7 ms·

According to Julian's lawyers it's a violation of international law. [1] [1] https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/1127706444185448449 https://twitter.com/wikil

According to Julian's lawyers it's a violation of international law. [1] [1] https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/1127706444185448449 https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/1127706444185448449

sigmar 7y ago
This lawyer is grasping at straws. There's no way that having security cameras in your own embassy is an "illicit operation"
- dpwm 7y ago
  > This lawyer is grasping at straws. The lawyer is doing his job, and is mainly referring to the unprecedented case of Ecuador just handing over personal possessions to the US -- a country that is trying to extradite him on the most tenuous of claims. > There's no way that having security cameras in your own embassy is an "illicit operation" If they're focused on and used for recording an individual granted asylum, how can that possibly be compatible with even the vaguest principles of privacy?
  - delinka 7y ago
    >If they're focused on and used for recording an individual granted asylum... Was that the purpose? Were there no security cameras before? If this was a new installation, was he aware of it? Did the placement of the new cameras take privacy into consideration (e.g. avoiding sleeping quarters, toilets, etc.)?
    - ggg2 7y ago
      great questions. how do you expect to have answers if even the reason for the main event, the hand over of Assange, is surrounded with disinformation ranging even from literal shit on the walls? we will never know what exactly happened on this one. that is for sure.
    - dpwm 7y ago
      A lot of people seem to have a very narrow idea of privacy. For what it's worth there were also allegations of microphones being used to record private conversations. The release of footage from the embassy to the international media seemed a particularly bizarre way to announce to the international community that your government has pure contempt for human rights.
      - mikeash 7y ago
        Next time they should just refuse to take in the international fugitive and let him be arrested on the spot. Then nobody will say they have pure contempt for human rights.
        dpwm 7y ago
        That government was not this government. This government does appear to have pure contempt for due process and human rights. Just like the US.
        cyphar 7y ago
        Obama suspended habeas corpus[1], extending the Bush-era abductions that were found to be unconstitutional. There hasn't been a US government that respects due process and human rights in a long time. [1]: https://www.salon.com/2010/05/21/bagram_6/ https://www.salon.com/2010/05/21/bagram_6/
        dpwm 7y ago
        I absolutely agree. My wording was ambiguous. The "just like the US" didn't apply to the change of government, but over a much longer timescale. This is absolutely something that has been almost consistent amongst US leaders going back as far as I can remember. Human rights and due process seem to be a stick with which to (selectively) beat other nations. They don't apply to the US or its cronies.
  - bsamuels 7y ago
    tenuous claims? really? The only thing he's being extradited for is trying to hack into US gov computer systems, something which he literally admitted to in a chat message with Manning. https://www.wired.com/story/julian-assange-arrest-indictment-hacking-cfaa/ https://www.wired.com/story/julian-assange-arrest-indictment... This whole wikileaks debacle has really shaken my faith in comment quality on HN. Gone are the well informed insightful comments that give you a unique insight into the topic matter, and in with knee jerk comments that appeal to HN's overall political direction. I don't want to dive into the comments section to have my opinion reinforced by the chorus, I want to be challenged and maybe have my opinion changed in an intellectual way; and it just doesn't feel like this site is good for that anymore.
    - belorn 7y ago
      Not the first time the US has tried to enforce computer laws in regard to password hashes. The infamous case of AACS encryption key controversy and 09 F9 showed a lot of people willing to help with hacking into computer system, and the reaction from the legal system.
    - JudgeWapner 7y ago
      > I want to be challenged and maybe have my opinion changed in an intellectual way be the change you want to see in the world! begin by not selectively ignoring the false allegations that brought him disrepute. Then you can gain some "insight" from the concept that the US could level much more serious charges against him after he lands on US soil from the relatively minor "hacking" charge. From there you can challenge yourself to respect the temerity required to expose war crimes committed by the most powerful nation in the world. You can do it; my faith in you isn't as easily shaken!
    - dpwm 7y ago
      > The only thing he's being extradited for is trying to hack into US gov computer systems, something which he literally admitted to in a chat message with Manning. https://www.wired.com/story/julian-assange-arrest-indictment.. https://www.wired.com/story/julian-assange-arrest-indictment.... It sounds like an open and shut case then. So why does the US want his possessions? The US should have no interest in his possessions if they are genuinely not on a fishing expedition. Why is Chelsea Manning's testimony required? Why is she back in prison? It seems an open and shut case. Maybe the media are telling you it's not a fishing expedition, but it sure looks like one.
  - pjc50 7y ago
    Individuals being allowed to claim asylum in an embassy building, which is normally a workplace with the lowered expectation of privacy thereto, is really exceptional. In fact, how many other examples even are there?
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
idlewords 7y ago
According to his lawyers, everything is a violation of international law.
pjc50 7y ago
It would be amazing if people could devote a tiny fraction of the effort spent on Assange to some of the hundreds of thousands of other asylum seekers who are wrongly deported, held indefinitely, have their possessions confiscated, have their children removed from them, etc. Or investigative journalism in general, often in dangerous conditions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daphne_Caruana_Galizia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daphne_Caruana_Galizia
- belorn 7y ago
  The millions spent on watching the embassy could have gone to much better places.
- erentz 7y ago
  If we can't even hold up our principals and defend them in a case as big and public as Assange then there's no hope for the thousands of relative nobodies you're referring to.
  - arcticbull 7y ago
    Indeed, this is something of a bellwether case.
throw2016 7y ago
There were actually many commentators on HN at one time claiming the US doesn't want Assange and the whole thing is made up by 'paranoid Assange supporters'. We now know that not only did they want him, they want all his stuff and are going to go to any underhanded length to get it. What is the value of dissent and all the prestensions around democracy and human rights when people are being openly persecuted, it seems only dissent in non western countries is valid at which point europe, the free press, ngos and academics will line up with drums and megaphones to lecture everyone on the importance of 'freedom, democracy and dissent'. This is a fall and complete loss of moral highground to continue these kind of charades in future. What message does this persecution and demonization of Assange, Manning and Snowden send to future dissentors? This virtually guarantees that even those with the tremendous courage that it takes to stand up to power may need to think twice as they are simply not safe in democractic regimes and the law and process will be used against them while the public are indifferent and others cheer on.
- magduf 7y ago
  >it seems only dissent in non western countries is valid at which point europe, the free press, ngos and academics will line up with drums and megaphones to lecture everyone on the importance of 'freedom, democracy and dissent' I just want to point out that this is really about the UK here, since this is where this is happening, and the UK really isn't like the rest of Europe at all, something they made quite clear when they voted for Brexit.
  - mantap 7y ago
    In my experience regular people in the UK are generally sceptical of US geopolitical policy, especially since the Iraq war. It is only British politicians who want to jump into bed with the US at every available opportunity. Not because they are British, but despite it.
    - magduf 7y ago
      That's BS: the British people are the ones who elect those British politicians "who want to jump into bed with the US". If the people really didn't like this, they'd vote differently. And unlike here in the US where the Presidential race is so important and that position has excessive power compared to the legislative branch, yet is determined with an archaic method that lately awards the post to someone who didn't win the popular election, in Britain there's multiple parties sharing power (I guess you guys have approval voting?), and the PM is elected from the party in Parliament with the most seats. I really don't think you can make a valid claim that the politicians don't represent the people. And finally, with Brexit, that was voted for with a popular referendum, and a (narrow) majority chose to leave. The people of Britain are getting the government they deserve, and that they voted for.
pseingatl 7y ago
Julian better lawyer up with some US lawyers soon. International law and treaty violations are ignored in US courts. See, Kerr v Illinois (1870?) US v. Machain US v. Noriega, etc etc etc
- dpwm 7y ago
  The entire claim of jurisdiction by the US is severely questionable.

According to Julian's lawyers it's a violation of international law. [1] [1] https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/1127706444185448449 https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/1127706444185448449

sigmar 7y ago

This lawyer is grasping at straws. There's no way that having security cameras in your own embassy is an "illicit operation"

dpwm 7y ago
> This lawyer is grasping at straws. The lawyer is doing his job, and is mainly referring to the unprecedented case of Ecuador just handing over personal possessions to the US -- a country that is trying to extradite him on the most tenuous of claims. > There's no way that having security cameras in your own embassy is an "illicit operation" If they're focused on and used for recording an individual granted asylum, how can that possibly be compatible with even the vaguest principles of privacy?
- delinka 7y ago
  >If they're focused on and used for recording an individual granted asylum... Was that the purpose? Were there no security cameras before? If this was a new installation, was he aware of it? Did the placement of the new cameras take privacy into consideration (e.g. avoiding sleeping quarters, toilets, etc.)?
  - ggg2 7y ago
    great questions. how do you expect to have answers if even the reason for the main event, the hand over of Assange, is surrounded with disinformation ranging even from literal shit on the walls? we will never know what exactly happened on this one. that is for sure.
  - dpwm 7y ago
    A lot of people seem to have a very narrow idea of privacy. For what it's worth there were also allegations of microphones being used to record private conversations. The release of footage from the embassy to the international media seemed a particularly bizarre way to announce to the international community that your government has pure contempt for human rights.
    - mikeash 7y ago
      Next time they should just refuse to take in the international fugitive and let him be arrested on the spot. Then nobody will say they have pure contempt for human rights.
      - dpwm 7y ago
        That government was not this government. This government does appear to have pure contempt for due process and human rights. Just like the US.
        cyphar 7y ago
        Obama suspended habeas corpus[1], extending the Bush-era abductions that were found to be unconstitutional. There hasn't been a US government that respects due process and human rights in a long time. [1]: https://www.salon.com/2010/05/21/bagram_6/ https://www.salon.com/2010/05/21/bagram_6/
        dpwm 7y ago
        I absolutely agree. My wording was ambiguous. The "just like the US" didn't apply to the change of government, but over a much longer timescale. This is absolutely something that has been almost consistent amongst US leaders going back as far as I can remember. Human rights and due process seem to be a stick with which to (selectively) beat other nations. They don't apply to the US or its cronies.
- bsamuels 7y ago
  tenuous claims? really? The only thing he's being extradited for is trying to hack into US gov computer systems, something which he literally admitted to in a chat message with Manning. https://www.wired.com/story/julian-assange-arrest-indictment-hacking-cfaa/ https://www.wired.com/story/julian-assange-arrest-indictment... This whole wikileaks debacle has really shaken my faith in comment quality on HN. Gone are the well informed insightful comments that give you a unique insight into the topic matter, and in with knee jerk comments that appeal to HN's overall political direction. I don't want to dive into the comments section to have my opinion reinforced by the chorus, I want to be challenged and maybe have my opinion changed in an intellectual way; and it just doesn't feel like this site is good for that anymore.
  - belorn 7y ago
    Not the first time the US has tried to enforce computer laws in regard to password hashes. The infamous case of AACS encryption key controversy and 09 F9 showed a lot of people willing to help with hacking into computer system, and the reaction from the legal system.
  - JudgeWapner 7y ago
    > I want to be challenged and maybe have my opinion changed in an intellectual way be the change you want to see in the world! begin by not selectively ignoring the false allegations that brought him disrepute. Then you can gain some "insight" from the concept that the US could level much more serious charges against him after he lands on US soil from the relatively minor "hacking" charge. From there you can challenge yourself to respect the temerity required to expose war crimes committed by the most powerful nation in the world. You can do it; my faith in you isn't as easily shaken!
  - dpwm 7y ago
    > The only thing he's being extradited for is trying to hack into US gov computer systems, something which he literally admitted to in a chat message with Manning. https://www.wired.com/story/julian-assange-arrest-indictment.. https://www.wired.com/story/julian-assange-arrest-indictment.... It sounds like an open and shut case then. So why does the US want his possessions? The US should have no interest in his possessions if they are genuinely not on a fishing expedition. Why is Chelsea Manning's testimony required? Why is she back in prison? It seems an open and shut case. Maybe the media are telling you it's not a fishing expedition, but it sure looks like one.
- pjc50 7y ago
  Individuals being allowed to claim asylum in an embassy building, which is normally a workplace with the lowered expectation of privacy thereto, is really exceptional. In fact, how many other examples even are there?
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]

idlewords 7y ago

According to his lawyers, everything is a violation of international law.

pjc50 7y ago

It would be amazing if people could devote a tiny fraction of the effort spent on Assange to some of the hundreds of thousands of other asylum seekers who are wrongly deported, held indefinitely, have their possessions confiscated, have their children removed from them, etc. Or investigative journalism in general, often in dangerous conditions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daphne_Caruana_Galizia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daphne_Caruana_Galizia

belorn 7y ago
The millions spent on watching the embassy could have gone to much better places.
erentz 7y ago
If we can't even hold up our principals and defend them in a case as big and public as Assange then there's no hope for the thousands of relative nobodies you're referring to.
- arcticbull 7y ago
  Indeed, this is something of a bellwether case.

throw2016 7y ago

There were actually many commentators on HN at one time claiming the US doesn't want Assange and the whole thing is made up by 'paranoid Assange supporters'. We now know that not only did they want him, they want all his stuff and are going to go to any underhanded length to get it. What is the value of dissent and all the prestensions around democracy and human rights when people are being openly persecuted, it seems only dissent in non western countries is valid at which point europe, the free press, ngos and academics will line up with drums and megaphones to lecture everyone on the importance of 'freedom, democracy and dissent'. This is a fall and complete loss of moral highground to continue these kind of charades in future. What message does this persecution and demonization of Assange, Manning and Snowden send to future dissentors? This virtually guarantees that even those with the tremendous courage that it takes to stand up to power may need to think twice as they are simply not safe in democractic regimes and the law and process will be used against them while the public are indifferent and others cheer on.

magduf 7y ago
>it seems only dissent in non western countries is valid at which point europe, the free press, ngos and academics will line up with drums and megaphones to lecture everyone on the importance of 'freedom, democracy and dissent' I just want to point out that this is really about the UK here, since this is where this is happening, and the UK really isn't like the rest of Europe at all, something they made quite clear when they voted for Brexit.
- mantap 7y ago
  In my experience regular people in the UK are generally sceptical of US geopolitical policy, especially since the Iraq war. It is only British politicians who want to jump into bed with the US at every available opportunity. Not because they are British, but despite it.
  - magduf 7y ago
    That's BS: the British people are the ones who elect those British politicians "who want to jump into bed with the US". If the people really didn't like this, they'd vote differently. And unlike here in the US where the Presidential race is so important and that position has excessive power compared to the legislative branch, yet is determined with an archaic method that lately awards the post to someone who didn't win the popular election, in Britain there's multiple parties sharing power (I guess you guys have approval voting?), and the PM is elected from the party in Parliament with the most seats. I really don't think you can make a valid claim that the politicians don't represent the people. And finally, with Brexit, that was voted for with a popular referendum, and a (narrow) majority chose to leave. The people of Britain are getting the government they deserve, and that they voted for.

pseingatl 7y ago

Julian better lawyer up with some US lawyers soon. International law and treaty violations are ignored in US courts. See, Kerr v Illinois (1870?) US v. Machain US v. Noriega, etc etc etc

dpwm 7y ago
The entire claim of jurisdiction by the US is severely questionable.