Hacker News Reader

Comment by janmo | Hacker News Reader

Will he be tried by a common jury or a military one? No way a common jury finds him guilty.

> No way a common jury finds him guilty

I wish I could still have your faith in my fellow countrymen. Sadly I believe yours won't survive this trial.

Assuming he gets to trial, and has lawyers that understand how to use the media, I think it may be difficult to convince the entire jury to prosecute.

Rehashing US war crimes, which would certainly come up, won't be great for the prosecution either.

> Rehashing US war crimes, which would certainly come up, won't be great for the prosecution either.

Assuming the judge doesn't block that line of argument.

He's charged with espionage for material related to a war crime. It's not a peripheral issue.

I've seen "non peripheral issues" blocked by hostile judges in plenty of cases, especially cases when classified information comes into play. I hope you're right, but think the USA will make sure this is heard by a judge who will happily toe their line.

Ellsberg was not permitted to mention what was released in his defense, Assange likely won't either.

Almost 50% of Americans voted for Trump. Almost 50% did it again a second time.

It's not that Voting for Trump is in any way related to being against Assange (It's my understanding that Wikileaks is well liked within that community), but I've learned to to speculate on what Americans might do.

I've taken to just expecting the worst possible outcome from any decision.

Right, but juries don't convict on a majority.

Trump's feelings could get hurt at some perceived slight at any moment, and he could suddenly turn his cult against Assange on a dime, just like he did with Netanyahu. Like if he got the idea in his fat head that Assange didn't do enough to help him overturn the election that he lost due to his own incompetence and corruption.

‘F*ck Him!’ Trump Reportedly Furious With Netanyahu Congratulating Biden, Hasn’t Spoken to Him Since

https://www.mediaite.com/trump/fck-him-trump-reportedly-furi...

>Former President Donald Trump is reportedly livid with Benjamin Netanyahu. At issue? Congratulations that former Israeli Prime Minister expressed to President Joe Biden following the 2020 general election.

>This is according to a new book from Axios writer Barak Ravid who reports:

>>Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu were the closest of political allies during the four years they overlapped in office, at least in public. Not anymore. “I haven’t spoken to him since,” Trump said of the former Israeli prime minister. “F*k him.”

>>What he’s saying: Trump repeatedly criticized Netanyahu during two interviews for my book, “Trump’s Peace: The Abraham Accords and the Reshaping of the Middle East.” The final straw for Trump was when Netanyahu congratulated President-elect Biden for his election victory while Trump was still disputing the result.

>“The first person that congratulated [Biden] was Bibi Netanyahu, the man that I did more for than any other person I dealt with. … Bibi could have stayed quiet,” Trump is quoted by Ravid as saying. “He has made a terrible mistake.”

Almost 50% of Americans voted for Biden. Almost 50% did it again a second time.

It's not that Voting for Biden is in any way related to being against Assange (It's my understanding that Wikileaks is well liked within that community), but I've learned to to speculate on what Americans might do.

I've taken to just expecting the worst possible outcome from any decision.

Half the people I know who voted for Trump are pro-Assange.

The jury will be sequestered to avoid media influence. This is common practice in high-profile cases.

The judge will set firm boundaries for what the jury can and cannot consider in their deliberations and while the jury is actually free to use any criteria they want, it will be very heavily implied that they cannot. The court will do everything in their power to make the jury believe they must convict based on the evidence presented and the rule of law.

Similarly the court will put significant limitations on what can and cannot be presented as evidence. US's commission of war crimes is (arguably) irrelevant as regards the crime in question, so I won't be surprised to see that bringing it up will not be permitted.

This is all fairly standard US court stuff.

The media work starts before the trial starts.

... and anybody who's been exposed to it is excluded from the jury.

Yes, that means juries are usually composed of uninformed idiots. Lawyers mostly like it that way.

I am skeptical the process really works that way. I'm sure they ask the right questions during selection. I doubt they get the right answers.

The internet has predicted the imminent assassination of every prominent opposition politician, journalist and speaker for as long as I've been online and it's never happened. Glenn Greenwood is fine, Sy Hersh is fine, Bernie Sanders and Ron Paul are fine. Meanwhile Julian Assange was happy to have people believe the DNC leak came from Seth Rich despite knowing he got it from Russia.

They apparently plan to stick him in the court in East Virginia, which is effectively an intelligence court given the group of people who live in that region and the political bias. He will not receive a fair trial.

> Will he be tried by a common jury or a military one?

He is charged and being extradited under criminal code. As a non-combatant, I don't think he could be charged by an Article I court.

"No way a common jury finds him guilty."

Quick search for numbers show:

"53% of Americans say Julian Assange should be extradited to America"

https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/20...

Exactly, with this relatively low support for extradition it would be surprising to see a jury conviction. And that's with abuse of the jury selection process, presumably in both directions.

I think it's a little silly to extrapolate from a general opinion poll to a trial result. An honest poll on this subject would result in about 99% "I don't know much of anything about him", and jury selection is intended to find people without a set opinion already.

>Will he be tried by a common jury or a military one? No way a common jury finds him guilty.

Neither. This is the Espionage Act, so he's going to the spy court. Those doors will be closed and the jury will consist of people who work for the government. The court case will be over way way faster than you might expect.

> so he's going to the spy court

No, he isn’t going to a FISA court, those don’t try criminal cases…

>No, he isn’t going to a FISA court, those don’t try criminal cases…

Never said he was. He's going to the spy court in virginia. It's obviously not something you list on wikipedia.

FISA is too monitored. The court he'll be going to always sides with the government.

Assange is going to the same place Daniel Hale, Chelsea Manning, Paul Manafort, various terrorists.

I wonder if Assange will ever see if he is guilty or not. Epstein treatment incoming. Though I do believe he will be treated properly, no enhanced torture or anything.

Manning was court martialed, in Maryland.

Manafort and Hale weren't tried in any sort of special court, and it's definitely on Wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_District_Court_f.... Manafort proceedings were public; reporters live-tweeted it. Hale pled guilty pre-trial.

there is no way he will ever be free. it's just 1 man vs multiple governments. US gov is in no rush to bring it to trial. they'll keep him in solitary to die waiting for a trial that will never come

I can only hope that they'll find him not guilty completely ridiculing the government and all those who were behind his prosecution.

He's entitled to a trial within 70 days of his first appearance in the US, if he demands one. Speedy Trial Act of 1974.

70 days is according to the new definition of very long days about 35 years

If he does eventually leave UK, we should all pray he does actually appear in USA at some point. Lots of "enemies" just disappear.

This man is not a USA citizen, and was not in USA when he did the journalism that so offends the USA deep state. He will be extradited for purely political "crimes". Let's not pretend anymore that any of us live in societies governed by laws.

LOL. I've been waiting almost 9 years on a 120 day Speedy Trial. While you are 100% technically correct (minus COVID extensions), the defense team will need a bunch of extensions to go through everything and file motions. And that is where the delays will come from - the prosecutor and judge will make sure any motions take years to process and he'll languish in jail for infinity.

He won't get a bond either because of all the stuff that happened with the Bolivian Embassy.

Agreed. But "in front of a jury quickly" might be forensically a better idea than "wait in jail for years" while the prosecutor drags things out. [Edit: assuming that his team are confident in getting at least one vote to acquit from somebody angry]

Personally, I don't think we should extradite him simply because it's arguably a political 'crime'. The US/UK extradition treaty is so one-sided, though, and British extradition law so Executive-friendly, that that is essentially an impossible case to win if the Secretary of State wants to extradite.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com