431–440 of 646 posts
The UK is in a precarious situation, with COVID and Brexit in full effect. I think that for the sake of the UK-US relationship and future trade talks, the government wants to appear aligned with the US as much as possible on this issue, while not actually extraditing Julian Assange.
So, she basically dismissed all other arguments of Assange team except the mental health argument/risk of suicide, and blocked extradition based on that. That's really interesting.
He'll be released to some kind of house arrest (or whatever the UK equivalent is), and be found dead the next day. It will be ruled a suicide.
Reading the judgement the key points are on pages 116 onwards and the extradition is denied under section 91(3) of the EA 2003 which reads: > The condition is that the physical or mental condition of the person is such that it would be unjust or oppressive to extradite him. The judge states: > it is my judgment that there is a real risk that he will be kept in the near isolated conditions imposed by the harshest SAMs…
This would be entirely speculative for an MD let alone a Judge who doesn't really know what 'autism' is.
So it's possibly a good outcome but based on bad legal proceedings.
We're supposed to be 'advanced countries' why can't we get simple things right?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If released , will he be safe?
If Hillary Clinton gets a role under Biden, then probably not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Wikileaks made a request to the US government that it had to know the US government would refuse (for the reason I gave in my other post in response to you upthread). It did that so it could disingenuously claim that it gave the US government a chance to protect people's names and the US government refused, making it seem like it's the US government's fault It's the U.S. government who committed war crimes here and…
> it's the U.S. government's fault Even if the US government is at fault, that still doesn't mean Wikileaks can't also be at fault. Two wrongs don't make a right. > Names as such are vital. It lets you know WHO needs to be held accountable. Names of US government officials who made decisions that are being questioned, perhaps. Names of people in other countries with oppressive regimes, who passed on information on th…
Between the two wrongs, am going to focus on the one where the most powerful military on Earth guns down civilians & journalists. Especially given Julian has already paid dearly for exposing what we should have known. The war criminals themselves haven't spent a day behind bars.
> Names of people in other countries with oppressive regimes, who passed on information on the understanding that their names would be kept confidential, no.
WikiLeaks asked for these names so they can redact them. The Pentagon refused. This is on them, as are the war crimes themselves.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> when he attempted to assist with cracking a hash Was it ever proved that he did? There was some non-committal talk quoted, but nothing beyond that? You also say "for example" - are there any other credible allegations that Assange "crossed the line"?
This is a little bit disingenuous. There is no proven accusation because Assange hasn't gone to trial, which is the part of the process where that standard applies. The credible allegation part is the indictment handed down from a federal grand jury; this is the 'probable cause' standard.
What I meant was rather: has there been made any credible/sensible accusation for him being involved in hacking? Because while the drivel made it through the grand jury, it's still a vague answer without any allegations of follow-up. Could I help you crack a password hash? Sure, maybe I could. Am I now conspiring to hack into a military network? I rather think not. And that's even though you have my offer in writing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Probably ”useful idiots”.
Please don't post unsubstantive comments.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it causes severe psychological distress. That's what prison is. Depends. Some penal systems are there for "retribution" or punishment, and those match your definition. Other concepts available are rehabilitation and simply separating proven dangerous elements from society at large. Apart from the loss of freedom of movement (which I would not describe as "severe psychological distress"), there is no hard requiremen…
The philosophy of imprisonment is fairly vast, I believe. But hard/philosophical requirements notwithstanding, prisons tend to be what they are. The famous moral philosopher Jeremy Bentham designed some a "modern" prison system with some of these goals in mind, especially reform. The result was quite horrific.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Assange is accused of basically running hashcat. I am sure that a fair percentage of HN would be criminals under this logic.
I'm very sad to say this, but HN as a Place to discuss is not up to the standards people say it is. I'm being downvoted for basically stating the obvious and, worse than that, by people that do not stop a second to think about what other people wrote. I'm not putting Assange on trial, I'm not a judge, this is not a tribunal, I was just clarifying what he's been accused of! Having said that: yes, if you are the driver…
> Having said that: yes, if you are the driver in a Bank robbery, you can get arrested for "basically driving a car"
Driving in a bank robbery is different to basically just doing some calculations. It might be a crime but it should not be one. Regardless though I would claim that even if he tried to physically get into buildings and steal documents in order to expose warcrimes I would say that they should let him free.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> asking him to redact names without telling him which ones is even more stupid He should have had the good judgment to redact all names even without being asked to. (Or at least all names that he didn't know belonged to people whose lives would not be put at risk by their publication.) He didn't. > Newspapers were NOT in the same position. It is true that newspapers (and other "mainstream" media organizations) have…
> He should have had the good judgment to redact all names So how exactly are you supposed to hold officials accountable if you don't have any names to go on? > I haven't said anything at all about blame regarding anyone other than Assange Right. That is exactly my problem. When we're talking about war criminals I'd hope the person who exposed it would be the last to get some blame in the matter.
If there issue is that high ranking officials aren't being held accountable, there's no reason to publish the names of some random agent.