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

Assange Hearing Day 2

craigmurray.org.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 298 posts

Re: Assange Hearing Day 2

#191

Post by bilekas »

lolc wrote: post #185
bilekas wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But that does not invalidate our complaints now! No but they are less appreciated. A sense of 'NIMBY' overcomes me reading the pitty for Assange. > Violations depend on attitude, checks and incentives. Yup, and given that we all knew this was going to happen, what did we say before ? — Nothing.

> A sense of 'NIMBY' overcomes me reading the pitty for Assange. I don't get what you are saying. It sounds like we shouldn't complain about it happening here because it's happening in other places. I count myself as part of a wider society of which the UK is a part. If we want to criticize other societies, like Russia for example, we better damn well make sure we don't run the same shit-shows of legal persecutions.…

Sure. Whatever you like then.

A lot of this went off-topic a little.

I can see why there is an example being made of him. End of.

I'll go shut up now boss.

Re: Assange Hearing Day 2

#192

Post by 3fe9a03ccd14ca5 »

Is there any explanation for why the special counsel never attempted to interview Assange on the Wikileaks DNC email leak?

The whole premise of their investigation started with the narrative that Russia hacked the DNC and released the emails through Wikileaks to help Trump win. Why never ask Assange where he got the emails? He’s been adamant publicly that it wasn’t Russia. Why not ask him then who in an investigation that took 2 years? This has always bothered me and intrigued me about Assange.

Re: Assange Hearing Day 2

#193

Post by tyingq »

anonsivalley652 wrote: post #121
tyingq wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It won't make the US press, because all of that is a pretty typical US jail experience, sadly.

Is it typical for the US to jail Australian journalists or publishers in another country in a supermax prison in solitary confinement for almost a year on trumped-up charges to seek extradition for doing their job? You're conflating different entirely situations. The US MSM won't cover it because the powers that be won't let them and the MSM doesn't want to outrage people how publishing and reporting facts has been p…

"You're conflating different entirely situations."

Not really. I'm saying that stories about poor jail conditions, excessive holding cell time, no speedy trial, violations of attorney-client privilege, etc, won't get much air time in the US. It's not newsworthy because it's common. We have the highest per capita incarceration rate of any country, deplorable jail conditions, and nobody cares.

It's not whether I'm conflating. The US public will conflate and think, "yeah, bad jail conditions, poor rights protections, lack of due process, excessive confinement, already knew about that. yawn." Editors are aware, so this won't be big featured news here.

Re: Assange Hearing Day 2

#194

Post by 3fe9a03ccd14ca5 »

wazoox wrote: post #177
Traster wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The judge hasn't said that at all. The judge said that the UK law as a matter of fact doesn't bar extraditions for political reasons - so the defense has to prove the treaty is legally binding on the court as a pre-condition for even making the argument that extradition should be stopped because its politically motivated.

International treaties are more binding than domestic law, as the Vienna Convention: https://www.oas.org/legal/english/docs/Vienna%20Convention%2... “A party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.“

In practice this is untrue.

Re: Assange Hearing Day 2

#195

Post by wazoox »

3fe9a03ccd14ca5 wrote: post #194
wazoox wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

International treaties are more binding than domestic law, as the Vienna Convention: https://www.oas.org/legal/english/docs/Vienna%20Convention%2... “A party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.“

In practice this is untrue.

Sure, but it seems hard to dismiss in court.

Re: Assange Hearing Day 2

#196

Post by bilekas »

raxxorrax wrote: post #148
bilekas wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure how you can say that with such confidence. I am of the same opinion as you, but I do know why sometimes the people in positions of sensitive information might want to set an example to not let it happen again so easily.

If anyone find compromising information about war crimes, everyone should leak the shit out of it. Please excuse the profanity. It isn't just your duty, it is also the right thing to do. So better no make that your defense.

Yes, but there are proper ways to whistle-blow.

Re: Assange Hearing Day 2

#197

Post by wnoise »

dijit wrote: post #150
megous wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait till you realize that US government officials can shoot you at the border at whim and they will not be even tried or your family allowed to take this to US courts, no matter the reason for the murder. https://edition.cnn.com/2020/02/25/politics/supreme-court-cr... > Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, said that "regulating the conduct of agents at the border unquestionably has national security impli…

Truthfully though, it would be an international incident with lots of press coverage if someone from a western country was killed at the US border. The more insidious stuff to my mind is anything that can be made to look fuzzy or complicated. The populace gets divided on tiny/minute details and speculation, even _if_ they discuss things, which is not a given when it's something that can be made to look unclear or con…

Since when is Mexico not a Western country?

Re: Assange Hearing Day 2

#198

Post by 101404 »

jonathanstrange wrote: post #100
101404 wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's no different here in the EU. After all, Sweden and the UK (until recently) are EU countries. I'm from Germany, and I can totally see things like this could happen here too.

There is no way somebody could face in Germany for whistleblowing (or computer hacking, etc.) the same as what Assange is facing in the US if he's extradited. The alleged crimes they've stacked up against him have a maximum sentence of 175 years in prison. It's simply ridiculous.

What is done to him is done to him by European governments so far.

Re: Assange Hearing Day 2

#199

Post by BigJ1211 »

mcv wrote: post #105
BigJ1211 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The rape case is rather odd to say the least, as posted above by a user you might want to read this article: https://www.republik.ch/2020/01/31/nils-melzer-about-wikilea... Basically it comes down to the story not adding up, drummed up charges, testimony that was changed by the police. After the headline was made on August 20th (accusing him of rape) the person that 'accused' him (she hadn't (yet)) was questioned on…

Not sure what "stealthing" is. I know that in Sweden, having sex with someone in a way they don't want, still counts as rape, and I think that's not unreasonable. It's certainly a different case than violent rape, but that doesn't mean it's 'not actually rape'. I hadn't heard that the condom contained no DNA. That certainly sounds odd to me, but I'm no forensic expert. If that's sufficient proof that the whole story…

The page I linked is an interview with a United Nations investigator (Nils Melzer, UN Special Rapporteur on Torture). I'm just relaying what was written in a condensed format.

The lady who went to the police to force assange to do an HIV test never accused him of rape, they had unprotected sex and she wanted to ensure that she was safe.[1]

The second lady only accompanied the first. But the article had already been made and she only made a statement the day after. As for the reason to not clasify it as rape, it's probably due to a contradiction in her statement. [2]

Per the article: [1] "S.W. never accused Julian Assange of rape. She declined to participate in further questioning and went home. Nevertheless, two hours later, a headline appeared on the front page of Expressen, a Swedish tabloid, saying that Julian Assange was suspected of having committed two rapes."

[2] "... But she said that during sex, Assange had intentionally broken the condom. If that is true, then it is, of course, a sexual offense – so-called «stealthing». But the woman also said that she only later noticed that the condom was broken. ..."

Re: Assange Hearing Day 2

#200

Post by einpoklum »

bjornsing wrote: post #187
einpoklum wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is an extradition hearing. It doesn't matter whether Assange is guilty of the alleged crimes the US has come up with or not, That can't be true. For an extradition to happen, the requesting party must provide some evidence - not for a conviction, but to establish that the charges were made in good faith and that it is not unreasonable that the accused will actually be found guilty. States can't just frivolousl…

It’s perhaps not called extradition within the EU, but Sweden sought the “extradition” of Assange without even formally charging him with a crime.

It is extradition. They demanded he be extradited to Sweden to question him. He suggested a questioning in the Ecuadorian embassy but they refused.
Post reply on HN