5 ms·

The judge says that closing arguments are irrelevant, because the opening statements were thorough enough. Why are they even going through the charade of witnes

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
        That's interesting. I wonder if "politically motivated" is typically understood to encompass "acted against the general nebulous interests of the prevailing political and state apparatus".
        sudosysgen 6y ago
        Err, yes?
        6y ago
  - raxxorrax 6y ago
    > On balance, don’t you think JA has had a fair opportunity Not even close. The US started a war of aggression and this process is inline with silencing critics. In my opinion the US cannot be a dependable partner anymore. Not for security, not for trade and especially not as a defender of democracy. Maybe it never really was, but the nature of open information exchange certainly makes that more transparent. That killed hundreds of thousands of people and you think someone who supplied evidence of wrongdoing had too much media time?
    - rbanffy 6y ago
      > who supplied evidence Not even that. He published it. That's it.
      - croes 6y ago
        Not even that, the newspapers published it.
  - Normille 6y ago
    >the USA meets the required judicial standards”. Except that, on paper, the UK [and I think the wider EU] claim they will not extradite someone to a country which still retains the death penalty, or which uses torture. Since the US clearly fails both those tests, no-one should ever be extradited from the UK or the EU to the USA. But as we all know, the US is special and doesn't have to play by the same rules as everyone else.
    - DarkWiiPlayer 6y ago
      > the US is special In the same as "No timmy, you're not retarded, you're just special"
      - sudosysgen 6y ago
        The US in this case is special in that it will use massive force to strongarm this into happening.
    - matthewheath 6y ago
      Extraditing someone to a country with the death penalty is barred in UK law, however it's no bar if "the Secretary of State gets adequate written assurance that the death penalty will not be imposed or, if imposed, will not be carried out"... It's quite the disgrace.
- 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.

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
        That's interesting. I wonder if "politically motivated" is typically understood to encompass "acted against the general nebulous interests of the prevailing political and state apparatus".
        sudosysgen 6y ago
        Err, yes?
        6y ago
- raxxorrax 6y ago
  > On balance, don’t you think JA has had a fair opportunity Not even close. The US started a war of aggression and this process is inline with silencing critics. In my opinion the US cannot be a dependable partner anymore. Not for security, not for trade and especially not as a defender of democracy. Maybe it never really was, but the nature of open information exchange certainly makes that more transparent. That killed hundreds of thousands of people and you think someone who supplied evidence of wrongdoing had too much media time?
  - rbanffy 6y ago
    > who supplied evidence Not even that. He published it. That's it.
    - croes 6y ago
      Not even that, the newspapers published it.
- Normille 6y ago
  >the USA meets the required judicial standards”. Except that, on paper, the UK [and I think the wider EU] claim they will not extradite someone to a country which still retains the death penalty, or which uses torture. Since the US clearly fails both those tests, no-one should ever be extradited from the UK or the EU to the USA. But as we all know, the US is special and doesn't have to play by the same rules as everyone else.
  - DarkWiiPlayer 6y ago
    > the US is special In the same as "No timmy, you're not retarded, you're just special"
    - sudosysgen 6y ago
      The US in this case is special in that it will use massive force to strongarm this into happening.
  - matthewheath 6y ago
    Extraditing someone to a country with the death penalty is barred in UK law, however it's no bar if "the Secretary of State gets adequate written assurance that the death penalty will not be imposed or, if imposed, will not be carried out"... It's quite the disgrace.
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.