Assange extradition hearing resumes

[loomer]

Extradition proceedings against Assange have resumed. For those unaware, there's some real weird shit going on. For a start, he's been hit with 17 charges under the US's Espionage Act with major alterations after extradition proceedings had begun and with some substantial differences from what was originally alleged. And today, Amnesty International was denied any opportunity to observe what is undeniably a high-profile proceeding with serious implications of exactly the kind they are customarily permitted to observe as a neutral party.

[loomer]

Every independent monitor has had their license to observe remotely revoked. Baraitser's conduct has been absolutely abysmal throughout these proceedings and anyone who looks at them and sees a perfectly normal hearing is delusional.

[loomer]

The request for an adjournment by the defence for time to prepare an adequate response to the newly introduced charges from the prosecution has been denied. It's like they're actively trying to make this look like a complete stitch-up.

[mr friendly guy]

But..but...rule of law. I mean Western nations have rule of law don't they?

Also I am interested to see the people who say they feel Assange should face rape charges but opposed extradition to the US on espionage charges. Since Sweden has chosen not to prosecute they should be shouting for Assange to be released right?

[Tribble]

But..but...rule of law. I mean Western nations have rule of law don't they?

Also I am interested to see the people who say they feel Assange should face rape charges but opposed extradition to the US on espionage charges. Since Sweden has chosen not to prosecute they should be shouting for Assange to be released right?

Meh. No matter what country the Golden Rule of Law has always taken precedence - those who have the Gold (and/or the biggest sticks) make the rules.

Difference being that people like Boris Johnson / Trump
and their supporters can’t be bothered to maintain appearances and/or openly flaunt it.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

I was thinking about this the other day- would Assange really be up for the death penalty if he's extradited to the USA?

[Solauren]

Depends on how you define 'death penalty'

Do you mean trial, conviction, and executed openly by the state?
Or do you mean 'prison suicide despite all precautions to prevent'

[loomer]

I was thinking about this the other day- would Assange really be up for the death penalty if he's extradited to the USA?

Officially, no, just 175 years in prison. But since the US has demonstrated a consistent willingness to add new charges on the fly there's pretty good reason to think they'd do the same once they have him. And, of course, it is a certainty that he will be tortured in American custody and die prematurely regardless of the actual sentence.

[loomer]

External observers continue to be barred from providing trial monitoring services in one of the most controversial and politicized extradition hearings in a century. Definitely not at all weird. Not a bit. Nope.

[loomer]

The court has rejected the extradition request. The basis is somewhat shonky, and will certainly be appealed - and I wonder if that wasn't the intent from the get go.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

The basis being that he would basically have to be on suicide watch if granted. Or not, if they put him in Epstein's cell.

[loomer]

The appeals will begin shortly - and unsurprisingly, Stefan Simanowitz is reporting that a large number of journalists have been refused all forms of access. Given the irregularities in the proceedings so far, it's not a move that inspires confidence.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

The US government has won the latest round in its High Court bid to appeal against the decision not to extradite Wikileaks founder Julian Assange on espionage charges.
It comes as the High Court heard Assange is not "so ill" that he would be unable to resist killing himself if he was extradited to the United States.

Assange, 50, is wanted in America on allegations of a conspiracy to obtain and disclose national defence information following WikiLeaks’ publication of hundreds of thousands of leaked documents relating to the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.

After a multi-week extradition hearing, District Judge Vanessa Baraitser ruled in January that Assange should not be sent to the US, citing a real risk of suicide.

The US Government was previously allowed to appeal against her decision on three grounds, including that it was wrong in law - which Assange’s legal team described as "narrow" and "technical".

On Wednesday, the US made a bid at the High Court to expand the basis that can be used for its main appeal against the district judge’s decision.

The American authorities said they should be allowed to argue two further points – that the district judge was wrong in how she assessed evidence about Assange’s risk of suicide and also appeal against the use of evidence from a psychiatrist who they said “misled” the court.

Lord Justice Holroyde ruled in favour of the US authorities after he found the two points were "at least arguable" at the main appeal, which will take place over two days in October.

The WikiLeaks founder appeared at the hearing by video-link from Belmarsh Prison, wearing a dark face covering and a white shirt, with what appeared to be an untied burgundy tie draped around his neck.

Dozens of Assange’s supporters, including his partner Stella Moris, gathered outside the Royal Courts of Justice on Wednesday morning, chanting and waving signs.

Former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn was also seen outside the central London building, telling supporters that the US Government should “wind their necks in”.

Clair Dobbin QC, for the US, had told the court there is a “need for anxious scrutiny” of Assange’s reported mental health.

The barrister said part of the US Government’s appeal will focus on the requirement in law that an individual must be “so ill” that they are unable to resist suicide for a decision to be taken not to prosecute – or in Assange’s case, extradite – them.

She said: “It really requires a mental illness of a type that the ability to resist suicide has been lost.

“Part of the appeal will be that Mr Assange did not have a mental illness that came close to being of that nature and degree.”

Ms Dobbin also told the court that the need for scrutiny is “substantially increased” given the background – including the “extraordinary lengths” Assange has already gone to in order to avoid extradition.

The US authorities have also claimed that evidence from Assange’s psychiatric expert, Professor Michael Kopelman, should have been dismissed or had less weight attributed to it.

Ms Dobbin argued the expert “misled” Judge Baraitser during the original extradition proceedings by “concealing” the fact that Assange had fathered two children during his time in the Ecuadorian embassy until March 2020, when he “chose to deploy that information in support of his bail application”.

Both sides will now prepare for the full appeal, which will be heard in person on October 27 and 28.

If Assange is extradited, the US has said it would consent to him being transferred to Australia to serve any prison sentence he may be given.

Emphasis mine, though it seems suspect that the USA would go to all the trouble to extradite him only to then deport him when they are done.