I care. — fishfry

Cool. How do you show that? Do you take a moment of silence? Do you contribute to Doctors w/o borders? Do you write songs about it or paint? Do you talk to friends about it? Or what?

Cool. How do you show that? Do you take a moment of silence? Do you contribute to Doctors w/o borders? Do you write songs about it or paint? Do you talk to friends about it? Or what? — frank

I'm right here making my points about the deep state. And being called a loose cannon because of it. Not much of a constituency for peace in the US anymore. If there ever was.

Yes. As I suspected.

Assange was the one who was instrumental in bringing the war crime to public attention. No doubt he was aware of the dangers involved in poking the eyes of giants. he took risks that very few of us would take. As I see it this thread is about Assange and about whether he has committed any crime, nothing more, nothing less.

As I see it this thread is about Assange and about whether he has committed any crime, nothing more, nothing less. — Janus

The OP doesn't limit it in that way. It just asks for thoughts. Stop being a thread Nazi.

Speaking of Doctors without Borders, here's an excerpt from a 2010 open letter from Reporters Without Borders to Julian Assange:

Dear Mr. Assange, Reporters Without Borders, an international press freedom organisation, regrets the incredible irresponsibility you showed when posting your article “Afghan War Diary 2004 - 2010” on the Wikileaks website on 25 July together with 92,000 leaked documents disclosing the names of Afghans who have provided information to the international military coalition that has been in Afghanistan since 2001. Wikileaks has in the past played a useful role by making information available to the US and international public that exposed serious violations of human rights and civil liberties which the Bush administration committed in the name of its war against terror. Last April’s publication of a video of the killing of two employees of the Reuters news agency and other civilians by US military personnel in Baghdad in July 2007 was clearly in the public interest and we supported this initiative. It was a response to the Obama administration’s U-turn on implementation of the Freedom of Information Act. The White House broke its word in May 2009, when it defied a court order and refused to release photos of the mistreatment of detainees in Afghanistan and Iraq. But revealing the identity of hundreds of people who collaborated with the coalition in Afghanistan is highly dangerous.

Re Wikileak's commitment to journalism:

Journalistic work involves the selection of information. The argument with which you defend yourself, namely that Wikileaks is not made up of journalists, is not convincing. Wikileaks is an information outlet and, as such, is subject to the same rules of publishing responsibility as any other media.

Again, Assange demands the privileges of 'freedom of the press' without observing the conventions, or observing them selectively:

you cannot claim to enjoy the protection of sources while at the same time, when it suits you, denying that you are a news media.

note also an open letter to Obama in defense of Wikileaks, also published by RSF.

Janus
7k
↪Frank Apisa
Are you claiming that all persons are subject to the laws of all countries, even if they are neither citizens of, nor residing, nor traveling, in the countries in question? Is that what you are saying I am not correct about?

If I am incorrect about that I would be very surprised. If I am correct about that, then unless Assange was in the US when the alleged crime was committed the US 'justice system' has no legal right to indict him in the first place. — Janus

I am saying that if Assange violated the laws of the United States...he can be charged with crimes and brought to the US for trial. In fact, he has been charged with the crimes.

During the Mueller, 13 Russian nationals were indicted...some of whom have never been in the US.

You should be surprised...because you are wrong.

Well, it seems the thread was motivated by Assange's recent arrest. And in the linked video Waters specifically addresses what he sees as the implications of this event, so I dont think it's a matter of me being a "thread nazi".

It's trivially obvious that if Assange is indicted by the US, then he can be indicted by the U S. The question is as to whether that indictment is just and in accordance with international law and general international agreements, or whether it is being, despite those laws and agreements, facilitated by US croneys.

Do you think that if there were a Russian or Chinese investigation or an investigation by any country you care to name, that US citizens who had never been in the country in question could be indicted by that country? Do you believe the US government would accept that?

The US is charging him with computer intrusion. Are you arguing that that isnt a crime? Or that he didnt do it?

How much "computer intrusion" do you think is perpetrated by intelligence agencies in the US and elsewhere?

Janus
7k
↪Frank Apisa
It's trivially obvious that if Assange is indicted by the US, then he can be indicted by the U S. The question is as to whether that indictment is just and in accordance with international law and general international agreements, or whether it is being, despite those laws and agreements, facilitated by US croneys. — Janus

NOTHING trivial about it. In this case, legal battles will be fought both in the UK and the US. If you are going to consider the fact that something has happened to be trivial in determining whether or not it CAN happen...you are missing the point.

Do you think that if there were a Russian or Chinese investigation or an investigation by any country you care to name, that US citizens who had never been in the country in question could be indicted by that country? — Janus

Yes. Definitely.

Do you believe the US government would accept that?

I do not do "believing"...but if you are asking if it is my opinion that the US government would accept that...under certain circumstances, I do, indeed. The circumstances and treaties would dictate it, but "yeah" they might.

In any case, I think the US authorities expect the UK to extradite Assange to the US for a trial. That may happen...and it may not. The laws of the UK will determine that. And I expect the US to accept the decision of the UK courts.

Assange's philosophy is that the entities who have great power over the lives of people ought to be transparent so people can have control over their own life and future, and that if these entities want to function in secrecy against the interests of people, then the way to make them transparent is to make it harder for them to keep functioning in secrecy than in transparency. One way to make it harder for them is to render public what they want to keep secret. But obviously, the powerful entities fight back, and that's why the media coverage of Assange is mostly negative.

Sure, what has been leaked may pose some threat to some people who don't belong to these powerful entities, and it can be debated how much of it is Assange's fault and how much it is the fault of those who want to commit crimes and cause suffering with the information presented, but there is a reason the media focus almost entirely on these details rather than on the crimes committed by the powerful entities and those serving them.

How much "computer intrusion" do you think is perpetrated by intelligence agencies in the US and elsewhere? — Janus

As I see it this thread is about Assange and about whether he has committed any crime, nothing more, nothing less. — Janus

Do you think he committed a crime? Or not?

NOTHING trivial about it. In this case, legal battles will be fought both in the UK and the US. If you are going to consider the fact that something has happened to be trivial in determining whether or not it CAN happen...you are missing the point. — Frank Apisa

I have no idea why you would say I am missing the point. It is trivially true that whatever happens can happen. For me the point is that if whatever happens that is sanctioned by governments and judicial authorities is defined as what is legal, and yet what happens in one instance might not be the same as what happens in another identical instance, whether it is determined by negotiation between the same countries in both instances or between different countries altogether, then it would seem that what is legal is not something fixed by principles of justice at all, but something determined by power and influence. If you feel satisfied with that and supportive of it, then that is your business. personally I find it quite repugnant.

I do not do "believing"...but if you are asking if it is my opinion that the US government would accept that...under certain circumstances, I do, indeed. — Frank Apisa

What is the difference between believing that something is so, and being of the opinion that something is so?

The laws of the UK will determine that. And I expect the US to accept the decision of the UK courts. — Frank Apisa

Well, that is trivial too. What other options but acceptance do you think the US would have? Trade sanctions? Declaring war?

Of course all these matters are power plays, not examples of some fine principle of justice at work. We may not be able to do much about what goes on at the highest levels of international power relations, but we don't have to like it!

but there is a reason the media focus almost entirely on these details rather than on the crimes committed by the powerful entities and those serving them. — leo

Indeed!

Do you think he committed a crime? Or not? — frank

It depends on what you mean by "crime". Is "computer intrusion" a crime regardless of who commits it? If not, and it is only a crime in certain instances or contexts, then what determines that it is a crime in the instances or contexts where it is a crime?

On a different line, do you think Assange is actually being accused of hacking? Aiding and abetting someone else's hacking? Did the someone else have legal access to the files he leaked?

then it would seem that what is legal is not something fixed by principles of justice at all, but something determined by power and influence. — Janus

That's right, it's a matter of judgement, and those who make those judgements, by that very capacity, are those who have power and influence..

If you feel satisfied with that and supportive of it, then that is your business. personally I find it quite repugnant. — Janus

Why is it repugnant to you, that those who make these judgements are those who have power and influence. Doesn't it seem natural to you, that the people who make these sorts of judgements are the people who have power and influence?

Sure it seems natural, but it does not follow that it is therefore desirable. If someone who apparently has not committed any act which is unequivocally a criminal act is nevertheless charged with a criminal act in a context which is rife with privelege gained by corrupt means and all the double standards and injustices that come with, and go along with, that, why should I not find that morally repugnant? And how much more morally repugnant would it be if the person were found guilty?

Janus
7k

NOTHING trivial about it. In this case, legal battles will be fought both in the UK and the US. If you are going to consider the fact that something has happened to be trivial in determining whether or not it CAN happen...you are missing the point. — Frank Apisa


I have no idea why you would say I am missing the point. It is trivially true that whatever happens can happen. For me the point is that if whatever happens that is sanctioned by governments and judicial authorities is defined as what is legal, and yet what happens in one instance might not be the same as what happens in another identical instance, whether it is determined by negotiation between the same countries in both instances or between different countries altogether, then it would seem that what is legal is not something fixed by principles of justice at all, but something determined by power and influence. If you feel satisfied with that and supportive of it, then that is your business. personally I find it quite repugnant. — Janus

If you double down and continue to suppose the laws and decisions of a nation are trivial...not much I can do about it.

So continue to think that. It is an absurd thought as you would discover if you defied those laws and decisions. And of course they are determined by power and influence. That is what people are elected to do...to decide what is legal and what is not so that civilization can thrive. Otherwise everyone would do what they want when they want...and there would be chaos and anarchy.

I do not do "believing"...but if you are asking if it is my opinion that the US government would accept that...under certain circumstances, I do, indeed. — Frank Apisa


What is the difference between believing that something is so, and being of the opinion that something is so? — Janus

Use of the word "believe." I do not use that word. Most of the times it doesn't matter, but there are times when it does, so I simply do not use it. I do not do "believing." If I am making a guess, or offering an opinion or estimate...I use the words "guess", "opinion", or "estimate."

The laws of the UK will determine that. And I expect the US to accept the decision of the UK courts. — Frank Apisa


Well, that is trivial too. What other options but acceptance do you think the US would have? Trade sanctions? Declaring war? — Janus

Well I guess any country could...and I am sure some countries have declared war.

I doubt that would happen here.

If the UK decides they will not extradite Assange to the US...the US will almost certainly, reluctantly, accept that decision.

Of course all these matters are power plays, not examples of some fine principle of justice at work. We may not be able to do much about what goes on at the highest levels of international power relations, but we don't have to like it!

I do not care whether you like it or hate it, Janus. It is my opinion that whether you like it or not...is trivial.

You should read a little more closely and think a little more deeply; I never said that the "laws and decisions of nations" are "trivial".

A guess or estimate may or may not be an opinion or belief. but call whatever you are doing whatever you like, of course.

If you want to continue to be an unthinking sycophant to entrenched power there are plenty of others to keep you company.

↪fishfry Yes. As I suspected. — frank

I can't begin to imagine what that remark means. I don't see anyone else here being asked for their personal life history. I'd say I've been more politically active in real life over the years than the average person. By a pretty good margin. I'll leave it at that. What difference does it make what someone says they've done? Where are you coming from here? There's a nasty streak on this forum sometimes.

I'd say I've been more politically active in real life over the years than the average person. By a pretty good margin. — fishfry

In many countries it's barely over fifty percent who vote, so saying that you're more politically active than the average person doesn't say much.

There's a nasty streak on this forum sometimes. — fishfry

You said a mouthful, Cuz.

Assange. Here's my views. First, I believe in the rule of law ahead of conscience. This is not a fashionable view. Thus Assange was wrong to avoid bail and deserves some degree of jail time. But I have enormous problems with him being extradited. One, there is no way that he will get a fair trial in the US. I had a relative who was court martialled in the British army in the 80's. So I know how military trials work and anyone who thinks that they are fair needs a brain transplant. Second, surely to extradite someone is the second most serious action against them. Only assassination would be more serious. Yet the unsealed charge list is a joke. I've read it. You can extradite someone from that??

In many countries it's barely over fifty percent who vote, so saying that you're more politically active than the average person doesn't say much. — Metaphysician Undercover

There's little point in talking about one's personal life on an anonymous forum. I've done a lot more than vote. Out there in the world, in real life. But what is your point?

There's little point in talking about one's personal life on an anonymous forum. I've done a lot more than vote. Out there in the world, in real life. But what is your point? — fishfry

I made my point. You compared your political activity to "the average person". But the average person only even votes sometimes, so that really doesn't say much. Just being diligent to vote at every election beats the average person "by a pretty good margin".

Assange has been formally charged in the US with espionage, which can carry the death penalty.

Does this change anyone's opinion? Do you think journalism should be punishable by death? Why didn't the owner of the New York Times face the death penalty for publishing the Pentagon papers?

Julian Assange Indicted Under Espionage Act, Raising First Amendment Issues

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/23/us/politics/assange-indictment.html

“Whatever a patron desires to get published is advertising; whatever he wants to keep out of the paper is news,”

https://quoteinvestigator.com/2013/01/20/news-suppress/

I doubt they’ll move him to US. It is a Trump power play. The UK said they’d not extradite him if there was a chance of him being killed (capital punishment) so Trump and X are obviously testing how far they can push the UK government on the matter.

Then again, if Boris takes the helm - likely - anything could happen.

There can be no extradition in the event of a possibility of a death penalty. Presumably the extradition request will have assurances that the death penalty will not be imposed, which is how that is usually resolved.

The possible sentencing of up to 175 years in case of the other charges and the motivation behind them might be reason for a UK judge to refuse extradition as well. The fact a 102 years old law that has never been employed for this purpose is used and the possibly disproportionate sentencing period might lead to extraneous considerations to refuse extradition.