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

371–380 of 646 posts

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#371

Post by Enginerrrd »

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…

Pilots get a lot of radiation exposure though! It's not to be casually dismissed.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#372

Post by vidarh »

grecy wrote: post #332
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…

> 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 rehabilitation. If you lived your entire life in the US, and everyday felt the "Me or you" and "I'll get mine" mentality, you'd have a different approach. It is a VERY strong dog eat dog country, and the feeling is palpable…

Maybe, but it's irrational also from a perspective of wanting to maximise your own pie. You don't need to favour equality and sharing to acknowledge that a more humane treatment of prisoners leads to drastically lower re-offending for example.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#373

Post by vidarh »

implements wrote: post #357
djsumdog wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 p…

> 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.

While I have a lot of sympathy for your argument about effective freedoms vs. de jure liberties, someone was stopped and told to cover up her "fuck Boris" t-shirt by police in London not that long ago[1]. (Though, while I consider the stop ridiculous, at the same time at least the officers in question otherwise conducted themselves calmly)

[1] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/boris-johnso...

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#374

Post by andrewzah »

grecy wrote: post #332
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…

> 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 rehabilitation. If you lived your entire life in the US, and everyday felt the "Me or you" and "I'll get mine" mentality, you'd have a different approach. It is a VERY strong dog eat dog country, and the feeling is palpable…

...Let's not stereotype a country of 380+ million people. C'mon.

There are many Americans who feel the justice system is too punitive, and fails to uphold justice for the average American. Especially for people of color.

The problem is what can one realistically do? Besides voting (both parties adore punitive instead of rehabilitative punishment) and contacting our representatives (yeah, that'll help...).

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#375

Post by pdonis »

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…

> there's a long precedent of British newspapers doing what WikiLeaks does and even collaborating with WikiLeaks without being prosecuted

The judge discusses that in the opinion. The difference she notes is that the newspapers carefully choose what they publish in order to avoid harm--for example, they don't publish the names of government informants even if those names are contained in the materials they obtain, since that would put the lives of those informants at risk. Wikileaks did not do that with the information obtained from Manning; they just released it all. The judge quotes the newspapers themselves condemning Wikileaks for doing that.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#376

Post by saagarjha »

Enginerrrd wrote: post #371
hunter2_ wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Pilots get a lot of radiation exposure though! It's not to be casually dismissed.

Do they ever get pulled off of flights to reduce their cumulative radiation exposure?

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#377

Post by monocasa »

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #325
ComputerGuru wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think he didn’t care much about your opinion of him so much as he did about what would happen to him and where he’d end up. Given what was being kept from the American people and what he knew, it’s impossible to call him paranoid or to even pass judgement on his character. He may not have been willing to give his literal life for the sake of blowing the whistle, but there really can be no question that he did give…

He didn't follow whistleblower procedure and fled to an adversary. If he believes he is being noble then he should stand trial in good faith. Best case he wins and gets off, worst case he does jail and is proven right.

Hes afforded almost no whistleblower protections since he was a contractor.

https://www.pogo.org/analysis/2016/09/busting-myth-of-whistl...

The espionage act under which he'd be charged doesn't allow a public good defense to be used in court.

https://www.justiceinitiative.org/voices/why-snowden-won-t-g...

What you're asking for structurally can't happen in the US legal system.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#378

Post by [deleted] »

nix23 wrote: post #306
djsumdog wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>dump his body in the ocean Yeah that's a bit crazy if you ask me.

[deleted]

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#379

Post by chalst »

kjakm wrote: post #323
chalst wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The case is being heard in the UK so I'm only talking about the UK. Unlike the US, court appointments in the UK are not political and not for a life long term. Even the public image of a judge as being conservative/liberal is not something really seen here.

The politics of appointments in the UK is less obvious than that of the US, but it is there. The Secretary of State for Justice, a member of the cabinet appointed by the PM, has veto power over appointments to the UK Supreme Court.

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

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#380

Post by AsyncAwait »

pdonis wrote: post #375
AsyncAwait wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> there's a long precedent of British newspapers doing what WikiLeaks does and even collaborating with WikiLeaks without being prosecuted The judge discusses that in the opinion. The difference she notes is that the newspapers carefully choose what they publish in order to avoid harm--for example, they don't publish the names of government informants even if those names are contained in the materials they obtain, sin…

Except of course she fails to note that Assange tried[1] to do that and was rejected.

She cites the Guardian who has a history of questionable reporting on Assange and WikiLeaks because they didn't do a good job[1][2].

In fact WikiLeaks made a point of going via the newspapers after being blamed.

1 - https://www.salon.com/2010/08/20/wikileaks_5

2 - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51633303

Post reply on HN