Thanks for explaining this distinction. Of course Assange isn't "friendless" in general, but I would agree that he is with respect to the sorts of people who have any effect on who does and who does not face USA federal charges. That indicts the entire federal judicial system. As if we needed additional proofs of their evil.
My understanding is that Assange is alleged to have conspired with people in the USA to release classified information. One might compare it to collaborating with someone in the US to commit fraud (or perpetrating the fraud via the internet); being outside the country does not make you immune from prosecution.
Assange's case is a perfect example of USA's (and, by extension, USA lackey UK's) "major criminal justice problems". This is a man whose only crime was exposing war crimes to the consideration of the general public. His persecutors have argued in court that he doesn't have 1A rights because he's not a USA citizen, but he is still bound by the most maximalist interpretation of an obscure USA law because "fuck him".
I wish I still wondered where this vehement hatred for innocent victims of the state comes from...
I wasn't speaking primarily about the charges held against him, but rather the OPs assertion that people consider him as either hero or villain, or in some cases, something in the middle due to various faults they find with him.
On the subject of the charges, since you brought it up:
How can the US reasonably charge him with espionage? Has Assange ever even been to the US?
If we can charge a foreign reporter with espionage for the mere publication of something we consider secret, and force their international extradition, how would we feel about a foreign government doing the same to one of our citizens?
For instance, if Australia were to coerce the UK to arrest and extradite the publisher of the New York Times for prosecution under their laws for printing a story they didn't like for some reason.
That's kind of the point. Assange wasn't acting on behalf of his country. If he was, there'd be much less of an issue.
I think it's a miscarriage of justice that Assange is just sitting in jail. At the same time, his defenders don't admit that he solicited and provided technical assistance to Americans who expressed interest in stealing secrets. Plus he's almost certainly a creep. The condom-removal allegations are very likely true. While not relevant to his crimes, this makes him much less sympathetic.
If US law doesn't grant protection to Assange because he's neither a US citizen nor physically present in America, then it also shouldn't be possible to prosecute him for things he did while neither a US citizen nor physically present in America.
That assumption is precisely the problem. We know that Assange published U.S. government secrets. We know that the U.S. government doesn't like this despite the fact that it's perfectly legal. We know that the current administration is willing to bend the rules to get what it wants. All that makes it plausible that Assange is being charged with crimes not because the U.S. government has a good-faith belief that he actually committed them, but to punish him for doing something that the U.S. government doesn't like, notwithstanding that it's legal.
For the record, I am no fan of Assange. I think he's a dick. But even dicks are entitled to equal protection under the law.
I have frequently seen the argument that Assange should be incarcerated because he is dis-likeable. Thankfully, that is not a crime in the U.S.
It seems that the federal government is trying to prosecute Assange for obtaining classified information from a source, a practice that is common among investigative journalists. (The details, I suppose, are in exactly how he obtained that information from the source). This seems to me to be clearly protected under the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
A democracy that prosecutes civillians who obtain secret information from sources for the purpose of disseminating said information to the public will likely not remain a democracy for long.
I don't give a rat's ass whether Assange is a Russian asset or not: trying to drag him to the USA and prosecute him is criminal behavior, both in the USA and in most other countries.
What a political clusterfuck it is for the USA to be pursuing Assange today! The situation underscores how sick, twisted and psychopathic are his American pursuers.
I think it would be fair to stop prosecuting him if he stopped being an active adversary of the US.
I’m a firm supporter of holding the US government accountable when they do bad things, however, Assange is most definitely not someone who is partial or somehow morally correct in his behavior.
During his years of activity, he has been a willing conduit for a number of foreign intelligence services and has actively put his thumb on the scales to harm US interests. His closeness and willingness to launder FSB, GRU and MSS data stolen from western governments make him a legitimate target for the US government.
He isn’t a hero like some people want to believe. Fuck that guy.
I'm quite shoked by the level of the comments regarding Assange.
Whatever you think about the character is irrelevant. Law should be the basis on any action taken against him, whether he's a-hole or not. Now you can argue on whether his actions were legal (I mean, he broke US law but he's not US citizen nor living in the US so that's debatable).
However there is ZERO legal basis on having someone not being taken care of while in custody.
Firstly, I was replying to a post which asked for in which concrete ways Assange was being treated differently from other people in similar situations. I have a bit of a hard time understanding why this phrasing of mine which is not terribly important need to be debated, but OK.
I have in all honestly not followed the Assange case that closely. But my understanding of the situation was that he went to the embassy because he feared he would be extradited to the US and face possible human rights violations if that were the case. Maybe he is de jure "free" to leave the embassy, but it is not as clear that he is de facto free to leave.
Simple example, suppose we just get rid of all the governments etc, and everyone is just "free" to do whatever they want. So in this fantastic world, maybe you are "free" to do whatever you want, but if you do certain things then some big bad guy comes and turns you into minced meat. Are you then "free" to do whatever you want, maybe this can be argued, I am not an expert in philosophy. But if you find it shocking that some (most?) people do not consider this to make you free to do these things, then I'm not sure what to say.
Secondly, you do not allow people to make different interpretations of the situation. You claim that this was a "futile attempt to avoid potential US charges he wasn't then facing", and sure, if you can prove this beyond reasonable doubt then of course there is nothing to discuss here. However, I see no such proof, not even an attempt at such a thing.
More concretely, are you going to tell me with a straight face that if you were in the position of Assange you would without batting an eye just go to Sweden and risk being extradited to the US? Like the US runs Guantanamo, bombs countries left right and center without UN approval, Snowden who exposed government lies and breaking of laws lives in exile, etc. Please note, my point here isn't that the US is terrible or anything, but just that Assange can have a justified fear of being treated poorly there given the circumstances.
So the question isn't really "which way is it", will Assange face human rights violations if he is extradited to the US? Rather the question seems to me to be something like, is it "completly insane" for Assange to think that he might face these violations.
If Assange is facing charges in the US (and I don't think there's any evidence he is) then that's his problem. You don't get to avoid prosecution for a crime because it is politically or legally inconvenient for you.
I think the case against Assange is a bit flimsy. But this argument doesn’t hold. If you hire a hitman and kill someone in the US, you commit a crime in the US. Even if you are not a US citizen of, have never been to the US and don’t work for a US company.
It does indeed seem that Assange has been (A) a Russian puppet, and (B) persecuted unjustly.
Even if Assange worked entirely at the direction of Russia, the Constitution of the USA explicitly prohibits laws that abridge the freedom of the press. If Assange was merely the publisher, rather than the leaker or hacker of classified information, then it's hard to argue that the USA government's position is apolitical in its nature. Indeed, that position would seem to be entirely dissociated from the most basic protections offered by USA law.
Politicians don't have infinite discretion to create laws where there are none, or to nullify legal protections that are explicitly stated in the Constitution. If they bag Assange and make an example of him, they do so at risk of diminishing the already strained rule of law in the USA.
Assange's persecution would be a huge win for Russia and China, because it would give those nations an opening to draw moral equivalence between their repressive actions and those of the USA.
On the other hand, Assange's persecution would do very little to dissuade future leakers and hackers, who will simply be more careful in choosing how to publish classified information.
The best thing for the USA to do would be to try Assange and find him "not guilty" if he was simply a publisher. The strength of the relationship between the USA, Britain, and Ecuador would be demonstrated, reinforcing American hegemony in Europe and Latin America. However, by reinforcing the inviolability of the First Amendment, the USA would rebuild some sense of exceptionalism among the world's powers. ("We're all powerful, but only the USA arrived at power with a healthy respect for human rights and strict adherence to the law above all.")
This is the crux here: whatever Assange did, he did it out of US jurisdiction. Unless we accept that US jurisdiction span well beyond their borders, and we don't even care about the illusion of sovereignty outside superpowers.
And that's if we can establish that Assange did anything more than normal investigative journalism.
The problem with the analogy is that committing a murder is a crime for everyone everywhere. For a US citizen who has been given classified information it may be illegal and treasonous to leak classified US information to some one who doesn't have the clearance to get access to it.
But a journalist, should have the right to ask people to come forward if they have information with a public interest, even if it is classified. If someone comes forward, they may break the law, but not the journalist.
Further more, Assange is not a US citizen, and is there for under no obligation to be loyal to or protect US interests or secrets. He cant by definition be treasonous again any country besides his own.
If he on the other hand, provides material support to someone committing a crime, (like helping to crack a password), then he can be tried as an accomplice. This evidence seems to imply he did not.
reply