's incomprehensible, they published their judgements at every single stage. Here, it's page 27 of this document: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/USA-v-Assange-judgment-040121.pdf https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/USA-v-As...

blitzar 4y ago

Remember the defence for not going to Sweden for questioning ... it was because if he went to Sweden it would enable extradition to the US (because Assange says the UK cant extradite people to the US despite doing it all the time). Well he never went to Sweden and it turns out that one of the easiest countries in the world to get extradited to the US is ... the UK. No idea why the lies, but so much of the persecution has been self persecution.

mariusor 4y ago
But conveniently when he was refusing to go to Sweden he was not on UK soil, he was in the Ecuadorean embassy which is sovereign, inviolable, and it doesn't have an extradition treaty with the US.
- blitzar 4y ago
  >But conveniently when he was refusing to go to Sweden he was not on UK soil Except he wasnt. He was Wandsworth prison and later free on bail. For the avoidence of doubt, it is Her Majestys Prison Wandsworth, which is sovereign, inviolable, land of Her Majesty the Queen of the UK. The case was fought, in person at the Royal Courts of Justice, again sovereign, inviolable, land of Her Majesty the Queen of the UK. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/dec/16/julian-assange-freed-on-bail https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/dec/16/julian-assange... He fled to the Ecuadorean embassy after he failed to fight extradition and failed on appeal to be extradited to sweden. If the US wanted to file for extradition, the UK had him in custody in 2010.
  - mariusor 4y ago
    Good point, thank you for the correction.
- dane-pgp 4y ago
  > the Ecuadorean embassy which is sovereign, inviolable Contrary to popular belief, embassies do not become the sovereign territory of the guest nation. https://time.com/5429365/saudi-consulate-sovereignty-territory-khashoggi/ https://time.com/5429365/saudi-consulate-sovereignty-territo...

kwere 4y ago

civil disobedience? like having a contry which permits war crimes, to then put proof under seals for decades to avoid any accountability if any. Should the youth who escaped military draft in apartheid SA have been extradited back? But the russia connection is another topic.

Maursault 4y ago

> It's kind of absurd that this has taken so long - and that's primarily down to Assange himself. He's terrified of US covert military operations. And he has a point.[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Hastings_(journalist)#Controversy_over_alleged_foul_play https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Hastings_(journalist)#...