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

Post by ClumsyPilot » Mon, Sep 21, 2020, 8:05 PM UTC

chrisseaton wrote: post #259

eyko wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Why do people say ‘nation states’ when they mean countries? Neither the UK nor the US are ‘nation states’. They’re both examples I would give of things that are not nation states in fact.

Post by nitrogen » Mon, Sep 21, 2020, 8:09 PM UTC

cmiles74 wrote: post #257

DiogenesKynikos wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In this case we're not talking about documentation of wrong-doing on the part of the US government. In this narrow instance, we're talking about a government employee providing the hash of a password to a journalist who will then try to find another person capable of "decoding" that hash to yield the clear-text password. To me, that seems very different then what I normally think of as investigative journalism. In my…

Post by ClumsyPilot » Mon, Sep 21, 2020, 8:10 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #227

sneak wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> According to the indictment, Assange was running a whole operation where he was recruiting hackers to get sensitive data from protected computer systems. This is an accusation, and is not fact. You'd be wise not to treat it as such until it's proven. The main issue with the course that you seem to suggest is that by the time he might obtain a jury trial in the US, he will already be subject to US imprisonment, and…

> This is an accusation, and is not fact. You'd be wise not to treat it as such until it's proven. Sure. But extradition hearings necessarily operate on allegations because they come before a jury trial that will determine the facts.

Post by StavrosK » Mon, Sep 21, 2020, 8:11 PM UTC

thefucnjosh wrote: post #261

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…

> Assange, if he did what he's accused of doing, clearly crossed the line He exposed criminal actions that the U.S. was doing. He did so by using a source that had fully legal means of obtaining that evidence. >The rules in the US are already very liberal here. Why is Snowden in Russia then? Why is it that those people who are actually experienced with the US government, choose other countries rather than the protect…

Post by rootusrootus » Mon, Sep 21, 2020, 8:13 PM UTC

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #266

rayiner wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is an accusation, and is not fact. You'd be wise not to treat it as such until it's proven. Sure. But extradition hearings necessarily operate on allegations because they come before a jury trial that will determine the facts.

Extrafition hearings must consider whether the charges are bogus and politically motivated. Thats why we don't extradite Putin's enemies to Russia.