121–130 of 426 posts
I am only lurking on this but Craig Murray (ex British diplomat) has a good blog following the daily ongoings on this trial. https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/category/uncategoriz... It seems to be incredibly murky and quite frankly, pretty disturbing...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>They're signaling that publishing secrets is a crime; that's an objective fact Stating things are facts don't make them facts; thats an objective fact. Anyway, I used to read Assange when he was more of a crypto/phreak, and he is, for lack of a better term, a bit of a fucking asshole. That said though, and I'm going to make a controversial statement here, but one I think is truthful, but the biggest problem now with…
I fully agree with your assessment, especially after seeing the Hamilton 68 "Russian backed media" dashboard that included a lot of progressive and alternative media, directed by a mix of DNC elite and Neo-cons, which was created by the orwellian sounding "Alliance for Securing Democracy". It's obvious that the RussiaGate campaign is really a smear campaign used to take down enemies left and right if you pay close at…
I have often found creating just basic timelines (just org files with dates as headings) has really helped me understand and find novel insights into issues of a convtroversial nature, so I think you are on to something.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 peo…
> whether the general public should have greater access.
Not that AI should have special legal standing.
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 w…
Like all organisations, BBC editors have to decide where to focus their limited resources. They have covered Assange, lots. Yesterday they put a hell of a lot of coverage into the HSBC etc leaks, this morning the lead story on the website was the 'Tory donor Lubov Chernukhin linked to $8m Putin ally funding' story [0]
The BBC has been criticised for left wing bias in newsnight (indepth news program on about 2240), in the editor really digging into the current government [1], in the presenter really digging into the PM's chief advisor. The BBC's new chief used to be a local Tory Party deputy chairman [3], and the head of Radio used to be an elected Labour party minister, and was set for the top job at one point [4]
15 years ago the BBC DG resigned after the whole David Kelly affair put the corporation at loggerheads with the government [5]
Saying the BBC is biassed, one way or another, is a simplistic and wrong view. Saying it's not biassed is equally simplistic and wrong.
[0] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54228079 [1] https://www.theweek.co.uk/107867/bbc-newsnight-editor-lewis-... [2] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/emily-maitlis... [3] https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/jun/05/bbc-appoints-i... [4] https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-plot-to-stop-james-p... [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Kelly_(weapons_expert)
This makes me feel incredibly cynical. I genuinely want to know: would it matter if they did get to observe? I'm sure Amnesty has reported on tonnes of US/UK crimes and human rights violations, and a quick google search shows many such reports. How many of those actually changed anything? Sure, when Amnesty reports on, say, Syria, the US could use that as justification for intervention, but what use is reporting on t…
There are a lot of things going on in that courtroom that should alarm journalists everywhere (especially American journalists), but without a strong voice to raise them out of their stupor, no journalist will pay enough attention to understand the new danger they face.
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.…
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 ).
Those comments are getting really tiring and it's disappointing to see this place accept ad hominems against the source over and over in those threads instead of actually discussing the trial.
Ofc complaining about comment quality isn't new, that's existed before I started coming here.
Hn does a pretty good job of being off topic in threads but it's the nastiness of the comments that degrades the quality of conversation (I myself am guilty of this too, and I need to work on that).
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
Everyone sucks here?
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…