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

41–50 of 298 posts

Re: Assange Hearing Day 2

#41

Post by henearkr »

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…

That "it's normal" that governments have secrets is something that should be of the past. It goes hand-in-hand with the existence of conflicts and international tensions. Which I also think should be of the past, for the sake of it.

Then there is the way to manage lots of citizens while protecting their privacy, and for that we already have a lot of anonymization techs, using hashs, and sym or asym ciphers, etc... that's just a matter of now doing it instead of just knowing how we can do it...

Re: Assange Hearing Day 2

#42

Post by EliRivers »

cryptonym wrote: post #16
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…

My own belief: it's unfair to attack his credibility without providing anything about the content of this post. If something is not accurate here, please let us know, that would be valuable.

My belief; it is not unfair (he is deliberately presenting himself as a source of truth in the matter, publicly and openly), and I did not attack his credibility. I invited you to consider the source. Perhaps you conclude, after consideration, that he is an especially credible source.

Re: Assange Hearing Day 2

#43

Post by AllegedAlec »

bilekas wrote: post #37
AllegedAlec wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.…

> I'm not joking, what Assange did was at best 'cunty'.

Releasing evidence of governments doing torturing, extra-judicial killings of journalists and children,which violate the Geneva Convention, as well as a slew of other materials isn't 'cunty'.

> He could have been more careful releasing the information but he wasnt.

In what way was he not careful?

> My 'if its right or wrong' depends on your side of the argument, so no. I'm not joking.

That's weird, because you are a fucking clown.

> 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.

Look up the definition of cruel and unusual punishment.

Re: Assange Hearing Day 2

#44

Post by have_faith »

mnem wrote: post #31
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.

None of the homepages I looked at today (Guardian, BBC) has a single mention of Assange. Yes they all had token articles buried somewhere though if you search.

Re: Assange Hearing Day 2

#45

Post by bilekas »

AllegedAlec wrote: post #43
bilekas wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

> I'm not joking, what Assange did was at best 'cunty'. Releasing evidence of governments doing torturing, extra-judicial killings of journalists and children, which violate the Geneva Convention , as well as a slew of other materials isn't 'cunty'. > He could have been more careful releasing the information but he wasnt. In what way was he not careful? > My 'if its right or wrong' depends on your side of the argumen…

> Releasing evidence of governments doing torturing, extra-judicial killings of journalists and children,which violate the Geneva Convention, as well as a slew of other materials isn't 'cunty'.

He released evidence rightly so but compromising a lot of sources, methods and other info. It could have been released better. The info should have been released, my argument is not in defence of the original actions.

> That's weird, because you are a fucking clown.

Okay

Re: Assange Hearing Day 2

#46

Post by EliRivers »

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?

I'd like you to, yes.

Re: Assange Hearing Day 2

#47

Post by fit2rule »

mcv wrote: post #39
resters wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How credible is a rape case when the police themselves admitted to altering the reports of the accusers to fit the narrative given to them?

Re: Assange Hearing Day 2

#48

Post by fit2rule »

bambax wrote: post #25
ganzuul wrote: post #9

This is horrifying. As a European I'm afraid to even visit the USA. I'd expect this from some third world hellhole but not from a country which professes to have the rule of law.

Since Brexit and because of it, the UK is becoming part of the US empire; it's a dominion and as such, it will obey US injunctions in that case and any other.

Since the AUMF on Iraq and the founding of the 5-eyes War Coalition, the US has had its Empire expanded to include the Anglo- states.

We in the 5-eyes nations are all proxy subjects of the USA now. Our militaries no longer answer to us.

Re: Assange Hearing Day 2

#49

Post by bilekas »

celticninja wrote: post #40
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.

I'm not sure how you can say that with such confidence.

I am of the same opinion as you, but I do know why sometimes the people in positions of sensitive information might want to set an example to not let it happen again so easily.

Re: Assange Hearing Day 2

#50

Post by henearkr »

bilekas wrote: post #37
AllegedAlec wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.…

But it seems you think that Assange was responsible for the leak of the uncensored documents.

The defense's claim is that it was clearly an unintended release without consent by a third party.

So negating this, for now, is quite a stretch.

Post reply on HN