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

151–160 of 173 posts

Re: Assange in Court

#151

Post by AnimalMuppet »

mmjaa wrote: post #12
FireBeyond wrote: post #8

I think it is important to look at this with the lens of objectivity: Accusations that Assange is actively being not just harassed but outright tortured to the point where he "might not survive the proceedings" in jail... ... to claims that "members of the US Government" were there and "controlling procedures" and claims that the judge had been instructed what to say: > possibly she had not properly memorised what Le…

>objectivity + >considered within the spectrum What is your purpose here? To defend the actions of the UK court, which is clearly being corrupted by following direction from US agents? Or to open the door for the, very definite Assange-haters, to have a way around the argument that Assange is not getting a fair trial, that this case is a total farce , and that anyone who stands up to the military-industrial-pharmaceu…

> To defend the actions of the UK court, which is clearly being corrupted by following direction from US agents?

Clearly corrupted if the article is accurate. FireBeyond questioned the accuracy. You assume the accuracy of the article, and question FireBeyond's motives. But the question still stands: Is the article accurate? Can you provide any confirmation that it is? Are there any independent accounts of the hearing? (I don't regard the article as an independent account; the author stated that he is a close friend of Assange.)

If you have reason to think the article is correct, I will listen. If not, though, then FireBeyond's comment is very relevant, and your response is totally beside the point.

Re: Assange in Court

#152

Post by xtracto »

ryanlol wrote: post #29
sschueller wrote: post #21

There is a double standard. I doubt that the wife of the US diplomat will ever be extradited to the UK after killing a UK citizens. [1] [1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-usa-crash-parents...

The UK-US extradition treaty is already not well regarded in the UK, if the US diplomat does not show up in the UK this is likely to play a big part in how the press treats high profile US extradition cases. It’s definitely an interesting situation.

Reminded me of Gary McKinon... i was amazed at how easily the UK gave lip service to the US regarding its own citizens.

Re: Assange in Court

#153

Post by nradov »

threeseed wrote: post #28
mikro2nd wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll venture that the question of whether he is or is not a journalist is moot. The question is, "Is the offence for which extradition is sought political?"

It's relevant in that his crimes e.g. publishing classified material are permissible if it's done so by a journalist for public interest reasons i.e. Pentagon Papers case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers And all extraditions have a degree of politicisation about them so it wouldn't be at all abnormal here.

Publishing classified material isn't a crime for someone who doesn't hold a security clearance. However it is illegal to actively encourage or assist others in stealing classified information.

Re: Assange in Court

#154

Post by nradov »

threeseed wrote: post #31
vermilingua wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is he if not a journalist? He is not accused of leaking documents himself, but of facilitating their dissemination. Sounds more or less like the textbook definition of journalism to me.

So the issue with Assange was that he never showed any "limitation of harm" when he chose not to redact any of the content. It's a pretty core tenant of journalism ethics. Those sort of subtleties are important when you're going to be arguing in front of a judge.

That's entirely moot from the standpoint of determining guilt or innocence in US criminal court.

Re: Assange in Court

#155

Post by tomp »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #147
tomp wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a lie. "The clock ran out" only on some of the crimes he was accused of. Sweden simply dropped the case (i.e. decided not to proceed with extradition request) after he got out of the embassy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange#Swedish_sexual_... > the questioning pertained only to the open investigation of "lesser degree rape", whose statute of limitations is due to expire in 2020 > Following Assang…

It might be less inflammatory to say "this is incorrect" rather than "this is a lie". Or do you have reason to think that pjc50 is deliberately lying?

So many untruths ("lies") in this thread, I expect it to be full of shills. At some point it gets really hard to attribute to incompetence, not malice...

Re: Assange in Court

#156

Post by ryanlol »

xtracto wrote: post #152
ryanlol wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The UK-US extradition treaty is already not well regarded in the UK, if the US diplomat does not show up in the UK this is likely to play a big part in how the press treats high profile US extradition cases. It’s definitely an interesting situation.

Reminded me of Gary McKinon... i was amazed at how easily the UK gave lip service to the US regarding its own citizens.

Lauri Love would be a more recent example. Controversial extradition cases do not have a great track record in the UK, I'd almost be surprised if Assange ever gets put on a plane.

Re: Assange in Court

#157

Post by matthewheath »

UncleSlacky wrote: post #141
matthewheath wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't need to be on the official list to acquire diplomatic immunity (that would be an easy way for foreign regimes to deny diplomatic immunity). There are chefs, drivers, etc. who have diplomatic immunity but are not on the official list (because that would unreasonably lengthen it). Additionally, the RAF base her husband was stationed at is legally considered an annex of the US Embassy in London, so arguably sh…

There's an interesting analysis here which (mostly) agrees with you, with the proviso that we only have Boris Johnson's government's word (for all that's worth!) that she was covered by a form of immunity: https://grberridge.diplomacy.edu/the-sacoolas-affair-diploma...

Having read Craig Murray's post mentioned in an adjoining comment — and taken the time to read the relevant legislation, I concede that she's not covered by diplomatic immunity and neither is her husband.

I also retract my assertion regarding the annexation of the base — I can't see that it has any legal basis to it other than a political exercise by the Government.

Re: Assange in Court

#158

Post by primroot »

cryptonector wrote: post #81
threeseed wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many would argue that Assange isn't a journalist. And so that also is a factor.

In the U.S. there's no such thing as being a licensed journalist. Anyone can be a journalist.

"Anyone can be a journalist." Yes. That is what one should expect of any country with a minimum of press freedom.

Re: Assange in Court

#159

Post by ldarby »

friendlybus wrote: post #149
kaolti wrote: post #110

Funny to read through the comments going back and forth on definitions of journalism and the details of extradition treaties. Did you not read the article? The convoluted legal language and system are used to explain away the reality that there are no rules really. If you mess with powerful interests you are in trouble. No legislation or rights or specifics make the slightest difference at all. It's uncomfortable, bu…

The difference might be life in prison and being able to see your kids in visits vs being killed on the spot in less civilized countries.

Did you not read the article? He is effectively being killed on the spot, just a bit more slowly than less civilized countries.

Re: Assange in Court

#160

Post by mmjaa »

roenxi wrote: post #144
oliwarner wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well it seems there's always something else. He's a journalist. He's committed a political crime and that rules out extradition. He's being targeted by a state entity so this isn't fair. The only crime he may have committed is only a minor felony. He probably didn't know that it was a minor felony. Sweden weren't going to treat him fairly. She was a CIA plant. Uruguay didn't treat him fairly. The US won't treat him f…

You've identified 9 good reasons there. There probably weren't any CIA plants involved and the US is unlikely to execute him.

The US will medicate him until he is chemically lobotomized and no longer a threat to their war-fighting operations, which are paramount to all other exercises in civil discourse, such as civil rights, human rights, not killing innocent people at scale, etc.
Post reply on HN