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

61–70 of 426 posts

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

#61

Post by [deleted] »

pydry wrote: post #40
mlthoughts2018 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the article: > “ Amnesty International had requested access to the court for a trial monitor to observe the hearings, but the court denied us a designated seat in court. Our monitor initially did get permission to access the technology to monitor remotely, but the morning the hearing started he received an email informing us that the Judge had revoked Amnesty International’s remote access.”

I really question the motivations of people who would downvote this. It's clear, objective, relevant information.

[deleted]

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

#62

Post by asplake »

pmachinery wrote: post #53
demarq wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

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…

Exactly this. Thank you.

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

#63

Post by rootusrootus »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #56
demarq wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Assange is an extra controversial figure in the US due to events in the 2016 election unrelated to this case. Before that happened I rarely saw such disclaimers.

I agree with this. It sure appears that he took sides in the US election in 2016. It makes sense to see a 50/50 split in support, likely correlated roughly with political partisanship.

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

#64

Post by curation »

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'm old. I opted out of the order as a solution and I orbit around it making incursions of support and encouragement. Try techniques described in the Undercommons by Moten/Harney. Spend your attention carefully.

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

#65

Post by res0nat0r »

pydry wrote: post #40
mlthoughts2018 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the article: > “ Amnesty International had requested access to the court for a trial monitor to observe the hearings, but the court denied us a designated seat in court. Our monitor initially did get permission to access the technology to monitor remotely, but the morning the hearing started he received an email informing us that the Judge had revoked Amnesty International’s remote access.”

I really question the motivations of people who would downvote this. It's clear, objective, relevant information.

It's being downvoted because the OP already answered the question. They're being treated exactly the same as the rest of the public.

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

#66

Post by pmachinery »

res0nat0r wrote: post #65
pydry wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really question the motivations of people who would downvote this. It's clear, objective, relevant information.

It's being downvoted because the OP already answered the question. They're being treated exactly the same as the rest of the public.

The rest of the public is also having its remote access revoked?

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

#67

Post by DiogenesKynikos »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #49
demarq wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

They're signaling that publishing secrets is a crime; that's an objective fact, nobody is arguing against that I think. What's at stake here is whether the crime was justifiable and that it did more good (in exposing the US' war crimes) than bad (sharing state secrets and possibly risking informants). Disclaimer: superficial layman's take on matters.

In the US, up until this point, publishing government secrets has not been a crime. It is a right protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution.

The only people that the government has historically been able to prosecute are government employees who leak documents, but publishers have been inviolate. That's why the prosecution of Assange is such a big deal: the US government is trying to establish a precedent that it can go after publishers, not just leakers.

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

#68

Post by ximeng »

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…

Why are you ignoring “Assange lawyer says Trump offered deal to avoid extradition” and “Lawyer says Assange charged under broad, contentious US law”. Not really sure what your definition of depth is by which these add less depth than the BBC’s literally zero coverage in the last two weeks.

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

#69

Post by awild »

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. That seems a reasonable definition of rape.

I agreee, but is not telling someone that you do not (to your knowledge) have HIV "not revealing a fact"? You seem to be falling prey to the muddying of waters I mention in my original comments: Instead of discussing the fact that the US spied on its own citizens etc, or the fact that Assange is being held accountible in and by a country where he did not commit any crimes, we are discussing the optics of a constructed rape case, without either of us knowing the laws of the country.

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

#70

Post by pelliphant »

nabla9 wrote: post #47
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…

People are divided into those who see hims as hero or villain. Is there anyone like me who considers him neither? For me, Assange is 1) Asshole 2) Possibly mentally ill at this point 3) Someone who once greatly advanced journalism and whistleblowing. Even bad journalist deserves protections of a journalist. 4) A person who might have crossed the line from journalism and even his own principles. If he did entangle him…

I'm also in the neither group.

I think that "reddit style" commenting brings out the extremes in people, everytime I actually talk to someone face-to-face they seem to be less extreme than what they appear to be on the internet.

Post reply on HN