326
‘Julian Assange is free’: Wikileaks founder freed in deal with US
(www.aljazeera.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 25 Jun 2024
326 points (95.8% liked)
World News
38824 readers
2657 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Making sure he pleads guilty to something that isn't a crime equals America not having freedom of speech.
With everything that’s going on in the world, I feel like “freedom of speech” doesn’t exist. It’s just a “buzz”.
Just to name a few things;
Perhaps it is just me being pessimistic.
FIFY!
/S
"Freedom of speech" does not protect you from social consequences; it protects you from legal consequences.
You've just misunderstood what freedom of speech is. The government won't jail you for your opinions. You can say whatever you want that isn't a threat or call to violence.
Let's be real though. That's why people get to call you names when they disagree with you. They also have that same protected speech.
Protesting is a thing you are doing while exercising your free speech. However, you can be doing 2 things at once. Exercising your free speech while committing the crime of trespassing, etc. That one right doesn't make you legally immune to anything else you're doing.
Of course, people commit crimes while protesting to give their protest some teeth, and in some cases to bring attention to the law they might be protesting. But you should be prepared to be fined and arrested during spicy protests. People sitting in the road acting shocked they get hit and dragged away just make me feel like I'm looking at too many shocked Pikachus. You should expect it. That's why you are there. If you didn't face violence you aren't really showing how strongly you feel. That's what it means to stand against opposition.
Don't make me break out my argument about how the bill of rights is a dead letter. Every single one, including the third.
Nah just you misunderstanding positions and arguments you've overheard.
Espionage is 100% a crime. You may disagree with it being a crime but it's illegal in every country.
Worse, it validates the precedent that non-U.S.-citizens can be prosecuted for breaking U.S. law over things they did outside of the U.S.
Really happy that Assange gets to go home, since he's suffered enough personally, but I really don't like the precedent that I can be prosecuted in, say, Israel under Israeli law for things that I did in Wisconsin (e.g. boycotting).
Don't solicit Israeli soldiers to become assets and give you classified information you will then edit to make Israel look as bad as possible?
He acted as a spy in every way.
There are reports of mass violations being committed against hostages in israeli concentration camps such as the one in the Negev desert. Which is now closed (moved elsewhere) because of all the reports coming out
Are you saying they should arrest the journalists that wrote those reports?
No. There is a massive difference between journalists and Assange. He didn't solicit evidence of crimes. He solicited any and all classified information. Then he straight up edited the stuff he did get to make it look like the US was committing war crimes. He also released diplomatic cables entirely calculated to damage the ability of the US to conduct diplomacy. Finally he straight up interfered in an election by releasing private emails that were hacked by Russian Intelligence. Not one to leave things to chance, he didn't exactly edit them this time. (That backfired hard when the Army just released all the footage and reports) Instead he added editorial titles to email chains he knew no one was really going to dig through. Just enough cover so conservative outlets could run attack ads and articles using his product.
Let me know when the NYT does all of that.
Have you even seen collateral murder?
Yes, and I've seen the full video and Army reports debunking it. That's why it never went anywhere outside the far left and Russia/China. He had to literally edit the video and create an out of context snuff film before it suited his purposes.
Okay so you have not seen Collateral Murder. I understand.
I have in fact seen it. Multiple times. They embedded with anti coalition forces that were shadowing that convoy for hours. Embedding on either side is always a roll of the dice in a war zone. But nobody is going to eat an RPG because of Schroedinger's reporter. And yes it was an RPG, the ground forces found them afterwards and took pictures.
At the end of the day those reporters made a bad decision in a place that didn't have any room for bad decisions. That's all there is to it.
Yikes! This reply validates my concern 100%.
Other sovereign nations get to make their own laws and legal systems without our control. They can make bullshit laws if they want to, like conflating journalism with spying. Then they can charge journalists in another country with a crime and extradite them to face charges. But, spying or journalism or criticizing their king, the details didn't really matter, they could charge anybody anybody, anywhere in the world with any crime they want. And since it's another country, we have no assurances of due process there.
That's scary shit.
Yeah, they already do that. Don't go and publish a ton of articles criticizing Lese Majeste and expect to freely travel to a Direct Rule Monarchy or any country that is a client state of a Direct Rule Monarchy.
But extreme examples aside, every country in the world will come for you if you want to reveal their military secrets, including who is working for that country secretly in other countries. This isn't just him dropping one video. There was an entire document dump that caused the CIA to pull hundreds of people out of the field. And no matter what your personal feelings on the matter are, countries view their intelligence activities as legitimate, secret, and not subject to whistleblower rules unless a crime (that they have on the books) is being exposed. Raw dogging the entire secret intranet for everything you can fit on a USB is not whistleblowing or reporting.
Travel to those countries? The precedent here is that China has the right to extradite me for supporting democracy in Hong Kong from here in the U.S., never once even leaving my house. Assange was not a U.S. citizen, and located outside of U.S. territory.
Of course, the U.S. won't cooperate with the extradition request, but that's just a matter of power relationships, not principles. The principle is that everybody in the world is subject to every country's laws. Or, every person in the world is subject to the laws of the U.S., which fundamentally breaks the rule of law.
It's scary how many people out there are okay with that.
Are you actually managing sources of classified Chinese documents? This breathless attempt to conflate espionage with having an opinion about another country is ridiculous.
And you keep saying espionage, invoking a word as if it's some special kind of crime exempt from the rule of law, and also immutable. China gets to define what espionage is under their laws. The U.S. did mangle it far beyond the common definition to pursue Assange.
Did they though? He cultivated a relation with a source in exchange for intelligence.
That's an expansive definition that also describes what a journalist does, which is what upset defenders of civil liberties about the prosecution of Assange. The usual connotation of the word espionage, however, is that it is done by an organization, against adversaries, for its own benefit. Assange was explicitly seeking information from whistleblowers to release to the world. Like a journalist.
But to my point, the CIA explicitly engages in espionage as its mission. So would President Xi be justified in sending his police to the environs of Langley to drag CIA employees out of their beds and before a court to stand trial in Beijing? I say no, because they're American citizens in the United States. Chinese law should not apply here in America.
Traditionally, courts need to have jurisdiction to hear a dispute, and it comes in multiple types: There's subject-matter jurisdiction; a municipal traffic court has subject matter jurisdiction over traffic infractions. It can't hear a murder case. Then, there's personal jurisdiction, meaning it has power to compel an appearance by a defendant, and impose penalties or assess damages. Personal jurisdiction usually comes from citizenship, or physical presence. State and federal courts have wide-ranging personal jurisdiction, but even then they have to "reach out and touch someone" with service of a summons to effect it. (Trial in-absentia is not allowed in the U.S. unless the defendant waives the right to appear.) Tangentially, the admiralty law system developed because of a lack of a country's courts' personal jurisdiction over foreign nationals, and suing property (the basis of civil forfeiture) came about due to sailors simply returning to their home countries, out of legal reach.
Thus, the idea of prosecuting a foreign national outside of the U.S., for actions undertaken outside of the U.S., in places where U.S. law shouldn't apply—essentially extending a U.S. court's personal jurisdiction to the whole planet—is deeply troubling. Even if it's just one category of crime, like espionage. If there's one exception, then there's no practical protection, since a country can define espionage in any way it wants to trigger the exception. Or not. It could just accuse somebody of espionage, evidence be damned. After all, that person would be hauled off to a foreign land before being able to mount a defense in court.
That is a tool of tyrants.
I'm not going to write an entire paper on the differences between journalists and spies to satisfy an Internet stranger. Organizations like the NYT act completely differently with their sources than Assange did. They release documents only after carefully checking for information that can put people in danger, and they never do something for the sole purpose of harming a country.
We know this law doesn't apply to journalists because they tried to use it against them during the Cold War and the courts told them it wouldn't fly. So all this hand wringing over civil rights is just concern trolling to defend someone who made themselves an enemy of the US by working with Russian intelligence agencies to interfere in our elections.
Edit to add - if you really want to claim our civil courts didn't have jurisdiction we could always have let the military handle it. We certainly wouldn't be watching him go home right now though.
That's fine, I'm not going to accept the authority of a stranger in Lemmy to define what is and what isn't journalism. It really just comes down to a disagreement whether we should strive for rule of law, or accept the law of the jungle, where might makes right.
Real journalists manage to do their jobs just fine in Western countries. Even the YouTubers. He clearly crossed the line.
He wasn't charged for his speech, he was charged for leaking classified information...
No it was more than that, he actively helped Chelsea hack into files she didn't have access to. He literally hacked into classified databases of the US military. Much worse than leaking info.
He was not in trouble for leaking information. He literally helped Chelsea hack into classified files she didn't have access to, he actively participated in breaching security inside the US military. Very illegal no matter where you stand.
This is just blatantly false. Repeating government propaganda doesn't make it true. He did not hack the military he told someone what a VPN is.
Alright it take it back, he tried to help crack a password, but he likely failed. Looks like he was still actively pushing Chelsea to gather more classified info. I'm sorry but this is not the behavior of a journalist
You've got a giant nothing burger there don't keep digging deeper.
There's a reason all serious journalists are defending Assagne and describing the case against him as a very dangerous precedent against press freedom.
The fact of the matter is that Assange's policy of "leak everything" mainly only applied to the United States, which put united states assets (spies in authoritarian regimes) in danger and ended up in prison. And Assange did not extend the same courtesy to the Russians when documents were leaked from their end, and would redact and editorialize the leaks. Stack that on top conspiring to steal classified information and its not so much of a nothing burger as you call it. Yeah, let's give blanket immunity to "journalists" who actively try to steal state secrets, leak it straight into a pipeline, and selectively put our -only- our allies in literally mortal danger while protecting that of our adversaries. Come on dude.
Holy shit these libs defending war criminals because "muh Russia".
Did Russia claim to have freedom of speech?
What makes you think I'm defending the actions of the US? I remember watching the drone video when I was 18 years old, it was incredibly shocking and it forever changed how i saw the US military. Alternatively, do you support assange releasing the name of people in Authoritarian regimes who were working with the US? Who were imprisoned or possibly killed?
What I'm pointing out is that assange is not your ally, despite him exposing the atrocities of the US, much less a journalist. There are codes of ethics that journalists follow (and laws they have to follow as well) and if he did that, it likely could left him in a better position legally. Instead he was cavalier, and possibly even malicious with his actions. He should have kept a lawyer that specializes in whistleblower law on staff. But he probably thought because he was in Europe he could do whatever the fuck he wanted without consequence.
I'm done here, it almost seems you are missing the point on purpose. This case is very clearly not about freedom speech.
Welcome to every conversation w @Linkerbaan@lemmy.world
I realized too late that he is a terminal stage tankie
There's no code of ethics for journalists. We just saw all our mainstream newspapers spread the blatant hoax that Hamas raped women and beheaded babies. And lied about having seen evidence. Which is now proven out doesn't exist. On top of that they hired ex-israeli soldiers without any journalistic experience to write the propaganda story.
You're enthusiastically painting Assagne in a bad light because he is receiving criticism. And bringing up examples from after him being prosecuted as retroactive justification.
Of course Russia would support his efforts. We do the exact same thing. When there's an adversary in a country we don't like, we support them. The Taliban and the Russians are a prime example.