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

Ecuador to Expel Assange Within ‘Hours to Days,’ WikiLeaks Says

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 269 posts

Re: Ecuador to Expel Assange Within ‘Hours to Days,’ WikiLeaks Says

#241

Post by dragonwriter »

ratling wrote: post #214
dragonwriter wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

She's not locked up for leaking, she's locked up for flagrant contempt in an active grand jury investigation, one which otherwise poses her no legal jeopardy, since she has both immunity and, for much of the subject matter, double jeopardy protection since she's been tried, convicted, and served her sentence for her involvement.

Principles aren’t principles if you only have them when they’re easy. The US government shoved her in isolation for years. Even with immunity why should she help them now?

> Even with immunity why should she help them now?

Because if her previous testimony was not perjury, and the government is looking to probe around it, she is likely withholding exculpatory evidence that, were it in the hands of the government, they would be subject to sanction if they failed to turn over to the ultimate target of the prosecution and which might, simply by existing, result in abandonment of some or all of the charges being pursued.

Of course, if the prior testimony was perjury, the calculus is different.

Re: Ecuador to Expel Assange Within ‘Hours to Days,’ WikiLeaks Says

#242

Post by gotocake »

TaylorAlexander wrote: post #222
cm2187 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with free Snowden. But Manning and Assange had a history of leaking unredacted personal information that is indefensible. In the case of Manning, I might add that the leak didn’t show any major wrong doing. It illustrated some case of collateral damage, which we always knew (and the US military keeps public records of). It showed the underbelly of the US diplomacy, which turns out to be rather clean (some amb…

You don’t think gunning down journalists and innocent civilians from a helicopter is “major wrong doing?”

War is messy, imprecise, and inevitably involves unintended (or possibly intended) civilian casualties. It’s a great argument for avoiding wars that aren’t absolutely necessary.

Re: Ecuador to Expel Assange Within ‘Hours to Days,’ WikiLeaks Says

#243

Post by mejari »

black-tea wrote: post #232
mejari wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If by "recently" you mean 5 years ago. And by "illegal to do paternity testing" you mean "illegal to do secret paternity testing by private citizens without a court order". So your claim seems very false, and doesn't back up your idea that "their populations of single mothers would skyrocket".

The lengths people will go to to disagree with something that makes them uncomfortable... I guess it's also not illegal to break into somebody's house because, you know, you can do it with a court order. And your other point is about five years not being recent? So, OK, given that five years is ages ago, and it's not technically illegal, why do you think France passed this law?

Well, it's very strange. I'm trying to look up more about it but at least the first 5 pages of google results are all from MRA/redpill type hate groups, so it seems this is one of those issues that has been latched onto to create anger around without providing much actual reasoning.

Also, not sure why you feel the need to attack me personally, as if I'm going to "lengths" by pointing out when you've said incorrect things because something (not sure what) makes me uncomfortable?

Anyway, I was able to find a quote from an actual French official on the subject:

>Nadine Morano, France’s junior minister for the family, says foreign tests are not reliable and warns against “the psychological impact of results”. She has spoken of the danger that “If all fathers start asking whether they’re really the fathers of their children, we enter into a society of doubt that imperils the family.”[0]

Personally I disagree with the idea, but it seems you've heard/created a twisted interpretation of the intent behind such laws (which are not limited to France, Germany has instituted similar laws, yet France seems to be the target of this particular rage-fest).

0: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/french-men-s-insecurity-over...

Re: Ecuador to Expel Assange Within ‘Hours to Days,’ WikiLeaks Says

#244

Post by root_axis »

ralph84 wrote: post #218
pjc50 wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about all the actually guilty? > Special counsel Robert Mueller’s team indicted or got guilty pleas from 34 people and three companies during their lengthy investigation, which is now complete. > That group is composed of six former Trump advisers, 26 Russian nationals, three Russian companies, one California man, and one London-based lawyer. Seven of these people (including five of the six former Trump advisers…

If you spend two years investigating _anyone_, chances are you can find a law they violated sometime in their life.

What a strangely disingenuous comment. If the FBI investigated me for two years they wouldn't be able to charge me with high profile financial crimes lol. How absurd.

Re: Ecuador to Expel Assange Within ‘Hours to Days,’ WikiLeaks Says

#245

Post by Pimpus »

matthewmacleod wrote: post #147
Pimpus wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Clearly Manning is the most simpathetic of all mistreated 'leakers'. Isnt "she" (he?) a trannie? I still support her, because whether I'm sympathetic of a person and their flaws is irrelevant.

I’m going to make the probably flawed assumption that you are commenting in good faith, and make you aware that this comment is not okay, for the following reasons: 1. It’s not relevant, 2. “Trannie” is a slur, 3. Pronouns should not be put in scare quotes.

Wrong on all three points.

Re: Ecuador to Expel Assange Within ‘Hours to Days,’ WikiLeaks Says

#246

Post by erikpukinskis »

whamlastxmas wrote: post #202
matt4077 wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see no material difference in your description and the term rape. An agreement to have sex with a condom only is certainly not valid for condom-less sex. And your spurious accusation of bribery is just baffling.

Violently and forcibly penetrating someone against their will is a pretty big difference to not using a condom when previously asked to do so. Depending on the country, yes they're both rape by the legal definition, but it's absolutely worth clarifying.

No, it would be a small difference to some people, and it would be a big difference to others.

Just like being choked suddenly without consent would be delightful to some and horrifying to others.

It's not a matter of "which act is more violent". There are a class of acts which rise to the level of rape. This includes condom removal, forcible penetration, unforced penetration following clear withdrawal of consent, etc.

"Is it rape?" is not a matter of which of these different acts is considered most violent. The law doesn't establish a hierarchy. It's a bar. Either the act rises above the bar or not. It's a matter of whether parties explicitly gave consent, whether they explicitly withdrew consent, and which parties committed which acts under those circumstances.

It's important that it is a bar, so that people can know rationally whether they or others have crossed it. A hierarchy with "bad rape", "better rape" and "best rape" would not be a useful social contract.

Re: Ecuador to Expel Assange Within ‘Hours to Days,’ WikiLeaks Says

#247

Post by GVIrish »

belorn wrote: post #131
GVIrish wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The system is not perfect, but the reason Manning went to jail is because she made an indiscriminate leak of secrets of which she did not review before she released them. Had she only released material on stuff she had thought to be a crime, then there would have been a much stronger case to be made as a whistle blower. It would be like if someone working at a hospital exposed a medical fraud scheme but leaked all th…

You mean like if manning had done as Daniel Ellsberg, she would not have been charged and put on trial?

Not saying she wouldn't have been charged anyway, just saying she would've had a stronger case that might have been winnable.

Re: Ecuador to Expel Assange Within ‘Hours to Days,’ WikiLeaks Says

#248

Post by throwaway194444 »

mpfundstein wrote: post #215
matt4077 wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to mention all his trouble started when he raped (allegedly) one of his former hosts, who had also put him up for free and was generally a fan until he violated the house rules on hygiene.

I can’t believe you still buy into that narrative. It has been shown over and over again that the rape accusations are questionable. Not guilty until proven so. Did we forget that?

Nobody who is a long-term friend or close acquaintance of Jake Appelbaum (ioerror), and isn't a sociopath themselves, believes he is innocent of rape. By association, it is quite hard to give Julian the benefit of the doubt, given their closeness and Julian's presence at several parties where Jake is known to have drugged and raped unsuspecting women/groupies.

Either way, Assange is free to be a man, walk outside those doors, and face his day in court for the crime he definitely committed: Violating the terms of his bail.

Bail. B-A-I-L. Assange was given bail. If he was going to be extradited to the USA, he never would have been given bail. Assange is just an attention-seeking snowflake who failed in his own Breitbart-esque attempt to control the political narrative, and now he's throwing a 7-year long pity party.

It would be nice to know if I committed a crime I could hide out in an embassy with free housing, free food and no bills.. I certainly wouldn't poop on the floor as a thank you.

Re: Ecuador to Expel Assange Within ‘Hours to Days,’ WikiLeaks Says

#249

Post by ralph84 »

root_axis wrote: post #244
ralph84 wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you spend two years investigating _anyone_, chances are you can find a law they violated sometime in their life.

What a strangely disingenuous comment. If the FBI investigated me for two years they wouldn't be able to charge me with high profile financial crimes lol. How absurd.

You're 100% certain you've complied with all 70,000 pages of federal tax law and regulations? You've paid sales or use tax on all of your online purchases?

Re: Ecuador to Expel Assange Within ‘Hours to Days,’ WikiLeaks Says

#250

Post by zenexer »

ratling wrote: post #213
wnevets wrote: post #210

Time to send that puppet home to Russia, that's where all of the "freedom fighters" apparently flee to.

I won’t be surprised if he very quickly gets “accidentallied.” He’s outlived his use to his masters and is a liability now.

This inevitability is what they always forget.
Post reply on HN