Julian Assange on Bill Maher last night [video] | Hacker News Reader

Julian Assange on Bill Maher last night [video]

hbo.com

134 pointsCorsairSanglot93 comments

I think Assange's interview at TED was a much more concrete discussion of Wikileaks and its role in politics -- there were real examples in the interview:

http://www.ted.com/talks/julian_assange_why_the_world_needs_...

I feel like Maher hinted at a lot of different things, but never actually went in-depth. The discussion was very vague. I would have loved to learn about more cases where Wikileaks was able to provide information that was able to influence a government's actions.

My guess is that they probably didn't go that deep because of the network not wanting to get too controversial for the sake of the viewers? idk, something around that area pobably, otherwise Maher would have asked all kinds of things, I mean he's that kind of person.

I feel that Assange dodged a few very serious questions posed by Maher.

What if Wikileaks does leak out documents that could escalate a conflict?

I have a feeling that if you leak-analyze-report (aka, do solid journalism) early and often, that on balance more conflicts are prevented than are caused.

I think this is a wrong question. The premise is that by picking and choosing which stories to cover you can make the world better for your world view. From this sort of logic you can make the case that Google shouldn't support all possible queries -- what if some of the people using Google use the results to cause harm?

This is a wrong way of looking at things because although some of the help Google provides people will cause the world to be a worse place, the vast majority of its effects are positive... for every person who looks up movie showtimes so they can go shoot people hundreds of millions of people are using google to have a fun family afternoon. Just because a tool can be used poorly doesn't mean it is wrong that it exists.

WikiLeaks is a tool for whistle blowers. It's a tool for people with access to information they feel a moral obligation to share with the world. It's designed to let them do that without throwing their life away in the process. Some of these whistle blowers will be doing things you or I disagree with, some will be doing things we do agree with. That, in balance, this is a good tool to have exist seems straightforward to me.

As for conflict vs non-conflict, I think that conflict often is the first step toward long term improvement. If your government has been lying to you about why it's doing what it's doing, telling everyone the truth is virtually guaranteed to create conflict. Conflict of this sort is good. Look at the huge escalation of conflict in the middle east brought about by the cable leaks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Spring is the least biased link I can find, and a reasonable place to start). I completely agree that there are a lot of bad outcomes from these conflicts so far (60,000 deaths in the Syrian civil war, etc)... I'm just optimistic that we'll get some real governmental reforms in the long run (either from successful revolutions, or from other dictators being wary of betraying their people).

I'm not sure whether the analogy to Google applies here, as leaks are private information, not to be shared with third parties and Google search queries merely search what is already published.

I was alluding to Bill Maher's example of the Cold War stand-off between the US and Russia. I thought it was a proper example where leaking something out could've caused WW3. But you are right in a sense that this is a hypothetical and we're not really sure how things would really turn out.

Btw, here's an interesting leak that if it was not released, then Israel and US forces might've had some advantage over the Iranians (in case of a war), but now they probably don't: http://www.jpost.com/Defense/Article.aspx?id=259954

"here's an interesting leak that if it was not released, then Israel and US forces might've had some advantage over the Iranians (in case of a war), but now they probably don't:"

We don't have a military advantage of Iran? Really? I am not sure if you've noticed, but the US and Israel have some of the most advanced militaries in the world. If the US were at war with Iran, the Iranians would need the help of some other powerful nation to have anything that even resembles a chance of winning.

If that is really the worst leak you can find, I think we are pretty safe in a world with Wikileaks.

We don't have a military advantage of Iran? Really? I am not sure if you've noticed, but the US and Israel have some of the most advanced militaries in the world. If the US were at war with Iran, the Iranians would need the help of some other powerful nation to have anything that even resembles a chance of winning.

Hate to break it to you, but technology isn't everything. Just ask the Taliban.

First of all, the leak I was talking about was about technology, supposedly robbing Israel and the US of a particular technical advantage over the Iranian military. If technology is not everything, then the importance of that leak was greatly overstated; if technology matters, the importance of the leak is still greatly overstated.

That being said, while it is true that coordination, tactics, and strategy can outweigh technical advantages, better technology confers a tactical advantage to an army. The greater the difference in two armies technologies, the more pronounced the tactical advantage is. The Taliban did not see anything resembling a victory when the US attacked Afghanistan; they survive now by hiding in caves, and their overall strategy is based on intimidating civilians.

If you want to point to a case where superior technology did not result in victory, you should have pointed to Nazi Germany. There can be little question that the Luftwaffe and the Kriegsmarine had better technology than the Allies, but ultimately Germany lost. I do not think Iran is really in the same position as the Allies were in...

> I am not sure if you've noticed, but the US and Israel have some of the most advanced militaries in the world

Hilarious. Well that explains those quick, decisive victories in Iraq and Afghanistan!

> If the US were at war with Iran, the Iranians would need the help of some other powerful nation to have anything that even resembles a chance of winning

I have difficulty imagining what you are thinking typing this. What do you think "winning" is? If you mean "defeating the US Army on a level playing field" then of course they cannot win. Such a conflict, of course, has never occurred in the history of warfare.

If you mean "causing the US Army enough pain that they give up and go home" then they absolutely could win. Iraq and Afghanistan are wonderful demonstrations of this. The US Polity has no stomach for extended, bloody guerrilla warfare.

Maybe that's good.

Maybe that will make the US and Israel less inclined to commit the war crime of aggression against Iran.

Maybe if foreigners stopped attacking Iran it might have snowball's chance in hell of becoming a normal country.

You do realize that the Islamic Republic is the blowback from the US's covert ops in 1953 that destroyed Iran's democracy don't you?

You do realize that Iran hasn't attacked anyone in modern history don't you?

And you do realize that Iran has been under constant attack, covert or overt, for more than 100 years don't you?

Or maybe you want to keep attacking Iran until you turn it into North Korea.

I just did the exercise of substitution in your post, Iran for the Rhineland, and the USA for Nazi Germany. That gives:

-Mein Furher! We can't possibly remilitarize the Rhineland!

=Why not?

-Those Wikileaks schweinehunds have revealed our contingency plans!

I wish we had Wikileaks in 1936. It would have made Hitler's career much shorter.

Conversely, if we had Wikileaks in 1940, it would have made Hitler's career much longer.

Let's just name some of the allied secrets that were instrumental in defeating the Axis: the fact that the Allies had broken the Enigma code, air patrol schedules and radar locations in Britain, Allied radar technology, the fact that the Allies had broken the Japanese codes and Midway was a trap, the fact that the bulk of the Allied landings in northern France were indeed Normandy rather than across the straits of Dover, the fact that the landings would occur on June 6, 1944, the identities of and means of communications with members of the French Resistance, and last but not least, the secret of how to make an atomic bomb.

The fact is, Wikileaks is always going to collect and reveal more secrets from relatively democratic and transparent societies than it could ever do to entrenched dictatorships. If we had Wikileaks in 1936, it would have had just as much to say about Hitler as Wikileaks of 2013 has to say about North Korea.

Wikileaks doesn't just publish something because it is a secret.

"Wikileaks will accept restricted or censored material of political, ethical, diplomatic or historical significance."

Most of your examples clearly don't meet that criteria and it would be a stretch for any of them.

That might be what they say, but actions speak louder--for instance, indiscriminately publishing gigabytes of diplomatic cables, most of which are inconsequential.

Also, I'm pretty sure any secret that would have had strategic importance in WWII was of "political significance".

The cables were selectively published until the point that the encryption keys were disclosed. There was a front page story every week at least for several weeks.

Locations of radar installations have no political significance in themselves. Obviously where exactly the line should be drawn is up for debate but I see no one claiming the line is where you say they are claiming it is.

That's all predicated on there being a whistleblower that leaks that particular data.

It's a stretch to assume that all information would be leaked all the time. That doesn't seem to be born out by the evidence to date.

Sure, but that's a lack of ability rather than intention. People on HN like to make idealistic arguments that governments should never hold secrets. Well, there are many documented cases where that wouldn't have worked out very well for a lot of people.

> Sure, but that's a lack of ability rather than intention.

I don't believe that is true. Every secret under the sun could be leaked tomorrow morning. The fact that that isn't the case is not because of ability but because people tend to self-select into job slots where they are dealing with things that they support.

The times when things are leaked are when people find themselves operating in slots supporting a system that they can no longer support (because of ethics or some other overriding concern). That's when you have leaks.

So the best way to avoid leaks is to operate within parameter that will guarantee that you have extremely wide support amongst the people that you are working with. Stay away from killing innocents, don't break in to your political opponents offices and so on.

Leaks are infrequent for a good reason: most people believe in the causes they work for. Leaks by themselves are symptomatic of problems in an organization.

> People on HN like to make idealistic arguments that governments should never hold secrets.

I think that 'people on HN' are smart enough to evaluate things on a case-by-case basis and to avoid generalizations like that.

> Well, there are many documented cases where that wouldn't have worked out very well for a lot of people.

But there are almost no documented cases where that that did not work out well for anybody. You'd really have to dig to find evidence of a case where purposefully leaked information by a whistleblower led to something bad.

Ok, from Nixons point of view Watergate was bad, so it's relative to the viewpoint of the persons involved but if we look at the 'greater good' then the whistleblowers find themselves on that side much more often than not.

> The times when things are leaked are when people find themselves operating in slots supporting a system that they can no longer support (because of ethics or some other overriding concern). That's when you have leaks.

If simply trusting in the moral intuitions of ordinary people was any way of solving social problems, we wouldn't have social problems.

> I think that 'people on HN' are smart enough to evaluate things on a case-by-case basis and to avoid generalizations like that.

I've read the exact argument, in exactly so many words, on HN, that governments should never hold secrets.

> You'd really have to dig to find evidence of a case where purposefully leaked information by a whistleblower led to something bad.

Given the connotation of the term "whistleblower", that's pretty much a tautology. You would not have called anyone "whistleblowers" for exposing the plans for Normandy.

I think that 'people on HN' are smart enough to evaluate things on a case-by-case basis and to avoid generalizations like that.

If only!

You have your facts wrong.

Firstly, there were German and Japanese spies, but there was basically nobody on the Allied side who thought it was whistleblowing to leak secrets to Hitler. Unlike the case of the Soviet Union, which the Manhattan scientists did think it was whistleblowing, and did leak the nuclear bomb secrets, Wikileaks or no. Also unlike the case of the German military, which was riddled with anti-Hitler resistance who leaked what they could to the Allies, again Wikileaks or no. So if Wikileaks existed in 1940, it would have made easier the life of Schulze-Boysen acting against Hitler, not Bomber Harris acting against Churchill.

Example references:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klaus_Fuchs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Canaris

The French Resistance was useless. Besides, traitors amongst them could easily have dropped off an anonymous tip to the Gestapo or even turned double agent. Wikileaks would have been a lot less decisive in this case.

Finally, the Germans already had lots of evidence about their enigma code being broken, and about the British radar system. Hitler himself told the generals the attack would come at Normandy.

However, the German generals could not bring themselves to believe it. They had too much hubris to believe that their codes had been cracked. And they could not believe that the British would use such shitty old fashioned radar. The German counter measures were designed to work against good radars such as their own, and no one had thought of building counter measures against the British crap. This gave British airpower the advantage. Sadly I don't have references on me for these, but I do have a reference for the Normandy landings.

The German generals refused to believe Hitler because landing at Normandy would be insanely expensive in Allied blood. Only a complete idiot would decide to land at Normandy. The fact that Hitler told the generals is made a point of in Shirer's book:

http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Fall-Third-Reich-History/dp/14516...

So World War 2 is a really lousy example for you to use.

Besides, to protect against this sort of thing, Wikileaks have a disclosure policy. For example, when they released the diplomatic cables, they tried to go through the newspapers first: anything the newspapers redacted, they redacted too.

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates admitted that "the review to date has not revealed any sensitive intelligence sources and methods compromised by this disclosure" and later stated "Is this embarrassing? Yes. Is it awkward? Yes. Consequences for U.S. foreign policy? I think fairly modest."

References:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/8...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks

So frankly, Wikileaks are mitigating your fictitious Hitler-in-1940 scenario anyway. And I trust them way more than I trust the politicians telling me what I don't need to know.

Admittedly, the "Wikileaks in 1940" is such an anachronistic idea that it doesn't hold up to analysis. The WWII era not only lacked the technology necessary for Wikileaks, but also the ridiculous notion that governments should be completely disabled from keeping secrets at all. Since you've moved the goalposts and aren't even defended that notion, you've tacitly conceded that governments should be able to keep some secrets from the public, so I don't see the purpose of your quibbling.

> there was basically nobody on the Allied side who thought it was whistleblowing to leak secrets to Hitler

To Hitler directly? Perhaps not, but I'm discussing releasing information to the public as a whole, which would have the secondary consequence of revealing the secret to the Axis. This is also why the selective release of information to the Soviets is an irrelevancy on your part, since we're discussing the impact of revealing secrets to the public as a whole.

The basic threat of Wikileaks is that "basically nobody" is still somebody, and somebody is all you need to release secret information to everybody.

Your refutation is that, based the incomplete information they had, the Germans could have potentially chosen to bet correctly on everything they were uncertain of. Are you really incapable of distinguishing that scenario from one where they were able to make a more informed decision because the secrets were revealed decisively?

Regardless of Hitler's initial opinions, the fact remains that a large proportion of the German defensive force on D-Day were garrisoned in the Pas de Calais region and remained there even after the landing was underway, convinced that Normandy was a diversionary attack. It would seem that Hitler himself changed his mind, since the failure of the German forces to abandon Pas de Calais was decisive to the operation.

Empowering individuals to release information to the public makes it harder, not easier, to keep secrets. How can you argue otherwise? Keeping secrets was vital to the Second World War. How can you argue otherwise?

"Since we're discussing the impact of revealing secrets to the public as a whole."

No, you were discussing that. Military plans are irrelevant to the public as a whole. They are only actionable by the opposing military.

The case discussed that originated this three posts up was about use of Wikileaks as a vector to reveal US/Israeli military secrets to the Iranian government. The idea was never to get US military secrets to Old Farmer Sassan from Onion Village in Iran. What on earth would he do with them?

"Somebody is all you need to release secret information to everybody."

No, a whistleblower is what you need to release secret information. The difference being that the whistlebower is someone who doesn't want the secrets kept, because he/she has decided that the secret keepers (the whistleblower's own side) are the criminals. Someone like Bradley Manning. Or Wilhelm Canaris. Who on the Allied side wanted to reveal Allied war secrets? This is your flimsy argument against empowering whistleblowers?

"the failure of the German forces to abandon Pas de Calais was decisive to the operation."

You seem to get all your history from Action Man books

http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=ntt_athr_dp_sr_1?_encoding=UTF...

Do you have any idea of what a fiasco World War Two was? If there had been a Wikileaks leaking government secrets to EVERYBODY (gasp!) in 1940, I'm certain World War Two would have been smaller, because Japan and the USA would not have gotten involved. The American public would not have tolerated it.

And maybe Britain might not have starved those 7 million Indian people by diverting their food to the British Army.

I should have known better than to respond to someone who literally Godwinned the thread right off the bat.

And I should known better than to reply to someone putting words in my mouth.

I am responsible neither for your ignorance nor for your mistaking of battlefield trivia for all of history.

Once you actually know something about World War Two we can talk about Wikileaks in 1940.

Here are some references. Go and learn what the hell you're talking about.

http://www.amazon.com/Day-Of-Deceit-Truth-Harbor/dp/07432012...

http://www.amazon.com/Desperate-Deception-British-Operations...

http://www.amazon.com/War-Racket-Profit-Motive-Warfare/dp/14...

http://www.amazon.com/Churchill-Hitler-Unnecessary-War-Brita...

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Psychology-Military-Incompetence-Pim...

http://www.amazon.com/Prosperity-Misery-Modern-Bengal-1943-1...

Oh nice, my knowledge of WWII is being criticized by a Pearl Harbor truther.

Cut the ad-hominems asshole. You're the one who can't tell the difference between 1940 and 1942.

> The premise is that by picking and choosing which stories to cover you can make the world better for your world view.

Wikileaks seems to operate on this premise already. They aren't a wiki anymore, they're selective about what they publish, and what they do publish is usually editorialized. The real question is whether Wikileaks' agenda is positive or negative.

Did you really just state, as an adult, that the "real question" is whether Wikileaks is "the good guys or the bad guys"?

I think if you're selectively leaking and editorializing things, it makes sense to question whether your agenda is good or bad.

And I was trying to point out that the idea of agenda's being entirely "good" or "bad" is childish.

Well if you're going to play the moral relativism game, I guess none of this shit matters anyway.

So it's either "the good folk vs the evildoers" or complete moral relativism?

No concept of an interplay between transparency/civil rights and security? No room for disagreement between people who value both but disagree about the relative worth of these goals when applied to a specific circumstance?

As I said before: childish.

It's funny. You're arranging words in a seemingly meaningful pattern, but when I parse it, you aren't saying anything at all other than calling me childish.

You can disagree with someone about a moral question, but the only way you can both be right is through moral relativism. Otherwise, one person is doing the right thing and the other person is doing the wrong thing even though they think it's right. I wouldn't use the words "good and evil" because they have a bit of a manichean connotation to them, but if you take the plain, everyday meanings of "good and bad", they make sense in this context, and what you're saying doesn't.

I wasn't aware that reasonable adults were only allowed to have one opinion regarding WikiLeaks. How does the thoughtcrime work in this scenario? Does Julian Assange come dox me himself, or should I wait for someone with a Guy Fawkes mask?

For future instances where I might try to think of things using my own brain, who from WikiLeaks should I get approval from? Is the request form available electronically as an HTML form, or do I need to use PDF? The latter is kind of important as I don't have a PDF-form-capable viewer most of the time.

Thanks, and I look forward to locking myself totally and subserviently to what other people think.

I guess my point was unclear. I was taking issue with the childish idea of there being "good guys" and "bad guys" for pretty much the same reasons you stated.

A newspaper has the same problem. What is the difference?

We know newspapers have made the decision - every so often, they delay reporting on sensitive matters. Wikileaks should be willing to say whether they'd do the same thing.

Wikileaks redacts the names of people who may be in imminent danger. One would think that everything reported by Wikileaks is a "sensitive matter". If a report reveals the corruption and war crimes of a dictator that spurs a revolution where life is lost is that a "sensitive matter" whose reporting should be delayed?

It seems "sensitive matter" is a euphemism for something that harms the interests of the US/UK.

> Wikileaks redacts the names of people who may be in imminent danger.

Not always. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-20011886-503543/wikil...

I don't know what specifically what releases the article is referring to do but I assume it is those caused by John Ball (a Guardian newspaper liaison) when he knowingly released the encryption keys for the insurance file. Please correct me if I am wrong.

That said there is always a risk in news reporting that you put someone in harm's way. The goal is to minimize that risk while still being able to report the news.

Did you watch the video? They address this exact question. It's right at the beginning of their about page as well (http://wikileaks.org/About.html).

So yes, I agree with you completely. Wikileaks should be willing to say whether they'd do the same thing. So we can both be happy that they are willing, have always been willing, and do say that they will do the same thing. In fact they go even further in stating that they do not do this for political reasons.

"What if Wikileaks does leak out documents that could escalate a conflict?"

First of all, keep in mind that Wikileaks itself does not leak anything, they just publish information leaked by others.

That being said, there is already a case of Wikileaks publishing information that escalated a conflict: the Arab Spring. Wikileaks was not the sole cause of those revolutions or protests, but the material published by Wikileaks did contribute to the anger that drove people into the streets. It is likely that over the next few decades, there will be continued conflict stemming from the Arab Spring, and that a large number of people will die or be driven from their homes as a result.

Of course, Wikileaks is not the first organization to publish information that caused or escalated a conflict:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zimmerman_telegram#Effect_in_t...

You see the Arab Spring as a bad thing?

No, and that is precisely the point: the question is meant to suggest that if the result of publishing documents is an escalation in a conflict, it must be that publishing the documents was bad. Most people in America seem to agree that the Arab Spring was a good thing; I think it is therefore safe to conclude that it is not always bad to reveal information that causes a conflict to escalate.

"I think it is therefore safe to conclude that it is not always bad to reveal information that causes a conflict to escalate."

The other assumption also requires that the former stability is not predicated on existing harm.

Youtube link for internationals - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ieO0I6xJ_zQ

The HBO link seems to work here in Australia - unusual :|

Heh, I opened it, enabled flash and nothing happened... assumed it wasn't working (Australia also)

Same thing happened to me, but I'm in the US.

It is working here in Brazil as well. Not usual.

It's been taken down now. There is another version, although it appears to be slightly edited from the video posted on "Real Time" website. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ov3tw8rfdEE

I used to think that Assange was a bit paranoid but the case of Sami al-Saadi (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20715507) and the sledgehammer-to-crack-a-nut approach in the Arron Swartz prosecution has changed my view 180 degrees.

The book Assange is shilling ("Cypherpunks") is available from OR Books here:

http://www.orbooks.com/catalog/cypherpunks/

OR Books is also publishing a book called "Hacking Politics" about the anti-SOPA/PIPA protests, featuring contributions from Swartz, Ron Paul, Kim Dotcom, Alex Ohanian, Cory Doctorow, and Zoe Lofgren. It is pay what you will.

http://www.orbooks.com/catalog/hacking-politics-2/

Note that both books can be purchased with Bitcoin.

He never really answered the question as to why he thinks that Sweden is ready and willing to extradite him to the US, and that him being wanted for questioning is a pretense.

Is there some evidence that supports his belief?

Among other things Swedish prosecutors refuse to question him in the UK, something which has been done recently for an alleged murderer. There is no obvious reason why they would refuse and none has been given by the prosecutor.

I don't see how this matters anyway. After they question him, they will still want him to go to jail in Sweden pending trial, and he will still be in the Ecuadorean embassy pretending to be a political prisoner.

It matters because it is believed the Swedish prosecutor does not have enough evidence to actually bring charges. After questioning she will either have to bring charges or drop the case. On the other hand, as you say, questioning Assange in the UK has no obvious downside for the prosecutor.

Assange's supporters and conspiracy theorists will believe anything except the possibility that someone with a documented history of narcissistic behavior actually sexually assaulted someone.

You can believe that Assange had sex with someone without a condom, in violation of their expressed wishes, without believing that 1. sufficient evidence exists for a case to be brought 2. that he is safer in Sweden from onward extradition to the US for what arguably amounts to political persecution.

If this was how criminal law worked, Hans Reiser would be working on another filesystem from his house in Oakland right now. Nobody on the Internet believed the case brought against him either.

You cannot reasonably believe that he is less safe in Sweden than the UK. That's an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence. The list of reasons why his safety changes not- at- all after going to Sweden is compelling and widely documented. Occam's razor strongly indicates that Assange isn't going to Sweden because he simply doesn't want to face criminal proceedings.

Or, remaining a "fugitive" is an excellent PR strategy for himself and wikileaks.

Conceded.

Some people may believe he is innocent but what I said is that there may not be enough evidence to bring a case, as I imagine is common in sexual molestation cases, and this is a good explanation for why he has not been questioned.

Sweden is less safe than the UK primarily because it is a far smaller country that is more susceptible to American influence, because there is less support for Assange there than the UK (and therefore it would politically easier to extradite him) and because the UK has a history of resisting extradition (e.g. McKinnon) while the best example of Sweden's willingness to comply were the rendition cases and that Sweden has complied with essentially every extradition request in the previous few years.

The arguments for why he would be as safe in Sweden are essentially that extradition requests are subject to judicial review in Sweden. I would expect the UK's judicial's system to be more refined that Sweden's but putting that aside we would expect the Swedish judiciary to be less reliable for the reasons of outside influence given above. The idea that any judiciary is immune from political pressure or not influenced by current political views is naive. In addition the judiciary can be overridden by the executive branch. The argument for why they wouldn't abuse that power is that the Swedish executive would be violating international law. However this is not an effective deterrent because Assange likely cannot afford to pay for such legal proceedings, the extradition would probably occur before the legal challenge anyway (after which it is game over anyway), and the penalty for violating international law is negligible when the US/UK are on your side. Even when Sweden lost in the rendition cases they only had to pay a fine. The US would gladly pay several millions of dollars to get custody of Assange. Policing the embassy alone is costing the UK something like a million dollars a day.

Finally one must consider that thinking Sweden is comparably safe to the UK and being wrong is almost certainly many many years in US prison if not life.

Under Sweden's laws, he can't be questioned until he appears in person to be charged. They didn't make that law up to screw Assange; they did it because it's part of how Sweden protects the rights of the accused.

Basically every assertion you made in this comment is wrong:

* The UK is a closer ally of the US's than Sweden.

* The UK has cooperated more with the US in "renditioning" subjects than Sweden, which stopped cooperation in 2006.

* The UK is governed by a coalition led by political conservatives, and Sweden by liberals.

* The UK's extradition system is substantially the same as that of Sweden, and both inherit the protections of the ECHR.

* The judiciary of Sweden is exactly as accountable to local politics as that of the UK.

* By treaty, Sweden is required to obtain the consent of the UK to further extradite Assange.

Rendition is such a red herring anyway. Thanks to his notoriety and paranoia, and the paranoia of his followers, Assange is probably the one person on earth who's the least likely to be extrajudicially kidnapped. The whole point of rendition is that it's a covert operation. That, and the fact that you don't really need to go through any kind of channels for it--if the US really wanted to rendition Assange, they could just grab him off the streets, and if anything, putting him in British or Swedish custody would only interfere with that.

> Under Sweden's laws, he can't be questioned until he appears in person to be charged.

I know the prosecutor said this initially but then backtracked. I don't think it is true (Happy to be shown to be wrong though). Swedish prosecutors questioned someone else in Serbia in the same time frame.

I never said Sweden and US were closer allies I said that Sweden was easier for the US to influence since it was smaller. Sweden doesn't have as much influence in the world, benefits more from each incoming dollar, doesn't have as much bargaining power, doesn't have as much that the US wants, etc. Then when Sweden became involved with Assange the US secretary of state made the first bilateral visit in 36 years. The ability for the US to influence Sweden matters more than whether the leadership is conservative or liberal or that their extradition procedures are similar or that the judiciary is as much accountable (notwithstanding the fact that they are accountable to different groups of people with polar opposite views on the accused)

Finally, my understanding is that the consent of the UK for onward extradition is a rubber stamp from the secretary of state.

That's great except the rape warrant was dropped. Then it was re-issued. Here's the timeline:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11949341

Does that seem like normal behaviour to you, that the authorities keeping hitting "retry" on legal proceedings until they get the result they want?

Oh I forgot, to point out basic facts is to be a "conspiracy theorist".

I guess if you grew up in Iran, you'd find it perfectly plausible when the Islamic Republic claim that the Green Movement are foreign spies. And you'd call anyone who distrusted the authorities on that point a "conspiracy theorist".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_of_Ahmed_Agiza_and...

"The evidence that the US seeks to prosecute and extradite Assange is substantial. There is no question that the Obama justice department has convened an active grand jury to investigate whether WikiLeaks violated the draconian Espionage Act of 1917. Key senators from President Obama's party, including Senate intelligence committee chairwoman Dianne Feinstein, have publicly called for his prosecution under that statute. A leaked email from the security firm Stratfor – hardly a dispositive source, but still probative – indicated that a sealed indictment has already been obtained against him. Prominent American figures in both parties have demanded Assange's lifelong imprisonment, called him a terrorist, and even advocated his assassination."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jun/20/julian-a...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/24/new-stat...

What I have never understood is why he feels that Sweden would turn him over but that the U.K. (where he had been staying before) would not?

If the U.S. can gin up a fake rape case in Sweden of all places they can certainly do it in a country with which they have a "special relationship".

This is one of the things that I was wondering about. Why isn't the UK willing and able to extradite him, when Sweden apparently is? What makes Sweden different?

The UK does appear to have some strict-ish rules regarding extradition, and only appears willing to extradite people when the matter would also be considered criminal under British law. (I'm not entirely sure whether Assange's publishing of leaked documents would be considered a criminal act that meets the standard in the UK.) Maybe there's something different about Swedish law that would make it easier?

To fully appreciate the answer to this question, you should read the articles which I have linked in my other reply. Here are some relevant quotes (see articles for links):

"...For one, smaller countries such as Sweden are generally more susceptible to American pressure and bullying.

For another, that country has a disturbing history of lawlessly handing over suspects to the US. A 2006 UN ruling found Sweden in violation of the global ban on torture for helping the CIA render two suspected terrorists to Egypt, where they were brutally tortured (both individuals, asylum-seekers in Sweden, were ultimately found to be innocent of any connection to terrorism and received a monetary settlement from the Swedish government).

Perhaps most disturbingly of all, Swedish law permits extreme levels of secrecy in judicial proceedings and oppressive pre-trial conditions, enabling any Swedish-US transactions concerning Assange to be conducted beyond public scrutiny."

"The US has been seeking McKinnon's extradition from Britain for a full seven years and counting; O'Dwyer also remains in England and is the subject of a popular campaign to block his shipment to the U.S.; the NatWest Three were able to resist extradition to the US for four full years. These cases disprove, rather than prove, that an extradition demand from the US would be "swiftly complied with" in Britain. In contrast to the secretive Swedish judicial system, there is substantial public debate along with transparent (and protracted) judicial proceedings in Britain over extradition."

The UK has not only cooperated with the US to render terrorism suspects, but has cooperated with Libya to render dissidents to Muammar Qaddafi. There is no reasonable argument that Assange is safer in the UK than in Sweden.

The UK does not have stricter rules regarding extradition than Sweden. That's a meme that germinated from a revision to the extradition rules that closed a gap between the US and the UK in which it was easier for the UK to extradite from the US than vice versa.

Moreover, Sweden can't extradite without the UK's approval in this situation, so the whole issue is moot.

> Moreover, Sweden can't extradite without the UK's approval in this situation

I don't mean this to sound combative, because I am really just curious about how practical the distinction is: Can't or shouldn't? What would happen to Sweden if it neglected to wait for the UK's approval and just stuck him on a plane to the US a day after he arrived?

It would violate the ECHR, and the UK's treaty with Sweden.

As I said in my response to you below there would be essentially no practical repercussions.

You said a lot of things that lead me to believe you're probably not an expert in international law, so I'm going to exercise my prerogative not to take your word for this.

I'm not an expert. But consider what happened in the rendition case. The penalty imposed on Sweden was "granting monetary compensation; permitting a new application for asylum in Sweden; and legislative changes prohibiting the use of diplomatic assurances."

Sweden paid less than half a million dollars to each of the two victims. The US would gladly reimburse Sweden 10 times that amount.

Every show is on DVD. But the one show I love and don't have HBO for, Bill Maher's show. I can't watch old episodes.

sucks.

HBO OnDemand (and I assume GO as well) has older episodes ...

I think you have to have the subscription to watch HBO Go.

The audio is available as a free podcast from iTunes.

That is true. But I still want to see their expressions.

Sure. But if you've seen enough episodes, you realize the visuals aren't that big a deal. It's not like Maher is a prop comic or anything.

Screw this, I can't tell who is talking.

Give the freaking DVD. I am setting up a petition.

Weird, I'm on Firefox and live in the US and all I get is a black screen. It seems to be a full window flash object, but nothing works. Flash works on my machine.

it took a minute to start up for me.

Summary... nothing really new.

Some fairly loaded leading questions and the classic false accusation of charges with regards to Swedish request for extradition (though perhaps in the knowledge that Julian would have an opportunity to correct it).

Julian made an appeal to people from within the Whitehouse with access to secret laws and procedures affecting citizen's rights to come forward and share them with the public via Wikileaks.

Bill makes smart-arse crack about sending in Ben Affleck "like we did in Iran".

This is what all US media looks like, from the outside I can't tell what's news and what isn't. Usually I have to wait for a shot with a studio audience in it.

amazing

Reply on news.ycombinator.com