A Collateral Murder
December 11, 2021 2:13 PM Subscribe
U.K. Court rules Julian Assange can be extradited to the U.S. for the 2010 publication of diplomatic and military files leaked by Chelsea Manning. The files documents war crimes perpetrated by the U.S. military in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Collateral Murder video shows Iraqi citizens and Reuters journalists being machine-gunned from the sky. No person has ever been criminally charged for these murders.
Amnesty International US/UK: “Travesty of justice” as extradition appeal fails to recognise that it would be unsafe for Julian Assange to be sent to the US."
ACLU: "The prosecution of Julian Assange poses a grave threat to press freedom."
Edward Snowden: "Julian Assange is one of the longest-serving political prisoners in the western world. Every level of the case against him has been shot through with corruption and the abuse of process.
People justify it by reciting memes to demonstrate their allegiance.
This is dystopia."
Amnesty International US/UK: “Travesty of justice” as extradition appeal fails to recognise that it would be unsafe for Julian Assange to be sent to the US."
ACLU: "The prosecution of Julian Assange poses a grave threat to press freedom."
Edward Snowden: "Julian Assange is one of the longest-serving political prisoners in the western world. Every level of the case against him has been shot through with corruption and the abuse of process.
People justify it by reciting memes to demonstrate their allegiance.
This is dystopia."
This post was deleted for the following reason: Poster's Request -- goodnewsfortheinsane
but the larger implications of this decision are chilling.
...that you can't be a Russian intelligence asset who rapes people and get away with it?
posted by NotMyselfRightNow at 2:39 PM on December 11, 2021 [10 favorites]
...that you can't be a Russian intelligence asset who rapes people and get away with it?
posted by NotMyselfRightNow at 2:39 PM on December 11, 2021 [10 favorites]
It's not as though the US government wants to put him in prison because of the rape charges or his various dubious actions; they want to imprison him to punish him for whistleblowing and terrify any potential whisteblowers. He could be pure as the driven snow and the most sensitive smol bean on record and they'd still want to jail him and/or kill him, whichever proves possible.
The whole point of safety for whistleblowers and journalists is that they're safe even if they're awful people. The state always starts by attacking unsympathetic people because people who would otherwise object are willing to go along.
posted by Frowner at 2:40 PM on December 11, 2021 [98 favorites]
The whole point of safety for whistleblowers and journalists is that they're safe even if they're awful people. The state always starts by attacking unsympathetic people because people who would otherwise object are willing to go along.
posted by Frowner at 2:40 PM on December 11, 2021 [98 favorites]
Julian Assange is one of the longest-serving political prisoners in the western world...one of the longest-serving white political prisoners in the western world.
FTFY..
posted by Nerd of the North at 2:40 PM on December 11, 2021 [71 favorites]
Was Assange in the US when he published those files? If not, how can we possibly charge him with a crime?
posted by Pope Guilty at 2:40 PM on December 11, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by Pope Guilty at 2:40 PM on December 11, 2021 [2 favorites]
It's not as though the US government wants to put him in prison because of the rape charges or his various dubious actions; they want to imprison him to punish him for whistleblowing and terrify any potential whisteblowers. He could be pure as the driven snow and the most sensitive smol bean on record and they'd still want to jail him and/or kill him, whichever proves possible.
If we're splitting hairs the reason the US is going after Assange himself is because as part of the operation he was coaching Manning and providing tools and know how on defeating access restrictions like brute forcing password hashes. This is far beyond what most would consider journalism and puts you well into crime territory. Whether the crime was truly a crime because of the ethical or moral implications I'll leave up to the reader but it's not just "he embarrassed us", he was a partner in the alleged crime with Manning in this instance.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 3:09 PM on December 11, 2021 [14 favorites]
If we're splitting hairs the reason the US is going after Assange himself is because as part of the operation he was coaching Manning and providing tools and know how on defeating access restrictions like brute forcing password hashes. This is far beyond what most would consider journalism and puts you well into crime territory. Whether the crime was truly a crime because of the ethical or moral implications I'll leave up to the reader but it's not just "he embarrassed us", he was a partner in the alleged crime with Manning in this instance.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 3:09 PM on December 11, 2021 [14 favorites]
how can we possibly charge him with a crime?
Because "we" want to? And no one is going to stop us?
posted by KeSetAffinityThread at 3:16 PM on December 11, 2021 [4 favorites]
Because "we" want to? And no one is going to stop us?
posted by KeSetAffinityThread at 3:16 PM on December 11, 2021 [4 favorites]
that you can't be a Russian intelligence asset who rapes people and get away with it?
That's not why he's being extradited, though. The reasons he's being extradited are the problem.
as part of the operation he was coaching Manning and providing tools and know how on defeating access restrictions like brute forcing password hashes
I did not know this and now I'm finding the implications less chilling, because that is not normal journalist behavior, right? I don't have any legal background--is the extradition based on this or just on helping to distribute the results?
posted by Anonymous at 3:27 PM on December 11, 2021
That's not why he's being extradited, though. The reasons he's being extradited are the problem.
as part of the operation he was coaching Manning and providing tools and know how on defeating access restrictions like brute forcing password hashes
I did not know this and now I'm finding the implications less chilling, because that is not normal journalist behavior, right? I don't have any legal background--is the extradition based on this or just on helping to distribute the results?
posted by Anonymous at 3:27 PM on December 11, 2021
he was coaching Manning and providing tools and know how on defeating access restrictions like brute forcing password hashes. This is far beyond what most would consider journalism and puts you well into crime territory.
Out of curiosity what's the evidence that he was "coaching" Manning on hacking skillz, and going beyond basic whiteblower journalist behavior (ie basically just saying things like, "okay thanks! let me know if you got anything else!"). From what I understand there is none but genuinely interested in what the real dagger is here because I know most of the case hinges on this.
posted by windbox at 3:31 PM on December 11, 2021 [3 favorites]
Out of curiosity what's the evidence that he was "coaching" Manning on hacking skillz, and going beyond basic whiteblower journalist behavior (ie basically just saying things like, "okay thanks! let me know if you got anything else!"). From what I understand there is none but genuinely interested in what the real dagger is here because I know most of the case hinges on this.
posted by windbox at 3:31 PM on December 11, 2021 [3 favorites]
There should be some sort of parallel to "truth is a defense against libel charges" with espionage. Something like "revealing a war crime is a defense against espionage charges."
posted by clawsoon at 3:34 PM on December 11, 2021 [28 favorites]
posted by clawsoon at 3:34 PM on December 11, 2021 [28 favorites]
It continually amazes me that an anti-Semitic rapist, a far-right hero with a long history of putting lives at risk gets a free pass from so many otherwise thoughtful people. Assange is not a journalist - notably, he has repeatedly and wilfully failed to protect sources. It makes me physically ill that this shit-smearing, cat-neglecting creep is valued over the hundreds of black and brown people that US 'justice' has kidnapped, tortured, and murdered in the endless 'wars' on 'terrorism' and 'drugs'.
posted by prismatic7 at 3:35 PM on December 11, 2021 [26 favorites]
posted by prismatic7 at 3:35 PM on December 11, 2021 [26 favorites]
Out of curiosity what's the evidence that he was "coaching" Manning on hacking skillz, and going beyond basic whiteblower journalist behavior (ie basically just saying things like, "okay thanks! let me know if you got anything else!"). From what I understand there is none but genuinely interested in what the real dagger is here because I know most of the case hinges on this.
Chat logs that were on Manning's computer that were revealed by the US Army under FOIA.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 3:42 PM on December 11, 2021 [8 favorites]
Chat logs that were on Manning's computer that were revealed by the US Army under FOIA.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 3:42 PM on December 11, 2021 [8 favorites]
Nobody (here) values him more. The issue is that if the extradition is truly just based on him sharing the data then that sets a terrible precedent that allows the actual persecution of people who aren't racist, misogynist animal abusers.
posted by Anonymous at 3:44 PM on December 11, 2021
posted by Anonymous at 3:44 PM on December 11, 2021
hmmm. rape charges, ok. exposing collateral murder war crimes charges? not ok. don't care if he helped manning deliver data, at all.
posted by j_curiouser at 3:45 PM on December 11, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by j_curiouser at 3:45 PM on December 11, 2021 [1 favorite]
Disingenuous to say he is, "gets a free pass," as if we're defending him from rape charges.
They will torture him, as they have tortured others. And they will railroad him in their kangaroo court on espionage charges. I think it's valid to object to that regardless of his other crimes.
He is terribly unsympathetic, but this won't be justice. What they can do to the unsympathetic, they can eventually do to you.
posted by Horkus at 3:47 PM on December 11, 2021 [21 favorites]
They will torture him, as they have tortured others. And they will railroad him in their kangaroo court on espionage charges. I think it's valid to object to that regardless of his other crimes.
He is terribly unsympathetic, but this won't be justice. What they can do to the unsympathetic, they can eventually do to you.
posted by Horkus at 3:47 PM on December 11, 2021 [21 favorites]
If he had been an anti-Semitic cat-neglecting rapist who had shot innocent people out of an American attack helicopter, he'd probably have a medal for bravery.
posted by clawsoon at 3:56 PM on December 11, 2021 [29 favorites]
posted by clawsoon at 3:56 PM on December 11, 2021 [29 favorites]
Why don't we just agree that he's a vile scumbag and that literally no one on metafilter is calling him a hero or a saint whatever, and proceed from there?
posted by windbox at 4:09 PM on December 11, 2021 [26 favorites]
posted by windbox at 4:09 PM on December 11, 2021 [26 favorites]
Something like "revealing a war crime is a defense against espionage charges."
We had something like this around WWII, but then you have to be on the winning side for that to work.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 4:37 PM on December 11, 2021 [2 favorites]
We had something like this around WWII, but then you have to be on the winning side for that to work.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 4:37 PM on December 11, 2021 [2 favorites]
If not, how can we possibly charge him with a crime?
Extraterritorial jurisdiction, probably.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 4:47 PM on December 11, 2021 [1 favorite]
Extraterritorial jurisdiction, probably.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 4:47 PM on December 11, 2021 [1 favorite]
FWIW, while this is a setback in Assange's case, it still remains unlikely that he will be extradited, given the case still has to go before the UK Supreme Court and the European Court of Human Rights (which the UK remains a signatory to, unrelated to the EU). His lawyers also have an appeal pending based on human rights grounds rather than some of the more procedural arguments they made previously.
Personally I would be very surprised if he ever ended up in the US. But Washington would look a lot better and could save everyone a lot of trouble (and US and UK taxpayers a lot of money) if it just dropped the case against him now. Trump should have pardoned him and got this all over with.
posted by usr2047 at 5:10 PM on December 11, 2021 [4 favorites]
Personally I would be very surprised if he ever ended up in the US. But Washington would look a lot better and could save everyone a lot of trouble (and US and UK taxpayers a lot of money) if it just dropped the case against him now. Trump should have pardoned him and got this all over with.
posted by usr2047 at 5:10 PM on December 11, 2021 [4 favorites]
If we're splitting hairs the reason the US is going after Assange himself is because as part of the operation he was coaching Manning and providing tools and know how on defeating access restrictions like brute forcing password hashes. This is far beyond what most would consider journalism and puts you well into crime territory
Speaking of crime, wait until the world find out how Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was actually found and what the US government did to make that happen. It involves Australians, but not Assange.
posted by Ardnamurchan at 6:38 PM on December 11, 2021 [5 favorites]
Speaking of crime, wait until the world find out how Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was actually found and what the US government did to make that happen. It involves Australians, but not Assange.
posted by Ardnamurchan at 6:38 PM on December 11, 2021 [5 favorites]
The whole reason the Grand Jury threw Chelsea Manning in jail and held her in contempt for a full year was absolutely because they don't actually have enough evidence in those chat logs to prove without a shadow of a doubt that Assange coached Manning, which is why it was super important to them to try to force Manning to testify about the subject again.
She still has to pay the contempt of court charges, but good on Manning on letting herself get roped back into this whole shitshow.
Assange is a giant piece of shit, but we're literally letting a government we shouldn't trust (especially when it comes to Grand Juries, cops, and judges in general) dictate the "truth" of this matter, as if they don't have vested interest in smearing someone already very unlikable. Seriously, after years of the BLM movement and seeing the slaps of the wrists for Jan 6th defendants while leftists are getting jailed for far longer for posts on the internet, do we really think we can trust this fucking legal apparatus?
If the "truth" is that he coached Manning, then why did they need to jail Manning for a year and punish her punitively to prove that? The answer is because they don't have enough evidence to prove it and they were hoping to push a line of questioning to allow Manning to "slip up" and admit what they want her to admit: that Assange coached her.
Did Assange coach her? Possibly.
Is it important that we trust that the government should be able to actually prove this in a court of law? Abso-fucking-lutely.
If they're abusing Manning to get to Assange, it means they don't, period.
Final Reminder that Obama declined to prosecute Assange, feeling like they couldn't prove it in court, and Trump revived the case. Sure, let's trust the word and works of the Republicans on this one, they're totally not using it to destroy press freedom.
posted by deadaluspark at 7:04 PM on December 11, 2021 [20 favorites]
She still has to pay the contempt of court charges, but good on Manning on letting herself get roped back into this whole shitshow.
Assange is a giant piece of shit, but we're literally letting a government we shouldn't trust (especially when it comes to Grand Juries, cops, and judges in general) dictate the "truth" of this matter, as if they don't have vested interest in smearing someone already very unlikable. Seriously, after years of the BLM movement and seeing the slaps of the wrists for Jan 6th defendants while leftists are getting jailed for far longer for posts on the internet, do we really think we can trust this fucking legal apparatus?
If the "truth" is that he coached Manning, then why did they need to jail Manning for a year and punish her punitively to prove that? The answer is because they don't have enough evidence to prove it and they were hoping to push a line of questioning to allow Manning to "slip up" and admit what they want her to admit: that Assange coached her.
Did Assange coach her? Possibly.
Is it important that we trust that the government should be able to actually prove this in a court of law? Abso-fucking-lutely.
If they're abusing Manning to get to Assange, it means they don't, period.
Final Reminder that Obama declined to prosecute Assange, feeling like they couldn't prove it in court, and Trump revived the case. Sure, let's trust the word and works of the Republicans on this one, they're totally not using it to destroy press freedom.
posted by deadaluspark at 7:04 PM on December 11, 2021 [20 favorites]
Marcy Wheeler has been doing excellent reporting on Assange's extradition for years. Her basic takeaway has been that both the US (and US-aligned parties) and Assange (and Wikileaks) are not fully truthful on facts or motives, and that while using the espionage charges are chilling to journalism, the hacking charge is compelling. She also makes a very good case that Assange is a garbage human and a LOT of WikiLeaks' supporters are far too willing to brazenly lie about the entire affair just because he gave the US a black eye.
It also seems to me that giving Assange the moral cover of a journalist is just flat-out wrong. At this point, publishing CIA crypto, DNC emails, and acting as a disinfo machine for Russian interests doesn't really have the same "hero of the people" feel that I was willing to entertain when it was exposing US war crimes.
The enemy of my enemy is not my friend.
posted by Room 101 at 7:41 PM on December 11, 2021 [16 favorites]
It also seems to me that giving Assange the moral cover of a journalist is just flat-out wrong. At this point, publishing CIA crypto, DNC emails, and acting as a disinfo machine for Russian interests doesn't really have the same "hero of the people" feel that I was willing to entertain when it was exposing US war crimes.
The enemy of my enemy is not my friend.
posted by Room 101 at 7:41 PM on December 11, 2021 [16 favorites]
Here we go again...
Circle up
You can only choose one. Rapist, or Whistleblower?
posted by Windopaene at 7:59 PM on December 11, 2021 [4 favorites]
Circle up
You can only choose one. Rapist, or Whistleblower?
posted by Windopaene at 7:59 PM on December 11, 2021 [4 favorites]
Quotes from the Marcy Wheeler article:
It sounds like the person who is doing the best journalism is saying the same thing as a lot of folks in the thread: Assange (and by extension, Wikileaks) is a piece of shit but prosecuting him under these charges is fucking dangerous so maybe we shouldn't, m'kay? We can be honest about Assange possibly being a spy without leaving it to a despotic government to lock him up on trumped up charges unrelated to that as a way to "get him."
The US has not made it clear that they plan to alter the charges against him in any way, so sadly, we cannot just leave this up to hopes and prayers that they have more evidence against him and they turn it into a spy case.
posted by deadaluspark at 8:06 PM on December 11, 2021 [7 favorites]
In other words, unless the charges — or the way they’re presented — change between now and trial, ultimately the application of them to Assange would be a dangerous precedent given US law.---
I’d like to protect journalism. That requires opposing the Espionage Act charges against Assange for obtaining classified information and publishing it. But it also requires telling the truth about Julian Assange.Her whole article is really good, but yes, she makes the point several times over that even with the hacking charge involved, the Espionage Act still criminalizes aspects of being a journalist and seventeen of the eighteen charges are under the Espionage Act while only one charge is related to hacking.
What today’s High Court judgment confirms is that neither side can be trusted.
It sounds like the person who is doing the best journalism is saying the same thing as a lot of folks in the thread: Assange (and by extension, Wikileaks) is a piece of shit but prosecuting him under these charges is fucking dangerous so maybe we shouldn't, m'kay? We can be honest about Assange possibly being a spy without leaving it to a despotic government to lock him up on trumped up charges unrelated to that as a way to "get him."
The US has not made it clear that they plan to alter the charges against him in any way, so sadly, we cannot just leave this up to hopes and prayers that they have more evidence against him and they turn it into a spy case.
posted by deadaluspark at 8:06 PM on December 11, 2021 [7 favorites]
We can be honest about Assange possibly being a spy without leaving it to a despotic government to lock him up on trumped up charges unrelated to that as a way to "get him."
Letting him sit in an embassy facing no charges of any kind whatsoever hardly represents being honest about him being a spy. Neither course of action here is a win.
posted by Dysk at 8:51 PM on December 11, 2021 [1 favorite]
Letting him sit in an embassy facing no charges of any kind whatsoever hardly represents being honest about him being a spy. Neither course of action here is a win.
posted by Dysk at 8:51 PM on December 11, 2021 [1 favorite]
the espionage charges are chilling to journalism
More collateral damage on the way.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 8:59 PM on December 11, 2021
More collateral damage on the way.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 8:59 PM on December 11, 2021
The US military, after leaving Afghanistan and throwing
Is that true, the military made the decision?
I nearly forgot about Juilan. One thing I always remember from the past here.
it shines now like rough tumbled and cut with time. Said it then but that is Julian' fate decided. Joan Didion once wrote that L.A. is the city of "slow no". Welcome to L.A. If your going to act like an intelligence agency, need to be prepared to respond, seemingly the response was fragmentated fury. Someone once asked if he would be killed. well no because his damage does not warrant the attention that has been precieved. Which generally means in the business, he was a low level operative at some point or forced or precieved to be with the "slow no" and thats his life now, isn't it. Isolation, fragmentation, doubt, mistrustful, "unmoral", unethical. The spray paint of western intelligence. The platform of releasing secrets like WikiLeaks, etc seems democratic on it's purity regardless of the laws it broke if higher aim is to inform no matter, like people being machined gunned, diplomats acting like it's the 'West Wing'/ State Depot with nitrous continuously cirruatuted with -in. Of course I'm under the illusion people can handle the truth.
let him go, time served. got it, government crushes people.
But now it can be done to billions, autonomous, by states or Individual entities in a blink.
posted by clavdivs at 10:20 PM on December 11, 2021 [2 favorites]
Is that true, the military made the decision?
I nearly forgot about Juilan. One thing I always remember from the past here.
it shines now like rough tumbled and cut with time. Said it then but that is Julian' fate decided. Joan Didion once wrote that L.A. is the city of "slow no". Welcome to L.A. If your going to act like an intelligence agency, need to be prepared to respond, seemingly the response was fragmentated fury. Someone once asked if he would be killed. well no because his damage does not warrant the attention that has been precieved. Which generally means in the business, he was a low level operative at some point or forced or precieved to be with the "slow no" and thats his life now, isn't it. Isolation, fragmentation, doubt, mistrustful, "unmoral", unethical. The spray paint of western intelligence. The platform of releasing secrets like WikiLeaks, etc seems democratic on it's purity regardless of the laws it broke if higher aim is to inform no matter, like people being machined gunned, diplomats acting like it's the 'West Wing'/ State Depot with nitrous continuously cirruatuted with -in. Of course I'm under the illusion people can handle the truth.
let him go, time served. got it, government crushes people.
But now it can be done to billions, autonomous, by states or Individual entities in a blink.
posted by clavdivs at 10:20 PM on December 11, 2021 [2 favorites]
So I'm looking at those chat logs, and maybe I'm missing something, but I don't agree that Assange was "coaching" Manning here. He doesn't give her any instruction on how to hack government systems, and he doesn't tell her what to take. He barely even encourages her! At one point Manning offers an encrypted Windows user password (without any other context) and asks if Assange can decrypt it; Assange claims he can, but doesn't actually do so. The rest of the transcript reads to me like Assange is simply cultivating a source (by, uh, rambling about politics and bragging about other leaks) and asking basic contextual questions about the documents Manning has chosen to provide, as any journalist would do.
The part about the password is on page 6:
posted by Gerald Bostock at 11:39 PM on December 11, 2021 [5 favorites]
The part about the password is on page 6:
Manning: any good at lm hash cracking?Followed by this bit from page 10, a couple of days later:
Wikileaks: yes
...
Wikikeaks: we have rainbow tables for lm
Manning: 80c11049faebf441d524fb3c4cd5351c
Manning: i think its lm + lmnt
Manning: anyway...
Manning: need sleep >yawn>
Manning: not even sure if thats the hash... i had to hexdump a SAM file, since I dont have the system file...
Wikileaks: what makes you think it's lm?
Wikileaks: its from a SAM?
Manning: yeah
Wikileaks: passed it onto our lm guy
Manning: thanks
Wikileaks: any more hints about this lm hash?Manning never responds to that.
Wikileaks: no luck so far
posted by Gerald Bostock at 11:39 PM on December 11, 2021 [5 favorites]
Assange is the anti-Dreyfus.
posted by fallingbadgers at 12:35 AM on December 12, 2021
posted by fallingbadgers at 12:35 AM on December 12, 2021
I wish all the "Free Assange" activists had focused even a fraction of their efforts on Reality Winner -- who was convicted and jailed for alerting journalists that Russian hackers had accessed American voting rolls during the 2016 election.
I mean, if you're so (rightfully) exercised over persecution and prosecution of whistleblowers, why not mention one that is actually imprisoned by the US, and is not a cat-neglecting rapist?
posted by antinomia at 12:35 AM on December 12, 2021 [14 favorites]
I mean, if you're so (rightfully) exercised over persecution and prosecution of whistleblowers, why not mention one that is actually imprisoned by the US, and is not a cat-neglecting rapist?
posted by antinomia at 12:35 AM on December 12, 2021 [14 favorites]
Mod note: One deleted. It's totally fine to discuss whether the "coaching" charge holds up or not, but let's just totally skip the jokey hit and run empty snark, please, or other "I fart in your general direction"-style useless commentary. Julian Assange is always a divisive subject, and there are very many — sometimes conflicting — aspects to his saga; it might help keep things from devolving into pointless grar if we speak for ourselves in whole thoughts, while also allowing that different focuses do exist.
posted by taz (staff) at 1:49 AM on December 12, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by taz (staff) at 1:49 AM on December 12, 2021 [1 favorite]
Here we go again...
Circle up
You can only choose one. Rapist, or Whistleblower?
Maybe we could agree that this idea of "heroes" and "baddies" is a product of hollywood
that doesn't help us very much in understanding the real world.
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed claims to have been waterboarded 183 times (!). Jack Bauer probably could have done it with just one or two sessions. If we can justify this kind of torture on any human to get a "confession", then we are pretty shit humans ourselves.
As the OP mentions, a far more important issue: The Collateral Murder video shows Iraqi citizens and Reuters journalists being machine-gunned from the sky. No person has ever been criminally charged for these murders.
posted by beesbees at 6:17 AM on December 12, 2021 [4 favorites]
Circle up
You can only choose one. Rapist, or Whistleblower?
Maybe we could agree that this idea of "heroes" and "baddies" is a product of hollywood
that doesn't help us very much in understanding the real world.
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed claims to have been waterboarded 183 times (!). Jack Bauer probably could have done it with just one or two sessions. If we can justify this kind of torture on any human to get a "confession", then we are pretty shit humans ourselves.
As the OP mentions, a far more important issue: The Collateral Murder video shows Iraqi citizens and Reuters journalists being machine-gunned from the sky. No person has ever been criminally charged for these murders.
posted by beesbees at 6:17 AM on December 12, 2021 [4 favorites]
So I'm looking at those chat logs, and maybe I'm missing something, but I don't agree that Assange was "coaching" Manning here. He doesn't give her any instruction on how to hack government systems, and he doesn't tell her what to take. He barely even encourages her!
Once again, literally why they abused Manning for a year and tried to force her to re-testify. Because they simply don't have enough hard evidence to prove the hacking charge without a shadow of a doubt in a court of law.
No one is going to be able to convince me otherwise. You don't start with that little amount of evidence and then hold someone in jail for a year to try to prove it if you have the evidence to prove it to begin with.
There are no good guys in this story, period. Manning comes closest to being a "good guy" simply because she's trying to exit the entire scenario and move on with her life. I think folks forget that her gender identity was all tied up with these leaks, too. She's the only one I feel sorry for in all this.
posted by deadaluspark at 8:25 AM on December 12, 2021 [3 favorites]
Once again, literally why they abused Manning for a year and tried to force her to re-testify. Because they simply don't have enough hard evidence to prove the hacking charge without a shadow of a doubt in a court of law.
No one is going to be able to convince me otherwise. You don't start with that little amount of evidence and then hold someone in jail for a year to try to prove it if you have the evidence to prove it to begin with.
There are no good guys in this story, period. Manning comes closest to being a "good guy" simply because she's trying to exit the entire scenario and move on with her life. I think folks forget that her gender identity was all tied up with these leaks, too. She's the only one I feel sorry for in all this.
posted by deadaluspark at 8:25 AM on December 12, 2021 [3 favorites]
It sounds like the person who is doing the best journalism is saying the same thing as a lot of folks in the thread: Assange (and by extension, Wikileaks) is a piece of shit but prosecuting him under these charges is fucking dangerous so maybe we shouldn't, m'kay?
And law enforcement LOVES him. An odious defendant is the perfect avenue to impose a truly shitty future, and the worse they can be portrayed, the better.
posted by rhizome at 1:07 PM on December 12, 2021 [1 favorite]
And law enforcement LOVES him. An odious defendant is the perfect avenue to impose a truly shitty future, and the worse they can be portrayed, the better.
posted by rhizome at 1:07 PM on December 12, 2021 [1 favorite]
I mean, if you're so (rightfully) exercised over persecution and prosecution of whistleblowers, why not mention one that is actually imprisoned by the US, and is not a cat-neglecting rapist?
Yeah, the way Reality Winner just dropped out of the discourse was pretty striking. She's out on probation now, incidentally. And Terry Albury served two years in prison for leaking information about systematic racism and wiretapping of journalists by the FBI. And Daniel Hale is still in prison (under highly restrictive conditions) for leaking information about drone warfare, including war crimes.
The US has been very successful at using the Espionage Act to punish whistleblowers for informing the public about abuses by an increasingly unaccountable government.
posted by Gerald Bostock at 3:43 PM on December 12, 2021 [3 favorites]
Yeah, the way Reality Winner just dropped out of the discourse was pretty striking. She's out on probation now, incidentally. And Terry Albury served two years in prison for leaking information about systematic racism and wiretapping of journalists by the FBI. And Daniel Hale is still in prison (under highly restrictive conditions) for leaking information about drone warfare, including war crimes.
The US has been very successful at using the Espionage Act to punish whistleblowers for informing the public about abuses by an increasingly unaccountable government.
posted by Gerald Bostock at 3:43 PM on December 12, 2021 [3 favorites]
The thing is, Assange isn’t a whistleblower - he’s being prosecuted (in part) for publishing information provided by a whistleblower. This is an important distinction because the Assange case could open the door to the prosecution of any journalist that reports on leaked information.
posted by thedamnbees at 4:32 PM on December 12, 2021 [5 favorites]
posted by thedamnbees at 4:32 PM on December 12, 2021 [5 favorites]
I think that Assange has reasonably good chances of prevailing on first amendment grounds should he get extradited. The fact that Chelsea Manning received clemency after serving only a small portion of her sentence should also help his defense. The best case scenario would be for him to be extradited and for US courts to establish some strong precedents to protect digital journalists.
posted by interogative mood at 8:36 PM on December 12, 2021
posted by interogative mood at 8:36 PM on December 12, 2021
It also seems to me that giving Assange the moral cover of a journalist is just flat-out wrong. At this point, publishing CIA crypto, DNC emails, and acting as a disinfo machine for Russian interests doesn't really have the same "hero of the people" feel that I was willing to entertain when it was exposing US war crimes.
I don't think that journalists are particularly moral people in general. A very large number of journalists, and the ones that cover politics more than others are scum, willing to let themselves be used for petty vindictive internal battles or as part of selective leaking operations to push a particular point of view. The reason that we give journalists particular kinds of legal privileges isn't because we think they're noble moral crusaders, its because we recognise that doing so is a useful part of making a democracy work in practice. I would think that it is wise to err on the side of caution when someone is doing something that may be considered journalism and allow them those protections.
So I don't think he's, let's put it mildly, a great dude, but I don't think those protections are there for great dudes because they're great. They're there to protect certain activity ex officio.
What I said almost a year ago on the original decision not to extradite:
****
Unfortunately I think that if the US were to guarantee that he would not be subject to certain conditions, they may nonetheless be able to proceed with an extradition.
Let's consider the grounds raised to prevent the extradition:
a. That the UK-US Extradition Treaty prohibits extradition for a political offence and this court therefore lacks jurisdiction to hear this case;
This fails and probably has to because of the way in which treaties are incorporated into UK law - they're not. Parliament has to pass laws specifically to implement the obligations entered into under international treaties. This is notably different in the US where treaties, correctly ratified, gain the status of domestic law can therefore confer rights. (This is called a monist vs a dualist system). Since UK domestic law on extradition does not allow courts to decide on this matter, there is nothing a court can do here, it is ultimately for the relevant secretary of state to make a decision on whether something is a political offence. In fact, the 2003 Extradition Act specifically removed a provision in previous extradition laws which it superseded by removing a judicial test on whether the alleged offence had a political character.
b. That the allegations do not meet the “dual criminality” requirements of section 137 of the EA 2003;
The court rejected this and again probably had no choice since very similar offences do in fact exist in relevant UK law.
The strongest argument here was that what Assange did was fundamentally not illegal under UK law (and in fact, protected under US law as well) since it was no more than what a normal investigative journalist would do. The case the US made was that first, he exceeded substantially what an investigative journalist would ordinarily consider allowable conduct, second there were ample precedents under UK domestic law for prosecution and numerous other cases outside the UK where ECHR article 10 was found not to prevent a prosecution for similar conduct. My reading is that what caused this to fail was not necessarily the whole hash table farrago, nor the advice given to Ms Manning on covering her tracks which might be within a grey area of investigative journalism (and to be honest, it is actually not uncommon for investigative journalists to engage in outright law breaking in order to get a story) but the disclosure of the names of many informants. This fell so far outside of normal standards of journalistic conduct that it made it very difficult to claim the protections usually afforded journalists - and note that these are pretty discretionary anyway, there are not really special journalistic privileges in UK domestic law.
Defences of necessity and public interest are matters for trial courts and not for extradition requests which are not intended to take the place of a trial court.
c. That extradition would be unjust and oppressive by reason of the lapse of time, pursuant to section 82 EA 2003;
Essentially fails for two reasons: First, the delay isn't that long for a complex case, not so long that it would be difficult to mount a defence. Second, time bars do not apply if the defendant had a role in the running of the time.
d. That extradition is barred by reason of extraneous considerations, pursuant to section 81(a) and (b) of the EA 2003;
The argument here is that the prosecution is being undertaken for an impermissible reason, that the Obama administration had made a decision not to prosecute and this was changed by Trump/Sessions in order to persecute Mr Assange for his political views. This failed because there was no evidence that the Obama administration made such a decision, no evidence that Trump was in fact hostile to Assange/WikiLeaks, and no evidence of political interference in the prosecution, and that the evidence supported the US' position that the investigation was ongoing throughout that period.
This seems logical. After all, Trump has mostly had praise for Wikileaks (and some people even think he might pardon Assange on his way out) [obviously he did not do this] and this provision of the EA is intended to prevent extraditions on very clearly politically motivated charges - n.b. not the same as the underlying offence having a political character.
e. That extradition is in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights (“the
ECHR”) and should be refused, pursuant to section 87 of the EA 2003:
i. Article 3 (inhuman and degrading treatment);
ii. Article 6 (denial of a right to a fair trial);
iii. Article 7 (it would involve a novel and unforeseeable extension of the law);
iv. Article 10 (right to freedom of expression);
Article 3 - see f below - this is the ground that succeeded
Article 6 challenge fails for all kinds of reasons. The UK routinely extradites to countries with imperfect legal systems, itself has a system that is not free of flaws. This again runs into a conflict with what Parliament has decided, which is clearly that it wished to allow extradition to the US in principle.
Article 7 is a high bar to clear, although it might have succeeded on the publishing charges. In any case, there are procedural guarantees in the US court system against the issues raised.
Article 10 fails because it has not prevented similar prosecutions in the UK or other ECHR countries.
f. That extradition should be refused because it would be unjust and oppressive by reason of Mr. Assange’s mental condition and the high risk of suicide pursuant to section 91 of the EA 2003;
The judge rubbished the expert witness appearing for the US and found the evidence of autism spectrum traits and depression from the defence witnesses compelling and agreed that he would be at a substantial risk of suicide.
Found that "Special Administrative Measures" which might be used during his pre-trial confinement might very well put him at an even greater risk of suicide.
Therefore it would be oppressive to allow the extradition to proceed (and the article 3 consideration becomes unnecessary)
g. That extradition would be an abuse of process:
i. The request misrepresents the facts [Castillo v Spain [2005] 1 WLR 1043, Spain
v Murua [2010] EWHC 2609 (Admin), and Zakrzewski v Regional Court in
Lodz, Poland [2013] 1 WLR 324];
ii. The prosecution is being pursued for ulterior political motives and not in good
faith [R (Bermingham and Others) v Director of the Serious Fraud Office [2007]
QB 727 and R (Government of the USA) v Bow Street Magistrates' Court [2007]
1 WLR 1157 (“Tollman”)].
This was only treated lightly (as it is a residual jurisdiction only exercised if no other bars to extradition exist) but these are essentially considered matters for the trial court to consider as the defence submissions are alternative narratives.
****
So a year ago, the court found that he couldn't be extradited because of the potential use of "Special Administrative Measures". This was always vulnerable to appeal on the grounds of assurances having been made as to how he would be treated and so it has proved.
The appeal judgement is here
To summarise: The US appealed on a number of grounds but the only relevant ground it won on was that of the additional assurances.
FWIW, while this is a setback in Assange's case, it still remains unlikely that he will be extradited, given the case still has to go before the UK Supreme Court and the European Court of Human Rights (which the UK remains a signatory to, unrelated to the EU). His lawyers also have an appeal pending based on human rights grounds rather than some of the more procedural arguments they made previously.
Could well be. I will note that the appeal judgement references Babar Ahmad and others vs USA which was a case before the ECHR which found that post conviction imprisonment in ADX Florence and the imposition of SAMs were not adequate to prevent extradition. I'm not an expert on extradition proceedings so there may well be other grounds there from the original extradition hearing that could be successful. His problem really is that extradition treaties are set up to be procedural not to decide whether someone should be prosecuted. He actually has much stronger defences in trial court in the US than he does during the extradition proceedings.
posted by atrazine at 3:44 AM on December 13, 2021 [4 favorites]
I don't think that journalists are particularly moral people in general. A very large number of journalists, and the ones that cover politics more than others are scum, willing to let themselves be used for petty vindictive internal battles or as part of selective leaking operations to push a particular point of view. The reason that we give journalists particular kinds of legal privileges isn't because we think they're noble moral crusaders, its because we recognise that doing so is a useful part of making a democracy work in practice. I would think that it is wise to err on the side of caution when someone is doing something that may be considered journalism and allow them those protections.
So I don't think he's, let's put it mildly, a great dude, but I don't think those protections are there for great dudes because they're great. They're there to protect certain activity ex officio.
What I said almost a year ago on the original decision not to extradite:
****
Unfortunately I think that if the US were to guarantee that he would not be subject to certain conditions, they may nonetheless be able to proceed with an extradition.
Let's consider the grounds raised to prevent the extradition:
a. That the UK-US Extradition Treaty prohibits extradition for a political offence and this court therefore lacks jurisdiction to hear this case;
This fails and probably has to because of the way in which treaties are incorporated into UK law - they're not. Parliament has to pass laws specifically to implement the obligations entered into under international treaties. This is notably different in the US where treaties, correctly ratified, gain the status of domestic law can therefore confer rights. (This is called a monist vs a dualist system). Since UK domestic law on extradition does not allow courts to decide on this matter, there is nothing a court can do here, it is ultimately for the relevant secretary of state to make a decision on whether something is a political offence. In fact, the 2003 Extradition Act specifically removed a provision in previous extradition laws which it superseded by removing a judicial test on whether the alleged offence had a political character.
b. That the allegations do not meet the “dual criminality” requirements of section 137 of the EA 2003;
The court rejected this and again probably had no choice since very similar offences do in fact exist in relevant UK law.
The strongest argument here was that what Assange did was fundamentally not illegal under UK law (and in fact, protected under US law as well) since it was no more than what a normal investigative journalist would do. The case the US made was that first, he exceeded substantially what an investigative journalist would ordinarily consider allowable conduct, second there were ample precedents under UK domestic law for prosecution and numerous other cases outside the UK where ECHR article 10 was found not to prevent a prosecution for similar conduct. My reading is that what caused this to fail was not necessarily the whole hash table farrago, nor the advice given to Ms Manning on covering her tracks which might be within a grey area of investigative journalism (and to be honest, it is actually not uncommon for investigative journalists to engage in outright law breaking in order to get a story) but the disclosure of the names of many informants. This fell so far outside of normal standards of journalistic conduct that it made it very difficult to claim the protections usually afforded journalists - and note that these are pretty discretionary anyway, there are not really special journalistic privileges in UK domestic law.
Defences of necessity and public interest are matters for trial courts and not for extradition requests which are not intended to take the place of a trial court.
c. That extradition would be unjust and oppressive by reason of the lapse of time, pursuant to section 82 EA 2003;
Essentially fails for two reasons: First, the delay isn't that long for a complex case, not so long that it would be difficult to mount a defence. Second, time bars do not apply if the defendant had a role in the running of the time.
d. That extradition is barred by reason of extraneous considerations, pursuant to section 81(a) and (b) of the EA 2003;
The argument here is that the prosecution is being undertaken for an impermissible reason, that the Obama administration had made a decision not to prosecute and this was changed by Trump/Sessions in order to persecute Mr Assange for his political views. This failed because there was no evidence that the Obama administration made such a decision, no evidence that Trump was in fact hostile to Assange/WikiLeaks, and no evidence of political interference in the prosecution, and that the evidence supported the US' position that the investigation was ongoing throughout that period.
This seems logical. After all, Trump has mostly had praise for Wikileaks (and some people even think he might pardon Assange on his way out) [obviously he did not do this] and this provision of the EA is intended to prevent extraditions on very clearly politically motivated charges - n.b. not the same as the underlying offence having a political character.
e. That extradition is in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights (“the
ECHR”) and should be refused, pursuant to section 87 of the EA 2003:
i. Article 3 (inhuman and degrading treatment);
ii. Article 6 (denial of a right to a fair trial);
iii. Article 7 (it would involve a novel and unforeseeable extension of the law);
iv. Article 10 (right to freedom of expression);
Article 3 - see f below - this is the ground that succeeded
Article 6 challenge fails for all kinds of reasons. The UK routinely extradites to countries with imperfect legal systems, itself has a system that is not free of flaws. This again runs into a conflict with what Parliament has decided, which is clearly that it wished to allow extradition to the US in principle.
Article 7 is a high bar to clear, although it might have succeeded on the publishing charges. In any case, there are procedural guarantees in the US court system against the issues raised.
Article 10 fails because it has not prevented similar prosecutions in the UK or other ECHR countries.
f. That extradition should be refused because it would be unjust and oppressive by reason of Mr. Assange’s mental condition and the high risk of suicide pursuant to section 91 of the EA 2003;
The judge rubbished the expert witness appearing for the US and found the evidence of autism spectrum traits and depression from the defence witnesses compelling and agreed that he would be at a substantial risk of suicide.
Found that "Special Administrative Measures" which might be used during his pre-trial confinement might very well put him at an even greater risk of suicide.
Therefore it would be oppressive to allow the extradition to proceed (and the article 3 consideration becomes unnecessary)
g. That extradition would be an abuse of process:
i. The request misrepresents the facts [Castillo v Spain [2005] 1 WLR 1043, Spain
v Murua [2010] EWHC 2609 (Admin), and Zakrzewski v Regional Court in
Lodz, Poland [2013] 1 WLR 324];
ii. The prosecution is being pursued for ulterior political motives and not in good
faith [R (Bermingham and Others) v Director of the Serious Fraud Office [2007]
QB 727 and R (Government of the USA) v Bow Street Magistrates' Court [2007]
1 WLR 1157 (“Tollman”)].
This was only treated lightly (as it is a residual jurisdiction only exercised if no other bars to extradition exist) but these are essentially considered matters for the trial court to consider as the defence submissions are alternative narratives.
****
So a year ago, the court found that he couldn't be extradited because of the potential use of "Special Administrative Measures". This was always vulnerable to appeal on the grounds of assurances having been made as to how he would be treated and so it has proved.
The appeal judgement is here
To summarise: The US appealed on a number of grounds but the only relevant ground it won on was that of the additional assurances.
FWIW, while this is a setback in Assange's case, it still remains unlikely that he will be extradited, given the case still has to go before the UK Supreme Court and the European Court of Human Rights (which the UK remains a signatory to, unrelated to the EU). His lawyers also have an appeal pending based on human rights grounds rather than some of the more procedural arguments they made previously.
Could well be. I will note that the appeal judgement references Babar Ahmad and others vs USA which was a case before the ECHR which found that post conviction imprisonment in ADX Florence and the imposition of SAMs were not adequate to prevent extradition. I'm not an expert on extradition proceedings so there may well be other grounds there from the original extradition hearing that could be successful. His problem really is that extradition treaties are set up to be procedural not to decide whether someone should be prosecuted. He actually has much stronger defences in trial court in the US than he does during the extradition proceedings.
posted by atrazine at 3:44 AM on December 13, 2021 [4 favorites]
« Older Clickbait Disinformation | Adventures in the Universe of Ambiguous Morality Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Anonymous at 2:22 PM on December 11, 2021