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

391–400 of 426 posts

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

#391

Post by ineedasername »

rayiner wrote: post #201
sneak wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This posits that it should be illegal to expose classified war crimes. Sometimes, the law is wrong, and should be broken. Nonviolent disobedience of the law is a moral obligation in many instances. There is a long and glorious history of this happening throughout modern history. This is why we have juries: to make that instance not illegal.

No it doesn’t. It posits that the purpose of “exposing classified war crimes” shouldn’t immunize conduct that’s otherwise illegal. According to the indictment, Assange was running a whole operation where he was recruiting hackers to get sensitive data from protected computer systems. You’re positing that we should basically have vigilante hackers that expropriate and publish confidential data so long as they purport…

That's not what the commenter said. They outlined a classic stance on the concept of civil disobedience which is that one way of fighting unjust laws is to refuse to obey them. (the corollary to that is to be ready to face the consequences)

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

#392

Post by ineedasername »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #266
rayiner wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is an accusation, and is not fact. You'd be wise not to treat it as such until it's proven. Sure. But extradition hearings necessarily operate on allegations because they come before a jury trial that will determine the facts.

Extrafition hearings must consider whether the charges are bogus and politically motivated. Thats why we don't extradite Putin's enemies to Russia.

To be fair, it also seems like Putin doesn't much need the help anyway. He has no problem taking care of the supposed "criminal" in situ

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

#393

Post by ineedasername »

Canada wrote: post #388
ineedasername wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's there on page 6: something they thought might be a hash was handed over. Assange represented they had resources to throw at it, and did so. It doesn't need to actually have been a hash, Assange doesn't need to actually have succeeded. He provided assistance, however ineffective, to help break into and exfiltrate classified systems and data. At that point he stopped being a passive recipient of leaked data and st…

> something they thought might be a hash was handed over. What? Was handed over by who? Manning gave it to Assange, we have no evidence to suggest Assange did anything with it. By this logic you might as well argue that Assange was actively conspiring because he provided an SFTP server for Manning to upload stuff to. Think of it this way: You're sitting at a bar and I'm selling you drinks. You're drinking and talking…

We do have evidence Assange did something with it. Again, right there on page 6, he "passed it on to our lm guy".

I guess theoretically he might have been blowing smoke, but that doesn't matter: he said that he had done something with it. If he was lying, it's very unfortunate, because the lie claimed he committed a crime.

A server to send data to doesn't help Manning steal the data. She had to steal the data before she could leak it.

Don't go reading into what you think my logic is in the broader issue. I'm talking about the very narrow question of whether Assange crossed over from receiving data into trying to provide the ability to steal more of it. My opinion on this case as a whole is not at all reflected by analyzing my stance on that one specific legal question.

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

#395

Post by ggrrhh_ta »

matthewheath wrote: post #316
ggrrhh_ta wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Audio only, description of the evidence, binding agreements, etc. I really thought that there could be an unsolvable reason behind it.

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

#396

Post by mmanfrin »

alasdair_ wrote: post #210

Assange is being charged under the CFAA. The charge carries a maximum penalty of five years. The statute of limitations for charges the CFAA is five years - the indictment was filed after eight years from the alleged incident. The US is claiming that the reason the statute of limitations doesn't apply is "terrorism". I'm not sure Assange meets any reasonable criteria of being a terrorist. Secondly, the charge stems f…

I don't disagree, but

> The US is claiming that the reason the statute of limitations doesn't apply is "terrorism".

The US AG is currently classifying 3 cities where protests are occurring as 'anarchist jurisdictions' so it's a fair bet that the truth of words hold no water to this administration.

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

#397

Post by Canada »

ineedasername wrote: post #393
Canada wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> something they thought might be a hash was handed over. What? Was handed over by who? Manning gave it to Assange, we have no evidence to suggest Assange did anything with it. By this logic you might as well argue that Assange was actively conspiring because he provided an SFTP server for Manning to upload stuff to. Think of it this way: You're sitting at a bar and I'm selling you drinks. You're drinking and talking…

We do have evidence Assange did something with it. Again, right there on page 6, he "passed it on to our lm guy". I guess theoretically he might have been blowing smoke, but that doesn't matter: he said that he had done something with it. If he was lying, it's very unfortunate, because the lie claimed he committed a crime. A server to send data to doesn't help Manning steal the data. She had to steal the data before…

It's a lot more than theoretical that he was blowing smoke. It's almost certain that he was. Assange is personally aware of how to crack NTLM hashes. If there was any actual intent to crack that hash I'd expect to see a lot more follow up in the conversation... like "ok I'm running john/hashcat with the common word list... how about you upload the SAM/try mimikatz? What do you know about the local password complexity policy?", and stuff like that.. but there's none of it.

If "I'll ask a guy" is all that's required to make something into a conspiracy that is incredibly, mindblowingly flimsy.

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

#398

Post by torified »

DanBC wrote: post #119
croes wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment is demagogue? Pretty bug accusations. And downplaying rape? Did Assange force or drug the women to have sex with him?

> Did Assange force or drug the women to have sex with him? In many places rape is defined as sex without consent, and force is not required. England is one such place. In some places consent is nullified by actions such as removing a condom without telling someone. Again, this is the case in England. However, Assange is also accused of using force. https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html > As regar…

So, he's a rapist because he can't read minds and we imagine he prefers not to wear a condom. Got it.

Of course nobody should be interested when his human rights are ignored, because that inexcusable behavior is so much more damaging for society than governments murdering innocent civilians, illegally spying on everyone, and lying to their own people about their actions.

GG military industrial complex.

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

#399

Post by jaza »

torified wrote: post #394

As an Australian, I'm sickened that our pathetic excuse for a government has shown no interest in protecting one of their own citizens being dragged into this kangaroo court. Spineless and corrupt.

Five Eyes. ANZUS. Pine Gap.

As an Australian, I'm not at all surprised that we've abandoned Assange. He's wanted by our government's government!

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

#400

Post by torified »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #55
awild wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The interview I linked (this is from memory), emphasized the fact that the accusations were pretty bogus to begin with. The accuser did not actually go to the police about rape: she wanted to get legal advice if she can force Assange to take an HIV test after having unprotected sex with him. > Was heisst das: Die Behörden wiegelten ab? > Darf ich von vorn beginnen? Ich spreche fliessend Schwedisch und konnte deshalb…

> wanted to get legal advice if she can force Assange to take an HIV test after having unprotected sex with him // If someone purposefully hides salient facts from you in order to coerce sexual intercourse then it can be that consent was only acquired by deception and that under the law consent was not freely given. That seems a reasonable definition of rape. A person seeking police advice may not know they were rape…

>If someone purposefully hides salient facts from you in order to coerce sexual intercourse then it can be that consent was only acquired by deception and that under the law consent was not freely given.

Assange could have Tuberculosis too. So that's also rape, right? The flu? Also rape. He could be a triple rapist!

Just forget all that systematic government murdering, spying, and lying he revealed, we won't entertain facts from a possible triple rapist!

Post reply on HN