The only questions that should matter in the Assange extradition battle – The Sydney Morning Herald

Everyone has a view on Assange. But, frankly, our views should be irrelevant. We, the public, are not in the know. Were easily manipulated. We can be wrong.

Assange is on trial in Belmarsh Magistrates Court, London. In theory, its just an extradition hearing, tasked with deciding whether the Brits will extradite Assange to the US. Although Britains extradition treaty with the US specifically excludes extradition for political offences, politics is everywhere.

Its there in the intention to try Assange on 18 espionage charges relating to the 2010 leaks (for which Chelsea Manning, who supplied the documents, has already been pardoned).

Julian Assange being taken from court last year.Credit:AP

Its there in the Obama administrations decision (says Assanges defence) not to prosecute Assange for the Manning leaks, and in Trumps reversal of that decision. Its there in Trumps alleged offer of a pardon if Assange agreed to forswear Russian influence. And in Britain's efforts to pretend that this is a standard crime, not a political one.

Its there, too, in our own governments cowardly refusal to help Assange despite the AFPs 2010 finding that he has broken no Australian law and a Department of Defence finding that he did not damage Australias security interests.

This is no simple hearing. Everything about these proceedings, from the choice of courthouse to the conduct of the case itself, seems to confirm that. Like the hounding of poor Jewell, this is trial by intimidation and that fine instrument of justice, public opinion.

Loading

Britain has a long and noble tradition of law courts. The Fleet Street law courts in particular properly known as the Royal Courts of Justice, designed by GE Street in the 1870s imply in their very conformation the true and impartial rule of law. Deep in our child-hearts, most of us still believe this about Britain.

But Belmarsh Magistrates Court says the opposite. An extradition hearing would normally be held at Westminster Magistrates Court, to symbolise links to high justice. Not this one. Belmarsh Magistrates Court, set within Woolwich Crown Court, sits on a windswept marsh within a three-prison complex, girdled by motorways and a high steel palisade.

A grim contemporary building built for terrorism offences, it is as far from any symbolic representation of democracy as can be imagined. Assange is manhandled into court from the adjacent prison via a secure tunnel. Here, says Murray, far from any attempt to represent the presumption of innocence, "you are already considered guilty and in jail on arrival".

The courtroom offers only 16 public seats. To get one, you must queue in the miserable cold and dark for two hours before court opens at eight. Murray a former British ambassador to Uzbekistan (2002-2004) who was himself hounded as a whistleblower after revealing mass political imprisonment and torture there has done just that, in order to deliver a blow-by-blow eyewitness account of the hearing.

Assange, who has been strip-searched and repeatedly handcuffed like some violent criminal, is not expected to speak during the four-week hearing. He sits alone at the back, quarantined inside a bulletproof glass case that impedes his view and hearing of proceedings and prevents any communication with his legal team. His private documents are confiscated, including privileged communications with his lawyer.

Loading

Murrays accounts contains some astonishing observations. On day one, he says, the US prosecutor, James Lewis QC, explicitly addressed his opening remarks "not to the court but to the media". This is unprecedented. In this address, says Murray, Lewis explicitly denied that the espionage charges against Assange also threatened mainstream media like The Guardian and The New York Times. Later under questioning from the magistrate, Murray says, Lewis changed his mind and admitted that yes, they would be affected, but this part of his remarks was not offered to the media (who might well find such assertions alarming).

On day two, Assanges defence, Edward Fitzgerald QC, said the prosecution must prove three things: that Assange had helped Manning decode a hash key necessary to hack classified material, that Assange had solicited the material from Manning and that he had knowingly put lives at risk. There is, said Fitzgerald, no evidence on any of these counts, some of which were disproved in Mannings court-martial. And the prosecution has admitted it cannot prove harm.

But even that is not the point. No one should be arguing the substantive case here. For now, the questions are; is this a political crime? Should Assange receive a fair trial? Does anyone believe hell get one in Trumps America? And do we really think, given his poor health, he would survive prison there? The answers have to be yes, yes, no and, resoundingly, no.

Elizabeth Farrelly is a Sydney-based columnist and author who holds a PhD in architecture and several international writing awards. She is a former editor and Sydney City Councilor. Her books include 'Glenn Murcutt: Three Houses, 'Blubberland; the dangers of happiness and Caro Was Here, crime fiction for children (2014).

Here is the original post:
The only questions that should matter in the Assange extradition battle - The Sydney Morning Herald