USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment • Hacker News Board

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#541

Post by toyg » Tue, Jan 05, 2021, 2:16 AM UTC

johannes1234321 wrote: post #176

widforss wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you know what happens if a penalty doesn't exist in France? E.g. Sweden cannot sentence people to a 40 years prison sentence. Could a German court sentence me to something like that and send me home to Sweden for 40 years?

The European arrest warrant, as other extradition agreements have a clause that they only work in cases where the offence is a criminal act in both countries. A famous recent case is Carles Puigdemont who was arrested in Germany by request on the Spanish government for "rebellion" but a German court decided that what he did (fight for Catalan independence) isn't a criminal offence in Germany and that he only could be…

Double-criminality is not an absolute requirement for the execution of an EAW. The most common categories of crime are explicitly excluded from such a requirement - precisely because the whole point of the EAW is to speed up extradition of the most common cases. It just happened that Spain attempted to prosecute Puigdemont for a crime that did not fall in any of those categories. That decision was mostly a sign that the Spanish government that initiated the process was not very competent on this subject.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#542

Post by CryptoPunk » Tue, Jan 05, 2021, 2:17 AM UTC

arcticbull wrote: post #490

dalbasal wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 e…

>>Recidivism in the US is 55% after 5 years, as compared to Norway's 20%.

I'm no defender of the US prison system, but why compare the US to Norway, a country with:

* a population of 5 million Norwegians, the descendants of whom actually rank very high in socioeconomic indicators in the US

* one of the highest per capita GDPs in the world, thanks in large part to being one of the highest per capita oil exporters in the world for decades

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#543

Post by sn41 » Tue, Jan 05, 2021, 2:26 AM UTC

dillondoyle wrote: post #510

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…

what's extra horrible is solitary is used for 'protection' and mental health. e.g. if you report fear for your life (common in US prisons if you don't want to play the gang game) they throw you into the SHU. It's barbaric as punishment, disgusting for supposed health reasons

I have been fascinated with the effects of solitary confinement on mental health. Why the Covid pandemic has added horrors is because large parts of human populations are under virtual imprisonment, not being able to visit and touch friends and family, and not being able to travel. Anecdotal evidence strongly indicates that this had vastly detrimental effect on mental health.

(Understanding this may be also crucial for the proper design of long-duration space travel.)

Just like ordeal by fire, and ordeal by boiling oil, I wish that solitary confinement be identified as cruel and unusual punishment, used sparingly and only with the highest levels of bureaucratic clearance. Probably only against the insanely violent, rather than the mildly inconvenient.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#544

Post by CryptoPunk » Tue, Jan 05, 2021, 2:31 AM UTC

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…

12 µSv in two 500 ms bursts is very different 12 µSv spread out over 1 hour of flight time.

The difference in intensity is 3,600 fold. It's the difference between being subjected to 1 hour of 30 degree celcius heat and 1 second of 108,000 degree celcius heat.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#545

Post by dragonwriter » Tue, Jan 05, 2021, 2:58 AM 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…

> To be fair there was quite a lot of lobbing of opinions as it pertained to his guilt and ability to be prosecuted.

There's a difference between legally meaningful findings and lobbing opinion on legally non-germane questions.

> Including: “This conduct would amount to offences in English law”

That's a determination the court is called on to make in an extradition case under Section 137 of the Extradition Act.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#546

Post by dragonwriter » Tue, Jan 05, 2021, 3:21 AM UTC

DiogenesKynikos wrote: post #426

cormacrelf wrote: post #402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The basis is the Extradition Act, which according to the judgment is a self-contained implementation of a bunch of different extradition treaties. Hypothetically, let’s say the statute actually had a section with “no extraditions for unsavoury offences” in it. That’s pretty weird and ambiguous, so you might, subject to UK law on statutory interpretation, look to the treaty/treaties the Act is implementing to figure o…

The political offenses exception is not ambiguous. It's well understood what the exception means, and the treaty explicitly bars it. It's just very strange to me that the US and UK explicitly agreed to arrange for extradition on certain terms, but that those terms are now deemed by this judge not to apply in the UK. > But treaty law cannot establish domestic laws that govern things like extradition In the US, treatie…

> It's just very strange to me that the US and UK explicitly agreed to arrange for extradition on certain terms, but that those terms are now deemed by this judge not to apply in the UK.

The Treaty does not limit extradition permitted under other law, it creates an obligation. If another law requires extradition, the terms of the treaty are immaterial.

> In the US, treaties are law.

They are a kind of law, but unless they are “self-executing” treaties, they aren't law with much practical force until and except to the extent that implementing legislation is adopted.

Now, IIRC, extradition treaties have generally been held to be self-executing in US law, but it's simply not generally the case that treaties are automatically judicially-enforceable laws in the US without separate legislative action.

> The political offense exception absolutely applies when extraditing people from the US to the UK.

The US statute law governing extradition also allows extradition outside of any extradition treaties, but in far more limited circumstances (mostly,for non-US citizens/nationals who are alleged to have committed crimes against US citizens or nationals) than UK law does. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here except that the domestic law of the United States is not identical to that of the United Kingdom, which is unsurprising.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#547

Post by aleclarsoniv » Tue, Jan 05, 2021, 3:23 AM UTC

35fbe7d3d5b9 wrote: post #320

aleclarsoniv wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the reason for allowing judges to remove jurors who admit their intent to acquit a guilty defendant? If they can't convince other jurors, no "harm" done. If they can, then perhaps the law is overkill. The judge seems to be overpowered here.

> What's the reason for allowing judges to remove jurors who admit their intent to acquit a guilty defendant? Arguably, the same reason judges should be allowed to remove jurors who admit their intent to convict an innocent defendant: jurors must apply the law impartially. The LII has a pretty decent primer on all this entails[1]. And almost all state laws require a jury to unanimously vote to convict, so empaneling…

To me, an impartial jury is one that would make the same decision when given the same evidence and accusations, regardless of who the defendant is.

In that sense, jury nullification can be impartial.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#548

Post by myrandomcomment » Tue, Jan 05, 2021, 3:24 AM UTC

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

Publishing what he did is not a crime (under ruling on the Pentagon Papers) however everyone here seems to miss the point that he did so without the normal process a journalist would apply, redacting the names of people that would be put at risk of harm in doing so. That was irresponsible and could be considered criminal. If you read the ruling the judge makes it clear that his actions would be considered a crime in the UK.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#549

Post by aleclarsoniv » Tue, Jan 05, 2021, 3:25 AM UTC

vidarh wrote: post #314

aleclarsoniv wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the reason for allowing judges to remove jurors who admit their intent to acquit a guilty defendant? If they can't convince other jurors, no "harm" done. If they can, then perhaps the law is overkill. The judge seems to be overpowered here.

I'm of two minds of this. On one hand I do agree with you that it has the potential to be an important safety valve (not least because I think the US prison system is immoral and unjust...). On the other hand, historically it has a history of severe abuse, e.g. to let people go free for lynchings and the like.

The right to bear arms has a history of severe abuse as well, but I'm not one to throw the baby out with the bathwater. A jury that acquits a white murderer, then convicts a black murderer of the same caliber, is the textbook definition of an impartial jury (which is unconstitutional).

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#550

Post by TedDoesntTalk » Tue, Jan 05, 2021, 3:36 AM UTC

CryptoPunk wrote: post #542

arcticbull wrote: post #490

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 e…

>>Recidivism in the US is 55% after 5 years, as compared to Norway's 20%. I'm no defender of the US prison system, but why compare the US to Norway, a country with: * a population of 5 million Norwegians, the descendants of whom actually rank very high in socioeconomic indicators in the US * one of the highest per capita GDPs in the world, thanks in large part to being one of the highest per capita oil exporters in t…

> but why compare the US to Norway

Because it is currently fashionable in the US to esteem, exalt, or even hallow many things Scandavian. If you live in the US, you’ve no doubt seen this.

To many in the US, the Scandavians have just nailed it everything social-economic. Personally, I wish we’d take more influence from their diet (fish! fish! more fish!)