Live data from Hacker News

Assange Hearing Day 2

craigmurray.org.uk

201–210 of 298 posts

Re: Assange Hearing Day 2

#201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. I meant, why is the government pursuing any legal action against him, not why he's in custody vs house arrest. 2. Even the claim that he is a flight risk is disputed. Assange has not ran away or hid anywhere - neither while in Sweden nor in the UK. He asked for political asylum, which is not the same as flight. Not to mention the fact that Assange is in a poor condition, physically and mentally, after years of det…

The UK government are pursuing legal action against him because he is wanted in the US and the US government submitted an extradition request under the US-UK extradition treaty, and Assange is appealing it

... and journalists should be asking why is the UK government helping the US in trying to put a publisher like Assange on trial, rather than repealing the extradition request.

Re: Assange Hearing Day 2

#202
post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why have you been downvoted? You are correct. This extradition hearing, and the alleged mistreatment of Mr. Assange, is taking place in London under British authorities.

From the day 1 proceedings [0]: > Normal courts in this country are public buildings, deliberately placed by our ancestors right in the centre of towns, almost always just up a few steps from a main street. The major purpose of their positioning and of their architecture was to facilitate public access in the belief that it is vital that justice can be seen by the public... When enquiring about facilities for the pub…

Several famous courts are or were historically attached to prisons in the UK, eg Lancaster Assizes which were connected to a prison inside Lancaster Castle and were frequently used for high security trials. The Old Bailey (the Central Criminal Court) is built in the former Newgate Prison.

I don't think this is anything to be concerned about - and I believe building courts attached to prisons where people are held pending arraignment or trial is common practice in many countries for the same practical reasons, including some which are arguably in the interests of the defendants (it facilitates a speedy trial for example and can offer them and their defence team better physical security where they might be widely hated eg terrorist suspects or high profile murder trials).

Re: Assange Hearing Day 2

#203
post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why have you been downvoted? You are correct. This extradition hearing, and the alleged mistreatment of Mr. Assange, is taking place in London under British authorities.

if we are splitting hairs, it's not England but the United Kingdom

There is a legal jurisdiction called England (or England and Wales), though. Scotland and Northern Ireland have their own separate legal systems (Wales is pretty close to identical to English law and for most purposes England and Wales are the same jurisdiction, NI is quite similar to English law and Scotland is quite different).

I'm not sure if it's quite as distinct here where it's an extradition hearing though.

Re: Assange Hearing Day 2

#204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you read this post and think it's a bizarre exaggeration, consider that the UN declared that Assange's decision to confine himself in the Ecuadorian embassy was "arbitrary detention". Similiarly, Ecuador's decision to temporarily deprive Assange of internet access was compared to solitary confinement, supposedly tantamount to torture. Clearly there's a certain amount of hysteria surrounding this case. Assange is n…

Assange did not "decide to confine himself" anywhere. That's like saying that if someone has threatened to beat you up if you leave your house and is waiting outside all the time, then you've "decided to confine yourself to your home". Anyway, this has all been deliberated upon by international bodies - the UN working group on arbitrary detention has come to the conclusion that Assange was being _detained_ by the UK…

The only way you, or the UN, can justify these perspectives is if you grant 0 probability that Assange was involved in the theft of state secrets or if you think he was involved, but it was okay because "the US is evil".

Fine. But you can't expect the US government and its allies to accept that theory...

Re: Assange Hearing Day 2

#205
post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession" Yes, it is exactly torture. https://apt.ch/en/what-is-torture/

Again, probably depends on which aspects of his treatment you're referring to. The original quote spoke of "twice been stripped naked and searched, eleven times been handcuffed, and five times been locked up in different holding cells" - which is unpleasant treatment, but probably not hugely different from the treatment of many prisoners, fairly regularly, within our dehumanising criminal justice system. And I don't…

> but probably not hugely different from the treatment of many prisoners

It is, particularly for non-violent prisoners

> maybe prisoners of his nature are routinely interned in Belmarsh.

Its often used in high-profile cases.

> And maybe being in your cell for 23 hours a day is routine

It isn't. 60% of the cells at Belmarsh are multi occupancy and inmates at have access to education, workshops and gyms.

You seem to be casting doubt on a lot of claims, without putting in any effort to challenge your own assertions.

Re: Assange Hearing Day 2

#206
post #197
post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Feels like this comment is coming from a place of anger or a presumption that:

1) I'm a US citizen (I'm not).

2) Mexicans are shot at the border when trying to get through normal US customs checks, like in an airport (They're not).

3) that the Mexicans that are actually being shot on the border by the border guard is seen by the international community as acceptable (It isn't).

But, for the sake of refuting what you _actually_ said, lets go with "Western as an economic definition":

From Wikpedia:

-----8The term "Western world" is sometimes interchangeably used with the term First World or developed countries, stressing the difference between First World and the Third World or developing countries. This usage occurs despite the fact that many countries that may be culturally "Western" are developing countries – in fact, a significant percentage of the Americas are developing countries. It is also used despite many developed countries or regions not being Western (e.g. Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Macao), and therefore left out when "Western world" is used to denote developed countries. Privatization policies (involving government enterprises and public services) and multinational corporations are often considered a visible sign of Western nations's economic presence, especially in Third World countries, and represent common institutional environment for powerful politicians, enterprises, trade unions and firms, bankers and thinkers of the Western world.

----->8-----

So, "Western" is often used interchangably with first world; Countries in the first world, also according to wikipedia:

-----8Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, West Germany, Greece, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

The Western-aligned countries included:

Australia, New Zealand, Israel, Japan, South Africa, South Korea, and Taiwan

The neutral countries included:

Austria, Finland, Ireland, Sweden, Switzerland, and (now former) Yugoslavia.

----->8-----

This is because "First world"/"Western" has roots in the cold war.

"Second world" == Soviet bloc

"Third world" == everywhere else. (yes, that's a tepid definition when you think about it because most people take it to mean impoverished)

Re: Assange Hearing Day 2

#207
post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

UK != Europe.

Re: Assange Hearing Day 2

#208
post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

aren't the US Gov claiming people died due to his hacking?

With no direct proof, as far as I know. But they do refer to the complete publishing of the diplomatic cable, where apparently quite some irakian sources were mentioned in plain text, or with enough information to identify them. So it is possible, that indeed people died of it. (killed by ISIS or alike) And this point is also the weakest in the defence of Assange in my point of view. (generaly speaking. I am not in f…

It was German journalists who revealed the names in the leaks, not Wikileaks/Assange.

In fact, Assange made extra efforts to warn the White House that the leaks had been published with cleartext names.

So no, nobody died because Assange published leaked data. If anybody got into trouble at all because their names were revealed, its because German journalists published the password to decrypt the files containing the names of informants involved.

So, this is an even worse travesty of justice on top of the existing torture, already.

Re: Assange Hearing Day 2

#209
post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In practice this is untrue.

Sure, but it seems hard to dismiss in court.

I don't know how it is in the UK, but in the US most "treaties" are actually executive agreements, which set a policy of the US executive branch but do not have the force of law. Treaties must be approved by 2/3 of the US Senate to have the force of law, by the US Constitution, and even then a treaty can't violate the US Constitution. You left out the full text of Article 26, which is pretty important:

"A party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty. This rule is without prejudice to article 46."

Article 46 states:

""" 1. A State may not invoke the fact that its consent to be bound by a treaty has been expressed in violation of a provision of its internal law regarding competence to conclude treaties as invalidating its consent unless that violation was manifest and concerned a rule of its internal law of fundamental importance.

2. A violation is manifest if it would be objectively evident to any State conducting itself in the matter in accordance with normal practice and in good faith. """

I would consider the US Constitution a "rule of its internal law of fundamental importance". I'm sure the UK government would have no problem finding a similar argument that makes Article 26 a dead letter.

Re: Assange Hearing Day 2

#210
> “Are you suggesting, Mr Summers, that the authorities, the Government, should have to provide context for its charges?”

The judge, Vanessa Baraitser, said that.

Post reply on HN