Assange arrested, extradition to the USA
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/11/world/europe/julian-assange-wikileaks-ecuador-embassy.amp.html
Thoughts?
He prob shouldn't have threatened the hand that kept him safe
Thoughts?
He prob shouldn't have threatened the hand that kept him safe
Comments
He already spent the past 7 years in prison. Guilty or not, our government won't let him know freedom for the rest of his life.
According to this article, the max penalty he faces in the US is five years in prison (unless you're of the mind that the CIA/NSA/Illuminatti/Reptilians will take him out beforehand):
https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/11/politics/julian-assange-us-charges/index.html
According to Ecuador, Assange sounded like the guest from Hell:
"During former President Correa's government and while Patiño was chancellor, "they tolerated things like Assange putting feces on the embassy walls and other behaviors far from the minimum respect that a guest can have," said Romo."
https://www.cnn.com/uk/live-news/julian-assange-arrest-dle-gbr-intl/h_44c547fc819d7e94b7bfc02bb91949c9
Also, whatever reason they are kicking him out is the secondary story. The fact is he's a journalist, and he is being pursued for reporting the news documents he was given.
https://www.democracynow.org/2019/4/11/julian_assange_of_wikileaks_arrested_in
https://www.thedailybeast.com/assange-how-ecuador-finally-got-sick-of-wikileaks-founder-and-ended-his-refuge-at-the-embassy-in-london
There's certainly a fascinating debate to be had on the boundaries of what constitutes journalism, but Assange walked and often crossed the line into actively disrupting governments rather than just reporting news. And to the argument that Assange is pursuing a type of civil disobedience, there is another worthwhile discussion to have on whether someone who engages in civil disobedience (in the vein Thoreau considered) should embrace the punishment in order to highlight alleged injustices rather than flee to safe haven.
If I understand correctly, the final straw was that Assange hacked the emails of Educador's president and first lady. So he's been a very naughty house guest.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/ass...
There's certainly a fascinating debate to be had on the boundaries of what constitutes journalism, but Assange walked and often crossed the line into actively disrupting governments rather than just reporting news. And to the argument that Assange is pursuing a type of civil disobedience, there is another worthwhile discussion to have on whether someone who engages in civil disobedience (in the vein Thoreau considered) should embrace the punishment in order to highlight alleged injustices rather than flee to safe haven.
The first point about hacks is another non-sense talking point.
Secondly, Julian Assange isn't a U.S. citizen so laws over u.s. citizens such as the espionage act don't apply to him. What is he supposed to be punished for?
Finally, wikileaks publishes factual information. If a government is infringing on peoples rights or killing innocent people and lying about it and a news organization reveals that information then I am unclear on why you would be upset about that.
If I understand correctly, the final straw was that Assange hacked the emails of Educador's president and first lady. So he's been a very naughty house guest.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/assange-how-ecuador-finally-go...
There's certainly a fascinating debate to be had on the boundaries of what constitutes journalism, but Assange walked and often crossed the line into actively disrupting governments rather than just reporting news. And to the argument that Assange is pursuing a type of civil disobedience, there is another worthwhile discussion to have on whether someone who engages in civil disobedience (in the vein Thoreau considered) should embrace the punishment in order to highlight alleged injustices rather than flee to safe haven.
The first point about hacks is another non-sense talking point. Secondly, Julian Assange isn't a U.S. citizen so laws over u.s. citizens such as the espionage act don't apply to him. What is he supposed to be punished for? Finally, wikileaks publishes factual information. If a government is infringing on peoples rights or killing innocent people and lying about it and a news organization reveals that information then I am unclear on why you would be upset about that.
1. What is non-sense about it? Hacking the e-mails of the head of state of the country harboring you will understandably piss off that country. I made no claim that I thought in doing so Assange forfeited protection, just noting what an obnoxious thing it is to do.
2. U.S. law has extraterritorial effect where a clear purpose is expressed that it should extend to extraterritorial claims. You can argue why you think that's BS, but it's established (albeit narrow) judicial precedent.
3. At the risk of opening a partisan can of worms, what crimes did the DNC commit to warrant being hacked and having their e-mails posted? Assange has indeed published some important pieces, but he is equal parts troll as he is journalist, and you can't discard the former just because he has also demonstrated the latter (or vice versa). I'm not against whistleblowing at all, and agree that publications such as what Snowden leaked were important contributions to government accountability. But, given with what I said in my previous post, I don't think Snowden can fully claim the mantle of civil disobedience since he fled the country rather than face the consequences of his crime (justified or not). In my opinion, if you're going to commit an act of civil disobedience, you must welcome the punishment in order to help highlight the injustice, as Thoreau, MLK, and so many others did, who by receiving the punishment, in fact brought pressure against government to right itself rather than punish someone seeking justice and risking public outrage in doing so.
2. The U.S. keeps adjusting their position on Assange. When this whole thing started it was Sweden that wanted Assange. Wikileaks said that that the charges against him were false. Now that Assange has been arrested there are no Swedish charges. The U.S. is now saying that Assange influenced Chelsey Manning to hack into the military database. This seems awfully important, why wasn't this brought up before? This is all new. Chelsey Manning used her position to get the military information.
3. Edward Snowden and Julian Assange are two different people. Any laws that Snowden broke are his burden. Assange did not hack into the DNC. Wikileaks is a news group that takes sensitive material, carefully redacts them for safety purposes, and publishes the material online.
IIRC Assange's connection to Manning and thus the U.S.' interest in Assange was always there, it merely added more, for lack of a better word, drama, to the story where Sweden was already involved (statutory rape where at this point the victim said he shouldn't be charged, but that's not how criminal law works. The victim declining to press charges are something from the movies. The state can prosecute someone even if the victim thinks their attacker shouldn't be charged, it's just a lot harder). I don't recall why Sweden ultimately relented, but the U.S. claims didn't suddenly materialize. I can't speak to where the claim about Assange influencing Manning comes from, I can only speculate, and I'd rather not. Since Assange is essentially equivalent to Wikileaks, why should "Wikileaks said that the charges against him were false" carry any weight? Bill Cosby claimed he didn't assault those women so goshdarnit, it must be so!
Assange may not have hacked the DNC, but a Russian troll farm did in order to manipulate an election, and Assange published the docs from that hack knowing it would have that effect. How is that journalism? That's assisting a criminal act, even if you're not coordinating directly with the people responsible for the hack. It's fruit of the poisonous tree, and reckless at best, intentional at worst, and should be hashed out in court.
I don't want to stifle discussion from other members of NA who may wish to contribute, so I'm just going to leave it at this, we're getting into "spinning our wheels" territory and I don't want to hijack this thread.
If I understand correctly, the final straw was that Assange hacked the emails of Educador's president and first lady. So he's been a very naughty house guest.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/assange-how-ecuador-finally-go...
There's certainly a fascinating debate to be had on the boundaries of what constitutes journalism, but Assange walked and often crossed the line into actively disrupting governments rather than just reporting news. And to the argument that Assange is pursuing a type of civil disobedience, there is another worthwhile discussion to have on whether someone who engages in civil disobedience (in the vein Thoreau considered) should embrace the punishment in order to highlight alleged injustices rather than flee to safe haven.
The first point about hacks is another non-sense talking point. Secondly, Julian Assange isn't a U.S. citizen so laws over u.s. citizens such as the espionage act don't apply to him. What is he supposed to be punished for? Finally, wikileaks publishes factual information. If a government is infringing on peoples rights or killing innocent people and lying about it and a news organization reveals that information then I am unclear on why you would be upset about that.
Whether the information is factual or not is not the issue here. It is very simple: Assange helped to create a safe-harbor for illegal material. Imagine if you owned a large warehouse space and told local criminals that you would allow them to use it to conduct their various illegal activities. You would be and should be prosecuted whenever law enforcement becomes aware of your activity. Whether you like it or not, classified material is classified for a reason(s) and it is completely illegal to disseminate that material. You do not get to circumvent the law just because you think you should be able to, or because it for the greater good, that is not how it works. You have to stop at a street light because it has been decided that the law (in a democratic society) would state you need to stop at a red light. That's the end of it, you don't get to decide to run the light anyway. We have elected officials that make the laws and they are valid whether they are to your liking or not. Leaking of classified material is illegal. He made a secure place for illegal behavior to flourish, of course he needs to be brought to justice.
With that said, it's not that I think his behavior didn't serve the greater good. Maybe it did, maybe it didn't. The thing is you cannot create an entity that releases state secrets. That should go without saying. He knew what he was trying to do was illegal and now is crying about having to answer for his behavior. He should just make himself look better by not resisting. It may not be sexy, but there does need to be some rule of law. He facilitated illegal activity. If the informants had given him information and he released as he got it, without having first created a framework for illegal activity, then your argument would be reasonable but that is not how it happened. He created the warehouse that facilitates the criminal activity and should pay the price for it.
EDIT: As far I can see, Assange has no connection to journalism at all. He is a known hacker and he helped create wikileaks, but there is no evidence he is a credible journalist at all. He looks to be a rebel with a cause (whether a good or a bad one) but certainly no journalist.
EDIT 2: Also, I would like to add that it would seem some of his contributions are of a noble sort. Unfortunately, I don't think that makes his actions justifiable. You still need to act with a reasonable respect for the law. While change is driven by resisting unjust standards, you need to either act within the law to further your end, or behave illegally and accept the consequences for your actions. You cannot have it both ways though.
3. Edward Snowden and Julian Assange are two different people. Any laws that Snowden broke are his burden. Assange did not hack into the DNC. Wikileaks is a news group that takes sensitive material, carefully redacts them for safety purposes, and publishes the material online.
That is complete nonsense, Wikileaks posted unredacted documents that exposed the personal information of Afghan and Iraqi informants and interpreters working with the US as well as millions of Turkish voters. IIRC, human rights groups such as Amnesty International even offered to go through and redact Afghan and Iraqi personal info at no cost, only for Wikileaks to turn them down.
Wikileaks lost their moral high-ground the moment they began indiscriminately allowing innocent people to get caught in the crossfire.
The craziest part of the whole thing is a significant amount of people in the US are okay with him/russia having an effect on an election because it helped "their guy"
Word
Teh Lurv - I'm not familiar wih that situation. They've redacted portions of the big postings that I am familiar with. Don't you think the u.s. governement lost the high ground? They told us that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and went into that country and killed hundreds of thousands of civilians. Then while they were killing all those people they started enacting laws like the Patriot Act to spy on us.
Teh Lurv - I'm not familiar wih that situation. They've redacted portions of the big postings that I am familiar with. Don't you think the u.s. governement lost the high ground? They told us that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and went into that country and killed hundreds of thousands of civilians. Then while they were killing all those people they started enacting laws like the Patriot Act to spy on us.
What the US Government has done does not justify or excuse Wikileaks from failing to even try to protect innocent people endangered by the release of documents in their possession.
Information about the harm Wikileaks has potentially done to Turkish voters and Afghan/Iraqi interpreters is a google search away:
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2016/07/why-did-wikileaks-help-dox-most-of-turkeys-adult-female-population.html
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/10/22/wikileaks.iraq/index.html
https://www.foxnews.com/world/leaked-war-files-expose-identities-of-afghan-informants
I don't know what kind of condition Wikileaks is in now or in recent years. I remember at one point all the major credit card companies refused to work with wikileaks. If they have made mistakes that is unfortunate, but I agree with their principles and they were a positive influence in the U.S. for many years. I'm sure any of us would more mistakes if we are being attacked by a foreign governments and our budgets are being hamstringed.
On a side note, i watched Assange on TV I think it was last year maybe even two years ago and that guy is losing it a little. I'm not sure if its from being imprisoned in a house or not being able to get medical treatment, but he was off. He seemed paranoid and he was snapping at people that had given him a platform for years.
So yeah, i see your point, but that is unrelated with the charges against Assange.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/wikileaks-publishes-full-cache-of-unredacted-cables-online/2011/09/02/gIQAHAhWwJ_blog.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.08096787f54e
https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/179351-wikileaks-widely-critized-as-org-releases-unredacted-embassy-cables
Hannity is sticking up for Assange, so that confirms he is a human piece of garbage.
Hannity scrubbed all his Twitter mentions of Assange yesterday: https://theweek.com/speedreads/834766/sean-hannity-seems-have-deleted-all-references-julian-assange-wikileaks-twitter
President "I love Wikileaks" Trump claims he knows nothing about Wikileaks: https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/11/politics/wikileaks-donald-trump-julian-assange-campaign/index.html
Now that his political usefulness has ended, Assange is getting thrown under the bus.
https://m.spiegel.de/international/world/leak-at-wikileaks-accidental-release-of-us-cables-endangers-sources-a-783084.html
This all really feels ancillary. The main issues are a. Assange is a journalist and b. Journalists have the right to release info about the govt. c. He is not a u.s. citizen
The freedom of the press is the first amendment in the constitution.
If it feels ancillary, it's because you refuse to engage anyone else on this thread in the question at the core of this thread, which is the notion that Assange is not a journalist, but a hacktivist.
Journalists do not have an absolute right to release government documents (though I noticed you said "info about the govt" rather than govt info which is a meaningful distinction), there are important exceptions to that right that have been established, much as other first amendment freedoms are not absolute. There is relevant precedent for this kind of situation following the "grave and irreparable danger" standard laid out by the Supreme Court. If Assange were any kind of journalist, he would understand those standards and submit to judicial consideration. But no, Assange is a "fuck you I do what I want and fuck the consequences" type who wants to undermine institutions because he can, not because he's after the truth.
I'm cherry picking what I say because there are so many bad news sources out there. So you think I am wrong in not paying attention to the fox or cnn articles? The hill article is fine, but it takes place after the Der Spiegel article, both articles agree. They say that the 2010 documents were accidently released. The hill article which takes place after, says that after the docs. were accidently released Wikileaks later decided to let them stay that way instead of pulling them redacting and reposting (paraphrasing)
He is being charged with computer hacking, not publishing, so for now all the talk about journalists does not apply.
Do you think the government would have ever come after him if he didn't publish government material?