71–80 of 89 posts
I would reply to a sibling comment, but I believe this ought to be top level. I believe the author is conflating "D-Notices may be used to ask the press to self-censor" versus "'the man' is censoring Assange". So far as I am aware, nothing in the Assange trial would actually warrant a D-Notice, and if sensitive information were to be presented to the court it would be done in closed session anyway, since they at leas…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's the implication? That the author is hiding the fact that this is an opinion piece? Or that it's odd to be against the extradition? It's called The Dissenter and they explicitly mention that they support whistleblowers in their about page.
I don't think it's going out of its way to hide the fact that it's an opinion piece. I wanted to highlight to someone unfamiliar with the case and issues (however few that may be around these parts), that it is an opinion piece. It makes assertions through a lens of a bias to one side of the case. There's nothing inherently wrong with that. Using the word "bias" isn't intended by me here as a slight - we're all biase…
https://thedissenter.org/british-officials-launder-us-intel-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't believe, and in fact nobody believes, that the exclusive reason for charging Assange with the hacking charges is that he's a hacker. It's obvious to everybody that he is being charged because of legitimate political speech, and this was just what they felt they could 'get him for'. Whether or not he is guilty, that means that the legal system is being used for political ends. What's wild to me is that so ma…
> Politically motivated prosecution is not normal in a democracy. Yeah, but he helped trump get elected so he doesn't deserve human rights. (/s; but people are genuinely making this argument)
This is exactly what I'm talking about. Everyone else has to deal with the consequences of their actions, but when the same rules are applied to Assange, it is somehow a cruel and unusual outrage, and he is a saint that we've already determined could have done no wrong.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know if the allegations are true. I just think that they are very serious, if they are. Fortunately, we have a process, called a trial, that can determine whether or not they are.
> called a trial, that can determine whether or not they are. Oh sweet summer child, enjoy the bliss till it lasts. Once you open your eyes it will never come back.
Are you throwing the whole concept of trials out with the bathwater, or is Assange just special, and the rules don't apply to him?
The US legal system has problems, in terms of which cases it chooses not to pursue, and in terms of the deficiencies of public defenders, and long sentences. But these are problems that affect ~everyone else going through it a lot more than they will affect this golden boy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And only for the charge of revealing war crimes (apart from some trumped up “hacking” charges that the key witness now admitted lying about? [2]). I've read the allegations. If the allegations are true, he's guilty of hacking. It does not seem to be a case of the law being perverted past its intent. I'm sure the extradition and prosecution is politically motivated, but the problem with doing something that's square…
> It'd be one thing if his supporters accepted the dead-to-rights-guilty part, and were making the claim that it was something akin to civil disobedience - illegal, but in service to a higher cause. Unfortunately, most of them are instead bending over backwards to argue that he can't actually guilty of anything. It's not very convincing. Who, precisely, are you referring to here?
I wanted to get behind this more but there were a few sections that had me doubting. 1. It says the UK media largely ignored the Snowden leaks due to a D-Notice - the source supplied didn't really back that up and it didn't sound right to me. Maybe someone can share examples of Snowden-leak-related stories which would have been in UK public interest but were only covered abroad? 2. It says the Steele dossier is large…
Couldn't help but click on another article from the page "Uncovering CIA-Funded Experiments On Children In Europe During The Cold War - Was the CIA involved in sponsoring West German pedophilic foster homes overseen by the Social Democratic Party?" all with the same problems of missing sources or sources that don't reference the claims.
Even though I was open to it, am gonna call BS.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> called a trial, that can determine whether or not they are. Oh sweet summer child, enjoy the bliss till it lasts. Once you open your eyes it will never come back.
So, is the entirety of the US legal system illegitimate, or just the particular parts that will affect your hero? Are you throwing the whole concept of trials out with the bathwater, or is Assange just special , and the rules don't apply to him? The US legal system has problems, in terms of which cases it chooses not to pursue, and in terms of the deficiencies of public defenders, and long sentences. But these are pr…
And then there are exceptions. Yes, Assange is just special, special rules apply.
If you're going to deny that, I guess, as GP says, enjoy the bliss till it lasts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The claim is > It says the UK media largely ignored the Snowden leaks due to a D-Notice The Guardian might have been "crucified" for their reporting, but they did report on it.
> > It says the UK media largely ignored the Snowden leaks due to a D-Notice > The Guardian might have been "crucified" for their reporting, but they did report on it. a few things; 1) "largely ignored" does not mean universally ignored, 1 outlet reporting on it does not mean that the "large majority" of british media didn't ignore the leaks. 2) Guardian didn't ignore the d-notice either, they made a choice to die on…
The Guardian ignored the D-Notices and survives to this day - both facts undermine the point of the article that the system breaks independent British journalism.
This article stinks, is there any way to downvote it any further?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Politically motivated prosecution is not normal in a democracy. Yeah, but he helped trump get elected so he doesn't deserve human rights. (/s; but people are genuinely making this argument)
I'm sorry, being put on trial is a violation of your human rights? This is exactly what I'm talking about. Everyone else has to deal with the consequences of their actions, but when the same rules are applied to Assange, it is somehow a cruel and unusual outrage, and he is a saint that we've already determined could have done no wrong.
If the same rules were, as you say, being applied to Assange, he would have been freed a long time ago.
Hard to see where you're coming from. Trials aren't the only stage at which accused people can be released.