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

171–180 of 426 posts

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

#171

Post by colordrops »

chillwaves wrote: post #155
colordrops wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 the…

It's not helpful to say "the people who I disagree with are repeating propaganda."

I agree, and that's not what I said.

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

#172

Post by cmiles74 »

nemo wrote: post #121
mattatkeyboard wrote: post #114

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...

Anyone taking anything Craig Murray says seriously should definitely look into his past with some scrutiny for a while.

This is the situation forced on us by the court and the magistrate. Certainly if there was coverage of the proceedings from more sources we might choose to read those as well or instead of Craig Murray's blog.

At this time he seems to be one of the few people allowed in the public gallery.

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

#173

Post by primroot »

alex_young wrote: post #168

The idea of this law is really interesting to me. Assange 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…

I think this is tangential "International Criminal Court officials sanctioned by US" https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-54003527 .

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

#174

Post by mas3god »

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

"Why is my state run media outlet ignoring one of the biggest whistleblowers in history?"

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

#175

Post by rayiner »

LatteLazy wrote: post #85

I feel like the powers that be have decided to make this extradition happen. Most people don't care because they don't pay attention. Of those that do, the noisy attention payers like us, a sizeable group have decided Assange isn't likeable and so should suffer for upsetting people more powerful than him. Now we have to go through all this theatrics simply so those people can say things like "he got a fair hearing" a…

I’m not sure I parse things the way you do. Assange is accused of going beyond leaking into assisting Chelsea Manning get pass security systems. If he was not only the distributor of classified material, but actively participated in expropriating it, he’s on the wrong side of the law.

Folks had been willing to overlook that, because they viewed him as sympathetic. But he’s undermined that with his connections to Russia. Moreover, Russian attempts to manipulate the 2016 election showed a lot of people that radical transparency isn’t cost free—hostile governments can use this information to jeopardize American national security, including by manipulating otherwise well meaning leakers.

If you’re neither sympathetic nor on the right side of the law, you’ve got a problem.

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

#176

Post by nickff »

alex_young wrote: post #168

The idea of this law is really interesting to me. Assange 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…

My understanding is that Assange is alleged to have conspired with people in the USA to release classified information. One might compare it to collaborating with someone in the US to commit fraud (or perpetrating the fraud via the internet); being outside the country does not make you immune from prosecution.

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

#177

Post by bmsleight_ »

cmiles74 wrote: post #160
pmachinery wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

This is a good question. Coverage of this trial has been hard to come by. Craig Murray is posting details to his blog but he's also not the most objective witness. Still, he wrote the following[0]: "Magistrate Baraitser then made a statement about access to the court by remote hearing, by which she meant online. She stated that a number of access details had been sent out by mistake by the court without her agreement…

As a counterbalance - reporting restriction from court are highly regulated in the UK. If a person breaks the regulations it is easy to deny them access the next day. No so easy on remote access, hard to control/prosecute contempt of court.

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

#178

Post by agd »

rayiner wrote: post #175
LatteLazy wrote: post #85

I feel like the powers that be have decided to make this extradition happen. Most people don't care because they don't pay attention. Of those that do, the noisy attention payers like us, a sizeable group have decided Assange isn't likeable and so should suffer for upsetting people more powerful than him. Now we have to go through all this theatrics simply so those people can say things like "he got a fair hearing" a…

I’m not sure I parse things the way you do. Assange is accused of going beyond leaking into assisting Chelsea Manning get pass security systems. If he was not only the distributor of classified material, but actively participated in expropriating it, he’s on the wrong side of the law. Folks had been willing to overlook that, because they viewed him as sympathetic. But he’s undermined that with his connections to Russ…

I believe that is incorrect. Assange is accused of helping Manning cover her tracks rather than extract the information in the first place. I.e. he was trying to protect his source.

In addition, multiple journalists have spoken out to the effect that encouraging sources to leak is standard journalistic practice.

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

#179

Post by rayiner »

alex_young wrote: post #168

The idea of this law is really interesting to me. Assange 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…

> If we can charge a foreign reporter with espionage for the mere publication of something we consider secret

He’s not being charged with espionage for “the mere publication” of secrets. He’s being charged with actively assisting a leaker in bypassing security systems: illegal conduct that took place in the US.

The attempt to gussy this up overlooks how Assange, if he did what he’s accused of doing, clearly crossed the line. The rules in the US are already very liberal here. If you’re really just publishing materials you got from a leaker, you’re protected. Going even further and saying someone should be protected even when they actively assist a leaker in obtaining materials illegally is a huge step further.

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

#180

Post by ugopapa »

nickff wrote: post #176
alex_young wrote: post #168

The idea of this law is really interesting to me. Assange 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…

My understanding is that Assange is alleged to have conspired with people in the USA to release classified information. One might compare it to collaborating with someone in the US to commit fraud (or perpetrating the fraud via the internet); being outside the country does not make you immune from prosecution.

Or one may compare it with the way journalists collaborate with sources. In fact, it has been discussed in the hearing how Assange behavior is exactly what journalists do to get access to privileged information.
Post reply on HN