this post was submitted on 14 Feb 2024
65 points (97.1% liked)
Australia
3582 readers
161 users here now
A place to discuss Australia and important Australian issues.
Before you post:
If you're posting anything related to:
- The Environment, post it to Aussie Environment
- Politics, post it to Australian Politics
- World News/Events, post it to World News
- A question to Australians (from outside) post it to Ask an Australian
If you're posting Australian News (not opinion or discussion pieces) post it to Australian News
Rules
This community is run under the rules of aussie.zone. In addition to those rules:
- When posting news articles use the source headline and place your commentary in a separate comment
Banner Photo
Congratulations to @[email protected] who had the most upvoted submission to our banner photo competition
Recommended and Related Communities
Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:
- Australian News
- World News (from an Australian Perspective)
- Australian Politics
- Aussie Environment
- Ask an Australian
- AusFinance
- Pictures
- AusLegal
- Aussie Frugal Living
- Cars (Australia)
- Coffee
- Chat
- Aussie Zone Meta
- bapcsalesaustralia
- Food Australia
- Aussie Memes
Plus other communities for sport and major cities.
https://aussie.zone/communities
Moderation
Since Kbin doesn't show Lemmy Moderators, I'll list them here. Also note that Kbin does not distinguish moderator comments.
Additionally, we have our instance admins: @[email protected] and @[email protected]
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
To be unpopular, I don't feel particularly sorry for Julian. He didn't just "report" on the wikileaks, he helped induce them and then he picked which items to release for maximum damage. Other allegations are that he worked with Russians to do this, now if there is evidence of this, he deserves to see trial. If there isn't then I'm sure he'll be able to make a solid case in his defence. (Now a court must view someone innocent till proven guilty, but I don't have to and I'll take him running into a foreign embassy to avoid trial a good indication that he's guilty and he knows he's guilty. )
If he wants a trial here I think that would be fine and I don't think many would have any objections, but he should have to defend his actions against what amount to some of the most serious accusations that can be levelled against people.
Edit: grammar and spelling
You repeatedly speak of a trial: "he deserves to see trial", "avoid trial", "If he wants a trial here". And his supposed guilt.
Assange is not a US citizen.
At no point during any of this was he in the US.
There are no valid charges to even place against him, and if he was a citizen of a competing country like Russia, China, India etc we'd hear NOTHING about his role in any of this, because those countries governments would tell the US to sod off.
The truth here is that the US is desperate to get access to him so that they can make an example of him, so that others are less likely to share embarrassing US secrets in the future.
The little jabs about "worked with Russians" (ooh, he's working with the ENEMY) and how "he’s guilty and he knows he’s guilty" (he must be guilty, he's running!) are some straight up bullshit talking points from the likes of Tucker Carlson.
I mean not Tucker Carlson now (nose up Putins ass), Tucker Carlson then (SOME PEOPLE say that you beat your wife, I'M not saying you beat your wife, BUT a lot of people are saying it, and she had a bruise on her arm the other day. It does make you wonder, doesn't it?)
If there were no valid charges against him the US couldn't be seeking extradition That isn't how extradition works (The article says there are in fact 18 charges the US would like to see him face). Before extraditing someone you need a treaty that says we recognise your laws and what crime they committed generally has to exist in both countries for extradition to be sought.
He didn't step foot in the US is a bad faith argument. Plenty of online crimes happen when people are different countries, do you think online scams shouldn't be prosecuted because the perps are overseas? He interacted with people in the US and is accused of causing things to happen there giving the US jurisdiction.
Julian Assange has draped him self in the journalistic flag to pretend what he did was journalism and claim his behaviour is above approach. You might believe that, I don't, and guess what, I get to have my opinion as much as you get to have yours; I specifically said while a court must assume his innocents i don't have to, I see him pick and choose evidence to craft a one sided story then to flee to a foreign embassy to avoid having to see consequences for his actions and I judge him off that, you get to disagree and that is fine.
The US isn't desperate to get access to him; if it were they'd have already secured access to him. The US is following the process to prosecute what they believe are crimes that he has committed. I'd be surprised if basically anyone in the US outside of this actually is paying any attention. This is an argument to obscure the topic which is about the actions of Julian Assange. I'm a fan of the if you fuck round you need to find out school of view. And I don't think anyone doesn't think Julian didn't fuck round (And we've ignored the two cases of rape that he was first charged with)
Little bits of evidence do add up and intelligence leaks that are connected to foreign adversaries who are currently engaged in an invasion of their neighbours are not parking fines but big red warning signs that mean action needs to be taken.
I'm not saying he should be locked up because he's guilty (though i do personally believe from what i've seen he probably he is guilty, I'm clearly stating my biases) I'm saying there is a good case against him and I see no reason why he shouldn't stand trial for his actions. A court with a jury will be able to look at the evidence and make a judgement.
The US is reaching when they seek his extradition, and many countries in the world would outright deny the application.
And the basis of an extradition is that the crime was committed in the requesting country, even if it was done so remotely.
Making heroin in the US is illegal.
Hundreds of tons of it are made in Myanmar every year without the US demanding extradition of the producers.
Until someone tries to import that heroin into the US, because THAT's the crime in the US.
As you point out, Assages only involvement in the crime was encouraging someone else to gather information for him - something journalists do all the time.
Whether or not we like Assange as an individual is beyond the point, there's a definite "greater good" point to be made here.
War crimes were committed and covered up.
Without wikileaks, that may have never come to light.
Even without punishing the individuals involved, KNOWING that this information might leak out can help prevent these things happening again in future.
Journalists need to be able to publish with protection.
And Assange being personally unlikeable doesn't change the role he was acting in, no one should get to say "he wasn't employed by the wall street journal", or "she doesn't have a journalistic degree".
Because a foundation of law in all the countries involved here is that the truth is protected, and Assange published provable facts.
And the US is trying to punish him for doing so.