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

The US Is Preparing to Prosecute Julian Assange

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 577 posts

Re: The US Is Preparing to Prosecute Julian Assange

#211

Post by AnimalMuppet »

busterarm wrote: post #85
komali2 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's an obviously absurd belief given he's in an embassy. The USA has done a lot of insane shit but that would be a ridiculous line to cross to eliminate a single "criminal."

Pretty absurd. That said, the Saudi government just straight up murdered a journalist in one of their embassies, the whole world knows it and politically it appears things are still business as usual...

Attacking someone in your own embassy is crossing a line. Attacking someone else's embassy is crossing several more lines.

Re: The US Is Preparing to Prosecute Julian Assange

#212

Post by monocasa »

hnmonkey wrote: post #193
monocasa wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep. She certainly appears to be there. https://businessinsider.com/situation-room-bin-laden-2016-5

Very interesting. Because she was in the room that meant she sent the team to kill Bin Laden? By your logic and the parent poster's logic ~13 people aside from the President and the laptops and coffee cups were also just as responsible for sending the team to kill him.

Are you really questioning the idea that the Secretary of State had a hand in approving a CIA-led assassination mission when there's literally pictures of her watching it go down?

Re: The US Is Preparing to Prosecute Julian Assange

#213

Post by paulie_a »

resters wrote: post #204
hnmonkey wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While some of the things that were exposed were certainly illegal and should be handled as such, it's hard to feel any empathy for a guy who is essentially a Russian asset. If you think of him as an extension of Russian military intelligence conducting propaganda wars against its adversaries then it becomes a lot easier to understand why prosecuting him is a genuinely good thing. Russia airing the dirty laundry of ot…

> essentially a Russian asset This is a bit of a stretch in my opinion. Obviously a platform like Wikileaks can be "weaponized" by any party against another party. I think it's a question of what is the most relevant aspect of the leak overall, not who leaked it or why. For instance, suppose someone had leaked detailed information about the misconduct of Jerry Sandusky several years before it became widely known. Wou…

I think he is too dumb to realize he was used as a Russian asset. The attention whoring he is known for blinded him.

While dumb, I don't think he has specifically kept secrets about Trump. His actions show a definite agenda. Act two, he just doesn't realize that it is someone else's agenda.

Re: The US Is Preparing to Prosecute Julian Assange

#214

Post by rem7 »

xoa wrote: post #47

Without any opinion the merits of this case in particular, which seems like a total mess all around and I haven't been following, on the topic more generally I found "Demystifying International Extradition" [1] last year to be an interesting summary of the process. It introduced me to concepts that don't really tend to come up in local law. Amongst other pertinent aspects is that while the US generally wants to avoid…

Mexico is the same way, they won’t extradite if the country is seeking for the death penalty. I wonder if there was a negotiation around that with El Chapo

Re: The US Is Preparing to Prosecute Julian Assange

#215

Post by hnmonkey »

mejari wrote: post #196
whatshisface wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not quite an example - it's an unnamed source, and Assage defends himself by saying that it was unverifiable (which we can neither confirm nor deny).

Sounds like excuse-making when provided what you asked for.

There are multiple posters doing this throughout this post. Finding some way to discredit any evidence after they've asked for evidence and then were presented with it.

Re: The US Is Preparing to Prosecute Julian Assange

#216

Post by Myrmornis »

anarazel wrote: post #166
Myrmornis wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK, well that's great that you contribute to/work on postgres, I have a lot of respect for that project and in general for low-level work like that rather than the product-level nonsense that I work on. But I still think you shouldn't publicly belittle any open source contributions, let alone ones on a project with such high standards for acceptance, and relatively high intellectual barrier to entry, as postgres.

My point wasn't to belittle the contributions, but to point out that he wasn't a "key figure".

Yes, "key figure" was clearly inaccurate. But

"A few small changes."

"just a minor rewrite of parts of the commandline client. Mostly made verbose by by renaming structs members / moving members around."

People...really find learning programming hard. Many, many people, even if they try, won't manage to have the intellectual discipline to learn C to the level that you're disparaging. I'm pretty sure that you and I both agree that we shouldn't refer to someone else's hard work in that way.

Re: The US Is Preparing to Prosecute Julian Assange

#217

Post by vel0city »

resters wrote: post #204
hnmonkey wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While some of the things that were exposed were certainly illegal and should be handled as such, it's hard to feel any empathy for a guy who is essentially a Russian asset. If you think of him as an extension of Russian military intelligence conducting propaganda wars against its adversaries then it becomes a lot easier to understand why prosecuting him is a genuinely good thing. Russia airing the dirty laundry of ot…

> essentially a Russian asset This is a bit of a stretch in my opinion. Obviously a platform like Wikileaks can be "weaponized" by any party against another party. I think it's a question of what is the most relevant aspect of the leak overall, not who leaked it or why. For instance, suppose someone had leaked detailed information about the misconduct of Jerry Sandusky several years before it became widely known. Wou…

Do we know that Wikileaks has always released full documents and data sets, or do we just take their website at face value that he's truly never been selective on what to publish?

Re: The US Is Preparing to Prosecute Julian Assange

#218

Post by boomboomsubban »

mejari wrote: post #179
boomboomsubban wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An indictment is not proof for a start, this is a fundamental part of the US justice system. That indictment does not actually mention Wikileaks at all, let alone suggest that Wikileaks knew the source was the Russian government.

You did not say "there is no absolute proof', you said "There is nothing suggesting". This very much suggests.

Where is the suggestion that Wikileaks knew what the source was and coordinated anyway? The indictments suggests that the source was Russian, nothing points to knowing coordination.

Re: The US Is Preparing to Prosecute Julian Assange

#219

Post by hnmonkey »

monocasa wrote: post #212
hnmonkey wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very interesting. Because she was in the room that meant she sent the team to kill Bin Laden? By your logic and the parent poster's logic ~13 people aside from the President and the laptops and coffee cups were also just as responsible for sending the team to kill him.

Are you really questioning the idea that the Secretary of State had a hand in approving a CIA-led assassination mission when there's literally pictures of her watching it go down?

I never said that I questioned that in the slightest. Not sure where you get that at all.

I did however basically say that she did not send the team to get him. That's what a President signs off on and military leaders plan.

Re: The US Is Preparing to Prosecute Julian Assange

#220

Post by buboard »

consumer451 wrote: post #143
darawk wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, but do the war crimes the US committed mean that Assange is not guilty of being a Russian asset?

You are responding to textbook whataboutism, aka “tu quoque logical fallacy.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

Not everything is whataboutism. The parent is making a propositional fallacy in the form of a question

"If A then B. B therefore A"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent

Post reply on HN