They got Assange in a virtual prison for ~7 years at no cost to them (that cost was borne by the UK and the Metropolitan Police). You can't argue that being holed up in an embassy is that much better than prison.
What's more none of that ~7 years counts towards actual jail time he'll like serve in the UK (for absconding) and the US (the publicized charges are only the beginning). The one (?) remaining charge in Sweden will quickly fall apart no doubt.
Arguments that Assange deserve protection as a journalist are (IMHO) a stretch at best. Getting a hold of classified information is one thing. Aiding in defeating security measures to obtain it is quite another story.
But to me at least, the big problem is that Assange lost all credibility as a journalist over the Wikileaks handling of the 2016 election and related hackings (eg the DCC emails). You'll have a hard time arguing that Assange (and Wikileaks by extension) wasn't picking a side here and doing what they can to influence the outcome of the election.
A traditional media outlet with an op-ed section is one thing. Playing an active part in illegally obtaining emails and other materials as well as arguably passing on that information to a presidential campaign is quite something else.
Even Snowden filtered his classified material through reputable media outlets.
So now we have embassy (~7 years), fighting extradition to either the US or Sweden (2+ years probably), whatever prison time he has to serve in the UK (which will run concurrently to fighting extradition no doubt as it's typical to serve that time first) and then years, perhaps many years, in US prisons. He may not see the light of day until 2030, maybe 2040.
You can't argue that being holed up in an embassy is that much better than prison.
I’ve seen footage of where he was in the embassy, it’s a lot better than prison. He also didn’t have to be counted five times a day, no one was trying to rape him or stab him, he woke up and went to sleep when he wanted, ate an array of foods, and until the end had access to people who wanted to visit in person. No guards abused him, and if he wanted to he could leave. Plus, he made a choice to enter the embassy and stay there.
What's more none of that ~7 years counts towards actual jail time he'll like serve in the UK (for absconding) and the US (the publicized charges are only the beginning). The one (?) remaining charge in Sweden will quickly fall apart no doubt.
On what planet would time spent after jumping bail and seeking asylum in an embassy count toward time served? That’s... insane. As far as the charges falling apart we’ll have to wait and see, if they’re even filed. Of course if the charges were nonsense then 7 years in an embassy was a really stupid choice.
Arguments that Assange deserve protection as a journalist are (IMHO) a stretch at best. Getting a hold of classified information is one thing. Aiding in defeating security measures to obtain it is quite another story.
But to me at least, the big problem is that Assange lost all credibility as a journalist over the Wikileaks handling of the 2016 election and related hackings (eg the DCC emails). You'll have a hard time arguing that Assange (and Wikileaks by extension) wasn't picking a side here and doing what they can to influence the outcome of the election.
A traditional media outlet with an op-ed section is one thing. Playing an active part in illegally obtaining emails and other materials as well as arguably passing on that information to a presidential campaign is quite something else.
Even Snowden filtered his classified material through reputable media outlets.
Yes, that all sounds about right. He’s also not being charged with what he carelessly published, but rather how he attempted to obtain it. Journalism isn’t even in the room.
So now we have embassy (~7 years), fighting extradition to either the US or Sweden (2+ years probably), whatever prison time he has to serve in the UK (which will run concurrently to fighting extradition no doubt as it's typical to serve that time first) and then years, perhaps many years, in US prisons. He may not see the light of day until 2030, maybe 2040.
The common factor here is his series of bad decisions.
> The one (?) remaining charge in Sweden will quickly fall apart no doubt.
There is a lot politics to decide this depending on american, UK and Swedish diplomacy. Everything which should not exist in a legal system.
> Aiding in defeating security measures to obtain it is quite another story.
Conspiring to assist in defeating a security measure. There are plenty of precedent of cases where a person has been charged with attempting to break a password, for both in UK and US, and the expected punishment for a person with no priors is a fine.
> Assange lost all credibility as a journalist over the Wikileaks handling of the 2016 election and related hackings (eg the DCC emails).
People can change when they receive death threats, talk about drone strikes by people in power, death penalty and secretly being throw into Guantanamo.
> Playing an active part in illegally obtaining emails and other materials
The current accusation of offering to help to break a password does not cover that. Getting leaked email sent to them is no different then getting leaked the audio log of someone being recorded without their knowledge.
> Even Snowden filtered his classified material through reputable media outlets.
"reputable media outlets" do not carry the same moral meaning as they once did. The Guardian journalist Claas Relotius is a prime example of reputable media doing less than reputable behavior, and the majority of news papers in the US is own by a handful individuals which endorsement has significant effect on the polls. A lot of media research acknowledge and sorts news paper by political bias. For source see https://cyber.harvard.edu/publications/2017/08/mediacloud
Time served always means in jail as specified by the particular law enforcement agency and court laying and trying the charges. The embassy and Maralogo are the same to them if either is used to evade law enforcement and arrest.
>They got Assange in a virtual prison for ~7 years at no cost to them (that cost was borne by the UK and the Metropolitan Police). You can't argue that being holed up in an embassy is that much better than prison.
He was "holed up" by choice. He was free to leave any time. Of course that would have been arrested and sent to Sweden for prosecution, but choosing to run and hide from an arrest warrant isn't the same as prison.
> But to me at least, the big problem is that Assange lost all credibility as a journalist over the Wikileaks handling of the 2016 election and related hackings (eg the DCC emails). You'll have a hard time arguing that Assange (and Wikileaks by extension) wasn't picking a side here and doing what they can to influence the outcome of the election.
How is this any different than most mainstream journalists?
> Assange lost all credibility as a journalist over the Wikileaks handling of the 2016 election
Unlike every other journalistic outlet in the world, not a single thing Wikileaks has put out has ever been proven false. He did not lose credibility. He lost favorability. Just because you don't like the information released does not affect its credibility.
> He accused Assange of repeatedly interfering in the internal affairs of other states, referencing WikiLeaks’ publication of Vatican documents in January 2019 as a recent example. “It is unfortunate that there are individuals dedicated to violating the privacy of people,” Moreno said.
Why even offer asylum then? This is literally what WikiLeaks does.
The decision of offering asylum to such a controversial figure is clearly political, and Ecuador's president has changed since then...
From what I read, since his election the current one (Moreno) pretty much has been reversing the legislation passed during the government of the former one (Correa), which is a strong supporter of Assange.
Isolation is a very bad thing. Seven years is too much. Feeling wronged, with the USA after you, confined to a building for someone used to travelling the world... I can understand a behaviour that I strongly dislike, including all kind of shit suggested by the only people that supported him.
So I'm sorry for him and Snowden, but I wouldn't trust either of them in their current circumstances.
cletus|6 years ago
They got Assange in a virtual prison for ~7 years at no cost to them (that cost was borne by the UK and the Metropolitan Police). You can't argue that being holed up in an embassy is that much better than prison.
What's more none of that ~7 years counts towards actual jail time he'll like serve in the UK (for absconding) and the US (the publicized charges are only the beginning). The one (?) remaining charge in Sweden will quickly fall apart no doubt.
Arguments that Assange deserve protection as a journalist are (IMHO) a stretch at best. Getting a hold of classified information is one thing. Aiding in defeating security measures to obtain it is quite another story.
But to me at least, the big problem is that Assange lost all credibility as a journalist over the Wikileaks handling of the 2016 election and related hackings (eg the DCC emails). You'll have a hard time arguing that Assange (and Wikileaks by extension) wasn't picking a side here and doing what they can to influence the outcome of the election.
A traditional media outlet with an op-ed section is one thing. Playing an active part in illegally obtaining emails and other materials as well as arguably passing on that information to a presidential campaign is quite something else.
Even Snowden filtered his classified material through reputable media outlets.
So now we have embassy (~7 years), fighting extradition to either the US or Sweden (2+ years probably), whatever prison time he has to serve in the UK (which will run concurrently to fighting extradition no doubt as it's typical to serve that time first) and then years, perhaps many years, in US prisons. He may not see the light of day until 2030, maybe 2040.
gotocake|6 years ago
I’ve seen footage of where he was in the embassy, it’s a lot better than prison. He also didn’t have to be counted five times a day, no one was trying to rape him or stab him, he woke up and went to sleep when he wanted, ate an array of foods, and until the end had access to people who wanted to visit in person. No guards abused him, and if he wanted to he could leave. Plus, he made a choice to enter the embassy and stay there.
What's more none of that ~7 years counts towards actual jail time he'll like serve in the UK (for absconding) and the US (the publicized charges are only the beginning). The one (?) remaining charge in Sweden will quickly fall apart no doubt.
On what planet would time spent after jumping bail and seeking asylum in an embassy count toward time served? That’s... insane. As far as the charges falling apart we’ll have to wait and see, if they’re even filed. Of course if the charges were nonsense then 7 years in an embassy was a really stupid choice.
Arguments that Assange deserve protection as a journalist are (IMHO) a stretch at best. Getting a hold of classified information is one thing. Aiding in defeating security measures to obtain it is quite another story. But to me at least, the big problem is that Assange lost all credibility as a journalist over the Wikileaks handling of the 2016 election and related hackings (eg the DCC emails). You'll have a hard time arguing that Assange (and Wikileaks by extension) wasn't picking a side here and doing what they can to influence the outcome of the election. A traditional media outlet with an op-ed section is one thing. Playing an active part in illegally obtaining emails and other materials as well as arguably passing on that information to a presidential campaign is quite something else. Even Snowden filtered his classified material through reputable media outlets.
Yes, that all sounds about right. He’s also not being charged with what he carelessly published, but rather how he attempted to obtain it. Journalism isn’t even in the room.
So now we have embassy (~7 years), fighting extradition to either the US or Sweden (2+ years probably), whatever prison time he has to serve in the UK (which will run concurrently to fighting extradition no doubt as it's typical to serve that time first) and then years, perhaps many years, in US prisons. He may not see the light of day until 2030, maybe 2040.
The common factor here is his series of bad decisions.
belorn|6 years ago
There is a lot politics to decide this depending on american, UK and Swedish diplomacy. Everything which should not exist in a legal system.
> Aiding in defeating security measures to obtain it is quite another story.
Conspiring to assist in defeating a security measure. There are plenty of precedent of cases where a person has been charged with attempting to break a password, for both in UK and US, and the expected punishment for a person with no priors is a fine.
> Assange lost all credibility as a journalist over the Wikileaks handling of the 2016 election and related hackings (eg the DCC emails).
People can change when they receive death threats, talk about drone strikes by people in power, death penalty and secretly being throw into Guantanamo.
> Playing an active part in illegally obtaining emails and other materials
The current accusation of offering to help to break a password does not cover that. Getting leaked email sent to them is no different then getting leaked the audio log of someone being recorded without their knowledge.
> Even Snowden filtered his classified material through reputable media outlets.
"reputable media outlets" do not carry the same moral meaning as they once did. The Guardian journalist Claas Relotius is a prime example of reputable media doing less than reputable behavior, and the majority of news papers in the US is own by a handful individuals which endorsement has significant effect on the polls. A lot of media research acknowledge and sorts news paper by political bias. For source see https://cyber.harvard.edu/publications/2017/08/mediacloud
ksaj|6 years ago
LiquidSky|6 years ago
He was "holed up" by choice. He was free to leave any time. Of course that would have been arrested and sent to Sweden for prosecution, but choosing to run and hide from an arrest warrant isn't the same as prison.
bigbluedots|6 years ago
It is, especially if that actually happened. Fortunately, that will be tested beyond reasonable doubt sometime soon in an open and transparent court.
ShorsHammer|6 years ago
How would this hold up if Manning asked for help on StackOverflow instead? It was literally just crunching a password hash and never succeeded.
wolco|6 years ago
The case is difficult to prove. But facts won't stand in the way here either. The charge isn't defeating a security measures either.
shard972|6 years ago
How is this any different than most mainstream journalists?
patrickg_zill|6 years ago
[deleted]
insickness|6 years ago
Unlike every other journalistic outlet in the world, not a single thing Wikileaks has put out has ever been proven false. He did not lose credibility. He lost favorability. Just because you don't like the information released does not affect its credibility.
onlydeadheroes|6 years ago
He picked the side of truth. That is what it is all about. If Hillary hadn't been crooked, she would have had no problem with Assange.
But damm the truth, it was her turn!
saagarjha|6 years ago
Why even offer asylum then? This is literally what WikiLeaks does.
Kurtz79|6 years ago
The decision of offering asylum to such a controversial figure is clearly political, and Ecuador's president has changed since then...
From what I read, since his election the current one (Moreno) pretty much has been reversing the legislation passed during the government of the former one (Correa), which is a strong supporter of Assange.
https://www.bbc.com/mundo/noticias-internacional-47902702
(in Spanish, note that in the article Correa says that one of the latest "leaks" involved people close to Moreno)
freeflight|6 years ago
[0] https://www.enca.com/business/imf-approves-42bn-loan-ecuador
devoply|6 years ago
narag|6 years ago
So I'm sorry for him and Snowden, but I wouldn't trust either of them in their current circumstances.
caprese|6 years ago
Assange was in a building, Snowden is in the largest country on the planet