52 ms·

Assange Hearing Day 7

181 points by k1m 6y ago

StavrosK 6y ago
> Clive Stafford Smith said he had been “profoundly shocked” by the crimes committed by the US government against his clients. These included torture, kidnapping, illegal detention and murder. The murder of one detainee at Baghram Airport in Afghanistan had been justified as a permissible interrogation technique to put fear into other detainees. In 2001, he would never have believed the US Government could have done such things. This is odious, and it's just one of the things in just this article. The amount of human rights violations going on seems staggering.
- raxxorrax 6y ago
  That the accusation is hacking is just the tip of it. People arguing for this certainly aren't looking outside the box. Always check if they have a connection to the security industry and be prepared for a lot of bullshit reasoning.
- ignoramous 6y ago
  > ...he would never have believed the US Government could have done such things. That's US' image worldwide too, or was. Except in the Muslim world where their atrocities were observed and reported firsthand. Wikileaks blew open that made-up image in a big way. Reminds me of: "One of the artifices of devil is, to induce men to believe that he does not exist." -Charles Baudelaire.
  - thaumasiotes 6y ago
    https://quoteinvestigator.com/2018/03/20/devil/ https://quoteinvestigator.com/2018/03/20/devil/ The quote is best known in the modern day in the form it took in The Usual Suspects: "the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world that he didn't exist". Baudelaire did write the same thing, but it's not original to him either, making him an odd citation. In particular, the form you quote didn't come from Baudelaire; it came from John Wilkinson. Wilkinson (1836): "One of the artifices of Satan is, to induce men to believe that he does not exist" Baudelaire (1864): "la plus belle des ruses du Diable est de vous persuader qu’il n’existe pas!" ["the loveliest trick of the Devil is to persuade you that he doesn’t exist!"]
  - focus2020 6y ago
    But it's not shocking in the Muslim world. They do it to themselves much worse in the name of Islam. That is different compared to non-Muslim countries.
    - ignoramous 6y ago
      You have a point but two wrongs don't make a right. Also, the escalating violent struggle is making someone some serious money. So the monetary incentives are just as strong too whatever the overt justification may be.
- creato 6y ago
  Is there any evidence of this stuff? I googled one of the examples given. This seems to be the most substantial reporting: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/06/the-newest-fight-against-the-extrajudicial-killing-of-americans/563018/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/06/the-newest... > In June 2016, Mr. Kareem was at the location of four different aerial attacks. The first and fourth incidents involved strikes to the OGN office in Idlib City when Mr. Kareem was inside the office. The second attack occurred in the town of Hariyataan while Mr. Kareem was there conducting an interview. The strike hit the exact location where Mr. Kareem was setting up for the interview, but at the time of the strike he had climbed a nearby hill to “view destroyed homes a street away.” > The third attack occurred when the vehicle in which Mr. Kareem and his staff were traveling was “struck and destroyed by a drone-launched Hellfire missile.” At the time of the strike, Mr. Kareem was sitting in a different, nearby vehicle which was “hurled into the air by the force of the blast” and “flipped upside down.” In August 2016, Mr. Kareem was again the victim of an attack when he was at the Kulliyatul Midfa‘iyyah (Artillery College) to film. He and his coworkers were in his car “when there was a huge blast only yards away from the car.” The occupants survived, but all were hit by shrapnel from the blast. > As a result of these five near-miss experiences in a three-month period, Mr. Kareem alleges upon information and belief that he was the target and that his name is included on the United States Kill List. I can see why he might think he's on a "kill list", but at the same time, maybe the people he was meeting were the targets? It sucks we even need to ask this question, but the OP's link makes it sound like all of this is simple fact. As an outsider, I don't think it's possible to come to an actual concrete conclusion here, which is basically what all the courts have said.
  - polytely 6y ago
    It's really hard to get to the facts of these drone cases because every military aged male automatically gets classified as enemy combatant unless intelligence proves after the fact that they were innocent. Most news sources will blindly accept the definition of enemy combatant provided by the government so there is minimal uproar. I would trust Mr Kareem over the US government on this because it fits the pattern of how the drone wars work. For a good source on this issue I would recommend: The Assassination Complex: Inside the Government's Secret Drone Warfare Program by Jeremy Scahill or the Drone Papers from the intercept which were the basis for the book. >"The White House and Pentagon boast that the targeted killing program is precise and that civilian deaths are minimal. However, documents detailing a special operations campaign in northeastern Afghanistan, Operation Haymaker, show that between January 2012 and February 2013, U.S. special operations airstrikes killed more than 200 people. Of those, only 35 were the intended targets. During one five-month period of the operation, according to the documents, nearly 90 percent of the people killed in airstrikes were not the intended targets. In Yemen and Somalia, where the U.S. has far more limited intelligence capabilities to confirm the people killed are the intended targets, the equivalent ratios may well be much worse." https://theintercept.com/drone-papers/the-assassination-complex/ https://theintercept.com/drone-papers/the-assassination-comp...
- kmlx 6y ago
  we're judging things through the prism of the present. back in 2001 the US just experienced 9/11. the sense of anger and retribution was shared internationally. people were arguing for dropping A-bombs all over the middle east.
  - kungato 6y ago
    Internationally where? In Europe we care more about the people US kills with their shitty healthcare and gun laws than some false flag excuse to reoccupy Iraq oil
    - srtjstjsj 6y ago
      Perhaps in parts of Europe where people care about the lives of people not descended from Europeans.
  - probably_wrong 6y ago
    > the sense of anger and retribution was shared internationally Speaking from South America, I can asure you that the general opinion of 9/11 was that the US had asked for it and that there are only so many countries you could bomb for oil before one of them decides to fight back. Sure, our government sent a statement of solidarity and no one was happy that it happened. But I am having a hard time thinking of someone other than the US who was truly, angrily calling for retribution.
    - celticninja 6y ago
      They didn't help themselves after the fact either, by invading Afghanistan when the majority of the attackers were from Saudi Arabia.
    - saiya-jin 6y ago
      I can attest to that, the general emotion in my part of Europe was - well that's horrible, just like all the atrocities US is doing all around the world and that it was just a matter of time that such a thing would happen. It was clear, I mean crystal clear even to US commentators on places like CNN on that very day that this will be used as carte blanche for government to instill control, surveillance and fear among US general population, and basically get away with anything because 'terrorists'. Well, they for sure were right. Life of Manhattan-based bureaucrat is not worth to me more than some poor civilian blown to pieces on some wedding or tending his field half around the world. You know, equality of human beings and stuff. 3000 means nothing compared to millions, in fact tens of millions if we keep counting.
- glaberficken 6y ago
  Chomsky has been exposing this type of practice since the 70s. (and doing so based on sound logical arguments and documented evidence) Everyone should read his stuff, still as relevant today as it was 50 years ago.
aphroz 6y ago
US can really do whatever they want and get away with it, for now. What a shame if the UK allows the extradition of a journalist.
- 6nf 6y ago
  We all know that Assange is going to be extradited to the USA. This trial is just a formality. I'm very disappointed in how my Australian government treated its citizen over the years in this whole debacle.
  - sgt 6y ago
    Why is that a given? And the UK could just hold him there indefinitely (also not good). They should really just let him go, with the option of going to the US trials at his own choice, which of course he won't.
    - austhrow743 6y ago
      Australia's providing no pressure to get him released. The US considers him enemy number one. UK has no reason to not extradite him and something to gain from doing so.
      - StavrosK 6y ago
        > UK has no reason to not extradite him and something to gain from doing so. No reason apart from the popular opinion of them that will decline if they extradite a journalist to a country that has routinely committed war crimes, torture, murder and other atrocities. I can't help but think that everyone would react much worse if he were being extradited to China, yet what's the difference?
        kmlx 6y ago
        which journalist are you referring to? also, you see no difference between China and the US? care to explain how you came to such an absurd conclusion?
tomalpha 6y ago
Taken from the Crown Prosecution Service guidance[0], which isn't gospel, but is usually a pretty accurate reflection of the law, the grounds the court must consider are: - the conduct described in the warrant amounts to an extradition offence; - any of the statutory bars to extradition apply; - there is prima facie evidence of guilt (if applicable, see below); - extradition would be disproportionate or would be incompatible with the requested person’s human rights. The statutory bars to extradition, taken from the same document include whether the subject would face the death penalty. It's not clear to me from this article which of the points of law above is being argued. Some of the testimony appears (or at least the reporting of it) appears to include an element of trying to demonstrate that the extradition is politically motivated. It probably is, but they'll have to establish one of the above specific points. Note that I'm not claiming that the above points can't be established here - I'm just not seeing the direct link from the reporting on the case, in this article and others, to how they're attacking the legal aspect. [0] https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/extradition https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/extradition
- raxxorrax 6y ago
  > It's not clear to me from this article which of the points of law above is being argued You cannot evade injustice by referring to the law. This serves as an example that the law is broken because it allows for political prosecution. Won't be the strategy of the defense of course and not of relevance in the hearings, they do the best they can in this situation.
  - tomalpha 6y ago
    I'm not claiming whether or not this is right, or serves the interests of Justice. I'm just pointing out that it appears to me that the defense team is arguing more in the court of public opinion, and less on points of law in the court itself. And to be clear: I don't really think they have much of an option - the law around extradition makes this hearing mostly a formality. There are pretty limited grounds in law to prevent it going ahead. Independent of this particular case, I don't like the fact that in UK law the process is mostly a formality for UK to USA extraditions. When the legislation was drafted after 9/11 the claim was that this was a necessary evil and would be used solely against terrorists. Like previous non-terrorist cases against bankers, 'hackers' and others, this isn't a use of the law in the way it was originally intended (well, at least what was said about intentions at the time).
jansan 6y ago
What would happen if Trump pardoned Julian Assange just before the election? Would this improve his chance of winning again?
- zapita 6y ago
  He probably will since Assange has been a reliable ally to Trump in the 2016 election. But I don’t think it helps or hurts matters electorally since most voters have never heard of Assange.
  - kebman 6y ago
    Trump has had ample opportunity to do it until now, though. So what's the holdup?
    - kzrdude 6y ago
      You can only pardon someone who has been convicted, so I don't see what opportunity he has had
      - kebman 6y ago
        True enough, but I should think he's got the power to stop this train too, then. How long can a man be held prisoner without a trial in the UK, anyway? What kind of democratic system can hold a person jailed indefinately like that? What are we becoming?
        bboygravity 6y ago
        He wasn't really held prisoner though. He was being tortured. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/may/31/julian-assange-shows-psychological-torture-symptoms-says-un-expert https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/may/31/julian-assange... Democratic IMO means: the majority of people in a country take all political decisions that matter to them. They decide about the creation and alteration of all laws that matter to them. The majority of people in a country is well informed by free press. With that in mind I would argue there isn't really any country in the world that comes close to being democratic (with the exception of maybe Switzerland).
kebman 6y ago
How long has Assange been held without a public trial again?
- corin_ 6y ago
  While I don't think it ought to have been as long as it has been, it's worth noting that a) He has previously fled to take asylum in a foreign embassy to avoid arrest, so it's understandable why bail wouldn't be granted again and b) He actually requested this extradition hearing be delayed due to not having had enough time to prepare (which the judge denied).
  - useriousbro 6y ago
    a) doesn't really seem a fair representation: UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, Nils Melzer, speaks in detail about the explosive findings of his investigation into the case of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange.: https://www.republik.ch/2020/01/31/nils-melzer-about-wikileaks-founder-julian-assange https://www.republik.ch/2020/01/31/nils-melzer-about-wikilea... (someone linked to this in yesterdays comments its an amazing read though depressing) b) He is being detained in a way that is regarded inhumane, but its still better than being epsteined. Assange may be a bit of a greaser, he may be an egotist, he may be lacking in social skills - he may even be wanting to be famous for his work in a way that makes him an arse personally... but i still want our legal systems to be fair and my government not commit war crimes and openly investigate any accusation of them. Also note that i firmly believe that if any commenter on this site was to be the target of such a campaign that we would all look like scumbags when scrutinised with such bias.
    - corin_ 6y ago
      I completely agree that he shouldn't be detained inhumanely, but if he's a flight risk it's right that he should be detained until the court rules on extradition. What should change is the inhumaine bit. (And I also agree that the US shouldn't have a case against him, and I strongly hope our legal system in the UK will reject the extradition, though I'm not very optimistic). edit: And even if the Swedish accusations are 100% false and political; the UK legal system shouldn't be expected to jump to that conclusion without investigation if presented with an international warrant for his arrest.
rendall 6y ago
It's difficult for me to read this objectively, because I "know in my heart" that the persecution of Assange is unjust. Nevertheless, it is important to put that aside and absorb the information without bias. Let the prosecution make its best case without attachment to outcome. Still, there are some rather shocking revelations about the conduct of the government of my homeland. Torture, of course; but also murder of a detainee to terrify other detainees; "puerile attitude to killing, with juvenile nicknames given to assassination targets"; the attempted murder without trial of a US citizen, also a journalist; the attempts to block and cover these actions, which suggests that the perpetrators and enablers themselves knew they were crimes.
- raxxorrax 6y ago
  The law must serve justice, not the other way around. If the law allows for political prosecution, it needs to be reformed. Many laws are completely inadequate for digital "crimes". Although these "crimes" did put focus on an illegal war of aggression instigated by neocons and parts of the press. There is just so much the law can serve.
  - ianhawes 6y ago
    "Equal justice under the law" unfortunately cannot coexist with "The law must serve justice".
    - srtjstjsj 6y ago
      What do you mean? They exactly coexist.
    - raxxorrax 6y ago
      I disagree completely. Perhaps you wanted to refer to weighting culpability of people being accused, but that isn't a contradiction.
- latch 6y ago
  I'm generally an "ends justifies the means" kinda guy, but I think anyone with that position needs to be aware of what the "means" actually are. Maybe that's why I'm a bit shocked that you're shocked. These things have been going on for a long time and they're well documented. I'll just give three examples: the My Lai massacre, the imprisonment/trial of Omar Khadr (a child soldier) and the extrajudicial execution of Anwar Nasser al-Awlaki (an American citizen). (To be clear, I don't think any of the above are justifiable. As a Canadian, I was particularly ashamed of Canada's position towards Khadr. But I don't go around a) thinking these things don't happen and b) that they're alway black and white)
genmon 6y ago
I really hope people don’t take from this that the U.K. legal system is being applied in a biased way. The laws themselves may be wrong — and that’s a matter for government. But these write-ups do tend do suggest that the laws are being misapplied through manipulating the process. I’m not a lawyer, but I am in the UK and I do know people who are lawyers so I’ve talked about their court work with them. From what little I know, the processes (the backs and forth, the judgements, and arguments over procedure) are all typical.
- StavrosK 6y ago
  But this can also mean that laws in the UK are typically applied in a biased way. The fact that it's typical (although I don't think it is) doesn't make it unbiased.
- k1m 6y ago
  There have been questions raised about the judge in this case: * As British judge made rulings against Julian Assange, her husband was involved with right-wing lobby group briefing against WikiLeaks founder - https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2020-09-04-as-british-judge-made-rulings-against-julian-assange-her-husband-was-involved-with-right-wing-lobby-group-briefing-against-wikileaks-founder/ https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2020-09-04-as-britis... * UK government refuses to release information about Assange judge who has 96% extradition record - https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2020-07-31-uk-government-refuses-to-release-information-about-assange-judge-who-has-96-extradition-record/ https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2020-07-31-uk-govern...
  - Traster 6y ago
    Yes, silly questions have been raised. Oh look, a judge is married to a life-long politician - and shock horror a Tory Lord has links to a Tory think tank. Shock horror, the UK tends to comply with extradition requests. These questions are just stating perfectly normal facts of life in obtuse and alarmist ways.
    - k1m 6y ago
tomalpha 6y ago
One interesting snippet, which gets to the one of the key areas around this case for me (I know there are more issues here than just this one): > Mark Summers then re-examined Professor Feldstein. He said that Lewis had suggested that Assange was complicit in Manning obtaining classified information but the New York Times was not. Is it your understanding that to seek to help an official leaker is a crime > Professor Feldstein replied “No, absolutely not”. > “Do journalists ask for classified information?” > “Yes.” > “Do journalists solicit such information?” > “Yes.” > “Are you aware of any kind of previous prosecution for this kind of activity.” > “No. Absolutely not.” > “Could you predict it would be criminalised?” > “No, and it is very dangerous.” There are clearly two sides to this argument, but the chilling effect around the prosecution of journalists gaining access to classified information is a worry for me. I realise that the US Government might claim that Assange isn't a journalist. They're certainly claiming that he crossed the line from journalism into hacking, but that line seems to be blurrier and more arbitrary than it used to be (at least from where I sit in the cheap seats).
- young_unixer 6y ago
  I don't think regular citizens should have less rights than journalists in the first place, but maybe I'm just nutty.
  - tomalpha 6y ago
    So I will respectfully disagree with you there. In general I agree with you about most (almost all?) rights - they should be available to all citizens equally. However if you agree that: - The state should be allowed to keep secrets - The state can't always be trusted to choose what should be secret or not - There is a need to hold the state to account, but somehow not make all secrets public by doing so Then there needs to be some subset of citizenry who can gain access to those secrets without the blessing of the state. In history this has been likely to occur when a person with access to the secrets feels strongly enough about something that they feel the secret should be made public. For good reasons or bad reasons (which not everyone will agree with either way). A good journalist can fulfil that role IMHO. I realise that "good" there is another assumption...
StartupTree 6y ago
Source here is Craig Murray who is possibly the most extreme-biased source one could imagine. Nevertheless it's good to get primary source information from the hearing.
- rozab 6y ago
  He pops up on HN all the time. I'm surprised he's still posting, wasn't he recently prosecuted for the politically motivated release of the names of women in an active sexual harassment trial?
  - RobertoG 6y ago
    Can you just say something like that and don't even bother to point to a link? It hardly seems fair.
    - DanBC 6y ago
      In the UK complainants in sexual offences trials have strong legal protections around anonymity. Murray is alleged to have breached the anonymity of some of the complainants in the Alex Salmond trial. He denies this. Here's his post asking for some evidential support: https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/05/a-very-political-prosecution/ https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/05/a-very-polit... Here's a reasonably neutral article about his prosecution date: https://www.thenational.scot/news/18566311.court-sets-date-craig-murray-trial-alex-salmond-case/ https://www.thenational.scot/news/18566311.court-sets-date-c...
      - RobertoG 6y ago
        Thanks for the links. So he didn't release any names like the grandparent comment said. I thought that sounded strange.
  - DanBC 6y ago
    His prosecution date was going to be October. I'm not sure if Covid-19 has affected it or not.
guerby 6y ago
"You are free to republish this article, including in translation, without further permission. A brief note left in comments below detailing where it is republished is appreciated." Really nice!
guerby 6y ago
"The cross-examinations showed the weakness of the thirty minute guillotine adopted by Baraitser, with really interesting defence testimony cut short, and then unlimited time allowed to Lewis for his cross examination. This was particularly pernicious in the evidence of Mark Feldstein. In James Lewis’ extraordinary cross-examination of Feldstein, Lewis spoke between five and ten times as many words as the actual witness. Some of Lewis’s “questions” went on for many minutes, contained huge passages of quote and often were phrased in convoluted double negative. Thrice Feldstein refused to reply on grounds he could not make out where the question lay. With the defence initial statement of the evidence limited to half an hour, Lewis’s cross examination approached two hours, a good 80% of which was Lewis speaking. " Sad...
jaclaz 6y ago
This comment in the article made my day: >the US Government changes its indictment in this case about as often as Kim Kardashian changes her handbag.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
bananapear 6y ago
There doesn't seem to be a trace of Vanessa Baraitser anywhere on the internet outside a couple of mentions of other extradition proceedings and the Assange case. There are only three known photographs of her[1], and only one including her face. She isn't even registered as a practising solicitor with the SRA [2]. It's difficult to see how in today's world a person with a career in "public service" (and with such an unusual name) can leave such little trace online. [1] https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Vanessa_Baraitser https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Vanessa_Baraitser [2] https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/register/ https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/register/

181 points by k1m 6y ago

> Clive Stafford Smith said he had been “profoundly shocked” by the crimes committed by the US government against his clients. These included torture, kidnapping, illegal detention and murder. The murder of one detainee at Baghram Airport in Afghanistan had been justified as a permissible interrogation technique to put fear into other detainees. In 2001, he would never have believed the US Government could have done such things. This is odious, and it's just one of the things in just this article. The amount of human rights violations going on seems staggering.

raxxorrax 6y ago
That the accusation is hacking is just the tip of it. People arguing for this certainly aren't looking outside the box. Always check if they have a connection to the security industry and be prepared for a lot of bullshit reasoning.
ignoramous 6y ago
> ...he would never have believed the US Government could have done such things. That's US' image worldwide too, or was. Except in the Muslim world where their atrocities were observed and reported firsthand. Wikileaks blew open that made-up image in a big way. Reminds me of: "One of the artifices of devil is, to induce men to believe that he does not exist." -Charles Baudelaire.
- thaumasiotes 6y ago
  https://quoteinvestigator.com/2018/03/20/devil/ https://quoteinvestigator.com/2018/03/20/devil/ The quote is best known in the modern day in the form it took in The Usual Suspects: "the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world that he didn't exist". Baudelaire did write the same thing, but it's not original to him either, making him an odd citation. In particular, the form you quote didn't come from Baudelaire; it came from John Wilkinson. Wilkinson (1836): "One of the artifices of Satan is, to induce men to believe that he does not exist" Baudelaire (1864): "la plus belle des ruses du Diable est de vous persuader qu’il n’existe pas!" ["the loveliest trick of the Devil is to persuade you that he doesn’t exist!"]
- focus2020 6y ago
  But it's not shocking in the Muslim world. They do it to themselves much worse in the name of Islam. That is different compared to non-Muslim countries.
  - ignoramous 6y ago
    You have a point but two wrongs don't make a right. Also, the escalating violent struggle is making someone some serious money. So the monetary incentives are just as strong too whatever the overt justification may be.
creato 6y ago
Is there any evidence of this stuff? I googled one of the examples given. This seems to be the most substantial reporting: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/06/the-newest-fight-against-the-extrajudicial-killing-of-americans/563018/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/06/the-newest... > In June 2016, Mr. Kareem was at the location of four different aerial attacks. The first and fourth incidents involved strikes to the OGN office in Idlib City when Mr. Kareem was inside the office. The second attack occurred in the town of Hariyataan while Mr. Kareem was there conducting an interview. The strike hit the exact location where Mr. Kareem was setting up for the interview, but at the time of the strike he had climbed a nearby hill to “view destroyed homes a street away.” > The third attack occurred when the vehicle in which Mr. Kareem and his staff were traveling was “struck and destroyed by a drone-launched Hellfire missile.” At the time of the strike, Mr. Kareem was sitting in a different, nearby vehicle which was “hurled into the air by the force of the blast” and “flipped upside down.” In August 2016, Mr. Kareem was again the victim of an attack when he was at the Kulliyatul Midfa‘iyyah (Artillery College) to film. He and his coworkers were in his car “when there was a huge blast only yards away from the car.” The occupants survived, but all were hit by shrapnel from the blast. > As a result of these five near-miss experiences in a three-month period, Mr. Kareem alleges upon information and belief that he was the target and that his name is included on the United States Kill List. I can see why he might think he's on a "kill list", but at the same time, maybe the people he was meeting were the targets? It sucks we even need to ask this question, but the OP's link makes it sound like all of this is simple fact. As an outsider, I don't think it's possible to come to an actual concrete conclusion here, which is basically what all the courts have said.
- polytely 6y ago
  It's really hard to get to the facts of these drone cases because every military aged male automatically gets classified as enemy combatant unless intelligence proves after the fact that they were innocent. Most news sources will blindly accept the definition of enemy combatant provided by the government so there is minimal uproar. I would trust Mr Kareem over the US government on this because it fits the pattern of how the drone wars work. For a good source on this issue I would recommend: The Assassination Complex: Inside the Government's Secret Drone Warfare Program by Jeremy Scahill or the Drone Papers from the intercept which were the basis for the book. >"The White House and Pentagon boast that the targeted killing program is precise and that civilian deaths are minimal. However, documents detailing a special operations campaign in northeastern Afghanistan, Operation Haymaker, show that between January 2012 and February 2013, U.S. special operations airstrikes killed more than 200 people. Of those, only 35 were the intended targets. During one five-month period of the operation, according to the documents, nearly 90 percent of the people killed in airstrikes were not the intended targets. In Yemen and Somalia, where the U.S. has far more limited intelligence capabilities to confirm the people killed are the intended targets, the equivalent ratios may well be much worse." https://theintercept.com/drone-papers/the-assassination-complex/ https://theintercept.com/drone-papers/the-assassination-comp...
kmlx 6y ago
we're judging things through the prism of the present. back in 2001 the US just experienced 9/11. the sense of anger and retribution was shared internationally. people were arguing for dropping A-bombs all over the middle east.
- kungato 6y ago
  Internationally where? In Europe we care more about the people US kills with their shitty healthcare and gun laws than some false flag excuse to reoccupy Iraq oil
  - srtjstjsj 6y ago
    Perhaps in parts of Europe where people care about the lives of people not descended from Europeans.
- probably_wrong 6y ago
  > the sense of anger and retribution was shared internationally Speaking from South America, I can asure you that the general opinion of 9/11 was that the US had asked for it and that there are only so many countries you could bomb for oil before one of them decides to fight back. Sure, our government sent a statement of solidarity and no one was happy that it happened. But I am having a hard time thinking of someone other than the US who was truly, angrily calling for retribution.
  - celticninja 6y ago
    They didn't help themselves after the fact either, by invading Afghanistan when the majority of the attackers were from Saudi Arabia.
  - saiya-jin 6y ago
    I can attest to that, the general emotion in my part of Europe was - well that's horrible, just like all the atrocities US is doing all around the world and that it was just a matter of time that such a thing would happen. It was clear, I mean crystal clear even to US commentators on places like CNN on that very day that this will be used as carte blanche for government to instill control, surveillance and fear among US general population, and basically get away with anything because 'terrorists'. Well, they for sure were right. Life of Manhattan-based bureaucrat is not worth to me more than some poor civilian blown to pieces on some wedding or tending his field half around the world. You know, equality of human beings and stuff. 3000 means nothing compared to millions, in fact tens of millions if we keep counting.
glaberficken 6y ago
Chomsky has been exposing this type of practice since the 70s. (and doing so based on sound logical arguments and documented evidence) Everyone should read his stuff, still as relevant today as it was 50 years ago.

aphroz 6y ago

US can really do whatever they want and get away with it, for now. What a shame if the UK allows the extradition of a journalist.

6nf 6y ago
We all know that Assange is going to be extradited to the USA. This trial is just a formality. I'm very disappointed in how my Australian government treated its citizen over the years in this whole debacle.
- sgt 6y ago
  Why is that a given? And the UK could just hold him there indefinitely (also not good). They should really just let him go, with the option of going to the US trials at his own choice, which of course he won't.
  - austhrow743 6y ago
    Australia's providing no pressure to get him released. The US considers him enemy number one. UK has no reason to not extradite him and something to gain from doing so.
    - StavrosK 6y ago
      > UK has no reason to not extradite him and something to gain from doing so. No reason apart from the popular opinion of them that will decline if they extradite a journalist to a country that has routinely committed war crimes, torture, murder and other atrocities. I can't help but think that everyone would react much worse if he were being extradited to China, yet what's the difference?
      - kmlx 6y ago
        which journalist are you referring to? also, you see no difference between China and the US? care to explain how you came to such an absurd conclusion?

tomalpha 6y ago

Taken from the Crown Prosecution Service guidance[0], which isn't gospel, but is usually a pretty accurate reflection of the law, the grounds the court must consider are: - the conduct described in the warrant amounts to an extradition offence; - any of the statutory bars to extradition apply; - there is prima facie evidence of guilt (if applicable, see below); - extradition would be disproportionate or would be incompatible with the requested person’s human rights. The statutory bars to extradition, taken from the same document include whether the subject would face the death penalty. It's not clear to me from this article which of the points of law above is being argued. Some of the testimony appears (or at least the reporting of it) appears to include an element of trying to demonstrate that the extradition is politically motivated. It probably is, but they'll have to establish one of the above specific points. Note that I'm not claiming that the above points can't be established here - I'm just not seeing the direct link from the reporting on the case, in this article and others, to how they're attacking the legal aspect. [0] https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/extradition https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/extradition

raxxorrax 6y ago
> It's not clear to me from this article which of the points of law above is being argued You cannot evade injustice by referring to the law. This serves as an example that the law is broken because it allows for political prosecution. Won't be the strategy of the defense of course and not of relevance in the hearings, they do the best they can in this situation.
- tomalpha 6y ago
  I'm not claiming whether or not this is right, or serves the interests of Justice. I'm just pointing out that it appears to me that the defense team is arguing more in the court of public opinion, and less on points of law in the court itself. And to be clear: I don't really think they have much of an option - the law around extradition makes this hearing mostly a formality. There are pretty limited grounds in law to prevent it going ahead. Independent of this particular case, I don't like the fact that in UK law the process is mostly a formality for UK to USA extraditions. When the legislation was drafted after 9/11 the claim was that this was a necessary evil and would be used solely against terrorists. Like previous non-terrorist cases against bankers, 'hackers' and others, this isn't a use of the law in the way it was originally intended (well, at least what was said about intentions at the time).

jansan 6y ago

What would happen if Trump pardoned Julian Assange just before the election? Would this improve his chance of winning again?

zapita 6y ago
He probably will since Assange has been a reliable ally to Trump in the 2016 election. But I don’t think it helps or hurts matters electorally since most voters have never heard of Assange.
- kebman 6y ago
  Trump has had ample opportunity to do it until now, though. So what's the holdup?
  - kzrdude 6y ago
    You can only pardon someone who has been convicted, so I don't see what opportunity he has had
    - kebman 6y ago
      True enough, but I should think he's got the power to stop this train too, then. How long can a man be held prisoner without a trial in the UK, anyway? What kind of democratic system can hold a person jailed indefinately like that? What are we becoming?
      - bboygravity 6y ago
        He wasn't really held prisoner though. He was being tortured. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/may/31/julian-assange-shows-psychological-torture-symptoms-says-un-expert https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/may/31/julian-assange... Democratic IMO means: the majority of people in a country take all political decisions that matter to them. They decide about the creation and alteration of all laws that matter to them. The majority of people in a country is well informed by free press. With that in mind I would argue there isn't really any country in the world that comes close to being democratic (with the exception of maybe Switzerland).

kebman 6y ago

How long has Assange been held without a public trial again?

corin_ 6y ago
While I don't think it ought to have been as long as it has been, it's worth noting that a) He has previously fled to take asylum in a foreign embassy to avoid arrest, so it's understandable why bail wouldn't be granted again and b) He actually requested this extradition hearing be delayed due to not having had enough time to prepare (which the judge denied).
- useriousbro 6y ago
  a) doesn't really seem a fair representation: UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, Nils Melzer, speaks in detail about the explosive findings of his investigation into the case of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange.: https://www.republik.ch/2020/01/31/nils-melzer-about-wikileaks-founder-julian-assange https://www.republik.ch/2020/01/31/nils-melzer-about-wikilea... (someone linked to this in yesterdays comments its an amazing read though depressing) b) He is being detained in a way that is regarded inhumane, but its still better than being epsteined. Assange may be a bit of a greaser, he may be an egotist, he may be lacking in social skills - he may even be wanting to be famous for his work in a way that makes him an arse personally... but i still want our legal systems to be fair and my government not commit war crimes and openly investigate any accusation of them. Also note that i firmly believe that if any commenter on this site was to be the target of such a campaign that we would all look like scumbags when scrutinised with such bias.
  - corin_ 6y ago
    I completely agree that he shouldn't be detained inhumanely, but if he's a flight risk it's right that he should be detained until the court rules on extradition. What should change is the inhumaine bit. (And I also agree that the US shouldn't have a case against him, and I strongly hope our legal system in the UK will reject the extradition, though I'm not very optimistic). edit: And even if the Swedish accusations are 100% false and political; the UK legal system shouldn't be expected to jump to that conclusion without investigation if presented with an international warrant for his arrest.

rendall 6y ago

It's difficult for me to read this objectively, because I "know in my heart" that the persecution of Assange is unjust. Nevertheless, it is important to put that aside and absorb the information without bias. Let the prosecution make its best case without attachment to outcome. Still, there are some rather shocking revelations about the conduct of the government of my homeland. Torture, of course; but also murder of a detainee to terrify other detainees; "puerile attitude to killing, with juvenile nicknames given to assassination targets"; the attempted murder without trial of a US citizen, also a journalist; the attempts to block and cover these actions, which suggests that the perpetrators and enablers themselves knew they were crimes.

raxxorrax 6y ago
The law must serve justice, not the other way around. If the law allows for political prosecution, it needs to be reformed. Many laws are completely inadequate for digital "crimes". Although these "crimes" did put focus on an illegal war of aggression instigated by neocons and parts of the press. There is just so much the law can serve.
- ianhawes 6y ago
  "Equal justice under the law" unfortunately cannot coexist with "The law must serve justice".
  - srtjstjsj 6y ago
    What do you mean? They exactly coexist.
  - raxxorrax 6y ago
    I disagree completely. Perhaps you wanted to refer to weighting culpability of people being accused, but that isn't a contradiction.
latch 6y ago
I'm generally an "ends justifies the means" kinda guy, but I think anyone with that position needs to be aware of what the "means" actually are. Maybe that's why I'm a bit shocked that you're shocked. These things have been going on for a long time and they're well documented. I'll just give three examples: the My Lai massacre, the imprisonment/trial of Omar Khadr (a child soldier) and the extrajudicial execution of Anwar Nasser al-Awlaki (an American citizen). (To be clear, I don't think any of the above are justifiable. As a Canadian, I was particularly ashamed of Canada's position towards Khadr. But I don't go around a) thinking these things don't happen and b) that they're alway black and white)

genmon 6y ago

I really hope people don’t take from this that the U.K. legal system is being applied in a biased way. The laws themselves may be wrong — and that’s a matter for government. But these write-ups do tend do suggest that the laws are being misapplied through manipulating the process. I’m not a lawyer, but I am in the UK and I do know people who are lawyers so I’ve talked about their court work with them. From what little I know, the processes (the backs and forth, the judgements, and arguments over procedure) are all typical.

StavrosK 6y ago
But this can also mean that laws in the UK are typically applied in a biased way. The fact that it's typical (although I don't think it is) doesn't make it unbiased.
k1m 6y ago
There have been questions raised about the judge in this case: * As British judge made rulings against Julian Assange, her husband was involved with right-wing lobby group briefing against WikiLeaks founder - https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2020-09-04-as-british-judge-made-rulings-against-julian-assange-her-husband-was-involved-with-right-wing-lobby-group-briefing-against-wikileaks-founder/ https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2020-09-04-as-britis... * UK government refuses to release information about Assange judge who has 96% extradition record - https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2020-07-31-uk-government-refuses-to-release-information-about-assange-judge-who-has-96-extradition-record/ https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2020-07-31-uk-govern...
- Traster 6y ago
  Yes, silly questions have been raised. Oh look, a judge is married to a life-long politician - and shock horror a Tory Lord has links to a Tory think tank. Shock horror, the UK tends to comply with extradition requests. These questions are just stating perfectly normal facts of life in obtuse and alarmist ways.
  - k1m 6y ago

tomalpha 6y ago

One interesting snippet, which gets to the one of the key areas around this case for me (I know there are more issues here than just this one): > Mark Summers then re-examined Professor Feldstein. He said that Lewis had suggested that Assange was complicit in Manning obtaining classified information but the New York Times was not. Is it your understanding that to seek to help an official leaker is a crime > Professor Feldstein replied “No, absolutely not”. > “Do journalists ask for classified information?” > “Yes.” > “Do journalists solicit such information?” > “Yes.” > “Are you aware of any kind of previous prosecution for this kind of activity.” > “No. Absolutely not.” > “Could you predict it would be criminalised?” > “No, and it is very dangerous.” There are clearly two sides to this argument, but the chilling effect around the prosecution of journalists gaining access to classified information is a worry for me. I realise that the US Government might claim that Assange isn't a journalist. They're certainly claiming that he crossed the line from journalism into hacking, but that line seems to be blurrier and more arbitrary than it used to be (at least from where I sit in the cheap seats).

young_unixer 6y ago
I don't think regular citizens should have less rights than journalists in the first place, but maybe I'm just nutty.
- tomalpha 6y ago
  So I will respectfully disagree with you there. In general I agree with you about most (almost all?) rights - they should be available to all citizens equally. However if you agree that: - The state should be allowed to keep secrets - The state can't always be trusted to choose what should be secret or not - There is a need to hold the state to account, but somehow not make all secrets public by doing so Then there needs to be some subset of citizenry who can gain access to those secrets without the blessing of the state. In history this has been likely to occur when a person with access to the secrets feels strongly enough about something that they feel the secret should be made public. For good reasons or bad reasons (which not everyone will agree with either way). A good journalist can fulfil that role IMHO. I realise that "good" there is another assumption...

StartupTree 6y ago

Source here is Craig Murray who is possibly the most extreme-biased source one could imagine. Nevertheless it's good to get primary source information from the hearing.

rozab 6y ago
He pops up on HN all the time. I'm surprised he's still posting, wasn't he recently prosecuted for the politically motivated release of the names of women in an active sexual harassment trial?
- RobertoG 6y ago
  Can you just say something like that and don't even bother to point to a link? It hardly seems fair.
  - DanBC 6y ago
    In the UK complainants in sexual offences trials have strong legal protections around anonymity. Murray is alleged to have breached the anonymity of some of the complainants in the Alex Salmond trial. He denies this. Here's his post asking for some evidential support: https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/05/a-very-political-prosecution/ https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/05/a-very-polit... Here's a reasonably neutral article about his prosecution date: https://www.thenational.scot/news/18566311.court-sets-date-craig-murray-trial-alex-salmond-case/ https://www.thenational.scot/news/18566311.court-sets-date-c...
    - RobertoG 6y ago
      Thanks for the links. So he didn't release any names like the grandparent comment said. I thought that sounded strange.
- DanBC 6y ago
  His prosecution date was going to be October. I'm not sure if Covid-19 has affected it or not.

guerby 6y ago

"You are free to republish this article, including in translation, without further permission. A brief note left in comments below detailing where it is republished is appreciated." Really nice!

guerby 6y ago

"The cross-examinations showed the weakness of the thirty minute guillotine adopted by Baraitser, with really interesting defence testimony cut short, and then unlimited time allowed to Lewis for his cross examination. This was particularly pernicious in the evidence of Mark Feldstein. In James Lewis’ extraordinary cross-examination of Feldstein, Lewis spoke between five and ten times as many words as the actual witness. Some of Lewis’s “questions” went on for many minutes, contained huge passages of quote and often were phrased in convoluted double negative. Thrice Feldstein refused to reply on grounds he could not make out where the question lay. With the defence initial statement of the evidence limited to half an hour, Lewis’s cross examination approached two hours, a good 80% of which was Lewis speaking. " Sad...

jaclaz 6y ago

This comment in the article made my day: >the US Government changes its indictment in this case about as often as Kim Kardashian changes her handbag.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

bananapear 6y ago

There doesn't seem to be a trace of Vanessa Baraitser anywhere on the internet outside a couple of mentions of other extradition proceedings and the Assange case. There are only three known photographs of her[1], and only one including her face. She isn't even registered as a practising solicitor with the SRA [2]. It's difficult to see how in today's world a person with a career in "public service" (and with such an unusual name) can leave such little trace online. [1] https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Vanessa_Baraitser https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Vanessa_Baraitser [2] https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/register/ https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/register/