this post was submitted on 20 Feb 2024
87 points (90.7% liked)

News

23301 readers
3728 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 50 points 9 months ago (4 children)

I wish more people would understand that it is possible to believe both that Assange has not been treated fairly and that he's a colossal douchebag.

[–] pennomi@lemmy.world 16 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

It’s the tribal nature of humans - they try to make everyone they like flawless and everyone they hate completely flawed.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago

It sure seems that way sometimes.

[–] Xtallll@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

Assange is a colossal douchebag, rapist and Russian asset, who is terrified of faceing the consequences of his own actions. In November 2010, Sweden issued a European arrest warrant for Assange, for questioning in a Swedish investigation, He was suspected of rape of a lesser degree, unlawful coercion and multiple cases of sexual molestation. After losing his appeal against the warrant, he breached bail and took refuge in the Embassy of Ecuador in London.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 13 points 9 months ago (1 children)

You know Sweden has declined to prosecute Assange, right?

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/nov/19/sweden-drops-julian-assange-investigation

It's the U.S. that wants him, not Sweden.

[–] Xtallll@lemmy.blahaj.zone 12 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

That tends to happen when you hide in an embassy until the statue of limitations runs out. The US didn't want to extradite him until 2017 after WikiLeaks interfered with the 2016 election.

His election interference was part of why he lost his asylum "We did notice that he was interfering in the elections and we do not allow that because we have principles, very clear values, as we would not like anyone to interfere in our elections," he said. "We are not going to allow that to happen with a foreign country and friend like the US."

[–] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Assange has not been treated fairly

How and who? Details please.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 7 points 9 months ago (1 children)

For one thing, not being allowed to leave for the country where he's sought and been granted asylum.

[–] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world 6 points 9 months ago (1 children)

He had an arrest warrant in the country he was located. It's called law.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 6 points 9 months ago (2 children)

The country where he is located Ecuador. That's how embassies work. He is on Ecuadorian soil and should be allowed to leave for Ecuador.

[–] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

And stayed at the embassy until he couldn't any more and was arrested by the Brits. I still don't see what's unfair.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Again, the unfair part was not allowing him to leave for Ecuador. His Ecuadorian citizenship got revoked when the British arrested him, but he should not have been arrested because he was an asylum seeker granted Ecuadorian citizenship.

Would you also oppose Jews seeking asylum in foreign consulates in pre-WWII Germany and Italy being taken out of Germany and Italy? One of those people was Albert Einstein.

Or is Assange somehow a special case when it comes to seeking asylum.

This isn't even about Assange personally or whether or not he deserves to be prosecuted for what he did. This is about how the U.S. and Britain can get away with ignoring someone who has both been granted asylum and citizenship of a third country. And I don't care if you are guilty or innocent of your crimes, that is simply wrong.

[–] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

That's not how it works. In order to leave the embassy he would have to set foot on Brit soil, and he had an arrest warrant. He was not granted asylum by Britain, only Ecuador. As I remember, they were the only country to say yes. They changed government, and there you go.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

And in order to leave the American embassy, Einstein had to cross German soil. He was allowed to because he was granted asylum.

[–] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)
[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Weird, because William H. Geist famously refused to give Einstein a visa and public outcry forced him to flip on that. And then he was taken to the U.S.

Do you think the plane took off from the embassy?

[–] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I think Einstein didn't have a warrant out for his arrest.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

True. He was just Jewish. And yet the Germans let him leave anyway. You do know that they didn't let any Jew who wanted to leave without a visa, right?

[–] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Visas are for entering countries, not leaving them.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)
[–] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Other than Einstein being just like Assange, but not. What you got? Oh, Nazi paperwork? OK. But, I think you have have diluted your argument sufficiently

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

You made a false claim. I showed you the claim was false. I'm not sure why you can't acknowledge that.

[–] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I'm still not sure why you think Assange was treated unfairly when the law was followed. So I guess we're even.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world -1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

No, we're not even. I gave an opinion. You made an incorrect statement you tried to pass off as factual.

Any time you want to admit you were factually in error, go for it.

But I won't be holding my breath. This is the internet. Dishonesty rules.

[–] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago (7 children)

That's pretty funny. You can't support your fantasy but blame me. Typical.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] tal@lemmy.today 4 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

The country where he is located Ecuador. That’s how embassies work. He is on Ecuadorian soil

That is not true, though it's a common misconception. Embassies are not extraterritorial. They are granted specific legal protections by treaty by the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations that prevents the host country's law enforcement from entering and arresting people, but the territory on which they are located does not belong to the guest country.

The ability to provide asylum in an embassy is based on this text:

https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/9_1_1961.pdf

Article 22

  1. The premises of the mission shall be inviolable. The agents of the receiving State may not enter them, except with the consent of the head of the mission.

  2. The receiving State is under a special duty to take all appropriate steps to protect the premises of the mission against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the mission or impairment of its dignity.

  3. The premises of the mission, their furnishings and other property thereon and the means of transport of the mission shall be immune from search, requisition, attachment or execution.

The only case I can think of off-the-cuff where territory was explicitly made extraterritorial was during World War II. The Dutch royal family had fled abroad due to the Netherlands being occupied by the Nazis, and Princess Margriet was born there. I vaguely recall that there is some restriction in Dutch law that requires a member of the royal family to be born on native Dutch soil to remain in the line of royal succession or something like that.

The Canadian parliament passed a law to, for a brief period of time, render the maternity ward of the hospital in which Princess Margriet was to be born, Dutch territory.

googles

Actually, looks like I misremembered that. According to Wikipedia, even in that case, they didn't declare it to be Dutch territory, just to not be part of Canada:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princess_Margriet_of_the_Netherlands

The Dutch royal family went into exile when the Netherlands was occupied by Nazi Germany in 1940, and went to live in Canada. Margriet was born in Ottawa Civic Hospital, Ottawa. The maternity ward of the hospital was temporarily declared to be extraterritorial by the Canadian government.[3][4] This ensured that the newborn would not be born in Canada, and not be a British subject under the rule of jus soli. Instead, the child would only inherit Dutch citizenship from her mother under the principle of jus sanguinis, which is followed in Dutch nationality law. Thus, the child would be eligible to succeed to the throne of the Netherlands. This would have applied if the child had been male, and therefore heir apparent to Juliana, or if her two older sisters died without eligible children.

It is a common misconception that the Canadian government declared the maternity ward to be Dutch territory. That was not necessary, as Canada follows jus soli, while the Netherlands follows jus sanguinis. It was sufficient for Canada to disclaim the territory temporarily.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Stamets@lemmy.world 16 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

So much about this entire situation is infuriating.

First off, some of the stuff he disclosed and is being hounded over? Should have been disclosed. Was horrific monstrosities.

Second, Assange is a piece of garbage and I stopped giving a fuck about his freedom when he involved himself in the free and democratic elections of other countries and influenced them. He interferes in elections. There is no greater display of a disdain for personal freedom than that so I'm having a really hard time caring about his own. Hypocrite. You don't get to violate a law and then claim protections of that law itself. The same way that bigots don't get to be intolerant and then claim that you must be tolerant of their views.

Third,

Two years later, a British judge ruled that while the US had shown it had a legitimate criminal case against Mr Assange, he could not be transferred because he may try to harm himself.

"So you've got a legal case but he might try to kill himself so we have no choice but to allow him to get away with the crimes"

What a psychotically stupid decision and another demonstration, in a long ass line, that the UK Courts are a fucking clown show.

Fourth, that is the funniest possible image they could have used of Assange and I cannot stop laughing.

[–] kescusay@lemmy.world 16 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

Early on, the Russian asset released some genuine information in order to establish some bona fides. But since then, he's used his platform to create nothing but instability and strife. Never forget, the "pizzagate" bullshit came directly from WikiLeaks.

[–] Son_of_dad@lemmy.world 9 points 9 months ago

He reminds me of the bad guy from Skyfall. He's an information broker who releases selective info, depending on what agenda he wants to push. Assange was an information terrorist, he got a hold of all the info, but only released the info that would hurt his opponents and kept hidden the info that would make his side look bad. He uses information as a weapon and he deserves no sympathy

[–] eksb@programming.dev 5 points 9 months ago (1 children)

The pizzagate bullshit did not come directly from WikiLeaks. WikiLeaks published John Podesta's emails.

Then some conspiracy theorists made up a conspiracy theory that included made up stuff that they claimed was in the emails, but was not.

[–] kescusay@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago

WikiLeaks published them out of order, lacking context, and with clear intent to have them used as the basis for some kind of conspiracy theory. And they started publishing them literally 30 minutes after Trump's Access Hollywood "grab 'em by the pussy" tape came out: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2016/dec/18/john-podesta/its-true-wikileaks-dumped-podesta-emails-hour-afte/

WikiLeaks made "pizzagate" happen, and is clearly a Russian asset.

[–] tal@lemmy.today 5 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

I generally agree with your broader message, but not this sentence:

You don’t get to violate a law and then claim protections of that law itself.

Someone violating a law does not remove them from protection provided by that law. Someone who commits rape, for example, does not have legal protection against themselves being raped removed.

EDIT: As trivia, though, there are mostly-historical cases where people can have the protection of the law removed from them:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outlaw

An outlaw, in its original and legal meaning, is a person declared as outside the protection of the law. In pre-modern societies, all legal protection was withdrawn from the criminal, so anyone was legally empowered to persecute or kill them. Outlawry was thus one of the harshest penalties in the legal system. In early Germanic law, the death penalty is conspicuously absent, and outlawing is the most extreme punishment, presumably amounting to a death sentence in practice. The concept is known from Roman law, as the status of homo sacer, and persisted throughout the Middle Ages.

Piracy would have something similar apply:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostis_humani_generis

Hostis humani generis (Latin for 'an enemy of mankind') is a legal term of art that originates in admiralty law. Before the adoption of public international law,[when?] pirates and slavers were already held to be beyond legal protection and so could be dealt with by any nation, even one that had not been directly attacked.

A comparison can be made between this concept and the common law "writ of outlawry", which declared a person outside the king's law, a literal out-law, subject to violence and execution by anyone. The ancient Roman civil law concept of proscription, and the status of homo sacer conveyed by proscription may also be similar.

Perhaps the oldest of the laws of the sea is the prohibition of piracy, as the peril of being set upon by pirates, who are not motivated by national allegiance, is shared by the vessels and mariners of all nations, and thus represents a crime upon all nations. Since classical antiquity, pirates have been held to be individuals waging private warfare, a private campaign of sack and pillage, against not only their victims, but against all nations, and thus, those engaging in piracy hold the particular status of being regarded as hostis humani generis, the enemy of humanity. Since piracy anywhere is a peril to every mariner and ship everywhere, it is held to be the universal right and the universal duty of all nations, regardless of whether their ships have been beset by the particular band of pirates in question, to capture, try by a regularly constituted court-martial or admiralty court (in extreme circumstances, by means of a drumhead court-martial convened by the officers of the capturing ship), and, if found guilty, to execute the pirate via means of hanging from the yard-arm of the capturing ship, an authoritative custom of the sea.

[–] TwentySeven@lemmy.world 11 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Yes, he harmed the interests of the US government, but he's an Australian Citizen. I don't understand why he would be subject to US laws. Hell, why not try to extradite Putin while they're at it? Makes no fucking sense to me.

[–] tal@lemmy.today 15 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

There are a few laws -- such as child sex tourism performed by US citizens abroad -- where the US asserts extraterritorial jurisdiction (in that case, because wealthy US citizens discovered that they could just go to countries with corrupt law enforcement/judiciary and buy them off; even if they can beat the local justice system, the American one will go after them using American anti-child-sex-tourism law). Same thing for some anti-terrorism laws. My bet is that this is probably one of those.

googles

Yeah, sounds like it.

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10291

The United States’ indictment alleges that Assange committed one count of conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 371) to commit computer intrusion in violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) (18 U.S.C. § 1030).

https://www.natlawreview.com/article/extraterritorial-application-computer-fraud-and-abuse-act

A brazen and sophisticated computer intrusion into the records of over 145 million Americans launched from computer hackers based in China led to recent criminal prosecutions under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. [1] Courts are willing to extend American law beyond U.S. boundaries often when criminal misconduct takes place overseas that injures Americans. The Constitution grants Congress broad powers to enact laws with extraterritorial scope.[2] The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (“CFAA”), is one such statute that provides criminal and civil remedies resulting from unauthorized access to computers used in interstate commerce or communications.[3] And, it further provides for extraterritorial jurisdiction for criminal or civil violations of the CFAA.

The CFAA’s potential reach goes beyond U.S. borders and packs a jurisdictional punch that will likely be able to bring a foreign party into an American court. Thus, a computer hacker outside the U.S. who causes injury[26] here is likely not immune from a civil or criminal action.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/the-charges-against-julian-assange-explained

The indictment includes one count of conspiracy to hack a computer to disclose classified information that “could be used to injure” the U.S. According to the indictment, Assange “conspired” with Manning by helping her crack a Defense Department computer password in March 2010 that provided access to a U.S. government network that stored classified information and communications.

Hmm. That does raise some interesting questions, though. Assange was charged with conspiracy to violate the CFAA. The justification for the CFAA being extraterritorial would be that you can access computers across international lines. In theory, Assange might have conspired with people in the US to commit murder, and I don't think that that would have applied. I wonder if there's some sort of doctrine where conspiracy to commit a crime has extraterritorial jurisdiction apply if it would apply to the original crime.

googles

Ah, sounds like it.

https://globalinvestigationsreview.com/guide/the-practitioners-guide-global-investigations/2022/article/extraterritoriality-the-us-perspective

Extraterritoriality: The US Perspective

In addition, courts have reasoned that ‘the extraterritorial reach of an ancillary offense such as conspiracy is coterminous with that of the underlying statute’.

[–] WeirdGoesPro@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Thanks for your awesome explanation.

Going back to your original point, how to they justify that sex tourism harms Americans back home? (Not endorsing it, just curious)

[–] TwentySeven@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Not the person you are replying to, but it don't think it matters if the victim is American -- the US has the right to prosecute it's own citizens. (You can't kill an illegal immigrant -- they may not have constitutional rights, but murder is still illegal)

[–] WeirdGoesPro@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 9 months ago

True, but we’re talking about things done in a foreign country. You can go out of the country and buy a Cuban cigar, visit a weed cafe, or go to a legal brothel in Amsterdam. I’m just wondering how they know where the line is.

[–] NotAtWork@startrek.website 1 points 8 months ago

what if instead of manipulating the electing he had sat in Canada an launched rockets across Niagara falls in to the USA? His actions have effects inside the USA and the victims are American criticizes, so America claims jurisdiction.

[–] tal@lemmy.today 7 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

A pretty likely outcome here is that he goes to the US, gets sentenced, and it turns out that he would have long-since been out of prison had he not spent all the time on the lam more-or-less cooped up; that a lot of the effective sentence will have been one he created himself by going on the run.

Maybe he can get some of that counted as time served -- I dunno if the time spent in the UK in prison doing appeals against extradition counts -- but the time hanging out in the Ecuadorian embassy definitely doesn't.

EDIT: This is talking about Florida state law, but it sounds like it's not entirely-guaranteed either way; if federal law works as Florida law does, he might get credit for some of the time served in British prison:

https://criminaldefenseattorneytampa.com/extradition/international-extradition/

Credit for Time Served While Awaiting Extradition to the U.S.

In Calafell v. State, 263 So. 3d 216 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019), the court considered whether a person should receive additional credit for time spent in custody in an Argentine jail awaiting extradition to Florida to face charges.

Section § 921.161(1), Fla. Stat., provides:

“A sentence of imprisonment shall not begin to run before the date it is imposed, but the court imposing a sentence shall allow a defendant credit for all of the time she or he spent in the county jail before sentence. The credit must be for a specified period of time and shall be provided for in the sentence.”

In Kronz v. State, 462 So.2d 450, 451 (Fla. 1985), the court held that although section 921.161(1) requires a trial judge to give credit for time served in Florida county jails pending disposition of criminal charges, it does not require awarding such credit for time spent in jails in other jurisdictions.

The court noted that “[t]he trial judge does, however, have the inherent discretionary authority to award credit for time served in other jurisdictions while awaiting transfer to Florida. In this latter circumstance, the trial judge should consider the appropriateness of an award of credit for time served when the defendant was incarcerated in another state solely because of the Florida offense for which he or she is being sentenced.” Id.

EDIT 2: Here's a ruling on California law on intrastate extradition. According to this, California apparently does grant credit for time served while fighting extradition under specific conditions, but also says that this is probably not something that most states would permit:

https://research.ceb.com/secondary-sources/area/criminal-law/15clpp0000/c350.44

50 Extradition

III. UNIFORM CRIMINAL EXTRADITION ACT (UCEA)

§50.44 J. Credit for Time in Custody Awaiting Extradition

A defendant who has been in custody in another jurisdiction because of an untried charge in California, when finally tried and sentenced in California, is entitled to credit for presentence time served even though he or she resisted extradition, if the presentence time served in the other jurisdiction was for the same offense for which the defendant was convicted in California. In re Watson (1977) 19 C3d 646 (defendant granted credit for 285 days under Pen C §2900.5 for presentence time spent in Texas jail fighting extradition to California). If the defendant was in custody in the other jurisdiction for related and unrelated offenses, California must grant credit only for time served if the defendant was arrested first on the California warrant. In re Joyner (1989) 48 C3d 487 (no credit for time served because California hold put on defendant after he was arrested in Florida for crime allegedly committed there).

Defense counsel should be cautioned, however, that Watson is not binding on other states and probably represents a minority view. This should be considered in deciding whether to resist extradition, because the fugitive may be doing "dead time" in California while he or she is fighting extradition to another state. When the fugitive faces very serious charges in the demanding state, defense counsel in California should contact the attorney or agency who will represent the defendant in the demanding state and find out what the law is in that state on credit for time served, and factor that into the decision of whether and how to resist extradition.

[–] Deceptichum@kbin.social 6 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Assange's lawyers say he could face up to 175 years in prison if convicted, though American authorities have said the sentence is likely to be much shorter than that.

Manning alone got 35 years, Assange would certainly get far worse than her.

[–] tal@lemmy.today 6 points 9 months ago

Nah, Manning actually got charged with a lot more than Assange did; Manning was a serving member of the military and violated military law. And even in Manning's case, the sentence was commuted to 7 years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Manning

The trial on the 12 remaining charges began on June 3, 2013.[5] It went to the judge on July 26, 2013, and findings were rendered on July 30.[6][7] Manning was acquitted of the most serious charge, that of aiding the enemy, for giving secrets to WikiLeaks. In addition to five[8][9] or six[10][11][12] espionage counts, Manning was also found guilty of five theft specifications, two computer fraud specifications and multiple military infractions.[13]

On August 21, 2013, Manning was sentenced to 35 years' imprisonment, reduction in pay grade to E-1, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and a dishonorable discharge.[14] On January 17, 2017, President Barack Obama commuted Manning's sentence to a total of seven years' confinement. Manning was released on May 17, 2017.[15][16] On May 31, 2018, the U.S. Army Court of Criminal Appeals upheld Manning's conviction of violating the Espionage Act of 1917.[17]

The expected sentence is probably about five years, whereas Assange has already been spent considerably more than that as a fugitive (and some of that time cooped up). US prosecutors apparently estimated that he'll probably get between 48 and 63 months based on prior sentences.

The charges carry a maximum sentence of 175 years in prison, although Lewis said “the longest sentence ever imposed for this offense is 63 months.”

[–] Deceptichum@kbin.social 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

As an Australian I thinks the guy sucks, but no one deserves the US legal system. So for humane grounds id rather see him come home.

[–] tal@lemmy.today 7 points 9 months ago

I understand that the US offered to let Assange serve his prison time in Australia.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/julian-assange-extradition-appeal/2021/07/07/41bc3914-df2e-11eb-a27f-8b294930e95b_story.html

According to the High Court, the United States consented to transferring Assange to his native country of Australia to serve any prison sentence.

load more comments
view more: next ›