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

Julian Assange can be extradited to the US, court rules

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

621–630 of 792 posts

Re: Julian Assange can be extradited to the US, court rules

#621

Post by FpUser »

rich_sasha wrote: post #344
kstenerud wrote: post #204

This should be a sobering view of how the world really works. Above a certain threshold, every veneer of civilization vanishes no matter what the country (some have a higher threshold than others). At this level, only power matters. And the first rule of power is: Don't embarrass the powerful unless you can call on a lot of power to defend yourself. Laws can't protect you; they can be thwarted and bent, and the legal…

This is in micro scale, so perhaps this is why the power imbalance is so painfully clear. This is one guy against the whole might of the US. Of course events like this have been happening for centuries, recent decades included. The people in various countries caught up in wars had their lives ruined or lost. At best, this was despite all efforts to safeguard them and a price to pay for some greater good, at worst foo…

>"The machine of Western Democracy"

While statistically better the democracy on its own does not stand for being "humane". Masses love government "being tough" and do not care much about them destroying lives.

Re: Julian Assange can be extradited to the US, court rules

#622

Post by kspacewalk2 »

93po wrote: post #521
kspacewalk2 wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

- the alleged crimes were committed against the US, i.e his participation in the exfiltration of secret data from US government. Surely his physical location when committing these crimes should have no bearing on whether it's a criminal matter. - calling him a journalist is a mighty stretch even before he started, let's call it his "full-stack collaboration" with the Russians - Manning served the time and is thus fre…

>- calling him a journalist is a mighty stretch even before he started, let's call it his "full-stack collaboration" with the Russians This is wildly unsubstantiated and at best fear mongering propaganda. >- the alleged crimes were committed against the US, i.e his participation in the exfiltration of secret data from US government. Surely his physical location when committing these crimes should have no bearing on w…

>It absolutely should matter. Why should someone who's not a citizen and wasn't located in the US be held to US laws? Does every person on the planet now need to memorize the laws of every country and fear extradition if I were to accidentally view gay porn, which is illegal in Saudi Arabia?

Your example doesn't really work because it is illegal to view gay porn in Saudi Arabia. If Saudi Arabia decided to outlaw viewing gay porn worldwide, and then another country's government decided that its extradition treaty with Saudi Arabia covers this law, and then you decided to visit such a country and viewed gay porn - yes, you should fear extradition in that case.

By your logic, all one needs to do to hack into US companies and, say, steal trade secrets or money with impunity, or demand ransom, is to be outside the US. But that's not how the world works. In addition, you gotta find a country that doesn't extradite to the US on charges of fraud, and/or theft of trade secrets.

Or, in Assange's case, actively and persistently convincing and coaching someone to exfiltrate top secret data from a US government computer system. Something that, BTW, I look forward to hearing which country in the world does not outlaw and pursue criminal convictions for.

The framework is logically and legally sound, a good idea and a good thing. As to the inputs to the process - quality of laws, wording of extradition treaties - that does vary, so choose travel destinations and elected officials carefully.

Re: Julian Assange can be extradited to the US, court rules

#623

Post by hellojesus »

brightstep wrote: post #511
mercy_dude wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The most infuriating among all of them has been our media - specifically mainstream media. They have played the entire saga down and in many cases many mainstream media pundits actively espoused for Assanges punishment [1]. I no longer hold the view that our media deserves the first amendment protection that it does. Mainstream media right now has no other purpose other than being active vehicle of the powerful and b…

You have to remember that the first amendment was written to protect people like the founders - wealthy, bourgeois, powerful men. It was never intended to create a press that challenges state power.

Source? I'm pretty sure that state challenges were accounted for in 1a's derivations. The entire point of three branches was to keep the gov in check with itself. 1a helps to ensure it can be in check with its citizens as well.

Re: Julian Assange can be extradited to the US, court rules

#624

Post by ChrisKnott »

tremon wrote: post #469
ChrisKnott wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Specifically which of these assurances are you saying will be broken?

Who is going to oversee and enforce these promises? The UK High Court? When the US violates their promises, will the High Court Judge personally fly to the US to collect Assange and bring him back to the UK?

They have no means to enforce it, the judgement is what they think will happen. If, say, North Korea gave assurances on how they would treat a prisoner their judgement would probably be different.

The point is, saying the judgement is wrong is logically equivalent to stating that one of these assurances is going to be broken, which is an actual falsifiable proposition - I'm just asking which one you think is going to be broken.

Re: Julian Assange can be extradited to the US, court rules

#625

Post by jMyles »

kstenerud wrote: post #204

This should be a sobering view of how the world really works. Above a certain threshold, every veneer of civilization vanishes no matter what the country (some have a higher threshold than others). At this level, only power matters. And the first rule of power is: Don't embarrass the powerful unless you can call on a lot of power to defend yourself. Laws can't protect you; they can be thwarted and bent, and the legal…

The thing I don't understand, given all this - and I say this with substantial study in Political Science, including a degree - is why then we still see such widespread admiration of the notion that states are legitimate organizational structures?

Ostensibly they are different than corporations and other private entities specifically in that the standard by which their mandate exists is a public one. But once we see that that's not true (and we have seen it throughout history, but with astonishing clarity in the past two decades), isn't it time to move on?

Re: Julian Assange can be extradited to the US, court rules

#626

Post by JCharante »

pelasaco wrote: post #486
brandelune wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect Assange does not want to be tortured and murdered and thus does not want this. Are you insane ?

From the article: "The US had offered four assurances, including that Mr Assange would not be subject to solitary confinement pre or post-trial or detained at the ADX Florence Supermax jail - a maximum security prison in Colorado - if extradited. Lawyers for the US said he would be allowed to transfer to Australia to serve any prison sentence he may be given closer to home. And they argued Mr Assange's mental illness…

Well nobody has ever died while in custody of US law enforcement, so this seems reasonable

Re: Julian Assange can be extradited to the US, court rules

#627

Post by rhino369 »

choward wrote: post #579
mpalmer wrote: post #548

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Journalism involves synthesis and above all _vetting_ of source material, not hosting a glorified ftp server for whatever your sources send you.

Your saying it's not journalism unless it is spun and someone gives their opinion on it? You have no idea what journalism is.

Hosting primary sources isn't really journalism, in and of itself, as that term is commonly used.

Re: Julian Assange can be extradited to the US, court rules

#628

Post by cwkoss »

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #555
jessaustin wrote: post #509

Earlier quoted context omitted.

s/Assange/Nathaniel Frank/ Manning was chatting with "Nathaniel Frank". That was understood to be a pseudonym for someone at Wikileaks, but there's no proof of any of that. So, these charges are even more bullshit.

So Assange can say, under oath, that he is not Nathaniel Frank. Boom. Case closed- US govt looks stupid. Assange walks. I do not care about the verdict of the trial. I care a lot that a trial takes place. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Everybody is presupposing the result of this and being outraged rather than waiting and seeing what happens. He is innocent until proven guilty.

I fully expect the US to select a judge for this case that will not give Assange the slightest bit of generosity. I hope you're right, but I'm much more cynical about the impartiality of the judiciary.

Re: Julian Assange can be extradited to the US, court rules

#629

Post by kspacewalk2 »

choward wrote: post #567
kspacewalk2 wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

- the alleged crimes were committed against the US, i.e his participation in the exfiltration of secret data from US government. Surely his physical location when committing these crimes should have no bearing on whether it's a criminal matter. - calling him a journalist is a mighty stretch even before he started, let's call it his "full-stack collaboration" with the Russians - Manning served the time and is thus fre…

> calling him a journalist is a mighty stretch even before he started, let's call it his "full-stack collaboration" with the Russians How is he not a journalist? What's your definition? Is the garbage that CNN, MSNBC and Fox News spews out journalism? Is Chris Cuomo a journalist? Where is you evidence of Russian collaboration? Or did you hear that from a "journalist"? It seems you have no clue what journalism is.

I restrict my definition to investigative reporting and neutral reporting of current affairs. People who write op-eds, or engage in propaganda, or (in this case) are an outlet for strategically timed leaks by foreign governments, coordinated beforehand with said outlet - that's not journalism, whatever else it happens to be.

The evidence of Russian collaboration is detailed in the Mueller indictment, numerous investigative pieces about e.g. the kinds of people who visited Assange in the embassy, the obviously coordinated timing of DNC leaks, etc. etc. A preponderance of available evidence, let's call it.

Re: Julian Assange can be extradited to the US, court rules

#630

Post by fredstarr »

ceejayoz wrote: post #364
fredstarr wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Overcorrection? No it is not. They enjoy misleading and diverting attention away from the things that really matter. Just take a look at these lawsuits: https://greenwald.substack.com/p/a-court-ruled-rachel-maddow... https://www.businessinsider.com/fox-news-karen-mcdougal-case... Look, these talking heads are simply well-paid entertainers - nothing more. All they spew is lies, propaganda and downplay the things that…

> Look, these talking heads are simply well-paid entertainers - nothing more. Entertainers have First Amendment rights, too. > They enjoy misleading and diverting attention away from the things that really matter. If I feel your argument does that, do I get to revoke your rights? > So I'd recommend that they be stripped of all of those protections and get the same punitive treatment that we, the People (we are the on…

Wow! You actually took my shit serious! LOL. Of course, I'm just being overly dramatic and would never support censorship in any way, shape or form. If you can't sense the sarcasm in my comment, I don't know what else to say :)
Post reply on HN