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

Post by mariusor » Mon, Sep 21, 2020, 6:16 PM UTC

zepto wrote: post #205

mariusor wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I take your point - Assange does not have a media empire and is not like Murdoch in that way. However I disagree with your reframing. News room editors answer to the publisher (I.e. whoever owns the publishing organization), and generally have been promoted from the ranks of journalists. None of that is true about Assange. He was never a journalist and never did investigative reporting, or any of the other things a j…

Post by anm89 » Mon, Sep 21, 2020, 6:19 PM UTC

anm89 wrote: post #166

cassepipe wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I'd be more interested to hear what a local bartender might have to say about any of this than a marxist scholar. Hard pass. 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.

Post by Fjolsvith » Mon, Sep 21, 2020, 6:22 PM UTC

linuxftw wrote: post #204

rayiner wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

The first part of what you're saying is true. I think the defense in this case has challenged that actually took place, and there's some questions about compelling the US to produce evidence or the UK courts considering the US's statements in trials as evidence to Assange's innocence. http://johnpilger.com has lots of detailed information about all the proceedings and the complete lack of any semblance of a fair hear…

Post by clairity » Mon, Sep 21, 2020, 6:26 PM UTC

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…

Post by monocasa » Mon, Sep 21, 2020, 6:29 PM UTC

tremon wrote: post #147

andy_ppp wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.