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

Julian Assange: Home Secretary Signs US Extradition Request

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 159 posts

Re: Julian Assange: Home Secretary Signs US Extradition Request

#21

Post by Myrmornis »

wilhil wrote: post #3

Not taking a stance on what has happened here, but, I just find it weird in this day and age how you can be accused of crimes against a country you aren't in by doing something over the internet. Was it Turkey (I forget) recently that was trying to accuse people of crimes for writing anti-government pieces online and everyone says how bad it is, but, people seem to be cool when it's the USA doing it. I don't understa…

> people seem to be cool when it's the USA doing it.

People like who?! As far as I'm aware most sentient people in the world are utterly depressed by the USA's arrogance and hypocrisy.

Re: Julian Assange: Home Secretary Signs US Extradition Request

#22

Post by staunch »

baby wrote: post #10

I find it really interesting that everyone was so pro wikileaks and supported him until they released the wrong documents: something against hillary. If you like leaks, you have to accept that it is going both ways.

Edward Snowden released incredible evidence of fourth amendment violations, making him an absolute hero in my book.

Assange, in all his years, never actually released anything on the U.S. government that I found to be damning or evidence of illegality. I don't think he did any good by leaking that Iraq war video, the embassy cables, or CIA tools.

I went from being ambivalent about Assange to thinking he was a terrible person based on his incredible dishonesty regarding the Clinton emails. I had no problem with the leaking of her emails itself.

He, like some kind of weasel lawyer, claimed that he did not receive the emails "from a state actor" and directly implied that they came from Seth Rich. He intentionally mislead a lot of very naive people.

The fact is that they almost certainly came through an intermediary of a Russian state actor and almost certainly did not come from Seth Rich.

So me disliking him has nothing to do with politics. I would have found him just as much of a dishonest weasel had Trump been the target instead of Clinton.

And yet I still think the First Amendment should protect him because I believe American freedoms should remain extremely broad.

Re: Julian Assange: Home Secretary Signs US Extradition Request

#23

Post by staunch »

influx wrote: post #20
res0nat0r wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I supported him until he started releasing information in drips and drabs to interfere with a US election, and willingly accepted stolen documents from an obvious foreign agent.

How about Edward Snowden being housed, clothed and fed by the same Russian government that was interfering with US elections and providing information to Wikileaks?

AFAIK he's earned his own money by doing talks and receiving donations from supporters, etc not from the Russian government.

And Snowden has never mislead anyone about why he's in Russia. He's said that he would love to come home. And if U.S. whistleblower protections was stronger he could.

Snowden was openly revealing violations of the U.S. constitution.

Assange was covertly acting as an agent of a hostile foreign government with the intention of interfering in U.S. domestic politics.

There is no comparison between these two, at all.

Re: Julian Assange: Home Secretary Signs US Extradition Request

#24

Post by jimbob45 »

baby wrote: post #10

I find it really interesting that everyone was so pro wikileaks and supported him until they released the wrong documents: something against hillary. If you like leaks, you have to accept that it is going both ways.

I like leaks and I still like the concept of Wikileaks. I just wish they were less discriminatory about how and what they posted. Honestly, I'd prefer that there wouldn't be a curation staff at all (or at least not one that blocks posts before they're published) and that anything could be published that they could take down if they found it to be spam/meaningless.

Honestly, I don't even have a problem with the stuff against Hillary either. They were doing bad things and got caught.

Re: Julian Assange: Home Secretary Signs US Extradition Request

#25

Post by craftyguy »

dingaling wrote: post #17
nimbius wrote: post #6

As far as I can tell, the case for this basically hinges on the United States ability to prove Julian Assange is some sort of hacker, not a journalist. Assange hasnt written any code, or published/executed any exploits, so this seems like a pretty tenuous charge. You'd have better luck prosecuting someone like Moxie Marlinspike for hacking. Then again the US has a rather schizophrenic approach to prosecuting 'hackers…

Mr Mitnick spent eight months of his five year sentence in solitary confinement in case he tried to initiate a nuclear war - seriously. He was also banned from using any computer or phone for three years after release.

Still seems pretty light compared to what Assange may face when convicted (I seriously doubt there is an 'if' in this case).

Re: Julian Assange: Home Secretary Signs US Extradition Request

#26

Post by joshuamorton »

cyphar wrote: post #16
empath75 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would be absolutely stunned if that was the case. I bet he gets less than a year. He probably won’t even be convicted unless they come up with something better than their current indictment.

The indictment is in the Eastern District of Virginia. This court is a favourite of the DoJ, since IIRC it has never (or maybe only very rarely, I can't remember where I read this) ruled in favour of the defendant in an Espionage Act case. The idea Assange will have a fair trial is a joke -- though I do hope he does.

This is a bit of a weird statement. Criminal courts don't "rule". Judges make rulings (which, if my understanding is correct, are binding and set precedent). Assange will be put in front of a jury. The jury will make a determination of guilt or lack thereof. But such a finding isn't a ruling in the legal sense. It's not precedent setting. It's that a prosecutor managed to convince a group of 12 randomish people that Assange really did whatever bad thing they claim he did, and Assange's own council wasn't able to convince them otherwise.

Re: Julian Assange: Home Secretary Signs US Extradition Request

#27

Post by happytoexplain »

baby wrote: post #10

I find it really interesting that everyone was so pro wikileaks and supported him until they released the wrong documents: something against hillary. If you like leaks, you have to accept that it is going both ways.

In my experience, this doesn't follow. For the most part, people who were broadly for or against wikileaks remained so after the leaks. The rest of the people judge things on a case by case basis, and taking a look at the facts, those people didn't seem to show very inconsistent application of critique across cases. I know it's easy and satisfying to accuse people you don't like of hypocrisy, especially because there always will be those who make decisions purely based on whatever represents their "side" at any given moment, but painting the broader population with the same strokes is something we should all strive to avoid.

Re: Julian Assange: Home Secretary Signs US Extradition Request

#28

Post by kmlx »

jacknews wrote: post #13

"First of all I am very pleased the police were able to apprehend him and now he is rightly behind bars because he broke UK law," Javid told BBC Radio 4 on Thursday. I'll guess that this is a true statement, but which law, and does it support extradition? Oh, it must be 'skipping bail', on what seem to be exaggerated charges. So a kind of 'you broke the law because you didn't admit to the charges' kind of thing. Hmmm…

wikipedia is your friend: “Assange breached bail conditions by staying in the embassy and faced arrest if he left. Assange's supporters, including journalist Jemima Goldsmith, journalist John Pilger, and film-maker Ken Loach, forfeited £293,500 in bail and sureties.[203][204] Goldsmith said she was surprised at his asylum bid and expected him to face the Swedish allegations.”

the guy ran from the law and the law caught up with him. like any one of us, breaching bail put him in prison.

Re: Julian Assange: Home Secretary Signs US Extradition Request

#29

Post by supergirl »

staunch wrote: post #9

I'm optimistic that US courts will find him not guilty, leaving the first amendment even stronger than it already is. Assange may have pushed the boundaries of journalism but US courts will hopefully err on the side of protecting him.

no way that will happen. huge media campaign against him. the public is mixed. he gets at least 10. i don't know why he waited in the embassy so long, only to allow the US years to build their case and set the public mood.

Re: Julian Assange: Home Secretary Signs US Extradition Request

#30

Post by dmitrygr »

staunch wrote: post #9

I'm optimistic that US courts will find him not guilty, leaving the first amendment even stronger than it already is. Assange may have pushed the boundaries of journalism but US courts will hopefully err on the side of protecting him.

In Virgina's Eastern District? Good luck with that!

https://www.google.com/search?q=Virgina%27s+Eastern+District...

Post reply on HN