281–290 of 298 posts
A quick summary of day 3 is here: https://www.rt.com/news/481711-assange-protection-political-...
According to GOOGL: “RT is funded in whole or in part by the Russian government.” Twelve Russian military intelligence officers were indicted in the US for in part working with WikiLeaks, so readers should find a more neutral source as well.
Irrelevant.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Since when is Mexico not a Western country?
Feels like this comment is coming from a place of anger or a presumption that: 1) I'm a US citizen (I'm not). 2) Mexicans are shot at the border when trying to get through normal US customs checks, like in an airport (They're not). 3) that the Mexicans that are actually being shot on the border by the border guard is seen by the international community as acceptable (It isn't). But, for the sake of refuting what you…
This boy was killed at the U.S. border. Anytime nobody makes an effort to address something, it is de facto acceptable. There might be solid reasons it is not being addressed, such as lack of power, or too high a cost to attempt to put pressure on the U.S. But it remains the case that it is currently considered acceptable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a search engine for Congressional Research Service Reports and is easier to copy/paste from into HN than the PDFs themselves: https://crsreports.congress.gov/search/#/0?termsToSearch=98-...
Thanks... though I think it would be great to refer to original sources, rather than some random site that adds... what value? They do add Google Analytics/tracking, I would not consider that "added value".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It is, particularly for non-violent prisoners You're going to need to show that "non violent prisoners" are not searched, nor handcuffed and uncuffed probably multiple times a day in the process of moving them from prison to court holding cells to court to court holding cells back to prison.
Easy. Take any politician involved in embezzlement. Even if they will do decades of jail, during their trial they never wear handcuffs. Yes maybe they are VIPs. But this kind of shows that Assange is treated as an anti-VIP.
Will not argue that some celebrities / politicians do and should not get special treatment (lead out the back door, not through the media circus), absolutely.
But if you’re already in custody, you’re getting cuffed. Not least for safety/security/risk to yourself/other prisoners.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This kind of quisling act is of little value.
Look at yourself in the mirror. I invited you to consider the source. That's it. I asked you to exercise your mind, and to be careful not to accept other people's agendas, be they conscious or unconscious. Your response to that is to attack. How dare I remind you that bias exists? Are you not shocked and horrified at your own response? You should be. Almost none of this thread should exist. There should have been zer…
Not quite. Your post shouldn't exist at all. It's condescending tripe.
I think there is an important point missing in the debate. This is an extradition hearing. It doesn't matter whether Assange is guilty of the alleged crimes the US has come up with or not, what matters is whether he is expected to receive a fair trial in the US and whether the potential sentences in the US would be roughly on a par with what he'd expect for the same alleged crimes in the UK. For all I can see, this i…
Please don't speculate, simply to get to the point of the hearing Assange is having now The US needed to provide: >a prosecutor's affidavit describing the facts of the case, including dates, names, docket numbers and citations, and preferably executed before a judge or magistrate (particularly if extradition is sought from a civil law country) >copies of the statutes the fugitive is said to have violated, the statute…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They held the most dangerous, violent prisoners, and of course, kept them locked down for security reasons. How valid is that argument? It seems like you could use it to justify doing anything to them. The link you gave specifies: > Norman Carlson, director of the Bureau of Prisons at the time of the Marion incident, said that ordering the permanent lockdown was the only way to deal with "a very small subset of the…
> Do I understand that everyone was potentially added 23 years to their sentence because of a few inmates they had nothing to do with? And the justification you give is that they're all dangerous, so it's ok? No, you misunderstand that. Just because the inmates are locked down for 23 hours a day (allowed out for exercise) doesn't mean that they don't get released at the end of their sentence, when the judge ordered t…
Everyone who is locked up should have a reasonable chance of getting out within a reasonable timeframe.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The exfiltrated information was from 2007 IIANM. But - you're right, I got the year wrong. So, 9 years after the exfiltration. Now, as for whether this happened 3 years ago or last year, this depends on what you're counting. The extradition request was filed last year. The secret indictment in itself nefarious; but it "doesn't count", in the sense that no public indictment for 9 years means 9 years of increasing obso…
I'm confused about your understanding of events. Two years after the events (entirely reasonable in the investigation of such a thing), there was indictments being issued. These are a necessary precursor for extradition. Wheels of justice (and let's abstract this for a moment, whether you feel this particular case warrants it or not) turn slowly, especially when they involve classified information and potential defen…
No. According to this source [1], the Obama administration did not indict Assange, as his known actions did not differ from those of other journalists.
[1] https://theintercept.com/2019/04/11/the-u-s-governments-indi...
> It's legal and ethical for a journalist to report on crimes. It is not legal, for example, for a journalist to break into a building to steal information on crimes, however valid that information may be.
Even taking that as an assumption, it is still perfectly ethical to encourage privileged source to leak information about crimes or other information whose publication is of significant public interest.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. He made himself available for questioning already in Sweden, and asked the authorities whether they need him for it or he can leave. Also, he made himself available for questioning in a place where he would not be in danger of persecution by US and/or UK authorities - which is quite fair.
> Also, he made himself available for questioning in a place where he would not be in danger of persecution by US and/or UK authorities - which is quite fair. Is there some inherent human right against persecution? Which to be clear in this situation means "being accused of and investigated for additional crimes". Is it "fair" for me to avoid questioning (or consequences of questioning) about crimes of which I'm accu…
"Human rights" are a social construct, there's nothing inherent about them. Regardless - Assange was under no obligation towards Sweden given the circumstances.
> Is it "fair" for me to avoid questioning (or consequences of questioning) about crimes of which I'm accused, too?
1. Assange was not charged with any crimes.
2. Assange did not avoid questioning - neither in Sweden nor in Ecuador (= Ecuadorian Embassy). He only avoided exposing himself to US-instigated persecution.