He is charged with hacking for receiving a hashed password and failing to successfully crack it.
There is absolutely no way that this would be pursued if it were not for his running Wikileaks. This is a clear case of using selective enforcement to enforce a rule that could not be created on a law. (Given the first amendment, what he did that we really don't like is very squarely protected by the Constitution.)
But he's not a USA citizen, and wasn't in the USA when the activity occurred. What the First Amendment to the Constitution of the USA has to say about it is completely irrelevant.
> What the First Amendment to the Constitution of the USA has to say about it is completely irrelevant.
First, if Assange did not violate the law of the US, then there is no cause for extradition. And so it does make sense to be talking about the US legality at this point, since USG going against its very own charter indicates that he will not receive a fair trial.
More generally, the United States Bill of Rights is framed as listing natural rights that everyone has. Yes, NSA is violating your US fourth amendment rights, despite you not being a US citizen. YMMV with practical enforcement though.
In legal practice this is not true at all. The recognition of natural rights and legal enforcement of them are two different things. The Constitution begins with the phrase "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[note 1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." It clearly states that the Constitution is for the people of the U.S.
The Declaration of Independence went further, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"
However, no legal guarantees of rights are made in the declaration.
There's plenty of both comments by the founding fathers and subsequent Supreme Court case law that the constitution applies to non citizens as well pretty much anywhere it says "people" rather than "citizen". This comes from a combo of the rights at the time being more thought of as a listing of inalienable rights rather than rights granted by the government, as well as the idea that in order to hold non citizens to the obligations of the legal system you should grant the the rights of the legal system as well.
That doesn't mean it should apply to people who aren't citizens.
Applying Nigerian law to people who aren't citizens of Nigeria would rightfully be questioned. The USA is not exempt from that. Just because it's illegal in the USA doesn't make it illegal everywhere
> Just because it's illegal in the USA doesn't make it illegal everywhere
You'll get 100% agreement from me on that, and for example I think the ongoing promulgation of global US jurisdiction using USD as a wedge is a travesty.
But we're discussing human rights and restrictions on government, not what the US has declared illegal for US persons being applied to non-US persons. We're really talking about applying US law to the US government, operating abroad.
I acknowledged the mechanical legal aspect - "YMMV with practical enforcement though."
But we should hold our governments to the standards they are purportedly founded on, rather than buying into the justifications that they themselves have created. The opportunities to concretely do this are rare, but extradition trials being judged by a different government are one of those places.
Most US spying programs violate the 4th amendment. And have been ruled Constitutional as long as the targets are not US citizens. And if you want to seize someone's assets, you just sue the assets. The owner has been ruled to not have standing to object. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asset_forfeiture for more.
Despite our law enforcement and government swearing to uphold the Constitution, it seems to be more useful as toilet paper sometimes.
No. The USA's constitution does not apply to people outside the USA. I don't know what kind of ideological bubble you need to live in to think that your country's laws are applicable to the entire planet, but I assure you they're not.
All laws are selectively enforced. I think the more interesting question is whether he's guilty. I don't know. But if he did it, it's pretty clearly illegal, and it's reasonable to charge him.
Note that it's completely irrelevant that he failed to crack the password. Failure to successfully carry out a crime to completion just means that you're incompetent, not that you're innocent.
The only evidence we have that he is guilty is what is claimed to be an intercepted IM.
Were I on a jury, I would refuse to convict because I would consider there to be a reasonable doubt that the IM was real and not invented by the government to make their case.
That's the only evidence that's publicly known at the moment. And, given the extraordinary lengths that the USA has gone to to persecute Assange, it would take a high bar before I'd believe the government at this point.
What Assange is actually guilty of is running Wikileaks with the explicit purpose of making it hard for interest groups within the government to conduct "business as usual" against the interests of both the world and the American public.
On the positive side, Wikileaks helped convince the USA to get out of Iraq, and helped cause the Arab Spring uprisings that removed several dictatorships. On the downside, Wikileaks has become a pawn used by foreign espionage groups attempting to manipulate the US public. See the DNC email dumps which appear to be the work of Russian hackers attempting to manipulate the US election.
Go ahead and charge him with what he actually did, and convince the world that on the balance it does more harm than good. But don't manipulate governments around the world to pursue him by dishonest means.
The fact that someone is innocent is no guarantee that they can prove it in court. Can you prove whether or not you sent a particular IM a dozen years ago on a device that you no longer have access to?
And the rest of my point stands. The US government is not particularly upset that he failed to crack a password. They are upset that he created Wikileaks and publicly embarrassed a lot of influential people.
>The fact that someone is innocent is no guarantee that they can prove it in court.
He doesn't have to prove it, just show that it's plausible. The burden of proof is on the prosecution.
>The US government is not particularly upset that he failed to crack a password. They are upset that he created Wikileaks and publicly embarrassed a lot of influential people.
I think they probably are upset that he tried to help someone hack into a DoD system.
There is absolutely no way that this would be pursued if it were not for his running Wikileaks. This is a clear case of using selective enforcement to enforce a rule that could not be created on a law. (Given the first amendment, what he did that we really don't like is very squarely protected by the Constitution.)