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

231–240 of 426 posts

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

#231

Post by reallydontask »

DiogenesKynikos wrote: post #224
rayiner wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here is the superseding indictment itself: https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1289641/downl... Assange is alleged to have actively recruited hackers and directed them to find particular information from particular sources. Among other things, agreed to assist Manning in deriving a password from a hash file. (It is irrelevant whether he succeeded or not—the crime of conspiracy is complete upon taking the f…

This logic would render all national security reporting illegal. The job of national security reporters is to convince people in government to divulge information they're legally barred from divulging.

I'm sure there is a joke there somewhere as to how it was meant for them not us

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

#232

Post by luckylion »

fierarul wrote: post #13
square_usual wrote: post #7

This makes me feel incredibly cynical. I genuinely want to know: would it matter if they did get to observe? I'm sure Amnesty has reported on tonnes of US/UK crimes and human rights violations, and a quick google search shows many such reports. How many of those actually changed anything? Sure, when Amnesty reports on, say, Syria, the US could use that as justification for intervention, but what use is reporting on t…

I'm sure the EU would like to know how the UK treats some of these basic matters in light of Brexit and the pending trade negotiations. And generally, historians might want to have multiple witness accounts of what happened.

> I'm sure the EU would like to know how the UK treats some of these basic matters in light of Brexit and the pending trade negotiations.

Why would they care? Did you forget about the whole thing where they forced the President of Bolivia to land on command of the US because the US had (allegedly by Assange) been lead to believe that Snowden was on board? The EU isn't any further from the US' reach than the UK. It's a larger province in the empire, but it's still a loyal province.

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

#233

Post by Canada »

nemo wrote: post #197
Canada wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Rationalwiki says of Murray:

- claims the perpetrators of the Salisbury poisoning aren't the Russians

- has been in disputes with a British newspaper editor and an Uzbek businessman over blog posts or articles

- some vague accusations that he may hold antisemitic views

Is that it, or is there something else?

I understand that he is biased, as both an open supporter of the accused and also because of what happened when he was ambassador to Uzbekistan, which definitely explains his interest in this particular case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Murray#Ambassador_to_Uzb...

None of the above makes me think that I shouldn't take what Murray writes about this particular court proceeding seriously.

Is there some argument that I'm missing here, some reason that can be described without relying on mere name calling and innuendo, that suggests that Murray is lying about what's going on here and I should therefore just ignore him?

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

#234

Post by [deleted] »

tremon wrote: post #144
rvnx wrote: post #9

From a legal and purely rationale perspective, is there any reason why Amnesty International should have a seat in the actual room ? I understand that physical seats are limited and retransmission is free and in live in the other room, as far as I understood. "American prosecutors claim he conspired with whistleblowers to obtain classified information" Well...

is there any reason why Amnesty International should have a seat in the actual room ? Yes. They're recognized independent observers. The reason why they should have a seat in the actual room is the same reason why all democratic countries allow independent observers to follow their elections from close-by: to confirm the fairness and validity of the process. Or, to put it differently: "if they're doing nothing wrong,…

[deleted]

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

#235

Post by cassepipe »

anm89 wrote: post #214
anm89 wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'll take all the downvotes in the world on this one. Marxist's don't get a seat at the adults table. Same way neo nazis don't get a seat at the adults table. Makes sense anyway. The communists have a higher death toll.

That explains the bartending bit above : I thought you were being provocative but you were just being simplistic. Counting the number of dead people does not explain anything. Did people die because of poor politics/administration that ended in a famine? Because they were in the middle of a conflict? Because somebody wanted to exploit their workforce? Were they sent to death directly? I think it actually matters. No nation or ideology has a monopoly on colonialism, slavery, child labor, massacres and other monstrosities. You seem to have very clear cut categories : The communists, The nazis, The adults. Although they must be quite comforting, I don't think they work very well.

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

#236

Post by tialaramex »

buckminster wrote: post #95
tialaramex wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The audio is always recorded and transcribed at a Crown Court. The transcriptions are a permanent record. This is why for example if a witness nods to affirm something they'll be asked to actually say "Yes" out loud if that's what they meant.

Yes, but the transcriptions are not published. You have no right to see them. There is no objective public record of English trials.

You can fill out form EX107 to apply for the transcript of some particular trial or part of a trial heard. What if anything is available will depend on what your reason is for requesting the transcript and the nature of the case.

Unsurprisingly if you request transcripts of a case in which someone was accused of raping a child, the witness statement from the child and associated examination by counsel may not be available to satisfy your "idle curiosity" whereas they might be available to the defence lawyer for the accused who is appealing the sentence based on something said in that part of the trial.

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

#237

Post by gpm »

kstenerud wrote: post #126
square_usual wrote: post #7

This makes me feel incredibly cynical. I genuinely want to know: would it matter if they did get to observe? I'm sure Amnesty has reported on tonnes of US/UK crimes and human rights violations, and a quick google search shows many such reports. How many of those actually changed anything? Sure, when Amnesty reports on, say, Syria, the US could use that as justification for intervention, but what use is reporting on t…

It would, because Amnesty International has a stronger voice than Craig Murray (the only one currently reporting on this). Craig is a meticulous reporter, but he's also prone to a number of strange conspiracy theories that diminish his credibility (people should be considering that separately from the Assange case, but human nature doesn't work that way). There are a lot of things going on in that courtroom that shou…

> people should be considering that separately from the Assange case

Strongly disagree on this point.

I've been reading Craig's reporting, because it's the best that is available as a result of the court, but it being from a less than credible source makes it significantly less valuable.

When reading I never know to what extent he is cherry picking the facts he chooses to report based on his obvious and pre-existing bias. This isn't necessarily even intentional on Craig's part, it's just a fact that people notice things that confirm their existing world view more than things that challenge it.

When reading I have to make a conscious effort to separate the factual matters reported on, from Craig's personal opinion of the situation. The strength of Craig's conviction his world views means his writing has a lower signal to noise ratio than is typical. Moreover the extreme point of view that is likely wrong (as evidenced by him believing "strange conspiracy theories" that I do not) means that the noise doesn't tend to cancel out, but is instead systematically biased.

Craig is almost certainly better than nothing (at least if you're going in eyes wide open about the kind of writing you are reading), but far from ideal.

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

#238

Post by tehjoker »

rayiner wrote: post #213
tehjoker wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They might be arguing the opposite, but my understanding is that he gave some tips for how to protect Manning's safety and maybe encouraged getting more documents if they were so inclined. That's something any journalist might do in the course of normal human behavior and legitimately so. All these documents turned out to reveal war crimes. The state shouldn't be able to hide behind these flimsy secrecy claims when t…

Please read the indictment: https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1289641/downl... Assange was doing far more than giving a few tips and encouragement.

Which points do you find most troubling? It's a very long document and the beginning is filled with flim flam. It says he tried to crack a hash and didn't succeed and therefore didn't even give Manning anything useful. While cracking and giving info back could be problematic, getting info and cracking it is certainly not. In any case, it certainly does not rise to this level of indictment.

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

#239

Post by barnesto »

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…

There it is. Muh Russia.

What attempts were those by the Russians in 2016? Buying $100k in Facebook ads? Unless you are referring to the Podesta emails, which weren't "hacked" by Russia. Just ask Bill Binney -- a source that is more credible than any other on this subject.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qg8iEnDmcpE

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

#240

Post by ggrrhh_ta »

rayiner wrote: post #213
tehjoker wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They might be arguing the opposite, but my understanding is that he gave some tips for how to protect Manning's safety and maybe encouraged getting more documents if they were so inclined. That's something any journalist might do in the course of normal human behavior and legitimately so. All these documents turned out to reveal war crimes. The state shouldn't be able to hide behind these flimsy secrecy claims when t…

Please read the indictment: https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1289641/downl... Assange was doing far more than giving a few tips and encouragement.

Can you point us more specifically in the indictment? Must the assertions of an indictment be based on collected evidence?
Post reply on HN