Julian Assange Extradition Hearing Day 4
This ain’t ready for prime time, as defend.wikileaks.org doesn’t have day 4 up yet, the Guardian hadn’t until moments ago, but Benn Quinn must be out sick, and Frances Perraudin was just phonin’ it in. Anyhoo, it’ Big Bread Day and other chores for me, so here’s what I’ve found.
‘Julian Assange’s extradition hearing finishes a day early’, 9news.com.au, Feb. 28, 2020
“Earlier in court, Assange’s lawyers made an application for him to be freed from the dock, allowing the Australian to sit with them in open court.
Despite the move, however, the Judge refused to let Assange come out of the dock and argued that other measures could be taken for him to be able to better communicate with his lawyers.
Those measures include delaying the start of hearings each day so lawyers can take instructions from Assange and the possibility of the upcoming May hearings running longer than the three weeks scheduled, if necessary.
Earlier, the court heard Assange’s alleged offences are solely political because he was trying to change US government policy by exposing wrong-doing and war crimes.
Barrister Edward Fitzgerald argued that Assange wanted the US government to change its foreign policy when WikiLeaks released thousands of classified military and diplomatic files in 2010.
“We’ve seen WikiLeaks did effect change, that was one of the reasons there was (US troop) withdrawal (from Iraq), we also say that the US frequently said: ‘WikiLeaks opposes US policy in Afghanistan’,” he said.
“What other purpose can there be publishing the Apache helicopter strike (video) and (US) rules of engagement showing that the war conflicted with fundamental human rights?”[snip]
“The barrister said there was an English definition of a political offence, which was not purely dependent on the name of the offence like espionage, which Assange is charged with in the US.
“Extradition is based on conduct, it is not anymore based on the names of offences,” he said.
Mr Lewis said there was no “political struggle” going on between the US government and “other factions” like WikiLeaks when the organisation was publishing the classified files.
“Any bare assertion that WikiLeaks was engaged in a struggle with the US government … needs to be examined far more,” he said.
He also said a political offence was a “dated” exemption in modern societies because the “times had changed” from when dissidents were trying to uphold liberal democracy.
Via uk.reuters.com today:
“Assange’s lawyer Fitzgerald said his client is protected by privileges in the U.S.-UK extradition treaty because he was trying to change U.S. government policy.
Fitzgerald said Assange did indeed change U.S. government policy after publishing classified information about Guantanamo Bay and the actions of the U.S. military in Iraq and Afghanistan.
“WikiLeaks didn’t just seek to induce change, it did induce change,” he said.”
‘Live Updates: London Court Holds Fourth Day of Hearings on Assange’s Extradition’, sputniknews.com, Feb 27, 2020
(Boy, howdy did Kevin Kosztola’s stock go up! It’s a storify by Tweet, here are a few)
15:14
Extraditing Assange is Bullying Masquerading as Justice – Former Correspondent for the Guardian
14:58
International Observatory of Human Rights Calls on London Not to Extradite Assange to US
14:35
‘You Can’t Have Your Cake and Eat it Too’ – Editor-in-Chief of WikiLeaks on Arguments of Prosecution
14:20
‘If a 3-Week Hearing Becomes a 6-Week Hearing, So Be It’ – Judge
12:55
Info Passed to Assange’s Defence Team to Allow Julian Access to Lawyers
US Gov’t Claims it Doesn’t Matter if Alleged Offences Are ‘Political’ in Assange’s Case
- 11:28
There is Substantial Evidence Assange Was Subjected to Constant Surveillance – CCBE
Julian Assange Extradition Hearing – Day 4 Recap (Kevin Gosztola 28 mins)
#JulianAssange's lawyer @suigenerisjen gives a final recap of the #AssangeHearing week's proceedings: "Mr. #Assange has had significant difficulties in participating with these proceedings... the Judge has refused him to leave the dock an sit with his lawyers." #AssangeCase pic.twitter.com/VUsEIssuGh
— Don't Extradite Assange (@DEAcampaign) February 27, 2020
.@rebecca_vincent from @RSF_inter speaks about the trial: "We've been really concerned with what we've seen here... I was really disappointed today by the Magistrate's decision not to grant #Assange's request to sit with his lawyers, we see this as a human rights issue." pic.twitter.com/8NBZPe8VNT
— Don't Extradite Assange (@DEAcampaign) February 27, 2020
#JulianAssange’s father makes a final recap of the first week of the #AssangeHearing “We saw the defence as characterising prosecution arguments as lies, lies, lies”#DontExtraditeAssange #FreeAssange #AssangeTrial #AssangeCase pic.twitter.com/BM2D7EnMMF
— Don't Extradite Assange (@DEAcampaign) February 27, 2020
Comments
i'll add some bits
from Thomas Scripps and Laura Tiernan at wsws.org today. i was disappointed in the following, but you may remember that not long go corbyn had shown his true colors (imo) by saying that assange should go to sweden and 'face the music'.
They've also added more of QC Fitgeralds arguments and case law citations:
both RT.com has a brief recap of day $, nothing new, same for defend.wikileaks.org., just a bit more about how snotty, cruel, and cavalier judge baraitser was.
OTOH:
‘The State of Play: Joshua Schulte and Julian Assange’, February 26, 2020, emptywheel.net
‘Hot and Cold Running Mike Pompeo and Other Ridiculous WikiLeaks Defense Claims’, February 24, 2020, emptywheel.net (rohrbacher, stone, including):
Bmaz, marcy’s pitbull got in a food-fight over harry dunn’s case being applicable or not, and someone signed in as Laurie Love asked bmaz: ‘what is your problem?’
bmaz says:
February 25, 2020 at 10:33 am
‘I don’t have any problem, do you? I merely stated a fact that the Sacoolas/Dunn matter has no relevance whatsoever as to Assange, and that if any collateral matter might provide a basis for argument by Assange, it would be yours. Also a fact.
I also think Assange is a dirtbag piece of shit that is a Russian tool and threat to the US, though am trepidatious about propriety of the charges currently pending on the extradition warrant. There are other matters it would be completely proper to prosecute him on, and they will likely be forthcoming.’
not likely so but laurie love on wikipedia:
“Extradition hearing
During Love's two day extradition hearing on 28 and 29 June 2016 at the Westminster Magistrates' Court in London, his father testified that Lauri Love has Asperger syndrome and so should not be extradited.[4] Specifically, he testified that his son was not diagnosed with autism until he was an adult serving in the Finnish Army.[21] Psychologist Simon Baron-Cohen, who diagnosed Love with Asperger syndrome in 2012, testified that Love should not be extradited because of his diagnosed disorders, which also include eczema, psychosis, and depression. Baron-Cohen stated that Love told him that he would commit suicide if extradited.[21]
Love, who lives at home with his parents, testified at his extradition hearing on 29 June 2016. He was supported by the Courage Foundation. Love's barrister for this extradition hearing was Ben Cooper of Doughty Street Chambers [where jennifer robinson practices]. The case was adjourned.[25]
On 16 September 2016, at Westminster Magistrates' Court, a judge ruled that Love could be extradited to the United States. Love's solicitor Karen Todner said that they would appeal, and on 5 February 2018, Lord Chief Justice Lord Burnett and Mr Justice Ouseley, at the High Court, upheld his appeal against extradition, while ruling that it would "not be oppressive [to] prosecute Mr Love in England for the offences".
i'm out for the night.
thanks for the thumbs and all the fish.
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8KQmps-Sog]