4 ms·

okay, so giving him 50 weeks (i think it was) in maximum security for a crime that normally gets a fine. holding him in solitary confinement (against human righ

okay, so giving him 50 weeks (i think it was) in maximum security for a crime that normally gets a fine. holding him in solitary confinement (against human rights act) and not allowing him to meet with his lawyers/solicitors is how it should work? I personally think that we can find people with less conflicts of interest - but in the UK we traditionally don't as we are normalised to the concentration of power that exists in a heavily class based society. Would love to hear your comments on the article i linked to (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...) as it seems a bit tautological to just say it must be right because thats what the UK machinery does. edit: Apologies i need to stop commenting as the article was linked in another response - its a VERY good read though and i think that when it comes to a potentially precedent setting situation like this the specifics are vitally important.

Traster 6y ago
I don't think it's unreasonable to give Assange 50 weeks for skipping bail. He was given every opportunity, he pleaded his case right up to the highest court in the land, and once he didn't get what he wanted? He decided he could opt-out of the justice system. It's not like he surrender himself either, he got turfed out of the Ecuadorian embassy. I don't think I could find a better example of where someone should face the absolute maximum penalty for skipping bail. We will never know the merits of the rape cases because of his actions. As for holding him solitary confinement I could definitely understand how a prison warden would decide to do that with a high profile prisoner such as Assange. It's also worth noting that he's not actually in solitary confinement now. As for the rumours and claims about seeing his lawyers, I don't have a strong view on it, since the claims seem quite weird and unsubstantiated. I've looked and I can't find any actual reliable reporting on whether he is being denied real representation and I find that suspicious. It's not like there's no journalists who are sympathetic to Assange. I understand it's obviously in the interests of the defence to delay and claim they don't have enough time and information, but that doesn't necessarily make it some human rights issue, it could simply be that that is a strategy they're using to delay the decision. It's clear the judge is not convinced that Assange has been denied proper representation, and if he is, why aren't there any articles in any of our press saying "Here are the 10 times Assange's laywers got turned away". Do you understand where I'm coming from here. It sort of works for Assange to claim that the perfectly ordinary restrictions on visitation are some massive overbearing conspiracy to deprive him of liberty, it doesn't necessarily make it true. Edit: https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/magistrates-court/item/failure-to-surrender-to-bail/ https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/magistrates-co... - here are the sentencing guidelines, Assange could not have been sentenced to anything less than 6 weeks. At which point he would've been remanded for the extradition anyway.
- useriousbro 6y ago
  I like to grab my state propaganda from the BBC, so i visit it a few times a day.. ive not seen anything about the assange hearing there at all.. so why do you expect to hear about the details of his complaints there.. i mean why is this the article that HN is linking to? In the article his solicitor seems to be referring to a lack of ability to prepare and doesnt seem to have been pulled up on any specifcs not being true? Also if 50 weeks is standard is it right to only allow 15 mins to prepare a defence? Not just keep him on remand in the mean time? A high profile case questioning his right to asylum should be rushed like that? And why max security and solitary confinement? Are our prisons and border securities so weak we need to go to such lengths? I would have thought house arrest would probably have done it, yes survailance wpuld cost but how kuch does solitary confinment cost? Asshole or not he is no terrorist or mass murder, i recon i could kick the crap out him and trust me i am not tough. And as far as i can gather (may be wrong but looking for info) he did actually go along with the police requests in sweden and volunteered repeatedly to give a statement or be interviewed but was denied it. He even told them of his intentions to leave the country. The lack of cooperation apparently came when he got wind of the US wanting to extrodite him, and had sweden agreed not to extrodite him he would have returned for the interviews.. he also was offering remote interviews or ones in london. But at a high level your statements dont hold for me as there is clear evidence that the governments involved are up to dodgey things, so its absolutley fine for him to seek asylum etc.
  - Traster 6y ago
    I'm not limiting myself to the BBC, I'm saying any of the newspapers, any half decent news source. >In the article his solicitor seems to be referring to a lack of ability to prepare and doesnt seem to have been pulled up on any specifcs not being true? Let me be more specific then, in the Guardian reporting we don't only hear from the defence lawyer - we hear the judge's response: >But Baraitser refused the defence request, saying she had previously offered Assange’s lawyers an opportunity to adjourn the hearing to give them more time to deal with the new US indictment. That had been declined. So actually that's not quite as clear cut as we were meant to beleive, they'd been previously offered more time and had refused. >And why max security and solitary confinement? Again, because there's not great reporting, I don't know a certain answer to this, but it has been mentioned that he was put in solitary because there were fears over his safety in general population. He has since been moved out of solitary. >I would have thought house arrest would probably have done it, yes survailance wpuld cost but how kuch does solitary confinment cost? Oh come on now, he's got a history of absconding. >he did actually go along with the police requests in sweden and volunteered repeatedly to give a statement or be interviewed but was denied it. See, this is another of those one-sided stories you hear from Assange's defenders. It's more complicated than that, Sweden wanted him to return so they can interview him (and possibly charge him) and he refused, instead saying he would be willing to let them come to the UK to question him. Suspects in crimes don't get to make those demands. >The lack of cooperation apparently came when he got wind of the US wanting to extrodite him, and had sweden agreed not to extrodite him he would have returned for the interviews. The law doesn't work like that, Sweden can't just discard their international extradition treaties because Assange wants them to. By making that demand he has basically said there is no possibility of him complying. It's interesting though because there is literally no reason to think that Sweden would be more willing to extradite Assange than the UK.
nsajko 6y ago
Nils Melzer is full of shit: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22209868 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22209868
- useriousbro 6y ago
  Thanks for the link. I agree he has his own motivations etc. And was already taking his info with a pinch of salt. It still looks to me like some of the major elements dont add up, like the release of info to the police, the dropping of the case in sweden, the lack of guarantee to not extrodite to the US. Could just be own biases but given the other information we have about the governments involved it seems most plauable that they are up to no good. If they are all acting in good faith and this apparent abuse of power is a side effect of their secrecy then i think its just as damning of the overall processes and approach we take (unless we dont really qant an open democracy)
- kebman 6y ago
  I can read Svenska, and I've been a lay judge in the District Court of Oslo, Norway for many years, so I know a thing or two about Scandinavian court proceedings. At best the link is inconclusive. At worst it proves conspiracy. Whatever the case, just adding papers to an already undertaken interrogation, could either falsify the original interrogation, or make it unusable in court. Further more, it could implicate the signatory, and that is of course why the one party has reservations against doing it. If there's visible tampering, the interrogation could be dismissed by court. And if not, they could be prosecuting based off false evidence. As for the party responsible for such tampering, she could at worst go to jail for document forgery, at best she'd be reprimanded for not being vigilant enough. So I'd say that's pretty damning. Otherwise I tend to agree with the Swede tpmx, who thinks these kinds of things are better explained by legal experts.

Traster 6y ago

I don't think it's unreasonable to give Assange 50 weeks for skipping bail. He was given every opportunity, he pleaded his case right up to the highest court in the land, and once he didn't get what he wanted? He decided he could opt-out of the justice system. It's not like he surrender himself either, he got turfed out of the Ecuadorian embassy. I don't think I could find a better example of where someone should face the absolute maximum penalty for skipping bail. We will never know the merits of the rape cases because of his actions. As for holding him solitary confinement I could definitely understand how a prison warden would decide to do that with a high profile prisoner such as Assange. It's also worth noting that he's not actually in solitary confinement now. As for the rumours and claims about seeing his lawyers, I don't have a strong view on it, since the claims seem quite weird and unsubstantiated. I've looked and I can't find any actual reliable reporting on whether he is being denied real representation and I find that suspicious. It's not like there's no journalists who are sympathetic to Assange. I understand it's obviously in the interests of the defence to delay and claim they don't have enough time and information, but that doesn't necessarily make it some human rights issue, it could simply be that that is a strategy they're using to delay the decision. It's clear the judge is not convinced that Assange has been denied proper representation, and if he is, why aren't there any articles in any of our press saying "Here are the 10 times Assange's laywers got turned away". Do you understand where I'm coming from here. It sort of works for Assange to claim that the perfectly ordinary restrictions on visitation are some massive overbearing conspiracy to deprive him of liberty, it doesn't necessarily make it true. Edit: https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/magistrates-court/item/failure-to-surrender-to-bail/ https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/magistrates-co... - here are the sentencing guidelines, Assange could not have been sentenced to anything less than 6 weeks. At which point he would've been remanded for the extradition anyway.

useriousbro 6y ago
I like to grab my state propaganda from the BBC, so i visit it a few times a day.. ive not seen anything about the assange hearing there at all.. so why do you expect to hear about the details of his complaints there.. i mean why is this the article that HN is linking to? In the article his solicitor seems to be referring to a lack of ability to prepare and doesnt seem to have been pulled up on any specifcs not being true? Also if 50 weeks is standard is it right to only allow 15 mins to prepare a defence? Not just keep him on remand in the mean time? A high profile case questioning his right to asylum should be rushed like that? And why max security and solitary confinement? Are our prisons and border securities so weak we need to go to such lengths? I would have thought house arrest would probably have done it, yes survailance wpuld cost but how kuch does solitary confinment cost? Asshole or not he is no terrorist or mass murder, i recon i could kick the crap out him and trust me i am not tough. And as far as i can gather (may be wrong but looking for info) he did actually go along with the police requests in sweden and volunteered repeatedly to give a statement or be interviewed but was denied it. He even told them of his intentions to leave the country. The lack of cooperation apparently came when he got wind of the US wanting to extrodite him, and had sweden agreed not to extrodite him he would have returned for the interviews.. he also was offering remote interviews or ones in london. But at a high level your statements dont hold for me as there is clear evidence that the governments involved are up to dodgey things, so its absolutley fine for him to seek asylum etc.
- Traster 6y ago
  I'm not limiting myself to the BBC, I'm saying any of the newspapers, any half decent news source. >In the article his solicitor seems to be referring to a lack of ability to prepare and doesnt seem to have been pulled up on any specifcs not being true? Let me be more specific then, in the Guardian reporting we don't only hear from the defence lawyer - we hear the judge's response: >But Baraitser refused the defence request, saying she had previously offered Assange’s lawyers an opportunity to adjourn the hearing to give them more time to deal with the new US indictment. That had been declined. So actually that's not quite as clear cut as we were meant to beleive, they'd been previously offered more time and had refused. >And why max security and solitary confinement? Again, because there's not great reporting, I don't know a certain answer to this, but it has been mentioned that he was put in solitary because there were fears over his safety in general population. He has since been moved out of solitary. >I would have thought house arrest would probably have done it, yes survailance wpuld cost but how kuch does solitary confinment cost? Oh come on now, he's got a history of absconding. >he did actually go along with the police requests in sweden and volunteered repeatedly to give a statement or be interviewed but was denied it. See, this is another of those one-sided stories you hear from Assange's defenders. It's more complicated than that, Sweden wanted him to return so they can interview him (and possibly charge him) and he refused, instead saying he would be willing to let them come to the UK to question him. Suspects in crimes don't get to make those demands. >The lack of cooperation apparently came when he got wind of the US wanting to extrodite him, and had sweden agreed not to extrodite him he would have returned for the interviews. The law doesn't work like that, Sweden can't just discard their international extradition treaties because Assange wants them to. By making that demand he has basically said there is no possibility of him complying. It's interesting though because there is literally no reason to think that Sweden would be more willing to extradite Assange than the UK.

nsajko 6y ago

Nils Melzer is full of shit: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22209868 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22209868

useriousbro 6y ago
Thanks for the link. I agree he has his own motivations etc. And was already taking his info with a pinch of salt. It still looks to me like some of the major elements dont add up, like the release of info to the police, the dropping of the case in sweden, the lack of guarantee to not extrodite to the US. Could just be own biases but given the other information we have about the governments involved it seems most plauable that they are up to no good. If they are all acting in good faith and this apparent abuse of power is a side effect of their secrecy then i think its just as damning of the overall processes and approach we take (unless we dont really qant an open democracy)
kebman 6y ago
I can read Svenska, and I've been a lay judge in the District Court of Oslo, Norway for many years, so I know a thing or two about Scandinavian court proceedings. At best the link is inconclusive. At worst it proves conspiracy. Whatever the case, just adding papers to an already undertaken interrogation, could either falsify the original interrogation, or make it unusable in court. Further more, it could implicate the signatory, and that is of course why the one party has reservations against doing it. If there's visible tampering, the interrogation could be dismissed by court. And if not, they could be prosecuting based off false evidence. As for the party responsible for such tampering, she could at worst go to jail for document forgery, at best she'd be reprimanded for not being vigilant enough. So I'd say that's pretty damning. Otherwise I tend to agree with the Swede tpmx, who thinks these kinds of things are better explained by legal experts.