Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by okamiueru 1785 days ago
How is "The witness is only relevant to one of the eighteen charges against Assange, and even in that charge he was mostly used as a character witness to label Assange as a malicious hacker." logically congruent with "has nothing to do with the US appeal of the extradition ruling"?

Seems a pretty good contradiction, unless I'm missing something.
1 comments
boomboomsubban 1785 days ago
The appeal has nothing to do with any of the charges, the extradition was denied based on humanitarian grounds. Basically the ruling was "yes the US has valid reason to extradite Assange, but that's likely to kill him so we won't extradite."

It's possible that they would not say the US has valid reason to extradite after the retraction, but unless the refusal is overruled, that doesn't matter.

link
okamiueru 1784 days ago
So, you are definining "nothing to do with" based on the assumed end result, and not... whether it had something to do with it?

It's a strange argument, but, ok, I guess? Thanks for clearing it up.

link
boomboomsubban 1784 days ago
> you are definining "nothing to do with" based on the assumed end result,

I have no clue how you've reached that conclusion. I'm saying this article is just about the extradition appeal, a decision that is being made regardless of what the charges are.

If the appeal is successful, the retraction will be important in the resumed extradition hearing. Articles about that possible hearing should definitely mention the retraction.

link
okamiueru 1784 days ago
I'm still very confused by your argument. Maybe I'm missing some pieces. If this is an appeal based on a verdic related to X, then the appeal is also related to X. It seems disingenuous to imply otherwise.

"a decision that is being made regardless of what the charges are". Is the extradition not based on the charges? And is the appeal of the extradition then not also based on the charges?

If the charge was based on a staged witness, and the extradition was based on these charges. Is then not the appeal of extradition related to the staged witness?

link
boomboomsubban 1784 days ago
The extradition ruling was that the charges were a valid reason to extradite, but for health concerns the extradition was rejected. The US then appealed the rejection claiming Assange's health could be guaranteed. The appeal does not mention the charges, and the judge will rule based solely on whether the US can show that the previous rejections based on health concerns was improper.

The article is entirely about that appeal, not the entire Assange extradition hearing. The retracted testimony has no bearing on the appeal, so when only writing about the appeal it is one of the many facts about the entire hearing that does not need to be mentioned.

My argument is just that this article discusses one tiny part of the entire process, and the charges are not relevant to that tiny part.

link
okamiueru 1784 days ago
I see. Thanks for your patience in explaining it to me.
link