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

311–320 of 426 posts

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

#311

Post by MrsHippy »

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…

you should take that rhetoric back to the agency PR briefing where you found it.

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

#312

Post by rtx »

colordrops wrote: post #107
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…

I know that talking about propaganda and shills on HN is frowned upon, but it seems relevant to this discussion. I believe that the negative opinions of Assange mostly consist of either propaganda by sock puppets, people that heard this propaganda and repeated themselves, or a bit of both. Assange was held in high esteem by the public until they finally got a foothold on how to bury him. Intelligence agencies and the…

I think it's more of case of TDS clouding their judgement. Some people belive Trump won because of Russia and Assange helping him.

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

#313

Post by ChrisKnott »

disown wrote: post #105
asplake wrote: post #2

Tweeted on a closely related subject earlier today. Where is the BBC’s coverage of the Assange hearings? I wouldn’t describe myself as a supporter but still the seeming lack of news seems very odd. Unless it’s just me missing it somehow... https://twitter.com/asplake/status/1308021654975643656?s=21

> lack of news seems very odd. Why does it seem odd? Go watch/read news from a variety of sources. You'll notice that "news" is quite different from country to country and region to region. The same goes for history. The BBC is a government funded state propaganda machine. They cover and then spin whatever benefits the state. Easily the best in the world with reach in almost every one of their former slave colonies w…

The BBC is not government funded, and it regularly, in fact constantly, reports things that do not benefit the government

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

#314

Post by rtx »

mint2 wrote: post #254
lanevorockz wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do believe there is a substantial amount of people that just bow to whatever the perceived experts say. That's why you would be called a conspiracy theorist if you said that Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction. Proof be damned and Skeptics should be burn at the stake. What bothers me the most is that Assange only crime in the UK is that he had skip bail from a crime without evidence. Where is the European…

> That's why you would be called a conspiracy theorist if you said that Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction. I don’t know where you live, but at least around California it’s generally accepted that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction and the war justification was bush league lies.

It's a new thing, like saying Trump is the worst president. Propoganda just before US attacked Iraq was at another level.

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

#315

Post by michaelmrose »

rayiner wrote: post #175
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’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…

Are we going to ignore the obviously extralegal illegalities required to even put him in the position to be subject to our laws as a foreigner including collaborating with a foreign jurisdiction to bring false rape charges?

Our misdeeds are far more troubling than his.

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

#316

Post by matthewheath »

ggrrhh_ta wrote: post #249
bmsleight_ wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a counterbalance - reporting restriction from court are highly regulated in the UK. If a person breaks the regulations it is easy to deny them access the next day. No so easy on remote access, hard to control/prosecute contempt of court.

What kinds of regulations could be broken and why is remote access still possible for other trials? What makes this one different?

> What kinds of regulations could be broken

For example, taking photographs in court, or in this case taking screenshots of court remotely.

> why is remote access still possible for other trials?

It's done on a case by case basis by the judge(s) involved in the case. It's not an automatic right.

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

#317

Post by vbnaop »

rayiner wrote: post #293
tehjoker wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which points do you find most troubling? It's a very long document and the beginning is filled with flim flam. It says he tried to crack a hash and didn't succeed and therefore didn't even give Manning anything useful. While cracking and giving info back could be problematic, getting info and cracking it is certainly not. In any case, it certainly does not rise to this level of indictment.

> It says he tried to crack a hash and didn't succeed and therefore didn't even give Manning anything useful. The indictment isn't clear whether he succeeded or not. But if you look at the March 10th communication, it's clear that Assange tried to crack the hash. If so, that constitutes an illegal conspiracy. Say your friend asks you to pick a lock so he can rob someone's house. You try to pick the lock and fail. Eve…

My knowledge on the Assange case is limited (I have not read any leaked documents), but from the press I get the impression that he uncovered illegal acts.

If true, it would be more like this:

A friend sees that an illegal act is committed inside a house and asks you to pick the lock in order to go in and stop it.

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

#318

Post by himinlomax »

rayiner wrote: post #175
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’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…

> but actively participated in expropriating

The difference here we're talking about is minuscule, and this is clearly just some technicality BS the highly paid US lawyers have come up with.

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

#319

Post by thefucnjosh »

BrandonM wrote: post #243
colordrops wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know that talking about propaganda and shills on HN is frowned upon, but it seems relevant to this discussion. I believe that the negative opinions of Assange mostly consist of either propaganda by sock puppets, people that heard this propaganda and repeated themselves, or a bit of both. Assange was held in high esteem by the public until they finally got a foothold on how to bury him. Intelligence agencies and the…

Which of those categories does rayiner fall into, in your opinion?

I don't know he says he's a lawyer. He's been here for 10 years. But what he's saying seems insanely uncharitable & obtuse.

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

#320

Post by cassepipe »

justnotworthit wrote: post #244
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…

Being good at computers and being exposed to a hacker ethic (whatever is left of it) doesn't guarantee your politic views (1) logical (2) anti-conformist (3) anything else, tho there are probably correlations. Add to that a forum dynamic in which those with the biggest rant to exhaust are the most likely to comment... hckrnews won't be terribly different than any other online forum. My biggest point, I guess, is that…

Well, if I came "here" and stayed, it is because the level of reasoning was higher than any other form of online gathering I had ever attended to. Plus its design, moderation, and declaration of intentions makes for better, more informed debates. So I did experience a bit of disillusionment and intended this rant as some kind of a "suicidal" move : I was expecting to be downvoted to disappearance for not conforming to what a hacker news comment should be like : thoughtful, informed, interesting. I fully agree with your three points and I am grateful I got to see your reply.
Post reply on HN