- cross-posted to:
- worldnews@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- worldnews@lemmy.ml
You must log in or register to comment.
I wish more people would understand that it is possible to believe both that Assange has not been treated fairly and that he’s a colossal douchebag.
It’s the tribal nature of humans - they try to make everyone they like flawless and everyone they hate completely flawed.
It sure seems that way sometimes.
Assange is a colossal douchebag, rapist and Russian asset, who is terrified of faceing the consequences of his own actions. In November 2010, Sweden issued a European arrest warrant for Assange, for questioning in a Swedish investigation, He was suspected of rape of a lesser degree, unlawful coercion and multiple cases of sexual molestation. After losing his appeal against the warrant, he breached bail and took refuge in the Embassy of Ecuador in London.
You know Sweden has declined to prosecute Assange, right?
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/nov/19/sweden-drops-julian-assange-investigation
It’s the U.S. that wants him, not Sweden.
That tends to happen when you hide in an embassy until the statue of limitations runs out. The US didn’t want to extradite him until 2017 after WikiLeaks interfered with the 2016 election.
His election interference was part of why he lost his asylum “We did notice that he was interfering in the elections and we do not allow that because we have principles, very clear values, as we would not like anyone to interfere in our elections,” he said. “We are not going to allow that to happen with a foreign country and friend like the US.”
and Russian asset
Where I can get my personal Assange?
Assange has not been treated fairly
How and who? Details please.
For one thing, not being allowed to leave for the country where he’s sought and been granted asylum.
He had an arrest warrant in the country he was located. It’s called law.
The country where he is located Ecuador. That’s how embassies work. He is on Ecuadorian soil and should be allowed to leave for Ecuador.
And stayed at the embassy until he couldn’t any more and was arrested by the Brits. I still don’t see what’s unfair.
Again, the unfair part was not allowing him to leave for Ecuador. His Ecuadorian citizenship got revoked when the British arrested him, but he should not have been arrested because he was an asylum seeker granted Ecuadorian citizenship.
Would you also oppose Jews seeking asylum in foreign consulates in pre-WWII Germany and Italy being taken out of Germany and Italy? One of those people was Albert Einstein.
Or is Assange somehow a special case when it comes to seeking asylum.
This isn’t even about Assange personally or whether or not he deserves to be prosecuted for what he did. This is about how the U.S. and Britain can get away with ignoring someone who has both been granted asylum and citizenship of a third country. And I don’t care if you are guilty or innocent of your crimes, that is simply wrong.
That’s not how it works. In order to leave the embassy he would have to set foot on Brit soil, and he had an arrest warrant. He was not granted asylum by Britain, only Ecuador. As I remember, they were the only country to say yes. They changed government, and there you go.
The country where he is located Ecuador. That’s how embassies work. He is on Ecuadorian soil
That is not true, though it’s a common misconception. Embassies are not extraterritorial. They are granted specific legal protections by treaty by the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations that prevents the host country’s law enforcement from entering and arresting people, but the territory on which they are located does not belong to the guest country.
The ability to provide asylum in an embassy is based on this text:
https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/9_1_1961.pdf
Article 22
-
The premises of the mission shall be inviolable. The agents of the receiving State may not enter them, except with the consent of the head of the mission.
-
The receiving State is under a special duty to take all appropriate steps to protect the premises of the mission against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the mission or impairment of its dignity.
-
The premises of the mission, their furnishings and other property thereon and the means of transport of the mission shall be immune from search, requisition, attachment or execution.
The only case I can think of off-the-cuff where territory was explicitly made extraterritorial was during World War II. The Dutch royal family had fled abroad due to the Netherlands being occupied by the Nazis, and Princess Margriet was born there. I vaguely recall that there is some restriction in Dutch law that requires a member of the royal family to be born on native Dutch soil to remain in the line of royal succession or something like that.
The Canadian parliament passed a law to, for a brief period of time, render the maternity ward of the hospital in which Princess Margriet was to be born, Dutch territory.
googles
Actually, looks like I misremembered that. According to Wikipedia, even in that case, they didn’t declare it to be Dutch territory, just to not be part of Canada:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princess_Margriet_of_the_Netherlands
The Dutch royal family went into exile when the Netherlands was occupied by Nazi Germany in 1940, and went to live in Canada. Margriet was born in Ottawa Civic Hospital, Ottawa. The maternity ward of the hospital was temporarily declared to be extraterritorial by the Canadian government.[3][4] This ensured that the newborn would not be born in Canada, and not be a British subject under the rule of jus soli. Instead, the child would only inherit Dutch citizenship from her mother under the principle of jus sanguinis, which is followed in Dutch nationality law. Thus, the child would be eligible to succeed to the throne of the Netherlands. This would have applied if the child had been male, and therefore heir apparent to Juliana, or if her two older sisters died without eligible children.
It is a common misconception that the Canadian government declared the maternity ward to be Dutch territory. That was not necessary, as Canada follows jus soli, while the Netherlands follows jus sanguinis. It was sufficient for Canada to disclaim the territory temporarily.
-
He’s a Russian spy stooge. He’s lucky he’s not in a black site for life
Yes, he harmed the interests of the US government, but he’s an Australian Citizen. I don’t understand why he would be subject to US laws. Hell, why not try to extradite Putin while they’re at it? Makes no fucking sense to me.
There are a few laws – such as child sex tourism performed by US citizens abroad – where the US asserts extraterritorial jurisdiction (in that case, because wealthy US citizens discovered that they could just go to countries with corrupt law enforcement/judiciary and buy them off; even if they can beat the local justice system, the American one will go after them using American anti-child-sex-tourism law). Same thing for some anti-terrorism laws. My bet is that this is probably one of those.
googles
Yeah, sounds like it.
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10291
The United States’ indictment alleges that Assange committed one count of conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 371) to commit computer intrusion in violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) (18 U.S.C. § 1030).
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/extraterritorial-application-computer-fraud-and-abuse-act
A brazen and sophisticated computer intrusion into the records of over 145 million Americans launched from computer hackers based in China led to recent criminal prosecutions under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. [1] Courts are willing to extend American law beyond U.S. boundaries often when criminal misconduct takes place overseas that injures Americans. The Constitution grants Congress broad powers to enact laws with extraterritorial scope.[2] The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (“CFAA”), is one such statute that provides criminal and civil remedies resulting from unauthorized access to computers used in interstate commerce or communications.[3] And, it further provides for extraterritorial jurisdiction for criminal or civil violations of the CFAA.
The CFAA’s potential reach goes beyond U.S. borders and packs a jurisdictional punch that will likely be able to bring a foreign party into an American court. Thus, a computer hacker outside the U.S. who causes injury[26] here is likely not immune from a civil or criminal action.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/the-charges-against-julian-assange-explained
The indictment includes one count of conspiracy to hack a computer to disclose classified information that “could be used to injure” the U.S. According to the indictment, Assange “conspired” with Manning by helping her crack a Defense Department computer password in March 2010 that provided access to a U.S. government network that stored classified information and communications.
Hmm. That does raise some interesting questions, though. Assange was charged with conspiracy to violate the CFAA. The justification for the CFAA being extraterritorial would be that you can access computers across international lines. In theory, Assange might have conspired with people in the US to commit murder, and I don’t think that that would have applied. I wonder if there’s some sort of doctrine where conspiracy to commit a crime has extraterritorial jurisdiction apply if it would apply to the original crime.
googles
Ah, sounds like it.
Extraterritoriality: The US Perspective
In addition, courts have reasoned that ‘the extraterritorial reach of an ancillary offense such as conspiracy is coterminous with that of the underlying statute’.
Thanks for your awesome explanation.
Going back to your original point, how to they justify that sex tourism harms Americans back home? (Not endorsing it, just curious)
Not the person you are replying to, but it don’t think it matters if the victim is American – the US has the right to prosecute it’s own citizens. (You can’t kill an illegal immigrant – they may not have constitutional rights, but murder is still illegal)
True, but we’re talking about things done in a foreign country. You can go out of the country and buy a Cuban cigar, visit a weed cafe, or go to a legal brothel in Amsterdam. I’m just wondering how they know where the line is.
what if instead of manipulating the electing he had sat in Canada an launched rockets across Niagara falls in to the USA? His actions have effects inside the USA and the victims are American criticizes, so America claims jurisdiction.
A pretty likely outcome here is that he goes to the US, gets sentenced, and it turns out that he would have long-since been out of prison had he not spent all the time on the lam more-or-less cooped up; that a lot of the effective sentence will have been one he created himself by going on the run.
Maybe he can get some of that counted as time served – I dunno if the time spent in the UK in prison doing appeals against extradition counts – but the time hanging out in the Ecuadorian embassy definitely doesn’t.
EDIT: This is talking about Florida state law, but it sounds like it’s not entirely-guaranteed either way; if federal law works as Florida law does, he might get credit for some of the time served in British prison:
https://criminaldefenseattorneytampa.com/extradition/international-extradition/
Credit for Time Served While Awaiting Extradition to the U.S.
In Calafell v. State, 263 So. 3d 216 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019), the court considered whether a person should receive additional credit for time spent in custody in an Argentine jail awaiting extradition to Florida to face charges.
Section § 921.161(1), Fla. Stat., provides:
“A sentence of imprisonment shall not begin to run before the date it is imposed, but the court imposing a sentence shall allow a defendant credit for all of the time she or he spent in the county jail before sentence. The credit must be for a specified period of time and shall be provided for in the sentence.”
In Kronz v. State, 462 So.2d 450, 451 (Fla. 1985), the court held that although section 921.161(1) requires a trial judge to give credit for time served in Florida county jails pending disposition of criminal charges, it does not require awarding such credit for time spent in jails in other jurisdictions.
The court noted that “[t]he trial judge does, however, have the inherent discretionary authority to award credit for time served in other jurisdictions while awaiting transfer to Florida. In this latter circumstance, the trial judge should consider the appropriateness of an award of credit for time served when the defendant was incarcerated in another state solely because of the Florida offense for which he or she is being sentenced.” Id.
EDIT 2: Here’s a ruling on California law on intrastate extradition. According to this, California apparently does grant credit for time served while fighting extradition under specific conditions, but also says that this is probably not something that most states would permit:
https://research.ceb.com/secondary-sources/area/criminal-law/15clpp0000/c350.44
50 Extradition
III. UNIFORM CRIMINAL EXTRADITION ACT (UCEA)
§50.44 J. Credit for Time in Custody Awaiting Extradition
A defendant who has been in custody in another jurisdiction because of an untried charge in California, when finally tried and sentenced in California, is entitled to credit for presentence time served even though he or she resisted extradition, if the presentence time served in the other jurisdiction was for the same offense for which the defendant was convicted in California. In re Watson (1977) 19 C3d 646 (defendant granted credit for 285 days under Pen C §2900.5 for presentence time spent in Texas jail fighting extradition to California). If the defendant was in custody in the other jurisdiction for related and unrelated offenses, California must grant credit only for time served if the defendant was arrested first on the California warrant. In re Joyner (1989) 48 C3d 487 (no credit for time served because California hold put on defendant after he was arrested in Florida for crime allegedly committed there).
Defense counsel should be cautioned, however, that Watson is not binding on other states and probably represents a minority view. This should be considered in deciding whether to resist extradition, because the fugitive may be doing “dead time” in California while he or she is fighting extradition to another state. When the fugitive faces very serious charges in the demanding state, defense counsel in California should contact the attorney or agency who will represent the defendant in the demanding state and find out what the law is in that state on credit for time served, and factor that into the decision of whether and how to resist extradition.
Assange’s lawyers say he could face up to 175 years in prison if convicted, though American authorities have said the sentence is likely to be much shorter than that.
Manning alone got 35 years, Assange would certainly get far worse than her.
Nah, Manning actually got charged with a lot more than Assange did; Manning was a serving member of the military and violated military law. And even in Manning’s case, the sentence was commuted to 7 years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Manning
The trial on the 12 remaining charges began on June 3, 2013.[5] It went to the judge on July 26, 2013, and findings were rendered on July 30.[6][7] Manning was acquitted of the most serious charge, that of aiding the enemy, for giving secrets to WikiLeaks. In addition to five[8][9] or six[10][11][12] espionage counts, Manning was also found guilty of five theft specifications, two computer fraud specifications and multiple military infractions.[13]
On August 21, 2013, Manning was sentenced to 35 years’ imprisonment, reduction in pay grade to E-1, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and a dishonorable discharge.[14] On January 17, 2017, President Barack Obama commuted Manning’s sentence to a total of seven years’ confinement. Manning was released on May 17, 2017.[15][16] On May 31, 2018, the U.S. Army Court of Criminal Appeals upheld Manning’s conviction of violating the Espionage Act of 1917.[17]
The expected sentence is probably about five years, whereas Assange has already been spent considerably more than that as a fugitive (and some of that time cooped up). US prosecutors apparently estimated that he’ll probably get between 48 and 63 months based on prior sentences.
The charges carry a maximum sentence of 175 years in prison, although Lewis said “the longest sentence ever imposed for this offense is 63 months.”
As an Australian I thinks the guy sucks, but no one deserves the US legal system. So for humane grounds id rather see him come home.
I understand that the US offered to let Assange serve his prison time in Australia.
According to the High Court, the United States consented to transferring Assange to his native country of Australia to serve any prison sentence.
The courts will probably grant extradition just to get rid of him. Then the real whining can begin.
