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

191–200 of 646 posts

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#191

Post by londons_explore »

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…

It would seem more logical for the person to be extradited from C to A, and then A to B.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#192

Post by gsnedders »

jl2718 wrote: post #172

I don’t quite understand this case. It’s not really US vs Assange. This is either US vs GB, or Assange vs GB, but the claims don’t seem to have anything to do with allegations of damages between third parties under GB law and jurisdiction. The interpretation of US law by a GB judge seems extraneous. The US indictment is settled. The only relevant question is whether the extradition treaty applies. I don’t know if any…

> The interpretation of US law by a GB judge seems extraneous.

For the extradition treaty to apply, it must be alleged that the defendant has committed actions which amount to a criminal offence in both countries. If his alleged actions are not a criminal offence in both countries, then the extradition treaty does not apply.

Therefore, you can challenge extradition on dual criminality by arguing that the act is not a crime in one or both countries.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#193

Post by richardwhiuk »

jl2718 wrote: post #172

I don’t quite understand this case. It’s not really US vs Assange. This is either US vs GB, or Assange vs GB, but the claims don’t seem to have anything to do with allegations of damages between third parties under GB law and jurisdiction. The interpretation of US law by a GB judge seems extraneous. The US indictment is settled. The only relevant question is whether the extradition treaty applies. I don’t know if any…

The US wants to extradite Assange.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#194

Post by baybal2 »

k1m wrote: post #3

Kevin Gosztola: "The United States government's mass incarceration system just lost them their case against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange" - https://twitter.com/kgosztola/status/1346048531249958914 Matt Kennard, investigative journalist: "Brilliant news, but be in no doubt. This ruling is utterly chilling for investigative journalism. Baraitser sided with US prosecutors on pretty much all of their arguments. It wa…

> "Brilliant news, but be in no doubt. This ruling is utterly chilling for investigative journalism. Baraitser sided with US prosecutors on pretty much all of their arguments. It was the barbaric nature of the US penal system that saved Assange."

A barbarical nature of US penal system it is, but they did not even note a prima fascie political nature of the prosecution when the defence was slashing it left, and right.

They omitted it very deliberately.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#195

Post by sradman »

djbebs wrote: post #186
sradman wrote: post #137

In my mind, what distinguishes the Snowden case from the Assange/Manning cases is the distinction between whistleblowing [1] and a fishing expedition [2]: > A fishing expedition is an informal, pejorative term for a non-specific search for information, especially incriminating information. It is most frequently organized by policing authorities. The question is whether it is lawful for any group to mine a corpus of p…

The point is moot since these were documents belonging to the government.

These were government documents leaked to a service designed to protect whistleblowers.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#196

Post by richardwhiuk »

tomatocracy wrote: post #142
rsynnott wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

I think this is an oversimplification of the political dialogue and interaction of the EU, ECHR and HRA. The passage of the Human Rights Act (which brings Convention rights into domestic law) was not a requirement of EU membership and we could have repealed it while still an EU member (this would be separate from leaving the ECHR itself). Moreover, reducing the impact of the convention and repealing/"reforming" the H…

This is an oversimplification but accurate - I don't think it's credible to stay in the EU while not having the ECHR implemented in statute.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#198

Post by appleflaxen »

djbebs wrote: post #186
sradman wrote: post #137

In my mind, what distinguishes the Snowden case from the Assange/Manning cases is the distinction between whistleblowing [1] and a fishing expedition [2]: > A fishing expedition is an informal, pejorative term for a non-specific search for information, especially incriminating information. It is most frequently organized by policing authorities. The question is whether it is lawful for any group to mine a corpus of p…

The point is moot since these were documents belonging to the government.

The crime is not by the journalist who reports it, but on the person who breaks classification.

In this sense, Snowden is more guilty than Assange.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#200

Post by swebs »

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.

Its a deflection, not a fallacy.
Post reply on HN