Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

WikiLeaks offers $20,000 for information on former DNC staffer's murder

businessinsider.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 240 posts

Re: WikiLeaks offers $20,000 for information on former DNC staffer's murder

#221

Post by dragonwriter »

whamlastxmas wrote: post #217
alex_hitchins wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, I see. As others have pointed out, very unlikely he could be done for treason given he isn't American. But let's not let facts get in the way of some good down voting.

You're right, as a non-American he'd just get sent to Gitmo where he faces indefinite detention without any recourse, without any legal rights or constitutionally required due process, and endless torture+interrogations for the rest of his life. But at least he can't be found guilty of treason in a constitutionally bound American court system by a jury of peers!

> You're right, as a non-American he'd just get sent to Gitmo

While one might criticize Pres. Obama for his lack of success in closing the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, I don't think there is any indication that the administration is actually adding detainees there (not that Assange would be the type of person who would have been detained there even when new detainees were being added.)

Re: WikiLeaks offers $20,000 for information on former DNC staffer's murder

#222

Post by dragonwriter »

alex_hitchins wrote: post #219
whamlastxmas wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right, as a non-American he'd just get sent to Gitmo where he faces indefinite detention without any recourse, without any legal rights or constitutionally required due process, and endless torture+interrogations for the rest of his life. But at least he can't be found guilty of treason in a constitutionally bound American court system by a jury of peers!

Have any changes been made against him in the US to date? Genuinely don't know the answer and a cursory search I can't see anything obvious. Also, why would the US not have an extradition request for him open with the UK? The UK would be much more likely to do as the USA pleases than Sweden.

> Have any changes been made against him in the US to date?

There is a publicly disclosed criminal investigation, and several years ago there were reports based on a non-detailed reference in an email in the Stratfor leak (which didn't come from anyone who would have firsthand knowledge) that there was a sealed indictment produced from that investigation, which the Justice Department has flatly denied.

So, apparently not.

> Also, why would the US not have an extradition request for him open with the UK?

If there were charges, there probably would be an extradition request.

Re: WikiLeaks offers $20,000 for information on former DNC staffer's murder

#223

Post by sctb »

jandrese wrote: post #176
Someone1234 wrote: post #108

Very strong anti-Wikileaks vibe in this thread. But, why? Someone was murdered (irrespective of if they're a Wikileaks source or not) and Wikileaks is putting money on the table to help get it solved and bringing greater attention to it. In my book trying to help solve murders is a Good Thing™. I have to say I am surprised, in 2016, how well the Red Scare still works in the US. You say Russia is behind something and…

Paid shills always come out to attack Assange and Wikileaks whenever they appear in a story. You will also see them come out in force whenever Snowden shows up in the news. And to be clear, I'm not saying Assange is some kind of angel, but the shills are especially shrill with Wikileaks. They're worse than the Hillary shills that are seemingly everywhere these days.

Baseless accusations of shillage are not allowed on Hacker News. If you believe you've witnessed this and have evidence, please email hn@ycombinator.com.

Re: WikiLeaks offers $20,000 for information on former DNC staffer's murder

#224

Post by whamlastxmas »

alex_hitchins wrote: post #218
whamlastxmas wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I suppose if you were wanted for questioning by police for a serious crime that you wanted to evade and you hadn't got a friendly government seeking positive news coverage to give you a legal loophole to remain at large, you might. There is so much wrong with this, and I suspect you know this, so I am probably wasting my time replying. >serious crime I am not sure a he-said/she-said argument about whether someone u…

So much wrong? >serious crime He faces allegations of sexual assault - I could be wrong but I'd assume this a serious crime in most places. Do you really not think the alleged crime is serious? >that you wanted to evade The Ecuadorian embassy upon last request denied the Swedish prosecution entry to question him. Also, it is gracious of him to permit them to call him over the phone for questioning. Do many formal pol…

The downvotes are because your point of view is that of one who conveniently ignores the facts that don't fit the narrative they want to be true.

>The Ecuadorian embassy upon last request denied the Swedish prosecution entry to question him.

This is simply not true. Ecuador actively worked to persuade Sweden to get the prosecutor access to the embassy to interview Assange, and they were successful in doing so.

>Do many formal police interviews occur telephonically? Why should an exception be made?

How many police interviews take place with someone who is under political asylum to be protected from the UNITED STATES for a very real fear of being put to death or tortured because someone is politically motivated to make it happen? How often do they have to interview someone who the UN has officially declared as being illegally and arbitrarily detained? These are all tremendously good reasons for an exception, and obviously Sweden finally agreed since they did go to him in the embassy as a last resort.

How often does Sweden try to extradite someone over or go through these lengths for an allegation (with no evidence) of sexual assault? Never. Why did they make the exception for Assange?

>He faces allegations of sexual assault - I could be wrong but I'd assume this a serious crime in most places. Do you really not think the alleged crime is serious?

I am not going to try to be an apologist for sexual assault. The facts are that the alleged assaults were non-violent and the involved women that had consented to sex with him, just not the exact way in which sex was allegedly had. Not using a condom during sex when you said you would doesn't rank anywhere near murdering someone (a serious crime) in my opinion. It is not an allegation worth trying to fucking extradite someone for questioning who is currently being protected by asylum for political reasons.

A woman going to a police station and saying "he didn't use a condom when I told him to" should not be carte blanche for the nation of Sweden demanding someone be arrested and extradited from anywhere in the world. It is beyond ridiculous and transparently politically motivated and that you would argue otherwise is why you're downvoted.

Re: WikiLeaks offers $20,000 for information on former DNC staffer's murder

#225

Post by whamlastxmas »

dragonwriter wrote: post #222
alex_hitchins wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have any changes been made against him in the US to date? Genuinely don't know the answer and a cursory search I can't see anything obvious. Also, why would the US not have an extradition request for him open with the UK? The UK would be much more likely to do as the USA pleases than Sweden.

> Have any changes been made against him in the US to date? There is a publicly disclosed criminal investigation, and several years ago there were reports based on a non-detailed reference in an email in the Stratfor leak (which didn't come from anyone who would have firsthand knowledge) that there was a sealed indictment produced from that investigation, which the Justice Department has flatly denied. So, apparently…

More importantly, if there were criminal charges, it would mean going through the regular channels of the criminal justice system. I wouldn't be surprised if they tried to treat Assange as an enemy combatant (i.e. no due process).

Re: WikiLeaks offers $20,000 for information on former DNC staffer's murder

#226

Post by dragonwriter »

whamlastxmas wrote: post #225
dragonwriter wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Have any changes been made against him in the US to date? There is a publicly disclosed criminal investigation, and several years ago there were reports based on a non-detailed reference in an email in the Stratfor leak (which didn't come from anyone who would have firsthand knowledge) that there was a sealed indictment produced from that investigation, which the Justice Department has flatly denied. So, apparently…

More importantly, if there were criminal charges, it would mean going through the regular channels of the criminal justice system. I wouldn't be surprised if they tried to treat Assange as an enemy combatant (i.e. no due process).

> More importantly, if there were criminal charges, it would mean going through the regular channels of the criminal justice system.

I'm not sure why you think this would be a problem; the regular criminal justice system has processes for handling classified evidence and is the regular venue for people accused of espionage.

> I wouldn't be surprised if they tried to treat Assange as an enemy combatant (i.e. no due process)

The cases challenging detentions under the Bush Administration pretty clearly established that "unlawful enemy combatant" designation comes with its own due process protections (lawful enemy combatants are Prisoners of War, who have rather extensive legal protections.)

Re: WikiLeaks offers $20,000 for information on former DNC staffer's murder

#227

Post by jazzyk »

ceejayoz wrote: post #188
jazzyk wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman You'll excuse me wanting a slightly better source.

Good thing there are five others in the section I quoted alone.

Did not want to repeat myself. :-)

Every source is biased. It is up to the reader to understand the biases, read from differently-biased sources and then make up his/her minds.

Re: WikiLeaks offers $20,000 for information on former DNC staffer's murder

#228

Post by SCAQTony »

Trill-I-Am wrote: post #183
SCAQTony wrote: post #123

The subject at hand is not about Wikileaks' journalistic ethics, rather it is about a reward for a murder of an DNC worker during what police suspect was an "attempted robbery" even though nothing of value was taken from his body. Both the family and Wikileaks are suspicious since he has been identified as the leaker of the DNC emails. I don't see this as Wikileaks grandstanding if he was the true leaker but YMMV. Fr…

Who's identified him as the leaker?

FOX News video of Assange implying it: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/08/10/assange-implies-m...

Re: WikiLeaks offers $20,000 for information on former DNC staffer's murder

#229

Post by quesera »

tanderson92 wrote: post #78
saturdaysaint wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What was the evidence of corruption? Everything that I read was essentially evidence that a political party had internal politics, and that they disfavored the guy that joined the party a year ago (and who promoted the possibility of primarying their sitting president a few years ago).

The corruption is that they repeatedly and publicly claimed that they were neutral in the primary process and were clearly not, acting in favor of their preferred candidate as many had said they were. Bernie supporters were dismissed as fringe lunatics believing in a conspiracy theory for reasoning that the DNC was coordinating against them.

No individual is truly neutral. The concern is whether the organization performed any acts of favoritism.

I don't have an answer, but that seems like the only possibly-important question.

Re: WikiLeaks offers $20,000 for information on former DNC staffer's murder

#230

Post by alex_hitchins »

whamlastxmas wrote: post #224
alex_hitchins wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So much wrong? >serious crime He faces allegations of sexual assault - I could be wrong but I'd assume this a serious crime in most places. Do you really not think the alleged crime is serious? >that you wanted to evade The Ecuadorian embassy upon last request denied the Swedish prosecution entry to question him. Also, it is gracious of him to permit them to call him over the phone for questioning. Do many formal pol…

The downvotes are because your point of view is that of one who conveniently ignores the facts that don't fit the narrative they want to be true. >The Ecuadorian embassy upon last request denied the Swedish prosecution entry to question him. This is simply not true. Ecuador actively worked to persuade Sweden to get the prosecutor access to the embassy to interview Assange, and they were successful in doing so. >Do ma…

>conveniently ignores the facts

Not so, and if I wanted I could say the same to yourself.

>This is simply not true.

OK, I'm guessing you must work there? To be that sure would indicate having knowledge that the lay man would not have. Are you able to let us in to any other information that might persuade me to come around to your line of thinking?

>political asylum

Remember - the charge against him currently is that of sexual assault. This isn't a political case, it's one for a crime. He sure wants it to be political as that will help him in his endeavours

>I am not going to try to be an apologist for sexual assault.

I am going to stop this discussion here as I am totally dismayed by your attitude to the seriousness of the crime committed. I can't see anything more positive to come from this thread. I urge you to see this without any bias and put yourself in the shoes of the alleged victim.

Post reply on HN