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

351–360 of 426 posts

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

#351

Post by salawat »

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…

You are not alone friend, there are many others that see what is going on with a great deal of concern; the silence tends to come from the dearth of new information, and inability to influence the outcome.

The fact is, there has been at work in society an implicit assumption that given limited resources to delegate, those resources get delegated toward actions that communicate the most in terms of message to the greatest number of people be it positive or negative in nature.

This message to my sensibilities is unambiguously clear. Poke the dragon, get the fire. No semblance of law and order will really save you, because everything is always open to interpretation to get things done and the cost of mistakes having been made in the past are very easy to brush off for the institution, but life destroying for the victim.

Dig 2 graves before ye set off on your crusade, for ye journey as much to your own end as that of your enemy. Whether or not you believe personally that's a tenable arrangement matters not a lick until such time as you can marshal enough collective social/political capital to change it.

Even that though is no guarantee. "The Constitution is not a suicide pact."--Every imperiled government ever

The geopolitical system is as much an organism as we are it's cells. The task of a Statesman is to try to direct this behemoth without undue cost in human lives through wise and fruitful policy, diplomatic, and strategic decisions to keep the collective organism alive and in good standing amongst it's neighbors/rivals.

I cannot say I've ever seen good Statesmanship in my life. I hazard few left alive have, but I can only hope the low point we seem to have collectively hit is a local maxima, and keep on trucking.

I'm still hoping that Assange may surprise us with a sudden reversal as one of these beasts comes to it's senses and remembers the values it purportedly stands for, but I'm not holding my breath.

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

#352

Post by Zak »

rayiner wrote: post #200
agd wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Journalists have already testified in this case to the contrary of what you said. I.e. They do help sources stay undetected, providing advice and sometimes help where appropriate.

Journalistic practice doesn’t define what is and isn’t illegal in connection with collaborating with a source.

That may not be the case when the first amendment is applied. Consider Heller vs DC, in which the Supreme Court ruled that firearms in common use for lawful purposes couldn't be banned under the second amendment. Standard practice can be a factor when constitutional protections are at issue.

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

#353

Post by jjgreen »

marbletiles wrote: post #50
Deukhoofd wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-54060427 Very limited what they reported on to be sure. AP News has more in depth reporting: https://apnews.com/hub/julian-assange

It's fairly typical for the BBC to hold fire until the trial concludes and the legal restrictions around reporting are lifted. I'm not sure I see the AP as having more "in depth" reporting, it just has a greater quantity of rolling reporting. Stories like "court case pauses for Covid alarm", "court case resumes", "Assange told to stop interrupting witnesses", "lawyer says Assange could be in prison for a long time" a…

> It's fairly typical for the BBC to hold fire until the trial concludes and the legal restrictions around reporting are lifted.

Simply not true, look at the coverage for the Johnny Depp libel trial on the BBC site, dozens of articles following the case day-by-day. The fact is they have become a celebrity news channel and don't want to rock the boat.

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

#354

Post by dragonwriter »

jjgreen wrote: post #353
marbletiles wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's fairly typical for the BBC to hold fire until the trial concludes and the legal restrictions around reporting are lifted. I'm not sure I see the AP as having more "in depth" reporting, it just has a greater quantity of rolling reporting. Stories like "court case pauses for Covid alarm", "court case resumes", "Assange told to stop interrupting witnesses", "lawyer says Assange could be in prison for a long time" a…

> It's fairly typical for the BBC to hold fire until the trial concludes and the legal restrictions around reporting are lifted. Simply not true, look at the coverage for the Johnny Depp libel trial on the BBC site, dozens of articles following the case day-by-day. The fact is they have become a celebrity news channel and don't want to rock the boat.

> Simply not true, look at the coverage for the Johnny Depp libel trial

Are the legal and practical issues on a civil trial like that really identical to a criminal trial or criminal extradition?

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

#355

Post by thaumasiotes »

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…

> Now we have to go through all this theatrics simply so those people can say things like "he got a fair hearing" and "the magistrate ruled against him so that must be the law".

This is a theme that Bridge of Spies carries off pretty well.

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

#356

Post by vkou »

colordrops wrote: post #171
chillwaves wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not helpful to say "the people who I disagree with are repeating propaganda."

I agree, and that's not what I said.

Instead, you implied that the people who disagreed with you have been duped by propaganda.

Which is not a particularly helpful, or charitable statement.

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

#357

Post by marvin »

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.

Was it in 2003? I believe that's what GP alleges.

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

#358

Post by marvin »

burger_moon wrote: post #127
pydry wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every single day this is posted there is a raft of comments that either use ad hominems to attack the source without addressing what it had to say or red herrings (e.g. why does X think they should be given one of the only 5 spots made available to see the trial that affects everybody ).

> Every single day this is posted there is a raft of comments that either use ad hominems to attack the source without addressing what it had to say or red herrings Those comments are getting really tiring and it's disappointing to see this place accept ad hominems against the source over and over in those threads instead of actually discussing the trial. Ofc complaining about comment quality isn't new, that's existe…

Assange threads are truly something else. A few years ago, most of the commentary was about how he didn't clean up his cat's poop at the Ecuadorian embassy and therefore, by implication, he deserved whatever he got.

Either the disinformation campaign has been spectacularly successful, a lot of HN commenters are truly daft enough to let alleged cat hygiene decide their opinion on a person's fate, or there is really some deliberate misinformation going on specifically in these threads. Maybe a combination of the three.

Regardless, it disheartens me greatly to see the state power of the US used like this. Truly removes the veil of supposedly unailenable democratic rights.

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

#359

Post by marvin »

zepto wrote: post #162
hombre_fatal wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> sounds to me like someone trying to give their argument more weight People do this all the time on any subject, it's a weak rhetorical device. "I'm not one to support Javascript but", "I don't normally disagree with @pmachinery but". We should just try to make our point without trying to artificially weigh it with rhetoric.

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…

This would be an excellent top level comment. I'm really sad to see that it was drowned in a sea of comments lamenting Assange's personal qualities.

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

#360

Post by [deleted] »

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?

[deleted]
Post reply on HN