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

361–370 of 646 posts

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#361

Post by hunter2_ »

tyingq wrote: post #311
randylahey wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

That second link says "each full body scan of an individual would generate 6 Micro Sieverts (µSv)" so 2 scans per day would be 12 µSv, and a dose chart [0] shows the average daily background dose to be 10 µSv while a flight from NY to LA is 40 µSv. So it's a bit like taking that flight every 3.3 days. So maybe it's no worse than being a pilot / flight attendant?

[0] https://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/the-daily-need/how-muc...

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#362

Post by parineum »

reallydontask wrote: post #322
Dirlewanger wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I find it hard to square your statement with the election of Joe Biden, is he an outlier? I guess only time will tell.

Biden's political personality is not Trump.

I think that invalidates the theory a bit but the personality cult that got Biden elected was anti-Trump, not pro-Biden.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#363

Post by AsyncAwait »

HotHotLava wrote: post #354
AsyncAwait wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 b…

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

Because the intelligence community hates Assange and what he represents. They spied on US lawmakers, tortured, manufactured evidence... I find it hard to believe they WOULDN'T meddle in this case.

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

Because post 2016 election the Democrats are no friends of Assange and WiliLeaks, regardless of the implications for press freedom.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#364

Post by lawtalkinghuman »

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?

Not really. s91 of the Extradition Act requires that "the physical or mental condition of the person is such that it would be unjust or oppressive to extradite him", the judge must "order the person’s discharge".

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/41/section/91

There have been extraditions of other people charged with computer hacking offences like Lauri Love and Gary McKinnon where there was a similar concern. In both Love and McKinnon's cases, both were on the autistic spectrum.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#365

Post by mrkramer »

dcolkitt wrote: post #355
mrkramer wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I agree and it all comes down to power and monetary gain in both cases of Third Reich and British Empire. I didn't know that trigger for Second Boear War was the discovery of diamonds and gold in the Boer states. [1]

[1] https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/boer-war-begins-...

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#366

Post by HotHotLava »

tsimionescu wrote: post #346
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.

"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.

I'm confused: The Assange defense team literally argues that the Obama DoJ decided not to prosecute the case, and that the Trump administration resurrected it in 2017 for political reasons. (The judge rejects the premise and argues that since there is no sufficient evidence that the Obama DoJ decided not to prosecute, the Trump administration couldn't have made a political decision to resurrect, since the case was always ongoing.)

Your position seems to be that the defense is mistaken, but that the case is still political because it was already started as that under Obama and continues to be politically motivated throughout the Trump and Biden administrations?

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#367

Post by [deleted] »

hunter2_ wrote: post #361
tyingq wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

That second link says "each full body scan of an individual would generate 6 Micro Sieverts (µSv)" so 2 scans per day would be 12 µSv, and a dose chart [0] shows the average daily background dose to be 10 µSv while a flight from NY to LA is 40 µSv. So it's a bit like taking that flight every 3.3 days. So maybe it's no worse than being a pilot / flight attendant? [0] https://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/the-daily-nee…

[deleted]

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#368

Post by baybal2 »

cormacrelf wrote: post #324
baybal2 wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Brilliant news, but be in no doubt. This ruling is utterly chilling for investigative journalism. Baraitser sided with US prosecutors on pretty much all of their arguments. It was the barbaric nature of the US penal system that saved Assange." A barbarical nature of US penal system it is, but they did not even note a prima fascie political nature of the prosecution when the defence was slashing it left, and right.…

This fell into a broader question of whether the Extradition Act 2003 has to be enforced notwithstanding the terms of the extradition treaty. The treaty refers to political offences; the Act does not. The answer to this question was yes, the Act is self-contained. Therefore the judge did not need to decide the question of whether it was a political offence. So she did not discuss it or decide the question. You are co…

> You are correct in a way -- judges do not decide issues that do not need to be decided, and things they do say about those issues are ignored, so yes, she omitted to discuss it.

And that's a bad thing as it leaves the case more or less open to US side coming up with "We promise to put him in some VIP jail with blackjack, and hookers," and more opportunities for retrials for state attorney to attack weaker defense arguments one at a time.

Having the extradition flopped as political, would've closed the door on it for good.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#369

Post by pantalaimon »

lmg643 wrote: post #239
baybal2 wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Brilliant news, but be in no doubt. This ruling is utterly chilling for investigative journalism. Baraitser sided with US prosecutors on pretty much all of their arguments. It was the barbaric nature of the US penal system that saved Assange." A barbarical nature of US penal system it is, but they did not even note a prima fascie political nature of the prosecution when the defence was slashing it left, and right.…

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. >>…

on what charges is he being held in the UK?

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#370

Post by lawtalkinghuman »

chalst wrote: post #304
kjakm wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a judge can be pressured by the government they're political. Judges (in the UK) have nothing to gain by being political. They aren't elected politically, the roles are based on merit.

Do you mean that the career of judges is never affected by politics? I think, e.g., that appointments to SCOTUS are an obvious counterexample.

Appointment to senior judicial roles in the UK is done through a process that's kept at quite some distance from politics precisely because people aren't keen on having SCOTUS-style politicking. It isn't perfect, but it is a hell of a lot better.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Appointments_Commissi...

(The JAC handles judicial appointments for England and Wales. There are JAC equivalents for Scotland and Northern Ireland. When there's a Supreme Court vacancy, a process starts up where members of the three JACs appoint people to a committee to recommend new SC justices.)

There are Supreme Court justices in the UK who have discernible political views (the retired Lady Hale was left of the average, and the retired Lord Sumption is more to the right) but their political affiliation has a comparatively small role in deciding whether they get a senior judicial appointment.

Nobody talks about justices having been appointed by a particular prime minister, for instance, because it is irrelevant. Nor does their political affiliation give you much of a clue how they are going to decide cases. This is also because in most cases, the Supreme Court sits as panels—unlike in the US, most cases are decided by a panel of five of the twelve judges, usually picked based on subject matter expertise (those with, say, family law experience will get picked for family cases, while those with more commercial experience are likely to be picked for commercial or financial disputes).

Post reply on HN