30 ms·

Assange Hearing Day 16

352 points by jjgreen 6y ago

DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
The judge says that closing arguments are irrelevant, because the opening statements were thorough enough. Why are they even going through the charade of witnesses testimony, cross examination, etc. then? > On Wednesday the trap sprang shut, as Judge Baraitser insisted the witnesses must finish next week, and that no time would be permitted for preparation of closing arguments, which must be heard the immediate following Monday. This brought the closest the defence have come to a protest, with the defence pointing out they have still not addressed the new superseding indictment, and that the judge refused their request for an adjournment before witness hearings started, to give them time to do so. > Edward Fitzgerald QC for the defence also pointed out that there had been numerous witnesses whose evidence had to be taken into account, and the written closing submissions had to be physically prepared with reference to the transcripts and other supporting evidence from the trial. Baraitser countered that the defence had given her 200 pages of opening argument and she did not see that much more could be needed.
- rbanffy 6y ago
  One might wonder why go through these hearings at all, since it was obviously decided a long time ago that Assange would be extradited to the US.
  - implements 6y ago
    Well, the defence is trying to turn the process into a “make the hearing about literally everything” three-ring circus, and the prosecution’s countering with “there’s a case to answer and the USA meets the required judicial standards”. On balance, don’t you think JA has had a fair opportunity - particularly given the sheer amount of court time and media attention he’s had over the last ten years?
    - DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
      Everyone knows the prosecution is politically motivated, which rules out extradition under the US-UK treaty. You know it, I know it, the judge knows it. Yet everyone also thinks the judge made up her mind (and probably wrote her ruling) before the proceedings began. Not even giving the defense time to prepare a closing statement just underlines this. This is the sort of trial you're used to hearing about in banana republics.
      - implements 6y ago
        But the US system incorporates a political viewpoint deliberately as part of what it considers justice in the public interest. We, the UK, don’t decline extraditions on that basis - the prosecution has to be manifestly unjust in the sense of no real case to answer, or the destination has to literally be a banana republic. Supporters may hate this, but it’s not actually what’s at issue at this point in the legal process. Yeah, obviously “he’s going down” but not because of bias - he’s simply not exceptional (or motivationally pure) enough to be above the system.
        DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
        > We, the UK, don’t decline extraditions on that basis The UK is required by the terms of the treaty to decline extradition on that basis. From the treaty,[1] > extradition shall not be granted if the competent authority of the Requested State determines that the request was politically motivated. There's no doubt about the political nature of the prosecution, so there's no doubt about what the outcome should be, unless there are extra-legal considerations at play in the decision. We're all watching the answer to the following question be played out in real time: "Will the UK extradite a person for politically motivated prosecution in the US, in flagrant violation of the UK-US extradition treaty?" 1. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/243246/7146.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
        tome 6y ago
  - DSingularity 6y ago
    Because it is easy to do and takes away the argument that he was extradited without even a hearing. Even though he really did not get a hearing. Soon the US will lock this man where he can’t talk with anyone. In a few years this judge will probably be promoted. Everyone is happy.
- zaarn 6y ago
  It's an extradition hearing, not a court case or hearing. The judge only has to establish a few things: A) is it likely that the accused will not face a fair trial (this has to be proven, the burden of proof is on the accused to do this) B) the accused likely faces the death penalty (it is insufficient if death penalty exists or it is unlikely they will face it) C) they're being accused of something that is a crime in the UK as well D) the accusation goes beyond simple doubt (this requires no actual proof, only that there is enough proof to run a court case) There are time limits to extradition hearings, they're not supposed to replace a proper trial and they are not a proper trial.
  - nwsm 6y ago
    I'm not really understanding the four points. A and B would be reasons not to extradite, while C and D would be reasons to extradite.
    - zaarn 6y ago
      Correct yes, I thought that was fairly obvious. Generally if A or B are true, then C and D don't matter but if A or B can't be proven then there is very little formality in this kind of hearing.
  - DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
    And E) That the charges are not politically motivated. If they they are (as everyone knows they are), then the UK-US extradition treaty is very clear that the extradition request has to be denied:[1] > extradition shall not be granted if the competent authority of the Requested State determines that the request was politically motivated. But in order to determine any of these issues, surely the testimony given over the past weeks is relevant. The judge has effectively said that it is irrelevant. 1. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/243246/7146.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
    - nullc 6y ago
      I don't understand why this post is greyed out. It's factual, informative, (apparently) cites the relevant treaty, and it is not flame-bait. The requirement that the extradition not be politically motivated is an important one that was omitted from the above list. One could argue that the conclusion that the material the judge considered 'irrelevant' is material relevant to the above is a subjective opinion. Fortunately, DiogenesKynikos linked the treaty so we can evaluate this for ourselves.
lbj 6y ago
He claims that both Twitter and Facebook are severely throttling traffic to his site. Why? On who's request?
- Synaesthesia 6y ago
  It's possible they just decided to do it out of their own accord.
  - DSingularity 6y ago
    Just like how Facebook regularly take down Palestinian posts which mention resistance — no way it’s at the behest of the Israeli occupation, right? I mean these are unverified claims and conspiracies. The traffic, however regular, must have just fizzled away. The posts must have spontaneously disappeared.
- pjc50 6y ago
  Kind of an unverifiable claim, surely? Mind you, I've heard claims that if you're getting too much "organic" reach on Facebook they'll de-prioritise you in order to make sure you buy adverts, in the context of completely apolitical small business promotion.
  - spiderfarmer 6y ago
    That's absolutely true. Whenever one of the daily posts on my Facebook page does well, I have to stop posting for a couple of days because the next posts are throttled to the point where they are invisible. Most people will have to go to my page specifically in order to see the post, because it will not show in their timeline organically. After a couple of days of not posting I will get a normal amount of views again.
  - noworriesnate 6y ago
    In the article he mentions that his own family isn't even getting notifications about his posts. So he verified it. I don't know how you and I would go about verifying it, but I believe him FWIW. > My own family have not been getting their notifications of my posts on either platform.
pcdoodle 6y ago
Anyone know how we can help him?
- Simon_says 6y ago
  Not much you can do. If you're American, you could try to find which presidential candidate wants to pardon Assange and then vote for her.
  - doublesCs 6y ago
    Reportedly, Trump said he would pardon Assange if Assange gave him Hillary's emails.
    - mhh__ 6y ago
      The report was that he offered to pardon him in exchange for saying "who" the emails were from. They already had the emails - that's what Stone and Assange were doing together
      - doublesCs 6y ago
        Ok, thank you for the correction. Even better would be offering a link :-)
        HugeAcumen 6y ago
        ... What? You didn't offer a link for your claim; why would you ask for a link to a fact easily findable in the search engine of your choice?
        mhh__ 6y ago
        Mueller report, and the recent senate report/committee result which I'm not sure of the name of. The thing with the pardon is from Assange's lawyer IIRC
        6y ago
blueterminal 6y ago
I wonder whether we'll ever get Assange to give an interview? Him on Joe Rogan would be amazing. Of course that will never happen.
- boomboomsubban 6y ago
  He gave tons of interviews while trapped in the embassy, and I can't imagine the past few months in prison changed much of what he would say.
  - kawsper 6y ago
    I like to watch this Juice Rap News episode from 2013 about the Australian election, by the end Julian appears from the Ecuadorian embassy and he does some singing (voice-over, but his expressions are priceless): https://youtu.be/QWU6tVxzO1I?t=209 https://youtu.be/QWU6tVxzO1I?t=209 It's very easy to forget the human behind the name in these cases.
- geowwy 6y ago
  Assange is very likely going away for life.
  - mantap 6y ago
    I don't share your pessimism. This is clearly a political extradition and it will be seen as such by the UK Supreme Court.
tyingq 6y ago
The prosecuter's attempts to characterize a Federal Supermax prison as a humane experience are frustrating. They notably use solitary confinement very liberally. Solitary confinement for extended periods very clearly is torture, with severe, negative psychological effects The Wikipedia excerpt on ADX Florence: "As of September 2020, there are 356 prisoners. They are confined 23 hours per day in single cells with facilities made of poured concrete to deter self-harm, and 24-hour supervision, carried out intensively with high staff-inmate ratios. Phones are generally banned, and only limited broadcast entertainment is permitted. After three years in maximum confinement, some prisoners may be transferred to a less restrictive prison." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADX_Florence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADX_Florence
- colinmhayes 6y ago
  Can't overstate how grotesquely inhumane solitary is. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/solitary-nation/ https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/solitary-nation/
  - tyingq 6y ago
    Transcript if you don't want video: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/solitary-nation/transcript/ https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/solitary-nation/tran...
- gamblor956 6y ago
  Supermax prisons are for prisoners that are violent or are capable of organizing violence: mass murderers, terrorists, high-sec prisoners (like cartel leaders), or those with a long streak of violent crimes against security guards or other inmates. Generally, most Supermax prisoners are housed in solitary confinement because it is not safe for other prisoners to be near them because of their propensity to engage in acts of violence against their fellow inmates. (Note: in many state prisons, solitary is used for punishment; this is not allowed at the federal level.)
  - tyingq 6y ago
raxxorrax 6y ago
The UK justice system looks like a complete joke to be honest.
- gibspaulding 6y ago
  Reading through this, I couldn't help thinking of a line from Hogan's Heroes: "I will see to it that you receive a fair trial, after which you will be shot."
- sneak 6y ago
  Oh, if you want to see kangaroo court, just wait until he’s extradited. He’s about to have one hell of a show trial in Virginia while they torture him to death. The whole thing is so sad.
  - DarkWiiPlayer 6y ago
    Assuming he survives until the trial, that is.
    - RocketOne 6y ago
      There is a distinct possibility that he will 'Jeffrey Epstein' while in custody and he's very well aware of that.
      - boomboomsubban 6y ago
        Or he will kill himself, the past few days of testimony have made it clear he sees suicide as a better option than US prison.
  - brokenmachine 6y ago
    >one hell of a 𝚜̶𝚑̶𝚘̶𝚠̶ secret 𝚝̶𝚛̶𝚒̶𝚊̶𝚕̶ summary judgement FTFY
- DarkWiiPlayer 6y ago
  At this point I'm honestly thinking the EU should just stop negotiating with them and let them go. We don't want barbarians that torture political prisoners, let them be friends with Russia and China instead.
wil421 6y ago
> Even my blog has never been so systematically subject to shadowbanning from Twitter and Facebook as now. Normally about 50% of my blog readers arrive from Twitter and 40% from Facebook. During the trial it has been 3% from Twitter and 9% from Facebook. That is a fall from 90% to 12%. In the February hearings Facebook and Twitter were between them sending me over 200,000 readers a day. Now they are between them sending me 3,000 readers a day. To be plain that is very much less than my normal daily traffic from them just in ordinary times. It is the insidious nature of this censorship that is especially sinister – people believe they have successfully shared my articles on Twitter and Facebook, while those corporations hide from them that in fact it went into nobody’s timeline. My own family have not been getting their notifications of my posts on either platform. The last sentence is what strikes me the most. Maybe he was being paranoid but if your own family is telling you they are not getting a notification then something is wrong.
- andy_ppp 6y ago
  So is there a conspiracy here or has this guy’s blog just been flagged innocently. I had no idea shadow banning on these platforms existed, it’s extremely scary that they are shaping debate this way silently.
  - kortex 6y ago
    I have little evidence, but if someone asked me to risk my life on the existence of shadowbanning/post nerfing on facebook, yep I'd risk it. They are constantly mucking with what's presented. Not long ago, my feed was pretty well distributed across my few hundred friends. As of maybe a few months ago, it's the same circle of ~20 similar-minded friends. At the expense even of showing me the same post I've seen for 5 days straight. The people that engage my posts are always a cohort, with 90% overlap with my feed. I swear there are also things which boost/nerf exposure based on sentiment analysis. I'm an infrequent user cause it's kinda addicting (infinite scroll) and also this echo chamber trash.
    - martin_a 6y ago
      > At the expense even of showing me the same post I've seen for 5 days straight. I found that LinkedIn is great at this, too. I regularly see posts from contacts in my feed that are three weeks old and that I've never seen before. edit: LinkedIn will also shadowban your posts if they contain words from a blacklist. Just this morning a contact complained about that. He was very happy about being engaged as a speaker and wrote in a post "Das ist schon sehr geil [...]". While "geil" means "horny", especially younger Germans use that word without the sexual connotation but as a replacement for "great". His post reached only a few dozen people instead of hundreds, as normally. edit: "Das ist schon sehr geil" could be translated as "That's really great indeed"
Tycho 6y ago
Remember all the people, including HN commenters, who said he should just turn himself in and clear his name in court in Sweden. Only conspiracy theorists believed that powerful authorities were gunning for him behind the scenes.
- tome 6y ago
  It seems clear that the US would always try to make a case against him. I'm not sure how anyone could think otherwise.
  - Cthulhu_ 6y ago
    Making a case is just the public show, I honestly wouldn't be surprised if instead they just wanted to make him disappear. They know that he / wikileaks have got more material / dirt on the US though, and that if he were to disappear that material would be unlocked (dead man's switch). So for now the illusion of due process is maintained.
  - linuxftw 6y ago
    The US doesn't need to make a case against him. They just need to make an accusation in most cases, and that's enough to extradite. What you're missing is, the US has the ability to declare him an enemy combatant, and stuff him in Guantanamo Bay. The US claims there is no right to due process there. The US Gov could lock him away forever with no trial and that's that.
- ben_w 6y ago
  It is entirely self-consistent to say both that he should’ve faced his accusers in Sweden and that the American charges look like an outrageous attempt to stifle legitime journalism. I don’t see how it is self-consistent to say Sweden would’ve been more dangerous than the UK, when it is the conduct of the UK that led to condemnation by the UN and Amnesty International, and the UK is currently in the process of considering his extradition to the USA. My own personal belief (which is merely at the level of “well I reckon“), is that he probably did the Sweden crimes, and also that the prosecution only even attempted because he was also a political thorn. This belief is based partly on the surveys which show that an enormous number of women have been sexually assaulted and also that they don’t generally report this to the police, partly on his behaviour. It is also partly based on the fact that — as is currently being demonstrated by the very extradition hearing currently occurring — the US is quite capable of extraditing him directly from the UK without going via Sweden.
stefantalpalaru 6y ago
Another report that points out some interesting legal precedents involving Lauri Love and Gary McKinnon: https://shadowproof.com/2020/09/23/doctor-assange-aspergers-prison-extradition-trial/ https://shadowproof.com/2020/09/23/doctor-assange-aspergers-...
piokoch 6y ago
I don't understand what is the purpose of this theater? Is there any doubt that UK will send Assange to the US? Why bother doing this kind of show, where it is not "legal" to say that US tortures people in their concentration camp in Guantanamo Bay (see Day 14) and judge together with prosecution try to get rid of witnesses.
- torified 6y ago
  The whole charade is to enable a future army of lobotomized bootlickers the confidence to proclaim, "he had his time in court", long after all the barely-reported injustices in the proceedings of this kangaroo court have been forgotten. It would also serve as a warning against any possible future martyrs who might intend to rely on the law to protect them for doing the right thing by reporting on the ruling classes criminality. This whole farce also cements the US spot as world police, when an Australian citizen can be disappeared for not following US law when not even in the US, and their UK lap-dog just cowers in the corner begging for more table scraps. "Nothing to see here, move along citizen. Don't give me a reason to check your permanent record for wrongthink."
iamshs 6y ago
"Evan Whitton wrote that Australia and other British colonies (India, Canada, NZ, US) inherited a legal system, not a justice system. It is an adversarial system constructed by casuist lawyers. Europe (and Japan) has an inquisitorial system which seeks the truth first." https://twitter.com/QuentinDempster/status/1247662251210760193 https://twitter.com/QuentinDempster/status/12476622512107601... https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/06/americas-english-style-legal-system-evolved-to-conceal-truth-not-reveal-it/258417/ https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/06/am... https://independentaustralia.net/life/life-display/our-corrupt-legal-system-only-benefits-lawyers-and-rich-criminals,3821 https://independentaustralia.net/life/life-display/our-corru...

352 points by jjgreen 6y ago

The judge says that closing arguments are irrelevant, because the opening statements were thorough enough. Why are they even going through the charade of witnesses testimony, cross examination, etc. then? > On Wednesday the trap sprang shut, as Judge Baraitser insisted the witnesses must finish next week, and that no time would be permitted for preparation of closing arguments, which must be heard the immediate following Monday. This brought the closest the defence have come to a protest, with the defence pointing out they have still not addressed the new superseding indictment, and that the judge refused their request for an adjournment before witness hearings started, to give them time to do so. > Edward Fitzgerald QC for the defence also pointed out that there had been numerous witnesses whose evidence had to be taken into account, and the written closing submissions had to be physically prepared with reference to the transcripts and other supporting evidence from the trial. Baraitser countered that the defence had given her 200 pages of opening argument and she did not see that much more could be needed.

rbanffy 6y ago
One might wonder why go through these hearings at all, since it was obviously decided a long time ago that Assange would be extradited to the US.
- implements 6y ago
  Well, the defence is trying to turn the process into a “make the hearing about literally everything” three-ring circus, and the prosecution’s countering with “there’s a case to answer and the USA meets the required judicial standards”. On balance, don’t you think JA has had a fair opportunity - particularly given the sheer amount of court time and media attention he’s had over the last ten years?
  - DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
    Everyone knows the prosecution is politically motivated, which rules out extradition under the US-UK treaty. You know it, I know it, the judge knows it. Yet everyone also thinks the judge made up her mind (and probably wrote her ruling) before the proceedings began. Not even giving the defense time to prepare a closing statement just underlines this. This is the sort of trial you're used to hearing about in banana republics.
    - implements 6y ago
      But the US system incorporates a political viewpoint deliberately as part of what it considers justice in the public interest. We, the UK, don’t decline extraditions on that basis - the prosecution has to be manifestly unjust in the sense of no real case to answer, or the destination has to literally be a banana republic. Supporters may hate this, but it’s not actually what’s at issue at this point in the legal process. Yeah, obviously “he’s going down” but not because of bias - he’s simply not exceptional (or motivationally pure) enough to be above the system.
      - DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
        > We, the UK, don’t decline extraditions on that basis The UK is required by the terms of the treaty to decline extradition on that basis. From the treaty,[1] > extradition shall not be granted if the competent authority of the Requested State determines that the request was politically motivated. There's no doubt about the political nature of the prosecution, so there's no doubt about what the outcome should be, unless there are extra-legal considerations at play in the decision. We're all watching the answer to the following question be played out in real time: "Will the UK extradite a person for politically motivated prosecution in the US, in flagrant violation of the UK-US extradition treaty?" 1. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/243246/7146.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
        tome 6y ago
- DSingularity 6y ago
  Because it is easy to do and takes away the argument that he was extradited without even a hearing. Even though he really did not get a hearing. Soon the US will lock this man where he can’t talk with anyone. In a few years this judge will probably be promoted. Everyone is happy.
zaarn 6y ago
It's an extradition hearing, not a court case or hearing. The judge only has to establish a few things: A) is it likely that the accused will not face a fair trial (this has to be proven, the burden of proof is on the accused to do this) B) the accused likely faces the death penalty (it is insufficient if death penalty exists or it is unlikely they will face it) C) they're being accused of something that is a crime in the UK as well D) the accusation goes beyond simple doubt (this requires no actual proof, only that there is enough proof to run a court case) There are time limits to extradition hearings, they're not supposed to replace a proper trial and they are not a proper trial.
- nwsm 6y ago
  I'm not really understanding the four points. A and B would be reasons not to extradite, while C and D would be reasons to extradite.
  - zaarn 6y ago
    Correct yes, I thought that was fairly obvious. Generally if A or B are true, then C and D don't matter but if A or B can't be proven then there is very little formality in this kind of hearing.
- DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
  And E) That the charges are not politically motivated. If they they are (as everyone knows they are), then the UK-US extradition treaty is very clear that the extradition request has to be denied:[1] > extradition shall not be granted if the competent authority of the Requested State determines that the request was politically motivated. But in order to determine any of these issues, surely the testimony given over the past weeks is relevant. The judge has effectively said that it is irrelevant. 1. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/243246/7146.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
  - nullc 6y ago
    I don't understand why this post is greyed out. It's factual, informative, (apparently) cites the relevant treaty, and it is not flame-bait. The requirement that the extradition not be politically motivated is an important one that was omitted from the above list. One could argue that the conclusion that the material the judge considered 'irrelevant' is material relevant to the above is a subjective opinion. Fortunately, DiogenesKynikos linked the treaty so we can evaluate this for ourselves.

lbj 6y ago

He claims that both Twitter and Facebook are severely throttling traffic to his site. Why? On who's request?

Synaesthesia 6y ago
It's possible they just decided to do it out of their own accord.
- DSingularity 6y ago
  Just like how Facebook regularly take down Palestinian posts which mention resistance — no way it’s at the behest of the Israeli occupation, right? I mean these are unverified claims and conspiracies. The traffic, however regular, must have just fizzled away. The posts must have spontaneously disappeared.
pjc50 6y ago
Kind of an unverifiable claim, surely? Mind you, I've heard claims that if you're getting too much "organic" reach on Facebook they'll de-prioritise you in order to make sure you buy adverts, in the context of completely apolitical small business promotion.
- spiderfarmer 6y ago
  That's absolutely true. Whenever one of the daily posts on my Facebook page does well, I have to stop posting for a couple of days because the next posts are throttled to the point where they are invisible. Most people will have to go to my page specifically in order to see the post, because it will not show in their timeline organically. After a couple of days of not posting I will get a normal amount of views again.
- noworriesnate 6y ago
  In the article he mentions that his own family isn't even getting notifications about his posts. So he verified it. I don't know how you and I would go about verifying it, but I believe him FWIW. > My own family have not been getting their notifications of my posts on either platform.

pcdoodle 6y ago

Anyone know how we can help him?

Simon_says 6y ago
Not much you can do. If you're American, you could try to find which presidential candidate wants to pardon Assange and then vote for her.
- doublesCs 6y ago
  Reportedly, Trump said he would pardon Assange if Assange gave him Hillary's emails.
  - mhh__ 6y ago
    The report was that he offered to pardon him in exchange for saying "who" the emails were from. They already had the emails - that's what Stone and Assange were doing together
    - doublesCs 6y ago
      Ok, thank you for the correction. Even better would be offering a link :-)
      - HugeAcumen 6y ago
        ... What? You didn't offer a link for your claim; why would you ask for a link to a fact easily findable in the search engine of your choice?
      - mhh__ 6y ago
        Mueller report, and the recent senate report/committee result which I'm not sure of the name of. The thing with the pardon is from Assange's lawyer IIRC
        6y ago

blueterminal 6y ago

I wonder whether we'll ever get Assange to give an interview? Him on Joe Rogan would be amazing. Of course that will never happen.

boomboomsubban 6y ago
He gave tons of interviews while trapped in the embassy, and I can't imagine the past few months in prison changed much of what he would say.
- kawsper 6y ago
  I like to watch this Juice Rap News episode from 2013 about the Australian election, by the end Julian appears from the Ecuadorian embassy and he does some singing (voice-over, but his expressions are priceless): https://youtu.be/QWU6tVxzO1I?t=209 https://youtu.be/QWU6tVxzO1I?t=209 It's very easy to forget the human behind the name in these cases.
geowwy 6y ago
Assange is very likely going away for life.
- mantap 6y ago
  I don't share your pessimism. This is clearly a political extradition and it will be seen as such by the UK Supreme Court.

tyingq 6y ago

The prosecuter's attempts to characterize a Federal Supermax prison as a humane experience are frustrating. They notably use solitary confinement very liberally. Solitary confinement for extended periods very clearly is torture, with severe, negative psychological effects The Wikipedia excerpt on ADX Florence: "As of September 2020, there are 356 prisoners. They are confined 23 hours per day in single cells with facilities made of poured concrete to deter self-harm, and 24-hour supervision, carried out intensively with high staff-inmate ratios. Phones are generally banned, and only limited broadcast entertainment is permitted. After three years in maximum confinement, some prisoners may be transferred to a less restrictive prison." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADX_Florence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADX_Florence

colinmhayes 6y ago
Can't overstate how grotesquely inhumane solitary is. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/solitary-nation/ https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/solitary-nation/
- tyingq 6y ago
  Transcript if you don't want video: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/solitary-nation/transcript/ https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/solitary-nation/tran...
gamblor956 6y ago
Supermax prisons are for prisoners that are violent or are capable of organizing violence: mass murderers, terrorists, high-sec prisoners (like cartel leaders), or those with a long streak of violent crimes against security guards or other inmates. Generally, most Supermax prisoners are housed in solitary confinement because it is not safe for other prisoners to be near them because of their propensity to engage in acts of violence against their fellow inmates. (Note: in many state prisons, solitary is used for punishment; this is not allowed at the federal level.)
- tyingq 6y ago

raxxorrax 6y ago

The UK justice system looks like a complete joke to be honest.

gibspaulding 6y ago
Reading through this, I couldn't help thinking of a line from Hogan's Heroes: "I will see to it that you receive a fair trial, after which you will be shot."
sneak 6y ago
Oh, if you want to see kangaroo court, just wait until he’s extradited. He’s about to have one hell of a show trial in Virginia while they torture him to death. The whole thing is so sad.
- DarkWiiPlayer 6y ago
  Assuming he survives until the trial, that is.
  - RocketOne 6y ago
    There is a distinct possibility that he will 'Jeffrey Epstein' while in custody and he's very well aware of that.
    - boomboomsubban 6y ago
      Or he will kill himself, the past few days of testimony have made it clear he sees suicide as a better option than US prison.
- brokenmachine 6y ago
  >one hell of a 𝚜̶𝚑̶𝚘̶𝚠̶ secret 𝚝̶𝚛̶𝚒̶𝚊̶𝚕̶ summary judgement FTFY
DarkWiiPlayer 6y ago
At this point I'm honestly thinking the EU should just stop negotiating with them and let them go. We don't want barbarians that torture political prisoners, let them be friends with Russia and China instead.

wil421 6y ago

> Even my blog has never been so systematically subject to shadowbanning from Twitter and Facebook as now. Normally about 50% of my blog readers arrive from Twitter and 40% from Facebook. During the trial it has been 3% from Twitter and 9% from Facebook. That is a fall from 90% to 12%. In the February hearings Facebook and Twitter were between them sending me over 200,000 readers a day. Now they are between them sending me 3,000 readers a day. To be plain that is very much less than my normal daily traffic from them just in ordinary times. It is the insidious nature of this censorship that is especially sinister – people believe they have successfully shared my articles on Twitter and Facebook, while those corporations hide from them that in fact it went into nobody’s timeline. My own family have not been getting their notifications of my posts on either platform. The last sentence is what strikes me the most. Maybe he was being paranoid but if your own family is telling you they are not getting a notification then something is wrong.

andy_ppp 6y ago
So is there a conspiracy here or has this guy’s blog just been flagged innocently. I had no idea shadow banning on these platforms existed, it’s extremely scary that they are shaping debate this way silently.
- kortex 6y ago
  I have little evidence, but if someone asked me to risk my life on the existence of shadowbanning/post nerfing on facebook, yep I'd risk it. They are constantly mucking with what's presented. Not long ago, my feed was pretty well distributed across my few hundred friends. As of maybe a few months ago, it's the same circle of ~20 similar-minded friends. At the expense even of showing me the same post I've seen for 5 days straight. The people that engage my posts are always a cohort, with 90% overlap with my feed. I swear there are also things which boost/nerf exposure based on sentiment analysis. I'm an infrequent user cause it's kinda addicting (infinite scroll) and also this echo chamber trash.
  - martin_a 6y ago
    > At the expense even of showing me the same post I've seen for 5 days straight. I found that LinkedIn is great at this, too. I regularly see posts from contacts in my feed that are three weeks old and that I've never seen before. edit: LinkedIn will also shadowban your posts if they contain words from a blacklist. Just this morning a contact complained about that. He was very happy about being engaged as a speaker and wrote in a post "Das ist schon sehr geil [...]". While "geil" means "horny", especially younger Germans use that word without the sexual connotation but as a replacement for "great". His post reached only a few dozen people instead of hundreds, as normally. edit: "Das ist schon sehr geil" could be translated as "That's really great indeed"

Tycho 6y ago

Remember all the people, including HN commenters, who said he should just turn himself in and clear his name in court in Sweden. Only conspiracy theorists believed that powerful authorities were gunning for him behind the scenes.

tome 6y ago
It seems clear that the US would always try to make a case against him. I'm not sure how anyone could think otherwise.
- Cthulhu_ 6y ago
  Making a case is just the public show, I honestly wouldn't be surprised if instead they just wanted to make him disappear. They know that he / wikileaks have got more material / dirt on the US though, and that if he were to disappear that material would be unlocked (dead man's switch). So for now the illusion of due process is maintained.
- linuxftw 6y ago
  The US doesn't need to make a case against him. They just need to make an accusation in most cases, and that's enough to extradite. What you're missing is, the US has the ability to declare him an enemy combatant, and stuff him in Guantanamo Bay. The US claims there is no right to due process there. The US Gov could lock him away forever with no trial and that's that.
ben_w 6y ago
It is entirely self-consistent to say both that he should’ve faced his accusers in Sweden and that the American charges look like an outrageous attempt to stifle legitime journalism. I don’t see how it is self-consistent to say Sweden would’ve been more dangerous than the UK, when it is the conduct of the UK that led to condemnation by the UN and Amnesty International, and the UK is currently in the process of considering his extradition to the USA. My own personal belief (which is merely at the level of “well I reckon“), is that he probably did the Sweden crimes, and also that the prosecution only even attempted because he was also a political thorn. This belief is based partly on the surveys which show that an enormous number of women have been sexually assaulted and also that they don’t generally report this to the police, partly on his behaviour. It is also partly based on the fact that — as is currently being demonstrated by the very extradition hearing currently occurring — the US is quite capable of extraditing him directly from the UK without going via Sweden.

stefantalpalaru 6y ago

Another report that points out some interesting legal precedents involving Lauri Love and Gary McKinnon: https://shadowproof.com/2020/09/23/doctor-assange-aspergers-prison-extradition-trial/ https://shadowproof.com/2020/09/23/doctor-assange-aspergers-...

piokoch 6y ago

I don't understand what is the purpose of this theater? Is there any doubt that UK will send Assange to the US? Why bother doing this kind of show, where it is not "legal" to say that US tortures people in their concentration camp in Guantanamo Bay (see Day 14) and judge together with prosecution try to get rid of witnesses.

torified 6y ago
The whole charade is to enable a future army of lobotomized bootlickers the confidence to proclaim, "he had his time in court", long after all the barely-reported injustices in the proceedings of this kangaroo court have been forgotten. It would also serve as a warning against any possible future martyrs who might intend to rely on the law to protect them for doing the right thing by reporting on the ruling classes criminality. This whole farce also cements the US spot as world police, when an Australian citizen can be disappeared for not following US law when not even in the US, and their UK lap-dog just cowers in the corner begging for more table scraps. "Nothing to see here, move along citizen. Don't give me a reason to check your permanent record for wrongthink."

iamshs 6y ago

"Evan Whitton wrote that Australia and other British colonies (India, Canada, NZ, US) inherited a legal system, not a justice system. It is an adversarial system constructed by casuist lawyers. Europe (and Japan) has an inquisitorial system which seeks the truth first." https://twitter.com/QuentinDempster/status/1247662251210760193 https://twitter.com/QuentinDempster/status/12476622512107601... https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/06/americas-english-style-legal-system-evolved-to-conceal-truth-not-reveal-it/258417/ https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/06/am... https://independentaustralia.net/life/life-display/our-corrupt-legal-system-only-benefits-lawyers-and-rich-criminals,3821 https://independentaustralia.net/life/life-display/our-corru...