19 ms·

Assange Hearing Day 2

371 points by k1m 7y ago

EliRivers 7y ago
Consider the source, right? Always ask ourselves "What does this source, this reporter, this organisation, want us to think?" That doesn't mean that we have to ignore everything they say; it just becomes us to know what the source's own agenda is, to better arm ourselves. Craig Murray's website suggests he is, for example, a credulous believer of Russian explanations for events. He does on occasion correct himself (such as in his post about the famed picture of two different people walking through two different channels - https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/09/the-impossible-photo/ https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/09/the-impossib... ) but nonetheless he has a long-standing mindset which will temper his beliefs and of course colour everything he sees and his interpretations thereof. Of course so do we all, but not all of us are reporting on this case to the public at large, pushing our own beliefs and agenda.
- kstenerud 7y ago
  Publishing your beliefs and publishing the facts of a case are completely different things. "Consider the source" is not an issue here, unless you wish to accuse him of lying about what he witnessed.
  - EliRivers 7y ago
    I disagree. Nobody, but nobody, is some kind of robot perfectly witnessing and reporting events in some kind of perfect language that perfectly conveys the whole truth and nothing but the truth (despite the typical HN cyborg-wannabee viewpoint - the locally over-represented kind of person who decides they have no biases). "Consider the source" is always an issue. Always. It's unpopular to say it, and a lot of people don't like to be reminded that they don't live in a world of perfect information, but it's true.
- AndyMcConachie 7y ago
  If your problem is the source then read a different one. Here's the the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, Nils Melzer, on Assange being tortured. https://www.republik.ch/2020/01/31/nils-melzer-about-wikileaks-founder-julian-assange https://www.republik.ch/2020/01/31/nils-melzer-about-wikilea...
  - EliRivers 7y ago
    No problem here, buddy. Just reminding us all to consider that everything we read has an agenda. Including what I wrote, and what you wrote.
    - CriticalCathed 7y ago
      This kind of quisling act is of little value.
      - EliRivers 7y ago
        Look at yourself in the mirror. I invited you to consider the source. That's it. I asked you to exercise your mind, and to be careful not to accept other people's agendas, be they conscious or unconscious. Your response to that is to attack. How dare I remind you that bias exists? Are you not shocked and horrified at your own response? You should be. Almost none of this thread should exist. There should have been zero response to my post. It should be standard fare; that people remember to consider the sources of things they read, especially on divisive subjects. Look at the time people are now wasting on this thread. Assange is on trial, yet people are here arguing about the nature of bias, FFS.
        CriticalCathed 7y ago
        >Almost none of this thread should exist. There should have been zero response to my post. Not quite. Your post shouldn't exist at all. It's condescending tripe.
- efdee 7y ago
  What does this commenter want us to think?
  - nmeofthestate 7y ago
    He wants us to think "Murray is a conspiracy theorist with a wacko following†, so I will take this blog post with a pinch of salt." Of course Murray could be speaking truth in this blog post, but it's nonetheless worth finding a different source of the truth, to avoid promoting Murray. †that's true - look back at his response to the Skripal poisoning for an example.
    - kmlx 7y ago
      i agree. craig murray is not to be trusted. he may be telling us exactly what is happening, but then again he might start another crusade against israel any moment now.
  - EliRivers 7y ago
    I'd like you to, yes.
- doe88 7y ago
  The Guardian (never to be accused of outlandish sympathies toward Assange) https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/feb/25/julian-assange-handcuffed-stripped-naked-claim-lawyers https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/feb/25/julian-assange...
  - EliRivers 7y ago
    I'll be honest; I genuinely don't know how many times I would expect someone to have handcuffs attached and released in such circumstances. Is eleven times a lot? The Guardian doesn't actually express whether this is excessive or lenient. The Guardian doesn't seem to make any comment on that. I would expect his defence lawyer to complain about his conditions no matter what. The article headlines with thehandcuffs, but the vast majority of the article is nothing to do with that. So honestly no idea on that one; feels like a headline designed to attract attention and maybe spark outrage based on a reader's pre-conceived ideas without actually making any value judgement. I get it, he's Assange, the state is bad, he's a whipping boy. Probably all true. Really, I think he's going to get a raw deal in this and I think the states involved have really spent too much time and effort chasing something that really won't benefit them, and perhaps not with as much fairness as we'd like. But the breathless rush with which people run to believe is disconcerting.
    - johnrackles 7y ago
      The UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, Nils Melzer, certainly thinks assange is being tortured. https://medium.com/@njmelzer/demasking-the-torture-of-julian-assange-b252ffdcb768 https://medium.com/@njmelzer/demasking-the-torture-of-julian...
      - EliRivers 7y ago
        Why are you telling me this? I didn't say he wasn't. Genuinely, I think he's getting a raw deal. The balance of sources certainly indicates that. This isn't about whether or not his treatment is acceptable; this is about ensuring that we read sources carefully. Although it seems to be turning into the idea that to question a source is to take an opposing view, and even that to suggest a source be examined critically is to take an opposing view.
- cryptonym 7y ago
  My own belief: it's unfair to attack his credibility without providing anything about the content of this post. If something is not accurate here, please let us know, that would be valuable.
  - EliRivers 7y ago
    My belief; it is not unfair (he is deliberately presenting himself as a source of truth in the matter, publicly and openly), and I did not attack his credibility. I invited you to consider the source. Perhaps you conclude, after consideration, that he is an especially credible source.
    - richrichardsson 7y ago
      > Craig Murray's website suggests he is, for example, a credulous believer of Russian explanations for events. He does on occasion correct himself (such as in his post about the famed picture of two different people walking through two different channels - https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/09/the-impossib.. https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/09/the-impossib.... ) but nonetheless he has a long-standing mindset which will temper his beliefs and of course colour everything he sees and his interpretations thereof. and you somehow think > I did not attack his credibility
      - EliRivers 7y ago
        Ah, I see. In which case, then yes. I attack his credibility. I attack yours. I attack mine. You are biased. I am biased. He is biased. Everything you write is tempered. Everything I write is tempered. His credibiltiy is compromised and the source must be considered, as is yours, as is mine. This shouldn't be controversial, yet here we are. Seriously, here we are.
- 9nGQluzmnq3M 7y ago
  Craig Murray is a former career diplomat and UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, who got railroaded out of the foreign service for having the temerity to note that Uzbek leader Islam Karimov was (literally) boiling his opponents to death. If this is an agenda, I support it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Murray https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Murray Also: https://archive.is/20061012215514/http://www.craigmurray.co.uk/archives/2005/02/the_pathologist.html https://archive.is/20061012215514/http://www.craigmurray.co....
  - EliRivers 7y ago
    Boom. Here's someone considering the source. Well done 9nGQluzmnq3M. I bet very few people actually did.
  - kmlx 7y ago
    he left the foreign service in disgrace. this guy blames everything on israel. he even blamed israel for the chemical weapons attack in Salisbury and he's even been accused of being an anti-semite. this guy celebrated Hitchens' death in a blog post for crying out loud.
  - jjgreen 7y ago
    Thank you for the second link, absolutely astonishing
AndyMcConachie 7y ago
> Julian had twice been stripped naked and searched, eleven times been handcuffed, and five times been locked up in different holding cells. On top of this, all of his court documents had been taken from him by the prison authorities, including privileged communications between his lawyers and himself, and he had been left with no ability to prepare to participate in today’s proceedings. Still barely any mention of this case in the mainstream American or UK press. Until recently Amnesty International refused to even recognize Assange as a political prisoner, and the only thing they had said about him was that he was "not a political prisoner". They've since changed their tune, but it sure took them long enough. A man is being tortured in plain sight in the UK and no one in the media cares to report on it.
- tyingq 7y ago
  It won't make the US press, because all of that is a pretty typical US jail experience, sadly.
  - spinglespingle 7y ago
    the US has successfully become a 3rd world country. power in the hands of a few: check corruption at the highest possible level: check a gradually more authoritarian "leader": check a people who support such a leader: check military might used against political opponents: check enormous amounts of poverty cleverly ignored: check the list goes on. i suppose there is a time for every powerful nation to go into a deep decline that it will never recover from, and such decline usually starts when people ignore what's going on right in front of them. had russia done to assange what the us is doing now all of them EU, US and other hypocrites would be jumping like their arse was burned: but human rights. but torture. but freedom of the press. but this and that. well, enjoy your dystopia.
    - anonsivalley652 7y ago
      Yep. This is because of the vicious circle of money capturing power through greater wealth, greater corruption, and greater power. As Chris Hedges calls it: inverted totalitarianism. Autocratic plutocracy by force by other means. It's like how many Americans are chained to their jobs by healthcare and other benefits, but let's not call it slavery or indentured servitude (student loans) because anarcho-capitalism with "no government, no regulations and more greed will solve everything! It will just work itself out magically!"
ganzuul 7y ago
This is horrifying. As a European I'm afraid to even visit the USA. I'd expect this from some third world hellhole but not from a country which professes to have the rule of law.
- Tomte 7y ago
  The article is about England...
  - fit2rule 7y ago
    I think it goes without saying that the UK is becoming less and less the kind of place that any freedom-loving person would want to visit. Living in Europe, I am aware of a number of people who have decided to have nothing more to do with the place, and these are wealthy, educated, business leaders. I can't imagine where this is going to lead if Assange is not freed as a result of these proceedings. We are watching the West eat itself.
    - arethuza 7y ago
      There have been significant cutbacks in the criminal justice system in England and Wales over the last decade or so - ironically by the party of "law and order". I can strongly recommend the book by the Secret Barrister: https://thesecretbarrister.com/ https://thesecretbarrister.com/
      - fit2rule 7y ago
        >Woolwich Crown Court ".. if a single day at Woolwich Crown Court does not convince you the existence of liberal democracy is now a lie, then your mind must be very closed indeed."
    - willis936 7y ago
      I can’t imagine freedom-loving people choosing to live in hateful, racist places that are found all over Europe. https://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2018/being-black-eu#TabPubKeyfindings https://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2018/being-black-eu#Tab... Perhaps Europe could learn a thing or two from US culture.
k1m 7y ago
Murray's report of the first day of the trial also worth reading: https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/02/your-man-in-the-public-gallery-assange-hearing-day-1/ https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/02/your-man-in-...
- cmroanirgo 7y ago
  Interesting. > Extradition hearings are not held at Belmarsh Magistrates Court inside Woolwich Crown Court. They are always held at Westminster Magistrates Court as the application is deemed to be delivered to the government at Westminster. Now get your head around this. This hearing is at Westminster Magistrates Court. It is being held by the Westminster magistrates and Westminster court staff, but located at Belmarsh Magistrates Court inside Woolwich Crown Court. All of which weird convolution is precisely so they can use the “counter-terrorist court” to limit public access and to impose the fear of the power of the state. ... >There was a separate media entrance and a media room with live transmission from the courtroom, and there were so many scores of media I thought I could relax and not worry as the basic facts would be widely reported. In fact, I could not have been more wrong. I followed the arguments very clearly every minute of the day, and not a single one of the most important facts and arguments today has been reported anywhere in the mainstream media. That is a bold claim, but I fear it is perfectly true. So I have much work to do to let the world know what actually happened. The mere act of being an honest witness is suddenly extremely important, when the entire media has abandoned that role.
  - Fjolsvith 7y ago
    > when the entire media has abandoned that role. Exactly. Almost as if the media as a whole gets orders to follow.
  - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
    An alternate possibility is that this one reporter is too biased to report accurately. "Everyone's hiding the truth but me" is sometimes true, but not always.
    - 7y ago
bilekas 7y ago
This is always going to happen when you go about doing what he did in such a flamboyant way. I agree that he was by no means an angel, but I also see the reasons why the governments want to set an example. People have this idea that it's a terrible thing if their governments have secrets.. It's normal.. That doesn't justify this treatment of him. By any means, one would think he would be treated well in public. > Is Assange the victim of torture? It looks as though he's being made an example of. If thats right or wrong is anyones guess, but it doesn't make anyone confortable.
- tokamak-teapot 7y ago
  Yes he's being made an example of. He brazenly broke the (unwritten) rules and this is an educational beatdown[1]. It will end badly for Assange, because two of the "three cases where the EBD may be dangerous" (see linked article) apply. Whether Assange is 'in the right' or not, #1 will still apply to him. [1] https://chirontraining.blogspot.com/2013/03/cofv10-educational-beatdown.html https://chirontraining.blogspot.com/2013/03/cofv10-education...
  - lolc 7y ago
    That was an interesting read. Let's make it clear to the "educational beatdown" people that we don't agree!
    - tokamak-teapot 7y ago
      Absolutely! Pressure can be applied. I’m not sure what might actually work in the end but a show of public opinion being against the ‘beat down’ could work. Unfortunately the public opinion has been primed to agree with it - or at least turn away for fear of being seen to defend a ‘rapist’.
- AllegedAlec 7y ago
  > If thats right or wrong is anyones guess You're fucking joking right? Something about "cruel and unusual punishment", which is present in both English and American law. Furthermore, there's this little document called the 'Universal Declaration of Human Rights', which has stuff to say on this matter too, and has been signed by both the US and England.
discordance 7y ago
Free Assange
- scient 7y ago
  He has done enough damage with his "work" on leaks with Russia. No thanks.
  - onlydeadheroes 7y ago
    So shooting the messenger is now a defensible position in polite company?
  - raxxorrax 7y ago
    Perhaps he was slightly pissed off after being prosecuted for hinting at war crimes. But I don't think so, because the whole Russia story is a bit of a myth to explain dissatisfied voters.
  - woah 7y ago
    The democrats rigged their own primary process and when this was revealed, it pissed off their base so much that they lost the election. You can’t blame the guy who brought these sordid deeds to light.
- dang 7y ago
  Please don't post unsubstantive comments here. Especially not on divisive topics like this one. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
celticninja 7y ago
The judge has basically said this is a politically motivated extradition, and the court is fine with that. I hope that this get appealed to a higher court and it's not left to this hostile judge.
- Traster 7y ago
  The judge hasn't said that at all. The judge said that the UK law as a matter of fact doesn't bar extraditions for political reasons - so the defense has to prove the treaty is legally binding on the court as a pre-condition for even making the argument that extradition should be stopped because its politically motivated.
  - wazoox 7y ago
    International treaties are more binding than domestic law, as the Vienna Convention: https://www.oas.org/legal/english/docs/Vienna%20Convention%20Treaties.htm https://www.oas.org/legal/english/docs/Vienna%20Convention%2... “A party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.“
    - 3fe9a03ccd14ca5 7y ago
      In practice this is untrue.
      - wazoox 7y ago
        Sure, but it seems hard to dismiss in court.
        telotortium 7y ago
        I don't know how it is in the UK, but in the US most "treaties" are actually executive agreements, which set a policy of the US executive branch but do not have the force of law. Treaties must be approved by 2/3 of the US Senate to have the force of law, by the US Constitution, and even then a treaty can't violate the US Constitution. You left out the full text of Article 26, which is pretty important: "A party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty. This rule is without prejudice to article 46." Article 46 states: """ 1. A State may not invoke the fact that its consent to be bound by a treaty has been expressed in violation of a provision of its internal law regarding competence to conclude treaties as invalidating its consent unless that violation was manifest and concerned a rule of its internal law of fundamental importance. 2. A violation is manifest if it would be objectively evident to any State conducting itself in the matter in accordance with normal practice and in good faith. """ I would consider the US Constitution a "rule of its internal law of fundamental importance". I'm sure the UK government would have no problem finding a similar argument that makes Article 26 a dead letter.
mcv 7y ago
That judge does not exactly come across as impartial in this description. I'm not a lawyer, but it does look like a mistrial of some sort. Whatever you think of Julian Assange, he deserves a fair trial, and this doesn't sound like he's getting one.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- joosters 7y ago
  The problem is, from the very first paragraph, this website doesn't come across as anything close to impartial either. So I'd suggest you find some more sources before you criticize the judge.
  - jjgreen 7y ago
    The courtroom has 14 seats for the public and press, so don't expect that many sources ...
  - mcv 7y ago
    True. Like I said: "from this description". No idea how accurate it is. It would be good to have other sources.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
  - Darvon 7y ago
    More information on the piece of shit Judge https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/07/11/assa-j11.html https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/07/11/assa-j11.html
    - earenndil 7y ago
      > world socialist website Doesn't exactly seem to be impartial either.
baud147258 7y ago
Why is he calling Bellingcat a warmongering propaganda operations and saying they've got a "source of state, corporate or institutional finance"? I though they were independent
- r721 7y ago
  Because Craig Murray's position is always aligned with Kremlin's official position.
- DyslexicAtheist 7y ago
  because Elliot Higgins is an Atlantic Council puppet who gets his intel from UK spooks for strategic disemination, and responds to anyone who challenges him with "suck my balls". The guy is a information-terrorist and I hope the Russians slip him something into his tea one day.
  - dang 7y ago
    > I hope the Russians slip him something into his tea one day. Obviously you can't post like this here. If you keep breaking the site guidelines we are going to have to ban you. We've given you many warnings and cut you a lot of slack already. It isn't infinite. It's in your interest to follow the site guidelines anyhow, since breaking them just makes your view look bad and alienates any open-minded readers who you might otherwise have been able to interest or convince. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- kmlx 7y ago
  they are independent. i wouldn't trust craig murray if he was the last person on earth.
- jstewartmobile 7y ago
  Because it is. It's just some finance guy in his drawers making shit up over videos shot halfway across the world. Read up on this guy. One glance at his fat pasty face, and it's obvious that he's never been anywhere near a war zone: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliot_Higgins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliot_Higgins edit: and since DyslexicAtheist has been grayed out, I will second his "hope the Russians slip him something into his tea one day." to r721: for warmongers, yes.
jonathanstrange 7y ago
I think there is an important point missing in the debate. This is an extradition hearing. It doesn't matter whether Assange is guilty of the alleged crimes the US has come up with or not, what matters is whether he is expected to receive a fair trial in the US and whether the potential sentences in the US would be roughly on a par with what he'd expect for the same alleged crimes in the UK. For all I can see, this is definitely not the case. You can even make a case that almost nobody should be extradited to the US by any country, since the US justice system has serious flaws, might not be just at all (e.g. it has about 10 times longer maximum prison sentences than in the rest of the civilized world) and the US penal system constitutes a constant human rights violation. For example, the administrations of many US prisons are notoriously unable to prevent the raping and murdering of their inmates. I've even heard people from the US making jokes about prison rape, as if that was to be expected and part of the "justice". As another example, a prison in Illinois was under 23 years of permanent lockdown, meaning that all inmates were in isolation for 23 years. There are credible accounts that Assange is facing imprisonment in high-security isolation facilities similar to what they did to Manning for a long time. I cannot understand why any civilized person would allow a treatment as inhumane as in US maximum security prisons with isolation, regardless of the crime. Generally speaking, countries should review their extradition treaties. US justice is non-proportionality based on revenge and involves frequent human rights abuses. The same is true of other countries like Japan or Russia, but AFAIK extradition requests to these countries are much rarer.
- Fjolsvith 7y ago
  > As another example, a prison in Illinois was under 23 years of permanent lockdown, meaning that all inmates were in isolation for 23 years. You do refer to USP Marion, Illinois, which was the US's Supermax prison during that time. They held the most dangerous, violent prisoners, and of course, kept them locked down for security reasons. [1] I spent a year there after they downgraded it to a medium security facility. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Penitentiary,_Marion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Penitentiary,_Ma...
  - jolmg 7y ago
d--b 7y ago
Given the state of the justice system in the UK and USA, maybe the best course of action for Assange is to get extradited, then tell the public that Wikileaks helped expose Hillary's private email server, and get pardoned by Trump...
- Tepix 7y ago
  If he is extradited, he will not receive a public trial.
  - xtracto 7y ago
    Wasn't the US government trying to kill him? I guess it will be easy once they have it in their soil...
kstenerud 7y ago
A quick summary of day 3 is here: https://www.rt.com/news/481711-assange-protection-political-extradition-fundamental-right/ https://www.rt.com/news/481711-assange-protection-political-...
- mzs 7y ago
  According to GOOGL: “RT is funded in whole or in part by the Russian government.” Twelve Russian military intelligence officers were indicted in the US for in part working with WikiLeaks, so readers should find a more neutral source as well.
  - Bendingo 7y ago
    > “RT is funded in whole or in part by the Russian government.” Irrelevant.
    - dr-detroit 7y ago
      > Irrelevant Hilarious.
devilcius 7y ago
I found the article valuable and also a bit ironic that the only method to donate to this blogger, apart from a bank transfer, is PayPal. (In case anyone does not remember, they suspended Wikileaks account in 2010.)
mnm1 7y ago
This is a sham as his trial in the US, which is inevitable, will be. The US will not stop at anything in this case because leaking a video showing that US soldiers enjoy killing children is worse for them than actually killing children. This video showed the world what everyone already knew: that the US, and specifically the US armed forces, have no ethics, no morals, no qualms about killing children even when it's unnecessary. This isn't about endangering troops. This is about image only. Frankly, I hope the leaks did endanger troops. Scum soldiers that enjoy killing children deserve to die as do their superiors who almost certainly encouraged it and certainly didn't punish it. The US armed forces have no honor and they should be ashamed of themselves as should the government that starts bullshit wars and kills millions of innocents. This applies to everyone from the commander in chief to the lowest soldier. As a fellow American, I despise them for their service and they can all go fuck themselves. The video that Assange leaked is just one example of many of despicable behavior and the fact that they are punishing him rather than the animals who enjoy killing children is indefensible, immoral, and reflects on the entire armed forces institutions. Fuck them.
3fe9a03ccd14ca5 7y ago
Is there any explanation for why the special counsel never attempted to interview Assange on the Wikileaks DNC email leak? The whole premise of their investigation started with the narrative that Russia hacked the DNC and released the emails through Wikileaks to help Trump win. Why never ask Assange where he got the emails? He’s been adamant publicly that it wasn’t Russia. Why not ask him then who in an investigation that took 2 years? This has always bothered me and intrigued me about Assange.
dean177 7y ago
> “Are you suggesting, Mr Summers, that the authorities, the Government, should have to provide context for its charges?” The judge, Vanessa Baraitser, said that.
- glennvtx 7y ago
  Pretty much sums it up right there. done.
glennvtx 7y ago
This is an egregious miscarriage of justice and everyone involved in perpetrating it against this man - for publishing the misdeeds of government, should be strung up, Literally. That is what the founders of this country would have done, and we could do worse than following their example, here.
- dr-detroit 7y ago
  I do not believe the US government ever claimed that there were 0 civilian deaths in Iraq. What did Assange really do that you view as a positive while he was breaking so many important laws?

371 points by k1m 7y ago

Consider the source, right? Always ask ourselves "What does this source, this reporter, this organisation, want us to think?" That doesn't mean that we have to ignore everything they say; it just becomes us to know what the source's own agenda is, to better arm ourselves. Craig Murray's website suggests he is, for example, a credulous believer of Russian explanations for events. He does on occasion correct himself (such as in his post about the famed picture of two different people walking through two different channels - https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/09/the-impossible-photo/ https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/09/the-impossib... ) but nonetheless he has a long-standing mindset which will temper his beliefs and of course colour everything he sees and his interpretations thereof. Of course so do we all, but not all of us are reporting on this case to the public at large, pushing our own beliefs and agenda.

kstenerud 7y ago
Publishing your beliefs and publishing the facts of a case are completely different things. "Consider the source" is not an issue here, unless you wish to accuse him of lying about what he witnessed.
- EliRivers 7y ago
  I disagree. Nobody, but nobody, is some kind of robot perfectly witnessing and reporting events in some kind of perfect language that perfectly conveys the whole truth and nothing but the truth (despite the typical HN cyborg-wannabee viewpoint - the locally over-represented kind of person who decides they have no biases). "Consider the source" is always an issue. Always. It's unpopular to say it, and a lot of people don't like to be reminded that they don't live in a world of perfect information, but it's true.
AndyMcConachie 7y ago
If your problem is the source then read a different one. Here's the the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, Nils Melzer, on Assange being tortured. https://www.republik.ch/2020/01/31/nils-melzer-about-wikileaks-founder-julian-assange https://www.republik.ch/2020/01/31/nils-melzer-about-wikilea...
- EliRivers 7y ago
  No problem here, buddy. Just reminding us all to consider that everything we read has an agenda. Including what I wrote, and what you wrote.
  - CriticalCathed 7y ago
    This kind of quisling act is of little value.
    - EliRivers 7y ago
      Look at yourself in the mirror. I invited you to consider the source. That's it. I asked you to exercise your mind, and to be careful not to accept other people's agendas, be they conscious or unconscious. Your response to that is to attack. How dare I remind you that bias exists? Are you not shocked and horrified at your own response? You should be. Almost none of this thread should exist. There should have been zero response to my post. It should be standard fare; that people remember to consider the sources of things they read, especially on divisive subjects. Look at the time people are now wasting on this thread. Assange is on trial, yet people are here arguing about the nature of bias, FFS.
      - CriticalCathed 7y ago
        >Almost none of this thread should exist. There should have been zero response to my post. Not quite. Your post shouldn't exist at all. It's condescending tripe.
efdee 7y ago
What does this commenter want us to think?
- nmeofthestate 7y ago
  He wants us to think "Murray is a conspiracy theorist with a wacko following†, so I will take this blog post with a pinch of salt." Of course Murray could be speaking truth in this blog post, but it's nonetheless worth finding a different source of the truth, to avoid promoting Murray. †that's true - look back at his response to the Skripal poisoning for an example.
  - kmlx 7y ago
    i agree. craig murray is not to be trusted. he may be telling us exactly what is happening, but then again he might start another crusade against israel any moment now.
- EliRivers 7y ago
  I'd like you to, yes.
doe88 7y ago
The Guardian (never to be accused of outlandish sympathies toward Assange) https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/feb/25/julian-assange-handcuffed-stripped-naked-claim-lawyers https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/feb/25/julian-assange...
- EliRivers 7y ago
  I'll be honest; I genuinely don't know how many times I would expect someone to have handcuffs attached and released in such circumstances. Is eleven times a lot? The Guardian doesn't actually express whether this is excessive or lenient. The Guardian doesn't seem to make any comment on that. I would expect his defence lawyer to complain about his conditions no matter what. The article headlines with thehandcuffs, but the vast majority of the article is nothing to do with that. So honestly no idea on that one; feels like a headline designed to attract attention and maybe spark outrage based on a reader's pre-conceived ideas without actually making any value judgement. I get it, he's Assange, the state is bad, he's a whipping boy. Probably all true. Really, I think he's going to get a raw deal in this and I think the states involved have really spent too much time and effort chasing something that really won't benefit them, and perhaps not with as much fairness as we'd like. But the breathless rush with which people run to believe is disconcerting.
  - johnrackles 7y ago
    The UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, Nils Melzer, certainly thinks assange is being tortured. https://medium.com/@njmelzer/demasking-the-torture-of-julian-assange-b252ffdcb768 https://medium.com/@njmelzer/demasking-the-torture-of-julian...
    - EliRivers 7y ago
      Why are you telling me this? I didn't say he wasn't. Genuinely, I think he's getting a raw deal. The balance of sources certainly indicates that. This isn't about whether or not his treatment is acceptable; this is about ensuring that we read sources carefully. Although it seems to be turning into the idea that to question a source is to take an opposing view, and even that to suggest a source be examined critically is to take an opposing view.
cryptonym 7y ago
My own belief: it's unfair to attack his credibility without providing anything about the content of this post. If something is not accurate here, please let us know, that would be valuable.
- EliRivers 7y ago
  My belief; it is not unfair (he is deliberately presenting himself as a source of truth in the matter, publicly and openly), and I did not attack his credibility. I invited you to consider the source. Perhaps you conclude, after consideration, that he is an especially credible source.
  - richrichardsson 7y ago
    > Craig Murray's website suggests he is, for example, a credulous believer of Russian explanations for events. He does on occasion correct himself (such as in his post about the famed picture of two different people walking through two different channels - https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/09/the-impossib.. https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/09/the-impossib.... ) but nonetheless he has a long-standing mindset which will temper his beliefs and of course colour everything he sees and his interpretations thereof. and you somehow think > I did not attack his credibility
    - EliRivers 7y ago
      Ah, I see. In which case, then yes. I attack his credibility. I attack yours. I attack mine. You are biased. I am biased. He is biased. Everything you write is tempered. Everything I write is tempered. His credibiltiy is compromised and the source must be considered, as is yours, as is mine. This shouldn't be controversial, yet here we are. Seriously, here we are.
9nGQluzmnq3M 7y ago
Craig Murray is a former career diplomat and UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, who got railroaded out of the foreign service for having the temerity to note that Uzbek leader Islam Karimov was (literally) boiling his opponents to death. If this is an agenda, I support it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Murray https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Murray Also: https://archive.is/20061012215514/http://www.craigmurray.co.uk/archives/2005/02/the_pathologist.html https://archive.is/20061012215514/http://www.craigmurray.co....
- EliRivers 7y ago
  Boom. Here's someone considering the source. Well done 9nGQluzmnq3M. I bet very few people actually did.
- kmlx 7y ago
  he left the foreign service in disgrace. this guy blames everything on israel. he even blamed israel for the chemical weapons attack in Salisbury and he's even been accused of being an anti-semite. this guy celebrated Hitchens' death in a blog post for crying out loud.
- jjgreen 7y ago
  Thank you for the second link, absolutely astonishing

AndyMcConachie 7y ago

> Julian had twice been stripped naked and searched, eleven times been handcuffed, and five times been locked up in different holding cells. On top of this, all of his court documents had been taken from him by the prison authorities, including privileged communications between his lawyers and himself, and he had been left with no ability to prepare to participate in today’s proceedings. Still barely any mention of this case in the mainstream American or UK press. Until recently Amnesty International refused to even recognize Assange as a political prisoner, and the only thing they had said about him was that he was "not a political prisoner". They've since changed their tune, but it sure took them long enough. A man is being tortured in plain sight in the UK and no one in the media cares to report on it.

tyingq 7y ago
It won't make the US press, because all of that is a pretty typical US jail experience, sadly.
- spinglespingle 7y ago
  the US has successfully become a 3rd world country. power in the hands of a few: check corruption at the highest possible level: check a gradually more authoritarian "leader": check a people who support such a leader: check military might used against political opponents: check enormous amounts of poverty cleverly ignored: check the list goes on. i suppose there is a time for every powerful nation to go into a deep decline that it will never recover from, and such decline usually starts when people ignore what's going on right in front of them. had russia done to assange what the us is doing now all of them EU, US and other hypocrites would be jumping like their arse was burned: but human rights. but torture. but freedom of the press. but this and that. well, enjoy your dystopia.
  - anonsivalley652 7y ago
    Yep. This is because of the vicious circle of money capturing power through greater wealth, greater corruption, and greater power. As Chris Hedges calls it: inverted totalitarianism. Autocratic plutocracy by force by other means. It's like how many Americans are chained to their jobs by healthcare and other benefits, but let's not call it slavery or indentured servitude (student loans) because anarcho-capitalism with "no government, no regulations and more greed will solve everything! It will just work itself out magically!"

ganzuul 7y ago

This is horrifying. As a European I'm afraid to even visit the USA. I'd expect this from some third world hellhole but not from a country which professes to have the rule of law.

Tomte 7y ago
The article is about England...
- fit2rule 7y ago
  I think it goes without saying that the UK is becoming less and less the kind of place that any freedom-loving person would want to visit. Living in Europe, I am aware of a number of people who have decided to have nothing more to do with the place, and these are wealthy, educated, business leaders. I can't imagine where this is going to lead if Assange is not freed as a result of these proceedings. We are watching the West eat itself.
  - arethuza 7y ago
    There have been significant cutbacks in the criminal justice system in England and Wales over the last decade or so - ironically by the party of "law and order". I can strongly recommend the book by the Secret Barrister: https://thesecretbarrister.com/ https://thesecretbarrister.com/
    - fit2rule 7y ago
      >Woolwich Crown Court ".. if a single day at Woolwich Crown Court does not convince you the existence of liberal democracy is now a lie, then your mind must be very closed indeed."
  - willis936 7y ago
    I can’t imagine freedom-loving people choosing to live in hateful, racist places that are found all over Europe. https://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2018/being-black-eu#TabPubKeyfindings https://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2018/being-black-eu#Tab... Perhaps Europe could learn a thing or two from US culture.

k1m 7y ago

Murray's report of the first day of the trial also worth reading: https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/02/your-man-in-the-public-gallery-assange-hearing-day-1/ https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/02/your-man-in-...

cmroanirgo 7y ago
Interesting. > Extradition hearings are not held at Belmarsh Magistrates Court inside Woolwich Crown Court. They are always held at Westminster Magistrates Court as the application is deemed to be delivered to the government at Westminster. Now get your head around this. This hearing is at Westminster Magistrates Court. It is being held by the Westminster magistrates and Westminster court staff, but located at Belmarsh Magistrates Court inside Woolwich Crown Court. All of which weird convolution is precisely so they can use the “counter-terrorist court” to limit public access and to impose the fear of the power of the state. ... >There was a separate media entrance and a media room with live transmission from the courtroom, and there were so many scores of media I thought I could relax and not worry as the basic facts would be widely reported. In fact, I could not have been more wrong. I followed the arguments very clearly every minute of the day, and not a single one of the most important facts and arguments today has been reported anywhere in the mainstream media. That is a bold claim, but I fear it is perfectly true. So I have much work to do to let the world know what actually happened. The mere act of being an honest witness is suddenly extremely important, when the entire media has abandoned that role.
- Fjolsvith 7y ago
  > when the entire media has abandoned that role. Exactly. Almost as if the media as a whole gets orders to follow.
- AnimalMuppet 7y ago
  An alternate possibility is that this one reporter is too biased to report accurately. "Everyone's hiding the truth but me" is sometimes true, but not always.
  - 7y ago

bilekas 7y ago

This is always going to happen when you go about doing what he did in such a flamboyant way. I agree that he was by no means an angel, but I also see the reasons why the governments want to set an example. People have this idea that it's a terrible thing if their governments have secrets.. It's normal.. That doesn't justify this treatment of him. By any means, one would think he would be treated well in public. > Is Assange the victim of torture? It looks as though he's being made an example of. If thats right or wrong is anyones guess, but it doesn't make anyone confortable.

tokamak-teapot 7y ago
Yes he's being made an example of. He brazenly broke the (unwritten) rules and this is an educational beatdown[1]. It will end badly for Assange, because two of the "three cases where the EBD may be dangerous" (see linked article) apply. Whether Assange is 'in the right' or not, #1 will still apply to him. [1] https://chirontraining.blogspot.com/2013/03/cofv10-educational-beatdown.html https://chirontraining.blogspot.com/2013/03/cofv10-education...
- lolc 7y ago
  That was an interesting read. Let's make it clear to the "educational beatdown" people that we don't agree!
  - tokamak-teapot 7y ago
    Absolutely! Pressure can be applied. I’m not sure what might actually work in the end but a show of public opinion being against the ‘beat down’ could work. Unfortunately the public opinion has been primed to agree with it - or at least turn away for fear of being seen to defend a ‘rapist’.
AllegedAlec 7y ago
> If thats right or wrong is anyones guess You're fucking joking right? Something about "cruel and unusual punishment", which is present in both English and American law. Furthermore, there's this little document called the 'Universal Declaration of Human Rights', which has stuff to say on this matter too, and has been signed by both the US and England.

discordance 7y ago

Free Assange

scient 7y ago
He has done enough damage with his "work" on leaks with Russia. No thanks.
- onlydeadheroes 7y ago
  So shooting the messenger is now a defensible position in polite company?
- raxxorrax 7y ago
  Perhaps he was slightly pissed off after being prosecuted for hinting at war crimes. But I don't think so, because the whole Russia story is a bit of a myth to explain dissatisfied voters.
- woah 7y ago
  The democrats rigged their own primary process and when this was revealed, it pissed off their base so much that they lost the election. You can’t blame the guy who brought these sordid deeds to light.
dang 7y ago
Please don't post unsubstantive comments here. Especially not on divisive topics like this one. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

celticninja 7y ago

The judge has basically said this is a politically motivated extradition, and the court is fine with that. I hope that this get appealed to a higher court and it's not left to this hostile judge.

Traster 7y ago
The judge hasn't said that at all. The judge said that the UK law as a matter of fact doesn't bar extraditions for political reasons - so the defense has to prove the treaty is legally binding on the court as a pre-condition for even making the argument that extradition should be stopped because its politically motivated.
- wazoox 7y ago
  International treaties are more binding than domestic law, as the Vienna Convention: https://www.oas.org/legal/english/docs/Vienna%20Convention%20Treaties.htm https://www.oas.org/legal/english/docs/Vienna%20Convention%2... “A party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.“
  - 3fe9a03ccd14ca5 7y ago
    In practice this is untrue.
    - wazoox 7y ago
      Sure, but it seems hard to dismiss in court.
      - telotortium 7y ago
        I don't know how it is in the UK, but in the US most "treaties" are actually executive agreements, which set a policy of the US executive branch but do not have the force of law. Treaties must be approved by 2/3 of the US Senate to have the force of law, by the US Constitution, and even then a treaty can't violate the US Constitution. You left out the full text of Article 26, which is pretty important: "A party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty. This rule is without prejudice to article 46." Article 46 states: """ 1. A State may not invoke the fact that its consent to be bound by a treaty has been expressed in violation of a provision of its internal law regarding competence to conclude treaties as invalidating its consent unless that violation was manifest and concerned a rule of its internal law of fundamental importance. 2. A violation is manifest if it would be objectively evident to any State conducting itself in the matter in accordance with normal practice and in good faith. """ I would consider the US Constitution a "rule of its internal law of fundamental importance". I'm sure the UK government would have no problem finding a similar argument that makes Article 26 a dead letter.

mcv 7y ago

That judge does not exactly come across as impartial in this description. I'm not a lawyer, but it does look like a mistrial of some sort. Whatever you think of Julian Assange, he deserves a fair trial, and this doesn't sound like he's getting one.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
joosters 7y ago
The problem is, from the very first paragraph, this website doesn't come across as anything close to impartial either. So I'd suggest you find some more sources before you criticize the judge.
- jjgreen 7y ago
  The courtroom has 14 seats for the public and press, so don't expect that many sources ...
- mcv 7y ago
  True. Like I said: "from this description". No idea how accurate it is. It would be good to have other sources.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- Darvon 7y ago
  More information on the piece of shit Judge https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/07/11/assa-j11.html https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/07/11/assa-j11.html
  - earenndil 7y ago
    > world socialist website Doesn't exactly seem to be impartial either.

baud147258 7y ago

Why is he calling Bellingcat a warmongering propaganda operations and saying they've got a "source of state, corporate or institutional finance"? I though they were independent

r721 7y ago
Because Craig Murray's position is always aligned with Kremlin's official position.
DyslexicAtheist 7y ago
because Elliot Higgins is an Atlantic Council puppet who gets his intel from UK spooks for strategic disemination, and responds to anyone who challenges him with "suck my balls". The guy is a information-terrorist and I hope the Russians slip him something into his tea one day.
- dang 7y ago
  > I hope the Russians slip him something into his tea one day. Obviously you can't post like this here. If you keep breaking the site guidelines we are going to have to ban you. We've given you many warnings and cut you a lot of slack already. It isn't infinite. It's in your interest to follow the site guidelines anyhow, since breaking them just makes your view look bad and alienates any open-minded readers who you might otherwise have been able to interest or convince. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
kmlx 7y ago
they are independent. i wouldn't trust craig murray if he was the last person on earth.
jstewartmobile 7y ago
Because it is. It's just some finance guy in his drawers making shit up over videos shot halfway across the world. Read up on this guy. One glance at his fat pasty face, and it's obvious that he's never been anywhere near a war zone: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliot_Higgins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliot_Higgins edit: and since DyslexicAtheist has been grayed out, I will second his "hope the Russians slip him something into his tea one day." to r721: for warmongers, yes.

jonathanstrange 7y ago

I think there is an important point missing in the debate. This is an extradition hearing. It doesn't matter whether Assange is guilty of the alleged crimes the US has come up with or not, what matters is whether he is expected to receive a fair trial in the US and whether the potential sentences in the US would be roughly on a par with what he'd expect for the same alleged crimes in the UK. For all I can see, this is definitely not the case. You can even make a case that almost nobody should be extradited to the US by any country, since the US justice system has serious flaws, might not be just at all (e.g. it has about 10 times longer maximum prison sentences than in the rest of the civilized world) and the US penal system constitutes a constant human rights violation. For example, the administrations of many US prisons are notoriously unable to prevent the raping and murdering of their inmates. I've even heard people from the US making jokes about prison rape, as if that was to be expected and part of the "justice". As another example, a prison in Illinois was under 23 years of permanent lockdown, meaning that all inmates were in isolation for 23 years. There are credible accounts that Assange is facing imprisonment in high-security isolation facilities similar to what they did to Manning for a long time. I cannot understand why any civilized person would allow a treatment as inhumane as in US maximum security prisons with isolation, regardless of the crime. Generally speaking, countries should review their extradition treaties. US justice is non-proportionality based on revenge and involves frequent human rights abuses. The same is true of other countries like Japan or Russia, but AFAIK extradition requests to these countries are much rarer.

Fjolsvith 7y ago
> As another example, a prison in Illinois was under 23 years of permanent lockdown, meaning that all inmates were in isolation for 23 years. You do refer to USP Marion, Illinois, which was the US's Supermax prison during that time. They held the most dangerous, violent prisoners, and of course, kept them locked down for security reasons. [1] I spent a year there after they downgraded it to a medium security facility. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Penitentiary,_Marion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Penitentiary,_Ma...
- jolmg 7y ago

d--b 7y ago

Given the state of the justice system in the UK and USA, maybe the best course of action for Assange is to get extradited, then tell the public that Wikileaks helped expose Hillary's private email server, and get pardoned by Trump...

Tepix 7y ago
If he is extradited, he will not receive a public trial.
- xtracto 7y ago
  Wasn't the US government trying to kill him? I guess it will be easy once they have it in their soil...

kstenerud 7y ago

A quick summary of day 3 is here: https://www.rt.com/news/481711-assange-protection-political-extradition-fundamental-right/ https://www.rt.com/news/481711-assange-protection-political-...

mzs 7y ago
According to GOOGL: “RT is funded in whole or in part by the Russian government.” Twelve Russian military intelligence officers were indicted in the US for in part working with WikiLeaks, so readers should find a more neutral source as well.
- Bendingo 7y ago
  > “RT is funded in whole or in part by the Russian government.” Irrelevant.
  - dr-detroit 7y ago
    > Irrelevant Hilarious.

devilcius 7y ago

I found the article valuable and also a bit ironic that the only method to donate to this blogger, apart from a bank transfer, is PayPal. (In case anyone does not remember, they suspended Wikileaks account in 2010.)

mnm1 7y ago

This is a sham as his trial in the US, which is inevitable, will be. The US will not stop at anything in this case because leaking a video showing that US soldiers enjoy killing children is worse for them than actually killing children. This video showed the world what everyone already knew: that the US, and specifically the US armed forces, have no ethics, no morals, no qualms about killing children even when it's unnecessary. This isn't about endangering troops. This is about image only. Frankly, I hope the leaks did endanger troops. Scum soldiers that enjoy killing children deserve to die as do their superiors who almost certainly encouraged it and certainly didn't punish it. The US armed forces have no honor and they should be ashamed of themselves as should the government that starts bullshit wars and kills millions of innocents. This applies to everyone from the commander in chief to the lowest soldier. As a fellow American, I despise them for their service and they can all go fuck themselves. The video that Assange leaked is just one example of many of despicable behavior and the fact that they are punishing him rather than the animals who enjoy killing children is indefensible, immoral, and reflects on the entire armed forces institutions. Fuck them.

3fe9a03ccd14ca5 7y ago

Is there any explanation for why the special counsel never attempted to interview Assange on the Wikileaks DNC email leak? The whole premise of their investigation started with the narrative that Russia hacked the DNC and released the emails through Wikileaks to help Trump win. Why never ask Assange where he got the emails? He’s been adamant publicly that it wasn’t Russia. Why not ask him then who in an investigation that took 2 years? This has always bothered me and intrigued me about Assange.

dean177 7y ago

> “Are you suggesting, Mr Summers, that the authorities, the Government, should have to provide context for its charges?” The judge, Vanessa Baraitser, said that.

glennvtx 7y ago
Pretty much sums it up right there. done.

glennvtx 7y ago

This is an egregious miscarriage of justice and everyone involved in perpetrating it against this man - for publishing the misdeeds of government, should be strung up, Literally. That is what the founders of this country would have done, and we could do worse than following their example, here.

dr-detroit 7y ago
I do not believe the US government ever claimed that there were 0 civilian deaths in Iraq. What did Assange really do that you view as a positive while he was breaking so many important laws?