11 ms·

I am baffled to see that the majority of the comments here are at best showing no support for what Assange did and at worst are trying to find excuses not to be

I am baffled to see that the majority of the comments here are at best showing no support for what Assange did and at worst are trying to find excuses not to be disturbed in their belief that since we are in a democracy hence everything that's happening is normal. I thought the people here had a sharper political view on what kind of society we could/should live in but I just read people that are always in a hurry to put themselves on the good side of the stick, praising the stick and telling themselves "Everything is normal. Everything is normal. Everything...". Forgive the bitterness, I am still young and unruly. I'll settle down later and me too I'll accept how impotent I am at changing the order of thing and banter about humanity's real problem as a lack of universal love and and understanding. End of rant. Have a good day.

pmachinery 6y ago
> I am baffled to see that the majority of the comments here are at best showing no support for what Assange did and at worst are trying to find excuses not to be disturbed in their belief that since we are in a democracy hence everything that's happening is normal. I'm not seeing that in the comments (and there aren't that many at present). Most people seem critical of this and/or express cynicism about the process. WRT not supporting what Assange did, I didn't notice anyone (as I type) saying anything specific about it, negative or otherwise.
- pydry 6y ago
  Every single day this is posted there is a raft of comments that either use ad hominems to attack the source without addressing what it had to say or red herrings (e.g. why does X think they should be given one of the only 5 spots made available to see the trial that affects everybody).
  - burger_moon 6y ago
    > Every single day this is posted there is a raft of comments that either use ad hominems to attack the source without addressing what it had to say or red herrings Those comments are getting really tiring and it's disappointing to see this place accept ad hominems against the source over and over in those threads instead of actually discussing the trial. Ofc complaining about comment quality isn't new, that's existed before I started coming here. Hn does a pretty good job of being off topic in threads but it's the nastiness of the comments that degrades the quality of conversation (I myself am guilty of this too, and I need to work on that).
    - marvin 6y ago
      Assange threads are truly something else. A few years ago, most of the commentary was about how he didn't clean up his cat's poop at the Ecuadorian embassy and therefore, by implication, he deserved whatever he got. Either the disinformation campaign has been spectacularly successful, a lot of HN commenters are truly daft enough to let alleged cat hygiene decide their opinion on a person's fate, or there is really some deliberate misinformation going on specifically in these threads. Maybe a combination of the three. Regardless, it disheartens me greatly to see the state power of the US used like this. Truly removes the veil of supposedly unailenable democratic rights.
- demarq 6y ago
  > I'm not seeing that in the comments I'm seeing it everytime someone prefaces their comment with something along the lines of: "I'm not an Assange supporter But ..." in fact you're comment is really no different: > not supporting what Assange did, I didn't Are people worried the FBI will break down their door, if they don't put up the disclaimer?
  - Cthulhu_ 6y ago
    They're signaling that publishing secrets is a crime; that's an objective fact, nobody is arguing against that I think. What's at stake here is whether the crime was justifiable and that it did more good (in exposing the US' war crimes) than bad (sharing state secrets and possibly risking informants). Disclaimer: superficial layman's take on matters.
    - DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
      In the US, up until this point, publishing government secrets has not been a crime. It is a right protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution. The only people that the government has historically been able to prosecute are government employees who leak documents, but publishers have been inviolate. That's why the prosecution of Assange is such a big deal: the US government is trying to establish a precedent that it can go after publishers, not just leakers.
    - arminiusreturns 6y ago
      >They're signaling that publishing secrets is a crime; that's an objective fact Stating things are facts don't make them facts; thats an objective fact. Anyway, I used to read Assange when he was more of a crypto/phreak, and he is, for lack of a better term, a bit of a fucking asshole. That said though, and I'm going to make a controversial statement here, but one I think is truthful, but the biggest problem now with the Assange case is the Russia-gate propaganda added him to the list, so now a large swath of people who would normally support him now still off the cuff beleive he "helped Trump" by "working with the Russians" (or some variation thereof), and because the Russiagate narrative is now so entrenched in the left, it causes a huge cognitive dissonance where they are more likely to choose the mob/tribe over principle. It's worth noting that this can also be considered a survival technique in this cancel culture world, so I try not to judge too harshly, it just gets tiring hearing the disinfo about Assange repeated ad nauseum.
nabla9 6y ago
People are divided into those who see hims as hero or villain. Is there anyone like me who considers him neither? For me, Assange is 1) Asshole 2) Possibly mentally ill at this point 3) Someone who once greatly advanced journalism and whistleblowing. Even bad journalist deserves protections of a journalist. 4) A person who might have crossed the line from journalism and even his own principles. If he did entangle himself in more than just publishing information being journalist status should not protect him (like assisting or promoting hacking to Dem servers). 5) Political partisan hack supporting Trump. 6) He is also a person who needs to be treated fairly no matter what he did or didn't do.
- vidarh 6y ago
  6) is what is at issue here, and it's terrifying to see how this case is being conducted, and in many ways more seriously the lack of media interest.
- jariel 6y ago
  Well that's just it. If he was not perceived to be by some as #5 he would be all over CNN right now.
- alex_young 6y ago
  Assange has spent his career defending a natural right to whistleblowing. If you find fault with him for other reasons that is fine, but the core issue here seems to be one of of ‘do you believe that there is such a natural right?’, and not one of ‘do you believe Assange is a likable person?’. If you’re fine with governments using extrajudicial systems to exact revenge on whistleblowers in distant lands then it really doesn’t matter what you think about his personal behavior. If on the other hand you think there is such an inherent human value, it’s conversely difficult to justify his current treatment.
  - geofft 6y ago
    My personal opinion: I don't think it's defensible that he's facing extradition charges to the US on the current charges he's facing. (He's not a whistleblower, and calling him a journalist seems to stretch the definition, but it's important for the health of society that his actions are permitted so that the actions of "actual" whistleblowers and journalists are clearly permitted.) However, I think it's entirely defensible that he lost his asylum in Ecuador, because that's up to the good graces of Ecuador and they didn't owe him anything, and it's entirely defensible that he faced the threat of extradition to Sweden for a sexual assault trial because those charges were credible. (I don't know if they are true or not, but that's what a trial would be for, and they don't seem to have been so specious that a trial itself would be unjust.) This makes it hard for me to summarize my opinion as either agreeing or disagreeing with his current treatment.
curation 6y ago
I'm old. I opted out of the order as a solution and I orbit around it making incursions of support and encouragement. Try techniques described in the Undercommons by Moten/Harney. Spend your attention carefully.
- beprogrammed 6y ago
  nods
  - Accujack 6y ago
    Suppresses a giggle
jonnycomputer 6y ago
I do not have a good opinion of Julian Assange or of Wikileaks, and I am not afraid to say it. At best it has been an unwitting tool of Russian disinformation campaigns; just as likely it is complicit. One must also wonder why Assange spends so much time talking to folks like Sean Hannity, Dana Rohrbacher, and Charles C. Johnson. https://www.emptywheel.net/2020/09/19/wherein-wikileaks-brags-about-entertaining-a-pardon-dangle-from-a-suspected-russian-asset-and-a-white-supremacist/ https://www.emptywheel.net/2020/09/19/wherein-wikileaks-brag...
- indigo945 6y ago
  No matter what anyone's opinion on Assange is, it is clear that he still deserves a fair trial. And given the public's lack of access to the proceedings, as well as Nils Melzer's testimony, it is clear that that isn't what he is getting.
  - nsajko 6y ago
    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24544590 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24544590
  - jonnycomputer 6y ago
    Yes, well my opinions on Assange are independent of my opinion of the trial.
    - calcifer 6y ago
      Curiously enough, people in your position rarely feel the need to share their supposedly different opinions of the trial.
      - jonnycomputer 6y ago
        I don't have an opinion about the conduct of trial because I haven't been following the trial. If you asked me about whether I think Assange should be extradited to the US, the answer is no, I do not.
AniseAbyss 6y ago
The US has never been onboard with international human rights, see Guatanomo.
colordrops 6y ago
I know that talking about propaganda and shills on HN is frowned upon, but it seems relevant to this discussion. I believe that the negative opinions of Assange mostly consist of either propaganda by sock puppets, people that heard this propaganda and repeated themselves, or a bit of both. Assange was held in high esteem by the public until they finally got a foothold on how to bury him. Intelligence agencies and their contractors have been trying to smear and shut him down since before he was arrested, such as the Palantir/HB Gary fiasco [1]. In short, when you see smart people saying silly things, sometimes it's not due to emergent organic causes. [1] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/02/the-ridiculous-plan-to-attack-wikileaks/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/02/the-ridiculous-p...
- chillwaves 6y ago
  It's not helpful to say "the people who I disagree with are repeating propaganda."
  - colordrops 6y ago
    I agree, and that's not what I said.
    - vkou 6y ago
      Instead, you implied that the people who disagreed with you have been duped by propaganda. Which is not a particularly helpful, or charitable statement.
  - jdidjdhd 6y ago
    So amazingly backwards since there's definitive proof of astro turfing, some users being allowed to post more than others, evidence of government agents controlling discussion etc and all of this is with the very explicit approval of the moderators who have also been proven to lie, modify posts, remove 'uncomfortable' posts, allow vote brigading, consciously alter to downvote and remove uncomfortable posts and then the mods have the boldness to lie, say none of this ever happens, and also that you can't talk about, then your post is removed and your account disabled. This happens here. HN is compromised, trying to think a true sentiment exists here is false, you are seeing mostly the carefully curated posts to support us government propaganda.
lanevorockz 6y ago
I do believe there is a substantial amount of people that just bow to whatever the perceived experts say. That's why you would be called a conspiracy theorist if you said that Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction. Proof be damned and Skeptics should be burn at the stake. What bothers me the most is that Assange only crime in the UK is that he had skip bail from a crime without evidence. Where is the European Court of Justice ? Human Rights ? It's all a political weapon now ?
- FpUser 6y ago
  When the US presses hard many countries suddenly start behaving like a lapdogs for one or another reason.
- mint2 6y ago
  > That's why you would be called a conspiracy theorist if you said that Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction. I don’t know where you live, but at least around California it’s generally accepted that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction and the war justification was bush league lies.
  - rtx 6y ago
    It's a new thing, like saying Trump is the worst president. Propoganda just before US attacked Iraq was at another level.
  - marvin 6y ago
    Was it in 2003? I believe that's what GP alleges.
- matthewheath 6y ago
  > What bothers me the most is that Assange only crime in the UK is that he had skip bail from a crime without evidence. Yes, but extradition works on the basis that if they committed a crime abroad and it would be a crime in the UK, extradition can typically go ahead. Even if they didn't commit the crime in the UK. > Where is the European Court of Justice ? Human Rights ? The European Court of Justice doesn't hear appeals on extradition. It is a competence reserved solely for Member States. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) might hear an appeal if a Convention right is engaged (e.g. the right not to be tortured) so it is possible that an appeal is lodged after this case if extradition is granted, but Assange first needs to appeal to the High Court and then the Supreme Court if that happens. This is because all domestic remediation routes must be exhausted before the ECtHR will hear a case. In any event, the ECtHR cannot directly block an extradition: they can only order the State to pay damages. The only ultimate court in the UK that can block any extradition is the Supreme Court.
AnimalMuppet 6y ago
Not everyone here who disagrees with you is "trying to find excuses to not be disturbed" or "in a hurry to put themselves on the good side of the stick". Your black-and-white worldview is leading you to condemn everyone who disagrees with you. Perhaps there are some who disagree with you fit your description. But as a general rule, be a lot less quick to condemn peoples' morals on the basis of their conclusions.
- cassepipe 6y ago
  Point taken
root_axis 6y ago
> thought the people here had a sharper political view on what kind of society we could/should live... Your condescending framing that suggests anyone who doesn't agree with your political analysis isn't sharp is a quintessential example of what is wrong with political discussion in today's era. You didn't present any facts or arguments, you simply invoked a tired political virtue-signal to let everyone know where you stand on Assange while simultaneously expressing disdain for those who don't agree with you, all without addressing any specifics. Bravo.
- cassepipe 6y ago
  I fully agree that my post did not bring anything new to the table. I really felt distressed by what I was reading by the time I wrote it. That's why I signaled it as rant which I think is a good compromise : I do think facts and arguments matter in a discussion and we should not let our emotions take the seat of reasoning but if that's what's happening well you better say it rather than starting to bend facts or telling some things you are not so sure about but would like to be true are absolutely true. Furthermore, it seems my rant expressed a more general feeling about the thread, so at least it served that purpose. I thought the bit about powerlessness (that seems to be the common lot for most individuals) and pseudo-wisdom would at least make it a little funny to read to certain people. I did not mean to be condescending, I do regret writing that bit now. I guess that what I tried to express was that one's education does not seem to prevent falling for basic tricks in the realm of politics such as a smear campaign. I was really frustrated to read repeatedly such shallow arguments as nobody is above the law or why do they think they are entitled to a seat? or just reading that one did not sympathize with Assange hardly ever explaining why or just calling him a russian agent. Whether you sympathize with Assange as a person is irrelevant. Even if Assange was a rapist and Putin's best friend, which I very much doubt on the base of what I have read so far (links welcomed), I don't see how it matters in the case of exposing a war based on a lie. the killing of civilians ans journalists, extra-judiciary kidnapping and torture and so much more... And those are facts, not mere allegations.
justnotworthit 6y ago
Being good at computers and being exposed to a hacker ethic (whatever is left of it) doesn't guarantee your politic views (1) logical (2) anti-conformist (3) anything else, tho there are probably correlations. Add to that a forum dynamic in which those with the biggest rant to exhaust are the most likely to comment... hckrnews won't be terribly different than any other online forum. My biggest point, I guess, is that there is no "comments here" on most forums. Or at least there is a huge range. P.S. your assumption about age isn't warranted. I'm sure many comments you've ready are from teenagers.
- cassepipe 6y ago
  Well, if I came "here" and stayed, it is because the level of reasoning was higher than any other form of online gathering I had ever attended to. Plus its design, moderation, and declaration of intentions makes for better, more informed debates. So I did experience a bit of disillusionment and intended this rant as some kind of a "suicidal" move : I was expecting to be downvoted to disappearance for not conforming to what a hacker news comment should be like : thoughtful, informed, interesting. I fully agree with your three points and I am grateful I got to see your reply.
kanox 6y ago
Assange deserves no support, he should rot in prison.
salawat 6y ago
You are not alone friend, there are many others that see what is going on with a great deal of concern; the silence tends to come from the dearth of new information, and inability to influence the outcome. The fact is, there has been at work in society an implicit assumption that given limited resources to delegate, those resources get delegated toward actions that communicate the most in terms of message to the greatest number of people be it positive or negative in nature. This message to my sensibilities is unambiguously clear. Poke the dragon, get the fire. No semblance of law and order will really save you, because everything is always open to interpretation to get things done and the cost of mistakes having been made in the past are very easy to brush off for the institution, but life destroying for the victim. Dig 2 graves before ye set off on your crusade, for ye journey as much to your own end as that of your enemy. Whether or not you believe personally that's a tenable arrangement matters not a lick until such time as you can marshal enough collective social/political capital to change it. Even that though is no guarantee. "The Constitution is not a suicide pact."--Every imperiled government ever The geopolitical system is as much an organism as we are it's cells. The task of a Statesman is to try to direct this behemoth without undue cost in human lives through wise and fruitful policy, diplomatic, and strategic decisions to keep the collective organism alive and in good standing amongst it's neighbors/rivals. I cannot say I've ever seen good Statesmanship in my life. I hazard few left alive have, but I can only hope the low point we seem to have collectively hit is a local maxima, and keep on trucking. I'm still hoping that Assange may surprise us with a sudden reversal as one of these beasts comes to it's senses and remembers the values it purportedly stands for, but I'm not holding my breath.

pmachinery 6y ago

> I am baffled to see that the majority of the comments here are at best showing no support for what Assange did and at worst are trying to find excuses not to be disturbed in their belief that since we are in a democracy hence everything that's happening is normal. I'm not seeing that in the comments (and there aren't that many at present). Most people seem critical of this and/or express cynicism about the process. WRT not supporting what Assange did, I didn't notice anyone (as I type) saying anything specific about it, negative or otherwise.

pydry 6y ago
Every single day this is posted there is a raft of comments that either use ad hominems to attack the source without addressing what it had to say or red herrings (e.g. why does X think they should be given one of the only 5 spots made available to see the trial that affects everybody).
- burger_moon 6y ago
  > Every single day this is posted there is a raft of comments that either use ad hominems to attack the source without addressing what it had to say or red herrings Those comments are getting really tiring and it's disappointing to see this place accept ad hominems against the source over and over in those threads instead of actually discussing the trial. Ofc complaining about comment quality isn't new, that's existed before I started coming here. Hn does a pretty good job of being off topic in threads but it's the nastiness of the comments that degrades the quality of conversation (I myself am guilty of this too, and I need to work on that).
  - marvin 6y ago
    Assange threads are truly something else. A few years ago, most of the commentary was about how he didn't clean up his cat's poop at the Ecuadorian embassy and therefore, by implication, he deserved whatever he got. Either the disinformation campaign has been spectacularly successful, a lot of HN commenters are truly daft enough to let alleged cat hygiene decide their opinion on a person's fate, or there is really some deliberate misinformation going on specifically in these threads. Maybe a combination of the three. Regardless, it disheartens me greatly to see the state power of the US used like this. Truly removes the veil of supposedly unailenable democratic rights.
demarq 6y ago
> I'm not seeing that in the comments I'm seeing it everytime someone prefaces their comment with something along the lines of: "I'm not an Assange supporter But ..." in fact you're comment is really no different: > not supporting what Assange did, I didn't Are people worried the FBI will break down their door, if they don't put up the disclaimer?
- Cthulhu_ 6y ago
  They're signaling that publishing secrets is a crime; that's an objective fact, nobody is arguing against that I think. What's at stake here is whether the crime was justifiable and that it did more good (in exposing the US' war crimes) than bad (sharing state secrets and possibly risking informants). Disclaimer: superficial layman's take on matters.
  - DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
    In the US, up until this point, publishing government secrets has not been a crime. It is a right protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution. The only people that the government has historically been able to prosecute are government employees who leak documents, but publishers have been inviolate. That's why the prosecution of Assange is such a big deal: the US government is trying to establish a precedent that it can go after publishers, not just leakers.
  - arminiusreturns 6y ago
    >They're signaling that publishing secrets is a crime; that's an objective fact Stating things are facts don't make them facts; thats an objective fact. Anyway, I used to read Assange when he was more of a crypto/phreak, and he is, for lack of a better term, a bit of a fucking asshole. That said though, and I'm going to make a controversial statement here, but one I think is truthful, but the biggest problem now with the Assange case is the Russia-gate propaganda added him to the list, so now a large swath of people who would normally support him now still off the cuff beleive he "helped Trump" by "working with the Russians" (or some variation thereof), and because the Russiagate narrative is now so entrenched in the left, it causes a huge cognitive dissonance where they are more likely to choose the mob/tribe over principle. It's worth noting that this can also be considered a survival technique in this cancel culture world, so I try not to judge too harshly, it just gets tiring hearing the disinfo about Assange repeated ad nauseum.

nabla9 6y ago

People are divided into those who see hims as hero or villain. Is there anyone like me who considers him neither? For me, Assange is 1) Asshole 2) Possibly mentally ill at this point 3) Someone who once greatly advanced journalism and whistleblowing. Even bad journalist deserves protections of a journalist. 4) A person who might have crossed the line from journalism and even his own principles. If he did entangle himself in more than just publishing information being journalist status should not protect him (like assisting or promoting hacking to Dem servers). 5) Political partisan hack supporting Trump. 6) He is also a person who needs to be treated fairly no matter what he did or didn't do.

vidarh 6y ago
6) is what is at issue here, and it's terrifying to see how this case is being conducted, and in many ways more seriously the lack of media interest.
jariel 6y ago
Well that's just it. If he was not perceived to be by some as #5 he would be all over CNN right now.
alex_young 6y ago
Assange has spent his career defending a natural right to whistleblowing. If you find fault with him for other reasons that is fine, but the core issue here seems to be one of of ‘do you believe that there is such a natural right?’, and not one of ‘do you believe Assange is a likable person?’. If you’re fine with governments using extrajudicial systems to exact revenge on whistleblowers in distant lands then it really doesn’t matter what you think about his personal behavior. If on the other hand you think there is such an inherent human value, it’s conversely difficult to justify his current treatment.
- geofft 6y ago
  My personal opinion: I don't think it's defensible that he's facing extradition charges to the US on the current charges he's facing. (He's not a whistleblower, and calling him a journalist seems to stretch the definition, but it's important for the health of society that his actions are permitted so that the actions of "actual" whistleblowers and journalists are clearly permitted.) However, I think it's entirely defensible that he lost his asylum in Ecuador, because that's up to the good graces of Ecuador and they didn't owe him anything, and it's entirely defensible that he faced the threat of extradition to Sweden for a sexual assault trial because those charges were credible. (I don't know if they are true or not, but that's what a trial would be for, and they don't seem to have been so specious that a trial itself would be unjust.) This makes it hard for me to summarize my opinion as either agreeing or disagreeing with his current treatment.

curation 6y ago

I'm old. I opted out of the order as a solution and I orbit around it making incursions of support and encouragement. Try techniques described in the Undercommons by Moten/Harney. Spend your attention carefully.

beprogrammed 6y ago
nods
- Accujack 6y ago
  Suppresses a giggle

jonnycomputer 6y ago

I do not have a good opinion of Julian Assange or of Wikileaks, and I am not afraid to say it. At best it has been an unwitting tool of Russian disinformation campaigns; just as likely it is complicit. One must also wonder why Assange spends so much time talking to folks like Sean Hannity, Dana Rohrbacher, and Charles C. Johnson. https://www.emptywheel.net/2020/09/19/wherein-wikileaks-brags-about-entertaining-a-pardon-dangle-from-a-suspected-russian-asset-and-a-white-supremacist/ https://www.emptywheel.net/2020/09/19/wherein-wikileaks-brag...

indigo945 6y ago
No matter what anyone's opinion on Assange is, it is clear that he still deserves a fair trial. And given the public's lack of access to the proceedings, as well as Nils Melzer's testimony, it is clear that that isn't what he is getting.
- nsajko 6y ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24544590 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24544590
- jonnycomputer 6y ago
  Yes, well my opinions on Assange are independent of my opinion of the trial.
  - calcifer 6y ago
    Curiously enough, people in your position rarely feel the need to share their supposedly different opinions of the trial.
    - jonnycomputer 6y ago
      I don't have an opinion about the conduct of trial because I haven't been following the trial. If you asked me about whether I think Assange should be extradited to the US, the answer is no, I do not.

AniseAbyss 6y ago

The US has never been onboard with international human rights, see Guatanomo.

colordrops 6y ago

I know that talking about propaganda and shills on HN is frowned upon, but it seems relevant to this discussion. I believe that the negative opinions of Assange mostly consist of either propaganda by sock puppets, people that heard this propaganda and repeated themselves, or a bit of both. Assange was held in high esteem by the public until they finally got a foothold on how to bury him. Intelligence agencies and their contractors have been trying to smear and shut him down since before he was arrested, such as the Palantir/HB Gary fiasco [1]. In short, when you see smart people saying silly things, sometimes it's not due to emergent organic causes. [1] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/02/the-ridiculous-plan-to-attack-wikileaks/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/02/the-ridiculous-p...

chillwaves 6y ago
It's not helpful to say "the people who I disagree with are repeating propaganda."
- colordrops 6y ago
  I agree, and that's not what I said.
  - vkou 6y ago
    Instead, you implied that the people who disagreed with you have been duped by propaganda. Which is not a particularly helpful, or charitable statement.
- jdidjdhd 6y ago
  So amazingly backwards since there's definitive proof of astro turfing, some users being allowed to post more than others, evidence of government agents controlling discussion etc and all of this is with the very explicit approval of the moderators who have also been proven to lie, modify posts, remove 'uncomfortable' posts, allow vote brigading, consciously alter to downvote and remove uncomfortable posts and then the mods have the boldness to lie, say none of this ever happens, and also that you can't talk about, then your post is removed and your account disabled. This happens here. HN is compromised, trying to think a true sentiment exists here is false, you are seeing mostly the carefully curated posts to support us government propaganda.

lanevorockz 6y ago

I do believe there is a substantial amount of people that just bow to whatever the perceived experts say. That's why you would be called a conspiracy theorist if you said that Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction. Proof be damned and Skeptics should be burn at the stake. What bothers me the most is that Assange only crime in the UK is that he had skip bail from a crime without evidence. Where is the European Court of Justice ? Human Rights ? It's all a political weapon now ?

FpUser 6y ago
When the US presses hard many countries suddenly start behaving like a lapdogs for one or another reason.
mint2 6y ago
> That's why you would be called a conspiracy theorist if you said that Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction. I don’t know where you live, but at least around California it’s generally accepted that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction and the war justification was bush league lies.
- rtx 6y ago
  It's a new thing, like saying Trump is the worst president. Propoganda just before US attacked Iraq was at another level.
- marvin 6y ago
  Was it in 2003? I believe that's what GP alleges.
matthewheath 6y ago
> What bothers me the most is that Assange only crime in the UK is that he had skip bail from a crime without evidence. Yes, but extradition works on the basis that if they committed a crime abroad and it would be a crime in the UK, extradition can typically go ahead. Even if they didn't commit the crime in the UK. > Where is the European Court of Justice ? Human Rights ? The European Court of Justice doesn't hear appeals on extradition. It is a competence reserved solely for Member States. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) might hear an appeal if a Convention right is engaged (e.g. the right not to be tortured) so it is possible that an appeal is lodged after this case if extradition is granted, but Assange first needs to appeal to the High Court and then the Supreme Court if that happens. This is because all domestic remediation routes must be exhausted before the ECtHR will hear a case. In any event, the ECtHR cannot directly block an extradition: they can only order the State to pay damages. The only ultimate court in the UK that can block any extradition is the Supreme Court.

AnimalMuppet 6y ago

Not everyone here who disagrees with you is "trying to find excuses to not be disturbed" or "in a hurry to put themselves on the good side of the stick". Your black-and-white worldview is leading you to condemn everyone who disagrees with you. Perhaps there are some who disagree with you fit your description. But as a general rule, be a lot less quick to condemn peoples' morals on the basis of their conclusions.

cassepipe 6y ago
Point taken

root_axis 6y ago

> thought the people here had a sharper political view on what kind of society we could/should live... Your condescending framing that suggests anyone who doesn't agree with your political analysis isn't sharp is a quintessential example of what is wrong with political discussion in today's era. You didn't present any facts or arguments, you simply invoked a tired political virtue-signal to let everyone know where you stand on Assange while simultaneously expressing disdain for those who don't agree with you, all without addressing any specifics. Bravo.

cassepipe 6y ago
I fully agree that my post did not bring anything new to the table. I really felt distressed by what I was reading by the time I wrote it. That's why I signaled it as rant which I think is a good compromise : I do think facts and arguments matter in a discussion and we should not let our emotions take the seat of reasoning but if that's what's happening well you better say it rather than starting to bend facts or telling some things you are not so sure about but would like to be true are absolutely true. Furthermore, it seems my rant expressed a more general feeling about the thread, so at least it served that purpose. I thought the bit about powerlessness (that seems to be the common lot for most individuals) and pseudo-wisdom would at least make it a little funny to read to certain people. I did not mean to be condescending, I do regret writing that bit now. I guess that what I tried to express was that one's education does not seem to prevent falling for basic tricks in the realm of politics such as a smear campaign. I was really frustrated to read repeatedly such shallow arguments as nobody is above the law or why do they think they are entitled to a seat? or just reading that one did not sympathize with Assange hardly ever explaining why or just calling him a russian agent. Whether you sympathize with Assange as a person is irrelevant. Even if Assange was a rapist and Putin's best friend, which I very much doubt on the base of what I have read so far (links welcomed), I don't see how it matters in the case of exposing a war based on a lie. the killing of civilians ans journalists, extra-judiciary kidnapping and torture and so much more... And those are facts, not mere allegations.

justnotworthit 6y ago

Being good at computers and being exposed to a hacker ethic (whatever is left of it) doesn't guarantee your politic views (1) logical (2) anti-conformist (3) anything else, tho there are probably correlations. Add to that a forum dynamic in which those with the biggest rant to exhaust are the most likely to comment... hckrnews won't be terribly different than any other online forum. My biggest point, I guess, is that there is no "comments here" on most forums. Or at least there is a huge range. P.S. your assumption about age isn't warranted. I'm sure many comments you've ready are from teenagers.

cassepipe 6y ago
Well, if I came "here" and stayed, it is because the level of reasoning was higher than any other form of online gathering I had ever attended to. Plus its design, moderation, and declaration of intentions makes for better, more informed debates. So I did experience a bit of disillusionment and intended this rant as some kind of a "suicidal" move : I was expecting to be downvoted to disappearance for not conforming to what a hacker news comment should be like : thoughtful, informed, interesting. I fully agree with your three points and I am grateful I got to see your reply.

kanox 6y ago

Assange deserves no support, he should rot in prison.

salawat 6y ago

You are not alone friend, there are many others that see what is going on with a great deal of concern; the silence tends to come from the dearth of new information, and inability to influence the outcome. The fact is, there has been at work in society an implicit assumption that given limited resources to delegate, those resources get delegated toward actions that communicate the most in terms of message to the greatest number of people be it positive or negative in nature. This message to my sensibilities is unambiguously clear. Poke the dragon, get the fire. No semblance of law and order will really save you, because everything is always open to interpretation to get things done and the cost of mistakes having been made in the past are very easy to brush off for the institution, but life destroying for the victim. Dig 2 graves before ye set off on your crusade, for ye journey as much to your own end as that of your enemy. Whether or not you believe personally that's a tenable arrangement matters not a lick until such time as you can marshal enough collective social/political capital to change it. Even that though is no guarantee. "The Constitution is not a suicide pact."--Every imperiled government ever The geopolitical system is as much an organism as we are it's cells. The task of a Statesman is to try to direct this behemoth without undue cost in human lives through wise and fruitful policy, diplomatic, and strategic decisions to keep the collective organism alive and in good standing amongst it's neighbors/rivals. I cannot say I've ever seen good Statesmanship in my life. I hazard few left alive have, but I can only hope the low point we seem to have collectively hit is a local maxima, and keep on trucking. I'm still hoping that Assange may surprise us with a sudden reversal as one of these beasts comes to it's senses and remembers the values it purportedly stands for, but I'm not holding my breath.