We published a sketch "Assange in Court" written on his blog after British writer and human rights activist Craig Murray attended the Assange trial at Westminster District Court on October 21. In March this year, we reported on the two hearings recorded by Craig Murray respective

text/translated by Craig Murray/Zhang Jiale Liu Mengyue

Editor's note: Recently, a new hearing on Assange is being held in the UK Central Criminal Court on Old Bailey Street, London. In addition to being a hacker, Assange is also an Australian journalist. The torture he suffered for the release of confidential materials from the US government involving major public interests in WikiLeaks . It seems that he is sending a signal to global journalists in an attempt to strengthen self-censorship. We published a sketch "Assange in Court" written on his blog after British writer and human rights activist Craig Murray attended the Assange trial at Westminster District Court on October 21. In March this year, we reported on the two hearings recorded by Craig Murray under the title "Sketch Assange Extradition Hearing | Your Auditors (Part 1) and (Part 2)". Due to the impact of the epidemic, the hearing was originally scheduled to be held on May 18 and was postponed to September 7. Craig Murray attended the latest hearing and recorded it on his blog every day as promised, bringing readers the shocking trial scene that day. Craig Murray served as the British ambassador to Uzbekistan from 2002 to 2004, and then discovered that the secret support of Western support for human rights violations in other countries led to conflict with his superiors in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Since then, he began his career as a human rights activist. Murray was also Assange's friend, shocked and indignant by everything that Assange encountered and the blatant injustice of the legal process. He wrote at the end of each diary: "I hope everyone will actively participate in the dissemination and publication of this article, including translation. The truth will make us free." "The Paper·Thought Market" will successively translate and publish Murray's live records for the benefit of Chinese readers.

Hearing Day 6 (September 8)

Your Man in the Public Gallery – Assange Hearing Day 6

Today, I went to the British Central Criminal Court on Old Bailey Street and thought I would be in awe of the majesty of the law, but when I left I was disgusted with this unjust dirty administration.

There is a legendary story about Old Bailey Street. It is synonymous with high alertness and has occupied thousands of years of history on the edge of the ancient city walls of London. As the location of the medieval Newgate Prison, tens of thousands of formal trials have been conducted here over 500 years. Most of the time, even those convicted of minor theft will be executed in the alley outside. People believe that hundreds, even thousands, are buried under the sidewalk.

The Central Criminal Court of the United Kingdom

This magnificent Gothic building dates back to 1905, and its back and sides are wrapped in some cheap public buildings from the 1930s. This morning, the five of us, Julian Assange nominated family and friends, nervously entered here from an authentic tunnel. We climbed a lot of stairs and entered the back door of a staff cafeteria that looked like something particularly unwelcome to enter the 10th Court. Here the tiles peeled off, the walls were dirty, and the shaky ceiling was hanging on the shaky ceiling. Only surveillance cameras that monitor our surveillance cameras are new – in fact, these cameras are new to each one with a small pile of plaster and brick grey underneath.

The 10th Court is like a rather bright and open modern box with pleasant light woodwork, stuffed in a large warehouse of old buildings. A huge, obviously wet arch "breaks into" the space incongruously, strips of peeling white paint hanging from it like abandoned surrender flags. Assange's dock is the same as the Belmarsh cubicle, with a bulletproof glass in front, but it is not sealed, the screen is not capped, and there is no low ceiling, so the sound can flow freely, and Assange looks like he is in court. It has more and wider gaps than the infamous Belmarsh prison compartment through which Assange can communicate with his lawyers with ease and ease this time without hindering.

To our surprise, no one except the 5 of us were allowed to enter the 10th Court auditorium. Others, such as John Pilger and Wikileaks editor-in-chief Kristin Hrafnsson, were transferred to the adjacent 9th Court, where only a few were allowed to squint their eyes and look at a small screen. Because the sound there was not clear, John Pilger left directly. Many people who originally wanted to participate, including Amnesty International and Reporter Without Borders, even German Federal Parliament members, were excluded. (At strongly requested by the German Embassy, ​​German MPs and MSF without Borders received incomplete video tapes at least later.)

Only 5 of us were allowed to enter the 40-seat auditorium because we needed to maintain social distance (however we were allowed to sit in the front row close together). And the two rows behind us were empty.

Finally introduce this scene. Assange looks neat and decent and dresses well. His weight seems to have been reduced, but his face is obviously swollen and not very healthy. He seemed absent-minded and overwhelmed all morning, as he did at Belmarsh; but in the afternoon he recovered, worked well with his defense team, and did his best to behave normally on the occasion.

September 7, 2020, London, UK, a hearing on the extradition of the United States by WikiLeaks founder Assange continued in London. The picture shows an artistic sketch of Assange attending the hearing.

proceedings began with Julian’s release on the old extradition order and the formalities for re-arrest under a new warrant conducted this morning. Both the defense and the prosecutor agree that the arguments they have made on prohibiting extradition of political crimes will not be affected by the substituted indictment.

Judge Barretzer then issued a statement about entering the court through a remote hearing (she refers to the online hearing). She said the court mistakenly sent some access permits without her consent. So she canceled their access.

We didn't know what was going on in court as she spoke, but outside, because online visits from Amnesty International, Journalists Without Borders, John Pilger and 40 others were closed. This caused some panic because these people were neither allowed to appear in court nor listen online.

Baretzer continued to say that public hearings are important, but she should only agree to remote access “for justice.” After considering this, she decided to allow remote access to be banned. She explained that the public can usually observe and control their behavior in court. However, if they can access remotely, she will not be able to control their behavior, which is not in the "judicial interest".

Baretzer did not elaborate on what uncontrollable behavior she expected to have for those who watched videos over the internet. Indeed, Amnesty International observers may sit at home in their underwear alone, may humming the soundtrack of Mama Mia, or farting loudly. As for why this will undermine "justice", we need to think about it, but the judge did not provide further assistance. But in her opinion, if almost no one can observe it up close, then "justice" is obviously the most protected.

The next "process issue" to be dealt with is how to be heard. The defendant summoned many witnesses, each of whom made a written statement. Both the prosecution and Barretzer suggested that there is no need for defense witnesses to provide evidence verbally in public court after they have been provided in writing. It would be much faster to directly accept cross-examination from the prosecution. Edward Fitzgerald QC of the defense retorted that justice should be served by the public. The public should be able to hear evidence of defense before cross-examination. This will also allow Julian Assange to hear the summary evidence, which is important for him to follow up with the case, as he was unable to obtain legal documents for a long time while in Belmarsh prison.

Baretzer said there is no need to repeat the written evidence that has been submitted to her.The defense's Mark Summers (Mark Summers) was not ready to give up on insistence, and the tension in the court was significantly intensified. Summers said it is normal to "provid an orderly and rational explanation of the evidence." The prosecution lawyer, James Lewis (James Lewis), denied this, saying that this was not a normal procedure.

Baretzer said she didn't understand why it was too long to arrange one hour and forty-five minutes for each witness. Lewis agreed. He also added that the prosecution did not accept the defense's expert witness as expert witnesses. For example, journalism professors who do news reporting cannot be considered expert witnesses. Expert witnesses can only provide evidence at technical points that the court is not qualified to consider. Lewis also objected to the possibility that defense witnesses might state new facts when they testify verbally, because officials do not have time to react to it. Barretzer pointed out that the written defense statement was posted online so the public can see it.

Edward Fitzgerald stood up and spoke again, and Barretzer responded to him in a very contemptuous tone. She said explicitly: "I gave you all the chance. Really, what else do you want to say?" The word "really" was heavily emphasized, and it was ironic. Fitzgerald refused to sit down, saying the current case involves “fundamental issues and entirely new issues regarding fundamental human rights.” It is important to provide evidence publicly. This also gives witnesses a chance to highlight the key points of their evidence and what they consider most important.

Baretzer asked for to be adjourned , considering the verdict on this issue, and then back. She believes that the defendant witness testified in public court is disadvantageous, but accepts defense attorneys to accompany each witness for up to half an hour, allowing them to adjust themselves and re-familiarize their evidence before cross-examination.

For each witness, this half hour represents some kind of compromise, as at least the basic evidence of each defendant witness will be heard by the court and the public (within the scope of the public being allowed to hear anything). However, it is clear that the idea that “the standard half-hour limit is wise for all witnesses” (whether they are proving a fact or the development of the incident over the years) is clearly absurd. The strongest reflection of this issue is that both the judge and the prosecution want to pass extradition and to release as few cases against extradition as possible in the process.

When the judge rests, we think these issues have been resolved now and the rest of the day will be calmer. But we were really wrong.

The court continues to hear a new defense application led by Mark Summers, involving new charges filed in the new alternative indictment of the U.S. government. Summers asked the court to review the history of extradition hearings. The first indictment was drafted in March 2018. In January 2019, a temporary extradition request was filed, which was implemented after Assange evacuated the embassy in April 2019. In June 2019, the request was replaced by a complete request and a second new indictment was issued, the basis for these proceedings before today. A series of hearings were conducted on the basis of the second indictment.

The new alternative indictment date is June 20, 2020. In February and May 2020, the U.S. government allowed hearings on the basis of a second prosecution without warning, although at that stage they had to know that a new alternative prosecution was coming. They neither explain nor apologize for this.

The defense has not received proper notice of alternative prosecution. In fact, the defense only learned about the existence of the prosecution through a press release from the U.S. government on June 20. The document was not officially served in these proceedings until July 29, six weeks ago. At first, the defense was not clear about what impact the alternative prosecution would have on the allegations, as the U.S. government briefly introduced it and said that it would not have an impact, but provided additional details. But on August 21, 2020, the allegations themselves have changed in new U.S. government documents, and that finally became clear.

There are now new independent allegations, which have nothing to do with previous allegations. Even if the 18 charges related to Manning were dismissed, the new charges could still constitute a reason for extradition.The new allegations include the instigation of data from a bank and Iceland's government, the delivery of information about tracking police cars and the hacking of computers of individuals and security companies.

Sumers said: "No one can clearly point out how much of the new alleged material constitutes a crime." He went on to explain that it is unclear whether Australians provide advice from outside Iceland (from the UK) to someone in Iceland on how to crack the password, or whether it constitutes a criminal offense. This doesn't even take into account the U.S. double crime test, which must pass the double crime test before the offender is extradited.

Unexpectedly, if these allegations are submitted as new cases, they will become the subject of the second part of the extradition hearing within six weeks. It is obvious that the defendant did not have enough time to prepare for this, nor did he arrange witnesses for these new charges. Among the issues related to these new allegations, the defense hopes to resolve that some charges do not constitute crimes, some have exceeded the time limit, and some have been prosecuted elsewhere, including Southerk Criminal Court and U.S. Court.

There are also some important issues that need to be questioned about the source of some of the allegations and the suspicious nature of the witnesses. In particular, the witness accused of being a "teenager" was actually the same person as the previous indictment. The previous indictment contained a "health warning" issued by the U.S. Department of Justice to the witness. The new indictment cancels the warning. But the truth is that the witness is Sigurdur Thordarson, who was convicted in Iceland for alleged fraud, theft, stealing WikiLeaks’ money and materials and impersonating Julian Assange.

Sumers bluntly pointed out that the indictment did not mention that the FBI was "exiled from Iceland for trying to use Soldasen to frame Assange."

Sumers said that if new charges were to be heard, all of these matters should be read at the hearing, but the defense had no time to prepare its answers or witnesses in just six weeks after receiving the reply, and did not even consider the extreme question of how the defense was approached by Assange in the Belmarsh prison.

The defense obviously needs time to prepare the answers to these new allegations, but it is obviously unfair to keep Assange in prison for months. Therefore, the defense recommends that these new allegations be removed from the conduct considered by the court and should continue to limit evidence of criminal conduct to the previously alleged conduct.

Sumers believes that in a short period of time, if "no prior warning at all and no time to give the defense response", adding new and separate criminal charges in law is "completely unfair." Everything that happens here is abnormal and unfair, and if left to continue, it is likely to cause real injustice. ”

Now, the arguments raised by the prosecution are based on these brand new allegations. For example, the prosecution now refutes the rights of the whistleblower and the need to expose war crimes, claiming that the defendants simply did not have the need to hack into a bank in Iceland.

Sumers concluded that before their second new indictment, “this case should be limited to actions the U.S. government deems appropriate for the allegations in the 18 months of the case.”

In response to Summers’ prosecution, QC Joel Smith replied that, under the law, the judge is obliged to consider new allegations and cannot cancel these allegations. “If there is no justification for the new extradition request to be implemented after the request fails, there is no inappropriateness to replace the prosecution before the first request fails. "Under the Extradition Act, the court can only make a decision if "the crime is an extraditionable crime and the alleged conduct meets the standards of double crime." The court has no other duties and no jurisdiction to impose part of the request.

Smith said that all authority (precedent) is to remove the allegations from the case so that extradition will continue to be based on the rest of the reasonable allegations, and those deleted charges are based on double trials and there are no examples of cancellation of the charges to prevent extradition.Moreover, a decision to enforce the alleged act is only made after the alleged conduct has been reviewed by the court. There is no example of a court not deliberating on alleged conduct. If needed, the defendant can seek an extension, but the new allegations must be reviewed.

Sumers replied that Smith was "wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong". “We’re not saying you can never file a new indictment, but you can’t file an indictment six weeks before a substantive hearing.” The impact of what Smith said was and “Haha, that’s what we’re doing, you can’t stop us.” Basically, it means the same. Substantial changes were made at the last minute, without explanation, and no apology. This is not the case, as Smith claims: Power is to ensure the justice of the prosecutor when prosecuting, not to maintain the justice of the defender.

As soon as Summers sat down, Barretzer expressed his opinion on this point. As often happens at hearings, it is a pre-written verdict. She read the document from the laptop she brought into the courtroom and she did not make any modifications to that document as Summers and Smith debated before her.

Baretzer said she was initially asked to remove some of the alleged behaviors from the case. "It is very unusual to receive new charges," Summers once said. However, “I offer the defense an opportunity to revise” to give them time to prepare for new charges. "I certainly considered Assange's detention. I heard Summers thinks it's fundamentally unfair." But, “the arguments that we do not have time (follow up) should be compensated by asking for (more preparation) time.”

Mr. Summers raised the issue of double crime and abuse of procedures; given that these requirements have now been put forward, there is nothing to stop him from making these arguments.

Baretzer completely ignores the argument that while there is indeed “nothing can stop” the defense from answering when considering each new allegation, they do not get enough time to prepare. After reading her pre-prepared judgment under the new alternative indictment, Barretzer announced an adjournment for lunch.

At the end of the day, I had the opportunity to talk to a very prominent and well-known lawyer about the issue of Barretzer bringing the prepared judgments to the court, which were prepared before she heard the lawyers debate in front of her. I understand that she has read the written arguments in the outline, but I'm sure it's wrong. If the verdict was written in advance, what's the point of a lawyer's argument for hours? What I really want to know is, is this normal practice?

The lawyer replied that this is definitely not a normal behavior, and doing so is completely shameless. During the long and outstanding career of the lawyer, even in the High Court, people have occasionally seen doing this, but people always try to hide this fact (such as by adding some points verbally putting in court to the ruling), Barretzer just did this publicly. Of course, the question is, was she reading aloud aloud a judgment she wrote in advance, or was it something she gave to her by the upper class?

It was a pretty shocking morning. Those hangings of defense witnesses to make the case go smoothly are actually to ensure that they do not disclose evidence in court (except those parts that the prosecution believes are suitable for the attack in cross-examination), which is shocking. The defense's efforts to cancel the replacement prosecution at the last minute have been hastyly been dealt with. However, Barretze had little intention to hide his hostility to the defense revealed in his words and deeds.

For the second time we were resting, we thought that the situation would definitely calm down and not so dramatic. We were wrong again.

Because various procedural disputes require closed-door discussion, the court postponed the trial for another 40 minutes after lunch. After the trial continued, defense attorney Mark Summers suddenly stood up.

Sumers said the defense "accepted" Barretzer's verdict just made - a very cautious wording rather than "respect", which may seem more natural.As she has ruled that the remedy for the lack of time is to extend the time, the defense is applying for an adjournment so that they can prepare a reply to the new charges. They did this not a rash move, as Assange would continue to serve his sentence in prison with very difficult conditions during the adjournment.

Sumers said the defense simply could not collect evidence in just a few weeks to respond to new allegations, which were worsened due to the restrictions of the coronavirus. Indeed, Barretze proposed an adjournment on August 14, and they rejected the proposal on August 21. But during that time, Assange received no new charges, nor did they fully realize that it was an independent new case. Assange has not received a new indictment in prison so far, a key document that articulates the importance of new charges.

Baretzer asked sharply whether the defense could talk to Assange in prison by phone. Summers answered yes, but the conversations were extremely short. They couldn't call Assange, he could only use the prison's public phone to call briefly to someone's cell phone, while the rest of the team had to manage to gather and listen. In these very brief discussions, it is impossible for the defense to fully articulate complex materials. They made only two such short calls between August 14 and 21. The defense can only send documents to Assange through the post office, but he does not always receive them or is allowed to keep them.

Baretze asked them how long they would have to be adjourned. Summers' reply continued until January.

As for the attitude of the US government, James Lewis replied that more review of this requirement is needed. The new matter in the indictment is purely a crime. They do not affect the arguments about the political nature of the case, nor do they affect the majority of witnesses. If more time is given, “based on the history of this case, we will see materials that have no relationship with the second court.”

Baretze adjourned the court for "ten minutes" when he appeared in court to consider the verdict. It actually took her longer and when she came back she looked extremely nervous.

Baretzer ruled that she gave the defense a chance to revise the trial on August 14 and gave them 7 days to make a decision. On August 21, the defense responded that they would not go on a court and that what they did not respond was that they did not have enough time to consider. Even today, the defense has not applied for an adjournment, but is committed to mitigating the charges. The defense “can’t be surprised by my decision (opposing the application). Therefore, the defense must be ready to continue the hearing. Their opposition is not based on new circumstances, and Assange's situation in Belmarsh has not changed since August 21. Therefore, they missed the opportunity and their request for adjournment was denied.

The atmosphere in the court is extremely tense now. In the morning, Baretzeze refused to withdraw the new accusation on the grounds that "the remedy for insufficient time should be extended", and now she refuses to give more time. The defense exposed her lies; the government was clearly convinced that solitary confinement in Belmarsh was so terrible that Assange would not ask for more time. I quite suspect that Assange himself was bluffing, calling for an extension at lunch time, demanding a rejection with anticipation, leaving the stench of the proceedings exposed.

I have previously written in my blog that the new accusation was used to replace the failed second accusation of this procedural trick (as Smith said for the prosecution "before the old accusation failed"). Today, in court, you can smell sulfur.

However, again, we feel that things must be less exciting now. This time we were right, but they became extremely cliché. We finally met the first witness, Professor Mark Feldstein, who testified in court for the United States via video link. The day ended in a messy, and it was not Professor Feldstein’s fault, but the court failed to get the video technology to work properly. In 40 minutes, Feldstein only produced evidence for 10 minutes intermittently.But even so, it was totally unsatisfactory, as he and Mark Summers kept talking online, trying to overshadow each other's voice.

Professor Feldstein's proof will continue tomorrow (that is, today), and I will not split them apart, but will record them in full. Meanwhile, you can see these wonderful summary in Kevin Gosztola or James Doleman's morning and afternoon reports.

Actually, I would be very grateful for you to do this. Because then you will understand that I have not fabricated or exaggerated the facts of these amazing events.

If you ask me to summarize today in one word, this word is undoubtedly "railroaded for fabricating false sins". It's all about moving forward the hearing as soon as possible and letting the public know as little as possible what's going on. Visits are not allowed, adjournment is not allowed, defense evidence is not allowed, and the charges of substitute prosecution are not allowed. The week in Wolveitch in February, the prosecution apparently failed, which seemed like a long time ago. Now all this has new thrust.

We will wait and see how the defense will handle these new allegations. It seems impossible for them to do this without new witnesses to state new facts. But the list of witnesses has long been finalized based on the original allegations. It seems a bit crazy that the defense was forced to continue the proceedings with the wrong witnesses, but frankly, I am no longer surprised by anything in this false process.

Snowden Twitter: Read this and tell me that Assange's trial show is not like Kafka's work. The judge allowed the charges to be constantly changed so that the defense did not even know what they were, the most basic needs were rejected, and no one could hear what the defendant said—a farce.

September 7, 2020, London, UK, a hearing on the extradition of the United States by WikiLeaks founder Assange continued in London.

Hearing Day 7 (September 9)

Your Man in the Public Gallery – Assange Hearing Day 7

Clive Stafford Smith

This morning, we started directly listening to the testimony of Clive Stafford Smith, a lawyer with dual British and American nationality with a UK lawyer's employment license. He founded the Reprieve organization in 1999, which was originally established to oppose the death penalty; but after 2001, the organization's business expanded to cases of torture, illegal detention and unconventional extradition (human rights violations) related to the "War on Terror".

Clive Stafford Smith confirmed that the telegram released by WikiLeaks played a huge role in Pakistan's lawsuit against illegal drone attacks. As Clive’s witness testimony stated in paragraph 86/7:

86. One of my motivations for handling these cases was that UAV operations in the United States showed mismanagement and allowed paid informants to provide false information related to innocent people, resulting in the death of these people in the subsequent attack. For example, when I was speaking with Imran Khan to the victims of drone attacks at the Jirga, I said in my public speech that there might be one or two people in this room employed by the CIA. What I didn't expect was that not only was this true, but the informant later made such a false statement to a teenager who attended the Jirg conference that he and his cousin died in a drone attack three days later. We learned from later official press statements that the "intelligence" provided to the United States pointed out that four "radicals" were riding in a car; we learned from his family that the actual situation was that he and his cousin were going to pick up an aunt. In this matter, the informant follows a certain principle: it is certainly much safer to make a statement to a person who is "insignificant" than to a person who is truly dangerous.

87. This horrible behavior aroused great anger, causing the United States to plummet the status of Pakistan and the dangers of American lives to increase.

The legal action taken based on WikiLeaks' disclosure of evidence about U.S. drone attack policies further led to the judgment of the Pakistani Chief Justice on the assassination and caused a huge change in the public's attitude towards the Waziristan drone attack. One of the results was that the drone attack in Waziristan was ordered to cease. WikiLeaks released a telegram also revealed the U.S. diplomatic efforts made by the international community to try to prevent the international community from investigating cases of torture and unconventional extradition. This violates the legal obligations of the United States: According to Article 9 of the United Nations Convention against Torture, the United States should cooperate in the investigation of torture allegations.

Stafford Smith continued to say that a document released by WikiLeaks that was not valued is JPEL, (a list of priority effects of the United Military on Afghanistan ) is largely the list of assassinations targets. This shows a ruthless disregard for the legitimacy of the action and a childish attitude toward the killing, who gave the assassination target a childish nickname, some of which indicate that some were named by British or Australian agents and added to the list.

Stafford Smith cited the example of Bilal Abdul Karim, a U.S. citizen and journalist who has suffered five assassinations from the United States and attempted to kill him using a drone-launched Hellfire missile. Stafford Smith is in Washington for a lawsuit over “whether the U.S. government has the right to target its own citizens as journalists.”

Stafford Smith then talked about Guantanamo Prison and there is evidence that many of the detainees there were not terrorists, they were arrested in Afghanistan due to the bounty system. WikiLeaks’ prisoner assessment briefing is not independent information, but internal documents of the U.S. government that contain very serious allegations: prisoners, including those who were able to “subdu” Stafford Smith’s defense, and often subject them to torture to admit their crimes.

These documents are allegations from the US government. When WikiLeaks released these documents, the first thing that came to mind was that the US government had released them to ruin the defendant's reputation. These documents cannot pose a threat to national security.

In Guantanamo Prison, a core group of six inmates is used to make false charges against other inmates. Stafford Smith said it was hard to blame them, considering that they wanted to escape from that hellish place, just like everyone else. The U.S. government has released the identities of the six leakers, which fully demonstrates their emphasis on protecting information providers related to WikiLeaks.

Cliff Stafford Smith said he was "deeply shocked" by the crimes committed by the U.S. government against its clients. These behaviors include torture, kidnapping, illegal detention and murder. At Afghanistan’s Baghland Airport, a detainee was murdered, seen as a means of interrogation that could scare other detainees. If it were in 2001, he would never believe that the US government would do such a thing.

Stafford Smith talks about the methods of interrogation used by Spanish religious courts, such as strapado, or hanging the prisoner's wrist until his shoulders are slowly dislocated. He tells the story of the torture of Binyam Mohamed, a British citizen whose genitals are cut by blades every day. The British government evaded his legal obligations to Binyam Mohamed and leaked to the BBC his statement that he was forced to confess his crimes under torture, making him in disgrace.

At this time, Barretzer intervened and reminded Stafford Smith that 30 minutes of verbal testimony were about to end. When Mark Summers of the defense asked how WikiLeaks helped, Stafford Smith said many leaked documents revealed illegal kidnapping, extradition and torture, which were used for trial. The International Criminal Tribunal now begins an investigation into war crimes in Afghanistan, with the materials released by WikiLeaks playing a role.

Mark Summers asked the U.S. government what response it had to initiate an investigation into the International Criminal Tribunal.Clive Stafford Smith said the U.S. has issued an executive order to impose sanctions on any non-U.S. citizens who work with the International Criminal Court or promote an investigation of war crimes. He hinted that Summers will now be subject to U.S. sanctions for raising such issues.

Stafford Smith's 30-minute statement time is up. You can read the full text of his statement here. Judging from the statements of the first witness (there is no clearer example than this), we can understand why yesterday the court spent so much time trying to prevent evidence from witnesses on the defendants from being heard publicly. Stafford Smith's evidence is stunning, clearly explaining the purpose of time limiting the defense evidence at that time. This is not something the government wants to be widely disseminated.

James Lewis QC then cross-examined Clive Stafford Smith. He noted that Stafford Smith mentioned WikiLeaks in written evidence, and was very different. He believes Stafford Smith's evidence tends to argue that WikiLeaks' disclosure is in the public interest. However, the UK's Official Secrets Act explicitly prohibits defense based on the public interest.

Stafford Smith replied that this might be the case, but he knew that the situation was not the same in the United States.

Lewis went on to say that in Stafford Smith's written evidence, paragraphs 92-6, he listed specific telegrams in WikiLeaks related to the disclosure of drone policy. However, the disclosure of these specific telegrams does not constitute part of the prosecution. Lewis read some of the testimony of US assistant attorney Kromberg, who stated that Assange was only prosecuted for a telegram that disclosed the name of the whistleblower.

Stafford Smith replied that Kromberg might have said this, but in fact this is not the case in the United States. This is a conspiracy charge, and in the U.S. system, the definition of such allegations will allow the broadest sense of “evidence.” The first witness in the trial will be a "terrorist expert" who will paint a broad and profound historical picture of "threat to the United States."

Lewis asked Stafford Smith if he had read the indictment. He replied that he read the previous indictment but did not read the new alternative indictment.

Lewis said that the telegram quoted by Stafford Smith had been published in the Washington Post and the New York Times before it was released by WikiLeaks. Stafford Smith responded that the situation was true, but he knew the newspapers were getting information from WikiLeaks. Lewis later said that the Washington Post and the New York Times were not prosecuted for publishing the same information; so, what does the publication of these materials have to do with the case?

Lewis quoted Kromberg again:

"Replaces the only situation in the indictment involving the publication of documents is that the names of people are disclosed in these documents and put them at risk."

Stafford Smith responded again that under actual circumstances, this case will not be prosecuted in the United States. Lewis asked Stafford Smith if he was accusing Kromberg of lying.

Just then, Julian Assange shouted in the dock: "This is simply nonsense. The number one crime clearly convicted of 'conspiracy to publish'." After a brief recess, Barretzer warned Assange that if he interrupted the proceedings again, he would be kicked out of court.

Stafford Smith said he did not say Kromberg was a liar, nor did he see all the documents Lewis selectively quoted. The first charge of the indictment was conspiracy to obtain national security information, which was mentioned in the sub-segment to disseminate to the public. This is not limited to the approach proposed by Kromberg, and his claims are not in line with Stafford Smith's experience on how a national security trial is prosecuted in the United States.

Lewis reiterated that no one except Assange was prosecuted for publishing articles, and Assange's arrest was only related to the name in the public material. He then asked Stafford Smith if he had ever held a position in classifying information and then got a negative answer. Lewis then asked if he had decrypted the documents in his official capacity.Stafford Smith replied that no, but he held a U.S. security permit that allowed him to see confidential materials related to his case, and he often applied for decryption of the materials.

Stafford Smith said Kromberg asserted that the ICC investigation posed a threat to national security is nonsense. (I admit I'm not sure where this assertion comes from and why Stafford Smith suddenly mentioned it). Lewis said that the issue of Assange's activities causing damage to the national interests of the United States is best decided by a U.S. jury. The prosecution must prove that these activities have harmed the interests of the United States, or helped the enemies of the United States. Stafford Smith said that in addition to torture, kidnapping and assassination, he believes that the craze for excessive confidentiality of government information poses a greater threat to the lifestyle of Americans after 2001. He recalls that evidence of his client Moazzam Begg's torture was once listed as "confidential" because he knew that the use of torture in the United States would harm the interests of the United States.

Then, Lewis quoted a passage from Stafford Smith from the book WikiLeaks. In this article, Luke Harding said that he and David Leigh were most concerned about protecting the informant’s name, but Julian Assange said that the Afghan informant was a traitor who deserves punishment. "They are informants, so if they are killed, they are asking for it." Lewis tried several times to get Stafford Smith in, but Stafford Smith repeatedly said he understood that these so-called facts were controversial, and he himself was not aware of it.

Lewis finally reiterated that the indictment only involves the publication of the person's name. Stafford Smith said that if the trial was based solely on this, he would have eaten his hat.

During the review, Mark Summers said Lewis characterizes the disclosure of torture, killing and kidnapping as "in the public interest." Is this description sufficient? Stafford Smith said, no, it also provides evidence of crime: war crimes and illegal activities.

Sumers asked Stafford Smith to look at the indictment as an American attorney (Stafford Smith is a lawyer) to see if he agrees with Lewis' description that the indictment only covers publications that disclose their names. Summers read out this part of the alternative indictment:

"deliberately conveys documents related to national defense, i.e., detainee assessment briefings related to detainees; U.S. State Department telegram; Iraq rules of engagement archives; and documents containing names of people in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere around the world (who risked the damage to security and freedom to provide information to the United States and our allies), which is a confidential level of secret - an individual does not have the right to legally own or access these documents, nor does an individual have the right to accept these documents, which violates Article 18, Section 793 (d); and …”

and notes that the meaning of “and” is that the name mentioned in the document refers to the document that reveals the name belongs to another category, rather than the restrictions imposed on the categories listed above. You can read the full text of the alternative indictment here. Be careful when browsing, because you need to realize that there is an earlier indictment: The U.S. government revised its allegations as frequently as Kim Kardashian changed his handbags.

Sumers also listed crime items 4, 7, 10, 13 and 17, which are not limited to the name of the public informant.

Stafford Smith reiterates his very different view: that is, in fact, Kromberg's claims do not match the way the United States prosecutes such cases. In answering further questions, he reiterated that the U.S. government has released a list of whistleblowers in Guantanamo Bay.

Regarding quoting David Leigh, Summers asked Stafford Smith: "Do you know Mr. Harding made false statements in the media?" Lewis objected, and Summers withdrew the question (although that's for sure).

This is the conclusion of Clive Stafford Smith's evidence.Before asking the next witness, Lewis made an argument to the judge, saying that there is no doubt that the new indictment only involves the defendant’s disclosure of his name in terms of public crime. Barretzer replied that this is obviously controversial and the court will discuss the issue at that time.

Professor Mark Feldstein

The hearing of Professor Mark Feldstein was resumed in the afternoon, and the technical failure that occurred on Monday reappeared. Therefore, I only started reporting this "failed start" testimony (false start) until now. I'll give a brief description here. Here you can see the full testimony of Professor Feldstein.

Professor Feldstein is the department chair of the Department of Broadcasting and Journalism at the University of Maryland. He has 20 years of experience as an investigative journalist.

September 7, 2020, London, UK, WikiLeaks founder Assange's extradition hearing continued in London, with media filming Assange.

Feldstein pointed out that in the United States, leaks of confidential information often occur. Government officials do this frequently. An academic study estimates that such leaks have reached "thousands" of them. There are journalists who specialize in national security who won the Pulitzer Prize for leaking military and defense secrets, and the leaked materials are released every day.

Feldstein pointed out that “the First Amendment protects news media, and it is crucial that the First Amendment does so not because journalists have privileges, but because the public has the right to know what is going on.” Historically, the government has never prosecuted publishers who leaked secrets. They turned to sue the whistleblower.

There have been attempts to prosecute individual journalists in history, but they all ended in vain and were considered specific attacks against the presidential enemy. Feldstein listed three such prosecutions, but none of them met the grand jury prosecution requirements.

(This is where the technology went wrong on Monday. We will continue from Tuesday afternoon.)

Mark Summers asked Professor Feldstein about the situation in the Jack Anderson case. Feldstein replied that he had studied this issue in order to write Poison the Press. Nixon had planned to sue Anderson under the Counter-Espionage Act, but his attorney general told him that under the First Amendment, it was impossible to succeed. As a result, Nixon launched an anti-Anderson campaign, which included slandering him for making anti-gay remarks, placing a spy in his office, providing him with fake documents, and even discussing a plot to assassinate Anderson with poison.

Sumers leads Feldstein to present evidence contained in his “sensational” news report based on WikiLeaks release:

A disturbing video showing U.S. soldiers shooting at a crowd from a helicopter over Baghdad, killing at least 18 people; soldiers smiled and targeted unarmed civilians, including two Reuters reporters.

U.S. officials have collected detailed and creepy evidence that about 100,000 civilians were killed after the invasion of Iraq, contrary to the public claims made by the George W. Bush administration. The Bush administration downplayed the death toll and insisted that such statistics were not concealed. About 15,000 of these civilians were killed, which has never been announced before.

When the U.S.-backed Iraqi government brutally treats detainees: beating, whipping, burning, electric shock and sodomizing them, the U.S. military stationed in Iraq often turns a blind eye.

After WikiLeaks released a vivid story about the rampant corruption of Tunisian President Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali and his family, the subsequent street protests forced the dictator to flee to Saudi Arabia. When Tunisia's unrest spread to other Middle Eastern countries, WikiLeaks was widely hailed as a key catalyst for this "Arab Spring".

In Afghanistan, the United States deploys a secret "black" special forces to "shock or capture" the Taliban "high value" leader without trial.

The U.S. government has expanded its secret intelligence gatherings between its diplomats in the United Nations and overseas, ordering envoys to collect credit card numbers, work schedules and frequent flyer numbers of foreign dignitaries—downplaying the difference between diplomats and spies.

Saudi Arabia's king Abdullah secretly begs the United States to "cut off the snake's head" and prevent the development of nuclear weapons by Iran, although Saudi private donors are the number one source of funding for Sunni terrorist organizations around the world.

Customs officials arrested the Afghan vice president brought an unknown $52 million in cash while traveling abroad, just one example of widespread corruption among senior Afghan government officials helped support.

The United States released "high-risk enemy combatants" from the military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, who later appeared on the Middle East battlefield. Meanwhile, some prisoners in Guantanamo prisons have proven harmless—such as an 89-year-old Afghan villager with Alzheimer’s disease—has been imprisoned for years.

U.S. officials listed Pakistan's intelligence agency as a terrorist organization and found that the agency conspired with the Taliban to attack U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan - although Pakistan received more than $1 billion in aid from the United States every year. Pakistan's civilian president Asif Ali Zardari revealed that he had limited control and could not stop the incident, and expressed concern that his army might "get me out."

Feldestein agrees that many of these reports reveal criminal acts and war crimes, which are important reports in the U.S. media. Summers asked Feldstein about Assange's accused of obtaining confidential information. Feldstein replied that collecting confidential information is a "standard operating procedure" for journalists. "My whole career is actually soliciting secret documents or records."

Sumers pointed out that one allegation against Assange was that Assange helped Manning cover up his whereabouts by cracking passwords. "It is the journalist's duty to try to help and protect your source." Journalists will provide sources with secure coin-operated phone calls, fake email accounts, and help them remove real and digital fingerprints. These are standard journalism skills that will be taught at journalism schools and workshops.

Sumers asked about the leaked name and the possible harm to people. Feldstein said it was “easy to say, but hard to be sure.” The government's claim that national security is compromised is often exaggerated and should be treated skeptical. In cases of the Pentagon documents, the government claims that the disclosure of the documents would expose the identities of CIA agents, disclose military plans, and extend the Vietnam War. These statements were later proved untrue.

In the recording of White House , Nixon once told his assistant to "get it done" the New York Times. He said their publications should “cast in terms of aid and comfort to the enemy”.

Sumers asked about ObamaThe administration's attitude towards WikiLeaks. Feldstein said no one sued WikiLeaks after its major publication in 2010-11. But the Obama administration's Justice Department has launched an "active investigation." However, they concluded in 2013 that the First Amendment made it impossible for any prosecution to be established. Justice Department spokesman Matthew Miller said they think it would be a dangerous precedent that could be used to target other journalists and publications.

With the Trump administration coming to power, everything changed. Trump has said he hopes to "put journalists in jail." At that time, the US CIA director Pompeo called WikiLeaks a "hostile intelligence agency." Attorney General Sessions has declared that prosecution of Assange is a "priority."

James Lewis then stood up and began to cross-examine Feldstein. He took an excited and aggressive approach, first asking Feldstein to give a very short answer to his precise questions. He said Feldstein "claimed himself to be" an expert witness and signed to confirm that he had read the rules of criminal proceedings.Can he tell the court what these rules say?

This is obviously designed to make mistakes for Feldstein. I'm sure I have to agree to the terms and conditions of WordPress to post this blog, but I'll struggle if you ask me directly what this content is. However, Feldstein did not hesitate, but replied bluntly that he had read that they were very different from the fair and objective rules set by the United States.

Lewis asked Feldstein about his professional direction. Feldstein replied that it was the practice, behavior and history of American news. Lewis asked Feldstein if he was legally qualified, and Feldstein replied that no, but he did not give legal advice. Lewis asked if he had read the indictment, and Feldstein replied that he had not read the most recent indictment.

Lewis said Feldstein had said Obama decided not to sue Assange, while Trump decided to launch a lawsuit. But it is clear that the investigation has been going on from the Obama administration to the Trump administration. Feldstein's answer was yes, but from the actual evidence, the Obama administration did not file a prosecution.

Lewis mentioned an article from The Washington Post, which Feldstein quoted in his evidence and attached to a footnote, but did not attach a copy - "Is it because there is a paragraph in it that you don't want us to read?" Lewis said Feldstein did not mention that the Obama administration "has not made a formal decision yet" and the possibility of prosecution of activities outside of publication.

Apparently, Lewis' allegation of Feldstein distorting facts made Feldstein a little angry. He replied that his report said the Obama administration did not prosecute, which was true. He added footnotes to the article, but he didn't expect to provide a copy. He cited that post after the editorial screening.

Lewis said that from other sources, a judge said in the district court that an investigation against Assange is in progress. District Judge Mehta said prosecutions against others other than Manning are under consideration. Why did Feldstein not include this information in his report? Assange's attorney Barry Pollock said: "They did not inform us whether they would end the investigation or decide not to prosecute." Lewis said that wasn't the fair approach added to his report?

Professor Feldstein replied that it was difficult for Assange and his lawyer to convince the prosecution to give up the prosecution, but we know that no new information was submitted to the grand jury in 2015-16.

Lewis said Assange had proposed in 2016 that if Manning gets pardoned, he would go to the United States to accept charges. Doesn’t this mean that the Obama administration intends to make the allegations? Shouldn't this be written in his report? Feldstein replied no, because it doesn't matter. Assange didn't know what Obama's Justice Department was doing. The subsequent testimony of Obama's Justice insider is even more valuable.

Lewis asked, why would they open a grand jury if the Obama administration decides not to prosecute? Feldstein replied that this happens frequently. This could be for a number of reasons, including gathering information about alleged accomplices, or simply hoping for more new evidence.

Lewis said Feldstein may have honestly stated that the Obama administration has hinted that Assange and others will not be prosecuted for passive access to information, but this does not involve a decision to prosecute on the grounds of "Chelsea Manning's hacking." "If Obama has not decided not to prosecute and the Trump administration continues to investigate, then your abuse of Trump is in vain."

Lewis continued that the "New York Times problem" does not exist because the New York Times just released the information it received passively. Unlike the Assange case, the New York Times did not conspire with Manning to obtain the documents illegally. Will Professor Feldstein agree that the First Amendment did not defend journalists from allegations of burglary or theft? Feldstein replied that journalists cannot be above the law.Lewis then asked Feldstein reporters whether they had the right to "steal or illegally obtain information" or "invade the computer to obtain information." And Feldstein all answered "No".

Lewis then asked Feldstein if he admitted to Bradley Manning 's crime. Feldstein answered "Yes". Lewis then asked, “If Assange assisted, abetted, consulted, facilitated or conspired with Bradley Manning, would he not commit a crime?” Feldstein said, it would depend on “tough details.”

Lewis then reiterated that there were no charges that the New York Times had conspiracy with Bradley Manning, only Julian Assange was accused of conspiring with Manning. In the indictment, only 15, 16 and 17 counts are related to publication, and these charges are only related to publishing unedited documents. The New York Times, the Guardian and the Washington Post jointly condemned WikiLeaks for publishing unedited telegrams with names. Then, Lewis read again the words from the book written by David Leaks and Luke Harding (referring to the 2011 WikiLeaks: Inside Julian Assange's War on Secrecy) - which he also used when questioning Stafford Smith - saying that Julian Assange once said that those Afghan informants deserved retribution.

Lewis asked: "Does a responsible press conference still publish the unedited name of the informant knowing that the informant is in danger? It is not necessary to do so in order to report it." Professor Feldstein replied "No". Lewis then listed some information that the government should keep confidential, such as "military mobilizations in war, nuclear programs, information that will hurt someone", and asked Feldstein whether he agreed that these were legal secrets. Feldstein answered "Yes".

Then, Lewis asked back, wouldn't it be fairer to let the American jury judge the damage. Then he asked Feldstein: "You said in the report that it was a political prosecution. But a grand jury supported the prosecution. Do you admit that there is evidence for the prosecution?" Feldstein replied: "The grand jury has made that decision. I don't know that it is true. Lewis then read out a statement from Assistant U.S. Attorney Kromberg, which stated that the prosecution decision was made by independent prosecutors who followed the norms and ruled out political factors. He asked Feldstein whether he agreed that the independent prosecutor was a strong guarantee against political prosecution. Feldstein replied: "It's a naive view." ”

Then, Lewis asked Feldstein whether he claimed that President Trump or his attorney general ordered a prosecution without factual basis. The professor replied that he was very clear that it was a political prosecution, which was based on; (1) its unprecedented nature; (2) Obama refused to prosecute, and now he decided to prosecute without new evidence; (3) the scope of the allegations was very broad; (4) President Trump's narrative of hostility to the media. "This is political prosecution." ”

Then, Mark Summers interrogated Professor Feldstein again. He said that Lewis had hinted that Assange colluded with Manning during her acquisition of confidential information, but the New York Times did not participate in the process. Do you think it was a crime to deliberately help the official leaker? Professor Feldstein replied: “No, absolutely not.” "

" Did the reporter say you want confidential information? "

" Yes. "

" Does the reporter ask for this information? "

" Yes. "

"Did you know there have been prosecutions for such activities before?

"No, I don't know at all."

"Can you expect such behavior to be convicted?"

"No, but it's dangerous."

Summers asked Feldstein what the New York Times did to get the Pentagon documents from Daniel Ellsberg. Feldstein replied that they were very active in asking for documents. They had the key to the room where the documents were stored and helped copy the documents. They play an active role, not a passive one. "Reporters are not passive stenographers."

Sumers reminded Feldstein that he had been asked about hacking.What if the purpose of a hacker is not to obtain information, but to cover up the source of information? These are the specific allegations described in paragraphs 11 to 14 of Kromberg's Fourth Memorandum. Professor Feldstein replied that protecting informants is an obligation. Journalists cooperate, conspire, coax, encourage, direct and protect their informants. This is journalism.

Sumers asked Professor Feldstein whether he would be cautious when agreeing to the damage the government claims was causing. Feldstein replied, of course. The government’s past records of conduct have made people need to be treated with caution. Summers pointed out that there is a bill that explicitly illegalizes the naming of intelligence insiders, namely the Intelligence Identities Protection Act (IIPA). Professor Feldstein said this is true, but the fact that the allegations do not fall within the scope of IIPA proves that the purpose of the prosecution is not limited to the disclosure of identity, in fact, the scope of the prosecution will be broader.

Sumers finally said that Lewis had said WikiLeaks released an unedited telegram in a large-scale publication. If these materials have been published by others, will the professor's judgment change? Professor Feldstein said his answers were unintentional to indicate that he accepted the government’s narrative.

Edward Fitzgerald then took over to defend. He told Professor Feldstein that Assange was not prosecuted when Manning was indicted and Obama pardoned Manning. These are all important facts. Feldstein agreed.

Fitzgerald said Lewis complained about Feldstein's selective citation of the Washington Post article, which contained a large amount of material that Feldstein had not cited, but that material equally strongly supported his case. For example, "Judges Department officials told The Washington Post that there was no sealed indictment last week, and the Justice Department had decided they would not initiate the charges (no other actions)." It also said that when Snowden was charged, Greenwald was not charged, and Manning and Assange would be dealt with the same. So overall, the article confirms the arguments that Feldstein made in the report. Feldstein agreed. Then there was a discussion about other materials that could be used to support his report.

Fitzgerald finally asked Feldstein if he was asked if Feldstein was not. Familiar with the saying “the grand jury will sue a ham sandwich”. Feldstein replied that this is a common saying that the grand jury is malleable and that they almost always act as per the prosecutor’s request. There is a lot of academic material about this.

Reflection

That’s it, another unusual day ended. Once again, there were only five of us in the forty-two seats in the auditor’s seat, and the “crowded” six seats on the Ninth Court were reduced to three because the court was The "VIP" reserved three seats, and they were not present at all. The

cross-examination shows the weakness of the 30-minute strategy Barretzer used, and it is interesting that she shortened her defense testimony and gave Louis unlimited time to cross-examination. This was particularly bad in the cross-examination of Mark Feldstein. In the cross-examination of Feldstein by James Lewis, Lewis said 5 to 10 times more than the real witness. Some of Lewis' "problems" lasted for a long time, contained a large number of cited paragraphs, and was often worded in complex double negative terms. Feldstein refused to answer three times, citing that he did not know what the problem was. With the defense's preliminary statement of the evidence being limited to half an hour, Lewis' cross-examination was nearly two hours, 80% of which were Lewis's speeches.

Feldstein was threatened by Lewis, who firmly believed that Lewis had the right to do so when Lewis asked him to answer briefly. In fact, Lewis was not a judge, and this should be Feldstein, not Lewis' testimony. Barretzer failed to protect Feldstein and did not explain to him that he had the right to organize his own answers, which was obviously something she had to do.

Today we have two expert witnesses who both filed lengthy written testimony on an indictment that is now being reviewed based on a replacement indictment that was replaced at the last minute, which neither of them had seen before. Both made it clear that they did not see a new indictment. Furthermore, this new alternative indictment was specially prepared by the prosecution and was prepared when they listened to the defense's arguments and saw the advantage of much of the defense's evidence, in order to avoid the fact that the indictment that initiated the hearing was obviously a failure.

Most importantly, the defendants' application for adjourning the court to prepare their defense of the new indictment was rejected, which instinct allows these and other witnesses to see the new indictment, adjust their evidence accordingly, and prepare for cross-examination of the indictment.

Clive Stafford Smith testified today that in 2001, he would not have believed that the U.S. government would have committed such a cruel crime. I have to say that I can't believe the blatant abuse of the proceedings I've seen in this court.

Editor in charge: Gong Siliang

Proofreading: Luan Meng