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

651–660 of 792 posts

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

#651

Post by the_optimist »

peppermint_tea wrote: post #479
jl6 wrote: post #432

Shocking as it was, the Collateral Murder video was nothing exceptional. It didn’t reveal any secret truth or grand conspiracy. The unfortunate fact is that this is just what war is like. War means high-stakes decision-making using low-quality information by agents who are human and therefore fallible. War means chaos and brutality and unjust death on a grand scale. When you vote for war, this is what you get, no mat…

100% agree on everything you said. I would just add that all this violence should be shown without any kind of censorship to (in this case) the american people at supper time. I wonder how fast the public opinion would change then...

A pretty smart guy once said, “if wars can be started by lies, perhaps peace can be started by the truth.”

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

#652

Post by jessaustin »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #573
jessaustin wrote: post #541

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, sure, they would have tried the smears employed against Trump and, more relevantly, Corbyn. In fact, forget "would have", that was actually done. [0] I'm just not sure the accusations would have seemed important to voters. Trump's myriad misdeeds have been salient to public attention for decades. "Collaboration" with Russia may have been one of a few awful actions he hadn't actually attempted over his life, whi…

"Supports single payer healthcare" is used against Sanders in the primary to instill fear in Democratic primary voters that he'll be too far to the left for moderates and then lose to a Republican. It wouldn't be effective, or attempted, if he was already the President. They could easily have used the same style of attacks that were used against Trump. "Kids in cages" was the case under Obama, and Trump, and Biden, b…

Well that ruined my day... you're right of course. Putting it that way just confirms my belief that the best course is to dissolve this union. Let's chop it into about a dozen pieces. That would be better for Americans, and also for non-Americans. Raytheon would lose some business...

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

#653

Post by space_fountain »

nickysielicki wrote: post #633
joshuamorton wrote: post #631

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Presumably this will be addressed at the trial, and a jury will decide whether the materialness of the assistance was criminal.

Of course, but that doesn’t mean we can’t talk about it in the interim. My parent comment claims (through analogy) that Assange gave secret proprietary hacking tools to Manning. I don’t believe that’s remotely true.

No, sorry I think the analogy was a bit too extreme meant only to show that under some circumstances arresting him would be fine. I think according to Wikipedia the specific claim is

> The charges stem from the allegation that Assange attempted and failed to crack a password hash so that Chelsea Manning could use a different username to download classified documents and avoid detection.

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

#654

Post by jollybean »

mercy_dude wrote: post #325
jollybean wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is ridiculous. Assange is alleged to have cooperated with a member of the US forces to release gigabytes of diplomatic cables etc. - which is possibly a crime. In all but rare cases, you absolutely do not have the right to break into systems of national security and release arbitrary information under the guise of 'journalism'. His extradition is perfectly rational, legal and judicially legitimate. The Abu Garib…

> because he did the right thing, not the wrong thing. And who defines the right or wrong? Assange revealed among many things how CIA collects data of US citizens abusing patriot act without warrants.

"And who defines the right or wrong?"

The Law under the purview of the Justice System, which is why they are pressing for a trial.

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

#655

Post by akagusu »

2Gkashmiri wrote: post #600
isk517 wrote: post #578

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would argue we bother with the sham because it is superior to the alternatives, the issue is human nature prevents us from ever truly reaching an ideal society. As long as there is someone standing is 3ft of shit for us to laugh we are comfortable and happy despite the fact that we ourselves are standing in 2ft of shit.

sure, we are willing to sacrifice assange for the greater good

So is it OK for you if we sacrifice you for the greater good?

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

#656

Post by jollybean »

sneak wrote: post #519
jollybean wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is ridiculous. Assange is alleged to have cooperated with a member of the US forces to release gigabytes of diplomatic cables etc. - which is possibly a crime. In all but rare cases, you absolutely do not have the right to break into systems of national security and release arbitrary information under the guise of 'journalism'. His extradition is perfectly rational, legal and judicially legitimate. The Abu Garib…

> Assange will face a trial like everyone else It's worth noting that Manning, his alleged co-conspirator in this thing, was declared guilty by Obama, in public, before her trial ever began (when she was, under the law, to be presumed innocent). She was also tortured in jail prior to conclusion of the trial, to such an extent that she attempted suicide twice. The extradition is only rational, legal, and judicially le…

"was declared guilty by Obama, in public, before her trial ever began "

That's not how it works. Biden made similar public declarations about Rittenhouse, who was subsequently found not guilty.

Now, none of them should be talking about, but that they did does not imply a miscarriage of justice.

The extradition is legitimate, and Assange will receive a fair trial in the US where the whole world will see the evidence against him.

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

#657

Post by akagusu »

2Gkashmiri wrote: post #512
rich_sasha wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

if "laws" cannot protect one man, why bother with the sham that is "democracy"? its not just in the US but rest of the countries as well. when "pride" of a democracy is greater than the life of a human, it is no better than china or north korea. there at least you have the expectation of their intentions, that you are on your own. "democracies" are supposed to protect the little guy regardless of the adversary. as th…

The truth is we are not better than China or North Korea, we just hide our shit better.

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

#658

Post by boomboomsubban »

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #554
boomboomsubban wrote: post #463

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They openly admit their willingness to break all three if "future acts" deem them necessary, not to mention they're free to stick him in another terrible jail with other restrictive measures even with the assurances.

Hello old friend. Why are you outraged about things that have not happened? Has the US Govt broken those promises? Y/n?

Because if we wait for them to be violated, Assange could already be dead? And for the nth time, why should I expect them to hold to these promises when they've already violated his right to a free trial?

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

#659

Post by ChrisKnott »

vanusa wrote: post #648
ChrisKnott wrote: post #624

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Saying the judgement is wrong is logically equivalent to stating that one of these assurances is going to be broken No - that plainly does not follow. All that is needed is to apply the standard of reasonable doubt: in this case, that the party in question (the U.S. government) can be trusted not to act contrary their assurances on these matters. Which we are compelled to adopt, based on the very ample track record o…

The judgement relied (in part) on the Diplomatic Note (No. 169), in which the US stated;

> "The United States has provided assurances to the United Kingdom in connection with extradition requests countless times in the past. In all of these situations, the United States has fulfilled the assurances it provided."

Are you saying this is false? What track record of breaking assurances are you referring to?

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

#660

Post by rendall »

mercy_dude wrote: post #283
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 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…

> I no longer hold the view that our media deserves the first amendment protection that it does

I'm sure if you thought through the implications of removing Constitutionally recognized, inalienable rights, you wouldn't say this. Let's assume it is done, the press is now stripped of its rights, and ask some questions about the world and political reality thereupon:

Do individuals still have this right to free speech or is it only media that no longer does?

Does an individual who becomes a journalist still have the right to free speech?

Who would oversee the speech of journalists? Would it be you or right-thinking people like you who decide what is acceptable for the media to say? Or would it be whichever political party were in power at the time? Or billionaire oligarchs?

How would this oversight work? A "free speech oversight" committee? How does one get into the committee? Appointment? By whom? Election?

If I want to run for election in the committee, can I say unpleasant things about my incumbent opponents? Or will the committee declare this speech to be out of bounds? What if they become corrupt? Who can report the truth about that corruption?

If I dislike the committee for some reason, can the committee oversee my criticism, declare it out of bounds?

Could the legal precedence of overriding the inalienable right to free speech also be used to override other inalienable rights? My right not to have to barracks soldiers in my house, for instance.

Post reply on HN