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

Ecuador will hand over Julian Assange to the UK

theintercept.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 286 posts

Re: Ecuador will hand over Julian Assange to the UK

#261

Post by nailer »

foldr wrote: post #256
nailer wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes I know the prosecutor can persue the case any way they want to. I find it odd that you don't understand this, but the point is very simple: if the purpose of the Swedish Prosecutor was to investigate a potential crime, they would have interviewed Assange. Instead they refused to.

>if the purpose of the Swedish Prosecutor was to investigate a potential crime, they would have interviewed Assange. I don't see how you are drawing this conclusion. There would have been little point in interviewing Assange while he was in the Ecuadorian embassy, since it would not have been possible to arrest him following the interview. More broadly, complying with Assange's demands would also have sent the wrong…

> There would have been little point in interviewing Assange while he was in the Ecuadorian embassy, since it would not have been possible to arrest him following the interview.

To determine his guilt, and answer the questions the presecutor needed?

You surely know this - my general feeling at this point is you're simply asking questions to antagonise anyone who disagrees with you. Hacker News needs a block function.

> More broadly, complying with Assange's demands would also have sent the wrong signal to anyone else trying to escape the justice system.

Most people don't have a US Home Secretary who wants them tried with treason (ie, potentially dead) and an bizarrely increased amount of attention compared to any other similar case, from a country that's been revealed as a covert member of Nato.

Also most rape victims aren't excited to go to a crayfish party with the person who just supposedly raped them 24 hours ago.

Re: Ecuador will hand over Julian Assange to the UK

#262

Post by bootlooped »

resters wrote: post #226
bootlooped wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and obviously would have loved to publish information about Trump if any had been leaked to WL. I don't think that's clear, since they were in seemingly friendly contact with Donald Trump Jr and Roger Stone. When caught, Assange claimed they were only pretending to be friendly with them. If Wikileaks has no credibility, the explanation is unbelievable, if the explanation is believable it means they are willing to l…

Just as any journalist might spend hours hanging out with a source, developing sympathy and rapport, WL has to use some of the same strategies. It's a tactic used by detectives, journalists, psychotherapists, etc. It is appropriate in some fields and is part of the professional standard and is not a reflection on credibility. I do not think we have to look far to assess WL's credibility. When is the last time that si…

> When is the last time that significant source material has been provided to some other, competing transparency organization?

The Panama Papers and the Paradise Papers were both released to the ICIJ. I don't think you would consider them a transparency organization though.

Considering only a "transparency organization" as Wikileaks competition is wrong though I think. Wikileaks' competitors are conventional producers of journalism, they just have different approaches to how the information will be presented.

Re: Ecuador will hand over Julian Assange to the UK

#263

Post by dosy »

acct1771 wrote: post #200
garmaine wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For what benefit?

Didn't you read the comment? One blatant example: how do you think it'd benefit intelligence agencies to see who begins encrypting their comms after the news breaks? If it's a topic of talking head discussion on the news, and nobody picks up arms, that's implied consent. "Well, that's just normal operations, we've been doing that since 20xx!" Open secrets are ones you don't have to worry about leaking in ways you don…

Thank you, for explaining it a second time to those who had trouble with the long sentences in the first comment.

Another advantage I omitted (for fear HN would not comprehend it) was simply the bragging rights: look at this awesome spy tech we have, wouldn't it be a shame if someone - used it to advance their national interests. And while you're all gawking at it, don't none of y'all get to thinking that Murica got weak. We're talking to you, "allies."

Re: Ecuador will hand over Julian Assange to the UK

#264

Post by foldr »

nailer wrote: post #261
foldr wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>if the purpose of the Swedish Prosecutor was to investigate a potential crime, they would have interviewed Assange. I don't see how you are drawing this conclusion. There would have been little point in interviewing Assange while he was in the Ecuadorian embassy, since it would not have been possible to arrest him following the interview. More broadly, complying with Assange's demands would also have sent the wrong…

> There would have been little point in interviewing Assange while he was in the Ecuadorian embassy, since it would not have been possible to arrest him following the interview. To determine his guilt, and answer the questions the presecutor needed? You surely know this - my general feeling at this point is you're simply asking questions to antagonise anyone who disagrees with you. Hacker News needs a block function.…

>To determine his guilt, and answer the questions the presecutor needed?

The reason that they needed to interview Assange was so that they could proceed to arrest him and charge him. That is why the EAW was issued. The interview was a procedural formality, not something that would have been particularly useful in its own right.

>Most people don't have a US Home Secretary who wants them tried with treason (ie, potentially dead) and an bizarrely increased amount of attention compared to any other similar case, from a country that's been revealed as a covert member of Nato.

How is that any concern of the Swedish prosecutor? It's not their problem if the US tries to extradite Assange. (There is, of course, no evidence that the US is going to do this beyond Assange's paranoid fantasies.)

>Also most rape victims aren't excited to go to a crayfish party with the person who just supposedly raped them 24 hours ago.

It's actually pretty common for rape victims to remain on more-or-less friendly terms with the people who raped them. (You can see a similar phenomenon with domestic abuse.)

Re: Ecuador will hand over Julian Assange to the UK

#265

Post by guitarbill »

nradov wrote: post #232
guitarbill wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, apparently. And that somehow makes it okay to ignore? Meanwhile, the UK continues the farce, costing a disproportionate amount of taxpayer money given the accusations.

Yes it's okay to ignore the recommendations of working groups. The UK is under no obligation to take them seriously.

You already said that. Anything other than "we don't need no ethical opinions from nobody!" to add? Like if it is actually ethical? Or a giant waste of money?

Re: Ecuador will hand over Julian Assange to the UK

#266

Post by eeeuo »

na85 wrote: post #257
eeeuo wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wikileaks.

Snowden went to Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras who aren't with WikiLeaks.

This is true, but he also was financially aided, advised and accompanied by Wikileaks every step of the way.

Nonetheless, you are correct. I would edit the previous post if I could, as it's not especially critical to the overall point.

Re: Ecuador will hand over Julian Assange to the UK

#267

Post by nailer »

foldr wrote: post #264
nailer wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There would have been little point in interviewing Assange while he was in the Ecuadorian embassy, since it would not have been possible to arrest him following the interview. To determine his guilt, and answer the questions the presecutor needed? You surely know this - my general feeling at this point is you're simply asking questions to antagonise anyone who disagrees with you. Hacker News needs a block function.…

>To determine his guilt, and answer the questions the presecutor needed? The reason that they needed to interview Assange was so that they could proceed to arrest him and charge him. That is why the EAW was issued. The interview was a procedural formality, not something that would have been particularly useful in its own right. >Most people don't have a US Home Secretary who wants them tried with treason (ie, potenti…

> The interview was a procedural formality, not something that would have been particularly useful in its own right.

No, it was to assess the facts and see whether the case had merit. The police do not arrest someone on every accusation of crime (although in this case the victim made statements saying they didn't wish Assange to be charged).

> Assange's paranoid fantasies

By that do you mean Hillary Clinton's repeated statements on how Assange should be dealt with?

Additionally, this wasn't a domestic abuse case. Aardin and Assange were having casual sex, not a long term relationship as is typical in domestic cases.

Re: Ecuador will hand over Julian Assange to the UK

#268

Post by jstarfish »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #117
jstarfish wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, because investigation and prosecution of an alleged crime is impossible without the suspect's testimony. It was a trumped-up allegation. The timing and nature of it alone should have raised flags. Whatever truth there is to it does not warrant the diplomatic circus this has become.

> It was a trumped-up allegation You’re quite callously dismissing two womens’ rape allegations.

No, I'm not.

Whether their claims have any merit or not is not for me to say, but how many other womens' rape allegations result in an international extradition effort...just for questioning?

The government wanted him already. Now they had a reason to bring him in, by making a bigger deal out of allegations they would otherwise ignore.

Re: Ecuador will hand over Julian Assange to the UK

#269

Post by GW150914 »

jstarfish wrote: post #268
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It was a trumped-up allegation You’re quite callously dismissing two womens’ rape allegations.

No, I'm not. Whether their claims have any merit or not is not for me to say, but how many other womens' rape allegations result in an international extradition effort...just for questioning? The government wanted him already. Now they had a reason to bring him in, by making a bigger deal out of allegations they would otherwise ignore.

Most people don’t flee their country’s legal system, and if they do they’re quietly pursued. Even fewer loudly defy their country’s legal system, but when they do they tend to be loudly pursued as a deterrent. It doesn’t get more public and defiant than taking shelter in a foreign country’s embassy while declaring both your innocence, and that your home country is corrupt and lying about you. Very few countries would take that lying down.

Then you add the prexisting desire to nab him, but only then.

Re: Ecuador will hand over Julian Assange to the UK

#270

Post by hardlianotion »

anothergoogler wrote: post #127
blhack wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obama was not sympathetic to these causes. That's why it would have gained him so much respect from me. I posted the quote in another reply, so sorry for repeating it, but: "I disagree with what you are saying, but will defend to the death your right to say it." This value is probably the most important to me, and it is something that I think is fundamentally American. I would have loved to see Obama exhibit it.

Does the meaning of your comment change in any way if you replace Obama with Trump, or "a sitting president"? I don't believe in the "deep state", but I think all presidents are equally beholden to the intelligence apparatus, and none would dare provoke it.

I thought Trump actually did quite a good job provoking the intelligence apparatus just last week with Putin.
Post reply on HN