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

USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

judiciary.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

471–480 of 646 posts

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#471

Post by Sharlin »

Talanes wrote: post #454
afandian wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As in sentences like "I'm satisfied that you did your best" and "I'm satisfied that it contains no gluten". Do those not work in American or other international English?

No, that's the definition that does track perfectly in American English: where it can be substituted by "pleased."

But those sentences are also perfectly meaningful assuming the other sense of "satisfied", which may be what GP meant. Ie. "I am convinced that you did your best" and "I am convinced that it contains no gluten".

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#473

Post by Talanes »

stefan_ wrote: post #111
rsynnott wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That seems like the line of argument you could employ to deny every extradition to the US then. While it doesn't quite go that far, it is pretty common for extradition from Europe to the US to be blocked for this reason. Arguably, given how common solitary confinement is in the US, all extradition to the US should be abandoned. > denying on something you are certain it is going to be reversed on appeal Why would yo…

The point of an extradition treaty is surely that lawmakers have concluded the two systems participating are reasonably close to allow for extradition in the first place. It is then not the place of a judge to decide otherwise. There are exemptions such as no extradition when the conduct isn't illegal in the extraditing country, but as you mention: if you consider solitary confinement torture, there is no reason to a…

It's not the place of the judge to consider the treaty one way or another. Judges judge based on the actual laws put in place in their court.

If the current state really isn't what the lawmakers had intended with their treaties, then they need to update the domestic laws that go along with them.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#474

Post by AsyncAwait »

pdonis wrote: post #459
AsyncAwait wrote: post #429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> He should have had the good judgment to redact all names So how exactly are you supposed to hold officials accountable if you don't have any names to go on? > I haven't said anything at all about blame regarding anyone other than Assange Right. That is exactly my problem. When we're talking about war criminals I'd hope the person who exposed it would be the last to get some blame in the matter.

> When we're talking about war criminals We're not. We're talking about Assange. He can still be at fault and worthy of blame for some things he did, even if the US government is also worthy of blame for some things it did.

> We're not.

And that's exactly the problem. No wonder they're still free today while Julian's not.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#475

Post by amaccuish »

Talanes wrote: post #449
implements wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I take your point, but would suggest that the stop was motivated by legitimate Police concern over public decency rather than political content (“Fuck” is quite offensive) and I believe that the Officers concerned probably wouldn’t have arrested her if she had refused to cover up. If an aggrieved third party had been present, and her refusal to cover up created a likelihood of imminent breach of the peace then - perh…

It sounds like you're saying that if someone wants to fight me over what I'm wearing, that I should be arrested. That feels backwards, and I don't think the specifics of the article of clothing change that.

The article of clothing was not called into question. The language "fuck" in terms of public decency, was. That is I believe a misreading of the OPs comment.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#476

Post by thisrod »

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #152
lol768 wrote: post #11

Reading the judgement the key points are on pages 116 onwards and the extradition is denied under section 91(3) of the EA 2003 which reads: > The condition is that the physical or mental condition of the person is such that it would be unjust or oppressive to extradite him. The judge states: > it is my judgment that there is a real risk that he will be kept in the near isolated conditions imposed by the harshest SAMs…

>> Frankly I don't understand why the UK continues to maintain an extradition treaty with a country which clearly has a poor record on human rights and fails to maintain a justice system that meets the UN's Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners. It's because the US is a powerful ally and the UK does not want to displease them. The British call this their "special relation" to the Americans. I don't kn…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1efOs0BsE0g

There was an amusing twist after this was published. The creators got in trouble with the Australian Government, who were concerned about their use of the Australian coat of arms: it might confuse viewers into thinking the video was an official government one.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#477

Post by Talanes »

Sharlin wrote: post #471
Talanes wrote: post #454

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, that's the definition that does track perfectly in American English: where it can be substituted by "pleased."

But those sentences are also perfectly meaningful assuming the other sense of "satisfied", which may be what GP meant. Ie. "I am convinced that you did your best" and "I am convinced that it contains no gluten".

Oh, I definitely agree that those example exist on the fuzzy line, but the question was whether they didn't read to Americans.

The more I think about it, the harder the actual barrier between "pleased" and "convinced" is hard to draw.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#478

Post by Talanes »

amaccuish wrote: post #475
Talanes wrote: post #449

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sounds like you're saying that if someone wants to fight me over what I'm wearing, that I should be arrested. That feels backwards, and I don't think the specifics of the article of clothing change that.

The article of clothing was not called into question. The language "fuck" in terms of public decency, was. That is I believe a misreading of the OPs comment.

I was referring to the third party example, where there is an "imminent breach to the peace." The point about indecency can stand as it is: not how I'd order a society, but I get it.

However, I should not suddenly be in MORE trouble for wearing an indecent shirt because it made someone standing around me angry enough to get rowdy.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#479

Post by comex »

DiogenesKynikos wrote: post #426
cormacrelf wrote: post #402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The basis is the Extradition Act, which according to the judgment is a self-contained implementation of a bunch of different extradition treaties. Hypothetically, let’s say the statute actually had a section with “no extraditions for unsavoury offences” in it. That’s pretty weird and ambiguous, so you might, subject to UK law on statutory interpretation, look to the treaty/treaties the Act is implementing to figure o…

The political offenses exception is not ambiguous. It's well understood what the exception means, and the treaty explicitly bars it. It's just very strange to me that the US and UK explicitly agreed to arrange for extradition on certain terms, but that those terms are now deemed by this judge not to apply in the UK. > But treaty law cannot establish domestic laws that govern things like extradition In the US, treatie…

> In the US, treaties are law. The political offense exception absolutely applies when extraditing people from the US to the UK.

Sure, in the US they are. The judge explicitly contrasts the US’s “monist” system with the UK’s “dualist” system where treaties are not law. Correspondingly, in the US treaties require Congressional approval to be ratified. In the UK, at least prior to 2010, treaties could be ratified by the executive branch alone, but Parliament’s approval was required to incorporate the terms into national law. (As of 2010, Parliament has a greater role in treaty ratification [1], but AFAICT that still doesn’t make them automatically national law. Anyway, the treaty in question was ratified prior to 2010.)

[1] https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn05...

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#480

Post by thisrod »

DiogenesKynikos wrote: post #426
cormacrelf wrote: post #402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The basis is the Extradition Act, which according to the judgment is a self-contained implementation of a bunch of different extradition treaties. Hypothetically, let’s say the statute actually had a section with “no extraditions for unsavoury offences” in it. That’s pretty weird and ambiguous, so you might, subject to UK law on statutory interpretation, look to the treaty/treaties the Act is implementing to figure o…

The political offenses exception is not ambiguous. It's well understood what the exception means, and the treaty explicitly bars it. It's just very strange to me that the US and UK explicitly agreed to arrange for extradition on certain terms, but that those terms are now deemed by this judge not to apply in the UK. > But treaty law cannot establish domestic laws that govern things like extradition In the US, treatie…

> In the US, treaties are law.

In Britain and Australia, they're not. (Except for the Tasmanian Dams Case.) Parliament has to, in effect, cut and paste the treaty into legislation, and only then will courts enforce it. Sometimes parliament refuses to do that, and sometimes they try but slip up.

Post reply on HN