Comment by DiogenesKynikos | Hacker News Reader

Comment by DiogenesKynikos | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

DiogenesKynikos

The judge says that closing arguments are irrelevant, because the opening statements were thorough enough. Why are they even going through the charade of witnesses testimony, cross examination, etc. then?

> On Wednesday the trap sprang shut, as Judge Baraitser insisted the witnesses must finish next week, and that no time would be permitted for preparation of closing arguments, which must be heard the immediate following Monday. This brought the closest the defence have come to a protest, with the defence pointing out they have still not addressed the new superseding indictment, and that the judge refused their request for an adjournment before witness hearings started, to give them time to do so.

> Edward Fitzgerald QC for the defence also pointed out that there had been numerous witnesses whose evidence had to be taken into account, and the written closing submissions had to be physically prepared with reference to the transcripts and other supporting evidence from the trial. Baraitser countered that the defence had given her 200 pages of opening argument and she did not see that much more could be needed.

It's an extradition hearing, not a court case or hearing.

The judge only has to establish a few things:

A) is it likely that the accused will not face a fair trial (this has to be proven, the burden of proof is on the accused to do this)

B) the accused likely faces the death penalty (it is insufficient if death penalty exists or it is unlikely they will face it)

C) they're being accused of something that is a crime in the UK as well

D) the accusation goes beyond simple doubt (this requires no actual proof, only that there is enough proof to run a court case)

There are time limits to extradition hearings, they're not supposed to replace a proper trial and they are not a proper trial.

And E) That the charges are not politically motivated.

If they they are (as everyone knows they are), then the UK-US extradition treaty is very clear that the extradition request has to be denied:[1]

> extradition shall not be granted if the competent authority of the Requested State determines that the request was politically motivated.

But in order to determine any of these issues, surely the testimony given over the past weeks is relevant. The judge has effectively said that it is irrelevant.

1. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...

I don't understand why this post is greyed out.

It's factual, informative, (apparently) cites the relevant treaty, and it is not flame-bait. The requirement that the extradition not be politically motivated is an important one that was omitted from the above list.

One could argue that the conclusion that the material the judge considered 'irrelevant' is material relevant to the above is a subjective opinion. Fortunately, DiogenesKynikos linked the treaty so we can evaluate this for ourselves.

I'm not really understanding the four points.

A and B would be reasons not to extradite, while C and D would be reasons to extradite.

Correct yes, I thought that was fairly obvious.

Generally if A or B are true, then C and D don't matter but if A or B can't be proven then there is very little formality in this kind of hearing.

Does anyone still seriously believe that he'll face a fair trial in the US? I think that would be extremely naive.

Belief != Good enough in court, otherwise creationists would have had their beliefs enshrined to law.

One might wonder why go through these hearings at all, since it was obviously decided a long time ago that Assange would be extradited to the US.

Because it is easy to do and takes away the argument that he was extradited without even a hearing. Even though he really did not get a hearing.

Soon the US will lock this man where he can’t talk with anyone. In a few years this judge will probably be promoted. Everyone is happy.

Well, the defence is trying to turn the process into a “make the hearing about literally everything” three-ring circus, and the prosecution’s countering with “there’s a case to answer and the USA meets the required judicial standards”.

On balance, don’t you think JA has had a fair opportunity - particularly given the sheer amount of court time and media attention he’s had over the last ten years?

> On balance, don’t you think JA has had a fair opportunity

Not even close. The US started a war of aggression and this process is inline with silencing critics. In my opinion the US cannot be a dependable partner anymore. Not for security, not for trade and especially not as a defender of democracy. Maybe it never really was, but the nature of open information exchange certainly makes that more transparent.

That killed hundreds of thousands of people and you think someone who supplied evidence of wrongdoing had too much media time?

> who supplied evidence

Not even that. He published it. That's it.

Not even that, the newspapers published it.

  >the USA meets the required judicial standards”.

Except that, on paper, the UK [and I think the wider EU] claim they will not extradite someone to a country which still retains the death penalty, or which uses torture. Since the US clearly fails both those tests, no-one should ever be extradited from the UK or the EU to the USA.

But as we all know, the US is special and doesn't have to play by the same rules as everyone else.

Extraditing someone to a country with the death penalty is barred in UK law, however it's no bar if "the Secretary of State gets adequate written assurance that the death penalty will not be imposed or, if imposed, will not be carried out"...

It's quite the disgrace.

> the US is special

In the same as "No timmy, you're not retarded, you're just special"

The US in this case is special in that it will use massive force to strongarm this into happening.

Everyone knows the prosecution is politically motivated, which rules out extradition under the US-UK treaty. You know it, I know it, the judge knows it. Yet everyone also thinks the judge made up her mind (and probably wrote her ruling) before the proceedings began. Not even giving the defense time to prepare a closing statement just underlines this. This is the sort of trial you're used to hearing about in banana republics.

It's not entirely unreasonable for the judge to dismiss closing arguments: this is an administrative hearing, not a criminal case. There may well be sound case management reasons for doing so.

Mr Assange can appeal to the High Court if the judgement goes against him, and then further to the Supreme Court, and potentially the European Court of Human Rights. Any of those courts can block his extradition.

The UK government has said it is hoping to undo the Human Rights Act.

It seems too many people dislike the idea of human rights now, especially rights for "criminals".

So I wouldn't be surprised if the ECHR has no standing in the UK by the time Mr Assange could do with its services.

But the US system incorporates a political viewpoint deliberately as part of what it considers justice in the public interest.

We, the UK, don’t decline extraditions on that basis - the prosecution has to be manifestly unjust in the sense of no real case to answer, or the destination has to literally be a banana republic.

Supporters may hate this, but it’s not actually what’s at issue at this point in the legal process.

Yeah, obviously “he’s going down” but not because of bias - he’s simply not exceptional (or motivationally pure) enough to be above the system.

> We, the UK, don’t decline extraditions on that basis

The UK is required by the terms of the treaty to decline extradition on that basis. From the treaty,[1]

> extradition shall not be granted if the competent authority of the Requested State determines that the request was politically motivated.

There's no doubt about the political nature of the prosecution, so there's no doubt about what the outcome should be, unless there are extra-legal considerations at play in the decision. We're all watching the answer to the following question be played out in real time: "Will the UK extradite a person for politically motivated prosecution in the US, in flagrant violation of the UK-US extradition treaty?"

1. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...

That's interesting. I wonder if "politically motivated" is typically understood to encompass "acted against the general nebulous interests of the prevailing political and state apparatus".

Err, yes?

Is it really so clear cut? Suppose a KKK member had fled from the US to the UK and was trying to bring about the secession of the Confederacy from the Union to form a white supremacist state, and that part of his strategy was to selectively leak US state secrets. Should the UK refuse to extradite him because the extradition request is politically motivated?

My understanding is that this is precisely the sort of behavior that the customary "political crimes" exemption in extradition treaties is supposed to cover. Things like espionage, treason, separatism and other crimes against the state are inherently political. The UK-US extradition treaty also explicitly states that in the case of politically motivated prosecution, no extradition can occur.

Yes, they should not be extradited for leaking US State Secrets. They could be extradited for something else, which should be easy since they are a KKK member, but not for that act.

Moreover, Assange isn't even an American citizen, so that doesn't work either.

I don't believe the KKK is an illegal organisation, but if it is then membership of an illegal organisation seems like it would fall under "political crime". In any case, change the setup to another organisation that is not outlawed but nonetheless has similar ends. I just don't see how extradition can be withheld for leaking state secrets just because the overall aim was to damage the US political status quo.

Membership of an organization that commits crimes is criminal, not because it is political. And if you're a member of the KKK you've certainly been implicated in a crime in some way.

That being said, it is completely ridiculous to extradite an Australian for leaking US State secrets. It should just not be a thing, at all. So yes, leaking state secrets should not be an extraditeable offense. Treason? Maaaaybe.

Potentially. It depends on the facts of the case as well as the guarantees around execution and torture'

But in any case if the US wants suspects extradited from western countries they should abolish the death sentence and stop torturing prisoners.

> in any case if the US wants suspects extradited from western countries they should abolish the death sentence and stop torturing prisoners.

Personally I agree with that, but that doesn't impinge on the "politically motivate" crime issue, does it?

What crime? This is politically motivated punishment.

I believe the alleged crime is espionage. Espionage seems typically to have had a political motive historically. Does that mean that all such espionage charges should lead to denied extradition requests?

Some interesting context

> "Fitzgerald [barrister for the defence] stated that all major authorities agreed there were two types of political offence. The pure political offence and the relative political offence. A 'pure' political offence was defined as treason, espionage or sedition. A 'relative' political offence was an act which was normally criminal, like assault or vandalism, conducted with a political motive. Every one of the charges against Assange was a “pure” political offence. All but one were espionage charges, and the computer misuse charge had been compared by the prosecution to breach of the official secrets act to meet the dual criminality test. The overriding accusation that Assange was seeking to harm the political and military interests of the United States was in the very definition of a political offence in all the authorities."

https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Vanessa_Baraitser#Political_extr...

When the basis for the charge is political rather than factual like this one. Then usually yes.

I'm confused. "Political" and "factual" do not seem to be contradictory notions. The seem to be orthogonal, to me.

> the prosecution has to be manifestly unjust in the sense of no real case to answer, or the destination has to literally be a banana republic.

I believe a case can be made for both.

The USA started an illegal war. Assange exposed some of the war crimes (for which no one has faced justice). The USA wants revenge.

They are acting like a banana republic and this extradition request should be treated as such.

> the judge made up her mind (and probably wrote her ruling)

I wouldn't give her that much credit. She probably got the ruling already written from the US authorities.

They should just save everyone's time by dropping pretences and summarily dragging Julian into the square and shooting him in the back of the head.

That would be much more humane than dragging this farce out with endless legal purgatory before guaranteed solitary confinement for the rest of his life.

All for sharing proof of systematic illegal murder. It's sickening.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com