Julian Assange: peering through the murk(lawgazette.co.uk)
lawgazette.co.uk
Julian Assange: peering through the murk
https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/commentary-and-opinion/julian-assange-peering-through-the-murk/5109400.article
47 comments
> is a bizarre situation
I agree that this outcome should cause people to stop and think about whether justice is really being done here, but the other side of the argument is that it's actually digital technology which is making our intuitions fail, and the justice system is just trying to catch up with that.
If someone from country A travels to country B and uses a computer to gain access to information in country C without permission, and then distributes that information from a computer in country D to people in country E, then I think just about any legal outcome is bizarre to some extent, including acquittal.
I agree that this outcome should cause people to stop and think about whether justice is really being done here, but the other side of the argument is that it's actually digital technology which is making our intuitions fail, and the justice system is just trying to catch up with that.
If someone from country A travels to country B and uses a computer to gain access to information in country C without permission, and then distributes that information from a computer in country D to people in country E, then I think just about any legal outcome is bizarre to some extent, including acquittal.
I agree that this outcome should cause people to stop and think about whether justice is really being done here
If you get to this point and now wonder whether justice is being done, you haven't been paying attention or following it for a while.
None of this is about justice.
It's about powerful people trying to deny themselves truth/reality to maintain their illusory identity. They bought into the "truth, justice and the american way" and got caught out.
Assange enabled the world to see their nation behaving as they do, not as they wanted to be seen, with the added irony that it was through collateral damage of their own journalists being blown away by a trigger happy numbskulled armed forces member out of control.
Cue Jack Nicholson saying "You can't handle the truth!" - they can't.
Making Assange guilty in any way possible is the only way 'the system' can make itself feel better about itself.
All the laws and technicalities and ridiculous court theatre are just part of the sad misdirection show. The 'interpretations of law', bizarre courtroom requirements and treatment show that Assange was actually right to fear his situation.
The fact they gamed the system to get a specific judge to preside over the trial while at the same time denying nearly all public eyeballs from actually being in the room whilst the case was being heard just shows how far they're willing to go to try to reinforce their self-righteous identity.
As I said in another post: The US want to apply US law somewhere other than the US to someone who is not a US citizen. They can fuck off. And that's from someone who thinks 'the law' (or application thereof) is a crock of shit a lot of the time even if there were some well meaning intentions made back in the day.
There's something very ominous about the line "The truth does not matter, there is only the power of men" in the trailer for the upcoming movie The Last Duel.
If you get to this point and now wonder whether justice is being done, you haven't been paying attention or following it for a while.
None of this is about justice.
It's about powerful people trying to deny themselves truth/reality to maintain their illusory identity. They bought into the "truth, justice and the american way" and got caught out.
Assange enabled the world to see their nation behaving as they do, not as they wanted to be seen, with the added irony that it was through collateral damage of their own journalists being blown away by a trigger happy numbskulled armed forces member out of control.
Cue Jack Nicholson saying "You can't handle the truth!" - they can't.
Making Assange guilty in any way possible is the only way 'the system' can make itself feel better about itself.
All the laws and technicalities and ridiculous court theatre are just part of the sad misdirection show. The 'interpretations of law', bizarre courtroom requirements and treatment show that Assange was actually right to fear his situation.
The fact they gamed the system to get a specific judge to preside over the trial while at the same time denying nearly all public eyeballs from actually being in the room whilst the case was being heard just shows how far they're willing to go to try to reinforce their self-righteous identity.
As I said in another post: The US want to apply US law somewhere other than the US to someone who is not a US citizen. They can fuck off. And that's from someone who thinks 'the law' (or application thereof) is a crock of shit a lot of the time even if there were some well meaning intentions made back in the day.
There's something very ominous about the line "The truth does not matter, there is only the power of men" in the trailer for the upcoming movie The Last Duel.
Assange is accused of helping someone steal classified information, and that is a legitimate judicial proceeding.
"with the added irony that it was through collateral damage of their own journalists being blown away by a trigger happy numbskulled armed forces member out of control."
This is false. The actions of the pilpot, though regrettable, were within the boundaries of operational limits in that situation.
What people have trouble processing is that those are the many unfortunate situations that can arise during conflict. Journalists have to be responsible for their own safety when not notifying friendly forces going directly into a combat zone wit an armed guard, lose markings, and no real way for any of the combatants to be sure of their status or intentions.
Your comments about 'making him guilty by any means possible' etc. are unsubstantiated. I'm sure there are many people who feel that way, but they don't need to act outside the boundaries of the law.
Assange has published a zillion things many of which were damaging to the US and he's not being charged over them. He's being charged for material intervention in the theft of classified information. The same thing would apply to you or I.
"with the added irony that it was through collateral damage of their own journalists being blown away by a trigger happy numbskulled armed forces member out of control."
This is false. The actions of the pilpot, though regrettable, were within the boundaries of operational limits in that situation.
What people have trouble processing is that those are the many unfortunate situations that can arise during conflict. Journalists have to be responsible for their own safety when not notifying friendly forces going directly into a combat zone wit an armed guard, lose markings, and no real way for any of the combatants to be sure of their status or intentions.
Your comments about 'making him guilty by any means possible' etc. are unsubstantiated. I'm sure there are many people who feel that way, but they don't need to act outside the boundaries of the law.
Assange has published a zillion things many of which were damaging to the US and he's not being charged over them. He's being charged for material intervention in the theft of classified information. The same thing would apply to you or I.
though regrettable, were within the boundaries of operational limits
Bullshit. That's the equivalent of the police force or government investigating themselves and finding no wrongdoing.
The law is just a bunch of sentences in books. Its the fair application and enforcement of it that makes it worth anything.
He's being charged for material intervention in the theft of classified information.
zealously, because:
Assange has published a zillion things many of which were damaging to the US and he's not being charged over them.
- because he easily couldn't be. It doesn't mean that they're not out to get him for that. They definitely are, they're pursuing it via alternative routes.
Bullshit. That's the equivalent of the police force or government investigating themselves and finding no wrongdoing.
The law is just a bunch of sentences in books. Its the fair application and enforcement of it that makes it worth anything.
He's being charged for material intervention in the theft of classified information.
zealously, because:
Assange has published a zillion things many of which were damaging to the US and he's not being charged over them.
- because he easily couldn't be. It doesn't mean that they're not out to get him for that. They definitely are, they're pursuing it via alternative routes.
> It's about powerful people trying to deny themselves truth/reality to maintain their illusory identity
Like Assange fighting to not stand trial?
Like Assange fighting to not stand trial?
Don't you get the fact that there _is_ a trial is actually a key part of the problem?
If someone from country A travels to country B and uses an informant to gain access to information in country C without permission, and then distributes that information through a telegraph in country D to people in country E, then I think just about any legal outcome is bizarre to some extent, including acquittal.
Why is "but on a computer" your focal line of reasoning here and not "distributes information"?
If someone from country A distributes highly inconvenient but true information about country B, then is apprehended by country C, I think just about any legal outcome except acquittal is a gross miscarriage of justice.
Why is "but on a computer" your focal line of reasoning here and not "distributes information"?
If someone from country A distributes highly inconvenient but true information about country B, then is apprehended by country C, I think just about any legal outcome except acquittal is a gross miscarriage of justice.
This is the crux here: whatever Assange did, he did it out of US jurisdiction. Unless we accept that US jurisdiction span well beyond their borders, and we don't even care about the illusion of sovereignty outside superpowers.
And that's if we can establish that Assange did anything more than normal investigative journalism.
And that's if we can establish that Assange did anything more than normal investigative journalism.
> Unless we accept that US jurisdiction span well beyond their borders
Hypothetically, if an Italian citizen, living in Italy, hired an American hitman to kill someone in the US, would it be unjust for the US government to ask the Italian government to extradite the Italian?
Hypothetically, if an Italian citizen, living in Italy, hired an American hitman to kill someone in the US, would it be unjust for the US government to ask the Italian government to extradite the Italian?
Two things. First, in your hypothetical the crime and I believe the hiring take place in America, while if memory serves Manning was in Afghanistan during their communication.
Second, Italy presumably has a law against hiring hitmen. Printing classified US documents is unlikely to violate any Italian law.
Second, Italy presumably has a law against hiring hitmen. Printing classified US documents is unlikely to violate any Italian law.
It seems unlikely that Italy doesn’t have any legal protections for government secrets. I don’t think it’s so clear that the “dual criminality” requirement would only be satisfied if Italy had laws against publishing documents classified by the US government. You could try to argue that, but it seems a rather pedantic semantic argument.
I also wouldn’t necessarily assume that Italian law only covers Italian government documents. For example, the Official Secrets Act in the UK can apply to intelligence information more broadly in some cases.
Anyway, extradition cases like this tend to raise quite complex legal issues, and the way the law works isn’t always very intuitive or in line with what you might think is fair and just.
I also wouldn’t necessarily assume that Italian law only covers Italian government documents. For example, the Official Secrets Act in the UK can apply to intelligence information more broadly in some cases.
Anyway, extradition cases like this tend to raise quite complex legal issues, and the way the law works isn’t always very intuitive or in line with what you might think is fair and just.
It's not uncommon for countries to claim jurisdiction outside their borders. For example, you can be prosecuted in France for killing a French person anywhere in the world.
The US certainly claims the most extraterritorial jurisdiction, though.
The US certainly claims the most extraterritorial jurisdiction, though.
You can be prosecuted in the US for paying a bribe or having sex with a minor outside of the US.
It is hardly some unique thing. Many countries prosecute child sex tourism and paying bribes, even though no crime occurs inside their borders.
It is hardly some unique thing. Many countries prosecute child sex tourism and paying bribes, even though no crime occurs inside their borders.
Presumably the "you" in question would have to be an American resident though, which Assange is not and never has been.
If Person A steals from (or rapes, murders etc.) entity B, then the nullification of their crime by some kind of international legal quagmire would be a miscarriage of justice.
The question is whether or not Assange materially participated in the theft of classified information from the US government.
I'm sure if US citizens stole from the German government or private entity, they would respect the legitimacy of the German governments concerns.
This is why we have at least some international laws and legal conventions and this issue should see it's day in court, after which, we'll have to see how well the proceedings went, and what kind of evidence is brought to light.
The question is whether or not Assange materially participated in the theft of classified information from the US government.
I'm sure if US citizens stole from the German government or private entity, they would respect the legitimacy of the German governments concerns.
This is why we have at least some international laws and legal conventions and this issue should see it's day in court, after which, we'll have to see how well the proceedings went, and what kind of evidence is brought to light.
I mentioned "a computer" to highlight the fact that the person was never physically in "country C", but you're right that in this specific case the jurisdictional questions are made more complicated by the (alleged) involvement of an accomplice who was physically present in country C.
I suppose, from the prosecution's perspective, the involvement of an accomplice may make the jurisdictional questions more simple, but I still think that if a computer has been accessed illegally and classified government documents have been leaked by a citizen, all with the help of a non-citizen, then at least some people would find it bizarre if the non-citizen wasn't considered legally culpable.
I suppose, from the prosecution's perspective, the involvement of an accomplice may make the jurisdictional questions more simple, but I still think that if a computer has been accessed illegally and classified government documents have been leaked by a citizen, all with the help of a non-citizen, then at least some people would find it bizarre if the non-citizen wasn't considered legally culpable.
No, it is just a "show" process. The purpose is not to serve justice but to silence opposition.
> the US government will let him serve his sentence in an Australian prison
This just creates a situation where a criminal is deported to their home nation with an agreememt with said nation that they serve their prison time there. Nothing really that bizare at all.
This just creates a situation where a criminal is deported to their home nation with an agreememt with said nation that they serve their prison time there. Nothing really that bizare at all.
You don't find an agreement to deport someone who isn't a resident bizarre? And presumably these deportations involve detention for things that would also be crimes in the "home" country. Would publishing classified US documents violate Australian law?
Not really. If I were a citizen of Russia, hacked the US government from there, and entered a country with an extradition treaty with the US (eg UK) I would expect to be extradited to the US.
Taking computers out of the mix, if I ran a fraud ring from Russia defrauding US citizens of their money, I would expect a similar outcome.
Taking computers out of the mix, if I ran a fraud ring from Russia defrauding US citizens of their money, I would expect a similar outcome.
>I would expect to be extradited to the US.
But you wouldn't expect the US to agree to deport you back to Russia as part of the extradition assurance.
But you wouldn't expect the US to agree to deport you back to Russia as part of the extradition assurance.
I'm not a lawyer so I don't know the specifics of whether this is weird or not. Generally, my impression is that in these kinds of cases the government has quite a bit of latitude in structuring the agreement almost however they want because they're negotiating with a party they have no authority over and they're seeking to get something out of it. I'm not really sure I'm following what you find so abnormal here.
If anything, this is an indictment that the US penal system is so badly structured that people have legitimate claims of concerns over inhumane treatment. That the federal government has ad-hoc legal workarounds they can employ is likely a feature & not a bug at this point. It lets us keep this medieval system as the stick which puts us in more favorable situations generally for negotiating extraditions. I'm not saying this is good or a just system. I'm just saying that, without hearing arguments from legal experts, this doesn't seem out of the ordinary & I could see how we've rationally arrived at the status quo.
If anything, this is an indictment that the US penal system is so badly structured that people have legitimate claims of concerns over inhumane treatment. That the federal government has ad-hoc legal workarounds they can employ is likely a feature & not a bug at this point. It lets us keep this medieval system as the stick which puts us in more favorable situations generally for negotiating extraditions. I'm not saying this is good or a just system. I'm just saying that, without hearing arguments from legal experts, this doesn't seem out of the ordinary & I could see how we've rationally arrived at the status quo.
Its actually more akin to being a french citizen hacking germany from thailand.
France and Germany are alies, both want to see said citizen punished. On completion of jail time the person would be deported anyway, so why not cut out a few steps and make the whole thing go a lot smoother. A bit of diplomacy behind the scenes to set it up saves years of back and forth defending their citizens rights while they are in jail in a foreign country, especially with high profile cases.
Australia have attempted this many times, bali nine for example, where they offered to jail them in australia, offered to pay life in prison costs, offered prisoner swaps, etc.
France and Germany are alies, both want to see said citizen punished. On completion of jail time the person would be deported anyway, so why not cut out a few steps and make the whole thing go a lot smoother. A bit of diplomacy behind the scenes to set it up saves years of back and forth defending their citizens rights while they are in jail in a foreign country, especially with high profile cases.
Australia have attempted this many times, bali nine for example, where they offered to jail them in australia, offered to pay life in prison costs, offered prisoner swaps, etc.
>Serving time in an Australian prison for violations of the US Espionage Act committed while in various European countries is a bizarre situation.
What is bizarre about agreements between governments?
What is bizarre about agreements between governments?
[deleted]
Its also just words, this is a mean old empire handing over a journalist to a mean new empire. PR-stunts like treatment assurances are basically not worth the paper they are printed on.
It reminds me of the scene in The Princess Bride where, once the Princess had left after getting assurances that Westley would be repatriated to his ship unharmed if he surrendered, the Prince told Westley, “Come Sir, we must get you to your ‘ship’.”
The DPR retorted, “We are both men of action; lies do not become us”.
“Well said,” replied the Prince.
I don’t mean to cheapen Assange’s predicament as I take it quite seriously and with the gravity it’s due, but these stories hold a mirror to our world.
The DPR retorted, “We are both men of action; lies do not become us”.
“Well said,” replied the Prince.
I don’t mean to cheapen Assange’s predicament as I take it quite seriously and with the gravity it’s due, but these stories hold a mirror to our world.
I'll forgive the author for not mentioning it because it's gone completely unmentioned in the Western media: the case against Julian Assange has collapsed completely. The prosecution's star witness, a convicted child molester, has walked back all of his original accusations.
https://archive.is/qNq8u
https://archive.is/qNq8u
I think it's unmentioned because it has nothing to do with the US appeal of the extradition ruling, which is the topic of the article.
And though I view the retraction as an important and under covered event, it does not collapse the case completely. The witness is only relevant to one of the eighteen charges against Assange, and even in that charge he was mostly used as a character witness to label Assange as a malicious hacker.
And though I view the retraction as an important and under covered event, it does not collapse the case completely. The witness is only relevant to one of the eighteen charges against Assange, and even in that charge he was mostly used as a character witness to label Assange as a malicious hacker.
It is definitely relevant, and the reason for all this legal "murk". The USG+SIGs don't have a good faith case against Assange, but want to punish him as much as possible. He's already where they want him--in and out of solitary confinement in a miserable 5EYES prison.
How is "The witness is only relevant to one of the eighteen charges against Assange, and even in that charge he was mostly used as a character witness to label Assange as a malicious hacker." logically congruent with "has nothing to do with the US appeal of the extradition ruling"?
Seems a pretty good contradiction, unless I'm missing something.
Seems a pretty good contradiction, unless I'm missing something.
The appeal has nothing to do with any of the charges, the extradition was denied based on humanitarian grounds. Basically the ruling was "yes the US has valid reason to extradite Assange, but that's likely to kill him so we won't extradite."
It's possible that they would not say the US has valid reason to extradite after the retraction, but unless the refusal is overruled, that doesn't matter.
It's possible that they would not say the US has valid reason to extradite after the retraction, but unless the refusal is overruled, that doesn't matter.
So, you are definining "nothing to do with" based on the assumed end result, and not... whether it had something to do with it?
It's a strange argument, but, ok, I guess? Thanks for clearing it up.
It's a strange argument, but, ok, I guess? Thanks for clearing it up.
> you are definining "nothing to do with" based on the assumed end result,
I have no clue how you've reached that conclusion. I'm saying this article is just about the extradition appeal, a decision that is being made regardless of what the charges are.
If the appeal is successful, the retraction will be important in the resumed extradition hearing. Articles about that possible hearing should definitely mention the retraction.
I have no clue how you've reached that conclusion. I'm saying this article is just about the extradition appeal, a decision that is being made regardless of what the charges are.
If the appeal is successful, the retraction will be important in the resumed extradition hearing. Articles about that possible hearing should definitely mention the retraction.
I'm still very confused by your argument. Maybe I'm missing some pieces. If this is an appeal based on a verdic related to X, then the appeal is also related to X. It seems disingenuous to imply otherwise.
"a decision that is being made regardless of what the charges are". Is the extradition not based on the charges? And is the appeal of the extradition then not also based on the charges?
If the charge was based on a staged witness, and the extradition was based on these charges. Is then not the appeal of extradition related to the staged witness?
"a decision that is being made regardless of what the charges are". Is the extradition not based on the charges? And is the appeal of the extradition then not also based on the charges?
If the charge was based on a staged witness, and the extradition was based on these charges. Is then not the appeal of extradition related to the staged witness?
The extradition ruling was that the charges were a valid reason to extradite, but for health concerns the extradition was rejected. The US then appealed the rejection claiming Assange's health could be guaranteed. The appeal does not mention the charges, and the judge will rule based solely on whether the US can show that the previous rejections based on health concerns was improper.
The article is entirely about that appeal, not the entire Assange extradition hearing. The retracted testimony has no bearing on the appeal, so when only writing about the appeal it is one of the many facts about the entire hearing that does not need to be mentioned.
My argument is just that this article discusses one tiny part of the entire process, and the charges are not relevant to that tiny part.
The article is entirely about that appeal, not the entire Assange extradition hearing. The retracted testimony has no bearing on the appeal, so when only writing about the appeal it is one of the many facts about the entire hearing that does not need to be mentioned.
My argument is just that this article discusses one tiny part of the entire process, and the charges are not relevant to that tiny part.
I see. Thanks for your patience in explaining it to me.
The Stundin Report itself: https://stundin.is/grein/13627/
Still shipping prisoners to AUS, after all these years.
> the US government will let him serve his sentence in an Australian prison.
It did seem logical that the US would try to offer the minimum assurances necessary to satisfy the British judges.
One hypothetical that came to mind, though, was whether Biden could grant a pre-emptive commutation of his sentence. My understanding is that a president can issue a full pardon to someone who has not yet been indicted (let alone sentenced), but I'm not sure if there is a case of a president trying to commute a sentence that hasn't been issued yet.
This would seem to allow various philosophical questions to arise, such as issuing a commutation of "half" the sentence, before discovering that the sentence issued is "life imprisonment". Also, what would happen if a president stated that the sentence should be reduced by 10 years, but the commutee only ended up being given an 8 year sentence? Would the government then owe the commutee compensation for 2 years of unlawful (albeit notional) imprisonment?
Anyway, perhaps the best place to look for precedents here is a state governor pre-emptively granting a commutation of a death sentence to a defendant in a court case who had somehow won the sympathy of the public (possibly with an election coming up). I don't know if that has ever happened though.
It did seem logical that the US would try to offer the minimum assurances necessary to satisfy the British judges.
One hypothetical that came to mind, though, was whether Biden could grant a pre-emptive commutation of his sentence. My understanding is that a president can issue a full pardon to someone who has not yet been indicted (let alone sentenced), but I'm not sure if there is a case of a president trying to commute a sentence that hasn't been issued yet.
This would seem to allow various philosophical questions to arise, such as issuing a commutation of "half" the sentence, before discovering that the sentence issued is "life imprisonment". Also, what would happen if a president stated that the sentence should be reduced by 10 years, but the commutee only ended up being given an 8 year sentence? Would the government then owe the commutee compensation for 2 years of unlawful (albeit notional) imprisonment?
Anyway, perhaps the best place to look for precedents here is a state governor pre-emptively granting a commutation of a death sentence to a defendant in a court case who had somehow won the sympathy of the public (possibly with an election coming up). I don't know if that has ever happened though.
[deleted]
> The US has also agreed that ...
Wasn't it shown the US has broken it's previous promises to the UK government about other people that have been extradited? eg medical care, housing, etc.
Being that's the case, it doesn't really make any sense to believe these promises would be upheld either.
Wasn't it shown the US has broken it's previous promises to the UK government about other people that have been extradited? eg medical care, housing, etc.
Being that's the case, it doesn't really make any sense to believe these promises would be upheld either.
That would be a reasonable argument against accepting the extradition on the basis of those assurances, but not a reasonable argument against at least hearing the assurances - which is what the appeal will do.
And I can't help but notice that their assurance of treatment does not rule out any other maximum security prisons nor any alternative restrictions on correspondence.
Still, these assurances suggest that the US's goal is more likely precedent than revenge. While it make it less likely Assange will be killed, its still a major attack against the freedom of the press.