Key witness in Assange case jailed after admitting to lies and crime spree

It stops a lot of people from even attempting to challenge them, and just do what they want without question, which has many advantages. In some situations, it’s even legitimately necessary. It’s also prone to abuse of course.

In order to keep this kind of power, it’s necessary to demonstrate from time to time this power exists and will be used, since if people start not being afraid of having their lives ruined if they challenge said power legitimately, they also stop going along with demands from those in power unquestioningly. And a lot of the ability to destroy someone for whatever reason (including legitimate ones) depends on that unquestioning compliance.

You can think of it as a form of ‘bend the knee’.

Would it be a feather in someones hat if he actually got arrested and extradited to the US? Probably.

Honestly, it would probably also open up a giant can of worms legally and result in exposure of even more embarrassing details or BS that has been pulled. It’s actually working out pretty well for them as-is.

He clearly isn't a hacker, so of those two he got to be a journalist. He publishes information that might have been acquired by hackers, but nobody claims he hacked anything himself, all he did was make a website for publishing stuff (WikiLeaks). If you are one of those who call programmers "hackers" then you could call him a hacker, but he isn't a hacker in the popular definition of "someone who illegally breaks into others computers".

He was the illegal form of hacker a long time ago and was properly charged for it, but that was decades before wikileaks.

Edit: To be clear, not even USA claims he hacked anything in order to get it published on Wikileaks. People calling him a hacker refers to what he did in the 80's and is completely irrelevant to this case.

You mean you decide whether to support someone based on someone else's arbitrary classification, and not on the merits of their actions, like, I don't know, exposing the US' atrocious war crimes?

The "hacking" he did was saying he'd try to crack a generic Windows password that provided zero additional documents. There's little chance anything else could come out in court as if they had proof he did something else they would have charged him with it. Even further, he'd still be a journalist if found guilty on this charge, as every other charge is for actions that are unquestionably journalism.

And I don't care if you're sick of hearing he can't get a fair trial, it's still true that he can't get a fair trial. Things like his attorney client privilege have already been compromised, and witnesses the US offered deals to for testifying have already recanted their testimony. This isn't a presupposition, it happened.

So push for the current charges against him to be dropped and then presumably the US will charge him with the crime you think he's guilty of. Until then the US is attacking him for publishing documents, which is journalism.

Looking at that picture I'm unsure what makes it "nice" except for the fact that it looks somewhat freshly built.

Cells are cells. What really differentiates prisons is everything around them and what amenities and workshops are offered.

https://assangedefense.org/hearing-coverage/u-s-allowed-to-e...

Obviously, I would propose that someone who hacks U.S. interests having never set foot in the United States should be held accountable by U.S. courts, but he was even on the fringe of that in the promotion of it.

Assange is also accused of assisting his source in attempting (unsuccessfully) to crack a password hash, thereby (the prosecution alleges) taking on more the Daniel Ellsberg role rather than the Washington Post role.

Not commenting on the appropriateness or not of prosecuting Assange, but the situations have significant differences.

2 main ways: first, Julian is an Australian and never lived in the US, and Daniel Elsberg was a US citizen living in the US the time he released the PP and thus was protected under some semblance of need for a trail to ensure he was in fact an enemy combatant or a spy for a foreign nation-state--these charges were then dropped subsequently when the public was made aware of Watergate and Nixon stepping down.

Secondly, it's a blatant selective application of the Law, even with Snowden who has repeatedly asked to be tried by a jury of his peers, which will never happen. There is nothing more to it than that, Jullian never stepped foot in the US and the leaks were ultimately done by Chelsea Manning and hosted on Wikleaks and sent to major publications around the World, who has also been through hell and back before getting her sentence commuted.

Ultimately, it's become a politicized issue and Julian Assange has been a the bane for the DoD and Intelligence Agencies of not just the US but many other countries, so despite the UN calling his continued arrest a Crime Against Humanity, nothing will change until he is either made an example of, ironically this means that Assange will have lived up to his supposed reputation for being a megalomaniac and thus will become a martyr the same way Arron Scwartz has become from the FOSS community.

Suffice it to say, I'm a big fan of Jullian and followed his work since his talks at the CCC (2011?) and all of his Wiki stuff which involved Bitcoin etc... I fear the Julian we all knew has likely been eroded away and has clearly had his faculties get destroyed along with his physical health, mental health--he was diagnosed as autistic but I'm sure the PTSD, loneliness and forced isolation have been more severe than anything else after all these years.

Julian isn't a hero, he is a deeply flawed Human being who decided that he couldn't bare not acting at a time of crisis; something that we should as a species should laud, but instead we are forced to witness the systematic destruction of a Man's life for making the World aware of what took place in perpetual and unjust wars.

A0...An were for political candidate A.

B0...Bn were for opposing political candidate B.

Political candidate B in conjunction with an aligned foreign country paid him to publish only the material on A. Some elements of A were false and constructed by Candidate B to smear Candidate A.

He knew this.

He chose sides, while simultaneously claiming he is neutral.

I have not judged, I have only stated the facts.

EDIT: We also do not know how both sets of secrets were acquired. There are claims he was involved with the exfiltration, a statement that has not been proven or disproven yet since there has been no trial.

EDIT #2: He also has at least one motivation to help Candidate B as Candidate A has stated a desire to prosecute him heavily.

The legal concept of extraterritorial jurisdiction is extremely complex and nuanced, but primarily falls upon the diplomatic power of the country that believes you broke their laws. (If you find this interesting you might enjoy reading about US v. Van Der End, in which a Dutch smuggler was arrested and charged in the US for sailing drugs to Canada)

However all of this is moot because he made the mistake of traveling to the UK and is currently being held by the British. In addition to leaking US secrets he also leaked GCHQ secrets and can be charged under the Official Secrets Act if extradition fails.

What gives the US the power to enforce their views here are a combination of many different factors. The fact the crime in question was committed against the US and in the US (even if Assange was not physically located in the US, the crime happened here, and Assange is accused of being an accessory to that crime). The fact that Assange is physically located in the territory of a close ally of the US. The fact that that ally has no particular love of Assange either. And many other smaller things.

Should someone in another country be able to publish your personal secrets? Sure if its North Korea you can't do much but a organization in a friendly country should not be allowed to do so esp if they're important nationally classified material.