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

31–40 of 426 posts

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

#31

Post by cassepipe »

I am baffled to see that the majority of the comments here are at best showing no support for what Assange did and at worst are trying to find excuses not to be disturbed in their belief that since we are in a democracy hence everything that's happening is normal. I thought the people here had a sharper political view on what kind of society we could/should live in but I just read people that are always in a hurry to put themselves on the good side of the stick, praising the stick and telling themselves "Everything is normal. Everything is normal. Everything...". Forgive the bitterness, I am still young and unruly. I'll settle down later and me too I'll accept how impotent I am at changing the order of thing and banter about humanity's real problem as a lack of universal love and and understanding.

End of rant. Have a good day.

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

#32

Post by megous »

scatters wrote: post #27
ISL wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why's that, anyway?

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

#33

Post by cool_dude85 »

awild wrote: post #26
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:…

Have the rape accusations been dropped? Or just the investigation into the allegations?

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

#34

Post by pmachinery »

cassepipe wrote: post #31

I am baffled to see that the majority of the comments here are at best showing no support for what Assange did and at worst are trying to find excuses not to be disturbed in their belief that since we are in a democracy hence everything that's happening is normal. I thought the people here had a sharper political view on what kind of society we could/should live in but I just read people that are always in a hurry to…

> I am baffled to see that the majority of the comments here are at best showing no support for what Assange did and at worst are trying to find excuses not to be disturbed in their belief that since we are in a democracy hence everything that's happening is normal.

I'm not seeing that in the comments (and there aren't that many at present). Most people seem critical of this and/or express cynicism about the process.

WRT not supporting what Assange did, I didn't notice anyone (as I type) saying anything specific about it, negative or otherwise.

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

#35

Post by awild »

cool_dude85 wrote: post #33
awild wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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:…

Have the rape accusations been dropped? Or just the investigation into the allegations?

The interview I linked (this is from memory), emphasized the fact that the accusations were pretty bogus to begin with. The accuser did not actually go to the police about rape: she wanted to get legal advice if she can force Assange to take an HIV test after having unprotected sex with him.

> Was heisst das: Die Behörden wiegelten ab?

> Darf ich von vorn beginnen? Ich spreche fliessend Schwedisch und konnte deshalb alle Original­dokumente lesen. Ich traute meinen Augen nicht: Nach Aussagen der betroffenen Frau selber hat es nie eine Vergewaltigung gegeben. Und nicht nur das: Die Aussage dieser Frau wurde im Nachhinein ohne ihre Mitwirkung von der Stockholmer Polizei umgeschrieben, um irgendwie einen Vergewaltigungs­verdacht herbeibiegen zu können. Mir liegen die Dokumente alle vor, die Mails, die SMS.

> What does that mean: The authorities are weighing down?

> Can I start over? I speak Swedish fluently so I was able to read all the original documents. I couldn't believe my eyes: According to the woman concerned, there was never any rape. And not only that: The statement of this woman was retrospectively rewritten by the Stockholm police without her involvement in order to somehow turn up a suspicion of rape. I have all the documents in front of me, the emails, the SMS.

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

#36

Post by lallysingh »

cool_dude85 wrote: post #33
awild wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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:…

Have the rape accusations been dropped? Or just the investigation into the allegations?

From the linked article: "According to the woman concerned, there was never any rape. And not only that: The statement of this woman was retrospectively rewritten by the Stockholm police without her involvement in order to somehow turn up a suspicion of rape. I have all the documents before me, the emails, the SMS."

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

#37

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

awild wrote: post #26
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:…

What are you referring to? Maybe it's different abroad, but this untouchability isn't present in the US, where journalists quite regularly express support for Assange. The New York Times is on record calling the effort to prosecute him a "strike at the very foundation of the free press".

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

#38

Post by pydry »

pmachinery wrote: post #34
cassepipe wrote: post #31

I am baffled to see that the majority of the comments here are at best showing no support for what Assange did and at worst are trying to find excuses not to be disturbed in their belief that since we are in a democracy hence everything that's happening is normal. I thought the people here had a sharper political view on what kind of society we could/should live in but I just read people that are always in a hurry to…

> I am baffled to see that the majority of the comments here are at best showing no support for what Assange did and at worst are trying to find excuses not to be disturbed in their belief that since we are in a democracy hence everything that's happening is normal. I'm not seeing that in the comments (and there aren't that many at present). Most people seem critical of this and/or express cynicism about the process.…

Every single day this is posted there is a raft of comments that either use ad hominems to attack the source without addressing what it had to say or red herrings (e.g. why does X think they should be given one of the only 5 spots made available to see the trial that affects everybody).

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

#39

Post by arcticbull »

colordrops wrote: post #28
pydry wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

I guess you can’t mark something they didn’t report as fake or misleading.

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

#40

Post by pydry »

mlthoughts2018 wrote: post #16
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.”

I really question the motivations of people who would downvote this. It's clear, objective, relevant information.
Post reply on HN