Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Most people don't care because they don't pay attention. Are you sure it's not the other way round? Additionally, I don't think it matters whether they care or pay attention. Unless the media pays attention and publishes information, they won't get anywhere. > It's very disappointing, because the whole point of laws is that it shouldn't matter whether you're pretty or funny or sympathetic. A cynic might say that th…
> A cynic might say that the whole point of laws is to give the impression of justice, not to provide it. Is there one singular "point" to laws? I feel like justifying this statement inevitably ends up at some kind of secret cabal conspiracy theory. Otherwise you have to admit that there are many groups who have many competing points and goals for legal systems.
Why are Amnesty International monitors not able to observe the Assange hearing?
161–170 of 426 posts
Re: Why are Amnesty International monitors not able to observe the Assange hearing?
#162Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> sounds to me like someone trying to give their argument more weight People do this all the time on any subject, it's a weak rhetorical device. "I'm not one to support Javascript but", "I don't normally disagree with @pmachinery but". We should just try to make our point without trying to artificially weigh it with rhetoric.
I have complex views of Assange.
1. I think the extradition hearings are bizarre and it’s hard to consider them a fair trial.
2. I support Assanges long term goal of western democracies being open and accountable, rather than being based on secrets and lies.
3. I don’t know whether Assange’s tactics are moving us towards or away from that goal.
It seems like he has taken an anti-American stance and acted intentionally to undermine the US, presumably because he sees the US as the most hypocritical geopolitical actor.
He may be accurate in his assessment, but the adversaries of the US who will exploit the power vacuum are Russia and China, who are either worse or at least as bad as the US when it comes to secrets and lies, and so it’s not at all obvious that his tactics support his goal. I’d like to hope that they ultimately do cause some kind of positive realignment, but that is not a foregone conclusion.
Forcing someone to betray their principles in perceived self defense and then acting surprised is akin to gaslighting. Again, it’s not clear that this is a helpful move, but maybe it is.
I think it’s reasonable to say he has drawn attention to insecurities of both the US and the UK, but they seem like predicable and well founded insecurities.
Calling Assange a journalist is like calling Rupert Murdoch a journalist.
Assange is not a journalist, nor is he a reporter. Bear with me - this is a ‘pro Assange’ point.
He is a publisher with an intelligence gathering network.
Recognizing this doesn’t mean it’s right that he should be prosecuted.
In fact it sheds light on something more sinister - actual journalists don’t report the things that Assange published, because their publishers don’t want them to.
Publishers in general are self-censoring in order to stay on good terms with governments and other powerful interests.
Organizations calling Assange a ‘journalist’, especially any mainstream publishers, are actually colluding to deflect attention from this fact, and co-opting support for Assange, when in fact they are collaborating with governments and are the very reason Wikileaks was necessary in the first place.
Reducing what’s going on to ‘Assange as martyr’, ‘look at this kangaroo court’, ‘This is about silencing journalists’, does nothing to advance Assange’s actual goal.
Re: Why are Amnesty International monitors not able to observe the Assange hearing?
#163Earlier 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…
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 whistle…
On the subject of the charges, since you brought it up:
How can the US reasonably charge him with espionage? Has Assange ever even been to the US?
If we can charge a foreign reporter with espionage for the mere publication of something we consider secret, and force their international extradition, how would we feel about a foreign government doing the same to one of our citizens?
For instance, if Australia were to coerce the UK to arrest and extradite the publisher of the New York Times for prosecution under their laws for printing a story they didn't like for some reason.
Re: Why are Amnesty International monitors not able to observe the Assange hearing?
#164Earlier 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.
"If Amnesty International and other observers wanted to attend the hearing, they would have to queue for one of the four seats available in a public gallery."
I believe the gallery seats 40 but only four are available because of their rules on social distancing.
Re: Why are Amnesty International monitors not able to observe the Assange hearing?
#165Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
#166Earlier quoted context omitted.
> A cynic might say that the whole point of laws is to give the impression of justice, not to provide it. Is there one singular "point" to laws? I feel like justifying this statement inevitably ends up at some kind of secret cabal conspiracy theory. Otherwise you have to admit that there are many groups who have many competing points and goals for legal systems.
This is what Chibber calls the "pluralist theory" which he argues is not entirely false but rather incomplete. I hope this will be of interest to you : https://youtu.be/R5R-9X_BtP4
Also, naming a theory does not give it credence. So simply saying that a person said a thing and gave it a name tells me nothing if you don't tell me what they said. Linking to a hour long video is not a good substitution for defining your terms.
Re: Why are Amnesty International monitors not able to observe the Assange hearing?
#167Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Actually, around 40 other public observers from across Europe had the same access granted and then revoked. Many of them were from other countries, happy not to need to travel during the pandemic, and they woke up the morning of the first day to discover their access revoked.
This is truly alarming, to a much bigger scale, in this case.
Re: Why are Amnesty International monitors not able to observe the Assange hearing?
#168Assange is being charged under the US 1917 Espionage Act.
How can the US reasonably charge him with espionage? Has Assange ever even been to the US?
If we can charge a foreign reporter with espionage for the mere publication of something we consider secret, and force their international extradition, how would we feel about a foreign government doing the same to one of our citizens?
For instance, if Australia were to coerce the UK to arrest and extradite the publisher of the New York Times for prosecution under their laws for printing a story they didn't like for some reason.
Re: Why are Amnesty International monitors not able to observe the Assange hearing?
#169Earlier quoted context omitted.
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).
My understanding is that observers would need to have either one of the four available seats in the public gallery or a seat in the "overflow" rooms next to the court. Please note that the audio in the overflow room is reportedly very poor, what little I've read made it sound unreliable.
If some observers were allowed remote access, I think that is important.
Re: Why are Amnesty International monitors not able to observe the Assange hearing?
#170I 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...
Anyone taking anything Craig Murray says seriously should definitely look into his past with some scrutiny for a while.