5 ms·

My understanding is that there are big differences. Manning was an Army Private First Class, that is, enlisted military, who had specifically signed agreements

My understanding is that there are big differences. Manning was an Army Private First Class, that is, enlisted military, who had specifically signed agreements to not disclose classified information. It's not exactly the same thing, but similar things happen in private industry. If an employee of a company posted a trade secret the employee had agreed to keep secret, that's legally actionable, while others sharing it without any agreement with the company generally can't be sued. That said, IANAL. If you need legal advise, I'm not it :-).

iso1631 4y ago
Assange presumably hadn't signed anything like that, nor is he a US citizen. He did however skip bail, and rightly paid for that. I was disappointed by the high court's view to allow extradition, especially given the one-sided approach to extradition that US takes with its citizens, but it was hardly surprising given how far up the US's ass the UK is. Of course a decade ago it was all "I don't want to go to Sweden because I'll be extradited", despite that easily being the case from the UK.
- monocasa 4y ago
  I don't think he was scared of the normal extradition process in Sweden, but instead how in the past Sweden has just straight up assisted CIA operatives in kidnapping Swedish residents, contrary to their own legal system. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_of_Ahmed_Agiza_and_Muhammad_al-Zery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_of_Ahmed_Agiza_an... The UK at least follows their own legal system for such matters.
  - iso1631 4y ago
    That particular rendition relied on the UK refueling the planes. Seems a very tenuous link to me - the idea that the US would illegally kidnap someone from the streets in Sweden but not do the same thing in the UK Hell nowadays the UK would not just allow, but probably pay the US to take asylum seekers somewhere else https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/editorials/iraq-war-torture-rendition-jack-straw-tony-blair-us-intelligence-agencies-a8421636.html https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/editorials/iraq-war-tor...
    - monocasa 4y ago
      > That particular rendition relied on the UK refueling the planes. That particular rendition didn't rely on UK refueling the planes; the CIA's planes don't need to be refueled from somewhere as close as Sweden. And it was a minor scandal when it came out that the UK even allowed rendition flight refueling on one of it's territories in the Indian ocean. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/feb/22/ciarendition.foreignpolicy1 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/feb/22/ciarendition.f... > Seems a very tenuous link to me - the idea that the US would illegally kidnap someone from the streets in Sweden but not do the same thing in the UK Then you should be able to produce an example of this happening. The big difference is that for western Europe, the US gov generally requires that the host country cooperates with renditions. Sweden cooperates with renditions, the UK requires the normal extradition process.

iso1631 4y ago

Assange presumably hadn't signed anything like that, nor is he a US citizen. He did however skip bail, and rightly paid for that. I was disappointed by the high court's view to allow extradition, especially given the one-sided approach to extradition that US takes with its citizens, but it was hardly surprising given how far up the US's ass the UK is. Of course a decade ago it was all "I don't want to go to Sweden because I'll be extradited", despite that easily being the case from the UK.

monocasa 4y ago
I don't think he was scared of the normal extradition process in Sweden, but instead how in the past Sweden has just straight up assisted CIA operatives in kidnapping Swedish residents, contrary to their own legal system. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_of_Ahmed_Agiza_and_Muhammad_al-Zery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_of_Ahmed_Agiza_an... The UK at least follows their own legal system for such matters.
- iso1631 4y ago
  That particular rendition relied on the UK refueling the planes. Seems a very tenuous link to me - the idea that the US would illegally kidnap someone from the streets in Sweden but not do the same thing in the UK Hell nowadays the UK would not just allow, but probably pay the US to take asylum seekers somewhere else https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/editorials/iraq-war-torture-rendition-jack-straw-tony-blair-us-intelligence-agencies-a8421636.html https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/editorials/iraq-war-tor...
  - monocasa 4y ago
    > That particular rendition relied on the UK refueling the planes. That particular rendition didn't rely on UK refueling the planes; the CIA's planes don't need to be refueled from somewhere as close as Sweden. And it was a minor scandal when it came out that the UK even allowed rendition flight refueling on one of it's territories in the Indian ocean. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/feb/22/ciarendition.foreignpolicy1 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/feb/22/ciarendition.f... > Seems a very tenuous link to me - the idea that the US would illegally kidnap someone from the streets in Sweden but not do the same thing in the UK Then you should be able to produce an example of this happening. The big difference is that for western Europe, the US gov generally requires that the host country cooperates with renditions. Sweden cooperates with renditions, the UK requires the normal extradition process.