Other sovereign nations get to make their own laws and legal systems without our control. They can make bullshit laws if they want to, like conflating journalism with spying. Then they can charge journalists in another country with a crime and extradite them to face charges. But, spying or journalism or criticizing their king, the details didn’t really matter, they could charge anybody anybody, anywhere in the world with any crime they want. And since it’s another country, we have no assurances of due process there.
Yeah, they already do that. Don’t go and publish a ton of articles criticizing Lese Majeste and expect to freely travel to a Direct Rule Monarchy or any country that is a client state of a Direct Rule Monarchy.
But extreme examples aside, every country in the world will come for you if you want to reveal their military secrets, including who is working for that country secretly in other countries. This isn’t just him dropping one video. There was an entire document dump that caused the CIA to pull hundreds of people out of the field. And no matter what your personal feelings on the matter are, countries view their intelligence activities as legitimate, secret, and not subject to whistleblower rules unless a crime (that they have on the books) is being exposed. Raw dogging the entire secret intranet for everything you can fit on a USB is not whistleblowing or reporting.
Travel to those countries? The precedent here is that China has the right to extradite me for supporting democracy in Hong Kong from here in the U.S., never once even leaving my house. Assange was not a U.S. citizen, and located outside of U.S. territory.
Of course, the U.S. won’t cooperate with the extradition request, but that’s just a matter of power relationships, not principles. The principle is that everybody in the world is subject to every country’s laws. Or, every person in the world is subject to the laws of the U.S., which fundamentally breaks the rule of law.
It’s scary how many people out there are okay with that.
Are you actually managing sources of classified Chinese documents? This breathless attempt to conflate espionage with having an opinion about another country is ridiculous.
And you keep saying espionage, invoking a word as if it’s some special kind of crime exempt from the rule of law, and also immutable. China gets to define what espionage is under their laws. The U.S. did mangle it far beyond the common definition to pursue Assange.
That’s an expansive definition that also describes what a journalist does, which is what upset defenders of civil liberties about the prosecution of Assange. The usual connotation of the word espionage, however, is that it is done by an organization, against adversaries, for its own benefit. Assange was explicitly seeking information from whistleblowers to release to the world. Like a journalist.
But to my point, the CIA explicitly engages in espionage as its mission. So would President Xi be justified in sending his police to the environs of Langley to drag CIA employees out of their beds and before a court to stand trial in Beijing? I say no, because they’re American citizens in the United States. Chinese law should not apply here in America.
Traditionally, courts need to have jurisdiction to hear a dispute, and it comes in multiple types: There’s subject-matter jurisdiction; a municipal traffic court has subject matter jurisdiction over traffic infractions. It can’t hear a murder case. Then, there’s personal jurisdiction, meaning it has power to compel an appearance by a defendant, and impose penalties or assess damages. Personal jurisdiction usually comes from citizenship, or physical presence. State and federal courts have wide-ranging personal jurisdiction, but even then they have to “reach out and touch someone” with service of a summons to effect it. (Trial in-absentia is not allowed in the U.S. unless the defendant waives the right to appear.) Tangentially, the admiralty law system developed because of a lack of a country’s courts’ personal jurisdiction over foreign nationals, and suing property (the basis of civil forfeiture) came about due to sailors simply returning to their home countries, out of legal reach.
Thus, the idea of prosecuting a foreign national outside of the U.S., for actions undertaken outside of the U.S., in places where U.S. law shouldn’t apply—essentially extending a U.S. court’s personal jurisdiction to the whole planet—is deeply troubling. Even if it’s just one category of crime, like espionage. If there’s one exception, then there’s no practical protection, since a country can define espionage in any way it wants to trigger the exception. Or not. It could just accuse somebody of espionage, evidence be damned. After all, that person would be hauled off to a foreign land before being able to mount a defense in court.
I’m not going to write an entire paper on the differences between journalists and spies to satisfy an Internet stranger. Organizations like the NYT act completely differently with their sources than Assange did. They release documents only after carefully checking for information that can put people in danger, and they never do something for the sole purpose of harming a country.
We know this law doesn’t apply to journalists because they tried to use it against them during the Cold War and the courts told them it wouldn’t fly. So all this hand wringing over civil rights is just concern trolling to defend someone who made themselves an enemy of the US by working with Russian intelligence agencies to interfere in our elections.
Edit to add - if you really want to claim our civil courts didn’t have jurisdiction we could always have let the military handle it. We certainly wouldn’t be watching him go home right now though.
That’s fine, I’m not going to accept the authority of a stranger in Lemmy to define what is and what isn’t journalism. It really just comes down to a disagreement whether we should strive for rule of law, or accept the law of the jungle, where might makes right.
Yikes! This reply validates my concern 100%.
Other sovereign nations get to make their own laws and legal systems without our control. They can make bullshit laws if they want to, like conflating journalism with spying. Then they can charge journalists in another country with a crime and extradite them to face charges. But, spying or journalism or criticizing their king, the details didn’t really matter, they could charge anybody anybody, anywhere in the world with any crime they want. And since it’s another country, we have no assurances of due process there.
That’s scary shit.
Yeah, they already do that. Don’t go and publish a ton of articles criticizing Lese Majeste and expect to freely travel to a Direct Rule Monarchy or any country that is a client state of a Direct Rule Monarchy.
But extreme examples aside, every country in the world will come for you if you want to reveal their military secrets, including who is working for that country secretly in other countries. This isn’t just him dropping one video. There was an entire document dump that caused the CIA to pull hundreds of people out of the field. And no matter what your personal feelings on the matter are, countries view their intelligence activities as legitimate, secret, and not subject to whistleblower rules unless a crime (that they have on the books) is being exposed. Raw dogging the entire secret intranet for everything you can fit on a USB is not whistleblowing or reporting.
Travel to those countries? The precedent here is that China has the right to extradite me for supporting democracy in Hong Kong from here in the U.S., never once even leaving my house. Assange was not a U.S. citizen, and located outside of U.S. territory.
Of course, the U.S. won’t cooperate with the extradition request, but that’s just a matter of power relationships, not principles. The principle is that everybody in the world is subject to every country’s laws. Or, every person in the world is subject to the laws of the U.S., which fundamentally breaks the rule of law.
It’s scary how many people out there are okay with that.
Are you actually managing sources of classified Chinese documents? This breathless attempt to conflate espionage with having an opinion about another country is ridiculous.
And you keep saying espionage, invoking a word as if it’s some special kind of crime exempt from the rule of law, and also immutable. China gets to define what espionage is under their laws. The U.S. did mangle it far beyond the common definition to pursue Assange.
Did they though? He cultivated a relation with a source in exchange for intelligence.
That’s an expansive definition that also describes what a journalist does, which is what upset defenders of civil liberties about the prosecution of Assange. The usual connotation of the word espionage, however, is that it is done by an organization, against adversaries, for its own benefit. Assange was explicitly seeking information from whistleblowers to release to the world. Like a journalist.
But to my point, the CIA explicitly engages in espionage as its mission. So would President Xi be justified in sending his police to the environs of Langley to drag CIA employees out of their beds and before a court to stand trial in Beijing? I say no, because they’re American citizens in the United States. Chinese law should not apply here in America.
Traditionally, courts need to have jurisdiction to hear a dispute, and it comes in multiple types: There’s subject-matter jurisdiction; a municipal traffic court has subject matter jurisdiction over traffic infractions. It can’t hear a murder case. Then, there’s personal jurisdiction, meaning it has power to compel an appearance by a defendant, and impose penalties or assess damages. Personal jurisdiction usually comes from citizenship, or physical presence. State and federal courts have wide-ranging personal jurisdiction, but even then they have to “reach out and touch someone” with service of a summons to effect it. (Trial in-absentia is not allowed in the U.S. unless the defendant waives the right to appear.) Tangentially, the admiralty law system developed because of a lack of a country’s courts’ personal jurisdiction over foreign nationals, and suing property (the basis of civil forfeiture) came about due to sailors simply returning to their home countries, out of legal reach.
Thus, the idea of prosecuting a foreign national outside of the U.S., for actions undertaken outside of the U.S., in places where U.S. law shouldn’t apply—essentially extending a U.S. court’s personal jurisdiction to the whole planet—is deeply troubling. Even if it’s just one category of crime, like espionage. If there’s one exception, then there’s no practical protection, since a country can define espionage in any way it wants to trigger the exception. Or not. It could just accuse somebody of espionage, evidence be damned. After all, that person would be hauled off to a foreign land before being able to mount a defense in court.
That is a tool of tyrants.
I’m not going to write an entire paper on the differences between journalists and spies to satisfy an Internet stranger. Organizations like the NYT act completely differently with their sources than Assange did. They release documents only after carefully checking for information that can put people in danger, and they never do something for the sole purpose of harming a country.
We know this law doesn’t apply to journalists because they tried to use it against them during the Cold War and the courts told them it wouldn’t fly. So all this hand wringing over civil rights is just concern trolling to defend someone who made themselves an enemy of the US by working with Russian intelligence agencies to interfere in our elections.
Edit to add - if you really want to claim our civil courts didn’t have jurisdiction we could always have let the military handle it. We certainly wouldn’t be watching him go home right now though.
That’s fine, I’m not going to accept the authority of a stranger in Lemmy to define what is and what isn’t journalism. It really just comes down to a disagreement whether we should strive for rule of law, or accept the law of the jungle, where might makes right.