Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by k1m | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

k1m

You're implying this is a minor development. It's really not.

Edward Snowden said: "This is the end of the case against Julian Assange."

https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/1408847450656415751

I find it hard to believe the media would be silent if similar revelations came to light about anyone else.

I agree with Media Lens:

> in a sane world, Stundin’s revelations about a key Assange witness – that Thordarson lied in exchange for immunity from prosecution – would have been headline news everywhere, with extensive media coverage on BBC News at Six and Ten, ITV News, Channel 4 News, front-page stories in the Times, Telegraph, the Guardian and more. The silence is quite extraordinary; and disturbing.

View on HN

You are implying this is a major story… it isn’t. If Assange were actually standing trial, that’s interesting. Hearing more random court proceedings of a very bizarre 10 year fiasco is not.

Everybody is a critic of what the MSM is covering. They cover what is interesting. It isn’t a giant conspiracy to explain their behavior.

Interesting is relative. In fact, many might find main stream media to be the opposite of interesting.

MSM is by definition targeting the mainstream audience. Watch mainstream primetime television… It’s the same audience.

>If Assange were actually standing trial, that’s interesting

His extradition hearing to see if this charge can be tried is currently facing an appeal, and he is still in prison partially for this charge.

Not in an American court, for a non-American citizen, for something that happened 10 years ago. It just isn’t as interesting as you think it is.

And it is getting coverage! It just isn’t front page news.

Yes in an American court, they are the ones charging him with these crimes.

And it isn't getting any major oublisher coverage, searching "Julian Assange" on both DDG and Google news shows only Democracy Now covering the story.

> Yes in an American court, they are the ones charging him with these crimes.

Yes, the USA is charging him. It would be very odd for extradition hearings on US federal charges to be heard in a US court, and, in fact, these are not. Assange is not on trial, and the process he is currently undergoing in is not in an American court, though there are charges pending that he would face in a US court if that process completes as the US prefers.

I can see you arguing that that's not important, but falsely denying the assertion that its not in a US court is...I mean, what's even the point?

Assange is set to face trial in a US court, and that is the only reason he is facing extradition.

> I can see you arguing that that's not important, but falsely denying the assertion that its not in a US court is...I mean, what's even the point?

I am arguing that it is important and view the extradition hearing as part of his larger US trial. His trial for skipping bail in the UK is long over, the only trial left is the US one.

> I am arguing that it is important and view the extradition hearing as part of his larger US trial.

The extradition hearing is factually not part of his US trial.

> the only trial left is the US one.

The US charges are the only ones that he is currently known to be facing a potential future trial for, sure. But “potential future” and “actual current” are not the same thing.

The first step of the trial was for charges to be filed. The next part was using those charges to request his extradition. At this point you could say the extradition hearing is not a part of his trial, but it is only happening because of the trial and the US is the reason he is in prison currently.

I'd write this off as weird pedantry but you're accusing me of lying for some reason.

> The first step of the trial was for charges to be filed

No, that's neither the first step of the process (even the formal legal process) nor any step of the trial.

This entire conversation would be much more productive if you did more than just say I'm wrong or lying.

All of this seems like parts of the pretrial layed out by the US constitutional criminal procedure. I guess you could distinguish trial from pretrial, but if that was your point you really could have just stated that right away.

Jesus christ stop this.

It doesn't matter whether it's the "first" step or an "early" step. It doesn't matter if the entire process is being summed up as "trial", even though parts of the process are not technically part of the trail.

Assange was an interesting story with him trapped in the embassy and his cat pooping but now it consists of more mundane legal proceedings. One is a made for TV spy thriller. The other is discussion of paperwork.

That last line isn't news, but pure opinion. Stories about 'the media' tend to be propagandistic, in my experience.

> You're implying this is a minor development. It's really not.

> Edward Snowden said: "This is the end of the case against Julian Assange."

What does Snowden know? He's not a lawyer of any sort.

You're treating him like he's some generic authority, who's pronouncements on any subject carry weight. That's weird.

He is broadly considered a generic authority based on his long, deep thinking and publications about leaks and legal consequences.

I think your response is not weird but disingenuous.

>>> Edward Snowden said: "This is the end of the case against Julian Assange."

>> What does Snowden know? He's not a lawyer of any sort.

> He is broadly considered a generic authority based on his long, deep thinking and publications about leaks and legal consequences.

Maybe so, but I wouldn't hire him as my lawyer or rely on his judgements about when a legal case will fail.

It's the difference between thinking about the consequences of a technology and building/operating that technology. For instance, someone might be an expert on the pernicious social effects of Facebook, but would flame out if they actually worked as a developer there. Snowden more than likely doesn't have the technical knowledge of the British legal system for him to reliably tell the difference between a major and minor development, let alone make trustworthy prediction about the future outcome of the whole thing.

Please don't cross into personal attack. Disingenuous is a fancy way of saying liar, which implies intent to deceive. That's not a legit move in forum discussions where you can't know the other person's intent. Please make your substantive points without that.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Reply on news.ycombinator.com