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

Post by sneak » Tue, Sep 22, 2020, 9:03 AM UTC

sneak wrote: post #192

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 means that the countries involved (in this case, in order: Australia, Sweden, the UK, and the US) don't have the rule of law . It means that the law is theater, always potentially subordinate to dictatorial control should it ever be exer…

Post by DiogenesKynikos » Tue, Sep 22, 2020, 10:05 AM UTC

boomboomsubban wrote: post #344

hilbertseries wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How so? Did he actively seek out Russian documents so he could release them? Julian Assange hosted a show on RT, he was literally on the payroll of the Russian government. Also suspicious is that Wikileaks basically has only leaked documents that look bad for western democracy. There’s one leak of critical of Russia, but it has basically nothing of substance in it. When you claim to be for radical transparency and…

>Julian Assange hosted a show on RT, he was literally on the payroll of the Russian governmen Assange made a show and sold broadcast rights to RT. Small but distinct difference in that he was never under pressure to follow what Russia wanted, they just wanted to broadcast his point of biew. >There’s one leak of critical of Russia, but it has basically nothing of substance in it. Why would anyone with information dama…

Post by ggrrhh_ta » Tue, Sep 22, 2020, 12:58 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #290

ggrrhh_ta wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you point us more specifically in the indictment? Must the assertions of an indictment be based on collected evidence?

Assertions of an indictment must be based on evidence or things the prosecutor has reason to believe the evidence will prove. In the numbered paragraphs where the indictment refers to specific events with quoted statements, that means there are documents that support those allegations. I'd draw your attention to paragraph 4-6, where Assange recruited hackers to collect a "most wanted" list of confidential material an…

Post by ineedasername » Tue, Sep 22, 2020, 5:14 PM UTC

boomboomsubban wrote: post #405

ineedasername wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Assange is accused of more than that. Manning gave him something they thought was a hashed password. Assange tried to crack it so that Manning could use it to steal more data. A journalist can receive information from a thief, but if the journalist starts helping the thief cracks safes to steal more stuff, that is a whole other story.

>Assange tried to crack it so that Manning could use it to steal more data. *so Manning could steal the same amount of data with a bit more secrecy. The account in question was a generic Windows account that only had access to thing Manning had clearance for.

Post by torified » Tue, Sep 22, 2020, 11:10 PM UTC

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #412

torified wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 entertai…

If one knows one has a deadly communicable disease and is willfully negligent knowing that your actions are likely to cause particular harm then it would be assault. Rarely people with HIV have _chosen_ to spread it through intercourse, if someone purposefully chose to give you HIV would you say you had fully consented to that sexual act, given you were entirely ignorant to their infection and their choice? How would…