<story><title>Julian Assange Extradition Appeal: Day 2</title><url>https://assangedefense.org/hearing-coverage/julian-assange-extradition-appeal-day-2/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>cletus</author><text>&amp;gt; Assange was a non-U.S. citizen working outside the U.S. - I don&amp;#x27;t get what gives the U.S. jurisdiction to try him in the first place.&lt;p&gt;There are tons of examples of this. Examples:&lt;p&gt;- If a US citizen conspires to insider trading with another US citizen on US soil regarding an Australian company, the Australian government will claim jurisdiction through the Corporations Act because it is an Australian security;&lt;p&gt;- There is a &amp;quot;sex tourism&amp;quot; problem in several South-East Asian countries that involves children. These pedophiles have historically been rarely if ever prosecuted in those countries for various reasons. The Australian government passed a law saying that if you are an Australian citizen and engage in this sort of activity you can be criminally charged in Australia.&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; Adding insult to injury, publishing leaked military secrets is not even illegal in the U.S. due to the first amendment right to a free press&lt;p&gt;It&amp;#x27;s not as simple as that. Let me give you some escalating hypotheticals:&lt;p&gt;1. A journalist receives some classified material in the mail and publishes it after vetting it (eg journalists typically won&amp;#x27;t publish details that will risk the lives of those currently in the field);&lt;p&gt;2. A journalist meets with a source that has access to classified material and asks for anything concerning, say, Benghazi. These materials have already been obtained;&lt;p&gt;3. A journalist looks for and finds such a source;&lt;p&gt;4. A journalist tells a source what to look for and these materials have not yet been obtained;&lt;p&gt;5. The journalist provides direction on what to find and leak and provides material aid in that effort. This could include providing hacking tools, contacts, security protocols, etc.&lt;p&gt;(1) is a journalist. (5) has committed a crime. The line between criminal and journalist is somewhere in between that we debate.&lt;p&gt;My point is that the first amendment isn&amp;#x27;t a universal shield. Assange is much closer to (6) than (1) here.&lt;p&gt;EDIT: corrected list numbering.</text></item><item><author>zugi</author><text>Assange was a non-U.S. citizen working outside the U.S. - I don&amp;#x27;t get what gives the U.S. jurisdiction to try him in the first place. If China tried to extradite a U.S. citizen acting within the U.S. who published leaked information allegedly in violation of Chinese law, we&amp;#x27;d laugh them out of the courtroom, and rightly so.&lt;p&gt;Adding insult to injury, publishing leaked military secrets is not even illegal in the U.S. due to the first amendment right to a free press. When the New York Times publishes leaked classified information, there&amp;#x27;s no trial or extradition. In the U.S., those who will have legitimate access to classified information first sign legally binding agreements not to disseminate it, and those who violate that agreement can be prosecuted.&lt;p&gt;And in this case, that already happened: Manning served 7 years in jail for leaking the very information that Assange is being extradited over. With the leaker found and prosecuted, convicted, and sentence served, the U.S. Department of Justice should congratulate itself on a job well-done and move on to other things. It&amp;#x27;s absurd that they continue to pursue the publisher of the information almost a decade later.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>skissane</author><text>&amp;gt; There is a &amp;quot;sex tourism&amp;quot; problem in several South-East Asian countries that involves children. These pedophiles have historically been rarely if ever prosecuted in those countries for various reasons. The Australian government passed a law saying that if you are an Australian citizen and engage in this sort of activity you can be criminally charged in Australia.&lt;p&gt;That example is irrelevant to the Assange case, because that is an application of the nationality principle, which is a principle of international law which gives sovereign states criminal jurisdiction over their citizens for acts done anywhere in the world. So legally Australia can pass a law saying &amp;quot;X is a crime when an Australian citizen does it anywhere in the world&amp;quot;, which is exactly what Australia has done in the example you cite; and the US has done the exact same thing (PROTECT Act of 2003). But Assange is not a US citizen, so examples of nationality principle jurisdiction are irrelevant to any US prosecution of Assange, they would only be relevant if Australia tried to prosecute him under some law based on the nationality principle.</text></comment>
<story><title>Julian Assange Extradition Appeal: Day 2</title><url>https://assangedefense.org/hearing-coverage/julian-assange-extradition-appeal-day-2/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>cletus</author><text>&amp;gt; Assange was a non-U.S. citizen working outside the U.S. - I don&amp;#x27;t get what gives the U.S. jurisdiction to try him in the first place.&lt;p&gt;There are tons of examples of this. Examples:&lt;p&gt;- If a US citizen conspires to insider trading with another US citizen on US soil regarding an Australian company, the Australian government will claim jurisdiction through the Corporations Act because it is an Australian security;&lt;p&gt;- There is a &amp;quot;sex tourism&amp;quot; problem in several South-East Asian countries that involves children. These pedophiles have historically been rarely if ever prosecuted in those countries for various reasons. The Australian government passed a law saying that if you are an Australian citizen and engage in this sort of activity you can be criminally charged in Australia.&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; Adding insult to injury, publishing leaked military secrets is not even illegal in the U.S. due to the first amendment right to a free press&lt;p&gt;It&amp;#x27;s not as simple as that. Let me give you some escalating hypotheticals:&lt;p&gt;1. A journalist receives some classified material in the mail and publishes it after vetting it (eg journalists typically won&amp;#x27;t publish details that will risk the lives of those currently in the field);&lt;p&gt;2. A journalist meets with a source that has access to classified material and asks for anything concerning, say, Benghazi. These materials have already been obtained;&lt;p&gt;3. A journalist looks for and finds such a source;&lt;p&gt;4. A journalist tells a source what to look for and these materials have not yet been obtained;&lt;p&gt;5. The journalist provides direction on what to find and leak and provides material aid in that effort. This could include providing hacking tools, contacts, security protocols, etc.&lt;p&gt;(1) is a journalist. (5) has committed a crime. The line between criminal and journalist is somewhere in between that we debate.&lt;p&gt;My point is that the first amendment isn&amp;#x27;t a universal shield. Assange is much closer to (6) than (1) here.&lt;p&gt;EDIT: corrected list numbering.</text></item><item><author>zugi</author><text>Assange was a non-U.S. citizen working outside the U.S. - I don&amp;#x27;t get what gives the U.S. jurisdiction to try him in the first place. If China tried to extradite a U.S. citizen acting within the U.S. who published leaked information allegedly in violation of Chinese law, we&amp;#x27;d laugh them out of the courtroom, and rightly so.&lt;p&gt;Adding insult to injury, publishing leaked military secrets is not even illegal in the U.S. due to the first amendment right to a free press. When the New York Times publishes leaked classified information, there&amp;#x27;s no trial or extradition. In the U.S., those who will have legitimate access to classified information first sign legally binding agreements not to disseminate it, and those who violate that agreement can be prosecuted.&lt;p&gt;And in this case, that already happened: Manning served 7 years in jail for leaking the very information that Assange is being extradited over. With the leaker found and prosecuted, convicted, and sentence served, the U.S. Department of Justice should congratulate itself on a job well-done and move on to other things. It&amp;#x27;s absurd that they continue to pursue the publisher of the information almost a decade later.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>joshuajill</author><text>1) there is no point (6)
2) Although the US is trying to accuse Assange of doing so, he did not offer material aid of any sort to Chelsea. She could handle the access issue herself.&lt;p&gt;Unless you would consider setting up a secure drop box under your imaginary (6).&lt;p&gt;Get informed about the case.</text></comment>