USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment • Hacker News Board

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#461

Post by pdonis » Mon, Jan 04, 2021, 9:34 PM UTC

AsyncAwait wrote: post #435

pdonis wrote: post #424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> 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. 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…

> Julian has already paid dearly

IMO this would actually be a valid argument--Assange has already effectively served a sentence even though he hasn't been officially tried--but Assange's defense apparently did not make it.\

I note, btw, that this kind of consideration (as well as other considerations you have raised) is also one that a US President could take into account in deciding whether or not to pardon Assange. Do you think the President should do that?

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#462

Post by stjohnswarts » Mon, Jan 04, 2021, 9:38 PM UTC

dalbasal wrote: post #121

lol768 wrote: post #11

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…

If you take an absolutist, principled or binary view, then most imprisonment is a torture of some sort. It causes severe psychological distress. That's what a prison is. The differences are in the nuance, and you might call those subjective. This was an extradition hearing, not a trial. This seems to have given the judge room to justify a nuanced conclusion that doesn't extend far past this case. IDK if there's much…

I can't agree. I doubt many people on HN are "absolutist" a lot of us do realize that the US prison system is horrible if you're not in a white collar minimal security prison (and he would not be, he is headed for a federal prison with probably 23.5 hours solitary confinement a day in a room and 30 minutes of exercise) and probably some time with his lawyers. I can't say I wouldn't side with the English judge in this case, he's just calling it like he sees it.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#463

Post by handelaar » Mon, Jan 04, 2021, 9:38 PM UTC

Chris2048 wrote: post #262

lmg643 wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. >>…

> Each day Julian is ... x-rayed Wait, what? This can't be true - daily x-rays would guarantee cell/DNA damage.

This is not a description of how he's being treated as a prisoner, but rather specifically as a prisoner who is being transported between a prison and a courthouse during a trial or hearing.

So... somewhat disingenuous.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#464

Post by ClumsyPilot » Mon, Jan 04, 2021, 9:41 PM UTC

alisonkisk wrote: post #453

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you are arguing is moral myopia. Countries are sovereign, a Nigerian person living in Nigeria is only beholden to laws of Nigeria. In your world, you can accuse someone who lives in Mongolia of a crime that doesn't even exist is Mongolian legal system, such as some peculiarities of US copyright or packaging of lobsters. You seem to think they should be flown to the US to be tried at your convenience to in a lang…

I mean, if I make war on a foreign country, I don't think "I'm don't live there" is a valid defense against retaliation.

Laws and customs of war are not about justice, presumption of innocence, due process or fair trial. I have no idea why you would compare the two, to me this speak to lack of clarity you have on this issue.

An individual can't 'make war', only countries can do that.

We are talking about an allegation (not proven!) of a crime, highly political in nature to boot, not 'retaliation'

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#465

Post by ashtonkem » Mon, Jan 04, 2021, 9:42 PM UTC

It’s good to see that the inhumane prison system in the US is beginning to become a problem for those who actually implemented it. Regardless how you feel about Assange, and I’m ambivalent about him, the US facing consequences for what we’ve done with our criminal justice system is something to be applauded.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#466

Post by season2episode3 » Mon, Jan 04, 2021, 9:45 PM UTC

Talanes wrote: post #442

lern_too_spel wrote: post #421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> With enough propaganda, you can make people believe anything, even that Snowden is a "traitor" to the US. When you do things like https://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/1266892/exclusive-ns... , no propaganda is necessary.

That is horrible. Wasting tax dollars spying on schools.

A country’s premier research university seems like a pretty normal espionage target.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#467

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Jan 04, 2021, 9:48 PM UTC

Bodell wrote: post #422

cormacrelf wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you saying she should have discussed it anyway? Just lob up an opinion from the magi court on a searing hot political issue regarding which according to her own reasoning anything she says isn’t binding whatsoever? Yeah, she totally could have “flopped” the extradition by doing that lol There’s a difference, as I’m sure you’re now aware having stopped accusing her of being extremely suspect, between judgments tha…

To be fair there was quite a lot of lobbing of opinions as it pertained to his guilt and ability to be prosecuted. Including: “This conduct would amount to offences in English law” and many , many other statements outlining exactly why she thought asking for information and publishing it would be considered aiding and abetting in espionage. I only got about 40 pages of skimming in, the documents is 130+ pages, but th…

[deleted]

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#468

Post by Talanes » Mon, Jan 04, 2021, 9:48 PM UTC

africanboy wrote: post #312

boomboomsubban wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't want to try and change your opinion on Assange's actions, many journalist have said the "I'll help" you see as a problem is a routine procedure, but you clearly disagree. A crime still isn't just a crime though. A less ambiguous example, unauthorized possession's of classified information is a crime, yet no journalist has been charged for it.

I'm honestly expressing no opinion on Assange's actions. "I'll help" is not a problem, if they are not helping someone to commit a crime (clarification: when I say "it's a problem" I mean it's a problem for whoever says "I'll help" because they are being accessory to a crime). What routinely escapes from the prosecution of the law is irrelevant. The fact that I have downloaded copyrighted material without any consequ…

>What journalists do is not retain them, it's publish them, which AFAIK is not illegal.

Unless you are just immediately releasing all documents you receive unedited, you will have to retain them for a period first.

Would a journalist raided the second before he could click publish be committing a crime, while a second later he would not be committing a crime and have never been committing a crime.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#469

Post by joshuamorton » Mon, Jan 04, 2021, 9:50 PM UTC

AsyncAwait wrote: post #455

joshuamorton wrote: post #440

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Leave the names of officials. Redact names your don't know, as was already suggested. Newspapers seem to have managed to do this just fine for ages. 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.

> Leave the names of officials. Redact names your don't know That's not as easy as it sounds. Many of the names you'd want to leave up would be of smaller generals whom you may not be familiar with. The actual shooters should perhaps also not be redacted. At least not fully. > Newspapers seem to have managed to do this just fine for ages. They do this by being cozy with the Pentagon and asking them exactly for what W…

> Many of the names you'd want to leave up would be of smaller generals whom you may not be familiar with

Investigative journalism is a difficult profession. Yet people manage. Throwing your hands up is a disservice to the profession. Calling someone who does so a journalist is a disservice to actual investigative journalists.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#470

Post by Talanes » Mon, Jan 04, 2021, 9:54 PM UTC

africanboy wrote: post #275

h_anna_h wrote: post #242

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…

>I'm being downvoted for basically stating the obvious

Because "stating the obvious" is rarely a productive mode of discussion. People are trying to discuss the nuance of the topic, but you have a very hard-lined view that leaves little room to actually discuss anything.