Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Julian Assange can be extradited to the US, court rules

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

551–560 of 792 posts

Re: Julian Assange can be extradited to the US, court rules

#551

Post by MichaelMoser123 »

kstenerud wrote: post #204

This should be a sobering view of how the world really works. Above a certain threshold, every veneer of civilization vanishes no matter what the country (some have a higher threshold than others). At this level, only power matters. And the first rule of power is: Don't embarrass the powerful unless you can call on a lot of power to defend yourself. Laws can't protect you; they can be thwarted and bent, and the legal…

is it possible, that the system is getting more and more vindictive and less liberal? I mean, Assange isn't saying more radical things than Chomsky, yet they tolerated Chomky somehow, for whatever reasons....

Re: Julian Assange can be extradited to the US, court rules

#552

Post by dpwm »

_jal wrote: post #547
lenkite wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most left journalists were dancing in joy when Assange got arrested. They never forgave him for exposing the Clinton emails and ensured he was heavily character assassinated over the next several years. He also became a victim of the #MeToo movement at its height. He was openly called evil/narcissist/etc in many "opinion" pieces. All the other important stuff he revealed never got the level of attention it deserved.

> They never forgave him for exposing the Clinton emails The issue there was precisely how he was emphatically not acting as a journalist. Journalists do not coordinate news releases with their preferred candidates. Political operatives do.

> Journalists do not coordinate news releases with their preferred candidates.

No, they would never do anything like that:

https://greenwald.substack.com/p/article-on-joe-and-hunter-b...

Re: Julian Assange can be extradited to the US, court rules

#553

Post by psychlops »

kstenerud wrote: post #204

This should be a sobering view of how the world really works. Above a certain threshold, every veneer of civilization vanishes no matter what the country (some have a higher threshold than others). At this level, only power matters. And the first rule of power is: Don't embarrass the powerful unless you can call on a lot of power to defend yourself. Laws can't protect you; they can be thwarted and bent, and the legal…

The jackrabbit always wins.

Re: Julian Assange can be extradited to the US, court rules

#554

Post by 2OEH8eoCRo0 »

boomboomsubban wrote: post #463
ChrisKnott wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Specifically which of these assurances are you saying will be broken?

They openly admit their willingness to break all three if "future acts" deem them necessary, not to mention they're free to stick him in another terrible jail with other restrictive measures even with the assurances.

Hello old friend.

Why are you outraged about things that have not happened? Has the US Govt broken those promises? Y/n?

Re: Julian Assange can be extradited to the US, court rules

#555

Post by 2OEH8eoCRo0 »

jessaustin wrote: post #509
nickysielicki wrote: post #445

Surprisingly few technical people understand the extent to which the CFAA charges he faces are bullshit. It all goes back to a jabber log that they got from Manning. The gist of it is as follows: Manning: Manning: can you guys crack NTLM? Assange: we have rainbow tables. I’ll forward it onto someone on our team. Few days later, Manning: any update on NTLM? Assange: no luck so far. And this is computer conspiracy. No…

s/Assange/Nathaniel Frank/ Manning was chatting with "Nathaniel Frank". That was understood to be a pseudonym for someone at Wikileaks, but there's no proof of any of that. So, these charges are even more bullshit.

So Assange can say, under oath, that he is not Nathaniel Frank. Boom. Case closed- US govt looks stupid. Assange walks.

I do not care about the verdict of the trial. I care a lot that a trial takes place. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Everybody is presupposing the result of this and being outraged rather than waiting and seeing what happens. He is innocent until proven guilty.

Re: Julian Assange can be extradited to the US, court rules

#556

Post by varelse »

ch4s3 wrote: post #485
Lucasoato wrote: post #434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What a different world we would be living in if Bernie Sanders had won the US presidential elections.

I'm not so sure a Sanders presidency with a Republican congress would have been super different. He promised to also crack down on immigration, impose tariffs, end trade deals, and pull out of Afghanistan. He is/was also very skeptical of longstanding alliances and NATO. With not power to legislate, he'd have likely done some similar things as an executive. Would he have been as embarrassing and corrupt, probably not…

He is a great demagogue but his Congressional record indicates he is not so good at dealmaking. I think he would have been a progressive Perot that got angry a lot but those tantrums would lead to great sound bites.

Or TLDR if you're not going to get good at making sausage stop applying for positions at the sausage factory.

Re: Julian Assange can be extradited to the US, court rules

#557

Post by lawn »

queuebert wrote: post #471
realce wrote: post #246

Fabricate a narrative that allows your country to murder tens of thousands of people == fine and not illegal. Tell soldier how cryptographic maths work == double castration and the CIA tries to assassinate you. Don't forget that the Collateral Murder video showed not only Iraqi citizens but also Reuters journalists being machine-gunned from the sky. No person has ever been criminally charged for these murders.

As an American, I find it very hard to decide what to think about these issues. Our military certainly makes mistakes, and people should be held accountable, but on the other hand the U.S. upholds much stricter rules of engagement than any of its enemies (hell, even stricter than our cops). Should credit not be given for that?

> the U.S. upholds much stricter rules of engagement than any of its enemies (hell, even stricter than our cops).

Is that a joke?

Re: Julian Assange can be extradited to the US, court rules

#558

Post by JKCalhoun »

pydry wrote: post #256
kstenerud wrote: post #204

This should be a sobering view of how the world really works. Above a certain threshold, every veneer of civilization vanishes no matter what the country (some have a higher threshold than others). At this level, only power matters. And the first rule of power is: Don't embarrass the powerful unless you can call on a lot of power to defend yourself. Laws can't protect you; they can be thwarted and bent, and the legal…

I suspect Assange doesn't regret this. I kind of get the impression that becoming a martyr was a sacrifice he was prepared to make if he managed to rip off the mask and expose the unbridled imperialist evil lurking underneath the "civilized press conference veneer" presented by the US government.

My sense, and I don't think it is a popular opinion on HN, was that Assange became, perhaps unwittingly, a pawn of Russia. Selectively releasing documents, which is how I see it, doesn't show an even hand of justice exposing "the unbridled imperialist evil".

I'm no fan of Assange. But I also have not read a lot about Assange so I may be ignorant.

Re: Julian Assange can be extradited to the US, court rules

#559

Post by pydry »

ben_w wrote: post #546
pydry wrote: post #504

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I hope I would’ve recognised the law as unjust at the time. I'd have hoped so too, but from what you've written it sounds like you would have slotted in with the liberal whites who declared support-for-ending-segregation-in-theory but would also say that "this isn't the right way" or "this isn't the right time". They made rather similar arguments to yours about the primacy of the rule of law as a principle.

I hope I am the sort of person would have supported Rosa Parks — if I’d been on a jury, I want to be the sort of person who would have voted “not guilty” by way of jury annulment. Four boxes is a reason to take things slow, not a reason to say “no not like that” when the first steps have failed. And when the law bites someone for breaking it, if you think the law is wrong you should support the victim of the law; but…

>Four boxes is a reason to take things slow

Yeah, that's what I was referring to. MLK had a specific, rather famous riposte to this attitude because of how common it was:

"I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection."

Emphasis mine.

Re: Julian Assange can be extradited to the US, court rules

#560

Post by myohmy »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #428
lenkite wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most left journalists were dancing in joy when Assange got arrested. They never forgave him for exposing the Clinton emails and ensured he was heavily character assassinated over the next several years. He also became a victim of the #MeToo movement at its height. He was openly called evil/narcissist/etc in many "opinion" pieces. All the other important stuff he revealed never got the level of attention it deserved.

not only because of the left/right politics, but also because defending Assange as a "journalist" caused them grief. The definition of journalism is at stake: if someone who just posts to the internet is a journalist and can defend their actions as necessary for the operation of a free press, then that includes bloggers[0] and all sorts of riff-raff. Craig Murray's trial had a similar outcome: he's not a "proper" jou…

Yeah this is why laws, and even constitutions don't matter at this point. Only the anointed CIA affiliated "papers of record" are given protection. Despite the beautifully clear language in the US constitution.

Just so you know, if you think this is new, its not. Communist speech has been deemed illegal, and upheld by the supreme court, since the McCarthy era. This is not presented as a political view on Communism vs Capitalism, just as a fact that the constitution doesn't matter.

For more recent events, I challenge you to find where a "curfew" on peaceful protests, or "free speech zones" appear in the constitution. Again, not an endorsement of the protest, merely pointing out that laws don't matter.

Also remember that the journalist that exposed the Panama papers mysteriously died in a freak car explosion. Very sad.

I'll take off my tinfoil hat now...

Post reply on HN