Assange Trial Day 18
craigmurray.org.uk
craigmurray.org.uk
Judge Baraitser ruled that there will be no closing speeches in the hearing. Furthermore, because the proceedings have been going on for too long, the defense is not allowed to submit new evidence proving the inhumane conditions Assange would be held in if extradited. Since the defense is also not allowed to cross examine Kromberg, who's written several affidavits which cross the border into perjury, they're somewhat fucked.
More 'time saving' measurements, because apparently that's more important than having a fair and/or humane trial.
Wait, I missed this gorgeous fucking bit of assholery:
Baraitser heard arguments on whether the full medical records of Assange from the doctors and psychiatrists who had given evidence should be released to the media. Both defence and prosecution opposed release, but Baraitser kept referring to “open justice”. She will rule on this on Monday .
What bothers me most about this case is A: that America is doing this very much political hounding of a journalist becaues they were embarassed by them. B: the readiness of the UK to roll over and destroy its own justice system. First by having the judge be at the very least biased, but more likely having the judgement ready to extradite Assange. Secondly by having this public trial be very much private. First by limiting the public seats in the trial to less than a dozen and then also by excluding all NGOs and news sources who'd be critical of this sham. Lastly by the frankly horrendous treatment of Assange. Both by the conditions in which he's been kept in prison, putting him in a glass box so he can't hear the trial nor communicate with his legal team, but also by things like limiting the time he can spend with his legal team while awaiting the trial, to the point where the defense team wasn't sure they'd be able to do enough prep at all.
That said, Its irrelevant. We've been through this many times in world history. The answer to people publishing things that undermine a government position is to rethink the position. Not punish the person.
Punish the person leaves the government unquestionable. And we know that is much much worse than any damage the truth can do because we're not trying to win some pissing context with Russia over who looks good. We're trying to maintain good policy.
Outrageous. I cannot see any public interest justification in favour of releasing the records. Open justice can be done without releasing absolutely everything about the defendant.
The fact it impacts press freedom, judicial impartiality, and foreign interference in a UK court, I feels like a lot of this extends far beyond this case, and I feel that the public should be aware of this to some degree.
What can we do other than sharing links to try and get the word out?
I completely agree with you here, which is why I'm so glad that the last few articles Murray did on this have been posted here and getting at least some attention.
> What can we do other than sharing links to try and get the word out?
Sharing the articles by Murray and others is, I think, the best way. Protesting is a: somewhat unhelpful, because that doesn't seem to get picked up by the media either, and also because the government will most likely object to large protests due to the covid situation.
However, as Murray noted in other articles, news of the entire trial seems to get you shadowbanned from social media:
> Even my blog has never been so systematically subject to shadowbanning from Twitter and Facebook as now. Normally about 50% of my blog readers arrive from Twitter and 40% from Facebook. During the trial it has been 3% from Twitter and 9% from Facebook. That is a fall from 90% to 12%. In the February hearings Facebook and Twitter were between them sending me over 200,000 readers a day. Now they are between them sending me 3,000 readers a day. To be plain that is very much less than my normal daily traffic from them just in ordinary times. It is the insidious nature of this censorship that is especially sinister – people believe they have successfully shared my articles on Twitter and Facebook, while those corporations hide from them that in fact it went into nobody’s timeline. My own family have not been getting their notifications of my posts on either platform.[1]
1: https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/09/your-man-in-...
I couldn't think of a better example of why these practices need to die a swift death, if societies the world around want to have any chance of preventing a total downfall of discourse.
Its customers are mega-corporations, political parties, governments. If some content spreads too quickly it not only gets shadowbanned to slow its spread, it gets reported to the authorities. Many regimes worldwide have taken note how China and Saudi-Arabia are handling the emergence of social networks. They want the same features. Even western democracies churned in and want FB to do more about "fake news". Tell me, what is the remedy against those ailment? How exactly does a social network slow down what is known as a "troll farm"? And that is the nice case where disruptive enemy propaganda is just that and not some dysphemism for a grass root dissident pro-human-rights civil movement.
The highest paying customers are not paying for shoe-ads, or to talk to their friends or plan events, they pay for censorship, surveillance and control of popular opinion. You are not a customer, you are cattle. No go and consume your feed.
As a result, your traffic from FB will rapidly drop until you pay them off, that's just business if you want to spread on FB.
Another good outlet to support is
https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/declassified-uk/
Put the word out to friends NOT to support the Guardian, which has become an Intelligence asset since Katherine Viner became editor and actively worked to frame the story on Assange.
Good background here,
https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2019-09-11-how-the-u...
This is a criminal case heard at a magistrates court, if I understand correctly, the media are not permitted to cover the trial, until the case is decided. Media breaking the restrictions are subject to contempt of court.
The media can, and is, covering the hearing. There are more than a dozen news articles about this hearing by major newspapers including the NYT.
Assange's extradition hearing isn't relevant to most people, and quite frankly it doesn't deserve or need to be covered outside of the major papers.
But if you aren't, then yeah, not relevant.
So... like any normal trial then.
Those sort of actions already destroy the notion that the trial is normal to begin with.
That is because this proceeding is not a trial, and never was. The government (there is no prosecution here) is not trying to prove Assange's guilt, they're trying to prove that there is a criminal case against him in the US (i.e., meaning that he has been charged with crimes in the US and will be prosecuted on those charges in the US, and from a legal standpoint also that the charged activities would be crimes under UK law).
There is literally nothing the defense can do to disprove the existence of a criminal case against Assange in the US if the government succeeds, so there is no reason to allow the evidence of Assange's purported innocence. Because it's irrelevant to extradition. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/extradition-processes-and-review
The only reason the defense is being allowed to challenge extradition is because they're arguing its illegal under UK criminal rights provisions, such as those disalllowing extradition if it would result in torture, or if the defendant is mentally ill (but in such case extradition is only tolled for the duration of the mental illness).
Moreover, Assange's team would need to show that the surveillance would actually prejudice his ability to get a fair trial, which is a tall order because the UK laws on this are less favorable for defendants than they are in the US. And if it turns out the surveillance was illegal and would prevent him from getting a fair trial, he can raise that before the U.S. trial court...and get the charges dismissed with prejudice.
It also should be noted that district judges are independent office holders, and Arbuthnot's position as Chief Magistrate is largely administrative - she doesn't have the power to overrule another magistrate, that power lies with the high court.
Interesting read - no idea whether any of it is true... but certainly doesn't sound beyond the realm of possibility.
If that's the case, all of these terrible sound bites and decisions might be good for for Assange in an appeal.
It's an extradition hearing. It goes to the High Court.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/extradition-processes-and-review
There's a very good reason why the media isn't covering the trial. They are the ones who are on trial by the governments. This is why 'fake news' and 'misinformation' really came to the forefront after Assange and this whole situation.
If these are relevant to the decision, there's a strong presumption in favor of them being released. How else is the public going to evaluate the judgment rendered by the judge if they don't have access to the facts? This is not private arbitration, the judge is being paid by the public coffers.
More 'time saving' measurements, because apparently that's more important than having a fair and/or humane trial
You know how all of HN was in an uproar when the ex-Nicola CEO called HTML a "supercomputer"? Lawyers feel the same way when non-lawyers mislabel things and then get outraged because they think something is one thing when it's actually something entirely different.
This is not a trial...it's a hearing. It is not a legal proceeding on the merits, so it will not result in any factual determinations of guilt, what happened, etc. It's simply a hearing to see if there is sufficient evidence of a criminal case so as to allow for extradition under the UK's treaty with the US.
That is why the defense is generally not allowed to cross-examine the witnesses: it's besides the point for this proceeding. To the extent the defense is even allowed to present witnesses, it's not to contest guilt but to argue against the legality of extradition, such as by showing how conditions might be "inhumane" in US prisons, or how Assange's mental health would not allow for extradition under UK law, etc.
Again: guilt or innocence is irrelevant to this proceeding.
EDIT: link for the curious describing how extradition works in the UK. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/extradition-processes-and-review
"The judge must be satisfied that the conduct amounts to an extradition offence (dual criminality), none of the bars to extradition apply, where applicable, there is prima facie evidence of guilt (in accusation cases), and whether extradition would breach the person’s human rights."
(Note: "prima facie evidence" means that there is at least one piece of evidence supporting every element of at least one of the criminal charges against the defendant. It doesn't matter if that evidence could be rebutted in a trial; only that such evidence exists and is part of the investigative record.)
(Edit: Also thanks for taking the time in educating about this)
What new evidence about the inhumane conditions of US prisons has come into existence since the start of the trial?
(Answer: COVID19, but that is only relevant so long as the pandemic continues, and would delay but not prevent extradition, which is why such evidence wasn't permitted at the hearing.)
EDIT:
Why then was the government allowed to swap the charges halfway?
Because (a) some of the underlying charges for extradition were changed by the US so they had to, (b) they didn't swap all of the charges and (c) the UK government only needs to show a prima facie case for one of the extraditable charges (based on information given them by the US), not all of the charges, and they already did that for one of the original charges and that charge is still part of the US criminal indictment underlying the extradition.
Note that because the hearing is a procedural matter, not a meritorious one, the magistrate judge would have the discretion to keep the case going even if all of the charges had been swapped.
There should be no extradition to the USA whatsoever until they stop doing so.
>There should be no extradition to the USA whatsoever until they stop doing so.
That's a strong statement. Especially given that "US Prisons" are managed/run by literally hundreds of different governmental authorities including the the Federal Government, state governments and local governments.
Which prison system(s) (specifically) are you referring to? Please provide actual evidence for your claim if you wish your assertion to be taken seriously.
Please note that I'm not really disagreeing with you. Rather, I find your blanket statement to be too broad and, as such, not convincing.
The truth is more nuanced and complex. Reducing it to an inaccurate assertion doesn't add to any attempt to draw attention to, or improve, prison conditions in the US or anywhere else.
While I take no position for or against your opinion that "There should be no extradition to the USA," that's something that citizens of countries with extradition agreements should take up with their governments.
The US has many faults, but other countries adopting extradition treaties with the US isn't one of them.
The existence of an extradition treaty doesn't mean that UK courts are compelled to extradite anyone until/unless US prisons cease breeching basic human rights.
There is no "US Prison System." Rather, there are hundreds of prison systems in the US.
What's more, state governments operate independently from our Federal Government. Often, local governments operate independently from government at the state and Federal levels.
We have a Federal system. In fact, you can go from one state to another (and sometimes even from one county to another) and have the same activity be legal in one place, and illegal in another.
As such, trying to lump all of the US together is ignorant and best, and disingenuous at worst.
As for solitary confinement, I don't think it's a good idea. And I would like to see such treatment end.
Fortunately, in the city where I live, the use of solitary confinement has been restricted and there will may well be a vote this month[0] to end solitary confinement altogether in city facilities.
At the same time, the state government has dithered[1] and has yet to change the law.
My point is that regardless of what anyone may think about the appropriateness of solitary confinement, getting rid of such treatment everywhere in the US is, and will be, a long process. And more's the pity.
>The existence of an extradition treaty doesn't mean that UK courts are compelled to extradite anyone until/unless US prisons cease breeching basic human rights.
That sounds like a reasonable position.
Perhaps you should discuss that with your local MP or perhaps the Home Secretary. The US, while a party to that treaty, didn't force it on the UK. Your elected representatives made that decision on your behalf. If you don't like it, do what we did in my city -- elect people to change it.
[0] https://www.thecity.nyc/2020/6/29/21306995/mayor-de-blasio-v...
[1] https://www.thecity.nyc/justice/2020/9/8/21428284/cuomo-soli...
Assange's team would need to show that the prison he would be assigned to regularly and currently violates human rights, and he simply can't do that.
This is a Federal prison that holds this kind of prisoner. It holds prisoners in solitary confinement. Solitary confinement is torture and is a human rights violation.
But my takeaway is that WikiLeaks was too centralized and anyone who supports it needs to support more decentralized publishing platforms.
Although that won’t “solve the problem” of course... decentralized journalists means a set of them can be bought and made into State agents. And decentralized actors can just as easily be made an example of as Assange.
But it’s only the fact that the State feels they can control the flow of information that they feel emboldened to commit crimes.
I don’t know though. Decentralized systems also facilitate crimes. I have to admit over time my instinct to try to redistribute power down to independent entities feels more and more a leap of faith.
Would we be better off governing ourselves in smaller groups? It seems more like an experiment than a belief for me at this point.