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

511–520 of 646 posts

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#511

Post by boomboomsubban »

morelisp wrote: post #497
Talanes wrote: post #468

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

Most journalists are not "an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States" and therefore it's not a crime for them to retain them at all.

They picked the wrong part of the code, 18 U.S. Code § 793 and 798 both have various relevant laws.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#512

Post by [deleted] »

austincheney wrote: post #215
jjgreen wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I recall Iraq being more of an invasion than a civil war.

Iraq began as an invasion in March 2003. The invasion was exceedingly well planned and executed with minimal cost in a very short time frame, but the planning did not account for the resulting occupation that followed. Key figures in Iraq, such as Ali Al Sistani, pressed US civilian authorities to stand up an interim government until a permanent government could be drafted. The interim government stood up in May 2004…

[deleted]

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#513

Post by africanboy »

MauranKilom wrote: post #507
africanboy wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the symptoms could.

They already did, thanks to the provisions of his current imprisonment. The ruling is based on those provisions almost surely removed upon extradition, guaranteeing that his "symptoms" would reappear. To put it extremely mildly.

I was simply replying to

> Except his autism spectrum disorder isn't going to get better

As someone diagnosed in the spectrum it totally can.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#514

Post by himinlomax »

pdonis wrote: post #425
himinlomax wrote: post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He was right to publish it, I as a non-American care less about US operatives than about knowing the truth, esp. considering what was revealed. We're talking about people who were complicit in the organization that claimed there were WMDs in Iraq, among other bs.

> I as a non-American care less about US operatives What if you lived in an oppressive regime and believed, rightly or wrongly, that the US was trying to help improve the situation in your country, and you gave the US information? Would you still be OK with your name being published and your life being put at risk?

What situation was the US trying to improve during O.I.L. (Operation Iraqi Liberation, original name, look it up)? Removing non-existent WMDs? What a smashing success it's been since then.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#515

Post by [deleted] »

young_unixer wrote: post #397

If there's anything to learn from Assange and Snowden: 1. Our western "liberal" democracies stop being liberal when the government gets angry at you at a personal level. 2. With enough propaganda, you can make people believe anything, even that Snowden is a "traitor" to the US. 3. Politically vociferous people (the mob) don't give a shit about you unless you're instrumental to support the cause du jour

[deleted]

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#516

Post by PostOnce »

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.

Does Lincoln Lab count as MIT? Is it really a "school" per se?

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

It'd be pretty surprising if no one was attempting to spy on such organizations

I don't know what Tsinghua does but I can imagine a top school doing similar government-funded work anywhere

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#517

Post by africanboy »

boomboomsubban wrote: post #511
morelisp wrote: post #497

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most journalists are not "an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States" and therefore it's not a crime for them to retain them at all.

They picked the wrong part of the code, 18 U.S. Code § 793 and 798 both have various relevant laws.

True.

I'm not American, but I think that two points are relevant to the discussion

- few people in American history have been prosecuted for leaking classified documents, the most simple explanation is that it would mean revealing even more classified documents during the trial

- journalist can’t be punished for publishing info that was obtained illegally, as long as the journalist didn’t do anything illegal

Assange is accused of helping the leaker to obtain the documents illegally, which is illegal.

I don't know if that's true or not, but that's what DOJ is charging him with.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#518

Post by h_anna_h »

africanboy wrote: post #504
h_anna_h wrote: post #439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure but I don't know how this is relevant to what I said. > 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…

Driving is driving Doing some calculations is doing some calculations Driving for bank robbers or doing some calculations for the mob can be a crime, if driving or doing calculations was helping them to commit a crime and you knew it. > 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. That's your opinion. I'm not saying you a…

Sure, and it is your opinion that assange should have refused to help manning.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#519

Post by gizmodo59 »

ardy42 wrote: post #393
Mvandenbergh wrote: post #71

I actually don't think this is such great news for him. Extradition was specifically blocked on the grounds of a particular regime he might be subjected to (to be fair, probably the only legal grounds on which he had any chance of succeeding). That leaves the US with a way out if they want to proceed with the extradition - guarantee a different set of circumstances. If the judge had found on more substantive grounds,…

> Extradition was specifically blocked on the grounds of a particular regime he might be subjected to (to be fair, probably the only legal grounds on which he had any chance of succeeding). That leaves the US with a way out if they want to proceed with the extradition - guarantee a different set of circumstances. And isn't that actually done on a fairly regular basis? IIRC, the US has pledged not to pursue the death…

Maximum security prison + solitary confinement is way too harsh for this issue IMHO.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#520

Post by jimbob45 »

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…

(Lousy) conspiracy theory: the judge is on the US payroll to keep him in Britain. It’s cheaper and easier for the British to house and guard him than it is for the US to deal with him (and go through the spectacle of his ostensible execution). Better to jail him away in Britain while muttering something about humanitarianism.
Post reply on HN