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

181–190 of 426 posts

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

#181

Post by kodah »

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…

The US has fought some interesting cases that have extended US law outside of the United States and cases that allow foreign nationals to use US law outside of the United States. A good example of the latter is when Iraqi citizens were able to sue Blackwater in a US court or where asylum seekers were able to sue governments and cartel members in a US court.

The way I see it, as a largely uneducated-about-the-formalities-of-law citizen, is that this exemplifies the need for a world court who has proper interests and jurisdiction to hold fair trials for international matters.

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

#182

Post by gpm »

rayiner wrote: post #179
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 t…

> If you’re really just publishing materials you got from a leaker, you’re protected.

My understanding is that they (the US government) have actually argued the opposite during the hearings.

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

#183

Post by bmsleight_ »

jonhohle wrote: post #111
SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"One of the most valuable and important journalists in history" is quite a grand description. Can you clarify what makes him so special? I worry this is something where people's opinions have escalated far beyond what the underlying facts support in a cycle of outrage and counter-outrage.

I would argue the scope of the stories Wikileaks has broken are of extreme historical importance. I would also consider how he has stuck to his principles despite years of house arrest and now international prosecution also historic in a journalistic context. Given the same treatment now do you think Chris Cuomo, Rachael Maddow, or Don Lemmon would have done?

He was not under house arrest. He choose to enter the embassy, he chose to break bail.

Now the point about I may have done same thing given the same actors against me - does not make it house arrest.

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

#184

Post by rayiner »

agd wrote: post #178
rayiner wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

“Protecting your source” means that you don’t disclose your source. It doesn’t mean you help your source cover up a crime.

This is not a difficult line drawing exercise. Lawyers do it all the time: you’re protected from disclosing client confidences. But it’s highly illegal to actually assist your client in obstructing an investigation!

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

#185

Post by jonnycomputer »

mlthoughts2018 wrote: post #151
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...

This is a completely baseless claim, and it is directly contradicted by testimony in Assange’s extradition hearing. For example, John Sloboda of Iraq Body Count testified both to the crucial role Wikileaks diplomatic cables played in corroborating many illegal civilian deaths in the Iraq War, and also the huge degree of care and effort Assange and Wikileaks put into carefully redacting identifying information and wei…

"DNC leaked emails"

Leaked? Hacked. DNC hacked emails, hacked by Russia, disseminated by Assange, who put it out that Seth Rich was the source instead of a GRU operative. That's not whistle-blowing, thats tradecraft.

And there you go ignoring the proposed quid-pro-quo.

Read the Mueller report.

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

#186

Post by mariusor »

zepto wrote: post #162
hombre_fatal wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

It may be a weak rhetorical device, but it’s also informational. 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…

> Calling Assange a journalist is like calling Rupert Murdoch a journalist.

I think the comparison is not exactly right, Wikileaks is very far from being a media empire, and Assange is very far from using it as a tool in his own interest. In my opinion, calling Assange a journalist is like calling a news room editor a journalist, as in: he is one.

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

#187

Post by rayiner »

ugopapa wrote: post #180
nickff wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Collaborating with a source is different than assisting a source to obstruct a law enforcement investigation of a computer security breach.

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

#188

Post by gpm »

LegitShady wrote: post #146
njharman wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't think that's a fair characterization.

AI is requesting access as trial monitors, special or not. Something they are entitled to under law and the principles of a open justice system because access is something everyone is entitled to.

To dismiss this as arguing for "special status" is to make the argument that you aren't allowed to argue for your own rights unless you also spend the time, energy, and money to argue for everyone else's. For example that an author couldn't sue the government for blocking the publishing of their book unless they also sued the government for blocking the publishing of every other blocked authors book. Not only is that not a duty they have, it's not even clear that they would have standing to do so.

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

#189

Post by sneak »

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…

This posits that it should be illegal to expose classified war crimes.

Sometimes, the law is wrong, and should be broken. Nonviolent disobedience of the law is a moral obligation in many instances. There is a long and glorious history of this happening throughout modern history.

This is why we have juries: to make that instance not illegal.

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

#190

Post by cmiles74 »

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…

The US Department of Justice issued a press release in June that tries to summarize the charges in the superseding indictment.[0] For most of the document it's hard to tell what is part of the idictment and what may be simply a recap of other things the US DOJ believes he may have done.

In regards to Chelsea Manning, that bit is quite short:

"In addition, the broadened hacking conspiracy continues to allege that Assange conspired with Army Intelligence Analyst Chelsea Manning to crack a password hash to a classified U.S. Department of Defense computer. "

Forbes spent some time on this[1] and they believe that this really is the important part, this is the act that elevates Assange's actions to conspiracy. According to Forbes no password was ever derived from the hash and it never led to the collection of any documents.

[0]: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/wikileaks-founder-charged-sup...

[1]: https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2019/04/16/unpac...

Post reply on HN