Assange Hearing Day 6 | Hacker News Reader

Assange Hearing Day 6

craigmurray.org.uk

360 pointsk1m241 comments

Assange's crime here is embarrassing powerful people. On the one hand, we are never going to get a law that explicitly states this is a crime. On the other hand, that seems unlikely to matter. The US is apparently happy to literally scour the world for places where Assange has done something wrong if the Iceland claim is even a half-truth.

The basic issue that this article goes to is that the judge has broad discretionary power to hurry the defence along, and is using it. That is not unreasonable - defence by stalling tactics can't a legitimate strategy, so the judge must have those powers and be free to exercise them at her discretion. It is appropriate for the judge to have powers to guillotine witness time and to make procedural decisions. Even if they are unusual decisions.

The only thing Assange's defenders can hope for here is a great case study of how the US government doesn't care about details, they will reach out and try to grab anyone who makes it clear how they are operating. And then develop a rationalisation after the fact.

Really the most interesting thing in this article is the pervasive misspelling of "Sweden" as "the United States". I seem to recall a whole bunch of people arguing that Assange wasn't going to be extradited to the United States once they extracted him from the embassy. Possibly I am not remembering correctly and nobody admits to arguing that now.

The facts change: the charges against him were dropped/timed out in Sweden, and then the US started an extradition request.

The idea that it was harder to extradite him to the US from the UK than from Sweden, and that the extradition to Sweden was a pretext, was a very odd one - a priori I would have said it was the other way round.

You have switched the time stamps. The US started their extradition request and then Sweden dropped the case. The exact date was on 2 May 2019 when the first hearing was held in London into the United States request for Assange's extradition. The Swedish prosecution announced that their 7 years investigation had been dropped on 19 November 2019.

As far as I remember, Sweden did deliver to the US certain wanted people practically without a court procedure (or with less than it's certain it would be needed in the UK). It's not that Sweden or the UK would not deliver somebody to the US, it's that in the UK the procedure is more complex. Apparently, the US would have needed to fulfill less formalities to get him from Sweden, and that is what Assange worried about. But as he spent enough time in the embassy, that advantage of Sweden became irrelevant.

There were never any charges in Sweden. Please do not propagate this false belief.

This is simply basic differences between how different justice systems operate. He was as formally charged as you get in Sweden until the investigation was dropped, only using different words.

Assange was arrested in his absence and wanted for questioning in relation to accusations against him of rape and sexual molestation. This was the first step in the criminal prosecution procedure in Sweden, and only after the questioning would the prosecution authority be able to formally indict him.[10]

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

He was then questioned on Nov 14, 2016, and still not charged.

He couldn't be formally charged under the Swedish system because he wasn't in Sweden. (And yes, I know that in principle the Swedish authorities could probably have figured out some way to try him in absentia, but they chose not to because it would have been pointless, and they are perfectly free to make that decision.)

Everyone repeating this nonsense should just take the time to read the British High Court judgment, which sets it all out very clearly.

It's important to remember the Swedish authorities were never interested in testimony from Assange.

It's worth reading this interview [1] with Nils Melzer, the UN Special Rapporteur on torture, which reveals in shocking detail the level of manipulation around this entire case.

As Melzer says "You just have to look at how the case was run: For Sweden, it was never about the interests of the two women."

[1] https://www.republik.ch/2020/01/31/nils-melzer-about-wikilea...

The Swedish prosecutors wanted to try Assange on rape charges. Their actions were geared towards getting that to happen. Merely having Assange "testify", outside of a courtroom setting, would not necessarily have furthered that goal.

I do not see how that conflicts with the interests of the two women.

Actually it's clear from Melzer's thorough investigation, where he reviewed the entire case material, including original Swedish documents, that this was an operation to frame Assange and extradite him to the US – and nothing to do with the two women, who were very clearly pawns in the process.

It's really worth reading the interview closely to understand how thoroughly justice has been perverted in numerous countries to get at someone who revealed horrendous crimes.

I'm aware of the existence of such conspiracy theories. To me, the simpler and more plausible explanation is that Assange did what the women accused him of doing.

Melzer goes into detail about how the women didn't accuse him of rape.

It's worth engaging in the facts on this issue, rather than gripping onto a received narrative in dismissive fashion, and the interview really goes into significant detail, including behind-the-scenes behaviour of Sweden that Melzer was privy to as UN Special Rapporteur on torture.

It's one of those articles where people go in with the perspective you show here, and come out the end of it stunned by the truth of Assange's unjust treatment.

In fact Melzer starts out by stating he began with the same attitude, initially refusing the case as "My impression, largely influenced by the media, was also colored by the prejudice that Julian Assange was somehow guilty and that he wanted to manipulate me."

It is probably one of the best summaries of his case I've read, from a highly credible, independent investigator:

https://www.republik.ch/2020/01/31/nils-melzer-about-wikilea...

He was accused of initiating sex without using a condom following an explicit request for him to use a condom. The High Court judged that this action certainly constituted rape under UK law. It is also a crime under Swedish law (though I don't know how different levels of sexual assault / rape are classified in Sweden).

It's always surprising to see just how grubby Assange's defenders are willing to get, up to and including rape apologism.

There's a demonstrated lack of understanding around important details of this case in your responses.

The accusation you raise is a key part of the interview with Melzer.

The original witness statement was intentionally destroyed, and the supervisor of the policewoman who conducted the questioning wrote an email telling her to rewrite the statement.

(The original copies of the mail exchanges between the Swedish police are actually displayed in the article.)

The statement that forms the basis of that claim "was edited without the involvement of the woman in question and it wasn’t signed by her. It is a manipulated piece of evidence out of which the Swedish authorities then constructed a story of rape."

As to your attempted lazy smearing – it doesn't really do you any favours here.

As a final plea, perhaps read-up on the details so you can get a better understanding of the case:

https://www.republik.ch/2020/01/31/nils-melzer-about-wikilea...

The key evidence comes from text messages and testimony from people other than the two alleged victims.

If indeed this evidence was all fabricated (I doubt it, but who knows), then the best venue for evaluating that claim would have been a Swedish court.

Now we will never really know exactly how strong the case was. But it was strong enough to justify bringing Assange to trial, and he has done himself no favours by hiding in an embassy for seven years.

For the record: Nils Melzer is full of shit: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22209868

>I seem to recall a whole bunch of people arguing that Assange wasn't going to be extradited to the United States once they extracted him from the embassy.

Were you one of the people that said he wouldn't be extradited to the US?

What I remember arguing at the time was: it is easier to extradite directly from the UK to the USA than from the UK to the USA via Sweden.

Note also that Sweden only found out that the UK had removed Assange from the embassy because America had begun extradition proceedings against him, even though Sweden still wanted to get hold of him.

It's easier to extra judicially grab at least non citizens from Sweden.

Sweden has assisted the US before in breaking their own laws to help black bag their residents. The UK instead makes you bounce through their whole court system, not wanting to be overruled by one of their former colonies.

I saw someone comment a while ago that Brexit effectively demotes the UK to being a colony of the US through trade dependence once they’re cut off from their special access to Europe.

Does this not effectively prove that? The US has made a decision, and like a good vassal the UK judiciary is delivering Assange to them.

There's a fairly public trial now though, and this is what the US was trying to avoid with the Sweden route.

Sweden has provided it's own police to assist CIA operatives in black bagging it's own residents against it's own laws and process and sent them to an Egyptian prison clearly to be tortured and then blamed it all on a dead politician.

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

I have the impression that the UK government genuinely (and incorrectly) believes itself to be in a position of strength, at least for now.

To the extent that it is now sycophantic towards the USA, it already was — the “special relationship” meme in UK politics has been around for a long time.

It doesn't prove the UK are any more protected while part of the EU - the EU has American trade dependence too.

>It's easier to extra judicially grab at least non citizens from Sweden.

I see this repeated all over the place as if it were an obviously established fact, but there is no reason to think that this is true. Extrajudicial actions and their consequences are inherently unpredictable. It's pure speculation to say that it would have been easier to do it from Sweden than from the UK.

In any case, this particular line of Assange apologism is rather obviously out of date, since we see that the US can (in all likelihood) quite easily extradite him now that he's out of the embassy, and thus has no reason to use extrajudicial means.

> I see this repeated all over the place as if it were an obviously established fact, but there is no reason to think that this is true. Extrajudicial actions and their consequences are inherently unpredictable. It's pure speculation to say that it would have been easier to do it from Sweden than from the UK.

The proof is an empirical one.

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

> In any case, this particular line of Assange apologism is rather obviously out of date, since we see that the US can (in all likelihood) quite easily extradite him now that he's out of the embassy, and thus has no reason to use extrajudicial means.

If they went the Sweden route, they wouldn't have needed this public trial that we're all commenting on, and he'd already be in US custody.

You have a strange idea of "proof". The fact that something happened in Sweden once is hardly proof that it could not happen in the UK. By the way, you might want to look at the "aftermath" section of that Wikipedia article.

It's far from clear to me that the US wants to avoid a public trial. It's not as if Assange is particularly popular these days.

> You have a strange idea of "proof". The fact that something happened in Sweden once is hardly proof that it could not happen in the UK.

Except the UK has a very clear no extraordinary rendition policy, and even the idea that UK airports had been used as a refueling stop for rendition flights was a minor scandal in the UK. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6736227.stm Meanwhile Sweden has broken it's own laws to assist the US in black bagging it's own residents.

> By the way, you might want to look at the "aftermath" section of that Wikipedia article.

Can you be more specific? My reading is that Sweden found it's own actions to be illegal, paid out a settlement to those whose genitals were electro shocked in an Egyptian prision, but no Swedes faced any real consequences.

> It's far from clear to me that the US wants to avoid a public trial. It's not as if Assange is particularly popular these days.

And yet even this article you're commenting on goes into the large amount of work going on by the US government to remove observers, including Amnesty International, from the proceedings.

There was a scandal in Sweden too. It’s telling that you Assange conspiracists have been referring to an isolated event in 2007 for over a decade now. There is simply no factual basis for the assertion that it would be easier to snatch Assange from Sweden than from the UK. Especially when you consider what a huge international scandal that would inevitably have caused either government. The idea only makes sense as part of a silly conspiracy theory. If you want sensible people to believe the conspiracy theory, you'll have to do offer more than a largely irrelevant Wikipedia article plus a ton of wild speculation.

The trial is going to be public, as I understand it, so who cares if Amnesty International are there or not? They'll see and hear the same things as anyone else who is there. But anyway, if you are right, this just goes to show that the US can avoid a fully public trial and yet still extradite him, which by your logic gives them even less motive for using extraordinary rendition!

There was a scandal, yes, and then cablegate revealed rendition-flights via Sweden kept happening for years afterwards and the Swedish government kept it quiet when they discovered it.

It's quite likely that such flights also took place in the UK. Kidnapping Assange would have been an entirely different affair in any case. It would have created an enormous international scandal whichever country the kidnapping took place in.

There is not a shred of evidence to show that the US had any intention of kidnapping Assange. We are in the realm of pure conspiratorial speculation here. ("They are bad guys; this would be a bad thing; therefore they would do that thing.")

> It's quite likely that such flights also took place in the UK.

Can you give any examples of this happening? Particularly given that we have access to the same diplomatic cables from the US embassy in the UK as the Swedish one which showed continued rendition flights from Sweden?

If you take the UK government at its word, none of the many rendition flights that indubitably passed through the UK contained any prisoners. But if you consistently took the UK government at its word, you could hardly maintain the positions that you do.

You don't take the UK government at it's word. You take the leaked cables at their word that cover renditions in Sweden and other countries, but not the UK.

Which leaked cables establish that there were no prisoners on board rendition flights passing through the UK? And moreover, establish that this was a matter of policy?

Zooming out a bit, there is very little analogy between the Agiza/Alzery case and anything that could conceivably have happened to Assange. Ahmed Agiza and Muhammad Alzery were asylum seekers whose asylum applications failed and who were then deported to their home country. The correct legal procedures around deportation were not followed (and of course the Egyptians broke their promise not to torture the two men), but it is a huge stretch to try to make an analogy between this case and some supposed plot to kidnap Assange once he was in Sweden. The latter would have been a vastly more flagrant breach of the law than a rushed deportation, and would have made a mockery of Sweden's original extradition request.

The simple fact is that it is extremely unlikely that the US would have kidnapped Assange from any location.

According to the Open Society Foundation, the UK did a lot worse than just refuelling planes: https://www.justiceinitiative.org/uploads/655bbd41-082b-4df3...

> this article you're commenting on goes into the large amount of work going on by the US government to remove observers, including Amnesty International, from the proceedings.

I think we all agree that the USA is acting like a bad guy here, regardless of how we feel about Assange and Sweden.

Ok, fair enough. They have a very clear 'no extraordinary rendition to or from the british isles' policy.

They will participate when the US takes someone from a third country.

And Swedish military intelligence uncovered Swedish staff complicit in ongoing rendition flights via Sweden years after the black-bagging incident had caused the government to formally protest about it.

We know this only because Wikileaks leaked cables from the US embassy after they were called in for the Swedish government to object that this continued to happen even without the governments knowledge.

So one thing is what the Swedish government itself would be complicit with. Another is whether the US cares and whether the Swedish government would have the power to stop it.

Personally my pet theory is that the Swedish charges were not something that happened with US involvement, but an overzealous prosecutor, but that there were enough iffy things going on that I understand why Assange would fear being sent there - that fear does not need to be justified to be real.

But I also know that as someone living in the UK, even with the kangaroo court Assange is currently subject to, I'd far prefer to face an extradition hearing in the UK to Sweden, because even in the face of this I wouldn't trust the Swedish government to be able or willing to resist as much as the UK government.

The problem with this theory is that if someone wanted to extra-judicially grab Assange at the time it would have been easier to do this without going through a convoluted process to charge them with a totally unrelated and arguably more serious offence in Sweden. He was living there, and his address wasn't a secret.

The UK's record on unlawful rendition flights (at America's behest and otherwise) is also not good and our extradition treaty with the US very one-sided; though there was a reasonable possibility its courts might have stymied a European Arrest Warrant for something his lawyers argued wasn't equivalent to a charge and wasn't equivalent to the crimes in English law...

> The problem with this theory is that if someone wanted to extra-judicially grab Assange at the time it would have been easier to do this without going through a convoluted process to charge them with a totally unrelated and arguably more serious offence in Sweden. He was living there, and his address wasn't a secret.

The Iraq release from Manning's leak occurred after he left Sweden. Getting him back onto Swedish soil would have been the first step.

> The UK's record on unlawful rendition flights (at America's behest and otherwise) is also not good

The UK has never allowed rendition from the British isles, and certainly would not allow a former colony to subvert their court system.

> The UK has never allowed rendition from the British isles

Rendition of residents of the British isles, at least.

> The Iraq release from Manning's leak occurred after he left Sweden. Getting him back onto Swedish soil would have been the first step.

Assange lived happily on Swedish soil for ages, apparently without any particular fear of unlawful rendition. He voluntarily attended a police station regarding sex offence allegations, his lawyer had ongoing discourse with the prosecutor regarding the reopening of the case, and he was still happy to continue live in Sweden. He then left the country when they informed his lawyer they did want to charge him.

I'm not sure the fact the US wasn't even aware of the Iraq release at the time undermines my observation that this behaviour looks more like somebody seeking to avoid facing sex offences charges in court than unlawful abduction. And likewise that Swedish actions look like a slow motion bureaucratic response to sex offence allegations that would have been tricky to prosecute and not a dastardly plot to get him to the US.

The fact the US has subsequently chosen to actually open a case against him based on something they didn't even know about at the time doesn't really change that (although FWIW I think it's politically unwise for them to bother)

> The UK has never allowed rendition from the British isles, and certainly would not allow a former colony to subvert their court system.

Apart from British soil having been a stopping point for CIA rendition flights and its enthusiastic cooperation with US schemes overseas, the UK has also routinely bent its own law to deport asylum seekers before their appeals are completed in manner not dissimilar to the Swedish cases which keep getting cited. (The same Home Secretary that was happy to push the unlawful 'deport first, appeal later' policy was, ironically, also the only thing stopping Gary McKinnon from being legally deported to the US after exhausting every single appeal, because our court system isn't that fussed that the US might be overzealous with national security related hacking prosecutions. But I doubt Assange had much hope of helpful intervention from her...)

> It's easier to extra judicially grab at least non citizens from Sweden.

Even if that were the case, that's not the right comparison. The comparison has to be of the combination of extradition to Sweden plus rendition from Sweden vs. the easier of extradition or rendition from the UK. Since, after all, he was already in the UK, not in some indeterminate state that the US could collapse to either Sweden or the UK at its preference with no effort.

Extradition and rendition aren't equivalent though.

In the rendition case, you avoid the possibility of airing all sorts of dirty laundry in a foreign court, so it makes sense that they'd pursue that for as long as they could, and once that was not an option pursue extradition while heavily limiting public access (as they have here).

> I seem to recall a whole bunch of people arguing that Assange wasn't going to be extradited to the United States once they extracted him from the embassy.

At the time a fairly extensive collection of polemic was written that liberally used the word "paranoid".

The argument from his opponents seems to have mostly shifted towards "yeah, but he deserves it".

Worth also highlighting that this "whole bunch of people" can still be found here on HN. Often they are still very frequent posters and very well known members of HN. Some, however have given "I didn't know" or "the situation changed" half-apologies since.

> Some, however have given "I didn't know" or "the situation changed" half-apologies since.

I hope some people will take this as their "Iraq" moment, where the mechanisms of consensus-building by propaganda are laid bare. This is how powerful interests work: they push people to take sides with selected (or no) information, and by the time the full picture emerges, it's too late.

Anyone who bought the line that Assange didn't need to fear extradition probably will transition seamlessly from "the idea that Assange will be extradited if he leaves the embassy is a baseless conspiracy theory" to "well, he's accused of breaking the law, so it will be a good thing to extradite him to face trial in the U.S."

Have you noticed how no one who led us into the Iraq war, whether they be government, media, etc. has faced any consequence whatsoever? Even the few who have admitted a "mistake" talk about it as if it's a mistake like I forgot my wallet and not a mistake like I killed 100k+ people.

The major red pills in approximate order are

1) I'm being misled systematically

2) I've been misled since school

3) They are fully aware of what they are doing

4) Given the choice, they would prefer me dead over defiant

5) They prefer you dead anyway, so might as well go with defiant

I remember Thomas Ptacek (tptacek) being particularly vocal and unjustifiably venomous towards Assange. One could say he went out of his way (on HN and social media) to broadcast his egregious views on the matter. Has he apologised?

This is just one instance:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11043329

Also, pasted from a different comment in this thread:

https://twitter.com/tqbf/status/821766035401572352

We all make mistakes, but his comments you link to do show a huge error in judgement. The intention of the US government to capture Assange has been well documented since 2010:

> "It's certainly my belief, based on what the attorney general said, that they have already got an arrest warrant for him and they are just waiting for the appropriate moment in the appropriate country," Toobin said. [0]

(I can't help but find it ironic that in a thread about trying to silence a whistleblower, your comment trying to hold someone accountable for their past mistakes is being voted down).

[0] http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/12/01/sweden.interp...

If you have some to hand, links to examples of this extensive collection would substantially increase the utility of your comment.

Googling for "julian assange paranoid" will give you some examples. I'm hesitant to point the finger at a specific example, because I wasn't thinking of one in particular.

You don’t have to look too hard, though. Here’s one from 2017:

https://twitter.com/SwiftOnSecurity/status/82147538290599116...

Some in the opsec community seem to have had particularly poor takes on the question of extradition: https://twitter.com/tqbf/status/821766035401572352

most of the well known people among those guys have security clearances to be able to work with US gov. which means they are under obligation to report on a regular basis about the people they meet. which means we can say they are part of the "intelligence community" (or if we are less charitable we can call them snitches)

> they are under obligation to report on a regular basis about the people they meet

Intriguing. People with a security clearance are required to give intelligence reports about people they have contact with?

If you have contact with an agent of a foreign power, you're required to report the encounter and what you talked about.

I'm not really sure how agents, or contact, are defined. I think the law is intended to keep IC people honest and forthcoming about foreign attempts to turn people.

(Disclaimer: I have never held a security clearance.)

Here's one from 2012:

"The right does not have a monopoly on paranoia, as the conspiratorial fantasies of supporters of Julian Assange show. ... Greenwald argued that Assange was not a coward who dare not face his Swedish accusers but a true dissident, who was camping out in the Ecuadorean embassy because he had a genuine fear of persecution."

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jun/24/nick-c...

Guardian journalist Charles Arthur in 2016:

"No one is detaining Assange except himself." https://twitter.com/charlesarthur/status/787431124020625408

"show me any reliable document anywhere that shows that anyone is detaining Assange in the Ecuadorean embassy." https://twitter.com/charlesarthur/status/794992629138288640

(I always love arguments of the form 'Initiative X has never been publicized in an official government document, therefore it's paranoid conspiracy theorizing to suggest it exists based on any other evidence at hand.')

Arthur even doubled down in January this year to insist he had not been wrong: https://twitter.com/charlesarthur/status/1221173664579825666

>The argument from his opponents seems to have mostly shifted towards "yeah, but he deserves it".

This is roughly true of me. My opinion shifted to "he deserves it" because there appears to be strong evidence that he committed a crime. Why should my opinion not change based on new information? (Is this something you are not open to? Do you intend to defend Assange whatever information about him comes to light?)

That being said, if you read more carefully, what people were actually saying is that he was unlikely to be extradited to the US for leaking classified information, as it would be hard to prosecute someone in the US merely for doing that. But he is now charged with other crimes that are more clear cut.

He's an Australian citizen who was in various countries while operating Wikileaks. What crime(s) did he commit?

It's not a crime to break USA secrecy laws (or, in fact, any US laws) while not being a citizen or resident of the USA. With the caveat that the behaviour is not also illegal in whatever country the alleged perpetrator is actually a citizen/resident of.

One of the crime's he's charged with is hacking.

What you are saying underlines my point. It was indeed unlikely that Assange would be extradited merely for leaking classified information, as it is difficult for even a US citizen to be successfully prosecuted for doing that. But he is being charged with other crimes.

I think you're missing the point of TFA. This is a show trial, not a legitimate extradition of a criminal. The fact that he's been charged with crimes doesn't make him guilty of them, and he, like everyone, deserves a fair hearing in court to determine that.

The original charges against him would have resulted in a failed extradition (as the prosecution admit). So the US government changed the charges during the trial to "better" ones that were more likely to succeed. Without giving the defence any time to prepare a case defending against those new charges.

This isn't justice. I'm ashamed as a UK citizen that we're not able to stand up to the USA and conduct an extradition hearing that is actually just. Especially since the USA refuses to extradite one of its citizens to the UK when charged with murder.

I'm furious as an Australian citizen (I'm dual-national) that we're not fighting to prevent such gross injustice to one of our own citizens. The Aussie government has done nothing, said nothing, about any of it. It's pathetic and infuriating.

It seems to me quite likely that he is guilty of the hacking charges (though I am open minded on this point).

For it to be a show trial there would have to be no realistic possibility of the jury finding him not guilty. I don't see why that should be the case.

well, for a start there's no jury. A magistrate, who is already clearly showing bias and a tendency to read verdicts from a laptop rather than actually decide them, is the sole arbiter of whether he gets extradited or not.

I am talking about the trial following his (probable) extradition. If you'll forgive a little semantic pedantry, an extradition hearing is neither a trial nor (in the UK) a proceeding that's televized, so it would be quite a stretch to describe an extradition hearing as a 'show trial'.

Why should we trust he will get a fair hearing at the actual trial if he's not even getting a fair hearing at the extradition hearing?

I don't agree with your premise. But the obvious answer would be that the the trial will take place in another country under a different legal system involving none of the same people (except Assange himself).

It's not an obvious answer at all, given that the most reasonable implication of biased behaviour by the judged during the extradition hearing would be if there is pressure from the US behind the scenes.

As such, whether or not you agree that the judges behaviour actually is biased, if the judge is biased there is no reason to trust the US courts will be unbiased either.

I think it's more likely that the British judge just disagrees with your assessment of the case. Unless you have any actual evidence of something more sinister, we'll just have to leave it there.

Of course we don't have evidence of anything more sinister, but the reporting demonstrates a repeated and extreme bias coupled with treatment not normally seen in UK extradition cases, to a level that it's deeply irrational to assume there isn't pressure involved.

The pre-written decisions alone, read out unmodified after listening to testimony is irregular enough that it is illogical to assume this judge is doing her job, as there is no evidence to suggest she is..

What treatment is not normally seen in UK extradition cases? Were you a keen observer of UK extradition hearings prior to this one?

It's common for judges to read out their decisions. (Do you expect them to memorize their lines like actors?)

I don't know how you think you can know that the decisions are "unmodified". It's quite likely that the judge has prepared multiple options in advance and chosen one based on what happened at the hearing.

John Kiriakou (the only person from the CIA ever to be indicted from its involvement in torture, because he leaked details about it to the press) has said it is impossible that Assange will get a fair trial in the Virginia court which will handle his case.

no, you don't understand. This is the trial. If he gets to the USA he'll "commit suicide" in a cell, or have some weird show trial where he confesses to everything. There's zero chance that the USA will actually conduct a fair trial, and set him free if he's found to do have done nothing except embarrass powerful people. This is his last chance. The British justice system was supposed to be incorruptible, and blind. Not so much now.

Oh please, stop with the QAnon level conspiracy nonsense. Most likely, he will be offered a plea like everybody that has been charged, including Winner and Manning. If not, he will have a chance to run PrisonLeaks, doing hard hitting pieces on mystery meat and the proper recipe for shit on shingles.

Yeah I don’t think this rises to Q levels. You’d have to be pretty naive to think Assange will get a fair trial anywhere at this point.

He will get as fair a trial as anybody in the US, which means not really fair, but certainly fairer than most poor people.

He is charged with hacking for receiving a hashed password and failing to successfully crack it.

There is absolutely no way that this would be pursued if it were not for his running Wikileaks. This is a clear case of using selective enforcement to enforce a rule that could not be created on a law. (Given the first amendment, what he did that we really don't like is very squarely protected by the Constitution.)

All laws are selectively enforced. I think the more interesting question is whether he's guilty. I don't know. But if he did it, it's pretty clearly illegal, and it's reasonable to charge him.

Note that it's completely irrelevant that he failed to crack the password. Failure to successfully carry out a crime to completion just means that you're incompetent, not that you're innocent.

The only evidence we have that he is guilty is what is claimed to be an intercepted IM.

Were I on a jury, I would refuse to convict because I would consider there to be a reasonable doubt that the IM was real and not invented by the government to make their case.

Oh, do you have a friend on the prosecution team who’s presented the entire prosecution case to you before the trial?

Or do you mean that that’s the only evidence that’s publicly known at the moment?

That's the only evidence that's publicly known at the moment. And, given the extraordinary lengths that the USA has gone to to persecute Assange, it would take a high bar before I'd believe the government at this point.

What Assange is actually guilty of is running Wikileaks with the explicit purpose of making it hard for interest groups within the government to conduct "business as usual" against the interests of both the world and the American public.

On the positive side, Wikileaks helped convince the USA to get out of Iraq, and helped cause the Arab Spring uprisings that removed several dictatorships. On the downside, Wikileaks has become a pawn used by foreign espionage groups attempting to manipulate the US public. See the DNC email dumps which appear to be the work of Russian hackers attempting to manipulate the US election.

Go ahead and charge him with what he actually did, and convince the world that on the balance it does more harm than good. But don't manipulate governments around the world to pursue him by dishonest means.

I don't follow. If he's been charged with things that he's not actually done, then he's innocent and can show that in court.

The fact that someone is innocent is no guarantee that they can prove it in court. Can you prove whether or not you sent a particular IM a dozen years ago on a device that you no longer have access to?

And the rest of my point stands. The US government is not particularly upset that he failed to crack a password. They are upset that he created Wikileaks and publicly embarrassed a lot of influential people.

>The fact that someone is innocent is no guarantee that they can prove it in court.

He doesn't have to prove it, just show that it's plausible. The burden of proof is on the prosecution.

>The US government is not particularly upset that he failed to crack a password. They are upset that he created Wikileaks and publicly embarrassed a lot of influential people.

I think they probably are upset that he tried to help someone hack into a DoD system.

But he's not a USA citizen, and wasn't in the USA when the activity occurred. What the First Amendment to the Constitution of the USA has to say about it is completely irrelevant.

> What the First Amendment to the Constitution of the USA has to say about it is completely irrelevant.

First, if Assange did not violate the law of the US, then there is no cause for extradition. And so it does make sense to be talking about the US legality at this point, since USG going against its very own charter indicates that he will not receive a fair trial.

More generally, the United States Bill of Rights is framed as listing natural rights that everyone has. Yes, NSA is violating your US fourth amendment rights, despite you not being a US citizen. YMMV with practical enforcement though.

In legal practice this is not true at all. The recognition of natural rights and legal enforcement of them are two different things. The Constitution begins with the phrase "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[note 1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." It clearly states that the Constitution is for the people of the U.S.

The Declaration of Independence went further, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"

However, no legal guarantees of rights are made in the declaration.

I acknowledged the mechanical legal aspect - "YMMV with practical enforcement though."

But we should hold our governments to the standards they are purportedly founded on, rather than buying into the justifications that they themselves have created. The opportunities to concretely do this are rare, but extradition trials being judged by a different government are one of those places.

There's plenty of both comments by the founding fathers and subsequent Supreme Court case law that the constitution applies to non citizens as well pretty much anywhere it says "people" rather than "citizen". This comes from a combo of the rights at the time being more thought of as a listing of inalienable rights rather than rights granted by the government, as well as the idea that in order to hold non citizens to the obligations of the legal system you should grant the the rights of the legal system as well.

https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?a...

That doesn't mean it should apply to people who aren't citizens.

Applying Nigerian law to people who aren't citizens of Nigeria would rightfully be questioned. The USA is not exempt from that. Just because it's illegal in the USA doesn't make it illegal everywhere

> Just because it's illegal in the USA doesn't make it illegal everywhere

You'll get 100% agreement from me on that, and for example I think the ongoing promulgation of global US jurisdiction using USD as a wedge is a travesty.

But we're discussing human rights and restrictions on government, not what the US has declared illegal for US persons being applied to non-US persons. We're really talking about applying US law to the US government, operating abroad.

That it doesn't mean shit seems to be indeed "legal" practice.

The 1st amendment and the constitution applies to all persons. Not just citizens.

In theory, yes. In legal practice, however, no...no it doesn't.

According to the courts, the Constitution does not apply at borders. See https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone for more.

Most US spying programs violate the 4th amendment. And have been ruled Constitutional as long as the targets are not US citizens. And if you want to seize someone's assets, you just sue the assets. The owner has been ruled to not have standing to object. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asset_forfeiture for more.

Despite our law enforcement and government swearing to uphold the Constitution, it seems to be more useful as toilet paper sometimes.

No. The USA's constitution does not apply to people outside the USA. I don't know what kind of ideological bubble you need to live in to think that your country's laws are applicable to the entire planet, but I assure you they're not.

Now, before people crucify me for saying what’s ahead, I want to make it clear that I do not support the Espionage Act; it is a terrible attack on our Freedom of Speech and the Press. However, I am simply refuting a point using the law as it stands today. Also, IANAL.

> he was unlikely to be extradited to the US for leaking classified information, as it would be hard to prosecute someone in the US merely for doing that.

The Espionage Act of 1917[0] covers that situation quite well. It’s what all whistleblowers are charged with. We’ve even put a few people in prison for it, and the Supreme Court upheld its constitutionality in two cases in 1919[1][2]. Snowden is wanted for it.

As for how it covers this situation, the text of the act[3§1] says:

> That (a) whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States, or [...]

It does list other reasons such as aiding the enemy, but I feel that this part is what the prosecution would argue.

Now, would the US have jurisdiction to even argue this as the crime happened outside the US? That I do not know, but I have a feeling the courts would say they do as the crime was against the (federal) state.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debs_v._United_States

[3]: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_States_Statutes_at_Lar...

Yes fair enough. I'm not trying to offer a legal opinion, just noting that there is some precedent for journalistic privilege in releasing such information (e.g. the Pentagon papers).

That is actually a very valid argument/question: Is Assange (through WikiLeaks) “press”? I feel that he is, but the US is claiming he aided Manning in hacking; In that case, he (Assange) isn’t innocent (whether it’s true or not is a different question).

Yes, indeed. It will be an interesting case for sure.

Extradition laws are usually limited in that they only cover crimes with is illegal in both countries. As far as I know, no other country except the US has a law that say "is to be used to the injury of the United States".

Usually, but not always.

Moreover, other countries have laws analogous to provisions of the Espionage Act, and it's hardly impossible that some alleged act could be viewed as detrimental to the security of both the US and another country.

Note that I'm speaking generally here, and not in reference to the facts of this particular case.

>leaking classified information

The problem is, he is NOT a US-Citizen, by that fact he cannot be a traitor.

A Agent? No because he did not acquired that information, by that actual definition every country and every press outlet is a agent.

So what has he done? MAYBE endanger the life of US Citizens, which is really not important since he is NOT a US-Citizen.

Did you read the second paragraph of my post at all? I agree with you.

Do you have taken any consequences for the narrative spun around the Iraq war? That cost hundreds of thousands of lives.

Assange didn't kill anyone just for your information and claiming ignorance can only get you so far before it becomes a lie.

The argument was that it was strictly harder to extradite him from Sweden than from the UK, therefore his argument against going to Sweden was bullshit.

Cases like these reveal the rot at the heart of western governments. In what sense is what Craig Murray has just relayed to us justice? It seems perfunctory, a stage play, to disguise the reality that the judgement has already been handed down.

I remember when it was denied, forcefully and repeatedly, for nearly a decade that the US was behind the Swedish extradition conspiracy. That there was no ongoing US attempt to get their hands on Julian. That he was in the embassy for no good reason. Now we see that there was very good reason for him to remain in that embassy. There is no justice when you cross a corrupt empire.

> rot at the heart of western governments

Lets name names. US and UK the lap dog.

And Australia (Source: Am Australian and Google Witness K for evidence)

So, the Five Eyes countries basically.

...

And the EU countries.

...

And the non-EU countries.

...

Basically the whole world, if you piss off the rich and powerful you'll suffer.

Nope. All of EU were decent on this, except Sweden, which was on and off and on.

Austria grounded the plane of the Bolivian president because the US thought Snowden was on board and it's not even a member of NATO.

The US can persuade or twist the arm of any EU nation to get want it wants. When dealing with the US, none of them will take the high road.

You're right. I dont recall any EU country offering asylum.

> When dealing with the US, none of them will take the high road

I think main pressure point is financial system. EU banks just cannot function without US say so.

It is basically the Pax Americana ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pax_Americana ) which is part of the current imperialist society that is slowly but steadily crumbling.

Another fact to consider is that embassy allowed Assange to be taken only after being assured by the UK government that there were no plans to extradite him to the US.

Of course that was a bald-faced lie, so why even make it?

Exactly. Yesterday I was listening to this article [1] and not to excuse or legitimate these awful groups, but these are the kinds of overreach I think may directly feed into the radicalization of the young or more disillusioned people towards these movements.

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/08/19/magazine/boog...

It is certainly demotivating to have someone with Q-anything standing next to you screaming some esoteric theories, but the real factor is a docile attention-addicted press that is useful for starting wars in Iraq, but not for holding officials accountable. In that regard it might actually be smarter to vote for someone the press does at least try to hold to account. Many outlets are just completely broken. The NYT has some really good content, but also a lot of partisan shit. Most of their reporting on Iraq and Assange is not worth to print on paper. Honestly, it is just different bullshit they believe.

Edit: this is an unfounded allegation: the education of the author might suggest a career path in national security. To be fair, she could also be a Russian.

This is the most sound argument for electing Trump again I have ever seen. There is not a single person on this planet the press harrasses more than him.

> Craig Murray

An unreliable narrator.

It's best to read the documents on Bailii.

<strikethrough>western governments</strikethrough> all governments

What a joke, with all the energy US and their friends put into it and they still have to use such shameful tactics to block a fair trial. The already poor image of Western powers is getting even worse, the fucking "values" are shown to be just a propaganda, if you upset the leaders you don't get poisoned but you get a similar bad faith( honestly I think if Assange was in US we would have gotten the news that he committed suicide and for some reason the cameras did not work and the guards were busy ).

Overall it is a far, far greater threat to security than the necessary leak itself. Not only do governments and their judiciary look weak and hypocritical, they also actively undermine the trust in their own institutions.

This fear to face these issues could really be the end of US hegemony.

The implicit excuse of the US during the Cold War was "It's okay if we break a few rules, because we're fighting against an opponent that is literally evil".

That excuse starts to break down when the two sides become more and more similar, which might be what we're seeing now, but it's never a good situation to be in, even before it breaks down.

See also, the internal US political scene.

We're firmly at the point where I strongly doubt that anything significant is actually happening in Xinjiang and Hong-Kong (compared to the general high level of repression and dictatorship in whole China -- I don't mean that China is a model in any way).

Particularly in HK, the police repressive violence was for months at a significantly lower level than French police violence against the yellow vests (just to remind you that several thousands yellow vests were jailed, and a significant number still are on more or less dubious pretenses -- but Macron is a nice polite guy, and China is an adversary).

Another funny story is this supposed "good guy" Navalny (I don't believe any funny story about him either). The guy declared himself "pro-western" and a Putin opponent, therefore he's always depicted as some sort of white knight or something. Check his political program: this guy is a xenophobic nationalist worse than Putin, he even planned to throw out all foreigners from Russia. As Roosevelt once said, "he's a bastard, but he's our bastard". Disgusting, and all of the mainstream media in the West (US lackeys?) harp on how bad Putin is and how cool Navalny is (did you notice that Putin apparently didn't move a finger to prevent Navalny from leaving Russia? How weird for someone he supposedly wanted dead a few days before).

Last one for the road: did you hear that a Turkish lawyer, Ebru Timtik, died in jail recently in Turkey? She was on a hunger strike. But hey, Erdogan is "our bastard" so all is fine and dandy, I suppose.

I recently learned that one reason(not the siongle or main one) Japan and the West is "forgetting" about Japan atrocities in Asia is because "democracies" don't want people to sympathize with communists, so we have a media full of information about what germans did but almost nothing about Japan.

I am convinced that things are not great under communism in China but what does have West to offer ? you are free to call the president an idiot, and you sometimes can protest without fear but if you are the wrong race or poor the West is offering is less and less appealing , especially now that the Internet can show exactly the reality without a media/Holywood filter on top.

Exactly. Remember when the Indonesian dictatorship massacred at least 500,000 (maybe as much as 3 millions) people in the 60s?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesian_mass_killings_of_19...

But Soekarno was "our bastard", so who cares.

Right, in Russia or China he would have just disappeared. Save your judgement for the trial.

The Assange saga is clearly very polarising. Different people have extremely strong views on both sides.

Trying hard to steer a neutral course in this comment, there are a few things that stand out to me in and about this article, and the case:

1. The author is clearly on one of those sides

2. The author, along with like-minded others, want and expect the court hearings around the extradition to consider the case(s) in some detail.

3. The state and, I'd guess other individuals with different views to the author, want the court hearings to focus narrowly on the technical aspects of the extradition process itself.

Personally I'm unconvinced by at least some of the arguments that the author puts forwards, and I would like to see further, more neutral reporting around the case. The partisanship of the author (whether justified or not) on at least some points makes it hard for me to have confidence in the rest of the post.

Which arguments convince you and which don't?

My understanding is that a journalist can receive and publish unlawfully obtained material, but they can’t incite or assist someone to obtain it.

Does sufficient evidence exist that Assange broke US law? If so it would seem that he’s extraditable - and I’m not sure how the ‘bigger picture’ (‘Whistleblower’ public interest, ‘time served’ in the Embassy) overrides UK’s legal obligations here.

>"* Does sufficient evidence exist that Assange broke US law*"

I don't believe this is the full extent of extradition conditions.

"Does sufficient evidence exist that Assange broke US law?"

It used to be, that you only can break a state law, if you are within that state. (with rare exceptions).

That seems to be history.

> It used to be, that you only can break a state law, if you are within that state. (with rare exceptions).

US is that rare exception today, who knows, tomorrow it might be China. The chilling effect is enough to freeze your brains.

This reminds me of a huge diplomatic dispute between Belgium and the United States when a complaint was filed in Belgium against a US Army General for war crimes alleged to have been committed by US troops in Iraq.

Belgium has long had a very broad international scope for its crimes against humanity criminal laws, requiring almost no connection with Belgium for such crimes to be punishable there. This law has for example been used in connection with the genocide in Rwanda, torture ordered by Pinochet in Chile, etc.

Following diplomatic pressure by the US, the law was first amended to allow the Belgian Government to “refer” the case to another country that would be “more appropriate” to pursue the matter. This mechanism was put to work right away: the case at hand was referred to the US and nothing really came out of it thereafter.

But this was not enough for the US: they further pressured (some say “bullied”) Belgium to abolish the international scope of their crimes against humanity laws altogether. The US threatened to use their diplomatic influence to move the NATO headquarters out of Belgium if they would not comply.

Belgium complied and now only accepts jurisdiction if a victim is a Belgian citizen or has lived there for at least three years (and in cases where the suspect is a Belgian citizen/resident or the alleged crime took place in Belgium, obviously).

The EU Observer has a pretty good short summary here: https://euobserver.com/justice/11820

The US is very particular in defending its right to commit war crimes, yes.

Yep. See also the "Hague Invasion Act".

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

Didn't the new Hong Kong security law specifically include actions taken outside of HongKong ?

The FBI investigated Daniel Pearl’s beheading because the ransom email was routed through a US server. I thought it was weird that they didn’t claim jurisdiction based on Pearl’s citizenship, but I’ve given up on trying to figure out the reasoning behind a lot of legal actions.

Free countries are morally obligated to prevent extradition to places where human beings will not receive a fair trial, or end up being tortured.

If people don't believe the UN report that "Bradley Manning's treatment was cruel and inhuman"[0] then they should at least be aware of this:

"He was also credited with serving 112 days of his sentence after Judge Lind ruled that he was improperly treated during his detainment at a facility in Quantico, Virginia."[1]

[0] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/mar/12/bradley-mannin...

[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/08/21/senten...

You can read a different take here: https://www.emptywheel.net/2020/09/07/the-us-government-form...

(edited to remove editorializing)

That "nuanced take" takes some really outrageous positions, such as agreeing with Pompeo's description of WikiLeaks as a hostile, non-state intelligence agency. Intelligence agencies aren't in the business of publishing documents for the public. They're in the business of collecting documents for their own governments.

Russia, almost certainly, used Wikileaks to dump hacked documents in order to influence the 2016 election. The CIA is also accused of hack and dump operations more recently -- welcome to the 21st century.

If what you're claiming is true, how is that even a problem? The documents were of interest to the public, so WikiLeaks was right to publish them. They showed that the DNC was trying to kneecap Bernie Sanders' campaign. Should WikiLeaks have helped cover that up?

News influences elections. There's nothing wrong with that.

It isn't a nuanced take at all. The supposed intelligence infrastructure targeting the US is not supported by evidence. Even mentioning Trump and hinting to alleged hypocrisy is pretty laughable and betray the author.

> in addition, the allegations of involvement in Russia in all this are well-founded. The folks involved in the LulzSec chatrooms now incorporated into Assange’s CFAA charge acknowledge there were Russians there as well, though explain that the whole thing was so chaotic [...]

Unsensible. We may find law and you can nail him on intricacies of it and extradite him, but I doubt it leads to justice for showing evidence of an illegal war of aggression. He basically just released info to the public. If that is a crime, the judiciary might be in deep trouble indeed.

That's not how extradition works. It doesn't matter to the court in this hearing if Assange did it or if there is good evidence. No extradition court cares if there is good evidence.

The only thing they care about is A) is the crime a crime in both local and foreign law and B) will the extraditee receive a fair trial or is there an ulterior motive.

Section B is what you will have to prove to the court if section A is true.

His actions don't even fall under US jurisdiction. It's a farce, as is the potential punishment with which they threaten him. They (secretely) charged a non-US citizen who acted outside the US for alleged acts of espionage he committed outside the US, and now want to put him into solitary confinement and get him condemned by a some kangaroo court to 175 years in prison. All of that after having illegally spied on him and his lawyer within the embassy of another sovereign nation to find better angles to indict him.

It's ridiculous that UK courts haven't dismissed this case right from the start.

> It's ridiculous that UK courts haven't dismissed this case right from the start.

That's not how courts work here.

Of course, they could dismiss the extradition request as being unfounded. That's definitely how courts work in the UK and they have all the power to do so. Even the government could block extradition, if they wanted to.

"If they wanted to" being the key here; handing over Assange would give them a lot of goodwill and political credit, and with Brexit about to end badly when it comes to UK / Europe relationships, they're looking towards the US for trade deals.

They're already pretty far along in selling / privatizing the NHS [1] and getting rid of European food standards so they can import the US' bleached chicken and eggs [2], etc.

note: did not check if The Guardian is an unbiased source in this case. It's not owned by News Corp / Murdoch at least.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/11/nhs-us... [2] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/25/why-chlorin...

The authors writing is quite moving, certainly moved me.

But taking a step back, my read is that the author wants the allegations to be essentially tried in detail here and now.

To what extent is this appropriate in such a hearing?

Other link you shared is useful here. Still I have no real insight into what to ordinarily expect. More neutral reporting source would be valuable.

From the article, Assange's very limited access to his legal team, of itself, seems appalling and very unfair on its face. Surely access is an easy thing to accommodate.

Basically, the point of an extradition hearing is to determine whether what he is charged with is a crime under both US and UK law. If yes, he can be extradited unless it can be shown that there is an ulterior motive in requesting the extradition or that he won't receive a fair trial.

The actual trial would occur in the US, so at this point, there is very limited scope to argue the merits of the charges themselves.

As for ulterior motives, it seems pretty clear to me that the motivation is political, but proving that is difficult. Likewise, proving that he won't get a fair trial in the U.S. will be an up hill battle even if I am somewhat skeptical, myself.

I think (personal opinion, not a lawyer, biased, etc) that it is very much appropriate to consider the allegations before extradition; the US is pissed off at him and it's probable he won't be getting a fair treatment, or he may even "disappear" entirely.

Wouldn't be the first time, plenty of people branded "terrorist" have vanished off the face of the earth, or been incarcerated and tortured without fair trial in Guantanamo Bay.

Determing aspects such as whether or not the allegations actually amount to a crime both in the US and UK is a pre-requisite for justifying extradition, and as such essential.

Well, the UK press is demonstrating quite clearly it is not particularly interested in this case despite the repeatedly shocking behaviour of the judge.

So you won't get much other reporting.

The Assange odyssey may be the Dreyfus Affair of our time.

As insane as this reads, the job of litigators is not to make sense, it is to press whatever possible advantage they can construe. They are not in the pursuit of truth, that is not what the court establishes. If a litigator is on the receiving end of public outrage for things like the absolutely insane assertions by the prosecution, they take it as credit for doing their job. This professional contempt for truth and principle outside the narrow constraints of legalism is what gives lawyers the reputation for being assholes, and what makes some of them insufferable when their work habits bleed into their personal lives.

The trouble in this case that I read from these updates is that the judge is clearly acting like a second prosecutor. I blame it on a generation of people who don't understand impartiality, and who see it as a weakness because they don't need to be impartial if they "know" what they are encountering. Once they have internalized the notion of history as progress, attacks on levers and institutions that can facilitate it are attacks on progress itself. They are litigating ideology, and law is just a host or vehicle. In exposing corruption in the most powerful institutions in the world, to his persecutors Assange's crimes are against progress itself, and I don't think they are capable of impartiality.

Would have upvoted for the parallels to Dreyfus (which are there), but downvoted for some reasoning in the last paragraph that I think are a bit of a stretch. Bad judges have existed in governments of all ages, even when the concept of "history as progress" didn't even exist (or was even the opposite, with the judicial system feeling like the last defense against widespread corruption and decay).

It's simply that judges are themselves the expression of the system that selected them, and as such are naturally defensive towards the existing order of things. To get where they are, they have made alliances, accepted compromises, exchanged favors. They built a social capital that they would stand to lose from upsets to the established order. We remember the times when they go against those insticts precisely because they are so few and far between.

Judges aren't just bureaucrats. Their role is held to a higher standard than petty interest. When they are compromised, they need to leave. The US system has judges elected, where the british and commonwealth system is by appointment, and few would argue that the mentally ill are not well represented in both their ranks, but there is a level of petulance in some of them that indicates risk of a total compromise of the institution.

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/extradition has a lot of details on what an extradition court hearing can/must consider, and the legal basis of arguments against a non-consensual extradition (which this case clearly is).

It bears reading through, regardless of your personal views on the case, because this is what the UK's prosecution service thinks the law is. It's likely to be the same or close to the UK Government / 'state' view too and indicative of what the presiding magistrate in the case is working off.

The fact that this is a relatively obscure story and the otherwise vocal western media journalists who screech about press freedom when someone is mean to them are so silent about it by comparison, is frankly really disgusting to witness. It's embarrassing.

The political (US) indoctrination is incredibly effective in the Western world I feel. I'm from The Netherlands (living abroad now in the EU) and most people there believe that the 100% state sponsored news is mostly factual, with good intent and unbiased, because we are the good people. This news is consumed by the vast majority of Dutch. From what I've seen in other EU countries is that their news systems are comparable (owned by a handful of companies and/or completely reliant on state sponsoring).

Ask a person on the street about Assange and assuming they know who you're talking about their image of him will most likely be: scary criminal sociopath nerd rapist who leaked important military state secrets and doesn't wash himself. "Coincidentally" that's the opinion in the best interest of the US elite who's egos where hurt by Assange.

This is to say: the consent which the political US manufactures is extremely effective outside of the US as well. It seems to me the US has full control over media in any Western country for any issue that matters to the US.

At school we where/are actively taught that this sort of manipulation only happens in evil dictatorships and can never ever happen "here". The majority of people seem to believe this strongly.

I find all of this mind blowing and tragic.

When Assange gets sent to the US the feelings of the vast majority of people in the Western world will be "ah, good, that's another bad guy out of the way". And guess what: they'd think the same about Snowden if he ever gets suicided/dissapeared/extradited/used as political change.

Reminds me of a quote: "It's hard to see yourself a villain when you think you're the hero."

This is one of the v things Donald Trump is helping address. He has called CNN "fake news", and is generally making a mockery of the press and truth. Trump is correct that CNN, MSNBC and the New York times are propoganda machines. It if getting less subtle all the time

In my opinion, Donald Trump isn't making anything better by criticizing news sources as "fake news" whenever they carry a story he finds critical of himself, his administration or simple inconvenient. On the contrary, this appears to have pushed all sorts of weird, marginal news sources into the limelight. Many of these carry stories far more dangerous to the establishment than the New York Times or CNN (the whole Q-Anon thing comes to mind).

> Trump is correct that CNN, MSNBC and the New York times are propoganda machines.

Let's not delude ourselves: he's not complaining that they have a slant, he's complaining that their slant doesn't always go his way. He also complains when Fox News reports facts he doesn't like.

Live updates on twitter (by Kevin Gosztola): https://twitter.com/kgosztola/status/1303251577344413696

First day: https://twitter.com/kgosztola/status/1302888230115737600

thanks

A farce. And a big disgrace for the UK.

Absolutely. Assange is facing up to 175 years in solitary confinement and could not possibly get a fair trial in the US. Moreover, He has been illegally recorded and spied upon for the past 7 years by the CIA, including conversations with his lawyer. A case can hardly get more politically motivated than this. He even received death threats from US politicians in the past. It would be ridiculous to extradite anyone under such conditions.

> He has been illegally recorded and spied upon

Which law in what country was broken?

The CIA is chartered to spy overseas, against foreigners. Assange is not in the US, not an American citizen, and has ties to Russian intelligence. I'm not aware of any law that affords him any protection.

Spying is, of course, illegal in every country that is spied upon. Assange has been in Ecuador and the United Kingdom. Neither country may permit the interception of confidential conversations between a client and their legal counsel.

We do as we are told to do (and there's something in the English character that likes it like that). Current Prime Minister is an American (renounced his citizenship in 2016 after a large tax bill) and there are many other unquestioning free-market cultists here: see Brexit for further examples.

The appointment of Tony Abbott as a trade negotiator for seemingly no other reason that being a Murdoch darling is the latest outrage on that front.

Let's not forget this is a trial to shot the messenger of a war crime for which no one has been held accountable for.

Hillary Clinton and many others actually made the remark that what Assange is doing is putting American lives at risk. So in essence saying American lives are worth more than other humans.

Your comment is a tangent, but I feel compelled to point out that a US Secretary of State has an obligation to prioritize American lives over those of other countries' citizens.

There is absolutely no obligation of a US Secretary of State that they consider the lives of Americans who murder other countries' citizens more important than the lives of those other countries' citizens. I'm not sure where you read or heard this.

That's quite a leap, and a strawman "argument". I said nothing of the kind.

There may be a competing duty to deal with war crimes somewhere in there as well... "Your side can do absolutely anything and it's still in the right" is a very common idea in national capitals around the world, but some would disagree with it.

Have you ever been to America?

There is no politician on either side of the political aisle who would ever openly disagree with that statement.

A lot of time has past since the Assange saga started, and the pertinence to UK politics has gone from top-of-mind to minor. Combined with covid & brexit, this farce has an unthinkable chance of passing without much attention.

To anyone in the UK, please make an effort to stay informed. Thank you to the author for your coverage. You are a patriot, in George Orwell's sense of the term.

Also worth mentioning that Craig Murray is facing legal issues of his own in relation to the trial of Alex Salmond in Scotland: https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/09/craig-murray...

//edit// I posted this in case anyone wanted to chip in for his defence fund, not to attack his credibility.

Oh, I had not heard anything about this coverage of the Alex Salmond case.

Thanks very much for bringing this to my attention, I live in Scotland and the whole thing has been very odd.

Yes, if Craig is to be believed it looks like there is a big slice of SNP in-fighting involved.

Murray is not the most... reliable person ever, though. He certainly engages in some odd conspiracy theories (see, for example, his stance that Russia was not responsible for using Novichok in Salisbury in 2018)

"see, for example, his stance that Russia was not responsible for using Novichok in Salisbury in 2018"

I don't know anyhing about Murray, but tell me again, what was the evidence again, that the russian government was behind it? And for what reason? And why with a substance they are famous for? And not just a bullet/car accident? Why use a very deadly secret toxin? (which happened to not be so deadly apparently)

(And a substance btw. where the formula got out and is in posession for examlple of western agencies)

Not so deadly? Yes Skripel and his daughter survived, but the people who found the bottle were not so lucky.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jul/24/novichok-vic...

Not so deadly compared to how deadly it is supposed to be.

Wikipedia "The median lethal dose for inhaled A-234 has been estimated as 7 mg/m3 for two minute exposure (minute volume of 15 l, slight activity).[67] The median lethal dose for inhaled A-230, likely the most toxic liquid Novichok, has been estimated as between 1.9 and 3 mg/m3 for two minute exposure. "

That is a very low dose to kill and should have had much more casualties, than a drug addict spraying around lots of it.

But yes, maybe a different formula was used and maybe it was on Putins order who cares maybe more for inner strength and scaring dissidents, than international PR. I don't know. I just know that I do not trust british intelligence sources either.

The most plausible explenation I heard so far is, that it was carried out by the russian oligarchie on a different motivation. Tied to the criminal underground. But it is all a fog of desinformation.

The poor lady that died and found the bottle was not in the best of health. It was reported that she was a long term alcoholic.

The Russian government is determined to not quite assassinate people with a toxin that is uniquely associated with them. They do this to defend against "the opposition", which gets stronger and injected with more foreign state support every time this happens. It's difficult to understand the minds of dictators.

>And for what reason? And why with a substance they are famous for? And not just a bullet/car accident?

Because they want to send a message, while also maintaining plausible deniability on the international stage.

Well, this seems rather convincing to me. I do not think that you could much better evidence aside from catching somebody in flagrante. The interview is especially great. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/23/skripal-salisb...

Yes, I don't know how reliable I find his theories, but they are interesting. I can't see who else would have done the poisonings if not Russia (and he is surprisingly pro-Russia) but he does raise other interesting questions, such as how the Head Nurse of the British Army seemed to be just in the right place to administer aid to the first two victims:

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/03/pure-ten-poi...

His coverage of when "diplomat" Ann Sacoolas ran over and killed Harry Dunn has been interesting as well (I put diplomat in parentheses because he makes a case that she is not entitled to diplomatic immunity)

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/?s=sacoolas

Like I say, I read his stuff and I can't believe he ever became a UK ambassador, and I'm not with him politically but there is always a place for people poking their noses into the actions of states.

I will have to read more into this. I don't know if it is as Craig tells it, but it certainly seems to stink to high heaven.

Having a quick browse of his site I am seeing a few other items that I had not heard about elsewhere, like this guy jailed for 72 days for not changing the start time of a peaceful demonstration :(

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/08/manni-singh-...

Craig may be a crackpot but I am now aware of several facts that I had not seen reported elsewhere - I can ignore his analysis as I see fit.

EDIT: to be clear he doesn't really seem like that much of crackpot to me, I have never met anyone what doesn't hold some odd beliefs and from what i have seen so far he is asking reasonable questions.

> Unlike our adversaries including the Integrity Initiative, the 77th Brigade, Bellingcat, the Atlantic Council and hundreds of other warmongering propaganda operations

wut?

Craig Murray is a crank.

He's a former ambassador, and he's also right about quite a lot of things, but he's also got the fundamental problem of seeing enemies everywhere.

Bellingcat, for example, is just another blogger, although doing "OSINT" to, for example, locate the BUK launcher likely used in the shooting down of MH17, and with various claims as to the involvment of GRU officers in poisonings such as Salisbury and Navalny.

77th Brigade is a British Army propaganda unit. "Integrity Initiative" are widely suspected to be such.

As a former ambassador, he probably knows that enemies ARE everywhere.

> Bellingcat, for example, is just another blogger

This is a weirder take than any of Craig Murray's.

Murray is a known conspiracy theorist, he went off the deep end some time ago...

Claims should be evaluated individually based on their merits. Overly broad labels such as conspiracy theorist prohibit meaningful discussion of the merits or demerits of the individual theories and are in general a cognitive shortcut that people use to give themselves the excuse to casually discredit and disregard what someone says without meaningfully getting to know the character or claims of the individual. More concisely, it is a term used to promote intellectual laziness over due diligence of investigation.

The more of these I read the stranger I find the conduct of Baraitser as a Judge. I may not be an expert on English Law but it’s not hard to see how under any kind of argumentative process of adjudication, where two sides present their facts and are expected to cross examine, object, and argue as part of the process... that someone could make any of the sorts of pre-written statements that Baraitser has done on multiple occasions so far.

Baraitser continues to feel like someone who is merely going through the motions waiting for their pay check and who would much rather not even be there.

The pre-written statement stuff also has the stink of prejudice in the most literal sense of the word. So I just cannot even fathom how it hasn’t warranted immediate sanction given the stupid amount of evidence available.

To be fair, if I were her I wouldn’t want to be there either. Two governments breathing down my back, my career on the line? Even if I wasn’t only allowed to preside this case because I had the right sympathies - how many other things in my life will I sacrifice for one moment of integrity?

https://outline.com/sVp2TY

For those who also can’t concentrate on just reading the article thanks to the scroll hijack

From the article:

"The reason given that only five of us were allowed in the public gallery of some 40 seats was social distancing; except we were allowed to all sit together in consecutive seats in the front row. The two rows behind us remained completely empty."

I'm trying to understand nonetheless why still they chose to sit together.

This story is pretty-much absent from the UK news. Radio 4's 6pm news had time to report a magnitude 3.3 earthquake in Leyton Buzzard (no structural damage), but a miscarriage of justice unrolling before their eyes? Not interested.

Can some legal eagle explain why a magistrate is presiding over the case, rather than a judge?

(For those who don't know, in the UK a magistrate is just a layperson volunteer, not a legally trained judge)

They're a judge. https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Vanessa_Baraitser (hack piece also by author of TFA)

Tfa is by Craig Murray whereas the edit history of the wikispooks piece [0] at least claims to be by Patrick Haseldine. What makes you say to the contrary?

[0] https://wikispooks.com/w/index.php?title=Vanessa_Baraitser&a...

You're absolutely correct, that was my mistake.

I think I saw that the related documents are Craig's blog posts and interpreted that table incorrectly. The tone being very similar didn't help.

IANAL or legal expert, but:

Magistrates' courts are where criminal cases are first dealt with in English law. If the offence is indictable then the next step will be to move the case to the crown court (unless the offence is an "either way" offence and the summary procedure is elected instead).

So it would make sense to me that extradition hearings are dealt with, in the first instance, by a magistrates' court; after all the court is not actually determining guilt, but merely whether there's a prima facie evidence of guilt.

There are procedural safeguards in place, namely that one may appeal to the High Court (and then, ultimately, the Supreme Court) if the magistrate's court send the case to the Secretary of State for approval and the latter approves the extradition.

Not a legal eagle

Criminal cases in England and Wales always start in a magistrate's court. The judge in this case, Vanessa Baraitser, is listed [1] as a "District judge (magistrates’ courts)" - despite the article describing her as "Magistrate Baraitser". District Judges are full-time members of the judiciary, even though they sit in a magistrate's court [2].

Obviously, the case will be considered by other judges on appeal.

[1] https://www.judiciary.uk/about-the-judiciary/who-are-the-jud...

[2] https://www.judiciary.uk/about-the-judiciary/who-are-the-jud...

Edit: added "in England and Wales"

Also, extradition proceedings don't follow standard criminal procedure.

See s77(1) of the Extradition Act 2003...

> In England and Wales, at the extradition hearing the appropriate judge has the same powers (as nearly as may be) as a magistrates' court would have if the proceedings were the summary trial of an information against the person whose extradition is requested.

(A summary trial is a trial for a low-level offence - in the US, the equivalent would be a misdemenor. "An information" is a slightly quaint wording for what is basically equivalent to an indictment, except it isn't an indictment because a summary offence isn't indictable.)

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/41/part/2/crosshea...

In the magistrates' court, you either have a bench of three lay magistrates, or a district judge. More serious issues, including almost all but the least contentious extradition hearings, are likely to be heard by a DJ rather than a lay bench, since a DJ has worked in legal practice in a way a lay magistrate hasn't.

> why a magistrate is presiding over the case

A judge is presiding over the case.

Murray is either lying or he doesn't know what he's talking about.

It's somewhat frustrating that HN have accepted everything he says uncritically, because a lot of it is simply bollocks.

Well, it's not quite as straightforward as that.

It's being heard at Westminster Magistrate's Court because that is where all extradition cases from England and Wales are heard.

Criminal matters in the Magistrate's Court are heard before Justices of the Peace, and you are correct that most JPs are lay-people who have taken some basic legal training, and are assisted by a clerk who is legally trained at a professional level.

However, there are also District Judges that sit in the Magistrate's Court and are by virtue of their appointment also Justices of the Peace. These are judges employed by the Government to deal with specific types of more serious cases, e.g. terrorism, or specific subject matter like extradition.

I looked this up previously, but it's hard to find useful references due to the preponderance of Assange-related stories, but if I recall correctly: Vanessa Baraitser is a District Judge, and has something like 15+ years of professional experience as a solicitor before appointment.

Extradition cases are the responsibility of the magistrates' courts. In practice, they're not given to benches of volunteer magistrates, but to the group of District Judge (Magistrates Court)s who sit in a single court (Westminster Magistrates Court) and who have experience of extradition work.

DJ (MC)s are professional judges, with the usual legal training, who can sit singly in place of benches of lay magistrates for all the usual work of the magistrates' courts (which is mostly minor crime, straightforward family business, and regulatory civil hearings such as approving liability orders for outstanding council tax). For quite a lot of contentious extradition hearings you actually get the Chief Magistrate, who is a senior district judge.

It does have to be said that not being extradited on the basis of a well-formed request is rare, whether you're Julian Assange or not. If the court is confident that you're accused of an extradition offence, and that your trial will be fair, there are few reasons for it not to extradite (normally these days because of anticipated breaches of the Human Rights Act).

I feel ashamed and powerless for not being able to help Assange

Anyone know what tech stack the original Wikileaks was built on? There's not much on Google, it seems, other than much later when the Panama Papers were released.

The title seems to have a typo, it is the hearing day number 6, not number 2.

Thank you! Fixed.

edit: In fact from what I can tell, this is all about day 1 of the hearing. Day 2 is today.

According to several other sources [1][2] it seems to me like "2" was correct and the title of the article is wrong. Or are they talking about different things when they refer to this day number?

[1] from another comment here in this threrad https://twitter.com/kgosztola/status/1302888230115737600 day 1 yesterday and day 2 today: https://twitter.com/kgosztola/status/1303251577344413696

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKzXs6kXAac (German video summary by someone working in the EU parliament for a small party - but it has "Tag 1" (Day 1) and yesterdays date in the title)

My guess is that he's numbering sequentially from the hearings earlier in the year, e.g. https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/02/your-man-in-...

Surprised anyone would waste their time defending Assange.

Assange is the litmus test that privacy concerns are not safe from being monopolised by one part of the political spectrum.

Before Trump and the Clinton leaks, Assange was a darling for the liberal media and even on the conservative ring. Then when the leaks came out, Assange became a figure of hate for the same liberal groups who were praising and supporting him before.

Now ironically its people on both sides of the fringe that have remained stalwart in supporting him. The middle have declared him "problematic" and have decided to throw him under the carpet along with all the privacy concerns and government overreach of surveillance that he and WikiLeaks had highlighted.

Sure this is just human nature that people come and go out of favour, but this 180 flip is just hypocritical (especially with the Guardian becoming hostile to him).

What we are seeing here in the court room, is powerful people who want rid of him, not even treating him like a bargaining chip. Just literally wanting to sweep him away like a nuisance.

I'm digressing from this specific case, I too am a strong critic of the US being globally handsy, but I instead want to focus on the public discourse.

There's nothing ironic or hypocritical about it.

You can appreciate earlier leaks about governmental/agency misconduct in the pursuit of transparency.

Then wikileaks (if not Assange specifically) took it upon themselves to meddle in elections, selectively leaking DNC hacked data and not the RNC equivalent, antithetical to transparency.

Public opinion didn't do a 180, wikileaks did.

https://apnews.com/ce9a4541f903109079900528d9f0a9e7

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-senate/s...

https://theintercept.com/2018/02/14/julian-assange-wikileaks...

A) There was no successful RNC hack, even the US is saying that the attempt to hack the RNC was foiled by the defenses the RNC had put in place. https://www.wsj.com/articles/republican-national-committee-s...

B) Since when is a journalist not allowed to report on information they have that could affect an election result? Isn't that rather then "meddling", instead 'the primary purpose of a free press'?

A) https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2017/jan/11/donald-tru...

And also, though few details: https://www.wired.com/2017/01/russia-hacked-older-republican...

B) I don't know if you remember, but they didn't, they portioned it out for optimal effect, teasing the drops on Twitter, not to mention coordinated with Roger flippin Stone, and Russia.

Sure, if they are only given access to one side, they can only leak one side, but you have to do some pretty spectacular mental gymnastics to defend that as anything other than willful ignorance of your culpability. If it weren't for the chat transcripts which paints a pretty clear picture of their intent.

Expecting a journalist to somehow balance the evidence of misdeeds between a country's two ruling parties is bizarre, and not a standard any other news outlet was held to over the same period.

You might as well criticize prosecutors for not bringing charges against one Democrat each time they bring charges against one Republican.

What exactly did you expect to see in RNC leaks anyway? The utter collapse of a party apparatus being bulldozed by Trump? If anything, you'd see them working as hard against Trump as the Democrats worked against Sanders. Leaks from the RNC would benefit Trump. The Steele dossier was a Republican production, handed off to the Democrats when their primary ended. Bipartisan.

> coordinated with Roger flippin Stone, and Russia.

You're not making this up, somebody else did, but there's absolutely no evidence of this. Some of the odd circumstantial cases made for this even intentionally invert parts of the timeline. The largest and most advanced intelligence apparatus in the history of the world has been able to offer no evidence (and claims no evidence, just delivers summaries of the consensus of executives.) Roger Stone, Donald Trump, and Julian Assange must be the smartest people in the history of the world.

With Q, Russiagate, and Judeo-Bolshevism coming back in the form of Soros-Antifa theories, I'm terrified.

> Expecting a journalist to somehow balance the evidence of misdeeds between a country's two ruling parties is bizarre, and not a standard any other news outlet was held to over the same period.

True, people excuse journalists for showing partisan bias all the time (at least, when the bias is towards their preferred party, although they may not call it bias). Also, we might excuse a journalist for being biased against a politician who literally joked about killing them, as Clinton did if this claim from WikiLeaks is true (or Assange may have believed it was true):

https://truepundit.com/under-intense-pressure-to-silence-wik...

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/julian-assange-drone-strik...

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/true-pundit/

Thanks for the Snopes link, as I was wondering what evidence there was for the claim.

> Rating: Unproven

> On 4 October 2016 Clinton answered a question about whether the rumor was accurate, responding that she didn’t “recall any joke … [reference to targeting Assange with a drone] would have been a joke”

Oh, well if she "does not recall" it (and I'm sure she has a great memory[0]) and if she'd only be joking about killing him then he'd have no reason to not want her becoming president.

[0] https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2008/mar/25/hillary-cl...

It's an unproven claim only reported on a website known for bullshit, but sure.

The original report may not be credible in itself, but if a presidential candidate is accused of glibly discussing murdering someone, and their best defence is "I do not recall" and "I was only joking", then you can maybe understand why Assange might believe he was safer under a Trump presidency.

It's not like Assange had to worry about being shot on Fifth Avenue.

> You're not making this up, somebody else did, but there's absolutely no evidence of this. Some of the odd circumstantial cases made for this even intentionally invert parts of the timeline. The largest and most advanced intelligence apparatus in the history of the world has been able to offer no evidence (and claims no evidence, just delivers summaries of the consensus of executives.

I don't know what you consider proof. But court documents from the Stone trial as well as a Republican led senate committee both state as such. The first two links of my OP.

Are you saying that both are fabrications?

If accusers were kicked out for theft, lying and stealing, you can reasonably sure the FBI made a deal like a good mafia would.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com