Comment by JumpCrisscross | Hacker News Reader

Comment by JumpCrisscross | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> No state in the world gives a non-citizen political asylum to avoid a rape trial

The granting of political asylum does not prove the crimes alleged are solely political. That this point is granted zero further attention weakens every subsequent claim.

The granting of political asylum is itself a political act. Particularly when extended by an executive. When Assange’s asylum was granted, Assange was popular and well known. The Ecuadorean leader drew power from an anti-American base. Years later, most Americans don’t know who Assange is [1]. The leadership in Ecuador changed, and with it the political incentives that made Assange valuable [2].

I don’t think Assange fled the Swedish charges per se. But there is insufficient evidence to show he didn’t commit any bona fide crimes under U.S. law. Yes, he exposed war crimes. But he also published sensitive information of zero public benefit yet detrimental to those exposed, e.g. agents in terrorist organisations or the medical records of gay men in Saudi Arabia [3].

I am unfamiliar as to how those balance under American law. But to dismiss the latter solely because of the former is to say a good deed single-handedly excuses bad deeds, which isn’t justice.

[1] https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/20...

[2] https://www.wsj.com/articles/ecuadors-president-turns-on-his...

[3] https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/aug/23/wikileaks-post...

[4] https://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=6024868-Assa...

There is a lot of FUD spread about what WikiLeaks has published. I see the same accusations being repeated over and over, rarely with any explanation of the actual meat of the accusations.

For example, you say that WikiLeaks has released a huge amount of material of zero public interest, and give the example of them supposedly outing a gay man in Saudi Arabia. WikiLeaks actually published a huge cache of Saudi diplomatic cables, which are obviously of immense public interest. Those cables detail the Saudi government's backroom dealings with foreign countries and internal repression. One cable mentions the arrest by the Saudi government of a gay man. That is the cable that people use to accuse WikiLeaks of outing someone in Saudi Arabia.

> But there is insufficient evidence to show he didn’t commit any bona fide crimes under U.S. law.

Assange is an Australian, currently in the U.K., and was accused of rape in Sweden. We shouldn't let the apparently global reach of U.S. law go unexamined.

So as an American, with an American targeted business (and having never visited the EU), doesn't the EU's GDPR law make the same attempt at global reach should a European decide, unbeknownst to me, to visit my web properties? Or are you suggesting that laws that try to assert such global scope are wrong in general?

That's a good question - if your business has no presence in the EU, then I would think the GDPR is toothless? But yes, I don't like such laws in general.

Although the attempt is certainly not the same, as I don't think you can get extradited for GDPR violations.

Your first footnote doesn't seem to support the claim that most American's don't know who Assange is. Did you perhaps link to the wrong article?

That would make me really sad if its true.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com