211–220 of 792 posts
Only in the sense of a Solzhenitsyn nightmare. There are breathing, ideologically-bent individuals pushing this. Who are they, and how do we hound them like they have hounded him.
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
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…
What better time to slip Uncle Sam a favour?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Rehashing US war crimes, which would certainly come up, won't be great for the prosecution either. Assuming the judge doesn't block that line of argument.
He's charged with espionage for material related to a war crime. It's not a peripheral issue.
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 consid…
"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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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. Why does the intent/purpose of the publisher matter here in any way from a legal prospective? I fear that your opinion of his purpose is forming your opinion of its legality.
You do not draw a distinction in intent between informing the public and furthering the goals of a foreign adversary? Not saying he was, just an example, of how intent absolutely does matter from a legal perspective.
2. I don't think Assange is accused specifically of furthering the goals of a foreign adversary. If there was evidence of that then he would presumably have been charged with it somewhere.
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
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...
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 - guarante…
If only Hillary Clinton were serving her second term, then maybe he'd have a chance with that argument.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
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?
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
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…
"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.
I'm not sure the judges were naive enough to believe the US government, but they probably had no choice.