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

71–80 of 426 posts

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

#71

Post by geofft »

alex_young wrote: post #57
nabla9 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 reall…

My personal opinion: I don't think it's defensible that he's facing extradition charges to the US on the current charges he's facing. (He's not a whistleblower, and calling him a journalist seems to stretch the definition, but it's important for the health of society that his actions are permitted so that the actions of "actual" whistleblowers and journalists are clearly permitted.)

However, I think it's entirely defensible that he lost his asylum in Ecuador, because that's up to the good graces of Ecuador and they didn't owe him anything, and it's entirely defensible that he faced the threat of extradition to Sweden for a sexual assault trial because those charges were credible. (I don't know if they are true or not, but that's what a trial would be for, and they don't seem to have been so specious that a trial itself would be unjust.)

This makes it hard for me to summarize my opinion as either agreeing or disagreeing with his current treatment.

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

#72

Post by LegitShady »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #52
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…

> 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.

Amnesty International is just an NGO. They get a lot of press but they have no standing in law, "whether the US committed war crimes" or not.

Which other NGOs should be empowered to have legal standings in other people's court cases? Which others should the government be forced to listen to?

seems like a disaster of an idea.

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

#73

Post by mlthoughts2018 »

res0nat0r wrote: post #65
pydry wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It's being downvoted because the OP already answered the question. They're being treated exactly the same as the rest of the public.

You are factually wrong. Amnesty was granted remote access, and it was revoked. This has not happened to many other public observers.

It seems you only read the parts about physical access, and the point about space limitation might be valid in that case. But that part is merely a footnote. The real issue is the remote access being revoked.

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

#74

Post by LegitShady »

pmachinery wrote: post #66
res0nat0r wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's being downvoted because the OP already answered the question. They're being treated exactly the same as the rest of the public.

The rest of the public is also having its remote access revoked?

Amnesty has the same access as the rest of the public.

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

#75

Post by mlthoughts2018 »

LegitShady wrote: post #74
pmachinery wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The rest of the public is also having its remote access revoked?

Amnesty has the same access as the rest of the public.

No, the article explains their remote access was revoked (unlike many other public observers).

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

#76

Post by shuntress »

alex_young wrote: post #57
nabla9 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 reall…

The last few notable years of his career had been less about "defending that natural right to whistleblowing" and more about "make sure only the right whistles get blown"

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

#77

Post by pueblito »

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?

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

I can't speak for anybody else, but I consider it a valid worry

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

#79

Post by DiogenesKynikos »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #37
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:…

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".

The NY Times has a history of trying to smear Assange. The day after they began publishing the Iraq and Afghan War Logs, provided to them by Assange, the NY Times prominently ran a hit piece about Assange. Here's the opening:

> Julian Assange moves like a hunted man. In a noisy Ethiopian restaurant in London’s rundown Paddington district, he pitches his voice barely above a whisper to foil the Western intelligence agencies he fears.

> He demands that his dwindling number of loyalists use expensive encrypted cellphones and swaps his own the way other men change shirts. He checks into hotels under false names, dyes his hair, sleeps on sofas and floors, and uses cash instead of credit cards, often borrowed from friends.

The whole point was to paint him as a paranoid control freak, rather than someone who had completely legitimate fears of state surveillance. Does anyone seriously think that Assange was not under surveillance by multiple state intelligence agencies at that point?

Anyways, this is how they treated the person who provided them one of the biggest scoops in the paper's history. If you look at the NY Times page on the War Logs, they still feature the hit piece at the top: https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/interactive/worl...

Yes, the NY Times has expressed opposition to the prosecution of Assange, but they've hardly reported on his extradition case. They should have this case on the front page every day, given how critical it is to the future of journalism in the US.

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

#80

Post by Synaesthesia »

shuntress wrote: post #76
alex_young wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 reall…

The last few notable years of his career had been less about "defending that natural right to whistleblowing" and more about "make sure only the right whistles get blown"

That's debatable but even if true doesn't mean he's not one of the most valuable and important journalists in history
Post reply on HN