Julian Assange Appears in Court for U.S. Extradition Hearing • Hacker News Board

Re: Julian Assange Appears in Court for U.S. Extradition Hearing

#51

Post by roywiggins » Thu, May 02, 2019, 3:42 PM UTC

simonh wrote: post #41

eof wrote: post #10

I wonder if the current political reputation of USA and Trump will play into Assange dodging extradition.

That doesn't really bear on the independence of the US courts which would be the main issue, and they have recently proved themselves quite independent of an often opposed to the will of the president and political interference.

He will argue that the prosecution itself is political. That US courts might take a dim view of a political prosecution seems neither here nor there- if the underlying prosecution were shown to be political, then I can't see the UK courts allowing the extradition.

Re: Julian Assange Appears in Court for U.S. Extradition Hearing

#52

Post by Svip » Thu, May 02, 2019, 3:42 PM UTC

dnautics wrote: post #18

resters wrote: post #3

Keep in mind all the crimes by US officials that Assange revealed. In my view many of those crimes committed by officials are treason, yet all have been swept under the rug.

Treason has a specific definition in the us Constitution and it's a quite difficult bar to cross.

How can it be treason, when he's not a US citizen?

Re: Julian Assange Appears in Court for U.S. Extradition Hearing

#53

Post by ceejayoz » Thu, May 02, 2019, 3:43 PM UTC

Svip wrote: post #48

ezoe wrote: post #20

I guess this news gives Assange a valid reason for his bail-jumping. He was suspected of raping in Sweden. That was what he was bail-jumping for. But the real reason is the threat of his extradition to US for... what? revealing the war crime of the US? That shall never be a crime. War crime shall not be hidden. US shall be punished for obstructing the information of war crime.

Wouldn't he have been safer in Sweden than in the UK? If I were to bet on who were more likely to suck up to the Americans of the two, my money would be on the Brits.

Neither one is a particularly safe space if you're worried about the US.

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

> Ahmed Agiza and Muhammad Alzery were two Egyptian asylum-seekers who were deported to Egypt from Sweden on December 18, 2001, apparently following a request from the United States Central Intelligence Agency. The forced repatriation was criticized because of the danger of torture and ill treatment, and because the deportation decision was executed the same day without notifying the lawyers of the asylum seekers. The deportation was carried out by American and Egyptian personnel on Swedish ground, with Swedish servicemen apparently as passive onlookers.

Re: Julian Assange Appears in Court for U.S. Extradition Hearing

#54

Post by posterboy » Thu, May 02, 2019, 3:43 PM UTC

atemerev wrote: post #35

resters wrote: post #3

Keep in mind all the crimes by US officials that Assange revealed. In my view many of those crimes committed by officials are treason, yet all have been swept under the rug.

Which of his crimes looks like treason? He didn’t hack anything, his only “crime” is providing a publishing outlet. (And yes, Assange is highly biased and anti-American, which is not good, but publishing leaks shouldn’t be a crime.)

On second reading, I think OP meant the war crimes ("many of these") were treason. I don't know what was done, but I suspect that's not really true under a narrow definition.

Re: Julian Assange Appears in Court for U.S. Extradition Hearing

#55

Post by dickeytk » Thu, May 02, 2019, 3:43 PM UTC

idlewords wrote: post #9

resters wrote: post #3

Keep in mind all the crimes by US officials that Assange revealed. In my view many of those crimes committed by officials are treason, yet all have been swept under the rug.

[flagged]

stare decisis is (in common law countries)

Re: Julian Assange Appears in Court for U.S. Extradition Hearing

#56

Post by resters » Thu, May 02, 2019, 3:43 PM UTC

Svip wrote: post #52

dnautics wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Treason has a specific definition in the us Constitution and it's a quite difficult bar to cross.

How can it be treason, when he's not a US citizen?

I’m referring to the officials not Julian.

Re: Julian Assange Appears in Court for U.S. Extradition Hearing

#57

Post by resters » Thu, May 02, 2019, 3:44 PM UTC

dnautics wrote: post #18

resters wrote: post #3

Keep in mind all the crimes by US officials that Assange revealed. In my view many of those crimes committed by officials are treason, yet all have been swept under the rug.

Treason has a specific definition in the us Constitution and it's a quite difficult bar to cross.

Lying about a war for corrupt reasons surely qualifies.

Re: Julian Assange Appears in Court for U.S. Extradition Hearing

#58

Post by paulcole » Thu, May 02, 2019, 3:44 PM UTC

Veen wrote: post #40

resters wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lying about the war crimes was treason in my view

Your view is irrelevant unless you can change the law.

Not necessarily if they can get on the jury and use jury nullification. Or make this concept more well known to people who may be on the jury.

Re: Julian Assange Appears in Court for U.S. Extradition Hearing

#59

Post by [deleted] » Thu, May 02, 2019, 3:45 PM UTC

ezoe wrote: post #20

I guess this news gives Assange a valid reason for his bail-jumping. He was suspected of raping in Sweden. That was what he was bail-jumping for. But the real reason is the threat of his extradition to US for... what? revealing the war crime of the US? That shall never be a crime. War crime shall not be hidden. US shall be punished for obstructing the information of war crime.

[deleted]

Re: Julian Assange Appears in Court for U.S. Extradition Hearing

#60

Post by danso » Thu, May 02, 2019, 3:45 PM UTC

gcb0 wrote: post #8

this confirms that jumping bail was the right course of action. Sweden didn't produce a single evidence of the crime, and US extradition hearings are happening behind closed doors. how isn't this exactly what prompted him to ask for asylum, which the UK magistrate called paranoia at the time?

> Sweden didn't produce a single evidence of the crime

This seems to be false. There was a hearing, and a judge believed there was probable cause. From the Wikipedia page, under "Review of detention order":

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

> On 16 July 2014, the Stockholm District Court reviewed the detention order on request by Assange. During the course of the proceedings, Assange's defence lawyers said that the prosecutors have a "duty" to advance the case, and that they had shown "passivity" in refusing to go to London to interview Assange. After hearing evidence, the district court concluded that there was probable cause to suspect Assange of committing the alleged crimes, and that the detention order should remain in place.