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

111–120 of 646 posts

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#111

Post by stefan_ »

rsynnott wrote: post #100
stefan_ wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That seems like the line of argument you could employ to deny every extradition to the US then. I might be overly cynical but that seems to be little more than a ploy of appearing impartial by denying on something you are certain it is going to be reversed on appeal.

> 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 approve of any extradition to the US anymore.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#112

Post by stephen_g »

ostenning wrote: post #58
jonny383 wrote: post #14

Time for Australia to step up and own this one. Take your citizen home.

What I learnt over the past year is that Australia doesn’t really care about it’s citizens abroad.

Well, I think that’s generally more to do with the particular political party in power than anything, but unfortunately on Assange both sides have been rubbish. Only a few Greens and Andrew Wilkie are really pushing for him in Parliament...

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#113

Post by rsynnott »

xenonite wrote: post #21

This happens on the first day that UK is no EU member anymore. Is this somehow connected?

No. If anything, this is more down to the Human Rights Act (the UK implementation of the ECHR). Some particularly extreme Brexiters have advocated revoking the Human Rights Act (as a member of the EU the UK was required to actually implement the ECHR, but as a non-member it could just pay lip-service, like Russia does), but that hasn't happened as yet (and hopefully never will).

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#114

Post by rsynnott »

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…

The US will sometimes promise to not use solitary confinement (or various other forms of inhumane treatment/torture) to secure extradition, and some countries will sometime accept that.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#115

Post by pera »

e12e wrote: post #89
Closi wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You might be able to argue that Assange crossed the line between "journalism" and "hacking", for example when he attempted to assist with cracking a hash. The UK has other history about journalists hacking (see the phone hacking scandal). It's one thing to receive the contents of a hack, and quite another to offer active assistance to exploit systems.

> when he attempted to assist with cracking a hash Was it ever proved that he did? There was some non-committal talk quoted, but nothing beyond that? You also say "for example" - are there any other credible allegations that Assange "crossed the line"?

> Was it ever proved that he did?

No, which is why in the judgment every reference to a supposed attempt of "cracking a hash" is preceded by "alleged".

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#116

Post by jacksonkmarley »

jacksonkmarley wrote: post #91
Closi wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You might be able to argue that Assange crossed the line between "journalism" and "hacking", for example when he attempted to assist with cracking a hash. The UK has other history about journalists hacking (see the phone hacking scandal). It's one thing to receive the contents of a hack, and quite another to offer active assistance to exploit systems.

That was, in fact, the judgement of the court in this case; that he allegedly participated in the alleged crime and did not just receive the data resulting from it. edit: added 'allegedly' as his guilt or innocence is not evaluated

This was coverered in point #117 in the summary. N.B. I should have said 'allegedly participated in the alleged crime'.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#117

Post by ben_w »

Buttons840 wrote: post #94
checkyoursudo wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I would prefer that Assange not be extradited to the USA on the specific circumstances of that case, extradition treaties in general seem reasonable? If a citizen of A commits murder in B and there is credible evidence, but the person has fled to C, should C not be able to extradite the person to B under any circumstances? Barring civil rights problems, corruption, etc (e.g., some very specific exceptions), it…

Did Julian Assange commit his alleged crimes while in the US? This scenario is more like person who's never left B gets shipped off to C because he said something C didn't like.

Given the action (as I understand it [0]) involved communicating with Americans in America, the muder-analogy you replied to would be a person from country A, living in country B, firing a gun over a border and killing someone in country C, surely?

[0] """conspiracy contrary to Title 18 of the US Code (the “U.S.C.”), section 371. The offence alleged to be the object of the conspiracy was computer intrusion (Title 18 U.S.C. Section 1030)""" was the actual phrase used

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#118

Post by EvaK_de »

croes wrote: post #101
shp0ngle wrote: post #10

So, she basically dismissed all other arguments of Assange team except the mental health argument/risk of suicide, and blocked extradition based on that. That's really interesting.

Yes, as soon his health gets better they can go on with the extradition.

Except his autism spectrum disorder isn't going to get better.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#120

Post by jfk13 »

bmsleight_ wrote: post #102
mmkos wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is pretty far reaching, but I wouldn't say that it is 'unlikely to be any possibility' that the UK government would want to influence a high profile case, which is highly likely to impact the UK-US relationship.

Which is why there is absolute separation between the fiercely independent judiciary and the government in the UK. No influence is possible, consider the case of the MP convicted of rape and the fiercely independent judiciary pushing back on character references.

Also recall the high-profile, politically-charged cases which the Government has lost (to its considerable embarrassment) in recent memory.
Post reply on HN