I don't know if I'm reading this incorrectly, but I can't see why the judge has said they are not able to obtain this status? Is there a reason?
Why are Amnesty International monitors not able to observe the Assange hearing?
331–340 of 426 posts
Re: Why are Amnesty International monitors not able to observe the Assange hearing?
#332Sorry if I missed it, what is the actual reason the judge said they can't get this special monitor status?
Re: Why are Amnesty International monitors not able to observe the Assange hearing?
#333Earlier quoted context omitted.
People are divided into those who see hims as hero or villain. Is there anyone like me who considers him neither? For me, Assange is 1) Asshole 2) Possibly mentally ill at this point 3) Someone who once greatly advanced journalism and whistleblowing. Even bad journalist deserves protections of a journalist. 4) A person who might have crossed the line from journalism and even his own principles. If he did entangle him…
I'm also in the neither group. I think that "reddit style" commenting brings out the extremes in people, everytime I actually talk to someone face-to-face they seem to be less extreme than what they appear to be on the internet.
Just curious... do you live in Blue state?
Cause everyone I talk to sounds insane in real life "new world order", Soros, "gay frogs" sorta people.
Re: Why are Amnesty International monitors not able to observe the Assange hearing?
#334Earlier quoted context omitted.
Easy to see someone who published secrets related to american imperialism, would publish secrets about the candidate that was viewed as imperialist at the time.
A charitable interpretation of his choices in 2016 would be that he thought he was bloodying the nose of the next US president, that he assumed like the rest of us that obviously Clinton was going to win. But it remains a fact that he chose to spill damaging information about one side and not the other, even though he had information on both. Unfortunately for him, the side he helped turns out to be just as eager for…
IMO the tweets from Wikileaks immediately after Trump won support this interpretation.
He hated Clinton since the diplomatic cable leak, and wanted to damage her, but never thought Trump would win.
Re: Why are Amnesty International monitors not able to observe the Assange hearing?
#335Earlier quoted context omitted.
People are divided into those who see hims as hero or villain. Is there anyone like me who considers him neither? For me, Assange is 1) Asshole 2) Possibly mentally ill at this point 3) Someone who once greatly advanced journalism and whistleblowing. Even bad journalist deserves protections of a journalist. 4) A person who might have crossed the line from journalism and even his own principles. If he did entangle him…
Assange has spent his career defending a natural right to whistleblowing. If you find fault with him for other reasons that is fine, but the core issue here seems to be one of of ‘do you believe that there is such a natural right?’, and not one of ‘do you believe Assange is a likable person?’. If you’re fine with governments using extrajudicial systems to exact revenge on whistleblowers in distant lands then it reall…
What are you describing as "extrajudicial"? This court case?
Re: Why are Amnesty International monitors not able to observe the Assange hearing?
#336Earlier quoted context omitted.
“Protecting your source” means that you don’t disclose your source. It doesn’t mean you help your source cover up a crime. This is not a difficult line drawing exercise. Lawyers do it all the time: you’re protected from disclosing client confidences. But it’s highly illegal to actually assist your client in obstructing an investigation!
The only crime being committed that matters is what he uncovered. If a Journalist walked on to private property to find an officer peeing on evidence or torturing an innocent person and then took that to the press, you wouldn't charge the journalist for trespassing.
Even, torturing a guilty person.
The US executed people for torture after WWII. (None of its own people, though. That is acknowledged as an unfortunate failing.)
Re: Why are Amnesty International monitors not able to observe the Assange hearing?
#337I 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…
If you have war criminal suspects not being prosecuted but only Assange, your 'democracy' has a bigger (fairness) problem.
If your citizens are so easily swayed by Russian manipulation that you have to make it such a big deal, your 'democracy' has a bigger (fragility) problem.
If you are OK with MNCs swaying votes with money but not with nations doing the same, your 'democracy' has double-standards and has a bigger (integrity) problem.
You can 'law' all you want. Laws are written by people, who are sometimes just and sometimes not just. Laws are not all universal; they get changed all the time; different countries have different laws. Some laws are right and some are wrong.
Re: Why are Amnesty International monitors not able to observe the Assange hearing?
#338Re: Why are Amnesty International monitors not able to observe the Assange hearing?
#339I 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…
> Assange is accused of going beyond leaking into assisting Chelsea Manning get pass security systems.
1 out of the 18+ charges brought against him are for that. It's also a minor crime that would carry a 5 year penalty, which is hardly worth all this effort. The other 170 years of charges related to violations of the espionage act, and it's not at all clear that they would even apply to Assange who is not a U.S. citizen or military contractor.
> because they viewed him as sympathetic.
I've never viewed him as sympathetic. It takes a completely unrestrained ego to try to be the "public front-man" for Wikileaks. On the other hand, what's happening to him now is a clear abuse of the law and extradition process. Add to that the years of mistreatment he's been through, and I find it very easy to see him in a sympathetic light.
> But he’s undermined that with his connections to Russia.
How so? Did he actively seek out Russian documents so he could release them?
> hostile governments can use this information to jeopardize American national security
This misses the obvious. Hostile foreign governments _already_ had this information. How or why they were using it before is beyond us. Releasing it does serve their interests, but it's no longer possible for them to monopolize it either. The only difference is, after it was released, we all had it.
> If you’re neither sympathetic nor on the right side of the law, you’ve got a problem.
Yes, but that's _precisely_ the reason we invented courts in the first place, to ensure that even in these ambiguous circumstances that justice can be seen to. It's troubling that you see this as the exact reason he won't receive justice at all... and again, it's what makes it so easy for me to view him sympathetically again.
Re: Why are Amnesty International monitors not able to observe the Assange hearing?
#340Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Its too bad that a jury cannot be expected to determine Assange's innocence at trial.
Meh, let the jury determine if his conduct was illegal. Unless America is a fascist country where we don't have juries, of course.