Hacker News Reader

Comment by founderling | Hacker News Reader

What is the difference between what Assange did and what every journalist does who does not disclose their sources?

I'm not sure if I am right, but I thought the whole point of Wikileaks was to be a publishing platform with good source protection?

View on HN

Nothing, and they will likely prove that if there is a fair trial. However

A) it will take years

B) he will need to do it from a US prison cell

C) it will be expensive for him

D) they hope to impact wikileaks while this is ongoing

E) they will try to get him to accept a plea deal where the US govt gets to look like they are right, because he plead guilty after all (certainly not just to avoid a 700 year sentence for treason but because he is actually guilty)

Why would he get a sentence for treason? He’s an Australian citizen and it would be a US court doing the sentencing.

Even an American citizen couldn't be convicted of treason for what he is accused of doing. In America, treason has a very narrow definition. Other sort of espionage charges are another story.

(Consider that even Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were not executed for treason, but rather for espionage.)

Swap treason for whatever they actually charge him with, the sentiment remains the same.

People soured on him when they thought his releases became political (much whistleblowing is political, generally). People were happy it exposed US corruption, etc. but once he apparently singled out one ideology for exposure and that was against mainstream ideology people renounced him on political grounds as they couldn’t denounce him on the same principles they once supported.

Exactly. Assange works on principles. He publish even things that will counter his own interests: he leaked information about Lenin Moréno wrongdoings in http://inapapers.org/ The whole liberal media who used to work with wikileaks turned their back on them because they leaked wrongdoings from the Democrats.

He doesn't leak about Russian much at all.

He doesn't leak about Germany, either. Or Japan. Or UK. Or China. So what do you conclude from those facts exactly?

Assange is not getting arrested for his journalistic activities.

And what is he actually arrested _for_?

Not turning up where he promised to turn up.

If you tell the judge you'll be there Monday morning 9:00, you need to turn up or have a good excuse. "I don't trust you" is not the right kind.

He was arrested for breaching bail conditions, which is not a criminal offence. Police either have to charge him (so he goes before a judge) or release him within 24 hours on the same bail conditions. They took the opportunity while he was in that 24 hour period to arrest him on a US extradition request.

You're referring to a separate arrest of Assange for skipping bail. That's not what this article is about. Far be it from me to suggest you didn't read it.

Admittedly, I mixed up my browser tabs and thought I was commenting in a HN thread about the BBC story on Assange's arrest. I think I read the Met page directly after posting that comment.

The point still stands — he was arrested on a matter between him and the English court system. That the original reason why he should've appeared in court is obsolete doesn't mean that he could disregard the court.

EDIT: Maybe I misunderstand something. I thought a summons involves being handed a fat envelope and signing a receipt that basically says "I have received <that envelope> and promise to do as instructed within". Isn't that correct? What is a summons, if not that?

> The point still stands ...

It's an entirely separate (and frankly relatively trivial) issue. This part of the discussion involves whether or not Assange's arrest was a consequence of (in @pvg's words) 'his journalistic activities'. It clearly was. See Greenwald's analysis in the Intercept today, with quotes directly from the extradition request. The extradition attempt is part of an ongoing assault by the US government on investigative journalism.

> I thought a summons ..

The legal docs involved here are an arrest warrant and extradition request. It's well beyond the summons stage.

And how it is related to his extradition to the US?

computer related activities according to the extradition request

In a statement, the Home Office said: "We can confirm that Julian Assange was arrested in relation to a provisional extradition request from the United States of America.

"He is accused in the United States of America computer related offences."

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/04/11/julian-assange-e...

Or, if that doesn't stick, for skipping bail in Sweden:

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/feb/13/judge-refuses-...

Is he an American citizen to be tried by the US government? Or had he committed some crimes on the US territory?

You can extradite people who aren't your citizens. He is presumably accused of hacking into US computers.

Except he didn't. He hosted classified information obtained by other people, but it is another story, and its legality is disputed. "Computer-related offences" -- is this now enough to extradite people without probable cause and solid legal case?

For what other activities do you think the US would want him extradited?

He reportedly conspired with others to criminally hack in to protected computer systems. That's a crime. Journalists don't do break-ins.

Oh that is such a weak hook to hang a hat on, but ok.

Why do you say it is weak? There is no doubt that federal law was broken when the GRU hacked the DNC and Clinton emails. A violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1030 is a very serious crime in the US.

Conspiracy to commit a felony is likewise super serious - sometimes even more serious than the underlying crime.

So, why do you say 'weak', if the evidence supports the charge?

Because when Manning or anyone else “breaks laws” to expose wrongdoing it’s considered bona fide whistleblowing but when the goods damage a preferred ideology that same process is then “bad”.

Let's not forget the famous Gen. Petraeus [0] who only had to admit guilt for a misdemeanor charge of "mishandling classified material", the more lawyery way of saying he divulged classified information to his mistress in bed.

Justice is for "soldiers". Generals get a pat on the back even for espionage.

[0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/how-d...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com