USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

Right, Snowden and Manning sit on a similar spectrum in terms of unauthorized copying of classified documents. Snowden, seemed to have foreknowledge of an actual crime or at least the government failing to follow a reasonable person’s expectation of it following a given law.

J.ORDERS410. I order the discharge of Julian Paul Assange,pursuant to section 91(3) of the EA 2003.

Iraq began as an invasion in March 2003. The invasion was exceedingly well planned and executed with minimal cost in a very short time frame, but the planning did not account for the resulting occupation that followed.

Key figures in Iraq, such as Ali Al Sistani, pressed US civilian authorities to stand up an interim government until a permanent government could be drafted. The interim government stood up in May 2004. But by that time Iraq had become a political vacuum with disastrous results. Various external political factions from terrorist groups and nation states were massively importing arms and radicalized youth to instigate internal tribal warfare and acts of terrorism.

Shortly after the interim government stood up GEN Casey took over command of coalition forces in Iraq and promoted a hand's off policy and letting the Iraqis clean up the mess, which further compounded the internal problems when Iraq really needed a strong occupation force to stabilize conditions until conditions allowed the capabilities for self governance. GEN Casey was replaced two years later in 2006.

In mid-2006 it really looked like Iraq was on the verge of civil war and the US completely reversed policy by late 2006 announcing a troop surge in 2007. The successful command policies of COL HR McMaster were given some credit for exemplifying a successful approach. GEN Petraeus took command of coalition forces in Iraq and advocated a policy of counter-insurgency (COIN) that made significant advances at reducing internal violence and building trust in internal institutions. Over the next two years the surge declined to prior troop levels with forces more engaged in peace keeping and stability missions.

In 2009 coalition forces were drastically reduced in what was called a withdrawal. By that time Iraq was no longer on the verge of civil war. Conditions were improving and permanent government institutions were coming online. Unfortunately, the withdrawal was too early. Newly established Iraqi military forces were still conducting peace keeping and stability missions and had not matured enough yet to focus on national defense. This became apparent with the ISIS invasion of Mosul.

We'll set aside for a moment the fact that a country like Nigeria hasn't even HAD laws against hacking on their books:

https://www.zdnet.com/article/new-nigerian-law-means-seven-y...

There are countless examples of state sponsored hacking. There's no way the actor would be punished in the country of origin if their country of origin was not only OK with their actions but supporting them. Does that mean whoever did it should be free to travel anywhere they want without repercussions? You're essentially saying that countries are no longer allowed to enforce their laws on any foreign citizens... that seems EXTREMELY short sighted.

Furthermore, how would the country of origin even prosecute when the victim wasn't one of their citizens. What are the mental gymnastics to say that your citizens can't be prosecuted anywhere but their country of origin...b ut the victims have to what? Travel to your country to get justice? If a nigerian scammer is caught, you expect a US citizen to fly to nigeria on their own dime to try make their case?

I don't think your ideas are unreasonable, though this would have to be governed by any existing treaties, of course. In practice, however, I think that, to use your example, South Korea will act based on its relationship with China rather than your relationship with China. So, if KOR agrees with you that free speech is more important than how China might react to non-extradition, then KOR may not extradite you. However, if KOR thinks that they must turn you over to preserve their relationship, then they might. Again, all of this is of course hypothetical and in the real world should be defined by treaties.

I'll just note that in your example, if C is just trying to stay neutral and acting of its own accord, then the correct term would be that C would deport the suspect to A rather than extradite the suspect to A, unless A is seeking extradition in its own right.