Ecuador will hand over Julian Assange to the UK • Hacker News Board

Re: Ecuador will hand over Julian Assange to the UK

#271

Post by dragonwriter » Sun, Jul 22, 2018, 11:14 PM UTC

lumberjack wrote: post #88

briandear wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just a curiousity, is “far left” and “liberal” even related? Seems like the far left and far right are two sides to the same totalitarian coin. Liberal implies a respect for the freedom of individuals while “far left” puts the collective over the rights of the individual. The word liberal has lost its meaning. The far left (and far right) is incompatible with freedom. Cases in point: Venezuela, Cuba, the Soviet Union…

Traditionally there are three political groups: conservatives, liberals and socialists. "Far-left" falls under socialism, along with anarchism and communism. The idea that ties them together is this concept of trying to fight against and eliminate some hierarchy in society. Often times, wealth inequality. There is no such thing in the US. To say that you are a liberal far-left is indeed a misuse of terminology. Fasci…

> Traditionally there are three political groups: conservatives, liberals and socialists.

That's not even approximately correct. There are a lot more groups than that, and those aren't even on the same conceptual level.

> "Far-left" falls under socialism, along with anarchism and communism.

Socialism is one of many leftist ideologies. Communism is, yes, a subset of socialism; OTOH, anarchism is not a subset of socialism (anarchism is a distinct ideology.)

> > The idea that ties them together is this concept of trying to fight against and eliminate some hierarchy in society. Often times, wealth inequality. There is no such thing in the US.

The first part is not horrendously inaccurate but not really useful correct, either.

I don't know if you are trying to say that the far left, socialism, anarchism, communism, social heirarchies, or wealth inequality doesn't exist in the US, but, in any case...no.

> Fascism falls under conservatism along with monarchism and any other traditionalist or reactionary political ideology.

Reactionary ideologies have the same relationship to conservatism as radical or far-left ideologies have to liberalism.

> Interesting to note that Republicanism is a liberal ideology, not a conservative one.

Small-r republicanism is an ideology that is neither inherently liberal nor conservative, though the most common modern form is liberal. Big-R Republicanism J's just attachment to an American political party that doesn't have a single clear ideology but covers a range of liberal to reactionary ideologies.

> Liberalism is a much more well defined ideology than the other two.

Socialism is, while still a fairly broad umbrella, both more specific and better defined than liberalism.

> Briefly speaking: "all men are created equal"

That doesn't actually differentiate it from socialism, nor is this really essential to liberalism (a belief that all men are created equal undergirds some liberalism, but isn't essential to liberalism; another basis is that equallegal treatment allows people to reach the different positions appropriate for different inherent worth.)

> (hence Republicanism)

Neither Republicanism nor republicanism is inherently attached to an egalitarian ideology.

Re: Ecuador will hand over Julian Assange to the UK

#272

Post by ubernostrum » Mon, Jul 23, 2018, 12:24 AM UTC

panarky wrote: post #16

timmytokyo wrote: post #4

Julian Assange is not "effectively imprisoned". He can leave the Ecuadorian embassy any time he chooses. Ecuador is under no obligation to provide him domicile.

If you spend 8 years confined to a small space, unable to travel freely due to a well-grounded fear of physical harm, you're most definitely "effectively imprisoned".

So everyone who is sought as a suspect in a crime is "effectively imprisoned", in your view?

Remember: Assange sought asylum to avoid an interview with Swedish law officials concerning allegations of sexual misconduct in possible violation of Swedish law.

Re: Ecuador will hand over Julian Assange to the UK

#273

Post by meatbags » Mon, Jul 23, 2018, 12:31 AM UTC

jumelles wrote: post #61

travmatt wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m never going to understand the praise for Julian Assange. He may have started out with good intentions, but his turns towards Putin and subsequent actions are pretty unforgivable in my estimation. I can’t see how a moral person could stand by his decisions, honestly. I think Pussy Riot summer him up best: "But Julian Assange, he openly works with [Russia]," Nadya Tolokno told The Daily Beast in an interview Thursd…

Unfortunately I agree completely. Assange and WikiLeaks might have been on the 'right side' of things years ago, but things have changed since then. Siding with Putin is absolutely unforgivable.

Why the assumption that Assange sided with Putin? Those of us watching the story closely know that no evidence has been presented of this. Co-aligned interests is not collusion. The source of the DNC leaks remains unknown. It's not even clear whether it was an external actor or a DNC insider.

I feel like the blinding hate for Trump has eroded people's ability to think critically. The Russiagate hysteria is evidence of that.

Edit: I'll soak up the downvotes. Keep em coming.

Re: Ecuador will hand over Julian Assange to the UK

#274

Post by garmaine » Mon, Jul 23, 2018, 5:02 AM UTC

dosy wrote: post #263

acct1771 wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I didn’t have any trouble understanding it, it just doesn’t make any sense whatsoever and objectively wouldn’t have worked, at massive cost to their reputation. The is conspiracy nonsense worse than UFO believers and 9/11 deniers.

Re: Ecuador will hand over Julian Assange to the UK

#275

Post by foldr » Mon, Jul 23, 2018, 6:38 AM UTC

nailer wrote: post #267

foldr wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 repeate…

>No, it was to assess the facts and see whether the case had merit

No, it wasn't. See e.g. the quote from the Magistrates' court judgment above.

>The police do not arrest someone on every accusation of crime

The Swedish prosecutor had a strong presumption in favor of arresting and charging Assange in this instance, as the court judgments make clear. That was on the basis of the evidence already available.

You may not be taking into account differences between the Swedish and US/UK justice systems. Formal charges are brought much later in the Swedish system, as the court judgments explain. The investigation into Assange had proceeded to a stage where charges would most likely already have been filed in the US or UK. The investigation was well beyond the stage where they would have wanted merely to talk to Assange.

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

Clinton has no power to extradite Assange. It doesn't matter what she says.

>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

As I said, it is not uncommon for people who are raped to remain on friendly terms with their rapists. The fact that they were not in a LTR doesn't change that.

Re: Ecuador will hand over Julian Assange to the UK

#276

Post by dosy » Mon, Jul 23, 2018, 7:36 AM UTC

garmaine wrote: post #274

dosy wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I didn’t have any trouble understanding it, it just doesn’t make any sense whatsoever and objectively wouldn’t have worked, at massive cost to their reputation. The is conspiracy nonsense worse than UFO believers and 9/11 deniers.

Hahaha, that's an interesting theory, but it conflicts with how I think about things. It's good to know that's what you believe, tho.

It's funny to think that the spies who know the biggest truths are also the ones who need to be the most emphatic in their denials of them. Must be such a weird life. To have a reputation as being unreliable in everything except lying. Crazy.

Thankfully regular people don't know their own beliefs are untrue. The counter-narratives are designed so well that regular people readily accept them, and vigorously self-censor dissenting ideas. The system works! :P

Re: Ecuador will hand over Julian Assange to the UK

#277

Post by misterhtmlcss » Mon, Jul 23, 2018, 7:40 PM UTC

mc32 wrote: post #126

blhack wrote: post #9

What I've wanted for Julian Assange, Edward Snowden, and Chelsea Manning, and if Obama would have done it before leaving office, it would have earned him infinite respect: Try them, possibly even find them guilty of something, but also award them with the Presidential Medal of Freedom. What these people have done is probably illegal, but it is unquestionably about the most American, patriotic act you could commit. Sp…

Here's my take. When you see your duty as a patriot to betray what's been entrusted to you because you think it's the right thing to do, you do it with the notion that you are "taking one for the team". And you pay the price. What you do may not be proven right within your lifetime, but if you are eventually proven right, you will have earned the respect posthumously. I don't think we can claim being a patriot is eas…

I can totally agree with that. At the end of the day if a patriot is a guy standing between you and your leader and taking a bullet or on a field of battle losing a limb or pulling what Snowden did it's all a risk you take for participating in that level of game. It just is what it is and fairness doesn't enter into the equation.

Re: Ecuador will hand over Julian Assange to the UK

#278

Post by jokermatt999 » Mon, Jul 23, 2018, 9:35 PM UTC

meatbags wrote: post #273

jumelles wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately I agree completely. Assange and WikiLeaks might have been on the 'right side' of things years ago, but things have changed since then. Siding with Putin is absolutely unforgivable.

Why the assumption that Assange sided with Putin? Those of us watching the story closely know that no evidence has been presented of this. Co-aligned interests is not collusion. The source of the DNC leaks remains unknown. It's not even clear whether it was an external actor or a DNC insider. I feel like the blinding hate for Trump has eroded people's ability to think critically. The Russiagate hysteria is evidence o…

Did you miss the indictment of the DNC hackers that also detailed the DC Leaks being registered by GRU? You should catch up on that if so.

Re: Ecuador will hand over Julian Assange to the UK

#279

Post by slg » Mon, Jul 23, 2018, 10:55 PM UTC

meatbags wrote: post #247

slg wrote: post #89

I am genuinely surprised by the amount of positive comments here about Assange. It is clear that at a bare minimum he was used as a tool by Putin to sway politics in the US and is it seems likely he was a willing and active participant in that plan. For people who still view Assange positively, do you simply not care about that fact or do you just think the good outweighs the bad? EDIT: This comment is currently sitt…

"It is clear that at a bare minimum he was used as a tool by Putin to sway politics" Can you provide evidence or sources for this claim? It's not clear to me, although the majority of Western news-media seems to be pushing this speculation.

I just pulled up the Wikipedia page for Guccifer 2.0 [1]. You can click through from there to find plenty of sources. That page opens with the following:

>"Guccifer 2.0" is a persona which claimed to be the hacker(s) that hacked into the Democratic National Committee (DNC) computer network and then leaked its documents to the media, the website WikiLeaks, and a conference event. According to indictments in February 2018, the persona is operated by Russian military intelligence (GRU)

The available evidence suggests the Russians hacked the DNC and then used Wikileaks as the primary method of distributing that hacked data. I don't know whether Wikileaks was aware of their role, but either way Wikileaks clearly was used as a distribution tool by Putin and the Russians.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guccifer_2.0

Re: Ecuador will hand over Julian Assange to the UK

#280

Post by meatbags » Tue, Jul 24, 2018, 12:32 AM UTC

jokermatt999 wrote: post #278

meatbags wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why the assumption that Assange sided with Putin? Those of us watching the story closely know that no evidence has been presented of this. Co-aligned interests is not collusion. The source of the DNC leaks remains unknown. It's not even clear whether it was an external actor or a DNC insider. I feel like the blinding hate for Trump has eroded people's ability to think critically. The Russiagate hysteria is evidence o…

Did you miss the indictment of the DNC hackers that also detailed the DC Leaks being registered by GRU? You should catch up on that if so.

I'm aware of the well-timed indictment, despite the fact that the public's mind was made up well before then. An indictment is not a conviction, and its evidence comes from sources (intelligence agencies) that have been proven numerously to lie, fabricate, and falsify evidence for political ends. For context, Mueller was FBI director under Bush and during the Iraq war. Pretend that someone other than Trump won, and now tell me honestly -- do you trust US intelligence agencies and do you find the indictment's technical evidence compelling?

(edit) To bring the point of this post back to my earlier one -- where is the evidence that Assange "sided with Putin"? Siding with someone implies collusion, and mutual interest is not collusion. It implies Assange knew the source was a Russian state actor prior to publishing (whether it was is still speculation).

I apologise if this post seems long-winded and antagonistic, but I feel this is an important distinction that has been glossed over. I see Russiaphobia seeping into close friends who I consider to be rational and it worries me.