USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment • Hacker News Board

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#161

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

nix23 wrote: post #145

microtherion wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not how extradition works, ever. Yes, many countries have extra protections against extraditing their own citizens, but those only apply while those citizens reside there. Otherwise there would be a booming naturalization business for some less-scrupulous nations.

In France it often does, and in other country's too, like a trade...China and the US trade allot of "bad boys". >some less-scrupulous nations Like the US, where you can buy your "out of prison" Card?

Do you have an example of country A asking France for permission before extraditing a French citizen who was not wanted for crimes in France to country B?

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#162

Post by justincormack » Mon, Jan 04, 2021, 1:22 PM UTC

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…

All potential death sentence extraditions are automatically refused (not just from UK). A fair number of other ones are, not sure what proprtion.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#163

Post by NovemberWhiskey » Mon, Jan 04, 2021, 1:23 PM UTC

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"?

This is a little bit disingenuous.

There is no proven accusation because Assange hasn't gone to trial, which is the part of the process where that standard applies.

The credible allegation part is the indictment handed down from a federal grand jury; this is the 'probable cause' standard.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#164

Post by frenchy » Mon, Jan 04, 2021, 1:24 PM UTC

mrkramer wrote: post #149

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.

European colonial empires killed millions as well and faced no prosecution. Never forget what Hitler said; he said that concentration camps were not his idea instead he learnt about it from reading about British concentration camps during the Second Boer War in which thousands of Boers died.

Not to mention there was Hitler's quote about how no-one remembers the Armenian genocide. He wasn't even wrong about that, as few remember the brutality that the Nazis exacted on the Poles.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#165

Post by belorn » Mon, Jan 04, 2021, 1:25 PM UTC

checkyoursudo wrote: post #59

nix23 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really don't get it why the UK is even allowed to extradite a citizen of Australia to the US. Shame on Australia too for not protecting it's citizens.

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…

There is a good rule when dealing with government enforcement of laws. Everyone must be equally treated under the law, it must be safe against misuse, and failure by the government must be punished harder than the offense itself.

Extradition cases sadly fails all three of those. They are extremely selective enforced, there are few safeguards, and generally no punishment against officials that fails to uphold the few safeguards that exist. The whole ordeal is intertwined with diplomatic relations and politics of both national and international nature.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#166

Post by toyg » Mon, Jan 04, 2021, 1:25 PM UTC

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.

There is no “absolute” separation of the judiciary in the UK. Parliament sovereignty is absolute, which includes the power of rearranging the justice system as it sees fit - as indeed was done when the Supreme Court was established a few years ago. Before the SC was created, the highest court in the land was composed of members of the House of Lords, and the Lord Chancellor (a member of cabinet) was a judge - effectively making the High Court an offshoot of Parliament.

The new Supreme Court is still composed of judges that must be approved by the Secretary of State for Justice (i.e. a government minister, a politician). Technically the appointment is made by the Queen, but overruling an elected minister would be considered an infringement of constitutional prerogatives of Parliament. That means a government can veto high-justices it doesn’t like.

Downstream of that, the judiciary cannot invalidate or overrule primary legislation. Parliament comes first.

What we have in UK is fundamentally a degree of protection of most judiciary elements from the otherwise-supreme power of Parliament. That’s not absolute separation, but rather a partial one - if very extended.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#167

Post by AsyncAwait » Mon, Jan 04, 2021, 1:25 PM UTC

vidarh wrote: post #24

Findeton wrote: post #12

I am incredibly happy for this ruling, I really hope it stands after the appeals. Freedom of expression and the right to know what oppresive governments are doing are too important to lose.

It's an awful ruling overall, from what I can tell from skimming it. It's great Assange won, but this ruling is not at all support for freedom of expression. This is the one part the judge agreed with the defense on as far as I can tell: > 363. I find that the mental condition of Mr. Assange is such that it would be oppressive to extradite him to the United States of America. For anyone not suffering from severe ment…

Yes, the fact that the extradition wasn't rejected on press freedom grounds makes me think maybe it's just a way for the judge to shake it off so that it's not HER who goes down in history books as to have made the decision to extradite.

But having sided with the U.S. on pretty much all of the counts concerning press freedom, an appeals court may well 'find' that the heath condition is not enough.

I REALLY hope am wrong here.

But it goes to show the West is again only concerned with 'press freedom' when it's our strategic competitors violating it.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#168

Post by afandian » Mon, Jan 04, 2021, 1:25 PM UTC

eutectic wrote: post #49

tda wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have never come across the use of satisfied for "persuaded by argument or evidence" before. (yes, I had to look it up, not a native speaker) Is this usage common or just some kind of legalese?

I guess it's more common in British English (and maybe a bit old-fashioned?). Edit: google ngrams seems to agree.

As in sentences like "I'm satisfied that you did your best" and "I'm satisfied that it contains no gluten". Do those not work in American or other international English?

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#169

Post by pyb » Mon, Jan 04, 2021, 1:26 PM UTC

Where we find out that extradition from the UK for political offences is actually largely permitted. Some protection from extradition remains, but it is very narrow. It only stands if the person is being prosecuted "on the basis of their political opinions" :

"53. The EA 2003 created a new extradition regime, described in Norris as a “wide-ranging reform of the law” (§45). As the US points out, it is a prescriptive regime, setting out the sole statutory basis on which a court is obliged to deal with matters, and does so in a series of imperative steps the court must follow. These steps no longer include a consideration of the political character of an offence, and there is no opportunity, within the scheme of the EA 2003, to raise this as an objection to extradition. The EA 2003 retained the bar to extradition where the request is made for the purpose of prosecuting the requested person on the basis of their political opinions, pursuant to section 81 (the political opinion bar), but removed the protection for offences which have the character of a political offence."

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#170

Post by oh_sigh » Mon, Jan 04, 2021, 1:26 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.

Being a hypocrite isn't a logical fallacy, but it isn't a good rhetorical stance for convincing others.