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

191–200 of 426 posts

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

#191

Post by luckylion »

anm89 wrote: post #140
luckylion wrote: post #133

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.

> Is there one singular "point" to laws?

On a high level view probably "to make it work", but that just shifts the problem to what "it" is and what "work" means.

It's easier to look for a priority, I think. When two interests clash (e.g. a fundamental interest of the state and the law), which one is given priority? Since it's the state that enforces the law, I believe the answer is obvious.

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

#192

Post by sneak »

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…

> Now we have to go through all this theatrics simply so those people can say things like "he got a fair hearing" and "the magistrate ruled against him so that must be the law".

This means that the countries involved (in this case, in order: Australia, Sweden, the UK, and the US) don't have the rule of law. It means that the law is theater, always potentially subordinate to dictatorial control should it ever be exercised to overrule it.

It's okay to say it, despite it feeling silly. Identifying one of the problems allows us to address it.

These countries only pretend to have the rule of law, insofar as the law doesn't contradict what the dictatorial authority wants to happen.

It's weird to think of the US or UK or Sweden or Australia, supposedly "free countries", as top-down military dictatorships, because it goes against every fiber of branding they've spent billions to explicitly promote.

There's lots of evidence for it, however: what mainstream party in the US wants to reign in the US military's insane overfunding, or illegal US military bulk surveillance, for example?

Once you see it, it's hard to unsee.

These countries place state security far above almost every other value, including equal protection of the law. Any attempts to change this priority by those with any semblance of power will be frustrated, by force if necessary.

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

#193

Post by salawat »

bmsleight_ wrote: post #177
cmiles74 wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Invalid counterbalance, in my opinion, when the conduct of the government is in question. This seems to be the most pathetically awkward attempt to close a hearing without outright admitting it that I've ever witnessed.

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

#194

Post by [deleted] »

kodah wrote: post #181
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-formalit…

[deleted]

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

#195

Post by csomar »

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

BBC has become worse than a tabloid. It's simply crap now.

The only thing that still watchable as the British Broadcasting Corporation is Earth. They have good stuff there.

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

#196

Post by [deleted] »

mlthoughts2018 wrote: post #152
LegitShady wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>We've made 3 applications requesting recognition as expert fair trial monitors. Judge states that no 'special provision' will be made for our trial monitor's attendance,” They requested they get special status as "fair trial monitors". The judge said they get treated like everyone else. They should have no better access than you or I. They are nobody - a group that got together to push their agenda. They have no sta…

> “ They can monitor the trial without some special recognition.” No, their remote access request was denied. This is separate from any request for standing as an expert trial observer (which is a whole other can of worms).

[deleted]

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

#197

Post by nemo »

Canada wrote: post #170
nemo wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I'm not seeing anything in his Wikipedia or recent Google results that suggests I should disregard him. What am I missing? What is it about his past that motivated you to post this innuendo?

Would be worth searching for 'Craig Murray Crank' since the guy posts a lot of conspiracy theories that are way off the deep end. You can trust the kooks if you like, but you should try to become familiar with the extent of their unhinged-ness.

Rationalwiki has its own biases but gives helpful context and evidence illustrating Murray's crankery.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Craig_Murray

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

#198

Post by agd »

rayiner wrote: post #184
agd wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

Journalists have already testified in this case to the contrary of what you said. I.e. They do help sources stay undetected, providing advice and sometimes help where appropriate.

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

#199

Post by rootsudo »

pydry wrote: post #156
SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Twitter is wrong then. They used to have editorial independence before the Hutton enquiry. Any editorial independence they have now is purely nominal.

And this is the issue with social media being able to moderate and curate content as they choose.

Makes me wonder about Mccain and the CDA.

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

#200

Post by rayiner »

agd wrote: post #198
rayiner wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“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!

Journalists have already testified in this case to the contrary of what you said. I.e. They do help sources stay undetected, providing advice and sometimes help where appropriate.

Journalistic practice doesn’t define what is and isn’t illegal in connection with collaborating with a source.
Post reply on HN