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

221–230 of 646 posts

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#221

Post by africanboy »

boomboomsubban wrote: post #184
africanboy wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>crime is a crime, justice doesn't care. Which is why all the war crimes detailed in Manning's leaks have been prosecuted with the criminals behind bars. Further, a crime isn't just a crime. A journalist attempting to protect their source is an essential part of their freedom of the press. Prosecuting them for that action infringes on their rights, making it unconstitutional. Even if you disagree with my assessment o…

> Further, a crime isn't just a crime. A journalist attempting to protect their source is an essential part of their freedom of the press

What Assange is accused of is not that.

> Even if you disagree with my assessment of Assange's actions, it should be clear that justice does care about the context.

It doesn't.

Protecting a source is not a crime, hence a journalist cannot be prosecuted for that.

Nobody is forced to reveal a criminal activity, people have the right to remain silent.

Another thing entirely is if someone actively participated in committing the crime (for example helping a thief to hide their fingerprints)

Also, I don't believe Assange should be extradited, but from a legal point it doesn't matter if he looked for gloves because Manning wanted to hide her fingerprints or a gun, if (and it's a big if) he said "I'll help you" that's a problem.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#222

Post by chongli »

rjbwork wrote: post #208
0x445442 wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In your scenario, the good news would be that you'd be within you're rights as a juror to vote not guilty on the grounds you did not think the law was just; it's called Jury Nullification. The bad news is, the "justice system" goes out of it's way to hide the existence of this right from U.S. citizens.

And they weed you out of the jury pool if you admit to knowing of its existence. And of course you can't lie when asked, as that's perjury.

But if you don’t know what it is then are you not made aware of it merely by their asking? How exactly do they weed people out without making them aware of it?

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#223

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0 »

andy_ppp wrote: post #155
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 chal…

"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."

I am not sure you can honestly characterize US as being caught in the middle of the war. US caused it. Everything that follows is its responsibility. That is why you don't start wars willy nilly.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#225

Post by Sharlin »

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #152
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 kn…

Probably ”useful idiots”.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#226

Post by 2OEH8eoCRo0 »

chippiewill wrote: post #190
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…

FWIW Edward Snowden is slightly guilty of fishing in a way. He didn't just collect relevant documents, he collected a massive cache of documents and instead of vetting them himself (someone who is at least vaguely cleared to read the documents) he turned all of it over to the press to review instead.

I wish Snowden didn't flee the country. I'd have a completely different opinion if he stood trial.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#227

Post by kjakm »

ur-whale wrote: post #216
kjakm wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> I thought Judge Baraitser was a compliant puppet Maybe this judgement will make people think a bit more deeply before jumping to ludicrous conspiracy theories in future. In the UK at least judge's are for the most part demonstrably non-political.

> In the UK at least judge's are for the most part demonstrably non-political. This is not about UK judges being political, but rather about judges being pressured by governments to do what's convenient for the government. In this particular case, the outcome is surprising.

If a judge can be pressured by the government they're political. Judges (in the UK) have nothing to gain by being political. They aren't elected politically, the roles are based on merit.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#229

Post by 0x445442 »

rjbwork wrote: post #208
0x445442 wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In your scenario, the good news would be that you'd be within you're rights as a juror to vote not guilty on the grounds you did not think the law was just; it's called Jury Nullification. The bad news is, the "justice system" goes out of it's way to hide the existence of this right from U.S. citizens.

And they weed you out of the jury pool if you admit to knowing of its existence. And of course you can't lie when asked, as that's perjury.

Right, I've actually used this before when I wanted to get out of Jury Duty.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#230

Post by Cthulhu_ »

h0l0cube wrote: post #158
tedk-42 wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

> in continuing the legacy of his father.

And retaliating for the 9/11 attacks, of course.

Post reply on HN