Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Julian Assange granted permission to appeal against extradition to US

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 225 posts

Re: Julian Assange granted permission to appeal against extradition to US

#191

Post by junto »

andrewla wrote: post #119
Loughla wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, do you believe he would receive a fair and impartial trial in the united states?

From your question, I take it that you do not believe this is possible. I certainly do. It might be worth further interrogating why you believe that he would not get a fair and impartial trial. That said, I don't believe that a fair and impartial trail will guarantee an acquittal. But although the national security apparatus is arrayed against him, there's still a judge and a jury and a trial -- this will not be a mi…

I highly doubt it. The trial would be held in Virginia, the home of the CIA, and the jurors likely made up of members of public that most likely have a loose connection to the CIA, even if only geographically (Alexandria is 40 minute drive to Langley).

One of the conditions for the appeal is that Assange be granted 1st amendments rights, since the USG had argued that it wouldn’t be relevant because he wasn’t a US citizen, as well as assurances that a death penalty could not be applied in any case.

The USG has found the Assange and Snowden cases, and their continuing “limbo” status to be a very effective deterrent to any journalists, especially those who are not US citizens, or whistleblowers, from taking action on USG classified material, regardless of how damning it might be.

Re: Julian Assange granted permission to appeal against extradition to US

#192

Post by K0balt »

FpUser wrote: post #105
K0balt wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Espionage and disclosure are two different things. Espionage is expected and deterred as possible but because everyone has spies everyone tends to play nice when they get caught, because they don’t want their own agents mistreated. Disclosure, on the other hand, threatens the power structure of all players. People need to understand that the every person is meant to be firmly under the foot of the ruling class, and u…

>"everyone has spies everyone tends to play nice when they get caught" Nope. "Nice" only comes if they are exchanged. Otherwise just rot in jail.

Sure, but they are assets at least. JA is most useful as an object lesson in fear.

Re: Julian Assange granted permission to appeal against extradition to US

#193

Post by throw0101c »

Etherlord87 wrote: post #174
throw0101c wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I still don't understand how a country can grant extradition of a non US citizen to the USA for "espionage". The act happened on a computer system with-in US jurisdiction. See also "Three North Korean Military Hackers Indicted in Wide-Ranging Scheme to Commit Cyberattacks and Financial Crimes Across the Globe": > Indictment Expands 2018 Case that Detailed Attack on Sony Pictures and Creation of WannaCry Ransomware…

> The act happened on a computer system with-in US jurisdiction. So let's say I google some information about Koran and find a website with Koran, analysis etc. Turns out it's hosted in Saudi Arabia, and the act of me, an atheist, reading Koran is blasphemy, punishable with death. So should I be extradited to Saudi Arabia, given that the act happened on a computer system with-in Saudi Arabia?

> So should I be extradited to Saudi Arabia, given that the act happened on a computer system with-in Saudi Arabia?

IANAL: AIUI, extradition generally only occurs if the (alleged) action is a crime in both jurisdiction.

> If Country A has no laws against blasphemy, for example, a lack of double criminality could prevent a suspect from being extradited from Country A to face blasphemy charges in another country, i.e. no outbound extradition from Country A, and neither are citizens of Country A eligible for international prisoner transfers from another country having criminally convicted them for blasphemy, i.e. no inbound prisoner transfer to Country A.

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

Blasphemy (against the Quran) is not a crime in (e.g.) the US, so generally you could not be extradited from there for it. Also, there is no the treaty:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabia–United_States_rel...

Whereas (say) unauthorized computer access is a crime in many places, and so it could be a mutual-crime eligible for extradition.

Of course if you live in Country A and are charged in Country B which has no treaty with A, you could potentially (IANAL) be arrested in Country C—which does have a treaty with B—if you were travelling there.

Re: Julian Assange granted permission to appeal against extradition to US

#195

Post by bdw5204 »

manquer wrote: post #187
sofixa wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Arguably, the rest of the "free world" can be seen as provinces of an American Empire with their independence Arguably, this is bullshit. The UK might be dangerously friendly with the US on multiple fronts, but e.g. France has refused to extradite Polanski forever, refuses to hand over control of their nukes to NATO, and pursues an independent but aligned foreign policy to the US.

Polanski is French citizen though and key figure in the French cultural circles, also he was well connected enough to be let go in the US in the first place multiple times . While US would prosecute him if they could , they have not tried anywhere as hard to extradite him like they are doing with Assange . Assange is not a UK citizen , UK has some of the weirdest privacy and human rights laws they are not fully part…

Polanski is very different from Assange. Assange exposed US government secrets which directly threatens the US government's power. From the perspective of a government, that's far more serious a crime than (allegedly) raping a child because it directly harmed the US government's interests.

Crimes that directly threaten the sovereign are always the most serious crimes especially if they involve waging war against it or undermining its war effort. This is a constant throughout all societies. The next most serious class of crimes would be those that undermine the state's control of the financial system which is critical to its power. That's also why the US government has thrown the book at those who trespassed in the Capitol as part of a comically incompetent attempt to overturn the 2020 presidential election. Likewise, intentional tax evasion is going to get the book thrown at you. When the state feels genuinely threatened, "human rights" and "constitutional rights" are irrelevant and will be "interpreted" to allow whatever the state wishes to do.

Re: Julian Assange granted permission to appeal against extradition to US

#196

Post by 2OEH8eoCRo0 »

plexom wrote: post #138
api wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He has also been selective in his releases and timed them to affect political outcomes. He’s just another biased media source with an agenda.

Of course he wants to affect political outcomes. Is that not the entire point? The US is committing war crimes, why would he _not_ want this to change? Also, how would unbiased reporting on war crimes look like? Lastly, does "having an agenda", whatever that might mean to you, change anything about the facts that were presented? Does it make the crimes the US is committing any less severe?

> The US is committing war crimes

Which? Collateral Murder didn't depict war crimes.

Re: Julian Assange granted permission to appeal against extradition to US

#197

Post by roenxi »

Tomte wrote: post #127
roenxi wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dunno, is the German judiciary powerful enough to be independent of the US? In theory the entire country has independent sovereignty but it doesn't isn't in a position to exercise it to full effect. It doesn't come up very often, but in physical reality the judiciary's independence rests on the beliefs of a country's police chiefs and generals. The US has a history of just doing what it wants in Europe when it come…

Why do you think extraordinary renditions happen (rarely, but sometimes)? If a German district judge would just read the newspaper, conclude that "America wants https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_El-Masri " and obediently judges accordingly, America wouldn't have gone to all that trouble.

If your argument is that the judiciary can afford to be independent because the US will ignore them and just take anyone who they think is important to their interests then yes, I can see that as a reasonable possibility. But it is also a reasonable possibility that the courts cave in. It depends what sort of pressure the US brings in to play.

If you're arguing that the German judiciary had influence over the fate of Khaled El-Masri then I'm not sure how the argument is meant to hang together. They seem to have been powerless in that instance. The outcome depended on the CIA's judgement.

Re: Julian Assange granted permission to appeal against extradition to US

#198

Post by hnbad »

graemep wrote: post #28
prmoustache wrote: post #15

I still don't understand how a country can grant extradition of a non US citizen to the USA for "espionage". Every country is potentially spying on every other country and it doesn't even matter if they are supposed to be allies or enemies. The only limits are resources.

I suspect part of the answer is that most or all countries regard leading information to the the public to be far worse than leaking it to other countries. > Every country is potentially spying on every other country and it doesn't even matter if they are supposed to be allies or enemies. Very true. The UK spying on Belgium and the US spying on Germany come to mind., but that is "business as usual" and no one expects…

FWIW there was a special investigation into the US spying in Germany but it didn't lead anywhere because there was no political desire to create any consequences. It seems to boil down to everyone in government who was affected already having been aware that the US is likely spying on them and shrugging it off as a cost of doing business with the US. Additionally the US used to have a legal provision in West Germany that provided them a carte blanche for various covert ops shenanigans due to the outcome of World War 2. Officially this contract ended eventually but everyone aware of that history seems to be certain that it was merely replaced by similar but less publicly visible agreements.

Re: Julian Assange granted permission to appeal against extradition to US

#199

Post by hnbad »

surfingdino wrote: post #48
prmoustache wrote: post #15

I still don't understand how a country can grant extradition of a non US citizen to the USA for "espionage". Every country is potentially spying on every other country and it doesn't even matter if they are supposed to be allies or enemies. The only limits are resources.

It's a complex legal matter and nobody involved is in any rush to make hasty decisions, because they may impact future extradition requests. Speaking of the future, intentional or not, Assange's case has a freezing effect on people who might be thinking of sharing secrets. That's already a win for those who don't want secrets to be shared with the public.

It's important to keep in mind that this is not just about the US. Countries not aligned with the US may have an interest in exposing the US but most countries do not have an interest of being exposed in a similar manner and setting an example with Assange not only deters exposure of the US but exposure of any of the countries aligned with the US and supporting the extradition.

Re: Julian Assange granted permission to appeal against extradition to US

#200

Post by bdw5204 »

api wrote: post #167
PickledHotdog wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Traveller and expat here - "free world" is absolutely correct. Even its allies aren't free of government interference from the US.

I meant at the individual level. I don't care nearly as much about what governments can do.

From the individual level, obviously the US and its allies are the freest countries in the world. US adversaries are basically all obvious tyrannies of one form or another.

But US allies are not "free" in the sense that they can't do something that the US really doesn't like. Japan's government, for example, would not be trying to repeal its pacifist constitution unless they had the US's blessing to re-militarize.

Basically, there are 2 different senses in which a country can be called "free". But even in the individual liberty sense, a libertarian (either of the Ron Paul or Noam Chomsky variants) would not consider the US or any of its allies to be free and acting like they are libertarian countries is a good way to become a martyr.

Post reply on HN