Hacker News Reader

Comment by belorn | Hacker News Reader

The paragraphs in the article.

"In the United Kingdom, Assange’s legal team has been allowed to enter this evidence into the public record. However, during a potential trial in the United States, it will likely be excluded as irrelevant because the Espionage Act does not allow a public interest defense."

"The Central Criminal Court in London was prepared for El Masri to testify. An interpreter was lined up for the ninth day of proceedings. However, technical problems prevented him from addressing the court beyond his written statement.

Prosecutors also objected to El Masri giving live testimony. According to Court News UK reporter Charlie Jones, that prompted Assange to stand up and proclaim, "I will not accept you censoring a torture victim's statement to this court.""

View on HN

How do judges generally deal with that kind of situation? "Oh, the connection's not working? Ah well, moving on, we're ignoring this witness"?

Other sources I've seen disagree, that Charlie Jones tweet blames the translator, and the prosecution has been discussing blocking this testimony for a few days now.

https://consortiumnews.com/2020/09/18/assange-hearing-day-ni...

Another report:

https://assangecourt.report/september-18-morning

"Mr El-Masri was due to give evidence by video link, but, after a legal argument, presiding judge Vanessa Baraitser decided that it would be sufficient for his statement to be read to the court and he need not appear."

And now by Murray (1):

"There had been three days of intense discussion between the counsel and the judge, with the United States government objecting bitterly to Mr El-Masri being heard. A compromise had been reached that he could give evidence provided he did not allege he was tortured by the US Government. However, when he came to give evidence, Mr El-Masri was strangely unable to connect by videolink, even though the defence team had been able to speak to him by video a few hours earlier. Technical staff in the court having been unable to resolve the (ahem) technical issue, rather than simply postpone his evidence until a videolink had been established – as had happened already with two other witnesses when quality issues arose – Judge Baraitser suddenly decided to raise again the issue of whether el-Masri’s evidence should be heard at all."

Wow.

1) https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/09/your-man-in-...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com