Quote:

WikiLeaks editor Kristinn Hrafnsson says a new affidavit provided by US government lawyers this week for Assange's upcoming extradition trial states that foreign
nationals, like Assange, are not entitled to press protections under the US Constitution's First Amendment.

"On the one hand they have decided that they can go after journalists wherever they are residing in the world, they have universal jurisdiction, and demand
extradition like they are doing by trying to get an Australian national from the UK for publishing that took place outside US borders," he told AAP.

"But then at the same time, they are not granting any foreign journalist the protection of the First Amendment.

"That's extremely serious. That's of grave concern to all journalists.

"We are seeing this incremental approach, a darkness flowing over journalism from that country, and it's about time that journalists really united in resisting this."

Judge Vanessa Baraitser reluctantly agreed to split his trial into two segments with the first week to begin on 24 February
and the final three weeks to be held from 18 May.
Her ruling came after prosecutors flagged timetabling issues and the defence pleaded for more time to deal with an ever-expanding pile of evidence coming from the US.

---

Quote:

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has been moved out of solitary confinement in a British prison after a series of petitions by his legal team and fellow inmates, his organisation says.

---

The Ecstatic said:

RBG

---

This Assange “Trial” Is A Self-Contradictory Kafkaesque Nightmare

Quote:

Assange’s trial is taking place in a maximum security prison for dangerous violent offenders because that’s where he’s being jailed for no stated reason and despite having no history of violence, which means he’s kept separate from the courtroom in a sound-resistant safety enclosure where he can’t hear or participate in his own trial. The magistrate judging the case says he can’t be allowed out of the enclosure since he’s considered dangerous, because he’s been arbitrarily placed in a prison for dangerous violent offenders. The magistrate keeps telling Assange to stop speaking up during his trial and to speak through his lawyers, yet he’s being actively prevented from communicating with his lawyers.

---

Quote:

In yesterday’s proceedings in court, the prosecution adopted arguments so stark and apparently unreasonable I have been fretting on how to write them up in a way that does not seem like caricature or unfair exaggeration on my part. What has been happening in this court has long moved beyond caricature. All I can do is give you my personal assurance that what I recount actually is what happened.  - Craig Murray

---

Not being allowed to talk with his legal team in that bullet proof dock was just plain wrong, and what a bullshit reason for not allowing him to do so

Stable Genius said:

Also had a look at the US-UK-Northern Ireland Extradition Treaty in particular, Article 4, paragraph 1, which says that extradition is not to be granted for political
offenses but then goes on to point out that the rules are stacked in the "Executive Branch's" favor anyway in paragraph's 2(a) 3 & 4

---

Quote:

As prefigured yesterday by magistrate Baraitser, the prosecution is arguing that Article 4.1 of the UK/US extradition treaty has no force in law.
The UK and US Governments say that the court enforces domestic law, not international law, and therefore the treaty has no standing. This argument has been made to the court in written form to which I do not have access. But from discussion in court it was plain that the prosecution argue that the Extradition Act of 2003, under which the court is operating, makes no exception for political offenses. All previous Extradition Acts had excluded extradition for political offenses, so it must be the intention of the sovereign parliament that political offenders can now be extradited.

---

Quote:

Fitzgerald then continued to say that international jurisprudence had accepted for a century or more that you did not extradite political offenders. No political extradition was in the European Convention on Extradition, the Model United Nations Extradition Treaty and the Interpol Convention on Extradition. It was in every single one of the United States’ extradition treaties with other countries, and had been for over a century, at the insistence of the United States. For both the UK and US Governments to say it did not apply was astonishing and would set a terrible precedent that would endanger dissidents and potential political prisoners from China, Russia and regimes all over the world who had escaped to third countries.

---

Unfortunately it's clear that the magistrate has already formed a view on whether or not the treaty allows for political extradition

Quote:

At this stage Baraitser interrupted that it was plain the intention of parliament was that there could be extradition for political offenses. Otherwise they would not have removed the bar in previous legislation. Fitzgerald declined to agree, saying the Act did not say extradition for political offenses could not be banned by the treaty enabling extradition

---

Stable Genius said:

Hmmm, maybe Falcon.
I stupidly do have faith in the courts though and if the evidence isn't there I can't see how a British court can hand him over?
But yeah, you're probably right.

---

Quote:

I think the fix is in.  It's quite impossible to sit through every day of the hearing as I have done, and believe this is any kind of fair or impartial process, because it isn't.  There's no jury, of course...
.
.
.
I'm there as a member of the Assange family.  Five of us from the Assange family are allowed in the public gallery.  A gallery of only 42 seats.  Over 40 organizations had their video link access cancelled.  That includes Amnesty International, that includes PEN, that includes Reporters Without Borders.  Nobody's allowed to observe the trial.  And the procedural matters are just awful...
.
.
.
You won't see what I've just told you reported on the BBC, or in the Guardian, or the New York times, or the Washington Post.  The sad thing is, they've limited extensively the people who are able to see it...

---

Stable Genius said:

I thought Craig Murray said he wouldn't be surprised if the charges were quashed at a higher court.

---