Your Man in the Public Gallery – Assange Hearing Day Four(craigmurray.org.uk)
craigmurray.org.uk
Your Man in the Public Gallery – Assange Hearing Day Four
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/02/your-man-in-the-public-gallery-assange-hearing-day-four/
17 comments
This show trial is proving to be a disgrace for the UK judicative (and government in general). Also the US is no longer trying to be a role model for the free world in terms of civic rights, quite the contrary: They want to make an example of people like Julian who dare to drag their dirty laundry into the spotlight.
Also the US is no longer trying to be a role model for the free world in terms of civic rights...
Um, we haven't been that for a very long time.
We only pretend to ourselves that we are. And since none of us pay attention to what is going on that we don't want to hear, we can pretend indefinitely. No matter how threadbare our excuses become.
An additional note. The pretend courtesy between the lawyers and the judge is required by British tradition.
Um, we haven't been that for a very long time.
We only pretend to ourselves that we are. And since none of us pay attention to what is going on that we don't want to hear, we can pretend indefinitely. No matter how threadbare our excuses become.
An additional note. The pretend courtesy between the lawyers and the judge is required by British tradition.
That old adage of paying more attention to what people do than what they say - it applies 100x more strongly to nations, I believe.
The conclusion seems foregone, all that is left is to let them create a record of how the process itself was the punishment. British justice appears to have become fickle, cynical, partisan, and self dealing. These are of course the views of only one person who is also a supporter of the accused, but the behaviour of the magistrate as described is of someone without accountability.
OK, I tried to read this, but (as is probably on purpose with these legal things) I did not understand what is going on here. Who is arguing which argument? (What I understood is that UK government is arguing some UK law is void such that they can ship Assange off to the US, I don't know if this is a correct interpretation). Can someone give an ELI5?
Here is why it is confusing.
In normal speech we present the argument that we believe and hope to convince. But in a court of law the lawyers present every argument that might convince the judge, and leave it up to the judge to decide which to be convinced by.
In this case:
Defense: Assange can't be extradited under the treaty because it excludes political acts and his act was political.
Prosecution: The treaty term about political acts is not enforceable in UK law...
Defense: The 2003 law empowers the treaty, and the term is in the treaty so it is enforceable.
Prosecution: ...and if it was enforceable it wouldn't apply because Assange's actions don't meet the definition in the treaty of a political act...
Defense: His actions did meet the definition.
Prosecution: ...and if it did meet the definition the treaty term still doesn't apply because the act did not take place in the USA...
Defense: If you rule the act did not take place in the USA then the USA has no jurisdiction to sue in the first place and Assange can't be extradited.
(And so on.)
Here the defense raised 1 argument. The prosecution raised three counter-arguments. The defense has 3 responses to each.
If the judge accepts any of the prosecution's counter-arguments, Assange will be extradited. To win, the defense has to win on every argument.
From the tone of the blog article, it looks like the judge will rule for the prosecution on the first argument, and the blogger thinks that the judge is wrong to do so.
Does that clarify?
In normal speech we present the argument that we believe and hope to convince. But in a court of law the lawyers present every argument that might convince the judge, and leave it up to the judge to decide which to be convinced by.
In this case:
Defense: Assange can't be extradited under the treaty because it excludes political acts and his act was political.
Prosecution: The treaty term about political acts is not enforceable in UK law...
Defense: The 2003 law empowers the treaty, and the term is in the treaty so it is enforceable.
Prosecution: ...and if it was enforceable it wouldn't apply because Assange's actions don't meet the definition in the treaty of a political act...
Defense: His actions did meet the definition.
Prosecution: ...and if it did meet the definition the treaty term still doesn't apply because the act did not take place in the USA...
Defense: If you rule the act did not take place in the USA then the USA has no jurisdiction to sue in the first place and Assange can't be extradited.
(And so on.)
Here the defense raised 1 argument. The prosecution raised three counter-arguments. The defense has 3 responses to each.
If the judge accepts any of the prosecution's counter-arguments, Assange will be extradited. To win, the defense has to win on every argument.
From the tone of the blog article, it looks like the judge will rule for the prosecution on the first argument, and the blogger thinks that the judge is wrong to do so.
Does that clarify?
Have you read the previous articles about the Assange hearing? That will probably provide the context you're missing.
The short answer as far as I have understood is that the Assange's defense is arguing that he can't be extradited to the US because the extradition treaty between the US/UK forbids extradition for "political offences."
The prosecution is arguing that the treaty is not actually law, and that the UK's domestic laws on extradition do not forbid extradition for "political offences."
The short answer as far as I have understood is that the Assange's defense is arguing that he can't be extradited to the US because the extradition treaty between the US/UK forbids extradition for "political offences."
The prosecution is arguing that the treaty is not actually law, and that the UK's domestic laws on extradition do not forbid extradition for "political offences."
Right, this previous article clarified a lot. Thanks!
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/category/uncategoriz...
As the title says, this is day 4 of what looks like being a rather long proceeding (now adjourned to May 18th).
The magistrate will rule on whether Assange should be extradited. This is not about guilt at this stage, but whether the US govt has a reasonable case, whether Assange would get a fair trail, etc.
One point (among many) is that (as I understood it until this trial started) one could not be extradited for 'political' reasons. The prosecution have argued that this is not true because although the US-UK extradition treaty says so, the UK law as passed by parliament does not.
Much of the discussion, as you say, is rather technical legal arguments. I find the individual arguments themselves fairly clear, but the 'context' and normality of what is going on is harder for me to judge. My own opinion, for what it is worth, is that UK judges are not always honest in certain 'high profile' cases (e.g. the Jeremy Thorpe case) and that this case may turn out to be another such example.
The magistrate will rule on whether Assange should be extradited. This is not about guilt at this stage, but whether the US govt has a reasonable case, whether Assange would get a fair trail, etc.
One point (among many) is that (as I understood it until this trial started) one could not be extradited for 'political' reasons. The prosecution have argued that this is not true because although the US-UK extradition treaty says so, the UK law as passed by parliament does not.
Much of the discussion, as you say, is rather technical legal arguments. I find the individual arguments themselves fairly clear, but the 'context' and normality of what is going on is harder for me to judge. My own opinion, for what it is worth, is that UK judges are not always honest in certain 'high profile' cases (e.g. the Jeremy Thorpe case) and that this case may turn out to be another such example.
Assange's defense is arguing that he is protected against extradition to the United States (to be tried for publishing WikiLeaks materials) by a 2007 UK/US treaty which bars extradition for political offenses. The prosecution is making two separate counterarguments:
- The treaty cannot in fact prohibit extradition for "political offenses" because this was not included in an earlier 2003 Act of Parliament which also set forth rules around extraditions.
- Assange's publication of the WikiLeaks materials cannot be termed a "political offense" because according to a narrow reading, it did not have the objective of an immediate near-term change in government or its policy, and also because of jurisdictional hair splitting.
- The treaty cannot in fact prohibit extradition for "political offenses" because this was not included in an earlier 2003 Act of Parliament which also set forth rules around extraditions.
- Assange's publication of the WikiLeaks materials cannot be termed a "political offense" because according to a narrow reading, it did not have the objective of an immediate near-term change in government or its policy, and also because of jurisdictional hair splitting.
> it did not have the objective of an immediate near-term change in government or its policy
This is curious to me. It's pretty clear to me that Assange's disclosures have made significant impacts right from the start, which have only compounded considerably over time. This very trial is evidence of that fact.
This is curious to me. It's pretty clear to me that Assange's disclosures have made significant impacts right from the start, which have only compounded considerably over time. This very trial is evidence of that fact.
You couldn't make that up!. So the prosecution are arguing that the very extradition treaty that they are using is void as it excludes extradition on political grounds.
No. They are arguing that the extradition treaty is valid but that this specific term of it is void.
Parties agreeing on something then finding that a term of it is void is much more common than you think. This is why legal contracts usually include verbiage about being severable - aka if any part of it is void the rest still applies.
Moving on, it is very common for lawyers to present a multitude of incompatible arguments for their position. With the idea that they don't care which the judge accepts, any will win.
In this case, the terms of the treaty preventing extradition on political grounds are void. If they are not void, then this was not a political act. If it was a political act, then it didn't take place in the USA and so is not covered by the treaty provision.
The judge has to choose which argument(s) to accept or reject. But the lawyers are not going to help the judge reject an argument by failing to present it.
Parties agreeing on something then finding that a term of it is void is much more common than you think. This is why legal contracts usually include verbiage about being severable - aka if any part of it is void the rest still applies.
Moving on, it is very common for lawyers to present a multitude of incompatible arguments for their position. With the idea that they don't care which the judge accepts, any will win.
In this case, the terms of the treaty preventing extradition on political grounds are void. If they are not void, then this was not a political act. If it was a political act, then it didn't take place in the USA and so is not covered by the treaty provision.
The judge has to choose which argument(s) to accept or reject. But the lawyers are not going to help the judge reject an argument by failing to present it.
Also though, as Craig points out, that this particular treaty is fully legal as is only in existence (and the political part of the treaty) because of the enabling act of law, not void because of it. Any and all treaties have incredible legal scrutiny for years before being signed.
Also of note is a similar legal treaty case that the UK government lost in this same week, regarding the paris agreement and them trying to build a new Heathrow runway, trying to break a treaty they had signed.
If he was not in the US, then how could he have committed a criminal act, if US law applies only to the US territories. It is some mental gymnastics to pick and choose legality like a pick 'n mix sweet shop.
Also of note is a similar legal treaty case that the UK government lost in this same week, regarding the paris agreement and them trying to build a new Heathrow runway, trying to break a treaty they had signed.
If he was not in the US, then how could he have committed a criminal act, if US law applies only to the US territories. It is some mental gymnastics to pick and choose legality like a pick 'n mix sweet shop.
"in the courtroom itself, Julian Assange is confined at the back of the court behind a bulletproof glass screen. He made the point several times during proceedings that this makes it very difficult for him to see and hear the proceedings. The magistrate, Vanessa Baraitser, chose to interpret this with studied dishonesty as a problem caused by the very faint noise of demonstrators outside, as opposed to a problem caused by Assange being locked away from the court in a massive bulletproof glass box.
Now there is no reason at all for Assange to be in that box, designed to restrain extremely physically violent terrorists. He could sit, as a defendant at a hearing normally would, in the body of the court with his lawyers. But the cowardly and vicious Baraitser has refused repeated and persistent requests from the defence for Assange to be allowed to sit with his lawyers."