I agree. Early on, I thought Assange was a bit of a hero. He provided a forum for people to reveal things that shouldn't be happening and shouldn't be secret. I understand the need for government secrecy, spying, and surveillance. I don't accept that it's ok for governments to break their own laws to spy on their own citizens without warrants or just cause, however.
Assange wasn't simply doing this as a neutral party, however. He was playing the same underhanded games as the governments. He was actively timing the release of information and selectively revealing or withholding information to suit his own political agenda.
I'd grown disenchanted with him well before the 2016 election, but that revealed his hypocritical motivations in all their glory. He worked with the despotic Russian regime and went on a personal attack against Hillary Clinton, timing the release (and non-release) of information to intentionally disrupt the presidential election.
Assange long ago became just another of the underhanded villains he claimed to be fighting against.
I felt similarly early on. To the authors point, he's always said some very off the wall things and is very extreme in many of his beliefs. I wonder if he was planning on using any power/influence he got for his own agenda the whole time, or if the power got to him. He doesn't look or seem very mentally healthy, maybe there's something there too
Exactly my opinion as well. Some information should be kept secret but it's also good to give people a transparent and unbiased outlet to leak if they have no other options. As soon as he and WikiLeaks showed they had an agenda their integrity went out the window.
Hot take: The organization has always had an agenda. All the big leaks were things that painted the U.S. in a negative light. Just the title of Collateral Murder reads like a Fox News tagline for maximum effect.
Looks to me, based on public facts, that there is a reasonable case against him being more than a hypocrite. Getting charged doesn't mean he will be convicted... which is why Lady Justice wears a blindfold.
He hasn't been charged with publishing classified information. Journalists do that all the time and aren't charged. What he's charged with in the US (so far) is actively taking part in the extraction of classified information. Specifically, he didn't just accept and release what Manning supplied; he encouraged and quite possibly materially aided in the act. He'll get a trial for that, and can state his case.
I'm not saying the US doesn't have it in for him. I'm not even saying that I trust the US to present a fair case. I'm saying that what he's charged with here matters, and is far different than the persecution of a neutral party that he and others are trying to paint it as.
It's more evidence that he may never have been the white knight that he claimed to be and has possibly always had an agenda.
> I understand the need for government secrecy, spying, and surveillance
There is a place for all these things; but there is distinction between things we know the government has that are not disclosed (eg, the US government has a plan to invade Canada if a crisis warrants it. They might reasonably keep the actual content of the plan secret) vs. secret schemes (it is unknowable what precedent the FISA court has created).
There is a big difference between the two. The first case can be reasonably handled by the democratic process. The second case cannot, and is incompatible with an accountable democracy. People who work against these anti-democratic secrets deserve support even if they are hypocrites; all I ask is that they are effective.
> He worked with the despotic Russian regime...
I find it conspicuous that there is nobody claiming the information in the leaks was false. If the revealing honest thoughts and intentions to the voting public is the scandal (and not the thoughts and intentions themselves) then I don't see why it would influence an election.
If an untimely revelation of facts scuppers the cause, then the cause is not robust and that is the big problem.
> I find it conspicuous that there is nobody claiming the information in the leaks was false.
If he was at all selective about the information he revealed, that's equivalent to editorializing. A person who reveals a subset of the facts in their possession for the purposes of influencing a political narrative is not a person to be trusted.
I would not paint Julian Assange (or Chelsea Manning) as a blameless hero like Edward Snowden. But sometimes people do reprehensible things that are not (or ought not be) against the law.
The primary objection against Julian Assange appears to be that he published true information that others (like the US Government and the Hillary Clinton campaign) did not want released. The US Government wants to extradite him because Chelsea Manning asked him to help crack a password and he allegedly said "yes" but never did assist in cracking it. I don't want to debate whether that IS a crime under US law, but certainly I will claim that it SHOULDN'T be.
Yes, Atlantic - Julian Assange is not a nice person. And the Equadorian government had excellent motivation to withdraw the protection of their embassy. But no, Atlantic, that does not mean he deserves to be extradited and stand trial in the US.
A quick google suggests the maximum sentence for the crime Assange is accused of is 5 years. He has already spent nearly 7 years in an embassy, kind of under "house arrest" type conditions.
Nope, never said so at all. Just commented about the power imbalance between an individual and the government. There's no real negative outcome for the government when they wrongfully charge someone. Worst result is they lose the case. More often, they overload the charge sheet such that most cases end up in a plea agreement.
For the defendant, the burden is incredible. Often you're jailed, so no income. Legal costs are high, and if you're middle class, ruinous. Then the nature of most trials is that despite "innocent until proven guilty," the government typically benefits from a favorable reputation in the jury room.
Finally, look at what normally happens when the government and its agents falsify evidence? Normally a slap on the hand, a dismissal of the case, etc etc. The prosecution can treat the discovery process as if it's optional with no real repercussions.
So imho, it's not even close to a fair match. Remeber Richlieu's boast? "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him."
"innocent" of what? i'm sure prosecutors will have ten thousand pages of varied charges. the us wants to make an example of him very loudly and very publicly.
Not being a US citizen doesn't seem relevant, and, what he is charged with is not within the “umbrella of protections afforded to journalists” (which mostly doesn't exist: the US protects the right to publish, but does not generally have special status-based or for journalists, though “freedom of the press” is sometimes misunderstood that way.)
Not being a US citizen doesn't seem relevant for being prosecuted under US laws in a US jurisdiction?
You may not have been one of the group who said this but that's a hot take from a forum that almost imploded over the "violation of sovereignty" that was the EU applying their GPDR rules to US based companies
> Not being a US citizen doesn't seem relevant for being prosecuted under US laws in a US jurisdiction?
Correct. Very few US crimes are contingent on having US citizenship, and the one Assange is charged with is not one of them.
> You may not have been one of the group who said this but that's a hot take from a forum that almost imploded over the "violation of sovereignty" that was the EU applying their GPDR rules to US based companies
“A loud minority on HN said something on a different issue that can be viewed as contrary to what you said on this issue” is an accurate response to most HN comments, but not a particularly meaningful one to any.
Forgive me for not being clear enough in the beginning. I understand that the US has the power to enforce their whim over much of the planet despite not being in charge of it. I disagree with your response that implies this is right and proper.
Making a law that declares a crime over people not under your jurisdiction that happened on territory not under your jurisdiction is a mockery of the idea of sovreignty. The US might be able to enforce their will anyway due to their might, but they shouldn't do so as this will just ensure that the second they lose their advantage in power they will be treated as poorly as they treated others
> Making a law that declares a crime over people not under your jurisdiction that happened on territory not under your jurisdiction is a mockery of the idea of sovreignty.
No, it's not.
It is exactly the idea of sovereignty; limitations beyond that of your practical power on the exercise of your authority would be contrary to the idea of sovereignty, and are typical of authorities which are not sovereign but instead bound by the dictate of a superior sovereign.
Virtually every nation on Earth not only recognizes this as an abstract rule, but in fact exercises such extraterritorial jurisdiction to some degree or another.
Moreover, conspiracy to commit another crime where some overt acts in the conspiracy or attempt did take place within the jurisdiction of the nation involved isn't even an unusual exercise of extraterritorial jursidiction.
Now, you might prefer the formation of a global sovereign over existing nation states that would limit extraterritoriality among them in ways in which it is not now and has not historically been limited among sovereign nations, but it is ludicrous to describe the status quo as contradictory to the idea of sovereignty.
>...limitations beyond that of your practical power on the exercise of your authority would be contrary to the idea of sovereignty...
That might be how you view it, but at this point you are using a different definition of sovereignty than the rest of the world.
Here's the first paragraph from Wikipedia if you don't want just my take on it. We can get further sources if you need
>Sovereignty is the full right and power of a governing body over itself, without any interference from outside sources or bodies. In political theory, sovereignty is a substantive term designating supreme authority over some polity[1]
The US is trying to interfere in the actions of other political bodies which is a direct violation of their sovreignty. I think this is a bad idea because the US can only pull this off due to current levels of power which are not garunteed to be maintained and then the next superpower won't have any reason to limit their behavior against the US.
There are many arguments against my belief that the US shouldn't do this, but claiming that forcing other groups to your will is an example of sovereignty is just making up your own definitions for existing terms
>...it is ludicrous to describe the status quo as contradictory to the idea of sovereign
The status quo is not tightly couple to the idea of sovreignty. The status quo could be the purest form of respect for sovereignty that has ever existed or the status quo could completely flaunt the idea, but just because the world _is_ a way currently does not mean it changes _how_ it could be
> That might be how you view it, but at this point you are using a different definition of sovereignty than the rest of the world.
No, I'm using the same definition generally used in political science.
> Here's the first paragraph from Wikipedia if you don't want just my take on it.
Wikipedia is sometimes a good way to find decent sources, but it's hardly an authority. But, in this case the quote supports my position, not yours (now, were the US not merely to prosecute the offense but to seize Assange against the will of the State in which he was present in order to do so, that would be a violation of the idea of sovereignty.
I've got a degree in poli sci. Sovereignty was never defined as your ability to force others to do things. That was a violation of their sovereignty and meant that the polity being forced to do something or who could not enforce their borders no longer had sovereignty. No where other than this conversation have I ever seen someone claim that going to someone else's land and taking doing what I want is sovereignty.
At this point we are just arguing over definitions and not the actual topic that started so I am bowing out before this becomes a flame war
> No where other than this conversation have I ever seen someone claim that going to someone else's land and taking doing what I want is sovereignty.
I've seen it elsewhere on this site (I think from rayiner?).
It's plausible that it's actually used that way in some contexts (legal, maybe?), but I agree that's not what most people think of. The whole concept of "violation of sovereignty" would seem to rely on there being some limits to what countries can do to each other. If it's simply a matter of "what a country has the power to do" - otherwise sovereignty could not be violated, only demonstrated lacking.
It may well not be, but as a principle that is a bad idea.
What if Saudi Arabia decides you are illegally blaspheming, or the Chinese Communist Party decides you are undermining social stability with your views?
It should be relevant if a 'crime' was committed somewhere it is not criminalised. Not necessarily a get-out-of-jail-free card, but relevant.
> (or Chelsea Manning) as a blameless hero like Edward Snowden.
Well, let's see, one of them went to Russia, the other didn't. Who is closer to being "blameless"? And I thought that collusion with Russia is something that people are somewhat concerned about, lately.
Also, why are you saying that Assange never made any attempt to crack that password? Why then would he ever want to actively mislead Manning by suggesting otherwise? That's a really fanciful scenario.
> Well, let's see, one of them went to Russia, the other didn't.
Ah, the old “Snowden fled to Russia” trope. That’s false. He was in Russia when the US canceled his passport. As a consequence of that, he was unable to leave Russia.
It was a very, very, very well covered story at the time: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/07/24/edward-... (if you don't like USA Today, which was just the top news source listed in my search results, just poke around for 'snowden airport' around the same time period in your preferred news outlet's archives)
i really don't understand how this can possibly be seen as some kind of knock-down argument by some. what gives? are people being intellectually dishonest?
The headline is somewhat tautologically true in the technical sense that, with Ecuador, the UK, and the US each having an effective veto over legal action against him, and all three being democratic countries with the rule of law largely intact, whatever will come of this will tend to be the just consequences of his actions that got too close and/or crossed the line of legality.
Ever since Assange first got into trouble over violating a well-meaning hosts‘ house rules of hygiene (a perennial problem of his, apparently) there have been accusations and conspiracy theories conflating the criminal and political aspects. One should try to avoid this.
Establishment media thinks julian assange got what he deserved? How shocking. When will the atlantic and the establishment media get what they deserve? How many illegal wars have they pushed? When are they going to end up in jail?
Yea, this smells like a coordinated hit piece to erode any public support before trial. I expect we will hear much more about what a terrible person he is on a regular cadence now.
That there is common-people support for the US position at all feels truly crazy-town to me.
Those who support the US on this, should in principle also support extradition of blasphemers to Pakistan, or anti-government protesters to China, from anywhere in the world. If you disagree with that, I would love to hear your perspective: please do articulate a principle of extradition that would include Assange and exclude a blasphemer against Allah.
(Just, as a head-start hint, "I think Assange is a terrible person, therefore he should be extradited" is not a principled perspective.)
That the mainstream US media inexplicably supports the US government's position should alarm you. Yes, you, reading this. As above, I would love to hear an articulated principle that cleaves Wikileaks from the wider community of news media, that also does not allow for the arrest and prosecution of any of the journalists who actually covered what Wikileaks wrote.
I'm asking for the principle that divides one from the other, not the laws.
What prevents a reasonable claim that these laws you cite are unjust, given that it is just to extradite a foreign national for the transgression of a US law, that occurred on foreign soil?
48 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 101 ms ] threadAssange wasn't simply doing this as a neutral party, however. He was playing the same underhanded games as the governments. He was actively timing the release of information and selectively revealing or withholding information to suit his own political agenda.
I'd grown disenchanted with him well before the 2016 election, but that revealed his hypocritical motivations in all their glory. He worked with the despotic Russian regime and went on a personal attack against Hillary Clinton, timing the release (and non-release) of information to intentionally disrupt the presidential election.
Assange long ago became just another of the underhanded villains he claimed to be fighting against.
Hot take: The organization has always had an agenda. All the big leaks were things that painted the U.S. in a negative light. Just the title of Collateral Murder reads like a Fox News tagline for maximum effect.
this seems like both a trivially true statement and also a strawman.
I'm not saying the US doesn't have it in for him. I'm not even saying that I trust the US to present a fair case. I'm saying that what he's charged with here matters, and is far different than the persecution of a neutral party that he and others are trying to paint it as.
It's more evidence that he may never have been the white knight that he claimed to be and has possibly always had an agenda.
There is a place for all these things; but there is distinction between things we know the government has that are not disclosed (eg, the US government has a plan to invade Canada if a crisis warrants it. They might reasonably keep the actual content of the plan secret) vs. secret schemes (it is unknowable what precedent the FISA court has created).
There is a big difference between the two. The first case can be reasonably handled by the democratic process. The second case cannot, and is incompatible with an accountable democracy. People who work against these anti-democratic secrets deserve support even if they are hypocrites; all I ask is that they are effective.
> He worked with the despotic Russian regime...
I find it conspicuous that there is nobody claiming the information in the leaks was false. If the revealing honest thoughts and intentions to the voting public is the scandal (and not the thoughts and intentions themselves) then I don't see why it would influence an election.
If an untimely revelation of facts scuppers the cause, then the cause is not robust and that is the big problem.
If he was at all selective about the information he revealed, that's equivalent to editorializing. A person who reveals a subset of the facts in their possession for the purposes of influencing a political narrative is not a person to be trusted.
The primary objection against Julian Assange appears to be that he published true information that others (like the US Government and the Hillary Clinton campaign) did not want released. The US Government wants to extradite him because Chelsea Manning asked him to help crack a password and he allegedly said "yes" but never did assist in cracking it. I don't want to debate whether that IS a crime under US law, but certainly I will claim that it SHOULDN'T be.
Yes, Atlantic - Julian Assange is not a nice person. And the Equadorian government had excellent motivation to withdraw the protection of their embassy. But no, Atlantic, that does not mean he deserves to be extradited and stand trial in the US.
You've seen all the evidence?
For the defendant, the burden is incredible. Often you're jailed, so no income. Legal costs are high, and if you're middle class, ruinous. Then the nature of most trials is that despite "innocent until proven guilty," the government typically benefits from a favorable reputation in the jury room.
Finally, look at what normally happens when the government and its agents falsify evidence? Normally a slap on the hand, a dismissal of the case, etc etc. The prosecution can treat the discovery process as if it's optional with no real repercussions.
So imho, it's not even close to a fair match. Remeber Richlieu's boast? "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him."
You may not have been one of the group who said this but that's a hot take from a forum that almost imploded over the "violation of sovereignty" that was the EU applying their GPDR rules to US based companies
Correct. Very few US crimes are contingent on having US citizenship, and the one Assange is charged with is not one of them.
> You may not have been one of the group who said this but that's a hot take from a forum that almost imploded over the "violation of sovereignty" that was the EU applying their GPDR rules to US based companies
“A loud minority on HN said something on a different issue that can be viewed as contrary to what you said on this issue” is an accurate response to most HN comments, but not a particularly meaningful one to any.
Making a law that declares a crime over people not under your jurisdiction that happened on territory not under your jurisdiction is a mockery of the idea of sovreignty. The US might be able to enforce their will anyway due to their might, but they shouldn't do so as this will just ensure that the second they lose their advantage in power they will be treated as poorly as they treated others
No, it's not.
It is exactly the idea of sovereignty; limitations beyond that of your practical power on the exercise of your authority would be contrary to the idea of sovereignty, and are typical of authorities which are not sovereign but instead bound by the dictate of a superior sovereign.
Virtually every nation on Earth not only recognizes this as an abstract rule, but in fact exercises such extraterritorial jurisdiction to some degree or another.
Moreover, conspiracy to commit another crime where some overt acts in the conspiracy or attempt did take place within the jurisdiction of the nation involved isn't even an unusual exercise of extraterritorial jursidiction.
Now, you might prefer the formation of a global sovereign over existing nation states that would limit extraterritoriality among them in ways in which it is not now and has not historically been limited among sovereign nations, but it is ludicrous to describe the status quo as contradictory to the idea of sovereignty.
That might be how you view it, but at this point you are using a different definition of sovereignty than the rest of the world.
Here's the first paragraph from Wikipedia if you don't want just my take on it. We can get further sources if you need
>Sovereignty is the full right and power of a governing body over itself, without any interference from outside sources or bodies. In political theory, sovereignty is a substantive term designating supreme authority over some polity[1]
The US is trying to interfere in the actions of other political bodies which is a direct violation of their sovreignty. I think this is a bad idea because the US can only pull this off due to current levels of power which are not garunteed to be maintained and then the next superpower won't have any reason to limit their behavior against the US.
There are many arguments against my belief that the US shouldn't do this, but claiming that forcing other groups to your will is an example of sovereignty is just making up your own definitions for existing terms
[1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereignty
Edit: additionally this portion of your argument.
>...it is ludicrous to describe the status quo as contradictory to the idea of sovereign
The status quo is not tightly couple to the idea of sovreignty. The status quo could be the purest form of respect for sovereignty that has ever existed or the status quo could completely flaunt the idea, but just because the world _is_ a way currently does not mean it changes _how_ it could be
No, I'm using the same definition generally used in political science.
> Here's the first paragraph from Wikipedia if you don't want just my take on it.
Wikipedia is sometimes a good way to find decent sources, but it's hardly an authority. But, in this case the quote supports my position, not yours (now, were the US not merely to prosecute the offense but to seize Assange against the will of the State in which he was present in order to do so, that would be a violation of the idea of sovereignty.
At this point we are just arguing over definitions and not the actual topic that started so I am bowing out before this becomes a flame war
I've seen it elsewhere on this site (I think from rayiner?).
It's plausible that it's actually used that way in some contexts (legal, maybe?), but I agree that's not what most people think of. The whole concept of "violation of sovereignty" would seem to rely on there being some limits to what countries can do to each other. If it's simply a matter of "what a country has the power to do" - otherwise sovereignty could not be violated, only demonstrated lacking.
It may well not be, but as a principle that is a bad idea.
What if Saudi Arabia decides you are illegally blaspheming, or the Chinese Communist Party decides you are undermining social stability with your views?
It should be relevant if a 'crime' was committed somewhere it is not criminalised. Not necessarily a get-out-of-jail-free card, but relevant.
Well, let's see, one of them went to Russia, the other didn't. Who is closer to being "blameless"? And I thought that collusion with Russia is something that people are somewhat concerned about, lately.
Also, why are you saying that Assange never made any attempt to crack that password? Why then would he ever want to actively mislead Manning by suggesting otherwise? That's a really fanciful scenario.
Ah, the old “Snowden fled to Russia” trope. That’s false. He was in Russia when the US canceled his passport. As a consequence of that, he was unable to leave Russia.
i really don't understand how this can possibly be seen as some kind of knock-down argument by some. what gives? are people being intellectually dishonest?
Ever since Assange first got into trouble over violating a well-meaning hosts‘ house rules of hygiene (a perennial problem of his, apparently) there have been accusations and conspiracy theories conflating the criminal and political aspects. One should try to avoid this.
Those who support the US on this, should in principle also support extradition of blasphemers to Pakistan, or anti-government protesters to China, from anywhere in the world. If you disagree with that, I would love to hear your perspective: please do articulate a principle of extradition that would include Assange and exclude a blasphemer against Allah.
(Just, as a head-start hint, "I think Assange is a terrible person, therefore he should be extradited" is not a principled perspective.)
That the mainstream US media inexplicably supports the US government's position should alarm you. Yes, you, reading this. As above, I would love to hear an articulated principle that cleaves Wikileaks from the wider community of news media, that also does not allow for the arrest and prosecution of any of the journalists who actually covered what Wikileaks wrote.
A rather poor choice of examples, I'd say.
Extradition for blasphemy from the United States runs afoul of the dual criminality requirement. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_criminality)
The US also has no extradition treaty with China. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_extradit...)
What prevents a reasonable claim that these laws you cite are unjust, given that it is just to extradite a foreign national for the transgression of a US law, that occurred on foreign soil?