
Your Man in the Public Gallery – Assange Hearing Day Four - bainsfather
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/02/your-man-in-the-public-gallery-assange-hearing-day-four/
======
acqq
This is the article Day 4. For a bit of context, from the article Day 1:

"in the courtroom itself, _Julian Assange is confined at the back of the court
behind a bulletproof glass screen_. He made the point several times during
proceedings that this makes it very difficult for him to see and hear the
proceedings. The magistrate, Vanessa Baraitser, chose to interpret this with
studied dishonesty as a problem caused by the very faint noise of
demonstrators outside, as opposed to a problem caused by Assange being locked
away from the court in a massive bulletproof glass box.

Now _there is no reason at all for Assange to be in that box, designed to
restrain extremely physically violent terrorists._ He could sit, as a
defendant at a hearing normally would, in the body of the court with his
lawyers. But the cowardly and vicious Baraitser has refused repeated and
persistent requests from the defence for Assange to be allowed to sit with his
lawyers."

~~~
jotm
They seem to be making an example of him. _See what happens if you dare go
against us and you 're not filthy rich_

------
Tepix
This show trial is proving to be a disgrace for the UK judicative (and
government in general). Also the US is no longer trying to be a role model for
the free world in terms of civic rights, quite the contrary: They want to make
an example of people like Julian who dare to drag their dirty laundry into the
spotlight.

~~~
btilly
_Also the US is no longer trying to be a role model for the free world in
terms of civic rights..._

Um, we haven't been that for a very long time.

We only pretend to ourselves that we are. And since none of us pay attention
to what is going on that we don't want to hear, we can pretend indefinitely.
No matter how threadbare our excuses become.

An additional note. The pretend courtesy between the lawyers and the judge is
required by British tradition.

------
motohagiography
The conclusion seems foregone, all that is left is to let them create a record
of how the process itself was the punishment. British justice appears to have
become fickle, cynical, partisan, and self dealing. These are of course the
views of only one person who is also a supporter of the accused, but the
behaviour of the magistrate as described is of someone without accountability.

------
317070
OK, I tried to read this, but (as is probably on purpose with these legal
things) I did not understand what is going on here. Who is arguing which
argument? (What I understood is that UK government is arguing some UK law is
void such that they can ship Assange off to the US, I don't know if this is a
correct interpretation). Can someone give an ELI5?

~~~
admax88q
Have you read the previous articles about the Assange hearing? That will
probably provide the context you're missing.

The short answer as far as I have understood is that the Assange's defense is
arguing that he can't be extradited to the US because the extradition treaty
between the US/UK forbids extradition for "political offences."

The prosecution is arguing that the treaty is not actually law, and that the
UK's domestic laws on extradition do not forbid extradition for "political
offences."

~~~
317070
Right, this previous article clarified a lot. Thanks!
[https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/category/uncategoriz...](https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/category/uncategorized/)

------
emayljames
You couldn't make that up!. So the prosecution are arguing that the very
extradition treaty that they are using is void as it excludes extradition on
political grounds.

~~~
btilly
No. They are arguing that the extradition treaty is valid but that this
specific term of it is void.

Parties agreeing on something then finding that a term of it is void is much
more common than you think. This is why legal contracts usually include
verbiage about being severable - aka if any part of it is void the rest still
applies.

Moving on, it is very common for lawyers to present a multitude of
incompatible arguments for their position. With the idea that they don't care
which the judge accepts, any will win.

In this case, the terms of the treaty preventing extradition on political
grounds are void. If they are not void, then this was not a political act. If
it was a political act, then it didn't take place in the USA and so is not
covered by the treaty provision.

The judge has to choose which argument(s) to accept or reject. But the lawyers
are not going to help the judge reject an argument by failing to present it.

~~~
emayljames
Also though, as Craig points out, that this particular treaty is fully legal
as is only in existence (and the political part of the treaty) because of the
enabling act of law, not void because of it. Any and all treaties have
incredible legal scrutiny for years before being signed.

Also of note is a similar legal treaty case that the UK government lost in
this same week, regarding the paris agreement and them trying to build a new
Heathrow runway, trying to break a treaty they had signed.

If he was not in the US, then how could he have committed a criminal act, if
US law applies only to the US territories. It is some mental gymnastics to
pick and choose legality like a pick 'n mix sweet shop.

