6 ms·

Assange Hearing Day 9

97 points by k1m 6y ago

abdullahkhalids 6y ago
Is there anyone who has changed their mind in either direction on Julian Assange's actions, guilt, or how different governments are acting, after reading, over the last few years, any of these posts or comments therein?
- kace91 6y ago
  I honestly think of him as a political actor, in the "chess player" sense of the word politics, rather than in the idealistic sense; so I wasn't particularly sympathetic. You know the game you're playing, and all. After reading he's headed for ADX, however, I'm sympathetic. No prisoner of any kind should be exposed for anything remotely resembling that, in my opinion. It's a horror movie come true.
  - emilsedgh 6y ago
    I honestly think of him as a political actor Is there any proof/indication of him being a political actor? You know the game you're playing, and all. This could be applied to any journalist who exposes powerful institutions.
    - croon 6y ago
      > Is there any proof/indication of him being a political actor? https://apnews.com/ce9a4541f903109079900528d9f0a9e7 https://apnews.com/ce9a4541f903109079900528d9f0a9e7 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-senate/senate-committee-concludes-russia-used-manafort-wikileaks-to-boost-trump-in-2016-idUSKCN25E1US https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-senate/s... https://theintercept.com/2018/02/14/julian-assange-wikileaks-election-clinton-trump/ https://theintercept.com/2018/02/14/julian-assange-wikileaks...
  - cies 6y ago
    Do you consider journalists (that publish info that related to political decisions) as political actors?
    - tasogare 6y ago
      Why would you consider they aren’t? Journalists have by far the strongest leverage on public opinion than any other workers, and historically newspapers were indeed positioned politically (and still are, to a little extent).
      - arethuza 6y ago
        Newspapers in the UK are generally fairly strongly politically aligned and our TV channels are supposed to be unbiased - I believe it is the other way round in the US?
      - pjc50 6y ago
        I don't know why this was downvoted, journalism leads public opinion to a huge extent. The primary motivation for billionaires to own media empires is to have an influence on politics.
    - kace91 6y ago
      it is a complex question. I do think that both journalists and whistleblowers should have certain protections in a free society. However, I can't shake the feeling that wikileaks exploits the hunger for justice of honest-minded whistleblowers as a front for information gathering, and then choose to use said information however fits their own selfish interests. So I don't like them at all as martyrs of free speech. Assange is no Snowden. Then again, as I said, I am 100% against certain punishments that I think go against basic human rights. Just the possibility of ending up in ADX should be enough to deny extradition, regardless of who's the alleged criminal.
      - itsoktocry 6y ago
        >and then choose to use said information however fits their own selfish interests It's hard to wrap my head around the argument that since the information was used to forward an agenda or was released selectively it's somehow "bad" Who cares, if the content is valid and incendiary? Leaks or whistleblowers don't have to be "balanced".
- implements 6y ago
  Not really, if I’m being honest. I think it’s gone on too long now, and needs resolution - which I believe is one of the important aspects of judicial systems beyond “justice” - simply drawing a line under things so society can move on. Julian poked a sharp stick into the US military, intelligence and political system - I expect a few years in a US prison will be the result - something to be anticipated if you had a normal amount of ego and wisdom.
  - emilsedgh 6y ago
    The fact that we now "expect" journalists and whistle blowers (to war crimes) to be prosecuted and imprisoned is very upsetting and unjust.
    - implements 6y ago
      He’s being prosecuted for computer misuse, though. You’re argument is that journalists and whistle blowers are above the law - but they aren’t. And that’s before you take an objective stance about JA’s good faith and personal motivations. If you set up a “leaking” organisation, and use it to selectively embarrass certain governments and politicians while coincidentally building your brand and obtaining a measure of power, influence and money ... you better make sure you fully obey the law.
      - pjc50 6y ago
        I do think there's a strong case that committing an administrative crime of leaking information in order to expose a far more serious crime is a moral act. In general.
        cies 6y ago
        This is why whistle blowers need protection. Govt should abide by law, if not, blowing the whistle should be rewarded not punished.
      - nickysielicki 6y ago
- christophilus 6y ago
  I have. So, at least one person.
- pjc50 6y ago
  Sympathy I may have had for him evaporated over the years with the response to the rape allegations and the way Wikileaks ended up on the pro-Trump side of the floor. It's Chelsea Manning who I have far more sympathy for. Somehow she's not promoted so much by Assange supporters, despite being the insider responsible for the leak and already having served in prison for it. The Iraq war remains a moral disaster, and things have not improved on that front.
  - Synaesthesia 6y ago
    Chelsea Manning still needed Wikileaks to help bring out the truth, the rape allegations were just that, a total smear it seems, and not rooted in fact. Regardless of his political leanings, he's an important journalist who ought to be celebrated for revealing some very uncomfortable facts.
    - pjc50 6y ago
      The rape allegations have never seen a court and should not be dismissed as a smear. Given how these things usually pan out, Cosby and Weinstein passim, I believe they are more likely true than not.
      - globular-toast 6y ago
        As usual, men are guilty until proven innocent when it comes to rape.
        dijit 6y ago
        I’m not being facetious but isn’t that the whole point in the “believe women” slogan. That casting a critical/dismissive eye is dangerous as it means we no longer try to confirm the claim? It’s a think grey line here: but I think charges being filed should lead to him being questioned. We should not say though that he “definitely did it”, (or that he definitely didn’t) just that he needs to answer the claim. In this particular case it’s “damned if you do, damned if you don’t”. Answer the charge and be extradited. Don’t answer the charge and be thought of by the public as guilty. — If I had the power (and, nobody does here, don’t kid yourself) I’d like to see him sent to Sweden but with a protection about being sent to the US. Nothing short of war will stop the US though, they are used to getting their way in ways we’re not comfortable admitting to.
- Synaesthesia 6y ago
  I've certainly felt that he has been unfairly attacked, maligned and smeared over time and thus I've become a lot more sympathetic to his case.
- radu_floricica 6y ago
  Well, he was obviously right. UK _was_ holding him for an US extradition, and in all likelyhood this is what would have happened in Sweden as well. There was a time when the official narrative was "he can leave at any time, we don't want him, he's just hiding because of potential rape charges". That at least is clearly falsified.
  - sorenjan 6y ago
    > Once the British authorities enforce the UK Supreme Court's decision to extradite Julian Assange to Sweden, Sweden is bound by the so-called "Doctrine of Speciality" which means that Sweden cannot extradite him further to a third country, for example the USA, without permission from the UK. This means that Julian Assange would be in the same position in Sweden as he would be in the UK with regard to further extradition to a third country. https://www.aklagare.se/en/news-and-press/media/the-assange-matter/kan-assange-utlamnas-fran-sverige-till-usa/ https://www.aklagare.se/en/news-and-press/media/the-assange-...
    - dependenttypes 6y ago
      It certainly could. Countries do not have to abide by any laws, only the weak do. Sweden specifically is known to illegally extradite people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_of_Ahmed_Agiza_and_Muhammad_al-Zery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_of_Ahmed_Agiza_an... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Rasmussen_Hjelmen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Rasmussen_Hjelmen
  - ChrisKnott 6y ago
    My understanding is that that narrative was true at the beginning. He only skipped bail when his legal challenge against extradition to Sweden failed. Some years later, the US secretly submitted an extradition request. At that point he was also avoiding extradition to the USA and at that point, people were wrong to say he was only avoiding extradition to Sweden. If anyone has evidence that the US was seeking his extradition in early 2011, I would be very interested in seeing it.
    - 6y ago
- tomp 6y ago
  I went from "he should face rape charges" to "probably not guilty of an actual crime" to "it's all obviously a bullshit political persecution".
- marcus_holmes 6y ago
  Definitely more sympathetic to his case. I always thought he was a bit of a showy cunt (technical Aussie term). But there's no doubt this is a political prosecution, which UK law is extremely clear about: extradition is not applicable for political charges. There's no doubt that he should not be extradited, and that extraditing him is an act of political cowardice by both the UK and Australian governments.
jka 6y ago
The witness quotes a couple of statements by a former warden of ADX Colorado. In case anyone's interested in finding a source for at least one of those, it appears in a New York Times article: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/29/magazine/inside-americas-toughest-federal-prison.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/29/magazine/inside-americas-... (caution: contains some fairly unpleasant reading) Edit / clarification: only one of the two quotes appears in the NYT article.
scoot_718 6y ago
I don't believe this blog post paints an unbiased picture.
- jstanley 6y ago
  Unfortunately it is the only source of information on what is going on at this hearing. As Murray writes: > The mainstream media are turning a blind eye. There were three reporters in the press gallery, one of them an intern and one representing the NUJ. Public access continues to be restricted and major NGOs, including Amnesty, PEN and Reporters Without Borders, continue to be excluded both physically and from watching online. It has taken me literally all night to write this up – it is now 8.54am – and I have to finish off and get back into court. The six of us allowed in the public gallery, incidentally, have to climb 132 steps to get there, several times a day. As you know, I have a very dodgy ticker; I am with Julian’s dad John who is 78; and another of us has a pacemaker. > I do not in the least discount the gallant efforts of others when I explain that I feel obliged to write this up, and in this detail, because otherwise the vital basic facts of the most important trial this century, and how it is being conducted, would pass almost completely unknown to the public. If it were a genuine process, they would want people to see it, not completely minimise attendance both physically and online.
- thanatos519 6y ago
  It definitely doesn't. Seems like it is trying to compensate for all the bias in the system.
- contingencies 6y ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24478259 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24478259 was flagged, which was by a respected journalist with an interest in the case. The Wikipedia article keeps getting reverted. It's really extremely hard to find or curate decent information on politically partisan subjects these days. Maybe a good area for a (positive) OSINT startup.
  - rmu09 6y ago
    OSINT is a contradictio in adiecto. Like a round square.
martin-t 6y ago
A couple observations (as someone who who doesn't really follow Assange but stumbled upon this article): - In the UK, publishing the transcript of a public hearing is a crime - "NB this is not a precise transcript. It would be illegal for me to publish a transcript (of a “public” court hearing; fascinating but true)." - IMO something is deeply broken with this, needs to be changed and potentially people who created this system need to be punished (for taking steps to undermine democracy). - Publishing evidence of (war) crimes (this is what Assange did, right?) somehow appears to be a crime. What happened to failure to report a crime? Shouldn't instead people not publishing this be punished? - A video call is too high tech for the UK government; also moving to a different courtroom where it would work is impossible because they'd have to carry over too much paper. They do everything on paper - linking to some other piece of paper means making a physical copy - "Are you saying that I should have repeated his affidavits and all the other evidence in my statements? My statements would have been thousands of pages long." - Hello, we have the internet and hyperlinks, can we pls use them? To me this feels like the courts are designed as a DoS attack on people's attention. - Some US prisons are designed as death penalty without having to go through the legal trouble of saying it out loud - "Suicides in jail are increasing by 18% a year." - Assange seems like a political prisoner - "Eric Lewis than gave testimony on the change of policy towards prosecuting Assange from the Trump administration." - Why does a president have this power? What happened to the 3 branches of government? Maybe this is a US thing, seems very broken. - It's not even a public process, except in name - "Public access continues to be restricted and major NGOs, including Amnesty, PEN and Reporters Without Borders, continue to be excluded both physically and from watching online." - Why is everything not recorded and at least transcript posted online by default?
- LatteLazy 6y ago
  > - Publishing evidence of (war) crimes (this is what Assange did, right?) somehow appears to be a crime. What happened to failure to report a crime? Shouldn't instead people not publishing this be punished? His "crime" was that he conspired to use a computer without permission. The fact he used it for a noble purpose doesn't get him out of extradition apparently. The fact that no one has been prosecuted for the much bigger crime that he exposed just adds perversity.
stunt 6y ago
It's disappointing that publishing about war-crimes is a bigger deal than doing it for governments. Why even governments have this right in first place? It's fundamentally wrong.

97 points by k1m 6y ago

Is there anyone who has changed their mind in either direction on Julian Assange's actions, guilt, or how different governments are acting, after reading, over the last few years, any of these posts or comments therein?

kace91 6y ago
I honestly think of him as a political actor, in the "chess player" sense of the word politics, rather than in the idealistic sense; so I wasn't particularly sympathetic. You know the game you're playing, and all. After reading he's headed for ADX, however, I'm sympathetic. No prisoner of any kind should be exposed for anything remotely resembling that, in my opinion. It's a horror movie come true.
- emilsedgh 6y ago
  I honestly think of him as a political actor Is there any proof/indication of him being a political actor? You know the game you're playing, and all. This could be applied to any journalist who exposes powerful institutions.
  - croon 6y ago
    > Is there any proof/indication of him being a political actor? https://apnews.com/ce9a4541f903109079900528d9f0a9e7 https://apnews.com/ce9a4541f903109079900528d9f0a9e7 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-senate/senate-committee-concludes-russia-used-manafort-wikileaks-to-boost-trump-in-2016-idUSKCN25E1US https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-senate/s... https://theintercept.com/2018/02/14/julian-assange-wikileaks-election-clinton-trump/ https://theintercept.com/2018/02/14/julian-assange-wikileaks...
- cies 6y ago
  Do you consider journalists (that publish info that related to political decisions) as political actors?
  - tasogare 6y ago
    Why would you consider they aren’t? Journalists have by far the strongest leverage on public opinion than any other workers, and historically newspapers were indeed positioned politically (and still are, to a little extent).
    - arethuza 6y ago
      Newspapers in the UK are generally fairly strongly politically aligned and our TV channels are supposed to be unbiased - I believe it is the other way round in the US?
    - pjc50 6y ago
      I don't know why this was downvoted, journalism leads public opinion to a huge extent. The primary motivation for billionaires to own media empires is to have an influence on politics.
  - kace91 6y ago
    it is a complex question. I do think that both journalists and whistleblowers should have certain protections in a free society. However, I can't shake the feeling that wikileaks exploits the hunger for justice of honest-minded whistleblowers as a front for information gathering, and then choose to use said information however fits their own selfish interests. So I don't like them at all as martyrs of free speech. Assange is no Snowden. Then again, as I said, I am 100% against certain punishments that I think go against basic human rights. Just the possibility of ending up in ADX should be enough to deny extradition, regardless of who's the alleged criminal.
    - itsoktocry 6y ago
      >and then choose to use said information however fits their own selfish interests It's hard to wrap my head around the argument that since the information was used to forward an agenda or was released selectively it's somehow "bad" Who cares, if the content is valid and incendiary? Leaks or whistleblowers don't have to be "balanced".
implements 6y ago
Not really, if I’m being honest. I think it’s gone on too long now, and needs resolution - which I believe is one of the important aspects of judicial systems beyond “justice” - simply drawing a line under things so society can move on. Julian poked a sharp stick into the US military, intelligence and political system - I expect a few years in a US prison will be the result - something to be anticipated if you had a normal amount of ego and wisdom.
- emilsedgh 6y ago
  The fact that we now "expect" journalists and whistle blowers (to war crimes) to be prosecuted and imprisoned is very upsetting and unjust.
  - implements 6y ago
    He’s being prosecuted for computer misuse, though. You’re argument is that journalists and whistle blowers are above the law - but they aren’t. And that’s before you take an objective stance about JA’s good faith and personal motivations. If you set up a “leaking” organisation, and use it to selectively embarrass certain governments and politicians while coincidentally building your brand and obtaining a measure of power, influence and money ... you better make sure you fully obey the law.
    - pjc50 6y ago
      I do think there's a strong case that committing an administrative crime of leaking information in order to expose a far more serious crime is a moral act. In general.
      - cies 6y ago
        This is why whistle blowers need protection. Govt should abide by law, if not, blowing the whistle should be rewarded not punished.
    - nickysielicki 6y ago
christophilus 6y ago
I have. So, at least one person.
pjc50 6y ago
Sympathy I may have had for him evaporated over the years with the response to the rape allegations and the way Wikileaks ended up on the pro-Trump side of the floor. It's Chelsea Manning who I have far more sympathy for. Somehow she's not promoted so much by Assange supporters, despite being the insider responsible for the leak and already having served in prison for it. The Iraq war remains a moral disaster, and things have not improved on that front.
- Synaesthesia 6y ago
  Chelsea Manning still needed Wikileaks to help bring out the truth, the rape allegations were just that, a total smear it seems, and not rooted in fact. Regardless of his political leanings, he's an important journalist who ought to be celebrated for revealing some very uncomfortable facts.
  - pjc50 6y ago
    The rape allegations have never seen a court and should not be dismissed as a smear. Given how these things usually pan out, Cosby and Weinstein passim, I believe they are more likely true than not.
    - globular-toast 6y ago
      As usual, men are guilty until proven innocent when it comes to rape.
      - dijit 6y ago
        I’m not being facetious but isn’t that the whole point in the “believe women” slogan. That casting a critical/dismissive eye is dangerous as it means we no longer try to confirm the claim? It’s a think grey line here: but I think charges being filed should lead to him being questioned. We should not say though that he “definitely did it”, (or that he definitely didn’t) just that he needs to answer the claim. In this particular case it’s “damned if you do, damned if you don’t”. Answer the charge and be extradited. Don’t answer the charge and be thought of by the public as guilty. — If I had the power (and, nobody does here, don’t kid yourself) I’d like to see him sent to Sweden but with a protection about being sent to the US. Nothing short of war will stop the US though, they are used to getting their way in ways we’re not comfortable admitting to.
Synaesthesia 6y ago
I've certainly felt that he has been unfairly attacked, maligned and smeared over time and thus I've become a lot more sympathetic to his case.
radu_floricica 6y ago
Well, he was obviously right. UK _was_ holding him for an US extradition, and in all likelyhood this is what would have happened in Sweden as well. There was a time when the official narrative was "he can leave at any time, we don't want him, he's just hiding because of potential rape charges". That at least is clearly falsified.
- sorenjan 6y ago
  > Once the British authorities enforce the UK Supreme Court's decision to extradite Julian Assange to Sweden, Sweden is bound by the so-called "Doctrine of Speciality" which means that Sweden cannot extradite him further to a third country, for example the USA, without permission from the UK. This means that Julian Assange would be in the same position in Sweden as he would be in the UK with regard to further extradition to a third country. https://www.aklagare.se/en/news-and-press/media/the-assange-matter/kan-assange-utlamnas-fran-sverige-till-usa/ https://www.aklagare.se/en/news-and-press/media/the-assange-...
  - dependenttypes 6y ago
    It certainly could. Countries do not have to abide by any laws, only the weak do. Sweden specifically is known to illegally extradite people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_of_Ahmed_Agiza_and_Muhammad_al-Zery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_of_Ahmed_Agiza_an... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Rasmussen_Hjelmen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Rasmussen_Hjelmen
- ChrisKnott 6y ago
  My understanding is that that narrative was true at the beginning. He only skipped bail when his legal challenge against extradition to Sweden failed. Some years later, the US secretly submitted an extradition request. At that point he was also avoiding extradition to the USA and at that point, people were wrong to say he was only avoiding extradition to Sweden. If anyone has evidence that the US was seeking his extradition in early 2011, I would be very interested in seeing it.
  - 6y ago
tomp 6y ago
I went from "he should face rape charges" to "probably not guilty of an actual crime" to "it's all obviously a bullshit political persecution".
marcus_holmes 6y ago
Definitely more sympathetic to his case. I always thought he was a bit of a showy cunt (technical Aussie term). But there's no doubt this is a political prosecution, which UK law is extremely clear about: extradition is not applicable for political charges. There's no doubt that he should not be extradited, and that extraditing him is an act of political cowardice by both the UK and Australian governments.

jka 6y ago

The witness quotes a couple of statements by a former warden of ADX Colorado. In case anyone's interested in finding a source for at least one of those, it appears in a New York Times article: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/29/magazine/inside-americas-toughest-federal-prison.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/29/magazine/inside-americas-... (caution: contains some fairly unpleasant reading) Edit / clarification: only one of the two quotes appears in the NYT article.

scoot_718 6y ago

I don't believe this blog post paints an unbiased picture.

jstanley 6y ago
Unfortunately it is the only source of information on what is going on at this hearing. As Murray writes: > The mainstream media are turning a blind eye. There were three reporters in the press gallery, one of them an intern and one representing the NUJ. Public access continues to be restricted and major NGOs, including Amnesty, PEN and Reporters Without Borders, continue to be excluded both physically and from watching online. It has taken me literally all night to write this up – it is now 8.54am – and I have to finish off and get back into court. The six of us allowed in the public gallery, incidentally, have to climb 132 steps to get there, several times a day. As you know, I have a very dodgy ticker; I am with Julian’s dad John who is 78; and another of us has a pacemaker. > I do not in the least discount the gallant efforts of others when I explain that I feel obliged to write this up, and in this detail, because otherwise the vital basic facts of the most important trial this century, and how it is being conducted, would pass almost completely unknown to the public. If it were a genuine process, they would want people to see it, not completely minimise attendance both physically and online.
thanatos519 6y ago
It definitely doesn't. Seems like it is trying to compensate for all the bias in the system.
contingencies 6y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24478259 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24478259 was flagged, which was by a respected journalist with an interest in the case. The Wikipedia article keeps getting reverted. It's really extremely hard to find or curate decent information on politically partisan subjects these days. Maybe a good area for a (positive) OSINT startup.
- rmu09 6y ago
  OSINT is a contradictio in adiecto. Like a round square.

martin-t 6y ago

A couple observations (as someone who who doesn't really follow Assange but stumbled upon this article): - In the UK, publishing the transcript of a public hearing is a crime - "NB this is not a precise transcript. It would be illegal for me to publish a transcript (of a “public” court hearing; fascinating but true)." - IMO something is deeply broken with this, needs to be changed and potentially people who created this system need to be punished (for taking steps to undermine democracy). - Publishing evidence of (war) crimes (this is what Assange did, right?) somehow appears to be a crime. What happened to failure to report a crime? Shouldn't instead people not publishing this be punished? - A video call is too high tech for the UK government; also moving to a different courtroom where it would work is impossible because they'd have to carry over too much paper. They do everything on paper - linking to some other piece of paper means making a physical copy - "Are you saying that I should have repeated his affidavits and all the other evidence in my statements? My statements would have been thousands of pages long." - Hello, we have the internet and hyperlinks, can we pls use them? To me this feels like the courts are designed as a DoS attack on people's attention. - Some US prisons are designed as death penalty without having to go through the legal trouble of saying it out loud - "Suicides in jail are increasing by 18% a year." - Assange seems like a political prisoner - "Eric Lewis than gave testimony on the change of policy towards prosecuting Assange from the Trump administration." - Why does a president have this power? What happened to the 3 branches of government? Maybe this is a US thing, seems very broken. - It's not even a public process, except in name - "Public access continues to be restricted and major NGOs, including Amnesty, PEN and Reporters Without Borders, continue to be excluded both physically and from watching online." - Why is everything not recorded and at least transcript posted online by default?

LatteLazy 6y ago
> - Publishing evidence of (war) crimes (this is what Assange did, right?) somehow appears to be a crime. What happened to failure to report a crime? Shouldn't instead people not publishing this be punished? His "crime" was that he conspired to use a computer without permission. The fact he used it for a noble purpose doesn't get him out of extradition apparently. The fact that no one has been prosecuted for the much bigger crime that he exposed just adds perversity.

stunt 6y ago

It's disappointing that publishing about war-crimes is a bigger deal than doing it for governments. Why even governments have this right in first place? It's fundamentally wrong.