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

291–298 of 298 posts

Re: Assange Hearing Day 2

#291

Post by Fjolsvith »

arrrg wrote: post #288
Fjolsvith wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 t…

Seems to me that this creation of hopelessness could be a major factor in creating unsafe environments. Everyone who is locked up should have a reasonable chance of getting out within a reasonable timeframe.

I had a release date, and I could tell you how many days I had until then on any day.

The people with life sentences usually have done things to get them.

Re: Assange Hearing Day 2

#292

Post by dr-detroit »

glennvtx wrote: post #246

This is an egregious miscarriage of justice and everyone involved in perpetrating it against this man - for publishing the misdeeds of government, should be strung up, Literally. That is what the founders of this country would have done, and we could do worse than following their example, here.

I do not believe the US government ever claimed that there were 0 civilian deaths in Iraq. What did Assange really do that you view as a positive while he was breaking so many important laws?

Re: Assange Hearing Day 2

#293

Post by dr-detroit »

Bendingo wrote: post #281
mzs wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to GOOGL: “RT is funded in whole or in part by the Russian government.” Twelve Russian military intelligence officers were indicted in the US for in part working with WikiLeaks, so readers should find a more neutral source as well.

> “RT is funded in whole or in part by the Russian government.” Irrelevant.

> Irrelevant

Hilarious.

Re: Assange Hearing Day 2

#294

Post by FireBeyond »

einpoklum wrote: post #289
FireBeyond wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm confused about your understanding of events. Two years after the events (entirely reasonable in the investigation of such a thing), there was indictments being issued. These are a necessary precursor for extradition. Wheels of justice (and let's abstract this for a moment, whether you feel this particular case warrants it or not) turn slowly, especially when they involve classified information and potential defen…

> Two years after the events (entirely reasonable in the investigation of such a thing), there was indictments being issued. No. According to this source [1], the Obama administration did not indict Assange, as his known actions did not differ from those of other journalists. [1] https://theintercept.com/2019/04/11/the-u-s-governments-indi... > It's legal and ethical for a journalist to report on crimes. It is not le…

To be very clear, I entirely agree that it is perfectly ethical for an investigative journalist to encourage a source to whistleblow crimes or information in the public interest.

I also believe that Assange went above and beyond "encouraging" to participating in, and committing of his own accord, crimes intended to either cover tracks or that gained unauthorized access to further information (whose criminality nor public interest was not known).

Cracking or attempting to crack passwords of uninvolved third parties in order to get access to or coverup your unauthorized access to information is unethical at least, illegal at worst, no more than it would be for me to clone your ID card to gain access to your employer.

Re: Assange Hearing Day 2

#295

Post by FireBeyond »

einpoklum wrote: post #290
FireBeyond wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 accu…

> Is there some inherent human right against persecution? "Human rights" are a social construct, there's nothing inherent about them. Regardless - Assange was under no obligation towards Sweden given the circumstances. > Is it "fair" for me to avoid questioning (or consequences of questioning) about crimes of which I'm accused, too? 1. Assange was not charged with any crimes. 2. Assange did not avoid questioning - ne…

Accused. In intimate crimes, where the only witnesses are the accuser and accused, it is typically extremely rare to charge the accused absent any interview whatsoever, so the "he wasn't charged" doesn't change my point.

Re: Assange Hearing Day 2

#296

Post by FireBeyond »

henearkr wrote: post #276
FireBeyond wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It was never stated, shown nor implied that no rescheduling was ever offered, attempted, or took place.

Re: Assange Hearing Day 2

#297

Post by kyleee »

linuxftw wrote: post #259
glennvtx wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nailed it. Just vote harder, amirite? This has come so far from the individual freedom that the bill of rights was envisioned to protect. Now the question is "what is right thing to do for me" rather than "what is the right thing to do." The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money. - anon

It's crazy. I always speak out about the wars, that's the single most important issue of our day. The government is literally killing people overseas, spending literal trillions of dollars. You would think it's something we can all agree on, but people treat you like a literal crackpot.

Keep spouting off, it's better than being silent about it all

Re: Assange Hearing Day 2

#298

Post by einpoklum »

matthewheath wrote: post #271
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…

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.

Wow, that's terrible. I didn't know that.

It's funny how, on one hand, there's a lot of hue and cry regarding how the UK has given up some of its sovereignty entering the EU, and on the other hand, a foreign country can pick off people to be locked up in prison without an evidentiary basis.

Post reply on HN