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 .
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.
"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.)
Wouldn't the defense not being allowed to submit new evidence for inhuman conditions upon extradition be against the 'whether extradition would breach the person's human rights'?
(Edit: Also thanks for taking the time in educating about this)
I'm very disappointed by the lack of press for such a major extradition case!
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'm very disappointed by the lack of press for such a major extradition case!
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]
Supporting the independent media outlets covering the case is very helpful (eg Craig Murray). A lot of them are frequent victims of legal harrassment which gets expensive.
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.
The court has only let in around ten members of the press. Though I'm sure coverage would have been limited even without that restriction, the governments involved aren't hiding how much of a sham this trial is.
> I'm very disappointed by the lack of press for such a major extradition case!
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.
> 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 .
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.
As Murray describes, the press has requested this information, presumably because they'd like to confirm previous accusations that he was subject to torture and medically neglected.
That would be the case, were it not the case that halfway through the trial, the prosecution completely changed the charges on which Assange is to be extradited, and neglected to send those to the defense and expert witnes in a timely manner, to the point where a recurring theme has been that the expert witness statements have been criticized for only discussing the original set of allegations, while they only gained access to the new allegations sometimes literally hours before they were due to give their statements in court.
Those sort of actions already destroy the notion that the trial is normal to begin with.
Yes. As I have explained elsewhere, Mr Assange may appeal to the High Court, the Supreme Court, and then potentially the European Court of Human Rights.
> 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.
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.
I'm sorry there's no English translation but if you read Spanish, find who the judge is married with and you will know everything you need to know about this trial: https://www.voltairenet.org/article210856.html
Interesting information. For summary's sake, looks like this post is talking about Baraitser's boss, Emma Arbuthnot, whose husband happens to be "a well-known "hawk" of the Conservative Party and former Minister of Defense, notoriously linked to the military-industrial complex" also connected to a US think tank. The article makes it clear that many of the conditions of Assange's trial (being kept in a box, unable to communicate etc) were initiated by Arbuthnot, and that Baraitser has simply followed the lead of her boss.
Interesting read - no idea whether any of it is true... but certainly doesn't sound beyond the realm of possibility.
It's not a sham trial; it's a political trial. Assange is technically the one on trial but he doesn't matter. The decision is made.
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.
Random question, but are you a relatively strong supporter of Wikileaks? I only ask as I was looking into "Wikileaks Community"(I think was the term), a group of people who would do in depth articles on the documents the group releases, after the fact.
I would not say I'm a strong supporter of Wikileaks, although I do believe their leaks have been critical in adjusting and making more realistic our views on the wars in Iraq et al, as well as exposing government overreach in the forms of extraordinary rendition, torture, and flagrant breaches of the laws of war.
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.
I'm not OP but... I think there are so many reasons to call bullshit on this that are totally independent of whether I or you or anyone likes wiki leaks or Assaunge himself. This is about justice, the rule of law, press freedom and basic fairness long before its about whether anyone likes this particular defendant (let's face it, he's not as charismatic as say a dead fish).
I think Assange is a journalist, and should not be deported, and agree this trial is bullying with the aim of putting a chilling effect on journalists.
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.
Readit News
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 .
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)
There should be no extradition to the USA whatsoever until they stop doing so.
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-...
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.
Dead Comment
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.
So... like any normal trial then.
Those sort of actions already destroy the notion that the trial is normal to begin with.
Deleted Comment
If that's the case, all of these terrible sound bites and decisions might be good for for Assange in an appeal.
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.
Interesting read - no idea whether any of it is true... but certainly doesn't sound beyond the realm of possibility.
Dead Comment
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.
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.
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.
Dead Comment
Dead Comment