Assange Hearing Day 7(craigmurray.org.uk)
craigmurray.org.uk
Assange Hearing Day 7
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/09/your-man-in-the-public-gallery-assange-hearing-day-7/
147 comments
> ...he would never have believed the US Government could have done such things.
That's US' image worldwide too, or was. Except in the Muslim world where their atrocities were observed and reported firsthand. Wikileaks blew open that made-up image in a big way. Reminds me of:
"One of the artifices of devil is, to induce men to believe that he does not exist." -Charles Baudelaire.
That's US' image worldwide too, or was. Except in the Muslim world where their atrocities were observed and reported firsthand. Wikileaks blew open that made-up image in a big way. Reminds me of:
"One of the artifices of devil is, to induce men to believe that he does not exist." -Charles Baudelaire.
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2018/03/20/devil/
The quote is best known in the modern day in the form it took in The Usual Suspects: "the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world that he didn't exist".
Baudelaire did write the same thing, but it's not original to him either, making him an odd citation. In particular, the form you quote didn't come from Baudelaire; it came from John Wilkinson.
Wilkinson (1836): "One of the artifices of Satan is, to induce men to believe that he does not exist"
Baudelaire (1864): "la plus belle des ruses du Diable est de vous persuader qu’il n’existe pas!" ["the loveliest trick of the Devil is to persuade you that he doesn’t exist!"]
The quote is best known in the modern day in the form it took in The Usual Suspects: "the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world that he didn't exist".
Baudelaire did write the same thing, but it's not original to him either, making him an odd citation. In particular, the form you quote didn't come from Baudelaire; it came from John Wilkinson.
Wilkinson (1836): "One of the artifices of Satan is, to induce men to believe that he does not exist"
Baudelaire (1864): "la plus belle des ruses du Diable est de vous persuader qu’il n’existe pas!" ["the loveliest trick of the Devil is to persuade you that he doesn’t exist!"]
But it's not shocking in the Muslim world. They do it to themselves much worse in the name of Islam. That is different compared to non-Muslim countries.
You have a point but two wrongs don't make a right.
Also, the escalating violent struggle is making someone some serious money. So the monetary incentives are just as strong too whatever the overt justification may be.
Also, the escalating violent struggle is making someone some serious money. So the monetary incentives are just as strong too whatever the overt justification may be.
Chomsky has been exposing this type of practice since the 70s. (and doing so based on sound logical arguments and documented evidence) Everyone should read his stuff, still as relevant today as it was 50 years ago.
we're judging things through the prism of the present.
back in 2001 the US just experienced 9/11. the sense of anger and retribution was shared internationally. people were arguing for dropping A-bombs all over the middle east.
back in 2001 the US just experienced 9/11. the sense of anger and retribution was shared internationally. people were arguing for dropping A-bombs all over the middle east.
> the sense of anger and retribution was shared internationally
Speaking from South America, I can asure you that the general opinion of 9/11 was that the US had asked for it and that there are only so many countries you could bomb for oil before one of them decides to fight back.
Sure, our government sent a statement of solidarity and no one was happy that it happened. But I am having a hard time thinking of someone other than the US who was truly, angrily calling for retribution.
Speaking from South America, I can asure you that the general opinion of 9/11 was that the US had asked for it and that there are only so many countries you could bomb for oil before one of them decides to fight back.
Sure, our government sent a statement of solidarity and no one was happy that it happened. But I am having a hard time thinking of someone other than the US who was truly, angrily calling for retribution.
I can attest to that, the general emotion in my part of Europe was - well that's horrible, just like all the atrocities US is doing all around the world and that it was just a matter of time that such a thing would happen.
It was clear, I mean crystal clear even to US commentators on places like CNN on that very day that this will be used as carte blanche for government to instill control, surveillance and fear among US general population, and basically get away with anything because 'terrorists'. Well, they for sure were right.
Life of Manhattan-based bureaucrat is not worth to me more than some poor civilian blown to pieces on some wedding or tending his field half around the world. You know, equality of human beings and stuff. 3000 means nothing compared to millions, in fact tens of millions if we keep counting.
It was clear, I mean crystal clear even to US commentators on places like CNN on that very day that this will be used as carte blanche for government to instill control, surveillance and fear among US general population, and basically get away with anything because 'terrorists'. Well, they for sure were right.
Life of Manhattan-based bureaucrat is not worth to me more than some poor civilian blown to pieces on some wedding or tending his field half around the world. You know, equality of human beings and stuff. 3000 means nothing compared to millions, in fact tens of millions if we keep counting.
They didn't help themselves after the fact either, by invading Afghanistan when the majority of the attackers were from Saudi Arabia.
For what it's worth, I was in my early to mid 20's when 9/11 happened and the aftermath made me super angry because it woke me up to the reality vs what you're taught when you're young.
MANY of us in the US absolutely opposed what was happening. We were horrified by the way the US reacted, and the shit it did. It's just that, as a US citizen, we really don't have any power to affect how the government acts.
I can only think of two times when I was VERY angry with the US, post 9/11 and the way our government reacted to the post George Floyd movement. I saw a video where we had tanks rolling down the street with armed men behind it yelling "get in your house". You then hear one of them yell "light 'em up!" and they start firing rubber bullets at these people who were standing on their BALCONY filming this. These people had no idea the ones yelling were even yelling at them. The very idea that all of the elements of tianmen square was there in the US just boils my blood. And then to see so many video's of police officers TARGETTING media or attacking people with impunity.
Even the death of the officers in Tulsa, OK. The lawyer released an affidavit stating that he had watched the police cams and the police were basically beating the shit out of the guy before he finally reached into this car and pulled out the gun. The affidavit stated that the police lied about several aspects of what happened, most specifically that the shooter never stood over them after the fact and shot multiple times into the downed officers, but that instead the shooter was panic'd and started running away (backwards) when one of the officers tried to pull out his gun and the shooter then fired again at that police officer.
I've said more than I should have, but I'm both extremely angry about this stuff and immensely disappointed that my country isn't better than it is.
MANY of us in the US absolutely opposed what was happening. We were horrified by the way the US reacted, and the shit it did. It's just that, as a US citizen, we really don't have any power to affect how the government acts.
I can only think of two times when I was VERY angry with the US, post 9/11 and the way our government reacted to the post George Floyd movement. I saw a video where we had tanks rolling down the street with armed men behind it yelling "get in your house". You then hear one of them yell "light 'em up!" and they start firing rubber bullets at these people who were standing on their BALCONY filming this. These people had no idea the ones yelling were even yelling at them. The very idea that all of the elements of tianmen square was there in the US just boils my blood. And then to see so many video's of police officers TARGETTING media or attacking people with impunity.
Even the death of the officers in Tulsa, OK. The lawyer released an affidavit stating that he had watched the police cams and the police were basically beating the shit out of the guy before he finally reached into this car and pulled out the gun. The affidavit stated that the police lied about several aspects of what happened, most specifically that the shooter never stood over them after the fact and shot multiple times into the downed officers, but that instead the shooter was panic'd and started running away (backwards) when one of the officers tried to pull out his gun and the shooter then fired again at that police officer.
I've said more than I should have, but I'm both extremely angry about this stuff and immensely disappointed that my country isn't better than it is.
Tony Blair
I protested against the Iraq war in Amsterdam ( it wasn't a war ).
My father's office in the UK was bombed by the IRA, who were predominantly backed by US "patriots".
I wouldn't wish that on anyone, but there was a bit of schadenfreude along with the horror and sympathy.
I wouldn't wish that on anyone, but there was a bit of schadenfreude along with the horror and sympathy.
No. Next-door in Canada, we thought you were bonkers. I thought you were bonkers. We joined in Afghanistan, but invading Iraq never made any sense and we wisely stayed out.
And then botching the invasion and inviting chaos by creating a power vacuum and not filling it. The US basically gave away Iraq to Iran.
Is there any evidence of this stuff?
I googled one of the examples given. This seems to be the most substantial reporting: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/06/the-newest...
> In June 2016, Mr. Kareem was at the location of four different aerial attacks. The first and fourth incidents involved strikes to the OGN office in Idlib City when Mr. Kareem was inside the office. The second attack occurred in the town of Hariyataan while Mr. Kareem was there conducting an interview. The strike hit the exact location where Mr. Kareem was setting up for the interview, but at the time of the strike he had climbed a nearby hill to “view destroyed homes a street away.”
> The third attack occurred when the vehicle in which Mr. Kareem and his staff were traveling was “struck and destroyed by a drone-launched Hellfire missile.” At the time of the strike, Mr. Kareem was sitting in a different, nearby vehicle which was “hurled into the air by the force of the blast” and “flipped upside down.” In August 2016, Mr. Kareem was again the victim of an attack when he was at the Kulliyatul Midfa‘iyyah (Artillery College) to film. He and his coworkers were in his car “when there was a huge blast only yards away from the car.” The occupants survived, but all were hit by shrapnel from the blast.
> As a result of these five near-miss experiences in a three-month period, Mr. Kareem alleges upon information and belief that he was the target and that his name is included on the United States Kill List.
I can see why he might think he's on a "kill list", but at the same time, maybe the people he was meeting were the targets?
It sucks we even need to ask this question, but the OP's link makes it sound like all of this is simple fact. As an outsider, I don't think it's possible to come to an actual concrete conclusion here, which is basically what all the courts have said.
I googled one of the examples given. This seems to be the most substantial reporting: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/06/the-newest...
> In June 2016, Mr. Kareem was at the location of four different aerial attacks. The first and fourth incidents involved strikes to the OGN office in Idlib City when Mr. Kareem was inside the office. The second attack occurred in the town of Hariyataan while Mr. Kareem was there conducting an interview. The strike hit the exact location where Mr. Kareem was setting up for the interview, but at the time of the strike he had climbed a nearby hill to “view destroyed homes a street away.”
> The third attack occurred when the vehicle in which Mr. Kareem and his staff were traveling was “struck and destroyed by a drone-launched Hellfire missile.” At the time of the strike, Mr. Kareem was sitting in a different, nearby vehicle which was “hurled into the air by the force of the blast” and “flipped upside down.” In August 2016, Mr. Kareem was again the victim of an attack when he was at the Kulliyatul Midfa‘iyyah (Artillery College) to film. He and his coworkers were in his car “when there was a huge blast only yards away from the car.” The occupants survived, but all were hit by shrapnel from the blast.
> As a result of these five near-miss experiences in a three-month period, Mr. Kareem alleges upon information and belief that he was the target and that his name is included on the United States Kill List.
I can see why he might think he's on a "kill list", but at the same time, maybe the people he was meeting were the targets?
It sucks we even need to ask this question, but the OP's link makes it sound like all of this is simple fact. As an outsider, I don't think it's possible to come to an actual concrete conclusion here, which is basically what all the courts have said.
It's really hard to get to the facts of these drone cases because every military aged male automatically gets classified as enemy combatant unless intelligence proves after the fact that they were innocent. Most news sources will blindly accept the definition of enemy combatant provided by the government so there is minimal uproar.
I would trust Mr Kareem over the US government on this because it fits the pattern of how the drone wars work.
For a good source on this issue I would recommend:
The Assassination Complex: Inside the Government's Secret Drone Warfare Program by Jeremy Scahill
or the Drone Papers from the intercept which were the basis for the book.
>"The White House and Pentagon boast that the targeted killing program is precise and that civilian deaths are minimal. However, documents detailing a special operations campaign in northeastern Afghanistan, Operation Haymaker, show that between January 2012 and February 2013, U.S. special operations airstrikes killed more than 200 people. Of those, only 35 were the intended targets. During one five-month period of the operation, according to the documents, nearly 90 percent of the people killed in airstrikes were not the intended targets. In Yemen and Somalia, where the U.S. has far more limited intelligence capabilities to confirm the people killed are the intended targets, the equivalent ratios may well be much worse."
https://theintercept.com/drone-papers/the-assassination-comp...
I would trust Mr Kareem over the US government on this because it fits the pattern of how the drone wars work.
For a good source on this issue I would recommend:
The Assassination Complex: Inside the Government's Secret Drone Warfare Program by Jeremy Scahill
or the Drone Papers from the intercept which were the basis for the book.
>"The White House and Pentagon boast that the targeted killing program is precise and that civilian deaths are minimal. However, documents detailing a special operations campaign in northeastern Afghanistan, Operation Haymaker, show that between January 2012 and February 2013, U.S. special operations airstrikes killed more than 200 people. Of those, only 35 were the intended targets. During one five-month period of the operation, according to the documents, nearly 90 percent of the people killed in airstrikes were not the intended targets. In Yemen and Somalia, where the U.S. has far more limited intelligence capabilities to confirm the people killed are the intended targets, the equivalent ratios may well be much worse."
https://theintercept.com/drone-papers/the-assassination-comp...
> Operation Haymaker, show that between January 2012 and February 2013, U.S. special operations airstrikes killed more than 200 people.
During the last administration. Interesting.
During the last administration. Interesting.
Yes, the redefinition of 'enemy combatant' happened under Bush if I recall correctly, but I think nobody is disputing that Obama really intensified the drone war, a trajectory that Trump seems happy to continue[0][2][3]. This is not a partisan issue because both parties are very comfortable blowing up 10 civilians to kill one terrorist.
[0]: https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/05/22/obama-drones-trump-kill... [1]: https://theintercept.com/2019/10/02/trump-impeachment-civili... [3]: https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/08/tr...
[0]: https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/05/22/obama-drones-trump-kill... [1]: https://theintercept.com/2019/10/02/trump-impeachment-civili... [3]: https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/08/tr...
Ok, so now they are following a journalist around to try and kill the people he is meeting, with no regard for the safety of others in the vicinity of their target. The targets that are also being targeted extra-judiciously.
Which part of that makes their behaviour ok?
Which part of that makes their behaviour ok?
That the accusation is hacking is just the tip of it.
People arguing for this certainly aren't looking outside the box. Always check if they have a connection to the security industry and be prepared for a lot of bullshit reasoning.
People arguing for this certainly aren't looking outside the box. Always check if they have a connection to the security industry and be prepared for a lot of bullshit reasoning.
It's difficult for me to read this objectively, because I "know in my heart" that the persecution of Assange is unjust. Nevertheless, it is important to put that aside and absorb the information without bias. Let the prosecution make its best case without attachment to outcome.
Still, there are some rather shocking revelations about the conduct of the government of my homeland. Torture, of course; but also murder of a detainee to terrify other detainees; "puerile attitude to killing, with juvenile nicknames given to assassination targets"; the attempted murder without trial of a US citizen, also a journalist; the attempts to block and cover these actions, which suggests that the perpetrators and enablers themselves knew they were crimes.
Still, there are some rather shocking revelations about the conduct of the government of my homeland. Torture, of course; but also murder of a detainee to terrify other detainees; "puerile attitude to killing, with juvenile nicknames given to assassination targets"; the attempted murder without trial of a US citizen, also a journalist; the attempts to block and cover these actions, which suggests that the perpetrators and enablers themselves knew they were crimes.
While I do think he and others are guilty of leaking government secrets, it was done with the public interest in mind - exposing war crimes, for which I still hope the US will be held responsible for. Therefore any punishment should be mitigated.
Second, I do not trust he would be given a fair treatment or due process in the US - I mean he helped leak documents that prove that the US committed war crimes, a country that commits war crimes does not have any kind of moral credit left when it comes to legal cases like this.
Second, I do not trust he would be given a fair treatment or due process in the US - I mean he helped leak documents that prove that the US committed war crimes, a country that commits war crimes does not have any kind of moral credit left when it comes to legal cases like this.
The law must serve justice, not the other way around. If the law allows for political prosecution, it needs to be reformed. Many laws are completely inadequate for digital "crimes". Although these "crimes" did put focus on an illegal war of aggression instigated by neocons and parts of the press. There is just so much the law can serve.
I'm generally an "ends justifies the means" kinda guy, but I think anyone with that position needs to be aware of what the "means" actually are.
Maybe that's why I'm a bit shocked that you're shocked. These things have been going on for a long time and they're well documented. I'll just give three examples: the My Lai massacre, the imprisonment/trial of Omar Khadr (a child soldier) and the extrajudicial execution of Anwar Nasser al-Awlaki (an American citizen).
(To be clear, I don't think any of the above are justifiable. As a Canadian, I was particularly ashamed of Canada's position towards Khadr. But I don't go around a) thinking these things don't happen and b) that they're alway black and white)
Maybe that's why I'm a bit shocked that you're shocked. These things have been going on for a long time and they're well documented. I'll just give three examples: the My Lai massacre, the imprisonment/trial of Omar Khadr (a child soldier) and the extrajudicial execution of Anwar Nasser al-Awlaki (an American citizen).
(To be clear, I don't think any of the above are justifiable. As a Canadian, I was particularly ashamed of Canada's position towards Khadr. But I don't go around a) thinking these things don't happen and b) that they're alway black and white)
The problem as I see it is that we have stated principles: e.g. no torture, no punishment without trial, no extrajudicial punishment. There are good reasons for those principles. If we don't follow those principles, then what principles are we following? There are no limits.
If it's okay to murder detainees in this situation, then why wouldn't it be okay to murder detainees in that other, only slightly less justifiable situation?
If the President can order the assassination of American citizens, then what prevents the next President to order the assassination of political opponents?
Why couldn't I murder my neighbor for their TV? If you say "that way lies chaos" that's exactly, exactly my point.
I cannot imagine what ends justifies some of these actions. Is it really keeping us "safe" to have a government that abandons our principles whenever expedient?
If it's okay to murder detainees in this situation, then why wouldn't it be okay to murder detainees in that other, only slightly less justifiable situation?
If the President can order the assassination of American citizens, then what prevents the next President to order the assassination of political opponents?
Why couldn't I murder my neighbor for their TV? If you say "that way lies chaos" that's exactly, exactly my point.
I cannot imagine what ends justifies some of these actions. Is it really keeping us "safe" to have a government that abandons our principles whenever expedient?
Might makes right, èh?
The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.
The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.
Nothing is black and white, sure. Foreign intervention was probably good for the Kurds and some other minorities being suppressed by Saddam. He really wasn't the nicest guy.
But there is also an unfortunate history of selling weapons to him in the hope he would point them towards Iran. But the useful idiot didn't do what he was told and lied to his handlers. They probably didn't mind because the ends justified the means from his perspective. The war killed hundreds of thousands of people and we are in process of torturing the person responsible for transparency on the consequences of war.
Difficult to really say what that achieved. What was it for the US? Saving face after 9/11? If the US casually kills thousands of people not involved in the attack as impotent retaliation, you might find other terrorists that think crashing a plane into a skyscraper of innocent people is justified. The US would sabotage its reputation itself in that case. The ends justify the means, right?
But there is also an unfortunate history of selling weapons to him in the hope he would point them towards Iran. But the useful idiot didn't do what he was told and lied to his handlers. They probably didn't mind because the ends justified the means from his perspective. The war killed hundreds of thousands of people and we are in process of torturing the person responsible for transparency on the consequences of war.
Difficult to really say what that achieved. What was it for the US? Saving face after 9/11? If the US casually kills thousands of people not involved in the attack as impotent retaliation, you might find other terrorists that think crashing a plane into a skyscraper of innocent people is justified. The US would sabotage its reputation itself in that case. The ends justify the means, right?
It was a very local optimum for the Kurds, probably many more have been displaced and killed because of interventions. The ISIS was very harsh on kurds, and ISIS could not have existed without the US invasion.
Saddam was a horror, but in terms of people killed (after the Iran / Iraq war) much worse came after 9/11.
If you go back, it's an infinite fractal of short sightedness and incompetent tampering.
Saddam was a horror, but in terms of people killed (after the Iran / Iraq war) much worse came after 9/11.
If you go back, it's an infinite fractal of short sightedness and incompetent tampering.
Yeah, they just have no voice on an international level and always seem to be handed the short end of the stick in every conflict. Even if things in Syria turned out differently...
Just wanting to point out that the regime of Saddam wasn't too nice for a lot of people, but yes, I think the intervention was worse for basically everybody.
Just wanting to point out that the regime of Saddam wasn't too nice for a lot of people, but yes, I think the intervention was worse for basically everybody.
Just curious what ends you think justify these means? and do you think the US (and other 5 eyes) is achieving those ends?
If you allow me to ignore the slippery slope argument, the typical justification given for extrajudicial killing (clear and immediate threat) at the very least, makes this a not-so black and white issue.
Are you saying that the targets referenced in this article/hearing were clear and immediate threat to Americans on the other side of the world? or maybe they were minutes from launching a nuke?
Also do you think its correct to investigate very carefully anyone involved in such activities openly after the fact (once the perceived threat is no longer present) to ensure that these powers are not abused?
There was an Iain (M?) Banks book (maybe transitions?) that sort of represents my basic thoughts on this.. A policemen goes extra-judicial and tortures a suspect to find the location of a kidnapped child (or something like that).. the kid or whatever it was was saved but the policeman felt he should be criminally charged and tried after the fact and the torture should certainly not be legalised or glorified as it worked that one time in exceptional circumstances. - I think that there are times when humans do carry out a wrong to stop a greater wrong - but that should be part of the burden this actor must accept when taking action. otherwise the creative among us will not be able to stop our subconscious manipulating the laws that allow us to circumnavigate protocol.
I spend all day implementing controls in ERP systems etc. and I have to admit that when I have to raise a PO or Req you are damn right i use every fast track and workaround i know of to expedite it (I basically can't help it). So I try hard to create processes even I cannot manipulate. to be clear I think my ability to "work a process" is what makes me good at creating more robust processes - which is why I think politicians and law makers have a hard job and why we need to hold them to account.
Also do you think its correct to investigate very carefully anyone involved in such activities openly after the fact (once the perceived threat is no longer present) to ensure that these powers are not abused?
There was an Iain (M?) Banks book (maybe transitions?) that sort of represents my basic thoughts on this.. A policemen goes extra-judicial and tortures a suspect to find the location of a kidnapped child (or something like that).. the kid or whatever it was was saved but the policeman felt he should be criminally charged and tried after the fact and the torture should certainly not be legalised or glorified as it worked that one time in exceptional circumstances. - I think that there are times when humans do carry out a wrong to stop a greater wrong - but that should be part of the burden this actor must accept when taking action. otherwise the creative among us will not be able to stop our subconscious manipulating the laws that allow us to circumnavigate protocol.
I spend all day implementing controls in ERP systems etc. and I have to admit that when I have to raise a PO or Req you are damn right i use every fast track and workaround i know of to expedite it (I basically can't help it). So I try hard to create processes even I cannot manipulate. to be clear I think my ability to "work a process" is what makes me good at creating more robust processes - which is why I think politicians and law makers have a hard job and why we need to hold them to account.
I'm saying that I can imagine a realistic scenarios where an extra extrajudicial execution could be seen as the lesser of two evil by reasonable people.
Yes, there should be oversight before the act and scrutiny after. Yes, it should be formalized.
Yes, there should be oversight before the act and scrutiny after. Yes, it should be formalized.
I can imagine these too, but some imaginary scenarios come too close to "24" TV series scenarios, i.e. completely unrealistic.
But I will give you that, even if you subscribe to the idea it came sometimes make some sense with extrajudicial killing, what we currently have is drone killings on a factory scale. It's disgusting.
But I will give you that, even if you subscribe to the idea it came sometimes make some sense with extrajudicial killing, what we currently have is drone killings on a factory scale. It's disgusting.
And I am asking.. does this look like one of those situations and do you think there is appropriate oversight in this situation?
our shock I guess is that we don't think that there is scrutiny and that these ends do not justify these means.
our shock I guess is that we don't think that there is scrutiny and that these ends do not justify these means.
I think that's a reasonable opinion, but I would also like to point out that in the US it's neither formalized, nor scrutinized.
[deleted]
I don't think My Lai can be blamed on the US government. The cover up can be blamed as trying to cover up a shameful act, but the act itself was done by men who were in a shitty situation and snapped.
Unless you have evidence that they were asked to do those things specifically by higher ups, to me those were the actions of shitty men in a shitty situation.
Unless you have evidence that they were asked to do those things specifically by higher ups, to me those were the actions of shitty men in a shitty situation.
There had been wilful ignorance before and after that incident.
One interesting snippet, which gets to the one of the key areas around this case for me (I know there are more issues here than just this one):
> Mark Summers then re-examined Professor Feldstein. He said that Lewis had suggested that Assange was complicit in Manning obtaining classified information but the New York Times was not. Is it your understanding that to seek to help an official leaker is a crime
> Professor Feldstein replied “No, absolutely not”.
> “Do journalists ask for classified information?”
> “Yes.”
> “Do journalists solicit such information?”
> “Yes.”
> “Are you aware of any kind of previous prosecution for this kind of activity.”
> “No. Absolutely not.”
> “Could you predict it would be criminalised?”
> “No, and it is very dangerous.”
There are clearly two sides to this argument, but the chilling effect around the prosecution of journalists gaining access to classified information is a worry for me.
I realise that the US Government might claim that Assange isn't a journalist. They're certainly claiming that he crossed the line from journalism into hacking, but that line seems to be blurrier and more arbitrary than it used to be (at least from where I sit in the cheap seats).
> Mark Summers then re-examined Professor Feldstein. He said that Lewis had suggested that Assange was complicit in Manning obtaining classified information but the New York Times was not. Is it your understanding that to seek to help an official leaker is a crime
> Professor Feldstein replied “No, absolutely not”.
> “Do journalists ask for classified information?”
> “Yes.”
> “Do journalists solicit such information?”
> “Yes.”
> “Are you aware of any kind of previous prosecution for this kind of activity.”
> “No. Absolutely not.”
> “Could you predict it would be criminalised?”
> “No, and it is very dangerous.”
There are clearly two sides to this argument, but the chilling effect around the prosecution of journalists gaining access to classified information is a worry for me.
I realise that the US Government might claim that Assange isn't a journalist. They're certainly claiming that he crossed the line from journalism into hacking, but that line seems to be blurrier and more arbitrary than it used to be (at least from where I sit in the cheap seats).
I don't think regular citizens should have less rights than journalists in the first place, but maybe I'm just nutty.
So I will respectfully disagree with you there. In general I agree with you about most (almost all?) rights - they should be available to all citizens equally.
However if you agree that:
- The state should be allowed to keep secrets
- The state can't always be trusted to choose what should be secret or not
- There is a need to hold the state to account, but somehow not make all secrets public by doing so
Then there needs to be some subset of citizenry who can gain access to those secrets without the blessing of the state.
In history this has been likely to occur when a person with access to the secrets feels strongly enough about something that they feel the secret should be made public. For good reasons or bad reasons (which not everyone will agree with either way).
A good journalist can fulfil that role IMHO. I realise that "good" there is another assumption...
However if you agree that:
- The state should be allowed to keep secrets
- The state can't always be trusted to choose what should be secret or not
- There is a need to hold the state to account, but somehow not make all secrets public by doing so
Then there needs to be some subset of citizenry who can gain access to those secrets without the blessing of the state.
In history this has been likely to occur when a person with access to the secrets feels strongly enough about something that they feel the secret should be made public. For good reasons or bad reasons (which not everyone will agree with either way).
A good journalist can fulfil that role IMHO. I realise that "good" there is another assumption...
Also the definition of journalist is very dodgy these days.
Craig Murray has been applying to the NUJ (National Union of Journalists) to become a "registered" journalist. They're sitting on his application, clearly because allowing him into the club will upset powerful people. [0]
The Assange trial has seen a definition of journalist that only includes employees of large media corporations. This is clearly wrong.
If we're going to extend special protection to journalists, we need a definition of "journalist" that doesn't mean "someone who will not need those protections because they're not going to do things that will upset the establishment".
[0] - https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/07/calling-all-...
Craig Murray has been applying to the NUJ (National Union of Journalists) to become a "registered" journalist. They're sitting on his application, clearly because allowing him into the club will upset powerful people. [0]
The Assange trial has seen a definition of journalist that only includes employees of large media corporations. This is clearly wrong.
If we're going to extend special protection to journalists, we need a definition of "journalist" that doesn't mean "someone who will not need those protections because they're not going to do things that will upset the establishment".
[0] - https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/07/calling-all-...
Why does it need to be a subset? Then you run the risk that whoever uncovers wrongdoing is labeled "not a journalist". Same reason freedom of speech applies to everybody and not just registered "free speakers".
If everyone knows, or can easily know, then you can't keep secrets.
You might argue that we shouldn't have secrets at all and everything should be public.
I think that's a worthy goal, but doesn't work in practice.
If another state is competitive with you (and all states are competitive with each other to some extent), then I think you need the ability to keep some information confidential somehow.
You might argue that we shouldn't have secrets at all and everything should be public.
I think that's a worthy goal, but doesn't work in practice.
If another state is competitive with you (and all states are competitive with each other to some extent), then I think you need the ability to keep some information confidential somehow.
That argument immediately slides down its own slippery slope to total control over information by government and corporations and their colleagues in the "news business".
Responsible disclosure of "secrets" in service of public interest is, to me, one of the defining characteristic of a free and thoughtful society.
[p.s.] It should be noted that your position is effectively arguing that 'Journalism is a component of state-craft and as such can only be practiced by official members of the governing class'.
Responsible disclosure of "secrets" in service of public interest is, to me, one of the defining characteristic of a free and thoughtful society.
[p.s.] It should be noted that your position is effectively arguing that 'Journalism is a component of state-craft and as such can only be practiced by official members of the governing class'.
I get the principle of the point you’re making but I don’t see how it can work if (and maybe this is the key bit) a state is allowed to have secrets.
Perhaps I’m blinkered, but I can’t see how a modern state can function without them in some form. To offer an extreme example, nuclear launch codes must remain secret. (Separate argument obvs about the merits for and against nuclear weapons).
If the state is going to have some secrets, I don’t see how they can work in practice if everyone is allowed to know them.
Separately I’m not sure I buy the slippery slope argument as an absolute given. It’s a clear risk yes, but I see good journalism as one of the safeguards against all forms of government malpractice, corruption or straight incompetence.
Perhaps I’m blinkered, but I can’t see how a modern state can function without them in some form. To offer an extreme example, nuclear launch codes must remain secret. (Separate argument obvs about the merits for and against nuclear weapons).
If the state is going to have some secrets, I don’t see how they can work in practice if everyone is allowed to know them.
Separately I’m not sure I buy the slippery slope argument as an absolute given. It’s a clear risk yes, but I see good journalism as one of the safeguards against all forms of government malpractice, corruption or straight incompetence.
A society can set the standard of "responsible disclosure" that is done to serve the "right to know" to the public. A jury of peers can judge if the two conditions above are met.
[It should be also noted that the fact that state craft requires secrets is not a carte blanche to the state to commit illegal acts.]
Nuclear launch codes can remain secret. It is difficult to see how the disclosure could possibly be both "respnsible" and "in the public interest".
Disclosing that certain government agencies are running projects like "MK-Ultra" [1], "Mockingbird" [2], "Artichoke" [3] is in the public interest.
(You know, one of the characters in one of John le Carré's Smiley books once said: "A nation's secret services are the true reflection of its soul"...)
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKUltra
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Mockingbird
[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_ARTICHOKE
[It should be also noted that the fact that state craft requires secrets is not a carte blanche to the state to commit illegal acts.]
Nuclear launch codes can remain secret. It is difficult to see how the disclosure could possibly be both "respnsible" and "in the public interest".
Disclosing that certain government agencies are running projects like "MK-Ultra" [1], "Mockingbird" [2], "Artichoke" [3] is in the public interest.
(You know, one of the characters in one of John le Carré's Smiley books once said: "A nation's secret services are the true reflection of its soul"...)
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKUltra
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Mockingbird
[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_ARTICHOKE
100% agree with you hear and made much the same point in another post (just not as eloquently).
An analogue would be arguing that you have to be an official whistleblower in order to be protected by whistleblower laws, rather than simply being any citizen who meets the criteria necessary to be protected. It's just not a tenable way to serve the public good.
An analogue would be arguing that you have to be an official whistleblower in order to be protected by whistleblower laws, rather than simply being any citizen who meets the criteria necessary to be protected. It's just not a tenable way to serve the public good.
This is a point of view I hadn't considered, but is an interesting way of consoling my two points of view that secrecy is important but accountability is essential. This almost framed journalists as being a kind of law enforcement for the people, which is certainly an interesting way of viewing them.
I wholeheartedly agree - I absolutely view quality journalism as an essential part of an accountable and transparent state.
Good journalism, which IMHO should strive for a degree of impartiality[0], is needed to hold administrations at all levels to account.
[0] humans are clearly imperfect mind
Good journalism, which IMHO should strive for a degree of impartiality[0], is needed to hold administrations at all levels to account.
[0] humans are clearly imperfect mind
It doesn't get less impartial than publishing original source classified documents with little to no commentary. That's what WikiLeaks is/does.
The Intercept and The Guardian add a layer of partiality/bias with narratives that paint state secrecy as inherently problematic. Somewhat paradoxically this anti-state bias in reporting makes them MORE palatable/acceptable; because their narrative justifies their role as the fourth estate of government.
WikiLeaks' position is that this narrative is implicit and doesn't need reiterated with each leak. Unfortunately powerful institutions and people experience the world in narratives and the importance of the fourth estate isn't one that is strongly engrained in their thinking. So, they go after WikiLeaks because of its impartiality.
WikiLeaks shouldn't have to add bias to every new publication to be legitimate. That's plainly backwards. They absolutely have the high ground here. All they need to do is paint the narrative to the courts that organizations like The Intercept paint continuously.
If the courts don't accept the narrative as sufficient justification then they drive the nails in the coffin of the free press at large.
The Intercept and The Guardian add a layer of partiality/bias with narratives that paint state secrecy as inherently problematic. Somewhat paradoxically this anti-state bias in reporting makes them MORE palatable/acceptable; because their narrative justifies their role as the fourth estate of government.
WikiLeaks' position is that this narrative is implicit and doesn't need reiterated with each leak. Unfortunately powerful institutions and people experience the world in narratives and the importance of the fourth estate isn't one that is strongly engrained in their thinking. So, they go after WikiLeaks because of its impartiality.
WikiLeaks shouldn't have to add bias to every new publication to be legitimate. That's plainly backwards. They absolutely have the high ground here. All they need to do is paint the narrative to the courts that organizations like The Intercept paint continuously.
If the courts don't accept the narrative as sufficient justification then they drive the nails in the coffin of the free press at large.
Wikileaks 100% had a narrative, it was one of the things that disappointed me most about them.
In general, I was on the side of this information needing to come out, I just really wish Wikileaks hadn't politicized it the way they did.
In general, I was on the side of this information needing to come out, I just really wish Wikileaks hadn't politicized it the way they did.
WikiLeaks has a 100:1 ratio of words in leaked documents to narrative words, at LEAST. Meanwhile The Intercept has a 1:100 ratio. You can't dismiss this difference as insignificant.
That's a terrible metric to use.
Wikileaks would time their release of information for political effect.
Wikileaks would time their release of information for political effect.
It's a classic view, called
"The Fourth Estate"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Estate
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Estate
> So I will respectfully disagree with you there
But everything you wrote is full agreement.
But everything you wrote is full agreement.
Reality means your opinion can't happen without abuse.
If there's a subset of the people that are given special rights, the giver of those special rights can then cull anyone who would potentially act in opposition. Since it's the government itself that gives those rights, they're able to effectively act with impunity.
If you give everyone those rights, and those protections under the law, the government itself becomes a lot more honest and that's worth it.
If there's a subset of the people that are given special rights, the giver of those special rights can then cull anyone who would potentially act in opposition. Since it's the government itself that gives those rights, they're able to effectively act with impunity.
If you give everyone those rights, and those protections under the law, the government itself becomes a lot more honest and that's worth it.
Should employees of a corporation have more rights than a citizen? A very good question.
Are these "journalist" actually maintaining a sacred trust of "digging out the truth and publishing it"? Cursory review of American Journalism in the past few decades indicates otherwise to this consumer of their product.
If American Journalism actually worked, if American journals were actually committed to "digging out the truth and publishing it", there would no "conspiracy theories" whatsoever, starting with theories around the assissination of a sitting American president.
This phoneomena -- the public maintaing an ad-hoc narrative of events after rejecting offical narratives -- are known side-effects of living under "managed public discourse" political regimes. Free societies do not indoctrinate their populace.
Press is the tool of the powerful in every corner of this planet. And no, it is not "nutty" to think "all should be equal before the law".
Are these "journalist" actually maintaining a sacred trust of "digging out the truth and publishing it"? Cursory review of American Journalism in the past few decades indicates otherwise to this consumer of their product.
If American Journalism actually worked, if American journals were actually committed to "digging out the truth and publishing it", there would no "conspiracy theories" whatsoever, starting with theories around the assissination of a sitting American president.
This phoneomena -- the public maintaing an ad-hoc narrative of events after rejecting offical narratives -- are known side-effects of living under "managed public discourse" political regimes. Free societies do not indoctrinate their populace.
Press is the tool of the powerful in every corner of this planet. And no, it is not "nutty" to think "all should be equal before the law".
US can really do whatever they want and get away with it, for now. What a shame if the UK allows the extradition of a journalist.
But is Assange a journalist?
Does he have any accreditations, or follow journalistic standards for example?
Does he have any accreditations, or follow journalistic standards for example?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange#Honours_and_awa....
> 2008, The Economist New Media Award. 2009, Amnesty International UK Media Awards. 2010, Time Person of the Year, Reader's Choice. 2010, Sam Adams Award. 2010, Le Monde Readers' Choice Award for Person of the Year. 2011, Free Dacia Award. 2011, Sydney Peace Foundation Gold Medal. 2011, Martha Gellhorn Prize for Journalism. 2011, Voltaire Award for Free Speech. 2012, Big Brother Award Italy 2012 "Hero of Privacy". 2013, Global Exchange Human Rights Award, People's Choice. 2013, Yoko Ono Lennon Courage Award for the Arts. 2013, New York Festivals World's Best TV & Films Silver World Medal. 2014, Union of Journalists in Kazakhstan Top Prize. 2019, GUE/NGL Galizia prize. 2019, Gavin MacFadyen award. 2019, Catalan Dignity Prize. 2020, Stuttgart Peace Prize.
> 2008, The Economist New Media Award. 2009, Amnesty International UK Media Awards. 2010, Time Person of the Year, Reader's Choice. 2010, Sam Adams Award. 2010, Le Monde Readers' Choice Award for Person of the Year. 2011, Free Dacia Award. 2011, Sydney Peace Foundation Gold Medal. 2011, Martha Gellhorn Prize for Journalism. 2011, Voltaire Award for Free Speech. 2012, Big Brother Award Italy 2012 "Hero of Privacy". 2013, Global Exchange Human Rights Award, People's Choice. 2013, Yoko Ono Lennon Courage Award for the Arts. 2013, New York Festivals World's Best TV & Films Silver World Medal. 2014, Union of Journalists in Kazakhstan Top Prize. 2019, GUE/NGL Galizia prize. 2019, Gavin MacFadyen award. 2019, Catalan Dignity Prize. 2020, Stuttgart Peace Prize.
There is no legal "accreditation" of journalists. If freedom of the press only applies to government approved presses, that's not freedom.
The Guardian (& many many others) certainly think so.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/may/23/julian-assange...
From https://www.mondaq.com/australia/crime/903612/julian-assange...:
> The line up of renowned Australian journalists on the stage at the Martin Place Amphitheatre on 24 February was impressive. Gathered for a rally, they included John Pilger, Mary Kostakidis, Quentin Dempster, Wendy Bacon, Andrew Fowler and Mark Davis. They were there to speak in support of fellow journalist Julian Assange.
> "He did redact"
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/may/23/julian-assange...
From https://www.mondaq.com/australia/crime/903612/julian-assange...:
> The line up of renowned Australian journalists on the stage at the Martin Place Amphitheatre on 24 February was impressive. Gathered for a rally, they included John Pilger, Mary Kostakidis, Quentin Dempster, Wendy Bacon, Andrew Fowler and Mark Davis. They were there to speak in support of fellow journalist Julian Assange.
> "He did redact"
Can you name anyone who's done more to revolutionize journalism in the last 20 years than Julian Assange? The sheer number and impact of the scoops he's released is orders of magnitude beyond what any other journalist I can think of has done.
We all know that Assange is going to be extradited to the USA. This trial is just a formality. I'm very disappointed in how my Australian government treated its citizen over the years in this whole debacle.
Sadly, the extradition process from the UK to the USA is just a formality these days. The extradition treaty[0] is both somewhat one-sided and, crucially, changed the requirement to demonstrate a prima facie case (and actually examine some of the evidence even if not in huge depth) to a requirement only to demonstrate "reasonable suspicion" which is much weaker.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK%E2%80%93US_extradition_trea...
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK%E2%80%93US_extradition_trea...
>changed the requirement to demonstrate a prima facie case
The Wikipedia article explains that this change was to make the requirements roughly symmetrical. The UK did not have to make a prima facie case when extraditing from the US.
The Wikipedia article explains that this change was to make the requirements roughly symmetrical. The UK did not have to make a prima facie case when extraditing from the US.
Why is that a given? And the UK could just hold him there indefinitely (also not good). They should really just let him go, with the option of going to the US trials at his own choice, which of course he won't.
Australia's providing no pressure to get him released. The US considers him enemy number one.
UK has no reason to not extradite him and something to gain from doing so.
UK has no reason to not extradite him and something to gain from doing so.
> UK has no reason to not extradite him and something to gain from doing so.
No reason apart from the popular opinion of them that will decline if they extradite a journalist to a country that has routinely committed war crimes, torture, murder and other atrocities.
I can't help but think that everyone would react much worse if he were being extradited to China, yet what's the difference?
No reason apart from the popular opinion of them that will decline if they extradite a journalist to a country that has routinely committed war crimes, torture, murder and other atrocities.
I can't help but think that everyone would react much worse if he were being extradited to China, yet what's the difference?
which journalist are you referring to?
also, you see no difference between China and the US? care to explain how you came to such an absurd conclusion?
also, you see no difference between China and the US? care to explain how you came to such an absurd conclusion?
A cursory Google search will reveal that Mr Assange has been awarded many times for Journalism, in many parts of the world.
The full list can be found here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange#Honours_and_awa...
> 2008, The Economist New Media Award. 2009, Amnesty International UK Media Awards. 2010, Time Person of the Year, Reader's Choice. 2010, Sam Adams Award. 2010, Le Monde Readers' Choice Award for Person of the Year. 2011, Free Dacia Award. 2011, Sydney Peace Foundation Gold Medal. 2011, Martha Gellhorn Prize for Journalism. 2011, Voltaire Award for Free Speech. 2012, Big Brother Award Italy 2012 "Hero of Privacy". 2013, Global Exchange Human Rights Award, People's Choice. 2013, Yoko Ono Lennon Courage Award for the Arts. 2013, New York Festivals World's Best TV & Films Silver World Medal. 2014, Union of Journalists in Kazakhstan Top Prize. 2019, GUE/NGL Galizia prize. 2019, Gavin MacFadyen award. 2019, Catalan Dignity Prize. 2020, Stuttgart Peace Prize.
The full list can be found here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange#Honours_and_awa...
> 2008, The Economist New Media Award. 2009, Amnesty International UK Media Awards. 2010, Time Person of the Year, Reader's Choice. 2010, Sam Adams Award. 2010, Le Monde Readers' Choice Award for Person of the Year. 2011, Free Dacia Award. 2011, Sydney Peace Foundation Gold Medal. 2011, Martha Gellhorn Prize for Journalism. 2011, Voltaire Award for Free Speech. 2012, Big Brother Award Italy 2012 "Hero of Privacy". 2013, Global Exchange Human Rights Award, People's Choice. 2013, Yoko Ono Lennon Courage Award for the Arts. 2013, New York Festivals World's Best TV & Films Silver World Medal. 2014, Union of Journalists in Kazakhstan Top Prize. 2019, GUE/NGL Galizia prize. 2019, Gavin MacFadyen award. 2019, Catalan Dignity Prize. 2020, Stuttgart Peace Prize.
I see no material difference in how he'll be treated in either country. AFAIK the US still has the death penalty, does it not?
Not for anything Assange can be charged with. But the US routinely cages people in windowless concrete boxes until death for any number of things, even tax evasion.
Lifelong solitary confinement is considered equivalent or worse across the civilized world.
In the US it's routine for people who challenge the status quo, for whom a legal reason can always be found even if it's unrelated to the original pretext for their arrest.
Lifelong solitary confinement is considered equivalent or worse across the civilized world.
In the US it's routine for people who challenge the status quo, for whom a legal reason can always be found even if it's unrelated to the original pretext for their arrest.
The US has secret courts, secret laws and blacksites where torture and murder is allowed with no consequences. I don't think it's a given that Assange would never be transported to one of them.
"The cross-examinations showed the weakness of the thirty minute guillotine adopted by Baraitser, with really interesting defence testimony cut short, and then unlimited time allowed to Lewis for his cross examination. This was particularly pernicious in the evidence of Mark Feldstein. In James Lewis’ extraordinary cross-examination of Feldstein, Lewis spoke between five and ten times as many words as the actual witness. Some of Lewis’s “questions” went on for many minutes, contained huge passages of quote and often were phrased in convoluted double negative. Thrice Feldstein refused to reply on grounds he could not make out where the question lay. With the defence initial statement of the evidence limited to half an hour, Lewis’s cross examination approached two hours, a good 80% of which was Lewis speaking. "
Sad...
Sad...
I really hope people don’t take from this that the U.K. legal system is being applied in a biased way. The laws themselves may be wrong — and that’s a matter for government. But these write-ups do tend do suggest that the laws are being misapplied through manipulating the process.
I’m not a lawyer, but I am in the UK and I do know people who are lawyers so I’ve talked about their court work with them. From what little I know, the processes (the backs and forth, the judgements, and arguments over procedure) are all typical.
I’m not a lawyer, but I am in the UK and I do know people who are lawyers so I’ve talked about their court work with them. From what little I know, the processes (the backs and forth, the judgements, and arguments over procedure) are all typical.
I would love it if a laywer could explain to me how the following is not applying the legal system in a biased way.
From the article:
>The cross-examinations showed the weakness of the thirty minute guillotine adopted by Baraitser, with really interesting defence testimony cut short, and then unlimited time allowed to Lewis for his cross examination. This was particularly pernicious in the evidence of Mark Feldstein. In James Lewis’ extraordinary cross-examination of Feldstein, Lewis spoke between five and ten times as many words as the actual witness. Some of Lewis’s “questions” went on for many minutes, contained huge passages of quote and often were phrased in convoluted double negative. Thrice Feldstein refused to reply on grounds he could not make out where the question lay. With the defence initial statement of the evidence limited to half an hour, Lewis’s cross examination approached two hours, a good 80% of which was Lewis speaking.
>Feldstein was browbeaten by Lewis and plainly believed that when Lewis told him to answer in very brief and concise answers, Lewis had the authority to instruct that. In fact Lewis is not the judge and it was supposed to be Feldstein’s evidence, not Lewis’s. Baraitser failed to protect Feldstein or to explain his right to frame his own answers, when that was very obviously a necessary course for her to take.
>Today we had two expert witnesses, who had both submitted lengthy written testimony relating to one indictment, which was now being examined in relation to a new superseding indictment, exchanged at the last minute, and which neither of them had ever seen. Both specifically stated they had not seen the new indictment. Furthermore this new superseding indictment had been specifically prepared by the prosecution with the benefit of having heard the defence arguments and seen much of the defence evidence, in order to get round the fact that the indictment on which the hearing started was obviously failing.
>On top of which the defence had been refused an adjournment to prepare their defence against the new indictment, which would have enabled these and other witnesses to see the superseding indictment, adjust their evidence accordingly and be prepared to be cross-examined in relation to it.
As a layman (who admittedly knows nothing about the UK legal system) this looks like they are stacking the deck against Assange.
From the article:
>The cross-examinations showed the weakness of the thirty minute guillotine adopted by Baraitser, with really interesting defence testimony cut short, and then unlimited time allowed to Lewis for his cross examination. This was particularly pernicious in the evidence of Mark Feldstein. In James Lewis’ extraordinary cross-examination of Feldstein, Lewis spoke between five and ten times as many words as the actual witness. Some of Lewis’s “questions” went on for many minutes, contained huge passages of quote and often were phrased in convoluted double negative. Thrice Feldstein refused to reply on grounds he could not make out where the question lay. With the defence initial statement of the evidence limited to half an hour, Lewis’s cross examination approached two hours, a good 80% of which was Lewis speaking.
>Feldstein was browbeaten by Lewis and plainly believed that when Lewis told him to answer in very brief and concise answers, Lewis had the authority to instruct that. In fact Lewis is not the judge and it was supposed to be Feldstein’s evidence, not Lewis’s. Baraitser failed to protect Feldstein or to explain his right to frame his own answers, when that was very obviously a necessary course for her to take.
>Today we had two expert witnesses, who had both submitted lengthy written testimony relating to one indictment, which was now being examined in relation to a new superseding indictment, exchanged at the last minute, and which neither of them had ever seen. Both specifically stated they had not seen the new indictment. Furthermore this new superseding indictment had been specifically prepared by the prosecution with the benefit of having heard the defence arguments and seen much of the defence evidence, in order to get round the fact that the indictment on which the hearing started was obviously failing.
>On top of which the defence had been refused an adjournment to prepare their defence against the new indictment, which would have enabled these and other witnesses to see the superseding indictment, adjust their evidence accordingly and be prepared to be cross-examined in relation to it.
As a layman (who admittedly knows nothing about the UK legal system) this looks like they are stacking the deck against Assange.
I guess what I'm saying is this all feels quite ordinary.
The judge will have the written outline arguments, and will be focusing on the parts that need greater interrogation. And they will also be juggling various factors -- there's limited court time; letting the case drag on is a potential source as injustice too; etc. On top of that, each side will be looking for advantages within the constraints of allowed legal procedure. All of these will contribute to what's being seen on the day.
If the judge missteps according to procedure, they're open to having the judgement appealed, so they're highly motivated to apply the rules correctly.
I'm not saying that the outcome is just, or that the laws themselves are ok. But the procedure seems ordinary to me, a lay person, and if there _are_ problems with it, they will be technical and unlikely to be spotted in an article like this.
The judge will have the written outline arguments, and will be focusing on the parts that need greater interrogation. And they will also be juggling various factors -- there's limited court time; letting the case drag on is a potential source as injustice too; etc. On top of that, each side will be looking for advantages within the constraints of allowed legal procedure. All of these will contribute to what's being seen on the day.
If the judge missteps according to procedure, they're open to having the judgement appealed, so they're highly motivated to apply the rules correctly.
I'm not saying that the outcome is just, or that the laws themselves are ok. But the procedure seems ordinary to me, a lay person, and if there _are_ problems with it, they will be technical and unlikely to be spotted in an article like this.
If this is ordinary in UK courts (and I have never seen anything like this), then UK courts are not fair, and are not safe, or just, and we should all be shocked and outraged at living in a society with a legal system that will not provide justice.
> I guess what I'm saying is this all feels quite ordinary.
Just in case you missed it, the point here is that if this feels all quite ordinary it means the legal system is biased.
There's no world in which limiting the defense to 1/4 of the time of the offense is fair, and fair is supposed to be the point of a trial.
Just in case you missed it, the point here is that if this feels all quite ordinary it means the legal system is biased.
There's no world in which limiting the defense to 1/4 of the time of the offense is fair, and fair is supposed to be the point of a trial.
But this can also mean that laws in the UK are typically applied in a biased way. The fact that it's typical (although I don't think it is) doesn't make it unbiased.
There have been questions raised about the judge in this case:
* As British judge made rulings against Julian Assange, her husband was involved with right-wing lobby group briefing against WikiLeaks founder - https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2020-09-04-as-britis...
* UK government refuses to release information about Assange judge who has 96% extradition record - https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2020-07-31-uk-govern...
* As British judge made rulings against Julian Assange, her husband was involved with right-wing lobby group briefing against WikiLeaks founder - https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2020-09-04-as-britis...
* UK government refuses to release information about Assange judge who has 96% extradition record - https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2020-07-31-uk-govern...
Yes, silly questions have been raised. Oh look, a judge is married to a life-long politician - and shock horror a Tory Lord has links to a Tory think tank. Shock horror, the UK tends to comply with extradition requests. These questions are just stating perfectly normal facts of life in obtuse and alarmist ways.
Or questioning whether the status quo is a good thing?
You think there are not enough competent people out there for us to avoid conflicts of interest?
As for complying with extradition requests is this sort of abuse of power not the kind of thing the UK wanted to "tweak" the human rights act for?
we (the UK) seems to have participated in these war crimes to a certain extent, i actually have hopes for a better future with a fairer society - so yes I do want to people to call out conflicts of interest and yes i do want people to keep re-justifying their actions through modern morals and context rather than being caught up in nostalgia and nationalism.
You think there are not enough competent people out there for us to avoid conflicts of interest?
As for complying with extradition requests is this sort of abuse of power not the kind of thing the UK wanted to "tweak" the human rights act for?
we (the UK) seems to have participated in these war crimes to a certain extent, i actually have hopes for a better future with a fairer society - so yes I do want to people to call out conflicts of interest and yes i do want people to keep re-justifying their actions through modern morals and context rather than being caught up in nostalgia and nationalism.
I don't think there's a person on earth that could serve as the judge that would satisfy the people commentating on Assange's hearings short of sticking a wig on Assange himself. There is no conflict of interest and frankly, the standard set by this claim of a conflict absolutely would disqualify every single qualified judge in the UK.
As for the extradition requests, of course that's how it works. The UK finds whether the case is more or less fine and then it's off to the US to actually try the case. Why? Because it's not a good idea for the UK to be ruling on US law and they're a close ally with similar laws.
As for the extradition requests, of course that's how it works. The UK finds whether the case is more or less fine and then it's off to the US to actually try the case. Why? Because it's not a good idea for the UK to be ruling on US law and they're a close ally with similar laws.
okay, so giving him 50 weeks (i think it was) in maximum security for a crime that normally gets a fine. holding him in solitary confinement (against human rights act) and not allowing him to meet with his lawyers/solicitors is how it should work?
I personally think that we can find people with less conflicts of interest - but in the UK we traditionally don't as we are normalised to the concentration of power that exists in a heavily class based society.
Would love to hear your comments on the article i linked to (https://www.republik.ch/2020/01/31/nils-melzer-about-wikilea...) as it seems a bit tautological to just say it must be right because thats what the UK machinery does.
edit: Apologies i need to stop commenting as the article was linked in another response - its a VERY good read though and i think that when it comes to a potentially precedent setting situation like this the specifics are vitally important.
I personally think that we can find people with less conflicts of interest - but in the UK we traditionally don't as we are normalised to the concentration of power that exists in a heavily class based society.
Would love to hear your comments on the article i linked to (https://www.republik.ch/2020/01/31/nils-melzer-about-wikilea...) as it seems a bit tautological to just say it must be right because thats what the UK machinery does.
edit: Apologies i need to stop commenting as the article was linked in another response - its a VERY good read though and i think that when it comes to a potentially precedent setting situation like this the specifics are vitally important.
I don't think it's unreasonable to give Assange 50 weeks for skipping bail. He was given every opportunity, he pleaded his case right up to the highest court in the land, and once he didn't get what he wanted? He decided he could opt-out of the justice system. It's not like he surrender himself either, he got turfed out of the Ecuadorian embassy. I don't think I could find a better example of where someone should face the absolute maximum penalty for skipping bail. We will never know the merits of the rape cases because of his actions. As for holding him solitary confinement I could definitely understand how a prison warden would decide to do that with a high profile prisoner such as Assange. It's also worth noting that he's not actually in solitary confinement now.
As for the rumours and claims about seeing his lawyers, I don't have a strong view on it, since the claims seem quite weird and unsubstantiated. I've looked and I can't find any actual reliable reporting on whether he is being denied real representation and I find that suspicious. It's not like there's no journalists who are sympathetic to Assange. I understand it's obviously in the interests of the defence to delay and claim they don't have enough time and information, but that doesn't necessarily make it some human rights issue, it could simply be that that is a strategy they're using to delay the decision. It's clear the judge is not convinced that Assange has been denied proper representation, and if he is, why aren't there any articles in any of our press saying "Here are the 10 times Assange's laywers got turned away". Do you understand where I'm coming from here. It sort of works for Assange to claim that the perfectly ordinary restrictions on visitation are some massive overbearing conspiracy to deprive him of liberty, it doesn't necessarily make it true.
Edit: https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/magistrates-co... - here are the sentencing guidelines, Assange could not have been sentenced to anything less than 6 weeks. At which point he would've been remanded for the extradition anyway.
As for the rumours and claims about seeing his lawyers, I don't have a strong view on it, since the claims seem quite weird and unsubstantiated. I've looked and I can't find any actual reliable reporting on whether he is being denied real representation and I find that suspicious. It's not like there's no journalists who are sympathetic to Assange. I understand it's obviously in the interests of the defence to delay and claim they don't have enough time and information, but that doesn't necessarily make it some human rights issue, it could simply be that that is a strategy they're using to delay the decision. It's clear the judge is not convinced that Assange has been denied proper representation, and if he is, why aren't there any articles in any of our press saying "Here are the 10 times Assange's laywers got turned away". Do you understand where I'm coming from here. It sort of works for Assange to claim that the perfectly ordinary restrictions on visitation are some massive overbearing conspiracy to deprive him of liberty, it doesn't necessarily make it true.
Edit: https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/magistrates-co... - here are the sentencing guidelines, Assange could not have been sentenced to anything less than 6 weeks. At which point he would've been remanded for the extradition anyway.
I like to grab my state propaganda from the BBC, so i visit it a few times a day.. ive not seen anything about the assange hearing there at all.. so why do you expect to hear about the details of his complaints there.. i mean why is this the article that HN is linking to?
In the article his solicitor seems to be referring to a lack of ability to prepare and doesnt seem to have been pulled up on any specifcs not being true?
Also if 50 weeks is standard is it right to only allow 15 mins to prepare a defence? Not just keep him on remand in the mean time? A high profile case questioning his right to asylum should be rushed like that? And why max security and solitary confinement? Are our prisons and border securities so weak we need to go to such lengths? I would have thought house arrest would probably have done it, yes survailance wpuld cost but how kuch does solitary confinment cost? Asshole or not he is no terrorist or mass murder, i recon i could kick the crap out him and trust me i am not tough.
And as far as i can gather (may be wrong but looking for info) he did actually go along with the police requests in sweden and volunteered repeatedly to give a statement or be interviewed but was denied it. He even told them of his intentions to leave the country.
The lack of cooperation apparently came when he got wind of the US wanting to extrodite him, and had sweden agreed not to extrodite him he would have returned for the interviews.. he also was offering remote interviews or ones in london.
But at a high level your statements dont hold for me as there is clear evidence that the governments involved are up to dodgey things, so its absolutley fine for him to seek asylum etc.
In the article his solicitor seems to be referring to a lack of ability to prepare and doesnt seem to have been pulled up on any specifcs not being true?
Also if 50 weeks is standard is it right to only allow 15 mins to prepare a defence? Not just keep him on remand in the mean time? A high profile case questioning his right to asylum should be rushed like that? And why max security and solitary confinement? Are our prisons and border securities so weak we need to go to such lengths? I would have thought house arrest would probably have done it, yes survailance wpuld cost but how kuch does solitary confinment cost? Asshole or not he is no terrorist or mass murder, i recon i could kick the crap out him and trust me i am not tough.
And as far as i can gather (may be wrong but looking for info) he did actually go along with the police requests in sweden and volunteered repeatedly to give a statement or be interviewed but was denied it. He even told them of his intentions to leave the country.
The lack of cooperation apparently came when he got wind of the US wanting to extrodite him, and had sweden agreed not to extrodite him he would have returned for the interviews.. he also was offering remote interviews or ones in london.
But at a high level your statements dont hold for me as there is clear evidence that the governments involved are up to dodgey things, so its absolutley fine for him to seek asylum etc.
I'm not limiting myself to the BBC, I'm saying any of the newspapers, any half decent news source.
>In the article his solicitor seems to be referring to a lack of ability to prepare and doesnt seem to have been pulled up on any specifcs not being true?
Let me be more specific then, in the Guardian reporting we don't only hear from the defence lawyer - we hear the judge's response:
>But Baraitser refused the defence request, saying she had previously offered Assange’s lawyers an opportunity to adjourn the hearing to give them more time to deal with the new US indictment. That had been declined.
So actually that's not quite as clear cut as we were meant to beleive, they'd been previously offered more time and had refused.
>And why max security and solitary confinement?
Again, because there's not great reporting, I don't know a certain answer to this, but it has been mentioned that he was put in solitary because there were fears over his safety in general population. He has since been moved out of solitary.
>I would have thought house arrest would probably have done it, yes survailance wpuld cost but how kuch does solitary confinment cost?
Oh come on now, he's got a history of absconding.
>he did actually go along with the police requests in sweden and volunteered repeatedly to give a statement or be interviewed but was denied it.
See, this is another of those one-sided stories you hear from Assange's defenders. It's more complicated than that, Sweden wanted him to return so they can interview him (and possibly charge him) and he refused, instead saying he would be willing to let them come to the UK to question him. Suspects in crimes don't get to make those demands.
>The lack of cooperation apparently came when he got wind of the US wanting to extrodite him, and had sweden agreed not to extrodite him he would have returned for the interviews.
The law doesn't work like that, Sweden can't just discard their international extradition treaties because Assange wants them to. By making that demand he has basically said there is no possibility of him complying. It's interesting though because there is literally no reason to think that Sweden would be more willing to extradite Assange than the UK.
>In the article his solicitor seems to be referring to a lack of ability to prepare and doesnt seem to have been pulled up on any specifcs not being true?
Let me be more specific then, in the Guardian reporting we don't only hear from the defence lawyer - we hear the judge's response:
>But Baraitser refused the defence request, saying she had previously offered Assange’s lawyers an opportunity to adjourn the hearing to give them more time to deal with the new US indictment. That had been declined.
So actually that's not quite as clear cut as we were meant to beleive, they'd been previously offered more time and had refused.
>And why max security and solitary confinement?
Again, because there's not great reporting, I don't know a certain answer to this, but it has been mentioned that he was put in solitary because there were fears over his safety in general population. He has since been moved out of solitary.
>I would have thought house arrest would probably have done it, yes survailance wpuld cost but how kuch does solitary confinment cost?
Oh come on now, he's got a history of absconding.
>he did actually go along with the police requests in sweden and volunteered repeatedly to give a statement or be interviewed but was denied it.
See, this is another of those one-sided stories you hear from Assange's defenders. It's more complicated than that, Sweden wanted him to return so they can interview him (and possibly charge him) and he refused, instead saying he would be willing to let them come to the UK to question him. Suspects in crimes don't get to make those demands.
>The lack of cooperation apparently came when he got wind of the US wanting to extrodite him, and had sweden agreed not to extrodite him he would have returned for the interviews.
The law doesn't work like that, Sweden can't just discard their international extradition treaties because Assange wants them to. By making that demand he has basically said there is no possibility of him complying. It's interesting though because there is literally no reason to think that Sweden would be more willing to extradite Assange than the UK.
you are right the guardian is only a half decent news source, its also half shit.
>Let me be more specific then, in the Guardian reporting we don't only hear from the defence lawyer - we hear the judge's response:.
from the guardian article: "Explaining the short delay to the start of proceedings, Fitzgerald said this had been the first time in six months he had managed to see his client."
no one contested this.
>Again, because there's not great reporting, I don't know a certain answer to this, but it has been mentioned that he was put in solitary because there were fears over his safety in general population. He has since been moved out of solitary.
so skipping over the max security part and making something up about his own safety.. i mean safety from who? the people who dont like him are governments - you saying he might have been epstiened? or are you saying he is a nonce? in which case why not just put him with the other nonces?
>Oh come on now, he's got a history of absconding.
" Where did the story come from that Assange was seeking to avoid Swedish justice officials? This version was manufactured, but it is not consistent with the facts. Had he been trying to hide, he would not have appeared at the police station of his own free will. On the basis of the revised statement from S.W., an appeal was filed against the public prosecutor’s attempt to suspend the investigation, and on Sept. 2, 2010, the rape proceedings were resumed. A legal representative by the name of Claes Borgström was appointed to the two women at public cost. The man was a law firm partner to the previous justice minister, Thomas Bodström, under whose supervision Swedish security personnel had seized two men who the U.S. found suspicious in the middle of Stockholm. The men were seized without any kind of legal proceedings and then handed over to the CIA, who proceeded to torture them. That shows the trans-Atlantic backdrop to this affair more clearly. After the resumption of the rape investigation, Assange repeatedly indicated through his lawyer that he wished to respond to the accusations. The public prosecutor responsible kept delaying. On one occasion, it didn’t fit with the public prosecutor’s schedule, on another, the police official responsible was sick. Three weeks later, his lawyer finally wrote that Assange really had to go to Berlin for a conference and asked if he was allowed to leave the country. The public prosecutor’s office gave him written permission to leave Sweden for short periods of time.
And then? The point is: On the day that Julian Assange left Sweden, at a point in time when it wasn’t clear if he was leaving for a short time or a long time, a warrant was issued for his arrest. He flew with Scandinavian Airlines from Stockholm to Berlin. During the flight, his laptops disappeared from his checked baggage. When he arrived in Berlin, Lufthansa requested an investigation from SAS, but the airline apparently declined to provide any information at all.
" https://www.republik.ch/2020/01/31/nils-melzer-about-wikilea...
>See, this is another of those one-sided stories you hear from Assange's defenders. It's more complicated than that, Sweden wanted him to return so they can interview him (and possibly charge him) and he refused, instead saying he would be willing to let them come to the UK to question him. Suspects in crimes don't get to make those demands.
" But is it normal, or even legally acceptable, for Swedish authorities to travel to a different country for such an interrogation? That is a further indication that Sweden was never interested in finding the truth. For exactly these kinds of judiciary issues, there is a cooperation treaty between the United Kingdom and Sweden, which foresees that Swedish officials can travel to the UK, or vice versa, to conduct interrogations or that such questioning can take place via video link. During the period of time in question, such questioning between Sweden and England took place in 44 other cases. It was only in Julian Assange’s case that Sweden insisted that it was essential for him to appear in person.
" https://www.republik.ch/2020/01/31/nils-melzer-about-wikilea...
>The law doesn't work like that, Sweden can't just discard their international extradition treaties because Assange wants them to. By making that demand he has basically said there is no possibility of him complying. It's interesting though because there is literally no reason to think that Sweden would be more willing to extradite Assange than the UK.
" Was that even a realistic scenario? Absolutely. Some years previously, as I already mentioned, Swedish security personnel had handed over two asylum applicants, both of whom were registered in Sweden, to the CIA without any legal proceedings. The abuse already started at the Stockholm airport, where they were mistreated, drugged and flown to Egypt, where they were tortured. We don’t know if they were the only such cases. But we are aware of these cases because the men survived. Both later filed complaints with UN human rights agencies and won their case. Sweden was forced to pay each of them half a million dollars in damages. "
https://www.republik.ch/2020/01/31/nils-melzer-about-wikilea...
" What is your view of the demand made by Assange’s lawyers? Such diplomatic assurances are a routine international practice. People request assurances that they won’t be extradited to places where there is a danger of serious human rights violations, completely irrespective of whether an extradition request has been filed by the country in question or not. It is a political procedure, not a legal one. Here’s an example: Say France demands that Switzerland extradite a Kazakh businessman who lives in Switzerland but who is wanted by both France and Kazakhstan on tax fraud allegations. Switzerland sees no danger of torture in France, but does believe such a danger exists in Kazakhstan. So, Switzerland tells France: We’ll extradite the man to you, but we want a diplomatic assurance that he won’t be extradited onward to Kazakhstan. The French response is not: «Kazakhstan hasn’t even filed a request!» Rather, they would, of course, grant such an assurance. The arguments coming from Sweden were tenuous at best. That is one part of it. The other, and I say this on the strength of all of my experience behind the scenes of standard international practice: If a country refuses to provide such a diplomatic assurance, then all doubts about the good intentions of the country in question are justified. Why shouldn’t Sweden provide such assurances? From a legal perspective, after all, the U.S. has absolutely nothing to do with Swedish sex offense proceedings.
" https://www.republik.ch/2020/01/31/nils-melzer-about-wikilea...
>Let me be more specific then, in the Guardian reporting we don't only hear from the defence lawyer - we hear the judge's response:.
from the guardian article: "Explaining the short delay to the start of proceedings, Fitzgerald said this had been the first time in six months he had managed to see his client."
no one contested this.
>Again, because there's not great reporting, I don't know a certain answer to this, but it has been mentioned that he was put in solitary because there were fears over his safety in general population. He has since been moved out of solitary.
so skipping over the max security part and making something up about his own safety.. i mean safety from who? the people who dont like him are governments - you saying he might have been epstiened? or are you saying he is a nonce? in which case why not just put him with the other nonces?
>Oh come on now, he's got a history of absconding.
" Where did the story come from that Assange was seeking to avoid Swedish justice officials? This version was manufactured, but it is not consistent with the facts. Had he been trying to hide, he would not have appeared at the police station of his own free will. On the basis of the revised statement from S.W., an appeal was filed against the public prosecutor’s attempt to suspend the investigation, and on Sept. 2, 2010, the rape proceedings were resumed. A legal representative by the name of Claes Borgström was appointed to the two women at public cost. The man was a law firm partner to the previous justice minister, Thomas Bodström, under whose supervision Swedish security personnel had seized two men who the U.S. found suspicious in the middle of Stockholm. The men were seized without any kind of legal proceedings and then handed over to the CIA, who proceeded to torture them. That shows the trans-Atlantic backdrop to this affair more clearly. After the resumption of the rape investigation, Assange repeatedly indicated through his lawyer that he wished to respond to the accusations. The public prosecutor responsible kept delaying. On one occasion, it didn’t fit with the public prosecutor’s schedule, on another, the police official responsible was sick. Three weeks later, his lawyer finally wrote that Assange really had to go to Berlin for a conference and asked if he was allowed to leave the country. The public prosecutor’s office gave him written permission to leave Sweden for short periods of time.
And then? The point is: On the day that Julian Assange left Sweden, at a point in time when it wasn’t clear if he was leaving for a short time or a long time, a warrant was issued for his arrest. He flew with Scandinavian Airlines from Stockholm to Berlin. During the flight, his laptops disappeared from his checked baggage. When he arrived in Berlin, Lufthansa requested an investigation from SAS, but the airline apparently declined to provide any information at all.
" https://www.republik.ch/2020/01/31/nils-melzer-about-wikilea...
>See, this is another of those one-sided stories you hear from Assange's defenders. It's more complicated than that, Sweden wanted him to return so they can interview him (and possibly charge him) and he refused, instead saying he would be willing to let them come to the UK to question him. Suspects in crimes don't get to make those demands.
" But is it normal, or even legally acceptable, for Swedish authorities to travel to a different country for such an interrogation? That is a further indication that Sweden was never interested in finding the truth. For exactly these kinds of judiciary issues, there is a cooperation treaty between the United Kingdom and Sweden, which foresees that Swedish officials can travel to the UK, or vice versa, to conduct interrogations or that such questioning can take place via video link. During the period of time in question, such questioning between Sweden and England took place in 44 other cases. It was only in Julian Assange’s case that Sweden insisted that it was essential for him to appear in person.
" https://www.republik.ch/2020/01/31/nils-melzer-about-wikilea...
>The law doesn't work like that, Sweden can't just discard their international extradition treaties because Assange wants them to. By making that demand he has basically said there is no possibility of him complying. It's interesting though because there is literally no reason to think that Sweden would be more willing to extradite Assange than the UK.
" Was that even a realistic scenario? Absolutely. Some years previously, as I already mentioned, Swedish security personnel had handed over two asylum applicants, both of whom were registered in Sweden, to the CIA without any legal proceedings. The abuse already started at the Stockholm airport, where they were mistreated, drugged and flown to Egypt, where they were tortured. We don’t know if they were the only such cases. But we are aware of these cases because the men survived. Both later filed complaints with UN human rights agencies and won their case. Sweden was forced to pay each of them half a million dollars in damages. "
https://www.republik.ch/2020/01/31/nils-melzer-about-wikilea...
" What is your view of the demand made by Assange’s lawyers? Such diplomatic assurances are a routine international practice. People request assurances that they won’t be extradited to places where there is a danger of serious human rights violations, completely irrespective of whether an extradition request has been filed by the country in question or not. It is a political procedure, not a legal one. Here’s an example: Say France demands that Switzerland extradite a Kazakh businessman who lives in Switzerland but who is wanted by both France and Kazakhstan on tax fraud allegations. Switzerland sees no danger of torture in France, but does believe such a danger exists in Kazakhstan. So, Switzerland tells France: We’ll extradite the man to you, but we want a diplomatic assurance that he won’t be extradited onward to Kazakhstan. The French response is not: «Kazakhstan hasn’t even filed a request!» Rather, they would, of course, grant such an assurance. The arguments coming from Sweden were tenuous at best. That is one part of it. The other, and I say this on the strength of all of my experience behind the scenes of standard international practice: If a country refuses to provide such a diplomatic assurance, then all doubts about the good intentions of the country in question are justified. Why shouldn’t Sweden provide such assurances? From a legal perspective, after all, the U.S. has absolutely nothing to do with Swedish sex offense proceedings.
" https://www.republik.ch/2020/01/31/nils-melzer-about-wikilea...
>from the guardian article: "Explaining the short delay to the start of proceedings, Fitzgerald said this had been the first time in six months he had managed to see his client."
>no one contested this.
Well yeah, because why would anyone contest this? If the lawyer says he hasn't bothered to visit his client, that's down to him and his client.
Court isn't reddit, you don't get to contest everything the opposition says line by line.
>On the day that Julian Assange left Sweden,
You're missing the point- He absconded whilst bailed in the UK. Which is a hell of a sight more relevant to his bail status in the UK.
>no one contested this.
Well yeah, because why would anyone contest this? If the lawyer says he hasn't bothered to visit his client, that's down to him and his client.
Court isn't reddit, you don't get to contest everything the opposition says line by line.
>On the day that Julian Assange left Sweden,
You're missing the point- He absconded whilst bailed in the UK. Which is a hell of a sight more relevant to his bail status in the UK.
> Well yeah, because why would anyone contest this? If the lawyer says he hasn't bothered to visit his client, that's down to him and his client.
That's not what he said.
That's not what he said.
You're not seeing more reporting because UK mass media keeps ignoring the case despite the extraordinary claims about it.
That your response to that is to question the reporting that does happen, instead of being outraged at how the media is ignoring the case says a lot.
It's clear the judge doesn't care about the claims he's being denied proper representation, as she keeps making rulings that makes the issue worse.
That your response to that is to question the reporting that does happen, instead of being outraged at how the media is ignoring the case says a lot.
It's clear the judge doesn't care about the claims he's being denied proper representation, as she keeps making rulings that makes the issue worse.
> As for the rumours and claims about seeing his lawyers, I don't have a strong view on it, since the claims seem quite weird and unsubstantiated. I've looked and I can't find any actual reliable reporting on whether he is being denied real representation and I find that suspicious.
You're calling his lawyer a liar and stating his statements about whether or not he's been given access to his client are unreliable.
Why?
You're calling his lawyer a liar and stating his statements about whether or not he's been given access to his client are unreliable.
Why?
Nils Melzer is full of shit: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22209868
I can read Svenska, and I've been a lay judge in the District Court of Oslo, Norway for many years, so I know a thing or two about Scandinavian court proceedings. At best the link is inconclusive. At worst it proves conspiracy. Whatever the case, just adding papers to an already undertaken interrogation, could either falsify the original interrogation, or make it unusable in court. Further more, it could implicate the signatory, and that is of course why the one party has reservations against doing it. If there's visible tampering, the interrogation could be dismissed by court. And if not, they could be prosecuting based off false evidence. As for the party responsible for such tampering, she could at worst go to jail for document forgery, at best she'd be reprimanded for not being vigilant enough. So I'd say that's pretty damning. Otherwise I tend to agree with the Swede tpmx, who thinks these kinds of things are better explained by legal experts.
Thanks for the link.
I agree he has his own motivations etc. And was already taking his info with a pinch of salt.
It still looks to me like some of the major elements dont add up, like the release of info to the police, the dropping of the case in sweden, the lack of guarantee to not extrodite to the US. Could just be own biases but given the other information we have about the governments involved it seems most plauable that they are up to no good.
If they are all acting in good faith and this apparent abuse of power is a side effect of their secrecy then i think its just as damning of the overall processes and approach we take (unless we dont really qant an open democracy)
I agree he has his own motivations etc. And was already taking his info with a pinch of salt.
It still looks to me like some of the major elements dont add up, like the release of info to the police, the dropping of the case in sweden, the lack of guarantee to not extrodite to the US. Could just be own biases but given the other information we have about the governments involved it seems most plauable that they are up to no good.
If they are all acting in good faith and this apparent abuse of power is a side effect of their secrecy then i think its just as damning of the overall processes and approach we take (unless we dont really qant an open democracy)
I'd urge people to read the articles and judge for themselves if they are "silly questions".
If these are "normal facts of life", then it is critical to criticise that the "normal facts of life" in the UK is that the system is fundamentally corrupt and unjust.
Taken from the Crown Prosecution Service guidance[0], which isn't gospel, but is usually a pretty accurate reflection of the law, the grounds the court must consider are:
- the conduct described in the warrant amounts to an extradition offence;
- any of the statutory bars to extradition apply;
- there is prima facie evidence of guilt (if applicable, see below);
- extradition would be disproportionate or would be incompatible with the requested person’s human rights.
The statutory bars to extradition, taken from the same document include whether the subject would face the death penalty.
It's not clear to me from this article which of the points of law above is being argued. Some of the testimony appears (or at least the reporting of it) appears to include an element of trying to demonstrate that the extradition is politically motivated. It probably is, but they'll have to establish one of the above specific points.
Note that I'm not claiming that the above points can't be established here - I'm just not seeing the direct link from the reporting on the case, in this article and others, to how they're attacking the legal aspect.
[0] https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/extradition
- the conduct described in the warrant amounts to an extradition offence;
- any of the statutory bars to extradition apply;
- there is prima facie evidence of guilt (if applicable, see below);
- extradition would be disproportionate or would be incompatible with the requested person’s human rights.
The statutory bars to extradition, taken from the same document include whether the subject would face the death penalty.
It's not clear to me from this article which of the points of law above is being argued. Some of the testimony appears (or at least the reporting of it) appears to include an element of trying to demonstrate that the extradition is politically motivated. It probably is, but they'll have to establish one of the above specific points.
Note that I'm not claiming that the above points can't be established here - I'm just not seeing the direct link from the reporting on the case, in this article and others, to how they're attacking the legal aspect.
[0] https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/extradition
> It's not clear to me from this article which of the points of law above is being argued
You cannot evade injustice by referring to the law. This serves as an example that the law is broken because it allows for political prosecution.
Won't be the strategy of the defense of course and not of relevance in the hearings, they do the best they can in this situation.
You cannot evade injustice by referring to the law. This serves as an example that the law is broken because it allows for political prosecution.
Won't be the strategy of the defense of course and not of relevance in the hearings, they do the best they can in this situation.
I'm not claiming whether or not this is right, or serves the interests of Justice. I'm just pointing out that it appears to me that the defense team is arguing more in the court of public opinion, and less on points of law in the court itself. And to be clear: I don't really think they have much of an option - the law around extradition makes this hearing mostly a formality. There are pretty limited grounds in law to prevent it going ahead.
Independent of this particular case, I don't like the fact that in UK law the process is mostly a formality for UK to USA extraditions. When the legislation was drafted after 9/11 the claim was that this was a necessary evil and would be used solely against terrorists. Like previous non-terrorist cases against bankers, 'hackers' and others, this isn't a use of the law in the way it was originally intended (well, at least what was said about intentions at the time).
Independent of this particular case, I don't like the fact that in UK law the process is mostly a formality for UK to USA extraditions. When the legislation was drafted after 9/11 the claim was that this was a necessary evil and would be used solely against terrorists. Like previous non-terrorist cases against bankers, 'hackers' and others, this isn't a use of the law in the way it was originally intended (well, at least what was said about intentions at the time).
There doesn't seem to be a trace of Vanessa Baraitser anywhere on the internet outside a couple of mentions of other extradition proceedings and the Assange case. There are only three known photographs of her[1], and only one including her face.
She isn't even registered as a practising solicitor with the SRA [2].
It's difficult to see how in today's world a person with a career in "public service" (and with such an unusual name) can leave such little trace online.
[1] https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Vanessa_Baraitser
[2] https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/register/
She isn't even registered as a practising solicitor with the SRA [2].
It's difficult to see how in today's world a person with a career in "public service" (and with such an unusual name) can leave such little trace online.
[1] https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Vanessa_Baraitser
[2] https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/register/
"You are free to republish this article, including in translation, without further permission. A brief note left in comments below detailing where it is republished is appreciated."
Really nice!
Really nice!
[deleted]
How long has Assange been held without a public trial again?
Well, he was arrested in Dec 2010 and bailed, it takes until May 2012 litigating his extradition to Sweden to the highest court (while bailed). In June he fled to the embassy. He stays in the embassy until April 2019 when Ecuador hand him over to the UK police. He is held without bail for breaching bail conditions. In May he is sentenced to 50 weeks in jail for the breach. He is now being detained pending the resolution of the extradition request which was delayed due to COVID.
So I think all in all, it's like what? A couple months detained for extradition, and only on the basis that he's previously fled to an embassy whilst on bail.
So I think all in all, it's like what? A couple months detained for extradition, and only on the basis that he's previously fled to an embassy whilst on bail.
While I don't think it ought to have been as long as it has been, it's worth noting that a) He has previously fled to take asylum in a foreign embassy to avoid arrest, so it's understandable why bail wouldn't be granted again and b) He actually requested this extradition hearing be delayed due to not having had enough time to prepare (which the judge denied).
a) doesn't really seem a fair representation:
UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, Nils Melzer, speaks in detail about the explosive findings of his investigation into the case of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange.:
https://www.republik.ch/2020/01/31/nils-melzer-about-wikilea...
(someone linked to this in yesterdays comments its an amazing read though depressing)
b) He is being detained in a way that is regarded inhumane, but its still better than being epsteined.
Assange may be a bit of a greaser, he may be an egotist, he may be lacking in social skills - he may even be wanting to be famous for his work in a way that makes him an arse personally... but i still want our legal systems to be fair and my government not commit war crimes and openly investigate any accusation of them.
Also note that i firmly believe that if any commenter on this site was to be the target of such a campaign that we would all look like scumbags when scrutinised with such bias.
UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, Nils Melzer, speaks in detail about the explosive findings of his investigation into the case of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange.:
https://www.republik.ch/2020/01/31/nils-melzer-about-wikilea...
(someone linked to this in yesterdays comments its an amazing read though depressing)
b) He is being detained in a way that is regarded inhumane, but its still better than being epsteined.
Assange may be a bit of a greaser, he may be an egotist, he may be lacking in social skills - he may even be wanting to be famous for his work in a way that makes him an arse personally... but i still want our legal systems to be fair and my government not commit war crimes and openly investigate any accusation of them.
Also note that i firmly believe that if any commenter on this site was to be the target of such a campaign that we would all look like scumbags when scrutinised with such bias.
I completely agree that he shouldn't be detained inhumanely, but if he's a flight risk it's right that he should be detained until the court rules on extradition. What should change is the inhumaine bit.
(And I also agree that the US shouldn't have a case against him, and I strongly hope our legal system in the UK will reject the extradition, though I'm not very optimistic).
edit: And even if the Swedish accusations are 100% false and political; the UK legal system shouldn't be expected to jump to that conclusion without investigation if presented with an international warrant for his arrest.
(And I also agree that the US shouldn't have a case against him, and I strongly hope our legal system in the UK will reject the extradition, though I'm not very optimistic).
edit: And even if the Swedish accusations are 100% false and political; the UK legal system shouldn't be expected to jump to that conclusion without investigation if presented with an international warrant for his arrest.
Nils Melzer is full of shit: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22209868
My understanding of the above link:
The accusation that police changed the statement from the witness may be false or even deliberately exaggerated.
Not extactly that he is blanket full of shit or did i miss something?
But Nils onky asked Sweden to respond to the question, which they didnt do.. not even a short: sorry you got the wrong end of the stick there. Which given the attention of the case seems weird.
It also doesnt really say anything about his treatment in the uk the lack of gurantee not to be extrodited, the leaking of accusations to the press, lack of aninimity for the accused etc.
And to be clear sweden didnt respond to any of Nils' questions, why? Is the UN really just a joke? If so isnt that still really bad?
Please feel free to expand on why you dont trust a single thing he says, but at the moment your comment doesnt seem justified.
The accusation that police changed the statement from the witness may be false or even deliberately exaggerated.
Not extactly that he is blanket full of shit or did i miss something?
But Nils onky asked Sweden to respond to the question, which they didnt do.. not even a short: sorry you got the wrong end of the stick there. Which given the attention of the case seems weird.
It also doesnt really say anything about his treatment in the uk the lack of gurantee not to be extrodited, the leaking of accusations to the press, lack of aninimity for the accused etc.
And to be clear sweden didnt respond to any of Nils' questions, why? Is the UN really just a joke? If so isnt that still really bad?
Please feel free to expand on why you dont trust a single thing he says, but at the moment your comment doesnt seem justified.
There's absolutely no evidence that he is "full of shit" in that link. There's a reasonable question about what exactly that one exchange refers to, but that is one small part of the total set of claims.
But even if one assumes that this is "routine" and that it "just" refers to adding information, it's shocking - it reveals a lack of audit trail of changes.
The key part of this claim - that the alleged victim didn't sign the statements - has been known since the case originally broke, and basically means that there is no justifiable basis for trusting the statement, even before the exchange about modifications raises the concern about provenance and audit trail.
But add on the exchange, and whether or not the police officers involved did anything wrong, it means the content of these statements can not be trusted because they could have modified them.
But even if one assumes that this is "routine" and that it "just" refers to adding information, it's shocking - it reveals a lack of audit trail of changes.
The key part of this claim - that the alleged victim didn't sign the statements - has been known since the case originally broke, and basically means that there is no justifiable basis for trusting the statement, even before the exchange about modifications raises the concern about provenance and audit trail.
But add on the exchange, and whether or not the police officers involved did anything wrong, it means the content of these statements can not be trusted because they could have modified them.
This comment in the article made my day:
>the US Government changes its indictment in this case about as often as Kim Kardashian changes her handbag.
>the US Government changes its indictment in this case about as often as Kim Kardashian changes her handbag.
What would happen if Trump pardoned Julian Assange just before the election? Would this improve his chance of winning again?
My view. There are roughly 3 types of people in the US when it comes to Trump pardoning Assange:
1. Those who have no idea who Assange is and will never care. == No political gain for Trump.
2. Those who have been successfully brainwashed to think Assange is a sociopath scary smelly nerd and national security threat. They believe that he leaked state secrets and raped a bunch of girls and hid away like a coward (without showering). == Political loss for Trump if he gives Assange a pardon. The "journalists" will write about how Trump pardoned a rapist enemy of the state with Russian ties who helped him win the elections. This is extremely predictable IMO.
3. People on Hacker News. Obviously an insignificant irrelevant minority. == No political gain for Trump.
No. I don't think there's anything to be gained here for Trump politically. I'm still hoping for a pardon though.
1. Those who have no idea who Assange is and will never care. == No political gain for Trump.
2. Those who have been successfully brainwashed to think Assange is a sociopath scary smelly nerd and national security threat. They believe that he leaked state secrets and raped a bunch of girls and hid away like a coward (without showering). == Political loss for Trump if he gives Assange a pardon. The "journalists" will write about how Trump pardoned a rapist enemy of the state with Russian ties who helped him win the elections. This is extremely predictable IMO.
3. People on Hacker News. Obviously an insignificant irrelevant minority. == No political gain for Trump.
No. I don't think there's anything to be gained here for Trump politically. I'm still hoping for a pardon though.
Nobody cares about Julian Assange. Assange is no longer useful as an asset through which to launder oppo research and whatever the Kremlin is pushing this week so why bother with a pardon? The number of people whose vote this would change is vanishingly small, and the optics might even end up losing votes.
He probably will since Assange has been a reliable ally to Trump in the 2016 election. But I don’t think it helps or hurts matters electorally since most voters have never heard of Assange.
Assange has never did anything directly towards Trump, only things against the person who was secretary of the united states of American during the time when diplomatic cables was released, and when the "paranoid speculations" started that the US wanted to extradite Assange for treason charges.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend is a common theme, and trump did benefit from the situation. There is also the theme that the enemy of my enemy is simply the enemy of my enemy, no more, no less. If I guess which one it was in 2016 I would not count on Trump pardoning Assange in 2020.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend is a common theme, and trump did benefit from the situation. There is also the theme that the enemy of my enemy is simply the enemy of my enemy, no more, no less. If I guess which one it was in 2016 I would not count on Trump pardoning Assange in 2020.
Trump has had ample opportunity to do it until now, though. So what's the holdup?
You can only pardon someone who has been convicted, so I don't see what opportunity he has had
True enough, but I should think he's got the power to stop this train too, then. How long can a man be held prisoner without a trial in the UK, anyway? What kind of democratic system can hold a person jailed indefinately like that? What are we becoming?
He wasn't really held prisoner though. He was being tortured.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/may/31/julian-assange...
Democratic IMO means: the majority of people in a country take all political decisions that matter to them. They decide about the creation and alteration of all laws that matter to them. The majority of people in a country is well informed by free press.
With that in mind I would argue there isn't really any country in the world that comes close to being democratic (with the exception of maybe Switzerland).
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/may/31/julian-assange...
Democratic IMO means: the majority of people in a country take all political decisions that matter to them. They decide about the creation and alteration of all laws that matter to them. The majority of people in a country is well informed by free press.
With that in mind I would argue there isn't really any country in the world that comes close to being democratic (with the exception of maybe Switzerland).
The first thing I studied at uni was Political Science. I liked statistics more, but it did prompt me to read up on the many interpretations of what democracy is. To sum it up; it's deeply flawed, but it's also the the best we can do.
Democracy is what caused Socrates to drink poison, but at the same time it's also what has made freedom-loving countries the best places to live on earth. Within this system, there are various ways that you can amass undemocratic power, and make undue influence on others, and IMHO that is why Assange is still in jail. I'm not talking solely on "evil elites" here but also of the undue power of bureacracies and institutions that are built up by the very democracies they are meant to serve. And in this special case, diplomacy in particular.
This is why we should work to unravel these powers, to see them for what they are, not least to shed light on who benefits from them, so we can make a democratic decision upon if it benefits us as a people to have such institutions at all, or in what way they can be changed to better serve us. One of our tools for soft change is of course reform and reorganization. But in the face of unchanging and monolitic institutions, there is another way; to build up entirely new and competing institutions in order to challenge the decisions of the "powers of old," as it were.
I can name one such institution in Norway, for instance; Datatilsynet, the Data Inspectorate, that primarily works for the human right of privacy in terms of what kind of personal information the state and other actors can and cannot legally store in their computer systems. They are experts on these matters, and the law, and often advice courts and big institutions on matters regarding privacy, but also cryptography and other measures that make the storage of data safer for the individual. They were among the first to challenge the Data Storage Act, for instance, where all Norwegian internet protocol traffic (sender and receiver IP's and such) is to be stored by ISP's for at least six months to aid possible police investigations, for instance.
In Norway some of these actors are part of the state, like the Data Directorate, because we trust them to do their job for the people. But in other countries, it is perhaps better to have them as wholly private actors, as is often the case in the USA, for instance. But because The Data Inspectorate is part of the state, they are also respected that much more by other state actors than special interest groups, because they have real power granted to them by the people, and so they are authorized to intervene in matters of privacy and data security. So, perhaps one such institutions should also be made to intervene in matters of freedom of speech and persecution.
Democracy is what caused Socrates to drink poison, but at the same time it's also what has made freedom-loving countries the best places to live on earth. Within this system, there are various ways that you can amass undemocratic power, and make undue influence on others, and IMHO that is why Assange is still in jail. I'm not talking solely on "evil elites" here but also of the undue power of bureacracies and institutions that are built up by the very democracies they are meant to serve. And in this special case, diplomacy in particular.
This is why we should work to unravel these powers, to see them for what they are, not least to shed light on who benefits from them, so we can make a democratic decision upon if it benefits us as a people to have such institutions at all, or in what way they can be changed to better serve us. One of our tools for soft change is of course reform and reorganization. But in the face of unchanging and monolitic institutions, there is another way; to build up entirely new and competing institutions in order to challenge the decisions of the "powers of old," as it were.
I can name one such institution in Norway, for instance; Datatilsynet, the Data Inspectorate, that primarily works for the human right of privacy in terms of what kind of personal information the state and other actors can and cannot legally store in their computer systems. They are experts on these matters, and the law, and often advice courts and big institutions on matters regarding privacy, but also cryptography and other measures that make the storage of data safer for the individual. They were among the first to challenge the Data Storage Act, for instance, where all Norwegian internet protocol traffic (sender and receiver IP's and such) is to be stored by ISP's for at least six months to aid possible police investigations, for instance.
In Norway some of these actors are part of the state, like the Data Directorate, because we trust them to do their job for the people. But in other countries, it is perhaps better to have them as wholly private actors, as is often the case in the USA, for instance. But because The Data Inspectorate is part of the state, they are also respected that much more by other state actors than special interest groups, because they have real power granted to them by the people, and so they are authorized to intervene in matters of privacy and data security. So, perhaps one such institutions should also be made to intervene in matters of freedom of speech and persecution.
Source here is Craig Murray who is possibly the most extreme-biased source one could imagine. Nevertheless it's good to get primary source information from the hearing.
If Murray's account is to be believed, it is the court's fault that no other sources are reporting on this:
> Once again, there were just five of us in the public gallery (in 42 seats) and the six allowed in the overflow video gallery in court 9 was reduced to three, as three seats were reserved by the court for “VIPs” who did not show up.
If there are exactly 8 journalists present, three of which can't ever hear well (from yesterday, "(6 others) were shunted into the adjacent court 9 where a very small number were permitted to squint at a tiny screen, on which the sound was so inaudible John Pilger simply left"), that only leaves 4 other voices to present this story.
I will gladly read other accounts if they are available, but I will not be holding my breath.
> Once again, there were just five of us in the public gallery (in 42 seats) and the six allowed in the overflow video gallery in court 9 was reduced to three, as three seats were reserved by the court for “VIPs” who did not show up.
If there are exactly 8 journalists present, three of which can't ever hear well (from yesterday, "(6 others) were shunted into the adjacent court 9 where a very small number were permitted to squint at a tiny screen, on which the sound was so inaudible John Pilger simply left"), that only leaves 4 other voices to present this story.
I will gladly read other accounts if they are available, but I will not be holding my breath.
He pops up on HN all the time. I'm surprised he's still posting, wasn't he recently prosecuted for the politically motivated release of the names of women in an active sexual harassment trial?
His prosecution date was going to be October. I'm not sure if Covid-19 has affected it or not.
Can you just say something like that and don't even bother to point to a link? It hardly seems fair.
In the UK complainants in sexual offences trials have strong legal protections around anonymity. Murray is alleged to have breached the anonymity of some of the complainants in the Alex Salmond trial. He denies this.
Here's his post asking for some evidential support: https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/05/a-very-polit...
Here's a reasonably neutral article about his prosecution date: https://www.thenational.scot/news/18566311.court-sets-date-c...
Here's his post asking for some evidential support: https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/05/a-very-polit...
Here's a reasonably neutral article about his prosecution date: https://www.thenational.scot/news/18566311.court-sets-date-c...
Thanks for the links. So he didn't release any names like the grandparent comment said. I thought that sounded strange.
Craig Murray has been wrong about factual matters on rare occasions.
He has not lost the plot or gone mad with speculation.
A recent incident of that is his speculation on why the Prime Minister's SPAD was really in Durham during lockdown, with the assumption this had something to do with a big pharma company in the area and C19 contracts. The evidence is a bit thin for anything linking the SPAD to Smithkline Beecham, but Craig Murray was out there pushing a conspiracy theory, all on his own.
However...
In any given day the mainstream news in the UK will make assumptions that are lazy and untrue. We could be forever debating any one of these. Those that believe the mainstream news and respect the Overton Window given to them by the BBC will not want to hear that some of it is not true. There is this aspect of rinse and repeat, so the narrative on Russia, Syria, the country formerly known as Libya, Iran, Venezuela, Iraq and even Scotland is very different for people who turn off their television sets, boycott the UK papers and seek out news that better suits them on the likes of Craig Murray's blog.
Although Craig Murray has been misguided on occasion, this is a price that has to be paid for anyone who is not bought in to the establishment narrative. I would say lies told by Craig Murray versus lies told by the media is something like a thousand to one.
I would say Craig Murray is biased in favour of values of freedom, truth and democracy. The news from the BBC and the likes of Murdoch is not biased that way.
He has not lost the plot or gone mad with speculation.
A recent incident of that is his speculation on why the Prime Minister's SPAD was really in Durham during lockdown, with the assumption this had something to do with a big pharma company in the area and C19 contracts. The evidence is a bit thin for anything linking the SPAD to Smithkline Beecham, but Craig Murray was out there pushing a conspiracy theory, all on his own.
However...
In any given day the mainstream news in the UK will make assumptions that are lazy and untrue. We could be forever debating any one of these. Those that believe the mainstream news and respect the Overton Window given to them by the BBC will not want to hear that some of it is not true. There is this aspect of rinse and repeat, so the narrative on Russia, Syria, the country formerly known as Libya, Iran, Venezuela, Iraq and even Scotland is very different for people who turn off their television sets, boycott the UK papers and seek out news that better suits them on the likes of Craig Murray's blog.
Although Craig Murray has been misguided on occasion, this is a price that has to be paid for anyone who is not bought in to the establishment narrative. I would say lies told by Craig Murray versus lies told by the media is something like a thousand to one.
I would say Craig Murray is biased in favour of values of freedom, truth and democracy. The news from the BBC and the likes of Murdoch is not biased that way.
kmlx(1)
This is odious, and it's just one of the things in just this article. The amount of human rights violations going on seems staggering.