Assange Hearing Day 17

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/09/your-man-in-the-public-gallery-assange-hearing-day-17/

by jjgreen • 6 years ago

352 145 6 years ago

craigmurray.org.uk

Hitton2• 6 years ago

Once again it shows what a kangaroo court is Assange hearing.

megous2• 6 years ago

It's the continuation of the previous mistreatment:

https://www.lawyersforassange.org/en/open-letter.html

jaboc• 6 years ago

I follow Assange hearing on Craig's blog for a while and whole trial is really a clown show. No media has the balls to report on it. Even the Amnesty International monitors are not able to observe the hearings. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2020/09/why-are-amnes...

thinkingemote• 6 years ago

This isn't some conspiracy of the MSN even though we in HN are interested in it and passionate about this. Remember, the News reports things that are new, different, unique.

We are not the audience of the MSN. We are not their users.

Here's a way to put it into perspective: If you read any newspaper, or watch the TV news, or listen to the radio news, try to remember the last time you heard about a trial every day it was going on, about evidence for the defence and prosecution, about items of law and interviews with witnesses.

The vast majority of court reporting gets reported on when it ends - when the jury makes their decision or the Judge passes the sentences. A smaller number gets reports when the court case starts (and items of fact are established) and a similar number may have an occasional report in the middle when some juicy or salacious or sensational piece of evidence is revealed. A tiny number will get reported on every day and then maybe once every 5 years or so.

News is about what is new even when it's of great interest to a small number of people. Day 17 of a hearing is not news to almost all news organisations.

----

Edits: I think Craig is doing amazing stuff, his blog is great and necessary to cover this hearing for us and other interested people. It's also worrying about the entire set up and exclusion of most of public and for observers like Amnesty. I caution about falling into the trap of "MSN is bad", the news just be doing news stuff. You can expect them to report on it when it ends.

k1m4• 6 years ago

I disagree. This is clearly a hugely important case. It's not that day 17 isn't significant to the media, it's that the whole case has been treated with hardly any interest at all from day 1.

Another HN commenter pointed out earlier that the BBC, for example, devoted far more coverage to Johnny Depp's libel case than this. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24491707

As for papers like the Guardian, who benefited the most from Assange's work, they've been even more conspicuously silent. Jonathan Cook, a former Guardian journalist, explains why in his piece 'The US is using the Guardian to justify jailing Assange for life. Why is the paper so silent?' https://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2020-09-22/guardian-silen...

gimboland• 6 years ago

The Guardian reported on the case yesterday [1] and last week [2] and on the 10th [3] and on the 8th [4] and on the 7th [5].

Perhaps it's less than we'd like, but it's hardly silent.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/sep/24/us-never-asked...

[2] https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/sep/18/trump-offered-...

[3] https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/sep/10/julian-assange...

[4] https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/sep/08/julian-assange...

[5] https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/sep/07/julian-assange...

(Edit: newlines beteween references.)

DanBC4• 6 years ago

This is clearly a hugely important case.

It really isn't. It's a simple extradition case. They're going through the procedure to make sure the extradition is lawful, but that's simply checking that rules have been followed. There's no element here of "did he do it or not?"

amoshi• 6 years ago

As for papers like the Guardian, who benefited the most from Assange's work, they've been even more conspicuously silent. Jonathan Cook, a former Guardian journalist, explains why in his piece 'The US is using the Guardian to justify jailing Assange for life. Why is the paper so silent?'

Long story short: they've been neutralised by the UK security apparatus. I could try to summarise the article below but that won't be doing it justice, just give it a read. Declassified UK, the below source, has a few former members of The Guardian on the team.

https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2019-09-11-how-the-u...

marcus_holmes5• 6 years ago

"The Guardian wants journalism as a closed club, one where journalists are once again treated as high priests by their flock of readers, who know only what the corporate media is willing to disclose to them."

This matches perfectly my experience when working with journalists and discussing both Assange and any kind of blogging with them.

Journalism (and journalists) would love to return to the pre-internet world where only they got to publish things and everyone had to listen to their version of events.

Newspapers still haven't found a viable business model: advertising is earning less and less each year. The Guardian's "wikipedia model" is probably the best new attempt, but even that is very flaky and unreliable compared to their pre-internet days.

Increasingly, I see the best journalism coming from independent bloggers.

And I see support for draconian measures in suppressing "fake news" from large media organisations that would benefit hugely from any government-imposed regulations on publishing.

Hitton2• 6 years ago

No one expects report every single day. But when I for instance search CNN on Assange hearing, only at least little bit relevant thing in last month is that on the 10th of September lawyer representing prosecution was suspected to have Covid and hearing was suspend till he was tested.

Do you seriously consider that the most newsworthy part of the hearing?

jacknews2• 6 years ago

Indeed, and the last 'mainstream' headline I read was something like "Assange warned over outburst".

It seems to me that there's a global media conspiracy to ignore this case.

It's rather ironic, since it has quite serious implications for media freedom in the future.

Or perhaps it just demonstrates how 'not free' current media is already.

raxxorrax4• 6 years ago

That is true, but then the MSN is for entertainment and it doesn't function as a fourth estate anymore. That has been the criticism for some time and I think it is pretty on spot. Journalists asking questions is often tantamount how much you can miss the mark that it becomes embarrassing just to listen to it.

That they don't report on every day is understandable, but they also made themselves guilty by accusing people to conspire with Russia. That wasn't entertainment, that was a malicious form of propaganda, not some content tailored to a broad audience.

torben-friis• 6 years ago

It might be a symptom of the poor state of media nowadays.

I'm not that old at all, but I remember seeing much more streams of constant information on ongoing events back when I was a kid (my father was a journalist so there was a lot of press bought daily at home).

The system is so dependent on cycles and hyperbole that they simply can afford to keep reporting on an ongoing event for a month, even if it's small tidbits, because they fear the audience will be "satiated". Instead, it's going to be an extreme news explosion at the end of the whole thing, when everything is said and done, so they can probably milk/manufacture outrage - but that information will be completely useless to the public by then.

swebs• 6 years ago

What does MSN stand for?

Zarel• 6 years ago

I would guess "mainstream news" from context, although I see MSM (mainstream media) a lot more often.

jacknews2• 6 years ago

Seems quite naive.

In reality editors need to pander to all kinds of legal, ethical, and 'relationship', aka political pressures.

Many stories are not published simply because it would piss-off the the wrong person. I've see this in person.

boublepop• 6 years ago

This isn't some conspiracy of the MSN even though we in HN are interested in it and passionate about this.

Every news outlet that covered Wikileaks material when it came out but has not covered the trial against Assange are taking a political stance against freedom of information.

This isn’t a case of “the public just doesn’t care” the public by large doesn’t know what’s going on because mainstream media is staying quiet.

kmlx3• 6 years ago

Unlike our adversaries including the Integrity Initiative, the 77th Brigade, Bellingcat, the Atlantic Council and hundreds of other warmongering propaganda operations,

epic, huge, massive grain of salt as he's a known conspiracy theory fan with a wide array of issues.

kmlx3• 6 years ago

i really really don't get how this guy ends up on the first page of HN. he clearly has issues:

As a blogger, he tried to dispute Russia’s involvement in the Salisbury poisonings and has written about Salmond’s acquittal on sexual offences charges.
Murray has claimed “corrupt” institutions conspired against the former First Minister and insists the former First Minister's female accusers lied.
He also wrote about having “definite good source information” about MI5’s involvement in the Salmond allegations - a claim that led to him being mocked.

tldr: Cults and conspiracy theories offer the easy answer to hard reality

or as one of his friends put it: > He is profiting from fuelling the conspiracy theories that have no concrete basis.

srtjstjsj4• 6 years ago

Having issues is not a disqualifier from HN. If there's a better source, mods would switch it. But no one else is reporting on this major event.

vidarh2• 6 years ago

He ends up on the first page of HN because there is hardly any reporting of the extradition hearing.

If the press was doing its job, his reporting wouldn't be necessary.

marcus_holmes5• 6 years ago

I think his background as a UK ambassador who was then hounded by the UK establishment[0] has given him a frame of reference where it's hard not to see conspiracies.

However, it's true he is currently being taken to court by the Scottish government for contempt of court over his reporting of the Salmond case. That's not something that happens to the average conspiracy nutjob.

[0] and yeah, I totally believe his stories of the UK political establishment closing ranks against an outsider. I grew up in that world, and that chummy upper-class clubhouse can get very cold and hostile very quickly. It also has very long reach.

raxxorrax4• 6 years ago

Hard reality is that intelligence agencies conspired against the current president of the US with a story of Russian collusion and tried to frame innocents. These agencies have issues, because that was a clear conspiracy.

Journalists can be wrong, but we have seen direct propaganda that mirrors the talking points of some of these institutions. The Atlantic council for example is broad, doesn't mean anything to attend their parties, but it certainly is an influential network that should be put under scrutiny.

Bellingcat did some good investigative work, but is also connected to the Atlantic Council and I think they just look into a certain direction for recognition purposes. In contrast to Wikileaks for example.

pjc50• 6 years ago

The number of associates of the President who have received criminal convictions is remarkable, many of whom have links to Russian economic crime of one sort or another. Are you saying that all these convictions are framed? https://www.axios.com/trump-associates-convicted-mueller-inv...

mhh__4• 6 years ago

He definitely has a grudge against bellingcat. He had a big spat over the identities of the Skripal poisoners, but ended up looking like he was just making it up.

The nicest way I can think of Murray politically is as one of these people who is not supportive of the west's enemies but sufficiently anti-western to end up aligning with them. Calling Bellingcat warmongerers is an example of this.

jonathanstrange• 6 years ago

He doesn't seem to be wrong, though. Bellingcat has all the indicators of one of those typical intelligence information/disinformation outlets close to one or more intelligence agencies.

I personally find it rather entertaining that Bellingcat has won the Machiavelli Award for public communication. I didn't know it existed and find it hard to believe that someone would accept an award in that name.

DiogenesKynikos2• 6 years ago

To summarize:

* The prosecution claimed that Assange had not been caught with a razor. The reason for denying this is that hiding a razor suggests Assange might be thinking of suicide.

* The defense pointed out that an official report from the prison confirmed that Assange had hidden a razor in his cell. The prosecution is surely aware of this report. In plain English, the prosecution lied to the court. The judge refuses to consider the prison report, however, because it is new evidence.

* Defense claims that Assange was moved to the healthcare ward because of suicidal thoughts. The prosecution claims that he was moved there so that he could be put in isolation, so that the prison would not be embarrassed by more leaked photos of Assange. In other words, the official line is that the prison concocted false medical pretenses to put Assange in solitary confinement.

TheUndead962• 6 years ago

Either they are planning to kill him and frame it as a suicide, or his life has been made so miserable that suicide appears to be an escape. Both are awful to consider.

I'm not informed enough to know whether any of the leaks he facilitated lead to the unnecessary harm of innocent people, but I deeply respect his dedication to the truth. As far as I know he has not outed his sources. We should aspire to be as brave as the likes of Assange and Snowden.

mhh__4• 6 years ago

Based on currently available information I view snowden on a different tier to assange.

Assange has always been a political activist as well as whatever else he is, whereas Snowden is much less active. The relations wikileaks had with the Trump campaign and GRU do make me somewhat less sympathetic with him.

On a smaller scale wikileaks have on multiple occasions published lists containing innocent bystanders's full contact and card details - this is clearly a statement in and of itself (not Redacting the details of someone who made a $50 donation to the democrats is wrong and meditated)

acomjean• 6 years ago

Well some argue his dump of emails coordinated with a now pardoned US political operative helped push one candidate over another.

It had a pretty negative impact on many lives. Somewhat ironically hurting the concept of “truth” in politics.

mhh__4• 6 years ago

If they didn't enter the prison report into evidence then surely they've just shot themselves in the foot?

luckylion• 6 years ago

I have no clue about the UK, but are their laws such that state attorney are allowed to actively lie to a judge and make false statements?

gpm2• 6 years ago

My vague understanding is that you are allowed to enter evidence to impeach someone (show that they are lying) at any time, most notably right after they lied.

I cound be wrong, but this trial has not inspired confidence in the judge actually following the law so I'm not taking the court ruling otherwise as the strong evidence that I normally would.

acqq4• 6 years ago

Basically, one contended issue was if there was a proof that something important happened: if a razor blade was found by Assange. Prosecution initially claimed it hasn't. Then the direct evidence of the event was shown by the defense, written by a reporting officer. Then the prosecution claimed something like "but there was no punishment of Assange by the Prison Governor".

Then:

"Baraitser, [the judge] who was aware that this was a major car crash, grasped at the same straw Lewis was clinging to in desperation, and said that if the charge had been dismissed, then there was no proof the razor blade existed. Fitzgerald pointed out this was absurd. The charge may have been dismissed for numerous reasons. The existence of the blade was not in doubt. Julian Assange had attested to it and two prison warders had attested to it. Baraitser said that she could only base her view on the decision of the Prison Governor."

"On Thursday Edward Fitzgerald [defense] handed the record of the prison hearing where the charge was discussed to Baraitser. It was a long document. The Governor’s decision was at paragraph 19. Baraitser told Fitzgerald she could not accept the document as it was new evidence. Fitzgerald told her she had herself asked for the outcome of the charge. He said the document contained very interesting information. Baraitser said that the Governor’s decision was at paragraph 19, that was all she had asked for, and she would refuse to take the rest of the document into consideration."

Basically, the document seems to contain the statement that the razor blade was found (edit: or, as some point out, something else that would be very inconvenient for the prosecution). The judge refuses to accept the document even after saying that "she could only base her view on the decision of the Prison Governor" appearing to cherry picking only one paragraph of the existing document which doesn't contain the claim.

If true, that's definitely a new low that I couldn't have imagined could happen.

Everybody should read the whole report to see for themselves even more details about what was happening there.

jjgreen4• 6 years ago

I never thought I'd see the day when a judge is so obviously guilty of perjury.

matthewheath5• 6 years ago

Why is the judge guilty of perjury? Certainly her decisions have been questionable, and she will probably be criticised by the High Court, but perjury is specifically about lying under oath -- and she hasn't done that.

xnyan• 6 years ago

Either this is a joke, or you have not looked at any recorded history of judicial proceedings. Judges often have incredible power with few oversights.

You do see it the most in situations like this, where the accused is a target of the state or poor or otherwise can't defend themselves.

vidarh2• 6 years ago

Frankly, if she has a job after this, then the UK justice system would seem to be fundamentally corrupt.

jjgreen4• 6 years ago

This hatchet-job pretty-much secures her seat in the house of Lords.

yrro• 6 years ago

This judge sounds like a real piece of work.

https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Vanessa_Baraitser#.22Sneers_and_...

unixhero• 6 years ago

Harrowing.

DyslexicAtheist7• 6 years ago

It seems they are now bringing additional allegations[1] to other Wikileaks Associates _and_ people who gave talks at CCC between 2013-2015. Namely Jake Appelabaum who is currently (doing a PhD[1] with T. Lange & DJB).

The US seems to have a hard-on also for members of the "Rosa-Luxembourg Stiftung" who insulted the empire by giving talks about their illegal drone wars[2][3] and shed light on how German engineers were working as sub-contractors for US airbases in Germany (as data scientist and software engineers).

EU countries, especially Germany, France (I have less hope for Eastern-EU or Sweden) need to stop extraditions to US of A stat. Also these US terrorists dressed up as politicians need to be sanctioned (I understand this is a pipe dream) and prosecuted at the ICC (another pipe dream).

---

[0] (in German) https://www.heise.de/tp/features/USA-spaehten-fuer-Assange-A...

[1] https://hyperelliptic.org/tanja/students.html

[2] https://media.ccc.de/v/32c3-7259-graphs_drones_phones

[3] https://www.rosalux.de/dokumentation/id/14090/drone-warfare-...

scoot_7183• 6 years ago

Sounds like a legitimate grievance if they're going out and recruiting people to steal secrets. In fact if they can prove a money link, they just look like a branch of the FSB.

DyslexicAtheist7• 6 years ago

for anyone who disagrees with US policy and considers it hostile, abusive, hypocritical (and hence a threat to their own values) ... their view could be: the enemy of my enemy is my friend. And so it doesn't matter where the money comes from as long as they work on the same goal (e.g. stopping the war mongering hypocrisy that is US foreign policy). The current (dire) state of Russia after all is a failure in US foreign policy (the biggest tragedy and a massive lost opportunity in how the US handled the crumbling USSR).

In Europe we have a refugee-crisis and constant debates about what to do with them. In that debate we forget that it was the US that invaded Iraq, Lybia - they are responsible for it. Sure the Wagner group is there now as well profiting the same way as US contractors. But Africom, Blackwater and every yank in a uniform are a much larger threat to peace than Russia & China combined. (regardless what nutter occupies the whitehouse)

dexterdog• 6 years ago

Caa you steal a secret if that secret is illegal?

mlthoughts201813• 6 years ago

Whistleblowing is not stealing (literally, in the legal sense, you’d have to prove it’s not whistleblowing in order for it to be possible to be stealing).

Jumping straight to a phrase like “stealing secrets” completely skips past due process to determine if it’s whistleblowing and presumes guilt instead of innocence.

the-dude4• 6 years ago

The Hague act : https://www.hrw.org/news/2002/08/03/us-hague-invasion-act-be...

Yes, we are partners in NATO.

edit: 18 yrs later, it strikes me as how pre-emptive this was.

swiley• 6 years ago

I've heard the US has what essentially amount to a DRM on a lot of EU military equipment. Most of the west just seems really tangled up in general.

rv-de• 6 years ago

Appelbaum became also famous for sexually harassing women.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/07/27...

https://www.wired.com/2016/06/tor-developer-jacob-appelbaum-...

plzbo• 6 years ago

for sexually harassing women.

You have to differentiate between claims made against him and what he did in reality.

Most of those claims seem to be fabricated and/or were even redacted by the sources, see:

https://www.zeit.de/kultur/2016-08/jacob-appelbaum-rape-sexu...

fit2rule• 6 years ago

You are going to get downvoted into oblivion once the American contingent of HN wakes up, but before that happens I wanted to say thank you very much for making this statement:

It is true. The US needs to start being sanctioned for its war crimes, its crimes against humanity, and its anti-democratic behaviour. The failure of the American people to reign in their heinous war machine needs to be brought back to them. It is feet-to-the-fire time.

moneytalks• 6 years ago

As a US person myself, I don't really take issue with stopping extraditions because it would probably be a lot cheaper just to execute enemies abroad. Think how much money Putin has saved over the years. Now the whole Kashoggi mess shows how easy it is for this approach to backfire, so you certainly have to be careful.

romanoderoma3• 6 years ago

need to stop extraditions to US of A stat

Extradition from EU to US is never allowed if in the US the people extradited risk the death penalty.

There are discussions going about abolishing it entirely for states that support death penalty, regardless of the single case implications.

DyslexicAtheist7• 6 years ago

I suppose that's not very consoling when you're staring at 30, 60 or more than 100 years in prison. The US should not have power to extradite EU citizens for the same reasons we also don't extradite people to Belarus or China. It's a one sided deal as was illustrated in the case of recent killing of a UK teen by an US diplomat:

Extradition of U.S. Diplomat’s Wife Sought in U.K. Teen’s Death https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-05-11/extraditi...

also the way US treats its prison population and allows torture (enhanced interrogation) doesn't make it better than any other banana republic. It's in no way better than China. it just has more effective propaganda.

iso16312• 6 years ago

The UK isn't in the EU

cryptica• 6 years ago

I don't see how the razor blade has anything to do with mental illness in this case... I think anyone in Assange's position would be perfectly sane to consider suicide. The world is a truly messed up place these days and especially for him. If anything, it's a sign of his sanity.

tyingq2• 6 years ago

I'm very curious how someone in solitary confinement would get a razor blade.

DanBC4• 6 years ago

What do you think "solitary confinement" is, and why do you think that would make contraband harder to obtain and hide?

(Also, it's called segregation in England).

You can get a rough idea of searching in this document (p46) https://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/sites/crimeandjustice.org...

You can get a rough idea of how poor English prisons are from this link: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/sep/03/two-in-five-...

tyingq2• 6 years ago

Well, it sounds like fewer interactions with people, and so fewer opportunities to get a razor blade.

Assange Hearing Day 17

Related Stories