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

151–159 of 159 posts

Re: Julian Assange: Home Secretary Signs US Extradition Request

#151

Post by staunch »

soulofmischief wrote: post #148
staunch wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lawyers prosecuting cases need proof. The rest of us can, with some basic level of objectivity, just look at the preponderance of the evidence and come to a conclusion. I believe that any reasonable person that looks into the publicly available evidence would come to the same conclusion. On the other hand, if you're one of the rubes that bought the Seth Rich story from Assange you can be 100% sure that you're terribl…

That isn't how "innocent until proven guilty" works, staunch. You cannot claim Assange is guilty without irrefutable evidence, which you still have not provided.

This isn't a courtroom, soulofmischief. My conclusion is based on the preponderance of the evidence, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

And I do assert that anyone with an objective point of view would come to the same conclusion.

Re: Julian Assange: Home Secretary Signs US Extradition Request

#152

Post by staunch »

mrguyorama wrote: post #150
staunch wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given that he failed to actually crack the password it seems like a pretty weak argument that he actually helped. And IIRC the pentagon papers involved journalists helping to photocopy the documents. Seems totally fine for a journalist to assist someone that's leaking classified data. They're not the ones committing the crime, the person violating their privileged access is IMO.

Failing at a crime is still a crime. If you try to rob a bank but get no money, you still tried to rob a bank

It depends what you mean by "try".

If you try to rob a bank but your car breaks down before you get there, so you give up, that's not bank robbery.

You may still be guilty of criminal conspiracy or something but not bank robbery. These are legally technical areas that are more complicated than what you're portraying.

Re: Julian Assange: Home Secretary Signs US Extradition Request

#153

Post by zepto »

thatoneuser wrote: post #114
zepto wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a difference between posting anti-government opinions, and aiding and abetting the theft of state secrets. Eliding then into one thing is intellectually dishonest. I think it’s totally reasonable to argue that Assange did not do what he is accused of, but what he is accused of is not journalism or simply the expression of free speech.

Aiding and abetting is a lesser crime than the actual theft crime. Eliding those things into one is intellectually dishonest. Further, the person who actually committed theft has been pardoned serving less time than Julian spent in the embassy. It makes no sense that he would receive any punishment at this point for the lesser crime.

Who is eliding those things?

Re: Julian Assange: Home Secretary Signs US Extradition Request

#154

Post by kmlx »

jascii wrote: post #133
kmlx wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

And how exactly does that misdemeanor warrant extradition to the US?

that’s not what the extradition is about.

again, wikipedia is your friend: “Assange was accused of conspiracy to commit computer intrusion in order to help Chelsea Manning gain access to privileged information which he intended to publish on Wikileaks. This is a less serious charge in comparison to those leveled against Manning, and carries a maximum sentence of five years with a possibility of parole.[2]”

Re: Julian Assange: Home Secretary Signs US Extradition Request

#155

Post by SAI_Peregrinus »

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?

The US illegally revoked his passport while he was in transit. He thus got stuck during a layover on the way to his original destination (some South American country, I forget which).

Re: Julian Assange: Home Secretary Signs US Extradition Request

#156

Post by soulofmischief »

staunch wrote: post #151
soulofmischief wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That isn't how "innocent until proven guilty" works, staunch. You cannot claim Assange is guilty without irrefutable evidence, which you still have not provided.

This isn't a courtroom, soulofmischief. My conclusion is based on the preponderance of the evidence, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. And I do assert that anyone with an objective point of view would come to the same conclusion.

Innocent until proven guilty is a thing for a reason.

We should presume innocence until more qualified people beholded to a strict investigative and judicial process make their ruling, which will hopefully not be tainted by outside interests.

Innocent until proven guilty does not mean that we get to make premature assumptions and pass them off as fact because "this isn't a courtroom". It is not something just lawyers and judges are beholden to, it's something we as a society are beholden to. Everyone has to play along.

You can have your own thoughts, but you cannot just pass them off as objective fact without hard proof.

So I ask one more time, what evidence have you prepondered to ascertain Assange's guilty status? You're speaking in vague nothings instead of providing real data.

Re: Julian Assange: Home Secretary Signs US Extradition Request

#157

Post by decoyworker »

mrguyorama wrote: post #120
decoyworker wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What violations of the Constitution did Snowden reveal?

depending on your interpretation, the routine use of unwarranted searching of United States Citizens, among other things

PRISM requires a FISA warrant on domestic targets.

Re: Julian Assange: Home Secretary Signs US Extradition Request

#158

Post by micmil »

passwordreset wrote: post #105
micmil wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

"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." These two sentences appear incorrect. I can simply refer you to Wikipedia, where it states that he accessed "JSTOR using a guest user account issued to him by MIT." If Wikipedia is wrong, please correct them. Certainly, if you know facts about this case that Wikipedia is getti…

>I can simply refer you to Wikipedia, where it states that he accessed

Accessed a controlled access server room to attach his computer to so he could download from the JSTOR repositories. Learn to read.

>Incorrect and inflammatory; again, a simple check of Wikipedia suggests that you don't have your facts right.

Again, learn to read. "Cumulative maximum" means that if every single crime, which he admitted to committing I remind you, was given the maximum sentence he would have spent 35 years in jail.

Except he was never going to get 35 years or anything even close to it. Its just disingenuous jackoffs such as yourself that propagate this number because you can't fucking read and can't be bothered to learn facts.

Swartz was offered six months. He killed himself instead. Swartz was a fucking privileged pussy that likely never had a hard day in his life and bailed the moment reality hit him.

Re: Julian Assange: Home Secretary Signs US Extradition Request

#159

Post by passwordreset »

micmil wrote: post #158
passwordreset wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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." These two sentences appear incorrect. I can simply refer you to Wikipedia, where it states that he accessed "JSTOR using a guest user account issued to him by MIT." If Wikipedia is wrong, please correct them. Certainly, if you know facts about this case that Wikipedia is getti…

>I can simply refer you to Wikipedia, where it states that he accessed Accessed a controlled access server room to attach his computer to so he could download from the JSTOR repositories. Learn to read. >Incorrect and inflammatory; again, a simple check of Wikipedia suggests that you don't have your facts right. Again, learn to read. "Cumulative maximum" means that if every single crime, which he admitted to committi…

Again, if you have an argument with Wikipedia, maybe you should tell _them_ instead of going onto HN and spouting incorrect and inflammatory material.

"Learn to read", "disingenuous jackoffs", "can't fucking read", "fucking privileged pussy" -- these are all your words. I call them inflammatory. You seem to disagree, but the consensus will line up with me on this one. Please realize that. Your initial post was modded down by others for a reason.

You appear hypersensitive to people who disagree with you. Dude, this is the sign of emotional problems. You need to calm down and realize there's something wrong in your head or in your life, and when you can begin to write like an emotionally secure adult, you'll be taken seriously.

I implore you, please, to analyze your life, find the things that are harming you, and rectify them. I believe, given this interaction with you, that you would benefit from this kind of introspection.

As an example of your extreme sensitivity, when you say "the maximum sentence he would have spent 35 years in jail", on this issue we are in agreement. Somehow, you turn this into an opposition. You seem to be looking for a fight, and you're trying to do it on the Internet. I will not fight you on the Internet, my friend. That would be counter-productive.

Post reply on HN