[Tortoise]

I suspect that it might be harder to extradite him on these offences because the extradition treaty between the US and the UK, like all such treaties, bans extradition for “political offences.” (See article 4-1) If he is extradited on the hacking offence the US can’t also try him for espionage without the UK’s permission.

[gamblor956]

Espionage is not a political offense in either the US or the UK.

A political offense means something like being charged with a crime for offending the "good name" of the prime minister (see, e.g., Turkey or India for examples).

[lucb1e]

How in the world is being prosecuted for publishing a country's dirty laundry not the same as being prosecuted for a political offense... (Not saying you're wrong, just questioning whoever came up with that definition and if we should maybe change it.)

[lawnchair_larry]

He is not being prosecuted for publishing. That’s the game here. They found a “gotcha” to nail him on something else. Al Capone didn’t get charged with being a mobster, but they found a way to get him. Same deal.

[monocasa]

He is. Nine of the charges are Unauthorized Disclosure of National Defense Information under the Espionage Act

[gamblor956]

Right, because by assisting Manning in decrypting the files, Assange crossed the line that would have protected him as a journalist under well-established court rulings protecting freedom of the press.

[lawnchair_larry]

He did not assist Manning in decrypting any files. Manning only accessed plaintext files. You are likely confusing the discussion related to cracking a password hash, which was unrelated to the documents.

[monocasa]

This is in addition to the computer access charge.

Can you cite any case law making the argument that criminal behavior removes freedom of the press protections?

[gamblor956]

Well, for starters all the information that Assange published while running Wikileaks embarasses the previous political administration, not the current (Trump) administration... Moreover, Assange isn't being charged with embarassing anyone, since American journalists do that all the time. Assange is being charged with specific illegal acts that actual journalists don't do, like actually trying to break encryption on classified documents.

[lawnchair_larry]

Journalists do try to break encryption on classified documents, and Assange is not being charged with that. The documents were not encrypted and were obtained in cleartext from Manning.

[gamblor956]

Journalists do not try to break encryption on classified documents (because the case law protecting them for publishing classified information does not protect them if they actively attempt to acquire it), and that is actually one of the acts Assange is charged with if you read the indictment...

[lawnchair_larry]

I did read the indictments, and they contain no such charge that i can see. Which page do you believe indicates he tried to break encryption on classified documents?

[lucb1e]

> embarasses the previous political administration, not the current (Trump) administration

Is there a difference? Might be my non-USA-citizen point of view, so please correct me if I'm wrong from a USA perspective and this is not retaliation for embarrassment, but the USA government is still the USA government. If the CIA tortured people in Iraq under Obama* , I don't expect it would cease to be done under Trump. (Also not if he says so, since of course you would say that. It's inhumane, and yet it happens.)

* There have been so many scandals, forgive me if the torture one wasn't actually in Iraq or wasn't under Obama or something. It's just meant as an example of the inhumane stuff that is revealed about the USA thanks to people like Chelsea Manning, Julian Assange, etc.

[plugger]

> Espionage is not a political offense in either the US or the UK.

But it is in Sweden. That fact is conveniently forgotten when people were and continue to push the narrative of "Assange shouldn't be extradited to Sweden because they'll hand him over to the US".

[gamblor956]

Right, if Assange had just gone to Sweden in the first place to face the rape charges, he'd be a free man right now because Sweden wouldn't extradite for any of these charges.

Obviously, Assange was more worried about the rape charges--he waited until the statute of limitations on filing charges expired before he agreed to talk to the investigators.

[discordance]

Isn't this why the Swedish rape charges have popped up again? - around extradition, Sweden has historically been a patsy to the US.

[soulofmischief]

They haven't popped back up. He's being prosecuted for evading the original arrest. Of course this is obviously just a pretext for the US getting their foot in the door.

[gsnedders]

No, he's been convicted of breach of bail in England; the Swedish prosecutors have reopened their investigation into the rape offence and have mentioned they are likely to seek extradition after he has completed his sentence in England.

[soulofmischief]

Oh, ok. This is news to me. Things are moving so fast!

[gsnedders]

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/apr/11/assange-brande... was the conviction; the sentencing was at the end of the same month.

[soulofmischief]

That link doesn't say anything about rape charges, just the charges for failing to appear in court.

The article also slyly paints him in a negative light just for resisting what he considered to be an unlawful arrest, which is the natural right of any human being.