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

Assange in Court

craigmurray.org.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 173 posts

Re: Assange in Court

#71

Post by oliwarner »

mmjaa wrote: post #63
FireBeyond wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One example: Very article linked in the original post talks about concerns for Assange's health, saying he has been in the medical ward in jail. Yet apparently it's not at all possible that he is on medications to help with his mental state (which would explain - though in this case note that I would entirely agree that the use of such medication would interfere with his "ability to understand" - his demeanor as bein…

Innocent until proven guilty. But in the meantime: medicated into oblivion so he can't adequately defend himself. "Concern for his mental health" is just an excuse for "medically lobotomized".

> Innocent until proven guilty

And for that to hold, you have to let him be tried. Justice isn't automatic.

But people (maybe not you) seem far too quick to start muddying up the due process. It seems that if he is found guilty, nobody will accept that.

From here, it seems perfectly plausible that he actively helped Manning leak. If the US have evidence to that end, they have a case. Can we just let that case be heard and stop assuming that every actor here is a Bond villain?

Re: Assange in Court

#72

Post by FireBeyond »

mmjaa wrote: post #63
FireBeyond wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One example: Very article linked in the original post talks about concerns for Assange's health, saying he has been in the medical ward in jail. Yet apparently it's not at all possible that he is on medications to help with his mental state (which would explain - though in this case note that I would entirely agree that the use of such medication would interfere with his "ability to understand" - his demeanor as bein…

Innocent until proven guilty. But in the meantime: medicated into oblivion so he can't adequately defend himself. "Concern for his mental health" is just an excuse for "medically lobotomized".

And if that is indeed what is happening:

> in this case note that I would entirely agree that the use of such medication would interfere with his "ability to understand"

Re: Assange in Court

#73

Post by lucozade »

mmjaa wrote: post #63
FireBeyond wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One example: Very article linked in the original post talks about concerns for Assange's health, saying he has been in the medical ward in jail. Yet apparently it's not at all possible that he is on medications to help with his mental state (which would explain - though in this case note that I would entirely agree that the use of such medication would interfere with his "ability to understand" - his demeanor as bein…

Innocent until proven guilty. But in the meantime: medicated into oblivion so he can't adequately defend himself. "Concern for his mental health" is just an excuse for "medically lobotomized".

> medicated into oblivion so he can't adequately defend himself.

They wouldn't need to medicate him so that he can't defend himself.

This was a case management hearing. He wasn't ever going to get an opportunity to defend himself as that's not what it's for. He's not even required to attend.

Re: Assange in Court

#74

Post by mschuster91 »

threeseed wrote: post #36
chippy wrote: post #9

"The charge against Julian is very specific; conspiring with Chelsea Manning to publish the Iraq War logs, the Afghanistan war logs and the State Department cables. The charges are nothing to do with Sweden, nothing to do with sex, and nothing to do with the 2016 US election" I'd like to call out the popular and prolific users of hacker news who previously were all about Sweden, sex and election interference and who…

That doesn't even make any sense. How could the US extradite Assange for a crime committed in Sweden ? And why would they extradite for election interference when Barr would just shut it down ?

> How could the US extradite Assange for a crime committed in Sweden ?

For a lot of stuff the US applies "global jurisdiction" as soon as anything in the US is being touched, which is also the base for the Kim Dotcom / Megaupload extradition case.

Re: Assange in Court

#75

Post by roenxi »

threeseed wrote: post #57
marcus_holmes wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the sort of pond scum that work for the British tabloids also never show any restraint, and yet no-one questions that they are journalists. No, it's the "just a blogger" thing - if you only publish on the internet and not in print then your journalistic credentials will always be slightly suspect. (source: I ran a newspaper, and while 90% of our readers read our stories on our website or FB page, according to our…

Tabloids toe the line more so than other publications. They would never publish classified material without clearing it first with the UK government. And at minimum carefully redacting information that would put people in harm's way.

There seems to be a hypothesis nestled in there that the tabloids are run by responsible, clear thinking individuals who are pretending to be uncivilised boors but will drop the facade when confronted with an important issue.

What odds might be put on them actual being uncivilised boors who'll publish anything that gets eyeballs?

More likely they wouldn't publish raw classified information because it is dry and boring.

Re: Assange in Court

#77

Post by lucozade »

pulse7 wrote: post #3

"Extradition shall not be granted if the offense for which extradition is requested is a political offense." If an American journalist in UK is publishing Chinese military secrets, he will not be extradited to China. If an Australian journalist in UK is publishing American military secrets, will he be extradited to America? This is the question now...

> If an American journalist in UK is publishing Chinese military secrets, he will not be extradited to China.

That's absolutely correct as the UK doesn't have an extradition treaty with China.

Re: Assange in Court

#78

Post by rimliu »

bufferoverflow wrote: post #67
rimliu wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He will be forgotten in ten years. And for a good reason.

He absolutely will not be forgotten. He is a hero. Even now he has a wikipedia article, multiple movies about him, tons of support from the people supporting the freedom of information and those who are sick of the secretive bullshit going on behind the curtains.

one man's hero is another man's villain.

Re: Assange in Court

#79

Post by sudoaza »

This exposes the sham that is western "democracy". Everything is allowed to persecute those who oppose the status quo. The so called freedom they claim for themselves when they attack Russia, China or Venezuela in the corporate media is a right reserved for those who have money and who submit to the ruling class.

Re: Assange in Court

#80

Post by isostatic »

mrkeen wrote: post #45
threeseed wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't even make any sense. How could the US extradite Assange for a crime committed in Sweden ? And why would they extradite for election interference when Barr would just shut it down ?

The author here is painting the UK as rolling over and doing whatever the US says, rather than applying proper justice. This is why people were skeptical of the Sweden charges. It was commonly believed that the point of those charges (whether they were true or not) was to get Assange to Sweden, at which point Sweden could roll over, do the US's bidding and extradite him to the US.

> It was commonly believed that the point of those charges (whether they were true or not) was to get Assange to Sweden, at which point Sweden could roll over, do the US's bidding and extradite him to the US.

Which was always ridiculous, as it was based on the idea that Sweden would be more willing to extradite than the UK, a ridiculous notion.

Post reply on HN