[tomalpha]

The author is clearly against the extradition of Julian Assange, and the piece comes across as very much written in that context.

To be clear: I'm not offering an opinion either way on the rights and wrongs of that, but the piece itself comes down very much on one side of the fence.

[stephen_g]

The Assange case seems relevant and topical. And regardless, what side of the fence would you expect somebody writing an article about press freedom and censorship to be on? To support extraditing to the US somebody who has never lived or worked there, after it was revealed US officials literally planned to kidnap and/or assassinate him? [1]. And only for the charge of revealing war crimes (apart from some trumped up “hacking” charges that the key witness now admitted lying about? [2]).

I really do think somebody would have to be either hopelessly, desperately naive or deliberately lying to themselves to believe Assange could receive a fair trial in the US, and I don’t think it’s reasonable to assert that the US has any kind of jurisdiction over him.

1. https://www.theverge.com/2021/9/27/22696436/cia-kidnap-julia...

2. https://stundin.is/grein/13627/

[vkou]

> And only for the charge of revealing war crimes (apart from some trumped up “hacking” charges that the key witness now admitted lying about? [2]).

I've read the allegations. If the allegations are true, he's guilty of hacking. It does not seem to be a case of the law being perverted past its intent. I'm sure the extradition and prosecution is politically motivated, but the problem with doing something that's squarely, dead-to-rights illegal that also happens to piss off the government is that they are within their rights to put you away for doing it.

It'd be one thing if his supporters accepted the dead-to-rights-guilty part, and were making the claim that it was something akin to civil disobedience - illegal, but in service to a higher cause. Unfortunately, most of them are instead bending over backwards to argue that he can't actually guilty of anything. It's not very convincing.

Probably because the most noteworthy accomplishment of that higher cause seems to be 'spending the next decade being a shill for the Kremlin' and 'helping Trump win 2016'. Sorry, but not sorry - I can't say I have an iota of sympathy for the architects of either.

[pasabagi]

> I've read the allegations. If the allegations are true, he's guilty of hacking.

This is kind of interesting. To me, it seems convenient to the point of being totally unbelievable that the person who leaked evidence of US war crimes, who the US has been hounding for a decade now, is also dead-to-rights guilty of a charge that justifies the extradition they've been gunning for the whole time.

Not being particularly engaged in the case, or the guy, it seems that this must be obvious to everyone.

What's weird about it is that using a spurious charge as a form of harassment for a political dissident is a really big no-no for a liberal democracy. And that's exactly what this appears to be.

I honestly expected some check or balance to step in at some point and point out that, no matter what you think about this guy, manipulating the legal system in such a blatant manner to produce a predetermined result is corrosive to legitimacy on every scale.

[vkou]

I don't know if the allegations are true. I just think that they are very serious, if they are.

Fortunately, we have a process, called a trial, that can determine whether or not they are.

[pasabagi]

You don't believe, and in fact nobody believes, that the exclusive reason for charging Assange with the hacking charges is that he's a hacker. It's obvious to everybody that he is being charged because of legitimate political speech, and this was just what they felt they could 'get him for'. Whether or not he is guilty, that means that the legal system is being used for political ends.

What's wild to me is that so many people are OK with this. Politically motivated prosecution is not normal in a democracy.

[dijit]

> Politically motivated prosecution is not normal in a democracy.

Yeah, but he helped trump get elected so he doesn't deserve human rights.

(/s; but people are genuinely making this argument)

[jdironman]

Sometimes. I personally (personal opinion) feel he would have a hard time getting a fair trial.

[me_me_me]

> called a trial, that can determine whether or not they are.

Oh sweet summer child, enjoy the bliss till it lasts. Once you open your eyes it will never come back.

[vkou]

So, is the entirety of the US legal system illegitimate, or just the particular parts that will affect your hero?

Are you throwing the whole concept of trials out with the bathwater, or is Assange just special, and the rules don't apply to him?

The US legal system has problems, in terms of which cases it chooses not to pursue, and in terms of the deficiencies of public defenders, and long sentences. But these are problems that affect ~everyone else going through it a lot more than they will affect this golden boy.

[mistermann]

> It'd be one thing if his supporters accepted the dead-to-rights-guilty part, and were making the claim that it was something akin to civil disobedience - illegal, but in service to a higher cause. Unfortunately, most of them are instead bending over backwards to argue that he can't actually guilty of anything. It's not very convincing.

Who, precisely, are you referring to here?

[vkou]

People like the sibling posters. Plenty of them on every thread that mentions Assange.

[mistermann]

So, a tautological, non-quantitative categorization: only the subset, of unknown size, that are like this?

[colordrops]

What's the implication? That the author is hiding the fact that this is an opinion piece? Or that it's odd to be against the extradition?

It's called The Dissenter and they explicitly mention that they support whistleblowers in their about page.

[tomalpha]

I don't think it's going out of its way to hide the fact that it's an opinion piece. I wanted to highlight to someone unfamiliar with the case and issues (however few that may be around these parts), that it is an opinion piece. It makes assertions through a lens of a bias to one side of the case. There's nothing inherently wrong with that. Using the word "bias" isn't intended by me here as a slight - we're all biased to a greater or lesser degree about everything. But a casual reader should be aware of it without having to e.g. navigate to a separate "about" page :)

[cryptonector]

Perhaps your highlighting an obvious fact is itself evidence that you do in fact have an opinion and did share it while saying otherwise, possibly unconsciously.