Except that didn’t happen with the Max. The engineers thought MCAS was safe. Nobody in management told the engineers to design MCAS do be dependent on a single sensor with no sanity check and nearly physically impossible to override.
It is our opinion that Mr Assange requires urgent expert medical assessment of both his physical and psychological state of health. Any medical treatment indicated should be administered in a properly equipped and expertly staffed university teaching hospital (tertiary care). Were such urgent assessment and treatment not to take place, we have real concerns, on the evidence currently available, that Mr Assange could die in prison. The medical situation is thereby urgent. There is no time to lose.
The article implies that the 7 years he spent in the embassy prior to his arrest amounted to torture.
IMO, at best we could dub his deterioration in the embassy as "self-inflicted", or more accurately institutional neglect on the part of the governments involved.
"... prior to his detention in Belmarsh prison in conditions amounting to solitary confinement, spent almost 7 years restricted to a few rooms in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London. Here, he had been deprived of fresh air, sunlight, the ability to move and exercise freely, and access to adequate medical care."
Extensive solitary confinement is criticized as a form psychological torture. If you're familiar with the US detention system, the treatment of Assange might seem pretty commonplace, the international community generally considers this a form of torture.
Which, one, is Assange's fault for staying the embassy rather than facing the court system. But you could give him that if he truly believed that there was a conspiracy against him and that he couldn't get actual justice.
Then, two, it's Ecuador's fault that he's confined to a few rooms, can't exercise, can't get sunlight, etc. I mean, doesn't their embassy have windows somewhere?
Everyone tries to make this Britain's fault somehow. I can't see it.
You'd figure that if he was being tortured in prison, TFA could actually say so, and we wouldn't need to try to glean hints. Yet, if you follow the references [1], you'll see a fantastic sleight of hand. [2]
Assange spent 7 years in self-imposed exile in the embassy. Throughout this period of time, torture experts have determined that he is showing the psychological symptoms of a torture victim.
In April, he was imprisoned. Torture experts continued visiting him, and have continued observing that he was showing the psychological symptoms of a torture victim. Shockingly, neither prison, nor his conviction for skipping bail make him better.
No evidence that anything about the condition of his imprisonment constitutes torture has been provided. Instead, people point at him, and say that he has clearly been traumatized. That is true - but all evidence points to the trauma being inflicted during his self-imposed exile.
No, I'd like some evidence for one of these two claims:
1. Prisoners in Belmarsh are routinely tortured.
2. Prisoners in Belmarsh are not routinely tortured, but Assange in particular is being singled out for a surprise helping of torture in Belmarsh.
Neither TFA, nor its sources provide any evidence for either of those two things. What they do provide is evidence for the much less incendiary, and less surprising claim of:
1. Assange has not gotten any better since his self-imposed exile.
> Doctors have observed, reported, documented, and endorsed that he is being tortured.
No, they haven't. If you disagree, please cite sources. Ones that don't do the bait-and-switch of pointing at the medical problems he acquired during his pre-incarceration living conditions, and using that to 'prove' the entirely unrelated claim that he is being tortured in Belmarsh.
I strongly doubt that such sources exist, because if they did, publications like TFA would directly, and unambiguously cite them, instead of dancing around the truth.
Assange is a political prisoner and clearly his treatment and situation is different from the rest, so a comparison isn't helpful.
The source is the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. It's linked in the very top of TFA. Sorry you don't like the truth and are yourself trying to dance around it
Why does it matter if he's a political prisoner, or a shoplifter? He's either being tortured, or he's not.
> The source is the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
I have read TFA, I have read its sources, and I see no evidence that points to him currently being tortured, as I have said three times in this thread. Is there a specific passage that you would like to highlight?
it is funny to see how public opinion shifted once the narrative of him being a russian agent having helped trump appeared. People hate trump more than they hate being lied to
It's ridiculous that anyone can have anything but abundant thanks for this man. He shows us the war crimes, lying, cheating, and hypocrisy of our nations' leaders. And yet people want to see him imprisoned or killed because it happened to be against their political preferences. Awful.
Nations probably? So Assange is abused because he exposed the cheating of his parents? I don't know, doesn't work well the analogy for me. Or maybe too well.
It seems to work worldwide: I watch it from Japan. Interestingly most of the commercials are not displayed from here, instead we get the rolling presentation of the channel.
Stop worrying about trying to please the PC police and just run the most addictive and profitable BBS you can. Promote whatever you want and shadow ban whatever.
The Europeons may object, but ultimately in the US the political will doesn’t exist to make you do more. A few politicians like Hawley on the right and AOC on the left may have an issue that works for them, but the American majority is going to look pretty skeptically at any significant regulation.
Not sure where the 42 came from, but requiring the party seeking an injunction to post a bond is pretty standard on a case like this. I would read absolutely nothing into it.
Who cares about what crazy ideas RMS has about assault? If RMS was giving money to rapists I might care. That RMS hangs out in /b isn’t on my concern radar.
I fail to see how being so easily offended is good either for an individual or society. Quick to outrage doesn’t strike me as particularly mindful or consistent with best namaste practices.
The issue of "offense" is a common misunderstanding. Suppose some respected person at a company says something like, "all French epmloyees are morons and thieves." This actively harms French employees in the social dynamics of the company even if not a single one of them was present or heard of it. These "offenses" are not about feelings being hurt, but about the social standing of people being actually degraded when people of a certain status express biases without being confronted and without harm to their status.
I am not saying there can't be pitfalls and dangers, but if you care to know what the perspective of those of us who are in favor of repercussions for people who promote dehumanizing views, that's what we're talking about.
I agree that you don’t want someone with strongly bigoted opinions leading an organization. That’s a far cry from ruining someone’s career because they hold opinions that aren’t approved by a vocal segment of the intelligentsia.
He did a LOT more than voice opinions. That's how you get fired. You do a LOT of shit and then finally you do the last thing that you end up doing before your org decides that you have to go. Don't be willfully ignorant.
I dont know how to feel about this comment. It adds nothing to the intellectual merits of discourse -- just like the OP, but echoes in part what I was thinking. Rarely do I comment but since you're being understandably downvoted I wanted to make an effort to reach out and say something akin to "mood" so you were aware your sentiment is shared, even though it is not very useful information
Have you not read the MANY first hand reports of what the guy did on a daily basis? He is not a good person and his interaction with women, particularly young women has been reported on, so, so, so many times by so many people. Look around, man. I agree, who cares about his crazy ideas. I agree, who cares about his being an insufferable human being. There are not crimes. They way the guy treated three women in my offices over the course of two days in 2013 ALONE was reason enough for him to not work for MIT.
You have no idea how people's opinions about various topics will impact their decisions on other topics. This is thought policing and abject discrimination.
Are you telling me that I'm not supposed to take other peoples opinions into account when deciding who to trust and support? Because if that's the case I will decide not to put any trust in what you say.
> I fail to see how being so easily offended is good either for an individual or society.
That's my concern too. Cancel culture is children throwing tantrums (instead of having a rational discourse) and getting their way, therefore never growing up, as a result of weak parenting. That's the way society is headed unless more educated, libertarian people make an effort to stop it.
Another poster used the word "dehumanizing". That seems like an apt description of the perils of cancel culture. If it's okay to destroy someone's career, their life, without considering whether the response is properly measured, why isn't it okay to (literally) burn them at the stake? And maybe their supporters, too?
Enabling the kind of behavior that RMS has been reported to have engaged in (reported by myself among others) is the evil path. Firing people for violating the standards of their org is a good idea. It should be done more often.
> specific steps to weaken the engineering leadership
What in the world are you talking about? There’s been no reporting of anything like that. The MAX engineers failed all by themselves. No management told them to design MCAS in a brain dead fashion. Nobody “weakened” engineering leadership.
When management makes statements like "we don't need [to pay for] senior engineers here, these are mature products... ", and clearly putting finance first among corporate goals, the natural result is that engineering dies a death by a thousand cuts...
Muilenberg became CEO in 2015. The McDouglas thing happened in '97. He inherited an existing management structure that was already primarily interested in profit over all other concerns, especially engineering.
Moreover, the 737 Max program ran from 2011-2015. The CEO at the time was an MBA.
> Should the government prove that it followed the law when investigating a criminal?
They do, but only if the defendant requires them to do so.
What’s happening here is that the prosecutors told the defendant “look, we all know you did it, so plead guilty and we’ll recommend a light sentence. You have a right to make us reveal our tor backdoor, but if you do the plea offer is off and we will have the trial, and win, and ask the judge to send you to prison until you die.”
I’m sure the defendant is very interested in learning about the tor backdoor, but the idea of getting out of prison one day seems a little more compelling.
IIRC a year or two ago, weren't some criminals let off the hook because they didn't take a deal, and the law enforcement angency didn't want to reveal how the criminals were caught?
