Judge Baraitser ruled that there will be no closing speeches in the hearing. Furthermore, because the proceedings have been going on for too long, the defense is not allowed to submit new evidence proving the inhumane conditions Assange would be held in if extradited. Since the defense is also not allowed to cross examine Kromberg, who's written several affidavits which cross the border into perjury, they're somewhat fucked.
More 'time saving' measurements, because apparently that's more important than having a fair and/or humane trial.
Wait, I missed this gorgeous fucking bit of assholery:
Baraitser heard arguments on whether the full medical records of Assange from the doctors and psychiatrists who had given evidence should be released to the media. Both defence and prosecution opposed release, but Baraitser kept referring to “open justice”. She will rule on this on Monday .
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.
"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.)
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)
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.
>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.
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.
>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.
It doesn't matter if state prisons violate human rights (and many do), because Assange isn't going to a state prison. He's going to a federal prison, and those facilities are much nicer, and their staff better trained. They're also monitored up the wazoo by lawyers for rights violations.
Assange's team would need to show that the prison he would be assigned to regularly and currently violates human rights, and he simply can't do that.
This is a Federal prison that holds this kind of prisoner. It holds prisoners in solitary confinement. Solitary confinement is torture and is a human rights violation.
Not really. It is perfectly compatible that (1) the UK has an extradition treaty with the US that requires that the US respects human rights for extraditions to actually happen, (2) the US does not respect human rights of prisoners, (3) therefore the UK never actually extradites anyone until 2 changes.
I'm very disappointed by the lack of press for such a major extradition case!
The fact it impacts press freedom, judicial impartiality, and foreign interference in a UK court, I feels like a lot of this extends far beyond this case, and I feel that the public should be aware of this to some degree.
What can we do other than sharing links to try and get the word out?
> I'm very disappointed by the lack of press for such a major extradition case!
I completely agree with you here, which is why I'm so glad that the last few articles Murray did on this have been posted here and getting at least some attention.
> What can we do other than sharing links to try and get the word out?
Sharing the articles by Murray and others is, I think, the best way. Protesting is a: somewhat unhelpful, because that doesn't seem to get picked up by the media either, and also because the government will most likely object to large protests due to the covid situation.
However, as Murray noted in other articles, news of the entire trial seems to get you shadowbanned from social media:
> Even my blog has never been so systematically subject to shadowbanning from Twitter and Facebook as now. Normally about 50% of my blog readers arrive from Twitter and 40% from Facebook. During the trial it has been 3% from Twitter and 9% from Facebook. That is a fall from 90% to 12%. In the February hearings Facebook and Twitter were between them sending me over 200,000 readers a day. Now they are between them sending me 3,000 readers a day. To be plain that is very much less than my normal daily traffic from them just in ordinary times. It is the insidious nature of this censorship that is especially sinister – people believe they have successfully shared my articles on Twitter and Facebook, while those corporations hide from them that in fact it went into nobody’s timeline. My own family have not been getting their notifications of my posts on either platform.[1]
As noted in the HN article on that blog post, this is because FB shadowbans articles if they get organic growth for too long until they buy FB ads. This isn't specific to Assange's hearing but simply a reality of blog owners.
That still means that these platforms structurally work against getting important/valuable information to where it needs to be heard.
I couldn't think of a better example of why these practices need to die a swift death, if societies the world around want to have any chance of preventing a total downfall of discourse.
I doubt this is actually true though - as if it were it would be a very, very clear case of anti-competitive behavior, and although FB has bought of the US government there would definitely be action from the EU.
This is very much true. The very purpose of Facebook is to promote the opinion it gets paid to promote by its customers. People always simplify target-tailored-content to "Targeted Advertising" and then dumb it down to "you like shoes? buy more shoes!" but FB has become far more intricate then that.
Its customers are mega-corporations, political parties, governments. If some content spreads too quickly it not only gets shadowbanned to slow its spread, it gets reported to the authorities. Many regimes worldwide have taken note how China and Saudi-Arabia are handling the emergence of social networks. They want the same features. Even western democracies churned in and want FB to do more about "fake news". Tell me, what is the remedy against those ailment? How exactly does a social network slow down what is known as a "troll farm"? And that is the nice case where disruptive enemy propaganda is just that and not some dysphemism for a grass root dissident pro-human-rights civil movement.
The highest paying customers are not paying for shoe-ads, or to talk to their friends or plan events, they pay for censorship, surveillance and control of popular opinion. You are not a customer, you are cattle. No go and consume your feed.
That's a possibility and a possible contributor but doesn't convincingly explain why his traffic decreased 85% (if it was throttled after a certain level of success, you would expect it to plateau)
It wouldn't plateau because you get throttled across the board over all your posts and significantly so. Your posts, old and new, simply don't get promoted into timelines anymore.
As a result, your traffic from FB will rapidly drop until you pay them off, that's just business if you want to spread on FB.
Maybe we need an adjusted Hanlon's razor. "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by a combination of an indifference to ethics and corrupted capitalistic incentives."
Supporting the independent media outlets covering the case is very helpful (eg Craig Murray). A lot of them are frequent victims of legal harrassment which gets expensive.
Put the word out to friends NOT to support the Guardian, which has become an Intelligence asset since Katherine Viner became editor and actively worked to frame the story on Assange.
The court has only let in around ten members of the press. Though I'm sure coverage would have been limited even without that restriction, the governments involved aren't hiding how much of a sham this trial is.
> I'm very disappointed by the lack of press for such a major extradition case!
This is a criminal case heard at a magistrates court, if I understand correctly, the media are not permitted to cover the trial, until the case is decided. Media breaking the restrictions are subject to contempt of court.
Let's not make it look like "more than a dozen" articles is even close to enough coverage. If this was an extradition hearing for somebody to be extradited to China or Russia for the same reasons, there would be hundreds of articles for each hearing session.
If you believe in the rule of law, there is substantial evidence that assange broke the laws of multiple countries, so you may just as easily be on the other side of this debate.
If you believe in the rule of law you would want the potential war crimes investigated long before you would imprison the journalist that exposed them.
> Baraitser heard arguments on whether the full medical records of Assange from the doctors and psychiatrists who had given evidence should be released to the media. Both defence and prosecution opposed release, but Baraitser kept referring to “open justice”. She will rule on this on Monday .
Outrageous. I cannot see any public interest justification in favour of releasing the records. Open justice can be done without releasing absolutely everything about the defendant.
As Murray describes, the press has requested this information, presumably because they'd like to confirm previous accusations that he was subject to torture and medically neglected.
I see. If she does authorise that, hopefully it is in the most sensitive, least privacy-invading way possible -- e.g. only releasing pertinent records to be viewed in a secure location for a limited period of time, no copies to be made, etc.
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.
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
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).
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.
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.
Yes. As I have explained elsewhere, Mr Assange may appeal to the High Court, the Supreme Court, and then potentially the European Court of Human Rights.
> Baraitser heard arguments on whether the full medical records of Assange from the doctors and psychiatrists who had given evidence should be released to the media. Both defence and prosecution opposed release, but Baraitser kept referring to “open justice”. She will rule on this on Monday.
If these are relevant to the decision, there's a strong presumption in favor of them being released. How else is the public going to evaluate the judgment rendered by the judge if they don't have access to the facts? This is not private arbitration, the judge is being paid by the public coffers.
I'm sorry there's no English translation but if you read Spanish, find who the judge is married with and you will know everything you need to know about this trial: https://www.voltairenet.org/article210856.html
Interesting information. For summary's sake, looks like this post is talking about Baraitser's boss, Emma Arbuthnot, whose husband happens to be "a well-known "hawk" of the Conservative Party and former Minister of Defense, notoriously linked to the military-industrial complex" also connected to a US think tank. The article makes it clear that many of the conditions of Assange's trial (being kept in a box, unable to communicate etc) were initiated by Arbuthnot, and that Baraitser has simply followed the lead of her boss.
Interesting read - no idea whether any of it is true... but certainly doesn't sound beyond the realm of possibility.
Arbuthnot was the original judge for the case, but there were complaints about her impartiality so she handed it over to her subordinate, Baraitser. I believe it is still the case that Arbuthnot has not recused herself in this matter.
Handing over to another judge is what recusal is, no?
It also should be noted that district judges are independent office holders, and Arbuthnot's position as Chief Magistrate is largely administrative - she doesn't have the power to overrule another magistrate, that power lies with the high court.
> I agree this is a sham trial. But why do you say so?
From all reporting I've read on it, also besides Murray's, it's been very clear that long before this trial has started the judgement to extradite Assange was already made.
> You do not mean, as I think, that Julian Assange is simply an actor, and that the whole thing has been a charade rolled out by 3-letter agencies, from start to finish.
I do not believe that Assange is an actor. What would the alphabet soup even gain by doing this whole circus?
That doesn't answer the question. What do they gain from it? Because to me, this seems like a fairly blatant and rather hamfisted attempt to prosecute someone for inconveniencing them. That's not the sort of action a group in complete control would have to perform.
I'll try to answer more clearly - to hell with the downvotes!
Ok - if you were king of the world, would you prefer to be managing an outright challenge to your authority, or would you prefer to manage a convincing appearance of an outright challenge to your authority?
Either way that challenge - Assange here - will take a lot of people's effort and energy. The people have the power but they are being managed. He becomes an idol to some of those people considered rabble rousers by the governors. (For the religious, in your mind (temple) you have accepted a false idol - while you believe it to be true you will die for that idol every day.)
As a controlled opposition character, he may provide some truth - he has to be convincing - but he won't deliver. He is not really a challenge. If you have read 1984, he is 'Emmanuel Goldstein'.
Its the same story as Snowden. These characters (if they are even real people and not pastiches or CGI) are controlled opposition. They are acting a role - its a performance. They are intended to draw the sting from genuine people's discomfort and distress over the way our society is being managed downhill into tyranny, to take their well intentioned energy, and to waste it, so that nothing is achieved.
Governance is not just politics. It is also the media, the news and the culture. It may seem preposterous to you, but given enough time, money and inclination, it really is possible for people to run all these things. Its the reality that we live in.
You’re still not answering the question, because your Engsoc Inner Party in this hypothesis is making themselves look inept and inhumane on both sides.
If you were right, some facet of this entire story would be showing the state to be benevolent, that is not present here.
People are talking about benevolence and ineptitude. I'm not. I'm talking about power.
Whether its benevolent or inept or amazing or whatever - its all a show and a distraction to keep you from taking the right actions in your personal life. Your experience in framed by what you see on the TV and read. 'They' are running what you think about and what you do. Rage against Golstein, the Engsoc whatever. But while you do, you are within the system, playing the game that has been predetermined for you.
When it comes to real answers, I think Gwenyth Paltrow said it best :) "Conscious Uncoupling" from all the artefacts/stories of the system is required, to start to reclaim personal power.
> Its the same story as Snowden. These characters (if they are even real people and not pastiches or CGI) are controlled opposition.
> 'They' are running what you think about and what you do.
Without intending to be insulting: Perhaps you should mention to a doctor that you think certain public figures might secretly be CGI creations of a government conspiracy that intends to control your thoughts and actions. This is the kind of belief you should seek an outside opinion on from somebody who is in a position to assess your mental health.
I don't take it as an insult. But I'm perfectly sane. Its interesting that you attempt to smear me though rather than engaging meaningfully with me - but I understand and would have done the same in the past.
If I provide you some evidence, will you take a look and let me know what you think?
Hello, I had a look. The video seemed to mostly chat about how it's implausible for someone to lose the nose pads on their glasses and keep wearing them. This is false. I had one pair of glasses that was quite comfortable even after the nose pads fell off. He also says it's implausible to have a nose pad, then not have it a month later, which is what one would generally expect if the thing was lost in the intervening month.
He talks a lot about how someone looks different under different lighting conditions and says that video compression artifacts are CGI anomalies.
My overall impression is that you should see a doctor about this and ask for antipsychotics. I don't know how to tell people that in a way that works. One of my best friends became schizophrenic and spent years studying the luminiferous aether (this is not a thing) before he died for schizophrenia-related reasons. So it's painful for me to read this stuff.
I'd be willing to chat more. Please reach me at the email in my profile.
Thanks for taking a look, and I guess thanks for your concern. You know though, I do object to your raising the mental health issue here. What you are really doing is failing to engage with an argument, and attempting to smear me. That's your call I guess.
However, as you are advising me, I'll share my advice with you from the other side of the 'chasm'. Be aware that there is a possibility that your world can be turned upside down, and that things you were told were true turn out to be lies and manipulations. I think that the 'great reset' that has started will result in a very different world in the next decade.
My thesis is that the vast majority of people have been educated to believe a certain set of beliefs. In the past this was religion, nowadays it is science. The problem is that most people do not confirm anything for themselves! Nothing. They accept the opinion of experts. So they do not validate anything; they have beliefs masquerading as knowledge. And in fact, science is just a new religion. (I'm not talking about the scientific method, which is valid - just what is presented as science.)
Impossible you will say, people don't believe in science they know! But the trick is easily done. If you want to check another 3min video out you will see what I mean:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFLs6nufCj4
To put it bluntly, most people have been so mind controlled, from cradle to grave, for generations, they cannot even conceive that what their situation is.
I'll leave you with this Krishnamurti quote, regards to your mental health:
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society."
Sir/madam, I also was unconvinced of the conclusions the videos put forward. To give a decent hint, the images are definitely mirrored, take a look at his hair when comparing. Just some food for your thought, isn't it also a form of mind control to believe most people are mind controlled? What forms of control do you open yourself to with that belief? Try viewing these videos with the same skepticism you view Mainstream Media. They are similar.
The Snowden videos I posted, are a fairly dry analysis of some of the issues relating to the footage of Snowden. Its all on TV - its not real life, but I think the narrator raises some fair issues. We can agree to disagree.
I'm not sure I understand your point that its a form of mind control to believe that most people are mind controlled.
The way I would express it - as a hardcore skeptic - is that I make my own mind up, given the evidence. If the evidence isn't there, I won't accept or deny whatever is being presented. However, it seems to me that most are hardcore believers. If they are told something, or see it on TV they believe it. There is no critical analysis, no requirement of proof, no researching of evidence. Just belief.
That belief in acceptance in authority, not of evidence, is what I am calling mind control.
I may well be wrong - no problem - but I am making up my own mind and evaluating the evidence. In the absence of verifiable evidence, I'm NOT on auto-believe mode, or mind-control mode. I'm on auto-hoax mode, I suspect a trick. And in fact, although it is initially uncomfortable, the world makes far more sense that way.
I understand auto-hoax mode, I just hope you use it on youtube videos as often as on MSM. Public figures being CGIed should raise a good amount of flags no?
You're assuming that they (whoever they might be) are actually organized and competent. There is no Illuminati, just a bunch of powerful people who often want completely different things.
Besides, there's really no need for them to go that far. They can deal with actual opposition very effectively already.
The vast majority of people don't even know who Assange is, much less care about him or this trial.
Well, at present, we are seeing a global shift to technocratic governance such as has been foreshadowed in China. I think its pretty organised and competent.
Assange is about being a waste of time and energy to people, to get them involved in thinking about politics, petitioning the government for change from within, that sort of crap. As well as putting us on notice that we are being spied on all the time by our governments.
I can see where you come from. But appearance organizes itself, most of the times unconscient. No individual or group has nothing even close to full control of it. In your 'king of the world' example, the king doesn't really have to take that choice: he's already king, so even before he appeared in scene the script was already being played. He was born being told he was gonna be king of the world, and learned everything in life from that perspective, which was seemed to be accepted everywhere around him. He's not responsible and not even necessarily conscious for instance of how monarchies came to be and how they work. If he doesn't know what to do or think, he has a long line of people waiting to help him out.
"No individual or group has nothing close to full control of it."
Wrong. Full control has been the case for a long time - at least 100 years, possibly thousands. History is so badly mangled however, we cannot read it, but this is evidenced everywhere... I now think that 1984 was actually more fact that fiction.
Worse, our education is such that we are also trained not to observe it. We don't know anything. Really. Say, h2o - water. Find an example of someone adding these 2 gases to create water. You will see pops! and water condensation on bottles - but that is from the air itself. They cannot create water from those 2 gases!
We are on a slave planet, where nothing is as it seems, where we are mostly not even aware that this is the case.
If your experience and understanding of reality is overturned in the coming months or years, bear this in mind. Try not to jump to conclusions, or to lunge out at the first person you feel is to blame for your situation (police, parents, teachers, etc) - these people are as unwitting as everyone else - they believed the stories and disbelieved their own experience.
I'm so downvoted here it takes ages for me to reply.
Frankly - I have ideas, but I don't know. You should do your own research and see what you find. In fact, I would suggest that everyone does their own research to confirm or deny what they are presented as truth. As techies here, we should be good at debugging the world right?
I would say I am my own authority on what I accept. However, your authority is the government, consensus opinion, journals, HN - not yourself.
If something is not proven to me, I'm not going to pretend it has been. For most, authority is from outside. 'My teachers/lecturers/TV/parents/etc say this, they wouldn't lie, would they?' Its not malicious, but the lies are propagated. The reason is that no one - NO ONE - is doing their own research to verify anything, lies and confusion are spread.
So, I would say you have 0 proof to believe what you believe. If you try to prove what you believe in to yourself, you will find that you cannot satisfactorily do so. So why believe it? I'm just not believing things that I have no evidence for. And once you remove the un-evidenced crap, a different picture emerges. But you are easy to use the term 'conspiracy theory' to avoid to have to engage with what I raise.
Seriously - take my challenge - try to create water out of the 2 gases. Or to separate them from water. You won't be able to do it. Which shows you how little you know.
We know very little, yes. And sciences fail to admit this often. We are very confused, too. But it seems your just settling for alternative false stories. Did you study enough chemistry to say something like that? Doesn't seem so. It seems you are just watching some youtube video that defies traditional authority with some new bullshit. You said some group has full control of social appearance (for 100years at least), and when I ask for more info you just deviate.
On the other hand, I'm sure your intentions are the best and I think you are and should keep being free to think however you like. The great challenge is: what it achieves?
It's not a sham trial; it's a political trial. Assange is technically the one on trial but he doesn't matter. The decision is made.
There's a very good reason why the media isn't covering the trial. They are the ones who are on trial by the governments. This is why 'fake news' and 'misinformation' really came to the forefront after Assange and this whole situation.
Random question, but are you a relatively strong supporter of Wikileaks? I only ask as I was looking into "Wikileaks Community"(I think was the term), a group of people who would do in depth articles on the documents the group releases, after the fact.
I would not say I'm a strong supporter of Wikileaks, although I do believe their leaks have been critical in adjusting and making more realistic our views on the wars in Iraq et al, as well as exposing government overreach in the forms of extraordinary rendition, torture, and flagrant breaches of the laws of war.
What bothers me most about this case is A: that America is doing this very much political hounding of a journalist becaues they were embarassed by them. B: the readiness of the UK to roll over and destroy its own justice system. First by having the judge be at the very least biased, but more likely having the judgement ready to extradite Assange. Secondly by having this public trial be very much private. First by limiting the public seats in the trial to less than a dozen and then also by excluding all NGOs and news sources who'd be critical of this sham. Lastly by the frankly horrendous treatment of Assange. Both by the conditions in which he's been kept in prison, putting him in a glass box so he can't hear the trial nor communicate with his legal team, but also by things like limiting the time he can spend with his legal team while awaiting the trial, to the point where the defense team wasn't sure they'd be able to do enough prep at all.
I'm not OP but... I think there are so many reasons to call bullshit on this that are totally independent of whether I or you or anyone likes wiki leaks or Assaunge himself. This is about justice, the rule of law, press freedom and basic fairness long before its about whether anyone likes this particular defendant (let's face it, he's not as charismatic as say a dead fish).
Yeah I doubt they are totally independent, I assume its just a subset in the org that doesnt get access to how the rest of the organization works to protect the rest of the organization. Just effectively coordinating hobby bloggers.
That might well be true here. I actually think it's probably not simply because if it were, the US would have provided at least some evidence to try and get public opinion on side or further muddy the waters. But it also wouldn't surprise me, the Russians love useful idiots (who doesn't?).
That said, Its irrelevant. We've been through this many times in world history. The answer to people publishing things that undermine a government position is to rethink the position. Not punish the person.
Punish the person leaves the government unquestionable. And we know that is much much worse than any damage the truth can do because we're not trying to win some pissing context with Russia over who looks good. We're trying to maintain good policy.
It's just that I can find any trace of that sub-group of Wikileaks, I get its an organization that inherently benefits from a certain degree of secrecy. It just seemed if someone wanted to be involved that was a logically well separated means.
I think Assange is a journalist, and should not be deported, and agree this trial is bullying with the aim of putting a chilling effect on journalists.
But my takeaway is that WikiLeaks was too centralized and anyone who supports it needs to support more decentralized publishing platforms.
Although that won’t “solve the problem” of course... decentralized journalists means a set of them can be bought and made into State agents. And decentralized actors can just as easily be made an example of as Assange.
But it’s only the fact that the State feels they can control the flow of information that they feel emboldened to commit crimes.
I don’t know though. Decentralized systems also facilitate crimes. I have to admit over time my instinct to try to redistribute power down to independent entities feels more and more a leap of faith.
Would we be better off governing ourselves in smaller groups? It seems more like an experiment than a belief for me at this point.
I think you overestimate the degree to which Americans would care. In order to move Americans you’d need to propagandize through media, but all current media has a vested interest in perpetuating the military industrial complex.
Any attempt to withdraw and dismantle the MIC would lead to thousands of sad stories of the people hurt by its loss. Workers in the weapons factories, rebel groups we’ve propped up, entire economies who depend on the subsidies, etc. the final result would be apathy and finally more of the same. The only thing America can do is continue down the path it’s set for itself, and the only thing intelligent people can do is remove themselves from it to the extent that they can, wait for it to finally devour itself, and hope it doesn’t destroy the rest of the world in its death throes.
All it would take is for Americans to be exposed to the facts of their victims. The magnitude of the crimes against humanity being committed by the US' War Coalition is SO HUGE that its no wonder that American media is falling over itself to suppress any reporting on the ground from these wars.
But, Americans, the rest of the world IS watching, and we DO know the facts - we aren't cowardly shielding our eyes from the 37 million war refugees created so that America has someone to drop bombs on. The burning piles of rubble are NOT going away just because American media is ignoring it at the behest of their intelligence community masters.
The leaks will continue, and the hubris that seizes any solution-making will be eroded.
> The Five Eyes (FVEY) is an intelligence alliance comprising Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States.[1] These countries are parties to the multilateral UKUSA Agreement, a treaty for joint cooperation in signals intelligence.
Judge Baraitser ruled that there will be no closing speeches in the hearing. Furthermore, because the proceedings have been going on for too long, the defense is not allowed to submit new evidence proving the inhumane conditions Assange would be held in if extradited. Since the defense is also not allowed to cross examine Kromberg, who's written several affidavits which cross the border into perjury, they're somewhat fucked.
More 'time saving' measurements, because apparently that's more important than having a fair and/or humane trial.
Wait, I missed this gorgeous fucking bit of assholery:
Baraitser heard arguments on whether the full medical records of Assange from the doctors and psychiatrists who had given evidence should be released to the media. Both defence and prosecution opposed release, but Baraitser kept referring to “open justice”. She will rule on this on Monday .