This entire site is full of poorly sourced conspiratorial garbage.
Pity as it might hurt Assange's cause.
The D-Notice: A British Way of Censoring the Press
81–89 of 89 posts
Re: The D-Notice: A British Way of Censoring the Press
#82Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm sorry, being put on trial is a violation of your human rights? This is exactly what I'm talking about. Everyone else has to deal with the consequences of their actions, but when the same rules are applied to Assange, it is somehow a cruel and unusual outrage, and he is a saint that we've already determined could have done no wrong.
Journalists with sources that leak classified information are not unusual and they almost never go to jail for it or get hounded for it to this extent. If the same rules were, as you say, being applied to Assange, he would have been freed a long time ago. Hard to see where you're coming from. Trials aren't the only stage at which accused people can be released.
He's not indicted for broadcasting classified information, he's indicted for hacking. For helping get access to classified information.
It's the difference between a journalist spending a week in the jungle with a group of partisans, and a journalist spending a week in the jungle shooting guns at convoys and blowing up rail lines with a group of partisans. The former's a journalist, the latter's a guerrilla.
If the allegations are correct, Assange is closer to the latter. If they aren't, he's closer to the former. Right now, he's doing his best to make sure we'll never know, because the latter carries serious consequences.
Re: The D-Notice: A British Way of Censoring the Press
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, is the entirety of the US legal system illegitimate, or just the particular parts that will affect your hero? Are you throwing the whole concept of trials out with the bathwater, or is Assange just special , and the rules don't apply to him? The US legal system has problems, in terms of which cases it chooses not to pursue, and in terms of the deficiencies of public defenders, and long sentences. But these are pr…
Most systems are legitimate for 99.9% of the cases. And then there are exceptions. Yes, Assange is just special , special rules apply. If you're going to deny that, I guess, as GP says, enjoy the bliss till it lasts.
I guess the thing that weirds me out about this is not that 'special rules' are applying: if you look at history, they often do. Rather, it's just such a mistake. We're moving in a multipolar world where the US's preeminence is absolutely and explicitly dependent on its position in a 'rules based global order', as the leader of a set of democracies that champion the rule of law. We're also living through an unprecedented era of domestic disillusionment about the rule of law, its enforcement, fairness, and consistency. The US needs its allies more than ever, but it's also leaning on them to do things (rendition, extradition) that are both domestically unpopular and broadly inconsistent with their laws.
I think when historians look back at this era, from the second gulf war on, they'll see it as an era where the US essentially squandered an amazing soft-power position by ridiculously clumsy, arrogant, and petty behavior. And it's being enabled by group think. It's obvious from an outside perspective that all this kind of thing does is undermines the US at home and abroad, and gives ammunition to the Chinese or Russian state line that basically the US are a bunch of hypocrites, and the rules based global order is a sham, or gives ammunition to the left and right of american domestic politics to say that DC is a swamp, for literally no strategic gain. I mean, who really cares about Assange? I certainly don't. I do care about the ability of journalists to do their work without fear of persecution, and even if people don't care about that, they should care about the raw strategic incompetence of what the US is trying to do here.
Re: The D-Notice: A British Way of Censoring the Press
#84Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not having access to the names and methods of intelligence agencies doesn't hinder my trust in the media, no, and I can't really establish from this article that much more than that is happening. If anything it boosts my trust, knowing that these publications are considered legitimate enough by the UK government to be on their d-notice distribution list.
That is certainly one way of looking at it. The government confers reputability onto the press. If that is an appropriate role for the state in your view, you need not examine further. Another perspective might observe that Pravda was similarly considered "legitimate enough" by the USSR. Which of these best describes the information bubble you found yourself in at the top of the thread?
I'm not even sure what you're asking, sorry. I don't think you can infer I'm in some bubble, or my head's in the sand, because I don't conclude from this article that we should scrap the official secrets act
Re: The D-Notice: A British Way of Censoring the Press
#85I wanted to get behind this more but there were a few sections that had me doubting. 1. It says the UK media largely ignored the Snowden leaks due to a D-Notice - the source supplied didn't really back that up and it didn't sound right to me. Maybe someone can share examples of Snowden-leak-related stories which would have been in UK public interest but were only covered abroad? 2. It says the Steele dossier is large…
I remember when the Steele dossier was published by Buzzfeed. They basically said, “We can’t establish if it’s true, and it probably isnt. But it’s been talked about enough you might as well read the darn thing.”
I don’t know if it’s been discredited, as it was never “credited” in the first place.
Re: The D-Notice: A British Way of Censoring the Press
#86Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Politically motivated prosecution is not normal in a democracy. Yeah, but he helped trump get elected so he doesn't deserve human rights. (/s; but people are genuinely making this argument)
I'm sorry, being put on trial is a violation of your human rights? This is exactly what I'm talking about. Everyone else has to deal with the consequences of their actions, but when the same rules are applied to Assange, it is somehow a cruel and unusual outrage, and he is a saint that we've already determined could have done no wrong.
> being put on trial is a violation of your human rights?
Oh, certainly not. A fair trial, however, is probably impossible.
However, what I usually comment on is that there is a large enough corpus of evidence to indicate that he's being tortured.
Regardless of everything else I believe about the case: his human rights are certainly being suspended for now; if I ever talk about that then people are quick to point out that he assisted in the rise to power of Trump; as if that invalidates his human rights.
Regardless of what you believe (IE: I'm not happy about Trump either) you shouldn't be so quick to repeal peoples rights, and that's what people are doing, and that's what I'm commenting on.
https://www.scmp.com/comment/opinion/article/3160861/torturi...
I could go on-and-on about how he was hounded and character assassinated, but you wouldn't believe me because thats the very nature of character assassination.
I would like him to stand trial, but I suspect it cannot be a fair trial. Sham trials are very common, I wouldn't consider them to be an indicator that your human rights are not being eroded.
If you're interested in learning more about "unfair"/human rights abusing/unjust trials; Amnesty international has a few: https://www.amnesty.org/en/topic/unfair-trials/
Re: The D-Notice: A British Way of Censoring the Press
#87I would reply to a sibling comment, but I believe this ought to be top level. I believe the author is conflating "D-Notices may be used to ask the press to self-censor" versus "'the man' is censoring Assange". So far as I am aware, nothing in the Assange trial would actually warrant a D-Notice, and if sensitive information were to be presented to the court it would be done in closed session anyway, since they at leas…
Why is the Assange extradition case not a good time to mention D-notices?
That's not quite what I said. I said the article's insinuation that D-Notices are some mysterious gag order and are being used as part of the UK Government's campaign of terror on Assange is wrong. I might be reading too much into the implications, but I don't think I am, feel free to disagree.
What D-Notices are is effectively a polite request not to publish certain sensitive information. Editors at newspapers can decide whether or not to comply with the request. Have a look here: https://www.dsma.uk/how-the-system-works/ and notice the explicit "DSMA notices have no legal standing". The very idea that this is a secret censorship conspiracy is laughable.
I think there is an interesting question arising from the Assange case as to who can claim to be a journalist and what protections this provides, but I do not think D-Notices fit anywhere in this. They're not even a law.
Re: The D-Notice: A British Way of Censoring the Press
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It'd be one thing if his supporters accepted the dead-to-rights-guilty part, and were making the claim that it was something akin to civil disobedience - illegal, but in service to a higher cause. Unfortunately, most of them are instead bending over backwards to argue that he can't actually guilty of anything. It's not very convincing. Who, precisely, are you referring to here?
People like the sibling posters. Plenty of them on every thread that mentions Assange.
So, a tautological, non-quantitative categorization: only the subset, of unknown size, that are like this?
Re: The D-Notice: A British Way of Censoring the Press
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
Journalists with sources that leak classified information are not unusual and they almost never go to jail for it or get hounded for it to this extent. If the same rules were, as you say, being applied to Assange, he would have been freed a long time ago. Hard to see where you're coming from. Trials aren't the only stage at which accused people can be released.
He's not indicted for broadcasting classified information, he's indicted for hacking. For helping get access to classified information. It's the difference between a journalist spending a week in the jungle with a group of partisans, and a journalist spending a week in the jungle shooting guns at convoys and blowing up rail lines with a group of partisans. The former's a journalist, the latter's a guerrilla. If the a…
Wrong. Counts 9 to 17 of his indictment are for "Disclosure of Nation Defense Information". He IS indicted for broadcasting classified information.
There is also 1 count of "Conspiracy to Commit Computer Intrusion" which is minor compared to the 17 other indictments. It related to him trying to crack offline a password hash to let Manning log in as a different user. Which is assisting someone who does the actual collection of information.
The remaining indictments are for "Conspiracy to Receive" NDI or for obtaining it.
In other words he was embedded with the partisans and when asked to pass a box of ammo, did so. The hacking count can lead to 5 years in prison with possible parole. It's a tortured interpretation to suggest he hacked/blew up rail lines.
The rest, the REAL reason to pursue someone internationally for a decade for extraterritorial acts is for his journalistic function. To make an example. Otherwise this case would have been dropped.
https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Assa...
Have you watched Collateral Murder? To see that and think justice would be served by burying it would be like watching The Running Man and rooting for the game show host. Again, hard to understand where you're coming from.