Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Assange Hearing Day 2

craigmurray.org.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 298 posts

Re: Assange Hearing Day 2

#31

Post by mnem »

AndyMcConachie wrote: post #3

> Julian had twice been stripped naked and searched, eleven times been handcuffed, and five times been locked up in different holding cells. On top of this, all of his court documents had been taken from him by the prison authorities, including privileged communications between his lawyers and himself, and he had been left with no ability to prepare to participate in today’s proceedings. Still barely any mention of t…

A quick search using Google news in the UK shows that all the main broadsheets and many of the tabloids have Assange related stories over the past several days at least. I don’t think it’s fair to characterise the media as disinterested.

Re: Assange Hearing Day 2

#32

Post by celticninja »

The judge has basically said this is a politically motivated extradition, and the court is fine with that. I hope that this get appealed to a higher court and it's not left to this hostile judge.

Re: Assange Hearing Day 2

#33

Post by nmeofthestate »

efdee wrote: post #8
EliRivers wrote: post #2

Consider the source, right? Always ask ourselves "What does this source, this reporter, this organisation, want us to think?" That doesn't mean that we have to ignore everything they say; it just becomes us to know what the source's own agenda is, to better arm ourselves. Craig Murray's website suggests he is, for example, a credulous believer of Russian explanations for events. He does on occasion correct himself (s…

What does this commenter want us to think?

He wants us to think "Murray is a conspiracy theorist with a wacko following†, so I will take this blog post with a pinch of salt."

Of course Murray could be speaking truth in this blog post, but it's nonetheless worth finding a different source of the truth, to avoid promoting Murray.

†that's true - look back at his response to the Skripal poisoning for an example.

Re: Assange Hearing Day 2

#34

Post by mcv »

That judge does not exactly come across as impartial in this description. I'm not a lawyer, but it does look like a mistrial of some sort.

Whatever you think of Julian Assange, he deserves a fair trial, and this doesn't sound like he's getting one.

Re: Assange Hearing Day 2

#35

Post by exikyut »

untog wrote: post #30
101404 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An interesting learning was, how to most effectively frame a person if you want them to lose public support. They first did the "rapist" framing. Making up a case that never existed and repeating it in the media all the time. Surprisingly, that didn't work as effectivity as expected. So they switched the framing from "rapist" to "right wing". That seems to have achieved the intended outcome with many previous support…

The rape accusations were credible, he just refused to answer to them. That doesn’t mean they were invalid in the first place, it just means they’ll never be proven in a court of law.

Nope, he did offer to answer to them, repeatedly:

https://www.republik.ch/2020/01/31/nils-melzer-about-wikilea...

This article details more than I could ever have wanted to know about the entire situation. It is an excellent 10,000 ft view.

Re: Assange Hearing Day 2

#36

Post by EliRivers »

AndyMcConachie wrote: post #4
EliRivers wrote: post #2

Consider the source, right? Always ask ourselves "What does this source, this reporter, this organisation, want us to think?" That doesn't mean that we have to ignore everything they say; it just becomes us to know what the source's own agenda is, to better arm ourselves. Craig Murray's website suggests he is, for example, a credulous believer of Russian explanations for events. He does on occasion correct himself (s…

If your problem is the source then read a different one. Here's the the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, Nils Melzer, on Assange being tortured. https://www.republik.ch/2020/01/31/nils-melzer-about-wikilea...

No problem here, buddy. Just reminding us all to consider that everything we read has an agenda. Including what I wrote, and what you wrote.

Re: Assange Hearing Day 2

#37

Post by bilekas »

AllegedAlec wrote: post #27
bilekas wrote: post #15

This is always going to happen when you go about doing what he did in such a flamboyant way. I agree that he was by no means an angel, but I also see the reasons why the governments want to set an example. People have this idea that it's a terrible thing if their governments have secrets.. It's normal.. That doesn't justify this treatment of him. By any means, one would think he would be treated well in public. > Is…

> If thats right or wrong is anyones guess You're fucking joking right? Something about "cruel and unusual punishment", which is present in both English and American law. Furthermore, there's this little document called the 'Universal Declaration of Human Rights', which has stuff to say on this matter too, and has been signed by both the US and England.

I'm not joking, what Assange did was at best 'cunty'. He could have been more careful releasing the information but he wasnt.

He's being made an example of, its clear as day. My 'if its right or wrong' depends on your side of the argument, so no. I'm not joking.

> "cruel and unusual punishment"

Couldn't agree with you more, he should not be made to suffer needlessly.. He's not in a labor camp, he's not being whipped. He knew he was going to be made an example of. This is the result. I'm not saying its nice, but it's not even punishment yet. He will receive much worse later I'm sure.

Re: Assange Hearing Day 2

#38

Post by EliRivers »

kstenerud wrote: post #5
EliRivers wrote: post #2

Consider the source, right? Always ask ourselves "What does this source, this reporter, this organisation, want us to think?" That doesn't mean that we have to ignore everything they say; it just becomes us to know what the source's own agenda is, to better arm ourselves. Craig Murray's website suggests he is, for example, a credulous believer of Russian explanations for events. He does on occasion correct himself (s…

Publishing your beliefs and publishing the facts of a case are completely different things. "Consider the source" is not an issue here, unless you wish to accuse him of lying about what he witnessed.

I disagree. Nobody, but nobody, is some kind of robot perfectly witnessing and reporting events in some kind of perfect language that perfectly conveys the whole truth and nothing but the truth (despite the typical HN cyborg-wannabee viewpoint - the locally over-represented kind of person who decides they have no biases). "Consider the source" is always an issue. Always.

It's unpopular to say it, and a lot of people don't like to be reminded that they don't live in a world of perfect information, but it's true.

Re: Assange Hearing Day 2

#39

Post by mcv »

resters wrote: post #23
mcv wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These are not things that "they" did, though. They're things that "he" did.

You believe that Assange is both a rapist and a right wing zealot? There is no evidence to support either claim.

As pointed out elsewhere, the rape allegations are credible. And while I'm not calling him a right-wing zealot, and considered him left-libertarian for his dedication to free information and opposition to censorship, he did at some point seem to work with Trump and Russia in order to falsely discredit Clinton and get Trump elected. So again, there is evidence to support it.

Re: Assange Hearing Day 2

#40

Post by celticninja »

bilekas wrote: post #15

This is always going to happen when you go about doing what he did in such a flamboyant way. I agree that he was by no means an angel, but I also see the reasons why the governments want to set an example. People have this idea that it's a terrible thing if their governments have secrets.. It's normal.. That doesn't justify this treatment of him. By any means, one would think he would be treated well in public. > Is…

It's wrong. Just to clarify that for you. It's not a guess.
Post reply on HN