6 ms·

What's with the downvotes? Can I hear a different opinion? An hour ago a lot of people here were like: - He's just charged with skipping bail, innocent people

by tingol 8y ago

What's with the downvotes? Can I hear a different opinion? An hour ago a lot of people here were like: - He's just charged with skipping bail, innocent people shouldn't run, UK won't extradite him - He's charged with sexual assault, innocent people don't run from that Sweden won't extradite him Well, now we know what's up...

ryanlol 8y ago
The almost decade long defamation campaign to silence Assange has worked to the point where I might as well be defending a pedophile, yet all the DOJ could come up with was cracking a hash.
- antt 8y ago
  >The almost decade long defamation campaign to silence Assange has worked to the point where I might as well be defending a pedophile The CIA tried that too: https://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/312654-wikileaks-threatens-cnn-with-defamation-suit-over-pedophilia-claim https://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/312654-wikileaks-th...
- sky_rw 8y ago
  From what I've been reading lately, thats all they need to come up with. The useful idiots have already rendered their verdict.
- belltaco 8y ago
  > yet all the DOJ could come up with was cracking a hash I find it funny when people minimize actions to the barest minimum. Like saying a gun murderer got jail for "only pulling a lever, which law abiding people do tens of times a day". If a US president starts a thermonuclear war and causes nuclear winter: "All he did was enter numbers and press a few red buttons, stop giving him a hard time".
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
antt 8y ago
>Well, now we know what's up... People who have never seen the wrong end of a police truncheon or gas canister are so cute. They think the law is there to protect them.
- spoovy 8y ago
  That's literally why the law exists, to protect people from the arbitrary will of those more powerful. I would think anyone who has read even a tiny bit about the subject would know that. Then again maybe I'm wrong, maybe I should go on some trendy protest and get hit with a truncheon so I can better understand the purpose of the law.
SllX 8y ago
From my observation, you are being downvoted for politically motivated reasons. I would not expect a discussion of quality or fairness about this topic on this or any other website. Anyone can look at Assange and see in him whatever they want to see, and both the media and politicians have exploited this for six or seven years and the people on this forum really are just like people on any other forum.
xoa 8y ago
>What's with the downvotes? Can I hear a different opinion? Sure, completely without any connection to any opinions on whether Assange should be tried or not, or any of the politics, the parent is engaging in some real silliness/ignorance, and that shouldn't be upvoted on HN even if it agrees with your politics. In particular: It certainly didn't take the government 8 years to investigate this, this is obviously a politically motivated prosecution. These don't follow. No, it didn't take the government 8 years to investigate this, but that's not relevant either. The government can perfectly well find all the evidence they need, but if they're simply physically unable to get at the suspect they can then sit on the case as long as any applicable statute of limitations hasn't run out (and not everything has a statute of limitations). They may choose not to prosecute for various reasons, including simple lack of resources or impossibility. But none of this at all bars them, either legally or morally in my opinion, from later attempting a prosecution if the opportunity ever allows. That does not make it "obviously a politically motivated prosecution", nor is it unheard of even in very serious cases like terrorism bombings, murder, and so forth. Some people are very good at evasion and hiding, but the true government superpower is patience. They file it away, but they don't forget. They'll just wait, but that doesn't mean a crime goes away unless there is a statute of limitations that explicitly makes it go away eventually by law. If parent poster wants to make a case for universal expiration, that any crime should cease to be prosecutable if it goes cold or suspects can stay away for long enough, then they should just do so. There is genuinely a real argument to be made there. But a suspect being granted protection by another country and then the government just waiting, and then the wheels grinding into motion once again if the opportunity ever allows, is not by itself some weird thing. It doesn't justify the hysteria, nor the call for people to give him money.
- ryanlol 8y ago
  >The government can perfectly well find all the evidence they need, but if they're simply physically unable to get at the suspect they can then sit on the case as long as any applicable statute of limitations hasn't run out Why did they not indict him before 2018? I don't think that has anything to do with the US government being physically unable to get to him. It's not normal procedure to delay indictment, the normal procedure is to keep the indictment sealed. Obama DOJ had decided to not indict Assange for this, this is a politically motivated prosecution by the Trump administration. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/julian-assange-unlikely-to-face-us-charges-over-publishing-classified-documents/2013/11/25/dd27decc-55f1-11e3-8304-caf30787c0a9_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/julia... >Justice officials said they looked hard at Assange but realized that they have what they described as a “New York Times problem.” If the Justice Department indicted Assange, it would also have to prosecute the New York Times and other news organizations and writers who published classified material, including The Washington Post and Britain’s Guardian newspaper. Everyone who follows WL already knew about this hash thing in 2011, it was brought up in detail during the Manning trial. The DOJ was well aware of the possibility of indicting Assange over this, but opted to not do so until recently. >If parent poster wants to make a case for universal expiration, that any crime should cease to be prosecutable if it goes cold or suspects can stay away for long enough This has nothing at all to do with what I'm saying. I'm saying that DOJ flipflopping on this indicates that this was a politically motivated decision.
mr_overalls 8y ago
Assange/WikiLeaks actions have aligned with the interests of Russia often enough in the past few years, that it's an open question of whether they are working with Russian intelligence services. It certainly seems likely he was acting as a cutout for Russian intel with the DNC leaks. https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2019/mar/18/wikileaks-russias-useful-idiot-its-agent-influence/ https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2019/mar/18...
- ryanlol 8y ago
  Assange has always been anti-US, why would his actions not align with Russian interests?
- droithomme 8y ago
  During the Obama administration, Secretary of State Clinton proposed assassinating Assange with a drone strike. "Can't we just drone this guy?" Given that the Secretary was about to become the most powerful person in the world, Assange would obviously have been highly motivated by self-defense and preservation alone to do whatever he could to thwart the election of someone who has actually called for him to be assassinated and had the means, motive and opportunity to follow through with that threat.
  - belltaco 8y ago
    >During the Obama administration, Secretary of State Clinton proposed assassinating Assange with a drone strike. That was "leaked" by True Pundit, according to "State Department sources". The chance of it being fake is about 99.999%, given that no one with any credibility leaks to fake news sites like True Pundit. They would have leaked to Fox News or NY Times. Meanwhile, in 2010, Trump called for Assange getting the death penalty. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDEDQFj9sFk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDEDQFj9sFk
matt4077 8y ago
I didn't have much doubt that he would be indicted, at least after the accidental disclosure of the sealed indictment a few months ago. People were, I believe, merely refuting the absurd notion that the charges for his sexual assault were some sort of conspiracy. Remember, the conspiracy was that these charges were a pretext to get him extradited from the UK (which will deport him rather hastily) to Sweden (which has far more liberal laws and isn't part of five eyes). It never made much sense. His best hope now is actually being deported to Sweden first, then trying his luck there.
isostatic 8y ago
He was charged for skipping bail. People shouldn't skip bail unless they feel the court won't give them a fair trial. UK courts give people fair trials (or in this case a fair extradition hearing). He promised to the court to stay at home, so he was released from jail on bail. He then broke that promise. 7 years ago the argument was "Assange shouldn't be extradited to Sweden because Sweden would extradite him to the U.S" [1] This was bullshit, if the U.S. wanted to extradite, they could do that just as easily in the UK as in Sweden, and they've now proven that. Further his argument was he would face torture and/or the death penalty [2] UK won't extradite him for any reason 1) unless the U.S. files an extradition request (they have now, it's not hard to do), 2) that's approved by a U.K court, which means looking into chances of inhumane treatment, death penalty, etc. Sweden has the same rules. All of these facts are consistent with what people were saying first thing this morning and yesterday. [1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-12011867/julian-assange-speaks-of-his-fear-of-extradition-to-the-us https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-12011867/julian-assange-spe... [2] http://klamberg.blogspot.com/2012/08/extradition-of-assange-to-us-via-sweden.html http://klamberg.blogspot.com/2012/08/extradition-of-assange-...

by tingol 8y ago

ryanlol 8y ago

The almost decade long defamation campaign to silence Assange has worked to the point where I might as well be defending a pedophile, yet all the DOJ could come up with was cracking a hash.

antt 8y ago
>The almost decade long defamation campaign to silence Assange has worked to the point where I might as well be defending a pedophile The CIA tried that too: https://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/312654-wikileaks-threatens-cnn-with-defamation-suit-over-pedophilia-claim https://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/312654-wikileaks-th...
sky_rw 8y ago
From what I've been reading lately, thats all they need to come up with. The useful idiots have already rendered their verdict.
belltaco 8y ago
> yet all the DOJ could come up with was cracking a hash I find it funny when people minimize actions to the barest minimum. Like saying a gun murderer got jail for "only pulling a lever, which law abiding people do tens of times a day". If a US president starts a thermonuclear war and causes nuclear winter: "All he did was enter numbers and press a few red buttons, stop giving him a hard time".

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

antt 8y ago

>Well, now we know what's up... People who have never seen the wrong end of a police truncheon or gas canister are so cute. They think the law is there to protect them.

spoovy 8y ago
That's literally why the law exists, to protect people from the arbitrary will of those more powerful. I would think anyone who has read even a tiny bit about the subject would know that. Then again maybe I'm wrong, maybe I should go on some trendy protest and get hit with a truncheon so I can better understand the purpose of the law.

SllX 8y ago

From my observation, you are being downvoted for politically motivated reasons. I would not expect a discussion of quality or fairness about this topic on this or any other website. Anyone can look at Assange and see in him whatever they want to see, and both the media and politicians have exploited this for six or seven years and the people on this forum really are just like people on any other forum.

xoa 8y ago

>What's with the downvotes? Can I hear a different opinion? Sure, completely without any connection to any opinions on whether Assange should be tried or not, or any of the politics, the parent is engaging in some real silliness/ignorance, and that shouldn't be upvoted on HN even if it agrees with your politics. In particular: It certainly didn't take the government 8 years to investigate this, this is obviously a politically motivated prosecution. These don't follow. No, it didn't take the government 8 years to investigate this, but that's not relevant either. The government can perfectly well find all the evidence they need, but if they're simply physically unable to get at the suspect they can then sit on the case as long as any applicable statute of limitations hasn't run out (and not everything has a statute of limitations). They may choose not to prosecute for various reasons, including simple lack of resources or impossibility. But none of this at all bars them, either legally or morally in my opinion, from later attempting a prosecution if the opportunity ever allows. That does not make it "obviously a politically motivated prosecution", nor is it unheard of even in very serious cases like terrorism bombings, murder, and so forth. Some people are very good at evasion and hiding, but the true government superpower is patience. They file it away, but they don't forget. They'll just wait, but that doesn't mean a crime goes away unless there is a statute of limitations that explicitly makes it go away eventually by law. If parent poster wants to make a case for universal expiration, that any crime should cease to be prosecutable if it goes cold or suspects can stay away for long enough, then they should just do so. There is genuinely a real argument to be made there. But a suspect being granted protection by another country and then the government just waiting, and then the wheels grinding into motion once again if the opportunity ever allows, is not by itself some weird thing. It doesn't justify the hysteria, nor the call for people to give him money.

ryanlol 8y ago
>The government can perfectly well find all the evidence they need, but if they're simply physically unable to get at the suspect they can then sit on the case as long as any applicable statute of limitations hasn't run out Why did they not indict him before 2018? I don't think that has anything to do with the US government being physically unable to get to him. It's not normal procedure to delay indictment, the normal procedure is to keep the indictment sealed. Obama DOJ had decided to not indict Assange for this, this is a politically motivated prosecution by the Trump administration. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/julian-assange-unlikely-to-face-us-charges-over-publishing-classified-documents/2013/11/25/dd27decc-55f1-11e3-8304-caf30787c0a9_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/julia... >Justice officials said they looked hard at Assange but realized that they have what they described as a “New York Times problem.” If the Justice Department indicted Assange, it would also have to prosecute the New York Times and other news organizations and writers who published classified material, including The Washington Post and Britain’s Guardian newspaper. Everyone who follows WL already knew about this hash thing in 2011, it was brought up in detail during the Manning trial. The DOJ was well aware of the possibility of indicting Assange over this, but opted to not do so until recently. >If parent poster wants to make a case for universal expiration, that any crime should cease to be prosecutable if it goes cold or suspects can stay away for long enough This has nothing at all to do with what I'm saying. I'm saying that DOJ flipflopping on this indicates that this was a politically motivated decision.

mr_overalls 8y ago

Assange/WikiLeaks actions have aligned with the interests of Russia often enough in the past few years, that it's an open question of whether they are working with Russian intelligence services. It certainly seems likely he was acting as a cutout for Russian intel with the DNC leaks. https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2019/mar/18/wikileaks-russias-useful-idiot-its-agent-influence/ https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2019/mar/18...

ryanlol 8y ago
Assange has always been anti-US, why would his actions not align with Russian interests?
droithomme 8y ago
During the Obama administration, Secretary of State Clinton proposed assassinating Assange with a drone strike. "Can't we just drone this guy?" Given that the Secretary was about to become the most powerful person in the world, Assange would obviously have been highly motivated by self-defense and preservation alone to do whatever he could to thwart the election of someone who has actually called for him to be assassinated and had the means, motive and opportunity to follow through with that threat.
- belltaco 8y ago
  >During the Obama administration, Secretary of State Clinton proposed assassinating Assange with a drone strike. That was "leaked" by True Pundit, according to "State Department sources". The chance of it being fake is about 99.999%, given that no one with any credibility leaks to fake news sites like True Pundit. They would have leaked to Fox News or NY Times. Meanwhile, in 2010, Trump called for Assange getting the death penalty. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDEDQFj9sFk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDEDQFj9sFk

matt4077 8y ago

I didn't have much doubt that he would be indicted, at least after the accidental disclosure of the sealed indictment a few months ago. People were, I believe, merely refuting the absurd notion that the charges for his sexual assault were some sort of conspiracy. Remember, the conspiracy was that these charges were a pretext to get him extradited from the UK (which will deport him rather hastily) to Sweden (which has far more liberal laws and isn't part of five eyes). It never made much sense. His best hope now is actually being deported to Sweden first, then trying his luck there.

isostatic 8y ago

He was charged for skipping bail. People shouldn't skip bail unless they feel the court won't give them a fair trial. UK courts give people fair trials (or in this case a fair extradition hearing). He promised to the court to stay at home, so he was released from jail on bail. He then broke that promise. 7 years ago the argument was "Assange shouldn't be extradited to Sweden because Sweden would extradite him to the U.S" [1] This was bullshit, if the U.S. wanted to extradite, they could do that just as easily in the UK as in Sweden, and they've now proven that. Further his argument was he would face torture and/or the death penalty [2] UK won't extradite him for any reason 1) unless the U.S. files an extradition request (they have now, it's not hard to do), 2) that's approved by a U.K court, which means looking into chances of inhumane treatment, death penalty, etc. Sweden has the same rules. All of these facts are consistent with what people were saying first thing this morning and yesterday. [1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-12011867/julian-assange-speaks-of-his-fear-of-extradition-to-the-us https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-12011867/julian-assange-spe... [2] http://klamberg.blogspot.com/2012/08/extradition-of-assange-to-us-via-sweden.html http://klamberg.blogspot.com/2012/08/extradition-of-assange-...