[blame_lewis]

> I seem to recall a whole bunch of people arguing that Assange wasn't going to be extradited to the United States once they extracted him from the embassy.

At the time a fairly extensive collection of polemic was written that liberally used the word "paranoid".

The argument from his opponents seems to have mostly shifted towards "yeah, but he deserves it".

[chippy]

Worth also highlighting that this "whole bunch of people" can still be found here on HN. Often they are still very frequent posters and very well known members of HN. Some, however have given "I didn't know" or "the situation changed" half-apologies since.

[toyg]

> Some, however have given "I didn't know" or "the situation changed" half-apologies since.

I hope some people will take this as their "Iraq" moment, where the mechanisms of consensus-building by propaganda are laid bare. This is how powerful interests work: they push people to take sides with selected (or no) information, and by the time the full picture emerges, it's too late.

[Consultant32452]

Have you noticed how no one who led us into the Iraq war, whether they be government, media, etc. has faced any consequence whatsoever? Even the few who have admitted a "mistake" talk about it as if it's a mistake like I forgot my wallet and not a mistake like I killed 100k+ people.

The major red pills in approximate order are

1) I'm being misled systematically

2) I've been misled since school

3) They are fully aware of what they are doing

4) Given the choice, they would prefer me dead over defiant

[AndrewBissell]

5) They prefer you dead anyway, so might as well go with defiant

[AndrewBissell]

Anyone who bought the line that Assange didn't need to fear extradition probably will transition seamlessly from "the idea that Assange will be extradited if he leaves the embassy is a baseless conspiracy theory" to "well, he's accused of breaking the law, so it will be a good thing to extradite him to face trial in the U.S."

[armitron]

I remember Thomas Ptacek (tptacek) being particularly vocal and unjustifiably venomous towards Assange. One could say he went out of his way (on HN and social media) to broadcast his egregious views on the matter. Has he apologised?

This is just one instance:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11043329

Also, pasted from a different comment in this thread:

https://twitter.com/tqbf/status/821766035401572352

[dane-pgp]

We all make mistakes, but his comments you link to do show a huge error in judgement. The intention of the US government to capture Assange has been well documented since 2010:

> "It's certainly my belief, based on what the attorney general said, that they have already got an arrest warrant for him and they are just waiting for the appropriate moment in the appropriate country," Toobin said. [0]

(I can't help but find it ironic that in a thread about trying to silence a whistleblower, your comment trying to hold someone accountable for their past mistakes is being voted down).

[0] http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/12/01/sweden.interp...

[tome]

If you have some to hand, links to examples of this extensive collection would substantially increase the utility of your comment.

[dane-pgp]

Here's one from 2012:

"The right does not have a monopoly on paranoia, as the conspiratorial fantasies of supporters of Julian Assange show. ... Greenwald argued that Assange was not a coward who dare not face his Swedish accusers but a true dissident, who was camping out in the Ecuadorean embassy because he had a genuine fear of persecution."

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jun/24/nick-c...

[AndrewBissell]

Guardian journalist Charles Arthur in 2016:

"No one is detaining Assange except himself." https://twitter.com/charlesarthur/status/787431124020625408

"show me any reliable document anywhere that shows that anyone is detaining Assange in the Ecuadorean embassy." https://twitter.com/charlesarthur/status/794992629138288640

(I always love arguments of the form 'Initiative X has never been publicized in an official government document, therefore it's paranoid conspiracy theorizing to suggest it exists based on any other evidence at hand.')

Arthur even doubled down in January this year to insist he had not been wrong: https://twitter.com/charlesarthur/status/1221173664579825666

[blame_lewis]

Googling for "julian assange paranoid" will give you some examples. I'm hesitant to point the finger at a specific example, because I wasn't thinking of one in particular.

[throwaway810]

You don’t have to look too hard, though. Here’s one from 2017:

https://twitter.com/SwiftOnSecurity/status/82147538290599116...

[AndrewBissell]

Some in the opsec community seem to have had particularly poor takes on the question of extradition: https://twitter.com/tqbf/status/821766035401572352

[slim]

most of the well known people among those guys have security clearances to be able to work with US gov. which means they are under obligation to report on a regular basis about the people they meet. which means we can say they are part of the "intelligence community" (or if we are less charitable we can call them snitches)

[tome]

> they are under obligation to report on a regular basis about the people they meet

Intriguing. People with a security clearance are required to give intelligence reports about people they have contact with?

[sterlind]

If you have contact with an agent of a foreign power, you're required to report the encounter and what you talked about.

I'm not really sure how agents, or contact, are defined. I think the law is intended to keep IC people honest and forthcoming about foreign attempts to turn people.

(Disclaimer: I have never held a security clearance.)

[foldr]

>The argument from his opponents seems to have mostly shifted towards "yeah, but he deserves it".

This is roughly true of me. My opinion shifted to "he deserves it" because there appears to be strong evidence that he committed a crime. Why should my opinion not change based on new information? (Is this something you are not open to? Do you intend to defend Assange whatever information about him comes to light?)

That being said, if you read more carefully, what people were actually saying is that he was unlikely to be extradited to the US for leaking classified information, as it would be hard to prosecute someone in the US merely for doing that. But he is now charged with other crimes that are more clear cut.

[marcus_holmes]

He's an Australian citizen who was in various countries while operating Wikileaks. What crime(s) did he commit?

It's not a crime to break USA secrecy laws (or, in fact, any US laws) while not being a citizen or resident of the USA. With the caveat that the behaviour is not also illegal in whatever country the alleged perpetrator is actually a citizen/resident of.

[foldr]

One of the crime's he's charged with is hacking.

What you are saying underlines my point. It was indeed unlikely that Assange would be extradited merely for leaking classified information, as it is difficult for even a US citizen to be successfully prosecuted for doing that. But he is being charged with other crimes.

[marcus_holmes]

I think you're missing the point of TFA. This is a show trial, not a legitimate extradition of a criminal. The fact that he's been charged with crimes doesn't make him guilty of them, and he, like everyone, deserves a fair hearing in court to determine that.

The original charges against him would have resulted in a failed extradition (as the prosecution admit). So the US government changed the charges during the trial to "better" ones that were more likely to succeed. Without giving the defence any time to prepare a case defending against those new charges.

This isn't justice. I'm ashamed as a UK citizen that we're not able to stand up to the USA and conduct an extradition hearing that is actually just. Especially since the USA refuses to extradite one of its citizens to the UK when charged with murder.

I'm furious as an Australian citizen (I'm dual-national) that we're not fighting to prevent such gross injustice to one of our own citizens. The Aussie government has done nothing, said nothing, about any of it. It's pathetic and infuriating.

[foldr]

It seems to me quite likely that he is guilty of the hacking charges (though I am open minded on this point).

For it to be a show trial there would have to be no realistic possibility of the jury finding him not guilty. I don't see why that should be the case.

[marcus_holmes]

well, for a start there's no jury. A magistrate, who is already clearly showing bias and a tendency to read verdicts from a laptop rather than actually decide them, is the sole arbiter of whether he gets extradited or not.

[btilly]

He is charged with hacking for receiving a hashed password and failing to successfully crack it.

There is absolutely no way that this would be pursued if it were not for his running Wikileaks. This is a clear case of using selective enforcement to enforce a rule that could not be created on a law. (Given the first amendment, what he did that we really don't like is very squarely protected by the Constitution.)

[marcus_holmes]

But he's not a USA citizen, and wasn't in the USA when the activity occurred. What the First Amendment to the Constitution of the USA has to say about it is completely irrelevant.

[mindslight]

> What the First Amendment to the Constitution of the USA has to say about it is completely irrelevant.

First, if Assange did not violate the law of the US, then there is no cause for extradition. And so it does make sense to be talking about the US legality at this point, since USG going against its very own charter indicates that he will not receive a fair trial.

More generally, the United States Bill of Rights is framed as listing natural rights that everyone has. Yes, NSA is violating your US fourth amendment rights, despite you not being a US citizen. YMMV with practical enforcement though.

[behringer]

The 1st amendment and the constitution applies to all persons. Not just citizens.

[foldr]

All laws are selectively enforced. I think the more interesting question is whether he's guilty. I don't know. But if he did it, it's pretty clearly illegal, and it's reasonable to charge him.

Note that it's completely irrelevant that he failed to crack the password. Failure to successfully carry out a crime to completion just means that you're incompetent, not that you're innocent.

[btilly]

The only evidence we have that he is guilty is what is claimed to be an intercepted IM.

Were I on a jury, I would refuse to convict because I would consider there to be a reasonable doubt that the IM was real and not invented by the government to make their case.

[colejohnson66]

Now, before people crucify me for saying what’s ahead, I want to make it clear that I do not support the Espionage Act; it is a terrible attack on our Freedom of Speech and the Press. However, I am simply refuting a point using the law as it stands today. Also, IANAL.

> he was unlikely to be extradited to the US for leaking classified information, as it would be hard to prosecute someone in the US merely for doing that.

The Espionage Act of 1917[0] covers that situation quite well. It’s what all whistleblowers are charged with. We’ve even put a few people in prison for it, and the Supreme Court upheld its constitutionality in two cases in 1919[1][2]. Snowden is wanted for it.

As for how it covers this situation, the text of the act[3§1] says:

> That (a) whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States, or [...]

It does list other reasons such as aiding the enemy, but I feel that this part is what the prosecution would argue.

Now, would the US have jurisdiction to even argue this as the crime happened outside the US? That I do not know, but I have a feeling the courts would say they do as the crime was against the (federal) state.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debs_v._United_States

[3]: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_States_Statutes_at_Lar...

[belorn]

Extradition laws are usually limited in that they only cover crimes with is illegal in both countries. As far as I know, no other country except the US has a law that say "is to be used to the injury of the United States".

[jasomill]

Usually, but not always.

Moreover, other countries have laws analogous to provisions of the Espionage Act, and it's hardly impossible that some alleged act could be viewed as detrimental to the security of both the US and another country.

Note that I'm speaking generally here, and not in reference to the facts of this particular case.

[foldr]

Yes fair enough. I'm not trying to offer a legal opinion, just noting that there is some precedent for journalistic privilege in releasing such information (e.g. the Pentagon papers).

[colejohnson66]

That is actually a very valid argument/question: Is Assange (through WikiLeaks) “press”? I feel that he is, but the US is claiming he aided Manning in hacking; In that case, he (Assange) isn’t innocent (whether it’s true or not is a different question).

[foldr]

Yes, indeed. It will be an interesting case for sure.

[raxxorrax]

Do you have taken any consequences for the narrative spun around the Iraq war? That cost hundreds of thousands of lives.

Assange didn't kill anyone just for your information and claiming ignorance can only get you so far before it becomes a lie.

[nix23]

>leaking classified information

The problem is, he is NOT a US-Citizen, by that fact he cannot be a traitor.

A Agent? No because he did not acquired that information, by that actual definition every country and every press outlet is a agent.

So what has he done? MAYBE endanger the life of US Citizens, which is really not important since he is NOT a US-Citizen.

[foldr]

Did you read the second paragraph of my post at all? I agree with you.