By Mathew Carr
10:30am — Justice Sharp asks about the grounds relating to the onerous 175 year sentence Assange is facing. Formal application requested. [Sharp I think referred to Robinson …and I thought it was Jennifer Robinson speaking for Assange, initially, who from a distance looks a tiny bit like Dobbin. The video and audio is terrible, anyway. Assange is too sick to attend for a second day, according to the judge’s comments yesterday.]
Clair Dobbin for USA via Crown Prosecution service: USA argues Assange is not a journalist.
USA is being represented by barristers instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service.
[Technical problems forced the hearing to stop for several minutes]
Assange deliberately set up whistleblower Chelsea Manning to provide “voluminous” amounts of state secrets going forward.
[Here the US is setting out its case as to why Assange is a worse wrongdoer than Manning. This argument is designed to distract from the fact that the CIA is probably the biggest hacker on the planet ]
Dobbin: Intelligence losses are outside the first amendment of the US constitution (which sets out free speech).
11:25am — An attempt was made yesterday to minimize the impact of [Assange’s] disclosures. These arguments are not sustainable.
Assange sought to recruit people, hackers, leakers to get secrets from government.
People had to flee their homes and homelands because of what Assange did.
Some hackers tried to listen into NATO discussions.
Dobbin cited Assange as urging people to join the CIA in order to steal information.
Dobbin: The material Assange published unredacted attracts no public interest – that is the key point.
Judge Johnson (I think): Assange mainly published names that had already been published elsewhere.
It was Assange that was responsible for soliciting the information, Dobbin said.
The political offence exemption is ‘waning,’ she said. And the UK has not signed up to it.
Assange has no rights in UK law to argue he should not be extradited because the case is political, Dobbin said, citing case law linked to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child …and modern slavery law.
Court should assume the USA will act in good faith – that must be the assumption, Dobbin seems to be arguing.
Yahoo article allegations are not new…and were rightfully downplayed
Assange’s hiding in Ecuador embassy was an attempt to get around the law and Ecuador effectively invited the UK in to arrest Assange by rescinding its decision to house him in the embassy: Dobbin at 12:10pm
There is a risk of losing sight of the bigger picture: it’s not sustainable that Assange is merely an ordinary reporter…he was party to hacking to achieve his reporting.
“He’s [Assange is] not just a recipient” of news and documents, he incited hacking to obtain documents and information, she said.
It’s not just the documents disclosed that are important, it’s about the behavior and methods of the reporter in obtaining them, she said. It’s about the “lawfulness of the conduct” of the reporter.
Dobbin: The “official secrets act” and international security nature of the info makes Assange’s bad behavior worse than that of other whistleblowers and news companies in the case law (and argumentation) cited by Assange’s lawyers.
There is no public interest defence in this jurisdiction. [?]
Extradition would not be a flagrant invasion of human rights/free speech.
Judge Johnson asks for clarification.
Balancing operation is required to determine the answer: Dobbin
The USA is careful when dealing with issues around free speech, she said.
12:46pm — Law does not confer any type of immunity on journalists that commit crimes, Dobbin said.
Assange will get a fair trial in the US: Dobbin said this …but in a very strange way.
She’s basically saying Assange will be protected by this document that follows (I think), even in the USA:
No punishment without law:
the principle that only the law can define
a crime and prescribe a penalty
I don’t think there’s evidence a foreign national [Assange is Australian] will be protected by the First amendment of the US constitution [free speech], Dobbin conceded.
2:15pm Second USA/Crown barrister: Unlikely Assange would get anywhere near 175 years as a sentence; seems to be the gist of his argument.
He even mentions one case of only 22 months…while saying there is a broad range of possibilities. Assange’s alleged wrongdoing is serious. Only if it’s found to be aggravated wrongdoing would it be near the higher of the range [perhaps 40 years] …he also mentions 8 years in prison.
3pm: USA side, a third barrister, concedes Assange could in theory face the death penalty.
The court heard the extradition treaty is key. [And perhaps the UK’s hands are tied and MUST extradite Assange eventually, I think the USA side argued earlier. ] (I’m confused about who’s speaking 3:29pm. Sorry for confusion. Video is blurry)
CarrZee: Any extradition may not happen until after this year’s elections in the US and probably the UK, I’m hearing. People are talking about this outside the court, mostly people supporting Assange I assume.]
4:15pm: Court hearing ended temporarily, while judges decide what to do. The moment of truth is coming.
Decision below:
[…] Assange Should be Delayed Until After Elections in US, UK. Ideally it Should Not Happen, Ever (2) Assange Month: Julian tries to get more leave to appeal — High Court hearing day 2 (live updat… Photo by Tara Winstead on […]