[HN Gopher] Key witness in Assange case jailed after admitting t...
___________________________________________________________________
Key witness in Assange case jailed after admitting to lies and
crime spree
Author : dane-pgp
Score : 300 points
Date : 2021-10-09 14:29 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (stundin.is)
(TXT) w3m dump (stundin.is)
| animal_spirits wrote:
| > Sigurdur Thordarson, a key witness for the FBI against Julian
| Assange, has been jailed in Iceland
|
| Oh! This guy was supposed to be a witness _for_ the FBI _against_
| Assange. From the title I assumed the opposite.
| zz865 wrote:
| OK this is the case about whether he committed sexual assault in
| Sweden - which may be exaggerated or fake is just to extradite
| him to the US.
|
| There is no doubt that he really is guilty of leaking US secrets.
| guilhas wrote:
| He is guilty of demonstrating USA government/military were
| complicit in committing and covering crimes
|
| Is that the government we want? Expert in killing and hiding
| the body? Because it might backfire
| pydry wrote:
| Usually that's called journalism.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > OK this is the case about whether he committed sexual assault
| in Sweden
|
| No, this is a witness whose testimony is related to late
| additions to the US charges.
| GeekyBear wrote:
| > There is no doubt that he really is guilty of leaking US
| secrets.
|
| He did no such thing.
|
| He published secrets somebody else leaked.
|
| Just like journalists have done for decades.
| SavantIdiot wrote:
| He had secrets A0...An, and B0...Bn.
|
| A0...An were for political candidate A.
|
| B0...Bn were for opposing political candidate B.
|
| Political candidate B in conjunction with an aligned foreign
| country paid him to publish only the material on A. Some
| elements of A were false and constructed by Candidate B to
| smear Candidate A.
|
| He knew this.
|
| He chose sides, while simultaneously claiming he is neutral.
|
| I have not judged, I have only stated the facts.
|
| EDIT: We also do not know how both sets of secrets were
| acquired. There are claims he was involved with the
| exfiltration, a statement that has not been proven or
| disproven yet since there has been no trial.
|
| EDIT #2: He also has at least one motivation to help
| Candidate B as Candidate A has stated a desire to prosecute
| him heavily.
| TeeMassive wrote:
| > He chose sides, while simultaneously claiming he is
| neutral.
|
| Which is not a crime.
| RugnirViking wrote:
| Exactly. If what Assange did was a crime, the New York
| times commits the same crime every couple of months. This
| "New York times problem" was shown to be a frequent point
| of internal discussion in the recent leaks regarding the
| US plans for kidnapping Assange
| sva_ wrote:
| > Political candidate B in conjunction with an aligned
| foreign country paid him to publish only the material on A.
|
| Could you provide a source on those claims?
| beeboop wrote:
| He can't, because it's total bullshit propaganda.
| boomboomsubban wrote:
| Ignoring all the other perfectly valid criticism of this
| argument, this isn't what he's being charged with.
| ZoomerCretin wrote:
| This is an extraordinary claim. To my best recollection, he
| was only given information on the Clinton campaign. Do you
| have any source, any evidence whatsoever that he had
| damaging information on Trump around the time that
| WikiLeaks released the Clinton State Department/Podesta
| emails?
|
| >He chose sides, while simultaneously claiming he is
| neutral.
|
| It's interesting that you can look at hard evidence of a
| 100% political prosecution of a _journalist_, and not think
| one layer deeper than what information you've been fed
| about him. If the United States is willing to imprison a
| journalist who has never set foot in the US on false
| charges, what makes you think they won't also manufacture a
| second scenario to turn public opinion against him?
|
| "I don't agree with the political prosecution of Julian
| Assange, but he is responsible for (AMERICAN INTELLIGENCE
| AGENCY FALSE FLAG), therefore I do not care what happens to
| him."
| beeboop wrote:
| Assange said if he was given stuff to leak about Trump
| and was able to verify it the same way he verifies
| anything, he would release it. There's no reason not to,
| it's not like Assange is the only person in the world
| capable of releasing stuff and performing journalism. The
| idea that he _covered up_ Trump leaks is ridiculous - the
| leaker would just go to someone else and it 'd get out
| regardless. This is proven by the many many Trump leaks
| that _did_ get out to mainstream media.
| SavantIdiot wrote:
| Wow, you have the gall to criticize my argument with
| bullshit? /r/selfawarewolves would like a word with you,
| son.
|
| And to call assange a journalist is utterly laughable.
|
| Journalists provide context, history, and analysis.
| Assange is copypasta.
| alangibson wrote:
| > there has been no trial.
|
| And there won't be. The whole thing is already way too
| dirty to bring to trial. Word is the CIA was paying the
| security firm WikiLeaks hired to provide them with his
| conversations with lawyers and basically everything else.
| There's a court case in Spain going on right now over this.
| mike_d wrote:
| So the CIA explicitly did what they are chartered to do?
| They spied on conversations taking place in another
| countries embassy?
|
| While it might be the subject of a court case in Spain,
| it probably will not play out the way Assange apologists
| hope. The actions taken by Undercover Global at the
| behest of the CIA were likely coordinated by the CITCO
| and with the blessing of the British government.
| Jensson wrote:
| I doubt Spain would be doing an investigation into the
| case and arrest people if it truly was properly
| coordinated with Spanish intelligence networks. And even
| if they did coordinate it still wasn't seen as legal by
| the Spanish justice system as the case has been going for
| years and it is still making progress.
| [deleted]
| ipaddr wrote:
| Your point is he selectively choose to published articles
| for one side. You feel a journalist should publish
| everything or they committed a crime?
|
| CNN selectively chooses news stories, fox news as well as
| your local news. Why do you hear about fires and shootings
| but not the great Apple pie your neighbour made because
| those news stations select news that will bring in viewers.
|
| In this case he published a drone camera killing which was
| bad for the party in power. He published the leaked emails
| which was bad for a different party. I can't agree he has
| taken a political party's side because it is not clear
| which political party. One thing is he has enemies in both
| parties and no friends.
| rafale wrote:
| > There is no doubt that he really is guilty of leaking US
| secrets.
|
| How is it different from the Washington Post leaking the
| Pentagon papers? Honest question, not snarky.
| [deleted]
| ChrisKnott wrote:
| I don't think they actually published the papers, they just
| wrote stories using the papers as the source.
|
| Assange is also accused of assisting his source in attempting
| (unsuccessfully) to crack a password hash, thereby (the
| prosecution alleges) taking on more the Daniel Ellsberg role
| rather than the Washington Post role.
|
| Not commenting on the appropriateness or not of prosecuting
| Assange, but the situations have significant differences.
| ZoomerCretin wrote:
| He assisted his source in a failed attempt to crack a
| password hash? This is the "significant difference" you
| think makes him worthy of prosecution? He was a journalist
| exposing war crimes. He is not a US citizen and is not
| subject to US laws. If China extended their ban on youths
| playing video games for more than a few hours in a week to
| the world, you would probably have a problem with them
| forcing authorities in a country you're vacationing in to
| arrest your children and extradite them to China.
| himinlomax wrote:
| > I don't think they actually published the papers, they
| just wrote stories using the papers as the source.
|
| "The New York Times began publishing excerpts on June 13,
| 1971" -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers#Leak
| Melting_Harps wrote:
| > How is it different from the Washington Post leaking the
| Pentagon papers? Honest question, not snarky.
|
| 2 main ways: first, Julian is an Australian and never lived
| in the US, and Daniel Elsberg was a US citizen living in the
| US the time he released the PP and thus was protected under
| some semblance of need for a trail to ensure he was in fact
| an enemy combatant or a spy for a foreign nation-state--these
| charges were then dropped subsequently when the public was
| made aware of Watergate and Nixon stepping down.
|
| Secondly, it's a blatant selective application of the Law,
| even with Snowden who has repeatedly asked to be tried by a
| jury of his peers, which will never happen. There is nothing
| more to it than that, Jullian never stepped foot in the US
| and the leaks were ultimately done by Chelsea Manning and
| hosted on Wikleaks and sent to major publications around the
| World, who has also been through hell and back before getting
| her sentence commuted.
|
| Ultimately, it's become a politicized issue and Julian
| Assange has been a the bane for the DoD and Intelligence
| Agencies of not just the US but many other countries, so
| despite the UN calling his continued arrest a Crime Against
| Humanity, nothing will change until he is either made an
| example of, ironically this means that Assange will have
| lived up to his supposed reputation for being a megalomaniac
| and thus will become a martyr the same way Arron Scwartz has
| become from the FOSS community.
|
| Suffice it to say, I'm a big fan of Jullian and followed his
| work since his talks at the CCC (2011?) and all of his Wiki
| stuff which involved Bitcoin etc... I fear the Julian we all
| knew has likely been eroded away and has clearly had his
| faculties get destroyed along with his physical health,
| mental health--he was diagnosed as autistic but I'm sure the
| PTSD, loneliness and forced isolation have been more severe
| than anything else after all these years.
|
| Julian isn't a hero, he is a deeply flawed Human being who
| decided that he couldn't bare not acting at a time of crisis;
| something that we should as a species should laud, but
| instead we are forced to witness the systematic destruction
| of a Man's life for making the World aware of what took place
| in perpetual and unjust wars.
| nkrisc wrote:
| > There is no doubt that he really is guilty of leaking US
| secrets.
|
| That's for a court to decide. It's why we have trials: to
| determine if someone is guilty or not.
| rileymat2 wrote:
| I find the jurisdictional issues interesting as well. He is
| not a U.S. citizen, he was not in the United States.
|
| Obviously, I would propose that someone who hacks U.S.
| interests having never set foot in the United States should
| be held accountable by U.S. courts, but he was even on the
| fringe of that in the promotion of it.
| lostlogin wrote:
| > Obviously, I would propose that someone who hacks U.S.
| interests having never set foot in the United States should
| be held accountable by U.S. courts.
|
| I don't necessarily disagree, but where this gets difficult
| is the inverse. When a US citizen commits a crime in a
| foreign country, will the US let the their citizen be tried
| outside the US?
| ComputerGuru wrote:
| > When a US citizen commits a crime in a foreign country,
| will the US let the their citizen be tried outside the
| US?
|
| If they're just another Joe Schmoe, they'll be hung to
| dry. If they have connections, they not only won't be
| extradited, they'll be smuggled out of the country they
| committed bald-faced murder in to turn it into a question
| of extradition when it was not.
|
| (Look up Anne Sacoolas.)
| lostlogin wrote:
| > Anne Sacoolas
|
| This was front and centre of my thinking, along with some
| of the war-crimes scenarios that have played out.
| chuckee wrote:
| > There is no doubt that he really is guilty of leaking US
| secrets.
|
| Lets say he is. He is not a US citizen, and he didn't do the
| leaking on US soil - what duty does he have to keep US secrets
| secret? In fact, without a confidentiality agreement, I think
| even US citizens are allowed to leak them. Something to do with
| the 1st amendment.
|
| If you published secret information given to you by a Russian
| dissident, would you expect to be extradited to Russia? Even if
| you had encouraged/helped that dissident?
| mike_d wrote:
| While he was not a US citizen, he is involved in a crime
| committed in the US. Just like if an American had hired an
| art thief to steal a painting from a European gallery.
|
| The legal concept of extraterritorial jurisdiction is
| extremely complex and nuanced, but primarily falls upon the
| diplomatic power of the country that believes you broke their
| laws. (If you find this interesting you might enjoy reading
| about US v. Van Der End, in which a Dutch smuggler was
| arrested and charged in the US for sailing drugs to Canada)
|
| However all of this is moot because he made the mistake of
| traveling to the UK and is currently being held by the
| British. In addition to leaking US secrets he also leaked
| GCHQ secrets and can be charged under the Official Secrets
| Act if extradition fails.
| [deleted]
| asdfasgasdgasdg wrote:
| If the US believes that he has a duty, and the US has the
| power and will to enforce that belief, then for all practical
| purposes, he does have that duty. That's all duties are,
| really.
|
| What gives the US the power to enforce their views here are a
| combination of many different factors. The fact the crime in
| question was committed against the US and in the US (even if
| Assange was not physically located in the US, the crime
| happened here, and Assange is accused of being an accessory
| to that crime). The fact that Assange is physically located
| in the territory of a close ally of the US. The fact that
| that ally has no particular love of Assange either. And many
| other smaller things.
| 8note wrote:
| > The fact that that ally has no particular love of Assange
| either
|
| Many countries are bound by the rule of law, and can't do
| arbitrary bad things to people they don't like
| chuckee wrote:
| While you give an (afaik) accurate retelling of how Assange
| got in legal trouble, it amounts to little more than "might
| makes right" (hidden behind a layer of "might makes the
| laws").
|
| Whereas I believe the GP was making a _moral_ argument,
| that Assange _deserves_ it because he leaked US secrets.
|
| There's also the issue of US jurisdiction expanding into
| other countries being given a level of casual acceptance
| not afforded to any other country. As another commenter
| pointed out, these allyships can be very one-sided:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK%E2%80%93US_extradition_tre
| a...
| asdfasgasdgasdg wrote:
| I guess I don't really see the moral angle here, in one
| direction or the other. Why _shouldn 't_ an entity try to
| impose its understanding of law and ethics where it can
| afford to? Why _should_ a country 's laws end at its own
| borders, if they don't have to? If the country views its
| laws as right, it seems to me it _ought_ to attempt to
| see those laws enforced as widely as possible.
|
| (One other case where the US does this: child sex
| tourism. The US will prosecute its own citizens if it
| finds they travelled abroad to have sex with a minor,
| even if the violation of the law takes place entirely in
| another country, even if the other country declines to
| prosecute the crime or even if it sees it as not being a
| crime. Prosecuting these crimes that are done abroad
| seems eminently moral to me. I suspect the actual
| objection to prosecuting Assange is probably more truly
| centered in whether what he did was even a crime, or
| wrong. The question of whether the US ought to be able to
| prosecute him is really a proxy argument.)
| 8note wrote:
| Why should they? Because different countries can have
| laws directly in conflict with each other. Jurisdiction
| specifies which one actually applies.
|
| Eg. The US says "it is illegal to do business with Iran"
| while the EU says "it is illegal to stop doing business
| with Iran"
|
| Mask mandates vs mask mandate bans make another example.
| depr wrote:
| >I guess I don't really see the moral angle here, in one
| direction or the other.
|
| You're only looking from one angle though. Try looking at
| it from Assange's perspective as GP suggested:
|
| >Whereas I believe the GP was making a _moral_ argument,
| that Assange deserves it because he leaked US secrets.
| chuckee wrote:
| > If the country views its laws as right, it seems to me
| it ought to attempt to see those laws enforced as widely
| as possible.
|
| Suppose I view my diet and exercise regimen as right -
| should I try to impose (not just suggest) it on others? A
| country can view both its own laws, and the sovereignty
| of other countries, as just.
|
| Or look at it this way: Democratic countries tend to
| think highly of democracy. Higher than any single law
| resulting from democracy. By imposing your laws on the
| people of a different country, you are robbing them of
| that same democracy you so cherish. Would you give up
| democratic control of your government, if it resulted in
| passing a couple of laws you liked?
|
| (For certain extreme examples, such as when that country
| is engaging in genocide or extreme human rights abuses, I
| would answer yes. But nothing in this case even
| approaches such severity.)
| josteink wrote:
| > I guess I don't really see the moral angle here, in one
| direction or the other. Why shouldn't an entity try to
| impose its understanding of law and ethics where it can
| afford to?
|
| You'll have a hell of a good time exercising this
| conviction when China starts doing the same.
|
| They're already doing it to immediate neighbouring
| countries and have started doing so in the US through
| basic means of capitalistic influence.
|
| I mean. They think they're right. Why shouldn't they? Who
| cares about nations having so called "sovereign" laws?
| What does your 1st amendment rights mean when China
| thinks you shouldn't have it?
| alfiedotwtf wrote:
| > Why should a country's laws end at its own borders, if
| they don't have to? If the country views its laws as
| right, it seems to me it ought to attempt to see those
| laws enforced as widely as possible.
|
| I really don't want to be extradited to Thailand from
| Australia because I mocked their King online, or
| extradited to China for commenting on a Falun Gong forum,
| or extradited to Saudi Arabia for posting a comment
| supporting gay rights.
|
| You have probably already broken 100 laws from various
| countries before you got out of bed
| nimbius wrote:
| If i were to describe the Assange case in a word, it would be
| myopic.
|
| once again the US has decided this is the hill it will die on.
| instead of reforming intelligence agencies, challenging the
| doctrine of mass surveillance, revisiting the manifest destiny of
| imperialist foreign policy, or even considering the cost to do
| _nothing_ at all, the US has arrived at the conclusion that a
| witch hunt is the best hunt.
|
| prosecuting and jailing Assange does absolutely nothing to stop
| Wikileaks or wilileaks->next(). Whatever effort the US spent to
| slander and discredit Assange does nothing to stop people
| inspired by him, or motivated by US foreign policy in countries
| that do not enjoy its favour. The US seems completely oblivious
| to the fact that whatever happens to Assange the journalist, it
| simply isnt enough to curtail the overwhelming cacophony of
| demand for free and open journalism across the internet.
|
| Just let the guy go and focus the money, time, and effort on
| preventing this in the future. nearly every major news outlet and
| journalist all see Assange as a journalist, not a hacker. .
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| > once again the US has decided this is the hill it will die
| on.
|
| Wat? If it's too much of a pain to prosecute somebody then they
| should give up?
|
| > nearly every major news outlet and journalist all see Assange
| as a journalist, not a hacker. .
|
| So is he a journalist or a hacker? It would sure be nice to
| know. If he is a journalist then I support him, if he is a
| hacker then I do not. I'd love an answer to this.
|
| I'd like to see what comes out in court that is not public
| right now.
|
| I'm tired of everybody presupposing that a trial must be unfair
| therefore people like Snowden or Assange have a license to do
| whatever they want.
| 8note wrote:
| I think he's won a direct trip to Guantanamo for torture if
| the US gets their hands on him. You aren't going to see a
| trial, those aren't needed for non Americans
| Jensson wrote:
| > So is he a journalist or a hacker? It would sure be nice to
| know.
|
| He clearly isn't a hacker, so of those two he got to be a
| journalist. He publishes information that might have been
| acquired by hackers, but nobody claims he hacked anything
| himself, all he did was make a website for publishing stuff
| (WikiLeaks). If you are one of those who call programmers
| "hackers" then you could call him a hacker, but he isn't a
| hacker in the popular definition of "someone who illegally
| breaks into others computers".
|
| He was the illegal form of hacker a long time ago and was
| properly charged for it, but that was decades before
| wikileaks.
|
| Edit: To be clear, not even USA claims he hacked anything in
| order to get it published on Wikileaks. People calling him a
| hacker refers to what he did in the 80's and is completely
| irrelevant to this case.
| boomboomsubban wrote:
| The US is charging him with conspiracy to commit computer
| intrusion, for "hacking" into government computers. They
| are very heavily trying to convince the public he's an evil
| hacker not a journalist.
| naasking wrote:
| > It would sure be nice to know. If he is a journalist then I
| support him, if he is a hacker then I do not. I'd love an
| answer to this.
|
| You mean you decide whether to support someone based on
| someone else's arbitrary classification, and not on the
| merits of their actions, like, I don't know, exposing the US'
| atrocious war crimes?
| boomboomsubban wrote:
| I went over this with you a few weeks ago. Only one of his
| eighteen charges has anything to do with hacking, and what
| actions he took is already very clear from the Manning trial.
|
| The "hacking" he did was saying he'd try to crack a generic
| Windows password that provided zero additional documents.
| There's little chance anything else could come out in court
| as if they had proof he did something else they would have
| charged him with it. Even further, he'd still be a journalist
| if found guilty on this charge, as every other charge is for
| actions that are unquestionably journalism.
|
| And I don't care if you're sick of hearing he can't get a
| fair trial, it's still true that he can't get a fair trial.
| Things like his attorney client privilege have already been
| compromised, and witnesses the US offered deals to for
| testifying have already recanted their testimony. This isn't
| a presupposition, it happened.
| advael wrote:
| The US' priority in situations like this is overwhelmingly to
| provide evidence that the threats it makes with criminal laws
| and defense of national secrets are credible. It has time and
| time again chosen to die on hills like this. The ethics and
| optics of it don't seem to factor much into the decisionmaking
| lazide wrote:
| When power reaches a certain level, it isn't about being seen
| doing the right or ethical thing. It is about demonstrating
| that it can and will be used against whoever they want with
| impunity, even if it's clearly wrong, and they _will_ get
| away with it.
|
| It stops a lot of people from even attempting to challenge
| them, and just do what they want without question, which has
| many advantages. In some situations, it's even legitimately
| necessary. It's also prone to abuse of course.
|
| In order to keep this kind of power, it's necessary to
| demonstrate from time to time this power exists and will be
| used, since if people start not being afraid of having their
| lives ruined if they challenge said power legitimately, they
| also stop going along with demands from those in power
| unquestioningly. And a lot of the ability to destroy someone
| for whatever reason (including legitimate ones) depends on
| that unquestioning compliance.
|
| You can think of it as a form of 'bend the knee'.
| BLKNSLVR wrote:
| I absolutely agree that's what's motivating the US, but
| it's interesting the future they're shepherding society
| towards via their encouragements and punishments:
|
| - Assange: whistleblowers, journalists that embarrass the
| government will be pursued to the ends of the earth
|
| - Snowden: whistleblowers will not be forgiven and will be
| abandoned without a home country
|
| - Sacklers: will be protected from prosecution beyond a
| large fine, albeit smaller than the profits made from the
| activity that brought the fine
|
| - Wall Street: government funding provided as a bailout
| after failure due to poor business decisions and no one
| held accountable or prosecuted.
|
| Absolutely demonstrated where 'the power' exists, and
| there's no overlap with 'for the people'.
| lazide wrote:
| I don't know - I'm quite sure a number of wannabe Assanges have
| decided to have other hobbies after seeing what has been done
| to him. It's making an example.
|
| He doesn't have to actually be in jail for his life to be
| clearly ruined, and that's has definitely been done. He has no
| real freedom, has essentially no real relationships anymore,
| and is a political toy batted around between nations with the
| future promise of jail 'maybe' in his future, but with no
| closure.
|
| Sounds like hell to me.
|
| And all those other things sound great to me, Joe random
| taxpayer, but probably sound pretty terrible to the folks
| inside the establishment. Have to keep the money flowing or all
| that work to get the pension goes up in smoke (and that's
| assuming they aren't smuggling drugs and taking a cut or
| whatever on the side)
| hyperpallium2 wrote:
| Crucifixion sometimes has the opposite effect.
| javajosh wrote:
| Well put. What they've done to Assange is a kind of
| extrajudicial killing.
| 93po wrote:
| I feel like the mentality going after Assange so hard is that
| if they successfully throw him in prison it helps prove to
| establishment people that, no, Assange is the criminal, and
| establishment is doing nothing wrong. See, he's in prison. Only
| wrong people go to prison.
| lazide wrote:
| All they have to do is keep doing what they are doing - and
| anywhere he is becomes a prison to him. And they've been very
| successful at that.
|
| Would it be a feather in someones hat if he actually got
| arrested and extradited to the US? Probably.
|
| Honestly, it would probably also open up a giant can of worms
| legally and result in exposure of even more embarrassing
| details or BS that has been pulled. It's actually working out
| pretty well for them as-is.
| mirekrusin wrote:
| Is that picture from the prison itself (label "Sigurdur
| Thordarson in now in Litla Hraun prison in Iceland")? If it is,
| it looks order(s) of magnitude better than majority of earthlings
| homes.
| YellowSuB wrote:
| No that is a picture of him going into the courthouse in
| Reykjavik. But prison cells in Iceland are pretty nice though,
| here is an image of a cell in the new prison Holmsheidi:
| https://axis.is/wp-content/gallery/holmsheidi/IMG_1081.jpg
|
| But Litla-Hraun is an older building so the cells are not as
| nice there.
| chmod775 wrote:
| That's... just a prison cell like you'd find in many places.
|
| Looking at that picture I'm unsure what makes it "nice"
| except for the fact that it looks somewhat freshly built.
|
| Cells are cells. What really differentiates prisons is
| everything around them and what amenities and workshops are
| offered.
| StanislavPetrov wrote:
| Consider yourself very lucky you have never been to a
| prison (or jail) in New York. I assure you the cells look
| nothing like this.
| gambiting wrote:
| Well but that's like saying consider yourself lucky to
| not have been to a Russian or Nigerian jail. American
| prisons are famously bad and known for it worldwide. I'd
| compare this cell to a cell in a country that doesn't
| have a completely broken judicial system and then yeah,
| it's nothing that special. It's a cell, maybe the bed
| looks "nice" but at the end of the day it's a place of
| incarceration not a hotel.
| reillyse wrote:
| There are definitely bad prison cells. Multiple beds per
| cell, overcrowded, old, cold, hot, no windows etc.
| EugeneOZ wrote:
| hole in the floor instead of a toilet, and that hole can
| not be closed, spreading incredibly awful smell 24 hours
| per day.
| madars wrote:
| You might enjoy this TIME magazine slideshow: Inside the
| World's Most Humane Prison
| https://content.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1989083,0...
| about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halden_Prison
|
| NYT also wrote a feature about it
| https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/29/magazine/the-radical-huma...
| monocasa wrote:
| Not from the looks of a Google image search. I'm guessing it's
| the court house he was tried in?
| encryptluks2 wrote:
| I keep seeing these random sites popup saying he is a key
| witness. I assure you they still have a case with or without his
| support.
| StanislavPetrov wrote:
| More accurate to they have no case, with or without his
| support.
| asdefghyk wrote:
| About Assange potentially being extradited to America for trial.
| I contrast it with Prince Andrew. A normal person would be facing
| criminal charges and have been extradited to America for trial.
| One justice system for the rich and another justice system for
| people like Assange
| bsd44 wrote:
| Media Lens wrote about this in July and it was also posted here
| on HN: https://www.medialens.org/2021/a-remarkable-silence-media-
| bl...
| graedus wrote:
| HN thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27710075
| dane-pgp wrote:
| > Sigurdur Thordarson, a key witness for the FBI against Julian
| Assange, has been jailed in Iceland. ... Thordarson was given
| immunity by the FBI in exchange for testimony against Julian
| Assange.
|
| I wonder if this witness's motivation for testifying will factor
| into the decision of the High Court when it hears the Biden
| administration's appeal of the rejection of their extradition
| request.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > I wonder if this witness's motivation for testifying will
| factor into the decision of the High Court when it hears the
| Biden administration's appeal of the rejection of their
| extradition request.
|
| Is there a cross-appeal or does the Court consider the case _de
| novo_? Because the lower court found the standards for a basis
| for extradition were met, but that the US could not provide
| adequate guarantees against Assange taking his own life;
| without a cross-appeal or _de novo_ review, the basic standards
| shouldn 't be relitigated on appeal.
| dane-pgp wrote:
| Good point, thank you. According to a recent update, the
| appeal will be heard on October 27-28 and will cover five
| grounds for appeal:
|
| https://assangedefense.org/hearing-coverage/u-s-allowed-
| to-e...
| LatteLazy wrote:
| It's not likely, one of the wonders of the UK extradition
| process to the US is that the US doesn't need to produce
| evidence for extradition, they just need "reasonable
| suspicion". This isn't true the other way around...
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK%E2%80%93US_extradition_tr...
| toyg wrote:
| That treaty was an actual act of vassalage, nevermind the EU
| stuff.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-10-09 23:01 UTC)