
Assange Hearing Day 3 - patal
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/02/your-man-in-the-public-gallery-the-assange-hearing-day-3/
======
tristanperry
> _It would have to be up to Group 4 to decide if this was possible._

> _Yes, she really did say that. Group 4 would have to decide._

Presumably that refers to G4S (nee Group 4), the private security company that
the UK Government are increasingly farming work out too?

i.e. the company who are embroiled in a series of scandals:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_surrounding_G4S](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_surrounding_G4S)

It is therefore quite concerning that a justice-based decision (a prisoner
sitting by their lawyers and being able to speak to them as normal) is down to
a for-profit private company.

I know that's just the tip of the iceberg, but still concerning to be reminded
of it.

~~~
Traster
G4S provides the security for the court, so it's up to G4S to decide if it's
appropriate and safe to waive the standard procedures for securing a potential
dangerous criminal who is a flight risk. I don't know how you expect these
things to be handled.

~~~
marcus_holmes
> potential dangerous

that is ridiculous. How is he dangerous?

~~~
Traster
He has a history of releasing classified documents unredacted putting people's
lives in danger. Do you think he'd be willing to do that again? I suspect so.

~~~
marcus_holmes
From inside the courtroom?

We're talking about whether he has to sit in a bulletproof box, or next to his
lawyers like any other accused person. Your argument against this is that he's
"dangerous" because he released unredacted documents (a disputed version of
events, by the way). I don't follow the logic here, can you explain?

------
9nGQluzmnq3M
I feel guilty for chuckling through an account of what is by any standard an
absolute travesty of justice, but I have to say, the man can write:

> _Baraitser started to throw out jargon like a Dalek when it spins out of
> control._

> _He looked at her like a kindly uncle whose favourite niece has just started
> drinking tequila from the bottle at a family party._

~~~
Fnoord
Feels like a sequel to The Fifth Estate [1] or the books it is based on
(Inside WikiLeaks: My Time with Julian Assange and the World's Most Dangerous
Website, and WikiLeaks: Inside Julian Assanges War on Secrecy) is in order.
Same, eventually, with Snowden.

[1]
[https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1837703/](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1837703/)

------
Traster
There is genuinely more snide comment, ridiculous conspiracy theory and stupid
misrepresentation in these reports than actual information on what's happening
with the trial.

In fact some of these comments are really quite disturbing. If I were
responsible for being the judge at the extradition hearing of Julian Assange I
wouldn't want my picture out in public either. Let's not pretend like there
isn't a real threat that one of the loony conspiracy theorists that follow
Assange wouldn't take matters in to their own hands.

> Being angry at the public at random must be very stressful for her. I
> suspect she shouts a lot on trains.

I know this guy thinks the legal case is going to be lost so wants to tarnish
the reputation of the people he disagrees with, but could someone volunteer
step forward and explain why this sort of bollocks makes them think lower of
the judge rather than just thinking badly of the author?

~~~
tastroder
> explain why this sort of bollocks makes them think lower of the judge rather
> than just thinking badly of the author?

That might not necessarily be what you want to hear but: Because I ignore the
bollocks. Conspiracy theorist or not, the author seems to at least have an
informed point of view, where his reporting is factual it seems to reflect
reporting in e.g. the corresponding Guardian articles. Where it's not I either
ignore it because it's unnecessary ramblings or see it as interesting tidbits
dry reporting of other outlets leave out. The part you specifically point out
for example, I had a laugh at that and went on with my life. I'm not
reflecting much bad on that particular judge for that part but took it as a,
in my view, rather ridiculous aspect of this proceeding (without too much
judgement of whether that is normal or not, I wouldn't know).

I knew nothing about this person 4 days ago, 3 days ago I learned that he was
one of only 16 people (as per his first article in the series) to actually
bother enough and manage to get one of the seats for the public. He clearly
puts effort in and I for one enjoy his writing style. That doesn't mean I'll
stop reading regular news but it certainly makes me come back when he
publishes his piece on the next court date.

------
fareesh
Isn't there something like court transcripts, where the public can read what
the judge is saying?

If the system is so opaque, what mechanism exists to protect against a judge
who does whatever they want? If the judge is truly using some kind of apparent
word salad to justify arbitrary decisions which don't pass a basic test of
reasoning, doesn't this effectively mean that a judge can do this anytime
without consequences?

~~~
chrisseaton
> Isn't there something like court transcripts

I don't believe you can get these in real time. You can apply for them
afterwards, or you can go and listen for yourself, as this person did.

In the UK we generally don't go in for blow-by-blow realtime reporting of
court cases, like they do in the US.

> doesn't this effectively mean that a judge can do this anytime without
> consequences?

Judges in the UK are appointed professionals - they aren't elected as in many
places in the US, so they aren't pursuing an agenda or appealing to an
electorate. Judges going rogue isn't a problem in practice.

~~~
wil421
Explain to me how being appointed by someone makes you any less bias them
being elected. Most states have non-partisan elections for Judges, only 18
allow then to run with a political party.

Federal Judges are appointed and about 90% of state judges are elected. There
have only been 2 Federal judges that have been impeached since 1989.

~~~
chrisseaton
> Explain to me how being appointed by someone makes you any less bias them
> being elected.

Because you generally don't need to be re-appointed. You generally do need to
be re-elected.

In order to be re-elected you need to please the electorate, rather than do
the 'right thing' (whatever that is.)

This can create a conflict of interest, such as judges prioritising 'being
tough on crime' over the facts of cases.

~~~
wil421
The Supreme Court justices are all appointed. It’s a huge deal politically
because the current president will pick someone from their party. They
generally vote in line with their party.

I completely understand your point. One thing I will ad is with elections you
can change your mind over time. With an appointee you are stuck with their
views for an unknown amount of time usually until they retire or die.

~~~
chrisseaton
> someone from their party

That seems like basically an extension of election then, as you're electing
someone who then appoints someone from their party.

Judges in the UK (source of this article) are never part of a party - they're
politically neutral.

Judges in the Supreme Court _aren 't even allowed to vote in normal elections
themeselves_ (they're lords.)

~~~
tialaramex
Although a modern day Supreme Court judge is automatically _referred_ to as
Lord/ Lady, the peerage that would otherwise grant that title and forbids them
from voting is not automatic. The Supreme Court are no longer Lords _in fact_
as they were when they had the title "Lords of Appeal in Ordinary" and worked
across the road in the House of Lords.

All current Supreme Court justices have a peerage, but in principle a
disapproving Government could just tell Liz not to give them a peerage and
they wouldn't get one. Whereas all the elected Government can do about a
choice of new Justice itself is say "No" and ask the committee to pick again,
the committee isn't obliged to do anything except pick the same person again -
which would be a very pointed rebuke. So far of course no government has done
that but the UK Supreme Court is young and these are interesting times.

~~~
chrisseaton
> All current Supreme Court justices have a peerage

Right, that's what I meant, they are all in practice peers.

> a disapproving Government could just tell Liz not to give them a peerage and
> they wouldn't get one

I think they can only advise the Crown, not tell her what to do.

~~~
tialaramex
In principle Liz may be able to give the title away without following advice.
But that's the part Supreme Court judges get anyway.

The main thing you get when personally ennobled is you get to be in the House
of Lords, and Parliament (which includes the House of Lords) decided it gets
to choose how that works for itself, it changed the rules last century to stop
giving out peerages that survive and can be inherited. Now (other than titles
like "Prince of Wales" for royalty that don't come with the ability to sit in
Parliament) all new peerages extinguish upon death.

At the time the question was asked: Can Liz just make new peerages anyway? And
the answer was that Liz can say "This person is a Duke now" and lo, now
they're named Duke So-and-such, but whereas a Duke created by the normal
process would get to sit in the Lords (and thus is in Parliament) this Duke
would not get to do that.

Since Britain doesn't have any rules forbidding you from taking any name you
please (so long as you don't use it to defraud people), this power is useless.
You can already name yourself Duke So-and-such without Liz's help.

------
easytiger
Unrelated aside

≥ she appears to be the only public figure in Western Europe with no photo on
the internet. Indeed the average proprietor of a rural car wash has left more
evidence of their existence and life history on the internet than Vanessa
Baraitser. Which is no crime on her part, but I suspect the expunging is not
achieved without considerable effort

Likely something more people should strive for

~~~
Fnoord
You can't always control that. Are you at a conference? Someone's making
pictures? Woops. Plus, if you visit a large city, chances are there's security
cameras everywhere.

~~~
tialaramex
Increasingly conferences are sensitive to this and provide some mechanism to
signal that photographs are unwelcome.

The IETF began using coloured lanyards, if you picked the special colour this
was a signal to not record your presence at the in-person event where
practical. When they first began doing this somebody key (maybe a Working
Group chair or Area Director? Anyway someone who'd obviously be on camera all
the time so that not recording them is hopeless) picked that colour because
they liked it, and then only realised later why everybody was freaking out.
Amusing.

------
0x445442
WRT the extradition debate, does anyone know if the key legislators
responsible for drafting the laws are ever called as expert witnesses when
questions arise interpreting the laws?

------
Dahoon
I don't understand anyone is surprised. This is a US court after all, even if
it is located in the UK.

~~~
socialdemocrat
Huh? How can the US have courts in the UK? Is this a common thing or just
something that applies to the UK and the US in particular?

~~~
mantap
I think they were being cynical, that the UK is the US's lapdog and so UK
courts do whatever the US says. However this cynicism is misplaced. UK courts
don't give a fuck about what even the UK government policy is (see today's
ruling on third runway at Heathrow), let alone foreign government policy.

------
barneygale
Note that Craig Murray is a conspiracy theorist who insisted, for a long time,
that the Salisbury poisoning was a false flag.

~~~
DarthGhandi
Interesting comment, so I went looking for his "conspiracy theories" and
that's the only one. Technically I guess that qualifies for the title.

Probably helpful to mention he was a former overseas Ambassador for the UK
too? Surely that carries some weight in the world of online conspiracy
discourse we are having here?

~~~
DarthGhandi
Can't edit anymore but would like this addition:

Not saying he's right, simply saying he's the type of guy who was at the
forefront of where real conspiracies happen. Have no actual opinion on the
matter and don't know anything about it. It could be pure rambling for all I
know.

That said, look at all the people who were criticised for knowing the truth
before Snowden, before MKUltra, before Iran-Contra. It's a fine line to draw
here.

To pretend that this world doesn't have some funny things going on all the
time behind the scenes is either willfully ignorant or...

