Julian Assange Appears in Court for U.S. Extradition Hearing | Hacker News Reader

Julian Assange Appears in Court for U.S. Extradition Hearing

nytimes.com

86 pointsmzs161 comments

Keep in mind all the crimes by US officials that Assange revealed. In my view many of those crimes committed by officials are treason, yet all have been swept under the rug.

Treason has a specific definition in the us Constitution and it's a quite difficult bar to cross.

The Iraq War leak suggested war crimes, but not treason IIRC:

https://www.wired.com/2010/10/wikileaks-press/

Lying about the war crimes was treason in my view

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

What better aid to our enemies than spending trillions on a futile war?

Generally, spending too much money to bomb the shit out of your enemies is not considering providing aid to them....anywhere.

You are assuming that the groups we are told are our enemies are actually enemies, and that they are the most significant enemies.

I assume none of that. I know people who died in 9/11, people who died in Mumbai, and people who died in the San Bernardino shooting. I don't need to be told by anyone that the terrorist cowards behind those bombings are our enemies--that much was obvious from them bombing us.

And you think the dollars spent on the wars have actually done anything to prevent future attacks such as the ones you mention?

Your view is irrelevant unless you can change the law.

Not just the law, the US Constitution.

Not necessarily if they can get on the jury and use jury nullification. Or make this concept more well known to people who may be on the jury.

Jury nullification is hard to pull off though. I'm not sure Assange would have the support he'd need to guarantee a jury finding in his favor (assuming he's actually guilty of what he's accused of).

paulcole wasn't talking about Assange being convicted, but rather those whom Assange exposed.

...then get the trial declared a mistrial, and possibly get held in contempt by the judge for violating their duty as a juror.

It's hard to use jury nullification to convict; it's usually used only to acquit. First, the judge won't usually allow charges that are outside the bounds of the law to even be presented to the jury. Second, even if the jury does convict of something outside the bounds of the law, it will almost certainly be overturned on appeal.

You don't want a jury deciding to convict people for things that the law doesn't say is illegal. You really don't. That's way too close to mob rule, and that often doesn't get applied only to the people that you think it should be applied to. You don't want a jury deciding that what you did is treason, even though the law doesn't say that it is.

> First, the judge won't usually allow charges that are outside the bounds of the law to even be presented to the jury. Second, even if the jury does convict of something outside the bounds of the law, it will almost certainly be overturned on appeal.

And in between, if the charges are within the law but the judge feels a reasonable jury could not convict on them, he can (and presumably will) dismiss the charges either before or after the jury verdict; judges cannot toss a jury acquittal (or convict on their own without a jury verdict), but they can and do do the reverse.

Wouldn't jury nullification be restricted to finding someone not guilty because some law is invalid. This would be the opposite, where we find someone "guilty" of "treason" because the jury decided treason is actually a broader crime that covers acts like lying about war crimes. Doesn't sound like jury "nullification" to me.

How can it be treason, when he's not a US citizen?

I’m referring to the officials not Julian.

Lying about a war for corrupt reasons surely qualifies.

No, it doesn't. It certainly qualifies as official malfeasance, but treason in the US is defined narrowly in the Constitution (as an express reaction against “treason” being expansively applied.)

What better way to give aid to our enemies than to conduct an expensive war on false pretenses and illegally classify information that would have likely led to public distaste for the war?

Imagine if the leaks showed that the officials wasted money in some other way such as taking gold reserves and destroying them in a nuclear explosion, or sending gold reserves to cronies in other nations. Theft is theft.

Our enemies arguably want us to waste money on unnecessary wars. The officials exposed by Assange were acting in concert with our enemies.

What better way to give aid to our enemies than to conduct an expensive war on false pretenses and illegally classify information that would have likely led to public distaste for the war?

Giving money to our enemies would be a better way to give them aid. Or weapons. Or supplies. Or pretty much anything, really.

One thing which is not giving aid to our enemies is to fight a war against them, on whatever pretenses, which results in massive quantities of said enemy's soldiers dying. That's almost exactly the opposite of "aiding" our enemies.

You may disagree with the efficiency of our military expenditures, but inefficiency in prosecuting military action is not even remotely the same thing as providing aid to our enemies.

You miss the point of my comment. The group our politicians call enemies may or may not be.

If we have actual enemies, we can be sure that they want us to waste as much money as possible on futile wars.

If we have actual enemies, we can be sure that they want our leaders to circumvent the Democratic process to steal money that could be spent on domestic programs or returned to taxpayers and instead spend it on pointless wars.

I’d we have enemies, we can be sure they want our leaders to spend billions making us hate, fear, and mistrust brown people, and crave strong man leaders over pluralism and liberty.

Assange revealed that our leaders are acting in concert with such enemies.

We can’t separate the lies from the theft. The lies about the war and the illegally classified info that the war logs revealed are what make the theft of resources possible.

All the lives lost are of course also a major issue but the theft aspect makes it easier to see what a sacrifice we were all forced to make to wage the wars.

Literally everything you said is alt-right conspiracy nonsense.

People who blow up Americans are our enemies. They brag about being our enemies online and in traditional media, at least until we blow them up using very expensive bombs. These wars were authorized by duly elected legislative representatives at the behest of multiple ideologically-opposing executive administrations.

One of these presidents was a black/brown man, who spent his time in office addressing racial tensions. The other, more recent president--the one inflaming racial tensions--received political assistance from Assange, who openly admits to choosing to spread DNC leaks harmful to Clinton and choosing not to publish any negative documents about Trump, despite having access to a plethora of such documents.

Assange revealed nothing, except that he's just as petty and partisan as everyone else, and just as capable of lies as the politicians he claimed he was trying to take down.

It's bizarre to have my views characterized as alt-right.

> People who blow up Americans are our enemies.

The groups doing those things have been funded by the US government quite recently, and would likely not exist if the US government hadn't tried to meddle in the middle east decades ago.

> These wars were authorized by duly elected legislative representatives

Sort of. The wars would likely not have escalated if the information in the Iraq war logs was known earlier. The war logs showed that the US classified information about what was actually going on in the war so that the public would continue to support it. If the American people knew that it was a proxy war against Iran and that the US was abetting war crimes against former Baath party members, it is unlikely that the war would have continued.

> at the behest of multiple ideologically-opposing executive administrations.

If you think the major parties are in disagreement on war related issues you are not paying close attention. There are only minor points of disagreement.

> openly admits to choosing to spread DNC leaks harmful to Clinton and choosing not to publish any negative documents about Trump, despite having access to a plethora of such documents.

Assange's decision not to publish material related to Trump was based on it already having been widely published or based on its questionable authenticity. Do you really think that anything damning about Trump could have been kept secret? I think that sounds a bit like a conspiracy theory :)

> Assange revealed nothing

I'm not sure if you have read the war logs, but there was significant information revealed that should make the American people quite angry, both about the loss of life caused by the wars and the massive amount of money wasted on the wars.

The Iraq and Afghanistan wars have cost an amount equal to a 50% tax cut for all Americans earning under $500K for seven years in a row.

The amount of suffering caused by the misallocation of funds (which Assange helped expose) is monumental.

The groups doing those things have been funded by the US government quite recently, and would likely not exist if the US government hadn't tried to meddle in the middle east decades ago.

This is not true at all, based on an even cursory understanding of the history of tribal and religious warfare in the Middle East.

This is even less true. The Iraq war was not a legitimate war, but had popular support from most of the electorate because 9/11 just happened. However, Afghanistan was a legitimate war, with popular support from both parties and the electorate, because Al Qaeda was actually located in Afghanistan. Al Qaeda was not, and never was, a proxy for Iran, nor was ISIS. Both groups were violently opposed to Iran on ideological grounds (and I mean "were" because they're both dead now).

Don't conflate one group of brown people with another. That's how the Iraq War happened.

If you think the major parties are in disagreement on war related issues you are not paying close attention. There are only minor points of disagreement.

I volunteered with a number of congressional campaigns of legislators opposed to the Iraq war and the subsequent extended occupation. I opened letters containing death threats targeting the candidates from budding alt-right idiots.

The disagreement between the parties over the war and the occupation was not minor. It was a wide gaping maw in many places where the two sides could not agree due to fundamental ideological differences. Hell, in 2008, the parties ran presidential campaigns with completely different positions on continuing the war. Obama intended to shift the war from Iraq to Afghanistan, McCain intended to continue the war in Iraq without moving into Afghanistan. Obama followed through--and was pilloried by the right for it until US special forces killed Osama.

No, it was based on Assange's declared support for Donald Trump's presidency, and there is substantial evidence that Wikileaks coordinated its release of the DNC files with the Trump campaign to maximize political effect. Wikileaks was also known to have received leaked copies during the campaign of documents related to Trump's many scandals and refused to publish them until after Trump was sworn in.

> history of tribal and religious warfare in the Middle East

Are you claiming that with no US involvement, Al Qaida would have received training and ammunition?

> This is even less true... <etc>

You are correct about the start of the wars, but keep in mind that cost estimates by GWB of the wars were a tiny fraction of what the cost turned out to be very quickly after the big statue of Saddam toppled. With every day that went by the gap between what was promised and what was delivered widened. This was the motive for concealing (through classification) information that would have made it obvious that the war had been sold on false pretenses and that it would turn out to be a much, much larger undertaking than anyone who supported it had been led to believe.

To some of your other points, if one assumes that the war will be effective and cost the lives of, say 1 US soldier and cost $1, then it would be a no brainer. When you increase the death toll, cost, blowback, or any other negative externality, the ROI changes and easily becomes negative. It was not just the post-9/11 hysteria that led to the war, it was the dramatic underestimation of the time, cost, outcome, and of course the utter falsehood of the nation building narrative.

> Al Qaeda was not, and never was, a proxy for Iran

I did not claim it was. Saddam was linked by the Bush administration to Al Qaida if you recall, and Iran had significant interest in what would happen with Iraq.

> Don't conflate one group of brown people with another

I have not done that, see above.

> I opened letters containing death threats targeting the candidates from budding alt-right idiots.

In a large population there will be extreme and largely incoherent views on both (all?) sides, and of course you would open some such letters. The letters have no connection to what the parties actually wanted/supported during that time.

> Obama intended to shift the war from Iraq to Afghanistan, McCain intended to continue the war in Iraq without moving into Afghanistan. Obama followed through--and was pilloried by the right for it until US special forces killed Osama.

The key word here is intended. Obama also intended to close Gitmo and stop some of the more egregious excesses of the Bush administration but actually did very little to remediate it, until just before he left office toward the end of his second term. Any Democrat would advocate a left of center position, any Republican a right of center position, both knowing that the centrist position was just fine and that the rhetoric would help win the election and nothing more. Obama's conduct in office is a case in point. Don't confuse the political fray and left vs right accusations with what is actually happening (or not happening).

> No, it was based on Assange's declared support for Donald Trump's presidency...

Assange stated that he found both candidates abhorrent, so I'm not sure how you can claim that he supported Donald Trump's candidacy. I think you are potentially getting some false information about Assange's sentiments about Trump. I followed his conduct closely during the 2016 campaign and while he did maximize the PR impact of the leaked emails, I view that as a budget PR strategy since he'd already had his organization decimated and needed to drum up some PR to get the material noticed by the rest of the press.

If you have followed Assange for a while you will know that he has no political interest in any nation -- he may have had a grudge against HRC after she joked about assassinating him, who knows -- but his conduct as a journalist is beyond reproach, especially considering the attack that he was under during most of it.

If, for example, the NY Times had continued working with him and providing support, the PR strategy would not have been necessary, nor would the hastily released (sub-optimally redacted) items have been released. But instead the NYT decided to act as an arm of the US Government and help spread the "Assange is a rapist" meme.

While I doubt Assange is a violent person, I don't know him personally. But I also care a lot less about his character around people he's sharing a bed with than I do about the information he revealed.

He's the only one who could testify about the truth behind the DNC leak (Seth Rich) and the Podesta e-mails (phished). Neither were 'hacked' by the Russians.

With the Mueller investigation effectively over, it's time to turn the tables. Assange is a valuable asset in this endeavor.

You realize you sound pretty far out-of-mainstream when you say things like that, right?

In fairness to OP, this is effectively the Sean Hannity line so I wouldn't say it's "out of the mainstream" anymore.

There is multiple points of evidence that Seth Rich was in contact with wikileaks before his murder and was either leaking documents or intending to leak documents.

You mean the investigation that proved that Assange attempted to weaponize the grief of a family for the gain of Russian political interests? That investigation?

Actually, there was some evidence that Seth Rich was indeed in contact with Wikileaks. There is no confirmation that he actually was the source of any leaks but there were email exchanges with Assange on his laptop and he appeared to be _intending_ to leak at least.

This was according to Seymore Hersh, you can find audio of him describing Rich's involvement and other discussion on the topic.

To be clear, Rich's murder could have been a total coincidence and he could have possibly not been the source of any published leaks. Given that, it was not weaponization but a reasonable assumption on the part of Wikileaks to conclude that Rich had probably been assasinated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seymour_Hersh#Seth_Rich

> were email exchanges with Assange on his laptop and he appeared to be _intending_ to leak at least.

This is the definition of fake news disseminated by the Russians and the Republicans that want to cover for them.

Source from the other link: https://www.npr.org/2017/08/01/540783715/lawsuit-alleges-fox...

None of the things he revealed can be classified as treason. War crimes maybe, treason no way. I also wonder why he never revealed any of Russia's alleged crimes in Ukraine or Syria. Just a thought.

Did he have access to data about "Russia's alleged crimes in Ukraine or Syria"?

Sorry, but this is a nonsense. I grew up in a country where people made it a national sport of justifying one side's crimes by arguing that the other sides (Croats/Serbs/Bosniaks/etc) committed the crimes too. That's just stupid. So what if he's concentrated on one side, does it make it a less of a crime? Should he have not publish it, unless he had an equal amount of dirt on Russians on hands in the same time (Syria and Ukraine haven't even happen yet in the moment of these US leaks)? And finally, if it's wrong to concentrate only on one side's wrongdoing, does it mean that all other reporters - who report ONLY on Russians for years now - are guilty the same way?

Wikileaks only publishes what is leaked to them.

They did publish the `Spy Files Russia` documents in 2017:

https://wikileaks.org/spyfiles/russia/

Can we please stop using this talking point about Russia?

WikiLeaks publishes what they get (after verifying credibility). They cannot publish what is not leaked to them.

Also: they did publish things on Russia.

You are overlooking the most significant item. Why was all the information in the war logs classified in the first place? The power to classify information is only legitimately used for very narrow purposes. The war logs show that the US government used that power inappropriately to deliberately deceive the American people about the war efforts.

The men and women of the armed forces risk their lives over these wars. The public funds them with taxation. The wars have cost as much as 7 years of a 50% tax cut for everyone earning under $500K. That is such a large number that any social program, any infrastructure challenge is dwarfed by it. The post 9/11 wars are the biggest financial fraud in the history of the world.

We found out thanks to Assange that our leaders hid information from us so that they could continue stealing our money to wage a war that was very different from what they claimed it was.

We place a great deal of trust in our leaders, and Assange showed that it was not deserved. Still, none of the leaders who did this have been brought to justice.

Which of his crimes looks like treason? He didn’t hack anything, his only “crime” is providing a publishing outlet.

(And yes, Assange is highly biased and anti-American, which is not good, but publishing leaks shouldn’t be a crime.)

It's funny to label someone anti-american, when all they've done is expose america's crimes and ways of manipulating the rest of the world. Makes you think what does being pro-america mean.

Exactly. Assange tried to help the American people learn about dishonesty and fraud committed by elected officials.

On second reading, I think OP meant the war crimes ("many of these") were treason. I don't know what was done, but I suspect that's not really true under a narrow definition.

My earlier comment was unclear. Assange revealed serious crimes by US officials.

OK, thank you for the clarification!

I would argue that Assange only really became hostile to the American government after senior politicians and officials started calling publicly for his murder. If a US Secretary of State repeatedly and publicly commented about how it would be fantastic if you could be killed in a drone strike, wouldn't that make you rather unfriendly towards them?

Do you have a source? Where is your proof that he did not attempt to gain unauthorized access to a federal computer? Genuinely asking because that is the exact crime he is being charged with.

Rather, where is the proof that he did?

The burden of proof is on the accuser.

That is the entire purpose of a trial. The accuser brings forth evidence against the accused.

Assange is under federal indictment meaning that a grand jury was presented evidence and decided that it was enough to file charges. However, the parent comment claims that Assange is innocent.

The indictment formulation is “assisted with”. It is really vague; publishing results can be interpreted as assistance.

No, it cannot be. Publishing, and only publishing classified documents is protected under the first amendment[1]. However, Assange helped Manning gain access to and procure the classified documents which is illegal.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_S...

The guy you're responding to said "crimes by US officials that Assange revealed", not "crimes by Assange that US officials revealed". I misread it the first time too, but he meant the opposite of what you thought.

I'm having trouble finding any on The Hague's website

https://www.icc-cpi.int/Pages/cases.aspx

this confirms that jumping bail was the right course of action.

Sweden didn't produce a single evidence of the crime, and US extradition hearings are happening behind closed doors.

how isn't this exactly what prompted him to ask for asylum, which the UK magistrate called paranoia at the time?

It's not behind closed doors. The article says some journalists were allowed in and what Assange said in the hearing is reported in the article.

cool. hopefully we will have a transcript somewhere?

> Sweden didn't produce a single evidence of the crime

This seems to be false. There was a hearing, and a judge believed there was probable cause. From the Wikipedia page, under "Review of detention order":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_...

> On 16 July 2014, the Stockholm District Court reviewed the detention order on request by Assange. During the course of the proceedings, Assange's defence lawyers said that the prosecutors have a "duty" to advance the case, and that they had shown "passivity" in refusing to go to London to interview Assange. After hearing evidence, the district court concluded that there was probable cause to suspect Assange of committing the alleged crimes, and that the detention order should remain in place.

2014...

after that they did go to London to interview him and did DNA testing and found nothing too.

This is where you do us the courtesy of citing a source.

edit: I'll do some of the work for you:

In March 2015, news reports said that Swedish prosecutors were negotiating a deal to question Assange in London, and that the visit could include taking a DNA sample [0]. The visit happened in Nov. 2016, though the only articles I've seen do not conclusively say whether Assange agreed to give a DNA sample [1]. In any case, prosecutors getting a DNA sample from him does not have anything to do with whether the prosecutors have their own evidence from their investigation, nevermind your baseless charge of "Sweden didn't produce a single evidence of the crime."

It's possible you're conflating Assange's 2016 London interview and potential DNA test with the 2012 reports that, according to Assange's lawyers, Swedish police did not find conclusive evidence of Assange's DNA on a torn condom -- although they did find DNA believed to be Assange's on a condom from a second accuser [2]. In any case, these reports happened in 2012; 2 years later, a Swedish judge apparently considered the same evidence and decided it was enough to uphold the arrest warrant [3]. So unless you care to share the source of your information, it looks like you've either confused your timestamps about the events, or are just making things up.

[0] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/wikileaks-founder-assange...

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/nov/14/julian-assange...

[2] https://www.smh.com.au/world/no-assange-dna-on-torn-condom--...

[3] https://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/jul/16/julian-assange...

Here's a 2012 article detailing what Sweden provided: https://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/media/2012/09/legal-mytho...

i.e. basically they showed Sweden had charged him with stuff which was a crime in both Sweden and the U.K., a bunch of courts agreed that the charges looked at least reasonable and were valid grounds for extradition to Sweden, and then Assange went to the Equadorian embassy.

I think that extraditing him to the U.S. looks like petty revenge from their government given what he's charged with, but the Swedish extradition seems fair, and arguably was in his best interest to have gone along with at the time.

Sweden never charged him with anything. As the link you've provided clearly states they've issued the "request for interrogation", and since he wasn't available prosecutor gave order for him to be brought in for the interrogation, followed by an Interpol warrant for arrest since he was now in another country. Only after interviewing him Swedish prosecutor would decide whether to proceed with the case and officially charge him with the crime, or would drop the whole thing.

Sorry, yes, imprecise wording on my part. That said, I think what I said isn't materially affected by switching from "charged" to "issued a warrant on suspicion"?

Some notes:

- This hearing is simply an early opportunity for Assange to volunteer to surrender to America. Which of course he didn't.

- It won't be until June that a substantial extradition hearing will start.

- He's still got his sentence to serve in the UK.

- The maximum US sentence for the alleged crimes is five years.

Assange has found himself as political currency for the British government. I imagine his extradition will be "expedited" with a little nudge from Jeremy Hunt.

Very saddening.

Well I think he found himself as political currency for the Ecuadorean government and Rafael Correa first. The suspension of Assange's Ecuadorian citizenship was a card played by Correa's successor President Moreno. Correa has continued to support Assange and has excoriated President Moreno for this action.

It’s amazing that the state moves so quickly when someone operates against its interests.

That seems logical that such a thing would happen.

Not necessarily. Climate change is arguably destroying the U.S. through droughts, hurricanes, floods, etc. But you don't see the U.S. react so swiftly.

It's really when the interests of those in power that are affected, that the "state acts so quickly."

Folks will argue how much and when, but the US state is still a democracy and people elected people who oppose action on climate change... it makes sense.

The right to a speedy trial is a provision that safeguards individual liberty, not proof of the crushing might of the state.

Yes, everyone who has had their life saving seized by civil asset forfeiture has had their trials move at an equally speedy pace!

I don't even understand what point you're trying to make.

It's not a trial, it's an extradition hearing.

The right to a speedy trial is held by the individual, not the state. It is not a safeguard to liberty if proceedings move so quickly that the individual cannot mount and adequate defense. This is particularly true of extradition, a situation where there is no room to correct an improper decision acted upon.

Last time I was arrested it took 2 years of going to court once every 2 months, saying that there is no movement on my case before it was straightened out. This all for a very minor offense that I happily plead guilty to after the lawyers had sorted everything out. I could have just as easily plead guilty and paid all my fees on day one if the legal system in the US actually functioned.

Not necessarily disagreeing with you, but this doesn't seem to be a compelling example. He's in an extradition hearing for something that happened 9 years ago, and the article says "the extradition process could take years".

This hearing is the beginning of the process, and unnecessary delay at this point would be unsettling (leaving him wondering whether the other shoe will ever drop).

The fact that the very first hearing took place only weeks after Britain got him in custody doesn’t say anything about how quickly other hearings will take place, when a decision will be made, etc. It’s really silly to call for everyone to slow down at this point.

I guess this news gives Assange a valid reason for his bail-jumping. He was suspected of raping in Sweden. That was what he was bail-jumping for. But the real reason is the threat of his extradition to US for... what? revealing the war crime of the US? That shall never be a crime. War crime shall not be hidden. US shall be punished for obstructing the information of war crime.

He ran to the UK... that's not the place you go if you're fleeing the long arm of the US.

Assange long ago lost any credibility as far as I'm concerned. I think his statements are about crafting his own public narrative than really revealing any of his motivations / actual choices. Wikileaks repeatedly claimed they would release X information, and then simply didn't and wouldn't say a word. I'm not sure if they still have a Facebook page but if you even asked about past claims the question would be quickly removed.

He didn't run to the UK. He waited in Sweden for 5 weeks to be questioned and left after he was told that he was not wanted for questioning.

After leaving, InterPol issued a Red Notice for Assange. This raised a red flag with Assange’s legal team that this was not just about rape accusations, and they decided to fight his extradition to Sweden fearing that he was being set up to be extradited to the United States.

Wikileaks releases all of the information that they receive after it has been vetted and deemed worthy of publication.

>fight his extradition to Sweden fearing that he was being set up to be extradited to the United States.

He was afraid of being extradited to the US... so he chose to do that from the UK?

IIRC in Sweden it's actually harder to be extradited for crimes like espionage:

>Sweden’s extradition agreement with the United States, signed in 1961 and updated in 1983, prohibits extradition on the basis of "a political offense" or "an offense connected with a political offense." The agreement does not specify what constitutes a "political offense." Whether the Swedish supreme court would rule to extradite Assange largely depends on what charges the secret U.S. grand jury brings against him.

>If Assange is accused of espionage, Sweden most certainly would not comply, as its courts have consistently determined that espionage constitutes a political offense. For example, in 1992 Sweden refused to extradite Edward Lee Howard, the only CIA agent to defect to the Soviet Union, to the United States. Charged with espionage, Swedish courts ruled that those accusations amounted to the kind of "political offense" specified in the extradition agreement.

That depends on how plucky the UK is feeling politically. There may be times when the UK feels like reminding the US who it was that actually invented Common Law jurisprudence. And then there may be times when all the Anglophone Commonwealth-allied nations (US GB CA AU NZ) want to prove the strength of their mutual friendship before the observers in the gallery.

Assange was holed up in Ecuador-in-London long enough for politics in both countries to change, but he may have had unreasonable expectations to begin with.

Snowden may not have been expecting to get stuck in Russia, either, but there he was, because every route between there and the place he claimed was his intended destination was so very willing to turn him over, via an expedited process.

At least the UK does the entire extradition hearing process. Even if the result is arriving at a predetermined conclusion via plausible rationale, there is some opportunity there, that one does not have if you enter US custody the instant the plane hits the taxiway.

Wouldn't he have been safer in Sweden than in the UK? If I were to bet on who were more likely to suck up to the Americans of the two, my money would be on the Brits.

Neither one is a particularly safe space if you're worried about the US.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_of_Ahmed_Agiza_an...

> Ahmed Agiza and Muhammad Alzery were two Egyptian asylum-seekers who were deported to Egypt from Sweden on December 18, 2001, apparently following a request from the United States Central Intelligence Agency. The forced repatriation was criticized because of the danger of torture and ill treatment, and because the deportation decision was executed the same day without notifying the lawyers of the asylum seekers. The deportation was carried out by American and Egyptian personnel on Swedish ground, with Swedish servicemen apparently as passive onlookers.

Swedish policy has changed since 2001. I wonder if there are any more recent examples. But that was on par for the course for Sweden. Back during the Cold War, Sweden sent a lot of Latvians and Lithuanians back on request by the USSR.

Sweden was desperately defending its status as a neutral country, and did not want to appear to take any sides. But the previous Swedish government decided to recognise Palestine as a state, which strongly suggest they are done with that now.

All that besides, the US did not request his extradition until Trump became President. So he could have gone to Sweden, done his interview in the case, probably been let off with a fine, and then go on his merry way.

> All that besides, the US did not request his extradition until Trump became President. So he could have gone to Sweden, done his interview in the case, probably been let off with a fine, and then go on his merry way.

Assange had no way of knowing that. The Trump admin's extradition request was sealed (we only knew of its existence in advance because it accidentally leaked in another case's court filings).

That said, fleeing to the UK is a bit of a "out of the frying pan, into the fire" situation.

I was merely arguing that the recent turn of events has not proven, Assange's theory about the consequences of being extradited to Sweden, nor that it was the right thing to jump bail.

I'd say his thinking was that he was safer out of custody in the UK than in custody in Sweden.

He waited in Sweden for 5 weeks to be questioned and left after he was told that he was not wanted for questioning.

After he left InterPol issued an alert which made him fear that it was about more than the Swedish charges and that he would be extradited to the US.

Of course, he was not in custody in the UK and they had nothing to charge him with at first. Eventually he sough asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy because, of course, the would do to him exactly what they are doing now.

> for... what? revealing the war crime of the US?

They're trying to get him for being an accomplice to specific computer crimes related to the acquisition of that information. Of course, the motivation is retribution for embarrassing the government.

The motivation probably also the normalization of prosecuting a journalist the United States sees as a threat/enemy. Assange is very flawed (to say the least), but if he's successfully prosecuted then it opens the door to prosecuting other journalists as well.

There's a fine line between some acts, like publishing documents passed to you, and actively helping a source commit acts that are crimical for the source in order to obtain further documents to publish. The former is generally protected activity. The latter is more like criminal conspiracy.

Inconvenientl, being a journalist or acting in the interests of journalism does not bless a person's conduct with immunity.

Recall that he originally fled Sweden to the UK. That is not the actions of a man who fears extradition to the US. That's the exact opposite course of action any sane person would take.

He didn't run to the UK. He waited in Sweden for 5 weeks to be questioned and left after he was told that he was not wanted for questioning.

This was a lie told by his legal team and later walked back. In court his lawyer admitted the prosecutors had contacted him a week before in order to set up an interview with Assange.

> He [Assange's lawyer] then confirmed that on 22nd September 2010 at 16.46 he has a message from Ms Ny saying: “Hello – it is possible to have an interview Tuesday”. Next there was a message saying:

> “Thanks for letting me know. We will pursue Tuesday 28th at 1700”. He then accepted that there must have been a text from him. “You can interpret these text messages as saying that we had a phone call, but I can’t say if it was on 21st or 22nd”.

Coincidentally* Assange left the country on the 27th.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/Misc/2011/5.html

The UK has substantially better extradition laws for the government. His choice to flee Sweden to go to the UK is certainly an odd one if his concern was avoiding extradition to the US.

He didn't run to the UK. He waited in Sweden for 5 weeks to be questioned and left after he was not wanted for questioning.

Most nations don't take too kindly to people that assist in the illegal acquisition and publishing of their classified documents.

If you did a similar thing to China or Russia, they would probably do everything in their power to secretly execute/assassinate you.

Even if you did it to a highly progressive European nation like UK, the government probably wouldn't celebrate you as a hero but would rather do everything in their power to put you behind bars regardless of if it were "conscienscious whistleblowing" or not.

Its not illegal to publish classified documents, even if they were illegally acquired.

But that doesn't mean you're wrong or that whats legal or moral or right even matters at this level. The powerful are immune to the law, we can all see it plainly these days.

go read the US indictment against him at yourself [0]. The US was smart and did not charge him with anything that he could argue first amendment for.

From WSJ:

> In the U.S. indictment, prosecutors alleged that in March 2010 Mr. Assange conspired to help former U.S. Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning break into a U.S. Defense Department computer system by trying to help her crack a password.

[0] https://www.theverge.com/2019/4/11/18306045/julian-assange-w...

They're going to say espionage and then make everything classified and so he will have no defense and we will never be given proof.

The funny thing is that he's currently being held for not being able to justify bail jumping but now that he's being extradited it justifies his bail jumping... Its absolutely crazy to watch how the law is basically completely fake at a certain level.

> is that he's currently being held for not being able to justify bail jumping

What justifications do you think there are in English law for failure to surrender to bail?

Please don't say rape. That is spreading rumors. It was consensual sex without protection

"I'd like to buy your minivan for $5k" and then taking an entirely different car instead is not a consensual transaction.

That's rape in English law and Swedish law.

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html

> ii) Offences 1-3 described in the EAW (set out at paragraph 3 above) did not meet the dual criminality test. None was a fair and accurate description of the conduct alleged. As regards offence 4, the conduct, if fairly and accurately described, would not have amounted to the offence of rape.

Here's a description. Sounds pretty rapey to me.

> As regards offence 1, AA said in her statement that she had offered the use of her apartment to Mr Assange from 11-14 August 2010 when she was away. She had returned on 13 August 2010 earlier than planned and then met him for the first time. They went out to dinner and returned to her apartment. As they drank tea, he started to fondle her leg which she welcomed. Everything happened fast. Mr Assange ripped off her clothes and at the same time broke her necklace. She tried to put her clothes on again, but Mr Assange had immediately removed them again. She had thought that she did not really want to continue, but it was too late to tell Mr Assange to stop as she had consented so far. Accordingly she let Mr Assange take off all her clothes. Thereafter they laid down on the bed naked with AA on her back and Mr Assange on top. Mr Assange wanted to insert his penis into her vagina, but she did not want him to do that as he was not using a condom. She therefore squeezed her legs together in order to avoid him penetrating her. She tried to reach several times for a condom which Mr Assange had stopped her from doing by holding her arms and bending her legs open and trying to penetrate her with his penis without a condom. Mr Assange must have known it was a condom AA was reaching for and he had held her arms to stop her. After a while Mr Assange had asked AA what she was doing and why she was squeezing her legs together; AA told him she wanted him to put on a condom before he entered her. Mr Assange let go of AA's arms and put on a condom which AA found for him. AA felt a strong sense of unexpressed resistance on Mr Assange' s part against using a condom.

But also see (78) onwards.

> 90 [...] R v B goes no further than deciding that failure to disclose HIV infection is not of itself relevant to consent under s.74. R v B does not permit Mr Assange to contend that, if he deceived AA as to whether he was using a condom or one that he had not damaged, that was irrelevant to the issue of AA's consent to sexual intercourse as a matter of the law of England and Wales or his belief in her consent. On each of those issues, it is clear that it is the prosecution case she did not consent and he had no or no reasonable belief in that consent. Those are issues to which s.74 and not s.76 is relevant; there is nothing in R v B which compels any other conclusion. Furthermore it does not matter whether the sexual contact is described as molestation, assault or, since it involved penile penetration, rape. The dual criminality issue is the absence of consent and the absence of a reasonable belief in consent. Those issues are the same regardless of the description of the conduct.

> Thus, if the question is whether what is set out in the EAW is an offence under the law of England and Wales, then it is in our view clear that it was; the requirement of dual criminality is satisfied.

Indeed. The court ruled that all four of the alleged offences were crimes in England and Wales, and the fourth was properly characterised as rape.

(In case it's not obvious, parent's first quote is the court's summary of Assange's case on appeal, not the court's own findings).

The rape charge[0] is as follows:

> On 17 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [SW] in Enkoping, Assange deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep. was in a helpless state.

This is rape under UK law. Both the District and High Court judge agreed on this point.

[0] http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html

Not much actual news being made here. The same question about the alleged offense remain unchanged as far as if you feel that trying to help someone break into something is something that would be legally protected.

Nobody seems to have done or said anything new.

> Around two dozen activists gathered outside the court to protest against his potential extradition, waving signs that read “Free Julian Assange” and “Is this all just about shutting us all up?” as they demanded his release.

That's not a very impressive show-up. I had hoped he would get more support than a few dozen people.

It's not like this has been getting much traction in the media anyway

I am not surprised that USG has cooked up a tenuous conspiracy charge with which to try and stretch its jurisdiction ever further.

But I am amazed at how many people in this community have accepted the government's narrative at face value. It rests not merely on the notoriously bad CFAA, but also on a theory that chatting during a criminal act is itself concrete furtherance of a conspiracy.

USG's reasoning can be straightforwardly applied to persecute any journalist that interviews a whistleblowing source, as the source is breaking the law by leaking information to the journalist and the journalist is encouraging that crime. This is chilling.

At this point, I believe the best outcome by far is if Assange is extradited to Sweden.

except he might thence be extradited to the US after facing the Swedish charges

It is sad that they are sending this journalist to jail

Julian Assange is not a journalist.

You are incorrect, he is a journalist.

https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/smear-1-he-is-not-a-journ...

I can only assume you’re trolling.

Then so are the entire stuff of National Enquirer, and to a much greater degree at that.

He is a journalist.

I was just about to say you should make some alts. Glad to see you've heeded my advice. Have a good day, Justin.

You have mistaken me for someone else.

This is a bannable offence on HN, and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19809845 isn't much better. Would you please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and post civilly and substantively, or not at all, from now on?

Leaving aside he question of where the boundary of the class “journalist” should be drawn, I'm unsympathetic to the general idea that journalists are entitled to special treatment, and can see no argument that special treatment of the form “are entitled to jump bail in extradition cases related to rape charges” is appropriate for journalists.

I agree, though, to the extent that it is sad that Assange engaged in the behavior for which he is being sent to jail, but that is no one's fault but his own.

I wonder if the current political reputation of USA and Trump will play into Assange dodging extradition.

That doesn't really bear on the independence of the US courts which would be the main issue, and they have recently proved themselves quite independent of an often opposed to the will of the president and political interference.

He will argue that the prosecution itself is political. That US courts might take a dim view of a political prosecution seems neither here nor there- if the underlying prosecution were shown to be political, then I can't see the UK courts allowing the extradition.

It might. Part of Ecuador's public justification for kicking Assange out was that it had received a "verbal" pledge [0] from the U.S. and the UK that the U.S. would not be seeking the death penalty. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who apparently agreed to this, is resigning. In 2010 [1], Trump commented that "there should be like death penalty or something" for Wikileaks. But obviously things have changed since then, and he wasn't a public official at the time.

[0] https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/us-gave-verbal-pledge-death-...

[1] https://www.cnn.com/2017/01/04/politics/kfile-trump-wikileak...

The US cannot seek the death penalty for people extradited from the EU.

Well ok, they technically can break their own treaties but then no EU nation will ever extradite to them again. And many other countries require similar assurances which would now be worthless.

Incidentally, the maximum penalty for the charges is five years, which is far short of a death sentence.

He can face more charges later, possibly more are already under seal. It is very unlikely he will face capital punishment, there is also legal precedent from the '60s in federal cases that makes it so.

He cannot. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/extradition-processes-and-review...

> Extradition is prohibited by statute if:

> ...

> there are no speciality arrangements with the requesting country – ‘speciality’ requires that the person must be dealt with in the requesting state only for the offences for which they have been extradited (except in certain limited circumstances)

Here's the relevant law: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/41/section/95

Incidentally has the US filed its formal extradition paperwork yet? We can only speculate what charges Assange will face in US court until that document is filed.

The official charges will probably be put online as part of court transcripts eventually but I'd expect a journalist (or even Assange's lawyer) will post it sooner.

However it looks like the US indictment[0] is more or less the same as the formal charges will be, considering the exact same maximum sentence as for the indictment was stated at the UK hearing (five years).

[0] https://www.justice.gov/usao-edva/press-release/file/1153481...

I don't really care which way this goes. Assange is a despicable person: he has been a pompous ideologue; he was accused of rape in Sweden; he acted as a "useful idiot" (at best) for the Russians; and he finally irritated the Ecuadoreans enough that they kicked him out of their embassy, which is why he is facing extradition. I'm not eager to punish him, but I wouldn't object to him spending some time in prison.

You may want to read this, you appear to have a couple common misconceptions about what is going on based on some highly publicized smears:

https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/debunking-all-the-assange...

> he was accused of rape in Sweden

Tell me how being accused of rape makes you a despicable person.

I could accuse you of rape in this moment. Would you instantly become a despicable person?

I found the Swedish accusations credible at the time, at least enough that he should have stood trial. Maybe they were false, and he would have been acquitted after some time in court and jail, but he dodged the trial instead.

Even if you weren't convinced by the accusations, there are plenty of other reasons to find Assange despicable, some of which I listed.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com