–refresh your screen for the latest update – chronological order [hearing may go beyond 4:30pm, judge said].
–this was a ‘work in progress’ story…I decided to leave it in its imperfect state to demonstrate how deliberate judicial bad behavior prevents the communication of justice and its transparency…sorry about the flaws…Wordpress my US software provider unpublished some of this overnight…and then later the story went missing…this creates confusion inside my brain and inside the brains of readers.
–Warning: I did get confused whether the barristers were speaking about the articles of the extradition treaty or the ECHR. Most of this IS solid though, despite that. This was my fault and, importantly, the fault of the court and its verious officers (on both sides of the litigation and also the judges) for not being clear
Reporting, comments by Mathew Carr
Feb. 20, 2024 — 10:30am — Judge Dame Victoria Sharp
https://www.declassifieduk.org/the-tory-appointee-holding-julian-assanges-life-in-her-hands/:
Julian Assange is not attending hearing — on medical grounds. He was offered a chance to attend in person and also via video link, she said.
Assange barrister Ed Fitzgerald: extradition request is politically motivated and criminalizing a journalist.
Extradition request is not proportionate. There is a real risk Assange will suffer injustice.
There’s a risk of extra judicial action against Assange by the CIA.
[short break because of technical issues]
10:50pm: Espionage is quintessentially a political offense and extradition is not appropriate
It’s abuse of process to extradite for a political offence
UK has more than 150 extradition treaties
High Court of Australia and US cases decided espionage was political.
Assange is effectively a representative for the people against the state. [CarrZee: He seems to be saying if Assange was spying, he was spying for humanity … not for any state]
11:21am: “Opposition for [to?] the US has never been stronger”
Noon: Assange barrister Mark Summers: Risk for Assange if extradited: extra-judicial assassination, rendition
Google Gemini
12:10pm: Second judge Justice Johnson said: requests more references as Assange’s team speaks [CarrZee – this indicates to me the judges may not make a decision on the arguments immediately tomorrow (Wednesday). They may think about it for some days or longer — I’m no legal expert, to be sure — I’ve been in whistleblowing litigation for almost four years …mostly self litigation]
12:32pm: Summers: US seems prepared to use judiciary for political retaliation
CIA director said Assange was a non-state hostile intelligence agency, that he was anti-democratic.
[CarrZee: Summers sound seems muffled…it’s very difficult to understand]
Summers cites Yahoo investigation linked above.
Judge Sharp intervenes here: District court judge did acknowledge that some US authorities were hostile to Assange.
Summers: We now know that President Donald Trump had requested detailed options of how to kill Assange. The US developed a plan to either kill or rendition Assange to the USA. There was a plan to kidnap and poison Assange from the [Ecuadorian] embassy…or else straightforwardly murder him…the plan was “extraordinary.”
The USA selected Assange for persecution.
District court judge didn’t adequately consider the risks to Assange. This court is plainly able to intervene in the District court judge.
12:50pm: The request for extradition is made in “bad faith”.
“National security journalism is a thing”. Some leakers have been prosecuted. Publishers have not been prosecuted before. This prosecution crosses a new legal frontier.
Justice Johnson asks about whether there has been instances of whistleblowers publishing of contacts [CarrZee: US officials have argued Assange put spies in danger because of his publishing].
Summers: yes there has. Mentions a whistleblower Mr Hague (checking spelling)[I might have misheard this name. Could not immediately verify it. BBC didn’t report it either]
[Break for lunch]
2pm: back from lunch
Summers: The press should be able to publish what it knows, citing case law
Earlier court made a mistake when it didn’t engage “article 7” (I’m assuming article 7 of the extradition treaty)
Article 7 of the extradition treaty EXPLAINED HERE (Google Gemini) — I need to check if he was talking instead about article 7 of the ECHR — potential apologies…see below for outline of article 7 of ECHR
Article 7 of the UK-US Extradition Treaty focuses on the death penalty:
Here’s the key point:
- The extradition authority in the Requested State (usually the UK) may refuse extradition if the offense for which extradition is sought is punishable by death under the laws of the Requesting State (usually the US) but not under the laws of the Requested State.
Further details:
- The Requested State can only refuse extradition based on this provision unless the Requesting State provides assurances that the death penalty will not be imposed or, if imposed, will not be carried out.
- These assurances can take various forms, such as written guarantees or specific commitments regarding the individual’s treatment in the US prison system.
- This provision reflects the UK’s abolition of the death penalty and its opposition to capital punishment.
Here’s the specific wording of Article 7:
“1. Extradition shall not be granted when the offense for which extradition is requested is punishable by death under the laws of the Requesting State but not under the laws of the Requested State.
- The competent authority of the Requested State may refuse extradition unless the Requesting State provides such assurances as it considers necessary to give effect to paragraphs 1 and 3 of this Article.
- The death penalty shall not be imposed or carried out on any person surrendered under this Treaty who at the time of his offense was a national of the Requested State or who was habitually resident in the territory of the Requested State.”
It’s important to remember that the interpretation and application of extradition treaties can be complex and involve legal considerations beyond the specific wording of individual articles.
2.26pm: The earlier judge was wrong to leave the Article 7 debate in the hands of the US courts. “It was her duty to engage and she didn’t.”
Article 10 is the “centre of gravity” in terms of violating the extradition treaty, Summers said.
Courts have been finding their way in relation to state whistleblowers
Listen how careful Assange is
Ms Manning (a government whistleblower)’s role in the disclosures is discussed in court [she leaked to Assange/Wikileaks]
Justice Sharp asks whether Manning sought information out instead of disclosing information that merely landed on her desk
Summers said it was the later
Article 7 of ECRH outline from Google Gemini in case it helps
—————-
Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) deals with the prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment. It consists of two main parts:
1. Prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment:
- No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. This applies to all individuals within the jurisdiction of a state party to the ECHR, regardless of their nationality or status.
- The term “torture” is not explicitly defined in the ECHR, but it is generally understood to involve the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering, physical or mental, for such purposes as punishment, intimidation, or obtaining information or confessions.
- “Inhuman or degrading treatment” encompasses a wider range of acts that fall short of torture but are still considered serious violations of human dignity. This can include physical or psychological abuse, humiliation, and prolonged solitary confinement.
2. Exceptions:
- Article 7 does not prohibit the use of force in certain specific situations:
- In self-defense: Use of force is permitted when necessary to defend oneself or others against unlawful violence.
- Lawful arrest or detention: Use of force is permitted to effect a lawful arrest or detention, or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained.
- Action taken for maintaining order or preventing riots: Use of force may be justified in exceptional circumstances to quell riots or insurrections.
3. Importance of Article 7:
- Article 7 is a fundamental safeguard against torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. It plays a crucial role in protecting the human rights and dignity of individuals.
- The ECHR and its Court have interpreted and applied Article 7 in numerous cases, setting important precedents for what constitutes prohibited treatment and holding states accountable for violations.
Here’s the specific wording of Article 7:
“1. No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
- Everyone deprived of his liberty shall be treated with respect for his human dignity.”
It’s important to remember that the interpretation and application of Article 7 can be complex and involve legal considerations beyond the specific wording of the provision.
————-
Article 10 outline from Google Gemini [I’m worried Summers is referring to a different article 10…but will leave this here for now…see article 10 of ECHR debate below — sorry for the confusion – I don’t have access to the legal bundles]
Article 10 of the UK-US Extradition Treaty addresses the specialty principle, which lim 10 of its how an individual extradited from one country to another can be treated. Here’s a breakdown of its key points:
1. Restriction on subsequent prosecution:
- An individual extradited under the treaty cannot be detained, tried, or punished in the Requesting State (US) for any offense other than the offense(s) for which extradition was granted.
- This prevents the Requesting State from using the extradition process to pursue unrelated charges against the individual.
2. Exceptions to the rule:
- There are exceptions to the specialty principle under certain circumstances:
- Consent: The individual can waive the protection of the specialty principle and consent to being prosecuted for other offenses.
- New offenses: The individual can be prosecuted for offenses committed in the Requesting State after their extradition.
- Connection to original offense: The individual can be prosecuted for offenses related to the offense for which they were extradited, as long as these offenses were not known to the authorities at the time of extradition.
3. Importance of the specialty principle:
- The specialty principle is a crucial safeguard for individuals facing extradition, ensuring they are not subject to unexpected or additional charges in the Requesting State.
- It helps to maintain trust and cooperation between countries involved in extradition processes.
Here’s the specific wording of Article 10:
“1. A person surrendered under this Treaty shall not be detained, tried, or punished in the territory of the Requesting State for any offense other than:
a) the offense for which extradition was granted; b) an offense in connection with which his extradition was requested and granted, if the requesting State has consented to his prosecution for that offense; c) an offense committed after his surrender.
- Paragraph 1 of this Article shall not apply if the person concerned has had an opportunity to leave the territory of the Requesting State and has failed to do so within such reasonable period as may be fixed by the authorities of the Requesting State, or has returned to the territory of the Requesting State after leaving it.”
It’s important to remember that the interpretation and application of extradition treaties can be complex and involve legal considerations beyond the specific wording of individual articles.
Summers: Ms Manning’s disclosures were conscience driven. Exposure of state criminality is “squarely at the highest level of” public interest, according to case law.
2:46pm: No one has been harmed from Assange’s publishing…court should have regard to this fact.
Court should ask itself apex criminality outweighs risk to people…it’s a balancing act that needs to be done.
The criminality overrides potential harm to some people…the court should find in favor of Ms Manning [and so Assange]
Potential Assange sentence [175 years] is “off the scale”.
Manning’s leak was protected and not criminal. There was an “extraordinary” attempt to redact.
Assange’s publications might have helped end the Iraq war. [This isn’t something that should be punished]
Article 10 of European Court of Human Rights — Google Gemini:
Determining whether Chelsea Manning’s disclosures fall under the protection of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) is a complex legal question with no definitive answer. Here’s why:
Article 10:
- Article 10 of the ECHR guarantees the right to freedom of expression, including the right to receive and impart information and ideas.
- However, this right is not absolute and can be subject to restrictions necessary in a democratic society, such as for reasons of national security, public safety, or the protection of others’ rights and reputations.
Manning’s disclosures:
- Manning, formerly known as Bradley Manning, leaked classified information from the US military to WikiLeaks in 2010. The information included diplomatic cables, military logs, and video footage related to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
- Manning was convicted of various charges, including espionage and theft, and sentenced to 35 years in prison. However, the sentence was later commuted by President Obama.
Arguments for protection under Article 10:
- Supporters of Manning argue that her disclosures were protected by Article 10 as they exposed wrongdoing by the US government and contributed to public debate on important issues like war and national security.
- They claim that the public interest in receiving this information outweighed the government’s interest in keeping it secret.
Arguments against protection under Article 10:
- Opponents argue that Manning’s actions endangered national security by compromising sensitive information and putting lives at risk.
- They claim that her disclosures did not meet the test of “necessity in a democratic society” as they could have been achieved through lawful means.
No definitive ruling:
- The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has not issued a definitive ruling on whether Manning’s disclosures fall under Article 10 protection.
- In 2018, the Court ruled that the UK’s role in facilitating the US extradition of Manning violated her right to a fair trial, but it did not address the specific issue of freedom of expression.
Therefore, the question of whether Manning’s disclosures are protected under Article 10 remains unresolved and subject to ongoing legal debate.
It’s important to consider various perspectives and understand the complex legal arguments involved before forming an opinion on this issue.
3pm: Summers: Nowhere does the earlier judge place “sheer, enormous, ongoing” weight of the public interest of the disclosures. She should have done.
“It’s a glaring legal error” not to balance public interest with risk to harm to people from the publishing. The punishment is entirely disproportionate.
3:50pm: Fitzgerald: There is a real risk that Assange might be targeted by authorities (eg Trump, CIA) if he is extradited. The evidence is real. A new Trump administration might consider “such extreme measures”
4:03pm: USA is abusing jurisdiction. Secretary of state much have the power to do something about it
4:15pm: Treason can be punished by death.
4:17pm: Court Rises
NOTES, EARLIER JUDGEMENT
BBC live coverage
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-68344106
Excellent on free speech
Wikileaks live broadcast
https://twitter.com/i/broadcasts/1ynKOyzNNzvJR?s=20
Image from before hearing started https://carrzee.org/2024/02/20/assange-hearing-live-day-one/
2021 decision
(Note I updated the prefixes at the top of the story on May 16, 2024 …after the story disappeared because I was hacked … or because I’m being attacked by my software provider WordPress)