6 ms·

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

by 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.
    - pmachinery 6y ago
      The rest of the public is also having its remote access revoked?
      - LegitShady 6y ago
        Amnesty has the same access as the rest of the public.
        mlthoughts2018 6y ago
        No, the article explains their remote access was revoked (unlike many other public observers).
        LegitShady 6y ago
        >We've made 3 applications requesting recognition as expert fair trial monitors. Judge states that no 'special provision' will be made for our trial monitor's attendance,” They requested they get special status as "fair trial monitors". The judge said they get treated like everyone else. They should have no better access than you or I. They are nobody - a group that got together to push their agenda. They have no standing in court different from any other member of the public. They can monitor the trial without some special recognition.
        mlthoughts2018 6y ago
        > “ They can monitor the trial without some special recognition.” No, their remote access request was denied. This is separate from any request for standing as an expert trial observer (which is a whole other can of worms).
Cthulhu_ 6y ago
They should, since it concerns a matter of international politics and, indirectly / by extension, whether the US committed war crimes and if they're going to string up the whistleblower that exposed it. And on a more local level, it's about which side the UK will pick. They can side with justice and hold onto Assange (or grant him asylum), defying their next best friend the US (after they pissed off and flounced out of Europe), or siding with international justice and hold onto him as a key witness for the (hopefully upcoming) war crimes case in the international court of justice.
- LegitShady 6y ago
  > They should, since it concerns a matter of international politics and, indirectly / by extension, whether the US committed war crimes and if they're going to string up the whistleblower that exposed it. Amnesty International is just an NGO. They get a lot of press but they have no standing in law, "whether the US committed war crimes" or not. Which other NGOs should be empowered to have legal standings in other people's court cases? Which others should the government be forced to listen to? seems like a disaster of an idea.
  - njharman 6y ago
    I'm pretty positive that the "they should" was in reply to > whether the general public should have greater access. Not that AI should have special legal standing.
    - LegitShady 6y ago
      Except the whole thing is about AI requesting special status as fair trial monitors and getting told no, so not really.
      - gpm 6y ago
        I don't think that's a fair characterization. AI is requesting access as trial monitors, special or not. Something they are entitled to under law and the principles of a open justice system because access is something everyone is entitled to. To dismiss this as arguing for "special status" is to make the argument that you aren't allowed to argue for your own rights unless you also spend the time, energy, and money to argue for everyone else's. For example that an author couldn't sue the government for blocking the publishing of their book unless they also sued the government for blocking the publishing of every other blocked authors book. Not only is that not a duty they have, it's not even clear that they would have standing to do so.
LGNUITLZCJ 6y ago
This is an Australian citizen being deported by the UK government to the United States for being a journalist. This is something of international significance and international observers should be allowed to be present if the UK wants to have any semblance of being a liberal democracy.
k1m 6y ago
Posted this in another thread about this issue recently: 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 > Amnesty International has no standing in the law above that of the general public 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/pol3000219 https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/156000/pol3000219...

by tssva 6y ago

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.
  - pmachinery 6y ago
    The rest of the public is also having its remote access revoked?
    - LegitShady 6y ago
      Amnesty has the same access as the rest of the public.
      - mlthoughts2018 6y ago
        No, the article explains their remote access was revoked (unlike many other public observers).
        LegitShady 6y ago
        >We've made 3 applications requesting recognition as expert fair trial monitors. Judge states that no 'special provision' will be made for our trial monitor's attendance,” They requested they get special status as "fair trial monitors". The judge said they get treated like everyone else. They should have no better access than you or I. They are nobody - a group that got together to push their agenda. They have no standing in court different from any other member of the public. They can monitor the trial without some special recognition.
        mlthoughts2018 6y ago
        > “ They can monitor the trial without some special recognition.” No, their remote access request was denied. This is separate from any request for standing as an expert trial observer (which is a whole other can of worms).

Cthulhu_ 6y ago

They should, since it concerns a matter of international politics and, indirectly / by extension, whether the US committed war crimes and if they're going to string up the whistleblower that exposed it. And on a more local level, it's about which side the UK will pick. They can side with justice and hold onto Assange (or grant him asylum), defying their next best friend the US (after they pissed off and flounced out of Europe), or siding with international justice and hold onto him as a key witness for the (hopefully upcoming) war crimes case in the international court of justice.

LegitShady 6y ago
> They should, since it concerns a matter of international politics and, indirectly / by extension, whether the US committed war crimes and if they're going to string up the whistleblower that exposed it. Amnesty International is just an NGO. They get a lot of press but they have no standing in law, "whether the US committed war crimes" or not. Which other NGOs should be empowered to have legal standings in other people's court cases? Which others should the government be forced to listen to? seems like a disaster of an idea.
- njharman 6y ago
  I'm pretty positive that the "they should" was in reply to > whether the general public should have greater access. Not that AI should have special legal standing.
  - LegitShady 6y ago
    Except the whole thing is about AI requesting special status as fair trial monitors and getting told no, so not really.
    - gpm 6y ago
      I don't think that's a fair characterization. AI is requesting access as trial monitors, special or not. Something they are entitled to under law and the principles of a open justice system because access is something everyone is entitled to. To dismiss this as arguing for "special status" is to make the argument that you aren't allowed to argue for your own rights unless you also spend the time, energy, and money to argue for everyone else's. For example that an author couldn't sue the government for blocking the publishing of their book unless they also sued the government for blocking the publishing of every other blocked authors book. Not only is that not a duty they have, it's not even clear that they would have standing to do so.

LGNUITLZCJ 6y ago

This is an Australian citizen being deported by the UK government to the United States for being a journalist. This is something of international significance and international observers should be allowed to be present if the UK wants to have any semblance of being a liberal democracy.

k1m 6y ago

Posted this in another thread about this issue recently: 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 > Amnesty International has no standing in the law above that of the general public 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/pol3000219 https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/156000/pol3000219...