Assange in Court | Hacker News Reader

Assange in Court

craigmurray.org.uk

259 pointsk1m165 comments

Open articleView on HN

"Extradition shall not be granted if the offense for which extradition is requested is a political offense."

If an American journalist in UK is publishing Chinese military secrets, he will not be extradited to China.

If an Australian journalist in UK is publishing American military secrets, will he be extradited to America?

This is the question now...

Many would argue that Assange isn't a journalist.

And so that also is a factor.

I'll venture that the question of whether he is or is not a journalist is moot. The question is, "Is the offence for which extradition is sought political?"

It's relevant in that his crimes e.g. publishing classified material are permissible if it's done so by a journalist for public interest reasons i.e. Pentagon Papers case:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers

And all extraditions have a degree of politicisation about them so it wouldn't be at all abnormal here.

WL partnered with journalists from all the world. Questioning if he himself is a journalist is rather dishonest considering he thinks himself one and he is responsible for millions of informative, ground-breaking articles written worldwide.

The Australian Journalist should not be concerned about precedent set in a US court against a US citizen.

Don't kill the messenger.

Publishing classified material isn't a crime for someone who doesn't hold a security clearance. However it is illegal to actively encourage or assist others in stealing classified information.

What is he if not a journalist? He is not accused of leaking documents himself, but of facilitating their dissemination. Sounds more or less like the textbook definition of journalism to me.

So the issue with Assange was that he never showed any "limitation of harm" when he chose not to redact any of the content. It's a pretty core tenant of journalism ethics.

Those sort of subtleties are important when you're going to be arguing in front of a judge.

But the sort of pond scum that work for the British tabloids also never show any restraint, and yet no-one questions that they are journalists.

No, it's the "just a blogger" thing - if you only publish on the internet and not in print then your journalistic credentials will always be slightly suspect.

(source: I ran a newspaper, and while 90% of our readers read our stories on our website or FB page, according to our market research the fact that we printed actual paper gave us way more credibility with our audience than competitors who just published on the internet)

Tabloids toe the line more so than other publications.

They would never publish classified material without clearing it first with the UK government. And at minimum carefully redacting information that would put people in harm's way.

There seems to be a hypothesis nestled in there that the tabloids are run by responsible, clear thinking individuals who are pretending to be uncivilised boors but will drop the facade when confronted with an important issue.

What odds might be put on them actual being uncivilised boors who'll publish anything that gets eyeballs?

More likely they wouldn't publish raw classified information because it is dry and boring.

But he did do that? Wikileaks partnered with media houses from all over the world, part of that process included the joint dissemination and "limitation of harm" by censoring names in the field.

No, that is not the issue. That's just a Gish gallop-like defense coughed up now.

It's not true that you have to limit harm to the government's taste in order to be considered a journalist, and it's not true that Assange did not try to limit harm either.

> Those sort of subtleties are important when you're going to be arguing in front of a judge.

Not in front of this judge. If there's one thing the case against Assange hasn't been, it's subtle!

He never released anything that was damaging to a specific individual and actually resulted in harm to that person. His filtering is done by the amount of material he gets and what he chooses to release.

That's entirely moot from the standpoint of determining guilt or innocence in US criminal court.

It sounds like the textbook definition of a publisher.

I don’t think it should be a factor at this stage. Assange will get the time to argue he’s a journalist in the US.

However, I’m sure the judge will be influenced by her estimate of how likely Assange’s defense is to win their case.

Consider the alternative: the Espionage Act is almost never used, partly because there is a very strong chance it’s unconstitutional. Do we expect a UK judge to determine whether a US law violates the US Constitution as part of an extradition hearing? Or does it make more sense to extradite and have the US court system rule on the law’s constitutionality?

The UK at least is a common law country with historical connections to the US and a common language. I would expect a UK judge to do a better job of applying US law than a judge from a civil law country.

Yes, the inconvenience of being extradited and spending time in jail should mean something, but in practice the courts don’t give that a lot of weight. They just say they’ve balanced the relevant factors and made a decision.

In the U.S. there's no such thing as being a licensed journalist. Anyone can be a journalist.

"Anyone can be a journalist." Yes. That is what one should expect of any country with a minimum of press freedom.

What is the test for being a journalist? Serious question.

Whether you like Assange or what he stands for. If no, he's not a journalist.

Agreed, he has accomplished more than a journalist could ever hope to achieve.

> If an American journalist in UK is publishing Chinese military secrets, he will not be extradited to China.

That's absolutely correct as the UK doesn't have an extradition treaty with China.

There is a double standard. I doubt that the wife of the US diplomat will ever be extradited to the UK after killing a UK citizens. [1]

[1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-usa-crash-parents...

The UK-US extradition treaty is already not well regarded in the UK, if the US diplomat does not show up in the UK this is likely to play a big part in how the press treats high profile US extradition cases.

It’s definitely an interesting situation.

Further complicated by diplomatic immunity in this case. If it was just an extradition case the US would probably be more willing to play ball.

Of course, she never had diplomatic immunity - her husband works for the NSA, and was not on the official list of diplomats (those whose credentials are presented and accepted at the Court of St James).

You don't need to be on the official list to acquire diplomatic immunity (that would be an easy way for foreign regimes to deny diplomatic immunity). There are chefs, drivers, etc. who have diplomatic immunity but are not on the official list (because that would unreasonably lengthen it).

Additionally, the RAF base her husband was stationed at is legally considered an annex of the US Embassy in London, so arguably she did have diplomatic immunity at that point in time.

She has since returned to the US which means diplomatic immunity no longer applies to her, but as far as I can see, she was covered by immunity at the time of the incident.

There's an interesting analysis here which (mostly) agrees with you, with the proviso that we only have Boris Johnson's government's word (for all that's worth!) that she was covered by a form of immunity:

https://grberridge.diplomacy.edu/the-sacoolas-affair-diploma...

Since we are discussing this in the context of a Craig Murray article, here's Craig arguing that Sacoolas clearly lacks diplomatic immunity, and that an RAF Base in no way can be considered an annex of the US Embassy: https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/10/the-foreign-....

Having read Craig Murray's post mentioned in an adjoining comment — and taken the time to read the relevant legislation, I concede that she's not covered by diplomatic immunity and neither is her husband.

I also retract my assertion regarding the annexation of the base — I can't see that it has any legal basis to it other than a political exercise by the Government.

Reminded me of Gary McKinon... i was amazed at how easily the UK gave lip service to the US regarding its own citizens.

Lauri Love would be a more recent example. Controversial extradition cases do not have a great track record in the UK, I'd almost be surprised if Assange ever gets put on a plane.

There is always a double standard with extradition of nationals vs foreigners. Most countries will not extradite you if you are a citizen of that country, if you are a foreigner though you are less lucky.

That's not a political offense though, that's a hit and run. She could have been extradited for that if she didn't have diplomatic immunity, however, does the US ever extradite someone to a foreign country? I mean the hypothetical scenario of e.g. Bush or Obama being tried for war crimes in The Hague has come up at some point; iirc the statement then was that the US would send in the military to get them out again. And they'd get away with it too - international treaties and/or the UN has little to no power over them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr... :

“[The American Service Members Protection Act] authorizes the U.S. president to use ‘all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any U.S. or allied personnel being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court.’ This authorization has led the act to be nicknamed the ‘Hague Invasion Act.’”

But it doesn’t apply to all Americans. Technically, it only applies to Americans connected to the military, although I would expect similar efforts to apply for several other important people.

Well is not the first time a US citizen kills an european one in an accident and gets away with it. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teo_Peter

Not even the second: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavalese_cable_car_disaster_(1...

Non-mobile: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teo_Peter

"The charge against Julian is very specific; conspiring with Chelsea Manning to publish the Iraq War logs, the Afghanistan war logs and the State Department cables. The charges are nothing to do with Sweden, nothing to do with sex, and nothing to do with the 2016 US election"

I'd like to call out the popular and prolific users of hacker news who previously were all about Sweden, sex and election interference and who are very silent now.

> I'd like to call out the popular and prolific users of hacker news who previously were all about Sweden, sex and election interference and who are very silent now.

What do you mean? Obviously it was always about US military secrets... our point was simply, that sex/Sweden were a distraction, a ploy to keep him until they could build a case (or, as it happened, until they managed to install a more favorable government in Ecuador).

That doesn't even make any sense.

How could the US extradite Assange for a crime committed in Sweden ?

And why would they extradite for election interference when Barr would just shut it down ?

The author here is painting the UK as rolling over and doing whatever the US says, rather than applying proper justice.

This is why people were skeptical of the Sweden charges. It was commonly believed that the point of those charges (whether they were true or not) was to get Assange to Sweden, at which point Sweden could roll over, do the US's bidding and extradite him to the US.

> It was commonly believed that the point of those charges (whether they were true or not) was to get Assange to Sweden, at which point Sweden could roll over, do the US's bidding and extradite him to the US.

Which was always ridiculous, as it was based on the idea that Sweden would be more willing to extradite than the UK, a ridiculous notion.

Sweden is one of a number of nations who have cooperated with US Extraordinary Renditions in the past [0] and also has an extradition treaty with the United States. The extradition request probably has a similar chance of success in both countries.

It is a notion that can be very reasonably entertained; especially since there are a very limited number of Swedish lawyers on HN who can interpret the extradition treaty. Sweden could easily fold like an origami under US pressure regardless of the law too.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition#Sweden

> How could the US extradite Assange for a crime committed in Sweden ?

For a lot of stuff the US applies "global jurisdiction" as soon as anything in the US is being touched, which is also the base for the Kim Dotcom / Megaupload extradition case.

The Swedish case was a separate issue; he hid in the embassy until the clock ran out on that. It's difficult to say how differently things would have gone if he'd simply gone to Sweden, but I would have expected them to be less likely to re-extradite than the UK.

It's perfectly possible for the US to be overreaching in its "national security" prosecutions and also for Assange to have sexually assaulted someone in Sweden.

This is a lie.

"The clock ran out" only on some of the crimes he was accused of. Sweden simply dropped the case (i.e. decided not to proceed with extradition request) after he got out of the embassy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange#Swedish_sexual_...

> the questioning pertained only to the open investigation of "lesser degree rape", whose statute of limitations is due to expire in 2020

> Following Assange's 2019 arrest, the case was reopened under prosecutor Eva-Marie Persson. In September 2019, she revealed that she had interviewed seven witnesses, two of whom had not been previously heard, but had yet to determine how to proceed in the case.

It might be less inflammatory to say "this is incorrect" rather than "this is a lie".

Or do you have reason to think that pjc50 is deliberately lying?

So many untruths ("lies") in this thread, I expect it to be full of shills. At some point it gets really hard to attribute to incompetence, not malice...

“Please do not think that the case is being dealt with as just another extradition request,” wrote a lawyer for the UK Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) in 2011, without explaining why, or why the CPS would spent the next few years arguing against their Swedish colleagues questioning Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy in order to resolve the matter. In 2013, when Swedish prosecutors proposed to drop extradition proceedings against Assange, it was the CPS who persuaded them to continue.

In 2017, having finally questioned Assange after refusing to do so for more than six years, the Swedish authorities dropped the investigation altogether. Both the accusers and the accused were denied any chance of justice through the incomprehensible delaying tactics of the prosecutors in both countries.

https://www.crikey.com.au/2018/07/25/wikileaks-political-ror... Author: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Ludlam

The real gripe: he revealed too much. Now the political and security classes are just looking to make an example of him, to deter anyone else who would unveil their crimes and abuses.

I don't think anyone would look to repeat assange's life story at this point. A decade in semi self-imposed detention before being dragged before the judge and jailed for breach of bail and then a long drawn out court hearing. It hardly seems worth leaking state secrets that a lot of military/industry guys knew about anyway.

He was in the UK when he was arrested for extradition to Sweden. He was in the UK [1] when he was arrested for extradition to the USA.

As I have said before, the very fact that the USA is having essentially zero difficulty with extraditing him from the UK even thought the rape case preceded the USA case and is ongoing and is nearly facing the statute of limitations demonstrates that his claim “going to Sweden will cause me to be face the death penalty in the USA” is bogus — the USA neither needed nor benefited from him being in Sweden.

If anything, I am as angry with the USA for preventing him from facing his rape accusers in trial in Sweden as for interfering with anti-warcrime whistleblowing (journalism or not) by going after him like this.

[1] I neither know nor care if he was technically in the embassy at the time as they had just kicked him out anyway.

> demonstrates that his claim “going to Sweden will cause me to be face the death penalty in the USA” is bogus

Doesn't matter; what matters is what Assange thought would happen. He clearly thought that if he left the Embassy he would be promptly sent to the US.

And lo and behold, it is shaping up that he was right. Did he know the exact legal mechanisms that would be employed - apparently not. But his overall read of the situation has been vindicated.

It most certainly does matter, as he only went into that embassy in the first place to avoid going to Sweden. He would have been at least as safe in Sweden as in the UK, even if convicted.

> he only went into that embassy in the first place to avoid going to Sweden.

His attempt to avoid that was basically 10 years of self-imposed jail in Ecuador's embassy and his health gave out.

His decisions make sense if he thought he was at risk of being black-holed in America. They don't make sense if he thought he was only up for what Sweden is accusing him of. The Swedes are going to be charging with relatively minor non-violent crimes like otherwise-consensual sex without a condom.

In 50 years, people will look in disgust and utter disbelief at our treatment of Assange.

Or maybe this is too optimistic. Maybe our grandsons will indeed understand us. They will understand us too well, and be ashamed of us.

He will be forgotten in ten years. And for a good reason.

What good reason?

He absolutely will not be forgotten. He is a hero. Even now he has a wikipedia article, multiple movies about him, tons of support from the people supporting the freedom of information and those who are sick of the secretive bullshit going on behind the curtains.

one man's hero is another man's villain.

And in either case, when they are relevant enough, they are not forgotten.

But do you honestly believe he will be relevant enough in 10 years? No doubt some will remember him, but I say way more people will know Snowden than Assange in ten years.

He was well known 10 years ago and he is well known today. By extrapolation, it is natural to assume that he'll be also in 10 years.

The founder of wiki leaks forgotten in ten years? With all due respect but the chances of that happening are quite slim.. Julian Assange will end up in multiple history books whether you like it or not.

We remember Emmett Till, but only because there’s been a big effort to remember.

Funny to read through the comments going back and forth on definitions of journalism and the details of extradition treaties.

Did you not read the article? The convoluted legal language and system are used to explain away the reality that there are no rules really.

If you mess with powerful interests you are in trouble. No legislation or rights or specifics make the slightest difference at all. It's uncomfortable, but that's reality.

The difference might be life in prison and being able to see your kids in visits vs being killed on the spot in less civilized countries.

Did you not read the article? He is effectively being killed on the spot, just a bit more slowly than less civilized countries.

>Baraitser then capped it all by saying the February hearing will be held, not at the comparatively open and accessible Westminster Magistrates Court where we were, but at Belmarsh Magistrates Court, the grim high security facility used for preliminary legal processing of terrorists, attached to the maximum security prison where Assange is being held. There are only six seats for the public in even the largest court at Belmarsh, and the object is plainly to evade public scrutiny and make sure that Baraitser is not exposed in pulic again again to a genuine account of her proceedings, like this one you are reading. I will probably be unable to get in to the substantive hearing at Belmarsh.

Its perverse

Following the WikiLeaks story from its early days until today leave me incredibly demoralized and to be frank, angry. If I where to list the amount of injustices WikiLeaks and those who have associated with them have suffered, I would sit here all night, and I strongly suspect that is by intelligent design.

This story, if the end of it is as it seems, it will mark a shift in the perceived ideals of the "free world".

It further erodes any case 'the West' has to argue against the behaviour of China.

And that is a sad indictment on the path the 'victors' of WWII have followed.

(Edited to add: if the account given in the article is relatively accurate)

The US having a corrupt and unaccountable elite class of politicians is not equivalent to China having a single dictator whose whims are law

It is not equivalent, it is worse, because in the west people have a false sense of security.

> It further erodes any case 'the West' has to argue against the behaviour of China.

Can we just stop with this? Bringing this up distracts from the issue at hand, which has nothing to do with China or 'The West's' opinions of it. Regardless, is it not quite clear at this point that the issue is the elite of the world and not one specific nation?

I was hesitant to make the comment. However I decided to post it because the current political climate makes it relevant. The situation in Hong Kong, democracy, human rights abuses, it's all part of the current discussion-fabric of politics, and the treatment of Julian Assange fits perfectly as a piece in that puzzle, as does Snowden.

China are just the Eastasia of the moment, which is why that example was chosen.

Yes, the 'elite' of the world are a problem, if not THE problem. I'm trying to point out that the soft-power that 'The West' had, as a point of difference, as a rallying cry for the moral high-ground, is rapidly disappearing, and the lines separating Oceania, Eurasia and Eastasia are blurry at best and non-existent at worst.

I've said before, there are no good guys in the world of major political powers. It's sad, but it appears to be fairly plain fact, and potentially a human inevitability.

That's the issue at hand. The treatment of Assange is a symptom of it.

If even a quarter of this went down as described in the article this is seriously fucked up beyond measure.

I have no information about whether it went down that way or not. All I know is that this article set of my "extremely biased source" warnings quite strongly.

Is there any coverage of this in the mainstream press? Any verification of any of the content of this article? Anything?

Or are we getting all riled up because one person wrote an article with the intent of riling people up?

As I said, I don't know. I would welcome other sources.

This exposes the sham that is western "democracy". Everything is allowed to persecute those who oppose the status quo. The so called freedom they claim for themselves when they attack Russia, China or Venezuela in the corporate media is a right reserved for those who have money and who submit to the ruling class.

> This exposes the sham that is western "democracy".

Comparing western democracy to Venezuela is facetious at best, but I agree it's a sham. Just for entirely different reasons. If people really cared about this issue, then western democracy still has checks and balances for the people to make change.

The problem is Assange has long become a boring item in the news cycle, and we as a people in that democracy just don't care enough anymore.

The narrative of him being a rapist, and letting it simmer for enough years, was very effective.

An injustice commited to one is a threat made to all. This is deffinitely a stain and an open bleeding wound on western powers history and supposed values/principles, this wound will only tend to grow. Sadly it's one those events with a dimension so large that it can go unnoticed because of how big it is, it is an Omen. Julian Assange is the first nonviolent, information activist made a political enemy targeted and persecuted in global scale. He's already being imprisioned and tortured for years without a fair trial and with his human rights denied. God bless him!

I think it is important to look at this with the lens of objectivity:

Accusations that Assange is actively being not just harassed but outright tortured to the point where he "might not survive the proceedings" in jail...

... to claims that "members of the US Government" were there and "controlling procedures"

and claims that the judge had been instructed what to say:

> possibly she had not properly memorised what Lewis had been instructing her to agree with

Apropos of anything else:

> Baraitser took her cue from Lewis and stated categorically that the date for the extradition hearing, 25 February, could not be changed.

> Lewis received his American instructions and agreed that the defence might have two months to prepare their evidence (they had said they needed an absolute minimum of three) but the February hearing date may not be moved.

As far as I can tell the hearing date is over four months away.

These are all very large claims and should be considered within the spectrum of someone who is as equally friendly towards Assange as he claims the state is against him.

>objectivity

>considered within the spectrum

What is your purpose here? To defend the actions of the UK court, which is clearly being corrupted by following direction from US agents?

Or to open the door for the, very definite Assange-haters, to have a way around the argument that Assange is not getting a fair trial, that this case is a total farce, and that anyone who stands up to the military-industrial-pharmaceutical complex is 'an enemy of the West'?

One example:

Very article linked in the original post talks about concerns for Assange's health, saying he has been in the medical ward in jail.

Yet apparently it's not at all possible that he is on medications to help with his mental state (which would explain - though in this case note that I would entirely agree that the use of such medication would interfere with his "ability to understand" - his demeanor as being 'flat' and 'slow' and 'confused'), and instead apparently a foregone conclusion to assume that he is being physically and mentally subjected to "extreme torture".

> anyone who stands up to the military-industrial-pharmaceutical complex is 'an enemy of the West'?

Please. You'd be very much mistaken to think I have -any- sympathy for the "military-industrial-pharmaceutical complex", as even a cursory reading of my comments on issues of health insurance in the US, or military interventions would show.

Believe it or not, it is possible to think that Assange has committed multiple crimes for less than noble reasons in amongst the good he has done, without being an agent for the state, deep or otherwise.

Innocent until proven guilty.

But in the meantime: medicated into oblivion so he can't adequately defend himself.

"Concern for his mental health" is just an excuse for "medically lobotomized".

> Innocent until proven guilty

And for that to hold, you have to let him be tried. Justice isn't automatic.

But people (maybe not you) seem far too quick to start muddying up the due process. It seems that if he is found guilty, nobody will accept that.

From here, it seems perfectly plausible that he actively helped Manning leak. If the US have evidence to that end, they have a case. Can we just let that case be heard and stop assuming that every actor here is a Bond villain?

> It seems that if he is found guilty, nobody will accept that.

It depends what they find him guilty of and what the sentence is. It is unacceptable to have someone on trial for openly telling the truth about what a foreign country is doing.

He went into the Ecuadorian embassy saying that the Swedish case against him was basically trumped up and that he was going to be extradited to the United States. His justification for staying in the embassy on the basis that he would be extradited to the US if he walked out. His excuses were dismissed by critics as unconvincing. He is now out of the embassy and, surprisingly, appears to be going through an extradition process to the US.

The US is reaching out and nabbing him on the flimsiest of pretexts; more a process crime than doing anything material. Australians in Europe cannot be reasonably held subject to US laws related to classified documents. And how materially he helped Manning is a very open question. Maybe the US government is going to have something convincing but the odds are great it is some word game that they are going to try and nail him with.

> Can we just let that case be heard and stop assuming that every actor here is a Bond villain?

If the US government is going to treat Assange the way they treat other non-US-citizens they don't like then by the time the case is heard it will be too late.

> The US is reaching out and nabbing him on the flimsiest of pretexts; more a process crime than doing anything material.

Allegedly actively assisting a US military member to a) crack other military passwords, and b) work with them on covering said attempts is a mere "flimsy pretext, [not] material"?

Maybe you feel that is worth thousands to millions of dollars spent hunting down a man for 10 years. I doubt Assange would have been aware of that sort of technicality and it is highly likely that something else would have been fabricated if they didn't have that as an excuse.

From memory he didn't even succeed on the password front. The 'crime' here is an incidental non-issue compared to why the US has been hounding him.

> I doubt Assange would have been aware of that sort of technicality

Wait, elsewhere, and repeatedly, it's been noted just how intelligent Assange is, and (hence) how out of character the disheveled, slow person who appeared in court is. And I have zero doubt - he has repeatedly showed in interviews that for whatever potential personality flaws he may have, or personal opinion of him, he is, indeed, very well educated, intelligent, and smart.

So this? Fails the smell test. Fails the reasonable person test.

Someone as intelligent that - you believe it is "doubt[ful]" that he would be aware that aiding an active US military personnel in cracking passwords for accounts on classified systems, and encouraging them to use/try other credentials for covering tracks on the access of classified documents and their removal from external systems... it's doubtful that he would realize that that was possibly going to be viewed as a serious crime by the US?

I don't buy _that_ for a moment - throughout those chat logs there is multiple references to covering tracks, to covering bases on how to act, react, what to say or do when questioned, etc. - that is not someone who is blissfully unaware of the crime which they are (allegedly) committing, or aiding and abetting.

Telling someone to Google a publicly available tool is hardly assisting in any criminal way

And if he stopped resisting, he'd have the opportunity to test that view in a court.

As we have seen, "stop resisting" is a sure-fire way to have yourself turned into a chemical zombie by the state that's supposed to be protecting you.

I doubt very much that the 'rational approach' of giving oneself up to the very people whose crimes you've been revealing is going to be a productive way to continue the effort of revealing crimes against humanity.

> As we have seen

We have? Where?

In mmjaa's fevered imagination. To him, Assange's reported lack of clarity in court is proof that the state is chemically lobotomizing him. Actual evidence has not so far been presented.

"mmjaa is insane" - ah, there we go, the standard response for anyone challenged by the thought that, perhaps, they're not living in as free a society as they think - especially when all it takes to get someone chemically lobotomized, is to challenge their sanity.

Lets come back to this in a few months when there will be evidence of Assanges' torture by the UK on behalf of its masters in the USA, presented to the relevant authorities.

Remember this: Medicating people with psychotropic drugs designed to radically alter their minds, against their will, is a crime against humanity.

I am not saying you're insane. I'm saying you are jumping to conclusions without evidence, that is, that you are making stuff up. So I keep asking for evidence that supports your conclusions, and your response is "there might be evidence in a few months". That's... not very convincing.

It has been widely reported that Bellmarsh medicates its political prisoners. It has also been reported by everyone who sees him that Assange is medicated.

Where? They're either really good at censoring Google, or you're talking out your hat.

Maybe Big G's in on it too.

Pro-Assange accounts are indeed being censored:

https://classconscious.org/2019/06/29/protest-at-twitter-hq-...

There is a media block (the UK can do that quite simply) on any reporting about Assange's health and conditions in Bellmarsh:

https://www.opednews.com/articles/Media-Block-on-Assange-s-T...

There is a definite campaign to torture/brainwash Assange while he is in Bellmarsh, as discovered by a UN investigator:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_94lj_bosc&t=3s

Your link about treatment "while he is in Bellmarsh" actually relates to the psychological trauma from locking himself inside the Ecuadorian embassy.

The rest is unsubstantiated conspiracy theory.

Every western political dissident since 1950 has been subject to mind-altering chemical lobotomies for 'the sake of their mental health'. Anyone who pays even the slightest attention to the way dissidents are treated in the West can observe this for themselves. It is the norm to heavily medicate dissidents and those who proffer undesirable viewpoints against the powers that be - "he must be insane" is the standard repose for those having their crimes revealed.

All you have to do, is pay attention. Julian even predicted it would happen to him personally and warned us.

Look at the David Shayler case, for example. He was in the Bellmarsh brainwashing pipeline before Assange, and the same thing is happening to Julian.

Well it seems there's always something else. He's a journalist. He's committed a political crime and that rules out extradition. He's being targeted by a state entity so this isn't fair. The only crime he may have committed is only a minor felony. He probably didn't know that it was a minor felony. Sweden weren't going to treat him fairly. She was a CIA plant. Uruguay didn't treat him fairly. The US won't treat him fairly. They'll torture and execute him.

All I've seen is a man dodging the law, over and over and over again, exploiting means and influence that most people could only dream of, while those friends point out the toll this self-inflicted purgatory is having on him as another form of "this isn't fair!" excuse.

It's all tosh. Negotiate your extradition, get to court, get this sorted. The time he takes to get there is all on him.

You've identified 9 good reasons there.

There probably weren't any CIA plants involved and the US is unlikely to execute him.

The US will medicate him until he is chemically lobotomized and no longer a threat to their war-fighting operations, which are paramount to all other exercises in civil discourse, such as civil rights, human rights, not killing innocent people at scale, etc.

And if that is indeed what is happening:

> in this case note that I would entirely agree that the use of such medication would interfere with his "ability to understand"

> medicated into oblivion so he can't adequately defend himself.

They wouldn't need to medicate him so that he can't defend himself.

This was a case management hearing. He wasn't ever going to get an opportunity to defend himself as that's not what it's for. He's not even required to attend.

True, it's possible. You can also be a complete tool.

As I've been saying constantly, what you can believe is more important than who you can believe (Murray has big problems with this himself, unfortunately). That Assange is being abused is one of the facts you have to concede if you've looked at the case at all - even if you distrust all involved parties.

Wow, so he's either being tortured or medicated to the point he has difficulty saying his own name and date of birth. Clearly there's no problem with their medicating and this is clearly normal UK prison conditions.

> To defend the actions of the UK court, which is clearly being corrupted by following direction from US agents?

Clearly corrupted if the article is accurate. FireBeyond questioned the accuracy. You assume the accuracy of the article, and question FireBeyond's motives. But the question still stands: Is the article accurate? Can you provide any confirmation that it is? Are there any independent accounts of the hearing? (I don't regard the article as an independent account; the author stated that he is a close friend of Assange.)

If you have reason to think the article is correct, I will listen. If not, though, then FireBeyond's comment is very relevant, and your response is totally beside the point.

Given the long history of atrocious crimes against humanity being committed by the US and its Coalition allies, it is logical to conclude that Assange has been chemically lobotomized in order to reduce the threat he poses to war-fighting operations.

If you want an independent view of Assange's mental health and wellbeing, you're going to have to wait. He is being held in Bellmarsh so that nobody can actually verify anything - not even his lawyers, and that IS THE POINT ENTIRELY - thus giving the CIA and its UK lackeys every opportunity to have their way with Assange, without anyone knowing anything until its well and truly, too late.

If you want 'independent verification' before you're willing to believe the state would do this to its enemies, maybe you should look at the long history of other enemies of the state being chemically lobotimized once they are held in secret conditions under the control of agents of the very military-industrial complex institutions whose crimes against humanity are being revealed.

BY DESIGN: there is no public oversight and there won't be until they have finished their lobotomy operation.

This is a serious situation which requires citizens such as yourself to have the courage to confront the details: the West has been torturing and disappearing its dissidents for decades. Go find out for yourself how bad it is.

I do not deny that such things have happened. But by your logic, every time a light bulb burns out in Tierra del Fuego, it's logical to conclude that it's a CIA conspiracy, because of the long history of CIA intervention in Latin America. That is, while such things have happened, far more things have happened that were not the result of the US government's nefariousness.

What I wanted was an independent account of the hearing. I know Assange is locked up and isn't able to give interviews. But his friend was able to attend the hearing, so reporters should have been able to, also. Where are their reports?

And, in particular, the US is requesting extradition, so of course US agents are in court requesting stuff from the judge. I'd like to hear from an unbiased reporter whether what happened at the hearing was normal, or whether it really was US agents improperly controlling the court.

As I said, this article is so clearly biased that I cannot accept its judgment on this question. Where are the mainstream news accounts?

> If you want 'independent verification' before you're willing to believe the state would do this to its enemies, maybe you should look at the long history of other enemies of the state being chemically lobotimized once they are held in secret conditions under the control of agents of the very military-industrial complex institutions whose crimes against humanity are being revealed.

You're making the claim. Cite some sources (preferably creditable ones).

>What I wanted was an independent account of the hearing. ... Where are their reports?

Indeed, the silence is deafening. Why do you think nobody else in Western media would be reporting on their observations of Assange during this hearing?

The reason is, this whole legal process is a farce. Assange has been chemically lobotomized, and will not get a fair trial - because he is now in the hands of the very people whose crimes against humanity he was dedicated to exposing.

Nevertheless, there will be more leaks, and there will be more actions taken against warmongers and criminals who think they are invincible. There is a big package of justice coming their way...

How is it possible there is not yet a huge mob gathering near the court and threatening to burn everything. Because, this is literally revolting. How many people support that? And how many people are disgusted by that? Would nobody regret doing nothing?

I assume if there were a mob of assange supporters in the UK they would have mobbed near the Ecuadorian embassy and secreted him out of England.

Not necessarily, because, at that time, there was still hope things would go more smoothly, at least not threatening him at this point as we see now.

I doubt most people care.

Outside of a few friends, I doubt most people I know know that this is 1) going on and 2) who Assange even is.

It doesn't help that Assange is kind of unsavory. It should not affect things, but it does.

also that "mainstream" journalists refuse to recognise him as a journalist and defend his rights like they would one of their own.

> also that "mainstream" journalists refuse to recognise him as a journalist and defend his rights like they would one of their own.

Mainstream American journalists have been bending over backwards doing exactly that with regard to the US indictment, even when it requires rather unusual characterization of what journalism normally entails to make the case.

They haven't been focussed on the extradition because they don't view the extradition as the problem, but the indictment.

It doesn't matter, he is still a journalist, and he has accomplished more than they will in a life time.

It's ten years since he was arrested (just weeks after the Cablegate release - but they'll have you believe that was a complete coincidence).

Kids who were 8 years old at the time can vote now.

It makes you wonder what the world would have looked like, had Wikileaks not been shattered.

It's not just Assange. Arjen Kamphuis disappeared without a trace on a trip in Norway. Ola Bini is jail in Ecuador. Aaron Swartz and James Dolan, who worked on SecureDrop and probably on Wikileaks' own submission system, both committed suicide.

State propaganda ops from all sides rushed in to fill the void after Wikileaks was crippled.

Chelsea Manning is in jail yet again because they're forcing her to testify again and she's refusing

Most people don't even know the difference between Snowden and Assange, if they recognize the names at all.

You are correct. And it's the downside of living in an hyper-connected world: there is so much going on that the vast majority of people are numb to everything happening in the world, important or not unless it affects them directly (and I don't count in that "directly" things that will affect them 5 years down the road)

And then there's the whole Brexit thing, which probably upsets the average UK citizen a lot more than what some dude did years ago.

A lot of people have heard about Wikileaks and Assange, but that doesn't mean that people care or read the news.

Most people I know think Assange is a Russian asset and Wikileaks is a Russian front organization. (Although I do not.)

Bear in mind that with Lauri Love, while the case was lost in 2016 and a judge ruled that he could be extradited, it then went to the high court and was overturned two years later.

Lauri Love is a British national while Assange is a Australian national. Would the nationality of the defendant have an impact on the Westminster Magistrates' Court's decision?

In theory, no. Everyone is equal in the eyes of the law. The nationality of the subject isn't a factor that would have a particular bearing either way. The courts are supposed to look at where it makes sense to try the crime, rather than the nationality of the offender.

In this case, most of the evidence is presumably in the United States so it doesn't make sense for the trial to happen in the United Kingdom, assuming the United Kingdom has the relevant offence too (I haven't looked it up, but I presume it would be breaching the Official Secrets Act or something along those lines).

Obviously, it is more persuasive to have a British national tried at home (especially with comparative legal systems, e.g. the offence exists in both countries) rather than a foreign judicial system. The same cannot be said for a foreign national, especially if the foreign prosecuting authority will have a much stronger case built up than a domestic prosecuting authority could achieve.

This doesn't bode well for any inkling Snowden may have of returning to the US in a timeframe that doesn't include some kind of revolutionary change of government.

Can someone explain to me why there is apparently no footage of this? Aren't court hearings supposed to be public or was filming simply not allowed?

Public does not mean that filming is allowed. The UK seems to handle it the same as for example Germany does.

Constant broadcasts of real court sessions seems to be a mostly American thing.

It is illegal to record proceedings in a court within the UK under S41 of the Criminal Justice Act 1925 (no photography or drawings) and S9 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 (no sound recordings or public playing of recordings).

Courts may choose to televise their own proceedings (for example, the Supreme Court in the UK televises its hearings) but they are not obliged to. This happens under S32 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013.

The hearing was public (most court hearings are public): you could go and sit in the public gallery if you so wished (space permitting), but you are not allowed to film or record the proceedings without the permission of the court.

Wow. I didn't know that. Sounds like a recipe for disaster.

I thought England self-styled itself a "democracy", but it looks like putting together kangaroo courts is ridiculously easy over there.

Respectfully, I disagree. This case was heard by a magistrate, the "Tier 1" of the judicial system. There are multiple levels of appeal available after the initial hearing is concluded.

Magistrates in this scenario (dealing with extradition matters) sit alone so yes, it is theoretically possible to have a "kangaroo court" at first instance, however if the judge was unreasonable or erred in law or fact, it would be swiftly corrected by the High Court (Queen's Bench Division - Criminal) or the Supreme Court by way of appeal.

These two courts sit as a panel. The High Court typically has three judges on the bench, while the Supreme Court has 11. It is theoretically easy to influence a single judge; it is much harder to inappropriately influence three or 11 to get a majority verdict in your favour.

There are no suggestions that the judge here was improperly influenced and if they were, they would be subject to disciplinary proceedings by the Office for Judicial Conduct. It goes without saying that the case would also be ruled a mistrial and another judge would handle it all over again.

As a future British lawyer, I don't see what filming the proceedings would bring to the judicial system in terms of legitimacy.

Court transcripts are publicly available, anyone can come to the hearings (unless it's a closed session which is rare) and report on the events. Justice is seen to be done, and filming appears largely inappropriate for the vast majority of cases proceeding through the judicial system in my opinion.

Empire nailing Assange to the cross. Take your seats, enjoy the show...

No good action goes unpunished.

Public reading group of the wikileaks documents, anyone?

[deleted]

> "When that happens your remand status changes from a serving prisoner to a person facing extradition.

> "Therefore I have given your lawyer an opportunity to make an application for bail on your behalf and she has declined to do so. Perhaps not surprisingly in light of your history of absconding in these proceedings.

Edit: In response to your edit, he is being held for trial, and is a huge flight risk. 𝚈̶𝚘̶𝚞̶ ̶𝚠̶𝚘̶𝚞̶𝚕̶𝚍̶ ̶𝚗̶𝚎̶𝚎̶𝚍̶ ̶𝚝̶𝚘̶ ̶𝚌̶𝚑̶𝚎̶𝚌̶𝚔̶ ̶𝚒̶𝚏̶ ̶𝚝̶𝚑̶𝚎̶𝚛̶𝚎̶ ̶𝚑̶𝚎̶ ̶𝚒̶𝚜̶ ̶𝚌̶𝚘̶𝚟̶𝚎̶𝚛̶𝚎̶𝚍̶ ̶𝚋̶𝚢̶ ̶𝚊̶ ̶𝚋̶𝚊̶𝚒̶𝚕̶ ̶𝚜̶𝚌̶𝚑̶𝚎̶𝚍̶𝚞̶𝚕̶𝚎̶,̶ ̶𝚘̶𝚝̶𝚑̶𝚎̶𝚛̶𝚠̶𝚒̶𝚜̶𝚎̶ ̶𝚝̶𝚑̶𝚎̶ ̶𝚄̶𝚂̶ ̶𝙲̶𝚘̶𝚗̶𝚜̶𝚝̶𝚒̶𝚝̶𝚞̶𝚝̶𝚒̶𝚘̶𝚗̶ ̶𝚜̶𝚊̶𝚢̶𝚜̶ ̶"̶𝙴̶𝚡̶𝚌̶𝚎̶𝚜̶𝚜̶𝚒̶𝚟̶𝚎̶ ̶𝚋̶𝚊̶𝚒̶𝚕̶ ̶𝚜̶𝚑̶𝚊̶𝚕̶𝚕̶ ̶𝚗̶𝚘̶𝚝̶ ̶𝚋̶𝚎̶ ̶𝚛̶𝚎̶𝚚̶𝚞̶𝚒̶𝚛̶𝚎̶𝚍̶"̶.̶

> I would be greatly ashamed if we imprison someone for more than a couple of days without any sentence/verdict/ruling/etc.

How long do you think trials last?

> he is being held for trial, and is a huge flight risk. You would need to check if there he is covered by a bail schedule, otherwise the US Constitution says "Excessive bail shall not be required".

Point of information: he is being held in the UK and therefore what the US constitution says is irrelevant. He will be covered by the Bail Act. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1976/63

Ah of course, I wasn't thinking straight

But she has a point in that Assange would try anything to not depend again on such disgusting legal system.

However, if there is still the smallest chance that the ruling could be in his favor, by escaping or trying to do so he would ever more reduce this chance...

I mean, it's right there in your quote, he's facing extradition, so presumably can be detained until he can be extradited.

> So is this the same as if I'm accused of committing a crime, the police can hold me in a cell until a court makes a decision on my guilt?

That's .. how it normally works? With the exception that people not likely to abscond or commit further crimes are normally released on bail.

Roughly 10% of the UK prison population is people being held on remand like this: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeand...

(The US system is far worse, in that it involves a weird private profit infrastructure of bail bondsmen. And holds a lot more people on remand. See recent article on New York closing Rikers, for example)

> hopefully it's not actual prison we keep suspects in, but a police cell?

The actual prison is significantly more humane and has actual facilities, whereas the cell is just a box.

I know no one wants to hear this but Assange wouldn't be in the mess if he had conducted his operation more intelligently. Others have done similar actions and faced no repercussion. This is the fault of Assange's hubris and lack of attention. I used to be a huge Assange and Wikileaks supporter but I haven't been for quite some time. He/they made serious but entirely avoidable mistakes.

Edit: Fwiw I support whistleblowers and government transparency and the end to rampant unconstitutional surveillance overreach but I simply couldn't support Assange after finding that he crossed a known ethical line with the inducement and material support. And Chelsea Manning should've never went to jail. Shes the true whistleblower in all of this. And Adrian Lamo and Assange are the ones that made serious yet avoidable mistakes. He simply should've acted as a carrier/news organization but he/they didn't do that. That and the support from Russia and eagerness to influence the election at all costs while maintaining impartiality is laughable. Maybe Assange could've been a force for good if he hadn't taken sides.

But is it possible that actually the judge is prepared to deny the extradition, and cannot say anything just yet because of the secret duty? If she thinks all of that is torture for Assange, maybe she is right to want it to end as soon as possible, especially if she already has taken her decision.

I hope so but I doubt it.

That isn't the case. This ruling was made by a magistrate, who only deals with lower cases and administration for bigger cases. The actual extradition case will be heard by a different person.

Magistrates actually handle all extradition cases at first instance. Because it's such a specialist area of law, they're all handled by a single magistrates court (Westminster) with a set of specially experienced magistrates.

Appeals go to the Administrative Court list of the High Court, though, which is potentially a panel of very senior judges indeed.

I know of Craig Murray through local politics. He is a conspiracy theorist and a mentalist. Can't believe I'm seeing his blog on HN

This is an atrocious, heinous crime being committed in front of all of us, and we should be rioting in the streets. This can happen to any of us now - nobody is safe from torture by the state.

This is the end of civilized society in the West, people.

Where Julian Assange goes, so go we.

Unfortunately, life will go on, just like after Epstein "suicided" himself and all the media just silently dropped his case.

It's possible Assange hasn't been sleeping enough for years due to the stress of his situation. The effects of that might resemble those of torture and debilitating drugs.

Just something to consider...

Consider this: Sleep deprivation is torture. Anyone being held in a condition like this and not getting serious medical attention -- psychological and physiological -- is also torture. The fact that after several months outside the confines of the embassy-cell, he is still in a condition that resembles torture victims is evidence enough of that. It's also very convenient that it looks like this is self-inflicted and "no one can do anything huh?". Any person other than him would be hospitalized immediately.

I'm inclined to agree with you.

But that's not the first thing which came to my mind in reading TFA when the author referenced torture and drugs.

Reading the description of Assange's incoherent ramblings reminded me of a relative who suffered from extreme sleep apnea for over a decade, where he basically would never sleep for more than a few minutes before choking himself awake. He became pretty incoherent and insane, and his machismo pride prevented him from seeking treatment for it.

I don't think I'd be sleeping well in Assange's shoes.

Holy crap, HN mods you should edit this title and make it more sensational, like the most posts on HN. I feel this post is not receiving the attention it deserves

Reply on news.ycombinator.com