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

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

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 172 posts

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

#111

Post by isoskeles »

paulcole wrote: post #58
Veen wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Wouldn't jury nullification be restricted to finding someone not guilty because some law is invalid. This would be the opposite, where we find someone "guilty" of "treason" because the jury decided treason is actually a broader crime that covers acts like lying about war crimes. Doesn't sound like jury "nullification" to me.

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

#112

Post by username223 »

I don't really care which way this goes. Assange is a despicable person: he has been a pompous ideologue; he was accused of rape in Sweden; he acted as a "useful idiot" (at best) for the Russians; and he finally irritated the Ecuadoreans enough that they kicked him out of their embassy, which is why he is facing extradition. I'm not eager to punish him, but I wouldn't object to him spending some time in prison.

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

#113

Post by justinmchase »

kickopotomus wrote: post #95
atemerev wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

Do you have a source? Where is your proof that he did not attempt to gain unauthorized access to a federal computer? Genuinely asking because that is the exact crime he is being charged with.

Rather, where is the proof that he did?

The burden of proof is on the accuser.

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

#114

Post by justinmchase »

Veen wrote: post #17
resters wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’d have no problem with Assange being punished if the other journalists were, or if the government officials were.

Assange is accused of a crime. Should he be forgiven because some other people are also accused of crimes?

He should be forgiven because there should be an exception for whistleblowing.

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

#115

Post by justinmchase »

username223 wrote: post #112

I don't really care which way this goes. Assange is a despicable person: he has been a pompous ideologue; he was accused of rape in Sweden; he acted as a "useful idiot" (at best) for the Russians; and he finally irritated the Ecuadoreans enough that they kicked him out of their embassy, which is why he is facing extradition. I'm not eager to punish him, but I wouldn't object to him spending some time in prison.

You may want to read this, you appear to have a couple common misconceptions about what is going on based on some highly publicized smears:

https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/debunking-all-the-assange...

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

#117

Post by bduerst »

coldtea wrote: post #80
idlewords wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Accusation of whataboutism is a thought-stopper. What-about-X allows you to put things in perspective. Things - including crimes (or alleged crimes) - don't exist in isolation. It depends who they happen to (I wouldn't care much to punish the person who helped murder a dictator and bring democracy, for example), it depends if they help stop bigger crimes (I'd applaud the small guy that does a crime to bring down much…

Complaining about whataboutism being called out is even more tangential and thought-stopping than actually calling it out.

Whataboutism is not a valid defense, it's a deflection in the form of a red herring.

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

#118

Post by Svip »

ceejayoz wrote: post #97
Svip wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Swedish policy has changed since 2001. I wonder if there are any more recent examples. But that was on par for the course for Sweden. Back during the Cold War, Sweden sent a lot of Latvians and Lithuanians back on request by the USSR. Sweden was desperately defending its status as a neutral country, and did not want to appear to take any sides. But the previous Swedish government decided to recognise Palestine as a s…

> All that besides, the US did not request his extradition until Trump became President. So he could have gone to Sweden, done his interview in the case, probably been let off with a fine, and then go on his merry way. Assange had no way of knowing that. The Trump admin's extradition request was sealed (we only knew of its existence in advance because it accidentally leaked in another case's court filings). That said…

I was merely arguing that the recent turn of events has not proven, Assange's theory about the consequences of being extradited to Sweden, nor that it was the right thing to jump bail.

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

#119

Post by ChrisSD »

HashThis wrote: post #86
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.

Please don't say rape. That is spreading rumors. It was consensual sex without protection

The rape charge[0] is as follows:

> On 17 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [SW] in Enkoping, Assange deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep. was in a helpless state.

This is rape under UK law. Both the District and High Court judge agreed on this point.

[0] http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html

Post reply on HN