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

Julian Assange granted permission to appeal against extradition to US

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 225 posts

Re: Julian Assange granted permission to appeal against extradition to US

#211

Post by derelicta »

tim333 wrote: post #208
derelicta wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What a catastrophe. This is the ultimate evidence that there is no such thing as a free press; People are only allowed to report what their masters allow them to. The day you cross a line and in Assange's case, the day you report the crimes commited by The Empire, they crush you.

They are not prosecuting him for that. In main for: >allegations that in 2010, Assange offered to help Manning, the Army intelligence analyst, crack a password to break into a classified U.S. government network, an act that would have gone beyond journalism. People report crimes committed by the empire all the time without difficulties. Here's a wikipedia with some for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta…

I have a hard time believing they planned his assassination just for a mere cracked password.

Re: Julian Assange granted permission to appeal against extradition to US

#212

Post by tim333 »

derelicta wrote: post #211
tim333 wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are not prosecuting him for that. In main for: >allegations that in 2010, Assange offered to help Manning, the Army intelligence analyst, crack a password to break into a classified U.S. government network, an act that would have gone beyond journalism. People report crimes committed by the empire all the time without difficulties. Here's a wikipedia with some for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta…

I have a hard time believing they planned his assassination just for a mere cracked password.

There's a difference between what they think he's responsible for and what they think they can prove in court.

Re: Julian Assange granted permission to appeal against extradition to US

#213

Post by sourcepluck »

K0balt wrote: post #53
graemep wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect part of the answer is that most or all countries regard leading information to the the public to be far worse than leaking it to other countries. > Every country is potentially spying on every other country and it doesn't even matter if they are supposed to be allies or enemies. Very true. The UK spying on Belgium and the US spying on Germany come to mind., but that is "business as usual" and no one expects…

Espionage and disclosure are two different things. Espionage is expected and deterred as possible but because everyone has spies everyone tends to play nice when they get caught, because they don’t want their own agents mistreated. Disclosure, on the other hand, threatens the power structure of all players. People need to understand that the every person is meant to be firmly under the foot of the ruling class, and u…

"Encryption, distributed systems, anonymous networks, and related technologies are the only effective means to provide a counter to the asymmetric threats that endanger our personal agency."

Here here, well said.

Re: Julian Assange granted permission to appeal against extradition to US

#214

Post by zarzavat »

danpalmer wrote: post #68
alexey-salmin wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well that's unlikely to happen, US have enough leverage to extradite anyone they want

> US have enough leverage to extradite anyone they want I thought that was the case but I think Assange proves that's not as strong as many expected. I think it was reasonable to expect him being extradited 10 years ago, it's surprising he hasn't been yet. What I do think the US achieved was pressuring the UK into not extraditing him to Sweden. He was charged with crimes there that seemed much more clear cut – not es…

The UK is known for having an extremely slow and thorough extradition process with a lot of appeals. For example, the case of Abu Hamza (Captain Hook).

Re: Julian Assange granted permission to appeal against extradition to US

#215

Post by handity »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #154
andrewla wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The conviction the US seeks under the Espionage Act is as good as automatic I find this assessment to be unsupported. Name a single journalist successfully prosecuted under the Espionage Act. If you have to go back to the 1920s to find an example, then I think I've made my point. Ellsberg was the only journalist in modern times to even be charged under it, and his charges were dismissed.

He will not be tried as a journalist. The US govt will not recognise his status as a journalist, so none of the legal protections and precedents will be applied. He's just some foreign civilian who aided Manning in obtaining state secrets and then published those state secrets on his blog. He doesn't/didn't work for a recognised journalistic organisation, he doesn't belong to a journalist union or professional body,…

The US claims that he is "not a journalist" are misdirection tantamount to lies. The correct response is not to defend Assange's status as a journalist, though I understand where that desire comes from, but to call out the lie for what it is.

There is no separate legal system for journalists. The charge is a brand new one, so there is no precedent to ignore. Nobody, journalist or otherwise, has ever been tried under the espionage act for publishing classified material.

Re: Julian Assange granted permission to appeal against extradition to US

#216

Post by n4r9 »

mnau wrote: post #155
Loughla wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, do you believe he would receive a fair and impartial trial in the united states?

Yes. That's the beauty of jury trials. Both side (defense and prosecutor) has to agree who will determine guilty/non-guilty. If it was judge, he is beholden to power structures and pressure. Johnny Depp and Rittenhouse also got a fair trial (at least IMO) despite media frenzy.

Jeffrey Sterling was tried for espionage in 2015 and makes a strong case that jury trials can be partial:

> Julian will face the same court that unfairly convicted me. He will not receive an impartial jury.

> The jury pool from which they will be selecting in the Eastern District of Virginia is made up of individuals who all have some sort of tie — family, their own experience — to the intelligence community or the military apparatus there. And they’re familiar with security clearances. And so that already creates a bias because individuals are not going to want to do anything that may make them look bad, when it becomes time for their security assessment. These individuals know nothing about Julian Assange, other than what our politicians and prosecutors have been saying for years and years — that he’s a terrorist, for the most part.

> Another key aspect is that there are certain constitutional rights that I should have been guaranteed during my trial — facing all of the evidence, and understanding and having all of the prosecution case put before me. Yet that was not the case. Mr Assange will have no guarantees of any constitutional protections, should he be tried in the Eastern District of Virginia.

> I think that court has, time and time again, shown itself to be pro-CIA and pro-US government, and pretty much allowed the government to rule the case and take it in whatever direction they want. And that’s going to be to paint Julian in the worst light, with a favorable jury, and, overall, to go for a conviction.

https://jacobin.com/2021/04/cia-whistleblower-julian-assange...

I don't think Assange compares to Depp or Rittenhouse. Sure, there was media frenzy around the latter two, but the government didn't have the same kind of interest in seeing them punished.

Re: Julian Assange granted permission to appeal against extradition to US

#217

Post by amanaplanacanal »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #204
amanaplanacanal wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Normally I think it has to be a crime in both countries. Breaking into computers is.

Assange did not break into any computers. That was Manning. Publishing US state secrets is not a crime in any other country.

> Assange did not break into any computers.

I think that is what the trial is to decide.

Re: Julian Assange granted permission to appeal against extradition to US

#218

Post by illithid0 »

aodonnell2536 wrote: post #140
illithid0 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While there are bits of truth in this comment, much of it is exaggerated and unsubstantiated, namely: - Being a verified Russian asset - Working with Russia to specifically help elect Trump to the office of president - Specifically seeking to weaken US democracy Going to need sources and supporting evidence proportionate to the extent of your claims.

Which bits are true?

Came back to answer but the comment got flagged, but I think I remember it being that he chose not to publish RNC info received at roughly the same time as the DNC emails.

That said, I just fact-checked myself and found that the RNC stuff was already public and that was Assange's reason for not publishing. So I'm not sure anything in the comment I was replying to can be substantiated.

Re: Julian Assange granted permission to appeal against extradition to US

#219

Post by andrewla »

EasyMark wrote: post #203
andrewla wrote: post #83

As someone who wants to see Assange go free, I continue to believe the best outcome here is for him to be extradited and face trial in the US. I do not think the government's case is strong enough to convict him, and his being acquitted at trial would be by far the best outcome possible here. The fact that he has been imprisoned in the UK without trial or conviction for the last four years is insane (he has been impr…

I think this depends on if he gets a jury trial or bench trial. There are a growing number of federal jurisdictions in the US who really don't care that much about the Constitution or reasonable interpretations thereof. I don't like his odds. I would prefer if they just dropped it or UK refused to send him over here at all. It's a black eye on the 1st amendment, and I've seen enough.

He cannot get a bench trial unless he waives his right to a jury trial and the prosecution agrees.

It is remotely possible that they could amend the charges to include "providing material support for terrorism", in which case they could attempt to try him in military court. That's a worst case / best case situation -- he has the least rights as a defendant under the MCA system, but if the attempt is thwarted by the courts then it would be a huge blow against the government's attempts to circumvent due process.

Re: Julian Assange granted permission to appeal against extradition to US

#220

Post by plexom »

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #196
plexom wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course he wants to affect political outcomes. Is that not the entire point? The US is committing war crimes, why would he _not_ want this to change? Also, how would unbiased reporting on war crimes look like? Lastly, does "having an agenda", whatever that might mean to you, change anything about the facts that were presented? Does it make the crimes the US is committing any less severe?

> The US is committing war crimes Which? Collateral Murder didn't depict war crimes.

Firstly, your comment makes absolutely no sense at all. Are you genuinely asking whether the US has committed war crimes in Iraq?

The treatment of prisoners in the Abu Ghraib prison is a war crime. The raping of 14-year-old Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi is a war crime. The subsequent killing of her and her family is a war crime. The Haditha massacre is a war crime. And these are just _some_ of the most well-known ones.

Also, Collateral Murder is not any less gruesome, just because it isn't "terrible enough to be a war crime". That is absurd and dangerous thinking. In the very least, the actions shown, especially the attack on the van, can, without a doubt, be classified as murder. Murder is a crime, and the people who commit crimes should be held accountable for them.

Post reply on HN