6 ms·

This is a tweet. It is, by itself, misleading. It is about a legal matter. The thread of tweets it begins is not an analysis of the legal context of the decisio

This is a tweet. It is, by itself, misleading. It is about a legal matter. The thread of tweets it begins is not an analysis of the legal context of the decision returned to Amnesty International by the judge. Amnesty International has not been "denied access" to the extradition hearing. The judge has declined to provide them with special status and guaranteed access by an AI observer within the courtroom itself. The proceedings will be broadcast live to members of he press in auxiliary room, where AI is apparently welcome. Other comments speculate about various extralegal shenanigans that could occur in such a situation. Information about that might make up a good article, an informative article, that I might be glad to read on HN. However I already have a place where I can indulge in soapboxing in response to tweets, it is called Twitter, and I am not sure that providing redundancy for this activity is a good use of HN.

k1m 6y ago
Many people are concerned about the way this hearing is being carried out. For example, here's the International Bar Association's Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI): > The IBAHRI concurs with the widespread concern over the ill-treatment of Mr Assange. He must be afforded equality in access to effective legal representation. With this extradition trial we are witnessing the serious undermining of due process and the rule of law. It is troubling that Mr Assange has complained that he is unable to hear properly what is being said at his trial, and that because he is locked in a glass cage is prevented from communicating freely with his lawyers during the proceedings commensurate with the prosecution. - https://www.ibanet.org/Article/NewDetail.aspx?ArticleUid=c05c57ee-1fee-47dc-99f9-26824208a750 https://www.ibanet.org/Article/NewDetail.aspx?ArticleUid=c05... As others here, like cmiles74, have mentioned, there are also serious sound issues affecting those who are trying to follow the case. Given all that, it's hardly surprising that Amnesty would be worried and would want access to monitor for themselves.
k1m 6y ago
> The proceedings will be broadcast live to members of he press in auxiliary room, where AI is apparently welcome. They are not welcome: "Denied both" - https://twitter.com/JuliaHall18/status/1306234552088768512 https://twitter.com/JuliaHall18/status/1306234552088768512
- shadowgovt 6y ago
  But that interpretation of Julia's tweet contradicts the snippet of text she shared (I assume from the judge) that clarifies they are welcome the same as any other public member. It seems they are not exceptionally welcome. Or unwelcome. First-come, first-serve. https://twitter.com/JuliaHall18/status/1306197900289019904/photo/1 https://twitter.com/JuliaHall18/status/1306197900289019904/p...
  - k1m 6y ago
    You don't see a problem when a legal hearing that's been criticised as "undermining of due process and the rule of law" by the International Bar Association only offers a tiny number of hard-to-get seats to the public and then asks Amnesty International to compete with them on a first-come, first-serve basis? From the Amnesty tweet thread: "The general public has a right to the few seats in the public gallery; trial monitors should not be competing with the public to secure a seat that belongs to the public-at-large." - https://twitter.com/JuliaHall18/status/1306198935816613889 https://twitter.com/JuliaHall18/status/1306198935816613889
    - thaumasiotes 6y ago
      I tend to agree that the problem is that everybody is prohibited from seeing the trial, not that Amnesty International is included in the group "everybody".
    - shadowgovt 6y ago
      Trial monitors are the public-at-large. If they want a special designation, I believe that's a process that starts with a law from the Houses, not the whim of a single trial judge. Otherwise, it adds burden to all trial judges to have to decide who's a "trial monitor" at their discretion. I'm happy to stand corrected if there's precedent to the contrary.
      - k1m 6y ago
        Well, Amnesty do not think that their trial monitors should be treated as "public-at-large", otherwise I doubt they'd be concerned by this development. They've stated that they've observed trials before in other countries without trouble. Shouldn't the onus be on you to prove that they're wrong on this? I found this in one of their documents: "Amnesty International and other human rights organizations have for many years sent observers to significant political trials. The acceptance of international trial observers (whether sent by foreign governments or by non-governmental organizations) has arguably become an international legal norm. The practice is well established and accepted within the international community." - https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/156000/pol300021998en.pdf https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/156000/pol3000219... You write: > Otherwise, it adds burden to all trial judges to have to decide who's a "trial monitor" at their discretion. I'm sure if the judge in the Assange case was facing an influx of trial monitors and finding it hard to decide which ones to let in, she would have made that clear. She hasn't said anything of the sort.

k1m 6y ago

Many people are concerned about the way this hearing is being carried out. For example, here's the International Bar Association's Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI): > The IBAHRI concurs with the widespread concern over the ill-treatment of Mr Assange. He must be afforded equality in access to effective legal representation. With this extradition trial we are witnessing the serious undermining of due process and the rule of law. It is troubling that Mr Assange has complained that he is unable to hear properly what is being said at his trial, and that because he is locked in a glass cage is prevented from communicating freely with his lawyers during the proceedings commensurate with the prosecution. - https://www.ibanet.org/Article/NewDetail.aspx?ArticleUid=c05c57ee-1fee-47dc-99f9-26824208a750 https://www.ibanet.org/Article/NewDetail.aspx?ArticleUid=c05... As others here, like cmiles74, have mentioned, there are also serious sound issues affecting those who are trying to follow the case. Given all that, it's hardly surprising that Amnesty would be worried and would want access to monitor for themselves.

k1m 6y ago

> The proceedings will be broadcast live to members of he press in auxiliary room, where AI is apparently welcome. They are not welcome: "Denied both" - https://twitter.com/JuliaHall18/status/1306234552088768512 https://twitter.com/JuliaHall18/status/1306234552088768512

shadowgovt 6y ago
But that interpretation of Julia's tweet contradicts the snippet of text she shared (I assume from the judge) that clarifies they are welcome the same as any other public member. It seems they are not exceptionally welcome. Or unwelcome. First-come, first-serve. https://twitter.com/JuliaHall18/status/1306197900289019904/photo/1 https://twitter.com/JuliaHall18/status/1306197900289019904/p...
- k1m 6y ago
  You don't see a problem when a legal hearing that's been criticised as "undermining of due process and the rule of law" by the International Bar Association only offers a tiny number of hard-to-get seats to the public and then asks Amnesty International to compete with them on a first-come, first-serve basis? From the Amnesty tweet thread: "The general public has a right to the few seats in the public gallery; trial monitors should not be competing with the public to secure a seat that belongs to the public-at-large." - https://twitter.com/JuliaHall18/status/1306198935816613889 https://twitter.com/JuliaHall18/status/1306198935816613889
  - thaumasiotes 6y ago
    I tend to agree that the problem is that everybody is prohibited from seeing the trial, not that Amnesty International is included in the group "everybody".
  - shadowgovt 6y ago
    Trial monitors are the public-at-large. If they want a special designation, I believe that's a process that starts with a law from the Houses, not the whim of a single trial judge. Otherwise, it adds burden to all trial judges to have to decide who's a "trial monitor" at their discretion. I'm happy to stand corrected if there's precedent to the contrary.
    - k1m 6y ago
      Well, Amnesty do not think that their trial monitors should be treated as "public-at-large", otherwise I doubt they'd be concerned by this development. They've stated that they've observed trials before in other countries without trouble. Shouldn't the onus be on you to prove that they're wrong on this? I found this in one of their documents: "Amnesty International and other human rights organizations have for many years sent observers to significant political trials. The acceptance of international trial observers (whether sent by foreign governments or by non-governmental organizations) has arguably become an international legal norm. The practice is well established and accepted within the international community." - https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/156000/pol300021998en.pdf https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/156000/pol3000219... You write: > Otherwise, it adds burden to all trial judges to have to decide who's a "trial monitor" at their discretion. I'm sure if the judge in the Assange case was facing an influx of trial monitors and finding it hard to decide which ones to let in, she would have made that clear. She hasn't said anything of the sort.