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

241–250 of 426 posts

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

#241

Post by boomboomsubban »

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…

>He’s being charged with actively assisting a leaker in bypassing security systems: illegal conduct that took place in the US.

He's charged with attempting to assist his source hide her identity while acquiring files she already had access too. While he was allegedly doing this, neither individual was in the US. Assange was in Europe while Manning was in Iraq on March 8th, the date the conversation took place.

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

#242

Post by kazagistar »

rayiner wrote: post #200
agd wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But it should. The law should follow morality, ethics, and common practice. If the US law is beyond that, then it is overreaching and tyrannical. But of course, especially with these leaks, we already knew that.

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

#243

Post by BrandonM »

colordrops wrote: post #107
cassepipe wrote: post #31

I am baffled to see that the majority of the comments here are at best showing no support for what Assange did and at worst are trying to find excuses not to be disturbed in their belief that since we are in a democracy hence everything that's happening is normal. I thought the people here had a sharper political view on what kind of society we could/should live in but I just read people that are always in a hurry to…

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…

Which of those categories does rayiner fall into, in your opinion?

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

#244

Post by justnotworthit »

cassepipe wrote: post #31

I am baffled to see that the majority of the comments here are at best showing no support for what Assange did and at worst are trying to find excuses not to be disturbed in their belief that since we are in a democracy hence everything that's happening is normal. I thought the people here had a sharper political view on what kind of society we could/should live in but I just read people that are always in a hurry to…

Being good at computers and being exposed to a hacker ethic (whatever is left of it) doesn't guarantee your politic views (1) logical (2) anti-conformist (3) anything else, tho there are probably correlations. Add to that a forum dynamic in which those with the biggest rant to exhaust are the most likely to comment... hckrnews won't be terribly different than any other online forum. My biggest point, I guess, is that there is no "comments here" on most forums. Or at least there is a huge range. P.S. your assumption about age isn't warranted. I'm sure many comments you've ready are from teenagers.

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

#245

Post by mlthoughts2018 »

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.

No it’s about their remote access being revoked after it was approved. The special expert observer is status denial is a separate other issue.

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

#246

Post by ggrrhh_ta »

gpm wrote: post #188
LegitShady wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Also, if coverage were broad and the principles of open justice were respected, thus providing ample records on what looks like an important trial touching aspects of freedom of the press and the disclosure of war crimes, then AI would not be as interested in seeking to monitor it.

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

#247

Post by mlthoughts2018 »

gpm wrote: post #188
LegitShady wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It’s also an extremely well established legal standard for important humanitarian trials, covering many decades across every developed nation on the planet.

Saying anything like “oh Amnesty International is just some NGO to be treated same as the general public so who cares” is completely unrealistic and just fails to be relevant in any way.

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

#248

Post by jdidjdhd »

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."

So amazingly backwards since there's definitive proof of astro turfing, some users being allowed to post more than others, evidence of government agents controlling discussion etc and all of this is with the very explicit approval of the moderators who have also been proven to lie, modify posts, remove 'uncomfortable' posts, allow vote brigading, consciously alter to downvote and remove uncomfortable posts and then the mods have the boldness to lie, say none of this ever happens, and also that you can't talk about, then your post is removed and your account disabled.

This happens here. HN is compromised, trying to think a true sentiment exists here is false, you are seeing mostly the carefully curated posts to support us government propaganda.

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

#249

Post by ggrrhh_ta »

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.

What kinds of regulations could be broken and why is remote access still possible for other trials? What makes this one different?

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

#250

Post by eyko »

plandis wrote: post #202
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…

Assange is alleged to have sought classified material from the US, and for aiding and abetting Manning in obtaining classified material. This would be like is Australia asked the UK to extradite someone who recruited Australians to rob a bank and then materially helped said Australians actually rob the aforementioned bank.

Nation states do not have a right to privacy. Robbing a bank is not equivalent to acquiring state secrets (especially those involving illegal activity). Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Post reply on HN