Julian Assange: Home Secretary Signs US Extradition Request • Hacker News Board

Re: Julian Assange: Home Secretary Signs US Extradition Request

#41

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jun 13, 2019, 5:16 PM UTC

Myrmornis wrote: post #21

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.

[deleted]

Re: Julian Assange: Home Secretary Signs US Extradition Request

#42

Post by tracker1 » Thu, Jun 13, 2019, 5:19 PM UTC

joshuamorton wrote: post #26

cyphar wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Judges can and often do, set expectations on scope and consideration the jury should take into consideration. That doesn't mean that jury nullification cannot happen, however no judge will generally let any jury know that they're even allowed to do that.

Re: Julian Assange: Home Secretary Signs US Extradition Request

#43

Post by politician » Thu, Jun 13, 2019, 5:21 PM UTC

short_sells_poo wrote: post #19

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…

In an international framework, law is whatever a particular country can enforce. In other words, whoever has the biggest stick will ultimately have their way. This has nothing to do with technology, but fundamental political facts of life that are unlikely to change. The players might change, but the game is the same.

Indeed, in all ages of man, groups took political hostages and traded them. Might makes right.

Re: Julian Assange: Home Secretary Signs US Extradition Request

#44

Post by tracker1 » Thu, Jun 13, 2019, 5:21 PM UTC

jimbob45 wrote: post #24

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…

I don't know that I agree. By contrast the Snowden leaks were extremely considered and vetted to minimize potential harm. The Wikileaks could have very well cost lives and put people into harms way. While you may disagree with political espionage, that doesn't mean you should potentially dox active agents in the field.

Re: Julian Assange: Home Secretary Signs US Extradition Request

#45

Post by Mugwort » Thu, Jun 13, 2019, 5:22 PM UTC

It's worth keeping in mind that when they say Assange is guilty of violating the espionage act, did illegal hacking etc. what they really means is that he's guilt of publishing video showing US armed forces murdering unarmed journalists and civilians. If people are going to place emphasis on Assange's crimes and make them a high priority then it's hypocrisy of the worst possible kind to ignore the serious war crimes committed by the US armed forces in Baghdad in 2007. The crimes exposed by Assange are far more worthy of attention than any criminality Assange could possibly be found guilty of in exposing those crimes.

Re: Julian Assange: Home Secretary Signs US Extradition Request

#46

Post by tracker1 » Thu, Jun 13, 2019, 5:24 PM UTC

res0nat0r wrote: post #14

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 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.

Agreed... I think, for the most part, it should have just been a single dump of information.

I generally vote Libertarian, so realistically this didn't effect me, but I am glad that a lot of people got to see a lot of the dirty deeds that politicians abuse. I've known since Bill Clinton was President that Hillary is not a good person and now the world knows it.

Re: Julian Assange: Home Secretary Signs US Extradition Request

#47

Post by politician » Thu, Jun 13, 2019, 5:27 PM UTC

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.

There is no chance that Assange isn't sent to Gitmo or a supermax facility. He's a political prisoner who embarrassed the US first by leaking the dirty secrets of important people, and then for years by hiding in an embassy.

He'll be tortured for the rest of his life as a message to anyone else who would dare to oppose the current order in such a flagrant and public way and without the backing of a nuclear state.

Re: Julian Assange: Home Secretary Signs US Extradition Request

#48

Post by micmil » Thu, Jun 13, 2019, 5:27 PM UTC

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…

Swartz was never going to get anywhere remotely near 35 years and people need to stop spouting this nonsense as it makes them look completely ignorant of every single fact in the case. The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act is designed to prosecute all computer crime from minor mischief to advanced terrorism. As such its maximum sentences are extremely high and the press just loves to throw around maximum sentences with no regard to the actual cases.

Swartz accessed a system he did not have permission to access. He did so by entering a restricted area he did not have permission to access. While I agree with his general ideal, what he did was an act of civil disobedience.

The single most basic tenet of civil disobedience is that you are willing to go to jail.

Swartz was apparently unable to think beyond the immediate and to the inevitable, obvious, end result of him being charged with a crime that he blatantly and admittedly committed.

Six months house arrest, which given that he had no criminal record, would likely have been halved or reduced even further. This is absolutely in line with the crime that he, again, admitted to committing.

Mitnick's sentence shows exactly what these maximums mean in regards to real-world sentencing.

Re: Julian Assange: Home Secretary Signs US Extradition Request

#49

Post by micmil » Thu, Jun 13, 2019, 5:29 PM UTC

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.

Your willful ignorance is astounding. Then again I don't expect any better from Trumpettes.

Re: Julian Assange: Home Secretary Signs US Extradition Request

#50

Post by FDSGSG » Thu, Jun 13, 2019, 5:31 PM UTC

harryf wrote: post #8

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…

Basically Julian Assange is screwed. They may make a show of the trial but you can be sure he’ll spend the rest of his life in prison.

I wouldn't bet on him getting extradited, in the end it'll be a political decision and historically the UK press hasn't exactly been kind on the UK/US extradition treaty.