Julian Assange can be extradited to the US, court rules

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-59608641

by goodcanadian • 5 years ago

702 641 5 years ago

bbc.com

rado• 5 years ago

Just in time: "US announces funds to support independent journalism and reporters targeted for their work"

qart• 5 years ago

I noticed that too. Strange games, the US is playing.

jessaustin9• 5 years ago

Everything on this page seems kind of pathetic now:

https://www.state.gov/subjects/press-freedom/

White_Wolf• 5 years ago

fixed it for you: "US announces funds to support <the right> independent journalism and reporters targeted for their work"

fallingknife3• 5 years ago

If it's supported by government funds it's not "independent journalism" anymore.

sschueller• 5 years ago

"But judges ruled the risk of suicide was removed by assurances from the US."

Like Epstein?

Let this be a point, there is no press freedom in the United States.

mattzito• 5 years ago

Except the article is from the bbc?

caslon• 5 years ago

They're talking about how Assange broke no laws yet is getting tortured by the US and has been for years now for publishing media.

oauea• 5 years ago

Guaranteed he's dead within a year.

petra• 5 years ago

He'll be in solitary confinement. Maybe worse than death.

meepmorp3• 5 years ago

Unless he kills himself, not a chance. He's done his damage, unlike Epstein who had whole houses of closets with skeletons in them; nobody wants him dead.

Prison is worse.

DonaldFisk• 5 years ago

Like Epstein?

Exactly. You can't prevent prison suicides.

In 2012, when she was home secretary, Theresa May stopped Gary McKinnon's extradition to the USA, on the grounds that he was a high suicide risk, and therefore the extradition violated his human rights. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_McKinnon). If only I had similar expectations of our current home secretary.

iso16312• 5 years ago

What a crazy world where Theresa May is deemed to be a good home sec.

I wonder how much pressure the Lib Dems put on her.

hk1337• 5 years ago

If we’re talking about murder veiled in suicide then this has a good point but what about an individual’s right to end their own life, to choose how their life should end?

afandian• 5 years ago

Heard an intesting analysis of this on BBC news. The court was more or less bound to accept the 'assurances', as they were an underlying predicate for the whole extradition framework. To challenge that would be to unpick a lot more politics.

I'm not sure the judges were naive enough to believe the US government, but they probably had no choice.

kingcharles6• 5 years ago

Having just recently got out of jail, I can tell you it is infinitely easy to kill yourself. You would not believe the ingenuity of some of those attempts and successes.

If the institution gets a hint that you are suicidal you will be placed in some sort of anti-suicide cell, which generally means that you are in solitary, you wear a paper or foam suit with no other clothing, you have no bed linen or any paper materials in your cell, and all your food comes on foam trays without any cutlery and has to be eaten with your fingers.

Hitton• 5 years ago

Such measures would make you want to commit suicide even if you weren't suicidal before.

justicezyx2• 5 years ago

Still discussing like Epstein committed suicide?

The evidence pretty much all point to something other than suicide...

hnfong• 5 years ago

What do you mean in the US?

This is global jurisdiction and enforcement, that's what the extradition is about.

peppermint_tea4• 5 years ago

relevant : https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2021/11/30/assange-and-th...

Seems like the "assurances" given by the U.S should not be taken seriously. Previous actions speak (or should I say shout) much louder than words.

P.S : Adding "FREE JULIAN ASSANGE" to my personal website, I encourage everyone to do the same

kome• 5 years ago

P.S : Adding "FREE JULIAN ASSANGE" to my personal website, I encourage everyone to do the same

Great idea. I would suggest to link to this page https://defend.wikileaks.org/

peppermint_tea4• 5 years ago

done, thank you.

iso16312• 5 years ago

Is that one free with every order?

janmo2• 5 years ago

Will he be tried by a common jury or a military one? No way a common jury finds him guilty.

supergirl• 5 years ago

there is no way he will ever be free. it's just 1 man vs multiple governments. US gov is in no rush to bring it to trial. they'll keep him in solitary to die waiting for a trial that will never come

janmo2• 5 years ago

I can only hope that they'll find him not guilty completely ridiculing the government and all those who were behind his prosecution.

pmyteh2• 5 years ago

He's entitled to a trial within 70 days of his first appearance in the US, if he demands one. Speedy Trial Act of 1974.

JumpCrisscross2• 5 years ago

Will he be tried by a common jury or a military one?

He is charged and being extradited under criminal code. As a non-combatant, I don't think he could be charged by an Article I court.

hutzlibu• 5 years ago

"No way a common jury finds him guilty."

Quick search for numbers show:

"53% of Americans say Julian Assange should be extradited to America"

https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/20...

vinay427• 5 years ago

Exactly, with this relatively low support for extradition it would be surprising to see a jury conviction. And that's with abuse of the jury selection process, presumably in both directions.

AnIdiotOnTheNet2• 5 years ago

No way a common jury finds him guilty

I wish I could still have your faith in my fellow countrymen. Sadly I believe yours won't survive this trial.

tyingq5• 5 years ago

Assuming he gets to trial, and has lawyers that understand how to use the media, I think it may be difficult to convince the entire jury to prosecute.

Rehashing US war crimes, which would certainly come up, won't be great for the prosecution either.

tootie4• 5 years ago

The internet has predicted the imminent assassination of every prominent opposition politician, journalist and speaker for as long as I've been online and it's never happened. Glenn Greenwood is fine, Sy Hersh is fine, Bernie Sanders and Ron Paul are fine. Meanwhile Julian Assange was happy to have people believe the DNC leak came from Seth Rich despite knowing he got it from Russia.

the_optimist6• 5 years ago

They apparently plan to stick him in the court in East Virginia, which is effectively an intelligence court given the group of people who live in that region and the political bias. He will not receive a fair trial.

sleepysysadmin2• 5 years ago

Will he be tried by a common jury or a military one? No way a common jury finds him guilty.

Neither. This is the Espionage Act, so he's going to the spy court. Those doors will be closed and the jury will consist of people who work for the government. The court case will be over way way faster than you might expect.

JumpCrisscross2• 5 years ago

so he's going to the spy court

No, he isn’t going to a FISA court, those don’t try criminal cases…

jimmySixDOF• 5 years ago

So begins the turning of the screw for him to reveal Guccifer 2.0 details just in time for some election or another

blackoil• 5 years ago

And this is why I find all the posts around China and why people/company should be ostracised for dealing with them hypocritical.

discordance• 5 years ago

It is OK to hold the US and China responsible for their actions without associating them

wiz21c• 5 years ago

I totally agree. Democracies have their own ways of persecuting people...

marcinzm• 5 years ago

If only saints can point out the bad behaviors of others then you're going to be living in a pretty crappy society.

Ensorceled2• 5 years ago

So if I post something criticizing China's policies towards, say, Tiawan or the Uyghurs, I must include some criticism of a random terrible US policy or I'm a hypocrite? Do I need to also include a criticism of, say, Russia's policies towards the Ukraine or is it only the US?

mcv• 5 years ago

You must criticise every single injustice on Earth at once, or we just cannot take you seriously.

(I shouldn't have to point out that was sarcasm, but I fear I need to, these days.)

FpUser2• 5 years ago

This depends. When it is reported as a news or one simply wants to discuss details sure there is no need to bring other's wrongdoings.

But when it is used as at least partial propaganda (and it often does) in line of "look at good us and bad them" or comes from the government / affiliates then they better look in the mirror first. One thief has no standing criticizing the other. The fact that one had stolen $1000 and the other went for $2000 does not make much difference.

Ekaros2• 5 years ago

At least they should clean their own house first. Let say by punishing everyone who participated in or voted for wars and voted for politicians who voted for them...

catlikesshrimp2• 5 years ago

The evil part of hypocricy is not pointing out and criticizing evil.

tjpnz• 5 years ago

The hearings would've concluded far more quickly if they we're held in China, that's for certain.

unknownus3r5• 5 years ago

Hearings? lol, he’d have vanished in the middle of the night and that’s it

goodpoint3• 5 years ago

There is no hypocrisy in calling out bad behavior.

enriquto2• 5 years ago

We are creating really shameful times. History will not judge us lightly.

actually_a_dog• 5 years ago

If we don't get on it soon, "history" will be written by archaeologists in about 4000 years.

hulitu2• 5 years ago

As Frank Herbert said: "History is written by the historians". And they are part of the system. Just look at history books which are thought in schools.

thuccess129• 5 years ago

History is fiction in the not-fiction area. 95% is missing taken to the grave in silence and the 5% that is allowed to be there is embellished according to a reinforcing narrative agenda of a kind that sells enough copies to make it worthwhile.

skilled• 5 years ago

Since I don't understand this, I will ask it here and maybe someone can give me a clear answer.

What exactly does this mean for Julian Assange? I mean, in terms of this repetitive circle of going to court and then coming back empty handed.

How often can Assange's defense team appeal these decisions and at what point can we expect the "final" decision to be made? E.g. Julian is either released or he is extradited.

zarzavat• 5 years ago

This was the US government's appeal because the US lost at first instance. However Assange will now also have his own cross-appeal because even though he won at first instance, the court rejected all but one of his arguments.

Aside from that, it will go to the Court of Appeal and/or to the UK Supreme Court.

So potentially 2 or 3 further appeals.

checkyoursudo• 5 years ago

Possibly still the Euro Court of Human Rights as well.

the_optimist6• 5 years ago

What rotten people are driving this, and how do we hold them accountable?

OneTimePetes• 5 years ago

The people are just the cells of the same beast since ancient times. Empire. In all shapes and forms, it devours what it grew in and becomes the same brutish atrocity over and over again.

And it stays alive as "wannabe big" again dream long after. This is why britains elite aligns so flawlessly with the atrocities of the usa imperial bloom. The institutions recognize themselves from 100 years ago, when the trampled and maimed people like ghandi.

hvgk• 5 years ago

Usually at this point it’s pitchforks and torches.

Mvandenbergh3• 5 years ago

The elected governments of the US and UK and the laws they've passed?

cyanydeez3• 5 years ago

we tried to sanction russia, but its hard when they used 0uppets to help railroad democracy

the_optimist6• 5 years ago

“Freedom of the press” isn’t about your favorite 2016 candidate.

unobatbayar• 5 years ago

Wish he revealed the secrets of China or Russia, not the United States.

realce6• 5 years ago

Rules for thee, not for me.

bouncycastle• 5 years ago

They have released plenty of things on Russia too, eg https://wikileaks.org/spyfiles/russia/

mikeyouse• 5 years ago

They're not a neutral actor, which is a damn shame;

https://www.dailydot.com/debug/wikileaks-syria-files-syria-r...

catlikesshrimp2• 5 years ago

He is in jail, he can't.

And the right thing to do is to denounce evil as it comes. Journalism is a requirement for democracy.

criley23• 5 years ago

The histrionics, conspiracy theories and outright lies in this thread are outrageous. The US justice system is not the same as despotic countries like Russia or China.

Reality Winner will be released from prison soon. Chelsea Manning, who leaked the info to him, the actual whistleblower who broke the laws, is a free woman. (Could you imagine if Chelsea tried to transition to a woman in Russia or China or other nations that are coming up in this thread in comparison? Just goes to show how fundamentally different these societies are, that she could transition to a woman while incarcerated!)

If Assange hadn't played his games avoiding the court for the better part of a decade, the dude would probably already have done his time and be free.

Although it's entertaining to read the astronomically terrible takes in this thread, I did hope to see a little more intelligence in this community.

throwaway21_• 5 years ago

Why would he do any time at all? Because the people who actually should be doing time are the people in power so they are somehow immune?

Also, Chelsea could transition to a woman without prison too. The fact that they ended/will end in prison while people who actually committed crimes that these two (and Snowden) exposed speaks volumes about how fundamentally different USA is.

realce6• 5 years ago

Reality Winner and Manning are American citizens. Assange is not.

What "games" would YOU play to get out of being extradited to a foreign country for crimes of publishing factual information? Your consolation is that it's only a decade or so of his life in a cage unjustly, no big deal?

You think it is the definition of intelligence to submit to that?

criley23• 5 years ago

"What "games" would YOU play to get out of being extradited to a foreign country for crimes of publishing factual information?"

The crime he is charged with has nothing to do with publication of anything, it's a charge stemming from his help attempting to crack a password hash of military computer accounts to help gain unauthorized access to military systems.

Are foreigners allowed to hack military networks in your country?

You think it is the definition of intelligence to submit to that?

Considering that you're giving me an emotional tale of "CRIME OF PUBLISHING" which is completely contrary to the facts, I would say that the definition of intelligence at the very least includes setting your emotions aside and learning the basic information of a situation before coming to a conclusion

throwamon• 5 years ago

Is this the kind of thing you'd call a conspiracy theory?

https://news.yahoo.com/kidnapping-assassination-and-a-london...

choward8• 5 years ago

So it's okay to murder people as long as you're woke?

callamdelaney• 5 years ago

That's basically bollocks, isn't it?

rjsw• 5 years ago

The one-sided UK-US extradition treaty has never been a good idea, not sure how his defence team can argue against extradition with it in place.

was_a_dev• 5 years ago

All deals with the US are one-sided. It's their foreign policy

Mvandenbergh3• 5 years ago

This was inevitable to anyone who read the original ruling.

What I said 11 months ago:

" actually don't think this is such great news for him. Extradition was specifically blocked on the grounds of a particular regime he might be subjected to (to be fair, probably the only legal grounds on which he had any chance of succeeding). That leaves the US with a way out if they want to proceed with the extradition - guarantee a different set of circumstances.

If the judge had found on more substantive grounds, those would have been much more resistant to that. For instance, all the claims based on language in the extradition treaty and other international agreements failed and they failed for pretty fundamental legal reasons. English courts only have regard for domestic law and it is for parliament to pass laws consistent with the treaties that have been signed, therefore claims based on treaty language won't work.

That means that none of the claims on the political nature of his activities were upheld and those would have provided a much more robust and durable bar to extradition."

DonHopkins2• 5 years ago

If only Hillary Clinton were serving her second term, then maybe he'd have a chance with that argument.

cyanydeez3• 5 years ago

unfortunately he switched from citizen journalist to selective propaganda release and russian propaganda washing.

queuebert3• 5 years ago

She'd probably drone strike him. "We came, we saw, he died."

kingcharles6• 5 years ago

I don't know how other countries deal with treaties, but the USA tends to ignore all the treaties it has signed unless it has also created a statute in federal or state law to enforce it.

m-watson• 5 years ago

It isn't exactly ignore, they just all have to be ratified by the Senate. Otherwise it is just the executive branch making an agreement.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_Clause

Mvandenbergh3• 5 years ago

The US is actually quite far in the "monist" side of the spectrum when it comes to ratified treaties but it has such a divided and dysfunctional political culture coupled with an executive which has wide latitude in foreign affairs that many agreements are signed up to by the executive without being ratified by the senate. Monism basically means that properly entered into, international treaties have force as domestic law as well.

The UK is one of the world's most dualist countries. No treaty has any domestic legal standing whatsoever. Until 2010, the government of the day could ratify treaties without recourse to parliament although there has been an observed rule since the early 20th century called the Ponsonby rule that parliament have time to debate and vote on important treaties. The government cannot make domestic statute law without a parliamentary vote therefore dualism emerged.

This means that the UK has to pass a "back to back" law to give legal effect to any treaty it signs where that is required. The US only has to do so when there are elements of the treaty that are plainly not "self executing" i.e. if the US signs a treaty creating a personal right for its own citizens then no further legislation is required but if it signs a treaty agreeing to do something that requires new appropriations, a new agency, or whatever then additional legislation is required.

Quite a long-winded way of saying that Assange never had recourse to certain claims his legal team attempted to make about conflicts between his treatment and the extradition treaty - the extradition treaty does not directly drive UK domestic law on extradition.

ttybird• 5 years ago

Does that mean that Anne Sacoolas will be extradited to the UK?

pydry17• 5 years ago

Small chance. Being the servile lap dog of the United States is official Tory policy.

bladegash16• 5 years ago

The framing of Assange as an innocent “journalist” being persecuted for just doing his job is, in my opinion, disingenuous.

I do not necessarily agree with all the actions the US Government has taken with him, or their handling of some of the information that was leaked.

However, I do not agree that a “journalist” should be able to enable espionage, let alone encourage/incite it. In case my point is unclear, I consider setting up a website purely designed to encourage leaking of potentially classified information and assisting with the ability to do so as being no different than any other criminal conspiracy.

Further, I am of the opinion, being someone who was quite literally in Afghanistan when he leaked the information he did, that any probative value of the information Manning leaked was overshadowed by the indiscriminate way in which it was done.

Assange is an activist, not a journalist. He should not be treated as such and much of the consequences he suffers now (e.g., confinement during appeal) is directly related to his own actions (e.g., fleeing to an Embassy).

yesbut9• 5 years ago

Assange is more of an editor / publisher. This is akin to the Washington Post publishing the Pentagon Papers.

As a reminder, this is why the US wants to punish Assange:

Wikileaks reveals video showing US air crew shooting down Iraqi civilians https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/apr/05/wikileaks-us-a...

bladegash16• 5 years ago

If you think that is the information that he is being punished for is that video, you clearly did not look at what he leaked closely enough.

Likewise, if you think leaking the pentagon papers is the same as leaking all diplomatic cables and operational communications from a period of time is the same thing, not sure I can say much to change your opinion.

darkerside2• 5 years ago

Editors/publishers exercise judgement and take responsibility for what they put out into the world. AFAICT, Assange's best argument for his innocence is that he bears no responsibility because... he neither took nor accepts any responsibility.

jasonlotito2• 5 years ago

Wikileaks, which Assange leads, is more than just an editor and/or publisher.

WikiLeaks helped arrange Snowden’s escape to Russia from Hong Kong. A WikiLeaks editor also accompanied Snowden to Russia, staying with him during his 39-day enforced stay at a Moscow airport and living with him for three months after Russia granted Snowden asylum.

As a reminder, the post you show isn't when the aggression against Wikileaks escalated. You reminder is not true.

hota_mazi2• 5 years ago

This can definitely be one reason but I find your cherry picking very disingenuous.

His disclosures have shown a consistent bias to damage the Democrats, support the Republicans, Trump, and the Putin regime. He also endangered the lives of multiple assets by revealing their names and locations.

It's a lot more nuanced than you portray it.

tgv2• 5 years ago

It might have been partially activist, that still doesn't justify the extradition. The US had no standing, as I believe it's called. They can declare whatever they want "top secret", but that doesn't make a crime for a citizen of another country to publish it. The hacking and conspiracy claims have been added to make it appear as if they have standing, but these are empty. It's another triumph for big budget lawyer corporations, and an actual loss for the freedom of the press.

bladegash16• 5 years ago

I do not think it is a loss for freedom of the press, I think it is an opportunity for the courts to define what a journalist actually is, vs. not. Perhaps the courts will side with Assange and we will find that this is First Amendment protected activity. I personally do not believe it is, but I do think that this situation is a bit unique to modern times and is likely to set precedent one way or the other.

the_optimist6• 5 years ago

I respect your perspective but wholly disagree with your conclusion. There is not a viable concept such as whether a journalist “enables espionage.” Journalism is necessarily adversarial, not pliant.

bladegash16• 5 years ago

Thank you for the tactful disagreement and I appreciate your perspective. I also believe journalism is necessarily adversarial and should be allowed to exist with little encumbrance. However, I do think there is a line that needs to be drawn at some point as to what is journalism, versus what is propaganda for a specific agenda masquerading as journalism.

mhh__3• 5 years ago

I think it's a test of what you think of him - i.e. whether you consider it strictly journalism or activism.

As far as I'm aware his activities regarding the whole guccifer, Seth rich, etc. affair make me think a mere journalist he is not.

pydry17• 5 years ago

However, I do not agree that a “journalist” should be able to enable espionage, let alone encourage/incite it. In case my point is unclear, I consider setting up a website purely designed to encourage leaking of potentially classified information and assisting with the ability to do so as being no different than any other criminal conspiracy.

Your point is pretty clear. You designated exposing war crimes a criminal conspiracy no different from any other.

This view isn't compatible with a belief in human rights and democracy.

bladegash16• 5 years ago

No, that is not what I said, nor is that what my point is/was.

To reiterate, "Further, I am of the opinion, being someone who was quite literally in Afghanistan when he leaked the information he did, that any probative value of the information Manning leaked was overshadowed by the indiscriminate way in which it was done."

You cannot look at just one small part of what was leaked and ignore the rest. If all that was leaked was the war crimes, then we would not be having this discussion.

ben_w5• 5 years ago

Complicated.

I feel that an Australian citizen should not expect to be extradited to the USA for publishing information the USA would rather not be published. Still true even if he is an activist, would still be true even for someone genuinely trying to systematically destroy America and American values, if it’s just publication. Free speech etc.

For encouraging Americans to break American laws, which I think is the non-legalese summary of the accusation? I don’t know how I feel. The internet (telecoms in general) breaks borders and jurisdiction in ways that are not yet settled even in my own head.

Fleeing to an embassy definitely looked dumb to me at the time, and still does now. If someone is told to eat oranges, refuses because they are afraid oranges might be poisoned, volunteers to eat apples instead, runs away when someone tries to force them to eat an orange, then gets given a poisoned apple… I still don’t understand why people say this vindicates the original no-oranges stance.

bladegash16• 5 years ago

Thank you for the thoughtful response and I especially liked the way you put the dilemma related to how the internet breaks borders. Similar to you, it's challenging to wrap my head around and is a pretty big paradigm shift in terms of the sovereignty of countries, let alone the legal implications of that shift.

pydry17• 5 years ago

For encouraging Americans to break American laws, which I think is the non-legalese summary of the accusation?

Were Gandhi/MLK/Rosa Parks wrong when they made a point of breaking unjust laws and encouraging others to follow along?

Many liberals at the time thought yes - "the law being the law" and all that. It does sound like you're making the same argument they were?

ttybird22• 5 years ago

"However, I do not agree that a “journalist” should be able to enable espionage"

"Espionage" like publishing warcrimes.

"I consider setting up a website purely designed to encourage leaking of potentially classified information and assisting with the ability to do so as being no different than any other criminal conspiracy"

Transparency is a government duty. It is a shame but totally justified that private citizens have to enforce it. As for "criminal", sounds like yet another victimless crime. If anything they are exposing crimes.

"being someone who was quite literally in Afghanistan when he leaked the information he did"

Thank you for disclosing that. How many people did you kill (directly or indirectly) and why didn't you try to expose warcrimes?

"Assange is an activist, not a journalist. He should not be treated as such"

Activists, journalists, and regular citizens should all be treated the same.

"is directly related to his own actions (e.g., fleeing to an Embassy)."

Yet given how the events turned out it seems that he was right. He was hiding in the embassy in fear that they would try to send him to the US.

bladegash16• 5 years ago

"Yet given how the events turned out it seems that he was right. He was hiding in the embassy in fear that they would try to send him to the US."

If only we could all flee when faced with consequences for breaking laws that we disagree with.

"Transparency is a government duty. It is a shame but totally justified that private citizens have to 3nforce it. As for "criminal", sounds like yet another victimless crime. If anything they are exposing crimes."

There are absolutely reasons for state secrecy and the breadth of information crossed a line between what was necessary for informing the public, versus damaging to the diplomatic relations and ability to conduct diplomacy with much of the rest of the world.

"Thank you for disclosing that. How many people did you kill (directly or indirectly) and why didn't you try to expose warcrimes?"

Oh, goodness. Thanks for adding to taking the time to provide your perspective and add to the discussion.

TomSwirly3• 5 years ago

Lots of words. What crime do you think Assange has committed, specifically?

Assange is an activist, not a journalist.

Assange has broken two of the biggest stories of our era and literally hundreds of stories each of which would be a reputation-maker for a lesser individual.

Just because you don't like the truths that Assange reveals, doesn't mean he isn't a journalist.

any probative value of the information Manning leaked was overshadowed by the indiscriminate way in which it was done.

Wikileaks tried to get cooperation from the US government to redact the sensitive parts. They refused to cooperate.

Your way would have meant nothing at all.

Can you explain what harm you believe these leaks caused, compared to their value in knowing that the US engages in war crimes and covers them up?

TomSwirly3• 5 years ago

being someone who was quite literally in Afghanistan when he leaked the information he did,

The US invasion of Afghanistan was a complete failure and one that allowed the actual guilty party, Osama Bin Laden, to escape.

The Taliban offered twice to give up Bin Laden but Bush refused even to discuss it with them. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.te...

Both the CIA and the FBI concluded that no one in the Taliban had any idea of 9/11 before it happened, which is very logical, because you aren't successful at conspiracies by telling everyone.

And yet Bush invaded Afghanistan, because he needed to invade somewhere and couldn't invade the actual culprits, Saudi Arabia - Al Qaeda being founded, funded, manned and managed by Saudis.

---

Participating in a great war crime that killed hundreds of thousands of mostly innocent people and completely failed militarily, economically, diplomatically, and strategically should not be a matter of pride.

harry810• 5 years ago

A journalist is /any/ citizen engaging in journalism. ANY. As soon as you have to "qualify" to be a "journalist" and can't be an "activist" What you have is state controlled media.

Indiscriminate publishing. So you think the vetting done in partnership with the Washington Post and the New York Times was not journalism and the employees of the NYT and WaPo who are now not journalists should be prosecuted along side him? That's pretty radical.

frabbit2• 5 years ago

Do you think that the comments that are furiously ignoring this and pretending that there is some sort of official journalist title are genuinely ignorant or trying to sow confusion?

dukeofdoom2• 5 years ago

If publishing leaked information is punishable by the state, than what kind of press would you have? Its precisely the most contentious things that the state wants to hide, is what often the public needs to know about.

The modern corporate press is bad enough as it is. But do you really want to live in a country where legit journalists are jailed for publishing things the government does not want you to know about.

Just this week, state prosecutor blanked out almost all the names on Epstein flight logs. Fairly obvious its in the public interest to know which powerful people went there. But powerful people will try to protect other powerful people.

unknownus3r5• 5 years ago

Rational take

pessimizer6• 5 years ago

Being an activist doesn't make you not a journalist, any more than being employed by companies that share portfolio space with the companies that get all of their revenue from supplying war material doesn't mean you're not a journalist.

However, I do not agree that a “journalist” should be able to enable espionage

Then you don't really believe that 99% of journalists are journalists, because they would disagree with you. I'm thankful that I don't live in the completely bowdlerized history that would have been the result if more journalists agreed with you.

y-c-o-m-b3• 5 years ago

What does it matter if he's an "activist" or "journalist"? He exposed war crimes. He IS being persecuted and that fact is being waved in our face out in the open. The punishment doesn't fit the crime, that's the problem.

I consider setting up a website purely designed to encourage leaking of potentially classified information and assisting with the ability to do so as being no different than any other criminal conspiracy.

He exposed crimes committed by war criminals. "Criminal conspiracy" is disingenuous. Furthermore the "classified" label is defined by the organization that committed those crimes. Do you think murdering innocent civilians indiscriminately should be classified?

You seem to be arguing semantics more than establishing any sort of moral or ethical argument against what he did.

boomboomsubban7• 5 years ago

that any probative value of the information Manning leaked was overshadowed by the indiscriminate way in which it was done.

Shouldn't you be pushing for the prosecution of the Guardian journalist that published the encryption keys then? Not Assange who actively worked to get both press and government help to ensure safe disclosure.

VictorPath• 5 years ago

Further, I am of the opinion, being someone who was quite literally in Afghanistan when he leaked the information he did, that any probative value of the information Manning leaked was overshadowed by the indiscriminate way in which it was done.

It's funny to me that you were marauding around Afghanistan a couple of years ago and would use the word indiscriminate to describe Assange.

busymom04• 5 years ago

By your definition, 99.9% of “journalists” aren’t journalists because they are all activists. Assange is the purest form of journalist, especially considering things he published were mass reported by other journalists who got awards for their reporting.

HeckFeck• 5 years ago

The modern security state has made an example. Be silent and compliant and they might leave you alone.

A4ET8a8uTh0• 5 years ago

'First they came for' definitely applies. The chilling message it sends is hard to mistake by anything other than a warning.

nextstep• 5 years ago

If Assange is transferred to US custody, there is a strong chance he will be killed (and possibly in a way that makes it look “accidental”). The CIA was actively planning for such scenarios in 2017: https://news.yahoo.com/kidnapping-assassination-and-a-london...

meepmorp3• 5 years ago

There's no point in killing him. He's done his damage; punishing him by letting him rot in prison is worse.

johnson42• 5 years ago

For further context I highly suggest the articles from Nils Melzer (UN Special Rapporteur on Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment):

https://www.republik.ch/2020/01/31/nils-melzer-about-wikilea...

https://medium.com/@njmelzer/demasking-the-torture-of-julian...

https://medium.com/@njmelzer/response-to-open-letter-of-1-ju...

https://www.democracynow.org/2019/11/22/nils_melzer_julian_a...

harabat• 5 years ago

From https://www.democracynow.org/2019/11/22/nils_melzer_julian_a...

"He will be certainly exposed to an arbitrary trial, if he — in the U.K., extradition trial. The choreography is clear. Whatever his lawyers say, in the end, the U.K. judges will say, “Yes, of course, we cannot extradite him if there’s death penalty or torture or treatment, so, please, U.S., make assurances.” The U.S. will obviously make these assurances, and then the U.K. will say, “Then we have no reason not to trust the U.S.” And they will extradite him to the U.S. That’s what I foresee. And that’s what he expect he will hear. And that’s the crux here. In addition to the ill treatment he has already suffered, I am absolutely convinced that he will not get a fair trial. He’ll get a show trial in East Virginia, and he’ll end up in prison under inhumane conditions for the rest of his life. That needs to be prevented."

The whole article is worth reading: Melzer initially was extremely opposed to even looking into Assange's case (his negative view of Assange having been molded by media, as he states), and describes how his view evolved immediately after starting working on this, assessing him, etc.

xaduha• 5 years ago

Surely he has some sort of a dead man's switch aka doomsday files that US doesn't want out there, there was something about encrypted 'insurance' files. I don't think US is doing it out of principle, they want to have a deal with him. Or maybe that data is no longer relevant or was a bluff to begin with.

mhh__3• 5 years ago

There is a lot of "he will be killed" in this thread. I suppose that's not impossible, but it seems remarkably brazen for almost no real benefit to the government.

iam-TJ• 5 years ago

"Kidnapping, assassination and a London shoot-out: Inside the CIA's secret war plans against WikiLeaks" [0] 26th September 2021

Yahoo News Kidnapping, assassination and a London shoot-out: Inside the CIA's secret war plans against WikiLeaks Zach Dorfman, Sean D. Naylor and Michael Isikoff September 26, 2021, 10:00 AM·39 min read In this article:

In 2017, as Julian Assange began his fifth year holed up in Ecuador’s embassy in London, the CIA plotted to kidnap the WikiLeaks founder, spurring heated debate among Trump administration officials over the legality and practicality of such an operation.

Some senior officials inside the CIA and the Trump administration even discussed killing Assange, going so far as to request“sketches”or“options”for how to assassinate him. Discussions over kidnapping or killing Assange occurred at the highest levels”of the Trump administration, said a former senior counterintelligence official. “There seemed to be no boundaries.”

[0] https://news.yahoo.com/kidnapping-assassination-and-a-london...

2OEH8eoCRo06• 5 years ago

Talk is cheap. Did they carry it out?

lettergram• 5 years ago

To fully appreciate the context:

- he’s not a us citizen

- none of the “crimes” happened on US soil

- he’s a world famous journalist with prior work

- was charged with bogus crimes in Europe in an attempt to arrest him. All dropped

- the person who stole the files he released is already free and the tax payers paid for their transition

CommanderData• 5 years ago

The UK govnement has passed extremely draconian laws in the last year. The government is trying to to power grab while covid is still around and people are focused on covid.

Laws banning protests, surveillance and others.

This isn't a surprise but doesn't make it acceptable.

BoxOfRain2• 5 years ago

I really hope the scandal around Downing Street throwing raucous parties while the rest of the country suffered under a strict lockdown is the final straw that breaks the back of Johnson’s government. At the very least he’s being extraordinarily dishonourable by going on TV and lying through his teeth to the country about it while bringing in fresh restrictions to keep his hypocrisy out of the news (and fortunately failing) rather than resigning as soon as the scandal broke. He’s presided over an accelerating slide into authoritarianism and oligarchy and will no doubt be remembered as one of the worst Prime Ministers to hold the office.

When the politicians, media outlets, top civil servants, and other people in the corridors of power are drawn from the same Eton to Oxbridge to power pipeline you end up with a proper British Bulldog of a political culture: a creature so heavily inbred it can’t even breath properly.

emilecantin• 5 years ago

As a non-US citizen, that's what I find most troubling about this. Change the countries and it's immediately apparent how absurd it is: Imagine a US citizen living in Mexico exposed some Peruvian state secrets (doing something which isn't a crime in Mexico), and now Peru is applying pressure to extradite the guy. Chances are everybody involved would laugh in Peru's face, so why does the UK entertain this in Assange's case? Why doesn't Australia get involved?

bennyp1012• 5 years ago

Now is a good time for a power grab? COVID is tightening restrictions on the public, it's nearly christmas, and in the UK we have the PM's Xmas Party to talk about.

What better time to slip Uncle Sam a favour?

oefrha• 5 years ago

Welcome to international politics? Any kind of moral or justice is a farce, it’s all about power.

PragmaticPulp2• 5 years ago

As a non-US citizen, that's what I find most troubling about this.

Extradition isn't unique to the United States, though. It's a common feature of most large country's legal systems.

This doesn't mean that any country can prosecute foreign people with arbitrary laws at their leisure, though. Most extradition agreements would require that the offense be a crime in both countries, for example, and require a reasonable expectation that the punishment will be proportional to the crime (i.e. not petty political retribution).

In your US-Mexicon-Peru example, Mexico would indeed be likely to hand over the US citizen to Peru if (and only if) the accused criminal act was a crime in both countries. Mexico has additional constraints that would forbid the extradition if the death penalty was a likely outcome, but if the likely sentence was a prison term, the evidence was sufficient, and the crime was reasonably serious then the person would be on their way.

akmarinov• 5 years ago

The UK is basically a US state at this point, so not sure why that's surprising.

OtomotO• 5 years ago

Because the United States are a super power, the current Imperium even.

There were often such empires around the world. Rome for example.

michael19992• 5 years ago

Because the UK, and Australia are eager US vassals in this instance. They want to cooperate with the US government. The judges job here is to provide a fig-leaf of argument to justify what the executive clearly prefers.

the_other• 5 years ago

AUKUS

The timelines of the extradition and the submarine deal don't match up exactly... but the idea that the English-speaking countries can rely on one another runs deep and long.

HKH2• 5 years ago

Julia Gillard threw him under the bus, and nobody's tried to drag him out ever since, as far as I'm aware.

regnull• 5 years ago

none of the “crimes” happened on US soil

He is charged with helping Chelsea Manning to hack into a government computer which did happen on US soil.

“ they charged him with conspiring to commit unlawful computer intrusion based on his alleged agreement to try to help Ms. Manning break an encoded portion of passcode that would have permitted her to log on to a classified military network under another user’s identity.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/11/world/europe/julian-assan...

ianhawes2• 5 years ago

He is charged with helping Chelsea Manning to hack into a government computer which did happen on US soil.

IIRC Manning was in Iraq at this time. Were servers they accessed in the US? Probably. But that would be a crime Manning committed.

4bpp• 5 years ago

The implications of defining an action as "happening on US soil" whenever it had an effect that involved mere data that was situated on US soil also seem troubling, and it's easy to imagine only slightly less clear cause-and-effect relationships from actions to data that would, under this interpretation, suggest extradition to a hostile jurisdiction.

For example, Germany is well known to strictly prohibit and penalise the public display of Nazi symbols. Suppose some US citizen posted unicode swastikas in a game chat (while living in the UK), as kids seem to like to do, and this chat log got replicated on a German server, putting it in violation of German law, and now Germany wanted to throw the book at them (3 years of jail or so). Should the UK extradite this person to Germany? Would it have any bearing on this whether the kid did this with the intention of trolling Germans in game (and perhaps the awareness that it is not legal for them to display the symbol)?

For an even juicier version of this scenario, imagine that we are instead considering the case of an American journalist who tweeted some of the edgier activist-journalist rhetoric (of the "kill all $privileged_group" type) to weigh in on some German domestic dispute. This just so happened to fall afoul of Germany's domestic laws on inciting racial hatred, and the message got replicated on whatever servers Twitter's CDN has there. The intent (to reach Germans) would be there, and a crime (having a public-facing computer server display an incitement to racial hatred) would have happened on German soil. How would you feel about the US journalist being extradited from the UK to Germany to face jail time?

choward8• 5 years ago

There is no evidence he helped her. Their main witness was a pedophile who lied to try get his own charges lessened. There is no case against Assange. The allegations are bogus.

belorn2• 5 years ago

With the pirate bay case and servers being on Swedish soil, any one who uploaded a copyrighted file helped the founders breaking copyright law. This mean millions of people, many located in the US, could be extradited to Sweden to face their crime they committed there.

How funny the world would be if laws was enforced equally.

PragmaticPulp2• 5 years ago

- he’s not a us citizen
- none of the “crimes” happened on US soil

Not commenting on the legitimacy of the underlying accusations, but neither of these have ever been obstacles for extradition treaties.

Generally, as long as the actions are a crime in both countries (the country where the crime was committed and the country where the person currently resides) then it would fall under most extradition treaties.

There are additional hurdles such as sufficiently believing that punishment will be proportional tot he crime and that the trial will be fair, but simply being in a different country doesn't mean someone is free from the consequences of committing crimes against victims in other countries.

Some countries do have exceptions that their own citizens can't be extradited for treaties in foreign countries, but that doesn't free the person from being prosecuted for the crime in their own country either.

micromacrofoot• 5 years ago

none of these things matter when charging someone with a crime? non-citizens are charged for hacking from foreign countries all the time. You’re also making an unwarranted dig at trans people.

cainxinth2• 5 years ago

“he’s a world famous journalist with prior work”

That’s a claim not a fact. It’s also possible he was an asset for a hostile intelligence service posing as a journalist.

I’m not normally one to side with Mike Pompeo, but I agree with his assessment on this one:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/13/us/politics/mike-pompeo-c...

“‘WikiLeaks walks like a hostile intelligence service and talks like a hostile intelligence service,’ Mr. Pompeo said.”

gausswho2• 5 years ago

You agree also with the use of 'hostile'? If not, do you agree the US is in the right to extradite non-US intelligence operators?

harry810• 5 years ago

It's a fact he's world famous. We've heard of him.

It's a fact he's a journalist. We've all read his journalism or at least know of its existence. [1]

It's a claim that "he was an asset for a hostile intelligence service" and one with zero evidence to back it up. Everything Assange has done the New York Times has also done. Every single thing he has been charged with in this case. That's also a fact.

[1] https://www.newstatesman.com/author/julian-assange

Pompeo walks and talks like a traitor. There, that's a claim, you might find the evidence a little more compelling.

pera• 5 years ago

Do you think siding with Pompeo on this issue is more sensible than "siding" with NGOs like ACLU, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and Reporters Without Borders?

tiahura2• 5 years ago

What difference does it make if he’s a journalist, an astronaut, or a haberdasher? Shouldn’t the law apply equally regardless of your profession and level of celebrity?

revolvingocelot• 5 years ago

Pre-Trump, I used to joke that American foreign policy was determined by oil companies and defense contractors. Then Mike Pompeo became Secretary of State, and it wasn't funny anymore. Well, it hadn't been funny since Trump; Pompeo took over, of course, from former ExxonMobile CEO Rex Tillerson, who headed the Department of State for the first Trump year.

Given Pompeo's business history, I think it's fair to understand everything he says with the knowledge that he's an avatar of the American military-industrial complex [0]. With that lens in place, of course WikiLeaks is "hostile", have you seen Collateral Murder?!

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Pompeo#Early_career

michael19992• 5 years ago

What exactly is the bright line between a good newspaper and an intelligence service that broadcasts information? News is that which someone doesn't what known.

fallingknife3• 5 years ago

First they said he was a rapist. Then that fell apart. Now they say he's part of a foreign intelligence service. I don't buy that either.

93po2• 5 years ago

It’s also possible he was an asset for a hostile intelligence service posing as a journalist.

Also possible he's the flying spaghetti monster. There's equal evidence for both (none)

Mike Pompeo sounds extremely salty about negative press coverage. Of course they're going to do their best to discredit Assange after he embarrassed them so thoroughly.

choward8• 5 years ago

Did you just quote pompeo as evidence? You can't be serious.

shireboy• 5 years ago

- the CIA considered (and possibly attempted) targeting him for kidnapping/assassination https://news.yahoo.com/kidnapping-assassination-and-a-london...

I don't see how the court can say he's not in danger of ill treatment by US given that fact alone.

kspacewalk23• 5 years ago

- the alleged crimes were committed against the US, i.e his participation in the exfiltration of secret data from US government. Surely his physical location when committing these crimes should have no bearing on whether it's a criminal matter.

- calling him a journalist is a mighty stretch even before he started, let's call it his "full-stack collaboration" with the Russians

- Manning served the time and is thus free. Assange did not serve time, so from the perspective of the US justice system is a few steps back in the process of paying for his crime. Regardless of guilt or innocence, nothing seems strange about this concept itself. If you're caught for a crime committed with others back in the 90s you're also gonna go to prison, even if your co-conspirators are out free already.

lb0• 5 years ago

So no matter what the US does criminal against its own or international law (yeah I know, US give a fuck about Geneva conventions and also Den Haag.. another shame) - if they declared it "secret data" they can declare a foreign journalist helping in uncovering that crime himself committing crimes and require extradition? Just so backwards...

Yeah I know, we can argue endless forever about the details, real lawyers too.. but to be honest on a higher level: It is such a shame for the US as a country claiming "democracy", "freedom" and more to go on with this ridiculous show trail, just such a ridiculous shame.

For the UK the same, of course.

Just read that overspecific prepared weasel language... I cannot stand it.

But in their ruling on Friday, they sided with the US authorities after a near-unprecedented package of assurances were put forward that Assange would not face those strictest measures either pre-trial or post-conviction unless he committed an act in the future that required them.

We all know what will happen.. as a Westerner ashamed myself :(

93po2• 5 years ago

- calling him a journalist is a mighty stretch even before he started, let's call it his "full-stack collaboration" with the Russians

This is wildly unsubstantiated and at best fear mongering propaganda.

- the alleged crimes were committed against the US, i.e his participation in the exfiltration of secret data from US government. Surely his physical location when committing these crimes should have no bearing on whether it's a criminal matter.

It absolutely should matter. Why should someone who's not a citizen and wasn't located in the US be held to US laws? Does every person on the planet now need to memorize the laws of every country and fear extradition if I were to accidentally view gay porn, which is illegal in Saudi Arabia?

choward8• 5 years ago

calling him a journalist is a mighty stretch even before he started, let's call it his "full-stack collaboration" with the Russians

How is he not a journalist? What's your definition? Is the garbage that CNN, MSNBC and Fox News spews out journalism? Is Chris Cuomo a journalist?

Where is you evidence of Russian collaboration? Or did you hear that from a "journalist"? It seems you have no clue what journalism is.

sumedh• 5 years ago

Manning served the time

Didnt Obama commute his sentence?

tootie4• 5 years ago

I dispute him being a journalist. He hosts a website for raw intel that is frequently stolen.

ianhawes2• 5 years ago

NYT, WP, ProPublica, etc all “host a website for raw intel that is frequently stolen”.

jollybean11• 5 years ago

"none of the “crimes” happened on US soil"

This is essentially false as his ostensible crime relates to participating in the hacking of US systems.

By your inference, Russians hacking into US Hosptials would not be committing a crime on 'US Soil' as though that would make a difference.

Let's have the trial and see the evidence.

CRConrad12• 5 years ago

[>] "none of the “crimes” happened on US soil"
This is essentially false as his ostensible crime relates to participating in the hacking of US systems.

A crime happens where you do it. His arse wasn't sat in the USA when he did it.

goodpoint3• 5 years ago

the tax payers paid for their transition

Is this a criticism to tax policies or an underhanded insult to trans people?

shadowgovt7• 5 years ago

We're witnessing the difference between someone who faces justice head-on (Manning) and someone who spends a decade evading a court.

The justice system can determine a person's guilt or innocence, but only when they're brought before it. The enforcement system may, depending on their cost / benefit analysis, spend disproportionate resources to make that happen.

stjohnswarts2• 5 years ago

Yeah the fact that it all happened outside of the USA and by someone who is not beholden to the USA is kind of amazing. Putin and Xi will now be able to demand (with a straight face) any government leaks out of their nation as criminal and demand that US journalists publishing such "state secrets" immediately be extradited to said countries and face charges in court.

kstenerud• 5 years ago

This should be a sobering view of how the world really works. Above a certain threshold, every veneer of civilization vanishes no matter what the country (some have a higher threshold than others).

At this level, only power matters. And the first rule of power is: Don't embarrass the powerful unless you can call on a lot of power to defend yourself.

Laws can't protect you; they can be thwarted and bent, and the legal process "guided" to the required outcome.

International organizations can't protect you; they can only register complaints that will be duly ignored by everyone if the champion is important enough.

Even countries can't protect you at this level; they're beholden to power themselves after a certain point.

This is the message to would-be activists anywhere: Stay out of the big boy pool or we'll make you regret it.

FredPret3• 5 years ago

Ultimately, right and wrong, good and evil are human judgments, sometimes acted upon by humans using human power. There’s nothing transcendent about it.

The international rules-based order is safeguarded by powerful entities… because it’s in their best interest. One goes against that self-interest at one’s peril.

leto_ii4• 5 years ago

right and wrong, good and evil are human judgments

This is nonsense that opens up the possibility to justify pretty much any kind of abuse or atrocity.

The international rules-based order is safeguarded by powerful entities… because it’s in their best interest.

If the international order was actually rules-based it would have been safeguarded by international institutions, not by a single capricious superpower.

One goes against that self-interest at one’s peril.

This one eludes me. Who's going against who's interest?

vbezhenar• 5 years ago

There are countries which do not bend before others. Russia, China, Iran to name a few examples. They can protect those fleeing from the West. Just like West can protect people from those countries. World is not unipolar.

beebmam• 5 years ago

Is this a joke? The entirety of those countries citizens are subject to their own government's tyrannical rule

nannal• 5 years ago

Let's ask Litvinenko his opinion?

krisrm• 5 years ago

Protect? Or use them as tokens in international tit-for-tat diplomacy?

seanw444• 5 years ago

Can't imagine why anyone would want to run to China to hide from the U.S. of all places, in this scenario.

"I'm going to flee from one dystopian state, to another even more dystopian/technocratic/autocratic state!"

pydry17• 5 years ago

I suspect Assange doesn't regret this.

I kind of get the impression that becoming a martyr was a sacrifice he was prepared to make if he managed to rip off the mask and expose the unbridled imperialist evil lurking underneath the "civilized press conference veneer" presented by the US government.

mrsuprawsm• 5 years ago

It's a bit of a sad sacrifice, though. Nothing (significant) has changed about the US's imperialism as a result of his disclosures, it's just mildly more acknowledged.

mariusor3• 5 years ago

Even if that was the case at any point, I doubt that currently he's still willing to be a martyr. He now has children and a partner that I imagine he'd like to spend time with.

vanusa6• 5 years ago

What matters here is rule of law (and the fact that we live in a time where it is being increasingly eroded) - not Assange's internal psychological machinations.

jollybean11• 5 years ago

"he managed to rip off the mask and expose the unbridled imperialist evil lurking"

That's a bit absurd given showed the total opposite:

Gigabytes of diplomatic cables of highly sensitive data revealed a US Diplomatic Corps trying to do a decent job in a world rife with ugly corruption.

The 'Arab Street' saw the information and they saw the US trying to assuage and nudge brutally corrupt leaders.

The cables didn't unite Arabs against the US - they exposed the ruthless corruption of their own governments and 'united' them against their own governments.

I was in Tunisia near the time of the revolts and I can tell you the thing that pissed them off the most was probably the fact that their disgraced PM had Canadian citizenship (i.e. citizen of convenience, as many do) and simply flew to Montreal to enjoy Canadian Constitutional protections and avoid prosecution.

It's shocking that someone could read about Arab governments doing 'very bad things', the US government trying to stop them, and then come away with the notion that the US is the bad actor.

It speaks to some kind of deeply held ideology or perspective that can make facts that point one way, seem like they point in the other direction.

Assange will have to face trial given the fact that he may have explicitly helped Manning break into systems of National Security, which is definitely illegal. I don't think he did, but there's been some evidence made public that indicates that it's possible. Soon we'll have a court case and see the evidence.

brandelune• 5 years ago

I suspect Assange does not want to be tortured and murdered and thus does not want this. Are you insane ?

shadowgovt7• 5 years ago

If he was willing to be a martyr, he would not have holed up in an embassy seeking asylum for years.

JKCalhoun• 5 years ago

My sense, and I don't think it is a popular opinion on HN, was that Assange became, perhaps unwittingly, a pawn of Russia. Selectively releasing documents, which is how I see it, doesn't show an even hand of justice exposing "the unbridled imperialist evil".

I'm no fan of Assange. But I also have not read a lot about Assange so I may be ignorant.

papito• 5 years ago

"Laws are people, and I can manage people."

- Logan Roy, Succession, HBO

"How do you ensure the green? You can't. As in life, in traffic, you leave yourself an out... You move diagonal, you turn the wheel when you hit a red light. You don't try down Broadway to get to Broadway. You are going to butt heads with these friends of ours? You are going to come at them head on? They got lives, Freddy, families."

- Cop Land

nnvvhh• 5 years ago

Funny, I was thinking of a Logan Roy quote: “Life's not knights on horseback. It's a number on a piece of paper. It's a fight for a knife in the mud.”

mercy_dude4• 5 years ago

The most infuriating among all of them has been our media - specifically mainstream media. They have played the entire saga down and in many cases many mainstream media pundits actively espoused for Assanges punishment [1].

I no longer hold the view that our media deserves the first amendment protection that it does. Mainstream media right now has no other purpose other than being active vehicle of the powerful and billionaire oligarchs to control the narrative. When 70% of the media empire are owned by billionaires why are we pretending otherwise? How different is that than state sponsored media in North Korea?

[1] https://greenwald.substack.com/p/julian-assange-loses-appeal...

ceejayoz9• 5 years ago

I no longer hold the view that our media deserves the first amendment protection that it does.

That, uh, might be a bit of an overcorrection.

Mezzie4• 5 years ago

Nah, they should keep the 1st Amendment for the journalists. The medias' marketing departments and execs, however, should be regulated to within an inch of their lives. If they let their journos spout shit, they should be legally on the hook if they EVER claim truth. If they lie, don't allow them to take advertiser or subscriber money.

You can say whatever you want, but you can't charge people for it and you can't lie and pretend you're selling one thing (truth) when you're selling another (self-righteous feelings).

Won't ever happen because the government and media are in bed with one another, but that's what I'd like to see.

brightstep• 5 years ago

You have to remember that the first amendment was written to protect people like the founders - wealthy, bourgeois, powerful men. It was never intended to create a press that challenges state power.

rendall• 5 years ago

I no longer hold the view that our media deserves the first amendment protection that it does

I'm sure if you thought through the implications of removing Constitutionally recognized, inalienable rights, you wouldn't say this. Let's assume it is done, the press is now stripped of its rights, and ask some questions about the world and political reality thereupon:

Do individuals still have this right to free speech or is it only media that no longer does?

Does an individual who becomes a journalist still have the right to free speech?

Who would oversee the speech of journalists? Would it be you or right-thinking people like you who decide what is acceptable for the media to say? Or would it be whichever political party were in power at the time? Or billionaire oligarchs?

How would this oversight work? A "free speech oversight" committee? How does one get into the committee? Appointment? By whom? Election?

If I want to run for election in the committee, can I say unpleasant things about my incumbent opponents? Or will the committee declare this speech to be out of bounds? What if they become corrupt? Who can report the truth about that corruption?

If I dislike the committee for some reason, can the committee oversee my criticism, declare it out of bounds?

Could the legal precedence of overriding the inalienable right to free speech also be used to override other inalienable rights? My right not to have to barracks soldiers in my house, for instance.

nextaccountic• 5 years ago

I no longer hold the view that our media deserves the first amendment protection that it does.

Free speech is the only thing that makes it slightly possible to not parrot the official government narrative.

Imnimo• 5 years ago

I no longer hold the view that our media deserves the first amendment protection that it does. Mainstream media right now has no other purpose other than being active vehicle of the powerful and billionaire oligarchs to control the narrative. When 70% of the media empire are owned by billionaires why are we pretending otherwise? How different is that than state sponsored media in North Korea?

If you take away the first amendment protection, doesn't that just mean that the government controls 100% of the media instead of 70% or whatever you think the number is?

Der_Einzige• 5 years ago

The mass holding of such a view is exactly what's going to end up with me as an American refugee in Canada sometime in the next 10 years. I grew up in Democracy and I plan to die in it. Watching the USA backslide and imagining the very real risk of Trump refusing to give up power when he inevitably gets it in 2024 is sobering... to say the least

StanislavPetrov• 5 years ago

I no longer hold the view that our media deserves the first amendment protection that it does.

I think the Assange case is an excellent reminder that "our media" doesn't really have any First Amendment protection. You don't need First Amendment protection if you are spewing DC blob talking points all day. And if you challenge the DC blob, like Assange did (or Gary Webb and others), it very quickly becomes clear that those protections don't exist at all.

themself3• 5 years ago

I mostly feel contempt for the mainstream media nowdays, but that does nothing to diminish my support for their right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is most important for those whose speech we think is harmful and don't want to be spoken. Nothing would be more dangerous than letting those with the greatest capacity for and willingness to use violence (e.g. governments) decide what speech should be allowed.

Anyone who cares about freedom of speech for anyone should defend it for everyone because if nazis, tankies, and journalists can't have freedom of speech, none of us can. First they came for... you know how the rest goes.

gentleman11• 5 years ago

no longer hold the view that our media deserves the first amendment protection that it does. Mainstream media right now has no other purpose other than being active vehicle of the powerful and billionaire oligarchs to control the narrative.

You think the oligarchs should hold the media they allegedly control accountable for the things they say so that we can get less biased media? What?

jollybean11• 5 years ago

This is ridiculous.

Assange is alleged to have cooperated with a member of the US forces to release gigabytes of diplomatic cables etc. - which is possibly a crime.

In all but rare cases, you absolutely do not have the right to break into systems of national security and release arbitrary information under the guise of 'journalism'.

His extradition is perfectly rational, legal and judicially legitimate.

The Abu Garib whistleblower didn't face criminal charges, and has been relocated and protected by US Justice System, because he did the right thing, not the wrong thing.

Assange will face a trial like everyone else, he is not above the law.

While I think he's probably not guilty in this scenario, there is evidence made public that possibly points to criminality, I'm looking forward to seeing the facts of the case.

mercy_dude4• 5 years ago

because he did the right thing, not the wrong thing.

And who defines the right or wrong? Assange revealed among many things how CIA collects data of US citizens abusing patriot act without warrants.

mafuy• 5 years ago

He did significant help in showing a major war crime that was covered up. That is, without doubt, more important.

As a journalist, you sometimes have to jump a fence - that is generally, and legally, accepted. Else writing 'do not view or publish' on your crime diary would be sufficient to conceal it.

mongol2• 5 years ago

you absolutely do not have the right to break into systems of national security and release arbitrary information

These are two very different things. Is Assange suspected of doing the first? The second I wonder how it can be a crime if it is a non-US citizen doing it on non-US soil.

sneak5• 5 years ago

Assange will face a trial like everyone else

It's worth noting that Manning, his alleged co-conspirator in this thing, was declared guilty by Obama, in public, before her trial ever began (when she was, under the law, to be presumed innocent). She was also tortured in jail prior to conclusion of the trial, to such an extent that she attempted suicide twice.

The extradition is only rational, legal, and judicially legitimate if he can be expected to receive a fair trial and not be tortured before/during/after. None of these assumptions hold true in the United States, as we both know.

at_a_remove4• 5 years ago

I believe someone else (Manning) broke in. Assange was the conduit for the information.

You may now look at the disparity in treatment.

nickysielicki4• 5 years ago

you absolutely do not have the right to break into systems of national security

He didn’t do that, he didn’t help Manning get any additional access, the whole basis of their case is in Assange agreeing to look at some stuff for Manning and then never getting back to him. Assange didn’t hack or crack anything.

monocasa4• 5 years ago

The Abu Gharib whistleblower's name was supposed to not be released, but instead Donald Rumsfeld himself leaked it, and his family had to be put into protective custody because of the constant death threats they were receiving from other service members and families of service members.

Donald Rumsfeld then later wrote a letter to the whistleblower telling him to stop telling people that Rumsfeld had been the one to leak his name.

themself3• 5 years ago

Would you feel the same if it was the Chinese or Russian government who wanted to prosecute a foreigner for allegedly helping one of their whistleblowers, or for just criticizing their government? Unless you want Americans sent to Beijing for violating the Hong Kong national security law, which applies to everyone in the world according to the Chinese government, I don't see how you can invoke 'the law' against Assange.

Regardless, laws are completely irrelevant to what's right or wrong. Laws are basically just threats, and it's not wrong to do something just because someone threatens to harm you. It doesn't matter if that someone is the Chinese government, the US government, the Taliban government, or some local street gang.

tootie4• 5 years ago

That might be relevant if Assange wasn't doing it at the behest of Russia

leto_ii4• 5 years ago

That might be relevant if Assange wasn't doing it at the behest of Russia

[citation needed]

RivieraKid• 5 years ago

But you're assuming that the UK court made a decision that is against their law. Why is extradition an incorrect decision?

vanusa6• 5 years ago

For example - given the ample (and basically) record of U.S. authorities in regard to their treatment of so-called High Value Detainees -- and even of very low-value detainees at is borders, as we have seen in recent years -- the High Court had no reason whatsoever to lend credence to the so-called "assurances" they cited in their ruling:

The High Court said Friday that it had received appropriate assurances from the U.S. to meet the threshold for extradition, including:

Assange will not be subject to “special administrative measures” or be held in a notorious maximum security prison in Florence, Colorado.

Assange, if convicted, will be permitted to serve out his sentence in his native Australia.

Assange will receive appropriate clinical and psychological treatment in custody.

elif5• 5 years ago

UK extradition requires generally that it also be a crime to commit in the UK.

It is dubious that soliciting government documents and publishing them would be illegal in the UK.

rich_sasha• 5 years ago

This is in micro scale, so perhaps this is why the power imbalance is so painfully clear. This is one guy against the whole might of the US.

Of course events like this have been happening for centuries, recent decades included. The people in various countries caught up in wars had their lives ruined or lost. At best, this was despite all efforts to safeguard them and a price to pay for some greater good, at worst footnote to some uncaring Grand Plan. The end result is the same though.

The machine of Western Democracy devours those who cross it hard enough. Maybe to protect those inside the bubble, or maybe because it's still floating in the same Big Bad World as the less democratic counterparts around the world.

quest88• 5 years ago

It sets precedent. One guy today, more tomorrow.

2Gkashmiri2• 5 years ago

if "laws" cannot protect one man, why bother with the sham that is "democracy"? its not just in the US but rest of the countries as well. when "pride" of a democracy is greater than the life of a human, it is no better than china or north korea. there at least you have the expectation of their intentions, that you are on your own. "democracies" are supposed to protect the little guy regardless of the adversary. as the other commenter said, this sets the precedent for the rest of the world. now india can go ahead and do the same to its dissenters because america could do it.

FpUser2• 5 years ago

"The machine of Western Democracy"

While statistically better the democracy on its own does not stand for being "humane". Masses love government "being tough" and do not care much about them destroying lives.

raverbashing2• 5 years ago

"sobering view of how the world really works" for whom this is unexpected, which is to say, the most naive.

Laws don't go beyond who enforces them. And this is as expected, they're not an omnipotent/divine construct.

The general public view of Assange is not so great and it went down with time. Manning is probably viewed more favourably.

States that were too tolerant with those who "skirt the rules" (or just do very serious crimes) usually end up regretting it (or not living to regret it, which is worse). I would be very happy if those involved in some January events at D.C. got a similar treatment.

sneak5• 5 years ago

"sobering view of how the world really works" for whom this is unexpected, which is to say, the most naive.

I think perhaps you're giving too many people too much credit. I would assume that the vast majority of people in the USA think it's a functioning democracy, subject to the rule of law, with human rights.

None of these things are true, and, yet, these beliefs are very widely held.

newbamboo• 5 years ago

It’s not much different at other levels. You only have public opinion and Assange wasn’t able to best Clinton in that realm. There’s a lesson about optics and choosing your enemies to be learned as well as the lesson about power.

impendingchange• 5 years ago

There is a deeper level to this event. Discovery is a bitch.

2OEH8eoCRo06• 5 years ago

Your entire post is opinion and contains no information, factual or otherwise.

marmaduke• 5 years ago

Isn’t a court ruling an opinion and not fact? Is it necessary to oppose one opinion not with another but a fact?

Dah00n5• 5 years ago

So, just like yours? How does this add anything?

hulitu2• 5 years ago

This is the message to would-be activists anywhere: Stay out of the big boy pool or we'll make you regret it.

You also need to take care of your big boy pool. When you make friends by force they will leave you the moment another stronger friend will come. And when you eroded all your credibility will be a bit difficult to regain it back. Of course you think you have control over everything.

shadowgovt7• 5 years ago

In short... One should not assume the powers-that-be provide tools freely to disassemble the powers-that-be. "For the master's tools will never dismantle the master's house," as the quote goes.

ilrwbwrkhv• 5 years ago

Big guns policy. Whoever has the highest number of guns is in charge. We are still tribal monkeys after all with a thin veneer of civilization.

jobu• 5 years ago

Above a certain threshold, every veneer of civilization vanishes no matter what the country (some have a higher threshold than others).
At this level, only power matters. And the first rule of power is: Don't embarrass the powerful unless you can call on a lot of power to defend yourself.

Steven Donziger is another great example of this rule: https://theintercept.com/2020/01/29/chevron-ecuador-lawsuit-...

Chevron has decided to make an example of him by ruining his life in return for a $9.5 billion judgement he won against them in Ecuador.

pwillia7• 5 years ago

Whatever happened to our benevolent anonymous hacker groups that were supposed to be so organic and decentralized they could never be ended?

MichaelMoser123• 5 years ago

is it possible, that the system is getting more and more vindictive and less liberal? I mean, Assange isn't saying more radical things than Chomsky, yet they tolerated Chomky somehow, for whatever reasons....

psychlops• 5 years ago

The jackrabbit always wins.

ozim• 5 years ago

That is why Edward Snowden beeing still free is important.

Don't get me wrong. If there will be a good deal from US - Russia is going to hand him over in a blink of an eye.

But he is an example that you still can play it out between big boys and not all is lost.

jMyles• 5 years ago

The thing I don't understand, given all this - and I say this with substantial study in Political Science, including a degree - is why then we still see such widespread admiration of the notion that states are legitimate organizational structures?

Ostensibly they are different than corporations and other private entities specifically in that the standard by which their mandate exists is a public one. But once we see that that's not true (and we have seen it throughout history, but with astonishing clarity in the past two decades), isn't it time to move on?

sneak5• 5 years ago

is why then we still see such widespread admiration of the notion that states are legitimate organizational structures?

Because the states (indirectly, carefully, and tactfully) guide the media in those states, and the majority of people uncritically assume that the narratives they hear over and over again ("land of the free", "rule of law", "innocent until proven guilty", "justice is blind", "a free press") are true and correct, simply because they've been repeated at them so often.

Information that contradicts those beliefs is ignored, discredited, or discarded.

HPsquared• 5 years ago

People think (and have throughout history thought) that they live outside of history and "this time it's different".

Hard to see the forest for the trees, I suppose

plandis4• 5 years ago

Let me ask you: have you actually read the indictment against Assange that the DOJ has published?

You are aware he is alleged to have pointed Manning to which files to illegally obtain and offered to help her cover her tracks, right? These are real crimes — not, as you allege, for embarrassing the US government.

d1lanka• 5 years ago

This is the message to would-be activists anywhere: Stay out of the big boy pool or we'll make you regret it.

Check your expenses before waging war.

Or, you need to band together with an international band of investigative journalists like the ICIJ: https://www.icij.org (who released the Pandora Papers) or do it intelligently like Snowden.

The most Ballsy of people in this category has to be the Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny: https://youtu.be/kHgI6um1BMc IMO.

nathias• 5 years ago

RIP Assange, he sacrificed himself to reveal what everyone knew. I'm not sure that this was good, lately I think politicians just kind of stopped pretending and I liked it better when they at least put their human faces on for the public ...

realce6• 5 years ago

Fabricate a narrative that allows your country to murder tens of thousands of people == fine and not illegal.

Tell soldier how cryptographic maths work == double castration and the CIA tries to assassinate you.

Don't forget that the Collateral Murder video showed not only Iraqi citizens but also Reuters journalists being machine-gunned from the sky. No person has ever been criminally charged for these murders.

queuebert3• 5 years ago

As an American, I find it very hard to decide what to think about these issues.

Our military certainly makes mistakes, and people should be held accountable, but on the other hand the U.S. upholds much stricter rules of engagement than any of its enemies (hell, even stricter than our cops). Should credit not be given for that?

realce6• 5 years ago

but on the other hand the U.S. upholds much stricter rules of engagement than any of its enemies (hell, even stricter than our cops). Should credit not be given for that?

In all honesty and at the very minimum, being criticized openly and fairly for atrocities is the cost of being seen as capable of virtuous military action.

The older I get though, the less objective distinction I see. I'm sure that's how the dead felt in their last moment as well. Just look at the last US bombing in Afghanistan where they hit the car full of water and children. We like to act like there's a higher standard, but who will ever be held accountable for that mistake? Nobody.

janto• 5 years ago

A free media forms part of what keeps a Western military to stricter rules of engagement.

mongol2• 5 years ago

Yes but credit should not be given for their mistakes.

pozdnyshev90• 5 years ago

but on the other hand the U.S. upholds much stricter rules of engagement than any of its enemies

And where did you hear that from? Our "independent" papers of record aka state department stenographers?

dundarious• 5 years ago

If a country uses military force beyond its borders far more than any other nation (let's ignore actual border/territorial disputes), I don't think it deserves much credit for being, let's say, only 90% as brutal (which I would dispute as well, but it would take really getting into the weeds -- start off with some examples from https://archive.md/20211006055938/https://www.newyorker.com/...).

lawn2• 5 years ago

the U.S. upholds much stricter rules of engagement than any of its enemies (hell, even stricter than our cops).

Is that a joke?

tinco2• 5 years ago

As awful as the cops relatively often are, I've never heard of one "accidentily" killing a bunch of kids because they were near a white pick-up truck. The wrong pick-up truck by the way, it didn't even have terrorists in it.

And that's just one example from dozens many we only know about because of Assange's hard work.

And with regards to the enemies of the U.S., and their "rules of engagement" it's quite likely they don't adhere to any, but I don't know how much worse that is than "attack without warning on there being a 1/100 chance of you being a terrorist who is not even near any US asset".

choward8• 5 years ago

the U.S. upholds much stricter rules of engagement than any of its enemies

Where is your evidence of this? I can't remember the last time a drone attacked US soil and killed innocent civilians. And have you actually seen the main video that Assange released with Apaches killing civilians?

CRConrad12• 5 years ago

the U.S. upholds much stricter rules of engagement than any of its enemies

Hm, good so far...

(hell, even stricter than our cops).

Muahahahahaa! You just blew your own argument out of the water.

justicezyx2• 5 years ago

Our military certainly makes mistakes, and people should be held accountable, but on the other hand the U.S. upholds much stricter rules of engagement than any of its enemies (hell, even stricter than our cops). Should credit not be given for that?

Why comparing with enemies?

Should one or an org strive to be the best according to a universal standard?

wazoox• 5 years ago

"Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed: everything else is public relations."

George Orwell

Zigurd2• 5 years ago

Assange knowingly became a front for a Russian disinformation op against the US. he was a factor in helping Putin bring the US to its darkest days politically. He also released a lot of important factual information Americans did not know. Both are true. One does not negate the other.

beeboop• 5 years ago

This is all entirely unsubstantiated. There is no evidence for any of this, and it's very blatantly misinformation and propaganda. It keeps getting repeated so frequently as to look like astroturfing.

lawn2• 5 years ago

The same bullshit is also repeated every time Snowden is mentioned.

Zigurd2• 5 years ago

It's well documented: https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf

unknownus3r5• 5 years ago

I’m from the US and from my perspective he’s certainly an enemy of my country and working to undermine it. A country cannot function if nameless underlings do not carry out the agenda set forth by the elected and appointed people in charge. There are many problems with entrenched bureaucracy but having secrets leaked weakens American power and our government’s ability to handle the problems we face. If you see mudge’s talk about him from way back when, the grudge he holds against the US may be just over funding research. Inciting and assisting Americans who have sworn to protect our secrets to leak them is something I think needs to be stopped as a National security threat. There are a lot of disingenuous comparisons calling this guy a journalist, he’s a lot more than that. Assange is a former hacker and professor and present day activist. Undeniably bright and I respect his technical skills but he’s working against the United States. I’ll say this, though, he’s probably the most trustworthy journalist that walks the earth, sadly

mandmandam• 5 years ago

If you love America then why would you allow brazen warmongers to put us trillions in debt, profiting immensely while doing so? Do you have any idea how far America's international reputation has fallen? Do you have any conception of the debt that has been incurred in the name of the American taxpayer? Do the lives of millions of dead and tens of millions of displaced people around the world mean nothing to you?

Assange showed America necessary truth, and even as you admit this you argue Americans would be better left ignorant, digesting whatever shit the billionaire class decide to feed them. That's not just short sighted, my friend, it's fucking evil. That's not hyperbole - that's evil by about every definition ever invented.

unknownus3r5• 5 years ago

I don’t see what Assange really showed me that I didn’t know from reading most anything else before his leaks. Your post is highly politically motivated, I’m not emotional about this, just thinking rationally. I agree that the US has overextended its military and is involved in a lot of conflicts and operations that seem very irrelevant and poorly reasoned. I want a revamp of the military industrial complex and a change to entrenched, unaccountable bureaucracy. I don’t think any of those things have anything to do with Assange however, and I don’t see any connection between them

_xnmw• 5 years ago

The problem is not that he's an enemy of US government interests. Sure he is. The problem is the hypocrisy. The US claims moral superiority, advocates for the non-persecution of journalists, free speech, rule of law and judicial due process, "democracy" etc. in other countries, but it's all lies and hypocrisy. The US criticizes "authoritarian regimes" like Russia in cases like Navalny, whereas the US is no different in treating those it deems to be enemies of the state.

unknownus3r5• 5 years ago

Please show me any country on this earth that doesn’t have its share of hypocrisy. I cannot think of a single one. I know and agree that the US is hypocritical but abusing the law to get a guy who’s inciting American security personnel to break their oaths is not the same as poisoning a citizen of the same country for disagreeing over politics and it’s disingenuous of you to equate that. Just as many China boosters here are trying to equate Assange’s treatment with concentration camps for millions of people

jrsj• 5 years ago

American “democracy” is a facade and none of these people work for you. They think of you as livestock. There isn’t any hope of this changing without challenging our corrupt government.

spacechild12• 5 years ago

but he’s working against the United States.

Why do you think everybody on the world has to work in the interests of the United States? He is not a US citizen and he did not operate on US soil.

dukeofdoom2• 5 years ago

Legality of publishing leaked or stolen materials, is essential part of press freedom. So it will be an interesting case to watch to go through the US courts.

Recently James Okeefe was raided by the FBI. The reason was that he was given Ashley Biden's Diary (President Biden's adult daughter), and published things in it. He offered to return the diary to Ashley's Lawyers, but that would have authenticated it. The FBI raided him, which I suppose they would not do for a fictional diary. But I think its fairly obvious journalists should be able to publish leaked information. Not so obvious who the FBI works for.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/06/us/politics/james-okeefe-...

andrewla• 5 years ago

This is not the end of the world -- he has not been convicted of any crimes in the United States; there is just sufficient prima facie evidence to warrant extradition.

I'm hopeful that in a trial he'll be able to mount an effective defense and that in the end we'll get a wonderful victory for free speech. I'm looking forward to being able to donate to his legal defense fund; I see that there are some gofundme things out there, but I worry they might be scams so I'm waiting until I see something more official to contribute.

Given his poor physical and mental health, however, that may not be in the cards; he may end up not making it to trial or compelled to accept a plea bargain for a lesser charge in order to put the matter to rest.

guilhas2• 5 years ago

Going back to the land of the free!

USA the country with the most jailed in the world

It is baffling how they keep lecturing the world

kingcharles6• 5 years ago

I'll leave this here...

"The mood and temper of the public in regard to the treatment of crime and criminals is one of the most unfailing tests of the civilisation of any country." — Winston S. Churchill

https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1910/jul/...

pjfin123• 5 years ago

The only difference between what Assange did and what "legitimate" journalists do is to publish embarrassing truths about those in power instead of uncritically publishing what the national security apparatus intentionally leaks.

rogerian• 5 years ago

Really saddened that the UK not able to stand up to the US on this

kingcharles6• 5 years ago

One problem is that he likely won't be held in a prison, he'll be held in a pre-trial detention facility. The conditions in pre-trial detention in the USA, on the whole, are considerably worse than any prison because they are designed for "short-term" holding only.

I did a deposition a few years back with the warden of a detention facility and asked him why the conditions were so bad. "The average stay here is 30 days", which justified everything. That figure came because a large number of people were able to bond out on day one and skewed the average he was using. It did not take into account the significant number of people who were in the facility for close to a decade or more awaiting trial. For instance, at the Cook County Jail in Chicago there are several people who have been waiting over 11 years and still have no trial in sight.

A lot of pre-trial facilities do not have any access to sunlight. I was held in a windowless room for five years with 24x7 fluorescent lighting and no access to sunlight or fresh air. Then I was held at another facility for three years that had a sealed "window" but also, essentially, no access to sunlight or fresh air.

In prisons you will generally find that you can get outside several times a week. But prisons are usually only used for those who have been convicted of a crime, and not those presumed innocent.

CRConrad12• 5 years ago

I did a deposition a few years back with the warden of a detention facility and asked him why the conditions were so bad. "The average stay here is 30 days", which justified everything. That figure came because a large number of people were able to bond out on day one and skewed the average he was using. It did not take into account the significant number of people who were in the facility for close to a decade or more awaiting trial. For instance, at the Cook County Jail in Chicago there are several people who have been waiting over 11 years and still have no trial in sight.

So the relevant measurement ought to have been the average stay of the inmates actually there at any one time, right?

JackFaker• 5 years ago

wow. Can you provide any more detail on your time held in detention at these facilities?

jl6• 5 years ago

Shocking as it was, the Collateral Murder video was nothing exceptional. It didn’t reveal any secret truth or grand conspiracy. The unfortunate fact is that this is just what war is like.

War means high-stakes decision-making using low-quality information by agents who are human and therefore fallible. War means chaos and brutality and unjust death on a grand scale. When you vote for war, this is what you get, no matter how good your intentions. It happens every day in every war. The only difference here is that it was caught on camera and released.

So what did Assange achieve by releasing this video? We already knew war is bad. The existence of the video just evidences that the US military is good at record-keeping, which if anything points to an institution that cares about the actions of its soldiers and is capable, in principle, of holding them to account, rather than just unleashing men with guns to do random unsupervised violence, which is what war looks like in many corners of the world.

The people to get angry with are the politicians and media pundits who who rush other peoples’ kids to war for trumped up jingoistic reasons, not the kids who inevitably fuck up the operation on the ground.

pessimizer6• 5 years ago

Why report on, or even prevent war crimes? You can't help but commit war crimes, and you can't help but cover them up, even if your intentions were wonderful. What's important is that we're theoretically capable of holding people to account, even if in practice we're burning videotapes of torture.

peppermint_tea4• 5 years ago

100% agree on everything you said. I would just add that all this violence should be shown without any kind of censorship to (in this case) the american people at supper time. I wonder how fast the public opinion would change then...

the_optimist6• 5 years ago

A pretty smart guy once said, “if wars can be started by lies, perhaps peace can be started by the truth.”

frabbit2• 5 years ago

Those kids don't just fuck operations -- they fuck up other people.

Then they get home and become cops.

When are the suppressed Abu Ghraib tapes coming out?

It's all terribly sad isn't it?

Best thing we can do it sweep it under the carpet and make sure it's easy for all the people who might be upset by it to not see it.

nickysielicki4• 5 years ago

Surprisingly few technical people understand the extent to which the CFAA charges he faces are bullshit.

It all goes back to a jabber log that they got from Manning. The gist of it is as follows:

Manning: <some bytes from a hexdump>

Manning: can you guys crack NTLM?

Assange: we have rainbow tables. I’ll forward it onto someone on our team.

Few days later,

Manning: any update on NTLM?

Assange: no luck so far.

And this is computer conspiracy. No additional access to any machine was had, and there’s no real evidence that any cracking was attempted at all. He merely agreed to take a look and reported no progress on it. It’s been a while since I looked at the details but I seem to recall that the pcap hexdump manning sent wasn’t even the correct bytes to do an attack — it wasn’t even possible.

There are so many explanations for why Assange could have said this while plausibly not attempting to crack the hash. Manning put him in a strange position to become complicit and he had to strike a balance between not saying to his source, “lol that’s illegal no way, you’re on your own dude” while simultaneously saying exactly that.

jessaustin9• 5 years ago

  s/Assange/Nathaniel Frank/

Manning was chatting with "Nathaniel Frank". That was understood to be a pseudonym for someone at Wikileaks, but there's no proof of any of that. So, these charges are even more bullshit.

2OEH8eoCRo06• 5 years ago

So Assange can say, under oath, that he is not Nathaniel Frank. Boom. Case closed- US govt looks stupid. Assange walks.

I do not care about the verdict of the trial. I care a lot that a trial takes place. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Everybody is presupposing the result of this and being outraged rather than waiting and seeing what happens. He is innocent until proven guilty.

ModernMech• 5 years ago

Criminal conspiracy in the US is defined in Title 18, U.S.C. § 371:

  "If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both."

The elements of the crime of conspiracy are:

1. Two or more people

2. Intentionality

3. An agreement

4. An underlying crime

5. An overt act

The discussion you post seems to point to all 5 being met, although additional evidence would be needed to prove it. Obviously there are two people here discussing "cracking" something. Assange agrees to the overt step of taking the data and forwarding it to his team, ostensibly with the intention that this team would do the cracking.

When asked for an update, Assange states "no luck so far". Do we take that to mean they are currently working on it and have not succeeded? Or is Assange saying that there's no luck, but he hasn't really done anything with the data? It really doesn't matter according to the statute, which defines the overt act as any act done to further the conspiracy. So it doesn't matter if there was no other access to any machine or if there is no evidence cracking was attempted. If Assange took that data and sent it to anyone else, then he's part of the conspiracy.

Actually, according to the statute, it doesn't even matter if he took an overt action. If he agreed with Manning to implement the crime, and Manning on her own did the cracking, then Assange would still be part of the conspiracy due to the first 4 elements.

pulse7• 5 years ago

So here we go again... Number of journalists in jail reaches global high (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29495145) and United States would like to contribute to this high number...

anon012012• 5 years ago

Having hidden agendas and hidden organizations is an act of War and government officials should be dealt with the harshest sanction for the crime of Treason to Humanity. I'm not even trolling, and I'm not even started.

choward8• 5 years ago

What are you talking about? The US government? I agree that many in the government have hidden agendas and are traitors.

tsimionescu2• 5 years ago

This is devastating news.

Seeing the injustice of how one of the greatest journalists of our age is being treated literally hurts. And not just by the US power system, but also most of the media, even people who pass as liberal like John Stewart are almost spitting in his face and treating the US repression as justified.

tsimionescu2• 5 years ago

Edit: not John Stewart, John Oliver...

publiush• 5 years ago

It is thanks to Julian that we know how important information is.

foxyv2• 5 years ago

Assange is sort of my barometer for US politicians views on the 1st amendment. If they don't support a pardon, clemency, or an end to the harassing investigation into him then I know they are bereft of any moral compass and will happily shred the US constitution for campaign contributions.

boomboomsubban7• 5 years ago

Both a pardon and clemency imply that he committed crimes and the politician is just in favor of forgiving him for public support. This could still have damming repercussions for a free press, as his case could set precedent that publishing documents is illegal. The charges should be dropped.

foxyv2• 5 years ago

Yeah, definitely bonus points for an immunity from prosecution.

torcete• 5 years ago

I always compare this case with Pinochet, when he visited the UK and a Spanish court asked for his extradition for crimes against humanity. Of course, he wasn't and returned to Chile.

atomashpolskiy• 5 years ago

What's with people's opinion on this? E.g.

https://www.change.org/p/free-julian-assange-before-it-s-too...

Signed by 666,000 people.

I even donated 10 bucks or so back in the day to advance this petition.

Did UK court take this public opinion into consideration when when ruling the verdict?

I'm pissed as hell. What are the realistic options for ordinary people like me to stop Julian's torture?

busymom04• 5 years ago

I don’t think those change dot org petitions ever achieve anything.

pier25• 5 years ago

Do you think this is just momentum from US justice system or maybe someone or some group is inflicting pressure for this to happen?

busymom04• 5 years ago

This happening on Human Rights Day is ironic. Plus looks like US and the UK today also grandstanding by “sanctioning” countries with human rights abuse. It’s all such a farce.

This gov page is such a joke: https://www.state.gov/subjects/press-freedom/

Melting_Harps• 5 years ago

This is the message to would-be activists anywhere: Stay out of the big boy pool or we'll make you regret it.

The thing is they did this so systematically, Jacob Applebaum also got hit with rape allegations and that took out a very vocal person in the OPSEC/INFOSEC community at TOR who openly engaged in the various communities that were most afflicted by Imperialism and needed this tech the most in the developed World.

I don't know Jacob, and never met him in person the closest being with him on a few chatrooms I joined late around one of the CCC conferences; it was very telling that after Julian's rape charges were dropped Jacob (a very well known cypherpunk within Julian's circle) had his fall from grace at the height of the me-too craze and this happened when Laura's documentary came out on Julian Assange after Edward Snowden's had come out earlier in 2014.

The cynic in me said this looked like typical Media Blackout but with Nation-State repercussions. The State of the Onion was always covered in so many media outlets, and Jacob's candor and open hostility towards tyrants was partly the reason for that. I still remember the face of all the suits when he went to Egypt after the Arab Spring and told off the Telecoms for being aligned with the Mubarack regime until the last days, all while trying to play up the idea of Egyptian solidarity post-collapse.

I doubt this will ever entirely deter whistleblowing and freedom fighting entirely, it's never been a large segment of the population, either. But those who do so have an immense impact is often felt all over the World: Steven Donziger after being jailed, and now released on house arrest, seems undeterred from continuing what he started [0]:

Donziger, who had already spent over two years under house arrest before his prison sentence, vowed to continue fighting for his freedom and to hold Chevron accountable for its crimes.

People forget that prior to Wikileaks, and the Cypherpunk mailing list, Julian was the son of a politically active, anti-nuclear mother and that he had hacked into several departments of the DoD, supposedly to find more intel on Nuclear sites. He pleaded guilty in 1994 and got a fine and it only made him more determined than he was before. He was a known target by the intelligence agencies for some time.

Having been in the CCC (I miss these so much as they were the best part of this time of year for me) and Bitcoin community for over 10 years Julian was always around; Julian thanking the US for making Wikileaks millions (from donation appreciation in 2010 onward) after denying Wikileaks Visa and MC payment processing and forcing them to use Bitcoin was the highlight of that year for me.

It has been hard to see what has happened to him since he was forced to stay in the Ecuadorian embassy, it was clear his mental health was degrading and the once flamboyant and silver-tongued activist was slowly being destroyed from within.

I'm not sure how much of him is left anymore, and I even spoke to a friend about this over the summer during the hearings, that the guy in prison is likely no longer the same person who ran wikileaks. He seems like a shell of his former self that I'm afraid to say seems in poor physical and mental after all he has gone through--it's why I don't be grudge Jacob from simply fading into oblivion, it's simply self-perseverance. I say this with a hjeavy heart: I doubt he would even make it to trail at this rate.

A part of me always wondered if this was always going to be Julian's fate, hoping it never would of course, but when you're this prominent and this big a threat to the intelligence agencies of the only super power left in the World known to commit crimes against Humanity you have to believe you're probably on borrowed time the moment they know who you are.

Which to me is why projects like anon-based whistle blowing, an early Bitcoin project that never gained much traction and eventually abandoned, was always fundamental in order to avoid situations like these while still enuring a viable option for those who want to release info to the public. I fear a World in which whistle blowing doesn't take place, and I don't mean the kind like Frances Haugen who is looking at an immense payday for stating the obvious on a platform that is becoming less relevant by the day and have even re-branded entirely, but those like: Chelsea Manning, Thomas Drake, Bill Binney etc...

May those who do have the courage to come forward have unwavering souls, because the World is a darker place without them.

0: https://www.democracynow.org/2021/12/10/headlines/environmen...

guilhas2• 5 years ago

Going back to the land of the free!

USA the country with the most jailed in the world, even China with 4x more population

It is baffling how they keep lecturing the world

dang• 5 years ago

Edit: yikes—you've been repeatedly posting a bunch of these flamewar comments. That's obviously a bannable offence on HN. Also, you've been using HN primarily for ideological battle. That's also a line at which we ban accounts: https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...

I'm not going to ban you right now, because you've also posted good comments in the past—but if you do anything like this again, we will have to. If you want to continue to be part of the community here, you're welcome, but we need you to review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and use HN as intended. That means thoughtful, substantive conversation—no more ideological flamebait and certainly no more vandalism like you've been doing lately.

---

original comment:

Please don't post nationalistic flamebait to HN, regardless of which country, and regardless of how right you are (or feel you are) about the underlying issues. It's not what this site is for, and it destroys what it is for.

If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.

glenstein• 5 years ago

I just want to note that, as of 2012, numerous Hacker News commenters were confidently declaring Assange would never be extradited to USA.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4390885

Julian Assange can be extradited to the US, court rules

Related Stories