Why are Amnesty International monitors not able to observe the Assange hearing? • Hacker News Board

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

#281

Post by kanox » Mon, Sep 21, 2020, 8:18 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…

> a sizeable group have decided Assange isn't likeable

Or they decided that Assange and WikiLeaks are malicious actors not worth siding with.

The powers that be are right to throw Assange in prison.

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

#282

Post by rayiner » Mon, Sep 21, 2020, 8:22 PM UTC

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #260

rayiner wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Collaborating with a source is different than assisting a source to obstruct a law enforcement investigation of a computer security breach.

Keeping your sources anonymous is exactly obstructive to investigations, thats the point.

In the legal sense of "obstruction" (which is narrower than the colloquial sense) it's different. The law makes a distinction between refusing to help law enforcement, and actively hindering or deceiving law enforcement. It's not a crime to refuse to provide helpful information to law enforcement. The government can serve you with a subpoena for that information, but that's a civil process. While you can be held in civil contempt for refusing to comply with a subpoena, it's not a crime, and there are lots of circumstances under which people are "privileged" from having to comply with such subpoenas. (Lawyer-client, doctor-patient, between spouses, etc.) Journalists are generally held to be protected by a similar privilege.

Those privileges don't protect you from actively assisting in a cover-up or concealment of evidence of a crime, which is itself a crime. A lawyer doesn't have to tell a prosecutor where to find relevant evidence, but he can't help his client hide that evidence in the first place.

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

#283

Post by cassepipe » Mon, Sep 21, 2020, 8:22 PM UTC

root_axis wrote: post #150

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…

> thought the people here had a sharper political view on what kind of society we could/should live... Your condescending framing that suggests anyone who doesn't agree with your political analysis isn't sharp is a quintessential example of what is wrong with political discussion in today's era. You didn't present any facts or arguments, you simply invoked a tired political virtue-signal to let everyone know where yo…

I fully agree that my post did not bring anything new to the table. I really felt distressed by what I was reading by the time I wrote it. That's why I signaled it as rant which I think is a good compromise : I do think facts and arguments matter in a discussion and we should not let our emotions take the seat of reasoning but if that's what's happening well you better say it rather than starting to bend facts or telling some things you are not so sure about but would like to be true are absolutely true. Furthermore, it seems my rant expressed a more general feeling about the thread, so at least it served that purpose. I thought the bit about powerlessness (that seems to be the common lot for most individuals) and pseudo-wisdom would at least make it a little funny to read to certain people. I did not mean to be condescending, I do regret writing that bit now. I guess that what I tried to express was that one's education does not seem to prevent falling for basic tricks in the realm of politics such as a smear campaign. I was really frustrated to read repeatedly such shallow arguments as nobody is above the law or why do they think they are entitled to a seat? or just reading that one did not sympathize with Assange hardly ever explaining why or just calling him a russian agent. Whether you sympathize with Assange as a person is irrelevant. Even if Assange was a rapist and Putin's best friend, which I very much doubt on the base of what I have read so far (links welcomed), I don't see how it matters in the case of exposing a war based on a lie. the killing of civilians ans journalists, extra-judiciary kidnapping and torture and so much more... And those are facts, not mere allegations.

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

#284

Post by thefucnjosh » Mon, Sep 21, 2020, 8:23 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #201

sneak wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This posits that it should be illegal to expose classified war crimes. Sometimes, the law is wrong, and should be broken. Nonviolent disobedience of the law is a moral obligation in many instances. There is a long and glorious history of this happening throughout modern history. This is why we have juries: to make that instance not illegal.

No it doesn’t. It posits that the purpose of “exposing classified war crimes” shouldn’t immunize conduct that’s otherwise illegal. According to the indictment, Assange was running a whole operation where he was recruiting hackers to get sensitive data from protected computer systems. You’re positing that we should basically have vigilante hackers that expropriate and publish confidential data so long as they purport…

> You’re positing that we should basically have vigilante hackers that expropriate and publish confidential data so long as they purport to be acting in the public interest.

That's not what they said at all. That's just a straw-man you created. What they said is that Juries are the law, they're part of the English tradition because a Jury is the law.

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

#285

Post by jdeibele » Mon, Sep 21, 2020, 8:24 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…

Why Snowden in Russia?

It seems clear that the release of the material was endorsed by Russia, whether they knew about it or not. Trump is not demanding his return. And Russia is not going to send him back because it would show a bad example for anybody else contemplating "doing a Snowden".

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

#286

Post by laurent92 » Mon, Sep 21, 2020, 8:25 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…

Pause a second: I keep seeing the same arguments again and again about Assange. All of them have surfaced and settled. Next step should have been to invent some sort of court where those arguments are debated, dismissed or retained, and we should tally the arguments and determine who’s wrong.

The justice system has existed from before Napoleon and it still seems it’s the fourth wheel of the shopping cart. Its role is to fix things in society by sanctioning malevolent people a posteriori, to prevent them from acting further and discourage candidates to malevolence, and determine where is the line in cases where there is no winner. So when is the last time our justice system fixed anything in our society, and why have we stopped innovating in terms of democratic advances?

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

#287

Post by mattatkeyboard » Mon, Sep 21, 2020, 8:25 PM UTC

Canada wrote: post #233

nemo wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 whe…

Yeh I agree.

He veered off into that Salisbury thing and I agree with him about the quality and some of the stretches made in the BBC output but not his conclusions. Other things are too off piste for me too...

However that does not mean to say his observations are void. I believe he is writing the facts as he sees them (and not fiction), of course there is opinion mixed in...

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

#288

Post by DanBC » Mon, Sep 21, 2020, 8:27 PM UTC

pydry wrote: post #22

voxic11 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow so it sounds like the BBC hasn't attended the hearing at all and is just reporting what is on the court docket.

It's consistent with the BBC acting as a propaganda arm of the British state - something that had become more true ever since the Hutton enquiry and the raft of new political appointees at the head of the organization.

No, it's consistent with news sources in the UK having to obey the law about reporting restrictions on cases currently before the courts.

https://www.pinsentmasons.com/out-law/guides/the-sub-judice-...

> Matters are considered to be sub judice (Latin for 'under judgment') once legal proceedings become active.

> Criminal proceedings are deemed active once a person is arrested, a warrant for arrest has been issued, a summons has been issued or a person has been charged and remain active until conviction. Civil proceedings become active, in England, when the hearing date for the trial is arranged and, in Scotland, when the parties' pleadings have been finalised and the record is closed.

> Publication of material which is sub judice comprises contempt of court, a crime which is punishable by a fine of unlimited amount and/or imprisonment for up to two years. Third party costs orders may also be awarded against the media organisation, enabling the courts to recover the costs of any trial aborted as a result of the prejudicial reporting.

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

#289

Post by thefucnjosh » Mon, Sep 21, 2020, 8:27 PM UTC

kanox wrote: post #281

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…

> a sizeable group have decided Assange isn't likeable Or they decided that Assange and WikiLeaks are malicious actors not worth siding with. The powers that be are right to throw Assange in prison.

I looked through your post history and found this: "Freedom of speech and rule of law is not conditioned on reciprocity." I'd like to remind you that the Trump administration asked Assange for the DNC email leaker as a way to discredit the media tying Trump to Russia. Assange is on trial because he wouldn't give the Trump administration that source. Do you still believe what you said?

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

#290

Post by rayiner » Mon, Sep 21, 2020, 8:31 PM UTC

ggrrhh_ta wrote: post #240

rayiner wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Assertions of an indictment must be based on evidence or things the prosecutor has reason to believe the evidence will prove. In the numbered paragraphs where the indictment refers to specific events with quoted statements, that means there are documents that support those allegations.

I'd draw your attention to paragraph 4-6, where Assange recruited hackers to collect a "most wanted" list of confidential material and explained how he had exploited a vulnerability in the Congressional Research Service to get copies of draft reports. Also paragraphs 19-22, where communications between Assange and Manning indicate that Assange was trying to help Manning log into the system with a different login than her own, by getting a password from a hash. Whether or not he actually succeeded, if he actually attempted to crack the password, that would be an illegal conspiracy. (Conspiracy doesn't require being successful--it's enough to take the first step towards an illegal goal, in this case logging into the DOD network using someone else's account.)