Julian Assange defends the First Amendment

[Brant Gaede]

So if you were a foreign national and your government passed a bunch of laws to become in compliance with a US negotiated international treaty and you were remanded to the US for trial under those laws, would you really consider yourself under your own country's jurisdiction, especially if the trial were prosecuted in accordance with US criminal procedure?

Jim,

I lived in a country for over 30 years that was practically the back yard of the USA. (No longer, but back then it was.) Of course, Brazilians considered themselves under their own country's jurisdiction. Why wouldn't they? As for petitions of extradition, the lawyers of the defendants had to use Brazilian courts and Brazilian laws. Because of the loopholes and peculiarities of Brazilian law, many times the outcomes were contrary to what the USA wanted.

Michael

Michael,

My point is this. I think it is highly likely that Julian Assange will face trial in the US for actions as head of Wikileaks. The US government will use any and all leverage to make sure that happens. I think it would be almost as likely if Assange were currently in Melbourne as if he was in New York. Assange will be tried according to US law. The only thing local law will do is facilitate getting him on a plane to the US.

JIM

What law are we talking about?

--Brant

I see difficulties, but they don't know they are difficulties

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Adam,

This is where Holder is so far out to lunch it's painful. He was a prosecutor, so he thinks all things can be prosecuted in US Courts.

I don't know the laws, but they are easy to look up, for declaring Assange an enemy of the USA and subject to being hunted down by the military, if retaliation is what the USA truly wants.

But the idea of trying him in a USA court of law as if he had committed a crime on USA soil is boneheaded. There's no other word for it.

Holder has the conceit that the world is under USA jurisdiction with him as chief prosecutor.

I don't think we've had a more boneheaded Attorney General of the United States in the entire history of the USA.

Obama's administration is devoted to moving closer to a one-world government (oops, those folks actually say "one-world governance"), so maybe this constant move to prosecute foreigners (including foreign terrorists) under USA jurisdiction is Holder's lame attempt to chip in.

And there's more. Regardless of what he succeeds at, I predict it will all get undone as unconstitutional once he is out of office.

Michael

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Adam,

This is where Holder is so far out to lunch it's painful. He was a prosecutor, so he thinks all things can be prosecuted in US Courts.

I don't know the laws, but they are easy to look up, for declaring Assange an enemy of the USA and subject to being hunted down by the military, if retaliation is what the USA truly wants.

But the idea of trying him in a USA court of law as if he had committed a crime on USA soil is boneheaded. There's no other word for it.

Holder has the conceit that the world is under USA jurisdiction with him as chief prosecutor.

I don't think we've had a more boneheaded Attorney General of the United States in the entire history of the USA.

Obama's administration is devoted to moving closer to a one-world government (oops, those folks actually say "one-world governance"), so maybe this constant move to prosecute foreigners (including foreign terrorists) under USA jurisdiction is Holder's lame attempt to chip in.

And there's more. Regardless of what he succeeds at, I predict it will all get undone as unconstitutional once he is out of office.

Michael

The US will not go after Assange as an enemy of the USA because it would increase the likelihood that US Citizens would also be targeted by friendly foreign governments. That would be a terrible can of worms to open up.

Jim

[sjw]

My objection is his demeanor in discussing (or implying) his personal protection under USA law according to Amendment this or that or Article this or that when he is on foreign soil.

The Bill of Rights is not about the government protecting you, it's about binding the government from attacking you. This binding applies (or should apply) to all human beings wherever they reside not just to US citizens.

I don't know how many times I need to say this.

Shayne

[Selene]

Michael:

Holder is easily one of the worst, or the worst.

His failure to prosecute the New Black Panthers in the Philadelphia fiasco is completely ignorant of Constitutional law. Election law violations take precedence in Federal law because of the potential irreparable harm. I have spoken to some organizations in that black community and they can't stand him. Many folks in that community were real unhappy at the intimidation at the polls in 2008.

There is always a sitting judge in every county in America on Federal election days to certify a voter or rule on election law with injunctive powers.

I cannot fathom Holder except as an incompetent Peter principle type guy.

I also believe that much of his "work" will be ruled unconstitutional. Additionally, he does see the world with a "crime" paradigm.

What a nightmare!

Adam

[sjw]

To me it seems silly to talk about these guys as if they're actually trying to do a "rule of law" job.

That this kind of stuff can happen, and keeps happening, tells you all you need to know:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304023804575566201554448476.html

Shayne

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I don't know how many times I need to say this.

Shayne,

Probably until you see what I'm getting at or you tire.

In the libertarian-Objectivist orbit, there's a widespread bad habit: ignore what is being said and keep repeating a catch-phrase as if this covers it. But it's an error to refuse to look at reality while parroting a principle, irrespective of the nobility of the principle.

In fact, I got the idea of the error of deducing reality from principles from you a long time ago. That used to be your standard criticism of ARI. But ARI does not have a monopoly on the practice.

The reality I brought up doesn't really fall within the principle you repeat--it kind of falls outside, but with an overlap. I can see where that overlap makes it uncomfortable. That doesn't fit the reality one deduces from the restraints-on-government principle. The recourse you have taken so far is to utilize the bad habit I mentioned: parrot the principle and ignore the rest.

That side-steps what I am saying, but I'm fine to leave it there.

Michael

[James Heaps-Nelson]

So if you were a foreign national and your government passed a bunch of laws to become in compliance with a US negotiated international treaty and you were remanded to the US for trial under those laws, would you really consider yourself under your own country's jurisdiction, especially if the trial were prosecuted in accordance with US criminal procedure?

Jim,

I lived in a country for over 30 years that was practically the back yard of the USA. (No longer, but back then it was.) Of course, Brazilians considered themselves under their own country's jurisdiction. Why wouldn't they? As for petitions of extradition, the lawyers of the defendants had to use Brazilian courts and Brazilian laws. Because of the loopholes and peculiarities of Brazilian law, many times the outcomes were contrary to what the USA wanted.

Michael

Michael,

Take the current Swedish case against Assange. That is only a pretext to get him declared undesirable by a government so that they can deport or extradite him to the US. Note that in cases not involving the US government, local laws have much more sway. If you are a parent and your spouse takes your kid to Brazil or Japan, there is almost nothing the US government can do for you unless you can get your child back on US soil. The reason for that is that they can't elevate your case to a level of general policy or national security.

However, in cases like Julian Assange, all manner of special exceptions can be invoked. The US can go over his background with a fine-toothed comb, send agents to interview his known associates, have spurious criminal cases brought on him in foreign countries, use statutory or political leverage to prevent US companies from performing financial transactions for Wikileaks or funding his criminal defense, freeze his credit cards, assets etc. The US can do all these things legally in a way that few other countries have the international muscle to do. This is in a practical, if not legal sense, an extension of US jurisdiction.

Jim

[James Heaps-Nelson]

So if you were a foreign national and your government passed a bunch of laws to become in compliance with a US negotiated international treaty and you were remanded to the US for trial under those laws, would you really consider yourself under your own country's jurisdiction, especially if the trial were prosecuted in accordance with US criminal procedure?

Jim,

I lived in a country for over 30 years that was practically the back yard of the USA. (No longer, but back then it was.) Of course, Brazilians considered themselves under their own country's jurisdiction. Why wouldn't they? As for petitions of extradition, the lawyers of the defendants had to use Brazilian courts and Brazilian laws. Because of the loopholes and peculiarities of Brazilian law, many times the outcomes were contrary to what the USA wanted.

Michael

Michael,

My point is this. I think it is highly likely that Julian Assange will face trial in the US for actions as head of Wikileaks. The US government will use any and all leverage to make sure that happens. I think it would be almost as likely if Assange were currently in Melbourne as if he was in New York. Assange will be tried according to US law. The only thing local law will do is facilitate getting him on a plane to the US.

JIM

What law are we talking about?

--Brant

I see difficulties, but they don't know they are difficulties

Brant,

Probably the 1917 US Espionage Act. I don't think they will be successful, but that's hardly the point from the US government perspective. They will tie him up in court for years, apply pressure to his associates, ferret out leakers, disable his organization and construct a new State Dpeartment policy after they are able to effectively neutralize Wikileaks. Assange is a very cagy customer. I think he knows exactly how far he can push the US government. His invoking of the US Bill of Rights is not a legal procedure, but a diplomatic and court of world public opinion gambit to counter the US's legal gambit. He is counting on embarrassing the US government enough that they release their legal talons.

Jim

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Note that in cases not involving the US government, local laws have much more sway. If you are a parent and your spouse takes your kid to Brazil or Japan, there is almost nothing the US government can do for you unless you can get your child back on US soil. The reason for that is that they can't elevate your case to a level of general policy or national security.

Jim,

I don't note that. If the kid were a hacker and did what Assange did, I believe the level of interest by the USA government and friendly cooperation by Japan and Brazil would be very similar to what is currently happening with Sweden.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

His invoking of the US Bill of Rights is not a legal procedure, but a diplomatic and court of world public opinion gambit to counter the US's legal gambit.

This is exactly my objection on formal grounds.

As a publicity stunt, it's OK, but even on that score I believe it will backfire. It's too easy to counter.

Michael

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Note that in cases not involving the US government, local laws have much more sway. If you are a parent and your spouse takes your kid to Brazil or Japan, there is almost nothing the US government can do for you unless you can get your child back on US soil. The reason for that is that they can't elevate your case to a level of general policy or national security.

Jim,

I don't note that. If the kid were a hacker and did what Assange did, I believe the level of interest by the USA government and friendly cooperation by Japan and Brazil would be very similar to what is currently happening with Sweden.

Michael

Japan and Brazil are friendly to the US. I made the example because of their extreme differences in child custody laws with the US. Trying to assert US rights there, rocks of ruck.

I simply disagree with you that the level of string pulling is not different in cases of national security and US State Department policy. Suddenly, things that weren't brought before the courts get extreme scrutiny. The European countries hardly ever put their money where their mouth is, diplomatically speaking. They complain about the US being overbearing and not following international law, but when there is a test case involving national security or US State Department policy, they roll like a round stone down a steep hill.

Michael, I'll make you a friendly wager. I'll bet you Starbucks drink of your choice at the next TAS event where we see each other that Assange will be in US custody in 2 years. His case is much different than a simple criminal case like Roman Polanski where extradition hasn't happened for thirty years. The truth is too that Britain and Sweden have much more of a stake in this than they believe. European countries could put a stop to US diplomatic abuses once and for all by simply not cooperating in Assange's case. I believe what Assange did was wrong and that he should be tried under applicable statutes because he put people's lives in danger, but I don't believe other countries should cooperate with the US because of the nasty nature of what was revealed about US State Department policy. If Britain and Sweden don't draw a line in the sand with this case, they'll never have this kind of leverage again.

Jim

[Selene]

Jim:

Very well put.

I have to admit that I am extremely ambivalent about Assange.

At one level, it feels that what he did was wrong because, as you identified, individuals were compromised and may be injured or killed.

However, at the other level, which you also identified, we, as a nation, are conducting ourselves internationally in an immoral and unethical manner.

Finally, at another level, the pure evil that we have to deal with on that international power play stage wants to tell me to justify our actions because of the enemies that we have to deal with, but that is not sufficient to me.

Complex world which gets more complicated since we are still the best hope for mankind.

Excellent points you make.

Adam

[sjw]

I don't know how many times I need to say this.

Shayne,

Probably until you see what I'm getting at or you tire.

In the libertarian-Objectivist orbit, there's a widespread bad habit: ignore what is being said and keep repeating a catch-phrase as if this covers it. But it's an error to refuse to look at reality while parroting a principle, irrespective of the nobility of the principle.

In fact, I got the idea of the error of deducing reality from principles from you a long time ago. That used to be your standard criticism of ARI. But ARI does not have a monopoly on the practice.

The reality I brought up doesn't really fall within the principle you repeat--it kind of falls outside, but with an overlap. I can see where that overlap makes it uncomfortable. That doesn't fit the reality one deduces from the restraints-on-government principle. The recourse you have taken so far is to utilize the bad habit I mentioned: parrot the principle and ignore the rest.

That side-steps what I am saying, but I'm fine to leave it there.

Michael

When reality is on your side, it's easy to make a good argument. All you're doing here is insulting me and ignoring my point once again.

Shayne

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Jim:

Very well put.

I have to admit that I am extremely ambivalent about Assange.

At one level, it feels that what he did was wrong because, as you identified, individuals were compromised and may be injured or killed.

However, at the other level, which you also identified, we, as a nation, are conducting ourselves internationally in an immoral and unethical manner.

Finally, at another level, the pure evil that we have to deal with on that international power play stage wants to tell me to justify our actions because of the enemies that we have to deal with, but that is not sufficient to me.

Complex world which gets more complicated since we are still the best hope for mankind.

Excellent points you make.

Adam

Adam,

Thanks. The Assange case is extremely important and will determine a lot about how the world is configured. Like a lot of international events, the world with the US leading will muddle through. My fear is that the United States will learn no lesson from this case and launch even more headlong into cynical realpolitik rather than asserting the moral leadership that is its birthright.

Jim

[sjw]

My fear is that the United States will learn no lesson from this case and launch even more headlong into cynical realpolitik rather than asserting the moral leadership that is its birthright.

Jim

When was the last time we had moral leadership? In my politically-conscious lifetime, first it was the war on drugs, then it was the war on terror, which both ended up amounting to a war on Americans. Before that were things like the Gulf of Tonkin, Nixon ramming corn down our throats, Watergate, FBI harassment of people like Martin Luther King Jr. Nowadays it's common to find prosecutors and judges getting away with essentially criminal acts against innocent Americans with no consequences whatever:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304023804575566201554448476.html

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/12/gun_owner_brian_aitken_is_rele.html

The Bill of Rights seems to be viewed by many government officials as mere propaganda used on the majority of Americans to convince them that their government has moral legitimacy.

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

My fear is that the United States will learn no lesson from this case and launch even more headlong into cynical realpolitik rather than asserting the moral leadership that is its birthright.

Jim

When was the last time we had moral leadership? In my politically-conscious lifetime, first it was the war on drugs, then it was the war on terror, which both ended up amounting to a war on Americans. Before that were things like the Gulf of Tonkin, Nixon ramming corn down our throats, Watergate, FBI harassment of people like Martin Luther King Jr. Nowadays it's common to find prosecutors and judges getting away with essentially criminal acts against innocent Americans with no consequences whatever:

http://online.wsj.co...1554448476.html

http://www.nj.com/ne...en_is_rele.html

The Bill of Rights seems to be viewed by many government officials as mere propaganda used on the majority of Americans to convince them that their government has moral legitimacy.

Shayne

Well, it is interesting how Federal authority can do justice against state authority gone wacko. As for firearms in NJ, that was one reason I left. But starting in 1968 I transported my .357 Colt Python Magnum into and out of the state illegally including one trip through the Port Authority bus terminal in NYC (1971) in violation of the Sullivan Law. Go suck eggs, NY and NJ! Now I live in AZ and can legally carry it concealed without a permit.

--Brant

it's also interesting how you can get in trouble just calling the cops in good faith, as that mother did--a fool and her son are soon parted

[sjw]

Well, it is interesting how Federal authority can do justice against state authority gone wacko.

I agree, that's why I'm not ecstatic about "states rights" or Tom Woods' "Nullification." There is an aspect of "States rights" that is good, in that it narrows the conception of the source of government power toward the individual, but to move toward is not to get there. A State can do just as much harm to individual rights as can the Federal government, and when they do, the Federal government is the heroic party.

Shayne

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I simply disagree with you that the level of string pulling is not different in cases of national security and US State Department policy. Suddenly, things that weren't brought before the courts get extreme scrutiny. The European countries hardly ever put their money where their mouth is, diplomatically speaking. They complain about the US being overbearing and not following international law, but when there is a test case involving national security or US State Department policy, they roll like a round stone down a steep hill.

Jim,

Are you talking to me?

I don't recognize any of my ideas here. Where did I claim that the USA does not pull diplomatic strings effectively or that countries do not cave to extreme pressure?

Michael, I'll make you a friendly wager. I'll bet you Starbucks drink of your choice at the next TAS event where we see each other that Assange will be in US custody in 2 years.

Why on earth would I make that wager?

I said Assange poked a wildcat with a short stick.

God knows what will happen.

(I think it is a good chance that he will be in USA custody within a couple of years, also, but I'm not so sure it will be through any court decision. Vigilante kidnapping, anyone?)

My disagreement is over your claim that other countries accept USA jurisdiction within their borders.

Caving to pressure on one case or another--and working out legal niceties to make it fit--is not the same thing as a country operating under a different set of laws than the ones on its own books.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

When reality is on your side, it's easy to make a good argument. All you're doing here is insulting me and ignoring my point once again.

Shayne,

That is exactly the way I see you approaching my statements.

For the record, I did not ignore your point. I specifically mentioned restrictions on government being your point. You have not mentioned what I am talking about as you keep repeating the same statement and asking me how many more times you have to repeat it.

To be honest, if you want to go the "you insulted me" route of rhetoric, I find that insulting.

But not too insulting. Mostly, I find this thin skin thing when disagreements occur silly.

Do you understand what I'm talking about? You have not given any indication that you do.

Michael

[James Heaps-Nelson]

I simply disagree with you that the level of string pulling is not different in cases of national security and US State Department policy. Suddenly, things that weren't brought before the courts get extreme scrutiny. The European countries hardly ever put their money where their mouth is, diplomatically speaking. They complain about the US being overbearing and not following international law, but when there is a test case involving national security or US State Department policy, they roll like a round stone down a steep hill.

Jim,

Are you talking to me?

I don't recognize any of my ideas here. Where did I claim that the USA does not pull diplomatic strings effectively or that countries do not cave to extreme pressure?

Michael, I'll make you a friendly wager. I'll bet you Starbucks drink of your choice at the next TAS event where we see each other that Assange will be in US custody in 2 years.

Why on earth would I make that wager?

I said Assange poked a wildcat with a short stick.

God knows what will happen.

(I think it is a good chance that he will be in USA custody within a couple of years, also, but I'm not so sure it will be through any court decision. Vigilante kidnapping, anyone?)

My disagreement is over your claim that other countries accept USA jurisdiction within their borders.

Caving to pressure on one case or another--and working out legal niceties to make it fit--is not the same thing as a country operating under a different set of laws than the ones on its own books.

Michael

It looks like you see it exactly the way I do. You're right that the US does not have de jure jurisdiction anywhere except within its borders or territories. Still, with Interpol, there are usually limits on warrants to offenses with broad overlap among member countries. Assange's Interpol notice is for a charge that is only an offense in Sweden. So my follow up question would be, how much sway does the US have in affecting an Interpol arrest warrant?

Jim