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

271–280 of 426 posts

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

#271

Post by thefucnjosh »

_fizz_buzz_ wrote: post #217
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…

> Has Assange ever even been to the US? That is pretty much irrelevant. You can easily break a law of a country without ever going there e.g. paying an assassin, selling weapons/drugs, stealing credit card information, breaking into a server to steal sensitive information, etc.

The Hong-Kong protests started after a murderer chopped up his girlfriend and flew to Hong-Kong for safety. Hong-Kong is part of China. Borders do matter, I have no idea what world you live in where ordering something as extreme as an assassination isn't done more safely with a border between you and the person you're assasinating. All that being said...that's NOT what Assange did, Assange is being tried for upholding the law. The U.S. was illegally torturing people and murdering civilians, wikileaks leaked it, wikileaks did so legally, now the U.S. is trying to drum-up a technicality that doesn't exist from a case that happened 7 years ago. A case they waited to try him for for 7 years, while denying him counsel and spying on his counsel.

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

#272

Post by mariusor »

rbanffy wrote: post #255
mariusor wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> don't seem to realize that any journalist that publishes a leak that involves a government can be threatened with the same accusations the US is making against him. Some of the testimonies over the course of last week were exactly about this. How the US government didn't really try to prosecute US journalists for aiding sources to obtain classified material. See Craig Murray's[1] or Kevin Gosztola's reports on the…

Do you trust the US government not to do this if they successfully extradite Assange? What about foreign journalists?

I think I wasn't explicit enough in the point I was trying to make: the US government is already trying to prosecute Assange, that's what this is all about in the end.

So it would be a first that a publisher is under threat for releasing sensitive material. The witness testimonies (as reported in the above links and in the articles from previous days) seem to agree on this, or at least that was my impression.

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

#273

Post by monadic2 »

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…

I think people care, but the "powers that be" are aware of our lack of power.

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

#274

Post by claudiawerner »

anm89 wrote: post #214
anm89 wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd be more interested to hear what a local bartender might have to say about any of this than a marxist scholar. Hard pass. Also, naming a theory does not give it credence. So simply saying that a person said a thing and gave it a name tells me nothing if you don't tell me what they said. Linking to a hour long video is not a good substitution for defining your terms.

I'll take all the downvotes in the world on this one. Marxist's don't get a seat at the adults table. Same way neo nazis don't get a seat at the adults table. Makes sense anyway. The communists have a higher death toll.

A Marxist is not necessarily a Maoist, Stalinist, or even Leninist. Marxism is a philosophical, sociological, historical, and economic framework for analyzing reality. And much as one can make a great or terrible web application with a web framework, one can do the same with philosophical frameworks.

Your comment is unnecessarily dismissive and only harbors guilt by association. Can you attribute support for, say, gulags to Prof. Chibber? If not, then your comment is irrelevant. If you can, you have further to prove that this opinion is a defect in this particular theory of law.

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

#275

Post by FpUser »

FpUser wrote: post #138
jonnycomputer wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do not have a good opinion of Julian Assange or of Wikileaks, and I am not afraid to say it. At best it has been an unwitting tool of Russian disinformation campaigns; just as likely it is complicit. One must also wonder why Assange spends so much time talking to folks like Sean Hannity, Dana Rohrbacher, and Charles C. Johnson. https://www.emptywheel.net/2020/09/19/wherein-wikileaks-brag...

>"At best it has been an unwitting tool of Russian disinformation campaigns; just as likely it is complicit" Care to show the example of disinformation disseminated by Assange?

I thought you won't

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

#276

Post by StavrosK »

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.

Because it sounds cooler and makes them sound like they know what they're talking about.

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

#277

Post by SuoDuanDao »

nabla9 wrote: post #208
SuoDuanDao wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it turns out to be true that he was offered a presidential pardon if he went on record denying Russia interfered with the US election, would any of your opinions change?

What of those opinions should change in your opinion?

#5 in particular, why would a partisan hack draw the line there of all places?

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

#278

Post by monadic2 »

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…

If it's illegal to report on a government clearly acting outside the interests of its people, what are the legitimacy of its laws in the first place?

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

#279

Post by thefucnjosh »

rayiner wrote: post #184
agd wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe that is incorrect. Assange is accused of helping Manning cover her tracks rather than extract the information in the first place. I.e. he was trying to protect his source. In addition, multiple journalists have spoken out to the effect that encouraging sources to leak is standard journalistic practice.

“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.
Post reply on HN