Sir Abacus
Member
Trump screwing his contractors yet again.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
CNN: US prepares charges to seek arrest of Julian Assange
- Thread starter Chumley
- Start date
- Status
The Hamburglar
Banned
Hiliarous. Sedition lmao. High and mighty US gaf thinking he should be charged for leaking those documents. Those same documents that proved what we all knew anyway that us military gives no fucks when operating in a country populated with brown people.
The real charges are the sex offensives. Fuck the usa's trumped up charges because they got embarrassed.
The real charges are the sex offensives. Fuck the usa's trumped up charges because they got embarrassed.
Because the report is in a different language (because he insisted on the special treatment of being interviewed remotely) and translating large legal documents is time consuming.
Deuce Deuce
Member
nice
SirClinksAlot
Member
And he thought the Donald was his friend.
DreadPirateRoberts
Member
Nope, the Constitution applies to everyone under US jurisdiction, there are rights that are specific to citizens, but the basic rights apply to everyone.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boumediene_v._Bush
Make a plea deal with him so he come out.
They're alluding to some kind of active help or participation so the free speech argument isn't really applicable.
Carpe Carnim
Member
It's the Internet, bruh. Ain't no one got time to read for comprehension. Those Takes ain't gonna heat themselves up y'know
If I am reading this correctly, this isn't really about the Russian election hacking/interference at all, which explains why Sessions is talking on the matter... The CNN article barely mentions the election at all.
We "know" that Assange colluded with the Russians to publish the DNC hack information and there's evidence that they gathered information on the site and turned it over to the Russians, as well as some evidence that Trump surrogates directly collaborated with Assange during the election... This could be an attempt by the WH to dodge the Russia issue or to paint itself as anti-Assange or to get him into custody before the FBI gains access to him.
That's completely untrue. The Egyptian deportation - which I'm assuming are what you're referring to - were legal, just extremely unethical. They rightly caused a national scandal too, mind. If Assange were ever to face an extradition request from the US while in Swedish custody, he would enjoy both the protectionof Swedish law not allowing extradition on espionage or political charges and the fact that U.K. courts would have priority because of his skipped bail there.
Edit: source. http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/08/18/would-sweden-ever-extradite-assange-to-the-united-states/
We have refused to extradite an honest-to-God Soviet spy because of this.
Autoignition
Member
Too bad for Assange he wasn't under US jurisdiction at any point during his fuckery.
Assange is a complicated figure because he seemingly started out on the side of justice and transparency but now clearly is not.
Whatever it once was. It is now just an arm of the Russian government with the sole job to influence outside elections.
And again. This man needs to go to trial for his crimes and stop hiding.
If he wasn't under US jurisdiction, how can they charge him??
No, but he will obviously be under US jurisdiction as soon as he's in US custody. Judges have concluded that even Guantanamo inmates enjoy constitutional protection because of that.
Puck Beaverton
Banned
Shame he's a Russian stooge after the good work WikiLeaks had done.
Hellwarden
Member
I mean, unless they can actually get him out the Ecuadorian embassy, then this is all pointless.
I don't see him getting a fair trial in the US. Whistleblowers should be afforded certain protections anyway.
Fenderputty
Banned
I wonder if he's sitting on those GOP hacks we know happened but never leaked
This isn't accurate at all. It's not an arm of the Russian government. If you're going to state that then you need to provide a basis for it. As it stands, there isn't one. It's not a reasonable conclusion to make whatsoever, even if Russia used the organisation to leak materials they themselves got a hold of.
Moreover, let's wait and see what the result is from Sweden shall we?
TheChewyWaffles
Member
I thought sharing the information he shared was a good thing. Plus, isn't he being protected by the Ecuadorian embassy?
Where did you get this idea from?
That the poster he was responding to was wrong in a fairly obvious way.
Ok, those extraditions were extremly illegal, the UN knows it, our constitutional committee knows it and you should know it too.
And the ONLY reason they got extradited anyway was because Sweden folded to massive pressure from the US government. The former PM has already admitted that, on record.
So while i do agree that Sweden couldn't afford to extradite him after that scandal, i probably wouldn't want to bet on that horse if my own ass was on the line. It's easier to trust the swedish government to do the right thing when you don't personally risk a life in guantanamo bay.
KernelPanic
Member
It's a propaganda arm of Russian intelligence (hence government). The servers are hosted in Russia too.
Julian sold out a long time ago. He even had a show on RT.
SilentRacoon
Member
Obama wouldn't have pardoned him, it's only logical for Trump to do the exact opposite, and he probably will.
Autoignition
Member
Dunno, I'm not an international law expert.
Right, but that wouldn't give him retroactive protections of freedom of speech. So, while he's here he'll have them (as far as I understand it), but he doesn't get everything he's done in the past grandfathered in with him.
It was a huge point of contention during the travel ban debacle. Legal experts still disagree about the technicalities of it.
MetalGearZed
Member
WIKILEAKS! can you believe this? i just love WIKILEAKS!!
What do you think happens in a trial? Do you think the judiciary magically is the one branch of government that doesn't have to work under constitutional law? There are certain enumerated rights for citizens, but besides those they apply to all people.
"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Notice the switch there.
I really don't mean this as an insult, but you aren't thinking about jurisprudence at all here.
I spit.
Prof. Bathtub
Member
Maybe, but everybody around him is still incensed over the army leaks. They'll want him to be punished for that, even if they share his opinion that people with names ending in -odesta don't have the right to privacy. Stealing from Democrats isn't a crime.
WTF? I didnt say that either, and if it happens there will be a legal basis
Both Dems and Reps don't give a crap about the constitution. It doesn't matter if he's American or not.
Want an example? IRC, Obama targeted and killed an American citizen with a drone strike without due process. That's how screwed up things are.
Prof. Bathtub
Member
Will Hannity continue to defend him and attack the IC? I suppose not, if the WH sheepishly says he's actually bad again.
Carpe Carnim
Member
Calm down Chuckles, you're gonna cut yourself with all that edginess.
Maybe not, but the courts sure do. The drone strike doesn't apply here - it wasn't a judicial decision, it was a military one. That citizen was a member of an organization at war with the US, that made him a legal target. The problem with that is obviously that the War on Terror is actually prosecuted as a war at all, but that's a different issue than the legality of the action.
Again nonsense. The show was sold to RT and has nothing to do with them beyond owning the distribution rights.
Please provide evidence that it is an arm of Russian Intelligence. They have a multitude of servers scattered across Europe. They've even used Amazon servers before.
Fenderputty
Banned
What's the effective difference between being an arm of the Russian government and pushing slanted hacked emails that the Russians wanted leaked and only those emails which they wanted leaked?
So you're entitled to due process if the government feels like it, when it feels like it. The president reserves the right to be your judge, jury and executioner.
I know love GAF loves Obama. But this is one of the worst things he did. I can't believe there's people defending him on this. I really hope history judges him harshly because as I see it right now he's on his way to be considered one of the greatest Republican Presidents we've had.
No, but if you join a nation or organization at war with the US, you can become a target for the US military. Pretty simple. Although, again, the decision to make it a war rather than a purely criminal matter in the first place is highly questionable.
They have made the claim that it wasn't from Russian intelligence services and was in fact from a third party non-state actor.
Publishing materials given by a state isn't the same as being an arm of it. Just what sort of logic is this? If they were genuine documents (which they were) and met whatever editorial guidelines they have, it gets published.
I don't agree with the timing of the email releases, I think it was inappropriate and rather careless. I do however understand why they were released then, for maximum impact. Again, it's something I disagree with. At the same time, I'm not going to accuse them of being compromised by the Russian intelligence services because it fits my narrative. There isn't adequate proof and so any such claims should be met with questions that have answers instead of vague assumptions.
Spoiler: it won't.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked