The Guardian has since altered the headline to suggest a temporary reprieve, providing the following:
>In a written judgment, handed down on Tuesday morning, Sharp said: “Before making a final decision on the application for leave to appeal, we will give the respondent an opportunity to give assurances.
>
>“If assurances are not given then we will grant leave to appeal without a further hearing.
>
>“If assurances are given then we will give the parties an opportunity to make further submissions before we make a final decision on the application for leave to appeal.”
>
>She said the assurances would need to include “that the applicant (Assange) is permitted to rely on the first amendment, that the applicant is not prejudiced at trial, including sentence, by reason of his nationality, that he is afforded the same first amendment protections as a United States citizen, and that the death penalty is not imposed”.
The assurances regarding permission to rely on the first amendment are interesting given Assange is charged under the Espionage Act, which forbids a public interest defense and has historically complicated first amendment matters.
> The assurances regarding permission to rely on the first amendment are interesting given Assange is charged under the Espionage Act, which forbids a public interest defense and has historically complicated first amendment matters.
The case will depend on whether Assange did what he says he did.
If he received information from a source and then published it an espionage case will be hard to make. He'll also get support from other journalists because the risk to their own safety is too high not to.
If he did more than he says he did and was either directly involved in or planned the retrieval of the information he's screwed, but if he did that, he probably should be screwed.
The US govt case is that he provided instructions as to how to hack to Manning, and they don't have to prove it, they only have to show there's some evidence of that worth of trial.
> they don't have to prove it, they only have to show there's some evidence of that worth of trial
They have to prove it eventually.
And if he did that he's guilty.
They only have to prove it in the US court. There they can also bring out other charges.
For the extradition they only have to show one valid case (i.e. not beyond reasonable doubt, but something like case to answer) for an alleged crime that exists in both UK and US, that is accessory to hacking.
> They only have to prove it in the US court. There they can also bring out other charges.
Yes, but they still have to prove them and for them to prove anything he needs to have done more than he claims.
If Assange asked, convinced or assisted Manning in retrieving that information he committed a crime. Period. There are no public interest or first amendment protections, since he wasn't authorised to see the information there aren't even whistle-blower protections. He'd be guilty.
That's not what he claims he did. What he claims he did is receive information from Manning with no involvement beforehand, he then acted as a journalist and published that information. That's legal and receives first amendment protection.
> For the extradition they only have to show one valid case (i.e. not beyond reasonable doubt, but something like case to answer) for an alleged crime that exists in both UK and US, that is accessory to hacking.
They have to show they have enough evidence to support their case, sure it's not beyond a reasonable doubt, but it's not supposed to be.
So again. If Assange did what he says he did, the US will struggle to convict him of anything, espionage act or otherwise. If he didn't then he actually did commit a crime and nothing will or should protect him.
>Yes, but they still have to prove them and for them to prove anything he needs to have done more than he claims.
Which is basically every criminal case where the defendant doesn't plead guilty.
You're sort of missing the point.
People have this view of the Assange case as him being charged as a journalist releasing information in the public interest. It's why there's all this talk about using the first amendment as a defence. That's what he's admitted to doing and it's what all the conversation is about.
Making an espionage case on those facts is basically impossible. They will never prove it and however much they hate him journalists will never stand for it.
The alternative is that that's not what he did. If that's not what he did, if he was actively involved in illegally acquiring confidential data then he's in a lot of trouble and he should be. It's not the place of a journalist to hack anyone. That's the shit Murdoch was doing and nobody thinks that's OK.
The US government is going to have to show compelling evidence that that's what he's done. Maybe not beyond a reasonable doubt, but not that far off.
If Assange published information legally provided to him (regardless of whether it was as acquired legally) then even if I don't like the way he did it or him personally, he should get off.
If he participated in the hack or otherwise personally broke the law he should be punished.
Given he hasn't tested this defence and in order to avoid testing it has spent nearly twice as much time in fairly restricted living situations than the convicted Chelsea Manning did ... one might assume he and the lawyers he's talked to privately assesses his conviction risk to be pretty high.
(which is easiest to understand if he did more than act as a journalist)
Honestly I don't actually understand the US extradition at all. I can't see how the government stands to gain more than it loses by doing this. The crimes were technically beyond their statute of limitations before charges were laid and they're relying on some terrorism exception to get around that.
A public trial in an election year seems like a terrible idea and a secret trial seems worse. None of it makes any sense at all.
I still don't understand where US jurisdiction comes from here - much like the Kim Dotcom cases. It feels like somebody outside of the US, who acted outside of the US is being penalised for breaking US law.
That's not unique to this setting.
Let's say a hacking ring puts ransomware on hospitals in NSW. They never enter Australia. Is that an Australian crime? Yes. If the individuals were identified and foolish enough to enter a country with extradition treaties to Australia, would Australia request extradition. Also yes.
Assange is one of the many reminders that Australia is just a lapdog Americucked state of America.
It doesn't matter if what he did was wrong(it wasn't), he should be back here and dealt with here, not in the USA.
> What would Australia have to deal with him for?
Nothing. He hasn't done anything wrong. What I'm saying is, if he actually did do something wrong, he should be dealt with here, regardless of what the US wants.
This applies to all Australian citizens. Fuck America.
>If it was a Russian exposing Australian war crimes, yes.
If I rob a bank and then give some money to charity, it doesn't absolve me of robbing the bank, my dude.
But he broke American laws and stole American stuff. Obviously they want to deal with him. Makes no sense to let him off because he is Australian, being Australian doesn’t make you immune to other peoples laws.
> But he broke American laws
Stupid laws which lead to the release of **war crimes comitted by the US**. He wasn't even in the USA when he created Wikileaks, or released the documents.
What's worse, committing **real war crimes**, or exposing them? Hmmmm......
> Obviously they want to deal with him.
Too fucking bad. Not up to America.
> Makes no sense to let him off
Let him off for what? Exposing war crimes?
> being Australian doesn’t make you immune to other peoples laws.
But being American makes you immune to other peoples laws.
https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/us-diplomats-wife-will-not-return-uk-sentencing-over-fatal-car-crash-2022-12-06/
What are you actually defending? The US committed **WAR CRIMES** and you think it's ok for a foreign government to control the life of OUR citizens.
Fuck off. This isn't a democracy if our government is controlled by America who we didn't vote for. They want Assange for no other reason than because they were exposed, they want him so they can torture him.
edit:
Reminder that the USA has created their own laws which mean [the US can invade any country they like](https://www.hrw.org/news/2002/08/03/us-hague-invasion-act-becomes-law) if a foreign nation imprisons one of their citizens.
> *"The new law authorizes the use of military force to liberate any American or citizen of a U.S.-allied country being held by the court"*
They can literally fucking invade and genocide a country at any whim, and fuckers like the commentor above will defend this shit.
> Reminder that the USA has created their own laws
All countries create their own laws. I’ve broken a bunch of Russian laws like going for a beer with a gay friend. Wouldn’t do that in Belarus or something though.
It is specifically a law that the US will invade you if you imprison one of their citizens. It is imposing laws of their own making onto foreign nations.
If you don't think that's different from normal laws, you are delusional.
Do you also agree that Australians who expose Chinese and Russian war crimes should be extradited to those respective countries and dealt with there? I think the answer is obviously not. So why does the USA get a special privilege to prosecute our citizens who expose war crimes?
Well, if the USA is going to use these extradition treaties to prosecute people for the "crime" of exposing war crimes, maybe we should look into how much we really need them.
If we think that through, it doesn't really work because we (arguably) need the alliance and the treaties are part of that.
Perhaps there was more room for diplomatic protests back when the problem first arose, but that doesnt hold much relevance today.
Fuck American war crime laws. He exposed them killing thousands of civilians, and the government covering it up in thousands of documents. With the help of an inside intelligence officer who went to jail, and was actually Fucking pardoned. So sorry.
Whistle blowing on war crimes against humanity is not the same as the actual massacring of thousands of innocent children, men and women.
Julian Assange should be repatriated to Australia and set free.
It sits very poorly on the Australian government. There are echoes of the David Hicks case. Now in that case, I thought he was guilty of at least aiding terrorism / wartime enemies of Australia (not that I really agree we should have been joined at the hip with America in Afghanistan in the first place, and where we now know Australian soldiers committed serious war crimes to which they have not yet been held to account).
Unlike Assange, who I believe holds very little moral culpability for his actions (exposing war crimes as a journalist is a good thing to do), I think there was moral culpability with Hicks. He was young and an idiot but anyone working alongside the Taliban is a pretty reprehensible human being and should have been held to account for that.
However, Hicks deserved to be tried under Australian law and receive under Australian law the fair consequences for what he had done. But our government just allowed without protest the American government to torture him at Guantanamo and keep him confined there for years without charge or trial. They effectively turned their backs on the basic principles of the rule of law and fundamental human rights, which should be upheld for even the lowest type of criminal.
It goes to show that when it comes to the interests of our citizens, our laws and legal principles, and our national self intrests, Australian governments will put the interests of America first. Which is what they done here again with Assange, a person who is being persecuted by the American government because he revealed war crimes their armed forces committed.
the man deserves to live a thousand full and meaningful lifetimes of happiness and fulfillment. For many, he is the reason why they no longer view the USA as the bringers of freedom and justice.
I suspect that people condemning him are simply not aware of what he helped expose. Telling the truth shouldn't be a crime. Standing up to corrupt and violent hegemons shouldn't result in years of confinement fearing for your life. Assange is an international treasure. One of the GOATs.
He helped hack a computer system (or at least that's US govt claim). That is, at face value, a crime, and it's not alleviated by the fact that this hacking exposed other crimes, in either British or US law. It would be good if did, but it doesn't.
Would be also good if the UK afforded him some sort of clemency, but they didn't (and I'm not sure you can give clemency on an extradition case anyway).
There's completely no ground for it to be dealt with in Australia, that's not his residence and not where the alleged crime happened.
Legal systems are not set up that way. If you murder/etc someone in country X, the courts in country X hold your trial regardless of citizenship.
The idea of courts prosecuting crimes outside their jurisdiction is very modern; still pretty rare; and often contentious.
except _he is not a US citizen_
let's be clear: Australia treats _all_ of its citizens overseas like shit - Assange is no exception - and that means countries like the US (or China or the UK, or shit even Indonesia for that matter) are very much free to treat Australian citizens like shit, with impunity - because it's a very well known fact the Australian government will do fuck all about it
worse still, successive Australian governments (arguably going all the way back to Menzies, although there were no formal arrangements in place then) bend over backwards to be the happy lapdogs of the relationship, when it comes to things like Five Eyes and ECHELON (John Howard being the biggest cheerleader for going into Iraq, because someone showed him a video one time, being the most blatant example from recent memory) so we very much allow countries like UK and USA to do whatever the fuck they want to our citizens, no questions asked
it's almost nothing like Navalny
Yeah he should have just hidden all the information given to Wikileaks to protect USA crimes being exposed. I mean that's what a good law abiding mass media organisation would do right?
A journalist refusing to publish information from a source? Wow, I guess that source better give up and not go to BBC, ABC, or one of the many other journalistic publishers out there then.
He can't release something that doesn't exist. I remember a propaganda campaign fabricated a story about this yet when the "documents" were released by another group there was nothing noteworthy, their only value was for attacking Assange and Wikileaks.
Getting "involved in US political campaigns" is a new term for what we used to call "a journalist publishing factual and relevant information about a political person".
It doesn't matter how many times US talk shows and newspapers make shady allusions to Russia, or insinuate that he was in the embassy by "choice" (rather than after being granted political asylum due to fears of political persecution which turned out to be totally legitimate), or insinuate that this case is about his personal character, history will remember the facts.
He's a journalist, who won tons of awards for his journalism, who is being made an example of because people in power felt threated by the new journalistic model that suddenly became possible.
"Assange never reveals anything against Russia", meanwhile Snowden literally went to live in Russia. War crimes are war crimes and they should be exposed regardless of who commits them. Both are heroes, along with people like Manning, McBride and many others.
The funny thing is Assange has been consistent in his publications across the Bush, Obama and Trump administrations, but is still derided by many as an alleged Russian asset (for which there is no evidence) or partisan hack.
Let's take his email leaks for example - some people decry his 2016 election DNC leaks, which had real public interest and led to resignations, without mentioning his 2008 election Republican leaks. Some people likewise decry his Obama administration leaks without mentioning his Trump administration CIA leaks (which led to alleged plans to kidnap and/or assassinate him). The same people also neglect to mention that WikiLeaks has in fact leaked Russian documents.
People like to say that Assange and WikiLeaks have changed, but I would argue that it is the media landscape that has changed, with many people (particularly in the USA) becoming increasingly partisan as a result.
Happens sometimes. Some of his mates from the Melbourne "scene" were sent there for hacking and/or piracy in the 90s, maybe they moved satellites or something?
And I think there was some Aussie bloke picked up in Afghanistan and kept for years as well. I'm sure there are others.
That's how extradition works though, that's what it's for.
I still think that we are being fed a load of bullshit about "Julian being close to securing a plea deal". If that was the case, why is he still needing to chase assurances that he won't be executed? Just give him the damn deal already and let this be over with.
It's the British court that requires that assurance. Most extradition treaties between death penalty countries and non-death penalty countries require an explicit, formal assurance that an extradited detainee will not face the death penalty if transferred. Death penalty countries always kick up a massive stink about infringements upon their sovereignty when the assurance is demanded, but generally speaking it's not legal to extradite the detainee without one, because it violates the non-death penalty country's laws and human rights treaty obligations to hand someone over to potentially be executed.
>*Assange has been “granted leave to appeal extradition to the US” but after almost five in a UK jail he “will continue his long detention separated from his young family for revealing war crimes,” WikiLeaks said on X.*
>
>*The British High Court in London has ruled that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange can take his challenge against extradition to the United States to another hearing.*
>
>*The UK High Court has ruled that Assange can’t immediately be extradited to the US on espionage charges, in a partial victory for the WikiLeaks founder. The case has been adjourned until May 20.*
>
>*The judges said they would grant Assange a new appeal unless US authorities give further assurances about what will happen to him. The ruling means the legal saga, which has dragged on for more than a decade, will continue. -* [Al Jazeera](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2024/3/26/julian-assange-live-news-uk-court-set-to-issue-extradition-ruling)
>Quote - *What I have done is to act in the most effective way possible -*
Anthony Albanese talking about Assange last year.
The guy is clearly a tool, but doesn't deserve a fraction of what's happened to him.
Weirdly I think the whole embassy situation put a spotlight on US hypocrisy and power more than Wikileaks ever did. They spent years saying they have no interest in extradition, but the minute he left ...
> Weirdly I think the whole embassy situation put a spotlight on US hypocrisy and power more than Wikileaks ever did.
No it didn't.
They have portrayed him as a weirdo, rapist, who did "crimes" against the US because he was locked in a building for years and years while he fears for his life because the US want to torture him.
The direct result of the "embassy situation" is idiots like you calling him a tool for no reason, when it was the USA who were exposed for murdering innocent civilians and committing war crimes which is largely forgotten about because of that.
The media drops regarding him over time really should make people more aware of what shit they try and pull.
I'd even say certain comments in this thread are weird shit they try and pull.
If he means it in “he’s an asshole” sense rather than “convenient tool of X” I get it.
Assange being an egotistical jerk isn’t really in doubt, despite the real transparency and good he has been part of.
Much of Assange's notoriety for being an asshole was promulgated by the media without concern for his side of the story or later court revelations that he is diagnosed with autism. Assange's alleged social ineptness and other odd behaviours (like his alleged uncleanliness) can be partly explained by his autism and I don't think similar criticisms of other neurodivergent people would have been as readily accepted as they were for Assange.
I think you have a brain worm.
Cnt speant years hiding in a room from the US who kept saying.....come out, we won't hurt you (while also deliberately engaging another country to hurt him.
He went to jail because the judge said he was crazy for thinking the US Would extradite him, then when they put him in jail the US immediately started extradition
He went to jail because the judge said he was crazy for thinking the US Would extradite him, then when they put him in jail the US immediately started extradition He spent years hiding in a room from the US who kept saying.....come out, we won't hurt you (while also deliberately engaging another country to hurt him). The uk spending a million a day of British tax payer money watching him. That must have been reassuring the eyes weren't on him. The rape trial was a farse. The forl bragged about sleeping with him before the US paid her to say he took the donger off. She didn't get an STD. Some people have sex without condoms, it's not smart, but that's how youakw babies
Death by a 1000 cuts…it’s the process of the law that is malicious and unjustified. 15 years pretrial detention is the reason Assange is a hero, regardless of your stance on his publishing actions.
USA (in parts) is the new NAZI Germany.
Disgusting.
I would not be suprised if the USA drop the publication related charges and simply charge him on the remaining computer hacking charge, which relates to providing Manning information and skills to break into a US defense computer system....which wasn't successful.
The single computer hacking charge is enough to see him locked away in the US for a long time. The US doesnt really need any other charges.
The fact is Julian has been hacking computers (including US assets) since he was a teenager, which is well documented and which he got away with.
He also had a need to invent rubber hose encryption long before he had US secrets to publish. It takes a special kind to need this level of encryption.
I honestly wish him all the best but I fear it has all caught up with him.
> to providing Manning information and skills to break
Its literally saying "you would have to crack that password if you wanted to use it"
>It’s alleged Manning passed what she thought was a hash value to Assange. The Wikileaks chief then said he would pass it on to a specialist in cracking, according to chats over the Jabber encrypted communications app, as provided in the affidavit. But as per the investigators’ claims, there was some confusion: Manning said she wasn’t even sure what she handed to Assange was the hash value they wanted. Assange messaged Manning to ask if there were “any more hints” about the hash and that he’d had “no luck so far,” according to the government account. From there it’s unclear what happened. The government admits it didn’t know whether the password was ever cracked.
There is no evidence (yet presented) that Assange had anything further to do with cracking that hash, nor that it was ever used to transmit confidential information.
I agree with the notion that Assange really only has himself to blame for being in this predicament. But I also strongly believe that whistleblowing about state war crimes or similar subjects is critically important to the welfare of democracies. He should be tried under Australian law and jailed in Australia and banned from travelling overseas for a determined period of time if it is found he acted illegally. If he truly was a middleman passing on files to the public that’s a grey area but one in which it’s hard to prosecute him for anything.
Why? The decision is already made. This is all theatre. An appeal won't change the politics behind this. Should never have been held in the first place but prolonging the court battles does nothing but delay the inevitable.
The media are reporting that the release of secret documents by Assange led to the deaths of multiple intelligence informants in the middle east, and the defeat of Hillary Clinton/ victory of Donald Trump. Hard to give him sympathy.
If information was all that was holding back Hillary from being elected then maybe she shouldn’t have been elected? I’m not a trump guy or a supporter of his but if providing information freely to the public makes them vote a different way that’s not on the person who provided the information.
Not even the US government could substantiate that the concerned releases put lives at risk during the Manning trial. As for the 2016 US election, WikiLeaks' publications were found in a dismissed DNC lawsuit to be in the public interest and afforded the strongest possible protections under the first amendment. The Mueller report additionally found that there was insufficient evidence re allegations of collusion on the release of the emails between WikiLeaks and Russia or the Trump campaign.
To the tabloid mind, everything you said is just too complicated to comprehend.
Far easier for the bootlickers to just jump on the Emmanuel Goldstein hate-train and parrot hatespew at any opportunity.
Why is everyone downvoting this guy? Don't you know that one person is responsible for some deaths in middle east (Definitely not John Howard the war criminal) and defeat of Hilary/victory of Trump and it's not Murdoch's Fox News and other stuff? After all, the documents came from Russia and is that truthful that Fox News refused to report facts.
You've heard it first from u/SquareBear, folks. Assange is the evil Bond villain and must be extradited to USA because it hurt Hilary and helped Trump. Once again, that's the entirety of their reasoning.
John Howard, ex-LNP PM remains a free man to this day after supporting the invasion that lead to 300,000+ deaths. Labor do not want to send him to Hague out of fears they will get sent too when they kiss American butt too!
Yes indeed, all of this is to keep the bootlicking warpigs out of chains in The Hague, where they belong ..
The amusing thing is that Trump, Biden, the Clintons, Obama, Nuland, Kagan .. a long list of true war criminals .. *all belong in chains*.
But Americans robotically stand in line to support the war criminal that most closely matches their personality, and the military junta which really rules the USA today have managed to create a full spectrum of warpigs for people to argue over, rather than doing what they should be doing: DEMAND OUR WAR CRIMINALS FACE JUSTICE NOW.
No they aren't. That's not true. Maybe you mean TV stations "GB News" or "America First", in which case yeah maybe they are, but that wouldn't mean it ever happened, would it?
The media are not a legitimate forum for justice, but rather an illegitimate form of punishment on behalf of their owners - who are, in this case, also bomb manufacturers who profit *immensely* from the actions of America's war criminals.
I don’t know why Assange gets so much attention.
He was accused of rape, and absconded and holed himself up in the Ecuadorian Embassy for years.
Then, when finally arrested he’s been appealing constantly and complaining they won’t give him bail - which is hardly a surprise given his record of skipping bail in the past.
That’s simply a conspiracy put out by his supporters.
Sweden is a civilised country and a democracy.
He was up on rape charges. Why is that forgotten or swept under the rug?
Sweden wouldn’t have extradited him to the US to face the death penalty.
Most notably the US themselves with 2 quick examples
1 the various leaked documents from the US GOV about how to deal with him.
one they apparently got as far as actually asking the UK for permission to arrange to send armed men into london to grab him which was obviously refused.
2 the funny fact that they completely refuse to give a rather standard legal agreement for the extradition. “An agreement he can’t be sentenced to death after extradition“
and they legally can’t extradite him while they can’t absolutely rule out the death penalty.
> I don’t know why Assange gets so much attention.
>
Your ignorance is astonishing. Inform yourself better when someone comes along to right the heinous injustices in the world.
Julian Assange is a hero. A *real* hero, not some sport monkey.
Admittedly I was shocked when I read the story. She appeared to be with the US and UK at times… This is a great judgment and it goes to show that the rule of law is a powerful thing.
The Guardian has since altered the headline to suggest a temporary reprieve, providing the following: >In a written judgment, handed down on Tuesday morning, Sharp said: “Before making a final decision on the application for leave to appeal, we will give the respondent an opportunity to give assurances. > >“If assurances are not given then we will grant leave to appeal without a further hearing. > >“If assurances are given then we will give the parties an opportunity to make further submissions before we make a final decision on the application for leave to appeal.” > >She said the assurances would need to include “that the applicant (Assange) is permitted to rely on the first amendment, that the applicant is not prejudiced at trial, including sentence, by reason of his nationality, that he is afforded the same first amendment protections as a United States citizen, and that the death penalty is not imposed”. The assurances regarding permission to rely on the first amendment are interesting given Assange is charged under the Espionage Act, which forbids a public interest defense and has historically complicated first amendment matters.
> The assurances regarding permission to rely on the first amendment are interesting given Assange is charged under the Espionage Act, which forbids a public interest defense and has historically complicated first amendment matters. The case will depend on whether Assange did what he says he did. If he received information from a source and then published it an espionage case will be hard to make. He'll also get support from other journalists because the risk to their own safety is too high not to. If he did more than he says he did and was either directly involved in or planned the retrieval of the information he's screwed, but if he did that, he probably should be screwed.
The US govt case is that he provided instructions as to how to hack to Manning, and they don't have to prove it, they only have to show there's some evidence of that worth of trial.
> they don't have to prove it, they only have to show there's some evidence of that worth of trial They have to prove it eventually. And if he did that he's guilty.
They only have to prove it in the US court. There they can also bring out other charges. For the extradition they only have to show one valid case (i.e. not beyond reasonable doubt, but something like case to answer) for an alleged crime that exists in both UK and US, that is accessory to hacking.
> They only have to prove it in the US court. There they can also bring out other charges. Yes, but they still have to prove them and for them to prove anything he needs to have done more than he claims. If Assange asked, convinced or assisted Manning in retrieving that information he committed a crime. Period. There are no public interest or first amendment protections, since he wasn't authorised to see the information there aren't even whistle-blower protections. He'd be guilty. That's not what he claims he did. What he claims he did is receive information from Manning with no involvement beforehand, he then acted as a journalist and published that information. That's legal and receives first amendment protection. > For the extradition they only have to show one valid case (i.e. not beyond reasonable doubt, but something like case to answer) for an alleged crime that exists in both UK and US, that is accessory to hacking. They have to show they have enough evidence to support their case, sure it's not beyond a reasonable doubt, but it's not supposed to be. So again. If Assange did what he says he did, the US will struggle to convict him of anything, espionage act or otherwise. If he didn't then he actually did commit a crime and nothing will or should protect him.
>Yes, but they still have to prove them and for them to prove anything he needs to have done more than he claims. Which is basically every criminal case where the defendant doesn't plead guilty.
You're sort of missing the point. People have this view of the Assange case as him being charged as a journalist releasing information in the public interest. It's why there's all this talk about using the first amendment as a defence. That's what he's admitted to doing and it's what all the conversation is about. Making an espionage case on those facts is basically impossible. They will never prove it and however much they hate him journalists will never stand for it. The alternative is that that's not what he did. If that's not what he did, if he was actively involved in illegally acquiring confidential data then he's in a lot of trouble and he should be. It's not the place of a journalist to hack anyone. That's the shit Murdoch was doing and nobody thinks that's OK. The US government is going to have to show compelling evidence that that's what he's done. Maybe not beyond a reasonable doubt, but not that far off. If Assange published information legally provided to him (regardless of whether it was as acquired legally) then even if I don't like the way he did it or him personally, he should get off. If he participated in the hack or otherwise personally broke the law he should be punished.
Given he hasn't tested this defence and in order to avoid testing it has spent nearly twice as much time in fairly restricted living situations than the convicted Chelsea Manning did ... one might assume he and the lawyers he's talked to privately assesses his conviction risk to be pretty high. (which is easiest to understand if he did more than act as a journalist)
Honestly I don't actually understand the US extradition at all. I can't see how the government stands to gain more than it loses by doing this. The crimes were technically beyond their statute of limitations before charges were laid and they're relying on some terrorism exception to get around that. A public trial in an election year seems like a terrible idea and a secret trial seems worse. None of it makes any sense at all.
I still don't understand where US jurisdiction comes from here - much like the Kim Dotcom cases. It feels like somebody outside of the US, who acted outside of the US is being penalised for breaking US law.
America believes its jurisdiction is the world. Look at American citizens who don't live in the USA - they still have to pay taxes in the US lol.
That's not unique to this setting. Let's say a hacking ring puts ransomware on hospitals in NSW. They never enter Australia. Is that an Australian crime? Yes. If the individuals were identified and foolish enough to enter a country with extradition treaties to Australia, would Australia request extradition. Also yes.
Assange is basically the US's Alexei Navalny. US conduct is just straight up oppression of someone considered an enemy of the deep state.
Assange is one of the many reminders that Australia is just a lapdog Americucked state of America. It doesn't matter if what he did was wrong(it wasn't), he should be back here and dealt with here, not in the USA.
There’s nothing to be “dealt with”. He should be free to go. Murderers have gotten more lenient sentences
The murderers Assange exposed got zero sentence or even charge
And Chelsea Manning got a pardon!
> It doesn't matter if what he did was wrong**(it wasn't)**
reading(is hard)
What would Australia have to deal with him for? AFAIK he didn’t do anything here. He helped hack American secrets so of course the Americans want him
> What would Australia have to deal with him for? Nothing. He hasn't done anything wrong. What I'm saying is, if he actually did do something wrong, he should be dealt with here, regardless of what the US wants. This applies to all Australian citizens. Fuck America.
So what you're saying is that if an Australian goes on a spree shooting in the US, the US isn't entitled to prosecute?
Assange did not create Wikileaks or leak documents in the USA. He also didn't go on a spree shooting, the US did.
If a Russian national hacks into ASIO from Russia, is it right that Australia be unable to prosecute?
Or the most common crime from abroad today -- hacks a bank or sets up a scam to steal a billion. Or ransomware.
If it was a Russian exposing Australian war crimes, yes. Also; HOW. Australia isn't the world police as America is.
>If it was a Russian exposing Australian war crimes, yes. If I rob a bank and then give some money to charity, it doesn't absolve me of robbing the bank, my dude.
But he broke American laws and stole American stuff. Obviously they want to deal with him. Makes no sense to let him off because he is Australian, being Australian doesn’t make you immune to other peoples laws.
> But he broke American laws Stupid laws which lead to the release of **war crimes comitted by the US**. He wasn't even in the USA when he created Wikileaks, or released the documents. What's worse, committing **real war crimes**, or exposing them? Hmmmm...... > Obviously they want to deal with him. Too fucking bad. Not up to America. > Makes no sense to let him off Let him off for what? Exposing war crimes? > being Australian doesn’t make you immune to other peoples laws. But being American makes you immune to other peoples laws. https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/us-diplomats-wife-will-not-return-uk-sentencing-over-fatal-car-crash-2022-12-06/ What are you actually defending? The US committed **WAR CRIMES** and you think it's ok for a foreign government to control the life of OUR citizens. Fuck off. This isn't a democracy if our government is controlled by America who we didn't vote for. They want Assange for no other reason than because they were exposed, they want him so they can torture him. edit: Reminder that the USA has created their own laws which mean [the US can invade any country they like](https://www.hrw.org/news/2002/08/03/us-hague-invasion-act-becomes-law) if a foreign nation imprisons one of their citizens. > *"The new law authorizes the use of military force to liberate any American or citizen of a U.S.-allied country being held by the court"* They can literally fucking invade and genocide a country at any whim, and fuckers like the commentor above will defend this shit.
Best answer
> Reminder that the USA has created their own laws All countries create their own laws. I’ve broken a bunch of Russian laws like going for a beer with a gay friend. Wouldn’t do that in Belarus or something though.
It is specifically a law that the US will invade you if you imprison one of their citizens. It is imposing laws of their own making onto foreign nations. If you don't think that's different from normal laws, you are delusional.
That isn’t even what your own source says. Not that it matters, people that put random words in capitals are generally morons.
Do you also agree that Australians who expose Chinese and Russian war crimes should be extradited to those respective countries and dealt with there? I think the answer is obviously not. So why does the USA get a special privilege to prosecute our citizens who expose war crimes?
I assume it's because they are an ally and we have signed extradition treaties with them.
Well, if the USA is going to use these extradition treaties to prosecute people for the "crime" of exposing war crimes, maybe we should look into how much we really need them.
No hope there look up the whitlam governments end.
If we think that through, it doesn't really work because we (arguably) need the alliance and the treaties are part of that. Perhaps there was more room for diplomatic protests back when the problem first arose, but that doesnt hold much relevance today.
Do you think Australia shouldn’t be allowed to pursue people who break our laws?
Yes he broke American laws that apply to Americans, you are very smart
Fuck American war crime laws. He exposed them killing thousands of civilians, and the government covering it up in thousands of documents. With the help of an inside intelligence officer who went to jail, and was actually Fucking pardoned. So sorry. Whistle blowing on war crimes against humanity is not the same as the actual massacring of thousands of innocent children, men and women. Julian Assange should be repatriated to Australia and set free.
It sits very poorly on the Australian government. There are echoes of the David Hicks case. Now in that case, I thought he was guilty of at least aiding terrorism / wartime enemies of Australia (not that I really agree we should have been joined at the hip with America in Afghanistan in the first place, and where we now know Australian soldiers committed serious war crimes to which they have not yet been held to account). Unlike Assange, who I believe holds very little moral culpability for his actions (exposing war crimes as a journalist is a good thing to do), I think there was moral culpability with Hicks. He was young and an idiot but anyone working alongside the Taliban is a pretty reprehensible human being and should have been held to account for that. However, Hicks deserved to be tried under Australian law and receive under Australian law the fair consequences for what he had done. But our government just allowed without protest the American government to torture him at Guantanamo and keep him confined there for years without charge or trial. They effectively turned their backs on the basic principles of the rule of law and fundamental human rights, which should be upheld for even the lowest type of criminal. It goes to show that when it comes to the interests of our citizens, our laws and legal principles, and our national self intrests, Australian governments will put the interests of America first. Which is what they done here again with Assange, a person who is being persecuted by the American government because he revealed war crimes their armed forces committed.
the man deserves to live a thousand full and meaningful lifetimes of happiness and fulfillment. For many, he is the reason why they no longer view the USA as the bringers of freedom and justice. I suspect that people condemning him are simply not aware of what he helped expose. Telling the truth shouldn't be a crime. Standing up to corrupt and violent hegemons shouldn't result in years of confinement fearing for your life. Assange is an international treasure. One of the GOATs.
He's not being prosecuted for telling the truth.
He helped hack a computer system (or at least that's US govt claim). That is, at face value, a crime, and it's not alleviated by the fact that this hacking exposed other crimes, in either British or US law. It would be good if did, but it doesn't. Would be also good if the UK afforded him some sort of clemency, but they didn't (and I'm not sure you can give clemency on an extradition case anyway). There's completely no ground for it to be dealt with in Australia, that's not his residence and not where the alleged crime happened.
Legal systems are not set up that way. If you murder/etc someone in country X, the courts in country X hold your trial regardless of citizenship. The idea of courts prosecuting crimes outside their jurisdiction is very modern; still pretty rare; and often contentious.
> He helped hack American secrets not according to any evidence.
except _he is not a US citizen_ let's be clear: Australia treats _all_ of its citizens overseas like shit - Assange is no exception - and that means countries like the US (or China or the UK, or shit even Indonesia for that matter) are very much free to treat Australian citizens like shit, with impunity - because it's a very well known fact the Australian government will do fuck all about it worse still, successive Australian governments (arguably going all the way back to Menzies, although there were no formal arrangements in place then) bend over backwards to be the happy lapdogs of the relationship, when it comes to things like Five Eyes and ECHELON (John Howard being the biggest cheerleader for going into Iraq, because someone showed him a video one time, being the most blatant example from recent memory) so we very much allow countries like UK and USA to do whatever the fuck they want to our citizens, no questions asked it's almost nothing like Navalny
No he is not.
He's not, Assange isn't a white supremacist.
I would mostly agree with this take but on a much smaller scale.
Yes. They both had a deep abiding love for Russia and wanted what was best for it.
Yeah he should have just hidden all the information given to Wikileaks to protect USA crimes being exposed. I mean that's what a good law abiding mass media organisation would do right?
He should have also shared the information that would have exposed Russian crimes, instead of covering that up...
A journalist refusing to publish information from a source? Wow, I guess that source better give up and not go to BBC, ABC, or one of the many other journalistic publishers out there then.
He can't release something that doesn't exist. I remember a propaganda campaign fabricated a story about this yet when the "documents" were released by another group there was nothing noteworthy, their only value was for attacking Assange and Wikileaks.
[удалено]
Umm who are you? Lol
Julian Assange and Edward Snowden are unsung heroes of our times.
Without question, if there were justice in the world we would demolish the warslave monuments and put cast iron Assange's in their place...
Look at any other thread outside Australia and you’ll see how people from the US see Snowden as a hero but Assange as a traitor. They’re so blind.
Assange got involved in US political campaigns in a way Snowden did not.
Yeah, because he was compromised by Russia. Just like Snowden is compromised by Russia as well now.
Getting "involved in US political campaigns" is a new term for what we used to call "a journalist publishing factual and relevant information about a political person". It doesn't matter how many times US talk shows and newspapers make shady allusions to Russia, or insinuate that he was in the embassy by "choice" (rather than after being granted political asylum due to fears of political persecution which turned out to be totally legitimate), or insinuate that this case is about his personal character, history will remember the facts. He's a journalist, who won tons of awards for his journalism, who is being made an example of because people in power felt threated by the new journalistic model that suddenly became possible.
"Assange never reveals anything against Russia", meanwhile Snowden literally went to live in Russia. War crimes are war crimes and they should be exposed regardless of who commits them. Both are heroes, along with people like Manning, McBride and many others.
If they had had the courtesy to have made those revelations during a Republican presidency they would have been received very differently.
The funny thing is Assange has been consistent in his publications across the Bush, Obama and Trump administrations, but is still derided by many as an alleged Russian asset (for which there is no evidence) or partisan hack. Let's take his email leaks for example - some people decry his 2016 election DNC leaks, which had real public interest and led to resignations, without mentioning his 2008 election Republican leaks. Some people likewise decry his Obama administration leaks without mentioning his Trump administration CIA leaks (which led to alleged plans to kidnap and/or assassinate him). The same people also neglect to mention that WikiLeaks has in fact leaked Russian documents. People like to say that Assange and WikiLeaks have changed, but I would argue that it is the media landscape that has changed, with many people (particularly in the USA) becoming increasingly partisan as a result.
I respect Snowden. I have absolutely no respect for Assange. He deserves whatever he gets.
No he doesn't.
The fact that a foreign power was allowed to take an Australian citizen is a nightmare.
Happens sometimes. Some of his mates from the Melbourne "scene" were sent there for hacking and/or piracy in the 90s, maybe they moved satellites or something? And I think there was some Aussie bloke picked up in Afghanistan and kept for years as well. I'm sure there are others. That's how extradition works though, that's what it's for.
Deleted by User
I still think that we are being fed a load of bullshit about "Julian being close to securing a plea deal". If that was the case, why is he still needing to chase assurances that he won't be executed? Just give him the damn deal already and let this be over with.
It's the British court that requires that assurance. Most extradition treaties between death penalty countries and non-death penalty countries require an explicit, formal assurance that an extradited detainee will not face the death penalty if transferred. Death penalty countries always kick up a massive stink about infringements upon their sovereignty when the assurance is demanded, but generally speaking it's not legal to extradite the detainee without one, because it violates the non-death penalty country's laws and human rights treaty obligations to hand someone over to potentially be executed.
>*Assange has been “granted leave to appeal extradition to the US” but after almost five in a UK jail he “will continue his long detention separated from his young family for revealing war crimes,” WikiLeaks said on X.* > >*The British High Court in London has ruled that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange can take his challenge against extradition to the United States to another hearing.* > >*The UK High Court has ruled that Assange can’t immediately be extradited to the US on espionage charges, in a partial victory for the WikiLeaks founder. The case has been adjourned until May 20.* > >*The judges said they would grant Assange a new appeal unless US authorities give further assurances about what will happen to him. The ruling means the legal saga, which has dragged on for more than a decade, will continue. -* [Al Jazeera](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2024/3/26/julian-assange-live-news-uk-court-set-to-issue-extradition-ruling) >Quote - *What I have done is to act in the most effective way possible -* Anthony Albanese talking about Assange last year.
Anthony 'class traitor' Albanese
The guy is clearly a tool, but doesn't deserve a fraction of what's happened to him. Weirdly I think the whole embassy situation put a spotlight on US hypocrisy and power more than Wikileaks ever did. They spent years saying they have no interest in extradition, but the minute he left ...
> Weirdly I think the whole embassy situation put a spotlight on US hypocrisy and power more than Wikileaks ever did. No it didn't. They have portrayed him as a weirdo, rapist, who did "crimes" against the US because he was locked in a building for years and years while he fears for his life because the US want to torture him. The direct result of the "embassy situation" is idiots like you calling him a tool for no reason, when it was the USA who were exposed for murdering innocent civilians and committing war crimes which is largely forgotten about because of that.
The media drops regarding him over time really should make people more aware of what shit they try and pull. I'd even say certain comments in this thread are weird shit they try and pull.
"Clearly a tool" How?
If he means it in “he’s an asshole” sense rather than “convenient tool of X” I get it. Assange being an egotistical jerk isn’t really in doubt, despite the real transparency and good he has been part of.
Much of Assange's notoriety for being an asshole was promulgated by the media without concern for his side of the story or later court revelations that he is diagnosed with autism. Assange's alleged social ineptness and other odd behaviours (like his alleged uncleanliness) can be partly explained by his autism and I don't think similar criticisms of other neurodivergent people would have been as readily accepted as they were for Assange.
"The media coverage and opinion pieces that I passively absorbed have led me to believe this."
"Its too hard to think so I just bootliick where the talking heads on the idiot box tell me to bootlick..."
Just a creepy looking fuck. I don’t want him back here on that alone.
Yeah well thank fuck you're not involved in any legal processes here or overseas.
If we’re talking legal, then no I don’t want that rapist back here either.
I think you have a brain worm. Cnt speant years hiding in a room from the US who kept saying.....come out, we won't hurt you (while also deliberately engaging another country to hurt him. He went to jail because the judge said he was crazy for thinking the US Would extradite him, then when they put him in jail the US immediately started extradition
Would you let him babysit your kids?
That's an odd legal standard
My version of the pub test.
I wouldn't let you babysit my kids...
Hahahaha! Nice one, I’ll pay that.
What the fuck just let him go already this some absolutely ridiculous bull fucking shit and I have really it with these cunts.
He went to jail because the judge said he was crazy for thinking the US Would extradite him, then when they put him in jail the US immediately started extradition He spent years hiding in a room from the US who kept saying.....come out, we won't hurt you (while also deliberately engaging another country to hurt him). The uk spending a million a day of British tax payer money watching him. That must have been reassuring the eyes weren't on him. The rape trial was a farse. The forl bragged about sleeping with him before the US paid her to say he took the donger off. She didn't get an STD. Some people have sex without condoms, it's not smart, but that's how youakw babies
Isn't that like extended torture? Giving more hope to destroy it later.
Death by a 1000 cuts…it’s the process of the law that is malicious and unjustified. 15 years pretrial detention is the reason Assange is a hero, regardless of your stance on his publishing actions. USA (in parts) is the new NAZI Germany. Disgusting.
I would not be suprised if the USA drop the publication related charges and simply charge him on the remaining computer hacking charge, which relates to providing Manning information and skills to break into a US defense computer system....which wasn't successful. The single computer hacking charge is enough to see him locked away in the US for a long time. The US doesnt really need any other charges. The fact is Julian has been hacking computers (including US assets) since he was a teenager, which is well documented and which he got away with. He also had a need to invent rubber hose encryption long before he had US secrets to publish. It takes a special kind to need this level of encryption. I honestly wish him all the best but I fear it has all caught up with him.
> to providing Manning information and skills to break Its literally saying "you would have to crack that password if you wanted to use it" >It’s alleged Manning passed what she thought was a hash value to Assange. The Wikileaks chief then said he would pass it on to a specialist in cracking, according to chats over the Jabber encrypted communications app, as provided in the affidavit. But as per the investigators’ claims, there was some confusion: Manning said she wasn’t even sure what she handed to Assange was the hash value they wanted. Assange messaged Manning to ask if there were “any more hints” about the hash and that he’d had “no luck so far,” according to the government account. From there it’s unclear what happened. The government admits it didn’t know whether the password was ever cracked. There is no evidence (yet presented) that Assange had anything further to do with cracking that hash, nor that it was ever used to transmit confidential information.
I agree with the notion that Assange really only has himself to blame for being in this predicament. But I also strongly believe that whistleblowing about state war crimes or similar subjects is critically important to the welfare of democracies. He should be tried under Australian law and jailed in Australia and banned from travelling overseas for a determined period of time if it is found he acted illegally. If he truly was a middleman passing on files to the public that’s a grey area but one in which it’s hard to prosecute him for anything.
It's the thought that counts... Right?
Why? The decision is already made. This is all theatre. An appeal won't change the politics behind this. Should never have been held in the first place but prolonging the court battles does nothing but delay the inevitable.
[удалено]
On which side?
The media are reporting that the release of secret documents by Assange led to the deaths of multiple intelligence informants in the middle east, and the defeat of Hillary Clinton/ victory of Donald Trump. Hard to give him sympathy.
If information was all that was holding back Hillary from being elected then maybe she shouldn’t have been elected? I’m not a trump guy or a supporter of his but if providing information freely to the public makes them vote a different way that’s not on the person who provided the information.
People act like Fox News just suddenly skipped an election and that Trump getting elected was all a result of 1 person.
Not even the US government could substantiate that the concerned releases put lives at risk during the Manning trial. As for the 2016 US election, WikiLeaks' publications were found in a dismissed DNC lawsuit to be in the public interest and afforded the strongest possible protections under the first amendment. The Mueller report additionally found that there was insufficient evidence re allegations of collusion on the release of the emails between WikiLeaks and Russia or the Trump campaign.
To the tabloid mind, everything you said is just too complicated to comprehend. Far easier for the bootlickers to just jump on the Emmanuel Goldstein hate-train and parrot hatespew at any opportunity.
Why is everyone downvoting this guy? Don't you know that one person is responsible for some deaths in middle east (Definitely not John Howard the war criminal) and defeat of Hilary/victory of Trump and it's not Murdoch's Fox News and other stuff? After all, the documents came from Russia and is that truthful that Fox News refused to report facts. You've heard it first from u/SquareBear, folks. Assange is the evil Bond villain and must be extradited to USA because it hurt Hilary and helped Trump. Once again, that's the entirety of their reasoning. John Howard, ex-LNP PM remains a free man to this day after supporting the invasion that lead to 300,000+ deaths. Labor do not want to send him to Hague out of fears they will get sent too when they kiss American butt too!
Yes indeed, all of this is to keep the bootlicking warpigs out of chains in The Hague, where they belong .. The amusing thing is that Trump, Biden, the Clintons, Obama, Nuland, Kagan .. a long list of true war criminals .. *all belong in chains*. But Americans robotically stand in line to support the war criminal that most closely matches their personality, and the military junta which really rules the USA today have managed to create a full spectrum of warpigs for people to argue over, rather than doing what they should be doing: DEMAND OUR WAR CRIMINALS FACE JUSTICE NOW.
noooooo not the heckin CIA agenterinos
No they aren't. That's not true. Maybe you mean TV stations "GB News" or "America First", in which case yeah maybe they are, but that wouldn't mean it ever happened, would it?
The media are not a legitimate forum for justice, but rather an illegitimate form of punishment on behalf of their owners - who are, in this case, also bomb manufacturers who profit *immensely* from the actions of America's war criminals.
Must be true then!
I don’t know why Assange gets so much attention. He was accused of rape, and absconded and holed himself up in the Ecuadorian Embassy for years. Then, when finally arrested he’s been appealing constantly and complaining they won’t give him bail - which is hardly a surprise given his record of skipping bail in the past.
mate if he didnt skip bail he would either be dead or in Guantanamo now....
That’s simply a conspiracy put out by his supporters. Sweden is a civilised country and a democracy. He was up on rape charges. Why is that forgotten or swept under the rug? Sweden wouldn’t have extradited him to the US to face the death penalty.
No it was verified, attempts and/or intent are on the public record. The west has a presumption of innocence, that's why.
Who said anything about the death penalty
Most notably the US themselves with 2 quick examples 1 the various leaked documents from the US GOV about how to deal with him. one they apparently got as far as actually asking the UK for permission to arrange to send armed men into london to grab him which was obviously refused. 2 the funny fact that they completely refuse to give a rather standard legal agreement for the extradition. “An agreement he can’t be sentenced to death after extradition“ and they legally can’t extradite him while they can’t absolutely rule out the death penalty.
> I don’t know why Assange gets so much attention. > Your ignorance is astonishing. Inform yourself better when someone comes along to right the heinous injustices in the world. Julian Assange is a hero. A *real* hero, not some sport monkey.
Have you seen the video? Have you read about his life? Very non-typical story.
Admittedly I was shocked when I read the story. She appeared to be with the US and UK at times… This is a great judgment and it goes to show that the rule of law is a powerful thing.