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

131–140 of 298 posts

Re: Assange Hearing Day 2

#131

Post by mft_ »

anonsivalley652 wrote: post #112
mft_ wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tortured? I mean, some of what you describe is unpalatable, unpleasant, and maybe (IANAL) contrary to expected standards of the treatment of prisoners... but tortured ?

Excuse me, solitary confinement in a supermax prison for almost a year is torture, cruel, and unjust for a simple, nonviolent skipping bail charge. This sort of thing should've been 2 months at a minimum security prison in genpop at the most. This is purely political persecution by British toadies of American hegemony. If you can't see any of this, then you are blind.

Thanks for your informative (and measured) response. To clarify, I'm no expert on the Assange case, and was responding to the previous commenter, whose account didn't mention solitary confinement in a supermax prison for almost a year.

If that is indeed the case, I'd agree it sounds pretty awful.

Re: Assange Hearing Day 2

#132

Post by lolc »

A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #92
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.…

The post is interesting. I had a similar revelation when my wife, a self-professed history buff, said she won't read My Struggle, because she will be put on the list somewhere. I initially found it amusing, but then I understood that even though she apparently does not seem to care much about privacy, she instinctively understands how weird things have become today. She does not want to address it, but she adjusts he…

We should demand our enemies be treated without cruelty. But out of fear we renounce our friends. The old recipe works well. Just keep a few lists of persona non grata.

Re: Assange Hearing Day 2

#133

Post by kmlx »

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

they are independent. i wouldn't trust craig murray if he was the last person on earth.

Re: Assange Hearing Day 2

#134

Post by kmlx »

9nGQluzmnq3M wrote: post #21
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…

Craig Murray is a former career diplomat and UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, who got railroaded out of the foreign service for having the temerity to note that Uzbek leader Islam Karimov was (literally) boiling his opponents to death. If this is an agenda, I support it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Murray Also: https://archive.is/20061012215514/http://www.craigmurray.co....

he left the foreign service in disgrace.

this guy blames everything on israel. he even blamed israel for the chemical weapons attack in Salisbury and he's even been accused of being an anti-semite. this guy celebrated Hitchens' death in a blog post for crying out loud.

Re: Assange Hearing Day 2

#135

Post by kmlx »

nmeofthestate wrote: post #33
efdee wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

i agree. craig murray is not to be trusted. he may be telling us exactly what is happening, but then again he might start another crusade against israel any moment now.

Re: Assange Hearing Day 2

#137

Post by anonsivalley652 »

101404 wrote: post #11
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…

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…

I would use more specific facts rather than pronouns. "They" were the Swedish prosecutor clearly acting on orders from their government either a) in furtherance of appeasing the US or b) someone who didn't like or was working for one of Assange's enemies, a con-artist, concocted a story with enough detail to convince an authority that crime potentially occurred.

It is transparent that Assange doesn't belong to either American political party but attempted to parlay the emails* into a hail-mary get-out-of-jail-(but-not-for-)free card by trying to appease Trump. On that, he gambled and lost, and now some idiots on the internet assume idiotic statements like "he's a Ruskie spy," "he loves Trump," or "he's Putin's best friend."

\* The emails were NOT from a Russian operative. Assange stresses this if anyone cares to listen. Furthermore, if someone watched Jimmy Dore, they'd know this is a continuation of anti-Russian conspiracy theories.

Re: Assange Hearing Day 2

#138

Post by dean177 »

mft_ wrote: post #94
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…

Tortured? I mean, some of what you describe is unpalatable, unpleasant, and maybe (IANAL) contrary to expected standards of the treatment of prisoners... but tortured ?

"Torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession"

Yes, it is exactly torture.

https://apt.ch/en/what-is-torture/

Re: Assange Hearing Day 2

#139

Post by lolc »

bilekas wrote: post #109
A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The post is interesting. I had a similar revelation when my wife, a self-professed history buff, said she won't read My Struggle, because she will be put on the list somewhere. I initially found it amusing, but then I understood that even though she apparently does not seem to care much about privacy, she instinctively understands how weird things have become today. She does not want to address it, but she adjusts he…

> 1. Assange may be innocent, but it does not matter as the real verdict was already rendered. This is just a formality. 2. His pre-punishment punishment is not as bad as it could have been somewhere else. 3. Assange knew what he was getting into, therefore he does not have basic human rights ( variation of: you don't kick the bear argument ) I get what you mean and yes, you have a point. I guess I'm just surprised t…

It's easy to say this was going to happen. (Especially after it happened.) But it's not a natural law like boiling water burning one's hand. Proteins are always going to be damaged by heat. But here we observe due process being violated. It's not a natural law that due process is going to be violated. Violations depend on attitude, checks and incentives. As a society, we can shape those to a large degree!

We could have complained earlier, in other instances. You can say we should have been more alert. There were victims we ignored. But that does not invalidate our complaints now!

Re: Assange Hearing Day 2

#140

Post by tyingq »

mcv wrote: post #107
tyingq wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

Is that not tampering with evidence? If true, I'd expect some serious investigation into this.

Yes. The "ohchr.org" is the "Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights". I would imagine that's enough weight to warrant a local inquiry.
Post reply on HN