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

441–450 of 465 posts

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#441

Post by Meph504 »

coldtea wrote: post #431
Meph504 wrote: post #421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

In principle, what you say makes sense. My disconnect is because I think I already know the value judgement the law will end up making.

What system would you propose would be better, I frankly wish that we didn't have a whole profession based the process and procedures of the court. It makes defending yourself almost impossible.

But the court has the burden to prove that the person is guilty of a crime, to 12 different people. You are required by law to be given a lawyer to assist in your case if you can't afford one.

That is a better shake than probably 75% of the world right there. Hell its better than you get in the military in the US.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#442

Post by cbnotfromthere »

Meph504 wrote: post #351
paulddraper wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you proposing a double-standard? Can cops be justified breaking into your house without a warrant, so long as they find evidence of a crime?

Actually if a cop finds evidence of a crime without a warrant when one is required,(or any illegal means) it won't be admissible, so I'm not sure where you are coming from. Nor do I see how you are suggesting what I'm talking about is some sort of proposal for a double standard. I'm not saying out legal framework is perfect, and certainly not saying that injustices don't happen because there are bad people, doing hor…

"Actually if a cop finds evidence of a crime without a warrant when one is required,(or any illegal means) it won't be admissible, so I'm not sure where you are coming from."

"Exigent circumstances" are, from the perspective of the law, the equivalent of a warrant, thus making any proofs legal.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#443

Post by cbnotfromthere »

coldtea wrote: post #416
Meph504 wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we start with the premises that if people think that something is a crime, they can commit a crime to try and prove it, our legal system will quickly crumble. Would it still be journalism, if they hacked the database and didn't find evidence. Should the fact that the information released, put many lives in danger when it compromised many people aiding our government? Morally his actions can be debated, but not fro…

> If we start with the premises that if people think that something is a crime, they can commit a crime to try and prove it, our legal system will quickly crumble. How about starting with the solid facts, that what was unearthed is justified to be unearthed? > Would it still be journalism, if they hacked the database and didn't find evidence. We could just say no -- or, if they did find evidence, yes. This keeps the…

So basically you want the process to be judged by the outcome, not by... the process.

That's not how the legal system works and that's not how ANY legals system COULD work, because it would require the process to be finalized and the outcome known before any legal enforcing to happen).

Basically you're bringing an utterly irrational viewpoint to the discussion then you end up with " we can make rational value judgements".

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#444

Post by Meph504 »

cbnotfromthere wrote: post #442
Meph504 wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually if a cop finds evidence of a crime without a warrant when one is required,(or any illegal means) it won't be admissible, so I'm not sure where you are coming from. Nor do I see how you are suggesting what I'm talking about is some sort of proposal for a double standard. I'm not saying out legal framework is perfect, and certainly not saying that injustices don't happen because there are bad people, doing hor…

"Actually if a cop finds evidence of a crime without a warrant when one is required,(or any illegal means) it won't be admissible, so I'm not sure where you are coming from." "Exigent circumstances" are, from the perspective of the law, the equivalent of a warrant, thus making any proofs legal.

I think you should read up more on exigent circumstances, what a police officer does and what is legal for use in a case are miles apart.

If the defense challenges, and the state can not convince the judge that there was a probably threat that material evidence will be destroyed before a warrant could be obtained, then it will very likely be thrown out, and can not be used in the case at all.

And even if the judge allows it, and defense loses its an open door for an appeal.

There are literally volumes of text on this subject, there is not blanket a statement that makes incorrectly gather evidence moot, as any defense attorney, it's their first line of attack.

And one of the most common ways the defense can win a case.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#445

Post by cbnotfromthere »

ceejayoz wrote: post #427
slg wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You seem to willingly confusing "assassinations" with "acts of war".

Anwar Al-Awlaki was unquestionably an enemy combatant due to his overt belonging to a non-state actor engaged in military combat with the United States.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#446

Post by cbnotfromthere »

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, and its illegal wars must be stopped at all costs."

How about you move to Russia or Venezuela and stop USA's illegal wars at any cost from there?

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#447

Post by cbnotfromthere »

ru999gol wrote: post #292
torstenvl wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ICJ handles dispute between states. It has no authority to prosecute the soldiers of any country. You are, perhaps, referring to the ICC, established by the Rome Statute - to which the United States is not a party. The issue of whether the United States respects international law is not likely to be conducive to productive conversation on HN. It is also beside the point of this specific topic.

its not productive conversation with any american, as you are all brainwashed anyways by your corrupt government and media. As far as I'm concerned any american is complicit in war crimes.

[flagged]

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#449

Post by Eleopteryx »

calhoun137 wrote: post #137
txru wrote: post #128

Revealing unknown facts is a political act. It never occurs inside a vacuum. While it's frequently a good thing, the sort of broad statements you're making about politicians making criminals out of the 'good guys' just doesn't represent the political facts. Assange almost certainly had access to hacked information related to both the DNC and the RNC[0]. Only the DNC hacked info got released. Are we supposed to thank…

I honestly feel like you comment is a perfect illustration of this point made in the OP, which was as much about citizens as it was about what politicians would like them to think: "just fathom the authoritarian mindset that would lead a citizen -- and especially a "journalist" -- to react with anger that these things have been revealed; to insist that these facts should have been kept concealed and it'd be better if…

>"just fathom the authoritarian mindset that would lead a citizen -- and especially a "journalist" -- to react with anger that these things have been revealed; to insist that these facts should have been kept concealed and it'd be better if we didn't know"

You mean, like, releasing some leaks, but not releasing other leaks? Yeah, that would really suck.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#450

Post by burfog »

belltaco wrote: post #311
burfog wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wikipedia is particularly untrustworthy for political topics. Political parties and even nations are employing teams of people to work their way up the Wikipedia ranks in a fight for control. Assange would know the source. Assange also made a promise to not reveal sources, making no exception for death. Giving suggestive hints would be one reasonable way to deal with the awkwardness of the situation.

So you're saying Assange is implying that Seth Rich is the leaker, and that he is indeed the leaker?

It seems to be so.

Assange and his mother both hinted at it. One interview Assange did is particularly notable; he practically said the leaker was Seth Rich and then backed off a bit. It was like he was struggling with his promise to not reveal sources.

Seth Rich had the means to leak, being an IT person just like Snowden was. Seth Rich had the motive to leak, being a very upset Bernie supporter. In one of John Podesta's emails, there were some very ominous words about making an example of leakers.

Post reply on HN