This is troubling since the courts have also argued lawsuits over illegal wiretapping and other misconduct cannot move forward as they would... expose classified information:
Without the ability for the press to publicize illegal actions so that voters can remove officials who allow it, the US government can engage in unconstitutional conduct with almost zero oversight by making the illegal conduct classified.
I would argue that this is the intended outcome. I do not believe we have enough control over our government.
Edit: I guess I should add that a lot of people in the US believe it is good for the US government to have absolute power in the world, because they think it’s okay for “their side” to have absolute power over others. Often I think they associate “our side” to be the side of the “good guys” and thus find our grip on global hegemony acceptable. Except there are no “good guys” who always behave in a fair and even way, that is a childish fantasy used to keep us on board with the serious injustice perpetrated by governments the world over. The US government is responsible for oppression and murder the world over in addition to the good things we might do. We cannot blanket trust any government to behave appropriately in secrecy unless we want to simply abdicate our responsibility for the harm that governments then cause.
> I do not believe we have enough control over our government.
And that's probably something that needs to be argued in front of the Supreme Court. It is vital in a democracy that a government can be held accountable. The government should not have a carte blanche to break the law in secret. There has to be some way to address this, and at the moment there clearly isn't.
Manning, Assange and Snowden provided a public service to the American public by showing them what their government was doing.
> I do not believe we have enough control over our government.
You're right. We don't and the reason for that is centralization. The way the country was originally designed, an all powerful behemoth of a federal government was never intended to be a thing.
A combination of 2 things has allowed it to happen over time: Federal consolidation in the aftermath of the Civil War and the creation of Federal Reserve.
Those two things set us down the path where we are today and it's why a more decentralized government is advantageous. You can personally influence things that are more local do you. You can get involved in city or county government. You can call your mayor or you councilmen. You can join a school board or run for Sheriff, city/county council. All of those things are possible.
But an individual has almost no power to influence federal policy and when people disagree with federal policy, they have no escape. If you don't like a law in your city, you can work to change it or you can simply move to another city. Same thing with states, even though it's more of a task...but at this level you always have the ability to vote with your feet.
It's not so easy to just leave a country and it's the reason that constitutional amendments are supposed to require 2/3 votes instead of 51%. The country need to be in significant agreement over federal policy...or we will be at each others throats about what is / isn't being imposed on people.
> a lot of people in the US believe it is good for the US government to have absolute power in the world
Seriously? Name one person making this argument? Perhaps you are just misusing the phrase "absolute power". Typically this is used to refer to the unrestricted power of a monarch or dictator. The US doesn't even have this power within the US. It's a childish fantasy (as you say) to think the US has this "in the world" generally.
American hegemony certainly has its warts but it’s also prevailed over the most peaceful period of world history with staggering numbers of people being lifted from poverty.
We shouldn’t blanket trust anybody of course, but it makes more sense to put your faith in the one advocating for free speech and democracy if you believe in human rights and equality.
It’s really easy to point out where we’ve fucked up, but a lot harder to appreciate the regional conflicts that just plain didn’t happen because of the “big stick” as Teddy Roosevelt would call it.
Just as an aside, I have no idea how I feel about this particular case against Assange.
He doesn’t seem like a great guy, but the “helped Manning hack” charges seem pretty trumped up. I’m a little surprised the justice department is even pursuing it considering how much the current administration loved Wikileaks during the election. Any precedent which hampers the press’s ability to publish whistle blown information is, of course, a step back.
You have the power to get the elected representatives to write and change every single law of government. But the citizenry often lacks the coordination, direction, and will to ensure the majority of representatives does so.
The problem of secrecy in government is that the situation is not always clear. If indeed there is some classified information that shouldn't be exposed, that is extremely serious and can't just be aired like a tabloid news story. There is no simple way to keep the public informed of classified information. It's likely that the most reasonable safeguard is to have elected representatives with a strong moral code to vet the situation and act to protect their constituents.
We have plenty of control over government. If you don't like who's in charge, you can vote them out.
If you think that's a ridiculous statement, then consider that every major television network around the world covers our political elections here in the US and the focus is always voter turnout and who we vote for. The only reason for that is: we have all the power.
Of course, if you don't like who gets elected all the time, perhaps you need to consider why your candidates never win because it seems far fewer people agree with your selections. Why is that?
> The US government can engage in unconstitutional conduct with almost zero oversight by making the illegal conduct classified.
There is oversight, just probably not the kind you want.
There's numerous congressional committees which all have oversight of every aspect of the executive branch if they so choose to ask for it. All of which are elected officials. From the Gang of 8 to the Ways and Means committee. They also leak information to the press like a sieve.
There's an inspector general in many of the agencies which can independently investigate criminal activity within the agency.
There's the FBI and the DOJ which can investigate criminal activities whether they involve classified matter or not.
Then there's the FISA court, which oversees the use of secret government surveillance.
Then as a last resort, there are leakers, which leak information to journalists (e.g. Daniel Ellsburg and the Washington Post)
It's more than likely if the government is doing something shady, word will get out.
This sort of thing is why I’ve always been hopeful for truly anonymous communication like that proposed by Freenet, I2P or Tor… as of now, though, none have ended up being practical, in spite of decades of work.
> none have ended up being practical, in spite of decades of work
You are implicitly blaming the projects and the developers, while the rest of the world spends billions on developing software and networks without having any regard for privacy.
This is a hopelessly naive view of the outcome of truly anonymous, untraceable, unaccountable communication.
We should all realize that there are much worse outcomes than the current society we live in, and lots of them increase dramatically in likelihood when you remove the ability of society to protect itself from people who intend to create catastrophe. Truly anonymous communication is a catastrophe-enabler.
I often see words like "illegal" or "unconstitutional" get tossed around in discussions like these. Please don't confuse legality (as ruled by numerous courts) with your own displeasure of events.
The word "classified" means it's not intended for public consumption. Do you imagine that governments should not have the ability to keep information secret? How do you think that would work out.
We elect representatives who are able to review the classified materials and act on our behalf.
That's how the system works. If you think governments shouldn't have secrets you are in the minority.
>The word "classified" means it's not intended for public consumption. Do you imagine that governments should not have the ability to keep information secret? How do you think that would work out.
Some information, like the location of and launch codes for nuclear weapons, names of sources in hostile nations, etc absolutely should be secret.
I don't think that because "governments need secrets" we should set up a system where the government can classify something, rendering it unable to be reviewed by the courts, as described in the article I linked to.
I don't think the parent is saying the government should not be allowed to keep secrets. The problem is that it's hard to balance that need with the public's need to keep checks on the government. I would personally like to see more transparency in government, even though I know some things really should remain secret. The pendulum has been swinging too far in the wrong direction for some time now.
Government's should indeed be able to have secrets, but few, far between, and with a heavy burden should that secrecy come that it not be tempted to abuse that power.
Charges like these, which such heavy minimum sentences should he be convicted, are exactly what he claimed were waiting for him if he left the Embassy. Over the years, many observers claimed he was delusional in this regard. It appears he wasn’t.
Exactly. This is why the previous Ecuadorian government granted him political asylum - his legitimate fear of persecution by the American government for publishing their embarrassing secrets.
The current government of Ecuador has not only handed him over, however, but has even handed over his personal belongings in the embassy to the US government. So much for protecting him from political persecution!
It's unfortunate Ecuador went back on its promise of asylum, but I will give them some credit that they granted it in the first place, against what was surely strong USA pressure, and protected Assange for 7 years.
It’s a different leader of Ecuador. Assuming a consistent position is like assuming consistency between the Obama and Trump administrations. Unrealistic expectation from a past that no longer exists.
It sounds like he either arrogantly or through mental illness drastically wore out his welcome. I'm leaning on his mental illness being the reason. If his safety were so important to him he wouldn't have bit the hand that fed him.
Indeed. I remember many of his critics saying "but what does he have to lose if he's actually innocent of the Swedish sexual assault charges?!"
This is exactly what he said would happen if he would give in to the Swedish/UK authorities.
Many may not remember, but Assange also said that the Swedish charges were manufactured precisely so he can be 1) discredited and 2) eventually extradited to U.S. once in custody.
That result was entirely his choice. He chose to go to the UK. That's not where you go if you're fearful of the US picking you up.
He chose to leave Sweden where he wouldn't likely be extradited to the US as Sweden considers espionage a political crime and does not extradite people for political crimes ....
No, observers claimed he was delusional to think he would be charged with a capital crime (meaning he could be executed if convicted), because that would violate the terms of any extradition.
Everyone thought he would be charged with a number of crimes if he ever left the embassy.
I’m not sure whether you’re really making a blanket statement about what all observers had to say. But if you are, your recollection is incorrect. The issue of capital punishment aside, many voices chimed in to say (especially in the early going) that the United States would not hold these cards close to its chest for such a long time and that he should just go face justice in Sweden.
>observers claimed he was delusional to think he would be charged with a capital crime (meaning he could be executed if convicted), because that would violate the terms of any extradition.
While the Foreign Office may insist that we will never extradite if there is a possibility of the death penalty, the Home Office on the other hand can take it upon themselves to waive that requirement and have apparently done so recently in another case, so it is possible and the UK is quite prepared to say that it isn't, while doing it - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44929067
>>>> Is it your belief that he would not end up in US custody? And do you think he also believes that?
>>> Yes, that is my belief. I don't know what he believes.
>> Well, you seem to be implying that he is being dishonest about his fear of being extradited. As if he is doing this so he doesn't have to answer to the charges in Sweden. Based on your statement, you clearly do believe that he isn't actually worried about ending up in US custody.
> I do think he's being dishonest, yes. He has access to skilled lawyers, and his concern about extradition to the US is irrational: it's easier to extradite him where he is.
His specific claim was that the Swedish rape charges were a cover so that Sweden could extradite him to the US. He still hasn't been extradited by Sweden. I wonder if he wouldn't have been better of going to Sweden.
I think it's extremely unlikely that Sweden would extradite him to the US. The UK is far more likely to do that. In Sweden, however, he runs the risk of getting imprisoned for rape.
>he claimed were waiting for him if he left the Embassy. Over the years, many observers claimed he was delusional in this regard
That's a bizarre statement.
Most took issue with the hyperbole that was attached to what he would be charged with, "droned" or otherwise dealt with, not if he would or wouldn't be charged with anything.
This is one of those classic conspiracy theory type situations where it is "oh look people said this wasn't a thing and here it is" and it's way not what anyone else said either... and that doesn't prove anything.
1) He'd already been in custody in the UK for some time, so if the US wanted him, and the UK was willing to hand him over, then that would have already taken place, but had not.
2) Under EU rules, if the UK has extradited him to Sweden, and then the US asked for him, both Sweden and the UK would have had to agree to hand him over, making him strictly safer in Sweden than in the UK.
3) Much of Assange and his supporters arguments focused on the risk of being charged with a capital crime, but under EU rules neither the UK nor Sweden could have handed him over to face a capital charge.
4) Much of the remainder of Assange and his supporters arguments focused on the risk of going to Sweden, but he was already in the UK, and the UK is famously willing to cooperate with the US. The UK was not a safe place for Assange to be!
All four points have been vindicated by events so far. What Assange ended up doing was finding a way to avoid going to Sweden and instead hang out in the UK for so long that eventually the US asked, and the UK handed him over, just as expected.
Had Assange quietly gone to Sweden to contest the charges against him, would things have worked out better for him? We'll never know now, but it's very plausible.
> Over the years, many observers claimed he was delusional in this regard.
In any case, the specific claims he made remain, at best, unsubstantiated. He wasn't extradited from Sweden, and he isn't facing a capital charge.
It's doubtful that the Obama admin would have gone this route. There have been quite a few stories that they shied away from such a drastic extension of the definition of 'Espionage'.
Pardoning Manning also doesn't quite with the idea of the (previous) US admin being too invested in punishing Wikileaks.
Except it wasn't a pardon but a commutation - General Petreaus got an actual pardon for spilling secrets to his biographer he was having an affair with - an obvious position for a honeypot.
That still shows a less than friendly attitude to whistleblowers and a hypocritical double standard of holding those in power to a far lower standard. It stinks of cynical "we just want the bad PR to go away but don't want to say she did the right thing" so just commuting to validate the court ruling. Meanwhile Petreaus we should assert that the ruling class are seperate and should be sancrosanct - pardon!
The only reason anyone thought it wouldn't happen is because it involves stepping into controversial legal territory and angering American journalists. Who described it as delusional? What are you talking about?
I mean he's facing these charges, not because he published the leaks themselves, but because he help facilitate the leaking. Journalists don't do that.
> many observers claimed he was delusional in this regard
Did they? I thought it was commonly held he would face such charges. The allegations around delusion were in respect of his ability to evade them for the rest of his life.
A common theme for a while was that Assange was just attention seeking and/or using the excuse of extradition to the US as a way to avoid facing justice in Sweden.
This is the most important part of the indictment, and it's right on page one:
> ASSANGE encouraged sources to (i) circumvent legal safeguards on information; (ii) provide that protected information to WikiLeaks for public dissemination; and (iii) continue the pattern of illegally procuring and providing protected information to WikiLeaks for distribution to the public.
The main charge here is that Assange actively encouraged people to break the law. Since he wasn't a US citizen and had not signed a non-disclosure agreement with the United States, many of the laws protecting classified information do not apply to him directly.
The first section of the indictment describes the various ways in which Assange and/or Wikileaks said, more or less, "gee, it sure would be nice if someone got these classified documents for us." The next section, titled "B. Chelsea Manning Responded to ASSANGE'S Solicitation and Stole Classified Documents from the United States", explains how Assange's solicitation lead directly to the criminal acts committed by Manning.
Finally, we have a section labeled "C. ASSANGE Encouraged Manning to Continue Her Theft of Classified Documents and
Agreed to Help Her Crack a Password Hash to a Military Computer". This described how Assange provided Chelsea Manning with tools allowing her to circumvent passwords and other protections on classified computers.
So this isn't as simple as "a journalist received classified information and is being prosecuted for it." This indictment lays out a very specific crime, which is (Assange) directly encouraging and enabling another individual (Manning) to commit a crime (Espionage) on his behalf.
You can argue about the validity of these charges, even the validity of the classifications levels assigned to some of the material given to Assange, but we should be clear about exactly what is being claimed by the government, as well.
This would criminalize a huge amount of investigative journalism in the United States. Journalists who work in this field solicit classified information all the time. They cultivate connections inside government, and ask for information. They aren't all just sitting back and waiting for sources to fall into their lap. When sources do come to them, they encourage those sources to share more information. That's how the business works, and if the US government wins its case against Assange, that business will be illegal.
The major difference is that journalists do not ask their sources to break the law to obtain information. Assange did, and that makes all the difference.
> So this isn't as simple as "a journalist received classified information and is being prosecuted for it." This indictment lays out a very specific crime, which is (Assange) directly encouraging and enabling another individual (Manning) to commit a crime (Espionage) on his behalf.
Nothing about that interpretation is new, thus plenty of high-profile journalists, and journalistic NGO [0] have already responded to that particular "charge" back in April. Like Glenn Greenwald pointing out that "massaging sources" is a major part of investigative journalistic work [1].
> The first section of the indictment describes the various ways in which Assange and/or Wikileaks said, more or less, "gee, it sure would be nice if someone got these classified documents for us."
A lot of news orgs, and individual reporters, have explicitly asked for information about specific topics. Yes, usually not by explicitly mentioning it being classified, but for plenty topics that's basically implied.
By my read the indictment doesn't formulate any limiting principles on the more broad charges that could be levied against many reporters.
> Finally, we have a section labeled "C. ASSANGE Encouraged Manning to Continue Her Theft of Classified Documents and Agreed to Help Her Crack a Password Hash to a Military Computer". This described how Assange provided Chelsea Manning with tools allowing her to circumvent passwords and other protections on classified computers.
Which is why the previous version, which had only this charge, was much less heavily criticized.
The charge could have been limited to working on cracking the password. Instead it explicitly describes activity common to reporters and critical for democracy: publishing information the source obtained "illegally". In quotes because a government with something to hide will generally hide it under a national security secrets act.
Why make charges that could destroy journalism when you could charge with something that doesn't? It's hard to understand, unless of course the press is "the enemy of the people".
I don't think you could manage the same legal challenge with just the latter. Often charges describe all sorts of things that themselves aren't illegal.
At face value it doesn't seem so crazy to charge him for this. I mean it is committing a crime by proxy as opposed to passively obtaining information from a source (the latter of which journalists should be protected for).
If I give tools and a robbery checklist to someone and tell them to rob a bank, surely I'm still able to be charged and probably for a higher crime right? At least that's how these charges seem to me. I guess I don't see how it's invalid.
I do however see how this could set a dangerous precedent should the courts allow loose interpretation of the outcome to mean "reporting leaked information is illegal"
what "crime by proxy" ? Manning was an agent of the US. He (must have) had some level of secret clearance. Just because he didn't know the password to a database doesn't make it a crime.
Those databases are illegal for non-government employees to access. If Manning had secret clearance for database {A, B, and C} but not D, it's an internal IT violation between him (at the time he was male) and his boss. If you or I (presuming you're not a gov employee) tried it, we don't have clearance and therefore it would be a crime, aka hacking.
You are right, we should be clear about what is being claimed by the government.
However, is there any legitimate alternative method for a whistleblower to expose the US government of warcrimes, as WikiLeaks did? It seems quite unfair for a government to murder innocent civilians and then protect itself by putting the evidence behind a password.
To be clear, the evidence was not behind a password (at least, it was already accessible to Manning). The purpose of cracking the password was to allow Manning to download the information from a different account, in order to obfuscate the source of the leak.
Only the last section has any legitimacy IMO. And I suspect it is something along the lines "well, you can google for something called John The Ripper".
And about "gee, it sure would be nice if someone got these classified documents for us." As long as the POTUS is not charged for asking the exact same things to Russians publicly, it would be a shame that a foreign person be charged in US for that.
I still don't really understand how a journalist, non-U.S. citizen, operating entirely outside the U.S. is being indicted for anything.
I understand he obtained U.S. documents and published them.
However, if I obtain on-the-ground images of the Tiananmen Square protests and share them on Facebook with my friend group, should I be subject to Chinese laws?
I don't live in China, I don't have Chinese citizenship, I've never been to China. Should I be subject to Chinese law?
China would say yes, and in such a case you should not ever be in a state that has and/or requires good diplomatic relationship with, or economic support from, China.
Law is, after all, what gets executed, and debating whether it's right or wrong is a luxury you don't have when it's executed on you.
Yes, this is the entire premise of extradition treaties. If you conspire to commit a crime in a different country, you are potentially able to be sent there to be put on trial. As to whether or not those laws are just is a separate issue.
This is not a good understanding of Extradition. Extradition before the age of the internet involved identifying people who had in the past committed a crime in a certain jurisdiction and transporting them back there to face justice. So for example, I murder someone, I flee to the UK, the USA asks the UK to extradite me back. Or indeed JA (allegedly) rapes someone, flees to the UK, Sweden asks for extradition.
What's at question here is: Given Assange was never in the US, how has he committed a crime in the US and the answer is that the US has a funny idea jurisdiction.
Only if China can exert it's influence in the US. And it can, to a certain extent. It's not unheard of for China to demand that a citizen return home by threatening legal action against his or her family. If China had the same influence over the US as the US does over most of the European countries, then yes, you would be subject to Chinese law if they care enough to pursue it.
Laws aren't magic. They're enforced by power. If any country has the power to enforce their own laws in foreign countries, they'll do it if it's important enough to them. In this case, the upside is definitely big enough.
I'd be more worried and angry if I were a citizen of a European country. This isn't the first time this decade the US has violated the sovereignty of a European country.
> I still don't really understand how a journalist, non-U.S. citizen, operating entirely outside the U.S. is being indicted for anything.
> I understand he obtained U.S. documents and published them.
> However, if I obtain on-the-ground images of the Tiananmen Square protests and share them on Facebook with my friend group, should I be subject to Chinese laws?
> I don't live in China, I don't have Chinese citizenship, I've never been to China. Should I be subject to Chinese law?
I am fairly certain that Julian Assange is doing or attempting literally everything theoretically or practically possible to avoid traveling to the United States.
We're seeing the US flex its international power to get revenge rather than justice, and it's disconcerting to see how many "free" nations are allowing it to happen.
Although I don't pretend to understand the specifics, I expect that any charges against him will be on the corner cases. They won't be a frontal assault on Wikileaks. After all, what's the difference between WL and the New York Times when you get right down to it?
My guess is that hidden on page 1050 (or whatever) of the charges, the meat of the matter will be some sort of Swiss Army knife of Justice Department power involving a kind of conspiracy, meeting with C. Manning, or whatever. Truth is, they can put anyone in prison any time they like.
Thank goodness the intelligence nomenklatura in this country isn't joined at the hip with the Googles, Facebooks, and AT&Ts of the world. Then where would we be?
> After all, what's the difference between WL and the New York Times
The difference between WikiLeaks and the New York Times is that WikiLeaks would not have kept Bush's warrantless wiretapping program secret until after the 2004 election - at the request of the Bush administration.
The actual charges hinge (at this point) on Assange supposedly helping someone to bypass some security to obtain that information.
I don't think they were successful (legally that likely doesn't matter), and we'll how much actually counts as "help".
So with your analogy you obtain information release it, and then help someone try to hack a computer to access more .... that's where we are at this point.
It's a difference. Generally journalists don't help their sources hack into anything.
I suspect if you did China would be happy to take you if they could extradite you.
The heart of their indictment [1] is the conspiracy charge. Basically if you conspire to access a computer system, especially one owned by the US Military and containing classified information, they will come after you.
He instructed and encouraged Manning to steal information for him while Manning was on military duty.
It is not clear he is a journalist as traditional journalism is pretty far away from what Wikileaks has done.
It is also still not legal for journalists to direct people to steal classified information. Publishing it is not necessarily the crime, being involved in the acquisition is. This is why nobody is talking about charging or extraditing Glen Greenwald (published Snowden's materials). Assange was directly involved in getting the materials and exposed himself pretty easily to espionage charges.
If you don't agree about classifying that as espionage, what is espionage to you?
> traditional journalism is pretty far away from what Wikileaks has done.
What you're describing is exactly what investigative journalists do all the time: they encourage sources to leak classified information, which they then publish.
> If you don't agree about classifying that as espionage, what is espionage to you?
Espionage is when a government uses covert means to obtain information on a foreign government for its own gain. When an independent organization obtains and publishes government secrets that it deems to be in the public interest, that's normally called "journalism."
Where's the line though? What if you manage to blow up a building using nothing but your computer, outside of the US, as a non-US citizen. Should you then be subjected to US law?
It really is a fucked up world we live in, where a whistle-blower exposing Western governments for acting illegally is arrested and the persons who were spying on people have little to no consequences. I hope these charges get dropped, he has done and continues to do a great service to the world. The West got caught with their trousers down and they just need to deal with it. If you don't like get caught, stop acting in bad faith against the people.
I think Assange's self-imprisonment should also be considered in any punishment, there's no doubt that it took a toll on his mental and physical well-being.
I wonder what will happen with regard to the extraditions. Apparently Sweden has issued an European Arrest Warrant to get him to Sweden after he has served his current British sentence (for skipping bail).
EAW's are (apparently) different to the normal extradition process, and is more streamlined and does not involve diplomatic channels. I've heard Swedish law commentators say that the EAW would be honoured before any non-EU extradition, if this was a normal case.
If he eventually get's to Sweden before the US, it will be very interesting to see if Sweden will turn him over. I would guess so, but perhaps that's just my teenage bitterness from the The Piratebay trial still lingering...
Precedence of the extradition requests is a matter for the Home Secretary, if I'm not mistaken, and there are various guidelines to determine which request should be given precedence.
Given the previous EAW was withdrawn due to the impossibility of serving it, it is relatively likely any new EAW will be considered practically identical to the original one and therefore the date of the original warrant used to grant precedence. There's also the matter of statute of limitations: the Swedish offences (one? two? I forget how many of the original four have passed the limit) need to go to court in the relatively near future, whereas the US offences have no limit as I understand it; this furthers the argument that the Swedish request should be given precedence.
As for whether he gets to Sweden before the US, remember that he can then challenge the extradition to the US in both Swedish and English courts, and Sweden considers espionage a political crime for which it won't extradite. (Okay, very hypothetically extraordinary rendition has happened from Sweden with some level of Swedish consent before, but for such a thing to be done to such a high profile person would be… truly extraordinary.)
People on HN: Of course the government aren't spying on citizens. What are you? Some kind of tin-foil hat-wearing conspiracy theory nutjob?
[After Snowden]
People on HN: Well obviously the government were spying on everyone. Were you really that naïve?
[Before Assange Indictment]
People on HN: That Assange guy is a completely delusional whack-job. How can anyone be so stupid to believe the UK/Sweden would cooperate with the US in taking him down permanently?
That's an extreme misrepresentation. Unless your argument is that on this site there was probably someone who held that opinion at the time. But before Snowden, many people here were under no delusions about US government spying, and few people have ever doubted the UK's willingness to cooperate with the US on anything. People only doubted, and still doubt, Sweden's willingness to extradite Assange to the US for espionage. They don't do that. Sweden wants him for rape.
Sweden allows the CIA to just black bag people, outside of the legal system. That's the fear of being extradited to Sweden; the UK doesn't allow the CIA to do that.
"People on HN: Of course the government aren't spying on citizens. What are you? Some kind of tin-foil hat-wearing conspiracy theory nutjob?"
This never made any sense to me, and I brought it up any time it was mentioned. It is the nature of spooks to spy on everybody. The pretence that somehow magically their spooks don't spy on US citizens never passed the sniff test.
Think about it, how could they possibly _tell_ if someone is actually a citizen? They've got no reliable way to do that, and obviously the grey areas are _exactly_ where you should look for bad guys, so in practice _obviously_ they will spy on citizens.
Thousands of people comment on hacker news, including people who said the opposite of what you attribute to HN. It's unwise to to treat the people that you are arguing with on Tuesday as if they are are the same people you are arguing with on Monday.
So did he commit espionage, or expose war crimes? Let’s hope the courts decide wisely, because this case will settle the question of whether governments and militaries can be held accountable by their people.
To expand, he exposed war crimes. But he also exposed a bunch of unrelated, not-war-crime stuff due to his refusal to redact. Contrast that with e.g. Snowden or the Panama Papers leakers, who disclosed information more carefully.
It's not an exclusive or. Assange worked with a number of people (including Manning) to obtain classified information. Some of that classified information detailed war crimes. Some did not; some of it was diplomatic cables, lists of informants, etc. Publishing the latter stuff almost certainly got people killed. Maybe we can agree to forgive him for the portion of the espionage which exposed war crimes, but I see no reason he should be given blanket immunity for everything he's done.
Readit News
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/04/judge-dodges-legality-...
Without the ability for the press to publicize illegal actions so that voters can remove officials who allow it, the US government can engage in unconstitutional conduct with almost zero oversight by making the illegal conduct classified.
Edit: I guess I should add that a lot of people in the US believe it is good for the US government to have absolute power in the world, because they think it’s okay for “their side” to have absolute power over others. Often I think they associate “our side” to be the side of the “good guys” and thus find our grip on global hegemony acceptable. Except there are no “good guys” who always behave in a fair and even way, that is a childish fantasy used to keep us on board with the serious injustice perpetrated by governments the world over. The US government is responsible for oppression and murder the world over in addition to the good things we might do. We cannot blanket trust any government to behave appropriately in secrecy unless we want to simply abdicate our responsibility for the harm that governments then cause.
And that's probably something that needs to be argued in front of the Supreme Court. It is vital in a democracy that a government can be held accountable. The government should not have a carte blanche to break the law in secret. There has to be some way to address this, and at the moment there clearly isn't.
Manning, Assange and Snowden provided a public service to the American public by showing them what their government was doing.
You're right. We don't and the reason for that is centralization. The way the country was originally designed, an all powerful behemoth of a federal government was never intended to be a thing.
A combination of 2 things has allowed it to happen over time: Federal consolidation in the aftermath of the Civil War and the creation of Federal Reserve.
Those two things set us down the path where we are today and it's why a more decentralized government is advantageous. You can personally influence things that are more local do you. You can get involved in city or county government. You can call your mayor or you councilmen. You can join a school board or run for Sheriff, city/county council. All of those things are possible.
But an individual has almost no power to influence federal policy and when people disagree with federal policy, they have no escape. If you don't like a law in your city, you can work to change it or you can simply move to another city. Same thing with states, even though it's more of a task...but at this level you always have the ability to vote with your feet.
It's not so easy to just leave a country and it's the reason that constitutional amendments are supposed to require 2/3 votes instead of 51%. The country need to be in significant agreement over federal policy...or we will be at each others throats about what is / isn't being imposed on people.
That's where we are now.
Seriously? Name one person making this argument? Perhaps you are just misusing the phrase "absolute power". Typically this is used to refer to the unrestricted power of a monarch or dictator. The US doesn't even have this power within the US. It's a childish fantasy (as you say) to think the US has this "in the world" generally.
We shouldn’t blanket trust anybody of course, but it makes more sense to put your faith in the one advocating for free speech and democracy if you believe in human rights and equality.
It’s really easy to point out where we’ve fucked up, but a lot harder to appreciate the regional conflicts that just plain didn’t happen because of the “big stick” as Teddy Roosevelt would call it.
Just as an aside, I have no idea how I feel about this particular case against Assange.
He doesn’t seem like a great guy, but the “helped Manning hack” charges seem pretty trumped up. I’m a little surprised the justice department is even pursuing it considering how much the current administration loved Wikileaks during the election. Any precedent which hampers the press’s ability to publish whistle blown information is, of course, a step back.
The problem of secrecy in government is that the situation is not always clear. If indeed there is some classified information that shouldn't be exposed, that is extremely serious and can't just be aired like a tabloid news story. There is no simple way to keep the public informed of classified information. It's likely that the most reasonable safeguard is to have elected representatives with a strong moral code to vet the situation and act to protect their constituents.
Deleted Comment
If you think that's a ridiculous statement, then consider that every major television network around the world covers our political elections here in the US and the focus is always voter turnout and who we vote for. The only reason for that is: we have all the power.
Of course, if you don't like who gets elected all the time, perhaps you need to consider why your candidates never win because it seems far fewer people agree with your selections. Why is that?
There is oversight, just probably not the kind you want.
There's numerous congressional committees which all have oversight of every aspect of the executive branch if they so choose to ask for it. All of which are elected officials. From the Gang of 8 to the Ways and Means committee. They also leak information to the press like a sieve.
There's an inspector general in many of the agencies which can independently investigate criminal activity within the agency.
There's the FBI and the DOJ which can investigate criminal activities whether they involve classified matter or not.
Then there's the FISA court, which oversees the use of secret government surveillance.
Then as a last resort, there are leakers, which leak information to journalists (e.g. Daniel Ellsburg and the Washington Post)
It's more than likely if the government is doing something shady, word will get out.
You are implicitly blaming the projects and the developers, while the rest of the world spends billions on developing software and networks without having any regard for privacy.
We should all realize that there are much worse outcomes than the current society we live in, and lots of them increase dramatically in likelihood when you remove the ability of society to protect itself from people who intend to create catastrophe. Truly anonymous communication is a catastrophe-enabler.
Deleted Comment
We elect representatives who are able to review the classified materials and act on our behalf.
That's how the system works. If you think governments shouldn't have secrets you are in the minority.
Some information, like the location of and launch codes for nuclear weapons, names of sources in hostile nations, etc absolutely should be secret.
I don't think that because "governments need secrets" we should set up a system where the government can classify something, rendering it unable to be reviewed by the courts, as described in the article I linked to.
The current government of Ecuador has not only handed him over, however, but has even handed over his personal belongings in the embassy to the US government. So much for protecting him from political persecution!
He would have probably been better off pulling a Snowden and disappearing into Hong Kong for a while...
This is exactly what he said would happen if he would give in to the Swedish/UK authorities.
Many may not remember, but Assange also said that the Swedish charges were manufactured precisely so he can be 1) discredited and 2) eventually extradited to U.S. once in custody.
That result was entirely his choice. He chose to go to the UK. That's not where you go if you're fearful of the US picking you up.
He chose to leave Sweden where he wouldn't likely be extradited to the US as Sweden considers espionage a political crime and does not extradite people for political crimes ....
Everyone thought he would be charged with a number of crimes if he ever left the embassy.
Everyone was claiming that there were no secret charges, and we were a conspiracy theorist if we thought so.
This went on for years.
While the Foreign Office may insist that we will never extradite if there is a possibility of the death penalty, the Home Office on the other hand can take it upon themselves to waive that requirement and have apparently done so recently in another case, so it is possible and the UK is quite prepared to say that it isn't, while doing it - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44929067
>>> Yes, that is my belief. I don't know what he believes.
>> Well, you seem to be implying that he is being dishonest about his fear of being extradited. As if he is doing this so he doesn't have to answer to the charges in Sweden. Based on your statement, you clearly do believe that he isn't actually worried about ending up in US custody.
> I do think he's being dishonest, yes. He has access to skilled lawyers, and his concern about extradition to the US is irrational: it's easier to extradite him where he is.
Deleted Comment
Deleted Comment
That's a bizarre statement.
Most took issue with the hyperbole that was attached to what he would be charged with, "droned" or otherwise dealt with, not if he would or wouldn't be charged with anything.
This is one of those classic conspiracy theory type situations where it is "oh look people said this wasn't a thing and here it is" and it's way not what anyone else said either... and that doesn't prove anything.
The arguments generally present on here was that:
1) He'd already been in custody in the UK for some time, so if the US wanted him, and the UK was willing to hand him over, then that would have already taken place, but had not.
2) Under EU rules, if the UK has extradited him to Sweden, and then the US asked for him, both Sweden and the UK would have had to agree to hand him over, making him strictly safer in Sweden than in the UK.
3) Much of Assange and his supporters arguments focused on the risk of being charged with a capital crime, but under EU rules neither the UK nor Sweden could have handed him over to face a capital charge.
4) Much of the remainder of Assange and his supporters arguments focused on the risk of going to Sweden, but he was already in the UK, and the UK is famously willing to cooperate with the US. The UK was not a safe place for Assange to be!
All four points have been vindicated by events so far. What Assange ended up doing was finding a way to avoid going to Sweden and instead hang out in the UK for so long that eventually the US asked, and the UK handed him over, just as expected.
Had Assange quietly gone to Sweden to contest the charges against him, would things have worked out better for him? We'll never know now, but it's very plausible.
> Over the years, many observers claimed he was delusional in this regard.
In any case, the specific claims he made remain, at best, unsubstantiated. He wasn't extradited from Sweden, and he isn't facing a capital charge.
Pardoning Manning also doesn't quite with the idea of the (previous) US admin being too invested in punishing Wikileaks.
That still shows a less than friendly attitude to whistleblowers and a hypocritical double standard of holding those in power to a far lower standard. It stinks of cynical "we just want the bad PR to go away but don't want to say she did the right thing" so just commuting to validate the court ruling. Meanwhile Petreaus we should assert that the ruling class are seperate and should be sancrosanct - pardon!
Dead Comment
Did they? I thought it was commonly held he would face such charges. The allegations around delusion were in respect of his ability to evade them for the rest of his life.
Here is tptacek saying that Assagne was dishonest and irrational when claiming to fear extradition to America: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11043329
Go through his comment history and survey what he's been saying about Assange over the years. It's pretty egregious.
A common theme for a while was that Assange was just attention seeking and/or using the excuse of extradition to the US as a way to avoid facing justice in Sweden.
I think he should be in court while the accusers plead their case. Ellsberg beat the government in court afterall.
The only alternative is to abolish the courts and legal system and let people get a free pass since the system is not perfect.
> ASSANGE encouraged sources to (i) circumvent legal safeguards on information; (ii) provide that protected information to WikiLeaks for public dissemination; and (iii) continue the pattern of illegally procuring and providing protected information to WikiLeaks for distribution to the public.
The main charge here is that Assange actively encouraged people to break the law. Since he wasn't a US citizen and had not signed a non-disclosure agreement with the United States, many of the laws protecting classified information do not apply to him directly.
The first section of the indictment describes the various ways in which Assange and/or Wikileaks said, more or less, "gee, it sure would be nice if someone got these classified documents for us." The next section, titled "B. Chelsea Manning Responded to ASSANGE'S Solicitation and Stole Classified Documents from the United States", explains how Assange's solicitation lead directly to the criminal acts committed by Manning.
Finally, we have a section labeled "C. ASSANGE Encouraged Manning to Continue Her Theft of Classified Documents and Agreed to Help Her Crack a Password Hash to a Military Computer". This described how Assange provided Chelsea Manning with tools allowing her to circumvent passwords and other protections on classified computers.
So this isn't as simple as "a journalist received classified information and is being prosecuted for it." This indictment lays out a very specific crime, which is (Assange) directly encouraging and enabling another individual (Manning) to commit a crime (Espionage) on his behalf.
You can argue about the validity of these charges, even the validity of the classifications levels assigned to some of the material given to Assange, but we should be clear about exactly what is being claimed by the government, as well.
Journalists that have ethical standards wouldn't do this.
Nothing about that interpretation is new, thus plenty of high-profile journalists, and journalistic NGO [0] have already responded to that particular "charge" back in April. Like Glenn Greenwald pointing out that "massaging sources" is a major part of investigative journalistic work [1].
[0] https://rsf.org/en/news/rsf-calls-uk-protect-role-journalist...
[1] https://theintercept.com/2019/04/11/the-u-s-governments-indi...
A lot of news orgs, and individual reporters, have explicitly asked for information about specific topics. Yes, usually not by explicitly mentioning it being classified, but for plenty topics that's basically implied.
By my read the indictment doesn't formulate any limiting principles on the more broad charges that could be levied against many reporters.
> Finally, we have a section labeled "C. ASSANGE Encouraged Manning to Continue Her Theft of Classified Documents and Agreed to Help Her Crack a Password Hash to a Military Computer". This described how Assange provided Chelsea Manning with tools allowing her to circumvent passwords and other protections on classified computers.
Which is why the previous version, which had only this charge, was much less heavily criticized.
Why make charges that could destroy journalism when you could charge with something that doesn't? It's hard to understand, unless of course the press is "the enemy of the people".
Deleted Comment
I don't think you could manage the same legal challenge with just the latter. Often charges describe all sorts of things that themselves aren't illegal.
If I give tools and a robbery checklist to someone and tell them to rob a bank, surely I'm still able to be charged and probably for a higher crime right? At least that's how these charges seem to me. I guess I don't see how it's invalid.
I do however see how this could set a dangerous precedent should the courts allow loose interpretation of the outcome to mean "reporting leaked information is illegal"
Those databases are illegal for non-government employees to access. If Manning had secret clearance for database {A, B, and C} but not D, it's an internal IT violation between him (at the time he was male) and his boss. If you or I (presuming you're not a gov employee) tried it, we don't have clearance and therefore it would be a crime, aka hacking.
However, is there any legitimate alternative method for a whistleblower to expose the US government of warcrimes, as WikiLeaks did? It seems quite unfair for a government to murder innocent civilians and then protect itself by putting the evidence behind a password.
And about "gee, it sure would be nice if someone got these classified documents for us." As long as the POTUS is not charged for asking the exact same things to Russians publicly, it would be a shame that a foreign person be charged in US for that.
Dead Comment
I understand he obtained U.S. documents and published them.
However, if I obtain on-the-ground images of the Tiananmen Square protests and share them on Facebook with my friend group, should I be subject to Chinese laws?
I don't live in China, I don't have Chinese citizenship, I've never been to China. Should I be subject to Chinese law?
Law is, after all, what gets executed, and debating whether it's right or wrong is a luxury you don't have when it's executed on you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition
What's at question here is: Given Assange was never in the US, how has he committed a crime in the US and the answer is that the US has a funny idea jurisdiction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_extradit...
Only if China can exert it's influence in the US. And it can, to a certain extent. It's not unheard of for China to demand that a citizen return home by threatening legal action against his or her family. If China had the same influence over the US as the US does over most of the European countries, then yes, you would be subject to Chinese law if they care enough to pursue it.
Laws aren't magic. They're enforced by power. If any country has the power to enforce their own laws in foreign countries, they'll do it if it's important enough to them. In this case, the upside is definitely big enough.
I'd be more worried and angry if I were a citizen of a European country. This isn't the first time this decade the US has violated the sovereignty of a European country.
> I understand he obtained U.S. documents and published them.
> However, if I obtain on-the-ground images of the Tiananmen Square protests and share them on Facebook with my friend group, should I be subject to Chinese laws?
> I don't live in China, I don't have Chinese citizenship, I've never been to China. Should I be subject to Chinese law?
No but I wouldn't travel to China in that case.
We're seeing the US flex its international power to get revenge rather than justice, and it's disconcerting to see how many "free" nations are allowing it to happen.
My guess is that hidden on page 1050 (or whatever) of the charges, the meat of the matter will be some sort of Swiss Army knife of Justice Department power involving a kind of conspiracy, meeting with C. Manning, or whatever. Truth is, they can put anyone in prison any time they like.
Thank goodness the intelligence nomenklatura in this country isn't joined at the hip with the Googles, Facebooks, and AT&Ts of the world. Then where would we be?
The difference between WikiLeaks and the New York Times is that WikiLeaks would not have kept Bush's warrantless wiretapping program secret until after the 2004 election - at the request of the Bush administration.
I don't think they were successful (legally that likely doesn't matter), and we'll how much actually counts as "help".
So with your analogy you obtain information release it, and then help someone try to hack a computer to access more .... that's where we are at this point.
It's a difference. Generally journalists don't help their sources hack into anything.
I suspect if you did China would be happy to take you if they could extradite you.
1: https://www.justice.gov/usao-edva/press-release/file/1165566...
It is not clear he is a journalist as traditional journalism is pretty far away from what Wikileaks has done.
It is also still not legal for journalists to direct people to steal classified information. Publishing it is not necessarily the crime, being involved in the acquisition is. This is why nobody is talking about charging or extraditing Glen Greenwald (published Snowden's materials). Assange was directly involved in getting the materials and exposed himself pretty easily to espionage charges.
If you don't agree about classifying that as espionage, what is espionage to you?
What you're describing is exactly what investigative journalists do all the time: they encourage sources to leak classified information, which they then publish.
> If you don't agree about classifying that as espionage, what is espionage to you?
Espionage is when a government uses covert means to obtain information on a foreign government for its own gain. When an independent organization obtains and publishes government secrets that it deems to be in the public interest, that's normally called "journalism."
I think Assange's self-imprisonment should also be considered in any punishment, there's no doubt that it took a toll on his mental and physical well-being.
How do we know that he was murdered when he was anonymous? Am I missing something?
EAW's are (apparently) different to the normal extradition process, and is more streamlined and does not involve diplomatic channels. I've heard Swedish law commentators say that the EAW would be honoured before any non-EU extradition, if this was a normal case.
If he eventually get's to Sweden before the US, it will be very interesting to see if Sweden will turn him over. I would guess so, but perhaps that's just my teenage bitterness from the The Piratebay trial still lingering...
Given the previous EAW was withdrawn due to the impossibility of serving it, it is relatively likely any new EAW will be considered practically identical to the original one and therefore the date of the original warrant used to grant precedence. There's also the matter of statute of limitations: the Swedish offences (one? two? I forget how many of the original four have passed the limit) need to go to court in the relatively near future, whereas the US offences have no limit as I understand it; this furthers the argument that the Swedish request should be given precedence.
As for whether he gets to Sweden before the US, remember that he can then challenge the extradition to the US in both Swedish and English courts, and Sweden considers espionage a political crime for which it won't extradite. (Okay, very hypothetically extraordinary rendition has happened from Sweden with some level of Swedish consent before, but for such a thing to be done to such a high profile person would be… truly extraordinary.)
Dead Comment
People on HN: Of course the government aren't spying on citizens. What are you? Some kind of tin-foil hat-wearing conspiracy theory nutjob?
[After Snowden]
People on HN: Well obviously the government were spying on everyone. Were you really that naïve?
[Before Assange Indictment]
People on HN: That Assange guy is a completely delusional whack-job. How can anyone be so stupid to believe the UK/Sweden would cooperate with the US in taking him down permanently?
[After Assange Indictment]
[crickets (for now at least)]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_of_Ahmed_Agiza_an...
This never made any sense to me, and I brought it up any time it was mentioned. It is the nature of spooks to spy on everybody. The pretence that somehow magically their spooks don't spy on US citizens never passed the sniff test.
Think about it, how could they possibly _tell_ if someone is actually a citizen? They've got no reliable way to do that, and obviously the grey areas are _exactly_ where you should look for bad guys, so in practice _obviously_ they will spy on citizens.
Thousands of people comment on hacker news, including people who said the opposite of what you attribute to HN. It's unwise to to treat the people that you are arguing with on Tuesday as if they are are the same people you are arguing with on Monday.
HN like reality is comprised of people with many different viewpoints.
That was all greatly overstated
https://web.archive.org/web/20101129044151/https://www.mccla...
Citation Needed?
Also, were those people involved in those [war crimes]?