Am I the only one that finds the timing of this with the Mueller report interesting?
I’ve never disputed that he could get extradited from Britain to the US. My point throughout the extradition debates in this thread was that it made no sense to argue that the extradition request from Sweden would make it easier for the US to get extradition, than for the US to extradite him from the UK.
Given the laws governing extradition, if the UK extradited him to Sweden, and the US then applied to Sweden for extradition, both Sweden and Britain would have to consent to the extradition. I’ve never seen any real response to that argument from anyone who suggested the extradition request from Sweden somehow made it easier for the US to extradite.
In fact, if memory serves, somewhere in this thread I posted links to British news articles that were critical of the British government for extraditing to the US too easily.
The real question is whether he has any dirt on Trump. I’d be a bit surprised if he didn’t. If he does he may be able to finagle a pardon.
The question is more about his usefulness than personality. A lot of people who do extraordinary things or are in the public eye are egotistical pricks with no regards for anything other than their own personal glorification. If they channel that into something good, that’s what matters as long as you keep in mind that they should be on a short leash on some matters.
That makes me wonder why there hasn’t been a similar Wikileaks for other governments. Sure, anyone who played that game with the Russian government would have to remain anonymous or they’d end up dead pretty soon. Where are all the white hat hackers I keep hearing about? Are they more interested in defacing stodgy corporate websites with 4chan memes?
If the leaking has been as one-sided as you say, then Assange may be a Russian proxy front.
You are not alone.
Journalists have the right to publish classified information without any consequences?
The PDF of the US indictment against Assange:
https://www.justice.gov/usao-edva/press-release/file/1153481/download
It says that Manning gave him the cryptographic hash of a password, which he attempted to crack.
But that would presumably expect him to, you know, shut up about it. For good (or at least long enough). How likely is that?
Assange’s lawyer, Jennifer Robinson, stated:
This seems to be a deliberate misrepresentation of the situation. Assange is being charged with assisting and conspiring in the hacking of classified information, not merely publishing information that was passed to him.
Right. So this is not a dangerous precedent for publishers, as some are claiming. It’s about his active participation in illegal hacking.
I hope Assange further implicates Manning during his trial so that they can charge her some more so that they can put the traitorous bitch back in prison where she belongs.
Of course not. Have you been paying attention at all? He was avoiding extradition for some very serious shit in two different countries.
Your rabid hysterical patriotism is duly noted.
Now the real reason he was expelled from the embassy comes out:
Oh, no! He kept farting and stinking up the embassy! :eek:
Remember about a year ago, Ecuador issued him an order to keep his bathroom and quarters clean, to bathe regularly, to see a doctor, to clean up his cat’s poop and other stuff.
I think this was it —
October 2018, Ecuador tells Assange to avoid political activity online – and feed the cat | Julian Assange | The Guardian
To be fair, he claims in chat to have tried to hack the password. He failed. More than likely, the U.S. government can’t actually prove he actually ran a cracking utility against the password file.
And he encouraged Manning to commit more crimes.
What’s weird about all this is why does the U.S. government get to enforce their laws against people who are not U.S. citizens and who are not on U.S. soil when the crime is committed?
And why does the UK government, etc, go along with it?
I’m asking this because does this mean if I, say, attempt to hack into a server in North Korea, the U.S. or UK government would extradite me to North Korea to face the charges? What if the case as presented by the North Koreans is weak and it’s not even within the statute of limitations, as in this case against Julian Assange?
Why is it weird? The internet now gives you the ability to attempt an attack on a country without having to step on its soil. The U.S. would like to be able to prosecute a person for attacking a U.S. target from the U.K. Similarly the U.K. would like to be able to prosecute a person attacking a U.K. target fromthe U.S.
It’s not weird at all that the U.S. and U.K. governments might come to an agreement to help each other do that. Furthermore, what does it benefit the U.K. or the U.S. to serve as a platform and a haven for individuals who are attacking allies’ digital infrastructure?
And furthermore, the principle of comity between states with diplomatic relations suggests that it is good for the relationship to assist the other country in enforcing its criminal laws so long as it doesn’t violate some policy principle, such as opposition to the death penalty.
On the statute of limitations issue, we don’t know when the US government may have obtained the indictment against Assange. My understanding is that the prosecutor can get an indictment from the grand jury but have it sealed by the Court until the party is arrested.
With respect to the territorial issue, if a Canadian citizen just north of the Canadian border shoots and kills a US Customs officer standing on the US side of the border, that is a crime committed in both nations and the Canadian could be extradited to the US.
You don’t have to be physically in the US to commit a crime in the US.