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

21–30 of 426 posts

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

#21

Post by ISL »

rvnx wrote: post #12
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)

Seems like it would be pretty easy to place a laptop running Zoom/Meet/YouTube-live in the gallery so that the public could watch what is taking place in their name.

Sunlight is good.

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

#22

Post by pydry »

voxic11 wrote: post #6
Deukhoofd wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-54060427 Very limited what they reported on to be sure. AP News has more in depth reporting: https://apnews.com/hub/julian-assange

Wow so it sounds like the BBC hasn't attended the hearing at all and is just reporting what is on the court docket.

It's consistent with the BBC acting as a propaganda arm of the British state - something that had become more true ever since the Hutton enquiry and the raft of new political appointees at the head of the organization.

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

#23

Post by pydry »

ISL wrote: post #21
rvnx wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

Seems like it would be pretty easy to place a laptop running Zoom/Meet/YouTube-live in the gallery so that the public could watch what is taking place in their name. Sunlight is good.

It's pretty clear the UK Government wants as few eyes on this as possible while still not being seen to egregiously break the law.

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

#24

Post by ekianjo »

asplake wrote: post #2

Tweeted on a closely related subject earlier today. Where is the BBC’s coverage of the Assange hearings? I wouldn’t describe myself as a supporter but still the seeming lack of news seems very odd. Unless it’s just me missing it somehow... https://twitter.com/asplake/status/1308021654975643656?s=21

I guess more and more people will hopefully notice that the BBC is completely biased in its news "reporting".

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

#25

Post by HugeAcumen »

Deukhoofd wrote: post #3
asplake wrote: post #2

Tweeted on a closely related subject earlier today. Where is the BBC’s coverage of the Assange hearings? I wouldn’t describe myself as a supporter but still the seeming lack of news seems very odd. Unless it’s just me missing it somehow... https://twitter.com/asplake/status/1308021654975643656?s=21

Here: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-54060427 Very limited what they reported on to be sure. AP News has more in depth reporting: https://apnews.com/hub/julian-assange

Dear lord.

Zero articles in the past two weeks. If you've been following the case at all, there's been a Hell of a lot to report, from Amnesty and EU ministers despairing at having their monitor access revoked at the last minute, to Khaled El Masri's absolutely jaw-dropping testimony [1].

They have a front page post right now about "concern" over a "fan invasion" of the pitch in a GAA game (Gaelic Athletics Association). And another about some celeb confirmed to be on the next "Dancing with the Stars".

If anyone reading this is the type to blame people for being uninformed, please take this into account.

[1] https://shadowproof.com/2020/09/18/khaled-el-masri-stands-up...

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

#26

Post by awild »

mlthoughts2018 wrote: post #11

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 covera…

The biggest problem with Assagne is the fact that the US managed to assasinate his character with the swedish rape accusations dropped last year (after 10 years). They managed to make him untouchable, as journalists would have had to argue to show support for a "supposed rapist".

There is an excellent interview in german with the United Nations' Special Rapporteur on Torture about him that was very revealing: https://www.republik.ch/2020/01/31/nils-melzer-spricht-ueber...

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

#27

Post by scatters »

ISL wrote: post #21
rvnx wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

Seems like it would be pretty easy to place a laptop running Zoom/Meet/YouTube-live in the gallery so that the public could watch what is taking place in their name. Sunlight is good.

That would make it possible to record the stream. The UK legal system is very apprehensive of allowing any recording of what takes place in a courtroom that isn't filtered through a human observer's memory.

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

#28

Post by colordrops »

pydry wrote: post #22
voxic11 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow so it sounds like the BBC hasn't attended the hearing at all and is just reporting what is on the court docket.

It's consistent with the BBC acting as a propaganda arm of the British state - something that had become more true ever since the Hutton enquiry and the raft of new political appointees at the head of the organization.

And yet you'll find that twitter only marks Russian and Chinese accounts as "state media".

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

#30

Post by Deukhoofd »

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...

A seat in the actual room, not really. The thing that's kind of absurd is that they were banned from watching it remotely as well.

"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."

"The judge wrote back expressing her "regret" at her decision and saying: “I fully recognise that justice should be administered in public". Despite her regret and her recognition that scrutiny is a vital component of open justice, the judge did not change her mind."

Post reply on HN