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

Why are Amnesty International monitors not able to observe the Assange hearing?

amnesty.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 426 posts

Re: Why are Amnesty International monitors not able to observe the Assange hearing?

#11

Post by mlthoughts2018 »

Craig Murray has done a remarkable job independently attending and reporting on each day’s testimony.

He is widely criticized for his other views and accused of being an Assange sympathizer by parties who believe Assange may be guilty. I personally don’t see any evidence for bias impacting his reporting, but just wanted to raise the issue because there is usually a deluge of sniping comments attacking Murray’s coverage the minute it is linked.

This is probably the best available coverage of Assange’s hearing in the world at this point, which hopefully makes you feel pretty sick with anger towards The Guardian, The New York Times, etc., regardless of your views on the merit of Assange’s charges.

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/

Re: Why are Amnesty International monitors not able to observe the Assange hearing?

#12

Post by rvnx »

rvnx wrote: post #9

From a legal and purely rationale perspective, is there any reason why Amnesty International should have a seat in the actual room ? I understand that physical seats are limited and retransmission is free and in live in the other room, as far as I understood. "American prosecutors claim he conspired with whistleblowers to obtain classified information" Well...

If I get it correctly, seats are scarce: "If Amnesty International and other observers wanted to attend the hearing, they would have to queue for one of the four seats available in a public gallery"

It seems to be the main issue, many persons wants to follow this trial since it has worldwide impact.

(it still makes it sad that no solutions were found though)

Re: Why are Amnesty International monitors not able to observe the Assange hearing?

#13

Post by fierarul »

square_usual wrote: post #7

This makes me feel incredibly cynical. I genuinely want to know: would it matter if they did get to observe? I'm sure Amnesty has reported on tonnes of US/UK crimes and human rights violations, and a quick google search shows many such reports. How many of those actually changed anything? Sure, when Amnesty reports on, say, Syria, the US could use that as justification for intervention, but what use is reporting on t…

I'm sure the EU would like to know how the UK treats some of these basic matters in light of Brexit and the pending trade negotiations.

And generally, historians might want to have multiple witness accounts of what happened.

Re: Why are Amnesty International monitors not able to observe the Assange hearing?

#14

Post by tssva »

Because Amnesty International has no standing in the law above that of the general public and are therefore being given the same level of access as the general public. The real debate should be whether the general public should have greater access.

Re: Why are Amnesty International monitors not able to observe the Assange hearing?

#15

Post by mlthoughts2018 »

rvnx wrote: post #9

From a legal and purely rationale perspective, is there any reason why Amnesty International should have a seat in the actual room ? I understand that physical seats are limited and retransmission is free and in live in the other room, as far as I understood. "American prosecutors claim he conspired with whistleblowers to obtain classified information" Well...

From the article:

> “ Amnesty International had requested access to the court for a trial monitor to observe the hearings, but the court denied us a designated seat in court. Our monitor initially did get permission to access the technology to monitor remotely, but the morning the hearing started he received an email informing us that the Judge had revoked Amnesty International’s remote access.”

Re: Why are Amnesty International monitors not able to observe the Assange hearing?

#16

Post by mlthoughts2018 »

tssva wrote: post #14

Because Amnesty International has no standing in the law above that of the general public and are therefore being given the same level of access as the general public. The real debate should be whether the general public should have greater access.

From the article:

> “ Amnesty International had requested access to the court for a trial monitor to observe the hearings, but the court denied us a designated seat in court. Our monitor initially did get permission to access the technology to monitor remotely, but the morning the hearing started he received an email informing us that the Judge had revoked Amnesty International’s remote access.”

Re: Why are Amnesty International monitors not able to observe the Assange hearing?

#17

Post by pydry »

rvnx wrote: post #9

From a legal and purely rationale perspective, is there any reason why Amnesty International should have a seat in the actual room ? I understand that physical seats are limited and retransmission is free and in live in the other room, as far as I understood. "American prosecutors claim he conspired with whistleblowers to obtain classified information" Well...

If there's any possibility that a government itself might be the guilty party then the best way to alleviate those concerns is to:

1) Make sure that visibility into the trial is as open as possible.

2) Make sure that the trial is as obscured as possible from the public and institutions that exist to hold the government to account.

Which are they doing? It is PAINFULLY obvious what they are doing is 2.

They could have made this trial very open. They opted not to. The question of whether the public had more or less access than Amnesty is a red herring of the highest order.

This isn't about a simple murder or stealing. This is at its root about how journalism holds the most powerful governments in the world to account for premeditated murder. Governments that have significant control over HOW the trial plays out.

If this were a russian trial doing the same thing we wouldn't even QUESTION that it was corrupt.

Re: Why are Amnesty International monitors not able to observe the Assange hearing?

#18

Post by LeifCarrotson »

pydry wrote: post #17
rvnx wrote: post #9

From a legal and purely rationale perspective, is there any reason why Amnesty International should have a seat in the actual room ? I understand that physical seats are limited and retransmission is free and in live in the other room, as far as I understood. "American prosecutors claim he conspired with whistleblowers to obtain classified information" Well...

If there's any possibility that a government itself might be the guilty party then the best way to alleviate those concerns is to: 1) Make sure that visibility into the trial is as open as possible. 2) Make sure that the trial is as obscured as possible from the public and institutions that exist to hold the government to account. Which are they doing? It is PAINFULLY obvious what they are doing is 2. They could have…

> 1) Make sure that visibility into the trial is as restricted as possible.

I think you missed a negation somewhere in that sentence.

Re: Why are Amnesty International monitors not able to observe the Assange hearing?

#19

Post by the-dude »

fierarul wrote: post #13
square_usual wrote: post #7

This makes me feel incredibly cynical. I genuinely want to know: would it matter if they did get to observe? I'm sure Amnesty has reported on tonnes of US/UK crimes and human rights violations, and a quick google search shows many such reports. How many of those actually changed anything? Sure, when Amnesty reports on, say, Syria, the US could use that as justification for intervention, but what use is reporting on t…

I'm sure the EU would like to know how the UK treats some of these basic matters in light of Brexit and the pending trade negotiations. And generally, historians might want to have multiple witness accounts of what happened.

The Assange case has been dragging on for, what, about a decade now?

The EU has not shown a particular interest all that time. The EU is a trade-bloc, the rest is posturing.

Re: Why are Amnesty International monitors not able to observe the Assange hearing?

#20

Post by pydry »

LeifCarrotson wrote: post #18
pydry wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If there's any possibility that a government itself might be the guilty party then the best way to alleviate those concerns is to: 1) Make sure that visibility into the trial is as open as possible. 2) Make sure that the trial is as obscured as possible from the public and institutions that exist to hold the government to account. Which are they doing? It is PAINFULLY obvious what they are doing is 2. They could have…

> 1) Make sure that visibility into the trial is as restricted as possible. I think you missed a negation somewhere in that sentence.

Thank you
Post reply on HN