Ecuador will hand over Julian Assange to the UK • Hacker News Board

Re: Ecuador will hand over Julian Assange to the UK

#251

Post by oliwarner » Sun, Jul 22, 2018, 6:40 AM UTC

blhack wrote: post #9

What I've wanted for Julian Assange, Edward Snowden, and Chelsea Manning, and if Obama would have done it before leaving office, it would have earned him infinite respect: Try them, possibly even find them guilty of something, but also award them with the Presidential Medal of Freedom. What these people have done is probably illegal, but it is unquestionably about the most American, patriotic act you could commit. Sp…

He fled from a second questioning about a rape allegation and then broke his bail conditions. Your benchmark for "hero" is different to mine.

Re: Ecuador will hand over Julian Assange to the UK

#252

Post by _up » Sun, Jul 22, 2018, 8:05 AM UTC

18pfsmt wrote: post #248

_up wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone can be accused. That in itself doesn't mean anything. Also, Ex FBI Director Comney testified that the FBI didn't get access to the DNC server. Instead, the DNC hired itself people to verify their claim that they were hacked. How can they be serious if they aren't even trying to secure the main evidence? It is also pretty clear that they are not on Trumps side by announcing this directly before the summit. ht…

This is a site populated by technical people, so please don't characterize technical security audits so simplistically ("what about the server" is a complete red herring). There were 140 servers, not "the server." Regardless, the interesting data was found in the network gear of the data center that housed the servers (i.e. meta data/ connectivity logs). Trump was given the choice as to when the latest indictments we…

I don't know why you seem to be so triggered. I only wanted to discuss an alternate viewpoint. Science is about asking questions not accepting only studies that validate your own viewpoint.

I didn't know that there were 140 servers involved. Interesting. So did Comney lie and the FBI actually did get access to everything, including the physical Hardware. The thing is even if you have found proof that Russian Spies got access to the system it only implicates spying not publishing. The leak could still have come from someone inside the DNC. So to examine everything is essential. Also usually Police at least try to look impartial and not only look at evidence that supports their desired outcome. Looking only at the network gear like you said is the opposite of that.

Re: Ecuador will hand over Julian Assange to the UK

#253

Post by ryanlol » Sun, Jul 22, 2018, 8:47 AM UTC

carlosrg wrote: post #223

ryanlol wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>- Spain were going to physically invade Catalonia and cause a Tiananmen Square-like situation >The president of Spain wanted a "1000 year Reich" >- Spanish federal Police warned jihadist terrorists that Mossos were following them (Catalonia police) https://twitter.com/JulianAssange/status/910056476814794752 https://twitter.com/JulianAssange/status/917691333191585792 https://twitter.com/JulianAssange/status/931712044…

What difference does it makes that these are links? Is okay to publish anything if it’s a link? The guy lost his mind. Shame because I actually respected him before this.

It makes a huge difference, you attributed these claims to him. He did not make the claims. If he's truly the person you claim him to be, it shouldn't be very hard to find lies that actually originate from him.

Honestly, one almost gets the feeling that you're only reading the El Pais interpretation of his tweets.

>The guy lost his mind. Shame because I actually respected him before this.

What did you respect him for? What changed? Assange has always been about fighting the western powers. I don't see how his behavior has particularly changed, only his portrayal.

Re: Ecuador will hand over Julian Assange to the UK

#254

Post by nailer » Sun, Jul 22, 2018, 9:29 AM UTC

foldr wrote: post #184

nailer wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the point was they could have questioned him any time and refused to.

Yes, the prosecutor can prosecute the case as they see fit. They're not obliged to question Assange on his own terms. From the original ruling on the EAW (p. 20): >Here is it necessary to focus clearly on the facts of the case. Clear and specific serious allegations have been made against Mr Assange in Sweden. Attempts have been made by the Swedish prosecutor as long ago as September to interview him. He has not been…

Yes I know the prosecutor can persue the case any way they want to.

I find it odd that you don't understand this, but the point is very simple: if the purpose of the Swedish Prosecutor was to investigate a potential crime, they would have interviewed Assange. Instead they refused to.

Re: Ecuador will hand over Julian Assange to the UK

#255

Post by oxide » Sun, Jul 22, 2018, 11:10 AM UTC

malvosenior wrote: post #196

kej wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

WikiLeaks sat on Manafort's group sex and blood money texts, but released Podesta's emails less than an hour after the Access Hollywood tape was published. His agenda was more than an act to get on Don Jr.'s good side.

Podesta’s emails had proof of the Clinton campaign colluding with the media. You can not compare that with details of Manafort’s private life. It’s clear why one would be in the public’s interest to learn about and the other is just gossip.

Wikileaks is no arbiter of what is and what is not relevant to the interest of the public.

If they choose to sit on information, they have an agenda, IMO.

Re: Ecuador will hand over Julian Assange to the UK

#256

Post by foldr » Sun, Jul 22, 2018, 11:34 AM UTC

nailer wrote: post #254

foldr wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, the prosecutor can prosecute the case as they see fit. They're not obliged to question Assange on his own terms. From the original ruling on the EAW (p. 20): >Here is it necessary to focus clearly on the facts of the case. Clear and specific serious allegations have been made against Mr Assange in Sweden. Attempts have been made by the Swedish prosecutor as long ago as September to interview him. He has not been…

Yes I know the prosecutor can persue the case any way they want to. I find it odd that you don't understand this, but the point is very simple: if the purpose of the Swedish Prosecutor was to investigate a potential crime, they would have interviewed Assange. Instead they refused to.

>if the purpose of the Swedish Prosecutor was to investigate a potential crime, they would have interviewed Assange.

I don't see how you are drawing this conclusion. There would have been little point in interviewing Assange while he was in the Ecuadorian embassy, since it would not have been possible to arrest him following the interview. More broadly, complying with Assange's demands would also have sent the wrong signal to anyone else trying to escape the justice system.

Re: Ecuador will hand over Julian Assange to the UK

#257

Post by na85 » Sun, Jul 22, 2018, 12:34 PM UTC

eeeuo wrote: post #243

na85 wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>organizations that were openly hostile to American interests. Exactly which organizations are you referring to?

Wikileaks.

Snowden went to Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras who aren't with WikiLeaks.

Re: Ecuador will hand over Julian Assange to the UK

#258

Post by bachbach » Sun, Jul 22, 2018, 1:04 PM UTC

remarkEon wrote: post #235

bachbach wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You may correct me if you know better, but I have not seen any information that was leaked that I didn't imagine Russia or China already being very aware of. Was this information revealed to only Russia/China and kept from journalists? If so how do you know about it?

"They probably already know about it" seems like a weird standard to use for answering the question of if making a particular state secret public harms the National interest.

That is an issue of reputation or PR.

Re: Ecuador will hand over Julian Assange to the UK

#259

Post by geofft » Sun, Jul 22, 2018, 1:06 PM UTC

garmaine wrote: post #249

geofft wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes - people (including children) are being denied their right to have counsel and a speedy trial and to not be deprived of liberty or property without due process of law. Those are human rights which the Constitution protects for all people in the US, not just rights for citizens.

Yes they are human beings and we SHOULD provide them more rights and dignity. But, in terms of strictly legal arguments, the US constitution only affords those rights to US citizens, which these children were not.

> But, in terms of strictly legal arguments, the US constitution only affords those rights to US citizens, which these children were not.

This is not true. The Constitution uses "citizen" when it means "citizen", and "person" when it means "person." The Fourteenth Amendment is a great example:

"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Citizens have privileges and immunities that cannot be deprived by the states, but all persons have the rights to life, liberty, property, due process, and equal protection. The Sixth Amendment also does not say "citizen" when it talks about a speedy trial and a right to counsel.

See also Wong Wing v. US (1892), that illegal aliens were protected by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments when being tried under the Chinese Exclusion Act; Plyler v. Doe (1982), that the use of "person" in the Equal Protection clause definitely includes illegal aliens; Zadvydas v. Davis (2001), that due process applies to everyone on US soil, even if facing a deportation order; etc.

Re: Ecuador will hand over Julian Assange to the UK

#260

Post by malvosenior » Sun, Jul 22, 2018, 1:40 PM UTC

oxide wrote: post #255

malvosenior wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Podesta’s emails had proof of the Clinton campaign colluding with the media. You can not compare that with details of Manafort’s private life. It’s clear why one would be in the public’s interest to learn about and the other is just gossip.

Wikileaks is no arbiter of what is and what is not relevant to the interest of the public. If they choose to sit on information, they have an agenda, IMO.

It doesn’t matter if they have an agenda (which has definitely not been proven). It’s good that they get any information to the public. The Podesta emails were extremely valuable to the public, they had a right to know that the DNC was in bed with the media. Whatever else didn’t get leaked doesn’t matter. That info needed to be made public.