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

621–630 of 646 posts

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#621

Post by jimbob45 »

TedDoesntTalk wrote: post #552
jimbob45 wrote: post #520

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(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?

AFAIK he just continues to chill in the UK under house arrest until he succumbs (ostensibly during a decade).

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#622

Post by 542354234235 »

hunter2_ wrote: post #614
542354234235 wrote: post #605

Earlier quoted context omitted.

2 scans a day for 1 year would be 4,380 µSv, or 4.3 mSv. The yearly dose limits recommended by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) is 1 mSv per year for the general public, and 20 mSv for “occupationally exposed workers” [1]. Since Assange is receiving this for very specific reasons, I don’t think he would fall into the general public. So he is receiving less than a quarter of what is consi…

Thanks, this is very informative. Does the peakiness of being subject to X-ray scanning (a duty cycle like 500ms on, 12hr off) come into play when comparing with those other occupations, though?

First, I am probably as much as a layman as you. But from what I have read and some quick googling now, there is no additional risk or appreciative difference. Although I did find a few regulations that the general public should not be exposed to any sort of radiation higher than 10 µSv per hour. However I believe that is to prevent regular people unknowingly being around high radiation sources that would add up to a high cumulative total, since the general public does not have any way to track their cumulative exposure, not a problem with that level of single dose radiation per se.

Ionizing radiation damage is overwhelmingly and almost exclusively in its cumulative effects, namely the cancer it can cause. Each “unit” of radiation has a certain likelihood of slicing through the DNA of one of your cells, which has a certain likelihood of causing a mutation, which has a certain likelihood of being a cancerous mutation and not a “kills the cell” mutation, which has a certain likelihood of being a specific type that can evade all the body’s natural defenses against rouge cells. It is a long chain of dice rolls that have to all go just wrong.

So, unless the dose is concentrated to a physical location, e.g. radon in the lungs or sunburn on the skin, then it doesn’t really matter if you get a given dose over a month or a year. It will still start the same number of cascading dice rolls.

If someone that actually knows what they are talking about feels the need to correct anything, please do.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#623

Post by JAlexoid »

baud147258 wrote: post #401
JAlexoid wrote: post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They also publish their source materials and how they obtained them. Writing summary articles is not the definition of journalism.

that still doesn't make what Assange did "investigative journalism", unlike what Bellingcat does

It does, so stop trying to be the "ultimate authority on what is investigative journalism"

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#624

Post by 542354234235 »

eternalban wrote: post #610
542354234235 wrote: post #603

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You must be one of those "new" Americans who grew up watching "interrogations" on cable tv shows. Instead of discussing the issue, you are just dismissing the person based on a completely made up attribute about them. > I'm one of the "old" Americans who stopped watching TV as soon as torture was promoted on American airwaves. Calling yourself morally superior and acting as if your tv watching habits when discussin…

I dismissed the notion that 2 correctional facilities that nominally are subject to a legal regime are in the same set as Camp X-Ray. Well, we Americans until 21st century were repeatedly told that our way of life was in fact “morally superior” to “torturing” USSR. I can dig up the imdb link for TV shows in 90s that used that very line in discussing the Soviets. [here you go: Stalin, 1992, Robert DuVall https://www.i…

I’m not disagreeing about what was on television. However, you are saying that if someone disagrees with you that it is because of the tv they watched and your moral and legal opinion on the workings of detainment center are apparently proudly derived from tv shows, or at least that is the only thing you have provided in support of your position.

I’m really not sure why you linked to my profile. I can only assume you are attempting to imply that because my account is only a few months old, and your account is several years old, that that gives you some sort of credibility. So, to summarize, you have used old tv shows and an old account on social media as your bonafides in a discussion on the moral, ethical, and legal framework around Guantanamo Bay. Very compelling.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#625

Post by joshuamorton »

AsyncAwait wrote: post #619
joshuamorton wrote: post #568

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You didn't. Assange found that it was difficult to be a real journalist. Instead of attempting to be responsible and do the investigative work required to figure out names that might be worth publishing, he threw up his hands and published them all That's not investigative journalism. It's much closer to muckraking.

I know, you'd consider the likes of NYT/WaPo to be 'real journalists'. The ones that had so cozy of a relationship with the Pentagon that they saw no problem in being government mouthpieces and getting the public to support a war in Iraq that killed 200k+ people on a made up pretense of WMDs. Same for Lybia, Syria etc.? Because that's how you get the level of government access to be what you'd consider a 'real' journ…

> The ones that had so cozy of a relationship with the Pentagon that they saw no problem in being government mouthpieces and getting

I consider that journalistic malpractice. Like I said, investigative journalism is difficult. People, including the "real ones" sometimes do it badly. When they do, the good ones apologize and retract.

For what its worth, I don't actually think that you'd need particular government access to do a reasonable job of censoring the names of at risk agents in the documents wikileaks leaked. I'd go far enough to say that me, as a layperson, with practically no journalistic experience could do a better job than Assange did. In fact, I'm certain of that.

That's disqualifying. He didn't even try.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#626

Post by h_anna_h »

africanboy wrote: post #600
h_anna_h wrote: post #518

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I think there's a (big) misunderstanding here. My opinion __is not__ that Assange should have refused to help Mannings, Assange is an adult, he can chose to do whatever he wants. What I'm saying is that Assange should have refused to be accessory to a crime. Journalists are protected when they receive classified informations, even if obtained illegaly, as long as the journalist didn’t do anything illegal He knew he w…

> My opinion __is not__ that Assange should have refused to help Mannings ... Assange should have refused to be accessory to a crime

These two are literally the same thing.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#627

Post by h_anna_h »

chillwaves wrote: post #356
Closi wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't get too downhearted by the downvotes. I get the feeling people in this thread are getting mixed up between the difference of what people think is right or should be right and what the courts and laws say . I think Assange was a hero. At the same time, the claim that he tried to help crack a US military hash to assist with extracting files does sound pretty illegal on the face of it, despite its good intentions…

Is he a journalist or an intelligence asset? In my mind, he can't be both. Once you pick a side, you lose the right to press protection.

I don't see why journalists should have some sort of special protection that should not apply to the "peasants".

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#628

Post by DiogenesKynikos »

cormacrelf wrote: post #599
DiogenesKynikos wrote: post #595

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The treaty was ratified after the passage of the act, and the act only applies to the US through the treaty. This is not some normal case of, "We're required by this treaty to tax pickles at 25%, but Parliament has only imposed a tax of 20%." Extradition to the US is enabled by this treaty. Without the treaty, there's no extradition in the first place. The treaty was ratified after the passage of the Extradition Act,…

Okay, but none of that can have any bearing on the interpretation of the 2003 legislation, since as you say, it was a treaty ratified by the executive after Parliament had already expressed their intention. If your point is that there is in fact an express importation of the various treaties’ terms into UK law, you need to point to the words in an Act of Parliament that say that. If your point is that the threshold r…

I'm not an expert and not in a position to fully judge the legal argument, but I am aware that this is a contentious issue, and it appears to me from Assange's lawyers' arguments that it's not so open and shut. But given the judge's really absurd rulings on other issues (such as whether Assange is a journalist or whether or not he'll face a fair trial), I'm not inclined to automatically believe her interpretation is correct here. If she is correct, though, then the UK has not implemented the treaty, and more importantly, journalists in the UK are in serious danger if they report on foreign governments.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#629

Post by 2OEH8eoCRo0 »

monocasa wrote: post #377
2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Hes afforded almost no whistleblower protections since he was a contractor. https://www.pogo.org/analysis/2016/09/busting-myth-of-whistl... The espionage act under which he'd be charged doesn't allow a public good defense to be used in court. https://www.justiceinitiative.org/voices/why-snowden-won-t-g... What you're asking for structurally can't happen in the US legal system.

Well then you write a report and send it to Congress members as a sign of good faith.

I just really don't like fleeing. Now that he fled he is fucked and looks guilty.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#630

Post by chillwaves »

h_anna_h wrote: post #627
chillwaves wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is he a journalist or an intelligence asset? In my mind, he can't be both. Once you pick a side, you lose the right to press protection.

I don't see why journalists should have some sort of special protection that should not apply to the "peasants".

seems like a function of their role in the 4th estate as the watchdogs of government.

In practical terms, a journalist covering a protest should not be treated the same by security forces as a protestor. I am sure other, similar scenarios can be imagined.

Post reply on HN