Assange Hearing Day 17(craigmurray.org.uk)
craigmurray.org.uk
Assange Hearing Day 17
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/09/your-man-in-the-public-gallery-assange-hearing-day-17/
173 comments
The Hague act : https://www.hrw.org/news/2002/08/03/us-hague-invasion-act-be...
Yes, we are partners in NATO.
edit: 18 yrs later, it strikes me as how pre-emptive this was.
Yes, we are partners in NATO.
edit: 18 yrs later, it strikes me as how pre-emptive this was.
You are going to get downvoted into oblivion once the American contingent of HN wakes up, but before that happens I wanted to say thank you very much for making this statement:
EU countries, especially Germany, France (I have less hope for Eastern-EU or Sweden) need to stop extraditions to US of A stat. Also these US terrorists dressed up as politicians need to be sanctioned (I understand this is a pipe dream) and prosecuted at the ICC (another pipe dream).
It is true. The US needs to start being sanctioned for its war crimes, its crimes against humanity, and its anti-democratic behaviour. The failure of the American people to reign in their heinous war machine needs to be brought back to them. It is feet-to-the-fire time.
EU countries, especially Germany, France (I have less hope for Eastern-EU or Sweden) need to stop extraditions to US of A stat. Also these US terrorists dressed up as politicians need to be sanctioned (I understand this is a pipe dream) and prosecuted at the ICC (another pipe dream).
It is true. The US needs to start being sanctioned for its war crimes, its crimes against humanity, and its anti-democratic behaviour. The failure of the American people to reign in their heinous war machine needs to be brought back to them. It is feet-to-the-fire time.
As a US person myself, I don't really take issue with stopping extraditions because it would probably be a lot cheaper just to execute enemies abroad. Think how much money Putin has saved over the years. Now the whole Kashoggi mess shows how easy it is for this approach to backfire, so you certainly have to be careful.
> need to stop extraditions to US of A stat
Extradition from EU to US is never allowed if in the US the people extradited risk the death penalty.
There are discussions going about abolishing it entirely for states that support death penalty, regardless of the single case implications.
Extradition from EU to US is never allowed if in the US the people extradited risk the death penalty.
There are discussions going about abolishing it entirely for states that support death penalty, regardless of the single case implications.
I suppose that's not very consoling when you're staring at 30, 60 or more than 100 years in prison. The US should not have power to extradite EU citizens for the same reasons we also don't extradite people to Belarus or China. It's a one sided deal as was illustrated in the case of recent killing of a UK teen by an US diplomat:
Extradition of U.S. Diplomat’s Wife Sought in U.K. Teen’s Death https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-05-11/extraditi...
also the way US treats its prison population and allows torture (enhanced interrogation) doesn't make it better than any other banana republic. It's in no way better than China. it just has more effective propaganda.
Extradition of U.S. Diplomat’s Wife Sought in U.K. Teen’s Death https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-05-11/extraditi...
also the way US treats its prison population and allows torture (enhanced interrogation) doesn't make it better than any other banana republic. It's in no way better than China. it just has more effective propaganda.
I share your sentiment about US disrespect of basic human rights when it's about law enforcement and incarceration, but treaties are treaties and many EU countries still suffer from decades of past diplomatic relationships based on balance of powers set 70 or more years ago
I'm from Italy, US cultural and military "colonization" (for lack of a better word) has been quite bad here
I'm from Italy, US cultural and military "colonization" (for lack of a better word) has been quite bad here
The US does extradite to China...
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-usa-crime/china-hai...
And the diplomat case is not proof of a one-sided extradition treaty; it's entirely separate from the issue of extradition. The diplomat's wife had diplomatic immunity, and therefore would have been immune to prosecution whether or not she remained in the UK. The UK had to change its laws to make criminal prosecution of her possible. Under US law, you cannot retroactively place someone under threat of criminal prosecution, so even though diplomatic immunity has been modified since then (and if the hit-and-run occurred today, she would be subject to criminal prosecution in the UK), the US probably could not legally extradite her.
And the diplomat case is not proof of a one-sided extradition treaty; it's entirely separate from the issue of extradition. The diplomat's wife had diplomatic immunity, and therefore would have been immune to prosecution whether or not she remained in the UK. The UK had to change its laws to make criminal prosecution of her possible. Under US law, you cannot retroactively place someone under threat of criminal prosecution, so even though diplomatic immunity has been modified since then (and if the hit-and-run occurred today, she would be subject to criminal prosecution in the UK), the US probably could not legally extradite her.
The diplomat was not a diplomat, he was a American intelligence officer based at RAF Croughton. The letter of agreement between the Foreign Office and the US ambassador to Britain in August 1995 about the American personnel at RAF Croughton says explicitly that diplomatic immunity for people like Mr Sacoolas would not apply for "acts performed outside the course of their duties".
The US has acted dishonourably in this case.
The US has acted dishonourably in this case.
No, the US acted within the parameters of the 1995 agreement.
The agreement provided traditional diplomatic immunity[1] to personnel stationed at the base and their families but only waived criminal immunity for personnel for acts outside of the course of their duties. This waiver didn't extend to their families, because not being personnel, all of their acts would be outside the course of their duties and it would render their immunity meaningless.
This year, they changed that immunity so it no longer applies to family members, meaning they no longer have immunity. It was not made retroactive because the US would not agree to that (ex post facto criminalization is allowed in the UK).
[1] Diplomats usually refer to this type of immunity as "special immunity" because it is not related to the performance of diplomatic functions.
The agreement provided traditional diplomatic immunity[1] to personnel stationed at the base and their families but only waived criminal immunity for personnel for acts outside of the course of their duties. This waiver didn't extend to their families, because not being personnel, all of their acts would be outside the course of their duties and it would render their immunity meaningless.
This year, they changed that immunity so it no longer applies to family members, meaning they no longer have immunity. It was not made retroactive because the US would not agree to that (ex post facto criminalization is allowed in the UK).
[1] Diplomats usually refer to this type of immunity as "special immunity" because it is not related to the performance of diplomatic functions.
The UK isn't in the EU
correct but depending on which EU country he might not even be in EU but already extradited by now. (can you picture him in Poland, Spain or Sweden? they'd have him handed over long ago)
No, I can't
I've never understood this theory that it will be easier for the US to extradite him from Sweden, especially as they would be unable to extradite him to the US for anything without agreement from both Sweden and the UK.
He lost all support from me when he refused to go to Sweden.
I've never understood this theory that it will be easier for the US to extradite him from Sweden, especially as they would be unable to extradite him to the US for anything without agreement from both Sweden and the UK.
He lost all support from me when he refused to go to Sweden.
I know
I think Assange move to relocate himself to UK was very unfortunate for him
He didn't consider Brexit was going to happen
I think Assange move to relocate himself to UK was very unfortunate for him
He didn't consider Brexit was going to happen
I've heard the US has what essentially amount to a DRM on a lot of EU military equipment. Most of the west just seems really tangled up in general.
Sounds like a legitimate grievance if they're going out and recruiting people to steal secrets. In fact if they can prove a money link, they just look like a branch of the FSB.
for anyone who disagrees with US policy and considers it hostile, abusive, hypocritical (and hence a threat to their own values) ... their view could be: the enemy of my enemy is my friend. And so it doesn't matter where the money comes from as long as they work on the same goal (e.g. stopping the war mongering hypocrisy that is US foreign policy). The current (dire) state of Russia after all is a failure in US foreign policy (the biggest tragedy and a massive lost opportunity in how the US handled the crumbling USSR).
In Europe we have a refugee-crisis and constant debates about what to do with them. In that debate we forget that it was the US that invaded Iraq, Lybia - they are responsible for it. Sure the Wagner group is there now as well profiting the same way as US contractors. But Africom, Blackwater and every yank in a uniform are a much larger threat to peace than Russia & China combined. (regardless what nutter occupies the whitehouse)
In Europe we have a refugee-crisis and constant debates about what to do with them. In that debate we forget that it was the US that invaded Iraq, Lybia - they are responsible for it. Sure the Wagner group is there now as well profiting the same way as US contractors. But Africom, Blackwater and every yank in a uniform are a much larger threat to peace than Russia & China combined. (regardless what nutter occupies the whitehouse)
I blame Libya on Europe, but the point still stands.
Europe is far from blameless in any of this. Frontex and their deal with Turkey and everything surrounding the management of the crisis is absolutely infuriating. "We" are as bad as the US for not making a stand and even enabling them.
When is Europe going to finally recognize it has agency? Blaming the US for waves vaguely things while being mostly stagnant for decades isn't a good look, especially when you've been either an active participant or wholly complicit in those things.
I have commented this here earlier this week : the EU is a trade-bloc, the rest is posturing.
I hope EU stays a trade-bloc and everyone else considers de-escalating. I also don't trust the EU with too much power. the solution (imho) has to be peaceful - not forcing parties to spend more on defense and grandstanding.
Now that the UK is not throwing spanners into the works every time the subject comes up, we can expect a Federal Europe to appear much quicker.
UK has always been a voice of reason throughout the years which gave a good balance to the Franco-German domination. The spanners seem to have many times been a blessing in disguise. (I'm pro European).
You make it appear as if that would be a good thing. I disagree.
Which thing are you saying is good, the Uk stopping a federal europe or the creation of the same?
Ahhh, yes, very fair. I disagree with the notion that a federal Europe would be a good thing.
Human language, still a challenge after all these years.
Human language, still a challenge after all these years.
As a UK citizen, I agree with you (a Federal Europe would be a bad thing).
As a resident of Germany, I disagree with you (a Federal Europe would be a good thing).
Perspective matters.
As a resident of Germany, I disagree with you (a Federal Europe would be a good thing).
Perspective matters.
Libya has an elected government that is recognized by UN. The coup attempt by Hafter is supported by France, Russia, UAE, and Egypt. Rule of (international) law is broken by these countries blatantly.
I second this, and specifically France started it.
here4U(1)
csommers(2)
Would you argue that if a hostile foreign power hired mercenaries that US soldiers shouldn't shoot to kill?
You arrest and capture spies. Here he has become a contractual spy.
You arrest and capture spies. Here he has become a contractual spy.
Whistleblowing is not stealing (literally, in the legal sense, you’d have to prove it’s not whistleblowing in order for it to be possible to be stealing).
Jumping straight to a phrase like “stealing secrets” completely skips past due process to determine if it’s whistleblowing and presumes guilt instead of innocence.
Jumping straight to a phrase like “stealing secrets” completely skips past due process to determine if it’s whistleblowing and presumes guilt instead of innocence.
If you're paying other people to turn, and hack to achieve access, that's not whistleblowing.
Yes, in fact, it absolutely can be. It completely depends on the criminality of the information obtained.
Nonsense. Stealing is stealing regardless of whether a crime is discovered in the stolen content. The two are not mutually exclusive.
Nonsense. The law is extremely complex on these points and you’re trying to play semantic games with the terms “theft” and “stealing” to pretend like it’s black and white.
Taking evidence due to a statutory duty to your government (reporting crimes) is not theft. You can’t just magically invoke the term “theft” and invoke tautologies like “stealing is stealing” - that’s not how any of this works.
It literally does depend on whether the taken documents reveal a crime, along with other factors about how your job or normal access would bring you in contact with the materials and also if the materials taken are over broad (i.e. you wanted documents to show a pattern of sexual harassment but also took a bunch of unrelated private client data).
https://www.whistleblowerllc.com/you-call-it-theft-i-call-it...
Given that in the case of Manning & Wikileaks, the crimes being reported (which were proven beyond all doubt) included criminal murder perpetrated systematically by US military and federal agents, as well as grand scale deception and rigging of the Democratic Primary in 2016, and shitloads of illegal torture and illegal imprisonment across Europe, the Middle East and Guantanamo, it’s also beyond dispute that the moral duty (and statutory duty for Americans involved like Manning) to release the materials was undeniable and the crimes were so sweeping and severe that no part of the taking or publishing of the documents can be considered over broad.
Taking evidence due to a statutory duty to your government (reporting crimes) is not theft. You can’t just magically invoke the term “theft” and invoke tautologies like “stealing is stealing” - that’s not how any of this works.
It literally does depend on whether the taken documents reveal a crime, along with other factors about how your job or normal access would bring you in contact with the materials and also if the materials taken are over broad (i.e. you wanted documents to show a pattern of sexual harassment but also took a bunch of unrelated private client data).
https://www.whistleblowerllc.com/you-call-it-theft-i-call-it...
Given that in the case of Manning & Wikileaks, the crimes being reported (which were proven beyond all doubt) included criminal murder perpetrated systematically by US military and federal agents, as well as grand scale deception and rigging of the Democratic Primary in 2016, and shitloads of illegal torture and illegal imprisonment across Europe, the Middle East and Guantanamo, it’s also beyond dispute that the moral duty (and statutory duty for Americans involved like Manning) to release the materials was undeniable and the crimes were so sweeping and severe that no part of the taking or publishing of the documents can be considered over broad.
Taking evidence of a crime that you have legal access to is not a crime. Breaking into someone's house and taking evidence of financial fraud is still stealing. It's not complicated. Recruiting people to steal, i.e. hack into information stores they do not presently have access to, is being an accessory.
Nonsense. For example, making copies and exfiltrating classified documents from the government office where you work is an example of illegal theft (and other crimes).
Except not if the taken documents reveal criminal behavior that you have a higher statutory duty to report.
You are just creating a lazy false dichotomy between situations that are black and white, but you’re just talking into the wind and your point is still straight up wrong from a legal standpoint.
Whistleblowing is not stealing - literally, in the legal sense. Actions which might be illegal if they don’t result in the revelation of a greater crime can become literally legal actions if they are performed due to a higher statutory obligation to blow the whistle.
Except not if the taken documents reveal criminal behavior that you have a higher statutory duty to report.
You are just creating a lazy false dichotomy between situations that are black and white, but you’re just talking into the wind and your point is still straight up wrong from a legal standpoint.
Whistleblowing is not stealing - literally, in the legal sense. Actions which might be illegal if they don’t result in the revelation of a greater crime can become literally legal actions if they are performed due to a higher statutory obligation to blow the whistle.
>For example, making copies and exfiltrating classified documents from the government office
It depends on what you do with them. If your copy is in service to whistleblowing to the proper authorities, then it is not illegal. If you are dumping them on wikileaks, its still illegal even if the act is revealing illegal acts.
>Actions which might be illegal if they don’t result in the revelation of a greater crime can become literally legal actions if they are performed due to a higher statutory obligation to blow the whistle.
Yes, for people who have legitimate access to the information to begin with. Show me a single case where someone performed an illegal act to access information that happened to reveal criminal acts, and show me how whistleblower protection laws absolved the initial illegal access. This is different than the crime revealed being comparatively so egregious that no one had any interest in prosecuting the individual for the initial illegal act.
It depends on what you do with them. If your copy is in service to whistleblowing to the proper authorities, then it is not illegal. If you are dumping them on wikileaks, its still illegal even if the act is revealing illegal acts.
>Actions which might be illegal if they don’t result in the revelation of a greater crime can become literally legal actions if they are performed due to a higher statutory obligation to blow the whistle.
Yes, for people who have legitimate access to the information to begin with. Show me a single case where someone performed an illegal act to access information that happened to reveal criminal acts, and show me how whistleblower protection laws absolved the initial illegal access. This is different than the crime revealed being comparatively so egregious that no one had any interest in prosecuting the individual for the initial illegal act.
Even if true, why would it not be?
Appelbaum became also famous for sexually harassing women.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/07/27...
https://www.wired.com/2016/06/tor-developer-jacob-appelbaum-...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/07/27...
https://www.wired.com/2016/06/tor-developer-jacob-appelbaum-...
> for sexually harassing women.
You have to differentiate between claims made against him and what he did in reality.
Most of those claims seem to be fabricated and/or were even redacted by the sources, see:
https://www.zeit.de/kultur/2016-08/jacob-appelbaum-rape-sexu...
You have to differentiate between claims made against him and what he did in reality.
Most of those claims seem to be fabricated and/or were even redacted by the sources, see:
https://www.zeit.de/kultur/2016-08/jacob-appelbaum-rape-sexu...
[deleted]
This isn't some conspiracy of the MSN even though we in HN are interested in it and passionate about this. Remember, the News reports things that are new, different, unique.
We are not the audience of the MSN. We are not their users.
Here's a way to put it into perspective: If you read any newspaper, or watch the TV news, or listen to the radio news, try to remember the last time you heard about a trial every day it was going on, about evidence for the defence and prosecution, about items of law and interviews with witnesses.
The vast majority of court reporting gets reported on when it ends - when the jury makes their decision or the Judge passes the sentences. A smaller number gets reports when the court case starts (and items of fact are established) and a similar number may have an occasional report in the middle when some juicy or salacious or sensational piece of evidence is revealed. A tiny number will get reported on every day and then maybe once every 5 years or so.
News is about what is new even when it's of great interest to a small number of people. Day 17 of a hearing is not news to almost all news organisations.
----
Edits: I think Craig is doing amazing stuff, his blog is great and necessary to cover this hearing for us and other interested people. It's also worrying about the entire set up and exclusion of most of public and for observers like Amnesty. I caution about falling into the trap of "MSN is bad", the news just be doing news stuff. You can expect them to report on it when it ends.
We are not the audience of the MSN. We are not their users.
Here's a way to put it into perspective: If you read any newspaper, or watch the TV news, or listen to the radio news, try to remember the last time you heard about a trial every day it was going on, about evidence for the defence and prosecution, about items of law and interviews with witnesses.
The vast majority of court reporting gets reported on when it ends - when the jury makes their decision or the Judge passes the sentences. A smaller number gets reports when the court case starts (and items of fact are established) and a similar number may have an occasional report in the middle when some juicy or salacious or sensational piece of evidence is revealed. A tiny number will get reported on every day and then maybe once every 5 years or so.
News is about what is new even when it's of great interest to a small number of people. Day 17 of a hearing is not news to almost all news organisations.
----
Edits: I think Craig is doing amazing stuff, his blog is great and necessary to cover this hearing for us and other interested people. It's also worrying about the entire set up and exclusion of most of public and for observers like Amnesty. I caution about falling into the trap of "MSN is bad", the news just be doing news stuff. You can expect them to report on it when it ends.
Seems quite naive.
In reality editors need to pander to all kinds of legal, ethical, and 'relationship', aka political pressures.
Many stories are not published simply because it would piss-off the the wrong person. I've see this in person.
In reality editors need to pander to all kinds of legal, ethical, and 'relationship', aka political pressures.
Many stories are not published simply because it would piss-off the the wrong person. I've see this in person.
> This isn't some conspiracy of the MSN even though we in HN are interested in it and passionate about this.
Every news outlet that covered Wikileaks material when it came out but has not covered the trial against Assange are taking a political stance against freedom of information.
This isn’t a case of “the public just doesn’t care” the public by large doesn’t know what’s going on because mainstream media is staying quiet.
Every news outlet that covered Wikileaks material when it came out but has not covered the trial against Assange are taking a political stance against freedom of information.
This isn’t a case of “the public just doesn’t care” the public by large doesn’t know what’s going on because mainstream media is staying quiet.
I disagree. This is clearly a hugely important case. It's not that day 17 isn't significant to the media, it's that the whole case has been treated with hardly any interest at all from day 1.
Another HN commenter pointed out earlier that the BBC, for example, devoted far more coverage to Johnny Depp's libel case than this. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24491707
As for papers like the Guardian, who benefited the most from Assange's work, they've been even more conspicuously silent. Jonathan Cook, a former Guardian journalist, explains why in his piece 'The US is using the Guardian to justify jailing Assange for life. Why is the paper so silent?' https://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2020-09-22/guardian-silen...
Another HN commenter pointed out earlier that the BBC, for example, devoted far more coverage to Johnny Depp's libel case than this. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24491707
As for papers like the Guardian, who benefited the most from Assange's work, they've been even more conspicuously silent. Jonathan Cook, a former Guardian journalist, explains why in his piece 'The US is using the Guardian to justify jailing Assange for life. Why is the paper so silent?' https://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2020-09-22/guardian-silen...
The Guardian reported on the case yesterday [1] and last week [2] and on the 10th [3] and on the 8th [4] and on the 7th [5].
Perhaps it's less than we'd like, but it's hardly silent.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/sep/24/us-never-asked...
[2] https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/sep/18/trump-offered-...
[3] https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/sep/10/julian-assange...
[4] https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/sep/08/julian-assange...
[5] https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/sep/07/julian-assange...
(Edit: newlines beteween references.)
Perhaps it's less than we'd like, but it's hardly silent.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/sep/24/us-never-asked...
[2] https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/sep/18/trump-offered-...
[3] https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/sep/10/julian-assange...
[4] https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/sep/08/julian-assange...
[5] https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/sep/07/julian-assange...
(Edit: newlines beteween references.)
The Guardian has been very hostile toward Assange. I helped compile a list of its coverage a while ago:
https://theguardian.fivefilters.org/assange/
As for its coverage of the case, the most important aspect, which Jonathan Cook refers to, is that two of its journalists (David Leigh and Luke Harding) are implicated in releasing the password that led to everyone being able to access the unredacted cables that Assange is being blamed for publishing.
Cook writes:
> The two authors used the book not only to vent their personal animosity towards Assange – in part because he refused to let them write his official biography – but also to divulge a complex password entrusted to Leigh by Assange that provided access to an online cache of encrypted documents. That egregious mistake by the Guardian opened the door for every security service in the world to break into the file, as well as other files once they could crack Assange’s sophisticated formula for devising passwords.
> Much of the furore about Assange's supposed failure to protect names in the leaked documents published by Assange – now at the heart of the extradition case – stems from Leigh's much-obscured role in sabotaging Wikileaks' work.
I'm sure you'll agree that's a hugely significate aspect of the case. Can you find anything in the Guardian accepting responsibility for this? The Guardian journalists responsible have stayed silent and have not appeared in court. Yet the prosecution quotes from their book repeatedly.
https://theguardian.fivefilters.org/assange/
As for its coverage of the case, the most important aspect, which Jonathan Cook refers to, is that two of its journalists (David Leigh and Luke Harding) are implicated in releasing the password that led to everyone being able to access the unredacted cables that Assange is being blamed for publishing.
Cook writes:
> The two authors used the book not only to vent their personal animosity towards Assange – in part because he refused to let them write his official biography – but also to divulge a complex password entrusted to Leigh by Assange that provided access to an online cache of encrypted documents. That egregious mistake by the Guardian opened the door for every security service in the world to break into the file, as well as other files once they could crack Assange’s sophisticated formula for devising passwords.
> Much of the furore about Assange's supposed failure to protect names in the leaked documents published by Assange – now at the heart of the extradition case – stems from Leigh's much-obscured role in sabotaging Wikileaks' work.
I'm sure you'll agree that's a hugely significate aspect of the case. Can you find anything in the Guardian accepting responsibility for this? The Guardian journalists responsible have stayed silent and have not appeared in court. Yet the prosecution quotes from their book repeatedly.
The kind of "journalist" Luke Harding is was brutally exposed by Aaron Mate by simply repeatedly asking him for evidence for his claims when Harding was flogging a conspiracy theory book. Nothing more than that reduced him to powder.
It's an amazing thing to watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Ikf1uZli4g
I have no idea how this guy Harding is employed by the guardian, or indeed anyone or ever was. Obviously not a competent journalist, what he is... I'd never heard of Mate before seeing this, Mate just gives him rope and let's him do it to himself. That's the guy the Guardian had doing hatchet jobs on Assange when he was getting more death threats every day than every guardian journalist ever put together has received. [1]
[1] I have no evidence of this. But it seems a lot more plausible than the Guardian's hatchet jobs. Where is Alan Rusbridger nowadays? He was editor back then. Ah, wikipedia says principal of an Oxford college. When not appearing in cameo perfomances of movie versions of Luke Harding's hatchet jobs on Snowden. Must be where he thinks he's best speaking truth to power nowadays. He may be right.
It's an amazing thing to watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Ikf1uZli4g
I have no idea how this guy Harding is employed by the guardian, or indeed anyone or ever was. Obviously not a competent journalist, what he is... I'd never heard of Mate before seeing this, Mate just gives him rope and let's him do it to himself. That's the guy the Guardian had doing hatchet jobs on Assange when he was getting more death threats every day than every guardian journalist ever put together has received. [1]
[1] I have no evidence of this. But it seems a lot more plausible than the Guardian's hatchet jobs. Where is Alan Rusbridger nowadays? He was editor back then. Ah, wikipedia says principal of an Oxford college. When not appearing in cameo perfomances of movie versions of Luke Harding's hatchet jobs on Snowden. Must be where he thinks he's best speaking truth to power nowadays. He may be right.
> once they could crack Assange’s sophisticated formula for devising passwords.
How could Assange use such terrible opsec as to use only obscurity and no random key in a own-rolled password generator?
How could Assange use such terrible opsec as to use only obscurity and no random key in a own-rolled password generator?
It's a 58-character password. Every password strength checker I try certifies it as extremely strong. Remember, it wasn't cracked, it was published in a book by a Guardian journalist.
And what Assange wrote to the journalist was only a part of the password. Assange never wrote the second part. Apparently the journalist had to combine both the said and the written parts to use it but published the whole combination in a book.
There's an old fashioned concept that a thing known by only you is a secret. A thing you've told somebody else, is just on a countdown to being public information.
The journalists obviously fucked Assange by being idiots, but he is 100% culpable for putting the information somewhere it could be leaked in the first place. I simply don't think it has any bearing on the case at all.
The journalists obviously fucked Assange by being idiots, but he is 100% culpable for putting the information somewhere it could be leaked in the first place. I simply don't think it has any bearing on the case at all.
> A thing you've told somebody else, is just on a countdown to being public information.
This wasn't just "somebody else", this was the senior Guardian investigative journalist David Leigh, who was working with Assange to redact and publish the information in the Guardian. Assange was reluctant to give him the password, but was badgered into it by Leigh.
> he is 100% culpable for putting the information somewhere it could be leaked in the first place
The information was only available in encrypted form, and not made public. All the testimony from people involved in the redaction process show that Assange was very careful, while the Guardian's David Leigh was impatient and careless, and ultimately published the password in his book. I don't see why you think that has no bearing on the case.
Here's testimony from computer science professor Christian Grothoff:
> [Prosecutor] Smith: So in summer 2010 David Leigh was given a password and the cache was put up on a public website?
> Grothoff: No, it was put on a website but not public. It was in a hidden directory.
> Smith: So how did it end up on mirror sites if not public?
> Grothoff: It depends how the specific mirror is created. On the Wikileaks site the encrypted cache was not an available field. Different mirroring techniques might sweep up archive files.
> Smith: Wikileaks had asked for the creation of mirrors?
> Grothoff: Yes.
> Smith: The strength of a password is irrelevant if you cannot control the people who have it.
> Grothoff: That is true. The human is always the weakest link in the system. It is difficult to guard against a bad faith actor, like David Leigh.
> Smith: How many people did Wikileaks give the key in the summer of 2010?
> Grothoff: It appears from his book only to David Leigh. He then gave it to the hundreds of thousands who had access to his book.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/09/your-man-in-...
At some other point it's pointed out that those following the mirroring instructions provided by Wikileaks would not have received the encrypted file. Suggesting the intention wasn't to have that particular file mirrored.
This wasn't just "somebody else", this was the senior Guardian investigative journalist David Leigh, who was working with Assange to redact and publish the information in the Guardian. Assange was reluctant to give him the password, but was badgered into it by Leigh.
> he is 100% culpable for putting the information somewhere it could be leaked in the first place
The information was only available in encrypted form, and not made public. All the testimony from people involved in the redaction process show that Assange was very careful, while the Guardian's David Leigh was impatient and careless, and ultimately published the password in his book. I don't see why you think that has no bearing on the case.
Here's testimony from computer science professor Christian Grothoff:
> [Prosecutor] Smith: So in summer 2010 David Leigh was given a password and the cache was put up on a public website?
> Grothoff: No, it was put on a website but not public. It was in a hidden directory.
> Smith: So how did it end up on mirror sites if not public?
> Grothoff: It depends how the specific mirror is created. On the Wikileaks site the encrypted cache was not an available field. Different mirroring techniques might sweep up archive files.
> Smith: Wikileaks had asked for the creation of mirrors?
> Grothoff: Yes.
> Smith: The strength of a password is irrelevant if you cannot control the people who have it.
> Grothoff: That is true. The human is always the weakest link in the system. It is difficult to guard against a bad faith actor, like David Leigh.
> Smith: How many people did Wikileaks give the key in the summer of 2010?
> Grothoff: It appears from his book only to David Leigh. He then gave it to the hundreds of thousands who had access to his book.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/09/your-man-in-...
At some other point it's pointed out that those following the mirroring instructions provided by Wikileaks would not have received the encrypted file. Suggesting the intention wasn't to have that particular file mirrored.
I read that if you keep the password only in 1 head then you just painted a giant target on that head, where if you have it shared to a few trusted people if one of them is "suicided" then you can release the secrets so you have a way to prevent the assassinations attempts.
I'm pretty sure that's not what David Leigh was doing. Publishing the password was total gross unprofessional incompetent foolishness. Or possibly at that point the Guardian "investigative" unit was already trying to poison the whole story.
Or he was just a damn idiot.
Or he was just a damn idiot.
Yeah, I was suggesting that is not a good idea to keep the password only in 1 person head/home , it is an invitation to get assassinated. You could be right but I fail to see any relation with my comment(maybe is my fault and expressed my idea badly= I know that he did not reveal the password to protect Assanges life).
The Guardian is actually involved in the case: the "Guardian’s 2011 WikiLeaks book" contained the full password of the encrypted file containing the unredacted documents and that encrypted file was already (it is argued, not per the instructions of Wikileaks) mirrored to different locations.
The Guardian of course denies its own responsibility, because if they wouldn't, it would mean that it was the Guardian who de facto "published" the files by publishing the password to the file, and not Assange, and it would be them fighting the extradition now.
The Guardian of course denies its own responsibility, because if they wouldn't, it would mean that it was the Guardian who de facto "published" the files by publishing the password to the file, and not Assange, and it would be them fighting the extradition now.
There's no way that the prosecution in this case would go after the Guardian at this point in time.
Remember, the whole playbook here is to target the weakest possible link, i.e. an individual not associated to a traditional publisher, who is being attacked personally (i.e., casting doubts on his mental health after ensuring that he was forced for years to live under circumstances that would erode anybody's mental health).
They are doing this against a chosen target because they hope to establish precedent which can then later on be used against more difficult targets.
Remember, the whole playbook here is to target the weakest possible link, i.e. an individual not associated to a traditional publisher, who is being attacked personally (i.e., casting doubts on his mental health after ensuring that he was forced for years to live under circumstances that would erode anybody's mental health).
They are doing this against a chosen target because they hope to establish precedent which can then later on be used against more difficult targets.
Why did Assange given them a password to any documents he didn't share with them?
The encryption key was to the archive that Assange shared with the Guardian journalist working on the story, David Leigh.
The encrypted archive was apparently mirrored on several sites, meaning that when Leigh published the key, anyone could access the full archive of unredacted cables. I guess Assange could be faulted for working with traditional journalists who aren't so competent with technology. That would be an ironic reversal of the usual complaints about WikiLeaks. But at the very least, Leigh should have known to at least ask Assange before publishing the encryption key.
The Guardian turned around and blamed WikiLeaks, throwing it under the bus for the Guardian's own screw-up.
The encrypted archive was apparently mirrored on several sites, meaning that when Leigh published the key, anyone could access the full archive of unredacted cables. I guess Assange could be faulted for working with traditional journalists who aren't so competent with technology. That would be an ironic reversal of the usual complaints about WikiLeaks. But at the very least, Leigh should have known to at least ask Assange before publishing the encryption key.
The Guardian turned around and blamed WikiLeaks, throwing it under the bus for the Guardian's own screw-up.
yes, but that doesn't have Craig Murray's conspiracy theories.
What "conspiracy theory" are you suggesting is being served here?
>As for papers like the Guardian, who benefited the most from Assange's work, they've been even more conspicuously silent. Jonathan Cook, a former Guardian journalist, explains why in his piece 'The US is using the Guardian to justify jailing Assange for life. Why is the paper so silent?'
Long story short: they've been neutralised by the UK security apparatus. I could try to summarise the article below but that won't be doing it justice, just give it a read. Declassified UK, the below source, has a few former members of The Guardian on the team.
https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2019-09-11-how-the-u...
Long story short: they've been neutralised by the UK security apparatus. I could try to summarise the article below but that won't be doing it justice, just give it a read. Declassified UK, the below source, has a few former members of The Guardian on the team.
https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2019-09-11-how-the-u...
> "The Guardian wants journalism as a closed club, one where journalists are once again treated as high priests by their flock of readers, who know only what the corporate media is willing to disclose to them."
This matches perfectly my experience when working with journalists and discussing both Assange and any kind of blogging with them.
Journalism (and journalists) would love to return to the pre-internet world where only they got to publish things and everyone had to listen to their version of events.
Newspapers still haven't found a viable business model: advertising is earning less and less each year. The Guardian's "wikipedia model" is probably the best new attempt, but even that is very flaky and unreliable compared to their pre-internet days.
Increasingly, I see the best journalism coming from independent bloggers.
And I see support for draconian measures in suppressing "fake news" from large media organisations that would benefit hugely from any government-imposed regulations on publishing.
This matches perfectly my experience when working with journalists and discussing both Assange and any kind of blogging with them.
Journalism (and journalists) would love to return to the pre-internet world where only they got to publish things and everyone had to listen to their version of events.
Newspapers still haven't found a viable business model: advertising is earning less and less each year. The Guardian's "wikipedia model" is probably the best new attempt, but even that is very flaky and unreliable compared to their pre-internet days.
Increasingly, I see the best journalism coming from independent bloggers.
And I see support for draconian measures in suppressing "fake news" from large media organisations that would benefit hugely from any government-imposed regulations on publishing.
> This is clearly a hugely important case.
It really isn't. It's a simple extradition case. They're going through the procedure to make sure the extradition is lawful, but that's simply checking that rules have been followed. There's no element here of "did he do it or not?"
It really isn't. It's a simple extradition case. They're going through the procedure to make sure the extradition is lawful, but that's simply checking that rules have been followed. There's no element here of "did he do it or not?"
> simply checking that rules have been followed
One of the rules is one should not be extradited for political reasons, and that is what is obviously happening here and what is argued on the court by the defense.
But as the US representative can decide what is included as the evidence and the judge accepts that or even directly helps cherrypicking(!), there's where the tragedy starts.
Moreover, a political process against somebody whom the US likes to support would be a top title in all media. Because that's what we have learned, it matters: one should not be punished for that. That idea was even present in the legal agreements, including these about extradition.
It is that "simple."
One of the rules is one should not be extradited for political reasons, and that is what is obviously happening here and what is argued on the court by the defense.
But as the US representative can decide what is included as the evidence and the judge accepts that or even directly helps cherrypicking(!), there's where the tragedy starts.
Moreover, a political process against somebody whom the US likes to support would be a top title in all media. Because that's what we have learned, it matters: one should not be punished for that. That idea was even present in the legal agreements, including these about extradition.
It is that "simple."
The parent comment can only be described as trolling. Your response is valiant but probably best to just ignore that one. There’s no way to help someone if they don’t think Assange’s extradition hearing is one of the most critical legal moments of the last hundred and next hundred years.
This ludicrous hyperbole is ridiculous.
The only things the hearing will look at are
"The judge must be satisfied that the conduct amounts to an extradition offence (dual criminality), none of the bars to extradition apply, where applicable, there is prima facie evidence of guilt (in accusation cases), and whether extradition would breach the person’s human rights."
You not knowing nor liking the law doesn't change it.
Almost no-one in the thread understands what an extradition hearing is. (How do I know? Look at all the people saying the judge makes the decision.)
The only things the hearing will look at are
"The judge must be satisfied that the conduct amounts to an extradition offence (dual criminality), none of the bars to extradition apply, where applicable, there is prima facie evidence of guilt (in accusation cases), and whether extradition would breach the person’s human rights."
You not knowing nor liking the law doesn't change it.
Almost no-one in the thread understands what an extradition hearing is. (How do I know? Look at all the people saying the judge makes the decision.)
Have you been following Assange’s extradition hearing whatsoever? The judge in this situation has taken extreme and alarming actions in limiting defense witness testimony, refusing to allow witnesses or lines of questioning that unequivocally demonstrate the prosecution to be lying, incorrect and deeply misleading, has refused to allow normal closing arguments, refused to allow a witness who was tortured in Guantanamo to affirmatively state that fact (which the ECHR ruled was fact), denied in-person and remote access to Amnesty International and many other international observers, refused to grant an adjournment for the defense to process sudden new charges tacked on at the last minute and refused to allow the defense to call new witnesses in light of the new charges.
What planet are you living on where you don’t think the judge (acting on extrajudicial political orders) is controlling the decision?
What planet are you living on where you don’t think the judge (acting on extrajudicial political orders) is controlling the decision?
You've got your information from Craig Murray, and as lots of people have said: he's unreliable.
> What planet are you living on where you don’t think the judge (acting on extrajudicial political orders) is controlling the decision?
This sentence right here is a perfect example of how intensely frustrating these threads are. You do not understand English extradition law, but you're going to post heated rants about the case anyway.
The secretary of state for the Home Office (currently Priti Patel) makes the decision.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/extradition-processes-and-review
The US is a Type A, category 2, territory.
> Requests from these territories need decisions by both the Secretary of State and the courts.
> The extradition process to these territories follows these steps:
> Extradition hearing
> The judge must be satisfied that the conduct amounts to an extradition offence (dual criminality), none of the bars to extradition apply, where applicable, there is prima facie evidence of guilt (in accusation cases), and whether extradition would breach the person’s human rights.
> If the judge is satisfied that all of the procedural requirements are met, and that none of the statutory bars to extradition apply, he or she must send the case to the Secretary of State for a decision to be taken on whether to order extradition.
> Appealing judge’s decision: High Court
> The judge’s decision whether to send a case to the Secretary of State can be appealed. The requested person can ask for permission to appeal the judge’s decision to send the case to the Secretary of State. Any application for permission must be made to the High Court, within 14 days of the date of the judge’s decision. However the High Court will not hear the appeal unless and until the Secretary of State orders the requested person’s extradition (see below).
> If the District Judge orders the requested persons discharge, the requesting state can ask the High Court for permission to appeal that decision. Again, any application for permission to appeal must be made within 14 days of the judge’s order. If the High Court grants permission it will go on to consider the appeal. If the High Court allows the appeal, it will quash the order discharging the requested person and send the case back to the District Judge for a fresh decision to be taken. Secretary of State’s decision
> The Secretary of State must order extradition unless the surrender of a person is prohibited by certain statutory provisions in the 2003 Act. The requested person may make any representations as to why they should not be extradited within 4 weeks of the case being sent to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State is not required to consider any representations received after the expiry of the 4 week period.
> Extradition is prohibited by statute if:
> The Secretary of State has to make a decision within 2 months of the day the case is sent, otherwise the person may apply to be discharged. However, the Secretary of State can apply to the High Court for an extension of the decision date. More than one extension can be sought if necessary. Appealing Secretary of State’s decision: High Court
> Appeal is only possible with the leave (permission) of the High Court. Notice of application for leave to appeal must be sought within 14 days of extradition being ordered by the Secretary of State or discharge being ordered by the Secretary of State. Any appeal by the requested person against the decision of the judge to send the case to the Secretary of State will be heard at the same time as the appeal against the Secretary of State’s order, assuming permission is granted.
> Appealing High Court decisions: Supreme Court
> A requested person, or a requesting State, can apply for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against the High Court’s decision. Notice of application for leave to appeal must be given within 14 days of the High Court decision. Permission can be granted either by the High Court or by the Supreme Court itself. Appeals to the Supreme Court can only be made if the High Court has certified that the case involves a point of law of general public importance.
> Extraditing a requested person
> Unless there is an appeal, a requested person must be extradited within 28 days of the Secretary of State’s decision to order extradition (subject to any appeal).
> What planet are you living on where you don’t think the judge (acting on extrajudicial political orders) is controlling the decision?
This sentence right here is a perfect example of how intensely frustrating these threads are. You do not understand English extradition law, but you're going to post heated rants about the case anyway.
The secretary of state for the Home Office (currently Priti Patel) makes the decision.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/extradition-processes-and-review
The US is a Type A, category 2, territory.
> Requests from these territories need decisions by both the Secretary of State and the courts.
> The extradition process to these territories follows these steps:
extradition request is made to the Secretary of State
Secretary of State decides whether to certify the request
judge decides whether to issue a warrant for arrest
the person wanted is arrested and brought before the court
preliminary hearing
extradition hearing
Secretary of State decides whether to order extradition
> Extradition hearing
> The judge must be satisfied that the conduct amounts to an extradition offence (dual criminality), none of the bars to extradition apply, where applicable, there is prima facie evidence of guilt (in accusation cases), and whether extradition would breach the person’s human rights.
> If the judge is satisfied that all of the procedural requirements are met, and that none of the statutory bars to extradition apply, he or she must send the case to the Secretary of State for a decision to be taken on whether to order extradition.
> Appealing judge’s decision: High Court
> The judge’s decision whether to send a case to the Secretary of State can be appealed. The requested person can ask for permission to appeal the judge’s decision to send the case to the Secretary of State. Any application for permission must be made to the High Court, within 14 days of the date of the judge’s decision. However the High Court will not hear the appeal unless and until the Secretary of State orders the requested person’s extradition (see below).
> If the District Judge orders the requested persons discharge, the requesting state can ask the High Court for permission to appeal that decision. Again, any application for permission to appeal must be made within 14 days of the judge’s order. If the High Court grants permission it will go on to consider the appeal. If the High Court allows the appeal, it will quash the order discharging the requested person and send the case back to the District Judge for a fresh decision to be taken. Secretary of State’s decision
> The Secretary of State must order extradition unless the surrender of a person is prohibited by certain statutory provisions in the 2003 Act. The requested person may make any representations as to why they should not be extradited within 4 weeks of the case being sent to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State is not required to consider any representations received after the expiry of the 4 week period.
> Extradition is prohibited by statute if:
the person could face the death penalty (unless the Secretary of State gets adequate written assurance that the death penalty will not be imposed or, if imposed, will not be carried out)
there are no speciality arrangements with the requesting country – ‘speciality’ requires that the person must be dealt with in the requesting state only for the offences for which they have been extradited (except in certain limited circumstances)
the person has already been extradited to the UK from a third state or transferred from the International Criminal Court and consent for onward extradition is required from that third state or that Court (unless the Secretary of State has received consent)
> The Secretary of State has to make a decision within 2 months of the day the case is sent, otherwise the person may apply to be discharged. However, the Secretary of State can apply to the High Court for an extension of the decision date. More than one extension can be sought if necessary. Appealing Secretary of State’s decision: High Court
> Appeal is only possible with the leave (permission) of the High Court. Notice of application for leave to appeal must be sought within 14 days of extradition being ordered by the Secretary of State or discharge being ordered by the Secretary of State. Any appeal by the requested person against the decision of the judge to send the case to the Secretary of State will be heard at the same time as the appeal against the Secretary of State’s order, assuming permission is granted.
> Appealing High Court decisions: Supreme Court
> A requested person, or a requesting State, can apply for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against the High Court’s decision. Notice of application for leave to appeal must be given within 14 days of the High Court decision. Permission can be granted either by the High Court or by the Supreme Court itself. Appeals to the Supreme Court can only be made if the High Court has certified that the case involves a point of law of general public importance.
> Extraditing a requested person
> Unless there is an appeal, a requested person must be extradited within 28 days of the Secretary of State’s decision to order extradition (subject to any appeal).
> > If the judge is satisfied that all of the procedural requirements are met, and that none of the statutory bars to extradition apply, he or she must send the case to the Secretary of State for a decision to be taken on whether to order extradition.
[...]
> > If the District Judge orders the requested persons discharge, the requesting state can ask the High Court for permission to appeal that decision.
So according to this, essentially the Judge decides if Assange will be extradited or not. If the Judge finds that extradition is not warranted, he will not be extradited (assuming the appeals process finds the same as the judge).
If however the judge decides to send the case to the Secretary of State, then, in this particular case, it is obvious that Assange will be exradited.
So, barring the technicalities, in practice it is exactly the Judge that will decide if Assange will be extradited or not.
[...]
> > If the District Judge orders the requested persons discharge, the requesting state can ask the High Court for permission to appeal that decision.
So according to this, essentially the Judge decides if Assange will be extradited or not. If the Judge finds that extradition is not warranted, he will not be extradited (assuming the appeals process finds the same as the judge).
If however the judge decides to send the case to the Secretary of State, then, in this particular case, it is obvious that Assange will be exradited.
So, barring the technicalities, in practice it is exactly the Judge that will decide if Assange will be extradited or not.
Unfortunately no part of your reply shared any facts with about UK extradition processes that I didn’t already know.
You seem to be deliberately not engaging with what I said and just going on an unrelated tangent about extradition procedures.
You seem to be deliberately not engaging with what I said and just going on an unrelated tangent about extradition procedures.
Thanks for identifying yourself as a supporter of repressive political power over freedom to hold governments to account.
Or do you think there's not actually a horrible precedent to punish whistleblowers here?
Or do you think there's not actually a horrible precedent to punish whistleblowers here?
No one expects report every single day. But when I for instance search CNN on Assange hearing, only at least little bit relevant thing in last month is that on the 10th of September lawyer representing prosecution was suspected to have Covid and hearing was suspend till he was tested.
Do you seriously consider that the most newsworthy part of the hearing?
Do you seriously consider that the most newsworthy part of the hearing?
Indeed, and the last 'mainstream' headline I read was something like "Assange warned over outburst".
It seems to me that there's a global media conspiracy to ignore this case.
It's rather ironic, since it has quite serious implications for media freedom in the future.
Or perhaps it just demonstrates how 'not free' current media is already.
It seems to me that there's a global media conspiracy to ignore this case.
It's rather ironic, since it has quite serious implications for media freedom in the future.
Or perhaps it just demonstrates how 'not free' current media is already.
[deleted]
That is true, but then the MSN is for entertainment and it doesn't function as a fourth estate anymore. That has been the criticism for some time and I think it is pretty on spot. Journalists asking questions is often tantamount how much you can miss the mark that it becomes embarrassing just to listen to it.
That they don't report on every day is understandable, but they also made themselves guilty by accusing people to conspire with Russia. That wasn't entertainment, that was a malicious form of propaganda, not some content tailored to a broad audience.
That they don't report on every day is understandable, but they also made themselves guilty by accusing people to conspire with Russia. That wasn't entertainment, that was a malicious form of propaganda, not some content tailored to a broad audience.
It might be a symptom of the poor state of media nowadays.
I'm not that old at all, but I remember seeing much more streams of constant information on ongoing events back when I was a kid (my father was a journalist so there was a lot of press bought daily at home).
The system is so dependent on cycles and hyperbole that they simply can afford to keep reporting on an ongoing event for a month, even if it's small tidbits, because they fear the audience will be "satiated". Instead, it's going to be an extreme news explosion at the end of the whole thing, when everything is said and done, so they can probably milk/manufacture outrage - but that information will be completely useless to the public by then.
I'm not that old at all, but I remember seeing much more streams of constant information on ongoing events back when I was a kid (my father was a journalist so there was a lot of press bought daily at home).
The system is so dependent on cycles and hyperbole that they simply can afford to keep reporting on an ongoing event for a month, even if it's small tidbits, because they fear the audience will be "satiated". Instead, it's going to be an extreme news explosion at the end of the whole thing, when everything is said and done, so they can probably milk/manufacture outrage - but that information will be completely useless to the public by then.
I follow Assange hearing on Craig's blog for a while and whole trial is really a clown show. No media has the balls to report on it.
Even the Amnesty International monitors are not able to observe the hearings.
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2020/09/why-are-amnes...
Basically, one contended issue was if there was a proof that something important happened: if a razor blade was found by Assange. Prosecution initially claimed it hasn't. Then the direct evidence of the event was shown by the defense, written by a reporting officer. Then the prosecution claimed something like "but there was no punishment of Assange by the Prison Governor".
Then:
"Baraitser, [the judge] who was aware that this was a major car crash, grasped at the same straw Lewis was clinging to in desperation, and said that if the charge had been dismissed, then there was no proof the razor blade existed. Fitzgerald pointed out this was absurd. The charge may have been dismissed for numerous reasons. The existence of the blade was not in doubt. Julian Assange had attested to it and two prison warders had attested to it. Baraitser said that she could only base her view on the decision of the Prison Governor."
"On Thursday Edward Fitzgerald [defense] handed the record of the prison hearing where the charge was discussed to Baraitser. It was a long document. The Governor’s decision was at paragraph 19. Baraitser told Fitzgerald she could not accept the document as it was new evidence. Fitzgerald told her she had herself asked for the outcome of the charge. He said the document contained very interesting information. Baraitser said that the Governor’s decision was at paragraph 19, that was all she had asked for, and she would refuse to take the rest of the document into consideration."
Basically, the document seems to contain the statement that the razor blade was found (edit: or, as some point out, something else that would be very inconvenient for the prosecution). The judge refuses to accept the document even after saying that "she could only base her view on the decision of the Prison Governor" appearing to cherry picking only one paragraph of the existing document which doesn't contain the claim.
If true, that's definitely a new low that I couldn't have imagined could happen.
Everybody should read the whole report to see for themselves even more details about what was happening there.
Then:
"Baraitser, [the judge] who was aware that this was a major car crash, grasped at the same straw Lewis was clinging to in desperation, and said that if the charge had been dismissed, then there was no proof the razor blade existed. Fitzgerald pointed out this was absurd. The charge may have been dismissed for numerous reasons. The existence of the blade was not in doubt. Julian Assange had attested to it and two prison warders had attested to it. Baraitser said that she could only base her view on the decision of the Prison Governor."
"On Thursday Edward Fitzgerald [defense] handed the record of the prison hearing where the charge was discussed to Baraitser. It was a long document. The Governor’s decision was at paragraph 19. Baraitser told Fitzgerald she could not accept the document as it was new evidence. Fitzgerald told her she had herself asked for the outcome of the charge. He said the document contained very interesting information. Baraitser said that the Governor’s decision was at paragraph 19, that was all she had asked for, and she would refuse to take the rest of the document into consideration."
Basically, the document seems to contain the statement that the razor blade was found (edit: or, as some point out, something else that would be very inconvenient for the prosecution). The judge refuses to accept the document even after saying that "she could only base her view on the decision of the Prison Governor" appearing to cherry picking only one paragraph of the existing document which doesn't contain the claim.
If true, that's definitely a new low that I couldn't have imagined could happen.
Everybody should read the whole report to see for themselves even more details about what was happening there.
I never thought I'd see the day when a judge is so obviously guilty of perjury.
Either this is a joke, or you have not looked at any recorded history of judicial proceedings. Judges often have incredible power with few oversights.
You do see it the most in situations like this, where the accused is a target of the state or poor or otherwise can't defend themselves.
You do see it the most in situations like this, where the accused is a target of the state or poor or otherwise can't defend themselves.
Why is the judge guilty of perjury? Certainly her decisions have been questionable, and she will probably be criticised by the High Court, but perjury is specifically about lying under oath -- and she hasn't done that.
Clearly, she has not lied under oath. It is the prosecution that lied in misleading the witness on material facts, in which she is assisting. In these new times we might say she has conspired to commit perjury in High Court.
Prosecution can't commit perjury - only witnesses and interpreters can, given the statutory basis for perjury which is preferred to any common law perjury.
She might've committed misconduct in public office.
She might've committed misconduct in public office.
[deleted]
[deleted]
"if the charge had been dismissed, then there was no proof the razor blade existed" is an out-and-out lie (as well as a ridiculous non-sequitur), there is proof in the documents she will not admit to the court.
In the UK, judges are required take the Judicial oath: https://www.judiciary.uk/about-the-judiciary/the-judiciary-t...
In the UK, judges are required take the Judicial oath: https://www.judiciary.uk/about-the-judiciary/the-judiciary-t...
Yes, they are - but it's not perjury which relates specifically to witnesses and interpreters. It could well be misconduct in public office, or something though.
This judge sounds like a real piece of work.
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Vanessa_Baraitser#.22Sneers_and_...
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Vanessa_Baraitser#.22Sneers_and_...
> Unlike our adversaries including the Integrity Initiative, the 77th Brigade, Bellingcat, the Atlantic Council and hundreds of other warmongering propaganda operations,
epic, huge, massive grain of salt as he's a known conspiracy theory fan with a wide array of issues.
epic, huge, massive grain of salt as he's a known conspiracy theory fan with a wide array of issues.
He definitely has a grudge against bellingcat. He had a big spat over the identities of the Skripal poisoners, but ended up looking like he was just making it up.
The nicest way I can think of Murray politically is as one of these people who is not supportive of the west's enemies but sufficiently anti-western to end up aligning with them. Calling Bellingcat warmongerers is an example of this.
The nicest way I can think of Murray politically is as one of these people who is not supportive of the west's enemies but sufficiently anti-western to end up aligning with them. Calling Bellingcat warmongerers is an example of this.
He doesn't seem to be wrong, though. Bellingcat has all the indicators of one of those typical intelligence information/disinformation outlets close to one or more intelligence agencies.
I personally find it rather entertaining that Bellingcat has won the Machiavelli Award for public communication. I didn't know it existed and find it hard to believe that someone would accept an award in that name.
I personally find it rather entertaining that Bellingcat has won the Machiavelli Award for public communication. I didn't know it existed and find it hard to believe that someone would accept an award in that name.
1. How does that imply warmongering
2. What have they been wrong about?
Bellingcat are probably being fed clues by the western intelligence services but that just makes them one source amongst many - even if they knew they answer prior to using OSINT that doesn't make them wrong. Murray is contrarian as long as he breathes, of course he would say that.
Craig Murray was (this on his word keep in mind) apparently approached with DNC emails in a clandestine manner just as he was publicly pooh-poohing the Russia connection - if hes not making it up someone tried the same thing but from the other side.
2. What have they been wrong about?
Bellingcat are probably being fed clues by the western intelligence services but that just makes them one source amongst many - even if they knew they answer prior to using OSINT that doesn't make them wrong. Murray is contrarian as long as he breathes, of course he would say that.
Craig Murray was (this on his word keep in mind) apparently approached with DNC emails in a clandestine manner just as he was publicly pooh-poohing the Russia connection - if hes not making it up someone tried the same thing but from the other side.
Bellingcat sure does seem like a front for the UK intelligence services. A way for intelligence to release information to the media without having to be named as a source.
UK/US are known to have fabricated pretexts for war in Iraq.
If you put the two together then you get Murray's position. Bellingcat are the intelligence services. The intelligence services are warmongers. And so the Russia publications are warmongering.
I don't personally accept it as logical, I think Russia was probably responsible for the attacks, but maybe the world does need people who put reputation above fact.
UK/US are known to have fabricated pretexts for war in Iraq.
If you put the two together then you get Murray's position. Bellingcat are the intelligence services. The intelligence services are warmongers. And so the Russia publications are warmongering.
I don't personally accept it as logical, I think Russia was probably responsible for the attacks, but maybe the world does need people who put reputation above fact.
> maybe the world does need people who put reputation above fact.
I don’t follow.
I don’t follow.
People on this forum are usually interested in programming and skew to the hyper-logical end of the spectrum, myself included. For us, facts are paramount, as you cannot think logically without a solid factual basis.
Not every person puts logic at the forefront of their thinking, in fact most people don't. In this case, Murray seems to consider the reputation of UK/US as warmongers, as evidence that that is what they are attempting do with Russia.
It is useful to have people who think in heterogenous ways. At the very least, Murray reminds us to give low weight to information obtained from state intelligence when that information is about an adversary of that state. You don't have to agree with his conclusion to find his thinking useful.
Not every person puts logic at the forefront of their thinking, in fact most people don't. In this case, Murray seems to consider the reputation of UK/US as warmongers, as evidence that that is what they are attempting do with Russia.
It is useful to have people who think in heterogenous ways. At the very least, Murray reminds us to give low weight to information obtained from state intelligence when that information is about an adversary of that state. You don't have to agree with his conclusion to find his thinking useful.
[deleted]
i really really don't get how this guy ends up on the first page of HN. he clearly has issues:
> As a blogger, he tried to dispute Russia’s involvement in the Salisbury poisonings and has written about Salmond’s acquittal on sexual offences charges.
> Murray has claimed “corrupt” institutions conspired against the former First Minister and insists the former First Minister's female accusers lied.
> He also wrote about having “definite good source information” about MI5’s involvement in the Salmond allegations - a claim that led to him being mocked.
tldr: Cults and conspiracy theories offer the easy answer to hard reality
or as one of his friends put it: > He is profiting from fuelling the conspiracy theories that have no concrete basis.
> As a blogger, he tried to dispute Russia’s involvement in the Salisbury poisonings and has written about Salmond’s acquittal on sexual offences charges.
> Murray has claimed “corrupt” institutions conspired against the former First Minister and insists the former First Minister's female accusers lied.
> He also wrote about having “definite good source information” about MI5’s involvement in the Salmond allegations - a claim that led to him being mocked.
tldr: Cults and conspiracy theories offer the easy answer to hard reality
or as one of his friends put it: > He is profiting from fuelling the conspiracy theories that have no concrete basis.
He ends up on the first page of HN because there is hardly any reporting of the extradition hearing.
If the press was doing its job, his reporting wouldn't be necessary.
If the press was doing its job, his reporting wouldn't be necessary.
I think his background as a UK ambassador who was then hounded by the UK establishment[0] has given him a frame of reference where it's hard not to see conspiracies.
However, it's true he is currently being taken to court by the Scottish government for contempt of court over his reporting of the Salmond case. That's not something that happens to the average conspiracy nutjob.
[0] and yeah, I totally believe his stories of the UK political establishment closing ranks against an outsider. I grew up in that world, and that chummy upper-class clubhouse can get very cold and hostile very quickly. It also has very long reach.
However, it's true he is currently being taken to court by the Scottish government for contempt of court over his reporting of the Salmond case. That's not something that happens to the average conspiracy nutjob.
[0] and yeah, I totally believe his stories of the UK political establishment closing ranks against an outsider. I grew up in that world, and that chummy upper-class clubhouse can get very cold and hostile very quickly. It also has very long reach.
Having issues is not a disqualifier from HN. If there's a better source, mods would switch it. But no one else is reporting on this major event.
[deleted]
Hard reality is that intelligence agencies conspired against the current president of the US with a story of Russian collusion and tried to frame innocents. These agencies have issues, because that was a clear conspiracy.
Journalists can be wrong, but we have seen direct propaganda that mirrors the talking points of some of these institutions. The Atlantic council for example is broad, doesn't mean anything to attend their parties, but it certainly is an influential network that should be put under scrutiny.
Bellingcat did some good investigative work, but is also connected to the Atlantic Council and I think they just look into a certain direction for recognition purposes. In contrast to Wikileaks for example.
Journalists can be wrong, but we have seen direct propaganda that mirrors the talking points of some of these institutions. The Atlantic council for example is broad, doesn't mean anything to attend their parties, but it certainly is an influential network that should be put under scrutiny.
Bellingcat did some good investigative work, but is also connected to the Atlantic Council and I think they just look into a certain direction for recognition purposes. In contrast to Wikileaks for example.
The number of associates of the President who have received criminal convictions is remarkable, many of whom have links to Russian economic crime of one sort or another. Are you saying that all these convictions are framed? https://www.axios.com/trump-associates-convicted-mueller-inv...
Association isn't evidence of anything. FBI attorney Kevin Clinesmith pleading guilty is and spying did happen, that is quite factual.
This isn't an argument for Trump being a good or bad person, it is about certain intelligence agencies have stifled democratic processes in the worst matter imaginable.
This isn't an argument for Trump being a good or bad person, it is about certain intelligence agencies have stifled democratic processes in the worst matter imaginable.
To summarize:
* The prosecution claimed that Assange had not been caught with a razor. The reason for denying this is that hiding a razor suggests Assange might be thinking of suicide.
* The defense pointed out that an official report from the prison confirmed that Assange had hidden a razor in his cell. The prosecution is surely aware of this report. In plain English, the prosecution lied to the court. The judge refuses to consider the prison report, however, because it is new evidence.
* Defense claims that Assange was moved to the healthcare ward because of suicidal thoughts. The prosecution claims that he was moved there so that he could be put in isolation, so that the prison would not be embarrassed by more leaked photos of Assange. In other words, the official line is that the prison concocted false medical pretenses to put Assange in solitary confinement.
* The prosecution claimed that Assange had not been caught with a razor. The reason for denying this is that hiding a razor suggests Assange might be thinking of suicide.
* The defense pointed out that an official report from the prison confirmed that Assange had hidden a razor in his cell. The prosecution is surely aware of this report. In plain English, the prosecution lied to the court. The judge refuses to consider the prison report, however, because it is new evidence.
* Defense claims that Assange was moved to the healthcare ward because of suicidal thoughts. The prosecution claims that he was moved there so that he could be put in isolation, so that the prison would not be embarrassed by more leaked photos of Assange. In other words, the official line is that the prison concocted false medical pretenses to put Assange in solitary confinement.
Either they are planning to kill him and frame it as a suicide, or his life has been made so miserable that suicide appears to be an escape. Both are awful to consider.
I'm not informed enough to know whether any of the leaks he facilitated lead to the unnecessary harm of innocent people, but I deeply respect his dedication to the truth. As far as I know he has not outed his sources. We should aspire to be as brave as the likes of Assange and Snowden.
I'm not informed enough to know whether any of the leaks he facilitated lead to the unnecessary harm of innocent people, but I deeply respect his dedication to the truth. As far as I know he has not outed his sources. We should aspire to be as brave as the likes of Assange and Snowden.
Well some argue his dump of emails coordinated with a now pardoned US political operative helped push one candidate over another.
It had a pretty negative impact on many lives. Somewhat ironically hurting the concept of “truth” in politics.
It had a pretty negative impact on many lives. Somewhat ironically hurting the concept of “truth” in politics.
If you like arresting your political adversaries I'd recommending moving to a country like Belarus. I hear they also like disappearing journalists who expose truth regardless of the political inconvenience.
ends-justifying-the-means thinking leads to very ugly things.
ends-justifying-the-means thinking leads to very ugly things.
You should be upset with the DNC members whose behavior was exposed by the emails. Those DNC members destabilized the election with their behavior, not Assange.
Assange reported it.
You seem to have the blame completely reversed. Assange did not perpetrate behavior that destabilized an election or facilitated a Trump win, not one bit. Democrat party leaders did that and have only themselves to blame.
Assange reported it.
Assange reported it.
You seem to have the blame completely reversed. Assange did not perpetrate behavior that destabilized an election or facilitated a Trump win, not one bit. Democrat party leaders did that and have only themselves to blame.
Assange reported it.
Refusing to leak information about the republican campaign is unfair.
Working with Trump campaign is destabilizing. Both of those are true, factual statements. Wikileaks did both.
Working with Trump campaign is destabilizing. Both of those are true, factual statements. Wikileaks did both.
Wikileaks did neither.
That's contrary to the findings of the special council, who found that wikileaks did communicate and possibly coordinate with the Trump campaign.
It is not contrary. There are allegations of coordinating with the Trump campaign, but there was no proof and ultimately no charges.
Ultimately no charges yes, but not because there was no proof of wikileaks working with the Trump campaign.
Your can argue that the acts weekend criminal or they were not charged for political reasons, but either way they did happen, and were coordination with the campaign.
Your can argue that the acts weekend criminal or they were not charged for political reasons, but either way they did happen, and were coordination with the campaign.
There was no behavior uncovered by the emails that were unfair or destabilizing. However, reporting of the emails frame them as such. It was the false or out-of-context reporting that was destabilizing. But this was the intent from the start. It turns out information without context is just as bad as outright fabrications.
> “ There was no behavior uncovered by the emails that were unfair or destabilizing.“
Yes there was.
> “ It was the false or out-of-context reporting that was destabilizing.“
No it was not.
> “ But this was the intent from the start.”
No it was not.
> “ It turns out information without context is just as bad as outright fabrications.”
This statement has no relationship with the leaked DNC emails.
Yes there was.
> “ It was the false or out-of-context reporting that was destabilizing.“
No it was not.
> “ But this was the intent from the start.”
No it was not.
> “ It turns out information without context is just as bad as outright fabrications.”
This statement has no relationship with the leaked DNC emails.
Of course misrepresentation was the intent, since Russia hacked the DNC emails and leaked them for political gain.
>This statement has no relationship with the leaked DNC emails.
Utter nonsense. Perhaps you can do better than assertions?
>This statement has no relationship with the leaked DNC emails.
Utter nonsense. Perhaps you can do better than assertions?
Assange did not reveal a source for the leaked emails, and in fact claims the source is not Russian,
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/julian-as...
Whether hackers intended to disrupt an election or not, the behavior described in the emails is still the fault of those DNC members who perpetrated those actions.
You’re acting like if they had kept the manipulation of the Democratic primary a secret, we’d be better off, and that by revealing it (as opposed to perpetrating it in the first place) publishers like Assange caused harm - which is ridiculous.
The behavior itself - the content of what was published - caused harm because it was dishonest, manipulative, harmful behavior. The publisher did not cause harm by describing someone else’s harmful behavior. “Russian hackers” did not cause harm by taking possession of documents that proved the harmful behavior of others.
It’s like if a sitting president referred to dead service men and women as “losers” and “suckers” you somehow think a newspaper causes harm by publishing that truth, because it might whip up the electorate, and you are blind to the fact that it’s not the newspaper’s choice to publish that is doing anything or causing anything. The blame lies squarely with the person who actually perpetrated the published behaviors - like the president calling fallen soldiers losers and suckers.
Your moral compass on this is completely haywire.
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/julian-as...
Whether hackers intended to disrupt an election or not, the behavior described in the emails is still the fault of those DNC members who perpetrated those actions.
You’re acting like if they had kept the manipulation of the Democratic primary a secret, we’d be better off, and that by revealing it (as opposed to perpetrating it in the first place) publishers like Assange caused harm - which is ridiculous.
The behavior itself - the content of what was published - caused harm because it was dishonest, manipulative, harmful behavior. The publisher did not cause harm by describing someone else’s harmful behavior. “Russian hackers” did not cause harm by taking possession of documents that proved the harmful behavior of others.
It’s like if a sitting president referred to dead service men and women as “losers” and “suckers” you somehow think a newspaper causes harm by publishing that truth, because it might whip up the electorate, and you are blind to the fact that it’s not the newspaper’s choice to publish that is doing anything or causing anything. The blame lies squarely with the person who actually perpetrated the published behaviors - like the president calling fallen soldiers losers and suckers.
Your moral compass on this is completely haywire.
>Assange did not reveal a source for the leaked emails, and in fact claims the source is not Russian,
Assange's denials about Russia's involvement aren't credible on its face. The question is whether Russia hacked the DNC emails that Assange published. Assange fundamentally has no knowledge of the origin of the emails as the final stop in potentially multi-person hand off, unless he was involved in the hacking.
We also have multiple intelligence agencies, foreign and domestic, that have confirmed the source of the hack. Not to mention the context of the election, Trumps close ties with Russia and Russian agents, and the broad and multifaceted attempts at hacking the election attributed to Russia (disinformation farms, hacking state election networks), it is far past the point of reasonable to defend the theory that Russia didn't hack the DNC.
>You’re acting like if they had kept the manipulation of the Democratic primary a secret
But there was no manipulation. There were things that could be framed as manipulation, which people did, and that caused unfair damage to the Democrats and to democracy. It's like if there were two sellers of sausages and one of them had their sausage-making process recorded and leaked online. The other sausage maker goes "see their sausages are disgusting, buy ours instead!" all the while their sausages are made in the exact same way. It is unbalanced transparency that is inherently manipulative. It is a self-serving lie to pretend otherwise.
>It’s like if a sitting president referred to dead service men and women as “losers” and “suckers” you somehow think a newspaper causes harm by publishing that truth
No, its not like that. A sitting president's words are a valid source of news. The internal machinations of a private organization are not a valid source of news unless wrongdoing is documented. But no such wrongdoing was documented. It was all gossip and fodder for misrepresentation.
Assange's denials about Russia's involvement aren't credible on its face. The question is whether Russia hacked the DNC emails that Assange published. Assange fundamentally has no knowledge of the origin of the emails as the final stop in potentially multi-person hand off, unless he was involved in the hacking.
We also have multiple intelligence agencies, foreign and domestic, that have confirmed the source of the hack. Not to mention the context of the election, Trumps close ties with Russia and Russian agents, and the broad and multifaceted attempts at hacking the election attributed to Russia (disinformation farms, hacking state election networks), it is far past the point of reasonable to defend the theory that Russia didn't hack the DNC.
>You’re acting like if they had kept the manipulation of the Democratic primary a secret
But there was no manipulation. There were things that could be framed as manipulation, which people did, and that caused unfair damage to the Democrats and to democracy. It's like if there were two sellers of sausages and one of them had their sausage-making process recorded and leaked online. The other sausage maker goes "see their sausages are disgusting, buy ours instead!" all the while their sausages are made in the exact same way. It is unbalanced transparency that is inherently manipulative. It is a self-serving lie to pretend otherwise.
>It’s like if a sitting president referred to dead service men and women as “losers” and “suckers” you somehow think a newspaper causes harm by publishing that truth
No, its not like that. A sitting president's words are a valid source of news. The internal machinations of a private organization are not a valid source of news unless wrongdoing is documented. But no such wrongdoing was documented. It was all gossip and fodder for misrepresentation.
Without going into murkier territories like bias
Unfair - debate questions were leaked to Hillary ahead of time.
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/donna-brazile-hillary...
Destabilizing - the Hillary campaign promoted Trump as a candidate.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/11/hillary-clin...
Unfair - debate questions were leaked to Hillary ahead of time.
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/donna-brazile-hillary...
Destabilizing - the Hillary campaign promoted Trump as a candidate.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/11/hillary-clin...
>Unfair - debate questions were leaked to Hillary ahead of time.
Brazile on leaking debate questions[1]:
>My job was to make all our Democratic candidates look good, and I worked closely with both campaigns to make that happen.
Tad Devine, senior aid to Bernie's campaign on the debate questions leak[2]:
>She would get in touch all the time for guidance, so I can verify her recollection on this issue
So the question of whether the leak was "unfair to Bernie" is not established. The fact that Bernie never responded critically of the leak suggests Brazile's actions weren't unusual for either side. But this just underscores the fact that a lack of context and selective leaking allows one to present a false narrative.
>Destabilizing - the Hillary campaign promoted Trump as a candidate.
Promoting Trump was certainly a miscalculation. But it was not at all "destabilizing" in the sense the OP meant.
[1] https://time.com/4705515/donna-brazile-russia-emails-clinton...
[2] https://www.chicagotribune.com/nation-world/la-na-trailguide...
Brazile on leaking debate questions[1]:
>My job was to make all our Democratic candidates look good, and I worked closely with both campaigns to make that happen.
Tad Devine, senior aid to Bernie's campaign on the debate questions leak[2]:
>She would get in touch all the time for guidance, so I can verify her recollection on this issue
So the question of whether the leak was "unfair to Bernie" is not established. The fact that Bernie never responded critically of the leak suggests Brazile's actions weren't unusual for either side. But this just underscores the fact that a lack of context and selective leaking allows one to present a false narrative.
>Destabilizing - the Hillary campaign promoted Trump as a candidate.
Promoting Trump was certainly a miscalculation. But it was not at all "destabilizing" in the sense the OP meant.
[1] https://time.com/4705515/donna-brazile-russia-emails-clinton...
[2] https://www.chicagotribune.com/nation-world/la-na-trailguide...
> So the question of whether the leak was "unfair to Bernie" is not established
Even if the questions were being leaked to ALL candidates (no solid proof exists) it is deceiving the public who believe the the candidates to have no forward knowledge of the questions. Or alternatively, it's unfair to the republicans who don't have advance knowledge of questions in their own debates and are unable to appear as clever on their feet as their counterparts. Or it's a disadvantage to candidates that are able to better think on their feet, and don't need to prepare, although you could argue that they were already unfairly advantaged.
> Promoting Trump was certainly a miscalculation. But it was not at all "destabilizing" in the sense the OP meant.
I'm not sure what the OP meant by destabilizing, but it's clear that Trump triumphing did have destabilizing effects on US politics. If you mean destabilizing in terms of intra-party politics, then I would be happy to take your word for it but argue that you're being overly narrow.
Full disclosure - I'm probable biased in being from outside the US, not having any skin in the election outcome, and just enjoying the transparency provided. From the outside, at least to me, it looks like a win for democracy. Hopefully future candidates play above board more often because they realize they have higher chances of being exposed in the modern world.
Even if the questions were being leaked to ALL candidates (no solid proof exists) it is deceiving the public who believe the the candidates to have no forward knowledge of the questions. Or alternatively, it's unfair to the republicans who don't have advance knowledge of questions in their own debates and are unable to appear as clever on their feet as their counterparts. Or it's a disadvantage to candidates that are able to better think on their feet, and don't need to prepare, although you could argue that they were already unfairly advantaged.
> Promoting Trump was certainly a miscalculation. But it was not at all "destabilizing" in the sense the OP meant.
I'm not sure what the OP meant by destabilizing, but it's clear that Trump triumphing did have destabilizing effects on US politics. If you mean destabilizing in terms of intra-party politics, then I would be happy to take your word for it but argue that you're being overly narrow.
Full disclosure - I'm probable biased in being from outside the US, not having any skin in the election outcome, and just enjoying the transparency provided. From the outside, at least to me, it looks like a win for democracy. Hopefully future candidates play above board more often because they realize they have higher chances of being exposed in the modern world.
It’s a shame to see tribalistic downvoting on this. It’s just stating facts that render the parent comment fundamentally inaccurate. There’s nothing to downvote, there’s no possible angle of interpretation or disagreement.
Downvoting this is equivalent to saying “Assange is bad no matter what the facts or evidence shows.”
Downvoting this is equivalent to saying “Assange is bad no matter what the facts or evidence shows.”
Based on currently available information I view snowden on a different tier to assange.
Assange has always been a political activist as well as whatever else he is, whereas Snowden is much less active. The relations wikileaks had with the Trump campaign and GRU do make me somewhat less sympathetic with him.
On a smaller scale wikileaks have on multiple occasions published lists containing innocent bystanders's full contact and card details - this is clearly a statement in and of itself (not Redacting the details of someone who made a $50 donation to the democrats is wrong and meditated)
Assange has always been a political activist as well as whatever else he is, whereas Snowden is much less active. The relations wikileaks had with the Trump campaign and GRU do make me somewhat less sympathetic with him.
On a smaller scale wikileaks have on multiple occasions published lists containing innocent bystanders's full contact and card details - this is clearly a statement in and of itself (not Redacting the details of someone who made a $50 donation to the democrats is wrong and meditated)
That's a good point, I had not thought of it in those terms. Snowden was much more "I saw something wrong and I did something about it".
Assange built an organization dedicated to uncovering wrong things.
He did. And somewhere along the line, he also realized, "How can I use this organization to _also_ support my ideologies?"
If they didn't enter the prison report into evidence then surely they've just shot themselves in the foot?
My vague understanding is that you are allowed to enter evidence to impeach someone (show that they are lying) at any time, most notably right after they lied.
I cound be wrong, but this trial has not inspired confidence in the judge actually following the law so I'm not taking the court ruling otherwise as the strong evidence that I normally would.
I cound be wrong, but this trial has not inspired confidence in the judge actually following the law so I'm not taking the court ruling otherwise as the strong evidence that I normally would.
> My vague understanding is that you are allowed to enter evidence to impeach someone (show that they are lying) at any time, most notably right after they lied.
In England and Wales, yeah, as long as the other rules are met (it's of value, relevant, not extremely prejudicial to the defendant, not hearsay, etc.)
You wouldn't impeach them though. It could be perjury if they lied under oath, but otherwise it would just be standard discrediting of a given person.
In England and Wales, yeah, as long as the other rules are met (it's of value, relevant, not extremely prejudicial to the defendant, not hearsay, etc.)
You wouldn't impeach them though. It could be perjury if they lied under oath, but otherwise it would just be standard discrediting of a given person.
For some reason calling into question the credibility of a witness is generally called impeaching them in common law... never figured out why. Why isn't that the right term here?
I have no clue about the UK, but are their laws such that state attorney are allowed to actively lie to a judge and make false statements?
In the UK, all lawyers have an overriding duty to the court. This means they must not mislead the court. Doing so can lead to losing the ability to practice law.
Once again it shows what a kangaroo court is Assange hearing.
It's the continuation of the previous mistreatment:
https://www.lawyersforassange.org/en/open-letter.html
https://www.lawyersforassange.org/en/open-letter.html
kmlx(2)
I don't see how the razor blade has anything to do with mental illness in this case... I think anyone in Assange's position would be perfectly sane to consider suicide. The world is a truly messed up place these days and especially for him. If anything, it's a sign of his sanity.
Harrowing.
I'm very curious how someone in solitary confinement would get a razor blade.
What do you think "solitary confinement" is, and why do you think that would make contraband harder to obtain and hide?
(Also, it's called segregation in England).
You can get a rough idea of searching in this document (p46) https://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/sites/crimeandjustice.org...
You can get a rough idea of how poor English prisons are from this link: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/sep/03/two-in-five-...
(Also, it's called segregation in England).
You can get a rough idea of searching in this document (p46) https://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/sites/crimeandjustice.org...
You can get a rough idea of how poor English prisons are from this link: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/sep/03/two-in-five-...
Well, it sounds like fewer interactions with people, and so fewer opportunities to get a razor blade.
abellerose(2)
The US seems to have a hard-on also for members of the "Rosa-Luxembourg Stiftung" who insulted the empire by giving talks about their illegal drone wars[2][3] and shed light on how German engineers were working as sub-contractors for US airbases in Germany (as data scientist and software engineers).
EU countries, especially Germany, France (I have less hope for Eastern-EU or Sweden) need to stop extraditions to US of A stat. Also these US terrorists dressed up as politicians need to be sanctioned (I understand this is a pipe dream) and prosecuted at the ICC (another pipe dream).
---
[0] (in German) https://www.heise.de/tp/features/USA-spaehten-fuer-Assange-A...
[1] https://hyperelliptic.org/tanja/students.html
[2] https://media.ccc.de/v/32c3-7259-graphs_drones_phones
[3] https://www.rosalux.de/dokumentation/id/14090/drone-warfare-...