Julian Assange arrested in Ecuadorian Embassy

[Raoul]

That is an absolutely mindless argument. All investigative journalists uncovering state level corruption or crime will rely upon classified information gained from whistleblowers' disclosures. It is why there are - in countries that at least want to project the image of a meaningful democracy - certain whistleblower protections and certain journalistic protections are in place, with journalists tasked with weighing the public's need to know.
With WL disclosures, published all over the mainstream press, there was an obvious case of the public's need to know.

Look at Daniel Ellsberg. He wasn't imprisoned, though they did want to go after him using that Espionage Act. No one will get a fair trial charged under the Espionage Act.

The smaller crime (disclosure of classified information) becomes fully justified when exposing a much bigger crime. There are plenty of instances where you may have to break the law to prevent or expose a bigger crime. That being said, in civilised societies there should already be legal protections in order to inform the public of what is being done in the name of the people.

This is not a case of investigative journalism - it’s one of illegally hacking US government systems (classified ones no less), which is what Assange is being sought for. If he was a journo, he would’ve simply used selective information to publish a case of wrongdoing instead of mass publish everything he had for the self aggrandizement of his brand. 99.9 percent of what he published was mundane nonsense of no use to anyone, but he released it anyway because he wanted to be the Robin Hood of information. Now it looks like he’s going to answer to the law.

In addition to the Manning case, they are probably also going to nail him for publishing GRU hacked DNC information in 2016 as well, where he attempted to ingratiate himself to the Trump campaign for a possible future pardon.

 

[Lemoor]

This is not a case of investigative journalism- it’s one of illegally hacking US government systems (classified ones no less), which is what Assange is being sought for. If he was a journo, he would simply used selective information to publish a case of wrongdoing instead of mass publish everything he had for the self aggrandizement of his brand. 99.9 percent of what he published was mundane nonsense of no use to anyone, but he released it anyway because he wanted to be the Robin Hood of information. Now it looks like he’s going to answer to the law.

In addition to the Manning case, they are probably going to nail him for publishing GRU hacked DNC information in 2016 as well, when he attempted to ingratiate himself to the Trump campaign for a possible future pardon.

Do you really think that if he decided not to publish mundane nonsense he would be in a massively different situation today?

 

[Raoul]

Do you really think that if he decided not to publish mundane nonsense he would be in a massively different situation today?

It’s the publishing of everything that did him in. We know this because the original incident that was supposed to be his ticket to fame for exposing wrongdoing has largely been forgotten. It was the precedent of facilitating hacking of its classified systems the government is pursuing him for.

 

[11101]

Joke of a decision, and we should have told them to stick it after that diplomat's hit and run.

 

[hasanejaz88]

America. Land of the free, as long as you don't expose the war crimes we do in other countries, or the crimes we do in our country.

 

[Foxbatt]

Load of bollocks. He is being hounded because he exposed US crimes.

 

[JPRouve]

I have no sympathy for Assange and see no reason for the US to pardon him or Snowden. They knew exactly what they were doing and the potential consequences.

 

[Pexbo]

Load of bollocks. He is being hounded because he exposed US crimes.

Probably but he also did a tonne of dodgy stuff with the Russians during the 2016 Election which was a bit daft when he already had a target on his back.

 

[hasanejaz88]

I have no sympathy for Assange and see no reason for the US to pardon him or Snowden. They knew exactly what they were doing and the potential consequences.

If the US think there is no issue with them wanting to arrest both, then they should also shut up about the freedom of press nonsense, because clearly this is counter to that.

 

[JPRouve]

If the US think there is no issue with them wanting to arrest both, then they should also shut up about the freedom of press nonsense, because clearly this is counter to that.

The Pentagon don't give a damn about the freedom of press, I'm not sure if they are the ones championing it. And this isn't a case of freedom of press but hacking government servers and in the other treason.

 

[Denis79]

I have no sympathy for Assange and see no reason for the US to pardon him or Snowden. They knew exactly what they were doing and the potential consequences.

I'm 100% in support when people expose governments that commit war crimes or go against human rights, which Assange did. Despite that he needs to stand trial for the other accusations against him.

 

[Pexbo]

I'm 100% in support when people expose governments that commit war crimes or go against human rights, which Assange did. Despite that he needs to stand trial for the other accusations against him.

Is correct.

 

[JPRouve]

I'm 100% in support when people expose governments that commit war crimes or go against human rights, which Assange did. Despite that he needs to stand trial for the other accusations against him.

Assange also supported and helped Putin. That's the issue with someone like Assange, he starts by committing a crime, does zero investigative work and then helps Putin.

I totally support the journalists that have dug into the files and tried to find things but I have no sympathy for Assange, nor do I have any sympathy for the US government and their allies.

 

[VorZakone]

I have no sympathy for Assange and see no reason for the US to pardon him or Snowden. They knew exactly what they were doing and the potential consequences.

Really?

I got no problem with people exposing government crimes and human right abuses.

 

[Denis79]

Assange also supported and helped Putin. That's the issue with someone like Assange, he starts by committing a crime, does zero investigative work and then helps Putin.

I totally support the journalists that have dug into the files and tried to find things but I have no sympathy for Assange, nor do I have any sympathy for the US government and their allies.

I'm not defending him, just think he did a very good thing when he exposed war-crimes and human-rights violations.

 

[Bastian]

This is not a case of investigative journalism - it’s one of illegally hacking US government systems (classified ones no less), which is what Assange is being sought for. If he was a journo, he would’ve simply used selective information to publish a case of wrongdoing instead of mass publish everything he had for the self aggrandizement of his brand. 99.9 percent of what he published was mundane nonsense of no use to anyone, but he released it anyway because he wanted to be the Robin Hood of information. Now it looks like he’s going to answer to the law.

In addition to the Manning case, they are probably also going to nail him for publishing GRU hacked DNC information in 2016 as well, where he attempted to ingratiate himself to the Trump campaign for a possible future pardon.

He didn't hack anything. Read Nils Melzer's account (UN Special Rapporteur on Torture). He was given information - allegedly by Manning - he published and it had direct relevance. People need to put aside their personal opinion on Assange's character and look at the big picture.

 

[JPRouve]

He didn't hack anything. Read Nils Melzer's account (UN Special Rapporteur on Torture). He was given information - allegedly by Manning - he published and it had direct relevance. People need to put aside their personal opinion on Assange's character and look at the big picture.

If you look at the big picture shouldn't you condemn the US and not put aside their personal opinion on Assange?

 

[Bastian]

If you look at the big picture shouldn't you condemn the US and not put aside their personal opinion on Assange?

I don't fully understand your post. One should absolutely condemn the US on account of the information published. Unfortunately, they carry on with impunity.

 

[JPRouve]

I don't fully understand your post. One should absolutely condemn the US on account of the information published. Unfortunately, they carry on with impunity.

My post is very simple. I don't need to have any sympathy for Assange or put aside his actions and character in order to condemn the US. These are two separate issues.

 

[Bastian]

My post is very simple. I don't need to have any sympathy for Assange or put aside his actions and character in order to condemn the US. These are two separate issues.

Exactly. Although, his actions, had they been carried out by a universally admired individual (the actions he's been locked up for without precedent) would hit people differently.

 

[PedroMendez]

I'm 100% in support when people expose governments that commit war crimes or go against human rights, which Assange did. Despite that he needs to stand trial for the other accusations against him.

Julien Assange didn't hack anything or anyone. He published information. Prosecuting him for that is a travesty. This trial is nothing but an attempt to silence and discredit him. Its an attempt to intimated people who think about leaking misconduct and journalists who think about publishing this information. This violates the ideal of a free press at its very core. The government tried everything to hide their own wrongdoings and closed any credible official way to deal with this. If thats not a case, where publishing this information is justified, there is never going to be a case, where it is.
We should celebrate and encourage people who take that personal risk, not punish them. Not covering up war crimes makes on apparently a traitor. Neither Assange's character nor what he did afterwards matters in regard to this.

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

My post is very simple. I don't need to have any sympathy for Assange or put aside his actions and character in order to condemn the US. These are two separate issues.

From the UK point of view. We have an extradition treaty with the US and he has a case to answer over there so this is a non issue for me.

 

[Denis79]

Julien Assange didn't hack anything or anyone. He published information. Prosecuting him for that is a travesty. This trial is nothing but an attempt to silence and discredit him. Its an attempt to intimated people who think about leaking misconduct and journalists who think about publishing this information. This violates the ideal of a free press at its very core. The government tried everything to hide their own wrongdoings and closed any credible official way to deal with this. If thats not a case, where publishing this information is justified, there is never going to be a case, where it is.
We should celebrate and encourage people who take that personal risk, not punish them. Not covering up war crimes makes on apparently a traitor. Neither Assange's character nor what he did afterwards matters in regard to this.

I meant he needs to go to trial for the rape accusations.

 

[Drifter]

So they are going after him because of something he did in 2010. Even Obama let this go, but Trump reignited it and Biden continues.

 

[PedroMendez]

I meant he needs to go to trial for the rape accusations.

Yes. I fully agree with this.

 

[Abizzz]

Ah yes the good old "he broke the law" argument again. For a foreigner on foreign soil.

 

[Raoul]

He didn't hack anything. Read Nils Melzer's account (UN Special Rapporteur on Torture). He was given information - allegedly by Manning - he published and it had direct relevance. People need to put aside their personal opinion on Assange's character and look at the big picture.

He wouldn’t have to have physically engaged in hacking. The DOJ warrant issued in 2019 alleged that he facilitated (assisted) in a conspiracy with Manning to crack passwords and various other hacker related activities.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/wikileaks-founder-charged-computer-hacking-conspiracy

This would therefore not be “journalism” but rather a crime under US law.

DOJ broadened their scope of inquiry in 2020 to include other hacking related activities where Assange has conspired with other organizations over the years, which means his legal exposure is far wider than in just the Manning case

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/wikileaks-founder-charged-superseding-indictment

The journalism route would’ve been where Manning obtained the video with no outside assistance from Assange or anyone else, then contacted Wikileaks (whether anonymously or otherwise), at which point Assange wrote and published an article accompanied by the video, which he obtained from an anonymous source. Manning would’ve still gone to jail for disseminating classified information, but Assange would’ve been preserved. He consciously decided to do it otherwise, which has now resulted in a pretty tight case against him.

 

[Bastian]

He wouldn’t have to have physically engaged in hacking. The DOJ warrant issued in 2019 alleged that he facilitated (assisted) in a conspiracy with Manning to crack passwords and various other hacker related activities.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/wikileaks-founder-charged-computer-hacking-conspiracy

This would therefore not be “journalism” but rather a crime under US law.

DOJ broadened their scope of inquiry in 2020 to include other hacking related activities where Assange has conspired with other organizations over the years, which means his legal exposure is far wider than in just the Manning case

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/wikileaks-founder-charged-superseding-indictment

The journalism route would’ve been where Manning obtained the video with no outside assistance from Assange or anyone else, then contacted Wikileaks (whether anonymously or otherwise), at which point Assange wrote and published an article accompanied by the video, which he obtained from an anonymous source. Manning would’ve still gone to jail for disseminating classified information, but Assange would’ve been preserved. He consciously decided to do it otherwise, which has now resulted in a pretty tight case against him.

If it were a tight case, in a meaningful democratic society, he'd be tried in a public court, with a jury comprised of non-military-industrial-complex family members (which is not the case in the Virginia court) and due process would be ensured. This is a tool of a state acting with impunity. He cannot argue his case appealing to public interest. He's effectively barred from defending himself. And looking at the way he has been handled in the UK makes an absolute mockery of their legal system.

Like someone recently said, exposing war crimes was one thing, but this case is now exposing how these states work to ensure they can break International law as and when they please without anyone holding them to account or even exposing such behaviour.

Regarding the hacking charge, which I assume was only tried to differentiate him from other publishers and journalists, it holds no water. He did not hack the servers. It's all there in the transcripts. He might have wanted to, he couldn't. Charge him for wanting to hack the servers?

 

[Raoul]

Regarding the hacking charge, which I assume was only tried to differentiate him from other publishers and journalists, it holds no water. He did not hack the servers. It's all there in the transcripts. He might have wanted to, he couldn't. Charge him for wanting to hack the servers?

Assisting or facilitating a crime is still a crime that will result in prison time. Even if he gave Manning instructions on what to do (which it appears is the case), he would be culpable, just as if the mastermind or get away driver in a murder robbery would still go to jail, even if they themselves didn’t pull the trigger. They would still have in some way facilitated a crime. Assange is in a similar category, except in his case, DOJ are going after all his activities beyond just the Manning case. This means it will be very hard for him to escape prison time, as they are going to have an avalanche of evidence related to all his career activities waiting for him.

 

[Bastian]

Assisting or facilitating a crime is still a crime that will result in prison time. Even if he gave Manning instructions on what to do (which it appears is the case), he would be culpable, just as if the mastermind or get away driver in a murder robbery would still go to jail, even if they themselves didn’t pull the trigger. They would still have in some way facilitated a crime. Assange is in a similar category, except in his case, DOJ are going after all his activities beyond just the Manning case. This means it will be very hard for him to escape prison time, as they are going to have an avalanche of evidence related to all his career activities waiting for him.

If you were in a City centre where a terrorist was about to blow themselves up and you killed them, would you have committed a crime and should you go to jail? That's kind of how I see it. He's exposed crimes on an enormous scale perpetrated against enormous populations, and in the name of other populations. Reminding people what journalism is.

But my POV is that the US and UK are imperialist states that act with impunity and do not have any moral foothold to condemn anyone or anything, as has been established by history up to the present day.

This case is purely political.

 

[shamans]

America. Land of the free, as long as you don't expose the war crimes we do in other countries, or the crimes we do in our country.

How dare the Americans have any notion of confidential information! Ridiculous! While we're at it disband intelligence agencies around the world.

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

Assisting or facilitating a crime is still a crime that will result in prison time. Even if he gave Manning instructions on what to do (which it appears is the case), he would be culpable, just as if the mastermind or get away driver in a murder robbery would still go to jail, even if they themselves didn’t pull the trigger. They would still have in some way facilitated a crime. Assange is in a similar category, except in his case, DOJ are going after all his activities beyond just the Manning case. This means it will be very hard for him to escape prison time, as they are going to have an avalanche of evidence related to all his career activities waiting for him.

He has a chance to make a greater good argument in court. If he has one that is the place to make it. I don't get the fuss about him.

 

[nimic]

How dare the Americans have any notion of confidential information! Ridiculous! While we're at it disband intelligence agencies around the world.

So you don't support what Daniel Ellsberg did either?

 

[Denis79]

If you were in a City centre where a terrorist was about to blow themselves up and you killed them, would you have committed a crime and should you go to jail? That's kind of how I see it. He's exposed crimes on an enormous scale perpetrated against enormous populations, and in the name of other populations. Reminding people what journalism is.

But my POV is that the US and UK are imperialist states that act with impunity and do not have any moral foothold to condemn anyone or anything, as has been established by history up to the present day.

This case is purely political.

I think it is meant to scare anyone in the future to do the same. Even if we don't agree with laws that punish people who expose war-crimes and human right violations, they are there and there isn't much you can do about him being prosecuted.

The thing that irks me is that absolutely NOTHING was done after the crimes were exposed. Every single person responsible got away with it, which is a fecking joke and a mockery to our "western values".

 

[Green_Red]

Joke of a decision, and we should have told them to stick it after that diplomat's hit and run.

Shocking that wasn't it. I don't think it was the diplomat, wasn't it his wife, who also had immunity? What a crazy rule.

 

[hasanejaz88]

How dare the Americans have any notion of confidential information! Ridiculous! While we're at it disband intelligence agencies around the world.

How dare someone expose the fact that America is committing far crimes and spying on not only their own citizens but also other world leaders.

Shows their governments, and those who support this extradition, mentality that rather than being outraged at these crimes and holding those responsible accountable, they're going after the person who exposed this. It's like if someone leaks sexual harassment going on at a company, the company fires that person rather than doing anything about the sexual harassment going on.

You should similarly be outraged at the people who hacked and leaked the Panama papers then.

 

[Raoul]

If you were in a City centre where a terrorist was about to blow themselves up and you killed them, would you have committed a crime and should you go to jail? That's kind of how I see it. He's exposed crimes on an enormous scale perpetrated against enormous populations, and in the name of other populations. Reminding people what journalism is.

But my POV is that the US and UK are imperialist states that act with impunity and do not have any moral foothold to condemn anyone or anything, as has been established by history up to the present day.

This case is purely political.

Its obviously at least partially political, which would include people like you (as you've admitted above) and those who agree with you and want to see the US and UK weakened. There's also a higher level issue involving whether the most powerful states have the ability to use their leverage to prevent mass illegal disseminations of sensitive information (most of which is mundane, a little of which isn't). The way this case is unfolding, it appears the US can hunt down non-state actors like Assange for their indiscretions, much as they have other non-state actors like Bin Ladin and the rest.

 

[Bastian]

Its obviously at least partially political, which would include people like you (as you've admitted above) and those who agree with you and want to see the US and UK weakened. There's also a higher level issue involving whether the most powerful states have the ability to use their leverage to prevent mass illegal disseminations of sensitive information (most of which is mundane, a little of which isn't). The way this case is unfolding, it appears the US can hunt down non-state actors like Assange for their indiscretions, much as they have other non-state actors like Bin Ladin and the rest.

Are you comparing Assange to Bin Laden? Jesus.

And I'm not looking for the US to be weakened. Does it weaken a state that it has to follow the same International laws it demands of others?

 

[Raoul]

Are you comparing Assange to Bin Laden? Jesus.

I'm not in any moral sense, but they are both non-state actors who got on the wrong side of US law. And since neither are representatives of countries, the US can use whatever intentional leverage it has (which is considerable) to bring them to justice,.

And I'm not looking for the US to be weakened. Does it weaken a state that it has to follow the same International laws it demands of others?

That's not how the system works. International law is generally only applicable to nations outside the security council. Those within it, can simply ignore it when it suits them, with no repercussions. There is no such thing as a world government with an ability to enforce international law on all nations.

 

[Bastian]

I'm not in any moral sense, but they are both non-state actors who got on the wrong side of US law. And since neither are representatives of countries, the US can use whatever intentional leverage it has (which is considerable) to bring them to justice,.

If I recall it was Pompeo who described WL as a non-state actor. I take a different view, surprisingly.

That's not how the system works. International law is generally only applicable to nations outside the security council. Those within it, can simply ignore it when it suits them, with no repercussions. There is no such thing as a world government with an ability to enforce international law on all nations.

You are right there. Which means it is pointless.