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

311–320 of 646 posts

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#311

Post by tyingq »

randylahey wrote: post #305
Chris2048 wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Could just be sloppy, inaccurate writing. But yeah that would be pretty bad.

It's a direct quote from his fiancé, who is also a lawyer and part of his defense team: https://twitter.com/StellaMoris1/status/1306205472521891840?...

I can't vouch for the analysis here, but this is interesting. It's an FOIA request that seems to show the equipment being used. https://wiseupaction.info/2020/10/15/julian-assange-was-x-ra...

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#312

Post by africanboy »

boomboomsubban wrote: post #267
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…

I don't want to try and change your opinion on Assange's actions, many journalist have said the "I'll help" you see as a problem is a routine procedure, but you clearly disagree. A crime still isn't just a crime though. A less ambiguous example, unauthorized possession's of classified information is a crime, yet no journalist has been charged for it.

I'm honestly expressing no opinion on Assange's actions.

"I'll help" is not a problem, if they are not helping someone to commit a crime (clarification: when I say "it's a problem" I mean it's a problem for whoever says "I'll help" because they are being accessory to a crime).

What routinely escapes from the prosecution of the law is irrelevant.

The fact that I have downloaded copyrighted material without any consequence doesn't make it legal.

A crime is a crime by the law, the court has to decide if you either committed it or not (regardless if you did it for real, if the court can prove you did it, you did it).

That doesn't mean that killing a baby and downloading an episode of a TV show illegally is the same thing, it means that if I helped you to download the content and you are accused of downloading that content and the court can prove it, I am accessory to the crime even if people routinely get by.

> unauthorized possession's of classified information is a crime

Are you referring to this?

> Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both.

What journalists do is not retain them, it's publish them, which AFAIK is not illegal.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#313

Post by gsnedders »

djsumdog wrote: post #285
gsnedders wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Right; to be pedantic, he is being held in custody until such point that the High Court decide to grant leave to appeal.

I would be frankly _amazed_ if in this case the High Court doesn't allow an appeal. And I'd be surprised if the Supreme Court didn't too. It's such a high profile and politicised case that it's incredibly likely to be viewed to be in the public interest.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#314

Post by vidarh »

aleclarsoniv wrote: post #274
rjbwork wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And they weed you out of the jury pool if you admit to knowing of its existence. And of course you can't lie when asked, as that's perjury.

What's the reason for allowing judges to remove jurors who admit their intent to acquit a guilty defendant? If they can't convince other jurors, no "harm" done. If they can, then perhaps the law is overkill. The judge seems to be overpowered here.

I'm of two minds of this. On one hand I do agree with you that it has the potential to be an important safety valve (not least because I think the US prison system is immoral and unjust...). On the other hand, historically it has a history of severe abuse, e.g. to let people go free for lynchings and the like.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#315

Post by raxxorrax »

Closi wrote: post #266
raxxorrax wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How scandalous, he hacked someone... Of course that is far worse than killing hundreds of thousands of people in the middle east which he put the finger on. Hacking and computer sabotage.... really? You call that justice? It is not and the UK jurisdiction remains a joke. A posh joke, but a joke nonetheless. Please... as if there would have been alternative to leaking hunan rights violations.

Unfortunately nowhere in the law does it state "you can break any law if it helps human rights causes". I fully support Assange FYI, but at the same time I think he possibly broke laws while doing his (incredibly important) work, or at least there would be enough ambiguity around law to bring a case to the crown court (remember this is the magistrates).

But a judiciary should be careful to synchronize laws and justice to the best degree possible. Otherwise they end up as the joke that they are. There is room to the bottom of course, but I don't think trust is available in excess in western nations.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#316

Post by acct776 »

djsumdog wrote: post #280
nix23 wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bin Laden had no court hearing. He was killed by a special commando. It really surprises me that anyone thinks that this has something todo with justice. BTW: No saying it's right or wrong, but it's definitely something else than justice or a Curt-order.

Well, Obama claimed he sent in a team to kill him and dump his body in the ocean, during an election year, even though the French intelligence agencies said he was probably dead for at least 7 years. That seal team also died in a helicopter crash later, but it wasn't "the same seal team." Honestly I don't understand how Americans still trust our news sources today.

Succinct..agreed.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#317

Post by Closi »

agd wrote: post #73
Closi wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You might be able to argue that Assange crossed the line between "journalism" and "hacking", for example when he attempted to assist with cracking a hash. The UK has other history about journalists hacking (see the phone hacking scandal). It's one thing to receive the contents of a hack, and quite another to offer active assistance to exploit systems.

I’m not convinced by your implied equivalence of, on the one hand, phone hacking celebrities and murder victims to generate tabloid clickbait, and on the other, helping protect an intelligence source whose leaked material shows human rights abuses and the death of innocent civilians.

Unfortunately the law usually legislates against acts rather than outcomes.

Additionally in the eyes of the law, hacking a celebrity does not bring a higher punishment than hacking a nation state, despite its good intentions and the public interest of the released information.

And he isn't accused of "helping to protect an intelligence source", because that's not a crime. One claim raised by the prosecution is that Assange was sent hashes and ran them against a rainbow table in an attempt to provide assistance to manning in order to grant further access to confidential government systems.

If this claim is true or not, we don't know because it hasn't gone to court yet, but the accusation is more than "just protecting a source".

And personally I think there should be an exception to releasing documents that show government wrongdoing which means it isn't illegal - however this is not codified in law.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#318

Post by GavinMcG »

0x445442 wrote: post #189
vidarh wrote: post #50

The entire US prison system feels abusive to me. I've said before that if I somehow magically were to find myself on a US jury (can't happen - I'm not resident in or a citizen of the US; this is a pure hypothetical), I'd be hard pressed to be able to justify voting "guilty" on a moral basis even for quite serious crimes. It feels designed for vengeance and inducing harm rather than for safety for society and rehabili…

In your scenario, the good news would be that you'd be within you're rights as a juror to vote not guilty on the grounds you did not think the law was just; it's called Jury Nullification. The bad news is, the "justice system" goes out of it's way to hide the existence of this right from U.S. citizens.

You're not within your rights as a juror to nullify. You can do so as a matter of practice.

Jury nullification looks great for laws you disagree with. It's not so great when it's used to let people off the hook for lynchings.¹

¹ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmett_Till

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#319

Post by sradman »

Miner49er wrote: post #246
2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish Snowden didn't flee the country. I'd have a completely different opinion if he stood trial.

He didn't already sacrifice enough of his life? You aren't satisfied unless he gave all of it?

It doesn't have to be about just deserts, it can be about ethics. This argument is the main thrust of Plato's dialogue Crito [1]:

> In Crito, Socrates believes injustice may not be answered with injustice, personifies the Laws of Athens to prove this, and refuses Crito's offer to finance his escape from prison. The dialogue contains an ancient statement of the social contract theory of government.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crito

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#320

Post by 35fbe7d3d5b9 »

aleclarsoniv wrote: post #274
rjbwork wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And they weed you out of the jury pool if you admit to knowing of its existence. And of course you can't lie when asked, as that's perjury.

What's the reason for allowing judges to remove jurors who admit their intent to acquit a guilty defendant? If they can't convince other jurors, no "harm" done. If they can, then perhaps the law is overkill. The judge seems to be overpowered here.

> What's the reason for allowing judges to remove jurors who admit their intent to acquit a guilty defendant?

Arguably, the same reason judges should be allowed to remove jurors who admit their intent to convict an innocent defendant: jurors must apply the law impartially. The LII has a pretty decent primer on all this entails[1].

And almost all state laws require a jury to unanimously vote to convict, so empaneling a jury that has someone who will always acquit means that the jury's decision has been set from the beginning.

Personally, I live in a state that requires a unanimous vote to convict or acquit, and prohibits the judge from "poking at" a deadlocked jury[2]. In the few times I've been selected for a jury I haven't gone far enough to be asked if I would be impartial, and I'm glad because I've yet to decide where my personal ethics take me.

[1]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-6/i...

[2]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/allen_charge

Post reply on HN