3 ms·

There is quite a bit of expectation of due process in general; the exceptions are notable because, well, they are exceptions. I'll grant the case of Guantanamo

There is quite a bit of expectation of due process in general; the exceptions are notable because, well, they are exceptions. I'll grant the case of Guantanamo prisoners as heinous violations of the rule of law, but I consider it a huge stretch to suggest that Assange would - if extradited to the US - face either treason charges (for reasons already discussed) or indefinite detention without due process. Whatever you may think of the US policies of indefinite detention, he doesn't fit the profile for those who would qualify. He would, no doubt, be given a lengthy federal trial, likely found guilty and serve Federal prison time, while receiving moral and legal aid from many corners, particularly organizations concerned with civil rights, whistleblowing, and journalism. His conviction might even be eventually overturned. Indefinite detention works (in that it has not been stopped) because those who are imprisoned without due process have few mainstream defenders - plenty of people object to the methods, but are ho-hum on the actual people involved. Assange's detention without due process would be a political nightmare for the administration at very least.

tptacek 12y ago
Indefinite detention "works" because it's structurally the same process as is used for prisoners of war, and we (in one of the great foreign policy blunders of the century) managed to declare war on a terrorist brand name instead of a state, meaning that we've created a military conflict that won't end --- where the conclusion of a conflict, usually (in the last 2 centuries) within single-digit years, is the normal way you resolve prisoner of war dilemmas. Not that I'd want to suggest that a discussion that starts out with "that's interesting but it doesn't matter because there's no such thing as due process in the US" is going to be productive, but the nature of indefinite detention is, in a positive sense, not a normative one, interesting.
- deciplex 12y ago
  >Not that I'd want to suggest that a discussion that starts out with "that's interesting but it doesn't matter because there's no such thing as due process in the US" is going to be productive I have found that most discussions you take part in are not terribly productive in the first place - though they never lack for postcount, so I'm not going to be too hard on myself here. That said, I didn't say there was no such thing as due process in the US, so your summary of my post misses the mark. I believe Assange should not have any expectation of due process, and that his treatment by US authorities, while perhaps not as brutal as that of prisoners in Guantanamo, would not be considered fair. Nevertheless I found rogerhoward's response interesting, making - for me at least - the signal-to-noise ratio temporarily high enough that my previous post was worth it. But, now here we are. In the future, maybe if you don't find a line of discussion productive, you can try not posting.
  - tptacek 12y ago
    You write as if your original comment wasn't right there for everyone else to read. Also, you write without addressing anything in the comment to which you're replying.
    - deciplex 12y ago
      Yes, it's right there. And? I addressed your stupid jab at me. As for the other stuff, yes I'm aware how US authorities justify their actions. Insightful stuff. At any rate, rather than 'not posting' perhaps you could try tapering off a bit. Start with single sentences, then a 'heh' or an 'I agree', and then finally work your way up to just not posting in discussions you claim aren't productive.
mikecb 12y ago
I want to point out that even those detained as unlawful combatants are guaranteed due process. Due process is defined simply as notice and a hearing. The Constitution requires that you receive both before being deprived of life, liberty, or property. There is a line of cases that have been decided by the Supreme Court guaranteeing the right to contest the designation as an unlawful combatant. Just the fact that these cases made their way to our nation's highest court demonstrates that due process and rule of law are fundamental even to national security. For more, see "The Guantanamo cases": Rasul v. Bush, Hamdi v. Bush, Hamdan v. Bush, and Boumediene v. Bush. This is all irrelevent to Assange, as rogerhoward points out.

tptacek 12y ago

Indefinite detention "works" because it's structurally the same process as is used for prisoners of war, and we (in one of the great foreign policy blunders of the century) managed to declare war on a terrorist brand name instead of a state, meaning that we've created a military conflict that won't end --- where the conclusion of a conflict, usually (in the last 2 centuries) within single-digit years, is the normal way you resolve prisoner of war dilemmas. Not that I'd want to suggest that a discussion that starts out with "that's interesting but it doesn't matter because there's no such thing as due process in the US" is going to be productive, but the nature of indefinite detention is, in a positive sense, not a normative one, interesting.

deciplex 12y ago
>Not that I'd want to suggest that a discussion that starts out with "that's interesting but it doesn't matter because there's no such thing as due process in the US" is going to be productive I have found that most discussions you take part in are not terribly productive in the first place - though they never lack for postcount, so I'm not going to be too hard on myself here. That said, I didn't say there was no such thing as due process in the US, so your summary of my post misses the mark. I believe Assange should not have any expectation of due process, and that his treatment by US authorities, while perhaps not as brutal as that of prisoners in Guantanamo, would not be considered fair. Nevertheless I found rogerhoward's response interesting, making - for me at least - the signal-to-noise ratio temporarily high enough that my previous post was worth it. But, now here we are. In the future, maybe if you don't find a line of discussion productive, you can try not posting.
- tptacek 12y ago
  You write as if your original comment wasn't right there for everyone else to read. Also, you write without addressing anything in the comment to which you're replying.
  - deciplex 12y ago
    Yes, it's right there. And? I addressed your stupid jab at me. As for the other stuff, yes I'm aware how US authorities justify their actions. Insightful stuff. At any rate, rather than 'not posting' perhaps you could try tapering off a bit. Start with single sentences, then a 'heh' or an 'I agree', and then finally work your way up to just not posting in discussions you claim aren't productive.

mikecb 12y ago

I want to point out that even those detained as unlawful combatants are guaranteed due process. Due process is defined simply as notice and a hearing. The Constitution requires that you receive both before being deprived of life, liberty, or property. There is a line of cases that have been decided by the Supreme Court guaranteeing the right to contest the designation as an unlawful combatant. Just the fact that these cases made their way to our nation's highest court demonstrates that due process and rule of law are fundamental even to national security. For more, see "The Guantanamo cases": Rasul v. Bush, Hamdi v. Bush, Hamdan v. Bush, and Boumediene v. Bush. This is all irrelevent to Assange, as rogerhoward points out.