USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment • Hacker News Board

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#641

Post by eternalban » Thu, Jan 07, 2021, 7:43 PM UTC

542354234235 wrote: post #624

eternalban wrote: post #610

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That is not an accurate reading of what I wrote.

To spell it out: prior to 9/11, institutionalized use of torture was anathema to our national mores as reflected by American cultural products. Only ad-hoc extra legal violence (various police shows) was on the entertainment menu.

After 9/11, institutionalized use of torture was promoted as "necessary" and "acceptable" and cultural products were duly modifed to represent that radical shift in American ethos.

American children who grew up post 9/11 are likely not even aware that as recently as 1992, use of torture was systemically held up as a sign of a repressive system. I merely bring up TV given that it is the main source of social conditioning for the masses. We could discuss academic and political content not on TV and see the same abrupt shift in our national value system.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#642

Post by chillwaves » Thu, Jan 07, 2021, 7:45 PM UTC

h_anna_h wrote: post #640

chillwaves wrote: post #630

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I would say that they should, both the protestor and the journalists should be treated with respect. Even then though, a non-journalist that is not a protestor should be able to cover a protest just as well as professional journalists can. > as the watchdogs of government. More like dogs of the government. The ones willing to go against it in any meaningful manner are few and sidelined.

re: protestors vs journalists, one is an active participant in the story and the other is an observer. While I do think protestors deserve respect, I feel journalists should be given wider protection (for example, assembly is cited as unlawful, protestors must disperse. Journalists should be allowed to stay and document what happens).

The second part, I won't disagree.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#643

Post by anothernewdude » Fri, Jan 08, 2021, 4:05 AM UTC

berkes wrote: post #578

anothernewdude wrote: post #564

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty sure Snowden dumped every single thing he could get his hands on. That pretty much makes him a traitor.

Reading your comment history, you are only here to spew your hate for Snowden and Assange: clearly a political motive. > Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity. -- https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

They're both fools that a certain subset - call them uncritical libertarians - of the tech comunity seem to worship. The topic annoys me.

Reading from that to my "purpose" for being here, and moreover calling it a "political" purpose (ignoring the fact that basically everything is political) is entirely spurious.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#644

Post by 2OEH8eoCRo0 » Sat, Jan 09, 2021, 2:31 AM UTC

monocasa wrote: post #633

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #629

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The congress members are part of the problem, as he's gone over. They approved the illegal problems and were looking to bury public mention once they figured out all the scope of the programs since they were implicated and didn't want blowback during their own elections. You keep saying you "don't like fleeing", but you haven't provided an alternative that would both provide real change and not have him being threate…

Things carry risk. I'm sorry.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#645

Post by antihero » Sat, Jan 16, 2021, 1:01 PM UTC

anothernewdude wrote: post #643

berkes wrote: post #578

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reading your comment history, you are only here to spew your hate for Snowden and Assange: clearly a political motive. > Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity. -- https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

They're both fools that a certain subset - call them uncritical libertarians - of the tech comunity seem to worship. The topic annoys me. Reading from that to my "purpose" for being here, and moreover calling it a "political" purpose (ignoring the fact that basically everything is political) is entirely spurious.

You think exposing government atrocity and showing people what is done in their name to them and by them makes people fools?

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#646

Post by antihero » Sat, Jan 16, 2021, 1:02 PM UTC

africanboy wrote: post #151

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'she had to kill the guards at the door' . Why stop there, while we are at it, imagine she had to commit a terrorist attack and a genocide at once and Assange volunteered to help

A crime is a crime, justice doesn't care. A journalist should not be accessory to a crime when receiving infornations. I made that example to make it clearer, but if you don't like it I can make another one: to get the documents she needed to open the door, so she Asked Assange if he had a crowbar. The simple fact that he didn't say "no, I can't help you with that" is the problem.

If justice had any say we wouldn't be blowing up civilians with helicopters and laughing about it.