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

271–280 of 298 posts

Re: Assange Hearing Day 2

#271

Post by matthewheath »

einpoklum wrote: post #171
jonathanstrange wrote: post #93

I think there is an important point missing in the debate. 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, what matters is whether he is expected to receive a fair trial in the US and whether the potential sentences in the US would be roughly on a par with what he'd expect for the same alleged crimes in the UK. For all I can see, this i…

> 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…

Under the UK-US extradition treaty of 2003, no prima facie (at first appearance) evidence is required, only reasonable suspicion.

This means that the US is not required to provide any evidence to be examined by the court, merely assert reasonable suspicion based on specific facts. This is a lower legal standard of proof and so will theoretically be easier for the prosecution to meet.

Re: Assange Hearing Day 2

#272

Post by FireBeyond »

markdown wrote: post #268
FireBeyond wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He made himself available for questioning _after_ sequestering himself in the Ecuadorian embassy, and offering to do it in a way that was satisfactory to him - _not_ when the accusations were made. And I don't think it is at all as "known"/"proved" (Melzer himself recognizes it as conjecture and supposition, in among the odd handling of the case - which is somewhat to be expected - how many other cases like this invo…

> He made himself available for questioning _after_ sequestering himself in the Ecuadorian embassy That's propaganda. A lie. Please read the article before you comment further. > Assange learned about the rape allegations from the press. He established contact with the police so he could make a statement. Despite the scandal having reached the public, he was only allowed to do so nine days later, after the accusation…

I cannot pretend to have as much insight into this case as Nils Metzner. However, I can take issue with the spin presented on several things. I read this paragraph above, and kept reading:

> Assange repeatedly indicated through his lawyer that he wished to respond to the accusations. The public prosecutor responsible kept delaying. On one occasion, it didn’t fit with the public prosecutor’s schedule, on another, the police official responsible was sick.

Two schedule conflicts, one due to illness? This is the kind of thing that is being used to "show" that there was maliciousness afoot? I wonder how many times Assange rescheduled the same meeting (in between planning his trip to Berlin for a conference)?

There _are_ irregularities and holes in this whole thing (from the government(s)) side that have absolutely shown problems with the handling of the affair, and that have done a poor job of showing effective or efficient handling of things and allowed this whole situation to fester and worsen.

But things like that cause little more than an eye-roll. I'd wager that a vast majority of people reporting to police stations for voluntary interviews have at one time or another (or in this case, twice) run into a scheduling conflict:

"The public prosecutor repeatedly kept delaying proceedings"

is _not_ an unbiased perspective (or rather language) of an investigator.

Re: Assange Hearing Day 2

#273

Post by FireBeyond »

einpoklum wrote: post #263
FireBeyond wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He made himself available for questioning _after_ sequestering himself in the Ecuadorian embassy, and offering to do it in a way that was satisfactory to him - _not_ when the accusations were made. And I don't think it is at all as "known"/"proved" (Melzer himself recognizes it as conjecture and supposition, in among the odd handling of the case - which is somewhat to be expected - how many other cases like this invo…

No. He made himself available for questioning already in Sweden, and asked the authorities whether they need him for it or he can leave. Also, he made himself available for questioning in a place where he would not be in danger of persecution by US and/or UK authorities - which is quite fair.

> Also, he made himself available for questioning in a place where he would not be in danger of persecution by US and/or UK authorities - which is quite fair.

Is there some inherent human right against persecution? Which to be clear in this situation means "being accused of and investigated for additional crimes".

Is it "fair" for me to avoid questioning (or consequences of questioning) about crimes of which I'm accused, too?

Re: Assange Hearing Day 2

#274

Post by dntbnmpls »

AndyMcConachie wrote: post #3

> Julian had twice been stripped naked and searched, eleven times been handcuffed, and five times been locked up in different holding cells. On top of this, all of his court documents had been taken from him by the prison authorities, including privileged communications between his lawyers and himself, and he had been left with no ability to prepare to participate in today’s proceedings. Still barely any mention of t…

> Still barely any mention of this case in the mainstream American or UK press.

Remember when Assange was a hero to these people when he exposed bush era war crimes?

Isn't it funny how propaganda works. When we think of propaganda, we think of what is being said. But many times propaganda is what is not said. What is covered is just as part of propaganda as what is ignored.

Another interesting aspect is when it comes to superificial issues, the mainstream press can be adversarial. But when it comes to certain issues, they all sing the same tune or are equally quiet.

Why the hysterical focus on the protests in hong kong and not the ones in bolivia? Why the hysterical focus on democracy in hong kong but not bolivia or venezuela? Why the neverending focus on the muslim ughyurs and hardly a peep about the suffering of the muslim yemenis or palestinians?

Why does foxnews/etc and the nytimes/msnbc/cnn appear to be so antagonistic while moving lockstep when it comes these stories? The nytimes/msnbc/cnn claim they care about democracy, but they hardly had anything negative to say about trump's invitation of his hand selected and unelected "president" of venezuela to the state of the union.

Re: Assange Hearing Day 2

#275

Post by henearkr »

FireBeyond wrote: post #256
henearkr wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to imply that, because there were dramatic consequences from the release, then he was guilty from the release. Again, it seems that the problematic leak (uncensored names) comes from a 3rd party, so your implication is like a sophism.

Apparently in your world one cannot be an accessory. If you arranged, assisted with and actively participated in the exfiltration of classified information, handed it on to someone else who agreed with you when you said "states can decrypt this; best just to publish now", apparently you get to say "woah, woah, woah, why are you angry at me, I had nothing to do with people getting hold of the information in these docu…

The fact that an old web archive gave up the uncensored documents was clearly unintended...

So, this shows that, though "being an accessory" is possible, this is not the case. "Possible => true" is another, erroneous, sophism.

Re: Assange Hearing Day 2

#276

Post by henearkr »

FireBeyond wrote: post #272
markdown wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> He made himself available for questioning _after_ sequestering himself in the Ecuadorian embassy That's propaganda. A lie. Please read the article before you comment further. > Assange learned about the rape allegations from the press. He established contact with the police so he could make a statement. Despite the scandal having reached the public, he was only allowed to do so nine days later, after the accusation…

I cannot pretend to have as much insight into this case as Nils Metzner. However, I can take issue with the spin presented on several things. I read this paragraph above, and kept reading: > Assange repeatedly indicated through his lawyer that he wished to respond to the accusations. The public prosecutor responsible kept delaying. On one occasion, it didn’t fit with the public prosecutor’s schedule, on another, the…

Yes this shows maliciousness, because in normal circumstances when you are sick you spontaneously propose a reschedule.

Re: Assange Hearing Day 2

#277

Post by oh_sigh »

carterehsmith wrote: post #267
mzs wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a search engine for Congressional Research Service Reports and is easier to copy/paste from into HN than the PDFs themselves: https://crsreports.congress.gov/search/#/0?termsToSearch=98-...

Thanks... though I think it would be great to refer to original sources, rather than some random site that adds... what value? They do add Google Analytics/tracking, I would not consider that "added value".

> CRS is Congress’ think tank, and its reports are relied upon by academics, businesses, judges, policy advocates, students, librarians, journalists, and policymakers for accurate and timely analysis of important policy issues. The reports are not classified and do not contain individualized advice to any specific member of Congress. (More: What is a CRS report?)

> Until today, CRS reports were generally available only to the well-connected.

The original sources have not been generally available to the public.

Re: Assange Hearing Day 2

#278

Post by henearkr »

FireBeyond wrote: post #235
dean177 wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> It is, particularly for non-violent prisoners You're going to need to show that "non violent prisoners" are not searched, nor handcuffed and uncuffed probably multiple times a day in the process of moving them from prison to court holding cells to court to court holding cells back to prison.

Easy. Take any politician involved in embezzlement. Even if they will do decades of jail, during their trial they never wear handcuffs. Yes maybe they are VIPs. But this kind of shows that Assange is treated as an anti-VIP.

Re: Assange Hearing Day 2

#279

Post by Fjolsvith »

jolmg wrote: post #232
Fjolsvith wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As another example, a prison in Illinois was under 23 years of permanent lockdown, meaning that all inmates were in isolation for 23 years. You do refer to USP Marion, Illinois, which was the US's Supermax prison during that time. They held the most dangerous, violent prisoners, and of course, kept them locked down for security reasons. [1] I spent a year there after they downgraded it to a medium security facility…

> They held the most dangerous, violent prisoners, and of course, kept them locked down for security reasons. How valid is that argument? It seems like you could use it to justify doing anything to them. The link you gave specifies: > Norman Carlson, director of the Bureau of Prisons at the time of the Marion incident, said that ordering the permanent lockdown was the only way to deal with "a very small subset of the…

> Do I understand that everyone was potentially added 23 years to their sentence because of a few inmates they had nothing to do with? And the justification you give is that they're all dangerous, so it's ok?

No, you misunderstand that. Just because the inmates are locked down for 23 hours a day (allowed out for exercise) doesn't mean that they don't get released at the end of their sentence, when the judge ordered them to be released.

When I came into the federal prison system, I flew from Seattle to Denver to Oklahoma City on Con-Air. At the stop in Denver, a boarding inmate was seated by me and struck up a cheerful conversation. He told me he was thrilled to be out and about, that he was from the Supermax in Colorado Springs. He said that going out for court was the only time he got to eat cheeseburgers. Said he had to try to kill a guard in order to get sent out. I never saw him again after that flight.

I was in three prison riots. Literally backed in a corner and fearing for my life. After each one, the facility was locked down for a long time. Not just the few guys who were involved in the riot, but everyone. When there are security issues that threaten the safety of staff, all the inmates are locked down. There is no right to freedom in prison.

I never was in a Supermax. I was in medium security the whole time. I got to eat cheeseburgers. I learned how to draft, both by hand on the board and in Autocad. I played a lot of D&D.

But you would probably have had to been there to understand fully.

Edit: Almost all inmates in Supermax are doing life sentences, so I don't know how their sentences can get extended.

Re: Assange Hearing Day 2

#280

Post by dzonga »

spinglespingle wrote: post #7
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.

the US has successfully become a 3rd world country. power in the hands of a few: check corruption at the highest possible level: check a gradually more authoritarian "leader": check a people who support such a leader: check military might used against political opponents: check enormous amounts of poverty cleverly ignored: check the list goes on. i suppose there is a time for every powerful nation to go into a deep d…

the US has been a rich 3rd world country, since Reagan.
Post reply on HN