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

Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

harpers.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

421–430 of 465 posts

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#421

Post by Meph504 »

coldtea wrote: post #420
Meph504 wrote: post #418

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Our laws aren't written in away that says if you steal something, and the value to others out weights the crime of stealing, then its not stealing. But as I've said, this is the human element, and is why we have a jury, if the jury feels that his actions though criminal were justified. They can hold him free of punishment, this is why our judicial system is structured this way, because the letter of the law, doesn't…

> Our laws aren't written in away that says if you steal something, and the value to others out weights the crime of stealing, then its not stealing. Well, that's bad. And it has been known to be bad since the time of Les Miserables at least... > Who in your opinion makes the choice of "what was unearthed is justified to be unearthed?" A judge, a police officer, a prosecutor, or a jury of his peers? The jury of peers…

It's not bad, how do you suppose a law like this would make the value jugement? This again is why you a jury.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#422

Post by wybiral »

coldtea wrote: post #417
wybiral wrote: post #399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The law isn't perfect, in any country, and that's never going to change. We need to vote for leaders who will reform it in the direction that we want. But the fact that some people get away with crimes doesn't mean we should ignore all crimes and adopt a system of anarchy.

Why not? Who said it would be worse? Where you asked before adopting the current system? Or you were just expected to sit and accept it? Any why would a system that takes into account actual benefit to the public or not, to absolve someone of something that is otherwise a crime, would be tantamount to "anarchy"?

> Any why would a system that takes into account actual benefit to the public or not, to absolve someone of something that is otherwise a crime, would be tantamount to "anarchy"?

Without a clear set of laws things get messy really quickly.

We do allow for subjective peer input in a trial, that's exactly why the jury exists.

But to say that someone shouldn't even be put in front of a jury just because you think they broke the law with good intentions is undermining the purpose of law. Who are you to decide what was a "benefit to the public"?

There were people who thought that Guantanamo was a "benefit to the public" so should they be allowed to torture people?

There were people in the NSA who thought that mass collection of metadata from phone companies was a "benefit to the public" so maybe we shouldn't investigate those things.

That's not how I want the law to work. We should investigate all of those things, regardless of what you think is beneficial, under a strict set of rules of law. And we use democracy and international order to shape that set of rules.

If you think this is crazy and oppressive you should look around at how non-western countries handle these things.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#423

Post by lostmyoldone »

torstenvl wrote: post #125
gnu8 wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For someone who isn’t a citizen of the United States, it’s not illegal to fight against the military of the United States. It’s not possible for Assange to have committed a crime here. Would you suggest indicting a drone operator of the US Air Force for violating Afghanistan’s law against murdering people?

Yes. Actually, it is. You have to be a lawful combatant to receive combatant immunity under international law. The U.S. Air Force consists of lawful combatants. They are members of the armed forces and wear uniforms that readily distinguish themselves as combatants, which permits the opposing party to a conflict to abide by principles of distinction and proportionality. They are therefore disanalogous. CIA operatives…

Following your argument, isn't then drone operatators in some respects illegal combatants? Or really anyone not easily identifiable as enemy combatants?

Not that I think that arguing from the point of international law, and especially war time international law is of much relevancy in this case.

US has in recently shown little respect for many aspects of what was thought to be international law, but through US acts the water has been muddied. The relationship with the ICC, one of the foremost attempts at establishing a legitimate international court for war crimes comes to mind. It is however far from the only issue where US recently shown an amount of disrespect to international law usually only seen from totalitarian regimes.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#424

Post by pfisch »

roguecoder wrote: post #335
pfisch wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Avoid confusing constructions (Jane Doe fathered a child) by rewriting (e.g., Jane Doe became a parent). Direct quotations may need to be handled as exceptions (in some cases adjusting the portion used may reduce apparent contradictions, and "[sic]" may be used where necessary). MOS:MULTIPLENAMES calls for mentioning the former name of a transgender person if they were notable under that name. This is needlessly comp…

But she didn’t father a child, since she isn’t a father. The expectation that one be accurate is not “complexity”: it’s how you avoid saying things that are wrong. It is often simpler to be wrong. “Pi is 3” simplifies infinite complexity, in fact. But that doesn’t make it acceptable.

At that time she was identifying herself as a father though. There is no need to whitewash history.

When people get married and change their last name they don't make people go into quotes from the past and change them, and that is far less of an identity change then we are talking about here.

Bruce Jenner won an olympic medal. They don't need to scrub Bruce Jenner from old episodes of the Kardashians.

Bruce Jenner then became Caitlyn Jenner. There is just no reason to try to change history.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#425

Post by ehsankia »

fit2rule wrote: post #343
ehsankia wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Putting thousands of people's lives in danger because you're not careful isn't freedom of speech [0]. If Assange cared about freedom of speech, he wouldn't have called the Panama leaks an attack on Putin fueled by Soros [1]. Is it a coincidence that almost all Wikileaks cables are about the US, and never anything about Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, and so on? I definitely don't think he should be prosecuted for journa…

> Is it a coincidence that almost all Wikileaks cables are about the US, and never anything about Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, and so on? Perhaps it makes Americans feel bad about themselves to hear this, but there are people in the world who feel that America and its 5-eyes allies are actually doing more harm to the world than Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, and "so on" - by way of endless, illegal, heinous wars wherei…

> America is a net evil force in the world

I never claimed they weren't. But it would be naive to think that Russia is much better. But for some reason, WikiLeaks has nothing to say about them, even if it's clear that they are doing pretty dodgy stuff (IRA, poisoning, etc). That to me shows that Wikileaks is not about transparency, but rather has a very strong bias about exposing a very specific target.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#426

Post by cheesymuffin »

roguecoder wrote: post #315
cheesymuffin wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And do you really think that he's the only one who had access to that information? If you're interested in the truth, you should be glad that someone out there is able and chooses to provide you with new information, even if he doesn't provide all of it.

So when your emails come out, you’ll thank whoever publishes them? Have any good recipes in there?

You totally missed the point but ok

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#427

Post by ceejayoz »

slg wrote: post #71
ceejayoz wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The First Amendment doesn't apply to anyone while outside the US. A US citizen in Saudi Arabia doesn't have First Amendment protections there. For the US to prosecute Assange, they have to prosecute him in the US, where he does enjoy First Amendment protections, as the First Amendment limits what Congress (and via the Fourteenth, state/local as well) can do .

I think you are misinterpreting the question. The US Constitution obviously has no legal impact on the laws of Saudi Arabia. The question is whether the US government needs to follow the US Constitution when dealing with a non-US citizen on non-US soil. There seems to be a precedent that US citizens have different legal protections from the US government while abroad when compared with non-citizens. That is why US ci…

> There seems to be a precedent that US citizens have different legal protections from the US government while abroad when compared with non-citizens.

It's an interesting situation, as there's counter-examples; the Constitution doesn't, for example, appear to permit assassinations (certainly not of citizens without a trial), but they went ahead and droned Anwar al-Awlaki without any apparent legal consequences.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#428

Post by fit2rule »

ehsankia wrote: post #425
fit2rule wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is it a coincidence that almost all Wikileaks cables are about the US, and never anything about Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, and so on? Perhaps it makes Americans feel bad about themselves to hear this, but there are people in the world who feel that America and its 5-eyes allies are actually doing more harm to the world than Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, and "so on" - by way of endless, illegal, heinous wars wherei…

> America is a net evil force in the world I never claimed they weren't. But it would be naive to think that Russia is much better. But for some reason, WikiLeaks has nothing to say about them, even if it's clear that they are doing pretty dodgy stuff (IRA, poisoning, etc). That to me shows that Wikileaks is not about transparency, but rather has a very strong bias about exposing a very specific target.

Maybe America has more serious covered-up crimes to reveal than Russia? Maybe America is killing more innocent people, daily (one bomb dropped every twenty minutes for the last 20 years, mostly on innocent people)?

Maybe you simply haven't read what Wikileaks has published about Russia.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#429

Post by sys_64738 »

bhelkey wrote: post #234
sys_64738 wrote: post #167

Ecuador's embassy is their country so the UK police have no jurisdiction. Assange's barrister should file for illegal arrest and get him freed.

> Scotland Yard said it was invited into the embassy on Thursday by the ambassador, following the Ecuadorian government's withdrawal of asylum. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-47891737

The U.K. Police are civilians in the Ecuadorian embassy. Assange was assaulted and illegally deported to U.K. Territory. That is an illegal arrest at best.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#430

Post by shhehebehdh »

lostmyoldone wrote: post #423
torstenvl wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. Actually, it is. You have to be a lawful combatant to receive combatant immunity under international law. The U.S. Air Force consists of lawful combatants. They are members of the armed forces and wear uniforms that readily distinguish themselves as combatants, which permits the opposing party to a conflict to abide by principles of distinction and proportionality. They are therefore disanalogous. CIA operatives…

Following your argument, isn't then drone operatators in some respects illegal combatants? Or really anyone not easily identifiable as enemy combatants? Not that I think that arguing from the point of international law, and especially war time international law is of much relevancy in this case. US has in recently shown little respect for many aspects of what was thought to be international law, but through US acts t…

Military drone operators will be found on military bases in military uniform. They will be easily identified as soldiers if captured.
Post reply on HN