4 ms·

As someone who wants to see Assange go free, I continue to believe the best outcome here is for him to be extradited and face trial in the US. I do not think th

As someone who wants to see Assange go free, I continue to believe the best outcome here is for him to be extradited and face trial in the US. I do not think the government's case is strong enough to convict him, and his being acquitted at trial would be by far the best outcome possible here. The fact that he has been imprisoned in the UK without trial or conviction for the last four years is insane (he has been imprisoned for 5 years but the first year was for a bail violation). This should simply not be possible in a modern liberal democracy. This is the best possible outcome from the standpoint of the US national security machine -- that he remains imprisoned indefinitely while waiting on a Kafka-esque system to finally grind him to mush, and serves as a dire warning to other journalists who would defy them.

kome 3y ago
"I do not think the government's case is strong enough to convict him" wow, you really trust American institutions. but most of the people doesn't and for good reasons.
Loughla 3y ago
Honestly, do you believe he would receive a fair and impartial trial in the united states?
- andrewla 3y ago
  From your question, I take it that you do not believe this is possible. I certainly do. It might be worth further interrogating why you believe that he would not get a fair and impartial trial. That said, I don't believe that a fair and impartial trail will guarantee an acquittal. But although the national security apparatus is arrayed against him, there's still a judge and a jury and a trial -- this will not be a military tribunal. The closest comparisons to his situation would be Ellsberg, and less like Manning or Winner, both of whom were employees of the US government. Ellsberg's case was dismissed, and Winer pled guilty; only Manning was convicted at trial. Being extradited would also be his best chance of being free on bail during trial, although this outcome, despite representing his best chance, is not very likely.
  - junto 3y ago
    I highly doubt it. The trial would be held in Virginia, the home of the CIA, and the jurors likely made up of members of public that most likely have a loose connection to the CIA, even if only geographically (Alexandria is 40 minute drive to Langley). One of the conditions for the appeal is that Assange be granted 1st amendments rights, since the USG had argued that it wouldn’t be relevant because he wasn’t a US citizen, as well as assurances that a death penalty could not be applied in any case. The USG has found the Assange and Snowden cases, and their continuing “limbo” status to be a very effective deterrent to any journalists, especially those who are not US citizens, or whistleblowers, from taking action on USG classified material, regardless of how damning it might be.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- mnau 3y ago
  Yes. That's the beauty of jury trials. Both side (defense and prosecutor) has to agree who will determine guilty/non-guilty. If it was judge, he is beholden to power structures and pressure. Johnny Depp and Rittenhouse also got a fair trial (at least IMO) despite media frenzy.
  - n4r9 3y ago
    Jeffrey Sterling was tried for espionage in 2015 and makes a strong case that jury trials can be partial: > Julian will face the same court that unfairly convicted me. He will not receive an impartial jury. > The jury pool from which they will be selecting in the Eastern District of Virginia is made up of individuals who all have some sort of tie — family, their own experience — to the intelligence community or the military apparatus there. And they’re familiar with security clearances. And so that already creates a bias because individuals are not going to want to do anything that may make them look bad, when it becomes time for their security assessment. These individuals know nothing about Julian Assange, other than what our politicians and prosecutors have been saying for years and years — that he’s a terrorist, for the most part. > Another key aspect is that there are certain constitutional rights that I should have been guaranteed during my trial — facing all of the evidence, and understanding and having all of the prosecution case put before me. Yet that was not the case. Mr Assange will have no guarantees of any constitutional protections, should he be tried in the Eastern District of Virginia. > I think that court has, time and time again, shown itself to be pro-CIA and pro-US government, and pretty much allowed the government to rule the case and take it in whatever direction they want. And that’s going to be to paint Julian in the worst light, with a favorable jury, and, overall, to go for a conviction. https://jacobin.com/2021/04/cia-whistleblower-julian-assange-espionage-extradition https://jacobin.com/2021/04/cia-whistleblower-julian-assange... I don't think Assange compares to Depp or Rittenhouse. Sure, there was media frenzy around the latter two, but the government didn't have the same kind of interest in seeing them punished.
- bitcharmer 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - phyalow 3y ago
    [flagged]
handity 3y ago
The US has exerted unbelievable pressure to ensure Assange remains a non-threat. Just because they're happy with the current state of affairs doesn't mean Assange has anything to gain by "facing the court and just getting it over with". The best outcome would be for the UK to uphold its own treaties, refuse to extradite Assange, and allow him to walk free. Anything less would be a travesty and miscarriage of justice. The idea that the US would try him in the Eastern District of Virginia "Espionage Court", only to throw up their hands in defeat when Assange's lawyers point out that his persecution is illegal, is laughable. If he is extradited, he will rot in a supermax prison, which from first hand testimony[1] is far worse than even Belmarsh. https://www.declassifieduk.org/the-last-days-of-julian-assange-in-the-united-states/ https://www.declassifieduk.org/the-last-days-of-julian-assan...
- andrewla 3y ago
  He will have to be put on trial (by a jury if he so elects) and convicted before he goes to prison; there is no automatic conviction and even if he is refuse bail he will not be in prison. If the UK refuses to extradite him, then it's a matter of his looking over his shoulder for the rest of his life waiting for the hood and a chopper out. Besides, I have no faith in the UK court' ability to do anything here; they're the ones who have held him without trial or conviction all this time anyway. I admit that some of my desire here is selfish -- I feel that Assange being tried and acquitted is a greater win for journalism in the US and is worth the risk. Obviously as an individual he does not agree with this (thus his opposition to extradition in the first place). I do feel that the current status quo is the most favorable in creating the chilling effect that the US national security establishment wants to convey -- Manning and Winner both served their time and are free now; if Assange had been able to foresee what his life would look like now in 2010, he probably would have chosen to turn himself in to the US authorities in the first place, because even were he convicted he'd be free by now.
  - handity 3y ago
    I believe your hope that he will face anything like a fair trial in the US is misplaced. The conviction the US seeks under the Espionage Act is as good as automatic. There are books and numerous articles covering in minute detail the extraordinary nature of his persecution, detailing the numerous perversions of justice involved.
zzz999 3y ago
> I continue to believe the best outcome here is for him to be extradited and face trial in the US. Lol... They would send him in a secret military prison... That would be the worst outcome possible... He should have went where Snowden wanted to go or where he is by accident
- andrewla 3y ago
  Sure, they'll send him to the same secret military prison where they store the UFOs. Assange is a public figure; if extradited he will have a trial, and if convicted will go to the same federal prisons that all people convicted for federal crimes go to. The US has engaged in "extraordinary rendition" (many of which we only know about because of Assange). I'm not defending their record here, but Assange is not a candidate for anything like that -- he is a public figure.
  - weberer 3y ago
    They're storing UFOs in Guantanamo Bay now?
    - andrewla 3y ago
      Guantanamo Bay detention camp is a secret? But if you know about it ... and I know about it ... then ... maybe it's not a secret prison?
      - zzz999 3y ago
        So what's going on there if it's not a secret? Yes... I do know the name.
      - Etherlord87 3y ago
        https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/29/us/politics/pentagon-guantanamo-secret-courtroom.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/29/us/politics/pentagon-guan...
      - alexey-salmin 3y ago
EasyMark 3y ago
I think this depends on if he gets a jury trial or bench trial. There are a growing number of federal jurisdictions in the US who really don't care that much about the Constitution or reasonable interpretations thereof. I don't like his odds. I would prefer if they just dropped it or UK refused to send him over here at all. It's a black eye on the 1st amendment, and I've seen enough.
- andrewla 3y ago
  He cannot get a bench trial unless he waives his right to a jury trial and the prosecution agrees. It is remotely possible that they could amend the charges to include "providing material support for terrorism", in which case they could attempt to try him in military court. That's a worst case / best case situation -- he has the least rights as a defendant under the MCA system, but if the attempt is thwarted by the courts then it would be a huge blow against the government's attempts to circumvent due process.

kome 3y ago

"I do not think the government's case is strong enough to convict him" wow, you really trust American institutions. but most of the people doesn't and for good reasons.

Loughla 3y ago

Honestly, do you believe he would receive a fair and impartial trial in the united states?

andrewla 3y ago
From your question, I take it that you do not believe this is possible. I certainly do. It might be worth further interrogating why you believe that he would not get a fair and impartial trial. That said, I don't believe that a fair and impartial trail will guarantee an acquittal. But although the national security apparatus is arrayed against him, there's still a judge and a jury and a trial -- this will not be a military tribunal. The closest comparisons to his situation would be Ellsberg, and less like Manning or Winner, both of whom were employees of the US government. Ellsberg's case was dismissed, and Winer pled guilty; only Manning was convicted at trial. Being extradited would also be his best chance of being free on bail during trial, although this outcome, despite representing his best chance, is not very likely.
- junto 3y ago
  I highly doubt it. The trial would be held in Virginia, the home of the CIA, and the jurors likely made up of members of public that most likely have a loose connection to the CIA, even if only geographically (Alexandria is 40 minute drive to Langley). One of the conditions for the appeal is that Assange be granted 1st amendments rights, since the USG had argued that it wouldn’t be relevant because he wasn’t a US citizen, as well as assurances that a death penalty could not be applied in any case. The USG has found the Assange and Snowden cases, and their continuing “limbo” status to be a very effective deterrent to any journalists, especially those who are not US citizens, or whistleblowers, from taking action on USG classified material, regardless of how damning it might be.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
mnau 3y ago
Yes. That's the beauty of jury trials. Both side (defense and prosecutor) has to agree who will determine guilty/non-guilty. If it was judge, he is beholden to power structures and pressure. Johnny Depp and Rittenhouse also got a fair trial (at least IMO) despite media frenzy.
- n4r9 3y ago
  Jeffrey Sterling was tried for espionage in 2015 and makes a strong case that jury trials can be partial: > Julian will face the same court that unfairly convicted me. He will not receive an impartial jury. > The jury pool from which they will be selecting in the Eastern District of Virginia is made up of individuals who all have some sort of tie — family, their own experience — to the intelligence community or the military apparatus there. And they’re familiar with security clearances. And so that already creates a bias because individuals are not going to want to do anything that may make them look bad, when it becomes time for their security assessment. These individuals know nothing about Julian Assange, other than what our politicians and prosecutors have been saying for years and years — that he’s a terrorist, for the most part. > Another key aspect is that there are certain constitutional rights that I should have been guaranteed during my trial — facing all of the evidence, and understanding and having all of the prosecution case put before me. Yet that was not the case. Mr Assange will have no guarantees of any constitutional protections, should he be tried in the Eastern District of Virginia. > I think that court has, time and time again, shown itself to be pro-CIA and pro-US government, and pretty much allowed the government to rule the case and take it in whatever direction they want. And that’s going to be to paint Julian in the worst light, with a favorable jury, and, overall, to go for a conviction. https://jacobin.com/2021/04/cia-whistleblower-julian-assange-espionage-extradition https://jacobin.com/2021/04/cia-whistleblower-julian-assange... I don't think Assange compares to Depp or Rittenhouse. Sure, there was media frenzy around the latter two, but the government didn't have the same kind of interest in seeing them punished.
bitcharmer 3y ago
[flagged]
- phyalow 3y ago
  [flagged]

handity 3y ago

The US has exerted unbelievable pressure to ensure Assange remains a non-threat. Just because they're happy with the current state of affairs doesn't mean Assange has anything to gain by "facing the court and just getting it over with". The best outcome would be for the UK to uphold its own treaties, refuse to extradite Assange, and allow him to walk free. Anything less would be a travesty and miscarriage of justice. The idea that the US would try him in the Eastern District of Virginia "Espionage Court", only to throw up their hands in defeat when Assange's lawyers point out that his persecution is illegal, is laughable. If he is extradited, he will rot in a supermax prison, which from first hand testimony[1] is far worse than even Belmarsh. https://www.declassifieduk.org/the-last-days-of-julian-assange-in-the-united-states/ https://www.declassifieduk.org/the-last-days-of-julian-assan...

andrewla 3y ago
He will have to be put on trial (by a jury if he so elects) and convicted before he goes to prison; there is no automatic conviction and even if he is refuse bail he will not be in prison. If the UK refuses to extradite him, then it's a matter of his looking over his shoulder for the rest of his life waiting for the hood and a chopper out. Besides, I have no faith in the UK court' ability to do anything here; they're the ones who have held him without trial or conviction all this time anyway. I admit that some of my desire here is selfish -- I feel that Assange being tried and acquitted is a greater win for journalism in the US and is worth the risk. Obviously as an individual he does not agree with this (thus his opposition to extradition in the first place). I do feel that the current status quo is the most favorable in creating the chilling effect that the US national security establishment wants to convey -- Manning and Winner both served their time and are free now; if Assange had been able to foresee what his life would look like now in 2010, he probably would have chosen to turn himself in to the US authorities in the first place, because even were he convicted he'd be free by now.
- handity 3y ago
  I believe your hope that he will face anything like a fair trial in the US is misplaced. The conviction the US seeks under the Espionage Act is as good as automatic. There are books and numerous articles covering in minute detail the extraordinary nature of his persecution, detailing the numerous perversions of justice involved.

zzz999 3y ago

> I continue to believe the best outcome here is for him to be extradited and face trial in the US. Lol... They would send him in a secret military prison... That would be the worst outcome possible... He should have went where Snowden wanted to go or where he is by accident

andrewla 3y ago
Sure, they'll send him to the same secret military prison where they store the UFOs. Assange is a public figure; if extradited he will have a trial, and if convicted will go to the same federal prisons that all people convicted for federal crimes go to. The US has engaged in "extraordinary rendition" (many of which we only know about because of Assange). I'm not defending their record here, but Assange is not a candidate for anything like that -- he is a public figure.
- weberer 3y ago
  They're storing UFOs in Guantanamo Bay now?
  - andrewla 3y ago
    Guantanamo Bay detention camp is a secret? But if you know about it ... and I know about it ... then ... maybe it's not a secret prison?
    - zzz999 3y ago
      So what's going on there if it's not a secret? Yes... I do know the name.
    - Etherlord87 3y ago
      https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/29/us/politics/pentagon-guantanamo-secret-courtroom.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/29/us/politics/pentagon-guan...
    - alexey-salmin 3y ago

EasyMark 3y ago

I think this depends on if he gets a jury trial or bench trial. There are a growing number of federal jurisdictions in the US who really don't care that much about the Constitution or reasonable interpretations thereof. I don't like his odds. I would prefer if they just dropped it or UK refused to send him over here at all. It's a black eye on the 1st amendment, and I've seen enough.

andrewla 3y ago
He cannot get a bench trial unless he waives his right to a jury trial and the prosecution agrees. It is remotely possible that they could amend the charges to include "providing material support for terrorism", in which case they could attempt to try him in military court. That's a worst case / best case situation -- he has the least rights as a defendant under the MCA system, but if the attempt is thwarted by the courts then it would be a huge blow against the government's attempts to circumvent due process.