USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment • Hacker News Board

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#151

Post by africanboy » Mon, Jan 04, 2021, 1:10 PM UTC

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #144

africanboy wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. The journalist in your example should not be accessory to a crime. If Manning asked for gloves to hide her fingerprints, Assange should have answered "send me the documents when you have them, but I can't help you hiding your fingerprints" If you imagine the hack being another crime, maybe it's clearer. Imagine Manning told Assange she could get the files but in order to get them she had to kill the guards at th…

'she had to kill the guards at the door' . Why stop there, while we are at it, imagine she had to commit a terrorist attack and a genocide at once and Assange volunteered to help

A crime is a crime, justice doesn't care.

A journalist should not be accessory to a crime when receiving infornations.

I made that example to make it clearer, but if you don't like it I can make another one: to get the documents she needed to open the door, so she Asked Assange if he had a crowbar.

The simple fact that he didn't say "no, I can't help you with that" is the problem.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#152

Post by YeGoblynQueenne » Mon, Jan 04, 2021, 1:11 PM UTC

lol768 wrote: post #11

Reading the judgement the key points are on pages 116 onwards and the extradition is denied under section 91(3) of the EA 2003 which reads: > The condition is that the physical or mental condition of the person is such that it would be unjust or oppressive to extradite him. The judge states: > it is my judgment that there is a real risk that he will be kept in the near isolated conditions imposed by the harshest SAMs…

>> Frankly I don't understand why the UK continues to maintain an extradition treaty with a country which clearly has a poor record on human rights and fails to maintain a justice system that meets the UN's Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners.

It's because the US is a powerful ally and the UK does not want to displease them. The British call this their "special relation" to the Americans. I don't know what the Americans call it.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#153

Post by nix23 » Mon, Jan 04, 2021, 1:11 PM UTC

xg15 wrote: post #140

Uberphallus wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't need to be in a country to commit crimes in that country. A lot of financial crime wouldn't be a prosecuted in that case.

I agree there a valid cases for such a rule: In a world that has global communication and logistics available for practically everyone, you can potentially cause a lot of harm in a country without ever stepping foot in it. On the other hand, this is also a very obvious slippery slope if now the jurisdiction of any country were to be applied globally. What if a country abuses this to get rid of political opponents, to…

That's why you should just make extradition contracts with country's that have a fair and ~humane justice system.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#154

Post by ClumsyPilot » Mon, Jan 04, 2021, 1:12 PM UTC

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…

'It is then not the place of a judge to decide otherwise'

It is precisely role of the Judge to uphold the law and rights, they take precedence over any agreements

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#155

Post by andy_ppp » Mon, Jan 04, 2021, 1:15 PM UTC

hestefisk wrote: post #128

Practically speaking a good outcome for Assange, but a bad outcome for our rights to free speech and free reporting in a liberal democracy. The US have killed millions in the Middle East since 9/11, yet no one is ever held to account for their brutal war crimes. Blair, Bush, Rumsfeld and their associates should be the ones prosecuted, not Assange.

US soldiers did not kill millions of people, Iraq is somewhere between 100000 and 650000 excess deaths to Oct 2006.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_surveys_of_Iraq_War_cas...

The criticisms in the Wikipedia are very detailed and imply there are problems with the 650000 figure of which 186000 are due to US troops direct actions. That still seems high, but you know being caught in the middle of a civil war is challenging.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#156

Post by willis936 » Mon, Jan 04, 2021, 1:18 PM UTC

93po wrote: post #96

Astonished to see this but hopeful for Julian. Very sad state for journalism and prison conditions

Assange is not a journalist. He wrote software until he started leaking documents. That isn’t journalism.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#157

Post by konjin » Mon, Jan 04, 2021, 1:19 PM UTC

erfgh wrote: post #135

hestefisk wrote: post #128

Practically speaking a good outcome for Assange, but a bad outcome for our rights to free speech and free reporting in a liberal democracy. The US have killed millions in the Middle East since 9/11, yet no one is ever held to account for their brutal war crimes. Blair, Bush, Rumsfeld and their associates should be the ones prosecuted, not Assange.

whataboutism is a logical fallacy.

Calling out logical fallacies is a logical fallacy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy

It comes from not understanding the difference between logical entailment and logical equivalence when given a set of premises and a conclusion. I'd've hoped programmers would have taken enough discrete maths to know this.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#158

Post by h0l0cube » Mon, Jan 04, 2021, 1:19 PM UTC

tedk-42 wrote: post #136

hestefisk wrote: post #128

Practically speaking a good outcome for Assange, but a bad outcome for our rights to free speech and free reporting in a liberal democracy. The US have killed millions in the Middle East since 9/11, yet no one is ever held to account for their brutal war crimes. Blair, Bush, Rumsfeld and their associates should be the ones prosecuted, not Assange.

You forgot Obama https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2017/01/18/commentary/w...

What's particularly disappointing is that Obama was elected after promising to end US military operations in the Middle East, and did much the opposite. Bush could at least be said to be doing what was expected of him, in continuing the legacy of his father.

Voters should really be holding their leaders to account the fiscal and moral costs of these wars, especially given their strategic objectives haven't been met. OTOH, one could argue it's kept a lot of people employed, and those people vote too.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#159

Post by widforss » Mon, Jan 04, 2021, 1:20 PM UTC

toyg wrote: post #143

tomatocracy wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some countries (France at least I think) have a constitutional bar on extradition of citizens from their own territory and instead allow citizens to be prosecuted domestically for crimes committed abroad (but according to the standards of domestic law). This is a logical alternative I think although it typically doesn't extend to a bar on the extradition of foreigners to either their home country or third countries s…

This is not the case with the European Arrest Warrant anymore. France only retained the right for the accused to spend the eventual sentence in France.

Do you know what happens if a penalty doesn't exist in France? E.g. Sweden cannot sentence people to a 40 years prison sentence. Could a German court sentence me to something like that and send me home to Sweden for 40 years?

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#160

Post by pydry » Mon, Jan 04, 2021, 1:21 PM UTC

rsynnott wrote: post #134

pydry wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is more than a little naive I think. The UK needs more bargaining chips. Trade negotiations are heavily weighted against them right now.

Okay, but how do you think this works? Boris Johnson having a word with the judge? The judiciary haven’t exactly shown much interest in pandering to Boris; see Brexit judgements over the last couple of years.

I think the judges are probably more interested in the global standing, power and leverage of the UK than Boris is and the Brexit rulings arguably reflect that too.

The UK government is about more than just Boris's ego.

I wouldn't speculate as to the exact mechanism as to how this ruling came about but to assume it came divorced from politics is naive, especially given the nature of the ruling.