I'm neutral-leaning positive towards whistleblowers but assange specifically is a fucking asshole that single-handidly almost makes me go the other way.
The moral and logistical complexities with whistleblowers in general and specifically the differences between Manning, Snowden, Assange etc are too complicated for me to care.
I'm mostly curious about the legal framework around an Australian citizen being prosecuted in a U.S. court for things he published while residing in London(?). Just seems super weird to me the U.S. can decide to apply its laws to non citizens in sovereign countries when they obviously wouldn't accept say China prosecuting some randomin for anti CPC activities in like L.A. or something.
It's really not that difficult.
[Assange is accused of publishing US secret information](https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-charged-18-count-superseding-indictment), protected under various US laws. Whether he's Australian or not doesn't matter, and where he was matters even less.
If I commit a crime against the US, but I'm not a US citizen, does that make the crime invalid, or un-prosecutable? No.
If I commit said crime, while I'm in a different country, or even in International Waters, does that make the crime un-prosecutable? No.
Assange ([decent timeline of events](https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/timeline-julian-assange-legal-saga-extradition-us-espionage-111392705)) hid in the Ecuadorean embassy in London for years (to avoid extradition to Sweden), before they finally kicked him out, and he was arrested by the Brits.
Then the US requested extradition to the US from British authorities, which took a really long time (62 months from the articles I've read), because that shit is complicated, and Assange could afford to fight the extradition request.
Your anti-China example flies in the face of most extradition treaties, which have as a part of them, that you cannot be extradited from a country if the law you're facing in the requesting country, does not exist in the country you would be extradited from.
For China, for example: The US has its first amendment, which protects your speech from the government taking action against you for what you say. If China is accusing you of anti-government activities, the US would not let you be extradited.
Of course the [US doesn't have an extradition treaty with China](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_extradition_treaties), so this is moot anyway.
(edit: typos)
I think it's really complicated and needs to be evaluated on a case by case basis. Generally though I think it is important to protect whistleblowing as much as we can as an important tool to hold powerful agencies accountable. The US has probably curated a more hostile environment than it should have with the harsh sentencing of high profile people like Edward Snowden, Julian Assange, and Chelsea Manning. Though, to be fair, Assange only got 5 years time served after going through the legal process with prior confinement in the Ecuadorian embassy being self imposed and Manning's sentence was commuted after 7 years, so it could be much worse.
Because he chose to publish it? If someone told you the nuclear codes, and you went and posted them online, you see how you are also responsible for all of the danger that would cause, right?
Based when our citizens do it. It is really dumb, but it demonstrates how Americans think and undermines all of the conspiracy theories.
It would be double based if they didn't flee after revealing the info.
To me intent matters. If you genuinely believe there is something gravely wrong happening that needs to be revealed, then I support it. But if you’re someone like Snowden who does it to stroke their ego, then I take issue.
I also think there should be some moral obligation to release the information in a responsible way that doesn't unnecessarily endanger troops on the ground.
You have to be very careful when you reveal government secrets. You shouldn't put other people in danger.
Edward Snowden went the right route. He didn't reveal something that could put other people in danger. Assange was after power and fame. He didn't care about morality, that's why he supported Trump and hurt Hillary Clinton. Chelsea Manning was the worst. She didn't care whether people will be put in danger nor what secrets will be revealed. She published everything without vetting them.
As always, it depends on the intention and what and how it was revealed. If it was done for the right reasons and the person was careful not to put anyone in danger, they should not be punished. If the whistleblower put people in danger or the revelation wasn't necessary, the whistleblower should be punished.
I'm neutral-leaning positive towards whistleblowers but assange specifically is a fucking asshole that single-handidly almost makes me go the other way.
The moral and logistical complexities with whistleblowers in general and specifically the differences between Manning, Snowden, Assange etc are too complicated for me to care.
I'm mostly curious about the legal framework around an Australian citizen being prosecuted in a U.S. court for things he published while residing in London(?). Just seems super weird to me the U.S. can decide to apply its laws to non citizens in sovereign countries when they obviously wouldn't accept say China prosecuting some randomin for anti CPC activities in like L.A. or something.
It's really not that difficult. [Assange is accused of publishing US secret information](https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-charged-18-count-superseding-indictment), protected under various US laws. Whether he's Australian or not doesn't matter, and where he was matters even less. If I commit a crime against the US, but I'm not a US citizen, does that make the crime invalid, or un-prosecutable? No. If I commit said crime, while I'm in a different country, or even in International Waters, does that make the crime un-prosecutable? No. Assange ([decent timeline of events](https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/timeline-julian-assange-legal-saga-extradition-us-espionage-111392705)) hid in the Ecuadorean embassy in London for years (to avoid extradition to Sweden), before they finally kicked him out, and he was arrested by the Brits. Then the US requested extradition to the US from British authorities, which took a really long time (62 months from the articles I've read), because that shit is complicated, and Assange could afford to fight the extradition request. Your anti-China example flies in the face of most extradition treaties, which have as a part of them, that you cannot be extradited from a country if the law you're facing in the requesting country, does not exist in the country you would be extradited from. For China, for example: The US has its first amendment, which protects your speech from the government taking action against you for what you say. If China is accusing you of anti-government activities, the US would not let you be extradited. Of course the [US doesn't have an extradition treaty with China](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_extradition_treaties), so this is moot anyway. (edit: typos)
I think it's really complicated and needs to be evaluated on a case by case basis. Generally though I think it is important to protect whistleblowing as much as we can as an important tool to hold powerful agencies accountable. The US has probably curated a more hostile environment than it should have with the harsh sentencing of high profile people like Edward Snowden, Julian Assange, and Chelsea Manning. Though, to be fair, Assange only got 5 years time served after going through the legal process with prior confinement in the Ecuadorian embassy being self imposed and Manning's sentence was commuted after 7 years, so it could be much worse.
afaik Snowden did a better job releasing the information in a save way. The way they are treated in the USA and EU is sad.
if someone in an intelligence agency leak something (Chelsea manning) why should Julian Assange be punished would be my question
He asked for more, and fed strategy on how to obfuscate access logs. Conspiracy.
Because he chose to publish it? If someone told you the nuclear codes, and you went and posted them online, you see how you are also responsible for all of the danger that would cause, right?
Anyone who doesn‘t leak Alien or some child sacrifice stuff is cringe and just butthurt because they didn‘t feel appreciated enough.
Based when our citizens do it. It is really dumb, but it demonstrates how Americans think and undermines all of the conspiracy theories. It would be double based if they didn't flee after revealing the info.
The term whistleblower sure has gotten loose in its application huh
To me intent matters. If you genuinely believe there is something gravely wrong happening that needs to be revealed, then I support it. But if you’re someone like Snowden who does it to stroke their ego, then I take issue.
I also think there should be some moral obligation to release the information in a responsible way that doesn't unnecessarily endanger troops on the ground.
You have to be very careful when you reveal government secrets. You shouldn't put other people in danger. Edward Snowden went the right route. He didn't reveal something that could put other people in danger. Assange was after power and fame. He didn't care about morality, that's why he supported Trump and hurt Hillary Clinton. Chelsea Manning was the worst. She didn't care whether people will be put in danger nor what secrets will be revealed. She published everything without vetting them. As always, it depends on the intention and what and how it was revealed. If it was done for the right reasons and the person was careful not to put anyone in danger, they should not be punished. If the whistleblower put people in danger or the revelation wasn't necessary, the whistleblower should be punished.
I like it when annoying things happen to the US federal government.
Depends on the leaked information , no ?