Hacker News Reader

> There is a "sex tourism" problem in several South-East Asian countries that involves children. These pedophiles have historically been rarely if ever prosecuted in those countries for various reasons. The Australian government passed a law saying that if you are an Australian citizen and engage in this sort of activity you can be criminally charged in Australia.

That example is irrelevant to the Assange case, because that is an application of the nationality principle, which is a principle of international law which gives sovereign states criminal jurisdiction over their citizens for acts done anywhere in the world. So legally Australia can pass a law saying "X is a crime when an Australian citizen does it anywhere in the world", which is exactly what Australia has done in the example you cite; and the US has done the exact same thing (PROTECT Act of 2003). But Assange is not a US citizen, so examples of nationality principle jurisdiction are irrelevant to any US prosecution of Assange, they would only be relevant if Australia tried to prosecute him under some law based on the nationality principle.

1) there is no point (6) 2) Although the US is trying to accuse Assange of doing so, he did not offer material aid of any sort to Chelsea. She could handle the access issue herself.

Unless you would consider setting up a secure drop box under your imaginary (6).

Get informed about the case.

> Get informed about the case.

Sure except for attempting to brute force the LM hashes and offer to get Manning a burner phone Assange provided no material aid to Manning at all. [0]

You don't get to vacillate between James Bond and Bob Woodward as it suits you. Assange has no reasonable claims of protection that an actual journalist might.

[0] https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/886185-pe-123.html

These are such weak claims. You'd say the same thing if Assange got Manning an Uber or a coffee. Assange is an individual journalist that prodded an endlessly powerful and secret intelligence apparatus and revealed their evil doings. Don't pick the wrong side, especially due to supposed technicalities.

If you knowingly participate in or act in furtherance of a crime, that's also a crime. No journalist has been convicted under the Espionage Act. The reason isn't because actual real journalists don't expose things that embarrass the US government. It's because they don't participate in the exfiltration of controlled documents or direct sources to gather specific information.

The case on Manning is not the only time [0] that Assange played spymaster while hiding behind claims of being a journalist.

[0] https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/6/25/julian-assange-cons...

>Don't pick the wrong side, especially due to supposed technicalities.

Not GP, but I'm not sure I understand what you mean about "picking a side."

Facts:

Assange published stolen documents;

Chelsea Manning illegally (whether that was moral/right depends on your belief system. Personally, I'm glad she did) appropriated classified government documents. That's a crime;

The US government alleges (note the term 'alleges') that Assange conspired with Manning and assisted her in illegally obtaining the aforementioned documents;

The US Department of Justice (DoJ) sought and received an indictment for the stuff they allege (there's that word again) Assange did.

// End list of facts.

From a personal perspective, I'm glad that much (not all) of this stuff was revealed.

What's more, publishing information that's newsworthy and/or in the public interest is pretty much what journalism is all about.

That said, the circus surrounding all this is mostly of Assange's making.

Even more, unless I'm called to sit on the jury at Assange's trial, I don't really have much else to say about it.

If (and that's a big 'if') the DoJ can prove beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury that Assange violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, then it's likely he'll be sentenced to a maximum of five years in prison.

The other charges (based on the Espionage Act of 1917) against him aren't credible and no journalist has ever been convicted of such charges in the US. As such, it's unlikely in the extreme that Assange will be.

So. Which "side" am I on, in your estimation?

I'd say I'm on the only side that matters -- the side of facts, evidence and the rule of law.

What say you?

No journalist has been convicted under the espionage act _because_ no journalist has seen a courtroom under the espionage act. We're already in unprecedented territory with this action. Claiming that it's fine because the end goal has never been achieved when we've never gone this far in the first place seems specious.

The DoJ obviously believes these charges will stick, otherwise it'd be in the administration's best interest to not actually see trial and keep the threat viable.

>The DoJ obviously believes these charges will stick, otherwise it'd be in the administration's best interest to not actually see trial and keep the threat viable.

Prosecutorial overcharging[0] is pretty much de rigueur and happens all the time.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overcharging_(law)

Not in cases where they're afraid of getting law settled against them. Prosecutors prefer grey area to clear law against them.

>Not in cases where they're afraid of getting law settled against them. Prosecutors prefer grey area to clear law against them.

[Citation needed]

It's very common. One example among many: https://www.propublica.org/article/prosecutors-dropping-chil...

Prosecutors are very aware of when they're on the grey side of the law, and when it's clear they're up against a defense that has a chance of clear precedent against them, prosecutors start acting much more conservatively.

Also that terrorist's phone where the FBI wanted Apple to create a custom firmware so they could bruteforce it.

> Facts:

> Assange published stolen documents;

Ever heard of the Washington Post, the New York Times, and the Pentagon papers?

There's a few "facts" you might want to get yourself acquainted with.

>Ever heard of the Washington Post, the New York Times, and the Pentagon papers?

Yes. And the Washington Post and the New York Times also published stolen documents (in that case, as you stated, the Pentagon Papers).

Assange published stolen documents. So did WaPo and NYT. So what?

I don't see a difference there. Publishing stuff that's newsworthy or in the public interest is journalism.

Clearly I'm missing your point. Do you think that by stating that particular fact, I was taking a swipe at Assange? Or do you not believe that those documents were stolen? Or are you trying to make some other, still opaque to me, point?

Do tell.

>I'd say I'm on the only side that matters -- the side of facts, evidence and the rule of law.

>What say you?

I would say that same side had some points a few years ago how all that mattered were the Swedish accusations and it was absurd to think they were just sham accusations to get Assange extradited. I would say that that side's naiveness and wishful thinking is actually harmful to justice as a higher concept.

>I would say that same side had some points a few years ago how all that mattered were the Swedish accusations and it was absurd to think they were just sham accusations to get Assange extradited. I would say that that side's naiveness and wishful thinking is actually harmful to justice as a higher concept.

And what do the facts, evidence and rule of law say about those accusations?

> That said, the circus surrounding all this is mostly of Assange's making.

The immoral actions of an unchecked imperialist power are not of Assange's making.

>Assange published stolen documents

He released them to a group of newspaper publishers to redact and publish, didn't he?

Assange says he passed it onto his "LM guy". Do we know who that was?

It would be interesting to see him identify his "LM guy" while under oath. Is the act of passing the hash over to a LM cracking expert a criminal act unbecoming of a journalist?

That's a time-stamped conversation. I wonder if the US captured any other comms to/from Assange around that time so they could already guess who the "LM guy" is. Very concerning.

"- If a US citizen conspires to insider trading with another US citizen on US soil regarding an Australian company, the Australian government will claim jurisdiction through the Corporations Act because it is an Australian security;"

This is so wrong in so many ways:

1 - Corporations Act, neither in Australia nor it's UK equivalent, do not deal with securities fraud or insider trading - it's a separate body of law.

2 - Think about implications of your claim, when you buy shares of American, Chinese, British and Russian companies on Robinhood / Trading212, etc. you do not become bound by security exchange laws of four different countries. This would be legally absurd as the laws differ and conflict significantly

3 - it's not a cut-and-dry 'Australian security' - if the security is issued listed on a stock exchange, say NASDAQ, and it's issuance is governed by the laws of the country where stock exchange is located. But a general investor never even deals with a stock exchange.

4 - When some brokerage is offering financial instruments in UK, the contract is between yourself and their UK branch, and regulated by UK Financial Conduct Authority. There is no foreign jurisdiction involved.

5 - as a general rule, an average citizen is not expected to know laws of other countries they have never travelled to and generally cannot be tried by other countries for their actions in their home country. They may be tried by their home country for their actions abroad, but not the other way round. Almost every exception to this has been related to hacking, and where they did happen these cases are highly controversial even among legal scholars.

That’s interesting, I didn’t know number 5 was actually a crime (other than the “hacking tools”). So maybe the US potentially does have an actual case.. I just assumed that we were having a witch hunt since people in power got mad at Assange

There is no evidence of hacking tools used by Assange, or offered by Assange to Chelsea. Unless you consider secure drop hacking. But then many other journalists are hacking too.

And that's the point - to have a chilling effect on the press.

There's also many reasons why the content of the case itself doesn't matter.

The UK has tortured Assange. This is proven.

The UK has denied urgent medical care to him. Again, proven.

The UK prosecutor has lied in court (to the point the judge yelled at them because it was too obvious). Proven, because it happened in court.

The UK has denied Assange access to a lawyer.

All of these would get the case thrown out, under normal circumstances, in the UK just as well as in the US.

> All of these would get the case thrown out, under normal circumstances, in the UK just as well as in the US.

Depends on how powerful the people were that you pissed off, unfortunately.

I get really annoyed by rhetoric like this, I think it does a disservice to more serious victims of injustice.

Like, come on, "denied access to a lawyer"? He is represented by essentially the best extradition barrister in the country...

Yes, as in physically denying access to his lawyer at critical periods in the proceedings

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/julian-assange-denied-access-to-...

You're doing exactly what I am talking about.

The actually contents of this article is just Assange's own lawyer complaining that it is difficult to meet with a client who is on remand in a high security prison. As far as I can see the phrase "denied access" is not even used. The only actual quote is "obstructed".

This is not what "UK has denied Assange access to a lawyer" means. You are deliberately using the language of more serious issues in order to confuse people.

I am sure you know full well the meaning of "denied access to a lawyer", it is something that people around the world actually experience regularly. This does not apply to someone who has met regularly with his world class defence team.

Of course, they did not prevent access with merely regulating access in a high security prison. They prevented access to his lawyer by physically restraining and locking up the suspect IN A COURTROOM. And when they did find a VERY inconvenient way to have basic communication, the state immediately dragged the suspect out, without even the judge's permission.

We are NOT talking here about regulating access to a lawyer because of security issues. That is NOT it. They prevented him from seeing a lawyer at all before the case starts, and before he faced the courtroom. This is explicitly forbidden.

And look the question is very simple. The law, both in the UK and the US, so pick whichever one you like, CLEARLY states that

IF anyone in the government physicially prevents contact between a suspect and a lawyer before trial (which means any individual courtroom hearing), the state LOSES the case AND the suspect goes free for whatever crime he was accused.

And let's not pretend this is the only issue. The state denied medical care to a prisoner. The state locked him up in solitary more than is legally allowed. The state denied medical care again, as a punishment. EACH OF THESE will get the suspect to go free, whatever the crime. And the list goes on.

At this point it's painfully obvious: it does not matter, at all, what Assange has done for the prosecution. And because of what the state did to him, it no longer matters for the defense either. This is no longer what is being discussed.

The case is mostly about whether the state gets to do whatever they want, including things defined in the law as torture (e.g. refusing medical care, refusing medical care as a punishment) in order to get a conviction?

The law's answer to this question is VERY clear: NO THEY DON'T, in fact they (the state) should be punished for trying it in the first place. Frankly the laws state the state should be punished for getting into a situation where they're even suspected of doing so. First by being forced to let the suspect go, and there's punishments on top of that (such as getting the individuals involved barred from government service). The judge refuses to acknowledge this, despite accepting that the state did indeed torture him.

Obviously at this point, the position of anyone is clear: we should be cheering for the defense. Unless you want allpowerfull police just beating up people, locking them up for years, for whatever reason they see fit. And your position on what Assange did, does not really matter.

Long, aggressive, and vague comments like this are very difficult to respond to because it's hard to understand what you are actually saying.

> "They prevented him from seeing a lawyer at all before the case starts, and before he faced the courtroom"

What do you mean by this? Are you saying that before his first hearing regarding the US extradition, he had not met with his lawyers at all?

Regarding the rest of your comment, it appears that you think there is some kind of IFTTT list of things that somehow "get the suspect to go free, whatever the crime". That's not how it works. You can have a prosecution stayed as an "abuse of process", but there's no single law covering this, just a patchwork of precedent. The definitive legal textbook on this (Abuse of Process in Criminal Proceedings) was actually co-written by one of Assange's lawyers. If this avenue was open to him they surely would have taken it.

> Long, aggressive, and vague comments like this are very difficult to respond to because it's hard to understand what you are actually saying.

No it's not. It's just hard to argue that the details are wrong that way, despite the original article having no shortage of those details.

About your two examples:

(I) This is a case where it's possible the act by the non-citizen is criminal in the US as well; plus the stock exchanges of the world are interlinked in various way, so it has some not-very-indirect negative impact on US companies and citizens. Also, do such things ever happen?

(II) You're establishing GP's point, which is that a special law was needed for extradition in this case.

----------

About your Journalist vs Criminal dichotomy:

* You only mentioned 5 scenarios but refer to a sixth... let's assume you mean just 5.

* GP can't be construed as having discussed option (5), but rather options (1) - (3).

* Something may be defined as a crime by law but be unconstitutional; and the law may yet be struck down by the courts. Law strike-downs happen occasionally in the US, after all.

* Can you provide reference to the claim that (5) is squarely a (federal) crime in the US? That is, that established journalists have been found guilty of doing this?

* Would you claim that scenario (6) is also a crime in the US, where in this scenario the journalist does not tell the source what to look for, and only provides guidance on how to use computing systems and networks discreetly and securely?

> (II) You're establishing GP's point, which is that a special law was needed for extradition in this case.

I beg to differ. A law was needed to establish jurisdiction and a crime just like a law is required for every such case. If you commit a similar crime on Australian soil, it's only illegal because a law exists to make it so (rightly).

> Can you provide reference to the claim that (5) is squarely a (federal) crime in the US?

My point is that every "right" in the US constitution is not absolute or without exceptions. Every single one. The above is a thought experiment to prove that. Put another way: the First Amendment is not a blanket defense. In procuring a story that you publish, you will reach a limit on your actions beyond which you've committed a crime and the First Amendment won't shield you from that.

Like... that's just obvious.

So what particular circumstances lead to a journalist committing a crime is irrelevant. The point is that there is a line, not what the particular line is.

I'm sorry to be short in reply to such a well written post but - the first amendment doesn't matter, he's not an American, it's not his right to be protected or prosecuted over.

The bill or rights protects all people not just US citizens.

That's true inside US jurisdictions. Outside of that, it's complicated [1].

[1]: https://inter-american-law-review.law.miami.edu/u-s-constitu...

If he gets extradited and tried I think all those rights will be there.

That would only apply after the time he is here, not for activities before retroactively.

I believe it's an open legal question. That's one reason why the prison at gitmo is where it is, so that the prisoners there were never brought on to US soil where the court system has the potential to grant them more rights.

How is he subject to US law but not the US constitution?

People somehow lose their ability to utilize Aristotelian logic when it comes to Assange. The unparalleled wave of propaganda unified against Assange makes people unable to question the narrative.

Because if a state goes against this principle then the US might just kick it off the inter-back clearance system (SWIFT), or invade it, or engineer a coup against its government, or a combination of the above.

> How is he subject to US law but not the US constitution?

The Constitutional rights of foreign foreign nationals is complicated [1]. Long story short, the Constitution may not protect them as fully as it does U.S. persons (Americans and foreigners on American soil).

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

Which is horrible and in desperate need of reform. If the law applies differently to foreigners, you are essentially a proto-fascist state.

Thanks for posting the article, it's pretty well summarized by:

> ... it is not surprising that many members of the general public presume that noncitizens do not deserve the same rights as citizens. But the presumption is wrong in many more respects than it is right. While some distinctions between foreign nationals and citizens are normatively justified and consistent with constitutional and international law, most are not.

Non-citizens don't have a fundamental right to vote, or to enter the country. Non-citizens cannot hold federal office. Non-citizens accused of crimes may be held in jail pending their trial in situations where citizens would be free pending trial. But that's a pretty short list. In fact nearly all fundamental freedoms of the Bill of Rights (speech/press/religion/assembly) and rights to a fair trial apply to citizens and non-citizens alike.

> the first amendment doesn't matter, he's not an American

That makes no sense whatsoever to me. Where in the US Constitution is this restriction on the First Amendment?

The First Amendment is part of an American document describing American precepts of law for the American government. Specifically, it prevents the American legislative body known as Congress (who represents, exclusively, the American electorate) from passing laws abridging the freedom of speech. It's implied that the First Amendment only applies to Americans, for the same reason that, say, the laws of the EU or Russia don't apply to Americans. Governments only have sovereign authority over their citizens.

Mind you, the First Amendment and freedom of speech are related, but not the same, and one can easily argue that freedom of speech is universal, but not the American Constitution.

That's not the interpretation the courts have taken. Essentially you can't take the constitution as a whole and say it applies to Americans or not. There are rights specifically conveyed to citizens (like voting). Those are clearly American only. Then in contrast to that there are rights conveyed to people generally, and rights formed as blanket restrictions on government. Those are interpreted as equally applying to non Americans.

> Those are interpreted as equally applying to non Americans.

But, oddly, as not applying fully to acts of the American government taken outside of the borders of the United States, which is why Gitmo is used for sketchy War on Terror detentions, and not any place on sovereign US territory rather than territory notionally leased by the US from a foreign sovereign.

I think that's in the realm of grey legal theory that hasn't been tested in court. But yes, that's a great point, and I coincidentally just said something similar in another comment.

> I think that's in the realm of grey legal theory that hasn't been tested in court.

Johnson v Eisentrager (1950) is the landmark case, but its been fleshed out subsequently (and most of those decisions have narrowed the apparent gap in the Constitution it opened up), largely in response to the decision to use Gitmo as a get out of law free card. But the existence of that decision is why Gitmo got used.

And given the split on those decisions limiting Eisentrager, I wouldn't want to see what the current court would do with cases in that area...

> It's implied that the First Amendment only applies to Americans, for the same reason that, say, the laws of the EU or Russia don't apply to Americans.

The laws of the EU or Russia certainly do apply to Americans in EU or Russia. In fact they apply to anyone within the respective jurisdictions.

The 1st Amendment is a moot point as Assange is not being sought for "speech" he has made but for criminal conspiracy and providing material support in furtherance of a crime. The US Constitution does apply to anyone the US Federal Government interacts in my opinion, as it is a definition and limitation of the powers of the US Federal Government. I know it hasn't been applied in practice many times and there are Americans who disagree with this stance but they're wrong just like some people were wrong about slavery.

wow so you're essentially making a comparison between a.) a person who exposes serious war crimes by the leaders of the most militarily invested country in the world - where those leaders essentially committed mass-murder from a distance (let's be honest, Assange/Mannings's Collateral Murder drone strike footage is probably not the only footage that exists/existed, and neither is this the worst event in the US propertied class' illegitimate 'war on terror', it's just one of a few 'unlucky' bits of evidence that has leaked), and b.) sex tourists and pedophiles in south-east asia?

serious question: how do you justify this in your mind?

Those were two completely separate examples about separate questions, you're combining them so you can be outraged.

they aren't, they are two examples of various extradition-justifications that the commenter above me was comparing.

> you're combining them so you can be outraged.

no, you're going to an ad hominem by trying to point to my supposed emotionality ("outraged").

That's not an ad hominem.

please can you elaborate on why my comment was flagged and thus censored for non-HN members?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29039983

if it's:

> those leaders essentially committed mass-murder from a distance

are you condoning drone strikes? (serious question). i believe people (including elected bourgeois leaders) should be held accountable. the US govt. are accusing Snowden and Assange of being "high-tech terrorists" (Biden [1]), so why cannot i refer to these people as murderers?

> US propertied class

this is merely a fact. the people in power are predominantly those who own property or intellectual property. a lot of people do not own their homes and have to rent, neither do they own IP so they have to work for their money (receive a wage). i am referring to these power structures based on my own beliefs ("be ruthless to systems, be kind to people").

> US propertied class' illegitimate 'war on terror'

at this point i'm pretty sure not many are claiming it is was a legitimate war... are you?

was the flagging because of something else? if yes, please share.

it just feels dishonest to censor stuff you don't personally agree with, especially since it received a bunch of upvotes. a 'don't make it political' stance seems naive to me because of course no system is (or ever can be) neutral, since there always many voices at the table.

i don't think it's fun to write this, i just want to call you out on what i perceive are a few double standards you have. i appreciate the moderation and the space to discuss the role of tech in society, and it just surprises me when things get censored or the host party decides to interfere (especially a comment that isn't downvoted to hell or actively harmful to someone (or misogynistic, racist, homophobic or transphobic)). until we have a more distributed web a la ActivityPub, SSB, DAT, IPFS, holochain etc., we all have to make the most of this centralized tech.

anyways, please could you restore my comment?

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/dec/19/assange-high-t...

Mods didn't flag it or even see it until now. Users flagged it. We can only guess why users flag things, but in this case I'd say the comment was a direct step further into flamewar, so the flags were justified.

A comment that begins "wow so you're essentially [doing completely indefensible $thing]" and ends "serious question: how do you justify this in your mind?" is not the kind of discussion we want on HN. It at least broke these guidelines:

"Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine."

"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."

"Eschew flamebait. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents."

It also crosses into personal attack.

I'm sure you can make your substantive points thoughtfully and respectfully, so could you please do that instead? I don't have any problem with your views (I don't know what they are actually), but we need users to abide by the site guidelines. It's not as if every other commenter in the thread was doing a great job of it either but, as I said already, your comment was a noticeable step further into flamewar hell.