4 ms·

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]

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]