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

281–290 of 646 posts

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#281

Post by Closi »

africanboy wrote: post #151
ClumsyPilot wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'she had to kill the guards at the door' . Why stop there, while we are at it, imagine she had to commit a terrorist attack and a genocide at once and Assange volunteered to help

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.

Don't get too downhearted by the downvotes.

I get the feeling people in this thread are getting mixed up between the difference of what people think is right or should be right and what the courts and laws say.

I think Assange was a hero. At the same time, the claim that he tried to help crack a US military hash to assist with extracting files does sound pretty illegal on the face of it, despite its good intentions and positive outcomes for truth and journalism.

Just because you did good by breaking the law, or that you broke the law in the name of journalism, doesn't provide you protection from the courts in the eyes of the law (And particularly not at a magistrates court!).

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#282

Post by pydry »

rsynnott wrote: post #270
pydry wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the judges are probably more interested in the global standing, power and leverage of the UK than Boris is and the Brexit rulings arguably reflect that too. The UK government is about more than just Boris's ego. I wouldn't speculate as to the exact mechanism as to how this ruling came about but to assume it came divorced from politics is naive, especially given the nature of the ruling.

> I think the judges are probably more interested in the global standing, power and leverage of the UK than Boris is Really? I wouldn't assume that at all; it's very much not their job, and it's not unusual for the courts to cause the government significant trouble and embarrassment. A judge's job is to uphold the law, not to be a political actor. And the UK's judges, by and large, have a reasonably good reputation f…

Whether it's their "job" or not it's exactly in line with their rulings. Whether it's taking gold from Venezuela, trying to prevent the Brexit train from going off the cliff or this, realpolitik is clearly never far from their mind.

If their job were to give out fair rulings they wouldn't pretend that Assange was a spy not a journalist and they wouldnt try to hold Venezuelan gold hostage by picking winners in a foreign election.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#284

Post by detaro »

h_anna_h wrote: post #242
africanboy wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Assange is accused of basically running hashcat. I am sure that a fair percentage of HN would be criminals under this logic.

I doubt a fair percentage of HN has used hashcat to break passwords to attempt to steal US government documents. The tool is not the point of the charge.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#285

Post by djsumdog »

gsnedders wrote: post #175
tedeh wrote: post #5

So is Julian Assange going to be released now or what?

He is currently imprisoned pending a USA appeal (which they have stated, to the court, they will make); his lawyer told the court that he would submit an application for bail on Wednesday (and not to the court today).

Appeals are not a right in the UK and rarely granted. This is a highly political case, so it might get herd. I hope he goes free. Assange is a true Australian hero, even though his own government abandoned him.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#286

Post by foolfoolz »

anothernewdude wrote: post #83

A system of "mass incarceration" should have no impact on any individual case. That's beyond stupid.

agreed this sounds like political activism judging. how can one judge say we can’t extradite to the us because the system isn’t good enough when other extraditions are ok?

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#287

Post by Uberphallus »

rjbwork wrote: post #254
Uberphallus wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You lie, if they accuse you of perjury then you say "I googled it after I was asked".

But that's not how they ask. It's usually something like "would you have a problem convicting the defendant of the crime they are accused of if you were convinced beyond all reasonable doubt that they had, in fact, committed said crime?" They don't say "Do you know what jury nullification is?"

Keyword: would (not will). No perjury.

And if they use "will", it's perfectly normal to wonder why one would ask such a strange question. It would totally read as "we're gonna find a case to test you on that teehee".

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#288

Post by [deleted] »

Chris2048 wrote: post #262
lmg643 wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are we sure that Assange is better off in the UK? Reports from other sources suggest he is being kept in terrible conditions in UK as well. https://www.telesurenglish.net/news/julian-assange-is-kept-u... >> "Each day Julian is woken at 5 am, handcuffed, put in holding cells, stripped naked, and x-rayed. He is transported 1.5 hours each way in what feels like a vertical coffin in a claustrophobic van,” Morris said. >>…

> Each day Julian is ... x-rayed Wait, what? This can't be true - daily x-rays would guarantee cell/DNA damage.

[deleted]

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#289

Post by ntsplnkv2 »

matthewmacleod wrote: post #70
tt433 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given the apartment disconnect between the reality Murray describes in his reports and the reality we can observe today, do you think you'll read his content with a higher degree of skepticism in the future? His headlines are all calibrated for maximum outrage, that alone turns me off from reading them. Edit to eat crow: only one article has a sensational headline

Honestly, his articles where so overwhelmingly obviously biased and lacking any sense of journalism that it was actually painful to watch the number of people on this very site enthusiastically promote him as some kind of truth-seeking hero. It's valid to oppose the Assange extradition, be concerned about the impact on free speech, and any number of other things; Murray is not a reliable narrator on any of these issu…

People on here have already made up their minds about Assange/Snowden etc, even if damning evidence came out against them, they would still find a way to spin it one way or another.

Cases like these I doubt the truth will ever be known/come out. There is too much political BS surrounding it.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#290

Post by djsumdog »

gadders wrote: post #27
ramijames wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm genuinely concerned. What is wrong with you?

Nice ad-hominem attack. Good skills. Wikileaks leaks about the Democrat Party corruption prior to the 2016 election certainly hurt her. And there are unconfirmed reports she joked about hitting him with a drone. https://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/hillary-clinton-drone-s...

It's not really a joke either. The Clitnon's have been corrupt for years. The entire Hunter/Biden censorship of the Post by Facebook and Twitter show the interests of big tech align with that of the Bush/Clinton dynasty.

Biden could have him killed. He's an empty husk of a president, and will be controlled by the big interests, the Clinton and anyone else who he's been compromised by.

We've been living in 1984 for decades and most of American won't acknowledge it.

Post reply on HN