14 ms·

Assange Hearing Day 15

207 points by k1m 6y ago

tyingq 6y ago
Occasionally, there's a pretty good gem in these. This was good, in response to John Lewis questioning a psychiatrist's qualifications: “I have been doing this for over thirty years and on five or six occasions London solicitors have phoned me up and said that James Lewis QC is acting in an extradition case and is extremely keen to get your services for a report. So I think it is a bit rich for you to stand there now questioning my qualifications.” Edit: There's another in there regarding some test called TOMM.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- chronolitus 6y ago
  Here's the TOMM quote for convenience "Lewis [prosecution] again berated Kopelman [psychologist] for not having paid sufficient attention to malingering. Kopelman replied that not only had he used his experience and clinical judgement, but two normative tests had been applied, one of them the TOMM test. Lewis suggested those tests were not for malingering and only the Minnesota test was the standard. At this point Kopelman appeared properly annoyed. He said the Minnesota test was very little used outside the USA. The TOMM test was indeed for malingering. That was why it was called the Test of Memory Malingering. Again there was some laughter in court."
lkdsajflkfdsjg 6y ago
Worth looking at this guy's CV. https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/about-craig-murray/ https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/about-craig-murray/ He seems to be sound.
- mhh__ 6y ago
  Obviously he chooses not to mention that he was fired in his CV https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Murray#Removal_from_post https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Murray#Removal_from_post He has taken some (all I'll say is) differing views on various foreign policy matters, sound is probably pushing it considering he has been consistently contrarian without any evidence (and after more evidence has to light [1]) and consistently wrong. [1] Most obvious would probably be his spat with Bellingcat over the identities of the Skripal poisoners. Other examples include pontificating about the DNC emails
  - tyingq 6y ago
    He apparently was fired for speaking too plainly about Uzbekistan. Not sure that's a ding on the CV. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/oct/22/politics.foreignpolicy https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/oct/22/politics.forei...
  - AllegedAlec 6y ago
    > Obviously he chooses not to mention that he was fired in his That's a rather dishonest point to make, because no one ever mentions in their CV why/how they left a position. Furthermore, if you had actually read your own wikipedia article, you'd have know that he was forced to leave after he refused to be quiet on the government supporting a regime that tortured people and hushed that and extraordinary rendition up in order to appease their American buddies.
henearkr 6y ago
Wow. Again, the contents of the discussions are so obviously in favor of Assange (the accusation being really unfair and... dumb, again and again), and the judge is so clearly in favor of this dumb side. What would be the possible recourse against the verdict, to protest to all these (voluntary) mistakes? Is there any court in UK to which ask to undo and rejudge? The accusation (Lewis) is so manipulative, asking witnesses to agree to assertions out of context and then applying them anywhere, sending them bundles of documents to read urgently the same morning as the trial and then blaming them for not having been able to do it, denying the qualification of all witnesses and experts altogether, etc. The accusation is a representative of a Nation governed by the Rule of Law, isn't it? And what about the judge who is very happy with all these cruel manipulations?
- jonathanstrange 6y ago
  Well, since observers from Amnesty International were denied a place in the hearing and the press largely ignores this, we'll have to do with Craig Murray.
- matthewheath 6y ago
  > What would be the possible recourse against the verdict, to protest to all these (voluntary) mistakes? > Is there any court in UK to which ask to undo and rejudge? Yes. All extradition judgements may be appealed to the High Court of England and Wales (or, where relevant, the equivalent in Scotland). However, such appeals may only be made on a point of law, not fact. For example, the judge misapplying the law is a point of law so the appeal can be heard. However, a rebuttal of fact (e.g. "Mr Assange did not commit the crime he was accused of") would be a point of fact and thus such an appeal could not be heard. Furthermore, if the High Court refuses to hear the appeal or decides against Mr Assange, it can be sent to the Supreme Court. The final route of appeal would lie with the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) if his legal team can prove an Article 3 breach. Assuming Mr Assange loses the case, his team would probably apply for an urgent injunction to the High Court to temporarily prevent him from being extradited during the appeal, then apply for an expedited hearing so his case is heard as quickly as possible.
  - 6y ago
voxic11 6y ago
> Furthermore, Lewis was not representing his own views but speaking on the direct instructions of the government of the United States of America. Throughout a full four hours, Lewis on behalf of the government of the USA not only evinced no understanding whatsoever of mental illness, he never once, not for one second, showed one single sign that mental illness a subject taken seriously or for which there is the tiniest element of human sympathy and concern. Not just for Julian, but for any sufferer. Mental illness is malingering or if real disqualifies you from any role in society; no other view was expressed. He made plain on behalf of the US Government, for example, that Julian’s past history of mental illness in Australia will not be taken into account because the medical records have been destroyed.
- megous 6y ago
  Yeah, today's conclusion is quite something. "Look not only at the words themselves, but also on what's demonstrated by the speaker" should really be part of the judgment at the end.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
lukeramsden 6y ago
Makes me livid just reading about this, and other such happenings in my country - but as just a regular Northern tech worker, what on Earth can I do about it? My mother was in London at the weekend and said there were people outside the Old Bailey chanting "Free Assange", but not many. What can one do in the face of what seems to me to be flagrantly violating our own "justice system" to pander to the Americans?
- chmod775 6y ago
  What do people - whose Government is acting against their wishes, outside their control and who are without recourse by means of the judiciary - what do they usually do? And no I'm not saying one needs to go all the way to revolution, but people have brought countries to a halt over less important matters. Look at the french! It was fucking gas prices(!) the last time they set things on fire. I don't necessarily agree with the goals of all groups of people rioting and going on strikes recently, but nonetheless it's a healthy thing to have now and then. Reminds those in power who they are beholden to. Without a good scare now and then they might get ideas - and they will - just look at countries where it's been altogether too quiet in recent history: "When the preferences of economic elites and the stands of organized interest groups are controlled for, the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy." https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/fi...
  - edoceo 6y ago
    Liberté, égalité, fraternité That is to say: revolution. An assault on the aristocracy
  - lukeramsden 6y ago
    The issue I see is that most of the populous don't even know or hear about, never mind understand, what's going on and what's being done to them - because if it's not in the media (Sun, Mail, Standard, Telegraph, etc) then as far as most of the country is concerned it either doesn't exist, is a conspiracy theory, or is Russian bots causing trouble. How do you rise up when it's your own people, not just your government and media, trying to pull you back down?
markx2 6y ago
"I will state firmly and resolutely that my account has been truthful. I do not claim it has been impartial." I believe Craig Murray's account because 1. He could be called out at any time for any fabrication 2. There is no, literally zero, mainstream news sites reporting this trial in any depth whatsoever. The Guardian. Happy to break his orginal news and happy also to bow to the UK Govt in keeping pretty much silent on trial. Yes, they have mentioned it is happening, but they say little else. My faith in UK journalism is zero. They are servants of the Govt.
- boredumb 6y ago
  Come to the US where our journalists are definitely not servants or beholden to any of the two particular political parties of our government.
  - swarnie_ 6y ago
    I've tried watching a few different US news channels over the years. I think the most insulting part was that you actually call it "News" I'm not one to throw random, overused terms around the internet but your most popular channel (Fox) is literal propaganda and social conditioning.
    - Liquix 6y ago
      All of the three-letter networks are the same. Modern 'news' is a concoction of outrage porn and propaganda designed to keep us watching at all costs. Political polarization is at an all-time high. It's a mess
      - m12k 6y ago
        You think CNN and Fox are the same? I mean sure, CNN didn't exactly report critically on any of the Iraq wars, and I'm sure there's lots of pro-gov and pro-corporate stuff like that. But Fox is literally a propaganda channel for one of the two political parties, only barely masquerading as news.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

207 points by k1m 6y ago

Occasionally, there's a pretty good gem in these. This was good, in response to John Lewis questioning a psychiatrist's qualifications: “I have been doing this for over thirty years and on five or six occasions London solicitors have phoned me up and said that James Lewis QC is acting in an extradition case and is extremely keen to get your services for a report. So I think it is a bit rich for you to stand there now questioning my qualifications.” Edit: There's another in there regarding some test called TOMM.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
chronolitus 6y ago
Here's the TOMM quote for convenience "Lewis [prosecution] again berated Kopelman [psychologist] for not having paid sufficient attention to malingering. Kopelman replied that not only had he used his experience and clinical judgement, but two normative tests had been applied, one of them the TOMM test. Lewis suggested those tests were not for malingering and only the Minnesota test was the standard. At this point Kopelman appeared properly annoyed. He said the Minnesota test was very little used outside the USA. The TOMM test was indeed for malingering. That was why it was called the Test of Memory Malingering. Again there was some laughter in court."

lkdsajflkfdsjg 6y ago

Worth looking at this guy's CV. https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/about-craig-murray/ https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/about-craig-murray/ He seems to be sound.

mhh__ 6y ago
Obviously he chooses not to mention that he was fired in his CV https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Murray#Removal_from_post https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Murray#Removal_from_post He has taken some (all I'll say is) differing views on various foreign policy matters, sound is probably pushing it considering he has been consistently contrarian without any evidence (and after more evidence has to light [1]) and consistently wrong. [1] Most obvious would probably be his spat with Bellingcat over the identities of the Skripal poisoners. Other examples include pontificating about the DNC emails
- tyingq 6y ago
  He apparently was fired for speaking too plainly about Uzbekistan. Not sure that's a ding on the CV. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/oct/22/politics.foreignpolicy https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/oct/22/politics.forei...
- AllegedAlec 6y ago
  > Obviously he chooses not to mention that he was fired in his That's a rather dishonest point to make, because no one ever mentions in their CV why/how they left a position. Furthermore, if you had actually read your own wikipedia article, you'd have know that he was forced to leave after he refused to be quiet on the government supporting a regime that tortured people and hushed that and extraordinary rendition up in order to appease their American buddies.

henearkr 6y ago

Wow. Again, the contents of the discussions are so obviously in favor of Assange (the accusation being really unfair and... dumb, again and again), and the judge is so clearly in favor of this dumb side. What would be the possible recourse against the verdict, to protest to all these (voluntary) mistakes? Is there any court in UK to which ask to undo and rejudge? The accusation (Lewis) is so manipulative, asking witnesses to agree to assertions out of context and then applying them anywhere, sending them bundles of documents to read urgently the same morning as the trial and then blaming them for not having been able to do it, denying the qualification of all witnesses and experts altogether, etc. The accusation is a representative of a Nation governed by the Rule of Law, isn't it? And what about the judge who is very happy with all these cruel manipulations?

jonathanstrange 6y ago
Well, since observers from Amnesty International were denied a place in the hearing and the press largely ignores this, we'll have to do with Craig Murray.
matthewheath 6y ago
> What would be the possible recourse against the verdict, to protest to all these (voluntary) mistakes? > Is there any court in UK to which ask to undo and rejudge? Yes. All extradition judgements may be appealed to the High Court of England and Wales (or, where relevant, the equivalent in Scotland). However, such appeals may only be made on a point of law, not fact. For example, the judge misapplying the law is a point of law so the appeal can be heard. However, a rebuttal of fact (e.g. "Mr Assange did not commit the crime he was accused of") would be a point of fact and thus such an appeal could not be heard. Furthermore, if the High Court refuses to hear the appeal or decides against Mr Assange, it can be sent to the Supreme Court. The final route of appeal would lie with the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) if his legal team can prove an Article 3 breach. Assuming Mr Assange loses the case, his team would probably apply for an urgent injunction to the High Court to temporarily prevent him from being extradited during the appeal, then apply for an expedited hearing so his case is heard as quickly as possible.
- 6y ago

voxic11 6y ago

> Furthermore, Lewis was not representing his own views but speaking on the direct instructions of the government of the United States of America. Throughout a full four hours, Lewis on behalf of the government of the USA not only evinced no understanding whatsoever of mental illness, he never once, not for one second, showed one single sign that mental illness a subject taken seriously or for which there is the tiniest element of human sympathy and concern. Not just for Julian, but for any sufferer. Mental illness is malingering or if real disqualifies you from any role in society; no other view was expressed. He made plain on behalf of the US Government, for example, that Julian’s past history of mental illness in Australia will not be taken into account because the medical records have been destroyed.

megous 6y ago
Yeah, today's conclusion is quite something. "Look not only at the words themselves, but also on what's demonstrated by the speaker" should really be part of the judgment at the end.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

lukeramsden 6y ago

Makes me livid just reading about this, and other such happenings in my country - but as just a regular Northern tech worker, what on Earth can I do about it? My mother was in London at the weekend and said there were people outside the Old Bailey chanting "Free Assange", but not many. What can one do in the face of what seems to me to be flagrantly violating our own "justice system" to pander to the Americans?

chmod775 6y ago
What do people - whose Government is acting against their wishes, outside their control and who are without recourse by means of the judiciary - what do they usually do? And no I'm not saying one needs to go all the way to revolution, but people have brought countries to a halt over less important matters. Look at the french! It was fucking gas prices(!) the last time they set things on fire. I don't necessarily agree with the goals of all groups of people rioting and going on strikes recently, but nonetheless it's a healthy thing to have now and then. Reminds those in power who they are beholden to. Without a good scare now and then they might get ideas - and they will - just look at countries where it's been altogether too quiet in recent history: "When the preferences of economic elites and the stands of organized interest groups are controlled for, the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy." https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/fi...
- edoceo 6y ago
  Liberté, égalité, fraternité That is to say: revolution. An assault on the aristocracy
- lukeramsden 6y ago
  The issue I see is that most of the populous don't even know or hear about, never mind understand, what's going on and what's being done to them - because if it's not in the media (Sun, Mail, Standard, Telegraph, etc) then as far as most of the country is concerned it either doesn't exist, is a conspiracy theory, or is Russian bots causing trouble. How do you rise up when it's your own people, not just your government and media, trying to pull you back down?

markx2 6y ago

"I will state firmly and resolutely that my account has been truthful. I do not claim it has been impartial." I believe Craig Murray's account because 1. He could be called out at any time for any fabrication 2. There is no, literally zero, mainstream news sites reporting this trial in any depth whatsoever. The Guardian. Happy to break his orginal news and happy also to bow to the UK Govt in keeping pretty much silent on trial. Yes, they have mentioned it is happening, but they say little else. My faith in UK journalism is zero. They are servants of the Govt.

boredumb 6y ago
Come to the US where our journalists are definitely not servants or beholden to any of the two particular political parties of our government.
- swarnie_ 6y ago
  I've tried watching a few different US news channels over the years. I think the most insulting part was that you actually call it "News" I'm not one to throw random, overused terms around the internet but your most popular channel (Fox) is literal propaganda and social conditioning.
  - Liquix 6y ago
    All of the three-letter networks are the same. Modern 'news' is a concoction of outrage porn and propaganda designed to keep us watching at all costs. Political polarization is at an all-time high. It's a mess
    - m12k 6y ago
      You think CNN and Fox are the same? I mean sure, CNN didn't exactly report critically on any of the Iraq wars, and I'm sure there's lots of pro-gov and pro-corporate stuff like that. But Fox is literally a propaganda channel for one of the two political parties, only barely masquerading as news.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]