Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Julian Assange Got What He Deserved

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 49 posts

Re: Julian Assange Got What He Deserved

#31

Post by roenxi »

dragonwriter wrote: post #17
devhead wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not parent; possibly because he's not a US citizen and what he did falls under the umbrella of protections afforded to journalist?

Not being a US citizen doesn't seem relevant, and, what he is charged with is not within the “umbrella of protections afforded to journalists” (which mostly doesn't exist: the US protects the right to publish, but does not generally have special status-based or for journalists, though “freedom of the press” is sometimes misunderstood that way.)

> Not being a US citizen doesn't seem relevant

It may well not be, but as a principle that is a bad idea.

What if Saudi Arabia decides you are illegally blaspheming, or the Chinese Communist Party decides you are undermining social stability with your views?

It should be relevant if a 'crime' was committed somewhere it is not criminalised. Not necessarily a get-out-of-jail-free card, but relevant.

Re: Julian Assange Got What He Deserved

#32

Post by dragonwriter »

lovich wrote: post #30
dragonwriter wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not being a US citizen doesn't seem relevant, and, what he is charged with is not within the “umbrella of protections afforded to journalists” (which mostly doesn't exist: the US protects the right to publish, but does not generally have special status-based or for journalists, though “freedom of the press” is sometimes misunderstood that way.)

Not being a US citizen doesn't seem relevant for being prosecuted under US laws in a US jurisdiction? You may not have been one of the group who said this but that's a hot take from a forum that almost imploded over the "violation of sovereignty" that was the EU applying their GPDR rules to US based companies

> Not being a US citizen doesn't seem relevant for being prosecuted under US laws in a US jurisdiction?

Correct. Very few US crimes are contingent on having US citizenship, and the one Assange is charged with is not one of them.

> You may not have been one of the group who said this but that's a hot take from a forum that almost imploded over the "violation of sovereignty" that was the EU applying their GPDR rules to US based companies

“A loud minority on HN said something on a different issue that can be viewed as contrary to what you said on this issue” is an accurate response to most HN comments, but not a particularly meaningful one to any.

Re: Julian Assange Got What He Deserved

#34

Post by toomanyrichies »

roenxi wrote: post #27
caymanjim wrote: post #2

I agree. Early on, I thought Assange was a bit of a hero. He provided a forum for people to reveal things that shouldn't be happening and shouldn't be secret. I understand the need for government secrecy, spying, and surveillance. I don't accept that it's ok for governments to break their own laws to spy on their own citizens without warrants or just cause, however. Assange wasn't simply doing this as a neutral party…

> I understand the need for government secrecy, spying, and surveillance There is a place for all these things; but there is distinction between things we know the government has that are not disclosed (eg, the US government has a plan to invade Canada if a crisis warrants it. They might reasonably keep the actual content of the plan secret) vs. secret schemes (it is unknowable what precedent the FISA court has creat…

> I find it conspicuous that there is nobody claiming the information in the leaks was false.

If he was at all selective about the information he revealed, that's equivalent to editorializing. A person who reveals a subset of the facts in their possession for the purposes of influencing a political narrative is not a person to be trusted.

Re: Julian Assange Got What He Deserved

#35

Post by kpU8efre7r »

greedo wrote: post #13
kpU8efre7r wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well then he will be found innocent right? What's the big deal?

Because when you're wrongfully charged, you're often imprisoned, etc etc. And the cost of defending yourself can be astronomical.

>Wrongfully charged

You've seen all the evidence?

Re: Julian Assange Got What He Deserved

#36

Post by waffleguy »

roenxi wrote: post #31
dragonwriter wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not being a US citizen doesn't seem relevant, and, what he is charged with is not within the “umbrella of protections afforded to journalists” (which mostly doesn't exist: the US protects the right to publish, but does not generally have special status-based or for journalists, though “freedom of the press” is sometimes misunderstood that way.)

> Not being a US citizen doesn't seem relevant It may well not be, but as a principle that is a bad idea. What if Saudi Arabia decides you are illegally blaspheming, or the Chinese Communist Party decides you are undermining social stability with your views? It should be relevant if a 'crime' was committed somewhere it is not criminalised. Not necessarily a get-out-of-jail-free card, but relevant.

Your comment makes no sense.

Re: Julian Assange Got What He Deserved

#37

Post by caymanjim »

tinus_hn wrote: post #9
caymanjim wrote: post #2

I agree. Early on, I thought Assange was a bit of a hero. He provided a forum for people to reveal things that shouldn't be happening and shouldn't be secret. I understand the need for government secrecy, spying, and surveillance. I don't accept that it's ok for governments to break their own laws to spy on their own citizens without warrants or just cause, however. Assange wasn't simply doing this as a neutral party…

Hypocrisy is not a crime and people should not end up in jail for it. There is a reason Lady Justice wears a blindfold.

He hasn't been charged with publishing classified information. Journalists do that all the time and aren't charged. What he's charged with in the US (so far) is actively taking part in the extraction of classified information. Specifically, he didn't just accept and release what Manning supplied; he encouraged and quite possibly materially aided in the act. He'll get a trial for that, and can state his case.

I'm not saying the US doesn't have it in for him. I'm not even saying that I trust the US to present a fair case. I'm saying that what he's charged with here matters, and is far different than the persecution of a neutral party that he and others are trying to paint it as.

It's more evidence that he may never have been the white knight that he claimed to be and has possibly always had an agenda.

Re: Julian Assange Got What He Deserved

#38

Post by lovich »

dragonwriter wrote: post #32
lovich wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not being a US citizen doesn't seem relevant for being prosecuted under US laws in a US jurisdiction? You may not have been one of the group who said this but that's a hot take from a forum that almost imploded over the "violation of sovereignty" that was the EU applying their GPDR rules to US based companies

> Not being a US citizen doesn't seem relevant for being prosecuted under US laws in a US jurisdiction? Correct. Very few US crimes are contingent on having US citizenship, and the one Assange is charged with is not one of them. > You may not have been one of the group who said this but that's a hot take from a forum that almost imploded over the "violation of sovereignty" that was the EU applying their GPDR rules to…

Forgive me for not being clear enough in the beginning. I understand that the US has the power to enforce their whim over much of the planet despite not being in charge of it. I disagree with your response that implies this is right and proper.

Making a law that declares a crime over people not under your jurisdiction that happened on territory not under your jurisdiction is a mockery of the idea of sovreignty. The US might be able to enforce their will anyway due to their might, but they shouldn't do so as this will just ensure that the second they lose their advantage in power they will be treated as poorly as they treated others

Re: Julian Assange Got What He Deserved

#39

Post by dragonwriter »

lovich wrote: post #38
dragonwriter wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not being a US citizen doesn't seem relevant for being prosecuted under US laws in a US jurisdiction? Correct. Very few US crimes are contingent on having US citizenship, and the one Assange is charged with is not one of them. > You may not have been one of the group who said this but that's a hot take from a forum that almost imploded over the "violation of sovereignty" that was the EU applying their GPDR rules to…

Forgive me for not being clear enough in the beginning. I understand that the US has the power to enforce their whim over much of the planet despite not being in charge of it. I disagree with your response that implies this is right and proper. Making a law that declares a crime over people not under your jurisdiction that happened on territory not under your jurisdiction is a mockery of the idea of sovreignty. The U…

> Making a law that declares a crime over people not under your jurisdiction that happened on territory not under your jurisdiction is a mockery of the idea of sovreignty.

No, it's not.

It is exactly the idea of sovereignty; limitations beyond that of your practical power on the exercise of your authority would be contrary to the idea of sovereignty, and are typical of authorities which are not sovereign but instead bound by the dictate of a superior sovereign.

Virtually every nation on Earth not only recognizes this as an abstract rule, but in fact exercises such extraterritorial jurisdiction to some degree or another.

Moreover, conspiracy to commit another crime where some overt acts in the conspiracy or attempt did take place within the jurisdiction of the nation involved isn't even an unusual exercise of extraterritorial jursidiction.

Now, you might prefer the formation of a global sovereign over existing nation states that would limit extraterritoriality among them in ways in which it is not now and has not historically been limited among sovereign nations, but it is ludicrous to describe the status quo as contradictory to the idea of sovereignty.

Re: Julian Assange Got What He Deserved

#40

Post by lovich »

dragonwriter wrote: post #39
lovich wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Forgive me for not being clear enough in the beginning. I understand that the US has the power to enforce their whim over much of the planet despite not being in charge of it. I disagree with your response that implies this is right and proper. Making a law that declares a crime over people not under your jurisdiction that happened on territory not under your jurisdiction is a mockery of the idea of sovreignty. The U…

> Making a law that declares a crime over people not under your jurisdiction that happened on territory not under your jurisdiction is a mockery of the idea of sovreignty. No, it's not. It is exactly the idea of sovereignty; limitations beyond that of your practical power on the exercise of your authority would be contrary to the idea of sovereignty, and are typical of authorities which are not sovereign but instead…

>...limitations beyond that of your practical power on the exercise of your authority would be contrary to the idea of sovereignty...

That might be how you view it, but at this point you are using a different definition of sovereignty than the rest of the world.

Here's the first paragraph from Wikipedia if you don't want just my take on it. We can get further sources if you need

>Sovereignty is the full right and power of a governing body over itself, without any interference from outside sources or bodies. In political theory, sovereignty is a substantive term designating supreme authority over some polity[1]

The US is trying to interfere in the actions of other political bodies which is a direct violation of their sovreignty. I think this is a bad idea because the US can only pull this off due to current levels of power which are not garunteed to be maintained and then the next superpower won't have any reason to limit their behavior against the US.

There are many arguments against my belief that the US shouldn't do this, but claiming that forcing other groups to your will is an example of sovereignty is just making up your own definitions for existing terms

[1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereignty

Edit: additionally this portion of your argument.

>...it is ludicrous to describe the status quo as contradictory to the idea of sovereign

The status quo is not tightly couple to the idea of sovreignty. The status quo could be the purest form of respect for sovereignty that has ever existed or the status quo could completely flaunt the idea, but just because the world _is_ a way currently does not mean it changes _how_ it could be

Post reply on HN