|
|
Post by herzlos on Jun 27, 2024 8:51:22 GMT -5
Thing is….Assange published confidential documents belonging to the US Government. That’s what I think people are missing or not properly considering. If the US sought prosecution and/or extradition because he published documents belonging to another country? I’d fully agree with you. But he’s been pursued for publishing US owned documents. Whether or not those were master copies is irrelevant. Data theft is data theft. And it’s no different to say, me doing a National Treasure and stealing the Declaration of Independence, shipping it outside of the US, and it being sold in a dark auction in another country. Both I and the auction house, quite possibly the buyer, would all be up shit creek. But he didn't have any contract or legal link to the US Government.
If a US diplomat had goods or documents stolen in the UK, they would use UK law to prosecute them. They wouldn't try to extradite because the crime didn't happen in US jurisdiction*. Yeah?
That's pretty much what happened here. US Gov documents were stolen from the US and were published by wikileaks in Australia. The US wanted Assange charged with something but the Australian Government determined that no law had been broken. That should have been the end of it.
*I'm not sure what the jurisdiction of an embassy is, it's deemed to be the owning countries land? So US law would apply within the US embassy and therefore if something was stolen from the embassy extradition may be an option given the embassy doesn't have a court system?
|
|
mdgv2
Ye Olde King of OT
Posts: 934
|
Post by mdgv2 on Jun 27, 2024 9:04:34 GMT -5
Because the internet muddies things magnificently when it comes to jurisdiction.
Do we know where Chelsea Manning was when they sent the documents to Assange? Because….thats gonna matter. And when it comes to the law taking into account new issues, like the Internet and electronic communications, lawmakers are likely to push their ticket as hard as possible to discourage future shenanigans.
And remember, I’m not actively defending the US approach here, because it’s wildly complex and emerging issues. I’m not versed enough in UK, US or international law to say. And there’s still my total lack of sympathy with a man who profited from stolen data desperately trying to portray himself as a poor weak innocent being bullied by a beastly government. A beastly government he’d recklessly pissed off.
|
|
|
|
Post by Disciple of Fate on Jun 27, 2024 9:11:44 GMT -5
It’s not the content of the info that’s my problem. Because that’s not the only thing Wikileaks distributed. At all. Hence my previous analogy that mugging a drug dealer doesn’t make up for mugging little old ladies. An older article, but still relevant - nymag.com/intelligencer/2016/07/why-did-wikileaks-help-dox-most-of-turkeys-adult-female-population.htmlThis is why I have absolutely fuck all sympathy with Assange, especially due to his rank hypocrisy that everyone but him is fair game. That such a loose cannon, who has praised the rise of fake news, has a cult of personality I find deeply worrying. I have little sympathy for Assange and Wikileaks, but that example was not the cause of his legal issues. By all means, prosecute him for harm done when he or his organization does something wrong. But to hold someone prisoner for years (not the time in the embassy) while no wrongdoing had yet been legally proven (there was no conviction in the US until this week) is wrong, because it undermines all our rights as citizens. A lot of countries don't even imprison murderers before their trial, unless they are really egregious. |
|
|
|
Post by herzlos on Jun 27, 2024 12:06:52 GMT -5
This is why I have absolutely fuck all sympathy with Assange, especially due to his rank hypocrisy that everyone but him is fair game. That such a loose cannon, who has praised the rise of fake news, has a cult of personality I find deeply worrying.
I don't think anyone is supporting Assange here, he seems to be a pretty horrible guy all round. But being a horrible person doesn't allow the US to violate international law, extradite or execute him. He needs to be dealt with appropriately via the law.
He's also, because of US behavior, essentially 12 years in prison already without any formal charges except violating bail on what was arguable a dodgy extradition case.
If we allow that sort of thing because we don't like him, then we're setting a dangerous precedent.
|
|
|
|
Post by Disciple of Fate on Jun 27, 2024 12:51:14 GMT -5
To be fair, he fled to the embassy to avoid the rape charges from Sweden, before the US even indicted him (which happened under Trump). Now a lot of his supporters pretend this is some sort of conspiracy, but you have to wonder why? There is no reason to assume Sweden would have more easily extradited him versus the UK.
Ignoring the whole Sweden case, he spend 5 years in prison over the US extradition case. Partially that is due to his actions around the Sweden case, but the severity was not merited.
|
|
mdgv2
Ye Olde King of OT
Posts: 934
|
Post by mdgv2 on Jun 27, 2024 15:57:49 GMT -5
Anyways. I’m gonna draw a line under my involvement on the Assange issue. I feel I’ve explained myself adequately, and we’re all comfortable in our positions. Further involvement from me now feels superfluous.
But if I have missed a challenge comment, just @ me or whatevs and I’d be happy to nip back and address.
|
|
|
|
Post by easye on Jun 27, 2024 16:53:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Haighus on Jul 2, 2024 1:46:44 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by dabbler on Jul 2, 2024 3:00:30 GMT -5
They've always had one, as well as a nobility |
|
|
|
Post by Haighus on Jul 2, 2024 3:03:32 GMT -5
They've always had one, as well as a nobility I agree on aristocracy, but the president still has term limits. For now... |
|
|
|
Post by Disciple of Fate on Jul 2, 2024 3:08:24 GMT -5
Term limits weren't a thing for longer than they have been in US history though.
|
|
|
|
Post by Haighus on Jul 2, 2024 3:16:37 GMT -5
Term limits weren't a thing for longer than they have been in US history though. I meant the 5 year election period. Presidents are forced to be re-elected. |
|
|
|
Post by Disciple of Fate on Jul 2, 2024 3:51:58 GMT -5
Term limits weren't a thing for longer than they have been in US history though. I meant the 5 year election period. Presidents are forced to be re-elected. True, in theory they have to be elected every 4 years, but legally speaking that is not a watertight solution, because the Electoral College is open to manipulation, as tried in 2020. Until Trump actually gets convicted over this (the case is ongoing), the Supreme Court might not hold him accountable, remaining as a loophole to re-elect yourself through the VP. |
|
|
|
Post by Haighus on Jul 2, 2024 4:05:15 GMT -5
You are correct, 4 years. I mixed up with the UK election cycle there.
Yeah, I think we are heading towards a situation where the GOP is going to get the opportunity to show exactly how they intend to crown Trump and keep him on the throne, but I hope I'm wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by Peregrine on Jul 2, 2024 5:06:01 GMT -5
Pray that the drugs and hamberders get him before november, and that by the time we have another Trump we have learned from our mistakes and fixed the system.
|
|
