[HN Gopher] Craig Murray will surrender himself for prison
___________________________________________________________________
Craig Murray will surrender himself for prison
Author : jjgreen
Score : 285 points
Date : 2021-07-30 12:00 UTC (11 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (thedissenter.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (thedissenter.org)
| mandmandam wrote:
| This isn't just brazenly corrupt retribution; it's also brazen
| witness tampering.
| billytetrud wrote:
| And people wonder why Snowden didn't turn himself in
| tablespoon wrote:
| > And people wonder why Snowden didn't turn himself in
|
| Because he literally confessed to breaking a number of very
| serious laws?
|
| Literally his only hopes of escaping a conviction are 1) a
| prosecutor refusing to charge him (snowball's chance in hell),
| 2) a pardon, 3) some kind jury nullification. Whatever you
| think about the morality of his actions, what he did was
| indisputably illegal. "I thought I was doing the right thing,
| and many people agree," is not an actual legal defense.
|
| And honestly, I think if Snowden had turned himself in, it
| would have made him _more_ admirable and brave, and place his
| actions clearly in the "civil disobedience" category.
| billytetrud wrote:
| What Snowden did was herioc and needed to happen. The fact
| that he had to break awful oppressive laws to do it is an
| indictment of the laws, not Snowden.
| andrewaylett wrote:
| In a democracy, any laws preventing release of government
| secrets really should come with a public interest defence.
| tablespoon wrote:
| > What Snowden did was herioc and needed to happen. The
| fact that he had to break awful oppressive laws to do it is
| an indictment of the laws, not Snowden.
|
| The laws he broke weren't awful and oppressive, it's just
| that "legal" and "moral" are categories that will never
| completely align.
| matthewmacleod wrote:
| I've often been surprised to see enthusiastic admiration for
| Craig Murray in this forum in particular. He's an outright raving
| conspiracy theorist, in this case painfully obviously sneaking
| out information about witnesses in a rape trial in part because
| of his belief that the trial was part of a massive state
| conspiracy.
|
| His commentary on the Assange trial was so overwhelmingly and
| obviously biased that it was impossible to derive any useful
| objective information, so it was very strange to see him so
| heavily promoted.
|
| It just seems like it would be possible you might object to the
| treatment of Assange--or be concerned about the trial's effect on
| free speech--without weirdly uncritical promotion of such an
| unreliable and unsympathetic narrator. At least it would be wise
| to treat anything he says with extreme skepticism.
| probably_wrong wrote:
| > _His commentary on the Assange trial was so overwhelmingly
| and obviously biased that it was impossible to derive any
| useful objective information_
|
| I don't know anything about his other works, but AFAIK he was
| the only one reporting what was going on in detail during
| Assange's trial. I respect him for that.
|
| I read criticism similar to yours before, but I can't shake a
| simple question: if there are better reporters out there, where
| were they during the trial?
| [deleted]
| gadders wrote:
| >> sneaking out information about witnesses in a rape trial
|
| Citation needed. Did he "sneak" out any more information than
| was in newspapers?
|
| And given how Nicola Sturgeon lied to parliament etc, there is
| decent evidence it was an SNP (not the state even though the
| SNP thinks they are the state) conspiracy.
| matthewmacleod wrote:
| > Citation needed. Did he "sneak" out any more information
| than was in newspapers?
|
| Yes. Feel free to read the court's judgment for more
| information.
|
| > And given how Nicola Sturgeon lied to parliament etc, there
| is decent evidence it was an SNP (not the state even though
| the SNP thinks they are the state) conspiracy.
|
| I think it's safe to say that this statement demonstrates you
| are not interested in any good-faith discussion on this
| matter.
| seanhunter wrote:
| This case literally is the citation. He was found to have
| done this, which is why he will go to jail.
| imwillofficial wrote:
| > outright raving conspiracy theorist
|
| I guess in this instance "They" were really out to get Him, eh?
| imwillofficial wrote:
| > obviously biased that it was impossible to derive any useful
| objective information
|
| You mean to tell me He was obvious on His position? He didn't
| pretend to be objective, an impossible effort for any human?
| I'm shocked, shocked I tell you!
|
| My friend, that's a feature, not a bug. Journalistic
| objectivity is a meme.
| the_optimist wrote:
| Do you think it's acceptable to persecute people who don't
| agree with you? Who you don't like?
|
| Equal rights under the law means equal rights. Not that you
| defend your friends, hang your enemies.
| [deleted]
| mhh__ wrote:
| Couldn't this argument basically be used against any court
| case short of there being footage of the defendant holding a
| gun next to a body? You can nearly always construe some kind
| of narrative like this in a "political" case, I'm not sure
| it's specific enough.
| TheOtherHobbes wrote:
| No. Because - until recently - government critics rarely
| ended up in court.
| lazide wrote:
| That's pretty clearly not true - there have always been
| politically motivated prosecutions, witchhunts, and shady
| dealings of various flavors in every government I've been
| able to find decent records for.
|
| Recently here in the US, it's been everything from 'The
| Red Scare' and McCarthyism to Hoover era FBI attacking
| and undermining every 'revolutionary' group that wasn't
| upholding the status quo in the 60's-70's - and many
| more. That includes everything from attempted blackmail
| on Martin Luther King to COINTELPRO (documented, not a
| conspiracy theory). And that's what has leaked - there is
| almost certainly more that never had a solid paper trail.
| mhh__ wrote:
| But you're kind of doing it now. You could be right, but
| currently the reference point of our comments is the
| political aspect to the case rather than whether he
| committed a crime or not.
| teddyh wrote:
| "For my friends, everything; for my enemies, the law."
| upofadown wrote:
| Who better than a conspiracy theorist to report on actual
| conspiracies?
| 0110101001 wrote:
| He claimed that he received the DNC and Podesta e-mails from
| a disgruntled DNC source in a park and forwarded them to
| WikiLeaks on Assange's behalf. He lacks any credibility. Even
| Assange had to tell people that "Craig Murray is not
| authorized to talk on behalf of WikiLeaks," afterwards.
| mhh__ wrote:
| Anyone reading this is free to make of Murray what they
| want but I genuinely think he is a textbook useful idiot.
| He obviously has a grudge against the west, sometimes he's
| a useful counterpoint but other times he's literally just
| spreading FUD in favour of whoever is not the west (i.e.
| they weren't GRU agents, they were a gay couple, honest!)
| tablespoon wrote:
| > Who better than a conspiracy theorist to report on actual
| conspiracies?
|
| Conspiracy theorists don't typically report on real
| conspiracies, they report on imagined ones.
|
| So having a conspiracy theorist report on a real conspiracy
| can actually have the effect of making the real conspiracy
| less believable (e.g. a stopped clock may be right twice a
| day, but you'll disbelieve it even then).
| semanticsbitch wrote:
| So said absolutely nothing new here and ignored the
| question asked to you
| user-the-name wrote:
| Literally anyone would be better to report on it.
|
| Conspiracy theorists are _absolutely awful_ at reporting
| facts. When talking about things that are actually true, they
| often still manage to mix in so many untrue and misleading
| things that the actual truth gets clouded.
| TheOtherHobbes wrote:
| The UK's tabloid media are _even worse_ at reporting facts.
| They 're also notorious for hacking phones and spying on
| people.
|
| Murray may or may not have done something stupid, he may or
| may not have said things that were inaccurate.
|
| But he's still basically a blogger with a relatively
| insignificant profile. Not a national figure with a huge
| reach.
|
| When an ancient law gets dusted off and thrown at someone
| like him, while much more obvious media transgressions are
| ignored, it becomes very hard to conclude that this has
| anything to do with a disinterested thirst for fairness and
| justice.
| user-the-name wrote:
| They are absolutely godawful, yes. But worse than
| conspiracy theorists? No.
|
| And he got the law thrown at him and they did not for the
| simple reason that he broke the law, and they did not.
| ameminator wrote:
| All these things may be true, but even then, at least he was
| _there_ at the Assange trial. No other source was a as diligent
| or up to date with their reporting, even if it was biased.
|
| Even if you believe all these bad things about him, I don't
| believe someone should be jailed for reporting in general. In
| specific, I don't see how the facts support a conviction - the
| way the argument for "jigsaw" identification of witnesses was
| used could apply to _any_ and all reporting about a court case.
| No reasonable standard was used (in my opinion).
|
| Do you think it's alright to put someone in jail because you
| don't like them?
| ChrisKnott wrote:
| What part of GP's post made you think they supporting jailing
| people you don't like?
| ameminator wrote:
| Well, it seemed implied to me. The original post was about
| Craig Murray being sent to jail. There are other comments
| in this thread coming out in support of (or at least
| against the imprisonment of) Murray.
|
| Then, the parent comment comes out, listing a whole bunch
| of reasons not to like Murray, or at least not to support
| him. So the implication, as I see it, is that the parent
| commenter is alright with Murray going to jail.
|
| Maybe you're right and that I read too much into it.
| However, I'd like to resolve this part that's unclear -
| does the parent commenter support putting Murray in jail?
| Is it because they don't like him?
| matthewmacleod wrote:
| I ignored this because I considered it a disingenuous
| question, but maybe I should tackle it instead because
| this sort of misrepresentation is poisonous.
|
| No, I obviously do not think "it's alright to put someone
| in jail because you don't like them". There's no
| reasonable way to construe that from what I said.
|
| I think the intent of my comment was clearly to express
| surprise that people take him seriously as a commentator;
| as someone who has been unfortunately very aware of his
| views for a long time, it seems obvious to me that he is
| an unreliable narrator and any information he presents is
| something we should be extremely skeptical of.
|
| I _do_ think that it can be acceptable to imprison people
| for contempt of court. I am pretty familiar with the case
| in question, and I have no reason to think that any
| conspiracy was required in order to convict him. I
| watched him do the things he 's been convicted for as
| they happened, and his intent seemed reasonably clear.
|
| So yes, to answer your direct question - I do "support"
| putting Murray in jail, in the sense that he appears to
| have received a fair trial for committing a crime, and I
| don't see any evidence that his conviction was unexpected
| or unreasonable.
|
| Spinning this as me saying "it's alright to put someone
| in jail because you don't like them" is obviously a bad-
| faith representation.
| [deleted]
| wazoox wrote:
| He didn't give any name. The people that are supposedly "exposed"
| apparently are all fake witnesses, anyway, as Alex Salmond was
| cleared in court. This is really disgusting.
| rozab wrote:
| Those witnesses were absolutely not found to be lying. It's
| just that Salmond was not found to be guilty beyond reasonable
| doubt.
| Tycho wrote:
| Is there some succinct explanation for why Murray's reporting
| facilitated 'jigsaw identification' while other reports did not?
|
| I don't want a link to a 50 page court ruling, I want someone to
| explain it in a couple of sentences. Something like:
|
| _Murray did not name Victim X but he specified the occupation of
| their spouse, the department they worked in, and their level of
| seniority. Given this information, a simple query of public
| records would be sufficient to identify this individual._
| bolangi wrote:
| > Is there some succinct explanation for why Murray's reporting
| facilitated 'jigsaw identification' while other reports did
| not?
|
| That is the point: other media reports gave more information
| about the accusers than Murray's reporting.
| ameminator wrote:
| Craig Murray is a gem! I knew him for his reporting on the
| Assange trial [0]. The fact that they convicted him is absolute
| lunacy. I happen to agree with his interpretation of the
| conviction, because I don't see how anyone could reasonably
| convict him. Godspeed Mr. Murray.
|
| [0] https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/02/your-man-
| in-...
| mhh__ wrote:
| Calling him is a gem is a bit odd given his intellectual
| gymnastics about the Skripal poisoning (he said they could've
| been a gay couple and honestly expects people to either believe
| him or at least not think he's taking the piss).
| ameminator wrote:
| I did not know about that! You've given me something to look
| into.
| ChrisKnott wrote:
| He stridently accused Bellingcat of photoshopping a picture
| which showed one of the assassins on a wall of honour at a
| Russian military base (under his real name). Bellingcat
| subsequently released several more photos from different
| angles, IIRC some of which were still online. Crickets from
| Murray...
| zarzavat wrote:
| He's a conspiracy theorist sure but the rest of the UK media
| is in bed with the government, perhaps more concerned about
| maintaining their connections so they can keep cranking out
| stories. You take what you can get.
|
| His reporting on the Assange trial has been fantastic.
| Considering this trial is one of the most important in recent
| times, the lack of reporting from the conventional media has
| been very telling about the actual independence of media in
| uk.
| aimor wrote:
| Are these the articles in question?
|
| https://web.archive.org/web/20200425044010/https://www.craig...
|
| https://web.archive.org/web/20200426041821/https://www.craig...
| AllegedAlec wrote:
| Absolutely disgusting. Murray did nothing wrong.
| basisword wrote:
| I knew nothing of this case until today but it seems like he
| breached an injunction against reporting the identity of
| complainants or information that could lead to their
| identification. From the little bit of reading I've done it seems
| pretty like an open and shut case (and I actually went into my
| reading expecting my be on Murray's side).
|
| Can anybody explain why there is an injustice here? Almost every
| comment I see here in his favour gives no reason why this is
| unjust.
| mritun wrote:
| Exactly. UK is a democracy with a pretty good justice system
| that follows the law, so I was very surprised to read so
| negative comments about the outcome of the case.
|
| Do I feel sorry for the person - yes, but breaking any
| injunction from court has extremely predictable outcome! I'm
| thinking it could have gone way worse than the 8 months in
| prison for him, especially if he were in any other country
| (including USA).
|
| Sad to see this unfold, but extremely predictable outcome of
| breaking a court injection... courts take _very_ dim view of
| it!
| ChrisKnott wrote:
| Craig Murray has a lot of fans on HN because he reported
| extensively on the Assange extradition hearings in a way that
| flattered HNers' biases.
|
| His actual record as a "journalist" is not great (his
| reporting on the Skripal assassins a particular lowlight).
| russholmes wrote:
| Craig Murray is basically a decent guy. He fell out with
| the British government when he was ambassador to Uzbekistam
| and broke protocol by protesting about the treatement of
| Uzbeks by their government - being boiled to death etc. He
| was subsequently bullied, disciplined and dismissed from
| his post for acting with humanity and integrity. I think he
| was traumatised and experienced something akin to a
| psychotic break, after which he saw conspiracies everywhere
| in officaldom. I used to follow his blog and it was a
| mixture of reasonable analysis and unsubstantiated
| consipiracy theories. In this case, he was clearly in the
| wrong - he is a blogger with a big following, and he posted
| material in breach of the injunction. This is why the
| authorities went for him: (1) breaking a court order, and
| (2) potentially identifying a sexual assault plaintive. In
| the UK the authorities don't muck around if you behave like
| that. This is why he is in prison.
| manquer wrote:
| He didn't directly disclose any name the accusation is he wrote
| multiple clues from which witness could be identified . I
| haven't seen a clear explanation of how it was identifiable.
|
| Even if that was true, jailing for media contempt is very very
| rare in U.K. and the timing given his involvement with
| Wikileaks case is suspect.
| jlarocco wrote:
| > He didn't directly disclose any name the accusation is he
| wrote multiple clues from which witness could be identified .
|
| Well, judges aren't stupid. I guess he's finding out the hard
| way.
| FireBeyond wrote:
| He was warned that his blog posts and his hinting at
| identifying people was considered contempt...
|
| ... and then he wrote a Yes Minister-esque fanfic which
| fairly bluntly painted very direct "clues" to those
| identities, and then told his readers "read this carefully
| and you'll get those identities", and then acted shocked when
| the court didn't say "Damn you, Craig, you foiled and
| outsmarted us!", but instead "Posting 'nudge nudge wink wink'
| hints to people is effectively the same thing. You know it,
| because you told people that's what it was, and we know it.
| So we're treating it the same".
| LorenPechtel wrote:
| It's quite understandable that he could have done this by
| accident. People avoid directly identifying someone they're
| not supposed to identify but do not realize that they leaked
| enough details to uniquely identify them.
|
| If he's guilty of it we of course do not see the evidence--
| posting the evidence would amount to the same crime that he
| was convicted of.
| FireBeyond wrote:
| He literally wrote a (not so) cryptic piece of prose after
| being warned, that spelled out how to identify these people
| - and then told his readers if they read it carefully, they
| could do exactly that.
|
| In summary: "not an accident, in any way shape or form".
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| Can you be more specific? Saying _how_ to identify
| someone sounds like a generic piece of useful
| information.
| manquer wrote:
| It seems awfully convenient for the government that
| evidence cannot be discussed.
|
| Either he has already leaked and the name is out there and
| his 8 month sentence is justified then it shouldn't matter
| that we can discuss or he has kind of "leaked" but no one
| really knows anything so we shouldn't have access to the
| evidence in which case this ruling and sentence is not
| warranted it cannot be both right ?
|
| The supreme court refused to hear his appeal on the basis
| that new media is different from traditional media, that
| doesn't seem right. Supreme courts are there to take novel
| new cases and set precedence on how the laws are to be
| interpreted. Drawing that distinction and not taking the
| case to define how such media for contempt has to be
| handled does not add up.
|
| The impact is beyond just this sentence, it affects lot of
| journalism on how contempt laws work. In U.K. media freedom
| (when it comes to courts) is already not great with stuff
| like super injunctions. This kind of vague ruling without
| clearly defining what is the kind of mistake me made that
| is illegal does not help.
| pmyteh wrote:
| The judgment isn't vague at all. It sets out, in 90
| paragraphs, the legal and factual basis for the case,
| ruling much of it against the crown (mainly on the basis
| of delay) and some against Murray. And it goes through
| each criticised post and sets out on what basis it was
| (or was not) found to be a contempt.
|
| Now. You and I don't have the posts, because I assume
| they've been deleted. That makes it hard if we want to
| second guess the judges. But Murray has them, and the
| court also does. And frankly the import of the ruling is
| straightforward for journalists to follow, too: don't
| publish information that could identify rape complainants
| in breach of a court order. Which is routine for court
| reporters, frankly.
|
| And FWIW a superinjunction is particularly easy to follow
| - don't publish anything about the injunction or the
| underlying matter. Is that reasonable? In my view no. I
| think they should never have been created. But they
| aren't unclear, just Draconian. And they don't apply in
| the criminal jurisdiction, or in Scotland, so I'm not
| sure they're very relevant here.
| manquer wrote:
| I was talking about the appeal to supreme court which is
| only 9 pages long [1] and yes I read it.
|
| I am specifically talking about page 3 point 4
| > [4] The applicant describes himself as a "journalist in
| new media". Whatever that may > involve, it is
| relevant to distinguish his position from that of the
| mainstream press, which is > regulated, and
| subject to codes of practice and ethics in a way in which
| those writing as the > applicant does are not.
|
| Specifically how being new media is different is one
| aspect. The traditional media in U.K. following code of
| ethics is quite laughable with the history of tabloids
| abuses and news of the world kind of incidents
|
| The other point is so called "jigsawing clause" is very
| vague because it is not explicit on how much lee way
| there is for interpretation. Think about it, depending on
| how much you already know, _any information or reporting_
| about some event can be used to glean who the person
| behind is it. There has to be well defined rules for
| something like this as it can otherwise be used prosecute
| any reporter /journalist at a whim . As compared to say
| "Not naming someone" is clear unambiguous rule to follow
|
| [1] https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-
| source/cos-genera...
| pmyteh wrote:
| 'Traditional' journalists are often mendacious bastards,
| but also, as a general rule, not stupid enough to flout
| court orders. And looking at paragraph 70 of the original
| judgment it doesn't look like this case was _anywhere
| close_ to raising issues of principle about whether other
| journalists could comply with similar anonymity orders.
| Which are routine in Scotland and statutory in England
| and Wales, and have been for years. And journalists are
| not, in fact, prosecuted on a whim for contempt of court.
| manquer wrote:
| The issue of principle is on how the jigsawing clause
| would be applied. It does seem similarly has ambiguous
| test like "I Know it when I see it" Justice Steward wrote
| for threshold obscenity in _Jacobellis v. Ohio_ [1]
|
| Yes, U.K. courts are not in general prosecuting for media
| contempt ( first case in 50 years?). Relying on the
| discretion of the court not to prosecute is not the same
| as having precedence on what extent a report can be
| interpreted as jigsawing a injunction. "Journalists" (the
| appeal seems to regard him as second class one at best)
| shouldn't depend on that fact that courts generally will
| not prosecute them, Shouldn't they know with some
| certainty when they are in the clear ?
|
| [1] The problem is this is a subjective interpretation, I
| should also know it the same as the justice would do to
| make sure I am on the right side of the law ? This was
| later replaced by Miller test and that established some
| guidelines to go by.
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| So a classic case of "enforcing laws we don't usually enforce
| and stretching the law to do so because we don't like you"?
| raincom wrote:
| In fact, that's how collusion and correction happens in the
| West. In other words, "discretion" is for sale for the
| powerful. Prosecution uses discretion to not prosecute the
| powerful; Judges use discretion to suppress evidence; etc.
| stjohnswarts wrote:
| This is almost certainly the case. The judge in this case
| most likely is influenced by those who this guy revealed as
| corrupt. The powers that be do not like for their friends
| to have a hard time. This judge is most likely in on it.
| dpwm wrote:
| From the decision on the application for permission to
| appeal to the UK Supreme Court [0]:
|
| > The applicant describes himself as a "journalist in new
| media". Whatever that may involve, it is relevant to
| distinguish his position from that of the mainstream press,
| which is regulated, and subject to codes of practice and
| ethics in a way in which those writing as the applicant
| does are not. To the extent that the submissions for the
| applicant make comparisons with other press contempts, and
| the role of mainstream journalists, this is a factor which
| should be recognised.
|
| [0] https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/cos-
| genera...
| croes wrote:
| >subject to codes of practice and ethics
|
| "The code is more what you'd call 'guidelines' than
| actual rules"
| TheOtherHobbes wrote:
| Meanwhile in the regulated press:
|
| https://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/press/the-sun-
| and-d...
| [deleted]
| wil421 wrote:
| It's similar to the reason I disliked Assange and Wikileaks for
| not redacting information. Lots of military people and
| especially the Afghan translators were named in some of the
| leaks.
|
| This is HN, you and I are likely to get downvotes into oblivion
| for having an opposing opinion.
| jessaustin wrote:
| If any USA soldier or Afghan collaborator had ever been
| harmed as a result of Wikileaks' journalism, the war media
| would have been wall-to-wall on the story for years. That has
| never been reported. Ergo, it never happened.
| mhh__ wrote:
| https://www.npr.org/2019/04/12/712659290/how-much-did-
| wikile...
|
| This article suggests that certain people have at least
| been threatened. You may deem that to be worth the value of
| the information being leaked, but it has been reported on.
| croes wrote:
| Wikileaks didn't leak that in information, it was the
| german newspaper "Der Freitag" which published the
| password for the encrypted files .
|
| Wikileaks has worked together with the US authorities to
| edit the documents.
| tablespoon wrote:
| > Wikileaks didn't leak that in information, it was the
| german newspaper "Der Freitag" which published the
| password for the encrypted files .
|
| https://www.wired.com/2011/08/wikileaks-leak/:
|
| > The uncensored cables are contained in a 1.73-GB
| password-protected file named "cables.csv," which is
| reportedly circulating somewhere on the internet,
| according to Steffen Kraft, editor of the German paper
| Der Freitag. Kraft announced last week that his paper had
| found the file, and easily obtained the password to
| unlock it.
|
| It sounds like Wikileaks was, at the bare minimum,
| extremely sloppy.
|
| There's also this:
|
| > After nine months of slow, steady publication,
| WikiLeaks abruptly opened the spigot last week on its
| cable publications, spewing out over 130,000 by Monday
| afternoon - more than half the total database.
| jessaustin wrote:
| This seems to be the most damning phrase from that link,
| and it was uttered by a federal government spokesperson
| in _2010_ :
|
| _" No doubt some of those people were harmed when their
| identities were compromised."_
|
| That's so weak. "I'm sure it will probably happen at some
| point!" NPR on Friday afternoon is the sockpupppet the
| lizards prefer for their most pathetic, half-assed spin
| attempts. No one is listening, no one will challenge the
| narrative, they can say whatever they want, and _that_
| was all they dared to say? Yikes.
| burnished wrote:
| > This is HN, you and I are likely to get downvotes into
| oblivion for having an opposing opinion.
|
| Can you just not? The whinging is a serious distraction.
| eganist wrote:
| > Can you just not? The whinging is a serious distraction.
|
| It's also against the rules. That said, the discussion and
| comments here
| (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27982672 - one of the
| only times downvoting could be openly discussed because
| it's directly within the scope of the article) definitely
| sheds light on frustrations people have with downvotes on
| HN.
|
| Anyway, my comment is offtopic enough. For more downvote
| discussion, head to that link instead; at least it'll be on
| topic.
| wil421 wrote:
| I could but the HN, and worse Reddit, mob has down voted
| certain opinions without even commenting. Especially as it
| relates to whistle blowers and the US military/government.
|
| I've even seen legitimate conservative view points be
| flagged instantly.
| burnished wrote:
| > I've even seen legitimate conservative view points be
| flagged instantly.
|
| Can you link to these? This claim always seems specious
| and that its hiding blatantly awful opinions and I'd love
| some good counter examples.
| southerntofu wrote:
| Take the situation the other way around. If your country had
| been colonized ("liberated" they would say) by say Nazi
| Germany, Soviet Russia or Daech, would you not consider it
| crucial information to know what persons and institutions
| collaborated with them?
| the_optimist wrote:
| Wikileaks deployed an extensive and rigorous redaction
| process that met or exceeded journalistic standards. You can
| read more about it here:
|
| https://assangedefense.org/hearing-coverage/wikileaks-
| redact...
| mhh__ wrote:
| Didn't they release the CC details of a bunch of democrat
| donors unredacted?
| ggrrhh_ta wrote:
| they didn't. A journalist of one of the main news media
| that had access to the raw data published the key to
| decrypt the raw data.
| mhh__ wrote:
| https://www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2016/7/22/12259258/
| wik...
|
| ?
| ggrrhh_ta wrote:
| Do you mean the emails that were made available in the
| form of thousands of PDFs by the US State Department as a
| result of a Freedom of Information Act request and that
| wikileaks made searchable? That is a different case:
| https://wikileaks.org/clinton-
| emails/?q=&mfrom=Hillary+Clint...
| varjag wrote:
| Wikileaks is one man with a few cult followers. Any feel-
| good standard they put in place can be overridden at his
| whim. There are enough ex-cultist testimonies to that
| effect.
| TheOtherHobbes wrote:
| You could comfortably say something analogous about the
| UK's tabloid press.
|
| The Daily Mail is sued - and loses - so regularly
| management seem to consider it a legitimate business
| expense.
| varjag wrote:
| Sorry I'm not the one to defend Daily Mail.
| RubberMullet wrote:
| Do you believe Assange lied about Daniel Domscheit-Berg being
| the source for the unredacted cables and his conversation
| with Cliff Johnson was all for show? Why did he break his own
| protocol and release so many documents en mass?
| varjag wrote:
| Yes, he likely have lied.
|
| He did forward unredacted cables via Shamir to Belarus'
| Lukashenka back in the day, which led to arrests.
|
| https://naviny.belsat.eu/en/news/the-new-yorker-
| lukashenka-a...
| RubberMullet wrote:
| So Assange intentionally leaked all the documents in a
| quasi-suicidal act? Domscheit-Berg had nothing to do with
| it?
|
| https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/leak-at-
| wikileaks...
| varjag wrote:
| How exactly it was quasi-suicidal? Did it affect anything
| for him, except some criticism that was very much drowned
| out by the cheering crowd?
| matthewmacleod wrote:
| _Can anybody explain why there is an injustice here? Almost
| every comment I see here in his favour gives no reason why this
| is unjust._
|
| I am far from an unbiased source on this - I'm personally
| aghast that anybody would take Craig Murray seriously.
|
| But trying to be a little objective, I expect that this effect
| is primarily because of an instinct we all have to ignore the
| flaws in people who are saying things we think are important.
|
| Murray is popular here for his commentary on the Assange trial.
| He is virtually certain to be correct in some of his
| accusations about Assange's treatment, and in a community that
| values freedom of speech and the rights of whistleblowers that
| is a stance that attracts attention and support. Given this, it
| could be tempting for some to assume that his imprisonment was
| a deliberate action to silence a troublemaker - particularly
| when the defendant himself makes that argument.
|
| On the other hand, it's also totally feasible that someone with
| views you support is also entirely seperately capable of doing
| dumb things and getting themselves arrested.
|
| I paid quite a bit of attention to the case in question. His
| level of obfuscation was a bawhair away from 'cartoon rat Ricky
| Raus', and he requested everyone read "very, very carefully
| indeed. Between the lines." It seemed quite obvious to me what
| he was trying to do, and a subsequent conviction isn't really
| surprising - nor does it require thinking about it in terms of
| a conspiracy theory. It just seems strange to me to assume a
| state-motivated conspiracy when there's a much simpler answer
| right there - regardless of whether or not you agree with the
| particular details of the case, or his views in general!
|
| I guess maybe it's sometimes hard to separate out the views
| that we agree with from the harsh realities of flawed
| individuals.
| kstenerud wrote:
| It's a quite long and sordid affair, but I'll do my best to
| summarize:
|
| Craig has been a thorn in the side of the government for some
| time, first for exposing corruption in the Scottish seats of
| power, the too-cozy relationships between the judicial and
| executive branches, and the biased and tainted prosecutions of
| anyone who gets in their way (including MPs).
|
| The accusations against him hinge on the "jigsaw
| identification" theory, whereby people could piece together
| persons from the material he published. The problem is that
| it's so vague that it could be used against *anyone* who
| publishes *anything* about a case such as this (and in fact
| many publications DID publish information that could easily
| lead to the identification of the accuser, but they were given
| a pass). This is why he's calling it retribution.
|
| Furthermore, he's been reporting on the Assange case, and that
| has angered the British government, which is why his appeal was
| rejected, and why he was not allowed to travel to Spain to give
| testimony in a case where the Americans were spying on Assange
| and his lawyer via UC Global.
|
| At this point, Craig's only remaining option is to appeal to
| the EU court of human rights, but that's gonna be a tough one
| because he's pissed off the Americans too much with the Assange
| case.
| FireBeyond wrote:
| > Furthermore, he's been reporting on the Assange case, and
| that has angered the British government, which is why his
| appeal was rejected
|
| Whilst not impossible, this is entirely speculation.
| mritun wrote:
| You're responding with an argument that says "he pissed off
| the government so he was sent to prison" - but he actually
| was convicted of violating a court injunction (in India, that
| would be contempt of the court).
|
| It's hard to connect contempt of the court proceedings with
| pissing off the government without also alleging that courts
| are in the pocket of the government... which is a very
| serious connection to draw here. This happened in UK!
| kazinator wrote:
| The idea is clearly that he pissed off the government _in
| other matters_ , and so in this particular case, effort
| might have been made behind the scenes to throw the book at
| him.
| whatshisface wrote:
| There are so many serious connections to draw these days
| that it's no longer such an argument against it.
| teknopaul wrote:
| I believe that he has shown that to be the case in advance.
| ThrustVectoring wrote:
| The courts _are_ the government. A separate branch from the
| executive and legislative, sure, but it 's still a
| government entity.
| ChrisKnott wrote:
| In British English this is not the case, "Government" is
| use more like "Administration" is used in the US.
| hollerith wrote:
| What do Brits use to refer to British courts, Parliament
| and executive considered as a whole?
| darrenf wrote:
| Those are the three branches of the state. We consider
| government to be the executive only. The judiciary does
| not govern.
| hollerith wrote:
| Ah. Americans use "state" to mean one of the 50 provinces
| of the US, leaving the word unavailable for what Brits
| use it for.
| zarzavat wrote:
| What about the state department?
| hollerith wrote:
| That is our term for what the Brits call the Foreign
| Office.
| kazinator wrote:
| Pointless word semantics aside, the point here is that
| they are branches of one thing; if you piss off one
| branch, strings can be pulled so that another branch
| treats you severely in court. This is plausible.
| gatvol wrote:
| The alleged means of the so called beach are the nub of the
| issue here. 'Jigsaw identification' was a contrivance to
| specifically target Mr Murray, and notably is not a
| mechanism that has been used against any other entities,
| though it could have been.
|
| For me, it's far too loosely defined and requires
| supposition of Intenet (mind reading) , to be used as a
| means of conviction.
| nickff wrote:
| Isn't the "jigsaw identification" essentially similar to
| the 'personally identifiable information' addressed by
| GDPR? It seems to me that both constructs stand and fall
| together.
| himinlomax wrote:
| PII is precisely defined, not pulled out of thin air, and
| nobody's going to jail because of it. Rich corporations
| like Amazon are fined for fucking with it though.
| mcguire wrote:
| All of the data that can be used to identify a person are
| precisely defined?
|
| Or is it that all of the identity data that someone can
| be held legally accounted for are precisely defined?
| worik wrote:
| Golly. Of course the courts and the state are in collusion.
|
| The interests of the state and those of the courts almost
| completely align. Class interests in the UK really matter
| and the rulers (not the members of parliament, the actual
| rulers) and the judges all went to the same schools, they
| are all cousins essentially.
|
| There is no need for explicit corruption and collusion but
| there is plenty of that too.
| p_j_w wrote:
| >The accusations against him hinge on the "jigsaw
| identification" theory, whereby people could piece together
| persons from the material he published. The problem is that
| it's so vague that it could be used against _anyone_ who
| publishes _anything_ about a case such as this
|
| Have you read the court ruling on the matter? I looked
| through it, and it sounds like that's not at all what's going
| on here. The court went through each individual accusation of
| jigsaw identification he was accused of, and in cases where
| jigsaw identification was unlikely, said so. On top of that,
| it seems Murray himself was trying to hint to his readers
| that he was indeed trying to give information out for the
| purpose of helping people figure out who the accusers were.
|
| >Craig's only remaining option is to appeal to the EU court
| of human rights, but that's gonna be a tough one because he's
| pissed off the Americans too much with the Assange case.
|
| Perhaps. Or perhaps he just doesn't have a very strong case.
| alisonkisk wrote:
| > At this point, Craig's only remaining option is to appeal
| to the EU court of human rights, but that's gonna be a tough
| one because he's pissed off the Americans too much with the
| Assange case
|
| Does the EU Court of Human Rights care whar Americans think
| about him?
| kstenerud wrote:
| The member states care about America's friendship and
| cooperation on many things. You have to follow the power to
| see what the results will be.
|
| Personally, I think he's just doing it to have a record for
| posterity once it's rejected, to turn common knowledge
| about EU-USA corrupting power relationships into public
| knowledge (although I don't share his hope that this will
| ever become public knowledge - but then again it takes an
| idealist to fight these kinds of battles).
| torstenvl wrote:
| The courts deciding against his argument would only be
| probative on the question of corruption if you start from
| the _presumption_ that his position is correct. Your post
| is entirely circular in its reasoning.
| fauigerzigerk wrote:
| This is not in fact an EU court. It's the court that
| interprets the European Convention on Human Rights. It's
| part of the Council of Europe where the U.S has observer
| status and Russia as well as the UK are members.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Court_of_Human_Right
| s
| tomatotomato37 wrote:
| In the world of realpolitik which do you think matters
| more?
|
| A. The opinion of a world superpower with a military to
| match
|
| B. Ideals
| vkou wrote:
| It depends on the question.
| Brian_K_White wrote:
| Only as a side effect of which ideals a superpower
| happens to be espousing at that moment.
| quietbritishjim wrote:
| He claims to have revealed too little information in his
| reporting for it to be possible to identify the complainants.
| The court disagrees. Really I just see his word against theirs.
|
| I'd like to see some more specific details so I could form my
| own view, or at least hear the view of a disinterested third
| party that's seen the relevant posts.
| LeifCarrotson wrote:
| The court could ask an independent without inside knowledge
| of the case to read his reports and check whether or not they
| can identify a protected person as a result.
|
| It's true that the judge can't publicly state "Look, the
| third sentence in paragraph four at this URL gives the
| victim's initials, a week later in paragraph seven he said
| the complainant worked in such-and-such government agency,
| and here he tweeted that it was the individual's 47th
| birthday. There is only one person who fits these
| fingerprints, and their identity is obvious to anyone with a
| passing familiarity of that individual." That would invite
| everyone else to go read paragraph four, paragraph seven, and
| the tweet, and to search out this secret. Or more likely,
| that the individual is named directly and repeatedly in the
| post, and Craig named them because their name and their
| involvement is on public documents, but that they've decided
| that he's not allowed to name them.
|
| But you'd expect them to explain that reasoning behind closed
| doors, and then to more publicly deny his rebuttal, unless
| there is no such individual.
| version_five wrote:
| I'm just learning about this now and don't know enough to
| have an an opinion, but "his word against theirs" (the
| court's) should not be the basis for a conviction.
| quietbritishjim wrote:
| All I meant by that was, from this article alone I don't
| have enough information to form my own opinion.
| pydry wrote:
| If they provided specific details that would all but require
| identifying the suspects.
| shellac wrote:
| I did read some of the (now offending) posts.
|
| He didn't name anyone, but at the time I thought he provided
| more than enough information to identify one one of the
| complainants. Although I'm not au fait with the SNP there
| were details about situations, people, and roles that seemed
| more than specific enough for people to work out.
|
| I don't think it was deliberate, and he is probably ignorant
| about how easy it can be to de-anonymise people. However he
| should have been more sensitive to these issues.
| manquer wrote:
| Perhaps so, however selective exercising of media contempt
| laws when it is not clear cut case ( i.e. naming some one
| directly) is suspicious and looks a lot like overreach .
|
| The timing (he cannot now testify in the Spanish case on
| spying on Wikileaks) and quantum of sentence combined with
| supreme court refusing to hear his appeal all does not
| indicate the system had the best interests for protecting
| the witness but more like they wanted to silence him/ media
| and send a message .
| shellac wrote:
| It's unusual, but not the only recent case in the UK. A
| notorious right wing campaigner called Tommy Robinson was
| jailed a few years ago (but released), and there was a
| very unusual case with a juror.
|
| These were both in England, which may explain the 50 year
| thing.
|
| Edit: actually I'm wrong, the article says:
|
| "Murray is the first person in the U.K. to be
| incarcerated for media contempt in over a half century."
|
| If we restrict it to what 'media' might mean I suppose
| Tommy Robinson was freed on appeal. And a Mail journalist
| got away with a suspended sentence.
| manquer wrote:
| It is even more in Scotland where he is being convicted?
| I believe it is 70 years or something like that.
|
| There is only European court left for Murray to appeal.
| The supreme court refused hear his case.
| pydry wrote:
| >I genuinely do not know who I am supposed to have identified
| or which phrases I published are said to have identified them,
| in combination with [details] in the public domain.
|
| >How I genuinely do not know who I am supposed to have
| identified or which phrases I published are said to have
| identified them, in combination with [details] in the public
| domain.
|
| How on _earth_ is that open and shut?
|
| Open and shut would be if he published the names, which
| _nobody_ claims that he did.
|
| Conveniently it is also impossible to verify if the crime was
| actually committed without naming the individuals. All that is
| required to convict is one judge's say so.
|
| If you were to pick a convenient politically motivated
| prosecution this ranks up there with navalny skipping bail by
| dint of being in a coma.
| orra wrote:
| Craig Murray was warned multiple times that his blog posts
| were in contempt of court.
|
| He should have taken down the blog posts, but instead doubled
| down.
|
| Hard to see whence your outrage originates.
| MikeUt wrote:
| "He should have shut-up when told to."
|
| I believe the outrage originates from believing that he
| should not have been told to shut-up in the first place.
| orra wrote:
| > believing that he should not have been told to shut-up
| in the first place
|
| The rape and sexual assault complainers had their
| anonymity protected by court order. That's completely
| normal (in the UK anyway).
|
| Craig Murray's not a martyr. He's an eejit.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| tablespoon wrote:
| >> I genuinely do not know who I am supposed to have
| identified or which phrases I published are said to have
| identified them, in combination with [details] in the public
| domain.
|
| >> How I genuinely do not know who I am supposed to have
| identified or which phrases I published are said to have
| identified them, in combination with [details] in the public
| domain.
|
| > How on earth is that open and shut?
|
| I don't see how those statements have any bearing on whether
| the case is "open and shut" or not. You're quoting the
| defendant, who's almost certainly going to come up with some
| argument for their own innocence no matter how strong the
| case is.
| soperj wrote:
| People plead guilty all the time.
| tablespoon wrote:
| I am aware of that, which is why I said "almost
| certainly."
|
| He also chose to fight this case, so if he didn't want to
| undermine it, his only option besides arguing for his
| innocence was silence.
| pydry wrote:
| If indeed the case were open and shut the argument would be
| trivially refutable.
|
| I haven't even seen a coherent rebuttal yet. I'm not sure
| it's even possible, given that the evidence in _this_ trial
| would, conveniently, have to be kept secret - automatically
| ensuring _by default_ it _couldnt_ be open and shut.
|
| Far from being open and shut it actually stinks to high
| heaven.
| tablespoon wrote:
| > I haven't even seen a coherent rebuttal yet. I'm not
| sure it's even possible, given that the evidence in this
| trial would, conveniently, have to be kept secret.
|
| This guy claims he read the original posts and was able
| to identify one of the complainants from the information
| there:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28009316
|
| But my point was mainly the Murray is so obviously biased
| that his statements need to be read with that in mind.
| Plus denials like "I do not know" and "I don't recall"
| are some of the vaguest and least credible (since they're
| almost impossible to prove or disprove).
| littlecosmic wrote:
| I clicked through the link and I think that the commenter
| felt that there was enough information to identify
| someone, not that they _had_ identified someone.
| Brian_K_White wrote:
| Wait, so vagueness is a bad thing after all? Or only whe
| he does it?
| croes wrote:
| Sure he is quoting Murray because there is nothing you can
| quote from the judge how Murray has identified someone.
| user-the-name wrote:
| Why are you taking his words at face value here?
| dahfizz wrote:
| > If you were to pick a convenient politically motivated
| prosecution this ranks up there with navalny skipping bail by
| dint of being in a coma.
|
| I would agree with you, except his prison sentence is only 8
| months. If this was some corrupt hit job, they could have
| easily put him in prison for decades.
| jonathlee wrote:
| "Only 8 months" tells you nothing of the conditions or
| prison population within which he will be placed. 8 months
| in solitary or in a maximum-security prison (where hard-
| core, repeat-offender murderers and rapists are) is much
| harsher than years in a minimum-security prison.
|
| Julian Assange, who hasn't even been convicted AFAIK, has
| been kept in solitary in a maximum-security prison while
| only being accused, falsely it turns out, of non-violent
| crimes. The reasonableness of the entire punishment must be
| taken into account, not just the duration.
| dahfizz wrote:
| > The reasonableness of the entire punishment must be
| taken into account, not just the duration.
|
| I agree, and I am not arguing that the treatment of Craig
| Murray has been reasonable. I am arguing that, if this
| was a larger conspiracy against him, his prison sentence
| would be much longer.
| smcl wrote:
| I'm the same. Everyone was told not to reveal identities of the
| victims, he was blogging about the case and was deemed to have
| published info that could've doxed them. The news is
| understandably vague on the subject (lest they repeat the
| offence) and the posts are down. So it's hard to know what to
| think. Just remember that there's a lot of very strong feelings
| about Scottish independence (which is kinda wrapped up in this)
| and the SNP (the dominant party in Scotland) so anyone speaking
| definitively for/against him who was not directly involved in
| the case are likely drawing more from personal feelings and
| other grievances than the actual case itself
| jollybean wrote:
| In this case they were accusers not victims.
| pmyteh wrote:
| The judgement is available[0]. It doesn't read to me like the
| judges were out to get him: they specifically reject the
| majority of the allegations of contempt made by the crown.
| Paragraphs 70-90 contain the interesting bit, and 70 is
| absolutely damning in my view. It basically reports Murray as
| openly writing an 'encoded' version of some of the claimants
| names in the form of some Yes Minister fanfic, in the
| knowledge of the anonymity order and with the intention that
| the code would be broken by close reading 'between the lines'
| (which he expressly encouraged).
|
| That's an open and shut contempt, and courts do not play
| silly buggers with people who think that if they're very
| clever orders don't apply to them. Even given that the crown
| (the Scottish government, who were prosecuting Salmon and
| made the contempt of court complaint) are out to get Murray,
| that doesn't make him a martyr, it makes him an idiot.
|
| [0]: https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/cos-
| genera...
| dfawcus wrote:
| The 'fan fiction' was written, and published before the
| court case, and hence before the anonymity order. As it
| was, I wasn't able to figure out any encoded messages at
| the time.
|
| Now one could argue that it was inadvisable to leave it up
| after the order, but that is a different matter.
| ajb wrote:
| I read his articles as they came out, and did not figure
| out who the protected parties were. OTOH I am pretty sure I
| can figure at least two of them out after reading the
| _judgement_. It 's possible that you could have figured out
| at the time if you were more familiar with the Dramatis
| Personae. But I do think it's plausible that he didn't
| think anyone would from his articles.
| mcguire wrote:
| " _[70] He wrote the "Yes, Minister" article after a
| health scare because "there were things I would not wish
| to die without having told". There was thus clearly an
| intention to convey to the public information and opinion
| about the criminal proceedings and the background
| thereto. It is clear that he understood the risk inherent
| in the action he was taking, since he states that it was
| "a challenge" to work out how to convey the information
| "without being in contempt of court" (paragraph 54 of the
| affidavit). He used certain strategies seeking to avoid
| being in contempt, the main one of which was "to leave
| information that people would not understand the
| ramifications of but would after the trial or once
| further evidence emerged". It is a reasonable inference
| that by using coded language he anticipated that if not
| at the time of the article, at least by the conclusion of
| the trial, the material would be understood beyond its
| ex-facie terms.In a tweet of 19 January, in direct
| reference to this article, he wrote:"I implore everybody
| who supports Independence -and indeed everybody with an
| interest in justice -to read this article very, very
| carefully indeed.Between the lines."A comment was made by
| him in the 12 March article is to similar effect: "I am
| dependent on you reading this whole article with
| intelligence, and thinking "I wonder why he just told me
| that bit? Where was that relevant? "_"
|
| The court seems to disagree.
| nomrom wrote:
| So plausible that people closer to the facts and details
| thought he did.
| pydry wrote:
| >was deemed to have published info that could've doxed them.
| The news is understandably vague on the subject
|
| "Could" have doxxed them? The newspapers are "understandably
| vague"?
|
| How does that align with this being an open and shut case?
|
| Especially it's a law that hasnt been used for 70 years
| applied against a well known dissident.
| handelaar wrote:
| The laws have been in place for decades and have at no
| point not been in full effect. The reason nobody's been
| prosecuted and convicted for 70 years is that nobody with
| half a brain commits the offence.
| pmyteh wrote:
| 70 years? The Contempt of Court Act was passed in 1981 and
| is used routinely for anonymity orders.
| smcl wrote:
| I was just saying I have no idea what to think, and no real
| way to do so.
| jlarocco wrote:
| Yeah. It seems he (indirectly) released the names of (alleged)
| sexual assault victims, against a court order.
|
| Regardless of what he's done otherwise, it seems pretty clear
| he was in the wrong here.
| colordrops wrote:
| Because secret hearings at unjust.
| dangerface wrote:
| This is nuts arrested for reporting on the justice system, thats
| a pretty fucked justice system.
| imwillofficial wrote:
| An absolute travesty. Justice is not served by this. The open
| corruption in the west is getting to banana republic levels.
| cmurf wrote:
| Well past it. The bribe is "be a normal everyday docile
| consumer who minds your own business". This is relatively easy
| and affordable for most folks
| briantakita wrote:
| See something say nothing...if you know what's good for you
|
| The whistleblowers are punished while the criminals committing
| the crimes are regarded as heroes.
|
| The consequence is that it's rational to assume that these
| agencies are not trustworthy nor do they work for the public.
| thereddaikon wrote:
| Title is misleading. He wasn't jailed for whistleblowing. He was
| jailed for apparently revealing identities of victims. Not sure
| about the specifics, I haven't been following the case and I'm
| not familiar with it. Sounds like its pretty contentious. All I
| know is many places including the UK have a far more restricted
| concept of freedom of speech than the US does. So its probably a
| lot easier for them to jail journalists over what they publish
| billytetrud wrote:
| What part of the title is misleading exactly? The title doesn't
| say he is going to jail because whistleblowing is illegal. But
| he is indeed going to jail for things about how his whistle
| blowing was done. I think it's misleading to call the OP's
| title misleading
| thereddaikon wrote:
| The title implies he was jailed for being a whistleblower. If
| you read it without having any prior knowledge of who this
| guy is or why he was being prosecuted that's how it sounds.
| billytetrud wrote:
| It seems pretty clear that he is being jailed for being a
| whistleblowers. The case brought against him seems
| incredibly flimsy. Its retaliation, plain and simple.
| mattigames wrote:
| "revealing the identity of the victims"... Yeah, such
| identities were "revealed" by jigsawing documents which are
| part of the whistleblow, not because he gave their names or
| anything alike but by inference of the readers, who just happen
| to be extremely biased against the whistleblower. So yeah, it
| couldn't be clearer that he is being jailed for being a
| whistleblower.
| [deleted]
| croes wrote:
| He was acquitted, so either they were misjudgements or the
| victims were just accusers.
| thereddaikon wrote:
| Good point.
| srtjstjsj wrote:
| > He described how the judges found Murray guilty of "jigsaw
| identification," which refers to the "possibility that a person
| may piece together information from various sources to arrive at
| the identification of a protected witness."
|
| Why isn't every advertising/marketing data broker in jail for
| "jigsaw identification"?
| dahfizz wrote:
| I'm pretty confident that advertisers would not keep an
| `is_protected_witness` flag in their profiles.
| cstross wrote:
| In Scottish law -- and in English/Welsh law in parallel (the
| legal systems are different) -- there is no absolute right of
| free speech, like the US first amendment. Consequently,
| exposing the identity of witnesses (and in some cases the
| accused and the victim) in a criminal trial is itself a
| criminal offense.
|
| Note the important bit here is _in a criminal trial_. Murray is
| going to prison because he was found guilty of actions which
| threatened to cause a mistrial in a criminal case, not because
| he was deanonymizing advertising /marketing data.
| makomk wrote:
| I'm pretty sure journalists have actually, non-hypothetically
| caused mistrials in criminal cases through their reporting in
| the UK and not been jailed for it. In fact as far as I can
| tell none of the journalists who did this in the UK have been
| jailed, at least not in the last few decades.
| lazide wrote:
| There is a reason why the 1st amendment is the 1st of the
| amendments - this has happened for a long time not just in
| England but elsewhere.
|
| It's VERY convenient for those in power to selectively
| apply laws like this, and overall bad for society. But like
| most cases, as long as it isn't too blatant, it doesn't
| rise to the level of common outrage.
|
| It got bad enough in the past to make the top of the stack
| of 'stuff to fix in v2' here.
|
| The constitution though is just words on paper if people
| don't follow it day to day, and you can see examples of
| steady erosion from it (gag orders, national security
| orders, etc.)
| [deleted]
| coldtea wrote:
| It's like when someone gets in the eye of local cops, and they
| will "make their life difficult", come at them with trumped-up
| charges, etc....
|
| States and their organizations work the same way, and prosecutors
| and judges friendly to their cause (and furthering their career)
| after a friendly chat with some official, are a dime a dozen. Add
| some diplomatic pressure (or offer) from a bigger power, and
| third countries are just as accomondating. E.g.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_...
|
| And good luck proving any of that collision (proof which the
| politically naive will demand, because they think no such thing
| can happen in the best of all possible worlds...)
| r721 wrote:
| The Scotsman story: https://www.scotsman.com/news/crime/craig-
| murray-to-begin-ja...
| tyingq wrote:
| Is there a UK equivalent of a "Presidential Pardon"? Seems like
| the only remaining way for some future PM to try and fix this.
| pydry wrote:
| About as likely as Navalny getting a presidential pardon.
| [deleted]
| manquer wrote:
| Royal pardon or more formally "Royal prerogative of mercy"
| exists in the U.K. Formally it is power of the crown, however
| in practice it is delegated to Lord Chancellor in England.
| Scotland has a different structure for this AFAIK.
|
| Craig Murray is a former ambassador and supports Scottish
| independence so it would be lot more complicated even if the
| government wanted to do something about it. Also it is only 8
| month sentence, so it won't make any practical difference if
| some future government post-facto does pardon him.
|
| Side note: U.S. tooks its legal system largely from England and
| made modifications as they thought fit, presidential pardons
| were specifically designed to mirror the royal pardon without
| the monarchy part of it.
| tyingq wrote:
| >Also it is only 8 month sentence, so it won't make any
| practical difference if some future government post-facto
| does pardon him.
|
| I imagine it would make some difference for his legacy, to
| his family, etc.
| manquer wrote:
| I meant as practically not much scope for any relief on the
| sentence term itself.
| gadders wrote:
| Craig Murray has some strange theories, and is pretty far from me
| politically, but him being sent to jail for this ridiculous
| allegation re: "identifying" "victims" of Alex Salmond is
| appalling.
|
| It just shows how corrupt Scottish politics and the SNP is.
| alisonkisk wrote:
| What whistle did he blow?
| ttctciyf wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Murray#Ambassador_to_Uzb...
| baq wrote:
| lesson to whistleblowers of all kinds and agendas: if you want to
| keep blowing the whistle, do everything you can to stay
| undercover. live to fight another day.
| mxmilkiib wrote:
| https://www.dounetherabbithole.co.uk for the festival they and
| their kid Jamie have been involved with, looking forward to that
| next year
| thiagoharry wrote:
| Just a coincidence that another whistleblower is having problems
| with the law and being persecuted.
|
| There is a term for when laws are weaponised to be used against
| enemies: 'lawfare'. This is becaming too common in the world.
| metalliqaz wrote:
| Quoted from the article: "I genuinely do not know who I am
| supposed to have identified or which phrases I published are said
| to have identified them, in combination with [details] in the
| public domain."
|
| This sounds really bad, until you see that the court did point to
| specific blog posts. His position apparently hinges on the fact
| that specific phrases were not picked out from a handful of blog
| posts. It seems to me that the relevant facts that were revealed
| could be enumerated quite easily from that list of blog posts.
|
| Victims are protected for a reason. This guy seems like a bit of
| a bastard.
| p_j_w wrote:
| Do you have some examples to share? My first thought reading
| this was, similar to what you say, "this sounds really bad,"
| and my inclination here is to side with Craig Murray. At the
| same time, the article linked by OP doesn't point to any sort
| of court ruling or proceedings where the reader might be able
| to check against the claims being made that the trial was,
| indeed, Kafkaesque. This obviously raises some suspicions.
| jessaustin wrote:
| I guess we're unlikely to see the forbidden phrases Murray
| dared to utter, since after all they're forbidden and few HN
| commentators want to go to prison.
| p_j_w wrote:
| This is handwaving snark and dismissiveness. It's not a
| very helpful reply. Indeed, another posted linked to the
| actual court ruling, which does indeed point to the
| offending articles. It makes the claims of a Kafkaesque
| trial sound dramatically overblown.
| jessaustin wrote:
| So... the court claims for itself the right to "harm"
| these people in the same way for which it chose to
| imprison Murray? I'm sure I'll never understand this.
| p_j_w wrote:
| Come again?
| tablespoon wrote:
| > I guess we're unlikely to see the forbidden phrases
| Murray dared to utter, since after all they're forbidden
| and few HN commentators want to go to prison.
|
| As far as I know, most HN commentators are 1) American, 2)
| pseudonymous, 3) and unlikely to be extradited because I
| doubt these kinds of laws would be constitutional in the
| US.
| jessaustin wrote:
| Haha yeah the extradition rules are hardly symmetric are
| they? How the mighty empire has fallen...
| tablespoon wrote:
| Aren't they though? It's just one of the requirements is
| the conduct would have to be a crime in both countries?
| It's not like extradition is "you give us everyone we
| want, and we'll give you everyone you want."
| jackweirdy wrote:
| The judgement is here, page 36 onwards lays out all the
| articles the petitioner claims had contempt of court, and the
| courts interpretation of whether they did or didn't
|
| https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/cos-
| genera...
| p_j_w wrote:
| Thank you. His claims of a Kafkaesque trial don't sound
| very well founded when I read this ruling.
| blibble wrote:
| he has a a reputation for being a conspiracy theorist and
| general lunatic in the UK
| p_j_w wrote:
| I went through his blog and read some of his posts for
| context. That reputation doesn't seem entirely unearned.
| celticninja wrote:
| Are they still victims if the accused is cleared of wrongdoing?
|
| Don't they become false accusers at that stage?
|
| Why do accusers get to keep anonymous when defendants can not?
| micv wrote:
| There not being enough evidence to convict does not equal a
| false accusation.
| MisterBastahrd wrote:
| Potentially?
|
| "Not guilty" does not mean "innocent."
| morpheos137 wrote:
| Is this 1984 style newspeak?
|
| In Common Law countries defendants in criminal proceedings
| are afforded a presumption of innocent. Therefore if they
| are found not guilty they stay innocent as originally
| presumed.
| MisterBastahrd wrote:
| You are pretending that the legal definition of innocence
| is the same as the moral or colloquial definition.
|
| They aren't remotely the same.
| orra wrote:
| > In Common Law countries
|
| (FYI, Scots law is not solely common law. Scots law is a
| hybrid civil and common law.)
|
| > Therefore if they are found not guilty they stay
| innocent as originally presumed.
|
| The point the other poster was making is: being found Not
| Guilty or Not Proven, beyond reasonable doubt, in a
| criminal trial does not imply the accused was morally
| innocent.
|
| Often juries may suspect the accused is morally guilty
| but feel there is insufficient evidence.
|
| Jurors in the UK however are never allowed to talk about
| their deliberations. So we can't know their reasoning.
| celticninja wrote:
| I disagree, innocent until proven guilty. Not guilty
| implies guilt has not been proven, therefore remaining
| innocent.
| andrewaylett wrote:
| Specifically, innocent in the eyes of the law. The legal
| status is very different from the factual question of
| whether he actually did it, which is why different legal
| processes have different standards of proof. And also why
| procedural problems, which obviously don't change whether
| or not the event _happened_ , can still result in the
| accused being found innocent in the eyes of the law.
|
| I'd also point out that "his behaviour was not bad enough
| for him to be convicted of a crime" isn't exactly a
| ringing character endorsement. Especially when the
| Scottish Government messed up the prosecution, something
| they _really_ shouldn 't have been involved in.
| jjgreen wrote:
| The law under which Murray was prosecuted does not protect
| victims, it protects accusers -- Salmond was cleared.
| jackweirdy wrote:
| The March 25 judgement referred to is here:
| https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/cos-genera...
| gorgoiler wrote:
| In what way did he identify the Salmond trial complainants?
| croes wrote:
| He didn't, but the judge said he made jigsaw identification
| possible.
| trhway wrote:
| >"jigsaw identification"
|
| as performed by who? By Sherlock Holmes? or by a regular Shmoe
| lacking any logic skills and thus believing every bit of
| propaganda coming through TV and Internet.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-07-30 23:00 UTC)