this post was submitted on 19 Feb 2024
54 points (84.6% liked)

World News

39000 readers
2331 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
all 13 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

If your going to wear a wig..why give that wig a bald spot?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago

Aping Caesar

[–] [email protected] 5 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Why do these guys still dress like Colonial Santa? Do they not feel a little silly making the lawyers wear those little green outfits and fake pointy ears?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 8 months ago

The most ridiculous version of that was during the recent ICJ trial about Israeli genocide where the lawyers came from different places and so some dressed like 1700’s land barons and the others just wore normal suits.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (2 children)

If Assange hadn't squatted in that embassy, he'd probably be out by now.

In any case, he lacks credibility as a champion for journalism when he won't confront the leaders who murder journalists.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/17/wikileaks-turned-down-leaks-on-russian-government-during-u-s-presidential-campaign/

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago

Smells like propaganda.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 8 months ago

You're either in favor of freedom of the press and not throwing journalists into jail for uncovering things governments want to keep secret, or you're not.

This appeal to purity is misguided. The US want the power to extradite any journalist anywhere in the world for crimes against the state. Do you want that?

[–] [email protected] 18 points 8 months ago (4 children)

So a judge who has taken cases because he is qualified to see top secret information is assigned a case that contains top secret information.

Why is this a problem? I don't see a conflict of interest here.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago

Most evil in the world doesn't come from cartoon villains. It comes from people just doing their job but they have been filtered, trained and biased because of the rules of the system. If all they have to do is say "top secret" to get filter for a certain kind of desirable person and the entire process biased against democratic interests like freedom of the press and accountability for governments, then they win. "They" being the anti-democratic systems of power.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 8 months ago

Only because the leak involves the agency the judge used to work for. It’s just that.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I guess they're trying to insinuate that there's a conflict of interest because he worked for a government agency and Wikileaks leaked documents pertaining to that government agency.

But, like... That would be like saying no judge could oversee the case of someone who attacked a courthouse because they work for the same legal system. That would be a real loophole in the law if by breaking the right ones, you just couldn't be tried anymore.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago

It's more like only having to say "purple" and then only get people who worked with purple before and are much more likely to be pro-purple than normal people who are overwhelmingly anti purple.

Just replace "purple" with "government secret".