3 ms·

It's a complex legal matter and nobody involved is in any rush to make hasty decisions, because they may impact future extradition requests. Speaking of the fut

It's a complex legal matter and nobody involved is in any rush to make hasty decisions, because they may impact future extradition requests. Speaking of the future, intentional or not, Assange's case has a freezing effect on people who might be thinking of sharing secrets. That's already a win for those who don't want secrets to be shared with the public.

boomboomsubban 3y ago
>Speaking of the future, intentional or not, Assange's case has a freezing effect on people who might be thinking of sharing secrets Saying Assange "shared" secrets seems incorrect. Manning shared secrets with Assange so that Assange could publish them. Punishing Manning surely scared those considering sharing secrets. Punishing Assange would frighten those considering publishing secrets, something the US has generally been unable to freely do.
- surfingdino 3y ago
  We might be splitting hairs here, but is publishing not sharing?
  - boomboomsubban 3y ago
    From my position, your post looked like it was saying the prosecution of Assange would scare whistleblowers not journalists. You probably meant publishers, but I figured clarification would be better. I say that, but my post also could use clarification. The US has typically been unable to scare publishers of documents, the last time they really tried was with the Pentagon Papers and the Supreme Court ruled they couldn't punish publishers.
hnbad 3y ago
It's important to keep in mind that this is not just about the US. Countries not aligned with the US may have an interest in exposing the US but most countries do not have an interest of being exposed in a similar manner and setting an example with Assange not only deters exposure of the US but exposure of any of the countries aligned with the US and supporting the extradition.

3 ms·

It's a complex legal matter and nobody involved is in any rush to make hasty decisions, because they may impact future extradition requests. Speaking of the fut

by surfingdino 3y ago

boomboomsubban 3y ago
>Speaking of the future, intentional or not, Assange's case has a freezing effect on people who might be thinking of sharing secrets Saying Assange "shared" secrets seems incorrect. Manning shared secrets with Assange so that Assange could publish them. Punishing Manning surely scared those considering sharing secrets. Punishing Assange would frighten those considering publishing secrets, something the US has generally been unable to freely do.
- surfingdino 3y ago
  We might be splitting hairs here, but is publishing not sharing?
  - boomboomsubban 3y ago
    From my position, your post looked like it was saying the prosecution of Assange would scare whistleblowers not journalists. You probably meant publishers, but I figured clarification would be better. I say that, but my post also could use clarification. The US has typically been unable to scare publishers of documents, the last time they really tried was with the Pentagon Papers and the Supreme Court ruled they couldn't punish publishers.
hnbad 3y ago
It's important to keep in mind that this is not just about the US. Countries not aligned with the US may have an interest in exposing the US but most countries do not have an interest of being exposed in a similar manner and setting an example with Assange not only deters exposure of the US but exposure of any of the countries aligned with the US and supporting the extradition.