17 ms·

Assange in Court

259 points by k1m 7y ago

enriquto 7y ago
In 50 years, people will look in disgust and utter disbelief at our treatment of Assange. Or maybe this is too optimistic. Maybe our grandsons will indeed understand us. They will understand us too well, and be ashamed of us.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- rimliu 7y ago
  He will be forgotten in ten years. And for a good reason.
  - patrickaljord 7y ago
    What good reason?
    - rimliu 7y ago
      Manipulation and being Russian tool?
      - peltier 7y ago
        Jesus fucking christ.
        rimliu 7y ago
        That's a strong argument.
        peltier 7y ago
        Against what exactly? 0 evidence and what i suspect is from the same source that said tulsi gubbard was a Russian asset? The unverifiable bullshit that Americans eat like its kosher. Jesus fucking christ is all i got to that ridicilous propganda. If you need to think of him as a Russian operative for you to live with the treatment hes getting, so be it. Im done.
        mmjaa 7y ago
        Americans don't need to think of him as a Russian agent because of the treatment he is experiencing - they need to consider him a Russian agent because that allows them to continue to ignore the crimes against humanity and war crimes that their country has been committing, in their name, for decades - and which Julian worked, tirelessly, to expose to the world to see: embarrassing Americans who were previously convinced of their nations exceptionalism. Americans need to be distracted by the "ma' Russians!" narrative in order to be kept entirely ignorant of the 500,000 innocent people they have killed in their quest for glory in the Middle East. THAT is why "ma' Russians!" is being propagated as a narrative - because if anyone thinks the Americans shouldn't be getting away with murder, they sure as hell won't have the moral authority required to do something about it, if they are Russians, or Russian tools... America is in the grips of another McCarthy era. There is NEVER any evidence given that "ma' Russians", yet the trills call out every time an American evil is placed on the table.
        rimliu 7y ago
        Russian tool is not the same as a Russian operative. All you need to publish stuff that makes US look bad and withhold the information that makes Russia bad. And maybe manipulate some stuff to make it more dramatic.
        enriquto 7y ago
        according to this argument, anyone whose main activiy consists in criticizing the US, is a Russian tool. Alright, then.
      - BLKNSLVR 7y ago
        Do you believe Snowden a Russian tool also?
        rimliu 7y ago
        No, nothing like this.
  - bufferoverflow 7y ago
    He absolutely will not be forgotten. He is a hero. Even now he has a wikipedia article, multiple movies about him, tons of support from the people supporting the freedom of information and those who are sick of the secretive bullshit going on behind the curtains.
    - rimliu 7y ago
      one man's hero is another man's villain.
      - enriquto 7y ago
        And in either case, when they are relevant enough, they are not forgotten.
        rimliu 7y ago
        But do you honestly believe he will be relevant enough in 10 years? No doubt some will remember him, but I say way more people will know Snowden than Assange in ten years.
        enriquto 7y ago
        He was well known 10 years ago and he is well known today. By extrapolation, it is natural to assume that he'll be also in 10 years.
  - ndury 7y ago
    The founder of wiki leaks forgotten in ten years? With all due respect but the chances of that happening are quite slim.. Julian Assange will end up in multiple history books whether you like it or not.
    - rimliu 7y ago
      Well, history books are full of shitty humans, so maybe you are right.
- maxlybbert 7y ago
  We remember Emmett Till, but only because there’s been a big effort to remember.
pulse7 7y ago
"Extradition shall not be granted if the offense for which extradition is requested is a political offense." If an American journalist in UK is publishing Chinese military secrets, he will not be extradited to China. If an Australian journalist in UK is publishing American military secrets, will he be extradited to America? This is the question now...
- threeseed 7y ago
  Many would argue that Assange isn't a journalist. And so that also is a factor.
  - mikro2nd 7y ago
    I'll venture that the question of whether he is or is not a journalist is moot. The question is, "Is the offence for which extradition is sought political?"
    - threeseed 7y ago
      It's relevant in that his crimes e.g. publishing classified material are permissible if it's done so by a journalist for public interest reasons i.e. Pentagon Papers case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers And all extraditions have a degree of politicisation about them so it wouldn't be at all abnormal here.
      - peltier 7y ago
        WL partnered with journalists from all the world. Questioning if he himself is a journalist is rather dishonest considering he thinks himself one and he is responsible for millions of informative, ground-breaking articles written worldwide. The Australian Journalist should not be concerned about precedent set in a US court against a US citizen. Don't kill the messenger.
      - nradov 7y ago
        Publishing classified material isn't a crime for someone who doesn't hold a security clearance. However it is illegal to actively encourage or assist others in stealing classified information.
adv0r 7y ago
Holy crap, HN mods you should edit this title and make it more sensational, like the most posts on HN. I feel this post is not receiving the attention it deserves
Escapado 7y ago
If even a quarter of this went down as described in the article this is seriously fucked up beyond measure.
- AnimalMuppet 7y ago
  I have no information about whether it went down that way or not. All I know is that this article set of my "extremely biased source" warnings quite strongly. Is there any coverage of this in the mainstream press? Any verification of any of the content of this article? Anything? Or are we getting all riled up because one person wrote an article with the intent of riling people up? As I said, I don't know. I would welcome other sources.
henearkr 7y ago
How is it possible there is not yet a huge mob gathering near the court and threatening to burn everything. Because, this is literally revolting. How many people support that? And how many people are disgusted by that? Would nobody regret doing nothing?
- oh_sigh 7y ago
  I assume if there were a mob of assange supporters in the UK they would have mobbed near the Ecuadorian embassy and secreted him out of England.
  - henearkr 7y ago
    Not necessarily, because, at that time, there was still hope things would go more smoothly, at least not threatening him at this point as we see now.
- LandR 7y ago
  I doubt most people care. Outside of a few friends, I doubt most people I know know that this is 1) going on and 2) who Assange even is.
  - jacobush 7y ago
    It doesn't help that Assange is kind of unsavory. It should not affect things, but it does.
    - marcus_holmes 7y ago
      also that "mainstream" journalists refuse to recognise him as a journalist and defend his rights like they would one of their own.
      - dragonwriter 7y ago
        > also that "mainstream" journalists refuse to recognise him as a journalist and defend his rights like they would one of their own. Mainstream American journalists have been bending over backwards doing exactly that with regard to the US indictment, even when it requires rather unusual characterization of what journalism normally entails to make the case. They haven't been focussed on the extradition because they don't view the extradition as the problem, but the indictment.
mmjaa 7y ago
This is an atrocious, heinous crime being committed in front of all of us, and we should be rioting in the streets. This can happen to any of us now - nobody is safe from torture by the state. This is the end of civilized society in the West, people. Where Julian Assange goes, so go we.
- tomp 7y ago
  Unfortunately, life will go on, just like after Epstein "suicided" himself and all the media just silently dropped his case.
FireBeyond 7y ago
I think it is important to look at this with the lens of objectivity: Accusations that Assange is actively being not just harassed but outright tortured to the point where he "might not survive the proceedings" in jail... ... to claims that "members of the US Government" were there and "controlling procedures" and claims that the judge had been instructed what to say: > possibly she had not properly memorised what Lewis had been instructing her to agree with Apropos of anything else: > Baraitser took her cue from Lewis and stated categorically that the date for the extradition hearing, 25 February, could not be changed. > Lewis received his American instructions and agreed that the defence might have two months to prepare their evidence (they had said they needed an absolute minimum of three) but the February hearing date may not be moved. As far as I can tell the hearing date is over four months away. These are all very large claims and should be considered within the spectrum of someone who is as equally friendly towards Assange as he claims the state is against him.
- mmjaa 7y ago
  >objectivity + >considered within the spectrum What is your purpose here? To defend the actions of the UK court, which is clearly being corrupted by following direction from US agents? Or to open the door for the, very definite Assange-haters, to have a way around the argument that Assange is not getting a fair trial, that this case is a total farce, and that anyone who stands up to the military-industrial-pharmaceutical complex is 'an enemy of the West'?
  - FireBeyond 7y ago
    One example: Very article linked in the original post talks about concerns for Assange's health, saying he has been in the medical ward in jail. Yet apparently it's not at all possible that he is on medications to help with his mental state (which would explain - though in this case note that I would entirely agree that the use of such medication would interfere with his "ability to understand" - his demeanor as being 'flat' and 'slow' and 'confused'), and instead apparently a foregone conclusion to assume that he is being physically and mentally subjected to "extreme torture". > anyone who stands up to the military-industrial-pharmaceutical complex is 'an enemy of the West'? Please. You'd be very much mistaken to think I have -any- sympathy for the "military-industrial-pharmaceutical complex", as even a cursory reading of my comments on issues of health insurance in the US, or military interventions would show. Believe it or not, it is possible to think that Assange has committed multiple crimes for less than noble reasons in amongst the good he has done, without being an agent for the state, deep or otherwise.
chippy 7y ago
"The charge against Julian is very specific; conspiring with Chelsea Manning to publish the Iraq War logs, the Afghanistan war logs and the State Department cables. The charges are nothing to do with Sweden, nothing to do with sex, and nothing to do with the 2016 US election" I'd like to call out the popular and prolific users of hacker news who previously were all about Sweden, sex and election interference and who are very silent now.
- tomp 7y ago
  > I'd like to call out the popular and prolific users of hacker news who previously were all about Sweden, sex and election interference and who are very silent now. What do you mean? Obviously it was always about US military secrets... our point was simply, that sex/Sweden were a distraction, a ploy to keep him until they could build a case (or, as it happened, until they managed to install a more favorable government in Ecuador).
- threeseed 7y ago
  That doesn't even make any sense. How could the US extradite Assange for a crime committed in Sweden ? And why would they extradite for election interference when Barr would just shut it down ?
  - mrkeen 7y ago
    The author here is painting the UK as rolling over and doing whatever the US says, rather than applying proper justice. This is why people were skeptical of the Sweden charges. It was commonly believed that the point of those charges (whether they were true or not) was to get Assange to Sweden, at which point Sweden could roll over, do the US's bidding and extradite him to the US.
    - isostatic 7y ago
      > It was commonly believed that the point of those charges (whether they were true or not) was to get Assange to Sweden, at which point Sweden could roll over, do the US's bidding and extradite him to the US. Which was always ridiculous, as it was based on the idea that Sweden would be more willing to extradite than the UK, a ridiculous notion.
henearkr 7y ago
But is it possible that actually the judge is prepared to deny the extradition, and cannot say anything just yet because of the secret duty? If she thinks all of that is torture for Assange, maybe she is right to want it to end as soon as possible, especially if she already has taken her decision.
- sschueller 7y ago
  I hope so but I doubt it.
- mnw21cam 7y ago
  That isn't the case. This ruling was made by a magistrate, who only deals with lower cases and administration for bigger cases. The actual extradition case will be heard by a different person.
  - pmyteh 7y ago
    Magistrates actually handle all extradition cases at first instance. Because it's such a specialist area of law, they're all handled by a single magistrates court (Westminster) with a set of specially experienced magistrates. Appeals go to the Administrative Court list of the High Court, though, which is potentially a panel of very senior judges indeed.
pvaldes 7y ago
No good action goes unpunished. Public reading group of the wikileaks documents, anyone?
turblety 7y ago
[deleted]
- Ardren 7y ago
  > "When that happens your remand status changes from a serving prisoner to a person facing extradition. > "Therefore I have given your lawyer an opportunity to make an application for bail on your behalf and she has declined to do so. Perhaps not surprisingly in light of your history of absconding in these proceedings. Edit: In response to your edit, he is being held for trial, and is a huge flight risk. 𝚈̶𝚘̶𝚞̶ ̶𝚠̶𝚘̶𝚞̶𝚕̶𝚍̶ ̶𝚗̶𝚎̶𝚎̶𝚍̶ ̶𝚝̶𝚘̶ ̶𝚌̶𝚑̶𝚎̶𝚌̶𝚔̶ ̶𝚒̶𝚏̶ ̶𝚝̶𝚑̶𝚎̶𝚛̶𝚎̶ ̶𝚑̶𝚎̶ ̶𝚒̶𝚜̶ ̶𝚌̶𝚘̶𝚟̶𝚎̶𝚛̶𝚎̶𝚍̶ ̶𝚋̶𝚢̶ ̶𝚊̶ ̶𝚋̶𝚊̶𝚒̶𝚕̶ ̶𝚜̶𝚌̶𝚑̶𝚎̶𝚍̶𝚞̶𝚕̶𝚎̶,̶ ̶𝚘̶𝚝̶𝚑̶𝚎̶𝚛̶𝚠̶𝚒̶𝚜̶𝚎̶ ̶𝚝̶𝚑̶𝚎̶ ̶𝚄̶𝚂̶ ̶𝙲̶𝚘̶𝚗̶𝚜̶𝚝̶𝚒̶𝚝̶𝚞̶𝚝̶𝚒̶𝚘̶𝚗̶ ̶𝚜̶𝚊̶𝚢̶𝚜̶ ̶"̶𝙴̶𝚡̶𝚌̶𝚎̶𝚜̶𝚜̶𝚒̶𝚟̶𝚎̶ ̶𝚋̶𝚊̶𝚒̶𝚕̶ ̶𝚜̶𝚑̶𝚊̶𝚕̶𝚕̶ ̶𝚗̶𝚘̶𝚝̶ ̶𝚋̶𝚎̶ ̶𝚛̶𝚎̶𝚚̶𝚞̶𝚒̶𝚛̶𝚎̶𝚍̶"̶.̶ > I would be greatly ashamed if we imprison someone for more than a couple of days without any sentence/verdict/ruling/etc. How long do you think trials last?
  - pjc50 7y ago
    > he is being held for trial, and is a huge flight risk. You would need to check if there he is covered by a bail schedule, otherwise the US Constitution says "Excessive bail shall not be required". Point of information: he is being held in the UK and therefore what the US constitution says is irrelevant. He will be covered by the Bail Act. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1976/63 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1976/63
    - Ardren 7y ago
      Ah of course, I wasn't thinking straight
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- henearkr 7y ago
  But she has a point in that Assange would try anything to not depend again on such disgusting legal system. However, if there is still the smallest chance that the ruling could be in his favor, by escaping or trying to do so he would ever more reduce this chance...
antihero 7y ago
Bear in mind that with Lauri Love, while the case was lost in 2016 and a judge ruled that he could be extradited, it then went to the high court and was overturned two years later.
- skratchpixels 7y ago
  Lauri Love is a British national while Assange is a Australian national. Would the nationality of the defendant have an impact on the Westminster Magistrates' Court's decision?
  - matthewheath 7y ago
    In theory, no. Everyone is equal in the eyes of the law. The nationality of the subject isn't a factor that would have a particular bearing either way. The courts are supposed to look at where it makes sense to try the crime, rather than the nationality of the offender. In this case, most of the evidence is presumably in the United States so it doesn't make sense for the trial to happen in the United Kingdom, assuming the United Kingdom has the relevant offence too (I haven't looked it up, but I presume it would be breaching the Official Secrets Act or something along those lines). Obviously, it is more persuasive to have a British national tried at home (especially with comparative legal systems, e.g. the offence exists in both countries) rather than a foreign judicial system. The same cannot be said for a foreign national, especially if the foreign prosecuting authority will have a much stronger case built up than a domestic prosecuting authority could achieve.
sschueller 7y ago
There is a double standard. I doubt that the wife of the US diplomat will ever be extradited to the UK after killing a UK citizens. [1] [1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-usa-crash-parents/do-the-right-thing-family-of-uk-teen-killed-in-crash-tells-u-s-diplomats-wife-idUSKBN1WT26R https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-usa-crash-parents...
- ryanlol 7y ago
  The UK-US extradition treaty is already not well regarded in the UK, if the US diplomat does not show up in the UK this is likely to play a big part in how the press treats high profile US extradition cases. It’s definitely an interesting situation.
  - marcus_holmes 7y ago
    Further complicated by diplomatic immunity in this case. If it was just an extradition case the US would probably be more willing to play ball.
    - UncleSlacky 7y ago
      Of course, she never had diplomatic immunity - her husband works for the NSA, and was not on the official list of diplomats (those whose credentials are presented and accepted at the Court of St James).
      - matthewheath 7y ago
        You don't need to be on the official list to acquire diplomatic immunity (that would be an easy way for foreign regimes to deny diplomatic immunity). There are chefs, drivers, etc. who have diplomatic immunity but are not on the official list (because that would unreasonably lengthen it). Additionally, the RAF base her husband was stationed at is legally considered an annex of the US Embassy in London, so arguably she did have diplomatic immunity at that point in time. She has since returned to the US which means diplomatic immunity no longer applies to her, but as far as I can see, she was covered by immunity at the time of the incident.
newnewpdro 7y ago
It's possible Assange hasn't been sleeping enough for years due to the stress of his situation. The effects of that might resemble those of torture and debilitating drugs. Just something to consider...
- maze-le 7y ago
  Consider this: Sleep deprivation is torture. Anyone being held in a condition like this and not getting serious medical attention -- psychological and physiological -- is also torture. The fact that after several months outside the confines of the embassy-cell, he is still in a condition that resembles torture victims is evidence enough of that. It's also very convenient that it looks like this is self-inflicted and "no one can do anything huh?". Any person other than him would be hospitalized immediately.
  - newnewpdro 7y ago
    I'm inclined to agree with you. But that's not the first thing which came to my mind in reading TFA when the author referenced torture and drugs. Reading the description of Assange's incoherent ramblings reminded me of a relative who suffered from extreme sleep apnea for over a decade, where he basically would never sleep for more than a few minutes before choking himself awake. He became pretty incoherent and insane, and his machismo pride prevented him from seeking treatment for it. I don't think I'd be sleeping well in Assange's shoes.
kombucha11 7y ago
I know no one wants to hear this but Assange wouldn't be in the mess if he had conducted his operation more intelligently. Others have done similar actions and faced no repercussion. This is the fault of Assange's hubris and lack of attention. I used to be a huge Assange and Wikileaks supporter but I haven't been for quite some time. He/they made serious but entirely avoidable mistakes. Edit: Fwiw I support whistleblowers and government transparency and the end to rampant unconstitutional surveillance overreach but I simply couldn't support Assange after finding that he crossed a known ethical line with the inducement and material support. And Chelsea Manning should've never went to jail. Shes the true whistleblower in all of this. And Adrian Lamo and Assange are the ones that made serious yet avoidable mistakes. He simply should've acted as a carrier/news organization but he/they didn't do that. That and the support from Russia and eagerness to influence the election at all costs while maintaining impartiality is laughable. Maybe Assange could've been a force for good if he hadn't taken sides.
sudoaza 7y ago
This exposes the sham that is western "democracy". Everything is allowed to persecute those who oppose the status quo. The so called freedom they claim for themselves when they attack Russia, China or Venezuela in the corporate media is a right reserved for those who have money and who submit to the ruling class.
- ramblerman 7y ago
  > This exposes the sham that is western "democracy". Comparing western democracy to Venezuela is facetious at best, but I agree it's a sham. Just for entirely different reasons. If people really cared about this issue, then western democracy still has checks and balances for the people to make change. The problem is Assange has long become a boring item in the news cycle, and we as a people in that democracy just don't care enough anymore. The narrative of him being a rapist, and letting it simmer for enough years, was very effective.
peltier 7y ago
Following the WikiLeaks story from its early days until today leave me incredibly demoralized and to be frank, angry. If I where to list the amount of injustices WikiLeaks and those who have associated with them have suffered, I would sit here all night, and I strongly suspect that is by intelligent design. This story, if the end of it is as it seems, it will mark a shift in the perceived ideals of the "free world".
- BLKNSLVR 7y ago
  It further erodes any case 'the West' has to argue against the behaviour of China. And that is a sad indictment on the path the 'victors' of WWII have followed. (Edited to add: if the account given in the article is relatively accurate)
  - whamlastxmas 7y ago
    The US having a corrupt and unaccountable elite class of politicians is not equivalent to China having a single dictator whose whims are law
    - knocte 7y ago
      It is not equivalent, it is worse, because in the west people have a false sense of security.
  - deelowe 7y ago
    > It further erodes any case 'the West' has to argue against the behaviour of China. Can we just stop with this? Bringing this up distracts from the issue at hand, which has nothing to do with China or 'The West's' opinions of it. Regardless, is it not quite clear at this point that the issue is the elite of the world and not one specific nation?
    - BLKNSLVR 7y ago
      I was hesitant to make the comment. However I decided to post it because the current political climate makes it relevant. The situation in Hong Kong, democracy, human rights abuses, it's all part of the current discussion-fabric of politics, and the treatment of Julian Assange fits perfectly as a piece in that puzzle, as does Snowden. China are just the Eastasia of the moment, which is why that example was chosen. Yes, the 'elite' of the world are a problem, if not THE problem. I'm trying to point out that the soft-power that 'The West' had, as a point of difference, as a rallying cry for the moral high-ground, is rapidly disappearing, and the lines separating Oceania, Eurasia and Eastasia are blurry at best and non-existent at worst. I've said before, there are no good guys in the world of major political powers. It's sad, but it appears to be fairly plain fact, and potentially a human inevitability. That's the issue at hand. The treatment of Assange is a symptom of it.
brbrodude 7y ago
An injustice commited to one is a threat made to all. This is deffinitely a stain and an open bleeding wound on western powers history and supposed values/principles, this wound will only tend to grow. Sadly it's one those events with a dimension so large that it can go unnoticed because of how big it is, it is an Omen. Julian Assange is the first nonviolent, information activist made a political enemy targeted and persecuted in global scale. He's already being imprisioned and tortured for years without a fair trial and with his human rights denied. God bless him!
krilly 7y ago
I know of Craig Murray through local politics. He is a conspiracy theorist and a mentalist. Can't believe I'm seeing his blog on HN
thepete2 7y ago
Can someone explain to me why there is apparently no footage of this? Aren't court hearings supposed to be public or was filming simply not allowed?
- Tomte 7y ago
  Public does not mean that filming is allowed. The UK seems to handle it the same as for example Germany does. Constant broadcasts of real court sessions seems to be a mostly American thing.
- matthewheath 7y ago
  It is illegal to record proceedings in a court within the UK under S41 of the Criminal Justice Act 1925 (no photography or drawings) and S9 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 (no sound recordings or public playing of recordings). Courts may choose to televise their own proceedings (for example, the Supreme Court in the UK televises its hearings) but they are not obliged to. This happens under S32 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013. The hearing was public (most court hearings are public): you could go and sit in the public gallery if you so wished (space permitting), but you are not allowed to film or record the proceedings without the permission of the court.
  - ur-whale 7y ago
    Wow. I didn't know that. Sounds like a recipe for disaster. I thought England self-styled itself a "democracy", but it looks like putting together kangaroo courts is ridiculously easy over there.
    - matthewheath 7y ago
      Respectfully, I disagree. This case was heard by a magistrate, the "Tier 1" of the judicial system. There are multiple levels of appeal available after the initial hearing is concluded. Magistrates in this scenario (dealing with extradition matters) sit alone so yes, it is theoretically possible to have a "kangaroo court" at first instance, however if the judge was unreasonable or erred in law or fact, it would be swiftly corrected by the High Court (Queen's Bench Division - Criminal) or the Supreme Court by way of appeal. These two courts sit as a panel. The High Court typically has three judges on the bench, while the Supreme Court has 11. It is theoretically easy to influence a single judge; it is much harder to inappropriately influence three or 11 to get a majority verdict in your favour. There are no suggestions that the judge here was improperly influenced and if they were, they would be subject to disciplinary proceedings by the Office for Judicial Conduct. It goes without saying that the case would also be ruled a mistrial and another judge would handle it all over again. As a future British lawyer, I don't see what filming the proceedings would bring to the judicial system in terms of legitimacy. Court transcripts are publicly available, anyone can come to the hearings (unless it's a closed session which is rare) and report on the events. Justice is seen to be done, and filming appears largely inappropriate for the vast majority of cases proceeding through the judicial system in my opinion.
peltier 7y ago
>Baraitser then capped it all by saying the February hearing will be held, not at the comparatively open and accessible Westminster Magistrates Court where we were, but at Belmarsh Magistrates Court, the grim high security facility used for preliminary legal processing of terrorists, attached to the maximum security prison where Assange is being held. There are only six seats for the public in even the largest court at Belmarsh, and the object is plainly to evade public scrutiny and make sure that Baraitser is not exposed in pulic again again to a genuine account of her proceedings, like this one you are reading. I will probably be unable to get in to the substantive hearing at Belmarsh. Its perverse
- whamlastxmas 7y ago
  I don't expect much more from a country that's proud of the fact that it has a literal dictator as its figurehead.
BLKNSLVR 7y ago
This doesn't bode well for any inkling Snowden may have of returning to the US in a timeframe that doesn't include some kind of revolutionary change of government.
kaolti 7y ago
Funny to read through the comments going back and forth on definitions of journalism and the details of extradition treaties. Did you not read the article? The convoluted legal language and system are used to explain away the reality that there are no rules really. If you mess with powerful interests you are in trouble. No legislation or rights or specifics make the slightest difference at all. It's uncomfortable, but that's reality.
- friendlybus 7y ago
  The difference might be life in prison and being able to see your kids in visits vs being killed on the spot in less civilized countries.
  - ldarby 7y ago
    Did you not read the article? He is effectively being killed on the spot, just a bit more slowly than less civilized countries.
tov_objorkin 7y ago
Empire nailing Assange to the cross. Take your seats, enjoy the show...

259 points by k1m 7y ago

In 50 years, people will look in disgust and utter disbelief at our treatment of Assange. Or maybe this is too optimistic. Maybe our grandsons will indeed understand us. They will understand us too well, and be ashamed of us.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
rimliu 7y ago
He will be forgotten in ten years. And for a good reason.
- patrickaljord 7y ago
  What good reason?
  - rimliu 7y ago
    Manipulation and being Russian tool?
    - peltier 7y ago
      Jesus fucking christ.
      - rimliu 7y ago
        That's a strong argument.
        peltier 7y ago
        Against what exactly? 0 evidence and what i suspect is from the same source that said tulsi gubbard was a Russian asset? The unverifiable bullshit that Americans eat like its kosher. Jesus fucking christ is all i got to that ridicilous propganda. If you need to think of him as a Russian operative for you to live with the treatment hes getting, so be it. Im done.
        mmjaa 7y ago
        Americans don't need to think of him as a Russian agent because of the treatment he is experiencing - they need to consider him a Russian agent because that allows them to continue to ignore the crimes against humanity and war crimes that their country has been committing, in their name, for decades - and which Julian worked, tirelessly, to expose to the world to see: embarrassing Americans who were previously convinced of their nations exceptionalism. Americans need to be distracted by the "ma' Russians!" narrative in order to be kept entirely ignorant of the 500,000 innocent people they have killed in their quest for glory in the Middle East. THAT is why "ma' Russians!" is being propagated as a narrative - because if anyone thinks the Americans shouldn't be getting away with murder, they sure as hell won't have the moral authority required to do something about it, if they are Russians, or Russian tools... America is in the grips of another McCarthy era. There is NEVER any evidence given that "ma' Russians", yet the trills call out every time an American evil is placed on the table.
        rimliu 7y ago
        Russian tool is not the same as a Russian operative. All you need to publish stuff that makes US look bad and withhold the information that makes Russia bad. And maybe manipulate some stuff to make it more dramatic.
        enriquto 7y ago
        according to this argument, anyone whose main activiy consists in criticizing the US, is a Russian tool. Alright, then.
    - BLKNSLVR 7y ago
      Do you believe Snowden a Russian tool also?
      - rimliu 7y ago
        No, nothing like this.
- bufferoverflow 7y ago
  He absolutely will not be forgotten. He is a hero. Even now he has a wikipedia article, multiple movies about him, tons of support from the people supporting the freedom of information and those who are sick of the secretive bullshit going on behind the curtains.
  - rimliu 7y ago
    one man's hero is another man's villain.
    - enriquto 7y ago
      And in either case, when they are relevant enough, they are not forgotten.
      - rimliu 7y ago
        But do you honestly believe he will be relevant enough in 10 years? No doubt some will remember him, but I say way more people will know Snowden than Assange in ten years.
        enriquto 7y ago
        He was well known 10 years ago and he is well known today. By extrapolation, it is natural to assume that he'll be also in 10 years.
- ndury 7y ago
  The founder of wiki leaks forgotten in ten years? With all due respect but the chances of that happening are quite slim.. Julian Assange will end up in multiple history books whether you like it or not.
  - rimliu 7y ago
    Well, history books are full of shitty humans, so maybe you are right.
maxlybbert 7y ago
We remember Emmett Till, but only because there’s been a big effort to remember.

pulse7 7y ago

"Extradition shall not be granted if the offense for which extradition is requested is a political offense." If an American journalist in UK is publishing Chinese military secrets, he will not be extradited to China. If an Australian journalist in UK is publishing American military secrets, will he be extradited to America? This is the question now...

threeseed 7y ago
Many would argue that Assange isn't a journalist. And so that also is a factor.
- mikro2nd 7y ago
  I'll venture that the question of whether he is or is not a journalist is moot. The question is, "Is the offence for which extradition is sought political?"
  - threeseed 7y ago
    It's relevant in that his crimes e.g. publishing classified material are permissible if it's done so by a journalist for public interest reasons i.e. Pentagon Papers case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers And all extraditions have a degree of politicisation about them so it wouldn't be at all abnormal here.
    - peltier 7y ago
      WL partnered with journalists from all the world. Questioning if he himself is a journalist is rather dishonest considering he thinks himself one and he is responsible for millions of informative, ground-breaking articles written worldwide. The Australian Journalist should not be concerned about precedent set in a US court against a US citizen. Don't kill the messenger.
    - nradov 7y ago
      Publishing classified material isn't a crime for someone who doesn't hold a security clearance. However it is illegal to actively encourage or assist others in stealing classified information.

adv0r 7y ago

Holy crap, HN mods you should edit this title and make it more sensational, like the most posts on HN. I feel this post is not receiving the attention it deserves

Escapado 7y ago

If even a quarter of this went down as described in the article this is seriously fucked up beyond measure.

AnimalMuppet 7y ago
I have no information about whether it went down that way or not. All I know is that this article set of my "extremely biased source" warnings quite strongly. Is there any coverage of this in the mainstream press? Any verification of any of the content of this article? Anything? Or are we getting all riled up because one person wrote an article with the intent of riling people up? As I said, I don't know. I would welcome other sources.

henearkr 7y ago

How is it possible there is not yet a huge mob gathering near the court and threatening to burn everything. Because, this is literally revolting. How many people support that? And how many people are disgusted by that? Would nobody regret doing nothing?

oh_sigh 7y ago
I assume if there were a mob of assange supporters in the UK they would have mobbed near the Ecuadorian embassy and secreted him out of England.
- henearkr 7y ago
  Not necessarily, because, at that time, there was still hope things would go more smoothly, at least not threatening him at this point as we see now.
LandR 7y ago
I doubt most people care. Outside of a few friends, I doubt most people I know know that this is 1) going on and 2) who Assange even is.
- jacobush 7y ago
  It doesn't help that Assange is kind of unsavory. It should not affect things, but it does.
  - marcus_holmes 7y ago
    also that "mainstream" journalists refuse to recognise him as a journalist and defend his rights like they would one of their own.
    - dragonwriter 7y ago
      > also that "mainstream" journalists refuse to recognise him as a journalist and defend his rights like they would one of their own. Mainstream American journalists have been bending over backwards doing exactly that with regard to the US indictment, even when it requires rather unusual characterization of what journalism normally entails to make the case. They haven't been focussed on the extradition because they don't view the extradition as the problem, but the indictment.

mmjaa 7y ago

This is an atrocious, heinous crime being committed in front of all of us, and we should be rioting in the streets. This can happen to any of us now - nobody is safe from torture by the state. This is the end of civilized society in the West, people. Where Julian Assange goes, so go we.

tomp 7y ago
Unfortunately, life will go on, just like after Epstein "suicided" himself and all the media just silently dropped his case.

FireBeyond 7y ago

I think it is important to look at this with the lens of objectivity: Accusations that Assange is actively being not just harassed but outright tortured to the point where he "might not survive the proceedings" in jail... ... to claims that "members of the US Government" were there and "controlling procedures" and claims that the judge had been instructed what to say: > possibly she had not properly memorised what Lewis had been instructing her to agree with Apropos of anything else: > Baraitser took her cue from Lewis and stated categorically that the date for the extradition hearing, 25 February, could not be changed. > Lewis received his American instructions and agreed that the defence might have two months to prepare their evidence (they had said they needed an absolute minimum of three) but the February hearing date may not be moved. As far as I can tell the hearing date is over four months away. These are all very large claims and should be considered within the spectrum of someone who is as equally friendly towards Assange as he claims the state is against him.

mmjaa 7y ago
>objectivity + >considered within the spectrum What is your purpose here? To defend the actions of the UK court, which is clearly being corrupted by following direction from US agents? Or to open the door for the, very definite Assange-haters, to have a way around the argument that Assange is not getting a fair trial, that this case is a total farce, and that anyone who stands up to the military-industrial-pharmaceutical complex is 'an enemy of the West'?
- FireBeyond 7y ago
  One example: Very article linked in the original post talks about concerns for Assange's health, saying he has been in the medical ward in jail. Yet apparently it's not at all possible that he is on medications to help with his mental state (which would explain - though in this case note that I would entirely agree that the use of such medication would interfere with his "ability to understand" - his demeanor as being 'flat' and 'slow' and 'confused'), and instead apparently a foregone conclusion to assume that he is being physically and mentally subjected to "extreme torture". > anyone who stands up to the military-industrial-pharmaceutical complex is 'an enemy of the West'? Please. You'd be very much mistaken to think I have -any- sympathy for the "military-industrial-pharmaceutical complex", as even a cursory reading of my comments on issues of health insurance in the US, or military interventions would show. Believe it or not, it is possible to think that Assange has committed multiple crimes for less than noble reasons in amongst the good he has done, without being an agent for the state, deep or otherwise.

chippy 7y ago

"The charge against Julian is very specific; conspiring with Chelsea Manning to publish the Iraq War logs, the Afghanistan war logs and the State Department cables. The charges are nothing to do with Sweden, nothing to do with sex, and nothing to do with the 2016 US election" I'd like to call out the popular and prolific users of hacker news who previously were all about Sweden, sex and election interference and who are very silent now.

tomp 7y ago
> I'd like to call out the popular and prolific users of hacker news who previously were all about Sweden, sex and election interference and who are very silent now. What do you mean? Obviously it was always about US military secrets... our point was simply, that sex/Sweden were a distraction, a ploy to keep him until they could build a case (or, as it happened, until they managed to install a more favorable government in Ecuador).
threeseed 7y ago
That doesn't even make any sense. How could the US extradite Assange for a crime committed in Sweden ? And why would they extradite for election interference when Barr would just shut it down ?
- mrkeen 7y ago
  The author here is painting the UK as rolling over and doing whatever the US says, rather than applying proper justice. This is why people were skeptical of the Sweden charges. It was commonly believed that the point of those charges (whether they were true or not) was to get Assange to Sweden, at which point Sweden could roll over, do the US's bidding and extradite him to the US.
  - isostatic 7y ago
    > It was commonly believed that the point of those charges (whether they were true or not) was to get Assange to Sweden, at which point Sweden could roll over, do the US's bidding and extradite him to the US. Which was always ridiculous, as it was based on the idea that Sweden would be more willing to extradite than the UK, a ridiculous notion.

henearkr 7y ago

But is it possible that actually the judge is prepared to deny the extradition, and cannot say anything just yet because of the secret duty? If she thinks all of that is torture for Assange, maybe she is right to want it to end as soon as possible, especially if she already has taken her decision.

sschueller 7y ago
I hope so but I doubt it.
mnw21cam 7y ago
That isn't the case. This ruling was made by a magistrate, who only deals with lower cases and administration for bigger cases. The actual extradition case will be heard by a different person.
- pmyteh 7y ago
  Magistrates actually handle all extradition cases at first instance. Because it's such a specialist area of law, they're all handled by a single magistrates court (Westminster) with a set of specially experienced magistrates. Appeals go to the Administrative Court list of the High Court, though, which is potentially a panel of very senior judges indeed.

pvaldes 7y ago

No good action goes unpunished. Public reading group of the wikileaks documents, anyone?

turblety 7y ago

[deleted]

Ardren 7y ago
> "When that happens your remand status changes from a serving prisoner to a person facing extradition. > "Therefore I have given your lawyer an opportunity to make an application for bail on your behalf and she has declined to do so. Perhaps not surprisingly in light of your history of absconding in these proceedings. Edit: In response to your edit, he is being held for trial, and is a huge flight risk. 𝚈̶𝚘̶𝚞̶ ̶𝚠̶𝚘̶𝚞̶𝚕̶𝚍̶ ̶𝚗̶𝚎̶𝚎̶𝚍̶ ̶𝚝̶𝚘̶ ̶𝚌̶𝚑̶𝚎̶𝚌̶𝚔̶ ̶𝚒̶𝚏̶ ̶𝚝̶𝚑̶𝚎̶𝚛̶𝚎̶ ̶𝚑̶𝚎̶ ̶𝚒̶𝚜̶ ̶𝚌̶𝚘̶𝚟̶𝚎̶𝚛̶𝚎̶𝚍̶ ̶𝚋̶𝚢̶ ̶𝚊̶ ̶𝚋̶𝚊̶𝚒̶𝚕̶ ̶𝚜̶𝚌̶𝚑̶𝚎̶𝚍̶𝚞̶𝚕̶𝚎̶,̶ ̶𝚘̶𝚝̶𝚑̶𝚎̶𝚛̶𝚠̶𝚒̶𝚜̶𝚎̶ ̶𝚝̶𝚑̶𝚎̶ ̶𝚄̶𝚂̶ ̶𝙲̶𝚘̶𝚗̶𝚜̶𝚝̶𝚒̶𝚝̶𝚞̶𝚝̶𝚒̶𝚘̶𝚗̶ ̶𝚜̶𝚊̶𝚢̶𝚜̶ ̶"̶𝙴̶𝚡̶𝚌̶𝚎̶𝚜̶𝚜̶𝚒̶𝚟̶𝚎̶ ̶𝚋̶𝚊̶𝚒̶𝚕̶ ̶𝚜̶𝚑̶𝚊̶𝚕̶𝚕̶ ̶𝚗̶𝚘̶𝚝̶ ̶𝚋̶𝚎̶ ̶𝚛̶𝚎̶𝚚̶𝚞̶𝚒̶𝚛̶𝚎̶𝚍̶"̶.̶ > I would be greatly ashamed if we imprison someone for more than a couple of days without any sentence/verdict/ruling/etc. How long do you think trials last?
- pjc50 7y ago
  > he is being held for trial, and is a huge flight risk. You would need to check if there he is covered by a bail schedule, otherwise the US Constitution says "Excessive bail shall not be required". Point of information: he is being held in the UK and therefore what the US constitution says is irrelevant. He will be covered by the Bail Act. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1976/63 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1976/63
  - Ardren 7y ago
    Ah of course, I wasn't thinking straight
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
henearkr 7y ago
But she has a point in that Assange would try anything to not depend again on such disgusting legal system. However, if there is still the smallest chance that the ruling could be in his favor, by escaping or trying to do so he would ever more reduce this chance...

antihero 7y ago

Bear in mind that with Lauri Love, while the case was lost in 2016 and a judge ruled that he could be extradited, it then went to the high court and was overturned two years later.

skratchpixels 7y ago
Lauri Love is a British national while Assange is a Australian national. Would the nationality of the defendant have an impact on the Westminster Magistrates' Court's decision?
- matthewheath 7y ago
  In theory, no. Everyone is equal in the eyes of the law. The nationality of the subject isn't a factor that would have a particular bearing either way. The courts are supposed to look at where it makes sense to try the crime, rather than the nationality of the offender. In this case, most of the evidence is presumably in the United States so it doesn't make sense for the trial to happen in the United Kingdom, assuming the United Kingdom has the relevant offence too (I haven't looked it up, but I presume it would be breaching the Official Secrets Act or something along those lines). Obviously, it is more persuasive to have a British national tried at home (especially with comparative legal systems, e.g. the offence exists in both countries) rather than a foreign judicial system. The same cannot be said for a foreign national, especially if the foreign prosecuting authority will have a much stronger case built up than a domestic prosecuting authority could achieve.

sschueller 7y ago

There is a double standard. I doubt that the wife of the US diplomat will ever be extradited to the UK after killing a UK citizens. [1] [1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-usa-crash-parents/do-the-right-thing-family-of-uk-teen-killed-in-crash-tells-u-s-diplomats-wife-idUSKBN1WT26R https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-usa-crash-parents...

ryanlol 7y ago
The UK-US extradition treaty is already not well regarded in the UK, if the US diplomat does not show up in the UK this is likely to play a big part in how the press treats high profile US extradition cases. It’s definitely an interesting situation.
- marcus_holmes 7y ago
  Further complicated by diplomatic immunity in this case. If it was just an extradition case the US would probably be more willing to play ball.
  - UncleSlacky 7y ago
    Of course, she never had diplomatic immunity - her husband works for the NSA, and was not on the official list of diplomats (those whose credentials are presented and accepted at the Court of St James).
    - matthewheath 7y ago
      You don't need to be on the official list to acquire diplomatic immunity (that would be an easy way for foreign regimes to deny diplomatic immunity). There are chefs, drivers, etc. who have diplomatic immunity but are not on the official list (because that would unreasonably lengthen it). Additionally, the RAF base her husband was stationed at is legally considered an annex of the US Embassy in London, so arguably she did have diplomatic immunity at that point in time. She has since returned to the US which means diplomatic immunity no longer applies to her, but as far as I can see, she was covered by immunity at the time of the incident.

newnewpdro 7y ago

It's possible Assange hasn't been sleeping enough for years due to the stress of his situation. The effects of that might resemble those of torture and debilitating drugs. Just something to consider...

maze-le 7y ago
Consider this: Sleep deprivation is torture. Anyone being held in a condition like this and not getting serious medical attention -- psychological and physiological -- is also torture. The fact that after several months outside the confines of the embassy-cell, he is still in a condition that resembles torture victims is evidence enough of that. It's also very convenient that it looks like this is self-inflicted and "no one can do anything huh?". Any person other than him would be hospitalized immediately.
- newnewpdro 7y ago
  I'm inclined to agree with you. But that's not the first thing which came to my mind in reading TFA when the author referenced torture and drugs. Reading the description of Assange's incoherent ramblings reminded me of a relative who suffered from extreme sleep apnea for over a decade, where he basically would never sleep for more than a few minutes before choking himself awake. He became pretty incoherent and insane, and his machismo pride prevented him from seeking treatment for it. I don't think I'd be sleeping well in Assange's shoes.

kombucha11 7y ago

I know no one wants to hear this but Assange wouldn't be in the mess if he had conducted his operation more intelligently. Others have done similar actions and faced no repercussion. This is the fault of Assange's hubris and lack of attention. I used to be a huge Assange and Wikileaks supporter but I haven't been for quite some time. He/they made serious but entirely avoidable mistakes. Edit: Fwiw I support whistleblowers and government transparency and the end to rampant unconstitutional surveillance overreach but I simply couldn't support Assange after finding that he crossed a known ethical line with the inducement and material support. And Chelsea Manning should've never went to jail. Shes the true whistleblower in all of this. And Adrian Lamo and Assange are the ones that made serious yet avoidable mistakes. He simply should've acted as a carrier/news organization but he/they didn't do that. That and the support from Russia and eagerness to influence the election at all costs while maintaining impartiality is laughable. Maybe Assange could've been a force for good if he hadn't taken sides.

sudoaza 7y ago

This exposes the sham that is western "democracy". Everything is allowed to persecute those who oppose the status quo. The so called freedom they claim for themselves when they attack Russia, China or Venezuela in the corporate media is a right reserved for those who have money and who submit to the ruling class.

ramblerman 7y ago
> This exposes the sham that is western "democracy". Comparing western democracy to Venezuela is facetious at best, but I agree it's a sham. Just for entirely different reasons. If people really cared about this issue, then western democracy still has checks and balances for the people to make change. The problem is Assange has long become a boring item in the news cycle, and we as a people in that democracy just don't care enough anymore. The narrative of him being a rapist, and letting it simmer for enough years, was very effective.

peltier 7y ago

Following the WikiLeaks story from its early days until today leave me incredibly demoralized and to be frank, angry. If I where to list the amount of injustices WikiLeaks and those who have associated with them have suffered, I would sit here all night, and I strongly suspect that is by intelligent design. This story, if the end of it is as it seems, it will mark a shift in the perceived ideals of the "free world".

BLKNSLVR 7y ago
It further erodes any case 'the West' has to argue against the behaviour of China. And that is a sad indictment on the path the 'victors' of WWII have followed. (Edited to add: if the account given in the article is relatively accurate)
- whamlastxmas 7y ago
  The US having a corrupt and unaccountable elite class of politicians is not equivalent to China having a single dictator whose whims are law
  - knocte 7y ago
    It is not equivalent, it is worse, because in the west people have a false sense of security.
- deelowe 7y ago
  > It further erodes any case 'the West' has to argue against the behaviour of China. Can we just stop with this? Bringing this up distracts from the issue at hand, which has nothing to do with China or 'The West's' opinions of it. Regardless, is it not quite clear at this point that the issue is the elite of the world and not one specific nation?
  - BLKNSLVR 7y ago
    I was hesitant to make the comment. However I decided to post it because the current political climate makes it relevant. The situation in Hong Kong, democracy, human rights abuses, it's all part of the current discussion-fabric of politics, and the treatment of Julian Assange fits perfectly as a piece in that puzzle, as does Snowden. China are just the Eastasia of the moment, which is why that example was chosen. Yes, the 'elite' of the world are a problem, if not THE problem. I'm trying to point out that the soft-power that 'The West' had, as a point of difference, as a rallying cry for the moral high-ground, is rapidly disappearing, and the lines separating Oceania, Eurasia and Eastasia are blurry at best and non-existent at worst. I've said before, there are no good guys in the world of major political powers. It's sad, but it appears to be fairly plain fact, and potentially a human inevitability. That's the issue at hand. The treatment of Assange is a symptom of it.

brbrodude 7y ago

An injustice commited to one is a threat made to all. This is deffinitely a stain and an open bleeding wound on western powers history and supposed values/principles, this wound will only tend to grow. Sadly it's one those events with a dimension so large that it can go unnoticed because of how big it is, it is an Omen. Julian Assange is the first nonviolent, information activist made a political enemy targeted and persecuted in global scale. He's already being imprisioned and tortured for years without a fair trial and with his human rights denied. God bless him!

krilly 7y ago

I know of Craig Murray through local politics. He is a conspiracy theorist and a mentalist. Can't believe I'm seeing his blog on HN

thepete2 7y ago

Can someone explain to me why there is apparently no footage of this? Aren't court hearings supposed to be public or was filming simply not allowed?

Tomte 7y ago
Public does not mean that filming is allowed. The UK seems to handle it the same as for example Germany does. Constant broadcasts of real court sessions seems to be a mostly American thing.
matthewheath 7y ago
It is illegal to record proceedings in a court within the UK under S41 of the Criminal Justice Act 1925 (no photography or drawings) and S9 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 (no sound recordings or public playing of recordings). Courts may choose to televise their own proceedings (for example, the Supreme Court in the UK televises its hearings) but they are not obliged to. This happens under S32 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013. The hearing was public (most court hearings are public): you could go and sit in the public gallery if you so wished (space permitting), but you are not allowed to film or record the proceedings without the permission of the court.
- ur-whale 7y ago
  Wow. I didn't know that. Sounds like a recipe for disaster. I thought England self-styled itself a "democracy", but it looks like putting together kangaroo courts is ridiculously easy over there.
  - matthewheath 7y ago
    Respectfully, I disagree. This case was heard by a magistrate, the "Tier 1" of the judicial system. There are multiple levels of appeal available after the initial hearing is concluded. Magistrates in this scenario (dealing with extradition matters) sit alone so yes, it is theoretically possible to have a "kangaroo court" at first instance, however if the judge was unreasonable or erred in law or fact, it would be swiftly corrected by the High Court (Queen's Bench Division - Criminal) or the Supreme Court by way of appeal. These two courts sit as a panel. The High Court typically has three judges on the bench, while the Supreme Court has 11. It is theoretically easy to influence a single judge; it is much harder to inappropriately influence three or 11 to get a majority verdict in your favour. There are no suggestions that the judge here was improperly influenced and if they were, they would be subject to disciplinary proceedings by the Office for Judicial Conduct. It goes without saying that the case would also be ruled a mistrial and another judge would handle it all over again. As a future British lawyer, I don't see what filming the proceedings would bring to the judicial system in terms of legitimacy. Court transcripts are publicly available, anyone can come to the hearings (unless it's a closed session which is rare) and report on the events. Justice is seen to be done, and filming appears largely inappropriate for the vast majority of cases proceeding through the judicial system in my opinion.

peltier 7y ago

>Baraitser then capped it all by saying the February hearing will be held, not at the comparatively open and accessible Westminster Magistrates Court where we were, but at Belmarsh Magistrates Court, the grim high security facility used for preliminary legal processing of terrorists, attached to the maximum security prison where Assange is being held. There are only six seats for the public in even the largest court at Belmarsh, and the object is plainly to evade public scrutiny and make sure that Baraitser is not exposed in pulic again again to a genuine account of her proceedings, like this one you are reading. I will probably be unable to get in to the substantive hearing at Belmarsh. Its perverse

whamlastxmas 7y ago
I don't expect much more from a country that's proud of the fact that it has a literal dictator as its figurehead.

BLKNSLVR 7y ago

This doesn't bode well for any inkling Snowden may have of returning to the US in a timeframe that doesn't include some kind of revolutionary change of government.

kaolti 7y ago

Funny to read through the comments going back and forth on definitions of journalism and the details of extradition treaties. Did you not read the article? The convoluted legal language and system are used to explain away the reality that there are no rules really. If you mess with powerful interests you are in trouble. No legislation or rights or specifics make the slightest difference at all. It's uncomfortable, but that's reality.

friendlybus 7y ago
The difference might be life in prison and being able to see your kids in visits vs being killed on the spot in less civilized countries.
- ldarby 7y ago
  Did you not read the article? He is effectively being killed on the spot, just a bit more slowly than less civilized countries.

tov_objorkin 7y ago

Empire nailing Assange to the cross. Take your seats, enjoy the show...