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

341–350 of 646 posts

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#341

Post by thinkingemote »

tt433 wrote: post #56
howlgarnish wrote: post #48

Quite unexpected! Like many HNers who followed Craig Murray's reporting of the trial (see below), I thought Judge Baraitser was a compliant puppet and the extradition to the US was preordained. Will be interesting to see his take on this. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=pastYear&page=0&prefix=fal...

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

The reality that we read today confirms Murray in that the Judge agreed with the US Government in pretty much every area of the extradition request.

it does not harm Murray nor encourage people to be more sceptical of him.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#342

Post by jlokier »

foolfoolz wrote: post #286
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?

It's not activism, it's the law in the UK.

The judge interprets how the law applies to the specific facts of this case. The law says extradition is not allowed in some circumstances. Those circumstances include how the prisoner is likely to be treated, and the health of the prisoner. Some other extraditions are ok according to the law because those factors vary in each case.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#343

Post by tsimionescu »

AsyncAwait wrote: post #167
vidarh wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's an awful ruling overall, from what I can tell from skimming it. It's great Assange won, but this ruling is not at all support for freedom of expression. This is the one part the judge agreed with the defense on as far as I can tell: > 363. I find that the mental condition of Mr. Assange is such that it would be oppressive to extradite him to the United States of America. For anyone not suffering from severe ment…

Yes, the fact that the extradition wasn't rejected on press freedom grounds makes me think maybe it's just a way for the judge to shake it off so that it's not HER who goes down in history books as to have made the decision to extradite. But having sided with the U.S. on pretty much all of the counts concerning press freedom, an appeals court may well 'find' that the heath condition is not enough. I REALLY hope am wr…

To my understanding, the judge found that Assange's rights will be sufficiently upheld by the US courts, based on the US constitution and precedent - so, she is willing to allow the US judicial system to conduct their trial (if it weren't for the abhorrent conditions in which he would be kept, which she found too likely to be detrimental to his well being).

It is not really a matter for an extradition judge to rule on whether what Assange did falls under press freedom. The US courts would have to decide that. If however the case had been identical but coming from China, the judge would still not have ruled on press freedom, but would have likely considered that the Chinese constitution and court precedents do not offer sufficient guarantees that there would actually be a fair trial, unlike in the US system.

Whether you agree with this point or not is another matter, but I don't see the ruling as being either for or against press freedom, by my understanding.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#344

Post by chejazi »

cormacrelf wrote: post #339
chejazi wrote: post #336

What is the possibility that the USA was aware of the verdict in advance and perhaps gave it tacit approval?

What? ... What?

The Assange case has been the most political trial in my lifetime. The plaintiff was the United States.

It seems possible.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#345

Post by mrkramer »

dcolkitt wrote: post #338
mrkramer wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no difference between starved Boer children[1] and starved Jewish children[2]. Warning: Disturbing images [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Boer_War_concentration_... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children_in_the_Holocaust#/med...

Well, there is a slight difference between 26,000 and 7 million.

Murder is a murder and it is wrong in both views of the law and the god if you are religious.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#346

Post by tsimionescu »

HotHotLava wrote: post #237
gsnedders wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But having sided with the U.S. on pretty much all of the counts concerning press freedom, an appeals court may well 'find' that the heath condition is not enough. It is highly likely that the High Court will be asked to re-examine pretty much the whole judgment; it's highly unlikely that the defence won't question the holdings that they lost. (It is also pretty likely that this will then be appealed to the Supreme…

If this case is indeed politically motivated, one would expect the US to lose interest on January 21 and drop the case instead of appealing to the Supreme Court.

"Political motivation" does not mean that the motivation must be associated with only 1 political party. There are many political decisions taken in the US that both parties agree on, especially in this area of the intelligence state.

If anything, as the judge notes, the current administration was likely somewhat more "friendly" to Assange than the Biden administration will be.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#347

Post by runarberg »

tsimionescu wrote: post #343
AsyncAwait wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, the fact that the extradition wasn't rejected on press freedom grounds makes me think maybe it's just a way for the judge to shake it off so that it's not HER who goes down in history books as to have made the decision to extradite. But having sided with the U.S. on pretty much all of the counts concerning press freedom, an appeals court may well 'find' that the heath condition is not enough. I REALLY hope am wr…

To my understanding, the judge found that Assange's rights will be sufficiently upheld by the US courts, based on the US constitution and precedent - so, she is willing to allow the US judicial system to conduct their trial (if it weren't for the abhorrent conditions in which he would be kept, which she found too likely to be detrimental to his well being). It is not really a matter for an extradition judge to rule o…

Don’t the charges at least need to be credible?

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#348

Post by tsimionescu »

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.

> French intelligence agencies said he was probably dead for at least 7 years

All I have been able to find was 1 French newspaper publishing what it claimed was a French intelligence report that simply noted that Saudi intelligence agencies believe bin Laden had died in 2006. The report seems to have been immediately noted by the French president as not being confirmed. Furhtermore, in 2010 a recording of bin Laden threatening France was confirmed as genuine by the French Foreign Ministry, showing that French intelligence services still considered it at least possible that he was still alive.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#349

Post by tootie »

Dirlewanger wrote: post #294
baud147258 wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you really calling what Assange did "investigative journalism"?

Funny how everyone's opinion about Assange changed after 2016.

I've been a pretty consistent believer that Assange is a narcissist and an ass on personal level. His public statements about his work always seemed childish and petulant. It probably does bias me somewhat against his work. I'm generally supportive of bringing information to light, but Assange himself doesn't seem to do much besides host the data and he doesn't even do that well since he leaked the unredacted cablegate. And given that MSM sources have exposed far more and it don't more responsibly and faced courts over their actions, it makes me think that he's not much of a hero. I'm not sold that his actions wrt to cablegate were espionage, but I'd very much like to hear about what he discussed with Roger Stone and Guccifer 2.0.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#350

Post by AsyncAwait »

tsimionescu wrote: post #343
AsyncAwait wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, the fact that the extradition wasn't rejected on press freedom grounds makes me think maybe it's just a way for the judge to shake it off so that it's not HER who goes down in history books as to have made the decision to extradite. But having sided with the U.S. on pretty much all of the counts concerning press freedom, an appeals court may well 'find' that the heath condition is not enough. I REALLY hope am wr…

To my understanding, the judge found that Assange's rights will be sufficiently upheld by the US courts, based on the US constitution and precedent - so, she is willing to allow the US judicial system to conduct their trial (if it weren't for the abhorrent conditions in which he would be kept, which she found too likely to be detrimental to his well being). It is not really a matter for an extradition judge to rule o…

Imo the problem is that the ruling accepts the premise that the case has merit i.e. is criminal in the UK, that itself is a threat to press freedom given the charges.
Post reply on HN