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

691–700 of 792 posts

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

#691

Post by bladegash »

y-c-o-m-b wrote: post #668
bladegash wrote: post #449

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, my comment does nothing of the sort and neither you, or him, know anything about me. Believe it or not, the world is not black and white and people do the best they can given a variety of factors in front of them. However, I am glad you are able to with criticize and judge a person with 20/20 hindsight, while simultaneously offering nothing of value to the conversation. Thank you for taking the time to offer your…

> the world is not black and white Yet your comment history on this subject ("activist" vs "journalist") indicates that's how you see the world. My contribution is to expose the cognitive dissonance surrounding your comments. I've yet to see anything that makes your time in Afghanistan relevant to this conversation. In fact another person already posted a source debunking the claims that anyone's life was in danger d…

Glad they were in Afghanistan and had any kind of level of understanding beyond superficial to make that evaluation.

Aside from that, I did not ask about, nor do I care, what you think of my time in Afghanistan. I am more than capable of evaluating my own life choices through a critical and charitable lens.

Thank you for taking the time to contribute to the discussion and wish you the best.

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

#692

Post by vanusa »

ChrisKnott wrote: post #672
vanusa wrote: post #663

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What track record of breaking assurances are you referring to? We're going in circles. This was already referred to in my original entry into this thread, 5 or 6 levels up. The fact that the U.S. may keep some of its assurances to some parties (if in fact this is the case) does not obviate the fact that frequently and brazenly breaks many other assurances it makes in this regard. It is this, much bigger fact (which i…

Your original comment refers to the fact that the USA generally treats detainees poorly, not that it "brazenly breaks many other assurances it makes in this regard". You haven't convinced me why the court is wrong to believe the USA on this point. You just seem to repeatedly state that it's ridiculous without saying why. But anyway, ultimately we will be able to see whether or not the USA does let Assange (if convict…

not that it "brazenly breaks many other assurances it makes in this regard".

Are you referring to the CIA's famous "We don't do torture" promise, here?

Or the implicit promise to the peoples of Iraq and Afghanistan that they would be treated humanely when they came in contact with our armed forces and their surrogates? And most certainly when they ended up in our ... detention centers?

Or to the migrants detained by the ICE, who were told they were merely being "detained"... not that they would one day find an officer

"sitting on her like one would on a horse", with his "erect penis on her butt"

to quote just one of 1,224 reports of recent sexual abuse at these facilities?

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

#693

Post by frabbit »

harry8 wrote: post #270
bladegash wrote: post #83

The framing of Assange as an innocent “journalist” being persecuted for just doing his job is, in my opinion, disingenuous. I do not necessarily agree with all the actions the US Government has taken with him, or their handling of some of the information that was leaked. However, I do not agree that a “journalist” should be able to enable espionage, let alone encourage/incite it. In case my point is unclear, I consid…

A journalist is /any/ citizen engaging in journalism. ANY. As soon as you have to "qualify" to be a "journalist" and can't be an "activist" What you have is state controlled media. Indiscriminate publishing. So you think the vetting done in partnership with the Washington Post and the New York Times was not journalism and the employees of the NYT and WaPo who are now not journalists should be prosecuted along side hi…

Do you think that the comments that are furiously ignoring this and pretending that there is some sort of official journalist title are genuinely ignorant or trying to sow confusion?

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

#694

Post by frabbit »

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…

Those kids don't just fuck operations -- they fuck up other people.

Then they get home and become cops.

When are the suppressed Abu Ghraib tapes coming out?

It's all terribly sad isn't it?

Best thing we can do it sweep it under the carpet and make sure it's easy for all the people who might be upset by it to not see it.

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

#695

Post by varelse »

nebula8804 wrote: post #673
varelse wrote: post #556

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He is a great demagogue but his Congressional record indicates he is not so good at dealmaking. I think he would have been a progressive Perot that got angry a lot but those tantrums would lead to great sound bites. Or TLDR if you're not going to get good at making sausage stop applying for positions at the sausage factory.

There are a lot of things you can do at the executive level that recent administration don't have the guts to do. Declare a medical emergency on account of COVID-19 and bam, there is a provision in the laws that allows you to expand medicare to the entire population. That alone would guarantee re-election. Free all non-violent marijuana prisoners, Forgive student debt. That alone would be a boost to the economy as a…

I think you deeply underestimate the influence of the corporate media in influencing the opinions of the masses. But apparently America went through something like this right after the Civil War where everyone had an opinion on everything and all that led to was corporations amassing power for a half century.

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

#696

Post by joshuamorton »

at_a_remove wrote: post #689
joshuamorton wrote: post #680

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In what was is there different treatment? Manning stood trial, was imprisoned, and is now free. Assange has not.

It's gonna be super neat to find out. Are you of the opinion that Assange will be eventually set free?

I'm not an expert, but if following @popehat on twitter has taught me anything, it would lead me to conclude yes.

He's charged with 18 counts, each with a 10 year maximum sentence, except 1 with a 5 year sentence. Manning faced 22 charges, including one that carried a potential death penalty, so broadly speaking Assange is facing fewer and less serious charges. If we take Manning's sentencing as a reasonable upper bound, he'd face 35 years in prison, with potential for early release. He's 50 now, so there's a chance he'd die in prison, but I'd give him better than even odds. And that's assuming what I'd argue is a worse than could be expected sentencing.

But in general the likelyhood of him facing a life sentence (or what amounts to a life sentence, 50+years) is low.

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

#697

Post by dane-pgp »

zepto wrote: post #539
cmrdporcupine wrote: post #417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They intend, fully, to make an example out of him. Why murder him when he's no threat to them anymore, and they can drag him through more hell for the next decade in order to show what happens when you cross the line?

They committed to letting him serve his prison term in Australia, if convicted.

I'm afraid you may have fallen for the deliberately misleading words of the supposed assurances given by the US. Here's what the Guardian[0] says of that particular claim (with my emphasis):

"and could apply, if convicted, to be transferred to a prison in Australia."

My understanding is that his application could be denied, without any recourse, by the DoJ (of whichever administration is in power at the time), and probably by the Australian government too.

[0] https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/dec/10/julian-assange...

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

#698

Post by Slow_Hand »

fredstarr wrote: post #630
ceejayoz wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 :)

Being sarcastic on the internet is generally a bad idea and creates confusion as to whether you truly believe what you’re saying. If you want to make a sarcastic point it’s best to be explicit about it, or else risk being taken seriously.

Nobody here knows what you actually believe. Without the benefit of that shared context, a sly vocal intonation, or a wink of the eye all we can do is take you at face value as someone who actually believes what you’re saying.

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

#699

Post by leto_ii »

jonnybgood wrote: post #675
leto_ii wrote: post #528

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Hilarious. Do you think there’s big judge in the sky that determines what’s good and bad? Mankind has reached a point where it realized that certain rights (natural rights [1]) are not really arbitrary cultural constructs, but more akin to the laws of nature. We're still not at a point where we fully understand the "moral laws of nature" (e.g. I suspect if we stick around as a species we will end up extending more…

> Mankind has reached a point where it realized that certain rights (natural rights [1]) are not really arbitrary cultural constructs, but more akin to the laws of nature. It's a moral system just like how Big Judge in Sky is a moral system. You're only determining what's good and bad in accordance with this one moral system. And most of humanity does not. > Again an attitude that can be used to justify anything. Of…

> It's a moral system just like how Big Judge in Sky is a moral system. You're only determining what's good and bad in accordance with this one moral system. And most of humanity does not.

Well, at the very least "Big Judge in Sky" is not in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, so there's that.

The fact that most of humanity most of the time fails short of our best understanding of morality doesn't mean that that understanding is a relative cultural construct. To make a parallel, even if all of humanity believed that the Sun revolved around the Earth, that still wouldn't matter one bit. The Earth would still do its thing. It's kind of like that with morality too.

It was wrong to have slaves even when having slaves was accepted. It was wrong to rape and pillage even when that was the norm in conquest etc.

> You should address the factuality of the statement instead of bordering on an ad hominem.

It's possible I misunderstood parent's intent. I actually took this part "woe betide those that mess with that institution" to mean smth like "don't you dare mess with the US". That would be an out of place, over the top threat. If I misunderstood the intent I'm sorry.

> Every hegemonic power in history have exhibited the same characteristics: securing its interests.

I don't disagree with you on this one (at least if by "its interests" we understand: "the interests of that nation's ruling elite"). It doesn't however mean that that's morally right. It is entirely possible that all hegemonic powers are acting immorally all the time.

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

#700

Post by monocasa »

bladegash wrote: post #691
y-c-o-m-b wrote: post #668

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the world is not black and white Yet your comment history on this subject ("activist" vs "journalist") indicates that's how you see the world. My contribution is to expose the cognitive dissonance surrounding your comments. I've yet to see anything that makes your time in Afghanistan relevant to this conversation. In fact another person already posted a source debunking the claims that anyone's life was in danger d…

Glad they were in Afghanistan and had any kind of level of understanding beyond superficial to make that evaluation. Aside from that, I did not ask about, nor do I care, what you think of my time in Afghanistan. I am more than capable of evaluating my own life choices through a critical and charitable lens. Thank you for taking the time to contribute to the discussion and wish you the best.

I'm not sure how you get to a less superficial understanding than

> Brigadier general Robert Carr, a senior counter-intelligence officer who headed the Information Review Task Force that investigated the impact of WikiLeaks disclosures on behalf of the Defense Department, told a court at Fort Meade, Maryland, that they had uncovered no specific examples of anyone who had lost his or her life in reprisals that followed the publication of the disclosures on the internet.

Post reply on HN