4 ms·

That’s interesting, I didn’t know number 5 was actually a crime (other than the “hacking tools”). So maybe the US potentially does have an actual case.. I just

by VRay 5y ago

That’s interesting, I didn’t know number 5 was actually a crime (other than the “hacking tools”). So maybe the US potentially does have an actual case.. I just assumed that we were having a witch hunt since people in power got mad at Assange

joshuajill 5y ago
There is no evidence of hacking tools used by Assange, or offered by Assange to Chelsea. Unless you consider secure drop hacking. But then many other journalists are hacking too. And that's the point - to have a chilling effect on the press.
- candiodari 5y ago
  There's also many reasons why the content of the case itself doesn't matter. The UK has tortured Assange. This is proven. The UK has denied urgent medical care to him. Again, proven. The UK prosecutor has lied in court (to the point the judge yelled at them because it was too obvious). Proven, because it happened in court. The UK has denied Assange access to a lawyer. All of these would get the case thrown out, under normal circumstances, in the UK just as well as in the US.
  - chrisco255 5y ago
    > All of these would get the case thrown out, under normal circumstances, in the UK just as well as in the US. Depends on how powerful the people were that you pissed off, unfortunately.
  - ChrisKnott 5y ago
    I get really annoyed by rhetoric like this, I think it does a disservice to more serious victims of injustice. Like, come on, "denied access to a lawyer"? He is represented by essentially the best extradition barrister in the country...
    - hulahoof 5y ago
      Yes, as in physically denying access to his lawyer at critical periods in the proceedings https://www.sbs.com.au/news/julian-assange-denied-access-to-lawyers-in-uk/720cacbc-d069-40fb-9a3f-1824283a25d0 https://www.sbs.com.au/news/julian-assange-denied-access-to-...
      - ChrisKnott 5y ago
        You're doing exactly what I am talking about. The actually contents of this article is just Assange's own lawyer complaining that it is difficult to meet with a client who is on remand in a high security prison. As far as I can see the phrase "denied access" is not even used. The only actual quote is "obstructed". This is not what "UK has denied Assange access to a lawyer" means. You are deliberately using the language of more serious issues in order to confuse people. I am sure you know full well the meaning of "denied access to a lawyer", it is something that people around the world actually experience regularly. This does not apply to someone who has met regularly with his world class defence team.
        candiodari 5y ago
        Of course, they did not prevent access with merely regulating access in a high security prison. They prevented access to his lawyer by physically restraining and locking up the suspect IN A COURTROOM. And when they did find a VERY inconvenient way to have basic communication, the state immediately dragged the suspect out, without even the judge's permission. We are NOT talking here about regulating access to a lawyer because of security issues. That is NOT it. They prevented him from seeing a lawyer at all before the case starts, and before he faced the courtroom. This is explicitly forbidden. And look the question is very simple. The law, both in the UK and the US, so pick whichever one you like, CLEARLY states that IF anyone in the government physicially prevents contact between a suspect and a lawyer before trial (which means any individual courtroom hearing), the state LOSES the case AND the suspect goes free for whatever crime he was accused. And let's not pretend this is the only issue. The state denied medical care to a prisoner. The state locked him up in solitary more than is legally allowed. The state denied medical care again, as a punishment. EACH OF THESE will get the suspect to go free, whatever the crime. And the list goes on. At this point it's painfully obvious: it does not matter, at all, what Assange has done for the prosecution. And because of what the state did to him, it no longer matters for the defense either. This is no longer what is being discussed. The case is mostly about whether the state gets to do whatever they want, including things defined in the law as torture (e.g. refusing medical care, refusing medical care as a punishment) in order to get a conviction? The law's answer to this question is VERY clear: NO THEY DON'T, in fact they (the state) should be punished for trying it in the first place. Frankly the laws state the state should be punished for getting into a situation where they're even suspected of doing so. First by being forced to let the suspect go, and there's punishments on top of that (such as getting the individuals involved barred from government service). The judge refuses to acknowledge this, despite accepting that the state did indeed torture him. Obviously at this point, the position of anyone is clear: we should be cheering for the defense. Unless you want allpowerfull police just beating up people, locking them up for years, for whatever reason they see fit. And your position on what Assange did, does not really matter.

by VRay 5y ago

joshuajill 5y ago

There is no evidence of hacking tools used by Assange, or offered by Assange to Chelsea. Unless you consider secure drop hacking. But then many other journalists are hacking too. And that's the point - to have a chilling effect on the press.

candiodari 5y ago
There's also many reasons why the content of the case itself doesn't matter. The UK has tortured Assange. This is proven. The UK has denied urgent medical care to him. Again, proven. The UK prosecutor has lied in court (to the point the judge yelled at them because it was too obvious). Proven, because it happened in court. The UK has denied Assange access to a lawyer. All of these would get the case thrown out, under normal circumstances, in the UK just as well as in the US.
- chrisco255 5y ago
  > All of these would get the case thrown out, under normal circumstances, in the UK just as well as in the US. Depends on how powerful the people were that you pissed off, unfortunately.
- ChrisKnott 5y ago
  I get really annoyed by rhetoric like this, I think it does a disservice to more serious victims of injustice. Like, come on, "denied access to a lawyer"? He is represented by essentially the best extradition barrister in the country...
  - hulahoof 5y ago
    Yes, as in physically denying access to his lawyer at critical periods in the proceedings https://www.sbs.com.au/news/julian-assange-denied-access-to-lawyers-in-uk/720cacbc-d069-40fb-9a3f-1824283a25d0 https://www.sbs.com.au/news/julian-assange-denied-access-to-...
    - ChrisKnott 5y ago
      You're doing exactly what I am talking about. The actually contents of this article is just Assange's own lawyer complaining that it is difficult to meet with a client who is on remand in a high security prison. As far as I can see the phrase "denied access" is not even used. The only actual quote is "obstructed". This is not what "UK has denied Assange access to a lawyer" means. You are deliberately using the language of more serious issues in order to confuse people. I am sure you know full well the meaning of "denied access to a lawyer", it is something that people around the world actually experience regularly. This does not apply to someone who has met regularly with his world class defence team.
      - candiodari 5y ago
        Of course, they did not prevent access with merely regulating access in a high security prison. They prevented access to his lawyer by physically restraining and locking up the suspect IN A COURTROOM. And when they did find a VERY inconvenient way to have basic communication, the state immediately dragged the suspect out, without even the judge's permission. We are NOT talking here about regulating access to a lawyer because of security issues. That is NOT it. They prevented him from seeing a lawyer at all before the case starts, and before he faced the courtroom. This is explicitly forbidden. And look the question is very simple. The law, both in the UK and the US, so pick whichever one you like, CLEARLY states that IF anyone in the government physicially prevents contact between a suspect and a lawyer before trial (which means any individual courtroom hearing), the state LOSES the case AND the suspect goes free for whatever crime he was accused. And let's not pretend this is the only issue. The state denied medical care to a prisoner. The state locked him up in solitary more than is legally allowed. The state denied medical care again, as a punishment. EACH OF THESE will get the suspect to go free, whatever the crime. And the list goes on. At this point it's painfully obvious: it does not matter, at all, what Assange has done for the prosecution. And because of what the state did to him, it no longer matters for the defense either. This is no longer what is being discussed. The case is mostly about whether the state gets to do whatever they want, including things defined in the law as torture (e.g. refusing medical care, refusing medical care as a punishment) in order to get a conviction? The law's answer to this question is VERY clear: NO THEY DON'T, in fact they (the state) should be punished for trying it in the first place. Frankly the laws state the state should be punished for getting into a situation where they're even suspected of doing so. First by being forced to let the suspect go, and there's punishments on top of that (such as getting the individuals involved barred from government service). The judge refuses to acknowledge this, despite accepting that the state did indeed torture him. Obviously at this point, the position of anyone is clear: we should be cheering for the defense. Unless you want allpowerfull police just beating up people, locking them up for years, for whatever reason they see fit. And your position on what Assange did, does not really matter.