Live data from Hacker News

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

nytimes.com

161–170 of 172 posts

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

#161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The indictment formulation is “assisted with”. It is really vague; publishing results can be interpreted as assistance.

No, it cannot be. Publishing, and only publishing classified documents is protected under the first amendment[1]. However, Assange helped Manning gain access to and procure the classified documents which is illegal.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_S...

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

#162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He cannot. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/extradition-processes-and-review... > Extradition is prohibited by statute if: > ... > there are no speciality arrangements with the requesting country – ‘speciality’ requires that the person must be dealt with in the requesting state only for the offences for which they have been extradited (except in certain limited circumstances) Here's the relevant law: https://www.legislati…

Incidentally has the US filed its formal extradition paperwork yet? We can only speculate what charges Assange will face in US court until that document is filed.

The official charges will probably be put online as part of court transcripts eventually but I'd expect a journalist (or even Assange's lawyer) will post it sooner.

However it looks like the US indictment[0] is more or less the same as the formal charges will be, considering the exact same maximum sentence as for the indictment was stated at the UK hearing (five years).

[0] https://www.justice.gov/usao-edva/press-release/file/1153481...

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

#163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not true. So called whataboutism is used to deflect a valid critique and defend an indefensible position. I think people claim whataboutism because they lack an understanding of scope. Assange published secrets, ok. That is possibly a crime. But the secrets revealed far worse crimes. Would you defend Jerry Sandusky by saying that an informant being convicted of shoplifting was the most important part of the Sandusky…

That's a self-serving hypothetical. I would not defend Assange by saying that some of the people whom he leaked documents about have not been prosecuted yet. The latter doesn't justify any defense.

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

#165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not true. So called whataboutism is used to deflect a valid critique and defend an indefensible position. I think people claim whataboutism because they lack an understanding of scope. Assange published secrets, ok. That is possibly a crime. But the secrets revealed far worse crimes. Would you defend Jerry Sandusky by saying that an informant being convicted of shoplifting was the most important part of the Sandusky…

That's a self-serving hypothetical. I would not defend Assange by saying that some of the people whom he leaked documents about have not been prosecuted yet. The latter doesn't justify any defense.

Why would you need to "defend" him in the first place?

Aside from the fact that big state and private powers want him out and accuse him, preferring radio silence on their deeds and crimes, I don't see him as having done anything bad at all.

A state holding secrets is not worth of any defense. A state holding bad secrets of crimes and misdeeds even less so.

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

#166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Literally everything you said is alt-right conspiracy nonsense. People who blow up Americans are our enemies. They brag about being our enemies online and in traditional media, at least until we blow them up using very expensive bombs. These wars were authorized by duly elected legislative representatives at the behest of multiple ideologically-opposing executive administrations. One of these presidents was a black/b…

It's bizarre to have my views characterized as alt-right. > People who blow up Americans are our enemies. The groups doing those things have been funded by the US government quite recently, and would likely not exist if the US government hadn't tried to meddle in the middle east decades ago. > These wars were authorized by duly elected legislative representatives Sort of. The wars would likely not have escalated if t…

The groups doing those things have been funded by the US government quite recently, and would likely not exist if the US government hadn't tried to meddle in the middle east decades ago.

This is not true at all, based on an even cursory understanding of the history of tribal and religious warfare in the Middle East.

Sort of. The wars would likely not have escalated if the information in the Iraq war logs was known earlier. The war logs showed that the US classified information about what was actually going on in the war so that the public would continue to support it. If the American people knew that it was a proxy war against Iran and that the US was abetting war crimes against former Baath party members, it is unlikely that the war would have continued.

This is even less true. The Iraq war was not a legitimate war, but had popular support from most of the electorate because 9/11 just happened. However, Afghanistan was a legitimate war, with popular support from both parties and the electorate, because Al Qaeda was actually located in Afghanistan. Al Qaeda was not, and never was, a proxy for Iran, nor was ISIS. Both groups were violently opposed to Iran on ideological grounds (and I mean "were" because they're both dead now).

Don't conflate one group of brown people with another. That's how the Iraq War happened.

If you think the major parties are in disagreement on war related issues you are not paying close attention. There are only minor points of disagreement.

I volunteered with a number of congressional campaigns of legislators opposed to the Iraq war and the subsequent extended occupation. I opened letters containing death threats targeting the candidates from budding alt-right idiots.

The disagreement between the parties over the war and the occupation was not minor. It was a wide gaping maw in many places where the two sides could not agree due to fundamental ideological differences. Hell, in 2008, the parties ran presidential campaigns with completely different positions on continuing the war. Obama intended to shift the war from Iraq to Afghanistan, McCain intended to continue the war in Iraq without moving into Afghanistan. Obama followed through--and was pilloried by the right for it until US special forces killed Osama.

Assange's decision not to publish material related to Trump was based on it already having been widely published or based on its questionable authenticity. Do you really think that anything damning about Trump could have been kept secret? I think that sounds a bit like a conspiracy theory :)

No, it was based on Assange's declared support for Donald Trump's presidency, and there is substantial evidence that Wikileaks coordinated its release of the DNC files with the Trump campaign to maximize political effect. Wikileaks was also known to have received leaked copies during the campaign of documents related to Trump's many scandals and refused to publish them until after Trump was sworn in.

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

#167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's bizarre to have my views characterized as alt-right. > People who blow up Americans are our enemies. The groups doing those things have been funded by the US government quite recently, and would likely not exist if the US government hadn't tried to meddle in the middle east decades ago. > These wars were authorized by duly elected legislative representatives Sort of. The wars would likely not have escalated if t…

The groups doing those things have been funded by the US government quite recently, and would likely not exist if the US government hadn't tried to meddle in the middle east decades ago. This is not true at all, based on an even cursory understanding of the history of tribal and religious warfare in the Middle East. Sort of. The wars would likely not have escalated if the information in the Iraq war logs was known ea…

> history of tribal and religious warfare in the Middle East

Are you claiming that with no US involvement, Al Qaida would have received training and ammunition?

> This is even less true...

You are correct about the start of the wars, but keep in mind that cost estimates by GWB of the wars were a tiny fraction of what the cost turned out to be very quickly after the big statue of Saddam toppled. With every day that went by the gap between what was promised and what was delivered widened. This was the motive for concealing (through classification) information that would have made it obvious that the war had been sold on false pretenses and that it would turn out to be a much, much larger undertaking than anyone who supported it had been led to believe.

To some of your other points, if one assumes that the war will be effective and cost the lives of, say 1 US soldier and cost $1, then it would be a no brainer. When you increase the death toll, cost, blowback, or any other negative externality, the ROI changes and easily becomes negative. It was not just the post-9/11 hysteria that led to the war, it was the dramatic underestimation of the time, cost, outcome, and of course the utter falsehood of the nation building narrative.

> Al Qaeda was not, and never was, a proxy for Iran

I did not claim it was. Saddam was linked by the Bush administration to Al Qaida if you recall, and Iran had significant interest in what would happen with Iraq.

> Don't conflate one group of brown people with another

I have not done that, see above.

> I opened letters containing death threats targeting the candidates from budding alt-right idiots.

In a large population there will be extreme and largely incoherent views on both (all?) sides, and of course you would open some such letters. The letters have no connection to what the parties actually wanted/supported during that time.

> Obama intended to shift the war from Iraq to Afghanistan, McCain intended to continue the war in Iraq without moving into Afghanistan. Obama followed through--and was pilloried by the right for it until US special forces killed Osama.

The key word here is intended. Obama also intended to close Gitmo and stop some of the more egregious excesses of the Bush administration but actually did very little to remediate it, until just before he left office toward the end of his second term. Any Democrat would advocate a left of center position, any Republican a right of center position, both knowing that the centrist position was just fine and that the rhetoric would help win the election and nothing more. Obama's conduct in office is a case in point. Don't confuse the political fray and left vs right accusations with what is actually happening (or not happening).

> No, it was based on Assange's declared support for Donald Trump's presidency...

Assange stated that he found both candidates abhorrent, so I'm not sure how you can claim that he supported Donald Trump's candidacy. I think you are potentially getting some false information about Assange's sentiments about Trump. I followed his conduct closely during the 2016 campaign and while he did maximize the PR impact of the leaked emails, I view that as a budget PR strategy since he'd already had his organization decimated and needed to drum up some PR to get the material noticed by the rest of the press.

If you have followed Assange for a while you will know that he has no political interest in any nation -- he may have had a grudge against HRC after she joked about assassinating him, who knows -- but his conduct as a journalist is beyond reproach, especially considering the attack that he was under during most of it.

If, for example, the NY Times had continued working with him and providing support, the PR strategy would not have been necessary, nor would the hastily released (sub-optimally redacted) items have been released. But instead the NYT decided to act as an arm of the US Government and help spread the "Assange is a rapist" meme.

While I doubt Assange is a violent person, I don't know him personally. But I also care a lot less about his character around people he's sharing a bed with than I do about the information he revealed.

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

#168
post #135
post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He is a journalist.

I was just about to say you should make some alts. Glad to see you've heeded my advice. Have a good day, Justin.

This is a bannable offence on HN, and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19809845 isn't much better. Would you please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and post civilly and substantively, or not at all, from now on?

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

#169
post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

That's rape in English law and Swedish law. https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html > ii) Offences 1-3 described in the EAW (set out at paragraph 3 above) did not meet the dual criminality test. None was a fair and accurate description of the conduct alleged. As regards offence 4, the conduct, if fairly and accurately described, would not have amounted to the offence of rape. Here's a description. S…

Indeed. The court ruled that all four of the alleged offences were crimes in England and Wales, and the fourth was properly characterised as rape.

(In case it's not obvious, parent's first quote is the court's summary of Assange's case on appeal, not the court's own findings).

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

#170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a self-serving hypothetical. I would not defend Assange by saying that some of the people whom he leaked documents about have not been prosecuted yet. The latter doesn't justify any defense.

Why would you need to "defend" him in the first place? Aside from the fact that big state and private powers want him out and accuse him, preferring radio silence on their deeds and crimes, I don't see him as having done anything bad at all. A state holding secrets is not worth of any defense. A state holding bad secrets of crimes and misdeeds even less so.

I'm referring to the context of this conversation, and misusing whataboutism to defend assange.
Post reply on HN