5 ms·

After reading the NSA article about getting ISIS in very subtle ways that makes it seem like technical glitches, does anyone believe that there were actual “tec

by atonse 6y ago

After reading the NSA article about getting ISIS in very subtle ways that makes it seem like technical glitches, does anyone believe that there were actual “technical glitches” preventing this guy from testifying on video about his CIA torture?

slim 6y ago
yes, I believe there's a team funded using millions of US taxpayer money working on sabotaging Assanges defense in every possible way including illegal and immoral ways like hacking, bribing, black mailing, etc..
- elmo2you 6y ago
  You can bet on it. Also, these people will be highly motivated and not just be "doing their job". They'll be made well aware that their "way of life" and "reality as they know it" literally depends on the success of their work. Considering how these people are part of a criminal enterprise, it can be argued it's actually a true self-fulfilling prophesy. As far as I'm concerned, people involved in such actions deserve to be hunted down and illiminated with extreme prejudice, by any covert agency of any country that does actually respect due process of the legal system.
  - luckylion 6y ago
    > As far as I'm concerned, people involved in such actions deserve to be hunted down and illiminated with extreme prejudice, by any covert agency of any country that does actually respect due process of the legal system. They have nothing to fear, then, as those countries wouldn't have covert agencies, even if they existed, which they don't. I agree about the first part though. When losing (on the grand scheme, not necessarily on a single case like Assange) means you go to jail, you get extra motivated.
- justanotheranon 6y ago
  i believe so too. CIA has every witness to Assange's trial under surveillance and JTRIG are actively targetting them for harassment. anything to sabotage the defense. i hope the fact of that leaks onto Wikileaks. then Assange walks for the same reason Ellsberg walked. FBI used illegal tactics to persecute Ellsberg before his trial, which the govt was too embarassed about revealing to continue his prosecution.
- stjohnswarts 6y ago
  Do you have proof of that? If so you should definitely send it to NYT, WaPo, etc.
Yc4win 6y ago
Surely.
boomboomsubban 6y ago
Though he did suffer some technical difficulties, he did not testify as the court ruled his testimony was not relevant to the case. Subtly is not even necessary.
- belorn 6y ago
  The paragraphs in the article. "In the United Kingdom, Assange’s legal team has been allowed to enter this evidence into the public record. However, during a potential trial in the United States, it will likely be excluded as irrelevant because the Espionage Act does not allow a public interest defense." "The Central Criminal Court in London was prepared for El Masri to testify. An interpreter was lined up for the ninth day of proceedings. However, technical problems prevented him from addressing the court beyond his written statement. Prosecutors also objected to El Masri giving live testimony. According to Court News UK reporter Charlie Jones, that prompted Assange to stand up and proclaim, "I will not accept you censoring a torture victim's statement to this court.""
  - luckylion 6y ago
    How do judges generally deal with that kind of situation? "Oh, the connection's not working? Ah well, moving on, we're ignoring this witness"?
  - boomboomsubban 6y ago
    Other sources I've seen disagree, that Charlie Jones tweet blames the translator, and the prosecution has been discussing blocking this testimony for a few days now. https://consortiumnews.com/2020/09/18/assange-hearing-day-nine-el-masris-story-is-told-in-court/ https://consortiumnews.com/2020/09/18/assange-hearing-day-ni...
    - acqq 6y ago
      Another report: https://assangecourt.report/september-18-morning https://assangecourt.report/september-18-morning "Mr El-Masri was due to give evidence by video link, but, after a legal argument, presiding judge Vanessa Baraitser decided that it would be sufficient for his statement to be read to the court and he need not appear."
goatinaboat 6y ago
does anyone believe that there were actual “technical glitches” preventing this guy from testifying on video about his CIA torture? FTA: it will likely be excluded as irrelevant because the Espionage Act does not allow a public interest defense. Assange is accused of 17 counts of violating the Espionage Act
- girvo 6y ago
  In the US. That doesn’t apply here yet.
acqq 6y ago
The article about NSA "getting ISIS" mentioned: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24520757 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24520757 Once there, see the posts by bashinator and _kbh_ for other sources. Back to the topic here, the "technical glitches" were present throughout the process, as reported day after day on: https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/ https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/ E.g. "This hearing has frequently been interrupted by the strange incompetence of the Ministry of Justice in establishing simple videolinks." "It was not Professor Feldstein’s fault the day finished in confused anti-climax. The court was unable to make the video technology work. For ten broken minutes out of about forty Feldstein was briefly able to give evidence, and even this was completely unsatisfactory as he and Mark Summers were repeatedly speaking over each other on the link." Also playing with the times: "Daniel Ellsberg was to give evidence this afternoon. Edward Fitzgerald QC applied for his videolink evidence to be heard at 3.15pm [(in England)] which is 07.15am in California where Dan lives. Baraitser insisted it could not be put back beyond 2.30 pm, thus forcing an 89 year old man [Daniel Ellsberg] to give evidence at 6.30am [(his local time)]. Simply stunning." The use of internet was also intentionally restricted: The judge "explained this by stating that the public could normally observe from within the courtroom, where she could control their behaviour. But if they had remote access, she could not control their behaviour and this was not in the “interests of justice”."
- sfjailbird 6y ago
  Shouldn't they just postpone the proceedings until the "technical issues" are fixed?
  - redis_mlc 6y ago
    Yes. For those unfamiliar with video and phone testimony during court proceedings, even when they technically work, the defense doesn't have the same ability to normal cross-examination or monitoring that correct procedures are followed. It's like the case is always going off the rails. An example is if somebody quotes from a document on the phone during a trial, but the document hasn't been submitted or cannot be found. What do you do next? Ask for a continuation for that one document? How about the second one? What if the reading is incorrect? So to even attempt a bad video link is an injustice.
Hnrobert42 6y ago
I find conspiracy theories exciting and compelling, but intellectually hollow. They are like junk food. They can even be right sometimes, just as pizza can nourish you. But we are better off setting them aside and sticking with the mundane issues of electing sensible representatives, supporting investigative journalism, engaging in fact-based discourse.
- curtis3389 6y ago
  I'm not convinced we are better off ignoring all conspiracy theories. There are real conspiracies to break the law in the world, and some of them have been perpetrated by the US government. We have to look at the merits of each theory and decide whether it's batshit or not. Global conspiracy to fake a pandemic? Doesn't seem possible. A couple dudes in the CIA harassing a dude they tortured and then threatened to mess with if he talked? Not impossible. The criminal acts the US government has been up to raise serious questions regarding what you suggest we do: > electing sensible representatives how can you do this when your own government harasses and intimidates people it doesn't like? > supporting investigative journalism how can there be investigative journalism if receiving information could turn out to be a felony if it's the wrong information? > engaging in fact-based discourse how can you do this when your own government is hiding relevant facts from you?
  - Hnrobert42 6y ago
    You raise good points. Moderation in everything. A conspiracy theory is just one possible explanation of events. There is nothing wrong with attempting validate it while also considering other possible explanations. The harm comes when a shadowy cabal is one’s answer to everything.
- mistermann 6y ago
  Conspiracy theories are ideas. Any particular theory may be 100% right, 100% wrong, somewhere in between, or it may be unknown/unknowable (too complicated or difficult to measure, the facts are classified, etc), like any other idea. > But we are better off setting them aside... How might a person know such a thing without doing something like running a parallel universe and trying the two approaches?

by atonse 6y ago

slim 6y ago

yes, I believe there's a team funded using millions of US taxpayer money working on sabotaging Assanges defense in every possible way including illegal and immoral ways like hacking, bribing, black mailing, etc..

elmo2you 6y ago
You can bet on it. Also, these people will be highly motivated and not just be "doing their job". They'll be made well aware that their "way of life" and "reality as they know it" literally depends on the success of their work. Considering how these people are part of a criminal enterprise, it can be argued it's actually a true self-fulfilling prophesy. As far as I'm concerned, people involved in such actions deserve to be hunted down and illiminated with extreme prejudice, by any covert agency of any country that does actually respect due process of the legal system.
- luckylion 6y ago
  > As far as I'm concerned, people involved in such actions deserve to be hunted down and illiminated with extreme prejudice, by any covert agency of any country that does actually respect due process of the legal system. They have nothing to fear, then, as those countries wouldn't have covert agencies, even if they existed, which they don't. I agree about the first part though. When losing (on the grand scheme, not necessarily on a single case like Assange) means you go to jail, you get extra motivated.
justanotheranon 6y ago
i believe so too. CIA has every witness to Assange's trial under surveillance and JTRIG are actively targetting them for harassment. anything to sabotage the defense. i hope the fact of that leaks onto Wikileaks. then Assange walks for the same reason Ellsberg walked. FBI used illegal tactics to persecute Ellsberg before his trial, which the govt was too embarassed about revealing to continue his prosecution.
stjohnswarts 6y ago
Do you have proof of that? If so you should definitely send it to NYT, WaPo, etc.

Yc4win 6y ago

Surely.

boomboomsubban 6y ago

Though he did suffer some technical difficulties, he did not testify as the court ruled his testimony was not relevant to the case. Subtly is not even necessary.

belorn 6y ago
The paragraphs in the article. "In the United Kingdom, Assange’s legal team has been allowed to enter this evidence into the public record. However, during a potential trial in the United States, it will likely be excluded as irrelevant because the Espionage Act does not allow a public interest defense." "The Central Criminal Court in London was prepared for El Masri to testify. An interpreter was lined up for the ninth day of proceedings. However, technical problems prevented him from addressing the court beyond his written statement. Prosecutors also objected to El Masri giving live testimony. According to Court News UK reporter Charlie Jones, that prompted Assange to stand up and proclaim, "I will not accept you censoring a torture victim's statement to this court.""
- luckylion 6y ago
  How do judges generally deal with that kind of situation? "Oh, the connection's not working? Ah well, moving on, we're ignoring this witness"?
- boomboomsubban 6y ago
  Other sources I've seen disagree, that Charlie Jones tweet blames the translator, and the prosecution has been discussing blocking this testimony for a few days now. https://consortiumnews.com/2020/09/18/assange-hearing-day-nine-el-masris-story-is-told-in-court/ https://consortiumnews.com/2020/09/18/assange-hearing-day-ni...
  - acqq 6y ago
    Another report: https://assangecourt.report/september-18-morning https://assangecourt.report/september-18-morning "Mr El-Masri was due to give evidence by video link, but, after a legal argument, presiding judge Vanessa Baraitser decided that it would be sufficient for his statement to be read to the court and he need not appear."

goatinaboat 6y ago

does anyone believe that there were actual “technical glitches” preventing this guy from testifying on video about his CIA torture? FTA: it will likely be excluded as irrelevant because the Espionage Act does not allow a public interest defense. Assange is accused of 17 counts of violating the Espionage Act

girvo 6y ago
In the US. That doesn’t apply here yet.

acqq 6y ago

The article about NSA "getting ISIS" mentioned: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24520757 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24520757 Once there, see the posts by bashinator and _kbh_ for other sources. Back to the topic here, the "technical glitches" were present throughout the process, as reported day after day on: https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/ https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/ E.g. "This hearing has frequently been interrupted by the strange incompetence of the Ministry of Justice in establishing simple videolinks." "It was not Professor Feldstein’s fault the day finished in confused anti-climax. The court was unable to make the video technology work. For ten broken minutes out of about forty Feldstein was briefly able to give evidence, and even this was completely unsatisfactory as he and Mark Summers were repeatedly speaking over each other on the link." Also playing with the times: "Daniel Ellsberg was to give evidence this afternoon. Edward Fitzgerald QC applied for his videolink evidence to be heard at 3.15pm [(in England)] which is 07.15am in California where Dan lives. Baraitser insisted it could not be put back beyond 2.30 pm, thus forcing an 89 year old man [Daniel Ellsberg] to give evidence at 6.30am [(his local time)]. Simply stunning." The use of internet was also intentionally restricted: The judge "explained this by stating that the public could normally observe from within the courtroom, where she could control their behaviour. But if they had remote access, she could not control their behaviour and this was not in the “interests of justice”."

sfjailbird 6y ago
Shouldn't they just postpone the proceedings until the "technical issues" are fixed?
- redis_mlc 6y ago
  Yes. For those unfamiliar with video and phone testimony during court proceedings, even when they technically work, the defense doesn't have the same ability to normal cross-examination or monitoring that correct procedures are followed. It's like the case is always going off the rails. An example is if somebody quotes from a document on the phone during a trial, but the document hasn't been submitted or cannot be found. What do you do next? Ask for a continuation for that one document? How about the second one? What if the reading is incorrect? So to even attempt a bad video link is an injustice.

Hnrobert42 6y ago

I find conspiracy theories exciting and compelling, but intellectually hollow. They are like junk food. They can even be right sometimes, just as pizza can nourish you. But we are better off setting them aside and sticking with the mundane issues of electing sensible representatives, supporting investigative journalism, engaging in fact-based discourse.

curtis3389 6y ago
I'm not convinced we are better off ignoring all conspiracy theories. There are real conspiracies to break the law in the world, and some of them have been perpetrated by the US government. We have to look at the merits of each theory and decide whether it's batshit or not. Global conspiracy to fake a pandemic? Doesn't seem possible. A couple dudes in the CIA harassing a dude they tortured and then threatened to mess with if he talked? Not impossible. The criminal acts the US government has been up to raise serious questions regarding what you suggest we do: > electing sensible representatives how can you do this when your own government harasses and intimidates people it doesn't like? > supporting investigative journalism how can there be investigative journalism if receiving information could turn out to be a felony if it's the wrong information? > engaging in fact-based discourse how can you do this when your own government is hiding relevant facts from you?
- Hnrobert42 6y ago
  You raise good points. Moderation in everything. A conspiracy theory is just one possible explanation of events. There is nothing wrong with attempting validate it while also considering other possible explanations. The harm comes when a shadowy cabal is one’s answer to everything.
mistermann 6y ago
Conspiracy theories are ideas. Any particular theory may be 100% right, 100% wrong, somewhere in between, or it may be unknown/unknowable (too complicated or difficult to measure, the facts are classified, etc), like any other idea. > But we are better off setting them aside... How might a person know such a thing without doing something like running a parallel universe and trying the two approaches?