Ecuador has begun giving the US some of Julian Assange’s possessions | Hacker News Reader

Ecuador has begun giving the US some of Julian Assange’s possessions

bbc.co.uk

108 pointssjcsjc119 comments

It’s amazing to me that leaking the tax return data for a sitting president is “journalism”, even without any evidence of a crime. Yet Wikileaks is considered criminal for exposing actual crimes to the US public?

I know he published U.S. government secrets (CIA files, that Iraq military video, etc). But what U.S. government crimes did he expose?

I think Assange is mostly a sleazy guy who allowed himself to be a tool for Russia in 2016. But I still think he should be protected from U.S. charges by the First Amendment, regardless of whatever minor "assistance" he provided to Chelsea Manning.

Snowden on the other hand is a hero that acted perfectly ethically and exposed clearly criminal violations of the U.S. Fourth Amendment. He should be protected as a whistleblower.

> But what U.S. government crimes did he expose?

Google, "Collateral Murder"

You're welcome.

I referenced that video so I'm clearly aware of it.

Assange putting "murder" in the title doesn't actually make it illegal homocide. That's not how any legal system works.

IMHO that incident is unfortunate because some of those people were innocent, and it is legally questionable, but there's also a strong argument that it was legal. A very far cry from exposing something clearly illegal like the My Lai Massacre or Abu Ghraib torture.

So all he's done is expose one legally questionable incident from 2007 by a single military unit during the Iraq war? I suppose I'm not forgetting anything then.

Legally questionable?

> Mark Taylor, an international law expert and a director at the Fafo Institute for International Studies in Norway, told Al Jazeera "there's a case to be made that a war crime may have been committed." He added, "I think what this video shows is really a case that challenges whether the laws of war are strict enough."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_12,_2007,_Baghdad_airstri...

You're free to argue that the laws of war should be stricter. But even if they were changed, it wouldn't retroactively make this incident illegal. It may or may not have been legal (i.e. it's legally questionable), whether you like or agree with the actions is a separate issue.

Contrast this incident with the case of that Navy SEAL murdering a POW. That's not legally questionable, that's very clearly illegal.

The legality of the incident relies upon the notion that a camera's telephoto lens could be mistaken for an RPG.

Watching the video is enough to dispel that.

No, it's much more complex than that. Some of the men were very clearly armed, which anyone who watches the video can see for themselves. Even Assange acknowledged this fact.

The most legally questionable part (I believe) is firing on the van that was evacuating wounded people. The best ethical defense to that attack was that they didn't know children were in there and the driver is primarily to blame for what happened to them.

But even if it was most likely an ethically wrong decision, that doesn't make it automatically illegal.

Even without children in the van, is it legal to fire on an unarmed person in a van picking up the wounded?

And all these arguments are spurious IMO. Collateral Murder exposed what was being done secretly overseas in US citizens' name.

If it wasn't illegal then there should be no problem showing their people exactly what their war budget is paying for.

> Watching the video is enough to dispel that.

Doesn't the video show a group of gunmen who the camera guy was following around?

Killing first-responders is a war crime not a "questionable incident", regardless of their conduct while killing innocent civilians. You're also implying that this is the only case where something like this happened. It's only the only one we know about.

In addition, the Iraqi and Afghan war logs showed evidence of massive underreporting of civilian casualties and cases of friendly-fire. Cases of DoD contractors hiring child prostitutes. Cases of soldiers firing into enemy combatants that were surrendering. Handing prisoners over to Iraqi custody even though they knew they would likely be tortured. Lack of investigation into reports of abuse, torture, rape by Iraqi police. And so on.

Your characterization of the incident could simply be wrong, legally speaking. Were those first responders, or merely enemy combatants helping their fellow enemy combatants escape? Are soldiers required to let wounded enemies escape? What if they're not in uniform? What if innocents would die?

It's very possible that it was completely legal under the international rules of war (Geneva Conventions, etc), whether or not you or I like what happened.

And I'm well aware that many other unfortunate and illegal things happened during the Iraq War. I referenced Abu Grahib. But the topic here was scoped to U.S. gov crimes exposed by Assange.

Edit: I did actually write "questionable incident" and that's what I meant there, my mistake.

I (the GP) actually agree with you. The point in making my distinction wasn't that I think one is criminal and one is not. I think they're both criminal, however there's clearly a political angle being played in both.

Are we talking about any crimes, or just crimes that would also be illegal in the US?

If we are just talking any crime, planting spying equipment in the UN building is illegal. The building is not international water where no law applies. Diplomatic immunity make it hard to prosecute, but it is still a crime.

If we are only talking about crime that is also a crime in the US then Employees of DynCorp, a US government contractor funded by U.S. tax dollars in Afghanistan paid for the services of underage "dancing boys". Child prostitution is a crime in the US. To the degree that US diplomats was aware of the situation and did not act they are complicit in the crime by continuing providing the funds for it.

There are multiple companies like Boeing, MasterCard, Visa, Monsanto where US diplomats and US politicians gave directly support during international deals. It is unclear how much government employees can go in and directly support a company, especially those that also donate a lot of money to political campaigns.

> But I still think he should be protected from U.S. charges by the First Amendment, regardless of whatever minor "assistance" he provided to Chelsea Manning.

Did you read the indictment? Do you honestly believe Assange supplying Manning with a live Linux distro, getting him to dump the password hash of the administrator account of a DoD server with said distro, and then attempting to brute force it after Manning supplied him the hash minor? Curious.

I think those are minor, yes. None of that is actually hacking. That kind of assistance is available to anyone with access to a search engine. Live Linux distros are freely available to anyone, they don't have to be "supplied". Assange failed to crack the password so that was just an embarrassing attempt at providing assistance.

Knowingly providing assistance to a crime is illegal, I'm not arguing that it's not. Just that in these kinds of cases it should be protected. Assisting someone in photocopying classified documents is illegal too, but should also be protected.

If Assange had ssh'd into a server and started running exploits I'd say he certainly crossed the line from journalist to hacker. His assistance may have pushed the boundaries of what is journalistic but I'd still err on the side of protecting him rather than risk diminishing the First Amendment.

At the end of the day, it was Manning that did the hacking and copying of data. Without her actions, there would have been no crime at all.

From how I read the indictment, Manning had finished dumping what she could with her level of access and then Assange urged her to do more. Then Assange provided the live Linux Distro and the process for dumping the admin password hash. Manning then supplied the hash to Assange who then began to attempt to brute force it.

I don't believe these sort of cases should be protected when they reach that level. I do believe that up until the point Assange started actively assisting Manning in compromising DoD systems from the level of access Manning had was where he crossed the line. If he would have just taken the data Manning provided at her level of access that imo is journalism. Attempting to brute force password hashes to give you admin access to DoD systems, that's a computer crime and should be treated as such.

According to Julian's lawyers it's a violation of international law. [1]

[1] https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/1127706444185448449

This lawyer is grasping at straws. There's no way that having security cameras in your own embassy is an "illicit operation"

> This lawyer is grasping at straws.

The lawyer is doing his job, and is mainly referring to the unprecedented case of Ecuador just handing over personal possessions to the US -- a country that is trying to extradite him on the most tenuous of claims.

> There's no way that having security cameras in your own embassy is an "illicit operation"

If they're focused on and used for recording an individual granted asylum, how can that possibly be compatible with even the vaguest principles of privacy?

>If they're focused on and used for recording an individual granted asylum...

Was that the purpose? Were there no security cameras before? If this was a new installation, was he aware of it? Did the placement of the new cameras take privacy into consideration (e.g. avoiding sleeping quarters, toilets, etc.)?

great questions. how do you expect to have answers if even the reason for the main event, the hand over of Assange, is surrounded with disinformation ranging even from literal shit on the walls?

we will never know what exactly happened on this one. that is for sure.

A lot of people seem to have a very narrow idea of privacy.

For what it's worth there were also allegations of microphones being used to record private conversations.

The release of footage from the embassy to the international media seemed a particularly bizarre way to announce to the international community that your government has pure contempt for human rights.

Next time they should just refuse to take in the international fugitive and let him be arrested on the spot. Then nobody will say they have pure contempt for human rights.

That government was not this government.

This government does appear to have pure contempt for due process and human rights.

Just like the US.

Obama suspended habeas corpus[1], extending the Bush-era abductions that were found to be unconstitutional. There hasn't been a US government that respects due process and human rights in a long time.

[1]: https://www.salon.com/2010/05/21/bagram_6/

I absolutely agree. My wording was ambiguous. The "just like the US" didn't apply to the change of government, but over a much longer timescale.

This is absolutely something that has been almost consistent amongst US leaders going back as far as I can remember.

Human rights and due process seem to be a stick with which to (selectively) beat other nations. They don't apply to the US or its cronies.

tenuous claims? really?

The only thing he's being extradited for is trying to hack into US gov computer systems, something which he literally admitted to in a chat message with Manning. https://www.wired.com/story/julian-assange-arrest-indictment...

This whole wikileaks debacle has really shaken my faith in comment quality on HN. Gone are the well informed insightful comments that give you a unique insight into the topic matter, and in with knee jerk comments that appeal to HN's overall political direction.

I don't want to dive into the comments section to have my opinion reinforced by the chorus, I want to be challenged and maybe have my opinion changed in an intellectual way; and it just doesn't feel like this site is good for that anymore.

Not the first time the US has tried to enforce computer laws in regard to password hashes. The infamous case of AACS encryption key controversy and 09 F9 showed a lot of people willing to help with hacking into computer system, and the reaction from the legal system.

> I want to be challenged and maybe have my opinion changed in an intellectual way

be the change you want to see in the world! begin by not selectively ignoring the false allegations that brought him disrepute. Then you can gain some "insight" from the concept that the US could level much more serious charges against him after he lands on US soil from the relatively minor "hacking" charge. From there you can challenge yourself to respect the temerity required to expose war crimes committed by the most powerful nation in the world. You can do it; my faith in you isn't as easily shaken!

> The only thing he's being extradited for is trying to hack into US gov computer systems, something which he literally admitted to in a chat message with Manning. https://www.wired.com/story/julian-assange-arrest-indictment....

It sounds like an open and shut case then.

So why does the US want his possessions? The US should have no interest in his possessions if they are genuinely not on a fishing expedition.

Why is Chelsea Manning's testimony required? Why is she back in prison? It seems an open and shut case.

Maybe the media are telling you it's not a fishing expedition, but it sure looks like one.

Individuals being allowed to claim asylum in an embassy building, which is normally a workplace with the lowered expectation of privacy thereto, is really exceptional. In fact, how many other examples even are there?

According to his lawyers, everything is a violation of international law.

It would be amazing if people could devote a tiny fraction of the effort spent on Assange to some of the hundreds of thousands of other asylum seekers who are wrongly deported, held indefinitely, have their possessions confiscated, have their children removed from them, etc.

Or investigative journalism in general, often in dangerous conditions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daphne_Caruana_Galizia

The millions spent on watching the embassy could have gone to much better places.

If we can't even hold up our principals and defend them in a case as big and public as Assange then there's no hope for the thousands of relative nobodies you're referring to.

Indeed, this is something of a bellwether case.

There were actually many commentators on HN at one time claiming the US doesn't want Assange and the whole thing is made up by 'paranoid Assange supporters'. We now know that not only did they want him, they want all his stuff and are going to go to any underhanded length to get it.

What is the value of dissent and all the prestensions around democracy and human rights when people are being openly persecuted, it seems only dissent in non western countries is valid at which point europe, the free press, ngos and academics will line up with drums and megaphones to lecture everyone on the importance of 'freedom, democracy and dissent'. This is a fall and complete loss of moral highground to continue these kind of charades in future.

What message does this persecution and demonization of Assange, Manning and Snowden send to future dissentors? This virtually guarantees that even those with the tremendous courage that it takes to stand up to power may need to think twice as they are simply not safe in democractic regimes and the law and process will be used against them while the public are indifferent and others cheer on.

>it seems only dissent in non western countries is valid at which point europe, the free press, ngos and academics will line up with drums and megaphones to lecture everyone on the importance of 'freedom, democracy and dissent'

I just want to point out that this is really about the UK here, since this is where this is happening, and the UK really isn't like the rest of Europe at all, something they made quite clear when they voted for Brexit.

In my experience regular people in the UK are generally sceptical of US geopolitical policy, especially since the Iraq war.

It is only British politicians who want to jump into bed with the US at every available opportunity. Not because they are British, but despite it.

That's BS: the British people are the ones who elect those British politicians "who want to jump into bed with the US". If the people really didn't like this, they'd vote differently.

And unlike here in the US where the Presidential race is so important and that position has excessive power compared to the legislative branch, yet is determined with an archaic method that lately awards the post to someone who didn't win the popular election, in Britain there's multiple parties sharing power (I guess you guys have approval voting?), and the PM is elected from the party in Parliament with the most seats. I really don't think you can make a valid claim that the politicians don't represent the people.

And finally, with Brexit, that was voted for with a popular referendum, and a (narrow) majority chose to leave.

The people of Britain are getting the government they deserve, and that they voted for.

Julian better lawyer up with some US lawyers soon. International law and treaty violations are ignored in US courts. See, Kerr v Illinois (1870?) US v. Machain US v. Noriega, etc etc etc

The entire claim of jurisdiction by the US is severely questionable.

Evidence that is turned over to law enforcement by a non-governmental entity may be used at trial. This is called the "silver platter" doctrine. So, your roommate went into your locked room and gave police the kilo of cocaine and firearm you always keep on the nightstand. Tough luck. The police are prohibited from directing private individuals to seize evidence that could not otherwise be seized. Another problem is that correspondence between Assange and his defense team--in other words, his defense--is contained in these materials. Giving the prosecutor access to this material must not be analyzed solely under a 4th Amendment search and seizure analysis, but under a 5th Amendment right to counsel analysis. The silver platter doctrine would not apply to a 5th Amendment analysis.

Parenthetically, cops and journalists are two professions that go undercover. Both lie in order to maintain the act. I have read multiple comments about how Assange tried to help Manning, e.g., that Assange tried to break encryption but failed. But no one knows this. It may very well be that Assange told Manning that he did these things, but did not for any number of reasons, not the least of which would be to keep Manning invested in looking for more material. There is no proof--though there may be in these seized materials--that Assange did anything of the sort. Journalists lie to their sources all the time.

Also, could someone explain why Manning simply didn't leave the country upon being released from jail? There are no criminal charges against Manning--there is merely a civil subpoena which Manning is resisting. He was under no obligation to remain in the United States.

> She was under no obligation to remain in the United States.

It's quite difficult to immigrate somewhere else when you're a convicted criminal; most places will bin your application immediately. Claiming asylum would also have made returning to the US impossible. Perhaps Manning wanted to see her family?

Hey, there's always Svalbard :P

If I read this right, this is good for Assange?

this is quite a jerk move. Even if Mr. Assange was charged of some crime, shouldn't his personal possessions at least go to his family?

Or to the British police surely, they're who've arrested him and it is Britain that will decide where he goes next.

Assange is definitely charged with a crime, namely refusing to surrender to the UK police when released under bail.

You're not wrong. But that crime is on false foundations given that it only exists because of US pressure and influence in Sweden to create the extremely disproportional response to his "crimes" there.

Right but then the UK should have his belongings not the USA.

It's a mercy. Nobody wants the cat.

It's pretty appaling to read comments in this thread trying to imply Assange is in all this trouble because of a 'cat'.

What are you trying to convey?

They follow the narrative that the reason for Assange being handed over to GB is not cleaning up after his cat. This was brought up by Ecuador. You can decide for yourself which of these explanations you think is most likely:

- Ecuador wanted an IMF loan (and got it after handing over Assange)

- Wikileaks leaked documents about corruption of Ecuadors president

- Assange didn't clean up after his cat and that offended his hosts

All options have been brought up at one time or another. Or maybe it's something else. For lack of mind reading we'll never really know. At least not until Wikileaks provides documents about that too.

Note for the future; Asylum granted by Ecuador is worthless, regardless of how much of a shitty house guest you are.

Note for future: regimes/governments change.

It is quite clear that political asylums are political, thus they depend on the political will of those who hold power in a specific moment in time.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com