News: 1599667931

Of mass distraction. Just how Russia likes them

How can any fair court place any trust in the testimony of a man who was threatened with having his child abducted unless he told the FBI what they wanted to hear?

The purpose of this hearing is not to decide whether he is innocent or guilty, it is to decide whether there is a valid case to answer in a US court. The US court would make the decision on innocence or guilt.

There needs to be a prima facie case for extradition for each charge. If the case for some of those charges depends on tainted evidence than should extradition for those particular charges be approved?

Whatever the approach, the tainted elements should be removed from consideration.

Unfortunately for Assange, there's enough left for an extradition on criminal grounds.

US Espionage Act only only needs an answer whether secret information was published or not. Obviously Wikileaks participated in publishing of that information, which means there is no defence for Assange in US court. Assange is on his way from one court of clowns to another.

For the extradition hearing, they need to show that what he is accused of is illegal in England or some other part of the UK.

Yeah, it's a messed up situation. "Co-operate or you'll face time in prison, and your children will need to be put up for adoption as you won't be there to care for them" is both brutal truth and also coercion.

Sorry, but it's not blackmail, and it would not have been abduction had US authorities indicted and tried Mr. Monsegur. If he were convicted (which would have pretty much been a slam dunk), someone would have had to care for his child; in the UK it would be called being "taken into care," right?

Using various forms of "pressure" (which are usually of the sort: "You have two options, one of which involved a lot of hard time and separation from your family, and the other involves helping is nail a bigger fish") is a common way to secure testimony against alleged criminals who have committed more serious crimes, in the US. It keeps a lot of small-time crooks, such as street-level drug dealers or mules, out of prison in return for help in putting away the real villains. "Copping to a lesser," though generally without imprisonment, at the judge's discretion, is generally part of the plea bargain.

It was exactly the kind of deal offered to one Mr. Cohen, former shyster to our Crook-in-Chief (though he had to serve some prison time, which has become home confinement since Covid started spreading in US correctional institutions.... come to think of it, pretty much what most of us are "enjoying" now).

"Having been threatened with having his child forcibly removed for adoption unless he identified his fellow hackers, single father Monsegur is said to have passed on information to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)."

The FBI are supposed to be the good guys. Yet they threaten the well being and long term emotional stability of a child to get what they want.

I guess their motto is now Fidelity, Bravery, Intimidation.

One wonders what you'd suggest the FBI should do if, say, they detained someone accused of mas murder who happened to be a single parent?

Taking the accused into custody would "threaten the well being and long term emotional stability of a child".

And the FBI didn't offer the guy anything. That's not what they do. The US attorneys to the deals, usually via their assistants (as there are only 93 of them, and they're political appointees). So if you want to blame someone, blame the USAA, not the FBI.

The language in the article is badly emotionally loaded. If the accused is offered a deal that allows for bail and the possibility of no jail time, they may well take it (regardless of actual guilt) in order to avoid the risk of losing their kid. In this specific case, it seems like there is no real question of "actual guilt", so one might equally frame the situation as the US attorney offering him a good deal that would allow him to raise his child. But again, that's emotionally loaded the other way, and the underlying truth is probably somewhere in the middle (they government threatened to add charges but also was willing to agree to a deal, one likely proposed by the accused's lawyers).

Meanwhile, what did Assange's outburst even mean? "I'm here and also by proxy" is not exactly coherent... the best I can come up with is that he meant he was in court and had lawyers, which seems a bit of a waste of breath...

Just in case you are missing it .......

amanfromMars

September 9, 2020 at 16:58 .... saying still more on [1]https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/09/your-man-in-the-public-gallery-assange-hearing-day-7/

The USA is quite adamant in declining to join the ICC, because it would mean USA soldiers could be prosecuted for 'war crimes' in a court outside the control of the USA Supreme Court. ..... Eclectic Man

Why is the UK entertaining any sort of judicial request from the USA whenever they are so clearly stating their contempt of courts and internationally recognised norms of legal behaviour ....... when the above statement is true.

It surely more than suggests the UK criminal justice system is fundamentally corrupt, or easily corruptible, with any such proceedings and prosecutions in aid of Uncle Sam being blatant and wilful perversions of justice ?

Which is not so odd a thing to say and ask whenever today we hear of Boris's gang's intention to break the law with regard to what were thought to be binding agreements with EU partners and unionist supporters over certain contentious and long fought over Brexit matters.

And let's not even start to consider the Anne Sacoolas/Harry Dunn farce/travesty.

What on Earth is Blighty doing? Do they not have enough problems they cannot solve?

J'accuse.

To Hell in a Handcart springs to mind :-)

[1] https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/09/your-man-in-the-public-gallery-assange-hearing-day-7/

That is mixing politics and law. There is a legal basis, a current extradition treaty, which spells out on what grounds Assange can be extradited and it's a matter for the courts to interpret existing law.

The US refusing to sign up for the ICC may be a reason to end the extradition treaty in your view. Then you need to yell at Downing Street 10 and Parliament for that, not at a judge. Separate processes, and be glad for it :)

Why, indeed ? Because it's the law: the 2003 US-UK Extradition Treaty, as ratified by the 2003 Extradition Act, as passed by Parliament, and ratified on the US side by the United States Senate in 2006.

Extradition treaties and agreements are generally between 2 nations, and "international norms" do not apply.

In principle, you're right. In practice, whenever anyone who's not chummy with the Chinese or the Russians wants someone with a credible threat of force to do "peacekeeping," it's not Germany or the UK they call, because they remember how everyone in NATO sat on their hands until the US intervened in the former Yugoslavia. If US troops are subject to prosecution for alleged misdeeds in such circumstances, that already singles them out from nearly all other nations in so far as liability goes — almost no one else will do the work.

So you're left with a choice: no US participation in the ICC, or no US intervention when things get extremely ugly. We saw what happened when the latter option was chosen in Rwanda.

"they remember how everyone in NATO sat on their hands ".

And that includes the US too, or have I missed something regarding NATO.

https://twitter.com/Jonathan_K_Cook/status/1303596131876831232

The Guardian. Remember when it wasn't an American aircraft carrier?

I will be impossible for Julian to get a fair trial in the US.

It will be impossible for Asswhinge to get what he would class as a fair trial anywhere. Because he's guilty as sin, so when he's found guilty he'll whinge that "it's not fair"

You believe that he is as guilty as sin. In your estimation from limited knowledge. But that is not proof. In a court of law, we require proof to be offered, challenged, and then found able to stand (guilty) or shown to be unable to stand (innocent). Which is why we require courts of law and not courts of public opinion. Especially as we proceed on the basis that the accused is innocent.

The link above to Crag Murray's website makes for troubling reading. Assange's trials have been, from my understanding, demonstrably unfair and being tweaked by some outside power manipulating the judges. Not the first or the last time our judicial system has over-identified with the political side of things.

Can the judge simply say "fuck it, I've had enough of your shit. Off to America you go, you can piss off someone else over there. I'm done." ?

I fear that's not allowed, although [1]trash publications like this by Assange followers could suggest the temptation certainly exists.

[1] https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Vanessa_Baraitser

What a saga...

Maybe Assange is trying to get himself off on grounds of insanity. What does his outburst even mean?