5 ms·

> Furthermore, because the proceedings have been going on for too long, the defense is not allowed to submit new evidence So... like any normal trial then.

AllegedAlec 6y ago
That would be the case, were it not the case that halfway through the trial, the prosecution completely changed the charges on which Assange is to be extradited, and neglected to send those to the defense and expert witnes in a timely manner, to the point where a recurring theme has been that the expert witness statements have been criticized for only discussing the original set of allegations, while they only gained access to the new allegations sometimes literally hours before they were due to give their statements in court. Those sort of actions already destroy the notion that the trial is normal to begin with.
- gamblor956 6y ago
  Those sort of actions already destroy the notion that the trial is normal to begin with. That is because this proceeding is not a trial, and never was. The government (there is no prosecution here) is not trying to prove Assange's guilt, they're trying to prove that there is a criminal case against him in the US (i.e., meaning that he has been charged with crimes in the US and will be prosecuted on those charges in the US, and from a legal standpoint also that the charged activities would be crimes under UK law). There is literally nothing the defense can do to disprove the existence of a criminal case against Assange in the US if the government succeeds, so there is no reason to allow the evidence of Assange's purported innocence. Because it's irrelevant to extradition. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/extradition-processes-and-review https://www.gov.uk/guidance/extradition-processes-and-review The only reason the defense is being allowed to challenge extradition is because they're arguing its illegal under UK criminal rights provisions, such as those disalllowing extradition if it would result in torture, or if the defendant is mentally ill (but in such case extradition is only tolled for the duration of the mental illness).
  - ugopapa 6y ago
    Assange has been subject to extensive illegal surveillance by the US government, while inside the Ecuadorian embassy, which also included access to private communications with his lawyers. This on its own would already be a reason to deny extradition, since it fundamentally undermines his capability to organize a proper defense and thus to get a fair trial.
    - gamblor956 6y ago
      There has been no proof that the surveillance was conducted by the US government, and some of the evidence provided by Assange's team indicates that both the UK and Ecuadorian governments conducted surveillance on Assange as well. Moreover, Assange's team would need to show that the surveillance would actually prejudice his ability to get a fair trial, which is a tall order because the UK laws on this are less favorable for defendants than they are in the US. And if it turns out the surveillance was illegal and would prevent him from getting a fair trial, he can raise that before the U.S. trial court...and get the charges dismissed with prejudice.
      - ugopapa 6y ago
        You don't think having any communication with your lawyer accessible to the other party would impact your ability to have a fair trial?
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

AllegedAlec 6y ago

That would be the case, were it not the case that halfway through the trial, the prosecution completely changed the charges on which Assange is to be extradited, and neglected to send those to the defense and expert witnes in a timely manner, to the point where a recurring theme has been that the expert witness statements have been criticized for only discussing the original set of allegations, while they only gained access to the new allegations sometimes literally hours before they were due to give their statements in court. Those sort of actions already destroy the notion that the trial is normal to begin with.

gamblor956 6y ago
Those sort of actions already destroy the notion that the trial is normal to begin with. That is because this proceeding is not a trial, and never was. The government (there is no prosecution here) is not trying to prove Assange's guilt, they're trying to prove that there is a criminal case against him in the US (i.e., meaning that he has been charged with crimes in the US and will be prosecuted on those charges in the US, and from a legal standpoint also that the charged activities would be crimes under UK law). There is literally nothing the defense can do to disprove the existence of a criminal case against Assange in the US if the government succeeds, so there is no reason to allow the evidence of Assange's purported innocence. Because it's irrelevant to extradition. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/extradition-processes-and-review https://www.gov.uk/guidance/extradition-processes-and-review The only reason the defense is being allowed to challenge extradition is because they're arguing its illegal under UK criminal rights provisions, such as those disalllowing extradition if it would result in torture, or if the defendant is mentally ill (but in such case extradition is only tolled for the duration of the mental illness).
- ugopapa 6y ago
  Assange has been subject to extensive illegal surveillance by the US government, while inside the Ecuadorian embassy, which also included access to private communications with his lawyers. This on its own would already be a reason to deny extradition, since it fundamentally undermines his capability to organize a proper defense and thus to get a fair trial.
  - gamblor956 6y ago
    There has been no proof that the surveillance was conducted by the US government, and some of the evidence provided by Assange's team indicates that both the UK and Ecuadorian governments conducted surveillance on Assange as well. Moreover, Assange's team would need to show that the surveillance would actually prejudice his ability to get a fair trial, which is a tall order because the UK laws on this are less favorable for defendants than they are in the US. And if it turns out the surveillance was illegal and would prevent him from getting a fair trial, he can raise that before the U.S. trial court...and get the charges dismissed with prejudice.
    - ugopapa 6y ago
      You don't think having any communication with your lawyer accessible to the other party would impact your ability to have a fair trial?

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]