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

481–490 of 646 posts

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#481

Post by seniorivn »

jariel wrote: post #433
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…

"Mr. Assange’s mental health would deteriorate causing him to commit suicide with the “single minded determination” of his autism spectrum disorder." 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?

>We're supposed to be 'advanced countries' why can't we get simple things right?

for the same reason old projects tend to suffer from old unfixed bugs and a burden of backwards compatibility

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#482

Post by hardlianotion »

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #152
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…

>> Frankly I don't understand why the UK continues to maintain an extradition treaty with a country which clearly has a poor record on human rights and fails to maintain a justice system that meets the UN's Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners. It's because the US is a powerful ally and the UK does not want to displease them. The British call this their "special relation" to the Americans. I don't kn…

What do all the other countries with an extradition treaty with the US call their own relationship? They can't all be special ... can they?

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#483

Post by DanBC »

jariel wrote: post #433
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…

"Mr. Assange’s mental health would deteriorate causing him to commit suicide with the “single minded determination” of his autism spectrum disorder." 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?

It's not speculative, it's literally what he and his lawyers said. The judge was persuaded on the balance of probability (more likely than not) that it was true.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#484

Post by tsimionescu »

HotHotLava wrote: post #366
tsimionescu wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 al…

Exactly. The case against Assange has always been political - it is not to the benefit of Justice or the American People, it is a case for protection of the surveillance state, and a case designed to scare away anyone who might emulate Assange. Same as the case against Chelsea Manning or Edward Snowden.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#485

Post by wrsh07 »

jariel wrote: post #433
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…

"Mr. Assange’s mental health would deteriorate causing him to commit suicide with the “single minded determination” of his autism spectrum disorder." 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?

I find this to be an odd statement as well (as someone who did not know Assange had autism until I read that sentence)

Although I think the ruling is reasonable if the justification is simply that US prisons are inhumane

Vaguely related: I heard about a thought experiment from Amanda Askell (in one of her podcast interviews), but it's kind of interesting: what would you give up in order to not go to jail for 5 years. What amount of money would you pay? Would you be willing to lose a finger instead?

This does not immediately imply that we should abolish jails, but at the very least we should consider just how serious the punishment is. (And then repeat the experiment for a federal prison Assange would be in)

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#486

Post by AsyncAwait »

joshuamorton wrote: post #469
AsyncAwait wrote: post #455

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I did address this above but you ignored it.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#487

Post by jariel »

DanBC wrote: post #483
jariel wrote: post #433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Mr. Assange’s mental health would deteriorate causing him to commit suicide with the “single minded determination” of his autism spectrum disorder." 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?

It's not speculative, it's literally what he and his lawyers said. The judge was persuaded on the balance of probability (more likely than not) that it was true.

"It's not speculative, it's literally what he and his lawyers said. "

Then it's the most absolutely biased possible thing upon which to rule.

Assange's isolation was a) self imposed and b) considerably better than any 'prison' than he would face in Sweden, the UK or the USA. You don't get to 'not go to jail' because 'it will be depressing'.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#488

Post by arcticbull »

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…

Relatedly, Canada has struck down America's status as a safe third country for refugees as "U.S. immigration detention violates their human rights." [1]

"Nedira Jemal Mustefa, among the refugees turned back and on whose behalf a challenge was launched, described her time in solitary confinement in the United States as 'a terrifying, isolating and psychologically traumatic experience,' according to the court ruling."

[1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-canada-refugee-safethird/...

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#489

Post by tsimionescu »

Talanes wrote: post #477
Sharlin wrote: post #471

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But those sentences are also perfectly meaningful assuming the other sense of "satisfied", which may be what GP meant. Ie. "I am convinced that you did your best" and "I am convinced that it contains no gluten".

Oh, I definitely agree that those example exist on the fuzzy line, but the question was whether they didn't read to Americans. The more I think about it, the harder the actual barrier between "pleased" and "convinced" is hard to draw.

It's not that hard to draw it: 'I am satisfied that this man is the one who killed my dog'. Whether you are convinced that this is the man, or whether you are pleased that this particular man killed your dog are clearly different senses.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#490

Post by arcticbull »

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…

> 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.

That's what prison in America is, but that's not what prison either has to be, or is everywhere else in the world.

If your goal is to torture people, America's system is very effective. If your goal is to rehabilitate people and make sure they don't go on to commit more crimes, America's system is an abject failure.

Recidivism in the US is 55% after 5 years, as compared to Norway's 20%. Apparently not treating people inhumanely is a great way of getting them not to commit more crimes. [1] Who would have thought?

[1] https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/recidivis...

Post reply on HN