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

Wikileaks: Julian Assange's internet access 'cut'

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

991–1000 of 1001 posts

Re: Wikileaks: Julian Assange's internet access 'cut'

#991

Post by kbenson »

MertsA wrote: post #969
Tomte wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Certainly not. He is not under any kind of arrest, but freely and voluntarily visiting his Ecuadorean friends. Why should that count towards any prison term? BTW, I don't think Assange would really face prison in Sweden. My best guess of what would have happened had he been extradited to Sweden: An interview, being held a few weeks, then released to a country of his choosing. He is inside the embassy because he likes…

According to https://justice4assange.com Sweden regularly questions people within the EU yet they have refused to question Julian Assange even though they are free to interrogate him inside the embassy whenever they want. Sweden refuses to interview him there even though in the 4 years that he's been holed up in the embassy Swedish authorities have interviewed 44 other people in the UK. They also refused to promise t…

It's possible they refuse to interview him there because that's possibly the first step to an international incident. As it is now, they can claim they he's providing barriers to an interview. If they actually interviewed him and decided he needed to be taken unto custody, they would then actually have to address that he's under asylum in an embassy, and possibly come under local pressure to pressure Ecuador to release him. If they refuse, it escalates back and forth until someone backs down and loses face. If they've already received confirmation that Ecuador will not give him up, I can see not interviewing him as what they see as the best option to prevent that situation.

Re: Wikileaks: Julian Assange's internet access 'cut'

#993

Post by phs318u »

vonmoltke wrote: post #842
phs318u wrote: post #652

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sadly, bipartisan support for Saudi Arabia (and by extension its state sponsorship of various Wahhabist groups) has been a thing since way before Bush Snr was president. When the Russians were in Afghanistan it was "useful". Since then - not so much. But hey, oil right?

> But hey, oil right? Why does this canard keep coming up? This isn't 1973. The Middle East does not have the West by the balls with respect to energy anymore. We're invested in Saudi Arabia to keep it from imploding, not for natural resources. Not directly, at least, since oil money is one of the few things keeping it from imploding.

Yes but think of the timeframes and the scope. Increasing energy independence is a relatively recent phenomenon - say the last decade? Geopolitical "investments" aren't traded quickly precisely because they're not supposed to be so transparently viewed as merely an investment in resources. The perception of things is still important which means such support can't be withdrawn in the short term. (Edit: so yes, I do agree, but...)

The US may well be largely energy independent but a large number of significant client states within its sphere of influence are not. The viability of those client states goes directly to the global effectiveness of US hegemony.

Re: Wikileaks: Julian Assange's internet access 'cut'

#994

Post by khattam »

cpncrunch wrote: post #930
khattam wrote: post #920

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If WikiLeaks was releasing dirt on both candidates I would feel much differently. Ever wondered if there is no dirt, there is nothing to release? Unlike the mainstream media which takes command from the Clintons, Wikileaks doesn't fabricate their releases... so it is not possible to release dirt on Trump.

Well, clearly there is a lot of dirt on Trump because it has been released. Just not by wikileaks. >Unlike the mainstream media which takes command from the Clintons Seriously?

>clearly there is a lot of dirt on Trump

Yep, like calling fat people fat and saying "pussy" in a private conversation.

>Seriously?

Don't take my word for it. Read the emails by media broker of the DNC: https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/7216

This is what he says:

>This is who I will meet with in NYC. At each meeting, I’ll discuss hits we’ve executed (if relevant) and future hits. Anything I should add?

Re: Wikileaks: Julian Assange's internet access 'cut'

#996

Post by botverse »

jacquesm wrote: post #127

- Is the whole embassy shut down? - Is there any direct reason for the timing (US elections, attack on Mosul or other current headlines)? - Was there any imminent release? (last week there was an announcement of a leak but it didn't materialize as far as I know) http://www.theverge.com/2016/10/4/13159914/wikileaks-hillary... - You'd assume that Wikileaks the organization will continue to work even without Assange hav…

Ecuador embassy confirms it is to avoid US elections interference.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/oct/19/wikileaks-ecua...

Re: Wikileaks: Julian Assange's internet access 'cut'

#997

Post by ionised »

steveeq1 wrote: post #703
admax88q wrote: post #511

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> in other words: i want the dirt, too. 100% agree. I'm constantly amazed at how some ordinary citizens can be mad at Snowden or Assange for releasing information. Wouldn't you want to know? Even just for interest sake I like to know what government and politicians around the world are up to.

I've actually asked people about this, and the prevailing attitude is "it puts lives in danger" or "sacrifices national security". While I don't agree with those opinions , the opposing viewpoint seems to view Snowden as a "snitch".

> he opposing viewpoint seems to view Snowden as a "snitch"

Children call eachother snitches. That's the level of discourse we're dealing with in these matters?

Re: Wikileaks: Julian Assange's internet access 'cut'

#998

Post by EdHominem »

Kadin wrote: post #705
FireBeyond wrote: post #507

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Similar: If we applied the laws we used to prosecute the Nazis at Nuremberg, every single post WWII US President/government would be considered to have committed war crimes.

I find it interesting that the Nuremberg Trials are continually held up, often by people who ought to know better, as a shining example of "International Law" and not a fairly straightforward example of the victors of a war taking the opportunity to polish off a few key enemies they missed. Which is a time-honored and not especially surprising practice, but hardly laudable, particularly when it involved some ex post…

If anything, the Nuremburg trials were overly light.

Both the USA and Germany had the death penalty at the end of WW2.

If you actually applied the law as you would in peacetime (as is reasonable because the gas chambers had no military necessity in the way a PoW camp would) then anyone involved in the process, including bringing supplies to the camp, would have been guilty until proven innocent. Evidence of participation is evidence of guilt, and by civilian standards of the time 90% of Germans in uniform and probably 20% of civilians should have been hung.

The Nuremburg trials were like Rwanda's Peace and Reconciliation process. Something that was knowingly far from completist, but just enough to stop the bloodshed and retribution.

> but at least they didn't require heavy equipment just to dig the mass graves

If you support the right of the state to kill (in War, etc) then what's the problem? Pretty much every Nazi was a criminal and had committed and supported war crimes. Pretty much everyone else was a collaborator.

(fwiw, that's the risk of going to war as a democracy. When you have choice, you have culpability.)

Re: Wikileaks: Julian Assange's internet access 'cut'

#999

Post by steamer25 »

steamer25 wrote: post #301
leereeves wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it really unlawful or did CNN lie about that?

The anchor is tweeting about his side of the story: https://twitter.com/ChrisCuomo . E.g., https://twitter.com/ChrisCuomo/status/788025611730227201 I am not a lawyer but I'd say this is a legal gray area. The leaker probably broke a law. E.g., hacking Podesta's private emails would have been illegal under computer fraud and abuse. It's alternately possible that the leaker had legal access but breached contract to rel…

More evidence from the leaks: http://thefreethoughtproject.com/wikileaks-10-most-damning-c...

Re: Wikileaks: Julian Assange's internet access 'cut'

#1000

Post by [deleted] »

sctb wrote: post #876
throwawayIndian wrote: post #148

> so what exactly will this accomplish… Many things! Instill a fear may be. Demonstrate their power to kill at will and their willingness to do so. Prevent outing of more truths about the Silicon Valley-Washington DC alliance. Meh. Let the downvotes begin… :)

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12725641 and marked it off-topic.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN