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

351–360 of 646 posts

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#351

Post by tsimionescu »

runarberg wrote: post #347
tsimionescu wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

IFF the legal system of the country seeking extradition is trust-worthy and offers the same guarantees of human rights as the UK one, why would the charges need to be credible at all? The accused could be sent to that country, with the expectation that the trial would quickly go in the accused's favor.

Of course, they do have to be charges for something which would be illegal in some way in the UK as well. If the US criminalized ice cream consumption, you would not be able to extradite someone in the UK for having consumed ice cream in the USA, of course. But this is not the same as, say, extraditing someone accused of murder in the USA who is not known to have been physically there - the extradition judge may be ok in not looking at the evidence that the charges are based on (except maybe to ascertain whether they may be a sign of a politically-motivated trial).

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#352

Post by baud147258 »

JAlexoid wrote: post #277
baud147258 wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It doesn't matter what you think is investigative journalism. What Assange did is investigative journalism... as proven by Bellingcat, that literally bought private phone, flight, bank and train ticket data on private individuals to show how FSB tried to kill Navalny.

well bellingcat went (and still goes) looking for information, sources and then publishes article on those stories, which is not exactly what Assange did, which was mostly making confidential documents (sent by a variety of sources) available to the wider public

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#353

Post by [deleted] »

AsyncAwait wrote: post #334
Veen wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you claiming the judge’s decision was made on political grounds rather than on legal grounds under UK law? It seems to me she looked at the appropriate laws and made a reasonable decision. That’s her job and it has nothing to to do with “siding with the US”. Whether they are good laws or not is a matter for the UK Parliament and people.

> It seems to me she looked at the appropriate laws and made a reasonable decision. It is true that the UK technically doesn't guarantee 'freedom of the press' per se, it does have laws however that protect the freedom of expression, not as strongly as the 1st Amendment but still. Further, there's a long precedent of British newspapers doing what WikiLeaks does and even collaborating with WikiLeaks without being pros…

[deleted]

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#354

Post by HotHotLava »

AsyncAwait wrote: post #244
HotHotLava wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Most of the people in the intelligence community and beyond who hate being challenged will stay at their posts way past that date, not that Biden has a different take here.

Why would the intelligence community be involved with decision-making inside the department of justice?

And Obama's DoJ apparently decided not to pursue the case, why would we expect Biden's DoJ to come to a different conclusion?

It's also interesting that this case has so many overlapping conspiracy theories that I don't even know if my initial comment is downvoted by US patriots for suggesting that the case might be politically motivated (which is the assertion made by Assanges defence team and many human rights groups), or by Assange supporters for suggesting that there was no ongoing investigation in 2010 and the Swedish allegations were not a plot by the DoJ :)

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#355

Post by dcolkitt »

mrkramer wrote: post #345
dcolkitt wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And I absolutely agree with that. Earl Kitchener is an evil man. But he acted independently to convert humanitarian refugee camps into punitive concentration camps. The British government itself investigated the allegations, and explicitly put an end to Kitchener's abuses after they came to light. The opposition party and subsequent prime minister vehemently denounced his actions.

In contrast, Nazi leadership sat in a seaside resort and meticulously planned out the industrial mass execution of millions of people. The entire regime from Hitler down was involved. So while, I'd agree there's a moral equivalence between Kitchener and Heydrich, the Nazi regime itself is far more guilty than the British Empire.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#356

Post by chillwaves »

Closi wrote: post #281
africanboy wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Is he a journalist or an intelligence asset? In my mind, he can't be both. Once you pick a side, you lose the right to press protection.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#357

Post by implements »

djsumdog wrote: post #236
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…

There is no real right to appeal in the UK. It's very unlikely there would be an appeal. UK also doesn't really have freedom of speech or press in any meaningful way. I'm not surprised it failed on those grounds.

> UK also doesn't really have freedom of speech or press in any meaningful way.

Not in a way meaningful to libertarian extremists, no - thank goodness.

Citizens and the press can say pretty much what they want, barring libel and what you might describe as “violence done through speech” ie threats, harassment or abuse.

Consider that if I were to walk through London wearing a teeshirt emblazoned with “Atheist” I’d be perfectly safe. I suspect doing the same in many US towns or cities might result in assault - contrast “liberties” with “effective freedoms”.

Also, political free speech is pretty much absolute in the UK - it’s citizens putting the boot in to each other in public that tends to attract Police interest in keeping the peace.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#359

Post by pintxo »

Dirlewanger wrote: post #297
op03 wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well Obama like Trump is a celeb more than a leader. Celebs spend all day pandering to their fan clubs to survive. Leaders dont. And the US is celeb obsessed. So thats a big bug in the code.

You're getting downvoted, but it's true. Obama ushered in the age of the political personality cult. Pretty much every election from here on out is going to hinge on how well you can sell the politician's personality, and brushing aside his platform, all his shady connections and people he's aligned with. This is very much a byproduct of all the private money in election campaigning.

How's this different from Kennedy + Reagan?

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#360

Post by lawtalkinghuman »

djsumdog wrote: post #236
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…

There is no real right to appeal in the UK. It's very unlikely there would be an appeal. UK also doesn't really have freedom of speech or press in any meaningful way. I'm not surprised it failed on those grounds.

Either side can appeal in an extradition hearing. There's no guarantee that the High Court will grant leave to appeal.

If the US seeks to appeal, it'd be under s105 of the Extradition Act.

If the appeal is filed and accepted, Assange can be kept in remand pending appeal under s107.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/41

Post reply on HN