Julian Assange and Wikileaks

Quoth Best Of:

Long-standing? I was under the impression it had started after the whole Manning case.

I remember reading somewhere in OTC that they made the mistake of announcing they had dirt on Russia, at which point Putin went all "This is not how you blackmail people. Let me show you." and made them a Russian asset.

---

@AmbarKrieger, your remark about "do you seriously believe they have death penalty for rape" makes you sound like you've been living under a rock for the past decade: Ever since the rape accusation resurfaced, it had never been about this, and the conspiracy theories have always been about "It's a sham to get him arrested where he is so he can be extradited to the US for espionage".

edited 12th Jan '18 4:10:46 PM by Medinoc

"And as long as a sack of shit is not a good thing to be, chivalry will never die."

And Manning's leak was in 2010. Since then, Wikileaks has published very few Russia-related leaks and criticised ones from other sources that expose Putin's friends for committing tax evasion. Then there's the pro-Trump stuff. I'd say that's a long-standing pattern.

Obviously they didn't. There's a good reason to pick Venezuela Ecuador. (Somehow I got those countries mixed in my head while writing this post.) A country that isn't antagonistic towards the US and/or UK would've been much less likely to accept him and take the heat for protecting him. Every party in this situation takes political considerations as the basis for all of their plans.

I agree fully with this. Wikileaks has done good and valuable work when it's exposed secrets by giving them to multiple newspapers in many countries and collaborated with them - and sometimes relevant authorities, even - to redact personal details and other parts of the documents that don't have a public interest reason for being published. When Wikileaks published something on their own, there's a much higher chance that it will be questionable.

I feel that I've provided that already in the articles I've linked. If you didn't read them and don't want to, I can do a TLDR for some of them.

What Assange is suggesting is that the extradition process might be used to get him to the US to face a trial after the British authorities arrest him, which they would for escaping bail. In the past, the police in the UK could have also arrested him because of the arrest warrant issued by Sweden, but that's been redacted now.

We're not talking about assassination, and certainly not an extremely public attack by one country to the embassy of another inside a third country. That would be absurd, to the extent that I find it very hard to imagine there even being anyone so ravingly crazy that they'd think the US would so that. (I mean, sure, there's always Alex Jones...) Are you sure you're not building straw men?

I know my posts can be long, and this one is unlikely to be read, as well, but I must say I find it frustrating that the scenarios I'm having to respond to here are so very different from anything that anyone in this thread has posted, indicating that people are probably looking for key words and phrases and only reading and replying to those. Please read the full post you want to reply to, or at least ask for a summary if you don't have the team to read the whole thing.

Those leaks are obviously not justifiable. The ones about surveillance and war crimes, on the other hand, are. This is not a black and white situation.

edited 12th Jan '18 3:48:47 PM by BestOf

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

It is not entirely unreasonable to defend whistleblowers in principle. Not entirely.

It is not reasonable to defend Assange.

Disgusted, but not surprised

Let's also not forget that the whole 'muslim rapegangs going around Sweden' Alt-Right bullshit meme didn't start spreading until very closely after Assange got accused of rape in Sweden. (Just so they could all eventually go 'Oh, so the Swedish authorities will let Muslims go around raping and they do nothing, but they're relentless pursuing Julian Assange for just being accused.')

The US doesn't actually want to do anything to Assange, that bullshit is just one more part of the misinformation campaign meant to get him off for breaking the law (specifically bail jumping, which he's definitely guilty of) through public pressure.

Angry gets shit done.

Krieger made the post you were responding to. If you're going to sneer at someone for "living under a rock" could you sneer at the person who actually said it at least?

Best Of’s suggestion appears to be that the US position has changed since Assange entered the embassy, as while Obama obviously didn’t want Assange (as shown by the fact that Assange was in the UK and even in UK custody but an extradition request was never made) the Republicans are now in power and may want Assange.

I can kinda get that, but it leaves us with a few basic fact, Assange was in no danger of extradition to the US when he fled the rape charges, as such he’s either a paranoid loon who didn’t understand that, a rapist fleeing from justice, or both (I vote both). Additionally the rape charges can’t be part of a plan to extradite him, as they pre-date the US having an administration that wants him extradited.

Oh and this is bugging me now, Venezuela has nothing to do with this, Assange is in the embassy of Ecuador, not Venezuela.

edited 12th Jan '18 7:39:08 AM by Silasw

I'm going to assume this is a typo, given it's Ecuador that just offered him citizenship and it's the Ecuadoran embassy he's hiding in. Or is there some part of this story I don't know?

Yeah, I did a Double Take too when I read Venezuela.

Disgusted, but not surprised

Yeah, I meant Ecuador. I've no idea how I got those countries mixed up.

Not really. Obama's administration was active in pursuing whistleblowers. They didn't submit an extradition request for Assange - at least publicly - but it's not far fetched to think that they might have done, had he been in UK custody for longer. It takes a while to put a case together enough to submit an arrest warrant, so Assange might be lucky that he got out when he did.

Obama's administration prosecuted several whistleblowers, including high-profile cases that caused the US PR problems, and Trump's administration at least talks about being similarly tough on leaks. That's enough to make leakers and their facilitators scared, and in the US, the Freedom of the Press Foundation and the ACLU have expressed concern about the possibility of Assange being prosecuted, a scenario that the CNN and Washington Post have also mentioned in the context reports that the Department of Justice is considering charges against him. In Obama's time the reason given for not prosecuting him was that Wikileaks is covered by the First Amendment, but Trump's CIA director has said Assange does not get such protection from the constitution.

I'm not saying that the US would definitely pursue a case against Assange. I'm saying it's not unreasonable to believe that they might.

edited 12th Jan '18 10:19:16 AM by BestOf

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

1) Assange is not a whistleblower. That's a legal term with a specific meaning that confirms both obligations and privildges. Assange doesn't qualify on any count. For the record, neither to the people (eg, Manning, Snowden) that Obama prosecuted for revealing classified material.

2) Your argument is basically "there's no evidence of it, but it could be true!", which is ridiculous. If you want to make the claim that the US government wanted to or wants to extradite Assange, then the burden of proof is on you. As far as I'm aware, there's no evidence to suggest that this is the case. You're welcome to cite sources suggesting otherwise.

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.

I mean, I've mentioned a couple of times that the current Attorney General, when asked about Assange, said that arresting him and other leakers is a priority. I've linked to a source on this. Then there are Trump's varied comments on this, and the prosecution of Chelsea Manning, and the reports I linked about the Department of Justice building up a case against Assange.

We can't be sure that Assange would be extradited. All I'm saying is that there's a risk, and the sources I've linked to and alluded to here agree with me. Not that it's not just me or Assange that thinks the US might be prepared to request extradition if the UK authorities arrest him, either, which is also obvious from the sources I've linked.

Just to be clear, the only reason I'm worried about this is that it could be a dangerous precedent as a case of the US going after those who enable whistleblowers. I don't particularly care about Assange, and I agree that he should be prosecuted for some of his crimes (especially evading bail, and he should also go on trial in Sweden for the charges there) - but not for enabling whistleblowers. If the US authorities weren't making noise about wanting to prosecute him and others at Wikileaks, I wouldn't have any patiense for Assange's stay at the Ecuadorian embassy. If Trump, Sessions, or someone above Sessions came out tomorrow and said they definitely wouldn't seek to get Assange extradited, I'd also want him to surrender to the UK authorities.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

The Trump administration's stance (established in 2017) has absolutely nothing to do with Assange's decision to jump bail and hide in an embassy in 2012. Manning and Snowden both directly stole classified information, which is a very different thing than publishing information given to you by a third party; Assange didn't steal anything, so his case is not at all analogous.

Which is exactly my complaint. You're giving Assange the benefit of the doubt that he's taking refuge in an embassy to avoid charges in the US, rather than to avoid charges in Sweden. There's no evidence that the US wants to extradite him. He's also consistently displayed a horrific attitude toward others, and women in particular, that is entirely in keeping with the charges against him in Sweden.

The scenario "Assange is trying to avoid a rape trial in Sweden" fits the information we have far better than "Assange is trying to avoid extradited to the US and/or illegally kidnapped and tortured by the CIA". Saying "well, but maybe it's the second one" is ridiculous unless you have an argument and evidence to back it up. You have so far failed to provide either.

You're using that word again. Assange and his associates are not whistleblowers. Stop calling them that.

edited 12th Jan '18 1:48:08 PM by NativeJovian

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.

Manning leaked evidence that the US and other coalition partners were lying about civilian deaths that they knew about - thousands of deaths that were on record but kept secret. Disclosing a matter like that, since it's of public interest and is not hidden for any obviously acceptable reason, constitutes whistleblowing. Wikileaks aided Manning in covering her tracks initially, and also helped publish the information. Manning was arrested in 2010, an indication that Obama's administration was going to prosecute people involved in Manning's leaks. That would include Wikileaks activists, including their leader. (At the very least, it's reasonable to expect that Wikileaks activists are vulnerable to prosecution for involvement in the leaks.) That's 2010. In 2013, Manning was sentenced to 35 years in jail, but Obama commuted her sentence near the end of his term.

Snowden revealed illegal surveillance of American and foreign people and organisations carried out by US intelligence services and those of US allies. Disclosing a crime carried out by the government is whistleblowing. Charges were also filed against Snowden, but of course he escaped to Russia.

Wikileaks and Assange are responsible for a lot of valuable work in revealing secrets that should be revealed, and they've also carried out deplorable violations of privacy that they should be punished for, and served as accessories to Russian efforts to manipulate US politics - which, too, they should be tried for. It's not a black-and-white thing.

The Obama administration was active in pursing whistleblowers, carrying out prosecutions at a record pace. That's reason enough to suppose that the leader of the main organisation involved in the leaks that have resulted in prosecutions is vulnerable to prosecution for his involvement in facilitating those leaks. This would deter future whistleblowers. After Obama's term ended, there's a chance for Wikileaks and Assange to reconsider how afraid they feel of the US; and Trump's attorney general and head of the CIA have both indicated that the new administration isn't going to be any softer than the previous.

It could also be both, who knows. Assange's comments about the Swedish prosecution against him have seemed very paranoid and disrespectful of the accusers, the Swedish justice system, so that's definitely a valid consideration.

I don't think it's unreasonable, with all of the points I've made, to suggest that the threat of extradition to the US is plausible enough to be a worth taking into consideration.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

Manning was not a whistleblower. She dumped both private and security information that directly put people in the line of fire, and followed none of the procedures for actually being a whistlerblower-in that, she is no different than Assange revealing the identities of the last Christians and Jews in territory occupied by ISIS and similar groups. She absolutely should have been prosecuted.

I don't think being a whistleblower is like on an-off-switch, where unnecessary and compromising disclosures and valid, public-interest ones cancel each other out. Manning should not have revealed anything that violated the privacy of ordinary people who weren't doing anything wrong, of course; and Wikileaks should have filtered that stuff out, as should any news agency publishing it. There are many steps in that process that could and should have prevented such information coming out. Presumably the problem arises from having such a large database of information and the will to publish it quickly; but that's not a good reason to publish something that's dangerous to civilians.

Still, important revelations also came from Manning, and it's entirely right that those were published by news organisations that went over them to assess the impact to innocents from such revelations.

I don't agree with the most extreme pro-transparency positions, where advocates argue that just about any and all information should be public. I'm fine with nations and individuals having secrets, so long as the secrets are not hidden crimes or, in the case of elected officials, governments, and agencies, just to save face. Any information produced by the state should be public unless there's a national security reason, or an otherwise very good reason, to keep it secret.

Wikileaks released information about the torture of prisoners in Guantanamo. Should that have been kept secret? Is the person who leaked that information a whistleblower? They did break the law, after all. These are the questions where we get in the grey areas and have to try to draw the lines.

edited 12th Jan '18 3:35:50 PM by BestOf

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

Whistleblower absolutely is an on/off switch; either you follow the procedures to the letter, in which case you are a solid citizen with protections and obligations-or you do not, in which case you are a criminal who incidentally releases information that should be known. Manning and Assange are the latter.

Is that a legal definition? If so, where could I find more information about that definition and the laws that govern it?

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

Links are right here in the wikipedia page. [1]

This remains a ridiculous argument. The majority of the available evidence points to one conclusion. If any evidence exists to support the other conclusion, you have yet to bring it up. So you shrug your shoulders and say "well, both are possible"? That's textbook false equivalence, man. The two conclusions are not equally valid, and you haven't even tried to offer evidence that they are.

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.

I would've hoped that people participating in this thread have read up on this case enough to have seen either Assange or his lawyer(s) claim that the reason for seeking asylum was to avoid extradition tothe US. If you'd like a source for this, I'll find one. Here.

That establishes that at least publicly, extradition to the US is what Assange is trying to avoid.

Here's an article from the BBC, from 2010, discussing some of the barriers that the US authorities would have to overcome to get Assange extradited. Early in the article, Eric Holder, Attorney General at the time, is quoted as saying a "very serious criminal investigation" is under way to prosecute him in the US. I've already provided a source that shows that Obama's government prosecuted leakers/whistleblowers more often than other administrations, including at least one prominent case to do with Wikileaks.

Trump's administration has also talked the talk when it comes to pursuing leakers; it remains to be seen how many, if any, actual prosecutions occur during Trump's term. In any case, there's no sign of a shift to a softer line on leakers/whistleblowers than that taken by the Obama administration. I've linked to the current Attorney General's comments on this and the current head of the CIA referring to Wikileaks as a "hostile intelligence service".

So all the way from 2010 to the current administration, there's been a hard line against leakers/whistleblowers in prosecutions and/or rhetoric.

Considering the number of articles I've linked and the number of times I've had to list some of the details in them, I get the feeling those articles haven't actually been read. That's fine: you can ask me to summarise any source that I link here. Just tell me which one(s) you'd like summarised and I'll do it. I don't think it's in the spirit of arguing in good faith to ask me to reiterate the same points over and over again without reading any of my sources, though; so do ask for summaries or read the sources, please; or, if you don't, at least stop accusing me of not providing sources. It would save everyone's time.

I know I'm repeating myself again, but once more: in saying that it's possible that Assange is escaping the charges in Sweden and extradition to the US, I really mean that both of those are plausible explanations for his decision to seek asylum.

I wouldn't be surprised if he's avoiding prosecution in Sweden. His comments about that case indicate either that he doesn't believe he's guilty, or that he believes the case is used as a way to get him extradited to the US. (He has said some pretty disrespectful and stupid things about the case and his accusers.) He might very well be guilty of the crimes of which he's accused in Sweden, as well. I'm not going to say that he definitely is guilty, but I'm not saying he definitely isn't, and if I had to pick a side in this I'm more leaning towards guilty than innocent, based on the accusations and the way he's reacted to them.

I would also not be surprised if he's avoiding extradition to the US. He and his lawyers have consistently insisted that this is the case. US authorities have prosecuted people involved with Wikileaks, and the line has been fairly consistent even through the transition to a new administration. Even if the US weren't really looking to get him on trial, what I'm asked to prove here is that it's plausible that Assange fears that this might be the case; and I do believe I have provided enough sources to show that Assange might feel that he is in danger of being extradited to face trial in the US. I also believe it's reasonable to suppose that the threat of extradition is worth taking seriously, and I base that on the actions of the Obama administration and the comments of the Trump administration.

If you don't consider actual, high-profile prosecutions and comments from Attorneys General or the head of the CIA as indications of a government's line on leaks/whistleblowers - and you're apprently not even willing to consider those as plausible indications that suggest what that line might be - I'd like to know what would constitute sufficient evidence from which to draw conclusions about how a government might react to this.

edited 12th Jan '18 5:20:15 PM by BestOf

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

Here’s the thing, the Obama administration chose not to try and extradite Assange despite having numerous, you keep ignoring that and talking about the administration’s history of going after whistleblowers, however it’s true.

That fact rather puts to rest the idea that Assange had a reasonable fear of extradition to the US when he entered the embassy, he had a reasonable fear of extradition to Sweden for rape charges, but that’s it, he had no reasonable fear of extradition to the US. Nothing changed with the US situation that caused him to enter the embassy.

The only thing that changed was him being charged by Swedish authorities, which can only be argued to give Assange a fear of extradition to the US if you believe that the US could not get him extradited from the UK but could from Sweden. Which is a stupid belief.

I still don't understand why some people don't even want him sent to Sweden to stand trial.... it's almost like they think there is some sort of NWO conspiracy against him.... and not, you know, that he may have committed sexual assault and is using "teh nasty US is out to get me!" as an excuse to hide from justice....

advancing the front into TV Tropes

It could be that the US authorities were still preparing their case when Assange was in custody in the UK. Many of the sources I've linked mention how complex the relevant legislation is, and the officials quoted in them speak of Assange's case in terms of elaborate preparations for extradition and trial.

He was already interrogated in Sweden, the case was closed, and he was told he was free to go, before he returned in the UK back in 2010. He offered to be questioned again in the embassy in London, but the Swedish authorities initially refused, before changing their mind and questioning him after some of the charges had already expired, in 2016.

We might disagree with the assessment that the threat of extradition to the US was real, but we'd be arguing against the statements of two US Attorneys General - one in 2010, the other in 2017. (I presume there are plenty of statements along these lines between those dates, but I'm being very careful to only mention things I've linked to here.)

Assange says that either the UK or Sweden might extradite him to the US to face charges for the Wikileaks stuff. US authorities say they want to try him in the US. The UK has an extradition treaty with the US - it doesn't cover extradition for espionage charges, but some of the other charges that might be made against Assange are covered.

If Assange is right, the scenario would be that if he tried to go to Sweden to answer the charges against him, he would be arrested by the UK authorities for escaping bail when he sought asylum at the embassy. Then the UK authorities would have a chance to extradite him to the US instead of Sweden. (The UK authorities might also try him for escaping bail, and if that results in a jail sentence, he might have to serve that before he's extradited to the US - there's not much of a precedent for this case.)

Since Sweden revoked the arrest warrant on him, he is not legally required to face those charges any more if he doesn't go to Sweden before 2020; but I'm sure if you asked Assange, he'd claim that he'd still be willing to go there to settle the score. I wouldn't belive him if he said it, but I bet he would say it.

So Assange has always claimed that what he fears is extradition when he's in custody before he faces a trial in Sweden. US authorities have been pretty consistent in reinforcing the case that this fear is justified.

edited 12th Jan '18 5:49:29 PM by BestOf

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

I know that that's his public reasoning. I've already written repeatedly on why I don't believe him. This is a dodge, not a response.

This is meaningless. Talk is cheap. They're not going to say "yeah, he totally fucked us, but no, we're not really looking into it because it's too much of a pain in the ass". Do you have anything to suggest they actually took action toward prosecuting him? Was he indicted? Did the US issue a warrant for his arrest? Did they start extradition procedures with the UK, Sweden, or Ecuador? Anything?

I've already pointed out that this happened five years after Assange holed up in the embassy and is thus completely irrelevant to whether Assange was justified in fearing US prosecution at the time.

And I've already pointed out that this is false equivalence. You're not addressing my responses, you're just repeating yourself.

Or he's lying and he's saying those things because that's what he wants people to believe. I can't believe I actually have to point this out as a possibility.

Or he's lying and he's saying those things because that's what he wants people to believe. I can't believe I actually have to point this out as a possibility.

Now you're shifting the goalposts. My original comment on the subject was "If you want to make the claim that the US government wanted to or wants to extradite Assange, then the burden of proof is on you." I don't really care what Assange believes — he may well actually think that the men in black really are out to get him. If that's true, then he's a paranoid lunatic unless he has reason to believe that — which I don't think he does, as I've seen nothing to suggest that the US has actually taken any steps to prosecute him.

You keep couching your arguments in weasel words. Yes, it could be that the US were still preparing their case. It's equally true that it could be that Assange is actually an alien, and the US government is trying to get their hands on him so they can vivisect him and learn the secrets of his species' biotechnology. That doesn't make either possibility likely, and I see no reason to treat them seriously unless you show me evidence supporting those claims, which you have not done.

edited 12th Jan '18 6:54:25 PM by NativeJovian

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/jan/11/julian-assange-is-made-ecuadorian-citizen-in-effort-to-resolve-impasse

More details of Assange being an Ecuadorian national. Seems like he retains his Australian nationality...

"Exit muna si Polgas. Ang kailangan dito ay si Dobermaxx!"