USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment • Hacker News Board

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#551

Post by TedDoesntTalk » Tue, Jan 05, 2021, 3:42 AM UTC

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #538

pmiller2 wrote: post #521

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regarding your comment about how the entire ruling centers on this one point, would this mean all the US would have to do to get it overturned is pinky promise they won't throw Assange in solitary? What if they then put him in solitary anyway?

> What if they then put him in solitary anyway? Nothing, but now you've potentially damaged diplomatic relations with an ally. Countries generally (!) try to keep their promises to each other, or they won't be considered reliable in the future. Just like individuals.

> you've potentially damaged diplomatic relations with an ally.

The UK has done exactly that by denying extradition to the US.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#552

Post by TedDoesntTalk » Tue, Jan 05, 2021, 3:48 AM UTC

jimbob45 wrote: post #520

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.

What exactly is his fate if the appeals process which the US is planning fails to change anything? Does he live free in the UK or will he be prosecuted there for something else?

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#553

Post by TedDoesntTalk » Tue, Jan 05, 2021, 3:49 AM UTC

myrandomcomment wrote: post #548

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…

So what exactly is his fate if the appeals process which the US is planning fails to change anything? Does he live free in the UK or will he be prosecuted in the UK for something else?

I can’t find any information about that.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#554

Post by myrandomcomment » Tue, Jan 05, 2021, 4:00 AM UTC

TedDoesntTalk wrote: post #553

myrandomcomment wrote: post #548

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

So what exactly is his fate if the appeals process which the US is planning fails to change anything? Does he live free in the UK or will he be prosecuted in the UK for something else? I can’t find any information about that.

Honestly, I am going to bet he looses in the end. The US government has unlimited time and will around these things (look at what they did to the mob). Let’s say he steps one foot out of the UK to another country that has an extradition treaty, US issues warrant and it starts all over again. It is likely given the fact that the UK judges only reason for not granting the request was how he would be held that the US government as we speak are drawling up a proposal that would be agreeable to the judge.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#555

Post by Talanes » Tue, Jan 05, 2021, 4:00 AM UTC

tsimionescu wrote: post #489

Talanes wrote: post #477

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But would you not be pleased to be certain who killed your dog? It's not a 1:1 concept mapping, but the conceptual space is close enough that the semantic drift of "satisfied" is completely understandable.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#556

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Jan 05, 2021, 4:06 AM UTC

AsyncAwait wrote: post #380

pdonis wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> there's a long precedent of British newspapers doing what WikiLeaks does and even collaborating with WikiLeaks without being prosecuted The judge discusses that in the opinion. The difference she notes is that the newspapers carefully choose what they publish in order to avoid harm--for example, they don't publish the names of government informants even if those names are contained in the materials they obtain, sin…

Except of course she fails to note that Assange tried[1] to do that and was rejected. She cites the Guardian who has a history of questionable reporting on Assange and WikiLeaks because they didn't do a good job[1][2]. In fact WikiLeaks made a point of going via the newspapers after being blamed. 1 - https://www.salon.com/2010/08/20/wikileaks_5 2 - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51633303

[deleted]

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#557

Post by TedDoesntTalk » Tue, Jan 05, 2021, 4:20 AM 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…

Assange did not allow the Pentagon to redact names. Specifically:

“...Assange wrote that WikiLeaks would consider recommendations made by the International Security Assistance Force "on the identification of innocents for this material if it is willing to provide reviewers."

That’s from your salon.com article.

So Assange would “consider” redacting (not promising anything) and only if a group from the United Nations identified “innocent” names. There’s no mention that the Pentagon has any input at all. And there’s no reason to think anyone at the ISA should know the names of undercover intelligence agents in those documents, especially the documents completely unrelated to Afghanistan... since the ISA was involved only with issues in Afghanistan.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#558

Post by e12e » Tue, Jan 05, 2021, 4:24 AM UTC

morelisp wrote: post #499

e12e wrote: post #436

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I should've worded that differently - we obviously do not expect accusations to be proven before a trial. 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…

If tomorrow NovemberWhiskey was arrested and found incontrovertibly guilty of hacking a military network, you don't think it's even slightly reasonable that you might also end up on the stand after that comment?

Not really, no. But even so, I certainly hope it's unlikely I'd end up in extradition hearings to the US, charged with conspiracy.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#559

Post by chillbro3 » Tue, Jan 05, 2021, 4:35 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%. Apparently not treating people inhumanely is a great way of getting them not to commit more crimes. [1] Who would have thought?

There's a thousand other ways America is different from Norway. The quote statistic -> unwarranted conclusion -> logic dunk! shitposting ruins websites.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#560

Post by 3131s » Tue, Jan 05, 2021, 4:39 AM UTC

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #325

ComputerGuru wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think he didn’t care much about your opinion of him so much as he did about what would happen to him and where he’d end up. Given what was being kept from the American people and what he knew, it’s impossible to call him paranoid or to even pass judgement on his character. He may not have been willing to give his literal life for the sake of blowing the whistle, but there really can be no question that he did give…

He didn't follow whistleblower procedure and fled to an adversary. If he believes he is being noble then he should stand trial in good faith. Best case he wins and gets off, worst case he does jail and is proven right.

Now I think you are being intentionally duplicitous. You know that there were at least two prior whistleblowers who did go up the chain of command, and as a result both were harassed and persecuted? If not, why did you not know this? Why are you commenting almost a decade later about a topic that you still know nothing about?

Edit: What a surprise, you "work in defense".