
The US Is Preparing to Prosecute Julian Assange - mises
https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-is-optimistic-it-will-prosecute-assange-1542323142
======
coding123
[https://outline.com/qGn9gA](https://outline.com/qGn9gA)

------
londons_explore
If true, this suggests that previous articles about assange being 'practically
free to go', and 'just staying in the embassy for attention' were misinformed.

~~~
nl
He's always been free to go, just that he'd likely to be arrested.

Unclear what article you are referring to in the 'staying for attention'
reference.

~~~
cronix
Yes, but the UN effectively say he's being detained, which I tend to agree
with. It's like me standing there with a gun to your head saying if you take
one more step, I'll shoot. Technically, you're "free to leave at any time,"
but that's not really the effective reality.

> February 2016 - A UN panel rules that Mr Assange has been "arbitrarily
> detained" by UK and Swedish authorities since 2010

[https://www.bbc.com/news/world-
europe-11949341](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-11949341)

~~~
matt4077
I don't quite get what the argument is supposed to be. Possibly that the
charges should be dropped because so much time has passed.

Because there is just no logical reason why an accused should have the option
of getting all charges dropped because somehow being prosecuted for them
violates his rights?

The analogy with shooting someone is obviously different, in that _shooting
someone_ tends to be a violation of their rights. Arresting them when they
skipped bail is not quite the same as a bullet to the head.

~~~
josteink
What charges? Uncovering massive war-crimes committed by the US? (And how many
have been charged as the result of those?)

Are you saying it’s ok to let people off the hook for war-crimes, but
reporting them should put you in prison?

What kind of society would that be? Certainly not one I would want to live in.

~~~
matt4077
The danish rape charge, which would have probably been resolved with a few
months of probation or some mandatory training.

Somehow, Assange managed to turn that prospect into the self-inflicted and
unlimited golden cage that is the Ecuadorian Embassy. Guy's a true genius...

~~~
cheez
If you've been paying attention to #metoo, Kavanaugh and all that, this type
of thing is done to discredit. No matter what Assange would do afterwards,
every story would start: Assange, who agreed to probation for a rape charge,
...

------
xoa
Without any opinion the merits of this case in particular, which seems like a
total mess all around and I haven't been following, on the topic more
generally I found "Demystifying International Extradition" [1] last year to be
an interesting summary of the process. It introduced me to concepts that don't
really tend to come up in local law. Amongst other pertinent aspects is that
while the US generally wants to avoid binding its own hands it can do so if
another nation demands it when it comes to the penalties it will seek. Lots of
countries (I think including England?) will not extradite if the death penalty
is on the table, but the US can apparently legally assure that it won't seek
it (for capital crimes).

Lot of political considerations and such in high profile cases I guess when it
comes to agreements between nation-states. Everyone can be prickly about their
prerogatives and who gets justice and what it means for relations and public
opinion and so on. Nothing guaranteed about it.

\----

1:
[https://www.arnoldporter.com/en/perspectives/publications/20...](https://www.arnoldporter.com/en/perspectives/publications/2017/01/demystifying-
international-extradition)

~~~
monocasa
There's also just straight up extraordinary rendition, ie. showing up, black
bagging someone, and flying off, outside the legal process.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition)

Ironically, the UK doesn't allow extraordinary rendition, and it was a big
deal to even let those planes refuel or use UK airspace, but Sweden
historically has allowed it.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_of_Ahmed_Agiza_an...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_of_Ahmed_Agiza_and_Muhammad_al-
Zery)

~~~
jacobush
It was made a big deal in Sweden how ridiculous any fears were that Assange
could be extradited from Sweden to the US if he would go to Sweden for
hearings.

And now...

~~~
rtpg
it's still "ridiculous" insofar as an extradition from Sweden would not just
involve Sweden <-> US relations but US <-> UK relations (so two relations
instead of just one). This isn't rocket science, there are more moving parts
to the "get him from Sweden" from the simpler "Get him from the UK" plan.

~~~
jacobush
Regarding how the debate went in Sweden, it was raised that Assange could be
snatched up en route from UK to Sweden. This notion was dismissed even more
summarily, like some spy movie fantasy.

(This would not happen unless the UK would be OK with it, of course. The UK,
unless they have some exceptional reason, does exactly what the US says. If
the law has wiggle room, they'll look the other way. I am sure also something
could be arranged so Sweden and the UK could save face for each other in their
relationship. Even if the US black bagged someone, as long as they didn't do
it on UK soil, why should the brits just not shrug and say "ah, those naughty
Americans, can't keep up with them all the time eh?" _wink, wink, nudge nudge_
)

Edit: Regarding the charges themselves against Assange - I have no doubt
Assange is a bit of a douche. I would not be surprised _at all_ if he violated
Swedish law. It's still quite suspicious that even though most similar
investigations are closed, even with better evidence, this case was opened
anew, by Marianne Ny. Of course the handling of this case was political.

------
anarazel
Looks like it already happened a few months back. Earlier today Seamus Hughes
noticed an apparent copy&paste mistake in an independent court filing:

[https://twitter.com/SeamusHughes/status/1063232297674162176](https://twitter.com/SeamusHughes/status/1063232297674162176)

Which the WaPo just corroborated:

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-
security/julia...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-
security/julian-assange-has-been-charged-prosecutors-reveal-in-inadvertent-
court-filing/2018/11/15/9902e6ba-98bd-48df-b447-3e2a4638f05a_story.html)

------
anoncoward111
_[clears throat]_ USA killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civillians and is
now jailing the whistleblowers _[cough]_

~~~
armenarmen
Americans (and I sadly speak for all 300mm+ of us) no longer give a flying
fuck about illegal wars or mass murder.

There is no peace movement, there won’t be ever again. Citizens will ignore
the wars and entertain them selves by rage posting about either the red or
blue team

~~~
calibas
People don't want wars, but they feel powerless to change things. And these
feelings of powerlessness and hopelessness are perpetuated among society and
create a self-defeating attitude.

~~~
culot
Unless you plop them into a warzone, they won't truly care. In the US we are
generally so far removed from the fracas of war.

------
codedokode
As I understand, Assange is not an US citizen. How can they prosecute him?

Wikipedia page [1] says:

> Opinions of Assange at this time [2010] were divided. Australian Prime
> Minister Julia Gillard described his activities as "illegal," but the police
> said that he had broken no Australian law. United States Vice President Joe
> Biden and others called him a "terrorist". Some called for his assassination
> or execution.

That's ridiculous. American soldiers killing civilians are "good guys", and
Assange is a terrorist?

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange)

~~~
Joakal
Try this Australian pirate who got jailed in USA. Then upon released, got
jailed again for being an illegal alien and banned from USA.

Before the extradition, he had never set foot in USA before.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hew_Raymond_Griffiths](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hew_Raymond_Griffiths)

Labor/Liberal are USA stooges.

~~~
jacobush
I thought you meant like high seas pirate. That this is happening in modern
times is ... _interesting_.

------
resters
By doing this the US is coming to the aid of the many dictators and despots
whose crimes Assange has helped reveal.

Also, by ignoring the crimes revealed by the Iraq and Afghanistan war logs,
the US makes it very clear that war-making cronies rule both parties and would
never hold each other accountable for anything.

To be clear, the war logs revealed that the US classified information solely
because it revealed that the official narrative about why we were involved in
those wars was false. Regardless of what one thinks about Assange, it's pretty
hard to argue that the crimes revealed by the war logs aren't highly
worrisome.

Regardless of how one feels about Assange, it's hard to deny that WL was the
most successful attempt by any journalist to unmask the widespread US war
crimes that we've seen in many decades.

My statement above may be too strong... so be it, but surely a court should
have been able to decide the fate of the propagandists who misused their power
to classify information from the American people. Instead the war criminals
just attacked Assange and everyone else including most journalists do as they
are asked and turned on a fellow journalist who was willing to sacrifice his
freedom for the cause of truth.

~~~
hnmonkey
While some of the things that were exposed were certainly illegal and should
be handled as such, it's hard to feel any empathy for a guy who is essentially
a Russian asset. If you think of him as an extension of Russian military
intelligence conducting propaganda wars against its adversaries then it
becomes a lot easier to understand why prosecuting him is a genuinely good
thing. Russia airing the dirty laundry of others is good for Russia. Now,
don't get me wrong... I'm not defending the dirty laundry I'm just saying that
the intent behind the messenger in this situation is not at all altruistic.

~~~
cwkoss
Russia airing the dirty laundry through a side channel is MUCH more benevolent
than the other things (like blackmailing our world leaders) they could do with
this.

I don't think all of Wikileaks' revelations are from Russia, but even if they
all are - and Russia had selfish motivations - it was a benevolent act toward
the world. Truth is power, and revealing the truth to the powerless is never
an evil act.

~~~
resters
Exactly. As I put it in another comment, if someone leaked information that
led to Jerry Sandusky being stopped several years sooner, would it matter if
the leaker was affiliated with a rival football program?

Because of how WL releases full, minimally redacted documents, there is really
no reason to worry about the details. Failures of journalistic integrity
happen because of strategic omissions or intentional misdirection. WL
essentially can't do that because it releases the source material in
essentially raw form.

~~~
bestnameever
> WL essentially can't do that because it releases the source material in
> essentially raw form.

But they can decline to release certain groups of documents that go contrary
to whichever narrative they are trying to build.

~~~
cwkoss
Thats why we need dozens of Wikileaks 'competitors'

------
sjg007
I hope and pray that some smart lawyers come to his defense in both in
England, Ecuador, and the USA. I hope that "we" are collectively smart enough
to support him (and Snowden). He is probably not a Russian agent... all of
that talk is a distraction (especially with Mueller).. if Russia left him out
to dry then they would seriously curtail their intelligence operations...
after all memes and fake news are far more effective.

If he is a Russian agent, the Prisoners Dilemma applies: Will Trump pardon or
will Russia declare? Russia has more to lose here. Maybe there is a way out
for Russia and the US but I doubt it. This is actually an interesting case.. a
3 party prisoners dilemma.. any ideas?

One of my biggest regrets is not supporting Aaron.. at the time it would not
have been much but maybe collectively and everyone together. Maybe we were too
late to recognize that he was ahead of his time... and maybe we still are.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4529484](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4529484)

~~~
FireBeyond
Why so? He has shown himself over time to be someone who has constantly
reneged on his responsibilities, made obtuse efforts to be "understanding"
when he has no standing ("offering" to be interviewed via video from the
embassy - who else gets to decide how, when, where and if they are interviewed
on criminal charges?), and shown himself to be entirely partisan in his
motives when it comes down to it.

Why should "we" be "collectively supporting him", precisely?

~~~
sjg007
What exactly is partisan?

~~~
FireBeyond
Contrived and controlled releases to influence a narrative in a particular
desired direction.

Being given a trove of documents categorized as misdeeds by both sides of
government and largely sitting on those by one side, and releasing those that
adversely impact the other. Partisan.

~~~
sjg007
Or timely.

~~~
FireBeyond
Okay. Then why was it "timely" to release material critical of the left
leaning factions of US government...

... but at the same time "not timely" to release material critical of the
right leaning factions?

~~~
sjg007
Does this ignore the fact that Wikileaks might have been played?

~~~
thousandautumns
Possibly, but:

1\. Wikileaks has declined to publish leaks critical of Putin and Russian in
the past 2\. Wikileaks inexplicably denigrated the release of the Panama
papers, which contained lots of damning information about several Russian
oligarchs and key Putin allies, despite the fact that it seems like something
they would be supportive of 3\. Assange had his own show on Russian state-
sponsored television

It is entirely possible that Wikileaks was duped by the Russian government.
But there is lots of circumstantial evidence that makes the idea seem suspect.

------
kuwze
If he had kept his promise after Obama pardoned Chelsea Manning I would care.

~~~
jMyles
What a silly point on which to turn your concerns about government misconduct,
especially when it involves the 1st amendment.

> Obama pardoned Chelsea Manning

First of all, that never happened. You are drastically exaggerating the relief
offered by the government.

The government tortured this person for years and then, even after offering
this (in the great scheme of things, small) gesture of commuting her sentence,
it still kept her locked up for an absurd amount of time, ostensibly for
administrative reasons.

It was too little too late for me, and too little too late for Assange. If the
government wanted to take the deal he offered, it had the opportunity to
immediately pardon Manning and call Assange out on it. Then we'd know if he
was bluffing.

This (less than) half measure doesn't cut.

~~~
kahirsch
• 15 Sep 2016 "If Obama grants Manning clemency, Assange will agree to US
prison in exchange -- despite its clear unlawfulness" [1]

• 12 Jan 2017 "If Obama grants Manning clemency Assange will agree to US
extradition despite clear unconstitutionality of DoJ case" [2]

• 17 Jan 2017 "Assange lawyer @themtchair on Assange-Manning extradition
'deal': "Everything that he has said he's standing by." [3]

[1]
[https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/776437869376262144](https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/776437869376262144)

[2]
[https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/819630102787059713](https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/819630102787059713)

[3]
[https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/821528189625372672](https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/821528189625372672)

------
tempz
It's elementary, my dear Watson:

1\. WL disclosed information to US population. 2\. WL is accused of being
"Non-state Hostile Intelligence Service". 3\. Hostile intelligence services
work for enemies. 4\. US population is the enemy.

------
Apocryphon
So much for WikiLeaks thinking there was a lesser evil back in 2016

~~~
eeks
Wikileaks believed at the time that Clinton was ready to send a drone to get
rid of Assange. Between due process and a drone attack, I take due process any
day.

~~~
komali2
That's an obviously absurd belief given he's in an embassy. The USA has done a
lot of insane shit but that would be a ridiculous line to cross to eliminate a
single "criminal."

~~~
coretx
I'll give you some absurd and ridiculous details.

When the WL backend for collateral murder was hosted at bahnhof in Sweden,
moving it to .CH was among other reasons done because of certainly the US, and
specifically & allegedly homeland security having launched a DDOS attack so
strong it could have kicked Sweden offline.

When US agents started their smearing campaign against Assange in Sweden, they
accidentally added smear to wikipedia that did not happen yet.

In Brussels, WL volunteers where threatened by US agents with silenced pistols
in a parking lot.

Various so called "influencers", mostly academics and activistic people where
payed to spread the false US narrative regarding everything related to
Assange.

~~~
azernik
Again - going from there to drone strikes (against an embassy in an allied
country with a sophisticated air defense system) is absurd.

~~~
coretx
Indeed it is. Let me quote Hillary Clinton, former Secretary of State,
/again/. "Can't we just drone this guy". Context: Being confronted with
Assange his existence by her staff.

~~~
kristjansson
Which was (possibly objectionable) humor, but light-years from any sort of
actual intent.

------
CryptoPunk
What someone's motivation is (in relation to the still unsubstantiated
allegation that Assange is a "Russian asset" trying advance Russian foreign
policy objectives) should be completely irrelevant to the legality of an
action.

Is publishing leaked documents protected under the First Amendment?

Is publishing "propaganda" protected under the First Amendment?

I would say the answer to both of these questions is yes.

~~~
onetimemanytime
All these questions his attorneys can try to answer during the trial. That he
was /is a Russian asset, I think we pretty much know. Maybe he needed a bear
hug in light of everyone behind against him...or maybe Russia had dirt on the
country he wanted to hurt?

~~~
CryptoPunk
I see this claim a lot, yet no evidence to substantiate it. What evidence do
you have that he is/was a Russian asset?

And what does it matter if it's a Russian asset doing the leaking, instead of
a selfless journalist? Is the leaking illegal or not? This "Russian asset"
angle seems like ad hominem to make people acquiesce to violating freedom of
speech.

~~~
onetimemanytime
CIA Director: _' It's time to call out Wikileaks for what it really is, a non-
state hostile intelligence service often abetted by state actors like
Russia.'_

It's normal for us not to have any direct evidence, but to see the results of
their behavior. CIA on the other hand might have recordings, communication
etc. They have been digging for years.

~~~
boomboomsubban
We also know, via leaked Snowden documents, that the intelligence community
has been looking for ways to discredit Wikileaks for about a decade. The CIA
is not a trustworthy source, if they have proof it needs to be presented.

------
paulpauper
I never thought it would happen. He always seemed to stay a few steps ahead
and he has plenty of of supporters and many countries that are hostile the US
were willing to grant him asylum. I'm not sure how this would work. He would
have to be kidnapped or given up.

~~~
tootie
He has successfully alienated anyone who ever supported him at this point.

~~~
jMyles
Not me. I still think that his efforts have cast very important light on the
recent history of US Foreign Policy.

~~~
tootie
Assange is simply not an honest broker which is his one job. Even if you think
the Chelsea Manning leak was valuable, what exactly was Assange's value add?

The leaker was not protected. She was caught and prosecuted. The data was not
protected. WikiLeaks was hacked and leaked all the raw data. The content was
not shared in an objective way. Assange editorialized the content with his own
opinions (ie Collateral Murder). His only contribution was to raise money to
pay for hosting.

There's a reason why Ed Snowden didn't give his leaks to Assange.

~~~
jMyles
If this sort of assessment is the case against Assange (in terms of his
character as a journalist), then I think he has a very strong case.

> The leaker was not protected. She was caught and prosecuted.

You're talking as if Assange or WikiLeaks disclosed the source.

Are you suggesting that a journalist has a responsibility to protect a source
unto the ends of the earth, even when that source openly and flatly confides
in an (in retrospect, untrustworthy) friend that she has leaked what she knows
to be classified material?

How exactly was Wikileaks supposed to respond? By somehow tracking down Adrian
Lamo and ensuring that he didn't report her? I'm just astonished at this part
of your indictment.

> The data was not protected. WikiLeaks was hacked and leaked all the raw
> data.

"Hacked?"

WikiLeaks published the entire cache of documents - and I celebrate them for
it. I have personally read over 600 pages (probably a thousand at this point)
and I have yet to encounter one of them that I, as a United States citizen,
believe was rightly withheld from my view by my government.

WikiLeaks took care to redact some proper nouns from these documents, but
provided unredacted versions to some journalists, along with painstaking,
easy-to-follow instructions about preserving them. Nevertheless, a (much more
ostensible respectable) journalist at The Guardian posted the passphrase and
the files were leaked.

In what universe is this a failing of WikiLeaks OpsSec? "Hacked"? What can you
possibly be talking about?

The only security compromise about which I'm aware on the part of WikiLeaks
was a problem with their web frontend which briefly allowed a group to change
it to a juvenile message. No documents were involved.

> The content was not shared in an objective way. Assange editorialized the
> content with his own opinions (ie Collateral Murder).

...so? What's wrong with that?

Let's keep things in perspective here: a person flying in a helicopter
intentionally fired an explosive missile at a person standing on the ground. I
know we're all pretty numb to this happening at this point, but I think it's
still pretty shocking when you think about it.

Maybe he did think that he was firing on someone carrying an RPG. So? It's
still a crazy act, carried out during an illegal war. Calling it "Collateral
Murder" doesn't turn me off in the slightest.

> There's a reason why Ed Snowden didn't give his leaks to Assange.

I appreciate the way that Ed Snowden conducted himself. He took a different
approach and one that is welcome.

I also think that Ed Snowden's criticisms of WikiLeaks are substantially more
honest than yours. Can you explain why you've characterized these things in
such a strange way?

~~~
brokenmachine
_> Let's keep things in perspective here: a person flying in a helicopter
intentionally fired an explosive missile at a person standing on the ground. I
know we're all pretty numb to this happening at this point, but I think it's
still pretty shocking when you think about it.

Maybe he did think that he was firing on someone carrying an RPG. So? It's
still a crazy act, carried out during an illegal war. Calling it "Collateral
Murder" doesn't turn me off in the slightest._

Fine, a camera can look like an RPG from a distance. But maybe they should be
looking a bit closer if everything is looking like an RPG.

For me, the most shocking part was when they opened fire on the van with
an(other) unarmed civilian that made the mistake of stopping to help the
injured people.

Then even more shocking when they later discovered the two children who were
in the now-destroyed van. Just a man and his children driving in a van. Now
murdered for the crime of trying to help a fellow human being.

Just a shocking lack of regard for human life. If that's how they operate -
and it seems to be - they are nothing but war criminals.

What kind of monster would want to protect that kind of behavior from public
scrutiny?

------
scythe
How do they plan to get him out of the embassy without violating the Vienna
Convention? He's been amazingly... immature and disruptive... in the embassy,
but has there ever in history been a case of a refugee being remanded to their
oppressor because of how annoying they are? To be fair, Assange seems to be
_really_ annoying.

------
amanaplanacanal
I can't read the article. Does it mention what charges might apply?

If he conspired with the hackers, I can see where criminal charges might come
in. If he merely published documents afterwards, I'm not sure what they could
charge him with.

------
throw2016
Let's leave all the war criminals from Iraq so we have repeats in Libya and
Syria. Let's forgot about the bankers and fraud. Let's not do anything about
the NSA and liars like Clapper. Let's instead get Assange. This makes a lot of
sense, but only if you are a pretend democracy.

That should read the US regime is preparing to 'persecute' Julian Assange and
should be a reality check for anyone remotely concerned about democracy, free
press and dissent.

------
parrellel
Well, it only took ~7ish years, and two more character assassinations, but in
the end they're going to get him, as expected. Profoundly unfortunate.

------
oh_sigh
Who are these people who are 'familiar with the matter'? Look at the people
'familiar with the matter' regarding the apple/et al spy chip story. How can
we, as consumers of news, ever know if there is any kind of truth from these
anonymous sources, or if they are just trying to nudge either public
perception, or key players(wikileaks, ecuador, etc) in a certain way?

~~~
frankharv
I just bough a Quanta LGA2011 board off ebay. In the BIOS PXE settings were
IP's that belong to Amazon.

So I have to wonder if Amazon even used SuperMicro hardware. I know with great
certainty that they used Quanta as a board manufacturer.

So who planted this story is my question. Who would stand the most at bringing
down SuperMicro. I would rule out the Chinese because they were made to look
bad.

So who else in the US manufactures motherboards and would benefit from
SuperMicro's demise.

Did the same people also drive SuperMicro stock down to a point of it being
delisted?

I hated seeing a "Designed in the USA" motherboard manufacturer dragged
through the mud.

I have used their affordable dual CPU motherboards dating back to BX chipset.
Ultra-reliable and feature packed.

I even made some negative Supermicro comments at the time. Amazing how easily
even intelligent people can be brainwashed.

The problem with the story is that all of the accusations are technically
feasible. We know TAO does this from Edward Snowdens wonderful truthfulness.

So we all wanted to have an Ahh-Ha moment. Too bad we were duped.

------
qume
There is a real, if small, chance that there could be a general election in
the UK soon and potentially a more favourable labour government. If I were
Assange I would do whatever I could to hang in there at least long enough to
rule that possibility out.

------
liveoneggs
fun fact: Julian Assange was an early NetBSD developer. Long live proff@ ;)

------
StanislavPetrov
In an ideal world, this wouldn't be a bad thing. A trial would force the
government to finally show us proof that Wikileaks was working for the
Russians and they conspired criminally to hack US networks.

Unfortunately we don't live in an ideal world, and you should be absolutely
certain that any "trial" Assange gets will be a kangaroo court where he is
convicted on "secret" evidence that we won't be able to independently view or
scrutinize due to "national security concerns". What's worse is people will
point to Assange's conviction in this show trial as proof of all of evidence-
free accusations the spy agencies and US government have been hurling around
for the last 2+ years.

~~~
intralizee
I agree, I'm surprised you're being downvoted for this opinion. Kangaroo
courts happen and even when the person facing the verdict is high profile. It
shows how power with the agenda of whomever is what crafts law. Logic is the
thing rational people cling to and logic is not part of foundation making
justice in prosecutions. The wild thing to me is how much hate assange has
gathered recently online. People seem to prefer writing just throw him in jail
than take the undecided stance. Makes me think things are getting worse if
you're on the not happy side with how things are run.

~~~
StanislavPetrov
Its being downvoted for the same reason that Assange is so hated.
Unfortunately most Americans are incredibly susceptible to propaganda. Its why
90% of Americans continued to believe Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11 even
years after the invasion of Iraq. Even for those few Americans with the
capacity to be skeptical and think critically, its much easier to accept
"conventional wisdom" and adopt the official narrative than to consider the
possibility that our government regularly disseminates lies and propaganda.
Groupthink is not only real, it is perhaps the dominant driving force in
society.

------
bigbluedots
I wonder if the espionage act will suffice, or whether they'll need to make up
some new laws here?

------
surfingtheweb
[https://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-cyberwar-
commentar...](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-cyberwar-commentary-
idUSKBN12X075)

"...Vice President Joe Biden said on NBC’s Meet the Press that “we’re sending
a message” to Putin and “it will be at the time of our choosing, and under the
circumstances that will have the greatest impact.” When asked if the American
public would know a message was sent, Biden replied, “Hope not.”

This statement has haunted me since I first watched Biden's interview in 2016.
What are Biden's plans to avenge Clinton's lost campaign? I've always thought
it has something to do with Assange, but aside from discretely murdering
Assange, I can't think of anything the US could do to avenge Hilary's loss
that the public wouldn't know about. Clinton asked why we couldn't just drone
Assange. Maybe they'll make his death look like an accident or a health issue?

------
nl
What are the planned charges likely to be for?

My understanding is that the original leaks were likely to be difficult to win
a case over. His actions during the 2016 election campaign maybe a different
story though. It's unclear exactly what he is alleged to have done.

------
2RTZZSro
Julian Assange was a key figure in the early days of PostgreSQL and he
contributed to NetBSD

[http://cvsweb.netbsd.org/bsdweb.cgi/src/sys/netinet/tcp_subr...](http://cvsweb.netbsd.org/bsdweb.cgi/src/sys/netinet/tcp_subr.c?rev=1.79&content-
type=text/x-cvsweb-markup&only_with_tag=MAIN)

[https://www.postgresql.org/message-
id/CALtFtELs3mMM2g__fZFyF...](https://www.postgresql.org/message-
id/CALtFtELs3mMM2g__fZFyFiT7u3zX1e8PevEiD5Lt920nuGjUyQ@mail.gmail.com)

~~~
anarazel
"key figure" as in: A few small changes.

[https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git&a=search...](https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git&a=search&h=HEAD&st=author&s=julian)

[https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commit...](https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commit;h=72f76d38eb23e1fbca92f0e14b257c33e5ecccbc)

Edit: Added the one contribution he didn't commit himself.

~~~
Myrmornis
What? I would be proud to have got this into postgres core, but perhaps you
operate on a different plane of excellence.
[https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=blobdi...](https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=blobdiff;f=src/bin/psql/psql.c;h=4bb783f564705f592c94cd0122929f2eda01b20c;hp=2201c064269404d2b10602fd4278d28e82bd3243;hb=76bc8cb97fc35673c42fe84fe6a9d6887260419a;hpb=23c7ff0b3c38657081590430d08ef48bb5bde759)

~~~
anarazel
> What? I would be proud to have got this into postgres core, but perhaps you
> operate on a different plane of excellence.
> [https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=blobdi...](https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=blobdi..).

It's just a minor rewrite of parts of the commandline client. Mostly made
verbose by by renaming structs members / moving members around. 22+ years ago.

> but perhaps you operate on a different plane of excellence.

I work on PG close to full-time. So I sure hope I've many more contributions
than that ;)

~~~
Myrmornis
OK, well that's great that you contribute to/work on postgres, I have a lot of
respect for that project and in general for low-level work like that rather
than the product-level nonsense that I work on. But I still think you
shouldn't publicly belittle any open source contributions, let alone ones on a
project with such high standards for acceptance, and relatively high
intellectual barrier to entry, as postgres.

~~~
anarazel
My point wasn't to belittle the contributions, but to point out that he wasn't
a "key figure".

~~~
Myrmornis
Yes, "key figure" was clearly inaccurate. But

"A few small changes."

"just a minor rewrite of parts of the commandline client. Mostly made verbose
by by renaming structs members / moving members around."

People...really find learning programming hard. Many, many people, even if
they try, won't manage to have the intellectual discipline to learn C to the
level that you're disparaging. I'm pretty sure that you and I both agree that
we shouldn't refer to someone else's hard work in that way.

~~~
anarazel
> I'm pretty sure that you and I both agree that we shouldn't refer to someone
> else's hard work in that way.

I only said they're not large changes. small != worthless.

------
auslander
Assange should hand the site over to Anonymous, just in case.

------
gbumakefan
Wow. Freedom of the press is dead.

~~~
midniteslayr
I don't think Freedom of the Press is dead. WikiLeaks isn't a news
organization, especially when they released campaign emails during the 2016
U.S. Presidential Election. They have been to be a known tool for the Russian
government, even going as far as creating a show for Julian Assange on the
state-backed RT TV Network.

~~~
boomboomsubban
Yes, they are a news organization. Covering the election is what a news
organization should do, and it's hard to argue the Clinton emails weren't
newsworthy.

>They have been to be a known tool for the Russian government, even going as
far as creating a show for Julian Assange on the state-backed RT TV Network

This is untrue. There is nothing suggesting that Wikileaks has knowingly
coordinated with Russia. And that TV show was indepently produced by Assange,
with RT buying some ofthe distribution rights.

~~~
midniteslayr
If they are a news organization, they do a terrible job of reporting the news.
They are a black box repository for leaked data. They were once a great
resource for info hackers and leakers to push their data, like back in
2008/2009\. But that was before news organizations started using their own
secure drop servers for sources. Once WikiLeaks sources started to not go to
them, they started to look for other benefactors and sources. They found it in
the Russian Government.

~~~
boomboomsubban
Again, nothing suggesting they are knowingly working with the Russians.

Wikileaks quality has surely dropped. They are still the press, and any
prosecution by the US will be over things like the Manning links, a direct
attack on the freedom of the press.

~~~
foldr
>Again, nothing suggesting they are knowingly working with the Russians.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Tomorrow](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Tomorrow)

~~~
boomboomsubban
OK, there is evidence that Assange sold the broadcast rights of a show to a
Russian controlled news organization. Do you think that Jesse Ventura should
also be prosecuted?

~~~
foldr
I don't think Assange should be prosecuted for appearing on Russian state TV.
(Does anyone?)

While it may be technically true to say that he "sold the rights" to Russia
Today, that's arguably a little misleading, as the show _first aired_ on RT,
and RT had exclusive initial rights to it.

~~~
boomboomsubban
>I don't think Assange should be prosecuted for appearing on Russian state TV.
(Does anyone?

People use his television show to claim he's a paid operative of Russia. The
same narrative can be made of Ventura, and any reason Assange should be
prosecuted but not Ventura seems sketchy.

>While it may be technically true to say that he "sold the rights" to Russia
Today, that's arguably a little misleading, as the show first aired on RT, and
RT had exclusive initial rights to it.

They bought the initial rights in several languages, not exclusive, but he did
not make the show for RT. That's a fairly clear distinction.

~~~
foldr
No-one is suggesting that Assange should be prosecuted for making a TV show,
so I don't see what you're getting at with the Ventura comparison.

What you can't do is claim that it's somehow normal for someone who claims to
be anti-authoritarian to appear on Russian state TV and take Kremlin money.
The TV show is one of many examples of unusually close connections between
Assange and the Russian state:

[https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/world/2017/1/6/14179240/wik...](https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/world/2017/1/6/14179240/wikileaks-
russia-ties)

~~~
boomboomsubban
>What you can't do is claim that it's somehow normal for someone who claims to
be anti-authoritarian to appear on Russian state TV and take Kremlin money.

First, this also describes Ventura.

Second, claiming to be anti-authoritarian while accepting help from a clearly
authoritarian Kremlin describes the US in WWII.

None of those connections suggest he's coordinating with Russia, just that
their interests sometimes align. I'm sure he'd take US money and appear on PBS
too if given the opportunity.

~~~
foldr
>First, this also describes Ventura.

I don't really know anything about Jesse Ventura, and still don't understand
why you keep bringing him up. If he's done everything that Assange has done,
then I don't like him either.

> I'm sure he'd take US money and appear on PBS too if given the opportunity.

Ah, the Captain Renault defense. (Sure, I collaborate with the Nazis, but I'd
just as soon collaborate with the other side if they were winning!)

~~~
boomboomsubban
Ventura has a show that is on RT. You quoted my statement

>Again, nothing suggesting they are knowingly working with the Russians

And replied with a link to Assanges' show. I'll admit, "working" is too vague
of a word to use, all my other posts use "collaborate," as selling the show to
RT could be called "working with." However, if that contact is the damning
evidence that you claim it is, the same evidence is available linking Ventura
(and Larry King) to the Kremlin. Why aren't you calling for them to receive
the same treatment?

>Ah, the Captain Renault defense. . (Sure, I collaborate with the Nazis, but
I'd just as soon collaborate with the other side if they were winning!)

Still no evidence of collaboration has been shown. And nothing like that
scenario, I'm sure he'd have gladly had his show run on both channels at the
same time. More people would see his views and he'd make more money for his
work.

~~~
foldr
>Why aren't you calling for them to receive the same treatment?

Becasue I don't know who they are, and AFAIK, there's nothing comparable to
the links established in the Vox article I linked to.

~~~
boomboomsubban
The Vox article you linked has three sections about the "links." The first's
conclusion starts

>This isn’t a direct link between Assange and the Kremlin,

The second is the TV show, and the third is just ridiculous. Russia is the
place where it is most difficult for the US to access Snowden, basically the
same for the bodyguards, and one tweet showing both Assange and Russia are
antisemitic? They even follow it by saying

>Again, none of these even hint that Assange is a Russian agent. What they do
show, when put together, is that Assange doesn’t see Russia as an enemy or a
target.

Which seems fairly obvious. He's not a Russian agent, he just views the
country that has passed a law calling him a "non-state hostile intelligence
service" to be a bigger enemy.

------
bbunix
2 words: Jury Nullification.

"Jury nullification occurs when a trial jury reaches a verdict that is
contrary to the letter of the law because the jurors either:

* disagree with the law under which the defendant is prosecuted, or

* believe that the law shouldn’t be applied in the case at hand."

[https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/what-jury-
nullificat...](https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/what-jury-
nullification.html)

------
Myrmornis
If true then disgusting and completely unacceptable. The way in which legal
systems have been cynically abused to ruin this man's life reflects extremely
poorly on the people and institutions concerned. Wikileaks' revelation of the
disgusting behavior of the US armed forces in Baghdad was an extremely
valuable contribution to society.

~~~
TheLilHipster
The claims of him being a russian asset and the the links to washingtonpost
and nytimes as credible sources in this thread is hilarious.

I thought hacker news was more rational and logical than my twitter feed -
maybe not.

Assange and WL is the last bastion of free speech and genuine joirnalism left
in our modern age.

If you dont see that, then youre a fool.

~~~
topmonk
Also, being a "Russian asset", whatever that means, doesn't affect anything.
If he refuses to release dirt against Russia, the would be leaker can go to
someone else or just release it themselves. He isn't the gatekeeper of all
leaked information.

Justifying it this way is just a ploy to punish the whistleblower and I can't
believe how many people go along with it.

