Julian Assange “slowly dying” and “often sedated” in Belmarsh prison • Hacker News Board

Re: Julian Assange “slowly dying” and “often sedated” in Belmarsh prison

#171

Post by foldr » Sat, Dec 28, 2019, 4:50 PM UTC

prepend wrote: post #167

foldr wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, you couldn't be extradited from Ireland for being gay because it's not illegal to be gay in Ireland. It has to be a crime in both countries. But in general, questions of jurisdiction are complicated. They're settled by courts, not by what people say on the internet.

If it was illegal in both countries, I wouldn’t need to be extradited since I was gay in Ireland too. Assange isn’t being accused of things that are criminal in the UK.

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

Whether or not the requirement is met in Assange's case is to be decided by the court. There are certainly laws in the UK that prohibit hacking. Anyway, you are wrong in general about how extradition works. People are often, for example, extradited on murder charges.

Re: Julian Assange “slowly dying” and “often sedated” in Belmarsh prison

#172

Post by NovemberWhiskey » Sat, Dec 28, 2019, 4:52 PM UTC

malvosenior wrote: post #142

spaced-out wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason many people turned on Wikileaks was because he clearly sided with Trump in 2016. He released the info he had on Hillary to damage her campaign, even though it didn't show anything illegal, yet he refused to publish the documents he had on Trump. People sided with him because they believed he was impartial, and turned away from him when it was clear he wasn't.

> People sided with him because they believed he was impartial, and turned away from him when it was clear he wasn't. He literally provided evidence of mainstream media being highly impartial in favor of Clinton (against Sanders and Trump). If people cared about impartiality, they’d be on Wikileaks side here.

>He literally provided evidence of mainstream media being highly impartial in favor of Clinton (against Sanders and Trump). If people cared about impartiality, they’d be on Wikileaks side here.

Good quality newspapers tend to separate reporting and editorials/opinion fairly clearly, but have always contained both. It is also wholly common for newspapers to endorse candidates for high political office within the editorial context.

It is a matter of record that newspapers and magazines endorsed Clinton over other candidates by a massive margin in the 2016 elections:

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

I don't know where the idea that the news media is supposed to be a purely-objective fact source comes from, to be honest. This seems to be some kind of straw man.

The charge against Wikileaks, such as it is, is that while the material disclosed might be verbatim, it is obviously still subject to the editorial decisions of its leadership about which material to seek out and to disclose.

Re: Julian Assange “slowly dying” and “often sedated” in Belmarsh prison

#173

Post by nicehat » Sat, Dec 28, 2019, 4:52 PM UTC

NovemberWhiskey wrote: post #157

nicehat wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US extradition which was categorically denied for years? Ah, I see. > The UK remains in violation of a United Nations decision from 2016 that Mr. Assange is being subjected to Arbitrary Detention [1]. The UK government refuses to release most of its internal communications relating to Mr. Assange saying that to do so would compromise the United Kingdom’s national security and diplomatic relations . [1] https://ju…

>The US extradition which was categorically denied for years? Ah, I see. Should we assume from the sudden change in topic that you now agree that the trial for an offense under the UK's Bail Act was, in fact, fair (or at the very least that there doesn't seem to be any evidence to the contrary)? FYI UNGWAD is not a judicial body; its opinions (not decisions) have no binding force whatsoever.

Why on earth would I assume that one trial was fair, when the other was extraordinarily suspect?

Why would I assume it's fair when he's already been tortured for years by solitary confinement, and often refused access to counsel? Not to mention, had spurious cases taken against him; and multiple, provably false, coordinated and widespread media smears in the UK and US?

FYI, I never claimed anything about binding force - but if the UN's top torture opinion guy says Assange is being tortured, and his dad says he's being tortured, and he looks like a man slowly dying every time he's allowed out to speak, which is basically never - I'm more than a little suspicious.

Re: Julian Assange “slowly dying” and “often sedated” in Belmarsh prison

#174

Post by officialjunk » Sat, Dec 28, 2019, 4:57 PM UTC

zepto wrote: post #136

malvosenior wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The grandparent very clearly defined what they mean by that. Assange hasn't had to make any retractions.

But not a faultless record.

Can you name another news source that has made no retractions in the past 13 years?

Re: Julian Assange “slowly dying” and “often sedated” in Belmarsh prison

#175

Post by malvosenior » Sat, Dec 28, 2019, 4:58 PM UTC

NovemberWhiskey wrote: post #172

malvosenior wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People sided with him because they believed he was impartial, and turned away from him when it was clear he wasn't. He literally provided evidence of mainstream media being highly impartial in favor of Clinton (against Sanders and Trump). If people cared about impartiality, they’d be on Wikileaks side here.

>He literally provided evidence of mainstream media being highly impartial in favor of Clinton (against Sanders and Trump). If people cared about impartiality, they’d be on Wikileaks side here. Good quality newspapers tend to separate reporting and editorials/opinion fairly clearly, but have always contained both. It is also wholly common for newspapers to endorse candidates for high political office within the edito…

What Wikileaks revealed went far beyond endorsing a candidate. For example:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wikileaks-dnc-and-cnn-col...

Re: Julian Assange “slowly dying” and “often sedated” in Belmarsh prison

#176

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Dec 28, 2019, 4:59 PM UTC

sysbin wrote: post #170

jibcage wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Caitlyn Jenner, then known as Bruce, won her gold medal in the Men’s Decathlon at the 1976 Olympics.”

This kind of topic comes up in transgender communities and what you're proposing is offensive. People get really offended when the name assigned at birth (matching one's birth sex which doesn't align with one's identity) is kept attached to their life as a constant reminder.

[deleted]

Re: Julian Assange “slowly dying” and “often sedated” in Belmarsh prison

#177

Post by fzeroracer » Sat, Dec 28, 2019, 5:02 PM UTC

officialjunk wrote: post #174

zepto wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But not a faultless record.

Can you name another news source that has made no retractions in the past 13 years?

Since when does no retractions mean a faultless record? That just means you stand with all of the bullshit you spew, not that you're a fully truthful source.

Like when Wikileaks was perpetuating the nonsense Seth Rich conspiracy as cover.

Re: Julian Assange “slowly dying” and “often sedated” in Belmarsh prison

#178

Post by aldoushuxley001 » Sat, Dec 28, 2019, 5:03 PM UTC

seattle_spring wrote: post #154

Synaesthesia wrote: post #82

Wikileaks has a faultless record. They’ve never had to retract a publication. Assange, like him not not, was a reporter, who reported uncomfortable facts about the military and our ruling class. He is being punished, tortured really for this “crime”. He has been endlessly and baselessly slandered. All that alleged bad behaviour while he was imprisoned in the embassy ... funny how there’s been no footage of it, despit…

Faultless record? Absolutely not. They will support /r/conspiracy's lunacy at all costs as long as it somehow ties to Hillary Clinton. This one[1] was the most ridiculous claim they supported, but I'm sure someone who cares more could find dozens or even hundreds more claims made by WikiLeaks that are nothing more than deranged Dale Gribble-esque rants. [1] https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/san-francisco-tech-assange…

Please never in good faith cite snopes as a reference.

Re: Julian Assange “slowly dying” and “often sedated” in Belmarsh prison

#179

Post by seattle_spring » Sat, Dec 28, 2019, 5:04 PM UTC

aldoushuxley001 wrote: post #178

seattle_spring wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Faultless record? Absolutely not. They will support /r/conspiracy's lunacy at all costs as long as it somehow ties to Hillary Clinton. This one[1] was the most ridiculous claim they supported, but I'm sure someone who cares more could find dozens or even hundreds more claims made by WikiLeaks that are nothing more than deranged Dale Gribble-esque rants. [1] https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/san-francisco-tech-assange…

Please never in good faith cite snopes as a reference.

Would you mind going through the contents of the article I posted from them and finding pieces of inaccuracy?

Re: Julian Assange “slowly dying” and “often sedated” in Belmarsh prison

#180

Post by colechristensen » Sat, Dec 28, 2019, 5:08 PM UTC

prepend wrote: post #117

threeseed wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not how the entire fabric of international law works though. Citizenship and postal address are irrelevant. If you break the law in another country and there is an extradition treaty then you will face the consequences.

So if I buy something from a Saudi Arabian e-commerce site am I at risk for extradition from Ireland to Saudi Arabia for the capital offense of being gay? Clearly I was gay while doing stuff online on a Saudi Arabian server.

No.

Extradition is covered by a patchwork of treaties and laws most of which involve some kind of human judgement as well.

One core concept of extradition is the crime has to be, at least in broad strokes, illegal in both jurisdictions.

The crime in question also has to have some reasonable argument of jurisdiction for the requesting state. You might have been gay while buying things from an SA company, but you weren't doing anything in an interaction with SA that had anything to do with being gay. (The first dual criminality concept protects you way before having to think about this). It is also often the case that countries are reluctant or outright refuse to extradite their own citizens and choose to try them in court locally.

Assange wouldn't be protected by either of these. Conspiring to take classified military secrets with a member of the military in question would be illegal everywhere. As would participating in the taking and the following distribution.

The legal questions for Assange are "did he do those things, guiding, requesting, and helping Manning acquire and send the classified information?" "Do the first amendment protections of free speech and free press cover WikiLeaks model?" and "Would Assange receive a fair trial and just punishment if extradited?"