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

81–90 of 646 posts

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#81

Post by nix23 »

checkyoursudo wrote: post #59
nix23 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really don't get it why the UK is even allowed to extradite a citizen of Australia to the US. Shame on Australia too for not protecting it's citizens.

While I would prefer that Assange not be extradited to the USA on the specific circumstances of that case, extradition treaties in general seem reasonable? If a citizen of A commits murder in B and there is credible evidence, but the person has fled to C, should C not be able to extradite the person to B under any circumstances? Barring civil rights problems, corruption, etc (e.g., some very specific exceptions), it…

True it's not a easy question, but for example in Switzerland you cannot extradite someone if the punishment is harder then in Switzerland, that prevents that someone is send to a country with death-sentence, let's say for murder. But yeah it's not that easy and contracts exist.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#82

Post by syshum »

checkyoursudo wrote: post #59
nix23 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really don't get it why the UK is even allowed to extradite a citizen of Australia to the US. Shame on Australia too for not protecting it's citizens.

While I would prefer that Assange not be extradited to the USA on the specific circumstances of that case, extradition treaties in general seem reasonable? If a citizen of A commits murder in B and there is credible evidence, but the person has fled to C, should C not be able to extradite the person to B under any circumstances? Barring civil rights problems, corruption, etc (e.g., some very specific exceptions), it…

The problem with your analogy is the extradition treaties extend far beyond the red herring of "surely you want a murder to get justice right"

This is not far removed from "Think of the children" style rhetoric that is used in the US to pass all kinds of oppressive laws and regulations

Everyone can generally agree that having a murderer stand trail is a good thing, but what about someone that illegal distributes a file to one nation thus committing a "crime" in that nation.

What about other less extreme crimes, which is more often what extradition treaties are used for, not murder as your strawman desires it to be

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#84

Post by bitcharmer »

shp0ngle wrote: post #51
sabertoothed wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That seems like the line of argument you could employ to deny every extradition to the US then. Appears to be a very valid reason. The US prison system is a disgrace.

They even cited Jeffrey Epstein suicide in the judgement (paragraph 299, page 95)

"suicide". FTFY

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#85

Post by pydry »

agd wrote: post #73
Closi wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You might be able to argue that Assange crossed the line between "journalism" and "hacking", for example when he attempted to assist with cracking a hash. The UK has other history about journalists hacking (see the phone hacking scandal). It's one thing to receive the contents of a hack, and quite another to offer active assistance to exploit systems.

I’m not convinced by your implied equivalence of, on the one hand, phone hacking celebrities and murder victims to generate tabloid clickbait, and on the other, helping protect an intelligence source whose leaked material shows human rights abuses and the death of innocent civilians.

If he hacked a celebrity's account and used it to uncover a killing spree by said celebrity it might be equivalent.

And, no doubt the celebrity's supporters would argue that he'd crossed the line from journalism to hacking as well.

If Assange were a Russian holed up in Belarus being extradited to Russia for uncovering Russian war crimes by cracking password hashes I really wonder how many people here would still be arguing that he "crossed the line".

My guess is precisely zero, and any Russians who did so would be mocked and accused of being shills.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#86

Post by rory_isAdonk »

niea_11 wrote: post #78
rory_isAdonk wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No way, let the lad go to France. He'll be protected there.

Asasnge is not a french citizen, so France will refuse to extradite him for the same reasons as the UK : health problems. The extradition treaty between France and the United States allows France to deny extradition when the extradited party faces serious consequences related to health or age. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Mastro#Attempted_extra...

A French minister has called for him to be given asylum.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#87

Post by anothernewdude »

agd wrote: post #73
Closi wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You might be able to argue that Assange crossed the line between "journalism" and "hacking", for example when he attempted to assist with cracking a hash. The UK has other history about journalists hacking (see the phone hacking scandal). It's one thing to receive the contents of a hack, and quite another to offer active assistance to exploit systems.

I’m not convinced by your implied equivalence of, on the one hand, phone hacking celebrities and murder victims to generate tabloid clickbait, and on the other, helping protect an intelligence source whose leaked material shows human rights abuses and the death of innocent civilians.

You're certainly right that there are other charges related to Assange's crimes.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#88

Post by rory_isAdonk »

vidarh wrote: post #43
DanBC wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some of us did try to say that Murray is a fucking idiot and should not be listened to.

And yet the judgement in general seems to match his assessment of the judges reaction to most of the issues raised by the defence. She only refused the extradition because of his mental health and likely prison conditions.

Agreed.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#89

Post by e12e »

Closi wrote: post #46
vidarh wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's an awful ruling overall, from what I can tell from skimming it. It's great Assange won, but this ruling is not at all support for freedom of expression. This is the one part the judge agreed with the defense on as far as I can tell: > 363. I find that the mental condition of Mr. Assange is such that it would be oppressive to extradite him to the United States of America. For anyone not suffering from severe ment…

You might be able to argue that Assange crossed the line between "journalism" and "hacking", for example when he attempted to assist with cracking a hash. The UK has other history about journalists hacking (see the phone hacking scandal). It's one thing to receive the contents of a hack, and quite another to offer active assistance to exploit systems.

> when he attempted to assist with cracking a hash

Was it ever proved that he did? There was some non-committal talk quoted, but nothing beyond that?

You also say "for example" - are there any other credible allegations that Assange "crossed the line"?

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#90

Post by rsynnott »

anothernewdude wrote: post #83

A system of "mass incarceration" should have no impact on any individual case. That's beyond stupid.

"Mass incarceration" may not be the best phrasing, but the particularly inhumane (for a developed country) nature of the US criminal justice system does lose it a lot of extradition cases. In particular, punitive long-term solitary confinement is commonly used in the US but is not generally permitted in most European countries.
Post reply on HN