Hacker News Reader

Comment by blame_lewis | Hacker News Reader

> I seem to recall a whole bunch of people arguing that Assange wasn't going to be extradited to the United States once they extracted him from the embassy.

At the time a fairly extensive collection of polemic was written that liberally used the word "paranoid".

The argument from his opponents seems to have mostly shifted towards "yeah, but he deserves it".

View on HN

Worth also highlighting that this "whole bunch of people" can still be found here on HN. Often they are still very frequent posters and very well known members of HN. Some, however have given "I didn't know" or "the situation changed" half-apologies since.

> Some, however have given "I didn't know" or "the situation changed" half-apologies since.

I hope some people will take this as their "Iraq" moment, where the mechanisms of consensus-building by propaganda are laid bare. This is how powerful interests work: they push people to take sides with selected (or no) information, and by the time the full picture emerges, it's too late.

Anyone who bought the line that Assange didn't need to fear extradition probably will transition seamlessly from "the idea that Assange will be extradited if he leaves the embassy is a baseless conspiracy theory" to "well, he's accused of breaking the law, so it will be a good thing to extradite him to face trial in the U.S."

Have you noticed how no one who led us into the Iraq war, whether they be government, media, etc. has faced any consequence whatsoever? Even the few who have admitted a "mistake" talk about it as if it's a mistake like I forgot my wallet and not a mistake like I killed 100k+ people.

The major red pills in approximate order are

1) I'm being misled systematically

2) I've been misled since school

3) They are fully aware of what they are doing

4) Given the choice, they would prefer me dead over defiant

5) They prefer you dead anyway, so might as well go with defiant

I remember Thomas Ptacek (tptacek) being particularly vocal and unjustifiably venomous towards Assange. One could say he went out of his way (on HN and social media) to broadcast his egregious views on the matter. Has he apologised?

This is just one instance:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11043329

Also, pasted from a different comment in this thread:

https://twitter.com/tqbf/status/821766035401572352

We all make mistakes, but his comments you link to do show a huge error in judgement. The intention of the US government to capture Assange has been well documented since 2010:

> "It's certainly my belief, based on what the attorney general said, that they have already got an arrest warrant for him and they are just waiting for the appropriate moment in the appropriate country," Toobin said. [0]

(I can't help but find it ironic that in a thread about trying to silence a whistleblower, your comment trying to hold someone accountable for their past mistakes is being voted down).

[0] http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/12/01/sweden.interp...

If you have some to hand, links to examples of this extensive collection would substantially increase the utility of your comment.

Googling for "julian assange paranoid" will give you some examples. I'm hesitant to point the finger at a specific example, because I wasn't thinking of one in particular.

You don’t have to look too hard, though. Here’s one from 2017:

https://twitter.com/SwiftOnSecurity/status/82147538290599116...

Some in the opsec community seem to have had particularly poor takes on the question of extradition: https://twitter.com/tqbf/status/821766035401572352

most of the well known people among those guys have security clearances to be able to work with US gov. which means they are under obligation to report on a regular basis about the people they meet. which means we can say they are part of the "intelligence community" (or if we are less charitable we can call them snitches)

> they are under obligation to report on a regular basis about the people they meet

Intriguing. People with a security clearance are required to give intelligence reports about people they have contact with?

If you have contact with an agent of a foreign power, you're required to report the encounter and what you talked about.

I'm not really sure how agents, or contact, are defined. I think the law is intended to keep IC people honest and forthcoming about foreign attempts to turn people.

(Disclaimer: I have never held a security clearance.)

Here's one from 2012:

"The right does not have a monopoly on paranoia, as the conspiratorial fantasies of supporters of Julian Assange show. ... Greenwald argued that Assange was not a coward who dare not face his Swedish accusers but a true dissident, who was camping out in the Ecuadorean embassy because he had a genuine fear of persecution."

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jun/24/nick-c...

Guardian journalist Charles Arthur in 2016:

"No one is detaining Assange except himself." https://twitter.com/charlesarthur/status/787431124020625408

"show me any reliable document anywhere that shows that anyone is detaining Assange in the Ecuadorean embassy." https://twitter.com/charlesarthur/status/794992629138288640

(I always love arguments of the form 'Initiative X has never been publicized in an official government document, therefore it's paranoid conspiracy theorizing to suggest it exists based on any other evidence at hand.')

Arthur even doubled down in January this year to insist he had not been wrong: https://twitter.com/charlesarthur/status/1221173664579825666

>The argument from his opponents seems to have mostly shifted towards "yeah, but he deserves it".

This is roughly true of me. My opinion shifted to "he deserves it" because there appears to be strong evidence that he committed a crime. Why should my opinion not change based on new information? (Is this something you are not open to? Do you intend to defend Assange whatever information about him comes to light?)

That being said, if you read more carefully, what people were actually saying is that he was unlikely to be extradited to the US for leaking classified information, as it would be hard to prosecute someone in the US merely for doing that. But he is now charged with other crimes that are more clear cut.

He's an Australian citizen who was in various countries while operating Wikileaks. What crime(s) did he commit?

It's not a crime to break USA secrecy laws (or, in fact, any US laws) while not being a citizen or resident of the USA. With the caveat that the behaviour is not also illegal in whatever country the alleged perpetrator is actually a citizen/resident of.

One of the crime's he's charged with is hacking.

What you are saying underlines my point. It was indeed unlikely that Assange would be extradited merely for leaking classified information, as it is difficult for even a US citizen to be successfully prosecuted for doing that. But he is being charged with other crimes.

I think you're missing the point of TFA. This is a show trial, not a legitimate extradition of a criminal. The fact that he's been charged with crimes doesn't make him guilty of them, and he, like everyone, deserves a fair hearing in court to determine that.

The original charges against him would have resulted in a failed extradition (as the prosecution admit). So the US government changed the charges during the trial to "better" ones that were more likely to succeed. Without giving the defence any time to prepare a case defending against those new charges.

This isn't justice. I'm ashamed as a UK citizen that we're not able to stand up to the USA and conduct an extradition hearing that is actually just. Especially since the USA refuses to extradite one of its citizens to the UK when charged with murder.

I'm furious as an Australian citizen (I'm dual-national) that we're not fighting to prevent such gross injustice to one of our own citizens. The Aussie government has done nothing, said nothing, about any of it. It's pathetic and infuriating.

It seems to me quite likely that he is guilty of the hacking charges (though I am open minded on this point).

For it to be a show trial there would have to be no realistic possibility of the jury finding him not guilty. I don't see why that should be the case.

well, for a start there's no jury. A magistrate, who is already clearly showing bias and a tendency to read verdicts from a laptop rather than actually decide them, is the sole arbiter of whether he gets extradited or not.

I am talking about the trial following his (probable) extradition. If you'll forgive a little semantic pedantry, an extradition hearing is neither a trial nor (in the UK) a proceeding that's televized, so it would be quite a stretch to describe an extradition hearing as a 'show trial'.

Why should we trust he will get a fair hearing at the actual trial if he's not even getting a fair hearing at the extradition hearing?

I don't agree with your premise. But the obvious answer would be that the the trial will take place in another country under a different legal system involving none of the same people (except Assange himself).

It's not an obvious answer at all, given that the most reasonable implication of biased behaviour by the judged during the extradition hearing would be if there is pressure from the US behind the scenes.

As such, whether or not you agree that the judges behaviour actually is biased, if the judge is biased there is no reason to trust the US courts will be unbiased either.

I think it's more likely that the British judge just disagrees with your assessment of the case. Unless you have any actual evidence of something more sinister, we'll just have to leave it there.

Of course we don't have evidence of anything more sinister, but the reporting demonstrates a repeated and extreme bias coupled with treatment not normally seen in UK extradition cases, to a level that it's deeply irrational to assume there isn't pressure involved.

The pre-written decisions alone, read out unmodified after listening to testimony is irregular enough that it is illogical to assume this judge is doing her job, as there is no evidence to suggest she is..

What treatment is not normally seen in UK extradition cases? Were you a keen observer of UK extradition hearings prior to this one?

It's common for judges to read out their decisions. (Do you expect them to memorize their lines like actors?)

I don't know how you think you can know that the decisions are "unmodified". It's quite likely that the judge has prepared multiple options in advance and chosen one based on what happened at the hearing.

John Kiriakou (the only person from the CIA ever to be indicted from its involvement in torture, because he leaked details about it to the press) has said it is impossible that Assange will get a fair trial in the Virginia court which will handle his case.

no, you don't understand. This is the trial. If he gets to the USA he'll "commit suicide" in a cell, or have some weird show trial where he confesses to everything. There's zero chance that the USA will actually conduct a fair trial, and set him free if he's found to do have done nothing except embarrass powerful people. This is his last chance. The British justice system was supposed to be incorruptible, and blind. Not so much now.

Oh please, stop with the QAnon level conspiracy nonsense. Most likely, he will be offered a plea like everybody that has been charged, including Winner and Manning. If not, he will have a chance to run PrisonLeaks, doing hard hitting pieces on mystery meat and the proper recipe for shit on shingles.

Yeah I don’t think this rises to Q levels. You’d have to be pretty naive to think Assange will get a fair trial anywhere at this point.

He will get as fair a trial as anybody in the US, which means not really fair, but certainly fairer than most poor people.

He is charged with hacking for receiving a hashed password and failing to successfully crack it.

There is absolutely no way that this would be pursued if it were not for his running Wikileaks. This is a clear case of using selective enforcement to enforce a rule that could not be created on a law. (Given the first amendment, what he did that we really don't like is very squarely protected by the Constitution.)

All laws are selectively enforced. I think the more interesting question is whether he's guilty. I don't know. But if he did it, it's pretty clearly illegal, and it's reasonable to charge him.

Note that it's completely irrelevant that he failed to crack the password. Failure to successfully carry out a crime to completion just means that you're incompetent, not that you're innocent.

The only evidence we have that he is guilty is what is claimed to be an intercepted IM.

Were I on a jury, I would refuse to convict because I would consider there to be a reasonable doubt that the IM was real and not invented by the government to make their case.

Oh, do you have a friend on the prosecution team who’s presented the entire prosecution case to you before the trial?

Or do you mean that that’s the only evidence that’s publicly known at the moment?

That's the only evidence that's publicly known at the moment. And, given the extraordinary lengths that the USA has gone to to persecute Assange, it would take a high bar before I'd believe the government at this point.

What Assange is actually guilty of is running Wikileaks with the explicit purpose of making it hard for interest groups within the government to conduct "business as usual" against the interests of both the world and the American public.

On the positive side, Wikileaks helped convince the USA to get out of Iraq, and helped cause the Arab Spring uprisings that removed several dictatorships. On the downside, Wikileaks has become a pawn used by foreign espionage groups attempting to manipulate the US public. See the DNC email dumps which appear to be the work of Russian hackers attempting to manipulate the US election.

Go ahead and charge him with what he actually did, and convince the world that on the balance it does more harm than good. But don't manipulate governments around the world to pursue him by dishonest means.

I don't follow. If he's been charged with things that he's not actually done, then he's innocent and can show that in court.

The fact that someone is innocent is no guarantee that they can prove it in court. Can you prove whether or not you sent a particular IM a dozen years ago on a device that you no longer have access to?

And the rest of my point stands. The US government is not particularly upset that he failed to crack a password. They are upset that he created Wikileaks and publicly embarrassed a lot of influential people.

>The fact that someone is innocent is no guarantee that they can prove it in court.

He doesn't have to prove it, just show that it's plausible. The burden of proof is on the prosecution.

>The US government is not particularly upset that he failed to crack a password. They are upset that he created Wikileaks and publicly embarrassed a lot of influential people.

I think they probably are upset that he tried to help someone hack into a DoD system.

But he's not a USA citizen, and wasn't in the USA when the activity occurred. What the First Amendment to the Constitution of the USA has to say about it is completely irrelevant.

> What the First Amendment to the Constitution of the USA has to say about it is completely irrelevant.

First, if Assange did not violate the law of the US, then there is no cause for extradition. And so it does make sense to be talking about the US legality at this point, since USG going against its very own charter indicates that he will not receive a fair trial.

More generally, the United States Bill of Rights is framed as listing natural rights that everyone has. Yes, NSA is violating your US fourth amendment rights, despite you not being a US citizen. YMMV with practical enforcement though.

In legal practice this is not true at all. The recognition of natural rights and legal enforcement of them are two different things. The Constitution begins with the phrase "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[note 1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." It clearly states that the Constitution is for the people of the U.S.

The Declaration of Independence went further, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"

However, no legal guarantees of rights are made in the declaration.

I acknowledged the mechanical legal aspect - "YMMV with practical enforcement though."

But we should hold our governments to the standards they are purportedly founded on, rather than buying into the justifications that they themselves have created. The opportunities to concretely do this are rare, but extradition trials being judged by a different government are one of those places.

There's plenty of both comments by the founding fathers and subsequent Supreme Court case law that the constitution applies to non citizens as well pretty much anywhere it says "people" rather than "citizen". This comes from a combo of the rights at the time being more thought of as a listing of inalienable rights rather than rights granted by the government, as well as the idea that in order to hold non citizens to the obligations of the legal system you should grant the the rights of the legal system as well.

https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?a...

That doesn't mean it should apply to people who aren't citizens.

Applying Nigerian law to people who aren't citizens of Nigeria would rightfully be questioned. The USA is not exempt from that. Just because it's illegal in the USA doesn't make it illegal everywhere

> Just because it's illegal in the USA doesn't make it illegal everywhere

You'll get 100% agreement from me on that, and for example I think the ongoing promulgation of global US jurisdiction using USD as a wedge is a travesty.

But we're discussing human rights and restrictions on government, not what the US has declared illegal for US persons being applied to non-US persons. We're really talking about applying US law to the US government, operating abroad.

That it doesn't mean shit seems to be indeed "legal" practice.

The 1st amendment and the constitution applies to all persons. Not just citizens.

In theory, yes. In legal practice, however, no...no it doesn't.

According to the courts, the Constitution does not apply at borders. See https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone for more.

Most US spying programs violate the 4th amendment. And have been ruled Constitutional as long as the targets are not US citizens. And if you want to seize someone's assets, you just sue the assets. The owner has been ruled to not have standing to object. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asset_forfeiture for more.

Despite our law enforcement and government swearing to uphold the Constitution, it seems to be more useful as toilet paper sometimes.

No. The USA's constitution does not apply to people outside the USA. I don't know what kind of ideological bubble you need to live in to think that your country's laws are applicable to the entire planet, but I assure you they're not.

Now, before people crucify me for saying what’s ahead, I want to make it clear that I do not support the Espionage Act; it is a terrible attack on our Freedom of Speech and the Press. However, I am simply refuting a point using the law as it stands today. Also, IANAL.

> he was unlikely to be extradited to the US for leaking classified information, as it would be hard to prosecute someone in the US merely for doing that.

The Espionage Act of 1917[0] covers that situation quite well. It’s what all whistleblowers are charged with. We’ve even put a few people in prison for it, and the Supreme Court upheld its constitutionality in two cases in 1919[1][2]. Snowden is wanted for it.

As for how it covers this situation, the text of the act[3§1] says:

> That (a) whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States, or [...]

It does list other reasons such as aiding the enemy, but I feel that this part is what the prosecution would argue.

Now, would the US have jurisdiction to even argue this as the crime happened outside the US? That I do not know, but I have a feeling the courts would say they do as the crime was against the (federal) state.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debs_v._United_States

[3]: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_States_Statutes_at_Lar...

Yes fair enough. I'm not trying to offer a legal opinion, just noting that there is some precedent for journalistic privilege in releasing such information (e.g. the Pentagon papers).

That is actually a very valid argument/question: Is Assange (through WikiLeaks) “press”? I feel that he is, but the US is claiming he aided Manning in hacking; In that case, he (Assange) isn’t innocent (whether it’s true or not is a different question).

Yes, indeed. It will be an interesting case for sure.

Extradition laws are usually limited in that they only cover crimes with is illegal in both countries. As far as I know, no other country except the US has a law that say "is to be used to the injury of the United States".

Usually, but not always.

Moreover, other countries have laws analogous to provisions of the Espionage Act, and it's hardly impossible that some alleged act could be viewed as detrimental to the security of both the US and another country.

Note that I'm speaking generally here, and not in reference to the facts of this particular case.

>leaking classified information

The problem is, he is NOT a US-Citizen, by that fact he cannot be a traitor.

A Agent? No because he did not acquired that information, by that actual definition every country and every press outlet is a agent.

So what has he done? MAYBE endanger the life of US Citizens, which is really not important since he is NOT a US-Citizen.

Did you read the second paragraph of my post at all? I agree with you.

Do you have taken any consequences for the narrative spun around the Iraq war? That cost hundreds of thousands of lives.

Assange didn't kill anyone just for your information and claiming ignorance can only get you so far before it becomes a lie.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com