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?

#141

Post by AnimalMuppet » Mon, Sep 21, 2020, 4:26 PM UTC

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…

I don't think the core issue of the court case is "is there such a natural right"? It is whether Assange broke laws in the process of carrying out the whistleblowing.

Or do you think that whistleblowing is so fundamental that it supersedes all normal laws?

Whistleblowing is in fact protected, by law, in many circumstances, at least in the US. That doesn't mean that you can stomp all over other laws, and plead whistleblowing. The other laws also still apply.

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

#142

Post by rebuilder » Mon, Sep 21, 2020, 4:27 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...

What is the relevance here?

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

#143

Post by rbanffy » Mon, Sep 21, 2020, 4:30 PM UTC

SubiculumCode wrote: post #123

Dang. The conversation here is toxic.

A lot of people seem to have little sympathy for Assange (I certainly don't, for his role in Trump's election) and don't seem to realize that any journalist that publishes a leak that involves a government can be threatened with the same accusations the US is making against him.

This is not about Assange's personal life or him being a journalist or a hack. It's about the freedom to publish relevant news obtained from a whistle-blower without fear of being arrested and tortured for years before being extradited to spend the rest of their life being tortured.

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

#144

Post by tremon » Mon, Sep 21, 2020, 4:30 PM UTC

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...

is there any reason why Amnesty International should have a seat in the actual room ?

Yes. They're recognized independent observers. The reason why they should have a seat in the actual room is the same reason why all democratic countries allow independent observers to follow their elections from close-by: to confirm the fairness and validity of the process.

Or, to put it differently: "if they're doing nothing wrong, they have nothing to hide from Amnesty International"

I understand that physical seats are limited and retransmission is free and in live in the other room

That feed is very unreliable, as attested by many viewers from that room. That leaves ample opportunity for "doctoring" the feed.

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

#145

Post by kmonsen » Mon, Sep 21, 2020, 4:31 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.

I am not sure how extradition requests should be allowed based on profession? It depends on which laws the break, and international treaties?

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

#146

Post by LegitShady » Mon, Sep 21, 2020, 4:35 PM UTC

njharman wrote: post #124

LegitShady wrote: post #72

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. 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…

I'm pretty positive that the "they should" was in reply to > whether the general public should have greater access. Not that AI should have special legal standing.

Except the whole thing is about AI requesting special status as fair trial monitors and getting told no, so not really.

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

#147

Post by tremon » Mon, Sep 21, 2020, 4:37 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? Yes or no.

Yes.

There is no process, other than the United States government's own procedures, that prevents the US from extraditing any of its citizens, journalists or otherwise, to other governments.

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

#148

Post by joshuamorton » Mon, Sep 21, 2020, 4:38 PM UTC

arcticbull wrote: post #39

colordrops wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet you'll find that twitter only marks Russian and Chinese accounts as "state media".

I guess you can’t mark something they didn’t report as fake or misleading.

Sounds a lot like wikileaks itself ;)

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

#149

Post by colordrops » Mon, Sep 21, 2020, 4:39 PM UTC

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #87

rootsudo wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, the name of the state is in BBC itself.

Twitter's been fairly open about their decisionmaking process here, so we know that's not the relevant factor - they say they don't label BBC because it has editorial independence.

Sounds hand-wavy. How is editorial independence measured?

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

#150

Post by root_axis » Mon, Sep 21, 2020, 4:45 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…

> thought the people here had a sharper political view on what kind of society we could/should live...

Your condescending framing that suggests anyone who doesn't agree with your political analysis isn't sharp is a quintessential example of what is wrong with political discussion in today's era.

You didn't present any facts or arguments, you simply invoked a tired political virtue-signal to let everyone know where you stand on Assange while simultaneously expressing disdain for those who don't agree with you, all without addressing any specifics. Bravo.