Amnesty International denied access to court in the Assange extradition hearing
twitter.com
twitter.com
My understanding at this point is that the public isn't really allowed access at all. The poor sound quality makes it impossible to understand what is happening, it's not access in the sense that they can follow the proceedings. Craig Murray seemed to be saying that Amnesty International was excluded even from this room. I believe this may be the crux of Amnesty International's complaint.
"Rather to our surprise, nobody else was allowed into the public gallery of court 10 but us five. Others like John Pilger and Kristin Hrafnsson, editor in chief of Wikileaks, were shunted into the adjacent court 9 where a very small number were permitted to squint at a tiny screen, on which the sound was so inaudible John Pilger simply left. Many others who had expected to attend, such as Amnesty International and Reporters Without Borders, were simply excluded, as were MPs from the German federal parliament (both the German MPs and Reporters Without Borders at least later got access to the inadequate video following strong representations from the German Embassy)."
[0]: https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/09/your-man-in-...
I disagree in that I still hope it's merely arrogance and exceptionalism by the UK courts thinking, unlike courts in poorer parts of the world, they are utterly above reproach in all things and so there is no need for Amnesty International at the trial of a publisher who has reported and published evidence of war crimes. For all that arrogance I hope the court will make the correct decisions according to statute and precedence.
The job that has been done on Assange has been astonishingly effective. People don't /like/ him enough to notice his rights being removed are precisely their own rights and are removed for all. I put him with Tony Blair, George Bush jnr, Hilary, Donald, Boris as someone I would cross the road to avoid having to talk to - as is my right. It's also my right to note that it matters not at all in defending the rights of all of these people to fair due process because even the worst asshole imaginable's rights are yours and mine. Of my list of assholes above, I think Assange is the only asshole with no evidence to suggest his actions have actually killed anyone at all. Blair and Bush jnr in particular deserve fair trials so they can rigorously defend the extremely prevalent belief that they did kill people, knowingly, making decisions supported with jusification made in bad faith to enable the actions leading to the carnage. I would completely support their rights and Amnesty being present at their trials.
The rule of law and equality before it is the most important thing to ensure civilisation continues.
AI: "We demand access to monitor the trial."
UK: "You are free to monitor the trial as a member of the public."
AI: "No, we demand physical access and the right to a reserved seat to monitor the trial."
UK: "From the Crown's point of view, you are a public institution and have the same rank as any other public institution. The auditorium seating is ----> thataway."
This is not to say that AI having reserved seating to oversee the trial couldn't be useful, but it's understandable why the UK might choose not to treat them as a privileged observer.
Sounds more like a justifiable way of minimizing the legal support available to the defendant, and control the flow of information to the public.
Not to say that it wouldn't be a good idea for AI to have the privilege of oversight of any court proceeding in the UK. But I believe such a thing would have to start as law from the Houses, not the discretion of an individual judge. If there is precedent to the contrary, I will stand corrected.
I guess it's too much to ask of the UK though.
Just like the Internet Watch Foundation. Being a private charity does not mean much for the UK.
It's appropriate for the court to take steps necessary to ensure not just a fair trial, but the apparence of a fair trial.
If you fail to ensure the apparence of a fair trial, you undermine the court.
It saddens me that the court can't ensure a trial that is beyond criticism, especially in a case this controversial. It gives serious credibility to people claiming this is a sham trial. Because a fair trial should go out of it's way to also appear fair.
If you want to write some justifications for why the government is refusing to let the public watch a video of the proceedings, then knock yourself out.
https://twitter.com/JuliaHall18/status/1306197900289019904/p...
It's AI that's requesting special treatment. I think it'd be cool if the UK passed a law making it so, but it seems less cool if a trial judge decides unilaterally to go outside of the norms and allow it. Isn't AI's goal to make sure norms are followed?
Did you read her Twitter thread you keep posting? The reason she is requesting "special treatment" is so that the spots allocated to the public wouldn't be used. They are trying to use their authority to push for more people allowed to attend.
>Isn't AI's goal to make sure norms are followed?
No, the goal is to try and ensure that a tryly public trial is held.
"Endless babel from that region of the US we care the least about: NY"
"The feminazi apparati found you."
This article may be totally reasonable, but your example of an unfairly silenced user doesn't appear to be.
Actually there is evidence that his actions started a number of civil wars. Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing depends on your perspective, but certainly it lead to dead people.
See https://www.zdnet.com/article/wikileaks-how-the-diplomatic-c... for more.
1) https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/dec/07/wikileaks-tuni...
This may seem tenuous, but it was pretty much what he was hoping for. http://web.archive.org/web/20070129125831/http://iq.org/cons... describes what Assange hoped Wikileaks would accomplish before it had accomplished anything. Said purpose was to make it harder to maintain authoritarian conspiracies.
Given that, the fact that his actions caused trouble for authoritarian conspiracies in the Middle-East is an intended consequence.
Not really (non sequitar). He's shadowbanned (see their submissions and comments).
The particular comment doesn't add much either; its merely an opinion, nothing more. Not a well argued one either while we're at it. That doesn't mean they should or shouldn't be allowed to have the opinion, nor does it mean they're right or wrong. It merely means its a shallow post.
Amnesty International has not been "denied access" to the extradition hearing. The judge has declined to provide them with special status and guaranteed access by an AI observer within the courtroom itself. The proceedings will be broadcast live to members of he press in auxiliary room, where AI is apparently welcome.
Other comments speculate about various extralegal shenanigans that could occur in such a situation. Information about that might make up a good article, an informative article, that I might be glad to read on HN. However I already have a place where I can indulge in soapboxing in response to tweets, it is called Twitter, and I am not sure that providing redundancy for this activity is a good use of HN.
> The IBAHRI concurs with the widespread concern over the ill-treatment of Mr Assange. He must be afforded equality in access to effective legal representation. With this extradition trial we are witnessing the serious undermining of due process and the rule of law. It is troubling that Mr Assange has complained that he is unable to hear properly what is being said at his trial, and that because he is locked in a glass cage is prevented from communicating freely with his lawyers during the proceedings commensurate with the prosecution. - https://www.ibanet.org/Article/NewDetail.aspx?ArticleUid=c05...
As others here, like cmiles74, have mentioned, there are also serious sound issues affecting those who are trying to follow the case. Given all that, it's hardly surprising that Amnesty would be worried and would want access to monitor for themselves.
They are not welcome: "Denied both" - https://twitter.com/JuliaHall18/status/1306234552088768512
It seems they are not exceptionally welcome. Or unwelcome. First-come, first-serve.
https://twitter.com/JuliaHall18/status/1306197900289019904/p...
From the Amnesty tweet thread: "The general public has a right to the few seats in the public gallery; trial monitors should not be competing with the public to secure a seat that belongs to the public-at-large." - https://twitter.com/JuliaHall18/status/1306198935816613889
I'm happy to stand corrected if there's precedent to the contrary.
I found this in one of their documents:
"Amnesty International and other human rights organizations have for many years sent observers to significant political trials. The acceptance of international trial observers (whether sent by foreign governments or by non-governmental organizations) has arguably become an international legal norm. The practice is well established and accepted within the international community." - https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/156000/pol3000219...
You write:
> Otherwise, it adds burden to all trial judges to have to decide who's a "trial monitor" at their discretion.
I'm sure if the judge in the Assange case was facing an influx of trial monitors and finding it hard to decide which ones to let in, she would have made that clear. She hasn't said anything of the sort.
Nor am I the judge; the judge in the Assange trial is.
> James Lewis QC: You were just fishing about for something, omitting details which counter your opinion.
> Eric Lewis: There is a huge amount of data, including from the US Bureau of Prisons. You just picked out one caveat of one report.
> James Lewis QC: Please keep your answers concise.
> Who wants to go next? No judgements, guys. Just say anything and everything that's on your mind.
> I just keep asking myself, "Why did this happen?" If there's a God and all, why does He allow all those innocent people to die for no reason?
> Keep it secular, honey.
I hope that one or more folks actually in the room are surreptitiously recording the proceedings so they can be leaked later.
Is there any recognition in UK law for this role?
Can they not watch the same feed as the media?
In any case the idea is that Justice must not only be done it must be seen to be done. Telling amnesty they are nobodies in the eyes of the courts is not really supporting that.
Amnesty really needs to explain why this is not adequate, and if it genuinely is not adequate why the deserve this special access over and above any other party with a strong interest in reporting this case.
However, more crucial here is that AI does not have any official monitoring status. Sure, they have good reputation, but ultimately are "just" an NGO. It might have been a different story if this was an official (UN) body safeguarding fair trials. But I'm not even sure if those exist, given that courts are often considered an "internal affair" of a country. If there's something wrong with them, the official way is usually to proceed to an international court, after having exhausted your options in a national court.
Also, AI itself is not without controversy. It certainly does a lot of good work, with most people involved having nothing but good intentions. That said, I have personally witnessed how the organization (at least once) made some seriously politically damaging statements for a ruling government, but as it later turned out based on false information. That itself can happen. But when AI was privately informed (with evidence countering their statements), about how they were used for a political agenda, they still held on to their initial stance. That was rather surprising and even shocking to me, for an organization like AI. Only years later, did I finally hear about questionable personal relationships between the local political opposition and AI staff. From what I've heard since, that was neither the first time that AI wasn't as politically (or nationally) neutral as often thought/claimed.
I doubt that the above has much relevance in this particular case though. Still, apparently AI isn't always above using information "tactically" for their own and/or political means/ends.
This might be entirely coincidental, but regardless, I can see why observers would find it not adequate.
As someone else mentioned, this is the sort of thing that, when it happens in “bad” countries, we often call with certain choice words.
No, except the general principle that justice should be seen. Which is "achieved" through the auxiliary room with the terrible video/audio link.
From all the reporting, including Craig Murray's (who's in the public gallery and definitely not on the government side in all this), it seems like the controversial aspects of the trial are based on what's being said in the courtroom rather than physical actions in the courtroom.
Is there a suspicion of physical foul play that needs to be monitored and/or guarded against here rather than legal, evidential, or procedural foul play?
Making rather a mockery of court's public access requirements
Yet, I would bet that if I informed the court of that offer, they would say no.
Snowden should watch out
Because it's not a fair trial, it's a sham trial which is being overshadowed by the US Gov't.