
Assange Hearing Day 2 - k1m
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/02/your-man-in-the-public-gallery-assange-hearing-day-2/
======
jonathanstrange
I think there is an important point missing in the debate. This is an
extradition hearing. It doesn't matter whether Assange is guilty of the
alleged crimes the US has come up with or not, what matters is whether he is
expected to receive a fair trial in the US and whether the potential sentences
in the US would be roughly on a par with what he'd expect for the same alleged
crimes in the UK. For all I can see, this is definitely not the case.

You can even make a case that almost nobody should be extradited to the US by
any country, since the US justice system has serious flaws, might not be just
at all (e.g. it has about 10 times longer maximum prison sentences than in the
rest of the civilized world) and the US penal system constitutes a constant
human rights violation. For example, the administrations of many US prisons
are notoriously unable to prevent the raping and murdering of their inmates.
I've even heard people from the US making jokes about prison rape, as if that
was to be expected and part of the "justice". As another example, a prison in
Illinois was under 23 years of permanent lockdown, meaning that all inmates
were in isolation for 23 years. There are credible accounts that Assange is
facing imprisonment in high-security isolation facilities similar to what they
did to Manning for a long time. I cannot understand why any civilized person
would allow a treatment as inhumane as in US maximum security prisons with
isolation, regardless of the crime.

Generally speaking, countries should review their extradition treaties. US
justice is non-proportionality based on revenge and involves frequent human
rights abuses. The same is true of other countries like Japan or Russia, but
AFAIK extradition requests to these countries are much rarer.

~~~
einpoklum
> This is an extradition hearing. It doesn't matter whether Assange is guilty
> of the alleged crimes the US has come up with or not,

That can't be true. For an extradition to happen, the requesting party must
provide some evidence - not for a conviction, but to establish that the
charges were made in good faith and that it is not unreasonable that the
accused will actually be found guilty. States can't just frivolously request
extradition. AFAICT.

> You can even make a case that almost nobody should be extradited to the US
> by any country

Yes, for the reasons you gave and others.

~~~
bjornsing
It’s perhaps not called extradition within the EU, but Sweden sought the
“extradition” of Assange without even formally charging him with a crime.

~~~
einpoklum
It is extradition. They demanded he be extradited to Sweden to question him.
He suggested a questioning in the Ecuadorian embassy but they refused.

~~~
markdown
> They demanded he be extradited to Sweden to question him

This was all for show. [https://www.republik.ch/2020/01/31/nils-melzer-about-
wikilea...](https://www.republik.ch/2020/01/31/nils-melzer-about-wikileaks-
founder-julian-assange)

~~~
einpoklum
I didn't say the demand was legitimate, but it was still an extradition
request...

------
AndyMcConachie
> Julian had twice been stripped naked and searched, eleven times been
> handcuffed, and five times been locked up in different holding cells. On top
> of this, all of his court documents had been taken from him by the prison
> authorities, including privileged communications between his lawyers and
> himself, and he had been left with no ability to prepare to participate in
> today’s proceedings.

Still barely any mention of this case in the mainstream American or UK press.
Until recently Amnesty International refused to even recognize Assange as a
political prisoner, and the only thing they had said about him was that he was
"not a political prisoner". They've since changed their tune, but it sure took
them long enough.

A man is being tortured in plain sight in the UK and no one in the media cares
to report on it.

~~~
tyingq
It won't make the US press, because all of that is a pretty typical US jail
experience, sadly.

~~~
spinglespingle
the US has successfully become a 3rd world country.

power in the hands of a few: check corruption at the highest possible level:
check a gradually more authoritarian "leader": check a people who support such
a leader: check military might used against political opponents: check
enormous amounts of poverty cleverly ignored: check

the list goes on. i suppose there is a time for every powerful nation to go
into a deep decline that it will never recover from, and such decline usually
starts when people ignore what's going on right in front of them. had russia
done to assange what the us is doing now all of them EU, US and other
hypocrites would be jumping like their arse was burned: but human rights. but
torture. but freedom of the press. but this and that. well, enjoy your
dystopia.

~~~
linuxftw
As if any of this is recent. People keep voting for the same crooks,
generation after generation. Another election cycle, nobody is talking about
the wars, just what benefits the government should pay for.

~~~
glennvtx
Nailed it. Just vote harder, amirite? This has come so far from the individual
freedom that the bill of rights was envisioned to protect. Now the question is
"what is right thing to do for me" rather than "what is the right thing to
do."

The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can
bribe the public with the public's money. - anon

~~~
linuxftw
It's crazy. I always speak out about the wars, that's the single most
important issue of our day. The government is literally killing people
overseas, spending literal trillions of dollars. You would think it's
something we can all agree on, but people treat you like a literal crackpot.

~~~
kyleee
Keep spouting off, it's better than being silent about it all

------
k1m
Murray's report of the first day of the trial also worth reading:
[https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/02/your-man-
in-...](https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/02/your-man-in-the-
public-gallery-assange-hearing-day-1/)

~~~
cmroanirgo
Interesting.

> _Extradition hearings are not held at Belmarsh Magistrates Court inside
> Woolwich Crown Court. They are always held at Westminster Magistrates Court
> as the application is deemed to be delivered to the government at
> Westminster. Now get your head around this. This hearing is at Westminster
> Magistrates Court. It is being held by the Westminster magistrates and
> Westminster court staff, but located at Belmarsh Magistrates Court inside
> Woolwich Crown Court. All of which weird convolution is precisely so they
> can use the “counter-terrorist court” to limit public access and to impose
> the fear of the power of the state._

...

> _There was a separate media entrance and a media room with live transmission
> from the courtroom, and there were so many scores of media I thought I could
> relax and not worry as the basic facts would be widely reported. In fact, I
> could not have been more wrong. I followed the arguments very clearly every
> minute of the day, and not a single one of the most important facts and
> arguments today has been reported anywhere in the mainstream media. That is
> a bold claim, but I fear it is perfectly true. So I have much work to do to
> let the world know what actually happened. The mere act of being an honest
> witness is suddenly extremely important, when the entire media has abandoned
> that role._

~~~
AnimalMuppet
An alternate possibility is that this one reporter is too biased to report
accurately. "Everyone's hiding the truth but me" is _sometimes_ true, but not
always.

~~~
FireBeyond
This reporter makes no bones about being a close personal friend.

He's also stated with no evidence but only conjecture and supposition that
"the US government has given explicit directions to the UK magistrate in how
they are to treat the case", and "found it odd" that US officials were in
court (for an extradition hearing to the US?).

------
mcv
That judge does not exactly come across as impartial in this description. I'm
not a lawyer, but it does look like a mistrial of some sort.

Whatever you think of Julian Assange, he deserves a fair trial, and this
doesn't sound like he's getting one.

~~~
joosters
The problem is, from the very first paragraph, this website doesn't come
across as anything close to impartial either. So I'd suggest you find some
more sources before you criticize the judge.

~~~
mcv
True. Like I said: "from this description". No idea how accurate it is. It
would be good to have other sources.

------
dean177
> “Are you suggesting, Mr Summers, that the authorities, the Government,
> should have to provide context for its charges?”

The judge, Vanessa Baraitser, said that.

~~~
glennvtx
Pretty much sums it up right there. done.

------
glennvtx
This is an egregious miscarriage of justice and everyone involved in
perpetrating it against this man - for publishing the misdeeds of government,
should be strung up, Literally. That is what the founders of this country
would have done, and we could do worse than following their example, here.

------
mnm1
This is a sham as his trial in the US, which is inevitable, will be. The US
will not stop at anything in this case because leaking a video showing that US
soldiers enjoy killing children is worse for them than actually killing
children. This video showed the world what everyone already knew: that the US,
and specifically the US armed forces, have no ethics, no morals, no qualms
about killing children even when it's unnecessary. This isn't about
endangering troops. This is about image only. Frankly, I hope the leaks did
endanger troops. Scum soldiers that enjoy killing children deserve to die as
do their superiors who almost certainly encouraged it and certainly didn't
punish it. The US armed forces have no honor and they should be ashamed of
themselves as should the government that starts bullshit wars and kills
millions of innocents. This applies to everyone from the commander in chief to
the lowest soldier. As a fellow American, I despise them for their service and
they can all go fuck themselves. The video that Assange leaked is just one
example of many of despicable behavior and the fact that they are punishing
him rather than the animals who enjoy killing children is indefensible,
immoral, and reflects on the entire armed forces institutions. Fuck them.

------
devilcius
I found the article valuable and also a bit ironic that the only method to
donate to this blogger, apart from a bank transfer, is PayPal. (In case anyone
does not remember, they suspended Wikileaks account in 2010.)

------
3fe9a03ccd14ca5
Is there any explanation for why the special counsel never attempted to
interview Assange on the Wikileaks DNC email leak?

The whole premise of their investigation started with the narrative that
Russia hacked the DNC and released the emails through Wikileaks to help Trump
win. Why never ask Assange where he got the emails? He’s been adamant publicly
that it wasn’t Russia. Why not ask him then who in an investigation that took
2 years? This has always bothered me and intrigued me about Assange.

------
kstenerud
A quick summary of day 3 is here: [https://www.rt.com/news/481711-assange-
protection-political-...](https://www.rt.com/news/481711-assange-protection-
political-extradition-fundamental-right/)

~~~
mzs
According to GOOGL: “RT is funded in whole or in part by the Russian
government.”

Twelve Russian military intelligence officers were indicted in the US for in
part working with WikiLeaks, so readers should find a more neutral source as
well.

~~~
Bendingo
> “RT is funded in whole or in part by the Russian government.”

Irrelevant.

------
d--b
Given the state of the justice system in the UK and USA, maybe the best course
of action for Assange is to get extradited, then tell the public that
Wikileaks helped expose Hillary's private email server, and get pardoned by
Trump...

~~~
Tepix
If he is extradited, he will not receive a public trial.

~~~
xtracto
Wasn't the US government trying to kill him? I guess it will be easy once they
have it in their soil...

------
celticninja
The judge has basically said this is a politically motivated extradition, and
the court is fine with that. I hope that this get appealed to a higher court
and it's not left to this hostile judge.

~~~
Traster
The judge hasn't said that at all. The judge said that the UK law as a matter
of fact doesn't bar extraditions for political reasons - so the defense has to
prove the treaty is legally binding on the court as a pre-condition for even
making the argument that extradition should be stopped because its politically
motivated.

~~~
wazoox
International treaties are more binding than domestic law, as the Vienna
Convention:
[https://www.oas.org/legal/english/docs/Vienna%20Convention%2...](https://www.oas.org/legal/english/docs/Vienna%20Convention%20Treaties.htm)

“A party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification
for its failure to perform a treaty.“

~~~
3fe9a03ccd14ca5
In practice this is untrue.

~~~
wazoox
Sure, but it seems hard to dismiss in court.

~~~
telotortium
I don't know how it is in the UK, but in the US most "treaties" are actually
executive agreements, which set a policy of the US executive branch but do not
have the force of law. Treaties must be approved by 2/3 of the US Senate to
have the force of law, by the US Constitution, and even then a treaty can't
violate the US Constitution. You left out the full text of Article 26, which
is pretty important:

"A party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification
for its failure to perform a treaty. This rule is without prejudice to article
46."

Article 46 states:

""" 1\. A State may not invoke the fact that its consent to be bound by a
treaty has been expressed in violation of a provision of its internal law
regarding competence to conclude treaties as invalidating its consent unless
that violation was manifest and concerned a rule of its internal law of
fundamental importance.

2\. A violation is manifest if it would be objectively evident to any State
conducting itself in the matter in accordance with normal practice and in good
faith. """

I would consider the US Constitution a "rule of its internal law of
fundamental importance". I'm sure the UK government would have no problem
finding a similar argument that makes Article 26 a dead letter.

------
baud147258
Why is he calling Bellingcat a warmongering propaganda operations and saying
they've got a "source of state, corporate or institutional finance"? I though
they were independent

~~~
kmlx
they are independent. i wouldn't trust craig murray if he was the last person
on earth.

------
ganzuul
This is horrifying. As a European I'm afraid to even visit the USA. I'd expect
this from some third world hellhole but not from a country which professes to
have the rule of law.

~~~
bambax
Since Brexit and because of it, the UK is becoming part of the US empire; it's
a dominion and as such, it will obey US injunctions in that case and any
other.

~~~
mft_
I’d be interested in your sources for these statements?

I understand the long history of cooperation between the US and UK (not always
balanced) but has anything substantive changed since, or because of, Brexit?

~~~
shawabawa3
the US has a lot of leverage due to post-brexit trade deal negotiations, afaik
that's the only change

------
discordance
Free Assange

~~~
scient
He has done enough damage with his "work" on leaks with Russia. No thanks.

~~~
onlydeadheroes
So shooting the messenger is now a defensible position in polite company?

------
EliRivers
Consider the source, right? Always ask ourselves "What does this source, this
reporter, this organisation, want us to think?"

That doesn't mean that we have to ignore everything they say; it just becomes
us to know what the source's own agenda is, to better arm ourselves.

Craig Murray's website suggests he is, for example, a credulous believer of
Russian explanations for events. He does on occasion correct himself (such as
in his post about the famed picture of two different people walking through
two different channels - [https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/09/the-
impossib...](https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/09/the-impossible-
photo/) ) but nonetheless he has a long-standing mindset which will temper his
beliefs and of course colour everything he sees and his interpretations
thereof.

Of course so do we all, but not all of us are reporting on this case to the
public at large, pushing our own beliefs and agenda.

~~~
9nGQluzmnq3M
Craig Murray is a former career diplomat and UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, who
got railroaded out of the foreign service for having the temerity to note that
Uzbek leader Islam Karimov was (literally) boiling his opponents to death. If
this is an agenda, I support it.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Murray](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Murray)

Also:
[https://archive.is/20061012215514/http://www.craigmurray.co....](https://archive.is/20061012215514/http://www.craigmurray.co.uk/archives/2005/02/the_pathologist.html)

~~~
jjgreen
Thank you for the second link, absolutely astonishing

------
bilekas
This is always going to happen when you go about doing what he did in such a
flamboyant way.

I agree that he was by no means an angel, but I also see the reasons why the
governments want to set an example. People have this idea that it's a terrible
thing if their governments have secrets.. It's normal..

That doesn't justify this treatment of him. By any means, one would think he
would be treated well in public.

> Is Assange the victim of torture?

It looks as though he's being made an example of. If thats right or wrong is
anyones guess, but it doesn't make anyone confortable.

~~~
AllegedAlec
> If thats right or wrong is anyones guess

You're fucking joking right?

Something about "cruel and unusual punishment", which is present in both
English and American law. Furthermore, there's this little document called the
'Universal Declaration of Human Rights', which has stuff to say on this matter
too, and has been signed by both the US and England.

~~~
bilekas
I'm not joking, what Assange did was at best 'cunty'. He could have been more
careful releasing the information but he wasnt.

He's being made an example of, its clear as day. My 'if its right or wrong'
depends on your side of the argument, so no. I'm not joking.

> "cruel and unusual punishment"

Couldn't agree with you more, he should not be made to suffer needlessly..
He's not in a labor camp, he's not being whipped. He knew he was going to be
made an example of. This is the result. I'm not saying its nice, but it's not
even punishment yet. He will receive much worse later I'm sure.

~~~
A4ET8a8uTh0
The post is interesting.

I had a similar revelation when my wife, a self-professed history buff, said
she won't read My Struggle, because she will be put on the list somewhere. I
initially found it amusing, but then I understood that even though she
apparently does not seem to care much about privacy, she instinctively
understands how weird things have become today. She does not want to address
it, but she adjusts her behavior to fit the mold.

Bilekas post is the same. It attempts to present a neutral position. It
recognizes current state and assumes that this is just how things are.

Personally, I find it chilling that an individual today is willing to
effectively say the following:

1\. Assange may be innocent, but it does not matter as the real verdict was
already rendered. This is just a formality. 2\. His pre-punishment punishment
is not as bad as it could have been somewhere else. 3\. Assange knew what he
was getting into, therefore he does not have basic human rights ( variation
of: you don't kick the bear argument )

~~~
bilekas
> 1\. Assange may be innocent, but it does not matter as the real verdict was
> already rendered. This is just a formality. 2. His pre-punishment punishment
> is not as bad as it could have been somewhere else. 3. Assange knew what he
> was getting into, therefore he does not have basic human rights ( variation
> of: you don't kick the bear argument )

I get what you mean and yes, you have a point. I guess I'm just surprised that
people are getting annoyed this is happening now when it was always going to
happen.

It's like constantly reminding someone that the boiling water will burn your
hand, the boiling water will burn your hand, the boiling water will burn your
hand. Then people being surprised and outraged that the water burnt your hand.

This outrage just seems almost topical. It should have been made earlier, it
wasn't so this is the result.

~~~
lolc
It's easy to say this was going to happen. (Especially after it happened.) But
it's not a natural law like boiling water burning one's hand. Proteins are
always going to be damaged by heat. But here we observe due process being
violated. It's not a natural law that due process is going to be violated.
Violations depend on attitude, checks and incentives. As a society, we can
shape those to a large degree!

We could have complained earlier, in other instances. You can say we should
have been more alert. There were victims we ignored. But that does not
invalidate our complaints now!

~~~
bilekas
> But that does not invalidate our complaints now!

No but they are less appreciated. A sense of 'NIMBY' overcomes me reading the
pitty for Assange.

> Violations depend on attitude, checks and incentives.

Yup, and given that we all knew this was going to happen, what did we say
before ? — Nothing.

~~~
lolc
> A sense of 'NIMBY' overcomes me reading the pitty for Assange.

I don't get what you are saying. It sounds like we shouldn't complain about it
happening here because it's happening in other places.

I count myself as part of a wider society of which the UK is a part. If we
want to criticize other societies, like Russia for example, we better damn
well make sure we don't run the same shit-shows of legal persecutions. I also
have more influence over processes in my society, so it is logical to spend my
efforts here. Lastly, I care more about due process in my society just out of
self-preservation.

Your relativism is useless in deciding where to spend effort. If you don't
care, sure, you don't have to. But don't piss on people that advocate for our
liberties.

> given that we all knew this was going to happen, what did we say before ? —
> Nothing

We? You're projecting your own callous ignorance. Just because you decided not
to listen doesn't mean nobody spoke up. I ask you to shut up rather than to
invalidate the effort of those who risk their livelihoods exposing government
malfeasance. We should defend them, not tell them they had it coming!

~~~
bilekas
Sure. Whatever you like then.

A lot of this went off-topic a little.

I can see why there is an example being made of him. End of.

I'll go shut up now boss.

