Occasionally, there's a pretty good gem in these. This was good, in response to John Lewis questioning a psychiatrist's qualifications:
“I have been doing this for over thirty years and on five or six occasions London solicitors have phoned me up and said that James Lewis QC is acting in an extradition case and is extremely keen to get your services for a report. So I think it is a bit rich for you to stand there now questioning my qualifications.”
Edit: There's another in there regarding some test called TOMM.
"Lewis [prosecution] again berated Kopelman [psychologist] for not having paid sufficient attention to malingering. Kopelman replied that not only had he used his experience and clinical judgement, but two normative tests had been applied, one of them the TOMM test. Lewis suggested those tests were not for malingering and only the Minnesota test was the standard. At this point Kopelman appeared properly annoyed. He said the Minnesota test was very little used outside the USA. The TOMM test was indeed for malingering. That was why it was called the Test of Memory Malingering. Again there was some laughter in court."
Wow. Again, the contents of the discussions are so obviously in favor of Assange (the accusation being really unfair and... dumb, again and again), and the judge is so clearly in favor of this dumb side.
What would be the possible recourse against the verdict, to protest to all these (voluntary) mistakes?
Is there any court in UK to which ask to undo and rejudge?
The accusation (Lewis) is so manipulative, asking witnesses to agree to assertions out of context and then applying them anywhere, sending them bundles of documents to read urgently the same morning as the trial and then blaming them for not having been able to do it, denying the qualification of all witnesses and experts altogether, etc.
The accusation is a representative of a Nation governed by the Rule of Law, isn't it?
And what about the judge who is very happy with all these cruel manipulations?
> What would be the possible recourse against the verdict, to protest to all these (voluntary) mistakes?
> Is there any court in UK to which ask to undo and rejudge?
Yes. All extradition judgements may be appealed to the High Court of England and Wales (or, where relevant, the equivalent in Scotland).
However, such appeals may only be made on a point of law, not fact. For example, the judge misapplying the law is a point of law so the appeal can be heard.
However, a rebuttal of fact (e.g. "Mr Assange did not commit the crime he was accused of") would be a point of fact and thus such an appeal could not be heard.
Furthermore, if the High Court refuses to hear the appeal or decides against Mr Assange, it can be sent to the Supreme Court.
The final route of appeal would lie with the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) if his legal team can prove an Article 3 breach.
Assuming Mr Assange loses the case, his team would probably apply for an urgent injunction to the High Court to temporarily prevent him from being extradited during the appeal, then apply for an expedited hearing so his case is heard as quickly as possible.
I see many points of law on the base of which an appeal would win.
For example, forcing witnesses to say a statement, and then writing it down out of its context, sending essential (as it appears during the trial) documents to witnesses or experts in a timing such that they cannot read them, wrong characterization of medical notions with the aim to induce confusion, etc.
In total, there are easily 20 or more points which would have this trial totally moot if it was held in France for example, and I'm sure that UK's version of justice is not that different.
Perhaps. It is arguable that Mr Assange is not receiving a fair trial in the procedural sense of the word. The appeal court would be entitled to quash the verdict or remand it for reconsideration.
Given previous precedent such as the Gary McKinnon case, I rather hope the High Court would quash the verdict and prevent Mr Assange's extradition.
That's poor conduct from the prosecution, and does contribute to any appeal grounds on the basis of procedural unfairness, but in itself is not a point of law.
The High Court may well write scathing remarks about the prosecution's conduct, but I'd be surprised if any substantive action were taken given that the prosecuting counsel represents a foreign government and the courts are loathe to intrude upon foreign affairs.
Well, since observers from Amnesty International were denied a place in the hearing and the press largely ignores this, we'll have to do with Craig Murray.
I'm surprised that my comment could be interpreted in such a way! lol
(but the other comment by jonathanstrange hints that you are not alone, so maybe my writing style could use some improvement)
To the contrary, even so I'm sure that Murray is on Assage's side, he still manages to write a factual report.
To his honor, it is quite easy to make the distinction between the facts reported and Murray's opinion.
And it's based on the facts only (as included in the reports written by Murray) that I'm myself horrified by how the trial is unfair and full of procedural mistakes against Assange.
"Suddenly, Baraitser repeated out loud the part quote that if prison conditions in the US were good and the sentence were short, then Kopelman’s clinical opinion would change, and ostentatiously typed it onto her laptop, as though it were very significant indeed."
Makes me livid just reading about this, and other such happenings in my country - but as just a regular Northern tech worker, what on Earth can I do about it? My mother was in London at the weekend and said there were people outside the Old Bailey chanting "Free Assange", but not many.
What can one do in the face of what seems to me to be flagrantly violating our own "justice system" to pander to the Americans?
What do people - whose Government is acting against their wishes, outside their control and who are without recourse by means of the judiciary - what do they usually do?
And no I'm not saying one needs to go all the way to revolution, but people have brought countries to a halt over less important matters. Look at the french! It was fucking gas prices(!) the last time they set things on fire.
I don't necessarily agree with the goals of all groups of people rioting and going on strikes recently, but nonetheless it's a healthy thing to have now and then. Reminds those in power who they are beholden to. Without a good scare now and then they might get ideas - and they will - just look at countries where it's been altogether too quiet in recent history:
"When the preferences of economic elites and the stands of organized interest groups are controlled for, the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy."
The issue I see is that most of the populous don't even know or hear about, never mind understand, what's going on and what's being done to them - because if it's not in the media (Sun, Mail, Standard, Telegraph, etc) then as far as most of the country is concerned it either doesn't exist, is a conspiracy theory, or is Russian bots causing trouble.
How do you rise up when it's your own people, not just your government and media, trying to pull you back down?
Great way to continously alienate myself. I expect a great amount of eyerolls, and if anyone in my peer group even remembers the name Assange, I assume I can be remembered as some rapist supporter.
I will just use this to poke my future armchair enemies that consistently and confidently speak up about what a champion of human rights the West has been since FoReVeR. Shill of the day I will be!
"I will state firmly and resolutely that my account has been truthful. I do not claim it has been impartial."
I believe Craig Murray's account because
1. He could be called out at any time for any fabrication
2. There is no, literally zero, mainstream news sites reporting this trial in any depth whatsoever.
The Guardian. Happy to break his orginal news and happy also to bow to the UK Govt in keeping pretty much silent on trial.
Yes, they have mentioned it is happening, but they say little else.
My faith in UK journalism is zero.
They are servants of the Govt.
Depends what one means by "mainstream." RT and Sputnik do a little coverage.
Also not mainstream, TJDS and Chris Hedges cover it.
Furthermore, the growing problems of conspiracy theory cults is partially due to incompetent leadership and lack of journalistic integrity by those at global microphones leading to a dissolution of trust in authorities. The obvious solution to better journalism isn't an alternate reality, but by higher-integrity journalism that is sustainable and independent on the whims of mercurial "family products" executives with undue influence to have anchors fired. And that can had only by outlawing corporate, ad-supported journalism that creates evil, corrupt business model-reinforcing dark patterns and replace them with grant- and subscriber-based journalism.
Also, government-supported news, like BBC, RT, and Sputnik, is a terrible idea because it creates the appearance of a conflict-of-interest in holding government accountable. The Fourth Estate must be separate and independent.
Please don't go into flamewar like this. It just makes everything worse.
Also, insinuations of trollage and shillage and foreign-agentage are against the site guidelines. If you don't have evidence, you shouldn't be posting this, and if you do have evidence, you should be letting us know so we can investigate. Someone having a different view than you on some divisive topic does not count as evidence.
I watch/read RT just like I do BBC, PressTV, telesur and US media like NYTimes and so on. They’re often reporting exactly the same thing, from the same angle even.
I wish the original comment to which I replied could show the edit.
I'm no troll, just a very annoyed reader - and UK citizen - who sees The Guardian as proclaiming how utterly fantastic they are while also doing exactly what the Powers That Be want them to say.
The Guardian are ..... words fail me, but truthful and believable are not on that list.
The reason for the lack of reporting in the UK media is the reporting restrictions on criminal cases. they have been spanked repeatedly for coverage leading to jury prejudice and so basically blanket ban any coverage of any ongoing criminal case for the most part. Rules are here https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/reportin...
I don't have a credible opinion about whether that's right but that's the reason.
The extradition hearing is an administrative matter, not a criminal one. Julian Assange isn't being prosecuted in this matter, the case is simply establishing whether he can be extradited in accordance with the Extradition Act 2003 or not.
Therefore, reporting restrictions do not appear to apply here.
Aah interesting. This source claims that reporting restrictions were requested by Assange's team to protect the identity of his partner back in April, but that seems somewhat moot now. I don't know - there may well be a restriction because it does seem strange how little reporting there has been.
For people who don't know the UK, Computer Weekly is an IT-specific publication but has some form in investigative journalism in topics that are at least tangentially tech-related, notably in one case vindicating helicopter pilots who were blamed in a fatal crash that was most likely caused by software.
All of the three-letter networks are the same. Modern 'news' is a concoction of outrage porn and propaganda designed to keep us watching at all costs. Political polarization is at an all-time high. It's a mess
You think CNN and Fox are the same? I mean sure, CNN didn't exactly report critically on any of the Iraq wars, and I'm sure there's lots of pro-gov and pro-corporate stuff like that. But Fox is literally a propaganda channel for one of the two political parties, only barely masquerading as news.
CNN is also propaganda, it's just propaganda for positions that are closer to the truth. Same way that in WW2 both the US and the Nazis had propaganda, but the US propaganda was (much) closer to the truth.
In any case, it's a million times better to come to those conclusions via an unbiased source than via a biased source like CNN.
They were absolutely abhorrent, but weren't as bad as the German caricatures of Jews, or the Roma, or the Slavs. I said closer to the thruth, not close to the truth.
CNN is no better than fox in the realm of propaganda. I'm assuming you are a strongly DNC leaning person if you have trouble identifying the problem with CNN and yet are quite passionate about identifying it with fox.
> Furthermore, Lewis was not representing his own views but speaking on the direct instructions of the government of the United States of America. Throughout a full four hours, Lewis on behalf of the government of the USA not only evinced no understanding whatsoever of mental illness, he never once, not for one second, showed one single sign that mental illness a subject taken seriously or for which there is the tiniest element of human sympathy and concern. Not just for Julian, but for any sufferer. Mental illness is malingering or if real disqualifies you from any role in society; no other view was expressed. He made plain on behalf of the US Government, for example, that Julian’s past history of mental illness in Australia will not be taken into account because the medical records have been destroyed.
Yeah, today's conclusion is quite something. "Look not only at the words themselves, but also on what's demonstrated by the speaker" should really be part of the judgment at the end.
He has taken some (all I'll say is) differing views on various foreign policy matters, sound is probably pushing it considering he has been consistently contrarian without any evidence (and after more evidence has to light [1]) and consistently wrong.
[1] Most obvious would probably be his spat with Bellingcat over the identities of the Skripal poisoners. Other examples include pontificating about the DNC emails
> Obviously he chooses not to mention that he was fired in his
That's a rather dishonest point to make, because no one ever mentions in their CV why/how they left a position.
Furthermore, if you had actually read your own wikipedia article, you'd have know that he was forced to leave after he refused to be quiet on the government supporting a regime that tortured people and hushed that and extraordinary rendition up in order to appease their American buddies.
“I have been doing this for over thirty years and on five or six occasions London solicitors have phoned me up and said that James Lewis QC is acting in an extradition case and is extremely keen to get your services for a report. So I think it is a bit rich for you to stand there now questioning my qualifications.”
Edit: There's another in there regarding some test called TOMM.