4 ms·

I think you're missing the point of TFA. This is a show trial, not a legitimate extradition of a criminal. The fact that he's been charged with crimes doesn't m

I think you're missing the point of TFA. This is a show trial, not a legitimate extradition of a criminal. The fact that he's been charged with crimes doesn't make him guilty of them, and he, like everyone, deserves a fair hearing in court to determine that. The original charges against him would have resulted in a failed extradition (as the prosecution admit). So the US government changed the charges during the trial to "better" ones that were more likely to succeed. Without giving the defence any time to prepare a case defending against those new charges. This isn't justice. I'm ashamed as a UK citizen that we're not able to stand up to the USA and conduct an extradition hearing that is actually just. Especially since the USA refuses to extradite one of its citizens to the UK when charged with murder. I'm furious as an Australian citizen (I'm dual-national) that we're not fighting to prevent such gross injustice to one of our own citizens. The Aussie government has done nothing, said nothing, about any of it. It's pathetic and infuriating.

foldr 6y ago
It seems to me quite likely that he is guilty of the hacking charges (though I am open minded on this point). For it to be a show trial there would have to be no realistic possibility of the jury finding him not guilty. I don't see why that should be the case.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- marcus_holmes 6y ago
  well, for a start there's no jury. A magistrate, who is already clearly showing bias and a tendency to read verdicts from a laptop rather than actually decide them, is the sole arbiter of whether he gets extradited or not.
  - foldr 6y ago
    I am talking about the trial following his (probable) extradition. If you'll forgive a little semantic pedantry, an extradition hearing is neither a trial nor (in the UK) a proceeding that's televized, so it would be quite a stretch to describe an extradition hearing as a 'show trial'.
    - vidarh 6y ago
      Why should we trust he will get a fair hearing at the actual trial if he's not even getting a fair hearing at the extradition hearing?
      - foldr 6y ago
        I don't agree with your premise. But the obvious answer would be that the the trial will take place in another country under a different legal system involving none of the same people (except Assange himself).
        vidarh 6y ago
        It's not an obvious answer at all, given that the most reasonable implication of biased behaviour by the judged during the extradition hearing would be if there is pressure from the US behind the scenes. As such, whether or not you agree that the judges behaviour actually is biased, if the judge is biased there is no reason to trust the US courts will be unbiased either.
        foldr 6y ago
        I think it's more likely that the British judge just disagrees with your assessment of the case. Unless you have any actual evidence of something more sinister, we'll just have to leave it there.
        vidarh 6y ago
        Of course we don't have evidence of anything more sinister, but the reporting demonstrates a repeated and extreme bias coupled with treatment not normally seen in UK extradition cases, to a level that it's deeply irrational to assume there isn't pressure involved. The pre-written decisions alone, read out unmodified after listening to testimony is irregular enough that it is illogical to assume this judge is doing her job, as there is no evidence to suggest she is..

foldr 6y ago

It seems to me quite likely that he is guilty of the hacking charges (though I am open minded on this point). For it to be a show trial there would have to be no realistic possibility of the jury finding him not guilty. I don't see why that should be the case.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
marcus_holmes 6y ago
well, for a start there's no jury. A magistrate, who is already clearly showing bias and a tendency to read verdicts from a laptop rather than actually decide them, is the sole arbiter of whether he gets extradited or not.
- foldr 6y ago
  I am talking about the trial following his (probable) extradition. If you'll forgive a little semantic pedantry, an extradition hearing is neither a trial nor (in the UK) a proceeding that's televized, so it would be quite a stretch to describe an extradition hearing as a 'show trial'.
  - vidarh 6y ago
    Why should we trust he will get a fair hearing at the actual trial if he's not even getting a fair hearing at the extradition hearing?
    - foldr 6y ago
      I don't agree with your premise. But the obvious answer would be that the the trial will take place in another country under a different legal system involving none of the same people (except Assange himself).
      - vidarh 6y ago
        It's not an obvious answer at all, given that the most reasonable implication of biased behaviour by the judged during the extradition hearing would be if there is pressure from the US behind the scenes. As such, whether or not you agree that the judges behaviour actually is biased, if the judge is biased there is no reason to trust the US courts will be unbiased either.
        foldr 6y ago
        I think it's more likely that the British judge just disagrees with your assessment of the case. Unless you have any actual evidence of something more sinister, we'll just have to leave it there.
        vidarh 6y ago
        Of course we don't have evidence of anything more sinister, but the reporting demonstrates a repeated and extreme bias coupled with treatment not normally seen in UK extradition cases, to a level that it's deeply irrational to assume there isn't pressure involved. The pre-written decisions alone, read out unmodified after listening to testimony is irregular enough that it is illogical to assume this judge is doing her job, as there is no evidence to suggest she is..