29 ms·

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

716 points by mlthoughts2018 6y ago

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
croes 6y ago
Because in western countries principles such as the rule of law, freedom of the press and humanism apply. Just kidding.
- diminish 6y ago
  > Amnesty International have monitored trials from Guantanamo Bay to Bahrain, Ecuador to Turkey. For our observer to be denied access profoundly undermines open justice That explains the circus.
square_usual 6y ago
This makes me feel incredibly cynical. I genuinely want to know: would it matter if they did get to observe? I'm sure Amnesty has reported on tonnes of US/UK crimes and human rights violations, and a quick google search shows many such reports. How many of those actually changed anything? Sure, when Amnesty reports on, say, Syria, the US could use that as justification for intervention, but what use is reporting on the UK? Even if the big headline from Amnesty tomorrow is that the UK held a show-trial for Assange, would it change anything?
- fierarul 6y ago
  I'm sure the EU would like to know how the UK treats some of these basic matters in light of Brexit and the pending trade negotiations. And generally, historians might want to have multiple witness accounts of what happened.
  - the-dude 6y ago
    The Assange case has been dragging on for, what, about a decade now? The EU has not shown a particular interest all that time. The EU is a trade-bloc, the rest is posturing.
  - luckylion 6y ago
    > I'm sure the EU would like to know how the UK treats some of these basic matters in light of Brexit and the pending trade negotiations. Why would they care? Did you forget about the whole thing where they forced the President of Bolivia to land on command of the US because the US had (allegedly by Assange) been lead to believe that Snowden was on board? The EU isn't any further from the US' reach than the UK. It's a larger province in the empire, but it's still a loyal province.
- kstenerud 6y ago
  It would, because Amnesty International has a stronger voice than Craig Murray (the only one currently reporting on this). Craig is a meticulous reporter, but he's also prone to a number of strange conspiracy theories that diminish his credibility (people should be considering that separately from the Assange case, but human nature doesn't work that way). There are a lot of things going on in that courtroom that should alarm journalists everywhere (especially American journalists), but without a strong voice to raise them out of their stupor, no journalist will pay enough attention to understand the new danger they face.
  - gpm 6y ago
    > people should be considering that separately from the Assange case Strongly disagree on this point. I've been reading Craig's reporting, because it's the best that is available as a result of the court, but it being from a less than credible source makes it significantly less valuable. When reading I never know to what extent he is cherry picking the facts he chooses to report based on his obvious and pre-existing bias. This isn't necessarily even intentional on Craig's part, it's just a fact that people notice things that confirm their existing world view more than things that challenge it. When reading I have to make a conscious effort to separate the factual matters reported on, from Craig's personal opinion of the situation. The strength of Craig's conviction his world views means his writing has a lower signal to noise ratio than is typical. Moreover the extreme point of view that is likely wrong (as evidenced by him believing "strange conspiracy theories" that I do not) means that the noise doesn't tend to cancel out, but is instead systematically biased. Craig is almost certainly better than nothing (at least if you're going in eyes wide open about the kind of writing you are reading), but far from ideal.
  - boomboomsubban 6y ago
    >the only one currently reporting on this This isn't true. The number of press there is incredibly limited, Murray estimated about ten journalists total. Exberliner is another source covering it that I've found, though not as thorough as Murray. https://www.exberliner.com/topics/julian-assange/ https://www.exberliner.com/topics/julian-assange/
- YawningAngel 6y ago
  As a citizen of the UK, I would like to be able to reassure myself of my government's good faith and just conduct in this matter. I'm sure some of my fellows feel the same way. The fact that this hearing looks crooked as all hell is concerning to me and will inform my politics to some extent.
rvnx 6y ago
From a legal and purely rationale perspective, is there any reason why Amnesty International should have a seat in the actual room ? I understand that physical seats are limited and retransmission is free and in live in the other room, as far as I understood. "American prosecutors claim he conspired with whistleblowers to obtain classified information" Well...
- rvnx 6y ago
  If I get it correctly, seats are scarce: "If Amnesty International and other observers wanted to attend the hearing, they would have to queue for one of the four seats available in a public gallery" It seems to be the main issue, many persons wants to follow this trial since it has worldwide impact. (it still makes it sad that no solutions were found though)
  - ISL 6y ago
    Seems like it would be pretty easy to place a laptop running Zoom/Meet/YouTube-live in the gallery so that the public could watch what is taking place in their name. Sunlight is good.
    - pydry 6y ago
      It's pretty clear the UK Government wants as few eyes on this as possible while still not being seen to egregiously break the law.
    - scatters 6y ago
      That would make it possible to record the stream. The UK legal system is very apprehensive of allowing any recording of what takes place in a courtroom that isn't filtered through a human observer's memory.
      - megous 6y ago
        Why's that, anyway?
mlthoughts2018 6y ago
Craig Murray has done a remarkable job independently attending and reporting on each day’s testimony. He is widely criticized for his other views and accused of being an Assange sympathizer by parties who believe Assange may be guilty. I personally don’t see any evidence for bias impacting his reporting, but just wanted to raise the issue because there is usually a deluge of sniping comments attacking Murray’s coverage the minute it is linked. This is probably the best available coverage of Assange’s hearing in the world at this point, which hopefully makes you feel pretty sick with anger towards The Guardian, The New York Times, etc., regardless of your views on the merit of Assange’s charges. https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/ https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/
- awild 6y ago
  The biggest problem with Assagne is the fact that the US managed to assasinate his character with the swedish rape accusations dropped last year (after 10 years). They managed to make him untouchable, as journalists would have had to argue to show support for a "supposed rapist". There is an excellent interview in german with the United Nations' Special Rapporteur on Torture about him that was very revealing: https://www.republik.ch/2020/01/31/nils-melzer-spricht-ueber-wikileaks-gruender-julian-assange https://www.republik.ch/2020/01/31/nils-melzer-spricht-ueber...
  - cool_dude85 6y ago
    Have the rape accusations been dropped? Or just the investigation into the allegations?
    - awild 6y ago
      The interview I linked (this is from memory), emphasized the fact that the accusations were pretty bogus to begin with. The accuser did not actually go to the police about rape: she wanted to get legal advice if she can force Assange to take an HIV test after having unprotected sex with him. > Was heisst das: Die Behörden wiegelten ab? > Darf ich von vorn beginnen? Ich spreche fliessend Schwedisch und konnte deshalb alle Originaldokumente lesen. Ich traute meinen Augen nicht: Nach Aussagen der betroffenen Frau selber hat es nie eine Vergewaltigung gegeben. Und nicht nur das: Die Aussage dieser Frau wurde im Nachhinein ohne ihre Mitwirkung von der Stockholmer Polizei umgeschrieben, um irgendwie einen Vergewaltigungsverdacht herbeibiegen zu können. Mir liegen die Dokumente alle vor, die Mails, die SMS. > What does that mean: The authorities are weighing down? > Can I start over? I speak Swedish fluently so I was able to read all the original documents. I couldn't believe my eyes: According to the woman concerned, there was never any rape. And not only that: The statement of this woman was retrospectively rewritten by the Stockholm police without her involvement in order to somehow turn up a suspicion of rape. I have all the documents in front of me, the emails, the SMS.
asplake 6y ago
Tweeted on a closely related subject earlier today. Where is the BBC’s coverage of the Assange hearings? I wouldn’t describe myself as a supporter but still the seeming lack of news seems very odd. Unless it’s just me missing it somehow... https://twitter.com/asplake/status/1308021654975643656?s=21 https://twitter.com/asplake/status/1308021654975643656?s=21
- Deukhoofd 6y ago
  Here: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-54060427 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-54060427 Very limited what they reported on to be sure. AP News has more in depth reporting: https://apnews.com/hub/julian-assange https://apnews.com/hub/julian-assange
  - voxic11 6y ago
    Wow so it sounds like the BBC hasn't attended the hearing at all and is just reporting what is on the court docket.
    - Angostura 6y ago
      Since the report has direct quotes from Assange's QC inside the court and from supporters outside of the court, that seems an odd assessment.
    - pydry 6y ago
      It's consistent with the BBC acting as a propaganda arm of the British state - something that had become more true ever since the Hutton enquiry and the raft of new political appointees at the head of the organization.
      - colordrops 6y ago
        And yet you'll find that twitter only marks Russian and Chinese accounts as "state media".
        6y ago
tssva 6y ago
Because Amnesty International has no standing in the law above that of the general public and are therefore being given the same level of access as the general public. The real debate should be whether the general public should have greater access.
- mlthoughts2018 6y ago
  From the article: > “ Amnesty International had requested access to the court for a trial monitor to observe the hearings, but the court denied us a designated seat in court. Our monitor initially did get permission to access the technology to monitor remotely, but the morning the hearing started he received an email informing us that the Judge had revoked Amnesty International’s remote access.”
  - pydry 6y ago
    I really question the motivations of people who would downvote this. It's clear, objective, relevant information.
    - colpabar 6y ago
      sadly I think a lot of people see downvote buttons as "I disagree" buttons.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - toyg 6y ago
        Yeah but how can one disagree with a factual statement, in good faith...?
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - res0nat0r 6y ago
      It's being downvoted because the OP already answered the question. They're being treated exactly the same as the rest of the public.
aritmo 6y ago
This is so petty and undermines the British legal system.
cassepipe 6y ago
I am baffled to see that the majority of the comments here are at best showing no support for what Assange did and at worst are trying to find excuses not to be disturbed in their belief that since we are in a democracy hence everything that's happening is normal. I thought the people here had a sharper political view on what kind of society we could/should live in but I just read people that are always in a hurry to put themselves on the good side of the stick, praising the stick and telling themselves "Everything is normal. Everything is normal. Everything...". Forgive the bitterness, I am still young and unruly. I'll settle down later and me too I'll accept how impotent I am at changing the order of thing and banter about humanity's real problem as a lack of universal love and and understanding. End of rant. Have a good day.
- pmachinery 6y ago
  > I am baffled to see that the majority of the comments here are at best showing no support for what Assange did and at worst are trying to find excuses not to be disturbed in their belief that since we are in a democracy hence everything that's happening is normal. I'm not seeing that in the comments (and there aren't that many at present). Most people seem critical of this and/or express cynicism about the process. WRT not supporting what Assange did, I didn't notice anyone (as I type) saying anything specific about it, negative or otherwise.
  - pydry 6y ago
    Every single day this is posted there is a raft of comments that either use ad hominems to attack the source without addressing what it had to say or red herrings (e.g. why does X think they should be given one of the only 5 spots made available to see the trial that affects everybody).
    - burger_moon 6y ago
      > Every single day this is posted there is a raft of comments that either use ad hominems to attack the source without addressing what it had to say or red herrings Those comments are getting really tiring and it's disappointing to see this place accept ad hominems against the source over and over in those threads instead of actually discussing the trial. Ofc complaining about comment quality isn't new, that's existed before I started coming here. Hn does a pretty good job of being off topic in threads but it's the nastiness of the comments that degrades the quality of conversation (I myself am guilty of this too, and I need to work on that).
SubiculumCode 6y ago
Dang. The conversation here is toxic.
- rbanffy 6y ago
  A lot of people seem to have little sympathy for Assange (I certainly don't, for his role in Trump's election) and don't seem to realize that any journalist that publishes a leak that involves a government can be threatened with the same accusations the US is making against him. This is not about Assange's personal life or him being a journalist or a hack. It's about the freedom to publish relevant news obtained from a whistle-blower without fear of being arrested and tortured for years before being extradited to spend the rest of their life being tortured.
  - mariusor 6y ago
    > don't seem to realize that any journalist that publishes a leak that involves a government can be threatened with the same accusations the US is making against him. Some of the testimonies over the course of last week were exactly about this. How the US government didn't really try to prosecute US journalists for aiding sources to obtain classified material. See Craig Murray's[1] or Kevin Gosztola's reports on the examining of Pentagon Papers' publisher, Daniel Ellsberg. [1] https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/09/your-man-in-the-public-gallery-assange-hearing-day-11/ https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/09/your-man-in-... [2] https://dissenter.substack.com/p/good-ellsberg-bad-assange-at-extradition https://dissenter.substack.com/p/good-ellsberg-bad-assange-a...
    - rbanffy 6y ago
      Do you trust the US government not to do this if they successfully extradite Assange? What about foreign journalists?
      - mariusor 6y ago
        I think I wasn't explicit enough in the point I was trying to make: the US government is already trying to prosecute Assange, that's what this is all about in the end. So it would be a first that a publisher is under threat for releasing sensitive material. The witness testimonies (as reported in the above links and in the articles from previous days) seem to agree on this, or at least that was my impression.
LatteLazy 6y ago
I feel like the powers that be have decided to make this extradition happen. Most people don't care because they don't pay attention. Of those that do, the noisy attention payers like us, a sizeable group have decided Assange isn't likeable and so should suffer for upsetting people more powerful than him. Now we have to go through all this theatrics simply so those people can say things like "he got a fair hearing" and "the magistrate ruled against him so that must be the law". It's very disappointing, because the whole point of laws is that it shouldn't matter whether you're pretty or funny or sympathetic. And after thousands of years of civilisation, people still rely on their gut feelings.
- luckylion 6y ago
  > Most people don't care because they don't pay attention. Are you sure it's not the other way round? Additionally, I don't think it matters whether they care or pay attention. Unless the media pays attention and publishes information, they won't get anywhere. > It's very disappointing, because the whole point of laws is that it shouldn't matter whether you're pretty or funny or sympathetic. A cynic might say that the whole point of laws is to give the impression of justice, not to provide it.
  - anm89 6y ago
    > A cynic might say that the whole point of laws is to give the impression of justice, not to provide it. Is there one singular "point" to laws? I feel like justifying this statement inevitably ends up at some kind of secret cabal conspiracy theory. Otherwise you have to admit that there are many groups who have many competing points and goals for legal systems.
    - cassepipe 6y ago
      This is what Chibber calls the "pluralist theory" which he argues is not entirely false but rather incomplete. I hope this will be of interest to you : https://youtu.be/R5R-9X_BtP4 https://youtu.be/R5R-9X_BtP4
mattatkeyboard 6y ago
I am only lurking on this but Craig Murray (ex British diplomat) has a good blog following the daily ongoings on this trial. https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/category/uncategorized/ https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/category/uncategoriz... It seems to be incredibly murky and quite frankly, pretty disturbing...
- nemo 6y ago
  Anyone taking anything Craig Murray says seriously should definitely look into his past with some scrutiny for a while.
  - Canada 6y ago
    I'm not seeing anything in his Wikipedia or recent Google results that suggests I should disregard him. What am I missing? What is it about his past that motivated you to post this innuendo?
    - nemo 6y ago
      Would be worth searching for 'Craig Murray Crank' since the guy posts a lot of conspiracy theories that are way off the deep end. You can trust the kooks if you like, but you should try to become familiar with the extent of their unhinged-ness. Rationalwiki has its own biases but gives helpful context and evidence illustrating Murray's crankery. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Craig_Murray https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Craig_Murray
      - Canada 6y ago
        Rationalwiki says of Murray: - claims the perpetrators of the Salisbury poisoning aren't the Russians - has been in disputes with a British newspaper editor and an Uzbek businessman over blog posts or articles - some vague accusations that he may hold antisemitic views Is that it, or is there something else? I understand that he is biased, as both an open supporter of the accused and also because of what happened when he was ambassador to Uzbekistan, which definitely explains his interest in this particular case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Murray#Ambassador_to_Uzbekistan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Murray#Ambassador_to_Uzb... None of the above makes me think that I shouldn't take what Murray writes about this particular court proceeding seriously. Is there some argument that I'm missing here, some reason that can be described without relying on mere name calling and innuendo, that suggests that Murray is lying about what's going on here and I should therefore just ignore him?
zyxzevn 6y ago
Nothing to see/hear. Military Shadow Government covering up their tracks.
alex_young 6y ago
The idea of this law is really interesting to me. Assange is being charged under the US 1917 Espionage Act. How can the US reasonably charge him with espionage? Has Assange ever even been to the US? If we can charge a foreign reporter with espionage for the mere publication of something we consider secret, and force their international extradition, how would we feel about a foreign government doing the same to one of our citizens? For instance, if Australia were to coerce the UK to arrest and extradite the publisher of the New York Times for prosecution under their laws for printing a story they didn't like for some reason.
- primroot 6y ago
  I think this is tangential "International Criminal Court officials sanctioned by US" https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-54003527 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-54003527 .
- nickff 6y ago
  My understanding is that Assange is alleged to have conspired with people in the USA to release classified information. One might compare it to collaborating with someone in the US to commit fraud (or perpetrating the fraud via the internet); being outside the country does not make you immune from prosecution.
  - ugopapa 6y ago
    Or one may compare it with the way journalists collaborate with sources. In fact, it has been discussed in the hearing how Assange behavior is exactly what journalists do to get access to privileged information.
    - rayiner 6y ago
      Collaborating with a source is different than assisting a source to obstruct a law enforcement investigation of a computer security breach.
      - 6y ago
ciarannolan 6y ago
> ASSANGE Agrees to Help Manning Crack a Password [1] Is this what Assange is accused of doing? 1. Receiving a password hash from Manning 2. Telling Manning he'll try to crack it 3. Following up asking for more info about it (related usernames or something) 4. Never actually cracking it and no further action Does anyone have any more specifics on what Assange actually did here to break the law? The indictment is pretty vague on this and it seems to be the central issue. [1] https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1289641/download https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1289641/downl... (page 9)
alasdair_ 6y ago
Assange is being charged under the CFAA. The charge carries a maximum penalty of five years. The statute of limitations for charges the CFAA is five years - the indictment was filed after eight years from the alleged incident. The US is claiming that the reason the statute of limitations doesn't apply is "terrorism". I'm not sure Assange meets any reasonable criteria of being a terrorist. Secondly, the charge stems from a few lines of instant message conversations. Specifically, Manning said to Assange that she was unable to crack a password hash. Assange said he had rainbow tables that could be used. Manning sent Assange a password hash. A couple of days later, Assange stated he had "no luck so far" with the hash. There is no other evidence Assange even attempted to crack the hash and definitely no evidence that it was successful or that it harmed the US in any way. That's basically the entire case. One other point: the case will be tried in East Virginia, which is home to the densest population of jurors that happen to work/ have worked in national security in the nation. This is intentional, of course and it's the same reason Snowden is also unwilling to return to a US trial - the jury is known to have strong pro-government views, strong ties to the national security apparatus. EDIT: The bigger concern is that there are only four spots for the public to view the case and all of the online access was cut, so almost no public observers are allowed in. This is concerning given the broad implications of the trial and the fact that there is obviously enormous political pressure being brought to bear.
- mmanfrin 6y ago
  I don't disagree, but > The US is claiming that the reason the statute of limitations doesn't apply is "terrorism". The US AG is currently classifying 3 cities where protests are occurring as 'anarchist jurisdictions' so it's a fair bet that the truth of words hold no water to this administration.
vvpan 6y ago
Remember how US had European countries force the Bolivian president's plain to land in order to search it for Snowden? US and Europe ties can make European countries go low - very, very low.
- ifmpx 6y ago
  I still have a hard time accepting this happened. Sovereignty doesn't seem to exist anymore: We have a single government, 10% privileged human beings that have some rights and say in what it does, and 90% who don't.
etc-hosts 6y ago
The only person in jail for the US causing the death of 100s of thousands of Iraqis and making millions more Iraqis become homeless is Julian Assange.
MrsHippy 6y ago
Because authoritarianism...Is this news?
etc-hosts 6y ago
Links to trial coverage (hope you love Twitter) https://shadowproof.com/2020/09/21/guide-to-journalists-assange-trial-upset-by-media-blackout/ https://shadowproof.com/2020/09/21/guide-to-journalists-assa...
MrsHippy 6y ago
The issue here is a global military industrial complex that constantly subverts the law it claims to uphold. Citizens are complicit as long as they're moderately comfortable. Authoritarianism will thrive until radical adjustments are made to our political/socioeconomic system, so it'll probably thrive forever. Better get a job in defense before you find yourself in a cage... I write for the flags and i loath free expression, join me in censoring uncomfortable ideas!!!
theonlybutlet 6y ago
I don't know if I'm reading this incorrectly, but I can't see why the judge has said they are not able to obtain this status? Is there a reason?
theonlybutlet 6y ago
Sorry if I missed it, what is the actual reason the judge said they can't get this special monitor status?
blazor 6y ago
because it's a massive stitch up and everyone knows what the outcome will be ?
torified 6y ago
As an Australian, I'm sickened that our pathetic excuse for a government has shown no interest in protecting one of their own citizens being dragged into this kangaroo court. Spineless and corrupt.
- jaza 6y ago
  Five Eyes. ANZUS. Pine Gap. As an Australian, I'm not at all surprised that we've abandoned Assange. He's wanted by our government's government!
  - torified 6y ago
    I didn't say I was surprised, only sickened.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

croes 6y ago

Because in western countries principles such as the rule of law, freedom of the press and humanism apply. Just kidding.

diminish 6y ago
> Amnesty International have monitored trials from Guantanamo Bay to Bahrain, Ecuador to Turkey. For our observer to be denied access profoundly undermines open justice That explains the circus.

square_usual 6y ago

This makes me feel incredibly cynical. I genuinely want to know: would it matter if they did get to observe? I'm sure Amnesty has reported on tonnes of US/UK crimes and human rights violations, and a quick google search shows many such reports. How many of those actually changed anything? Sure, when Amnesty reports on, say, Syria, the US could use that as justification for intervention, but what use is reporting on the UK? Even if the big headline from Amnesty tomorrow is that the UK held a show-trial for Assange, would it change anything?

fierarul 6y ago
I'm sure the EU would like to know how the UK treats some of these basic matters in light of Brexit and the pending trade negotiations. And generally, historians might want to have multiple witness accounts of what happened.
- the-dude 6y ago
  The Assange case has been dragging on for, what, about a decade now? The EU has not shown a particular interest all that time. The EU is a trade-bloc, the rest is posturing.
- luckylion 6y ago
  > I'm sure the EU would like to know how the UK treats some of these basic matters in light of Brexit and the pending trade negotiations. Why would they care? Did you forget about the whole thing where they forced the President of Bolivia to land on command of the US because the US had (allegedly by Assange) been lead to believe that Snowden was on board? The EU isn't any further from the US' reach than the UK. It's a larger province in the empire, but it's still a loyal province.
kstenerud 6y ago
It would, because Amnesty International has a stronger voice than Craig Murray (the only one currently reporting on this). Craig is a meticulous reporter, but he's also prone to a number of strange conspiracy theories that diminish his credibility (people should be considering that separately from the Assange case, but human nature doesn't work that way). There are a lot of things going on in that courtroom that should alarm journalists everywhere (especially American journalists), but without a strong voice to raise them out of their stupor, no journalist will pay enough attention to understand the new danger they face.
- gpm 6y ago
  > people should be considering that separately from the Assange case Strongly disagree on this point. I've been reading Craig's reporting, because it's the best that is available as a result of the court, but it being from a less than credible source makes it significantly less valuable. When reading I never know to what extent he is cherry picking the facts he chooses to report based on his obvious and pre-existing bias. This isn't necessarily even intentional on Craig's part, it's just a fact that people notice things that confirm their existing world view more than things that challenge it. When reading I have to make a conscious effort to separate the factual matters reported on, from Craig's personal opinion of the situation. The strength of Craig's conviction his world views means his writing has a lower signal to noise ratio than is typical. Moreover the extreme point of view that is likely wrong (as evidenced by him believing "strange conspiracy theories" that I do not) means that the noise doesn't tend to cancel out, but is instead systematically biased. Craig is almost certainly better than nothing (at least if you're going in eyes wide open about the kind of writing you are reading), but far from ideal.
- boomboomsubban 6y ago
  >the only one currently reporting on this This isn't true. The number of press there is incredibly limited, Murray estimated about ten journalists total. Exberliner is another source covering it that I've found, though not as thorough as Murray. https://www.exberliner.com/topics/julian-assange/ https://www.exberliner.com/topics/julian-assange/
YawningAngel 6y ago
As a citizen of the UK, I would like to be able to reassure myself of my government's good faith and just conduct in this matter. I'm sure some of my fellows feel the same way. The fact that this hearing looks crooked as all hell is concerning to me and will inform my politics to some extent.

rvnx 6y ago

From a legal and purely rationale perspective, is there any reason why Amnesty International should have a seat in the actual room ? I understand that physical seats are limited and retransmission is free and in live in the other room, as far as I understood. "American prosecutors claim he conspired with whistleblowers to obtain classified information" Well...

rvnx 6y ago
If I get it correctly, seats are scarce: "If Amnesty International and other observers wanted to attend the hearing, they would have to queue for one of the four seats available in a public gallery" It seems to be the main issue, many persons wants to follow this trial since it has worldwide impact. (it still makes it sad that no solutions were found though)
- ISL 6y ago
  Seems like it would be pretty easy to place a laptop running Zoom/Meet/YouTube-live in the gallery so that the public could watch what is taking place in their name. Sunlight is good.
  - pydry 6y ago
    It's pretty clear the UK Government wants as few eyes on this as possible while still not being seen to egregiously break the law.
  - scatters 6y ago
    That would make it possible to record the stream. The UK legal system is very apprehensive of allowing any recording of what takes place in a courtroom that isn't filtered through a human observer's memory.
    - megous 6y ago
      Why's that, anyway?

mlthoughts2018 6y ago

Craig Murray has done a remarkable job independently attending and reporting on each day’s testimony. He is widely criticized for his other views and accused of being an Assange sympathizer by parties who believe Assange may be guilty. I personally don’t see any evidence for bias impacting his reporting, but just wanted to raise the issue because there is usually a deluge of sniping comments attacking Murray’s coverage the minute it is linked. This is probably the best available coverage of Assange’s hearing in the world at this point, which hopefully makes you feel pretty sick with anger towards The Guardian, The New York Times, etc., regardless of your views on the merit of Assange’s charges. https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/ https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/

awild 6y ago
The biggest problem with Assagne is the fact that the US managed to assasinate his character with the swedish rape accusations dropped last year (after 10 years). They managed to make him untouchable, as journalists would have had to argue to show support for a "supposed rapist". There is an excellent interview in german with the United Nations' Special Rapporteur on Torture about him that was very revealing: https://www.republik.ch/2020/01/31/nils-melzer-spricht-ueber-wikileaks-gruender-julian-assange https://www.republik.ch/2020/01/31/nils-melzer-spricht-ueber...
- cool_dude85 6y ago
  Have the rape accusations been dropped? Or just the investigation into the allegations?
  - awild 6y ago
    The interview I linked (this is from memory), emphasized the fact that the accusations were pretty bogus to begin with. The accuser did not actually go to the police about rape: she wanted to get legal advice if she can force Assange to take an HIV test after having unprotected sex with him. > Was heisst das: Die Behörden wiegelten ab? > Darf ich von vorn beginnen? Ich spreche fliessend Schwedisch und konnte deshalb alle Originaldokumente lesen. Ich traute meinen Augen nicht: Nach Aussagen der betroffenen Frau selber hat es nie eine Vergewaltigung gegeben. Und nicht nur das: Die Aussage dieser Frau wurde im Nachhinein ohne ihre Mitwirkung von der Stockholmer Polizei umgeschrieben, um irgendwie einen Vergewaltigungsverdacht herbeibiegen zu können. Mir liegen die Dokumente alle vor, die Mails, die SMS. > What does that mean: The authorities are weighing down? > Can I start over? I speak Swedish fluently so I was able to read all the original documents. I couldn't believe my eyes: According to the woman concerned, there was never any rape. And not only that: The statement of this woman was retrospectively rewritten by the Stockholm police without her involvement in order to somehow turn up a suspicion of rape. I have all the documents in front of me, the emails, the SMS.

asplake 6y ago

Tweeted on a closely related subject earlier today. Where is the BBC’s coverage of the Assange hearings? I wouldn’t describe myself as a supporter but still the seeming lack of news seems very odd. Unless it’s just me missing it somehow... https://twitter.com/asplake/status/1308021654975643656?s=21 https://twitter.com/asplake/status/1308021654975643656?s=21

Deukhoofd 6y ago
Here: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-54060427 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-54060427 Very limited what they reported on to be sure. AP News has more in depth reporting: https://apnews.com/hub/julian-assange https://apnews.com/hub/julian-assange
- voxic11 6y ago
  Wow so it sounds like the BBC hasn't attended the hearing at all and is just reporting what is on the court docket.
  - Angostura 6y ago
    Since the report has direct quotes from Assange's QC inside the court and from supporters outside of the court, that seems an odd assessment.
  - pydry 6y ago
    It's consistent with the BBC acting as a propaganda arm of the British state - something that had become more true ever since the Hutton enquiry and the raft of new political appointees at the head of the organization.
    - colordrops 6y ago
      And yet you'll find that twitter only marks Russian and Chinese accounts as "state media".
      - 6y ago

tssva 6y ago

Because Amnesty International has no standing in the law above that of the general public and are therefore being given the same level of access as the general public. The real debate should be whether the general public should have greater access.

mlthoughts2018 6y ago
From the article: > “ Amnesty International had requested access to the court for a trial monitor to observe the hearings, but the court denied us a designated seat in court. Our monitor initially did get permission to access the technology to monitor remotely, but the morning the hearing started he received an email informing us that the Judge had revoked Amnesty International’s remote access.”
- pydry 6y ago
  I really question the motivations of people who would downvote this. It's clear, objective, relevant information.
  - colpabar 6y ago
    sadly I think a lot of people see downvote buttons as "I disagree" buttons.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - toyg 6y ago
      Yeah but how can one disagree with a factual statement, in good faith...?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - res0nat0r 6y ago
    It's being downvoted because the OP already answered the question. They're being treated exactly the same as the rest of the public.

aritmo 6y ago

This is so petty and undermines the British legal system.

cassepipe 6y ago

I am baffled to see that the majority of the comments here are at best showing no support for what Assange did and at worst are trying to find excuses not to be disturbed in their belief that since we are in a democracy hence everything that's happening is normal. I thought the people here had a sharper political view on what kind of society we could/should live in but I just read people that are always in a hurry to put themselves on the good side of the stick, praising the stick and telling themselves "Everything is normal. Everything is normal. Everything...". Forgive the bitterness, I am still young and unruly. I'll settle down later and me too I'll accept how impotent I am at changing the order of thing and banter about humanity's real problem as a lack of universal love and and understanding. End of rant. Have a good day.

pmachinery 6y ago
> I am baffled to see that the majority of the comments here are at best showing no support for what Assange did and at worst are trying to find excuses not to be disturbed in their belief that since we are in a democracy hence everything that's happening is normal. I'm not seeing that in the comments (and there aren't that many at present). Most people seem critical of this and/or express cynicism about the process. WRT not supporting what Assange did, I didn't notice anyone (as I type) saying anything specific about it, negative or otherwise.
- pydry 6y ago
  Every single day this is posted there is a raft of comments that either use ad hominems to attack the source without addressing what it had to say or red herrings (e.g. why does X think they should be given one of the only 5 spots made available to see the trial that affects everybody).
  - burger_moon 6y ago
    > Every single day this is posted there is a raft of comments that either use ad hominems to attack the source without addressing what it had to say or red herrings Those comments are getting really tiring and it's disappointing to see this place accept ad hominems against the source over and over in those threads instead of actually discussing the trial. Ofc complaining about comment quality isn't new, that's existed before I started coming here. Hn does a pretty good job of being off topic in threads but it's the nastiness of the comments that degrades the quality of conversation (I myself am guilty of this too, and I need to work on that).

SubiculumCode 6y ago

Dang. The conversation here is toxic.

rbanffy 6y ago
A lot of people seem to have little sympathy for Assange (I certainly don't, for his role in Trump's election) and don't seem to realize that any journalist that publishes a leak that involves a government can be threatened with the same accusations the US is making against him. This is not about Assange's personal life or him being a journalist or a hack. It's about the freedom to publish relevant news obtained from a whistle-blower without fear of being arrested and tortured for years before being extradited to spend the rest of their life being tortured.
- mariusor 6y ago
  > don't seem to realize that any journalist that publishes a leak that involves a government can be threatened with the same accusations the US is making against him. Some of the testimonies over the course of last week were exactly about this. How the US government didn't really try to prosecute US journalists for aiding sources to obtain classified material. See Craig Murray's[1] or Kevin Gosztola's reports on the examining of Pentagon Papers' publisher, Daniel Ellsberg. [1] https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/09/your-man-in-the-public-gallery-assange-hearing-day-11/ https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/09/your-man-in-... [2] https://dissenter.substack.com/p/good-ellsberg-bad-assange-at-extradition https://dissenter.substack.com/p/good-ellsberg-bad-assange-a...
  - rbanffy 6y ago
    Do you trust the US government not to do this if they successfully extradite Assange? What about foreign journalists?
    - mariusor 6y ago
      I think I wasn't explicit enough in the point I was trying to make: the US government is already trying to prosecute Assange, that's what this is all about in the end. So it would be a first that a publisher is under threat for releasing sensitive material. The witness testimonies (as reported in the above links and in the articles from previous days) seem to agree on this, or at least that was my impression.

LatteLazy 6y ago

I feel like the powers that be have decided to make this extradition happen. Most people don't care because they don't pay attention. Of those that do, the noisy attention payers like us, a sizeable group have decided Assange isn't likeable and so should suffer for upsetting people more powerful than him. Now we have to go through all this theatrics simply so those people can say things like "he got a fair hearing" and "the magistrate ruled against him so that must be the law". It's very disappointing, because the whole point of laws is that it shouldn't matter whether you're pretty or funny or sympathetic. And after thousands of years of civilisation, people still rely on their gut feelings.

luckylion 6y ago
> Most people don't care because they don't pay attention. Are you sure it's not the other way round? Additionally, I don't think it matters whether they care or pay attention. Unless the media pays attention and publishes information, they won't get anywhere. > It's very disappointing, because the whole point of laws is that it shouldn't matter whether you're pretty or funny or sympathetic. A cynic might say that the whole point of laws is to give the impression of justice, not to provide it.
- anm89 6y ago
  > A cynic might say that the whole point of laws is to give the impression of justice, not to provide it. Is there one singular "point" to laws? I feel like justifying this statement inevitably ends up at some kind of secret cabal conspiracy theory. Otherwise you have to admit that there are many groups who have many competing points and goals for legal systems.
  - cassepipe 6y ago
    This is what Chibber calls the "pluralist theory" which he argues is not entirely false but rather incomplete. I hope this will be of interest to you : https://youtu.be/R5R-9X_BtP4 https://youtu.be/R5R-9X_BtP4

mattatkeyboard 6y ago

I am only lurking on this but Craig Murray (ex British diplomat) has a good blog following the daily ongoings on this trial. https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/category/uncategorized/ https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/category/uncategoriz... It seems to be incredibly murky and quite frankly, pretty disturbing...

nemo 6y ago
Anyone taking anything Craig Murray says seriously should definitely look into his past with some scrutiny for a while.
- Canada 6y ago
  I'm not seeing anything in his Wikipedia or recent Google results that suggests I should disregard him. What am I missing? What is it about his past that motivated you to post this innuendo?
  - nemo 6y ago
    Would be worth searching for 'Craig Murray Crank' since the guy posts a lot of conspiracy theories that are way off the deep end. You can trust the kooks if you like, but you should try to become familiar with the extent of their unhinged-ness. Rationalwiki has its own biases but gives helpful context and evidence illustrating Murray's crankery. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Craig_Murray https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Craig_Murray
    - Canada 6y ago
      Rationalwiki says of Murray: - claims the perpetrators of the Salisbury poisoning aren't the Russians - has been in disputes with a British newspaper editor and an Uzbek businessman over blog posts or articles - some vague accusations that he may hold antisemitic views Is that it, or is there something else? I understand that he is biased, as both an open supporter of the accused and also because of what happened when he was ambassador to Uzbekistan, which definitely explains his interest in this particular case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Murray#Ambassador_to_Uzbekistan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Murray#Ambassador_to_Uzb... None of the above makes me think that I shouldn't take what Murray writes about this particular court proceeding seriously. Is there some argument that I'm missing here, some reason that can be described without relying on mere name calling and innuendo, that suggests that Murray is lying about what's going on here and I should therefore just ignore him?

zyxzevn 6y ago

Nothing to see/hear. Military Shadow Government covering up their tracks.

alex_young 6y ago

The idea of this law is really interesting to me. Assange is being charged under the US 1917 Espionage Act. How can the US reasonably charge him with espionage? Has Assange ever even been to the US? If we can charge a foreign reporter with espionage for the mere publication of something we consider secret, and force their international extradition, how would we feel about a foreign government doing the same to one of our citizens? For instance, if Australia were to coerce the UK to arrest and extradite the publisher of the New York Times for prosecution under their laws for printing a story they didn't like for some reason.

primroot 6y ago
I think this is tangential "International Criminal Court officials sanctioned by US" https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-54003527 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-54003527 .
nickff 6y ago
My understanding is that Assange is alleged to have conspired with people in the USA to release classified information. One might compare it to collaborating with someone in the US to commit fraud (or perpetrating the fraud via the internet); being outside the country does not make you immune from prosecution.
- ugopapa 6y ago
  Or one may compare it with the way journalists collaborate with sources. In fact, it has been discussed in the hearing how Assange behavior is exactly what journalists do to get access to privileged information.
  - rayiner 6y ago
    Collaborating with a source is different than assisting a source to obstruct a law enforcement investigation of a computer security breach.
    - 6y ago

ciarannolan 6y ago

> ASSANGE Agrees to Help Manning Crack a Password [1] Is this what Assange is accused of doing? 1. Receiving a password hash from Manning 2. Telling Manning he'll try to crack it 3. Following up asking for more info about it (related usernames or something) 4. Never actually cracking it and no further action Does anyone have any more specifics on what Assange actually did here to break the law? The indictment is pretty vague on this and it seems to be the central issue. [1] https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1289641/download https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1289641/downl... (page 9)

alasdair_ 6y ago

Assange is being charged under the CFAA. The charge carries a maximum penalty of five years. The statute of limitations for charges the CFAA is five years - the indictment was filed after eight years from the alleged incident. The US is claiming that the reason the statute of limitations doesn't apply is "terrorism". I'm not sure Assange meets any reasonable criteria of being a terrorist. Secondly, the charge stems from a few lines of instant message conversations. Specifically, Manning said to Assange that she was unable to crack a password hash. Assange said he had rainbow tables that could be used. Manning sent Assange a password hash. A couple of days later, Assange stated he had "no luck so far" with the hash. There is no other evidence Assange even attempted to crack the hash and definitely no evidence that it was successful or that it harmed the US in any way. That's basically the entire case. One other point: the case will be tried in East Virginia, which is home to the densest population of jurors that happen to work/ have worked in national security in the nation. This is intentional, of course and it's the same reason Snowden is also unwilling to return to a US trial - the jury is known to have strong pro-government views, strong ties to the national security apparatus. EDIT: The bigger concern is that there are only four spots for the public to view the case and all of the online access was cut, so almost no public observers are allowed in. This is concerning given the broad implications of the trial and the fact that there is obviously enormous political pressure being brought to bear.

mmanfrin 6y ago
I don't disagree, but > The US is claiming that the reason the statute of limitations doesn't apply is "terrorism". The US AG is currently classifying 3 cities where protests are occurring as 'anarchist jurisdictions' so it's a fair bet that the truth of words hold no water to this administration.

vvpan 6y ago

Remember how US had European countries force the Bolivian president's plain to land in order to search it for Snowden? US and Europe ties can make European countries go low - very, very low.

ifmpx 6y ago
I still have a hard time accepting this happened. Sovereignty doesn't seem to exist anymore: We have a single government, 10% privileged human beings that have some rights and say in what it does, and 90% who don't.

etc-hosts 6y ago

The only person in jail for the US causing the death of 100s of thousands of Iraqis and making millions more Iraqis become homeless is Julian Assange.

MrsHippy 6y ago

Because authoritarianism...Is this news?

etc-hosts 6y ago

Links to trial coverage (hope you love Twitter) https://shadowproof.com/2020/09/21/guide-to-journalists-assange-trial-upset-by-media-blackout/ https://shadowproof.com/2020/09/21/guide-to-journalists-assa...

MrsHippy 6y ago

The issue here is a global military industrial complex that constantly subverts the law it claims to uphold. Citizens are complicit as long as they're moderately comfortable. Authoritarianism will thrive until radical adjustments are made to our political/socioeconomic system, so it'll probably thrive forever. Better get a job in defense before you find yourself in a cage... I write for the flags and i loath free expression, join me in censoring uncomfortable ideas!!!

theonlybutlet 6y ago

I don't know if I'm reading this incorrectly, but I can't see why the judge has said they are not able to obtain this status? Is there a reason?

theonlybutlet 6y ago

Sorry if I missed it, what is the actual reason the judge said they can't get this special monitor status?

blazor 6y ago

because it's a massive stitch up and everyone knows what the outcome will be ?

torified 6y ago

As an Australian, I'm sickened that our pathetic excuse for a government has shown no interest in protecting one of their own citizens being dragged into this kangaroo court. Spineless and corrupt.

jaza 6y ago
Five Eyes. ANZUS. Pine Gap. As an Australian, I'm not at all surprised that we've abandoned Assange. He's wanted by our government's government!
- torified 6y ago
  I didn't say I was surprised, only sickened.