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

121–130 of 172 posts

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

#121

Post by ivanhoe »

kemayo wrote: post #79
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?

Here's a 2012 article detailing what Sweden provided: https://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/media/2012/09/legal-mytho... i.e. basically they showed Sweden had charged him with stuff which was a crime in both Sweden and the U.K., a bunch of courts agreed that the charges looked at least reasonable and were valid grounds for extradition to Sweden, and then Assange went to the Equadorian embassy. I think that extraditing h…

Sweden never charged him with anything. As the link you've provided clearly states they've issued the "request for interrogation", and since he wasn't available prosecutor gave order for him to be brought in for the interrogation, followed by an Interpol warrant for arrest since he was now in another country. Only after interviewing him Swedish prosecutor would decide whether to proceed with the case and officially charge him with the crime, or would drop the whole thing.

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

#122

Post by Kalium »

noer wrote: post #71
gnode wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> for... what? revealing the war crime of the US? They're trying to get him for being an accomplice to specific computer crimes related to the acquisition of that information. Of course, the motivation is retribution for embarrassing the government.

The motivation probably also the normalization of prosecuting a journalist the United States sees as a threat/enemy. Assange is very flawed (to say the least), but if he's successfully prosecuted then it opens the door to prosecuting other journalists as well.

There's a fine line between some acts, like publishing documents passed to you, and actively helping a source commit acts that are crimical for the source in order to obtain further documents to publish. The former is generally protected activity. The latter is more like criminal conspiracy.

Inconvenientl, being a journalist or acting in the interests of journalism does not bless a person's conduct with immunity.

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

#123

Post by ChrisSD »

danso wrote: post #85
eof wrote: post #10

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

It might. Part of Ecuador's public justification for kicking Assange out was that it had received a "verbal" pledge [0] from the U.S. and the UK that the U.S. would not be seeking the death penalty. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who apparently agreed to this, is resigning. In 2010 [1], Trump commented that "there should be like death penalty or something" for Wikileaks. But obviously things have changed sin…

The US cannot seek the death penalty for people extradited from the EU.

Well ok, they technically can break their own treaties but then no EU nation will ever extradite to them again. And many other countries require similar assurances which would now be worthless.

Incidentally, the maximum penalty for the charges is five years, which is far short of a death sentence.

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

#124

Post by kickopotomus »

justinmchase wrote: post #113
kickopotomus wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That is the entire purpose of a trial. The accuser brings forth evidence against the accused.

Assange is under federal indictment meaning that a grand jury was presented evidence and decided that it was enough to file charges. However, the parent comment claims that Assange is innocent.

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

#125

Post by droithomme »

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.)

The guy you're responding to said "crimes by US officials that Assange revealed", not "crimes by Assange that US officials revealed". I misread it the first time too, but he meant the opposite of what you thought.

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

#126

Post by justinmchase »

akhilcacharya wrote: post #37
alwaysanagenda wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's the only one who could testify about the truth behind the DNC leak (Seth Rich) and the Podesta e-mails (phished). Neither were 'hacked' by the Russians. With the Mueller investigation effectively over, it's time to turn the tables. Assange is a valuable asset in this endeavor.

You mean the investigation that proved that Assange attempted to weaponize the grief of a family for the gain of Russian political interests? That investigation?

Actually, there was some evidence that Seth Rich was indeed in contact with Wikileaks. There is no confirmation that he actually was the source of any leaks but there were email exchanges with Assange on his laptop and he appeared to be _intending_ to leak at least.

This was according to Seymore Hersh, you can find audio of him describing Rich's involvement and other discussion on the topic.

To be clear, Rich's murder could have been a total coincidence and he could have possibly not been the source of any published leaks. Given that, it was not weaponization but a reasonable assumption on the part of Wikileaks to conclude that Rich had probably been assasinated.

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

#127

Post by justinmchase »

e1ven wrote: post #27
alwaysanagenda wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's the only one who could testify about the truth behind the DNC leak (Seth Rich) and the Podesta e-mails (phished). Neither were 'hacked' by the Russians. With the Mueller investigation effectively over, it's time to turn the tables. Assange is a valuable asset in this endeavor.

You realize you sound pretty far out-of-mainstream when you say things like that, right?

There is multiple points of evidence that Seth Rich was in contact with wikileaks before his murder and was either leaking documents or intending to leak documents.

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

#128

Post by saalweachter »

justinmchase wrote: post #126
akhilcacharya wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean the investigation that proved that Assange attempted to weaponize the grief of a family for the gain of Russian political interests? That investigation?

Actually, there was some evidence that Seth Rich was indeed in contact with Wikileaks. There is no confirmation that he actually was the source of any leaks but there were email exchanges with Assange on his laptop and he appeared to be _intending_ to leak at least. This was according to Seymore Hersh, you can find audio of him describing Rich's involvement and other discussion on the topic. To be clear, Rich's murde…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seymour_Hersh#Seth_Rich

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

#129

Post by nisuni »

mavdi wrote: post #33
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.

None of the things he revealed can be classified as treason. War crimes maybe, treason no way. I also wonder why he never revealed any of Russia's alleged crimes in Ukraine or Syria. Just a thought.

Can we please stop using this talking point about Russia?

WikiLeaks publishes what they get (after verifying credibility). They cannot publish what is not leaked to them.

Also: they did publish things on Russia.

Post reply on HN