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

41–50 of 426 posts

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

#41

Post by seanhunter »

megous wrote: post #32
scatters wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

In general the reporting restrictions in the UK are there because there has been a history of recordings leading to jury prejudice and therefore mistrials.

There is a general principle of the court publishes a fair, accurate and contemporaneous record except where this would create a substantial risk of prejudice. Here are the details https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/reportin...

These UK reporting restrictions are also why the BBC (and other major UK-based media) are very careful about how they report on criminal proceedings.

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

#42

Post by jacobush »

lallysingh wrote: post #36
cool_dude85 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

What muddies the waters is that under Swedish law, rape is a fairly broad thing. Possibly it was rape under the law. What complicates matters is that the public prosecutor would never touch a case like this because the Police would just respond with their standard "crime cannot be proven".

Selective enforcement at its "finest", in my opinion.

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

#43

Post by pydry »

megous wrote: post #32
scatters wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

This entire trial is about one of our closest allies trying to conceal premeditated murder and prosecute the whistleblower.

It should be pretty obvious why.

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

#44

Post by tialaramex »

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.

The audio is always recorded and transcribed at a Crown Court. The transcriptions are a permanent record. This is why for example if a witness nods to affirm something they'll be asked to actually say "Yes" out loud if that's what they meant.

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

#45

Post by mistermann »

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 wouldn’t describe myself as a supporter but still the seeming lack of news seems very odd.

From a logical perspective it seems quite odd, but from a pattern recognition perspective it seems quite normal, the pattern being that certain types of news stories seem to get a full court/spectrum press, and other stories (often arguably more substantial) get what seems like the bare minimum required to not raise eyebrows. It sometimes makes one wonder if there might be more going on here than meets the eye.

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

#46

Post by demarq »

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.…

> I'm not seeing that in the comments

I'm seeing it everytime someone prefaces their comment with something along the lines of:

"I'm not an Assange supporter But ..."

in fact you're comment is really no different:

> not supporting what Assange did, I didn't

Are people worried the FBI will break down their door, if they don't put up the disclaimer?

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

#47

Post by nabla9 »

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…

People are divided into those who see hims as hero or villain. Is there anyone like me who considers him neither?

For me, Assange is

1) Asshole

2) Possibly mentally ill at this point

3) Someone who once greatly advanced journalism and whistleblowing. Even bad journalist deserves protections of a journalist.

4) A person who might have crossed the line from journalism and even his own principles. If he did entangle himself in more than just publishing information being journalist status should not protect him (like assisting or promoting hacking to Dem servers).

5) Political partisan hack supporting Trump.

6) He is also a person who needs to be treated fairly no matter what he did or didn't do.

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

#48

Post by pbhjpbhj »

Deukhoofd wrote: post #30
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…

It looks like the judge gave no reason for her ruling, presumably there was a dictat rather than this just being a capricious decision?

There's the lack of openness 'you can't view the trial' and there's outright obeyance to fascism 'a political interference was made that compromised my former decision and I choose not to make that clear'.

Of course the judge could have made a legal error in acceding to the initial request from Amnesty International, but as a judge they would (and should) surely have given the reason for their turn around.

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

#49

Post by Cthulhu_ »

demarq wrote: post #46
pmachinery wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.…

> I'm not seeing that in the comments I'm seeing it everytime someone prefaces their comment with something along the lines of: "I'm not an Assange supporter But ..." in fact you're comment is really no different: > not supporting what Assange did, I didn't Are people worried the FBI will break down their door, if they don't put up the disclaimer?

They're signaling that publishing secrets is a crime; that's an objective fact, nobody is arguing against that I think. What's at stake here is whether the crime was justifiable and that it did more good (in exposing the US' war crimes) than bad (sharing state secrets and possibly risking informants).

Disclaimer: superficial layman's take on matters.

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

#50

Post by marbletiles »

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

It's fairly typical for the BBC to hold fire until the trial concludes and the legal restrictions around reporting are lifted.

I'm not sure I see the AP as having more "in depth" reporting, it just has a greater quantity of rolling reporting. Stories like "court case pauses for Covid alarm", "court case resumes", "Assange told to stop interrupting witnesses", "lawyer says Assange could be in prison for a long time" are not, let's be honest, adding to the total sum of understanding around the topic.

Post reply on HN