6 ms·

It's a quite long and sordid affair, but I'll do my best to summarize: Craig has been a thorn in the side of the government for some time, first for exposing c

It's a quite long and sordid affair, but I'll do my best to summarize: Craig has been a thorn in the side of the government for some time, first for exposing corruption in the Scottish seats of power, the too-cozy relationships between the judicial and executive branches, and the biased and tainted prosecutions of anyone who gets in their way (including MPs). The accusations against him hinge on the "jigsaw identification" theory, whereby people could piece together persons from the material he published. The problem is that it's so vague that it could be used against *anyone* who publishes *anything* about a case such as this (and in fact many publications DID publish information that could easily lead to the identification of the accuser, but they were given a pass). This is why he's calling it retribution. Furthermore, he's been reporting on the Assange case, and that has angered the British government, which is why his appeal was rejected, and why he was not allowed to travel to Spain to give testimony in a case where the Americans were spying on Assange and his lawyer via UC Global. At this point, Craig's only remaining option is to appeal to the EU court of human rights, but that's gonna be a tough one because he's pissed off the Americans too much with the Assange case.

alisonkisk 5y ago
> At this point, Craig's only remaining option is to appeal to the EU court of human rights, but that's gonna be a tough one because he's pissed off the Americans too much with the Assange case Does the EU Court of Human Rights care whar Americans think about him?
- kstenerud 5y ago
  The member states care about America's friendship and cooperation on many things. You have to follow the power to see what the results will be. Personally, I think he's just doing it to have a record for posterity once it's rejected, to turn common knowledge about EU-USA corrupting power relationships into public knowledge (although I don't share his hope that this will ever become public knowledge - but then again it takes an idealist to fight these kinds of battles).
  - torstenvl 5y ago
    The courts deciding against his argument would only be probative on the question of corruption if you start from the presumption that his position is correct. Your post is entirely circular in its reasoning.
- fauigerzigerk 5y ago
  This is not in fact an EU court. It's the court that interprets the European Convention on Human Rights. It's part of the Council of Europe where the U.S has observer status and Russia as well as the UK are members. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Court_of_Human_Rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Court_of_Human_Rights
- tomatotomato37 5y ago
  In the world of realpolitik which do you think matters more? A. The opinion of a world superpower with a military to match B. Ideals
  - vkou 5y ago
    It depends on the question.
    - Brian_K_White 5y ago
      Only as a side effect of which ideals a superpower happens to be espousing at that moment.
mritun 5y ago
You're responding with an argument that says "he pissed off the government so he was sent to prison" - but he actually was convicted of violating a court injunction (in India, that would be contempt of the court). It's hard to connect contempt of the court proceedings with pissing off the government without also alleging that courts are in the pocket of the government... which is a very serious connection to draw here. This happened in UK!
- whatshisface 5y ago
  There are so many serious connections to draw these days that it's no longer such an argument against it.
- ThrustVectoring 5y ago
  The courts are the government. A separate branch from the executive and legislative, sure, but it's still a government entity.
  - ChrisKnott 5y ago
    In British English this is not the case, "Government" is use more like "Administration" is used in the US.
    - hollerith 5y ago
      What do Brits use to refer to British courts, Parliament and executive considered as a whole?
      - darrenf 5y ago
        Those are the three branches of the state. We consider government to be the executive only. The judiciary does not govern.
        hollerith 5y ago
        Ah. Americans use "state" to mean one of the 50 provinces of the US, leaving the word unavailable for what Brits use it for.
FireBeyond 5y ago
> Furthermore, he's been reporting on the Assange case, and that has angered the British government, which is why his appeal was rejected Whilst not impossible, this is entirely speculation.
- jstanley 5y ago
  What do you think evidence of this would look like, if it existed? They're hardly going to write a press release on it.
  - Ntrails 5y ago
    I think the honest truth is that the government could not give less of a shit about coverage on Assange. It's such a hilariously marginal story, and doesn't play badly with their base. That's ignoring the fact that 99.9% of news is covid related anyway far outshining any really bad press.
p_j_w 5y ago
>The accusations against him hinge on the "jigsaw identification" theory, whereby people could piece together persons from the material he published. The problem is that it's so vague that it could be used against anyone who publishes anything about a case such as this Have you read the court ruling on the matter? I looked through it, and it sounds like that's not at all what's going on here. The court went through each individual accusation of jigsaw identification he was accused of, and in cases where jigsaw identification was unlikely, said so. On top of that, it seems Murray himself was trying to hint to his readers that he was indeed trying to give information out for the purpose of helping people figure out who the accusers were. >Craig's only remaining option is to appeal to the EU court of human rights, but that's gonna be a tough one because he's pissed off the Americans too much with the Assange case. Perhaps. Or perhaps he just doesn't have a very strong case.
chris_wot 5y ago
Furthermore, he's been reporting on the Assange case, and that has angered the British government, which is why his appeal was rejected Appeals aren’t rejected by the government.
- chris_wot 5y ago
  For those who downvoted me, they aren’t. They are rejected by the judiciary.

alisonkisk 5y ago

> At this point, Craig's only remaining option is to appeal to the EU court of human rights, but that's gonna be a tough one because he's pissed off the Americans too much with the Assange case Does the EU Court of Human Rights care whar Americans think about him?

kstenerud 5y ago
The member states care about America's friendship and cooperation on many things. You have to follow the power to see what the results will be. Personally, I think he's just doing it to have a record for posterity once it's rejected, to turn common knowledge about EU-USA corrupting power relationships into public knowledge (although I don't share his hope that this will ever become public knowledge - but then again it takes an idealist to fight these kinds of battles).
- torstenvl 5y ago
  The courts deciding against his argument would only be probative on the question of corruption if you start from the presumption that his position is correct. Your post is entirely circular in its reasoning.
fauigerzigerk 5y ago
This is not in fact an EU court. It's the court that interprets the European Convention on Human Rights. It's part of the Council of Europe where the U.S has observer status and Russia as well as the UK are members. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Court_of_Human_Rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Court_of_Human_Rights
tomatotomato37 5y ago
In the world of realpolitik which do you think matters more? A. The opinion of a world superpower with a military to match B. Ideals
- vkou 5y ago
  It depends on the question.
  - Brian_K_White 5y ago
    Only as a side effect of which ideals a superpower happens to be espousing at that moment.

mritun 5y ago

You're responding with an argument that says "he pissed off the government so he was sent to prison" - but he actually was convicted of violating a court injunction (in India, that would be contempt of the court). It's hard to connect contempt of the court proceedings with pissing off the government without also alleging that courts are in the pocket of the government... which is a very serious connection to draw here. This happened in UK!

whatshisface 5y ago
There are so many serious connections to draw these days that it's no longer such an argument against it.
ThrustVectoring 5y ago
The courts are the government. A separate branch from the executive and legislative, sure, but it's still a government entity.
- ChrisKnott 5y ago
  In British English this is not the case, "Government" is use more like "Administration" is used in the US.
  - hollerith 5y ago
    What do Brits use to refer to British courts, Parliament and executive considered as a whole?
    - darrenf 5y ago
      Those are the three branches of the state. We consider government to be the executive only. The judiciary does not govern.
      - hollerith 5y ago
        Ah. Americans use "state" to mean one of the 50 provinces of the US, leaving the word unavailable for what Brits use it for.

FireBeyond 5y ago

> Furthermore, he's been reporting on the Assange case, and that has angered the British government, which is why his appeal was rejected Whilst not impossible, this is entirely speculation.

jstanley 5y ago
What do you think evidence of this would look like, if it existed? They're hardly going to write a press release on it.
- Ntrails 5y ago
  I think the honest truth is that the government could not give less of a shit about coverage on Assange. It's such a hilariously marginal story, and doesn't play badly with their base. That's ignoring the fact that 99.9% of news is covid related anyway far outshining any really bad press.

p_j_w 5y ago

>The accusations against him hinge on the "jigsaw identification" theory, whereby people could piece together persons from the material he published. The problem is that it's so vague that it could be used against anyone who publishes anything about a case such as this Have you read the court ruling on the matter? I looked through it, and it sounds like that's not at all what's going on here. The court went through each individual accusation of jigsaw identification he was accused of, and in cases where jigsaw identification was unlikely, said so. On top of that, it seems Murray himself was trying to hint to his readers that he was indeed trying to give information out for the purpose of helping people figure out who the accusers were. >Craig's only remaining option is to appeal to the EU court of human rights, but that's gonna be a tough one because he's pissed off the Americans too much with the Assange case. Perhaps. Or perhaps he just doesn't have a very strong case.

chris_wot 5y ago

Furthermore, he's been reporting on the Assange case, and that has angered the British government, which is why his appeal was rejected Appeals aren’t rejected by the government.

chris_wot 5y ago
For those who downvoted me, they aren’t. They are rejected by the judiciary.