
Ecuador has begun giving the US some of Julian Assange’s possessions - sjcsjc
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-48335692
======
dev_dull
It’s amazing to me that leaking the tax return data for a sitting president is
“journalism”, even without any evidence of a crime. Yet Wikileaks is
considered criminal for exposing actual crimes to the US public?

~~~
staunch
I know he published U.S. government secrets (CIA files, that Iraq military
video, etc). But what U.S. government crimes did he expose?

I think Assange is mostly a sleazy guy who allowed himself to be a tool for
Russia in 2016. But I still think he should be protected from U.S. charges by
the First Amendment, regardless of whatever minor "assistance" he provided to
Chelsea Manning.

Snowden on the other hand is a hero that acted perfectly ethically and exposed
clearly criminal violations of the U.S. Fourth Amendment. He should be
protected as a whistleblower.

~~~
sgift
> But what U.S. government crimes did he expose?

Google, "Collateral Murder"

You're welcome.

~~~
staunch
I referenced that video so I'm clearly aware of it.

Assange putting "murder" in the title doesn't actually make it illegal
homocide. That's not how any legal system works.

IMHO that incident is unfortunate because some of those people were innocent,
and it is legally questionable, but there's also a strong argument that it was
legal. A very far cry from exposing something clearly illegal like the My Lai
Massacre or Abu Ghraib torture.

So all he's done is expose one legally questionable incident from 2007 by a
single military unit during the Iraq war? I suppose I'm not forgetting
anything then.

~~~
cyphar
Killing first-responders is a war crime not a "questionable incident",
regardless of their conduct while killing innocent civilians. You're also
implying that this is the only case where something like this happened. It's
only the only one we know about.

In addition, the Iraqi and Afghan war logs showed evidence of massive
underreporting of civilian casualties and cases of friendly-fire. Cases of DoD
contractors hiring child prostitutes. Cases of soldiers firing into enemy
combatants that were surrendering. Handing prisoners over to Iraqi custody
even though they knew they would likely be tortured. Lack of investigation
into reports of abuse, torture, rape by Iraqi police. And so on.

~~~
staunch
Your characterization of the incident could simply be wrong, legally speaking.
Were those first responders, or merely enemy combatants helping their fellow
enemy combatants escape? Are soldiers required to let wounded enemies escape?
What if they're not in uniform? What if innocents would die?

It's very _possible_ that it was completely legal under the international
rules of war (Geneva Conventions, etc), whether or not you or I like what
happened.

And I'm well aware that many other unfortunate and _illegal_ things happened
during the Iraq War. I referenced Abu Grahib. But the topic here was scoped to
U.S. gov crimes exposed by Assange.

Edit: I did actually write "questionable incident" and that's what I meant
there, my mistake.

~~~
dev_dull
I (the GP) actually agree with you. The point in making my distinction wasn't
that I think one is criminal and one is not. I think they're both criminal,
however there's clearly a political angle being played in both.

------
sschueller
According to Julian's lawyers it's a violation of international law. [1]

[1]
[https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/1127706444185448449](https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/1127706444185448449)

~~~
pjc50
It would be amazing if people could devote a tiny fraction of the effort spent
on Assange to some of the hundreds of thousands of other asylum seekers who
are wrongly deported, held indefinitely, have their possessions confiscated,
have their children removed from them, etc.

Or investigative journalism in general, often in dangerous conditions:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daphne_Caruana_Galizia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daphne_Caruana_Galizia)

~~~
erentz
If we can't even hold up our principals and defend them in a case as big and
public as Assange then there's no hope for the thousands of relative nobodies
you're referring to.

~~~
arcticbull
Indeed, this is something of a bellwether case.

------
pseingatl
Evidence that is turned over to law enforcement by a non-governmental entity
may be used at trial. This is called the "silver platter" doctrine. So, your
roommate went into your locked room and gave police the kilo of cocaine and
firearm you always keep on the nightstand. Tough luck. The police are
prohibited from directing private individuals to seize evidence that could not
otherwise be seized. Another problem is that correspondence between Assange
and his defense team--in other words, his defense--is contained in these
materials. Giving the prosecutor access to this material must not be analyzed
solely under a 4th Amendment search and seizure analysis, but under a 5th
Amendment right to counsel analysis. The silver platter doctrine would not
apply to a 5th Amendment analysis.

Parenthetically, cops and journalists are two professions that go undercover.
Both lie in order to maintain the act. I have read multiple comments about how
Assange tried to help Manning, e.g., that Assange tried to break encryption
but failed. But no one knows this. It may very well be that Assange told
Manning that he did these things, but did not for any number of reasons, not
the least of which would be to keep Manning invested in looking for more
material. There is no proof--though there may be in these seized materials--
that Assange did anything of the sort. Journalists lie to their sources all
the time.

Also, could someone explain why Manning simply didn't leave the country upon
being released from jail? There are no criminal charges against Manning--there
is merely a civil subpoena which Manning is resisting. He was under no
obligation to remain in the United States.

~~~
pjc50
> She was under no obligation to remain in the United States.

It's quite difficult to immigrate somewhere else when you're a convicted
criminal; most places will bin your application immediately. Claiming asylum
would also have made returning to the US impossible. Perhaps Manning wanted to
see her family?

~~~
arcticbull
Hey, there's always Svalbard :P

------
enriquto
this is quite a jerk move. Even if Mr. Assange was charged of some crime,
shouldn't his personal possessions at least go to his family?

~~~
Veen
Assange is definitely charged with a crime, namely refusing to surrender to
the UK police when released under bail.

~~~
sschueller
Right but then the UK should have his belongings not the USA.

------
skilled
It's pretty appaling to read comments in this thread trying to imply Assange
is in all this trouble because of a 'cat'.

What are you trying to convey?

~~~
sgift
They follow the narrative that the reason for Assange being handed over to GB
is not cleaning up after his cat. This was brought up by Ecuador. You can
decide for yourself which of these explanations you think is most likely:

\- Ecuador wanted an IMF loan (and got it after handing over Assange)

\- Wikileaks leaked documents about corruption of Ecuadors president

\- Assange didn't clean up after his cat and that offended his hosts

All options have been brought up at one time or another. Or maybe it's
something else. For lack of mind reading we'll never really know. At least not
until Wikileaks provides documents about that too.

------
ionised
Note for the future; Asylum granted by Ecuador is worthless, regardless of how
much of a shitty house guest you are.

~~~
geezerjay
It is quite clear that political asylums are political, thus they depend on
the political will of those who hold power in a specific moment in time.

