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

321–330 of 426 posts

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

#321

Post by thefucnjosh »

jonnycomputer wrote: post #185
mlthoughts2018 wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a completely baseless claim, and it is directly contradicted by testimony in Assange’s extradition hearing. For example, John Sloboda of Iraq Body Count testified both to the crucial role Wikileaks diplomatic cables played in corroborating many illegal civilian deaths in the Iraq War, and also the huge degree of care and effort Assange and Wikileaks put into carefully redacting identifying information and wei…

"DNC leaked emails" Leaked? Hacked. DNC hacked emails, hacked by Russia, disseminated by Assange, who put it out that Seth Rich was the source instead of a GRU operative. That's not whistle-blowing, thats tradecraft. And there you go ignoring the proposed quid-pro-quo. Read the Mueller report.

I thought Assange never said who the source was. upi.com/Top_News/US/2020/09/18/Assange-lawyer-Trump-offered-pardon-to-reveal-DNC-hack-source/3921600445120/

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

#322

Post by cassepipe »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #137
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…

Not everyone here who disagrees with you is "trying to find excuses to not be disturbed" or "in a hurry to put themselves on the good side of the stick". Your black-and-white worldview is leading you to condemn everyone who disagrees with you. Perhaps there are some who disagree with you fit your description. But as a general rule, be a lot less quick to condemn peoples' morals on the basis of their conclusions .

Point taken

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

#323

Post by _jxdz »

lanevorockz wrote: post #110
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 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…

> What bothers me the most is that Assange only crime in the UK is that he had skip bail from a crime without evidence.

Yes, but extradition works on the basis that if they committed a crime abroad and it would be a crime in the UK, extradition can typically go ahead. Even if they didn't commit the crime in the UK.

> Where is the European Court of Justice ? Human Rights ?

The European Court of Justice doesn't hear appeals on extradition. It is a competence reserved solely for Member States.

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) might hear an appeal if a Convention right is engaged (e.g. the right not to be tortured) so it is possible that an appeal is lodged after this case if extradition is granted, but Assange first needs to appeal to the High Court and then the Supreme Court if that happens.

This is because all domestic remediation routes must be exhausted before the ECtHR will hear a case. In any event, the ECtHR cannot directly block an extradition: they can only order the State to pay damages.

The only ultimate court in the UK that can block any extradition is the Supreme Court.

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

#324

Post by thefucnjosh »

demarq wrote: post #46
pmachinery wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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'm not seeing that in the comments (and there aren't that many at present). Most people seem critical of this and/or express cynicism about the process.…

> I'm not seeing that in the comments I'm seeing it everytime someone prefaces their comment with something along the lines of: "I'm not an Assange supporter But ..." in fact you're comment is really no different: > not supporting what Assange did, I didn't Are people worried the FBI will break down their door, if they don't put up the disclaimer?

>Are people worried the FBI will break down their door, if they don't put up the disclaimer?

Are you crazy? Why WOULDN'T you be worried about that?

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

#325

Post by [deleted] »

thefucnjosh wrote: post #295
anm89 wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The people who actually don't belong at the table are flat and young earthers, single-issue voters like anti-abortion voters, or people so partisan and without principles they'll say things like "I'd vote for Biden if he boiled babies and ate them." Instead it's funny that all of these people will constantly try to attack Marx. Yet none of them know the first thing about anything. Much less Materialism, fun fact, mat…

[deleted]

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

#326

Post by ChrisKnott »

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…

> "Assange was held in high esteem by the public until they finally got a foothold on how to bury him. Intelligence agencies and their contractors have been trying to smear and shut him down"

Assange is not held in high esteem by a large number of political allies who know him well. It is obvious from the Laura Poitras documentary, the Andrew O'Hagan LRB article, and the Wikileaks Twitter feed, that he is not worth the deification he receives in much of the hacker crowd. He is perfectly capable of trashing his own reputation and alienating his own friends without the help of a shadowy conspiracy.

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

#327

Post by zepto »

cassepipe wrote: post #304
zepto wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It may be a weak rhetorical device, but it’s also informational. I have complex views of Assange. 1. I think the extradition hearings are bizarre and it’s hard to consider them a fair trial. 2. I support Assanges long term goal of western democracies being open and accountable, rather than being based on secrets and lies. 3. I don’t know whether Assange’s tactics are moving us towards or away from that goal. It seems…

Your post is way more thoughtful than mine will ever be but I really disagree with your use of psychological concepts such as gaslighting to this case. Forcing someone to betray their principles in perceived self defense and then acting surprised is akin to gaslighting This does not make sense to me and seems to amount to blaming Assange for the hunt he was subjected to. I think it’s reasonable to say he has drawn at…

With regard to gaslighting, I acknowledge that some people use this word to mean a very serious and deliberate kind of manipulation.

I’m not blaming Assange for what he’s being subjected to.

On the other hand I also don’t think he or anyone else would imagine that there wouldn’t be a response to a perceived threat.

I may agree with him that we should live in a society that lives up to its ideals.

However we both know it doesn’t, and national security fears over whistleblowers are not necessarily unfounded.

I’m not suggesting he’s to blame for an unfair trial. However it’s also clear that he knew his actions would be seen as anti-American, and indeed I presume he would stand by those actions and that assessment of America. So it shouldn’t be a surprise that he finds himself in this position. In many ways this confirms what he has been saying. The question is - is this choice of his going to move us in a positive direction?

I am quite unsure of that.

I agree that we need more words for the concept of gaslighting- there are lots of nuances around it.

As for ‘insecurities’ I do mean that as a psychological analogy, but I think it’s a good way to look at it.

I’m not arguing that we should respect the U.K. or the US as people who have feelings.

I’m saying that like a person with insecurities, there are actions which elicit a threat response from countries.

I’m also saying that, just like a person, these may or may not be reflective of reality. If they are, then a defensive response is appropriate, even if incongruent with our higher ideals for who the person or country aspires to be.

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

#328

Post by thefucnjosh »

d4rti wrote: post #129
pmachinery wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe people can be critical of the way Assange is being treated and/or the way the US/UK regimes are behaving, while not necessarily supporting what he did or liking the guy. Edit: In fact prefacing with "I'm not an Assange supporter but..." sounds to me like someone trying to give their argument in support of him/against the US/UK governments more weight, ie, even people who aren't the usual suspect fans of his are…

I have no objection to Amnesty observing the extradition hearing and I don't see a good reason that they should be excluded, but Assange should not have skipped his bail and run away to the Ecuadorean embassy. Everyone sucks here?

Please tell me this is a joke? Why should anyone be holed up in an Embassy for years?

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

#329

Post by thefucnjosh »

rootusrootus wrote: post #252
megous wrote: post #88

Earlier 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…

Just as eager? more eager. If Clinton was doing this I have no doubt Fox News would defend Assange.

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

#330

Post by monocasa »

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…

Better example, what if a journalist made a copy of a key for you so that you could continue to access a room containing classified documents after hours, as was the case for the pentagon papers?
Post reply on HN