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

121–130 of 159 posts

Re: Julian Assange: Home Secretary Signs US Extradition Request

#121

Post by buboard »

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.

so, until the truths were convenient? And btw, the question is not if we support his decision to leak things, but whether he deserves to die in jail (or worse) or not.

Re: Julian Assange: Home Secretary Signs US Extradition Request

#122

Post by mrguyorama »

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.

Assange releasing documents manning sends him is fine and first amendment.

Assange "conspiring" with manning to crack a password is not

Re: Julian Assange: Home Secretary Signs US Extradition Request

#123

Post by EForEndeavour »

Mugwort wrote: post #96
decoyworker wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What war crimes did Assange expose?

this... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0

Physically sickening.

[Voice 1] Well it's their fault for bringing their kids into a battle.

[Voice 2] That's right.

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0&has_verified=1&t...

"Battle" my ass.

Re: Julian Assange: Home Secretary Signs US Extradition Request

#124

Post by scarejunba »

gamblor956 wrote: post #92
cat199 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of this definitively means it was done 'on behalf of', nor 'for the benefit of'. 'to the benefit of', perhaps, but an unwitting puppet is not necessarily an accomplice.

Per the Mueller Report, Assange attempted to coordinate the leaks with the Trump campaign.

Well, he picked the wrong allies.

Re: Julian Assange: Home Secretary Signs US Extradition Request

#125

Post by tialaramex »

kmlx wrote: post #28
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 caug…

Yup, you can read some of their sorrowful submissions to the court when it came time to collect the money - they were so sure he was a stand up guy who would stand by his word, and of course to him they were just more tools to be used and discarded.

Bail isn't ordinarily an option in the UK. But these people were so certain that their friend Julian would show up that they signed over their money. The judge asks them if it occurred to them to actually supervise him and make sure he showed up, and IIRC they had never even considered it. If you're a con man looking for victims, that list of people who promised a court money for Assange's bail is a good start.

Re: Julian Assange: Home Secretary Signs US Extradition Request

#126

Post by astine »

thatoneuser wrote: post #115
gjmacd wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He tried to brute force password hack with Chelsea Manning. Worked with her directly -- to me, that's pretty much a clear and cut case of "hacking". Regardless of the attempt was successful or not.

If we're going to base his guilt off of the similarity in his actions to Manning then remember that Manning was pardoned. It would be pretty piss poor precedence to ignore that and charge assange in a different light.

Manning was convicted. Pardons are not a statement of guilt or non-guilt but a political tool. Assange might yet be pardoned, but I'd be surprised.

Re: Julian Assange: Home Secretary Signs US Extradition Request

#127

Post by bduerst »

epicureanideal wrote: post #109
bduerst wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Guccifer 2.0 was a Russian intelligence hacker group that hacked the Democratic National Committee emails and delivered to Assange and Wikileaks to publicly release. [1] Wikileaks then dropped the emails in parcels - behavior they had never done before - in order to manipulate news headlines leading up to the 2016 federal elections. [2] This is confirmed by numerous, independent security firms, such as CrowdStrike, F…

It’s not true that WikiLeaks never slowly released information before. That was entirely consistent with how they had been doing things.

No, it wasn't. Read the cited article if you disagree. Assange and wikileaks also reached out to the Trump campaign to coordinate the email leaks.

Re: Julian Assange: Home Secretary Signs US Extradition Request

#128

Post by 8note »

tracker1 wrote: post #80
empath75 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

acquittal is not nullification.

When someone technically violated the law, but the jury doesn't convict is.

when somebody technically violated the law, but there's reasonable doubt, it's not nullification

Re: Julian Assange: Home Secretary Signs US Extradition Request

#129

Post by bduerst »

p1esk wrote: post #108
bduerst wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Guccifer 2.0 was a Russian intelligence hacker group that hacked the Democratic National Committee emails and delivered to Assange and Wikileaks to publicly release. [1] Wikileaks then dropped the emails in parcels - behavior they had never done before - in order to manipulate news headlines leading up to the 2016 federal elections. [2] This is confirmed by numerous, independent security firms, such as CrowdStrike, F…

I am bit confused, did the hackers falsify/forge anything? Or did they reveal some accurate information about the candidate(s)? If the latter, then what's the problem? Didn't they make American voters more informed? Would this be somehow different (e.g. less evil) had the same thing been done by American journalists?

GP claimed that Wikileaks and Russian promotion of the Trump campaign was on par with the WMD intelligent in Iraq - i.e. the Russian involvement is just a "smokescreen" - which it is not.

Re: Julian Assange: Home Secretary Signs US Extradition Request

#130

Post by bduerst »

Mugwort wrote: post #94
bduerst wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Mueller investigation did not find evidence of collusion, but that is not the same as evidence of no collusion. There was plenty of evidence that Wikileaks and the Russian State were influencing the election in favor of Trump: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clinton-blames-putin...

I don't disagree but how much influence did they have? The biggest culprits for swaying the election is none other than the US media by giving Trump billions of dollars worth of free election coverage for profits. They knew the negative coverage was energizing his base but they did it anyone because money. Blaming the US media however is as useless as blaming Wikileaks or Russia. At some point we need to admit we hav…

"What about the US Media" is whataboutism - a deflection. Russian intelligence hacked U.S. political parties and used the illegally obtained information to influence the election for one candidate. The case is not closed as you say because the political party that benefitted from the foreign influence is blocking legislation to fix the problem.
Post reply on HN