My understanding is that Manning reported that if she could crack an NTLM password she could better conceal who obtained and leaked the documents. A party, apparently Assange, claimed to have rainbow tables and could try. Later Manning followed up and got a no-luck-so-far response. I have not heard any reports that Assange actually did so.
So the facts are that Assange is accused of helping a leaker cover their tracks-- something that a journalist would ordinarily do, at least in so far as if it came to covering their traces against normal physical detection (e.g. refill the copy machine after copying a big stack of documents...). One could have an interesting debate on how equivalent cracking a service account to cover tracks would be to something like finding a department generic code to redirect copying billing attention ... but there doesn't even to be any evidence that he successfully provided that help.
This is only vaguely what is known in the public record so far in order to bring charges and extradite. I expect there will be more that is made known over time. It’ll be a long, slow process.
The leaks will continue, with or without Assange. The line in the sand has been drawn: the entrenched criminals in the military-industrial-pharmaceutical complex are long overdue for a reckoning, and it is coming - Assange or no Assange.
The cat is out of the bag, and it is really, really pissed off. Treating Assange poorly is going to ensure that its claws come out. The US Gov't and its lackeys are not immune to the light of truth - and this light is well and truly headed their way...
It's interesting to hear someone, especially an American, remark upon the USA's outreach (4:06). I bring it up sometimes, but I hardly ever hear anyone else bring it up (friends, family, colleagues, media, HN/reddit). It seems to be normal that the Dutch media report as much news about the USA as they do about Germany, France, Spain, and Italy combined. It's normal that they have military bases in a lot of other countries. It's normal that we all use closed source USA-made operating systems (Android, Windows, macOS, iOS). Heck, we hardly criticized the unprovoked invasion of Iraq and what did our government do? They helped. Some of the media and public took issue with (alleged?) torturing practices, but no government did anything and we (govts+public+media) still treat the USA as the example of western society. And more on topic, the UK is perfectly fine doing their bidding in the Assange case.
Yes, this is obviously central in explaining the stranglehold the US can exert i other jurisdictions. "Comply with our sanctions or be denied trade in dollars" is something no serious business, let alone bank, can disregard. That such submissiveness also spills over into journalism and politics is understandable but disgusting.
No matter, it will not stand for long. Economic powerhouses like China and Europe will not accept it in the long term.
This becomes even more obvious when you directly compare certain issues such as elections. Dutch media dedicates so much more time to the US elections than it does to our neighbors (Germany, France or UK). I don’t know what the exact reason is, but it seems like we’re a lot more focused on what’s going on in the US.
While all you said is true, I'd recommend to think of a plausible alternative.
If the USA stops behaving as an Empire, what would actually happen? My guess is that China would become the global empire, to a higher level than right now. Do you really want that? Will China be a better global empire? I mean, the USA at least has some form of democracy, whereas China is the largest dictatorship in the planet. Maybe the USA being a global empire is the least worst alternative.
An alternative? I don't see why any country needs to take the role that the USA is filling right now. The USA is not some sort of peacekeeping organisation, they're enforcing their will elsewhere.
I completely agree that if China were in the USA's current position, the world would be much worse off, but that does not mean I think the USA's current position is desirable. If you do want to make me pick, I would say the European Union might be a good fit for the role since there is no European army and there are no serious or popular proposals for such a thing. Each country would still have to be convinced to take part in any sort of conflict. I currently see the USA (partly, of course, as there are many, many other aspects and I would not, for example, stop trade or anything) as a threat to most other countries (aside from the five eyes countries perhaps), but the EU in such a position would be more like a negotiation table.
The US, by being where it is, it keeps other big players (like China) out. It's too naive in my opinion to think that if the US just gets out of everywhere, China or whomever wouldn't try to replace them. And that's why I was asking if you've actually thought of a plausible alternative. I think you haven't.
The UK is “perfectly fine doing the USA’s bidding” because the UK follows the rule of law. First assange will be tried and if necessary serve any sentence for going on the lam in the UK. Only after that would he be extradited to the US, a process that requires judicial review where Assange will have plenty of opportunity to argue that it shouldn’t go ahead.
I’m glad the UK follows legal procedure instead of subverting the process because of political opinions or anti-americanism.
His trial in the UK is indeed just about 'going on the lam' (ddg tells me that means fleeing), I expect that won't result in a large punishment. But I think most people would agree that USA's laws and practices with whistleblowers are unjust. The news reports I read said that the MEP (or was it MET? Some UK police force) got a heads up from Ecuador and arrested him on behalf of the USA rather than his crime of fleeing in the UK.
Generally, sure, the USA is a democratic country and the UK has an extradition treaty. It is in most cases fine to honor the treaty and hand a person over when it is plausible that they committed a crime there. In Assange's case, I think we feel very differently from how the USA government feels about his actions, and we would dole out a very different punishment (if any).
If US laws regarding whistleblowers are indeed unjust, he will have opportunity to argue that in the UK during judicial review. The UK refuses plenty of US extradition requests - far more than the US rate of refusal for UK extradition requests in fact.
The UK will not extradite him if he doesn’t get a free trial and the US is perfectly capable of providing one. He will then have plenty of opportunity to argue before a jury why he should not be convicted.
The notion that he is somehow above legal process and a strongman politician should step in to stop him facing due process is ludicrous, as well as the stupid idea that the UK is some sort of lapdog for daring to dispassionately follow legal procedure regardless of the celebrity of the accused. The fact that he is facing normal legal process where he wouldn’t in many countries where the legal system is politicised is a feather in the cap of the UK.
I am not very familiar with extradition-related laws. Reading the Wikipedia article about extradition, it does not mention judicial reviews (I'm not sure what those are), and while it briefly discusses the considerations involved in whether to allow extradition, it does not mention that it comes before any sort of court for review or so.
From my perspective, it's mainly a political question (by politicians, or perhaps (I don't know) government organisations that are not independent courts, e.g. similar to the rubber stamping secret courts in the USA for national security letters) and not so much a "does the pursued trial even make sense in our eyes" kind of question weighed by an impartial judge, but from your comment, I understand that this is actually the case and it does come before court and people have a reasonable chance of not being extradited if they did something that we find acceptable in Europe?
Power wants to preserve its power. Chomsky is upset that Microsoft and other companies use the World Trade Organization as a weapon, but what does he expect would happen? This is what every entity does whether it be a government or corporation. They figure out ways to pull the levers of power to preserve/strengthen themselves. Europe rightfully formed the European Union to strengthen itself on the playing field with the USA.
I get his point with Lula da Silva being charged with corruption at a bad time, but has he talked with actual Brazilians? Because it's my understanding that the corruption problem was (and still is) very bad over there and has real repercussions on daily life. Would he really give da Silva immunity just because he's from a labour party? Should Brazilians just turn a blind eye because he did some good things? This is the same kind of blind infatuation he had with Venezuela and Hugo Chavez, giving him a pass until the situation is so bad that you can't look away any longer. Power also corrupts his labour movements.
I too wish that the world didn't need American military bases everywhere. I think Trump is on the right track with closing them off. But on the same hand the world is still not made of sunshine and rainbows. We do need warships patrolling the Strait of Hormuz so that Iran doesn't hold oil tankers hostage. We need warships in the Gulf of Aden so that pirates aren't hijacking cargo ships. We need military responses to events where civilians' lives are in severe peril, and UN peacekeeping is unfortunately still not up to par there yet (Rwanda, Srebrenica, Darfur, etc.).
edit: And not that I'm in favor of preserving the status quo per se, but I think we need some new ideas (and ones that aren't just proxies for existing power structures, giving the biggest entities a new cudgel to wield). Chomsky's criticism is valid and necessary but the solutions he has rallied around haven't panned out.
Probably exactly what he observes. I don't think he's in any way surprised that powerful people do what they can to preserve and extend their power. He's just speaking up, so that maybe, one day, we relieve those people of some of their power.
> Would he really give da Silva immunity just because he's from a labour party?
From what I have heard that's not the biggest problem. The biggest problem is that while being jailed, he's not even allowed to make a public statement, or even read a newspaper. There's a whole spectrum between that and full immunity.
Besides, I'm not sure how much that would weaken his arguments: whether he deserved jail and why he actually ended up in jail are probably pretty separate things. He might be corrupt, but the reason he was punished may very well because his opponents wanted him down, instead of some independent judge. (I'm speculating here, I know nothing about the facts.)
> the reason he was punished may very well because his opponents wanted him down, instead of some independent judge
Sérgio Moro, one of the judges who pushed his case forwards to jail him before the elections is now the Justice Minister under Bolsonaro. It's not even hidden.
>> It's normal that they have military bases in a lot of other countries.
Yes, it's not normal. It's essentially a soft military occupation.
There is actually a great deal of protest against that. It's usually the left that protests and so it's not as widely, or as sympathetically, reported in the press, but protests certainly do happen (protests were actually widely reported in the mainstream news when I was growing up in Greece). Unfortunately, the US is way ahead of everyone else in terms of military power and so no government really dares oppose them directly.
The justification for the bases is, I believe, that the U.S. is an ally of the nations it has military bases on, but of course none of those countries have bases on U.S. soil so this is a very one-sided alliance. The way I understand it, the bases were established at the end of WWII when most of the host countries were either defeated (like Germany and Japan) or were exhausted by the war and didn't have the (military) power to oppose the US' demands. Especially in Europe at the time, there was the even greater
threat of the USSR. After WWII Europe was left in ruins and between a rock and a hard place - the US and the USSR. Europeans had very few options, other than pick one bully to bully us.
This is an important lesson to remember in this time of rising European nationalism and Euroscepticism. This is what happens when we turn inwards and mind each our own small national interests: a larger power muscles in and takes control. Only a united Europe can survive in the modern world. We, the people of Europe, must wake up and smell the coffee. The EU is the last bastion of prosperity, democracy and human rights on the planet. We must not let this unique achievement go to waste because of petty nationalisms and childish fantasies of past imperial glories.
Of course, those countries don’t really want to spend the money to it would take to replace the defensive presence that the US military bases represent. So, there is a dual benefit.
Just as a counterexample that is well-known to me, in 2017, Greece, my country of origin, spent 2.4% of its GDP on its military budget. That's the second highest rate in NATO, second only to the US that spent 3.6% of its GDP on its military:
It just so happens that the US has more money, overall than Greece (to put it mildly). But the willingness to buy armor and aircraft, unfortunately, is all there.
>It's interesting to hear someone, especially an American
"Chomsky and his brother were raised Jewish, being taught Hebrew and regularly discussing the political theories of Zionism; the family was particularly influenced by the Left Zionist writings of Ahad Ha'am."
I see you took this from Chomsky's Wikipedia page. I still think of him as American, not only legally, but he was born and grew up in the USA and went to a normal USA university. You can't do that and not get a healthy dose of loyalty to the country you've always known as your home.
I don't agree with Chomsky on all issues, but I feel sad that he now so old that his command of language is faltering. I can't think of anyone who is going to take his place as a crucially important voice against imperialist power misuse.
"We have to silence this voice" is exactly what is happening.
Assange is accused of sexual assault in Sweden. Sexual assault victims have the right to trial and justice, no matter who the accused is. No one is above the law, not even a famous journalist.
I mention this, as in his speech, Chomsky mentions Sweden in the same gang as UK and the US, without making the distinction why Sweden is interested in Assange - which made me quite disappointed in Chomsky. It is true that the preliminary rape investigation was dropped in 2017, but it may now be activated again. According to associate professor in international law Karl Jigland, this will happen if a prosecutor orders Assange arrested in absence. In accord with the regular process, Assange may then appeal against this accusation.
The Swedish case i fraught with suspicious circumstances, and it is fairly certain that they don't have a case, should it come to trial.
You may want to read this article, especially the paragraph that recounts how the Swedish prosecutors were told "Don't you dare get cold feet!!" by the British chief CPS lawyer after warning that they would have to drop the charges, and how that email exchange later was deleted, contrary to protocol:
I think Assange on multiple occasions has said he is willing to face trial in Sweden - his issue has always been that he doesn't want to be shipped off to the USA to spend the rest of his life in a supermax in Colorado.
As a Swede, I wish I could say that Assange could come here and face justice without fear of being extradited to the US. But I'm not sure if that's true.
Well considering Sweden wouldn't promise that he wouldn't just be shipped straight off to the USA after the trial then I am not surprised. Even if he had been convicted in Sweden he would have served far less time in far better conditions than his time in the embassy.
Assange having raped someone in Sweden is not a reason for the USA to request extradition though.
He may belong in a prison in Sweden(or Australia?), but the USA's reasons for extradition are what's in question.
The most recent arrests were for i) skipping bail and ii) for the US extradition process.
I think he needs to face justice in Sweden. I'm uncomfortable with the fact that the UK seems to have told the US about the arrest at the mebassy (so the US had all the extradition paperwork ready) but not Sweden.
Assange knew he would be arrested for the bail offence if he ever lost protection of the embassy. He tried, and failed, to clear that arrest warrant in 2018: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/Misc/2018/B3.html
So I hear a lot of sentiment elsewhere on the web that Assange/WL at some point became just Russian propaganda assets. HN seems to see him as a sort of flawed hero. Can anyone here help me understand where these two almost opposite views are coming from and which one is right?
Wikileaks has been criticized for primarily leaking information from NATO aligned governments with a noticeable lack of Russian leaks. On top of that, during the 2016 election he supposedly had access to both the DNC emails and a set of RNC emails. Yet only the DNC emails were published.
I don't know if either view is completely correct, it really is a manner of optics. If it is true that Assange has held back information on the Russian government or the RNC, this flaw would make sense from a survival standpoint for him. And even if he was doing it purely out of a survival strategy, would it not make him some sort of Russian asset in a bit of an abstract way?
56 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 119 ms ] threadhttps://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1153486/downl...
So the facts are that Assange is accused of helping a leaker cover their tracks-- something that a journalist would ordinarily do, at least in so far as if it came to covering their traces against normal physical detection (e.g. refill the copy machine after copying a big stack of documents...). One could have an interesting debate on how equivalent cracking a service account to cover tracks would be to something like finding a department generic code to redirect copying billing attention ... but there doesn't even to be any evidence that he successfully provided that help.
Not, in a court of public opinion.
Keep this in mind, as we go down the bumpy road that is going to be Assange's trial...
In either case, the leaks will not stop.
Journalism is essential to democracy. Protection of sources is crucial.
Some intellectuals consider it should be protected like a fourth branch of government and be independently funded.
This is about ensuring that the leaks continue.
The leaks will continue, with or without Assange. The line in the sand has been drawn: the entrenched criminals in the military-industrial-pharmaceutical complex are long overdue for a reckoning, and it is coming - Assange or no Assange.
The cat is out of the bag, and it is really, really pissed off. Treating Assange poorly is going to ensure that its claws come out. The US Gov't and its lackeys are not immune to the light of truth - and this light is well and truly headed their way...
No matter, it will not stand for long. Economic powerhouses like China and Europe will not accept it in the long term.
If the USA stops behaving as an Empire, what would actually happen? My guess is that China would become the global empire, to a higher level than right now. Do you really want that? Will China be a better global empire? I mean, the USA at least has some form of democracy, whereas China is the largest dictatorship in the planet. Maybe the USA being a global empire is the least worst alternative.
And by the way I'm European.
I completely agree that if China were in the USA's current position, the world would be much worse off, but that does not mean I think the USA's current position is desirable. If you do want to make me pick, I would say the European Union might be a good fit for the role since there is no European army and there are no serious or popular proposals for such a thing. Each country would still have to be convinced to take part in any sort of conflict. I currently see the USA (partly, of course, as there are many, many other aspects and I would not, for example, stop trade or anything) as a threat to most other countries (aside from the five eyes countries perhaps), but the EU in such a position would be more like a negotiation table.
no.
> Will China be a better global empire?
I reckon it is the concept, rather than the flavour, of empire that is wrong.
> Maybe the USA being a global empire is the least worst alternative.
maybe if we tried harder we could imagine alternatives to empire
I’m glad the UK follows legal procedure instead of subverting the process because of political opinions or anti-americanism.
Generally, sure, the USA is a democratic country and the UK has an extradition treaty. It is in most cases fine to honor the treaty and hand a person over when it is plausible that they committed a crime there. In Assange's case, I think we feel very differently from how the USA government feels about his actions, and we would dole out a very different punishment (if any).
The UK will not extradite him if he doesn’t get a free trial and the US is perfectly capable of providing one. He will then have plenty of opportunity to argue before a jury why he should not be convicted.
The notion that he is somehow above legal process and a strongman politician should step in to stop him facing due process is ludicrous, as well as the stupid idea that the UK is some sort of lapdog for daring to dispassionately follow legal procedure regardless of the celebrity of the accused. The fact that he is facing normal legal process where he wouldn’t in many countries where the legal system is politicised is a feather in the cap of the UK.
I am not very familiar with extradition-related laws. Reading the Wikipedia article about extradition, it does not mention judicial reviews (I'm not sure what those are), and while it briefly discusses the considerations involved in whether to allow extradition, it does not mention that it comes before any sort of court for review or so.
From my perspective, it's mainly a political question (by politicians, or perhaps (I don't know) government organisations that are not independent courts, e.g. similar to the rubber stamping secret courts in the USA for national security letters) and not so much a "does the pursued trial even make sense in our eyes" kind of question weighed by an impartial judge, but from your comment, I understand that this is actually the case and it does come before court and people have a reasonable chance of not being extradited if they did something that we find acceptable in Europe?
Yes, it comes before a court.
>people have a reasonable chance of not being extradited if they did something that we find acceptable in Europe?
Correct.
I get his point with Lula da Silva being charged with corruption at a bad time, but has he talked with actual Brazilians? Because it's my understanding that the corruption problem was (and still is) very bad over there and has real repercussions on daily life. Would he really give da Silva immunity just because he's from a labour party? Should Brazilians just turn a blind eye because he did some good things? This is the same kind of blind infatuation he had with Venezuela and Hugo Chavez, giving him a pass until the situation is so bad that you can't look away any longer. Power also corrupts his labour movements.
I too wish that the world didn't need American military bases everywhere. I think Trump is on the right track with closing them off. But on the same hand the world is still not made of sunshine and rainbows. We do need warships patrolling the Strait of Hormuz so that Iran doesn't hold oil tankers hostage. We need warships in the Gulf of Aden so that pirates aren't hijacking cargo ships. We need military responses to events where civilians' lives are in severe peril, and UN peacekeeping is unfortunately still not up to par there yet (Rwanda, Srebrenica, Darfur, etc.).
edit: And not that I'm in favor of preserving the status quo per se, but I think we need some new ideas (and ones that aren't just proxies for existing power structures, giving the biggest entities a new cudgel to wield). Chomsky's criticism is valid and necessary but the solutions he has rallied around haven't panned out.
Probably exactly what he observes. I don't think he's in any way surprised that powerful people do what they can to preserve and extend their power. He's just speaking up, so that maybe, one day, we relieve those people of some of their power.
> Would he really give da Silva immunity just because he's from a labour party?
From what I have heard that's not the biggest problem. The biggest problem is that while being jailed, he's not even allowed to make a public statement, or even read a newspaper. There's a whole spectrum between that and full immunity.
Besides, I'm not sure how much that would weaken his arguments: whether he deserved jail and why he actually ended up in jail are probably pretty separate things. He might be corrupt, but the reason he was punished may very well because his opponents wanted him down, instead of some independent judge. (I'm speculating here, I know nothing about the facts.)
Sérgio Moro, one of the judges who pushed his case forwards to jail him before the elections is now the Justice Minister under Bolsonaro. It's not even hidden.
Yes, it's not normal. It's essentially a soft military occupation.
There is actually a great deal of protest against that. It's usually the left that protests and so it's not as widely, or as sympathetically, reported in the press, but protests certainly do happen (protests were actually widely reported in the mainstream news when I was growing up in Greece). Unfortunately, the US is way ahead of everyone else in terms of military power and so no government really dares oppose them directly.
The justification for the bases is, I believe, that the U.S. is an ally of the nations it has military bases on, but of course none of those countries have bases on U.S. soil so this is a very one-sided alliance. The way I understand it, the bases were established at the end of WWII when most of the host countries were either defeated (like Germany and Japan) or were exhausted by the war and didn't have the (military) power to oppose the US' demands. Especially in Europe at the time, there was the even greater threat of the USSR. After WWII Europe was left in ruins and between a rock and a hard place - the US and the USSR. Europeans had very few options, other than pick one bully to bully us.
This is an important lesson to remember in this time of rising European nationalism and Euroscepticism. This is what happens when we turn inwards and mind each our own small national interests: a larger power muscles in and takes control. Only a united Europe can survive in the modern world. We, the people of Europe, must wake up and smell the coffee. The EU is the last bastion of prosperity, democracy and human rights on the planet. We must not let this unique achievement go to waste because of petty nationalisms and childish fantasies of past imperial glories.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2018/07/10/defens...
It just so happens that the US has more money, overall than Greece (to put it mildly). But the willingness to buy armor and aircraft, unfortunately, is all there.
"Chomsky and his brother were raised Jewish, being taught Hebrew and regularly discussing the political theories of Zionism; the family was particularly influenced by the Left Zionist writings of Ahad Ha'am."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYdDp4mHDRY
"We have to silence this voice" is exactly what is happening.
You may want to read this article, especially the paragraph that recounts how the Swedish prosecutors were told "Don't you dare get cold feet!!" by the British chief CPS lawyer after warning that they would have to drop the charges, and how that email exchange later was deleted, contrary to protocol:
https://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2018-02-12/the-uks-hidden...
I think he needs to face justice in Sweden. I'm uncomfortable with the fact that the UK seems to have told the US about the arrest at the mebassy (so the US had all the extradition paperwork ready) but not Sweden.
Assange knew he would be arrested for the bail offence if he ever lost protection of the embassy. He tried, and failed, to clear that arrest warrant in 2018: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/Misc/2018/B3.html
The Crown Prosecution Service information for "failure to surrender" is here: https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/bail#a32
Jeremy Corbyn @jeremycorbyn - 19:34 utc - 11 Apr 2019
The extradition of Julian Assange to the US for exposing evidence of atrocities in Iraq and Afghanistan should be opposed by the British government.
Looking forward to the corporate media campaign against Corbyn. The Trump one was getting boring anyway.
On top of this I think Julian has gone crazy - hard not to when you are locked up indefinitely and they really are out to get you.
At this point almost anything could be true.
I don't know if either view is completely correct, it really is a manner of optics. If it is true that Assange has held back information on the Russian government or the RNC, this flaw would make sense from a survival standpoint for him. And even if he was doing it purely out of a survival strategy, would it not make him some sort of Russian asset in a bit of an abstract way?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luiz_In%C3%A1cio_Lula_da_Silva