4 ms·

>What are your counter points it won't be a precedent? That the US has extradited people from the UK for over 100 years. >Slippery slope fallacy isn't a falla

>What are your counter points it won't be a precedent? That the US has extradited people from the UK for over 100 years. >Slippery slope fallacy isn't a fallacy, if and only if it is demonstrated again and again as modus operandi. I don't even know how to respond - maybe see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope ? If you cherry pick examples - that is not how evidence works. The proper way is to take all laws, not just a few you think supports your case, and see how many have done what you claim is "modus operandi". If the majority have not done what you claim, then more likely to not do what you claim. Also, if laws are going to go where you claim they are, then Assange is not going to be the brick in the wall stopping it.

Ygg2 4y ago
> That the US has extradited people from the UK for over 100 years. You mean UK extraditing Australian national for treason to US? > I don't even know how to respond Double check it. > slippery slope arguments can be good ones if the slope is real—that is, if there is good evidence that the consequences of the initial action are highly likely to occur Is it highly likely American lawmakers are corrupt? Is it highly likely American government would expand its power? Is it highly likely American politicians would use laws to quell dissent?
- ChrisLomont 4y ago
  >You mean UK extraditing Australian national for treason to US? Assange is not is being extradited for treason. The US has extradited non-UK people from the UK (and elsewhere) to the US for all sorts of criminal activity. And so have many other countries. That is pretty much the point of something like an INTERPOL Red Notice. Do you think moving from country to country should make arrest warrants invalid? He had his day in court there - they decided extradition was warranted. He'll have his day in court in the US. Here's a list of 14 people extradited from the UK, some of which are not UK citizens [1]. There is very little anything in this case that is ground-breaking precedent. Of course, if you want to keep refining and refining your claims, you can eventually claim this situation is unique, but it's not setting precedent in any legal sense. Everything so far ruled is already under current case law. >Is it highly likely American lawmakers are corrupt? Is it highly likely American government would expand its power? Is it highly likely American politicians would use laws to quell dissent? If you think all these things, then Assange being extradited is a non-issue, since the slippery slope you think Assange starts would happen with or without him. Which is it? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:People_extradited_from_the_United_Kingdom_to_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:People_extradited_fro...
  - Ygg2 4y ago
    > Assange is not is being extradited for treason. Sure. I might misremember the exact law, although I believe the Espionage act falls under the category of treason. > If you think all these things, then Assange being extradited is a non-issue, since the slippery slope you think Assange starts would happen with or without him. Which is it? See my previous messages. He is a heinous enough that people won't jump that eagerly to his defense. That makes him a perfect scapegoat. From that you expand until you end up in authoritarian state. Remember that saying: First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me. I rembember chatting on HN few years ago, when peple were certain he would be extradited to Sweden for rape charges, and that US charges were just a side accusation. Now that all fell into pieces as US makes an example of him. But hey time may prove me wrong. I hope so, but I don't expect it. I think he will rot in prison as an example to future whistleblowers, while US slides further into authoritarianism.
    - ChrisLomont 4y ago
      >although I believe the Espionage act falls under the category of treason. You know you can look stuff up instead of forming world views on so much misunderstanding. >Remember that saying: Yes, people have been making the slippery slope fallacy for millennia with all sorts of catchphrases. And for millennia the extreme end is extremely rarely ever reached. People invoke such hand wavy feel good stuff when they don't have an actual argument based on evidence. "It's just common sense!" "Think of this children" "First they came for..." Assange is charged not with being a journalist, or publishing classified materials, but with actively recruiting and convincing people to break laws so he could get such materials. If true, he deserves jail. If you believe in journalism, then should support prosecuting those that violate journalistic ethics and laws, otherwise you are helping weaken protections for journalists. Here's [1] the original indictment. It's pretty damning if true. Among other things, it claims Assange helped crack password on SIPRNET, which I suspect they have solid evidence for, otherwise any lawyer in a trial will get that thrown out. If true, that is worth prison for pretty much anyone, especially a foreign national that is cracking passwords to obtain classified material so he can publish it. There are at least two superseding indictments you can also read on the internet, but the first is still the main reason he is being extradited. One of the superseding indictments claims Assange directed hacker groups which places to hack for Assange (CIA and NSA and even the New York Times). If this part is true, Assange is not a journalist - he is directing hackers to attack government and journalists. Again, if the govt does not have solid evidence of these claims, it will get tossed in court. If they have evidence, Assange should stand trial. The way to have this play out is a trial - jurors and judges and lawyers can see the evidence and decide. Plus the content of the trial will be public record (unless there's classified stuff, in which case judges still oversee those details). All this hand waving silly slippery slope nonsense, to protect someone who seems quite likely to have violated reasonable laws, is hanging your hat on the wrong case. So keep using extreme claims and arguments that don't stand up to scrutiny - people will simply dismiss you and your arguments. Or understand the nuance and make more defensible, fact supported arguments - then you may persuade someone. [1] https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1153486/download https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1153486/downl...

Ygg2 4y ago

> That the US has extradited people from the UK for over 100 years. You mean UK extraditing Australian national for treason to US? > I don't even know how to respond Double check it. > slippery slope arguments can be good ones if the slope is real—that is, if there is good evidence that the consequences of the initial action are highly likely to occur Is it highly likely American lawmakers are corrupt? Is it highly likely American government would expand its power? Is it highly likely American politicians would use laws to quell dissent?

ChrisLomont 4y ago
>You mean UK extraditing Australian national for treason to US? Assange is not is being extradited for treason. The US has extradited non-UK people from the UK (and elsewhere) to the US for all sorts of criminal activity. And so have many other countries. That is pretty much the point of something like an INTERPOL Red Notice. Do you think moving from country to country should make arrest warrants invalid? He had his day in court there - they decided extradition was warranted. He'll have his day in court in the US. Here's a list of 14 people extradited from the UK, some of which are not UK citizens [1]. There is very little anything in this case that is ground-breaking precedent. Of course, if you want to keep refining and refining your claims, you can eventually claim this situation is unique, but it's not setting precedent in any legal sense. Everything so far ruled is already under current case law. >Is it highly likely American lawmakers are corrupt? Is it highly likely American government would expand its power? Is it highly likely American politicians would use laws to quell dissent? If you think all these things, then Assange being extradited is a non-issue, since the slippery slope you think Assange starts would happen with or without him. Which is it? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:People_extradited_from_the_United_Kingdom_to_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:People_extradited_fro...
- Ygg2 4y ago
  > Assange is not is being extradited for treason. Sure. I might misremember the exact law, although I believe the Espionage act falls under the category of treason. > If you think all these things, then Assange being extradited is a non-issue, since the slippery slope you think Assange starts would happen with or without him. Which is it? See my previous messages. He is a heinous enough that people won't jump that eagerly to his defense. That makes him a perfect scapegoat. From that you expand until you end up in authoritarian state. Remember that saying: First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me. I rembember chatting on HN few years ago, when peple were certain he would be extradited to Sweden for rape charges, and that US charges were just a side accusation. Now that all fell into pieces as US makes an example of him. But hey time may prove me wrong. I hope so, but I don't expect it. I think he will rot in prison as an example to future whistleblowers, while US slides further into authoritarianism.
  - ChrisLomont 4y ago
    >although I believe the Espionage act falls under the category of treason. You know you can look stuff up instead of forming world views on so much misunderstanding. >Remember that saying: Yes, people have been making the slippery slope fallacy for millennia with all sorts of catchphrases. And for millennia the extreme end is extremely rarely ever reached. People invoke such hand wavy feel good stuff when they don't have an actual argument based on evidence. "It's just common sense!" "Think of this children" "First they came for..." Assange is charged not with being a journalist, or publishing classified materials, but with actively recruiting and convincing people to break laws so he could get such materials. If true, he deserves jail. If you believe in journalism, then should support prosecuting those that violate journalistic ethics and laws, otherwise you are helping weaken protections for journalists. Here's [1] the original indictment. It's pretty damning if true. Among other things, it claims Assange helped crack password on SIPRNET, which I suspect they have solid evidence for, otherwise any lawyer in a trial will get that thrown out. If true, that is worth prison for pretty much anyone, especially a foreign national that is cracking passwords to obtain classified material so he can publish it. There are at least two superseding indictments you can also read on the internet, but the first is still the main reason he is being extradited. One of the superseding indictments claims Assange directed hacker groups which places to hack for Assange (CIA and NSA and even the New York Times). If this part is true, Assange is not a journalist - he is directing hackers to attack government and journalists. Again, if the govt does not have solid evidence of these claims, it will get tossed in court. If they have evidence, Assange should stand trial. The way to have this play out is a trial - jurors and judges and lawyers can see the evidence and decide. Plus the content of the trial will be public record (unless there's classified stuff, in which case judges still oversee those details). All this hand waving silly slippery slope nonsense, to protect someone who seems quite likely to have violated reasonable laws, is hanging your hat on the wrong case. So keep using extreme claims and arguments that don't stand up to scrutiny - people will simply dismiss you and your arguments. Or understand the nuance and make more defensible, fact supported arguments - then you may persuade someone. [1] https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1153486/download https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1153486/downl...