|
Post by A Town Called Malus on Jun 25, 2024 14:59:34 GMT -5
Receiving them and publishing them are not the same thing. I refer back to my mugger equivalence. I never agreed not to disseminate them either. I was never given security clearance, nor am I a US citizen. If a US citizen breaks the law and gives me classified US intelligence, should I be bound by US law regarding what I do with it? And do you hold that same standard with, say, Russian classified documents, or Iranian, or Chinese?
|
|
|
Post by Peregrine on Jun 25, 2024 16:35:15 GMT -5
I never agreed not to disseminate them either. I was never given security clearance, nor am I a US citizen. If a US citizen breaks the law and gives me classified US intelligence, should I be bound by US law regarding what I do with it? And do you hold that same standard with, say, Russian classified documents, or Iranian, or Chinese? This. Assange was convicted of embarrassing powerful people, not of any actual crime.
|
|
mdgv2
Ye Olde King of OT
Posts: 811
|
Post by mdgv2 on Jun 25, 2024 17:59:24 GMT -5
But….again? It’s not just those documents he leaked, was it?
Don’t fuck around with data privacy laws. As someone who can face legal ramifications, including imprisonment if I fuck up my job, perhaps I have a different perspective.
What he did, whether you agree or not, was a criminal act. But it’s his sheer fucking hypocrisy that twists my melon. Because his hypocrisy leaves me with the conclusion he doesn’t give a fuck about his claimed mission, and is instead just a professional shit stirrer in it for the money.
And again again? The arguments “he’d be disappeared, or kidnap, or accidentally left on the sun by accident” is all just “what-if” arguing, which I’m not gonna accept as valid.
|
|
|
Post by Peregrine on Jun 25, 2024 18:22:57 GMT -5
What he did, whether you agree or not, was a criminal act. Under which law? Assange is not a US citizen, nor was he in the US when he did the things the US dislikes. The idea that Assange is subject to US law just because his actions were embarrassing to the US is absolute lunacy, it's a textbook case of might makes right and the rule of law being trampled to suit the whims of the ruling class.
And, to repeat the question asked previously: do you think US citizens living in the US should be extradited to North Korea to be punished for violating North Korean law regarding classified information?
|
|
|
Post by semipotentwalrus on Jun 25, 2024 18:37:07 GMT -5
FWIW Sweden is constitutionally prohibited from extraditing people for crimes that have capital punishment as part of the sentencing scale.
|
|
nfe
OT Cowboy
Posts: 204
|
Post by nfe on Jun 25, 2024 18:46:41 GMT -5
Funny how he demands everyone but him be held to account for their actions, isn’t it. Almost that as well as an alleged rapist, he’s also a massive fucking hypocrite. I assume you're fully supportive of the US pursuing all people globally for things that are crimes there but not elsewhere? And fervently against whistleblower protections? And aggressively back the internationalisation of secrecy laws by all countries on non-citizens anywhere? I mean, you must be, given this steadfast opposition to hypocrisy. You wouldn't just be applying different standards to Assange because he really gets on your nerves.
|
|
|
Post by A Town Called Malus on Jun 25, 2024 19:32:18 GMT -5
But….again? It’s not just those documents he leaked, was it? Don’t fuck around with data privacy laws. As someone who can face legal ramifications, including imprisonment if I fuck up my job, perhaps I have a different perspective. What he did, whether you agree or not, was a criminal act. But it’s his sheer fucking hypocrisy that twists my melon. Because his hypocrisy leaves me with the conclusion he doesn’t give a fuck about his claimed mission, and is instead just a professional shit stirrer in it for the money. And again again? The arguments “he’d be disappeared, or kidnap, or accidentally left on the sun by accident” is all just “what-if” arguing, which I’m not gonna accept as valid. No, what the people who gave him the information did was a criminal act. Because they were the ones trusted with access to the information and agreed to be bound by US law as a part of that. Assange made no such deal, and accepted no such responsibility.
|
|
|
Post by Haighus on Jun 26, 2024 1:13:17 GMT -5
FWIW Sweden is constitutionally prohibited from extraditing people for crimes that have capital punishment as part of the sentencing scale. The US was rather sneaky though (surprised pikachu face) and sealed the indictments and released them at different times. So they would have tried to extradite him on "conspiracy to commit computer intrusion" (no capital punishment) and probably only unsealed the espionage charges once he was in the US.
|
|
|
Post by Disciple of Fate on Jun 26, 2024 2:11:00 GMT -5
No, what the people who gave him the information did was a criminal act. Because they were the ones trusted with access to the information and agreed to be bound by US law as a part of that. Assange made no such deal, and accepted no such responsibility. While I think exceptions can (and should) be made for whistleblowers revealing illegal activity. I'm not sure if you can argue that Assange is not carrying any sort of responsibility for 'trafficking' stolen information, under current laws. In a lot of countries, he would be considered the middleman for illegal acts, not treated very differently from someone receiving, for example, stolen credit card information and being pursued for it internationally. That he is given leeway is entirely dependent on the trafficked information in question. I think Assange (who from my impression is a bit of a self-involved and careless person?) as a person really muddied the public perception waters, because as a middleman he (still) receives more revulsion than a direct whistleblower such as Snowden or Manning. What happened to him in this specific situation was bizarre and wrong. Perhaps if people had been killed as a result of what information was leaked, there might have been a case here, but there appears to not be any evidence for that. But that does not mean he can't (currently) be held legally responsible by the US and its allies. Whistleblower protections are weak for the most part and not getting any better for the foreseeable future.
|
|
|
Post by Peregrine on Jun 26, 2024 2:48:11 GMT -5
Under which specific laws, and why are those laws relevant to the case? Remember that Assange is not a US citizen and did not do any of these things in the US. Should North Korea be allowed to hold US citizens legally responsible under North Korean law for sharing secrets North Korea wants to protect? Should a theocracy be allowed to hold US citizens legally responsible for violating its anti-blasphemy laws in the US? Or is the US the only country that gets to declare that its laws magically have global jurisdiction?
|
|
mdgv2
Ye Olde King of OT
Posts: 811
|
Post by mdgv2 on Jun 26, 2024 3:31:53 GMT -5
The US has really fucking weird sort of international jurisdiction. Up to and including financial laws.
Is that overreach? Possibly. Will depend on who you ask and what you ask them about. But it’s still there, at least for now.
Assange knew this. And he still went ahead. And then played the victim, and claimed unfair treatment when he sought refuge in an embassy he then refused to leave.
I’ve no sympathy for him at all. He’s a grifter, and a hypocrite. But, despite “he can’t possibly face prosecution, he’d be executed” here he is, many years and wasted tax payers money later, a free man. Almost as if he’d built up a cult of personality.
|
|
|
Post by Peregrine on Jun 26, 2024 3:44:41 GMT -5
The US has really fucking weird sort of international jurisdiction. Up to and including financial laws. The US does not have international jurisdiction. It has power that it is able to abuse, which is a very different thing.
Once again: Should North Korea be allowed to hold US citizens legally responsible under North Korean law for sharing secrets North Korea wants to protect? Should a theocracy be allowed to hold US citizens legally responsible for violating its anti-blasphemy laws in the US? Or is the US the only country that gets to declare that its laws magically have global jurisdiction?
It is very obvious here that the US is exceeding its actual jurisdiction and expecting to play by special rules that don't apply to anyone else.
Victim blaming is not ok.
|
|
mdgv2
Ye Olde King of OT
Posts: 811
|
Post by mdgv2 on Jun 26, 2024 4:08:34 GMT -5
Thing is?
I don’t see Assange as a victim. At all.
He published confidential government documents. Which he knew to be stolen. And he profited from doing so. He’s also shared other, less interesting documents. And profited from doing so.
|
|
|
Post by Peregrine on Jun 26, 2024 4:13:49 GMT -5
Thing is? I don’t see Assange as a victim. At all. He published confidential government documents. Which he knew to be stolen. And he profited from doing so. He’s also shared other, less interesting documents. And profited from doing so. He is a victim because none of those things are crimes and yet the US convicted him in an absurd farce of a show trial after making an equally absurd claim to jurisdiction. He may not be a sympathetic victim but he is clearly the victim of US abuses of power.
And once again: Should North Korea be allowed to hold US citizens legally responsible under North Korean law for sharing secrets North Korea wants to protect? Should a theocracy be allowed to hold US citizens legally responsible for violating its anti-blasphemy laws in the US? Or is the US the only country that gets to declare that its laws magically have global jurisdiction?
|
|
|
Post by Disciple of Fate on Jun 26, 2024 4:15:20 GMT -5
Under which specific laws, and why are those laws relevant to the case? Remember that Assange is not a US citizen and did not do any of these things in the US. As far as I know they wanted to (or did as he technically pled guilty) to convict him for espionage (as in entice US personnel to share secret information). That he wasn't a US citizen or on US soil does not have to matter. This was an outstanding case due to the circumstances, but the US has attempted to indict/extradite/convict, for example, Russian spies (the ICC case comes to mind). The problem with Assange is that those laws got interpreted very generously by the US. There is a use to these laws, but not like this. We can't make a blanket statement here now can we? We have to make decisions based on morality. What if say the US had some database on North Koreans working internally against the regime? If a person had leaked that and those North Koreans were killed, should that person be free to walk away without charge, even though the consequences of such a leak would be obvious? Authoritarian states already hold foreign citizens responsible for the actions of their states (Americans captive in Russia or Canadians in China), we don't have to pretend it opens Pandora's box, because authoritarian states have been doing this for longer than Assange has been alive. The what if/should you describe is already a reality. This is why extradition (even to the US) is such a difficult issue. Even though this sounds like a dumb 'both sides' argument, laws don't have to be inherently wrong. The people in charge make those decisions and both sides have (had) some absolutely immoral people. What we need is the right people deciding when something is and isn't a violation of said law, which means at least strengthening whistleblower laws. To put it simply, a law against running red lights can certainly be useful, but we should judge 'offenders' based on the circumstances (f.e. a medical emergency or in this case war crimes). www.politico.eu/article/russia-international-criminal-court-icc-president-piotr-hofmanski-wanted-list/www.theguardian.com/world/2023/mar/26/us-indicts-alleged-russian-spy-sergey-cherkasov-who-tried-to-infiltrate-icc-in-the-haguewww.justice.gov/opa/pr/two-russian-nationals-working-russias-federal-security-service-charged-global-computer
|
|