Why are Amnesty International monitors not able to observe the Assange hearing? • Hacker News Board

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

#101

Post by andy_ppp » Mon, Sep 21, 2020, 3:50 PM UTC

jonnycomputer wrote: post #83

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 do not have a good opinion of Julian Assange or of Wikileaks, and I am not afraid to say it. At best it has been an unwitting tool of Russian disinformation campaigns; just as likely it is complicit. One must also wonder why Assange spends so much time talking to folks like Sean Hannity, Dana Rohrbacher, and Charles C. Johnson. https://www.emptywheel.net/2020/09/19/wherein-wikileaks-brag...

Is the US allowed to extradite journalists? Yes or no. That’s what this case tests and I personally think Julian Assange does not matter so much, he’s just a vehicle to scare people.

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

#102

Post by AniseAbyss » Mon, Sep 21, 2020, 3:50 PM UTC

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…

The US has never been onboard with international human rights, see Guatanomo.

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

#103

Post by jonnycomputer » Mon, Sep 21, 2020, 3:52 PM UTC

calcifer wrote: post #98

jonnycomputer wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, well my opinions on Assange are independent of my opinion of the trial.

Curiously enough, people in your position rarely feel the need to share their supposedly different opinions of the trial.

I don't have an opinion about the conduct of trial because I haven't been following the trial. If you asked me about whether I think Assange should be extradited to the US, the answer is no, I do not.

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

#104

Post by LGNUITLZCJ » Mon, Sep 21, 2020, 3:54 PM UTC

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.

This is an Australian citizen being deported by the UK government to the United States for being a journalist. This is something of international significance and international observers should be allowed to be present if the UK wants to have any semblance of being a liberal democracy.

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

#105

Post by disown » Mon, Sep 21, 2020, 3:54 PM UTC

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

> lack of news seems very odd.

Why does it seem odd? Go watch/read news from a variety of sources. You'll notice that "news" is quite different from country to country and region to region. The same goes for history. The BBC is a government funded state propaganda machine. They cover and then spin whatever benefits the state. Easily the best in the world with reach in almost every one of their former slave colonies which constitute the british empire/commonwealth today.

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

#106

Post by jonnycomputer » Mon, Sep 21, 2020, 3:54 PM UTC

andy_ppp wrote: post #101

jonnycomputer wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do not have a good opinion of Julian Assange or of Wikileaks, and I am not afraid to say it. At best it has been an unwitting tool of Russian disinformation campaigns; just as likely it is complicit. One must also wonder why Assange spends so much time talking to folks like Sean Hannity, Dana Rohrbacher, and Charles C. Johnson. https://www.emptywheel.net/2020/09/19/wherein-wikileaks-brag...

Is the US allowed to extradite journalists? Yes or no. That’s what this case tests and I personally think Julian Assange does not matter so much, he’s just a vehicle to scare people.

Is the US allowed to extradite journalists?

Apparently yes.

Do I think they should be?

No, I do not.

Now, can you just take what I posted at face value instead of assuming a whole bunch of other opinions you think I hold?

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

#107

Post by colordrops » Mon, Sep 21, 2020, 3:56 PM UTC

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 know that talking about propaganda and shills on HN is frowned upon, but it seems relevant to this discussion. I believe that the negative opinions of Assange mostly consist of either propaganda by sock puppets, people that heard this propaganda and repeated themselves, or a bit of both. Assange was held in high esteem by the public until they finally got a foothold on how to bury him. Intelligence agencies and their contractors have been trying to smear and shut him down since before he was arrested, such as the Palantir/HB Gary fiasco [1].

In short, when you see smart people saying silly things, sometimes it's not due to emergent organic causes.

[1] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/02/the-ridiculous-p...

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

#108

Post by LGNUITLZCJ » Mon, Sep 21, 2020, 3:56 PM UTC

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?

I don't believe Assange was ever charged. He was just wanted for questioning.

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

#109

Post by megous » Mon, Sep 21, 2020, 3:58 PM UTC

seanhunter wrote: post #41

megous wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Thank you. In my country, the people have right to make recordings in the court, unless specifically limited by the judge on case by case basis.

Looks like the difference is that there's no jury to be prejudiced, because trials are decided by the judges only.

I wonder though if the extradition request is going to be decided by the jury at some point, in this case in particular.

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

#110

Post by lanevorockz » Mon, Sep 21, 2020, 3:58 PM UTC

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 do believe there is a substantial amount of people that just bow to whatever the perceived experts say. That's why you would be called a conspiracy theorist if you said that Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction. Proof be damned and Skeptics should be burn at the stake.

What bothers me the most is that Assange only crime in the UK is that he had skip bail from a crime without evidence. Where is the European Court of Justice ? Human Rights ? It's all a political weapon now ?