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

81–90 of 298 posts

Re: Assange Hearing Day 2

#81

Post by henearkr »

bilekas wrote: post #68
henearkr wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because the law requires us to give our data to the government. And the government has all legal means to collect the data in the first place.

> Just because the law requires us to give our data to the government Not sure where you live but if you're giving too much information over by law, you should leave. Giving your address, Name, maybe Citizenship and birthday to your government is not as crazy as it sounds.

You are forgetting, for example, your income data, your marital status, your penal history, your real estate, and not to mention any data gathered while doing some police investigation even if just brushing past your shoulder. Also, your health history.

Re: Assange Hearing Day 2

#82

Post by johnrackles »

mcv wrote: post #54
shadowprofile77 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, no. Assange did not accuse himself of rape and then push out a media narrative about it over successive months. "They" (in this case, Swedish and other legal authorities and various news agencies did). And though the question of his level of guilt in those cases remains somewhat ambiguous as far as I know, the now dropped rape cases have the whiff of political smear to them. Regardless of Assange's merits or fa…

The way the rape case was initially dropped and then picked up again certainly seemed weird, and there may have been political pressure behind it. That doesn't mean it didn't happen, though. The stories of the women involved seemed very credible, and unlikely to have been made up, considering they were supporters of him. But I totally agree that this treatment in this extradition case sounds terrible, and the judge s…

> The stories of the women involved seemed very credible, and unlikely to have been made up, considering they were supporters of him.

The UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, Nils Melzer, disagrees: https://medium.com/@njmelzer/demasking-the-torture-of-julian...

Specifically, this section:

"Surely, I thought, Assange must be a rapist! But what I found is that he has never been charged with a sexual offence. True, soon after the United States had encouraged allies to find reasons to prosecute Assange, Swedish prosecution informed the tabloid press that he was suspected of having raped two women. Strangely, however, the women themselves never claimed to have been raped, nor did they intend to report a criminal offence. Go figure. Moreover, the forensic examination of a condom submitted as evidence, supposedly worn and torn during intercourse with Assange, revealed no DNA whatsoever — neither his, nor hers, nor anybody else’s. Go figure again. One woman even texted that she only wanted Assange to take an HIV test, but that the police were “keen on getting their hands on him”. Go figure, once more."

Re: Assange Hearing Day 2

#83

Post by [deleted] »

mcv wrote: post #34

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.

[deleted]

Re: Assange Hearing Day 2

#84

Post by tyingq »

fit2rule wrote: post #47
mcv wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

That is pretty curious.

“police officer IK, who had formally questioned SW on 20 August 2010, modified and replaced the content of SW’s original statement in the police database, upon instruction of her superior officer MG and without consulting SW.”

https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/TMResultsBase/DownLoadPublic... (The report itself)

Re: Assange Hearing Day 2

#85

Post by hedwall »

fit2rule wrote: post #47
mcv wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Citation needed.

Re: Assange Hearing Day 2

#86

Post by r721 »

baud147258 wrote: post #69

Why is he calling Bellingcat a warmongering propaganda operations and saying they've got a "source of state, corporate or institutional finance"? I though they were independent

Because Craig Murray's position is always aligned with Kremlin's official position.

Re: Assange Hearing Day 2

#87

Post by joosters »

mcv wrote: post #34

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.

The problem is, from the very first paragraph, this website doesn't come across as anything close to impartial either. So I'd suggest you find some more sources before you criticize the judge.

Re: Assange Hearing Day 2

#88

Post by raxxorrax »

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…

It really is a testament to how shitty main stream outlets actually are. To be fair, there are some exceptions, but not that many as it seems.

If they don't feel the need to defend press freedom, it is probably not worth reading their detached antics.

Re: Assange Hearing Day 2

#89

Post by BigJ1211 »

mcv wrote: post #54
shadowprofile77 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, no. Assange did not accuse himself of rape and then push out a media narrative about it over successive months. "They" (in this case, Swedish and other legal authorities and various news agencies did). And though the question of his level of guilt in those cases remains somewhat ambiguous as far as I know, the now dropped rape cases have the whiff of political smear to them. Regardless of Assange's merits or fa…

The way the rape case was initially dropped and then picked up again certainly seemed weird, and there may have been political pressure behind it. That doesn't mean it didn't happen, though. The stories of the women involved seemed very credible, and unlikely to have been made up, considering they were supporters of him. But I totally agree that this treatment in this extradition case sounds terrible, and the judge s…

The rape case is rather odd to say the least, as posted above by a user you might want to read this article: https://www.republik.ch/2020/01/31/nils-melzer-about-wikilea...

Basically it comes down to the story not adding up, drummed up charges, testimony that was changed by the police. After the headline was made on August 20th (accusing him of rape) the person that 'accused' him (she hadn't (yet)) was questioned on the 21st and only after that did she accuse him of 'rape' (not actually rape, but stealthing).

According to her he had intentionally broken the condom during sex. However the broken condom that was submitted into evidence had no DNA of her, nor of Assange.

Neither woman accused him of anything before headlines were being made apparently.

Re: Assange Hearing Day 2

#90

Post by johnrackles »

EliRivers wrote: post #74
doe88 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Guardian (never to be accused of outlandish sympathies toward Assange) https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/feb/25/julian-assange...

I'll be honest; I genuinely don't know how many times I would expect someone to have handcuffs attached and released in such circumstances. Is eleven times a lot? The Guardian doesn't actually express whether this is excessive or lenient. The Guardian doesn't seem to make any comment on that. I would expect his defence lawyer to complain about his conditions no matter what. The article headlines with thehandcuffs, bu…

The UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, Nils Melzer, certainly thinks assange is being tortured.

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

Post reply on HN