Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has been arrested

Discussion in 'World News, Current Events & Politics' started by Joe88, Apr 11, 2019.

  1. supersonicwaffle

    supersonicwaffle GBAtemp Regular

    Member
    4
    Oct 15, 2018
    Germany
    Should've known better and be on your best behaviour because we can revoke your asylum.
    For some reason I believe you would raise a major stink about this in a different context and for a good reason I might add.
     
  2. Xzi

    Xzi All your base are belong to the proletariat

    pip Contributor
    19
    Dec 26, 2013
    United States
    Spiraling Out
    As I said, he shouldn't have expected permanent residence at an embassy regardless of his behavior. Finding a way to travel to Ecuador and taking asylum in the country at large would've been a much better option. Even putting aside his close ties to the GRU, Russia almost certainly would've taken him in too, given that they took in Snowden. For whatever reason, Assange simply failed to plan ahead, and that's what ultimately led to his eviction and arrest.
     
    Last edited by Xzi, Jul 23, 2019
  3. notimp

    notimp GBAtemp Addict

    Member
    10
    Sep 18, 2007
    Was discussed early out. Attempts to grant him political immunity on the way to an airport were not granted politically. He was someone that was too public of a figure, to handle this entirely diplomatically. He still had value. He sat in that embassy to 'repent' for the rest of his life - until the Trump administration had the brilliant idea to get him to the US for a show trial. Dems blocked against that - until the Hillary email thing happened, at least thats the gossip on the streets. ;) Then they also said *fuck it*. (Statements on record of representatives of the Democratic National Committee on the matter were demonstratively 'naively neutral' after the process to get him to the US was started, so neutral in fact that they seemed uninformed/unconcerned even. But they werent.).

    For what its worth, I think even Assange would have preferred asylum in any south american country - rather than a UK embassy after some time. Lack of sunlight would be maybe the first potential motivator. ;)
     
    Last edited by notimp, Jul 23, 2019
  4. notimp

    notimp GBAtemp Addict

    Member
    10
    Sep 18, 2007
    Show trial maybe has to be argued as well. You dont extradite a political enemy (both parties now), to set him free after a trial, where national interests are concerned. Even in western democracies.

    You kind of make sure that he gets a non sympathetic judge. Basically. And gets accused of multiples of hundreds of years of offenses.

    Also - the indictment is for him maybe linking Manning a tutorial on how to use grep, and maybe attempting to crack a password from a hash, which he failed at. Hold on gbatemp tutorial section.

    Also, laws in use to indict him are so old, that people 'cracking passwords' was something that only soviet spies did in the cold war - so pre internet.

    So he basically gets treated like a spy of a country you are in conflict with, for arguably doing something that was in the public interest (the pre hillary email stuff he is legally accused of). While not being a spy - but only a 'useful idiot' when it comes to certain international interests. Thats basically it spelled out.

    And as a nation you usually only want to do stuff like this - to send a message. You dont care about the individual. You allready have smeared Wikileaks enough to a point where it shouldnt be much of a political issue in the future. (When people starte grouping it mentally with RT and Sputnik, ...) You've hunted its members, placed them in jail on no grounds whatsoever (just for the usual month or so until a countries legal system has something to say about it...). You've done the whole spiel.

    Another issue, might be - that even in exile in south america, Assange could act as a political figure - because Wikileaks is transnational and literally could operate from anywhere.
     
    Last edited by notimp, Jul 23, 2019
    IncredulousP likes this.
  5. supersonicwaffle

    supersonicwaffle GBAtemp Regular

    Member
    4
    Oct 15, 2018
    Germany
    I don't even know where to begin tackling this because it's utterly absurd.
    First of all, he can't just "find a way" if he isn't granted safe passage. Ecuador granted him status as a diplomat which wasn't recognized by the UK, he would have been immediately arrested if he stepped outside the embassy, the police has previously threatened to enter the embassy and arrest him, the embassy was guarded by british police 24/7 from 2012 to 2015.
    Whether you like it or not, Assange was able to successfully make his case that he was politically persecuted and was granted asylum.
    He was told that he was welcome to stay at the embassy indefinitely.
    I find it worrisome that someone should expect to have their asylum revoked at some point because they're in an embassy with the passage to freedom blocked by what was acknowledged to be his opressors, if they had the power themselves to find a way to get to safety they wouldn't be seeking asylum in the first place.

    I want to make it absolutely clear that I'm in favor of granting asylum for people from wartorn countries but asylum is usually reserved for political state persecution based on immutable characteristics or political leaning. Poverty, war or violence from organizations other than the state itself does not warrant an asylum claim according to the geneva convention. Seeing you defend the right of central americans to claim asylum in the other thread and your indifference towards Assange's situation reveals a freightening double standard.
     
    Last edited by supersonicwaffle, Jul 23, 2019
  6. Xzi

    Xzi All your base are belong to the proletariat

    pip Contributor
    19
    Dec 26, 2013
    United States
    Spiraling Out
    The Brits didn't care about what the US wanted, Assange had previously failed to appear in court for charges against him in the UK. It's still unknown whether a British court will decide to extradite him or not, that hearing isn't scheduled until February 2020.

    Then his situation was even more precarious than I believed it to be. All the more reason not to piss off his hosts the way he did. Perhaps he was too narcissistic to ever consider that they might evict him, no matter how horrendous his behavior.

    I've already stated that I don't think Assange should be jailed over the Chelsea Manning leaks, but his situation is not at all comparable to that of immigrants fleeing cartel violence and countries in crisis. When you're in the business of publishing unredacted leaks and whistleblower information concerning every government (except one), you're bound to attract the attention of the world's law enforcement agencies. So you either have to understand the law very well and use every legal loophole at your advantage to stay within a grey area, or if you're going to cross that line, you have to be intelligent enough to stay three steps ahead of law enforcement at all times. Assange did not have either of these traits, so it's unsurprising that he managed to back himself into this corner.
     
    Last edited by Xzi, Jul 23, 2019
  7. supersonicwaffle

    supersonicwaffle GBAtemp Regular

    Member
    4
    Oct 15, 2018
    Germany
    It's unknown whether a British court will extradite him to the US, that is correct. However, Assange hasn't failed to appear in court, he sought asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy to prevent his extradition to Sweden which has been decided by the UK Supreme Court.
    The documents WikiLeaks published contained material of a conflict that Great Britain was directly involved in. Assuming a conflict of interest isn't far fetched.
    British prosecution persuaded the swedish prosecution not to withdraw their arrest warrant when they intended to do so in 2013. The swedish arrest warrant has ultimately been withdrawn in 2017. Swedish courts have denied a request for Assange's extradition to Sweden just last month.

    You're correct they aren't comparable. Assange has much more of a leg to stand on to claim asylum. That is not to say asylum shouldn't be granted to the central american people fleeing those situations.

    The state going after someone for protected speech is what is commonly refered to as political persecution and gives you the right to claim asylum according to the geneva convention.
    Being in the business of publishing leaks and whistleblower information is what's called journalism. The state going after journalists is something we should not accept in a liberal democracy.

    You can understand the law all you want if the government is willing to interpret copying files as hacking.
     
    Last edited by supersonicwaffle, Jul 23, 2019
  8. Xzi

    Xzi All your base are belong to the proletariat

    pip Contributor
    19
    Dec 26, 2013
    United States
    Spiraling Out
    We agree to an extent, the only point of contention being Assange's tendency to publish unredacted leaks which might endanger certain individuals. As I said, I don't think Assange should be indicted for the Chelsea Manning stuff, and the Obama administration had decided against going after him for it.

    According to the NY Times article posted in the OP, they're trying to get him on helping to crack a password in order to access those files. I agree it's a relatively flimsy charge, but who knows, maybe the prosecution's case will fall apart mid-trial. It wouldn't be the first time that the Trump administration proves their incompetence in a court setting. That's assuming he even gets extradited in the first place, of course.
     
    Last edited by Xzi, Jul 23, 2019
  9. supersonicwaffle

    supersonicwaffle GBAtemp Regular

    Member
    4
    Oct 15, 2018
    Germany
    We agree fully, there would definitely be an interesting discussion around responsible disclosure and I don't necessarily agree that WikiLeaks' realese practices are a good thing.

    Just had to quickly look it up. Personally I wouldn't call it hacking or cracking but I can see how someone would.
    He agreed to have hashes looked up in a rainbow table which means that he basically agreed to compare a hash that he recieved from Manning against a table of previously compromised or insecure passwords.

    To put things into context here's the default password policy for Microsoft infrastructures of the top of my head so I may have a value here or there slightly wrong.
    • needs at least 3 of the 4 following character types: Uppercase, Lowercase, Numeric, Nonalphanumeric
    • minimum password length of 7 characters
    • maximum password age of 42 days
    • can't be too similar to the last 20 used passwords
    • minimum password age of 1 day (so you can't cycle through 20 passwords to get the same you had before)
    • will be stored with non-reversible hashing algorithms
    Whether this was successful is unknown and it was only claimed that Manning wanted to obfuscate her identity and not gain access to files she didn't have herself.
     
    Last edited by supersonicwaffle, Jul 23, 2019
    Xzi likes this.
  10. notimp

    notimp GBAtemp Addict

    Member
    10
    Sep 18, 2007
    US has made the indictment public just week(s?) before (points at consolidated action). Before that we didn't know what he was accused of - and the US even publicly denied, that they were looking into indicting him for crimes related to the Manning case. There is now an active international extradition request on his name.

    UK usually acts in agreement with what the US is wanting them to do in such matters (Almost every state in the world does.), after Brexit especially so.

    Also this is a matter concerning US intelligence services kind of pretty directly. They are in an alliance with the other english speaking countries offering free and pretty far reaching information exchange and access. So as far as foreign politics is concerned, they pretty much speak as one voice.

    It would be a minor international incident, if Assange doesn't get extradited, in the current political climate especially.

    Its not like Assange chose not to set a foot on UK ground for seven years to forgo seven months in investigative custody. ;)
     
    Last edited by notimp, Jul 23, 2019
    Xzi likes this.
Loading...