Hacker News Reader

Comment by RcouF1uZ4gsC | Hacker News Reader

> Court documents revealing Assange's plea deal were filed Monday evening in U.S. District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands, a U.S. territory in the Pacific Ocean. Assange was expected to appear in that court and to be sentenced to 62 months, with credit for time served in British prison, meaning he would be free to return to Australia, where he was born.

I wouldn’t get too excited just yet. He is appearing in US territory before a US judge who is actually under any obligation to honor the plea deal. The judge could reject the plea deal and remand him to custody or sentence him to US prison.

View on HN

IANAL but the judge can't both reject the plea deal and sentence him, since rejecting the plea deal invalidates the guilty plea. Rejecting it and remanding him to custody would cause a diplomatic incident.

He's not out of the woods yet by any means, but if they reached a deal his lawyers are confident in, I wouldn't be worried about the judge. They are supposed to deffer to international law if US is a party to the treaties involved (which in the case of extradition, it is).

The US is a country with a history of outright kidnapping people from foreign soil - including that of friendly nations.

There's every chance here that this deal represents a way out for the US as well, and that it will be kept for that reason, but if the US government still wants him to stand trial, a plea deal and the risk of a minor diplomatic scuffle at a point in time where the UK parliamentary election will overshadow the case in UK media isn't going to stop them.

Keep in mind he doesn't have any support from the UK government - they'd rather be rid of him -, and the current UK government is almost certain to be out of government shortly. It's unlikely there'd be more of a diplomatic incident than a slightly stern letter.

I think he has reasonable odds - this case is likely at this point mostly just a nuisance for everyone involved except Assange himself. There's nothing to be gained, other than perhaps for some overzealous prosecutor. But I also would not be one bit surprised if something was to happen.

In addition, Keir Starmer (who will almost certainly become prime minister after July) has told the media in the past that he's 'pro-American', which suggests to me that he'd be unlikely to set the official relationship off to a bad start with awkward diplomatic interactions - and given how hostile Sir Keir is to Trump, I imagine he'd actively try to help Biden look good before the US presidential elections.

An Indy article that sums Sir Keir's atlanticist stance in a few short paragraphs: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/keir-starmer-...

Yeah, I think the furthest Starmer would take this would be to instead attack the Tories for failing to ensure the case was handled better rather than attack the US.

The history of Assange is the history of diplomatic incidents, in that sense rejecting the plea deal would not be out of the ordinary

yeah we weren't supposed to force the plane carrying the president of Ecuador to land so we could search it for Assange yet we did that anyway.

The judge can't sentence him, but if the judge refuses the plea deal he can order him to be taken into immediate pre-trial detention and schedule a bail hearing in the near future; and then refuse bail due to him being a flight risk (previously ran from authorities).

He would then spend potentially several more years in jail preparing for trial, obtaining discovery, going through discovery, filing pretrial motions, subpoenaing witnesses, etc etc.

My answer above is slightly wrong, see my clarification:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40790246

> Rejecting it and remanding him to custody would cause a diplomatic incident.

Australian Politicians: collective silence

We let dodgy Uncle Sam do whatever he wants to us.

As far as I remember there were a few Australian politicians making a few waves about the Assange case.

I don't think law, justice or even diplomacy are very relevant for most of this case.

1900 days in isolation (human rights violation), falsly accused of rape with the goal to extradite to the US, jailed outside of the US on behalf of the US (but not officially), and just the simple fact that a journalist gets jail time for exposing war crimes.

Yeah, this has nothing to do with law or justice. This is about a handful of people above the law trying to save their *sses. Anything could happen at this point.

Reminds me of when a foreign diplomatic aircraft (Equador) was forced to land in a foreign country (France), because the US thought Snowden might be on board. Remind me of the relevant law that allows for this please? lol

He's not a journalist, he is bought and paid for by FSB and the Russian regime.

I don't buy that for a second.

Example: Gerhard Schröder was also very obviously bought by Russians. He never went to jail nor was he hunted down.

Assange also did publish actual literal war crimes committed by the US. Not sure how you can just casually ignore that fact?

There's more to this.

This. My hope is he had valuable information to give up about his former operators that was worth the plea deal, which is very possible as he's far from the only one.

Let an old spy go off and retire, he can't work anymore anyhow.

> falsly accused of rape with the goal to extradite to the US,

Where’s the evidence that he was falsely accused?

The accusers withdrew their testimony, Swedish prosecutors were caught falsifying and destroying documents, and the case was withdrawn due to lack of evidence.

I'd say that you could have found all this out yourself with Google, but you didn't even need to. All this info has already been linked in these comments.

You know accusers in sexual assault allegations often withdraw their testimony due to the pressures of the case – especially in this case where the women were threatened, smeared and accused of being honeypots etc?

Most of the links in these comments aren't authoritative in anyway

The above statements are false. The case was withdrawn due to the time it took to get to trial, then the charges are dropped (statue of limitations).

> The case was withdrawn due to the time it took to get to trial

... Which weakens the oral evidence.

The only evidence they had; because there was no DNA found on the condom submitted as evidence.

https://medium.com/@njmelzer/demasking-the-torture-of-julian...

> There were never any formal criminal charges, and the Swedish Prosecution Authority’s investigation into Assange was dropped in November 2019 due to a lack of evidence.

https://rsf.org/en/rsf-dispels-common-misconceptions-case-ag...

> 1900 days in isolation (human rights violation)

Call it what it is, torture.

> Rejecting it and remanding him to custody would cause a diplomatic incident.

Why would it be a diplomatic incident? When you are a fugitive from justice taking a plea deal is always a gamble because you have to show up in court. Should the judge reject your deal, you are handed over to US Marshals pending a new court date.

Edit: downvote all you want, it doesn't change facts. There is a separation of powers between the prosecutor who is negotiating the extradition/plea and the judge who independently evaluates the agreement.

This case made a mockery out of the idea of separation of powers, which you'd know if you'd followed it at all. The case was political from day 1, and even if there is no last-moment disgrace from the US (I don't think there will be), it still will be 100% political.

They probably just realized they shouldn't dig the embarrassment hole any deeper, and think that an extorted confession is the most face-saving they're going to get.

What exactly was political about it?

He committed a crime against the United States, they empaneled a grand jury, and handed down 18 federal charges of espionage and computer intrusion. The US sought extradition just like they would in any other similar case.

While he fighting extradition, he was actively attempting to recruit hackers to break into US government systems and steal information for him.

Assange was the one who was constantly trying to make it political and turned it into a clown show by trying to paint himself as a journalist.

> a crime against the United States

That is the definition of a political crime. Governments are allowed to charge people of crimes which only have the government as victim, but most countries (including the UK) have laws against extradition for such crimes.

And when the person you charge is not a citizen of your country, and the act harming government is simply journalism, you have to be pretty blind to deny that it's political.

> they empaneled a grand jury

which can famously indict a ham sandwich. The grand jury was empaneled in a district in which half the adults work for the spy agencies as I recall.

There's a clown show. We are not obliged to respect this kind of process as something proper and legitimate.

> trying to paint himself as a journalist

He has won a ton of journalistic awards. When journalists call you a journalists, you are a journalist, even if security services and their online yes-men say otherwise.

Because the UK was reluctant to give extradition based on the conditions offered by the US. Part of the reason the US is offering a plea deal is that it bypasses the need for extradition. Australia also asked the US to drop the case.

So offering a deal only to have the UK agree to release Assange and lure him to US territory would definitely be a diplomatic issue, possibly jeopardizing future extraditions from the UK, for instance.

The expectation would be at that point that Biden is asked to pardon (or commute the sentence of?) Assange. That's the political solution if the judge were to not accept the plea deal and remand Assange.

I wouldn't expect the judge not to go along with this though - he is pleading guilty and did serve what is now being called a sentence and presumably the US government can say that there are other benefits to his freedom that should not be overriden by the judiciary.

I don't understand why you are being downvoted. I just posted essentially the same thing: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40785120

source: over a decade of experience in pretrial operations

As part of the deal he is pleading guilty right?

Does the judge have to honor the prosecution agreement or is the judge free to impose a different sentence than what was agreed to by the prosecution?

Actually, you're correct, and my original answer was wrong. That's what I get for writing at 2am.

Here's how it works generally: when you plead guilty the judge warns you that they do not have to accept the plea deal and can sentence you however the hell they wish. You plead guilty and then the judge tells you if they accept the prosecution's deal. I've seen several defendants surprised by the judge not taking the sweet probation deal and turning around and giving the defendant years in prison which they are unable to appeal.

So, in theory, the judge could potentially give Assange some time.

Did Assange have to show up in a US court? No.

So why are you writing all this and then doubling down?

From the linked article:

> A letter from Justice Department official Matthew McKenzie to U.S. District Judge Ramona Manglona of the Northern Mariana Islands District said that Assange would appear in court at 9 a.m. local time Wednesday (7 p.m. ET Tuesday) to plead guilty and that the Justice Department expects Assange will return to Australia, his country of citizenship, after the proceedings.

Northern Mariana Islands District is US jurisdiction.

Thanks. You're quite right - I missed that.

Now please excuse me while I find my tanto.

>There is a separation of powers between the prosecutor who is negotiating the extradition/plea and the judge who independently evaluates the agreement.

Oh, sweet summer child. In such political cases there is almost zero "separation of powers". Much higher powers than the judge and the prosecutor are involved directly.

Perhaps once you try considering the matter in the context it actually exists within instead of a vacuum you'll understand the answer to your asinine rhetorical.

I think it would be quite the diplomatic travesty for them to switch to arresting him after choosing to trial him in the closest court of Australia and credit him for time in prison already. https://x.com/MarioNawfal/status/1805385141239660627?ref_src...

What would the actual consequence be? Almost certainly nothing. That said, if the Americans wanted to drag this out further, they'd simply drag it out further, so it seems highly unlikely this is some ploy, however it's not impossible. Assange is more easily "forgotten" if they actually managed to imprison him in The States. But we'll see. I'll only completely believe it once he touches down in Australia.

> What would the actual consequence be? Almost certainly nothing.

One of the key things blocking extradition from the UK to the US is that UK law doesn't let them extradite if the person will be tortured, executed, or won't receive a fair trial in the destination country. This isn't something that politicians can bypass, except by changing the law; judges are not political appointees in the UK.

This means the extradition process from the UK to the US relies on the UK receiving assurances, and the courts accepting them, because the US has always followed its agreements in the past. To me it seems unlikely the US would want to jeopardise this.

And what would the benefit be? They've already shown they have the power to ruin people's lives at will, effectively imprisoning them in an embassy for a decade. That seems like a deterrent that will scare off most journalists.

I think this is quid pro quo for the Harry Dunn case, which interestingly reached a final conclusion a week or so ago in the Coroner's court.

In the context of the elections, it seems like the US government/Biden admin "fucking" with Assange would probably be detrimental, considering parts of the MAGA movement is "We <3 Russia"/susceptible to Russian propaganda - and Assange is Russia-friendly since he apparently got Hillary's emails from them. They can twist it as Democrats being the warmongers (yeah it requires insane logic-bending, but hey, MAGA are experts at that) and Assange the pro-peace leaker.

So MAGA would probably take up his cause, but with the Biden admin freeing him (fingers crossed), that's one less thing they can use against Biden in the elections.

I find it very interesting how you:

a) think

b) (mis)use the English language

For clarity: do you believe that your cognition on this matter is logically, ontologically, and epistemically flawless?

I hope your seeming high level of confidence is resilient enough to answer this simple question directly, without engaging in rhetoric, meme magic, evasion, misdirection, silence, etc which in my experience is the standard behavior of the normative conditioned Western human mind when it is put into such a situation.

> For clarity: do you believe that your cognition on this matter is logically, ontologically, and epistemically flawless?

No, I believe my cognition on this matter can be flawed. That's why the qualifiers "would probably be", "apparently", and "parts of".

But I agree with kome's response.

> No, I believe my cognition on this matter can be flawed. That's why the qualifiers "would probably be", "apparently", and "parts of".

Did you properly qualify each statement in your broader text?

Are you familiar with the terms "rhetoric", "interpretation", "reductionism", "perception", "misinformation", "Meme Magic", "emergence"? Do you think they may have some causal relevance to the (possible/alleged) "technical correctness" of your statements?

Do you think it is possible that speaking out in this manner/style may have non-trivial (which could range from "bad" to "extremely bad") negative effects on the overall system (which I think is at least part of your concern with the behavior of MAGA people)?

> But I agree with kome's response.

If that's the case, would you be willing to answer the questions I asked of kome?

Isn't there something in the guidelines about chatbots not being allowed to post here? If not, there should be.

This is interesting, let's investigate.

I have a question: do you believe I am actually a chatbot, or are you only speaking as if you believe that I am a chatbot (full disclosure: my theory being that you might be[1] leveraging humor to galvanize support against an outsider in the community, taking a different attack angle than others have tried, etc)?

Regarding HN guidelines: I would say they are highly optimal as they are: ambiguity + (layers of) culture is a very powerful combination, it allows moderators great leeway in using heuristic/cultural pattern matching to "prove" violations by exploiting well known bugs in consciousness (which have been discussed with very little controversy right here on HN many times in the past).

Human conversation and belief (aka: truth) formation is extremely complex, and often counterintuitive.

Thoughts or counterpoints? I think it is an interesting and important topic that does not get nearly enough attention.

[1] though not necessarily with explicit conscious intent, perhaps simply just as an intuitive, culturally conditioned behavior

Regardless: as a fan of novelty and effort, you get my upvote. Also: the bots angle is actually a rather interesting idea, if a person was to put a bit of thought into it.

holly fucking shit, you are SO patronizing. their comment is ok, and i fully understood their logic. I cannot say the same about yours.

> holly fucking shit, you are SO patronizing.

Perhaps (it is a subjective matter, in more ways than one, and some more importantly than others). What of it?

Or another way of looking at it: which is more important in the big (geopolitical or otherwise) scheme of things...politeness (deceit, ignorance, rhetoric, etc) or truth/accuracy? Don't forget, lives are literally on the line. (Something else I find funny: sometimes lives being on the line is important, other times it is not. It is amazing how inconsistent humans are, even on the very most important matters.)

> their comment is ok

Is this to say that it suffers in no way regarding the specific phenomena that I am asking about?

And if not:

- what does "is ok" mean, precisely?

- do you believe that it does not suffer in any of these ways?

> and i fully understood their logic.

If you did not, would you necessarily be able to know? (Can you realize the architectural problem you are in?)

> I cannot say the same about yours.

What specific "logic" of mine are you referring to here?

> Or another way of looking at it: which is more important in the big (geopolitical or otherwise) scheme of things...politeness (deceit, ignorance, rhetoric, etc) or truth/accuracy?

Not being a complete and utter asshole, like you are being here. HTH!

For clarity: are you saying that not discussing the aspects of human culture I am drawing attention to objectively reduces unnecessary suffering and death on planet Earth? That exerting collective effort as a cultural convention to minimize self-reflection and awareness is more optimal gameplay?

What does HTH stand for by the way?

The Trump Russiagate conspiracy was a hoax.

The Secretary of State not responding to the Libyan consulate’s security concerns prior to the attack is a serious matter and the source of the documents is not the issue.

> The Trump Russiagate conspiracy was a hoax.

Ah, an appropriate example of bending logic and serious ignoring of many facts to end up with this conclusion...

Unverified after all the investigations: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/u-s-trump-intelligence-rus...

One step less than 'hoax' but it's Snopes and they lean left.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com