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.
this post was submitted on 19 Feb 2024
54 points (84.6% liked)
World News
37320 readers
3170 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
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/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
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.
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".
Only because the leak involves the agency the judge used to work for. It’s just that.
Agreed. Not sure what the problem is here.
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.
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?
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.
If your going to wear a wig..why give that wig a bald spot?
Aping Caesar
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.
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?
Smells like propaganda.