3 ms·

In today's edition of the sham trial More 'time saving' measurements, because apparently that's more important than having a fair and/or humane trial You know

In today's edition of the sham trial More 'time saving' measurements, because apparently that's more important than having a fair and/or humane trial You know how all of HN was in an uproar when the ex-Nicola CEO called HTML a "supercomputer"? Lawyers feel the same way when non-lawyers mislabel things and then get outraged because they think something is one thing when it's actually something entirely different. This is not a trial...it's a hearing. It is not a legal proceeding on the merits, so it will not result in any factual determinations of guilt, what happened, etc. It's simply a hearing to see if there is sufficient evidence of a criminal case so as to allow for extradition under the UK's treaty with the US. That is why the defense is generally not allowed to cross-examine the witnesses: it's besides the point for this proceeding. To the extent the defense is even allowed to present witnesses, it's not to contest guilt but to argue against the legality of extradition, such as by showing how conditions might be "inhumane" in US prisons, or how Assange's mental health would not allow for extradition under UK law, etc. Again: guilt or innocence is irrelevant to this proceeding. EDIT: link for the curious describing how extradition works in the UK. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/extradition-processes-and-review https://www.gov.uk/guidance/extradition-processes-and-review "The judge must be satisfied that the conduct amounts to an extradition offence (dual criminality), none of the bars to extradition apply, where applicable, there is prima facie evidence of guilt (in accusation cases), and whether extradition would breach the person’s human rights." (Note: "prima facie evidence" means that there is at least one piece of evidence supporting every element of at least one of the criminal charges against the defendant. It doesn't matter if that evidence could be rebutted in a trial; only that such evidence exists and is part of the investigative record.)

TeaDrunk 6y ago
Wouldn't the defense not being allowed to submit new evidence for inhuman conditions upon extradition be against the 'whether extradition would breach the person's human rights'? (Edit: Also thanks for taking the time in educating about this)
- gamblor956 6y ago
  No, because the defense has been making that claim all along, so they should have submitted their evidence from the beginning. They're not allowed to surprise the government with "new" evidence that has existed since the start of the proceeding; real life doesn't work like a Hollywood movie. What new evidence about the inhumane conditions of US prisons has come into existence since the start of the trial? (Answer: COVID19, but that is only relevant so long as the pandemic continues, and would delay but not prevent extradition, which is why such evidence wasn't permitted at the hearing.) EDIT: Why then was the government allowed to swap the charges halfway? Because (a) some of the underlying charges for extradition were changed by the US so they had to, (b) they didn't swap all of the charges and (c) the UK government only needs to show a prima facie case for one of the extraditable charges (based on information given them by the US), not all of the charges, and they already did that for one of the original charges and that charge is still part of the US criminal indictment underlying the extradition. Note that because the hearing is a procedural matter, not a meritorious one, the magistrate judge would have the discretion to keep the case going even if all of the charges had been swapped.
  - TeaDrunk 6y ago
    Neat, thank you!
  - sdfqasdghj 6y ago
    Hasn't the defense also established Assange's mental health issues? Isn't some of the evidence that has been suppressed related to that?
sadfklsjlkjwt 6y ago
US prisons universally break basic human rights... There should be no extradition to the USA whatsoever until they stop doing so.
- nobody9999 6y ago
  >US prisons universally break basic human rights... >There should be no extradition to the USA whatsoever until they stop doing so. That's a strong statement. Especially given that "US Prisons" are managed/run by literally hundreds of different governmental authorities including the the Federal Government, state governments and local governments. Which prison system(s) (specifically) are you referring to? Please provide actual evidence for your claim if you wish your assertion to be taken seriously. Please note that I'm not really disagreeing with you. Rather, I find your blanket statement to be too broad and, as such, not convincing. The truth is more nuanced and complex. Reducing it to an inaccurate assertion doesn't add to any attempt to draw attention to, or improve, prison conditions in the US or anywhere else. While I take no position for or against your opinion that "There should be no extradition to the USA," that's something that citizens of countries with extradition agreements should take up with their governments. The US has many faults, but other countries adopting extradition treaties with the US isn't one of them.
  - sadfklsjlkjwt 6y ago
    The whole US system considers it OK to use solitary confinement. But solitary confinement is a breech of basic human rights. So every US system is in breech until solitary confinement stops. The existence of an extradition treaty doesn't mean that UK courts are compelled to extradite anyone until/unless US prisons cease breeching basic human rights.
    - nobody9999 6y ago
      >The whole US system considers it OK to use solitary confinement. There is no "US Prison System." Rather, there are hundreds of prison systems in the US. What's more, state governments operate independently from our Federal Government. Often, local governments operate independently from government at the state and Federal levels. We have a Federal system. In fact, you can go from one state to another (and sometimes even from one county to another) and have the same activity be legal in one place, and illegal in another. As such, trying to lump all of the US together is ignorant and best, and disingenuous at worst. As for solitary confinement, I don't think it's a good idea. And I would like to see such treatment end. Fortunately, in the city where I live, the use of solitary confinement has been restricted and there will may well be a vote this month[0] to end solitary confinement altogether in city facilities. At the same time, the state government has dithered[1] and has yet to change the law. My point is that regardless of what anyone may think about the appropriateness of solitary confinement, getting rid of such treatment everywhere in the US is, and will be, a long process. And more's the pity. >The existence of an extradition treaty doesn't mean that UK courts are compelled to extradite anyone until/unless US prisons cease breeching basic human rights. That sounds like a reasonable position. Perhaps you should discuss that with your local MP or perhaps the Home Secretary. The US, while a party to that treaty, didn't force it on the UK. Your elected representatives made that decision on your behalf. If you don't like it, do what we did in my city -- elect people to change it. [0] https://www.thecity.nyc/2020/6/29/21306995/mayor-de-blasio-vows-end-of-solitary-confinement-nyc-jails https://www.thecity.nyc/2020/6/29/21306995/mayor-de-blasio-v... [1] https://www.thecity.nyc/justice/2020/9/8/21428284/cuomo-solitary-confinement-prison-new-york-state https://www.thecity.nyc/justice/2020/9/8/21428284/cuomo-soli...

TeaDrunk 6y ago

Wouldn't the defense not being allowed to submit new evidence for inhuman conditions upon extradition be against the 'whether extradition would breach the person's human rights'? (Edit: Also thanks for taking the time in educating about this)

gamblor956 6y ago
No, because the defense has been making that claim all along, so they should have submitted their evidence from the beginning. They're not allowed to surprise the government with "new" evidence that has existed since the start of the proceeding; real life doesn't work like a Hollywood movie. What new evidence about the inhumane conditions of US prisons has come into existence since the start of the trial? (Answer: COVID19, but that is only relevant so long as the pandemic continues, and would delay but not prevent extradition, which is why such evidence wasn't permitted at the hearing.) EDIT: Why then was the government allowed to swap the charges halfway? Because (a) some of the underlying charges for extradition were changed by the US so they had to, (b) they didn't swap all of the charges and (c) the UK government only needs to show a prima facie case for one of the extraditable charges (based on information given them by the US), not all of the charges, and they already did that for one of the original charges and that charge is still part of the US criminal indictment underlying the extradition. Note that because the hearing is a procedural matter, not a meritorious one, the magistrate judge would have the discretion to keep the case going even if all of the charges had been swapped.
- TeaDrunk 6y ago
  Neat, thank you!
- sdfqasdghj 6y ago
  Hasn't the defense also established Assange's mental health issues? Isn't some of the evidence that has been suppressed related to that?

sadfklsjlkjwt 6y ago

US prisons universally break basic human rights... There should be no extradition to the USA whatsoever until they stop doing so.

nobody9999 6y ago
>US prisons universally break basic human rights... >There should be no extradition to the USA whatsoever until they stop doing so. That's a strong statement. Especially given that "US Prisons" are managed/run by literally hundreds of different governmental authorities including the the Federal Government, state governments and local governments. Which prison system(s) (specifically) are you referring to? Please provide actual evidence for your claim if you wish your assertion to be taken seriously. Please note that I'm not really disagreeing with you. Rather, I find your blanket statement to be too broad and, as such, not convincing. The truth is more nuanced and complex. Reducing it to an inaccurate assertion doesn't add to any attempt to draw attention to, or improve, prison conditions in the US or anywhere else. While I take no position for or against your opinion that "There should be no extradition to the USA," that's something that citizens of countries with extradition agreements should take up with their governments. The US has many faults, but other countries adopting extradition treaties with the US isn't one of them.
- sadfklsjlkjwt 6y ago
  The whole US system considers it OK to use solitary confinement. But solitary confinement is a breech of basic human rights. So every US system is in breech until solitary confinement stops. The existence of an extradition treaty doesn't mean that UK courts are compelled to extradite anyone until/unless US prisons cease breeching basic human rights.
  - nobody9999 6y ago
    >The whole US system considers it OK to use solitary confinement. There is no "US Prison System." Rather, there are hundreds of prison systems in the US. What's more, state governments operate independently from our Federal Government. Often, local governments operate independently from government at the state and Federal levels. We have a Federal system. In fact, you can go from one state to another (and sometimes even from one county to another) and have the same activity be legal in one place, and illegal in another. As such, trying to lump all of the US together is ignorant and best, and disingenuous at worst. As for solitary confinement, I don't think it's a good idea. And I would like to see such treatment end. Fortunately, in the city where I live, the use of solitary confinement has been restricted and there will may well be a vote this month[0] to end solitary confinement altogether in city facilities. At the same time, the state government has dithered[1] and has yet to change the law. My point is that regardless of what anyone may think about the appropriateness of solitary confinement, getting rid of such treatment everywhere in the US is, and will be, a long process. And more's the pity. >The existence of an extradition treaty doesn't mean that UK courts are compelled to extradite anyone until/unless US prisons cease breeching basic human rights. That sounds like a reasonable position. Perhaps you should discuss that with your local MP or perhaps the Home Secretary. The US, while a party to that treaty, didn't force it on the UK. Your elected representatives made that decision on your behalf. If you don't like it, do what we did in my city -- elect people to change it. [0] https://www.thecity.nyc/2020/6/29/21306995/mayor-de-blasio-vows-end-of-solitary-confinement-nyc-jails https://www.thecity.nyc/2020/6/29/21306995/mayor-de-blasio-v... [1] https://www.thecity.nyc/justice/2020/9/8/21428284/cuomo-solitary-confinement-prison-new-york-state https://www.thecity.nyc/justice/2020/9/8/21428284/cuomo-soli...