15 ms·

Amnesty International denied access to court in the Assange extradition hearing

272 points by k1m 6y ago

stevespang 6y ago
"We've made 3 applications requesting recognition as expert fair trial monitors and all denied" . . . Because it's not a fair trial, it's a sham trial which is being overshadowed by the US Gov't.
- mamon 6y ago
  Or maybe because Amnesty International are not "expert fair trial monitors"? They are just a politically biased NGO sponsored by one particular Hungarian billionare.
- shadowgovt 6y ago
  [citation needed]
  - mantap 6y ago
    No citation needed. The onus is on the court to prove that the trial is fair. The mechanism for that is allowing the public to observe the proceedings. Otherwise an adverse inference may be drawn.
    - shadowgovt 6y ago
      Fortunately, public observation of the proceedings is allowed. https://twitter.com/JuliaHall18/status/1306197900289019904/photo/1 https://twitter.com/JuliaHall18/status/1306197900289019904/p...
      - salawat 6y ago
        Hitchhiker's Guide logic applies. >"But the plans were on display…” “On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.” >“That’s the display department.” “With a flashlight.” >“Ah, well, the lights had probably gone.” “So had the stairs.” >“But look, you found the notice, didn’t you?” “Yes,” said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard." You can try all you want to hide behind "they had the same access as everyone else, I have no pity at all if they can't take interest in local politics/justice", but at the end of the day it isn't fooling anyone. If the Court were actually, truly trying to maintain it's credibility in the eyes of the international, let alone their national community, rather than refusing to acknowledge there might be a case where "Gee, maybe even the Courts of Great Britain might have a rather momentous occasion on their hands, where concessions are warranted over being territorially pissy because an outsider dares impugn the equanimity of the Court like it were some Third World Tin Pot Kangaroo court needing to be babysat. I"m really not trying to be flippant or dismissive, but given what I've seen of a prevailing English attitude in the post-Brexit age, it just seems like the country has given up on anything remotely resembling living up to it's lofty ideals in anyone else's eyes but their own in the post-Brexit era,and it saddens me as an American to see it. Doubly so, because I've always seen Europe as a brake/foil of sorts for our culture; so please don't think it's coming from a position of the pot calling kettle black so much as a teaball wondering why it is being forced into a Keurig. I certainly know how I expect things to go, but something about the circumstances surrounding what's going on just seems a bit off! For all we in the West have presented ourselves as beacons of Truth, Justice, and "Doing it the Right Way" over the years, it never ceases to amaze me how positively nasty things tend to get once you get someone in the crosshairs of the establishment, and no, I don't at all think that this case is being handled in an impartial manner from back room politics. Trust but Verify doesn't even do this any Justice at all.
  - k1m 6y ago
    I don't know what would be a good citation for you, but maybe the International Bar Association ("the global voice of the legal profession"): > With this extradition trial we are witnessing the serious undermining of due process and the rule of law. - https://www.ibanet.org/Article/NewDetail.aspx?ArticleUid=c05c57ee-1fee-47dc-99f9-26824208a750 https://www.ibanet.org/Article/NewDetail.aspx?ArticleUid=c05...
  - meroes 6y ago
    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/donald-trump-julian-assange-extradition-hearing-b447768.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/donald-trump-julian-assan...
danielmg 6y ago
No they haven't. They just won't make special provision for them. Is there any recognition in UK law for this role? Can they not watch the same feed as the media?
- harry8 6y ago
  I believe the issue is that there is a very limited number of public spaces so its elbows out in the scramble for all who want to be there to get them, then things have a way of going wrong so that official observers are, quite accdidentally, shut out from observing. In some countries suddenly a number of off duty policemen decide they want to have those seats for themselves and arrest anyone who doesn't back down when barged out of the way. Of corse it needn't be people as reputable as policemen for it to be organised to occurr that way. In any case the idea is that Justice must not only be done it must be seen to be done. Telling amnesty they are nobodies in the eyes of the courts is not really supporting that.
  - PJDK 6y ago
    According to the quote in the tweet itself the proceedings are accessible to them and all other members of the media over a live link. Amnesty really needs to explain why this is not adequate, and if it genuinely is not adequate why the deserve this special access over and above any other party with a strong interest in reporting this case.
    - toyg 6y ago
      Over the course of these hearings, the "live link" has had a habit of breaking up or otherwise become unavailable at short notice, as Craig Murray has reported. This might be entirely coincidental, but regardless, I can see why observers would find it not adequate.
      - PJDK 6y ago
        I'm sure that's annoying, but given the nature of what is being discussed it's hard to come up with a scenario where that has a serious impact on the observation of justice. Not least because if the live feed goes down at the same time as something bad happens that would give an enormous amount of ammunition to Assange's defence team.
harry8 6y ago
This piece of news has been interpreted by user stevespang. the fact his comment is now dead and the fact that Amnesty Interntaional are being denied access to this trial really support his point of view. The comment should not be dead, to be clear about it. I disagree in that I still hope it's merely arrogance and exceptionalism by the UK courts thinking, unlike courts in poorer parts of the world, they are utterly above reproach in all things and so there is no need for Amnesty International at the trial of a publisher who has reported and published evidence of war crimes. For all that arrogance I hope the court will make the correct decisions according to statute and precedence. The job that has been done on Assange has been astonishingly effective. People don't /like/ him enough to notice his rights being removed are precisely their own rights and are removed for all. I put him with Tony Blair, George Bush jnr, Hilary, Donald, Boris as someone I would cross the road to avoid having to talk to - as is my right. It's also my right to note that it matters not at all in defending the rights of all of these people to fair due process because even the worst asshole imaginable's rights are yours and mine. Of my list of assholes above, I think Assange is the only asshole with no evidence to suggest his actions have actually killed anyone at all. Blair and Bush jnr in particular deserve fair trials so they can rigorously defend the extremely prevalent belief that they did kill people, knowingly, making decisions supported with jusification made in bad faith to enable the actions leading to the carnage. I would completely support their rights and Amnesty being present at their trials. The rule of law and equality before it is the most important thing to ensure civilisation continues.
- happytoexplain 6y ago
  Looking at that user's history, I can't find a single living comment. In just the first few pages are these standout examples of why: "Endless babel from that region of the US we care the least about: NY" "The feminazi apparati found you." This article may be totally reasonable, but your example of an unfairly silenced user doesn't appear to be.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- shadowgovt 6y ago
  It reads more like exceptionalism on AI's part. AI: "We demand access to monitor the trial." UK: "You are free to monitor the trial as a member of the public." AI: "No, we demand physical access and the right to a reserved seat to monitor the trial." UK: "From the Crown's point of view, you are a public institution and have the same rank as any other public institution. The auditorium seating is ----> thataway." This is not to say that AI having reserved seating to oversee the trial couldn't be useful, but it's understandable why the UK might choose not to treat them as a privileged observer.
nickt 6y ago
Craig Murray’s notes from the public gallery make for some incredible reading https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/09/your-man-in-the-public-gallery-assange-hearing-day-10/ https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/09/your-man-in-...
- nickt 6y ago
  Also on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=craigmurray.org.uk https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=craigmurray.org.uk
- elliekelly 6y ago
  This exchange made me laugh. Cherry picking evidence of cherry picking: > James Lewis QC: You were just fishing about for something, omitting details which counter your opinion. > Eric Lewis: There is a huge amount of data, including from the US Bureau of Prisons. You just picked out one caveat of one report. > James Lewis QC: Please keep your answers concise.
  - thaumasiotes 6y ago
    Reminds me of an exchange from Breaking Bad. > Who wants to go next? No judgements, guys. Just say anything and everything that's on your mind. > I just keep asking myself, "Why did this happen?" If there's a God and all, why does He allow all those innocent people to die for no reason? > Keep it secular, honey.
escape_goat 6y ago
This is a tweet. It is, by itself, misleading. It is about a legal matter. The thread of tweets it begins is not an analysis of the legal context of the decision returned to Amnesty International by the judge. Amnesty International has not been "denied access" to the extradition hearing. The judge has declined to provide them with special status and guaranteed access by an AI observer within the courtroom itself. The proceedings will be broadcast live to members of he press in auxiliary room, where AI is apparently welcome. Other comments speculate about various extralegal shenanigans that could occur in such a situation. Information about that might make up a good article, an informative article, that I might be glad to read on HN. However I already have a place where I can indulge in soapboxing in response to tweets, it is called Twitter, and I am not sure that providing redundancy for this activity is a good use of HN.
- k1m 6y ago
  Many people are concerned about the way this hearing is being carried out. For example, here's the International Bar Association's Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI): > The IBAHRI concurs with the widespread concern over the ill-treatment of Mr Assange. He must be afforded equality in access to effective legal representation. With this extradition trial we are witnessing the serious undermining of due process and the rule of law. It is troubling that Mr Assange has complained that he is unable to hear properly what is being said at his trial, and that because he is locked in a glass cage is prevented from communicating freely with his lawyers during the proceedings commensurate with the prosecution. - https://www.ibanet.org/Article/NewDetail.aspx?ArticleUid=c05c57ee-1fee-47dc-99f9-26824208a750 https://www.ibanet.org/Article/NewDetail.aspx?ArticleUid=c05... As others here, like cmiles74, have mentioned, there are also serious sound issues affecting those who are trying to follow the case. Given all that, it's hardly surprising that Amnesty would be worried and would want access to monitor for themselves.
- k1m 6y ago
  > The proceedings will be broadcast live to members of he press in auxiliary room, where AI is apparently welcome. They are not welcome: "Denied both" - https://twitter.com/JuliaHall18/status/1306234552088768512 https://twitter.com/JuliaHall18/status/1306234552088768512
tomalpha 6y ago
Is there a real difference between video-link access, and being physically present in this case? From all the reporting, including Craig Murray's (who's in the public gallery and definitely not on the government side in all this), it seems like the controversial aspects of the trial are based on what's being said in the courtroom rather than physical actions in the courtroom. Is there a suspicion of physical foul play that needs to be monitored and/or guarded against here rather than legal, evidential, or procedural foul play?
- grandinj 6y ago
  Apparently the video-link and audio-link access is atrocious. Making rather a mockery of court's public access requirements
  - londons_explore 6y ago
    I will personally go and install a decent audio and video link for free for the court if it so desires, and I can do it after proceedings tonight and have it ready for tomorrow morning. I can do it for zero cost. Yet, I would bet that if I informed the court of that offer, they would say no.
- noja 6y ago
  The audio link is as good as not being there.
cmiles74 6y ago
Craig Murray has been covering this trial from the public gallery. He certainly has his opinions and I don't want to get in the weeds on that account. He did mention that very few people were allowed in the public gallery, the rest where to sit in a room next door where (he claims) the sound is difficult to hear.[0] My understanding at this point is that the public isn't really allowed access at all. The poor sound quality makes it impossible to understand what is happening, it's not access in the sense that they can follow the proceedings. Craig Murray seemed to be saying that Amnesty International was excluded even from this room. I believe this may be the crux of Amnesty International's complaint. "Rather to our surprise, nobody else was allowed into the public gallery of court 10 but us five. Others like John Pilger and Kristin Hrafnsson, editor in chief of Wikileaks, were shunted into the adjacent court 9 where a very small number were permitted to squint at a tiny screen, on which the sound was so inaudible John Pilger simply left. Many others who had expected to attend, such as Amnesty International and Reporters Without Borders, were simply excluded, as were MPs from the German federal parliament (both the German MPs and Reporters Without Borders at least later got access to the inadequate video following strong representations from the German Embassy)." [0]: https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/09/your-man-in-the-public-gallery-the-assange-hearing-day-6/ https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/09/your-man-in-...
- pricechild 6y ago
  The number seemed to reduce from his reporting on day 9 but day 10's report gives a clarification that there's another room with a few more.
  - boomboomsubban 6y ago
    He clarified "about ten journalists in total." There's also the room for the public, presumably another five, and the two for Assange's family. So seventeen people.
- petre 6y ago
  Yup, I'm sure he'll get a fair trial if the usual suspects are all kicked out of the courthouse /s.
webmaven 6y ago
Given the poor quality (to the point of utter uselessness) of the audio and video links provided by the court for "public access", AI's objection is justified. I hope that one or more folks actually in the room are surreptitiously recording the proceedings so they can be leaked later.
kkarakk 6y ago
i fully expect assange to get life in prison/executed. would be par for the course with how authoritarian governments are getting. Snowden should watch out

272 points by k1m 6y ago

"We've made 3 applications requesting recognition as expert fair trial monitors and all denied" . . . Because it's not a fair trial, it's a sham trial which is being overshadowed by the US Gov't.

mamon 6y ago
Or maybe because Amnesty International are not "expert fair trial monitors"? They are just a politically biased NGO sponsored by one particular Hungarian billionare.
shadowgovt 6y ago
[citation needed]
- mantap 6y ago
  No citation needed. The onus is on the court to prove that the trial is fair. The mechanism for that is allowing the public to observe the proceedings. Otherwise an adverse inference may be drawn.
  - shadowgovt 6y ago
    Fortunately, public observation of the proceedings is allowed. https://twitter.com/JuliaHall18/status/1306197900289019904/photo/1 https://twitter.com/JuliaHall18/status/1306197900289019904/p...
    - salawat 6y ago
      Hitchhiker's Guide logic applies. >"But the plans were on display…” “On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.” >“That’s the display department.” “With a flashlight.” >“Ah, well, the lights had probably gone.” “So had the stairs.” >“But look, you found the notice, didn’t you?” “Yes,” said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard." You can try all you want to hide behind "they had the same access as everyone else, I have no pity at all if they can't take interest in local politics/justice", but at the end of the day it isn't fooling anyone. If the Court were actually, truly trying to maintain it's credibility in the eyes of the international, let alone their national community, rather than refusing to acknowledge there might be a case where "Gee, maybe even the Courts of Great Britain might have a rather momentous occasion on their hands, where concessions are warranted over being territorially pissy because an outsider dares impugn the equanimity of the Court like it were some Third World Tin Pot Kangaroo court needing to be babysat. I"m really not trying to be flippant or dismissive, but given what I've seen of a prevailing English attitude in the post-Brexit age, it just seems like the country has given up on anything remotely resembling living up to it's lofty ideals in anyone else's eyes but their own in the post-Brexit era,and it saddens me as an American to see it. Doubly so, because I've always seen Europe as a brake/foil of sorts for our culture; so please don't think it's coming from a position of the pot calling kettle black so much as a teaball wondering why it is being forced into a Keurig. I certainly know how I expect things to go, but something about the circumstances surrounding what's going on just seems a bit off! For all we in the West have presented ourselves as beacons of Truth, Justice, and "Doing it the Right Way" over the years, it never ceases to amaze me how positively nasty things tend to get once you get someone in the crosshairs of the establishment, and no, I don't at all think that this case is being handled in an impartial manner from back room politics. Trust but Verify doesn't even do this any Justice at all.
- k1m 6y ago
  I don't know what would be a good citation for you, but maybe the International Bar Association ("the global voice of the legal profession"): > With this extradition trial we are witnessing the serious undermining of due process and the rule of law. - https://www.ibanet.org/Article/NewDetail.aspx?ArticleUid=c05c57ee-1fee-47dc-99f9-26824208a750 https://www.ibanet.org/Article/NewDetail.aspx?ArticleUid=c05...
- meroes 6y ago
  https://www.independent.co.uk/news/donald-trump-julian-assange-extradition-hearing-b447768.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/donald-trump-julian-assan...

danielmg 6y ago

No they haven't. They just won't make special provision for them. Is there any recognition in UK law for this role? Can they not watch the same feed as the media?

harry8 6y ago
I believe the issue is that there is a very limited number of public spaces so its elbows out in the scramble for all who want to be there to get them, then things have a way of going wrong so that official observers are, quite accdidentally, shut out from observing. In some countries suddenly a number of off duty policemen decide they want to have those seats for themselves and arrest anyone who doesn't back down when barged out of the way. Of corse it needn't be people as reputable as policemen for it to be organised to occurr that way. In any case the idea is that Justice must not only be done it must be seen to be done. Telling amnesty they are nobodies in the eyes of the courts is not really supporting that.
- PJDK 6y ago
  According to the quote in the tweet itself the proceedings are accessible to them and all other members of the media over a live link. Amnesty really needs to explain why this is not adequate, and if it genuinely is not adequate why the deserve this special access over and above any other party with a strong interest in reporting this case.
  - toyg 6y ago
    Over the course of these hearings, the "live link" has had a habit of breaking up or otherwise become unavailable at short notice, as Craig Murray has reported. This might be entirely coincidental, but regardless, I can see why observers would find it not adequate.
    - PJDK 6y ago
      I'm sure that's annoying, but given the nature of what is being discussed it's hard to come up with a scenario where that has a serious impact on the observation of justice. Not least because if the live feed goes down at the same time as something bad happens that would give an enormous amount of ammunition to Assange's defence team.

harry8 6y ago

This piece of news has been interpreted by user stevespang. the fact his comment is now dead and the fact that Amnesty Interntaional are being denied access to this trial really support his point of view. The comment should not be dead, to be clear about it. I disagree in that I still hope it's merely arrogance and exceptionalism by the UK courts thinking, unlike courts in poorer parts of the world, they are utterly above reproach in all things and so there is no need for Amnesty International at the trial of a publisher who has reported and published evidence of war crimes. For all that arrogance I hope the court will make the correct decisions according to statute and precedence. The job that has been done on Assange has been astonishingly effective. People don't /like/ him enough to notice his rights being removed are precisely their own rights and are removed for all. I put him with Tony Blair, George Bush jnr, Hilary, Donald, Boris as someone I would cross the road to avoid having to talk to - as is my right. It's also my right to note that it matters not at all in defending the rights of all of these people to fair due process because even the worst asshole imaginable's rights are yours and mine. Of my list of assholes above, I think Assange is the only asshole with no evidence to suggest his actions have actually killed anyone at all. Blair and Bush jnr in particular deserve fair trials so they can rigorously defend the extremely prevalent belief that they did kill people, knowingly, making decisions supported with jusification made in bad faith to enable the actions leading to the carnage. I would completely support their rights and Amnesty being present at their trials. The rule of law and equality before it is the most important thing to ensure civilisation continues.

happytoexplain 6y ago
Looking at that user's history, I can't find a single living comment. In just the first few pages are these standout examples of why: "Endless babel from that region of the US we care the least about: NY" "The feminazi apparati found you." This article may be totally reasonable, but your example of an unfairly silenced user doesn't appear to be.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
shadowgovt 6y ago
It reads more like exceptionalism on AI's part. AI: "We demand access to monitor the trial." UK: "You are free to monitor the trial as a member of the public." AI: "No, we demand physical access and the right to a reserved seat to monitor the trial." UK: "From the Crown's point of view, you are a public institution and have the same rank as any other public institution. The auditorium seating is ----> thataway." This is not to say that AI having reserved seating to oversee the trial couldn't be useful, but it's understandable why the UK might choose not to treat them as a privileged observer.

nickt 6y ago

Craig Murray’s notes from the public gallery make for some incredible reading https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/09/your-man-in-the-public-gallery-assange-hearing-day-10/ https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/09/your-man-in-...

nickt 6y ago
Also on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=craigmurray.org.uk https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=craigmurray.org.uk
elliekelly 6y ago
This exchange made me laugh. Cherry picking evidence of cherry picking: > James Lewis QC: You were just fishing about for something, omitting details which counter your opinion. > Eric Lewis: There is a huge amount of data, including from the US Bureau of Prisons. You just picked out one caveat of one report. > James Lewis QC: Please keep your answers concise.
- thaumasiotes 6y ago
  Reminds me of an exchange from Breaking Bad. > Who wants to go next? No judgements, guys. Just say anything and everything that's on your mind. > I just keep asking myself, "Why did this happen?" If there's a God and all, why does He allow all those innocent people to die for no reason? > Keep it secular, honey.

escape_goat 6y ago

This is a tweet. It is, by itself, misleading. It is about a legal matter. The thread of tweets it begins is not an analysis of the legal context of the decision returned to Amnesty International by the judge. Amnesty International has not been "denied access" to the extradition hearing. The judge has declined to provide them with special status and guaranteed access by an AI observer within the courtroom itself. The proceedings will be broadcast live to members of he press in auxiliary room, where AI is apparently welcome. Other comments speculate about various extralegal shenanigans that could occur in such a situation. Information about that might make up a good article, an informative article, that I might be glad to read on HN. However I already have a place where I can indulge in soapboxing in response to tweets, it is called Twitter, and I am not sure that providing redundancy for this activity is a good use of HN.

k1m 6y ago
Many people are concerned about the way this hearing is being carried out. For example, here's the International Bar Association's Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI): > The IBAHRI concurs with the widespread concern over the ill-treatment of Mr Assange. He must be afforded equality in access to effective legal representation. With this extradition trial we are witnessing the serious undermining of due process and the rule of law. It is troubling that Mr Assange has complained that he is unable to hear properly what is being said at his trial, and that because he is locked in a glass cage is prevented from communicating freely with his lawyers during the proceedings commensurate with the prosecution. - https://www.ibanet.org/Article/NewDetail.aspx?ArticleUid=c05c57ee-1fee-47dc-99f9-26824208a750 https://www.ibanet.org/Article/NewDetail.aspx?ArticleUid=c05... As others here, like cmiles74, have mentioned, there are also serious sound issues affecting those who are trying to follow the case. Given all that, it's hardly surprising that Amnesty would be worried and would want access to monitor for themselves.
k1m 6y ago
> The proceedings will be broadcast live to members of he press in auxiliary room, where AI is apparently welcome. They are not welcome: "Denied both" - https://twitter.com/JuliaHall18/status/1306234552088768512 https://twitter.com/JuliaHall18/status/1306234552088768512

tomalpha 6y ago

Is there a real difference between video-link access, and being physically present in this case? From all the reporting, including Craig Murray's (who's in the public gallery and definitely not on the government side in all this), it seems like the controversial aspects of the trial are based on what's being said in the courtroom rather than physical actions in the courtroom. Is there a suspicion of physical foul play that needs to be monitored and/or guarded against here rather than legal, evidential, or procedural foul play?

grandinj 6y ago
Apparently the video-link and audio-link access is atrocious. Making rather a mockery of court's public access requirements
- londons_explore 6y ago
  I will personally go and install a decent audio and video link for free for the court if it so desires, and I can do it after proceedings tonight and have it ready for tomorrow morning. I can do it for zero cost. Yet, I would bet that if I informed the court of that offer, they would say no.
noja 6y ago
The audio link is as good as not being there.

cmiles74 6y ago

Craig Murray has been covering this trial from the public gallery. He certainly has his opinions and I don't want to get in the weeds on that account. He did mention that very few people were allowed in the public gallery, the rest where to sit in a room next door where (he claims) the sound is difficult to hear.[0] My understanding at this point is that the public isn't really allowed access at all. The poor sound quality makes it impossible to understand what is happening, it's not access in the sense that they can follow the proceedings. Craig Murray seemed to be saying that Amnesty International was excluded even from this room. I believe this may be the crux of Amnesty International's complaint. "Rather to our surprise, nobody else was allowed into the public gallery of court 10 but us five. Others like John Pilger and Kristin Hrafnsson, editor in chief of Wikileaks, were shunted into the adjacent court 9 where a very small number were permitted to squint at a tiny screen, on which the sound was so inaudible John Pilger simply left. Many others who had expected to attend, such as Amnesty International and Reporters Without Borders, were simply excluded, as were MPs from the German federal parliament (both the German MPs and Reporters Without Borders at least later got access to the inadequate video following strong representations from the German Embassy)." [0]: https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/09/your-man-in-the-public-gallery-the-assange-hearing-day-6/ https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/09/your-man-in-...

pricechild 6y ago
The number seemed to reduce from his reporting on day 9 but day 10's report gives a clarification that there's another room with a few more.
- boomboomsubban 6y ago
  He clarified "about ten journalists in total." There's also the room for the public, presumably another five, and the two for Assange's family. So seventeen people.
petre 6y ago
Yup, I'm sure he'll get a fair trial if the usual suspects are all kicked out of the courthouse /s.

webmaven 6y ago

Given the poor quality (to the point of utter uselessness) of the audio and video links provided by the court for "public access", AI's objection is justified. I hope that one or more folks actually in the room are surreptitiously recording the proceedings so they can be leaked later.

kkarakk 6y ago

i fully expect assange to get life in prison/executed. would be par for the course with how authoritarian governments are getting. Snowden should watch out