> There is no doubt that he really is guilty of leaking US secrets.
Lets say he is. He is not a US citizen, and he didn't do the leaking on US soil - what duty does he have to keep US secrets secret? In fact, without a confidentiality agreement, I think even US citizens are allowed to leak them. Something to do with the 1st amendment.
If you published secret information given to you by a Russian dissident, would you expect to be extradited to Russia? Even if you had encouraged/helped that dissident?
> Lets say he is. He is not a US citizen, and he didn't do the leaking on US soil - what duty does he have to keep US secrets secret?
Should someone in another country be able to publish your personal secrets? Sure if its North Korea you can't do much but a organization in a friendly country should not be allowed to do so esp if they're important nationally classified material.
If the US believes that he has a duty, and the US has the power and will to enforce that belief, then for all practical purposes, he does have that duty. That's all duties are, really.
What gives the US the power to enforce their views here are a combination of many different factors. The fact the crime in question was committed against the US and in the US (even if Assange was not physically located in the US, the crime happened here, and Assange is accused of being an accessory to that crime). The fact that Assange is physically located in the territory of a close ally of the US. The fact that that ally has no particular love of Assange either. And many other smaller things.
While you give an (afaik) accurate retelling of how Assange got in legal trouble, it amounts to little more than "might makes right" (hidden behind a layer of "might makes the laws").
Whereas I believe the GP was making a moral argument, that Assange deserves it because he leaked US secrets.
There's also the issue of US jurisdiction expanding into other countries being given a level of casual acceptance not afforded to any other country. As another commenter pointed out, these allyships can be very one-sided:
I guess I don't really see the moral angle here, in one direction or the other. Why shouldn't an entity try to impose its understanding of law and ethics where it can afford to? Why should a country's laws end at its own borders, if they don't have to? If the country views its laws as right, it seems to me it ought to attempt to see those laws enforced as widely as possible.
(One other case where the US does this: child sex tourism. The US will prosecute its own citizens if it finds they travelled abroad to have sex with a minor, even if the violation of the law takes place entirely in another country, even if the other country declines to prosecute the crime or even if it sees it as not being a crime. Prosecuting these crimes that are done abroad seems eminently moral to me. I suspect the actual objection to prosecuting Assange is probably more truly centered in whether what he did was even a crime, or wrong. The question of whether the US ought to be able to prosecute him is really a proxy argument.)
> Why should a country's laws end at its own borders, if they don't have to? If the country views its laws as right, it seems to me it ought to attempt to see those laws enforced as widely as possible.
I really don't want to be extradited to Thailand from Australia because I mocked their King online, or extradited to China for commenting on a Falun Gong forum, or extradited to Saudi Arabia for posting a comment supporting gay rights.
You have probably already broken 100 laws from various countries before you got out of bed
Then it is well those countries lack the power or will to use their power to enforce those laws on you. I mean, I prefer what you prefer in this case as well, although I prefer it because I think those laws are wrong, not because I believe something about national borders by moral right ought to render me immune to prosecution from the next nation over.
> If the country views its laws as right, it seems to me it ought to attempt to see those laws enforced as widely as possible.
Suppose I view my diet and exercise regimen as right - should I try to impose (not just suggest) it on others? A country can view both its own laws, and the sovereignty of other countries, as just.
Or look at it this way: Democratic countries tend to think highly of democracy. Higher than any single law resulting from democracy. By imposing your laws on the people of a different country, you are robbing them of that same democracy you so cherish. Would you give up democratic control of your government, if it resulted in passing a couple of laws you liked?
(For certain extreme examples, such as when that country is engaging in genocide or extreme human rights abuses, I would answer yes. But nothing in this case even approaches such severity.)
> By imposing your laws on the people of a different country, you are robbing them of that same democracy you so cherish.
That would be true only if the US were handling this process extrajudicially. I'm still not sure that would be morally bad, per se, but it would certainly require the exercise of much more power and will.
But in this case, the process is being handled judicially. The people of the United Kingdom elected representatives, who through various means constructed the judicial system and entered into agreements with other countries, including the United States, concerning many things, including extradition. The process they set up to handle that is what is being followed today. This is why I don't really agree that the current situation is undemocratic. It may be that the UK's representatives didn't do exactly what the people would prefer in aggregate, but that is always a danger in representative democracy.
> The people of the United Kingdom elected representatives, who through various means constructed the judicial system and entered into agreements with other countries, including the United States, concerning many things, including extradition.
That's ignoring a lot of behind-the-scenes pressure tactics. In fact, your analysis would cast every one-sided deal or law that is the result of foreign pressure (or corruption, or lobbying) as "democratic", unless it's the result of full-on war.
I see what you're saying. But all countries deal with external pressures and constraints to some degree or another. I don't think we can declare their choices under these constraints undemocratic without rendering the word "democracy" into a purely theoretical concept.
The person who prefers a process that has the chance to land them in prison is rare indeed. But I'm not sure that's a moral argument, at least not as people think of it normally. Admittedly, there is a school, which I sometimes flirt with, that claims that moral statements are simply a specially coded statement of preference. But outside that context, I'm not sure exactly what aspect of Assange's perspective I'm meant to consider in this context.
> I guess I don't really see the moral angle here, in one direction or the other. Why shouldn't an entity try to impose its understanding of law and ethics where it can afford to?
You’ll have a hell of a good time exercising this conviction when China starts doing the same.
They’re already doing it to immediate neighbouring countries and have started doing so in the US through basic means of capitalistic influence.
I mean. They think they’re right. Why shouldn’t they? Who cares about nations having so called “sovereign” laws? What does your 1st amendment rights mean when China thinks you shouldn’t have it?
> You’ll have a hell of a good time exercising this conviction when China starts doing the same.
It would be truly upsetting if that ever happened, but mainly because so many of China's laws are bad, not because of something inherent about national borders. Fortunately I doubt China will ever have the will to use its power to bother me.
While he was not a US citizen, he is involved in a crime committed in the US. Just like if an American had hired an art thief to steal a painting from a European gallery.
The legal concept of extraterritorial jurisdiction is extremely complex and nuanced, but primarily falls upon the diplomatic power of the country that believes you broke their laws. (If you find this interesting you might enjoy reading about US v. Van Der End, in which a Dutch smuggler was arrested and charged in the US for sailing drugs to Canada)
However all of this is moot because he made the mistake of traveling to the UK and is currently being held by the British. In addition to leaking US secrets he also leaked GCHQ secrets and can be charged under the Official Secrets Act if extradition fails.
Lets say he is. He is not a US citizen, and he didn't do the leaking on US soil - what duty does he have to keep US secrets secret? In fact, without a confidentiality agreement, I think even US citizens are allowed to leak them. Something to do with the 1st amendment.
If you published secret information given to you by a Russian dissident, would you expect to be extradited to Russia? Even if you had encouraged/helped that dissident?