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

51–60 of 426 posts

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

#51

Post by vidarh »

nabla9 wrote: post #47
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 him…

6) is what is at issue here, and it's terrifying to see how this case is being conducted, and in many ways more seriously the lack of media interest.

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

#52

Post by Cthulhu_ »

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.

They should, since it concerns a matter of international politics and, indirectly / by extension, whether the US committed war crimes and if they're going to string up the whistleblower that exposed it.

And on a more local level, it's about which side the UK will pick. They can side with justice and hold onto Assange (or grant him asylum), defying their next best friend the US (after they pissed off and flounced out of Europe), or siding with international justice and hold onto him as a key witness for the (hopefully upcoming) war crimes case in the international court of justice.

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

#53

Post by pmachinery »

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?

Maybe people can be critical of the way Assange is being treated and/or the way the US/UK regimes are behaving, while not necessarily supporting what he did or liking the guy.

Edit: In fact prefacing with "I'm not an Assange supporter but..." sounds to me like someone trying to give their argument in support of him/against the US/UK governments more weight, ie, even people who aren't the usual suspect fans of his are disturbed by what's going on.

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

#54

Post by jariel »

nabla9 wrote: post #47
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 him…

Well that's just it.

If he was not perceived to be by some as #5 he would be all over CNN right now.

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

#55

Post by pbhjpbhj »

awild wrote: post #35
cool_dude85 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> wanted to get legal advice if she can force Assange to take an HIV test after having unprotected sex with him //

If someone purposefully hides salient facts from you in order to coerce sexual intercourse then it can be that consent was only acquired by deception and that under the law consent was not freely given. That seems a reasonable definition of rape.

A person seeking police advice may not know they were raped in that way. And prosecution despite that person's reluctance would seem right as it seems to protect the public from a menace (someone knowingly spreading HIV).

Those mightn't be the facts here, but save the last paragraph it fits with what you're saying and explains why a public prosecutor would seek a prosecution despite the alleged victim not considering themselves to have been raped.

If someone is familiar with the case and Swedish rape laws then I'd be interested in their input here?

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

#56

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

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?

Assange is an extra controversial figure in the US due to events in the 2016 election unrelated to this case. Before that happened I rarely saw such disclaimers.

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

#57

Post by alex_young »

nabla9 wrote: post #47
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 him…

Assange has spent his career defending a natural right to whistleblowing.

If you find fault with him for other reasons that is fine, but the core issue here seems to be one of of ‘do you believe that there is such a natural right?’, and not one of ‘do you believe Assange is a likable person?’.

If you’re fine with governments using extrajudicial systems to exact revenge on whistleblowers in distant lands then it really doesn’t matter what you think about his personal behavior.

If on the other hand you think there is such an inherent human value, it’s conversely difficult to justify his current treatment.

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

#58

Post by salawat »

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...

Would anyone deem it acceptable if this were a country well known for running kangaroo courts?

No, it wouldn't. Just because the U.K. gets it's knickers in a twist that the international community is hitting it with the same "Trust but Verify" stick as it does every other nation doesn't net them a free pass.

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

#59

Post by colpabar »

pydry wrote: post #40
mlthoughts2018 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

sadly I think a lot of people see downvote buttons as "I disagree" buttons.

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

#60

Post by rootsudo »

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".

To be fair, the name of the state is in BBC itself.
Post reply on HN