Slashdot Mirror
Assange Talk Spurs UK Judges To Boycott Legal Conference
An anonymous reader writes The Commonwealth Law Conference in Glasgow was subjected to walk outs and boycott once it became known that Julian Assange was to appear by video link from the Ecuadorian embassy to give a talk at the conference. The Guardian reports that, "Judges from Scotland, England and Wales and the UK supreme court had agreed to speak at or chair other sessions but withdrew – in some cases after arriving at the conference centre– when they found out about Assange's appearance. Among those to boycott the conference were the most senior judge in Scotland, Lord Gill, and two judges on the supreme court, Lord Neuberger and Lord Hodge. A spokesperson for the Judicial Office for Scotland said: "The conference programme was changed to include Mr Assange's participation at short notice and without consultation. Mr Assange is, as a matter of law, currently a fugitive from justice, and it would therefore not be appropriate for judges to be addressed by him. "Under these circumstances, the lord president, Lord Gill, and the other Scottish judicial officeholders in attendance have withdrawn from the conference." A spokesman for the UK supreme court added: "Lord Neuberger and Lord Hodge share the concerns expressed by Lord Gill and his fellow senior Scottish judges ... "As a result of this unfortunate development, they trust that delegates will understand their decision to withdraw from the conference. ..." A spokesman for judiciary of England and Wales said: "The lord chief justice shares the concerns expressed by Lord Gill and Lord Neuberger ... He agreed with the position taken by both, and the judges of England and Wales also withdrew from the conference. ...""
Maybe not so much a boycott as the judges being careful not to break the rules. IANAL, but there a lots of rules that prohibit the communication between defendants and judges, at least in US law, and I presume it's similar in GB.
Given what we know about groups like JTRIG, spook groups that make false victim claims, fake evidence, use 'honeypots' (i.e. women offering sex),
The whole legal system is on trial. Several UK judges have permitted evidence in secret from the spooks, which denies the right of the defendant to challenge it, so they're not exactly an innocent group here of perfect people defending the basis of law.
http://www.nbcnews.com/feature/edward-snowden-interview/exclusive-snowden-docs-show-british-spies-used-sex-dirty-tricks-n23091
"British spies have developed "dirty tricks" for use against nations, hackers, terror groups, suspected criminals and arms dealers that include releasing computer viruses, spying on journalists and diplomats, jamming phones and computers, and using sex to lure targets into "honey traps.""
"Documents taken from the National Security Agency by Edward Snowden and exclusively obtained by NBC News describe techniques developed by a secret British spy unit called the Joint Threat Research and Intelligence Group (JTRIG) as part of a growing mission to go on offense and attack adversaries ranging from Iran to the hacktivists of Anonymous. According to the documents, which come from presentations prepped in 2010 and 2012 for NSA cyber spy conferences, the agency's goal was to "destroy, deny, degrade [and] disrupt" enemies by "discrediting" them, planting misinformation and shutting down their communications. "
Name one government that actually is in touch with their civilians. Everybody I spoke with is pro-Assange (on- and offline) not one government is...
No he isn't, regardless of how much you want him to be. But it is interesting how many have bought into his PR bullshit while ignoring the fact that if the US wanted him, they had ample opportunity to get him from the UK in the years before he fled into the embassy.
Assange fled UK jurisdiction to avoid being legally extradited by a recognised court of the land - so yes, he is a fugitive. So your example is complete rubbish because its not equivalent to the Assange situation at all - if the chief justice of Scotland appeared in front of a court in Iran and the court ruled against him, and then he fled Iran, then yes he would be a fugitive.
The UK handled everything per the law. They received an extradition request from a country they have a treaty with regarding this. They are required by the treaty to deal with these, they can't ignore them. So they reviewed it in court, to make sure it was a valid request per the treaty and decided it was. He appealed and the case moved up the chain until the high court heard it and decided that this extradition request is legitimate under the treaty, the UK has no standing to refuse.
Up until this point, Assanage was in no trouble in the UK, he hadn't broken UK law, they were just acting based on the extradition request. However then he fled. That is now a violation of UK law. He violated the conditions of his bail. That makes him a criminal in the UK. Skipping bail doesn't make you a "political prisoner" it makes you a standard criminal.
Most people in the UK haven't got the first fucking clue who he is. When they discover he's yet another whining Auzzie who thinks he can come to the UK and conspire against our allies (the USA), with his self-important "look at me mummy" attitude, they're going to burn the fucking embassy down to get him out.
Again, the issue is NOT what other countries want.
While in the UK, under an English court's bail, he breached his bail conditions.
Everything else is a side-issue to whether he's actually a fugitive in the UK or not. Any country with an interest can register it and we'll send him on as and when the law requires. But, at the moment, he's committed a UK crime on UK soil, and stupidly against a UK court.
If he gets out of the embassy, he'll be arrested FOR THAT INSTANTLY PROVABLE CHARGE first. Then we'll worry about everything else but - pretty much - we'd agreed (and it was legally correct for us to agree without changes to existing laws to accommodate that) to extradite him to Sweden. We made them go back several times to dot their i's and cross their t's in that regard and refused to release him to them until it was done. That's sorted.
So he'll come out. Be arrested. Stand charge for skipping bail (evidence is overwhelming including by his own admission - because him being in the embassy is a breach of bail conditions in and of itself - and it's quite obvious it was a wilful violation). Then we'll hand him over to Sweden as we're legally required to (now that they've sorted out the paperwork, but as a member of the EU policing laws we would always have been eventually subject to doing so anyway - the US is a different matter entirely that would need a court's approval, and that court would be the one in Sweden, not the UK). Then whatever happens to him is Sweden's problem. If they extradite him to the US, they better do it REALLY carefully or else Sweden will be in breach of the same EU policing laws that it's using to get hold of him in the first place (they would have to reasonably ensure his life was not endangered by doing so, for instance).
But, first and foremost, he's a wanted CRIMINAL in the UK for skipping bail (we don't really use the word fugitive). It's like getting Al Capone on tax evasion, but cross-territory. And all the UK care about is the bail. Everything else is someone else's problem because we're not dealing direct with any US transfer where the only real scrutiny of human rights, etc. need take place (it's laid down in law that we can assume other EU member provide adequate human rights to comply with UK law, for example).
That these judges were required to show "loyalty" to their government by walking out, instead of asserting the independence of the judiciary
No, they showed loyalty to the judicial system by not allowing it to be railroaded into becoming part of a piece of political theatre.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
A fugitive is the antithesis of the organisation, conference and attendees. It's a conference for and about the legal profession. As far as I'm aware, Assange has zero legal qualifications whatsoever.
That's like saying you should invite a convicted paedophile to your school safety talk, or a rapist to your rape counselling group. Maybe it SOUNDS good and fair and balanced, but the practicality is insanely stupid.
Criminals (and Assange is one, legally speaking, in the UK for skipping UK court bail) DO NOT get a say in how their justice system handles them, or invited to conferences about the legal profession. Reasonable outsiders make sure the law is fair and balanced for all, but the criminals themselves? No.
Firstly, the UK judiciary is not the UK government. I case you haven't grasped the concept of an independant judiciary, this is something we take quite seriously in the UK, and judges fiercly defend their independence from government (often to the chagrin of the government, c.f. the governments struggles to deport certain islamic preachers).
Secondly, what part of "Mr Assange is, as a matter of law, currently a fugitive from justice" do you not understand? That is a legal fact, and judges are bound to act appropriately. It would be entirely inappropriate for judges to sit there and be addressed by someone who has a current valid arrest warrant for a serious crime outstanding against them.
Thirdly, speak for yourself. I don't like Assange, and I'm certainly not the only person in the UK who feels that way. WikiLeaks may have done some good by bringing certain information to light (although even there it could have done better, a bit more care about what was released and how it was released would have given a lot less ammunition to people who don't want to respect people's freedoms and rights, and possibly lead to better outcomes for people like Bradley Manning), but Assange himself is a hypocrite and a coward, and I'd deport him in a second if I had any say in the matter.
Oh no... it's the future.
Indeed, speaks volumes about our corrupted 'judges' doesn't it.
No it doesn't! Quite the opposite, the judges acted with the highest probity in this instance. Read the pertinent sentence in the summary again: "Mr Assange is, as a matter of law, currently a fugitive from justice, and it would therefore not be appropriate for judges to be addressed by him." Their participation would have been corrupt. [Emphasis added]
We cannot from this action determine if they have antipathy or sympathy for Assange and his cause. And that's just the point. On a purely personal basis they might support him as much as you or I. But they were there as judges and as such they are required to put aside their personal opinions and act as the ethics of their high office demands.
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
Anyone with the least grasp of what a conflict of interest is, should know that, whatever the opinion of those judges, they did the professional thing to do: left a colloquial event in order to prevent influence of informal statements from a very likely candidate to be heard in their courts. Simple as that
Assange himself is a hypocrite and a coward, and I'd deport him in a second if I had any say in the matter.
Fortunately the UK has judges of the calibre of Lords Gill, Neuberger and Hodge who, on trusts, would require an actual criminal offence or some other lawful reason, and evidence sufficient to meet the requisite standard of proof, before deporting anyone.
Apart from your dislike for Assange (which is a personal opinon your welcome to of course, I simply don't share it), I think your comment is bang on the money.
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
There are examples enough that prove that mass-surveillance is hurting the public (i.e. swatting people over funny and misinterpreted facebook posts, reporters that where researching stuff, writers doing research...), I have yet to see evidence that the documents released by Edward Snowden actually hurting someone... And please don't tell me that the false positives are to neglect as we really need mass-surveillance to keep fighting the terrorist. By saying that you just as well may say: I'm a sheep and I give in to the politics of fear.
Ecuador
No. Ecuador opposes everything that Assange stands for. Ecuador is a repressive country, with a muzzled press, and a poor human rights record. They are simply using Assage as a stick to poke the US/UK in the eye.
I don't see why his being an alleged criminal means they aren't allowed to simply listen to him.
He is more than an alleged criminal. There is a warrant out for his arrest and he is seeking asylum in a foreign embassy. The judges are correct, his current status is that of being a fugitive. Since it is possible that Great Britain may one day extradite, it would be improper for them to share the stage (even if he is doing so remotely) with him. If nothing else, it would question whether they, the judges, could be impartial if his case came to trial.
Because, as I'm sure you're aware, Mr. Assange is not on British soil.
He is on British soil. Britain, like most (all?) countries in the world, doesn't consider embassy buildings to be the soil of the embassy's sending country.
For countries that have their embassy in the UK, them asserting that the embassy is their own soil doesn't have any effect. Sweden still needs to deport Assange from the UK as that is where he is as far as the UK is concerned. The Swedes could start extradition proceedings with Ecuador if they wanted but the UK would arrest him when he left the embassy and the extradition from Equador would have no effect. The UK doesn't need to extradite him from Equador either. They just need Equador to give him up to UK authorities.
The slightly more interesting case might be a UK embassy on the soil of a country who does say that embassies are the soil of the sending country. Because there are probably a few cases where it could matter - e.g. accident insurance that applies only in the UK - i.e. not for travel. If you fell and broke your leg in a UK embassy somewhere else in the world could you claim? The UK courts would probably say no even if the foreign country said "actually that building is in the UK".
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = -@B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," and there was light.
Did you read what the statement said?
It's nothing to do with him being "an alleged criminal", it's to do with him being currently a fugitive from justice. And they aren't "simply listening to them". They are attending a conference where he is addressing them.
I can't imagine any circumstances where it's ok for a wanted person to evade capture, while at the same time being given a platform to deliver a lecture to judges.
"Fortunately the UK has judges of the calibre of Lords Gill, Neuberger and Hodge who, on trusts, would require an actual criminal offence or some other lawful reason, and evidence sufficient to meet the requisite standard of proof, before deporting anyone."
It's important to note that the British courts have already upheld Assange's extradition at all levels up to the highest courts in the land, and so all of those judges you list would also chuck him out in a second if he wasn't hiding behind diplomatic protection in the Ecuadorian embassy. Actually it's more correct to say that they already have done that, since no further legal action is required or indeed possible to effect his extradition. But I take your point on my opinions of Assange, that wasn't the most constructive bit of the post.
Oh no... it's the future.
He is wanted in the UK for violating bail. Judges should only interact with criminals in the court where everything said is a matter of public record (and subject to strict accounting). Allowing judges to talk to criminals in other settings sounds like a good recipe for legalised bribery.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Assange isn't a fugitive on the basis of a charge regarding his involvements with Wikilieaks. He is a fugitive from an arrest warrant pertaining to a charge of rape. Whether he is guilty or innocent has yet to be determined by a court of law, hence the need for the judges to remain, and be seen to remain, entirely impartial. If those that have sympathy with him attend then and those that don't stay away than it guarantees him an unsympathetic judge if it ever comes to trial. That's not exactly in his best interest or the interest of justice in general. This is quite clearly the right thing to do, especially if those judges have any sympathy for Assange.
-- Gaxx
You realise you are stating wild theories with zero evidence as if they were facts?
Its amusing how all four of the points you raise are false:
1. The initial prosecutor threw the case out, but a second senior prosecutor took up the case on request from the victims.
2. Assange was not told he was free to leave Sweden, infact his lawyer was specifically told they wanted to talk to him again and he should contact the police before leaving Sweden.
3. No Swedish or Interpol law was contravened by the issuance of Assanges warrant - infact, this is exactly the sort of use they are for.
4. All UK courts where this case has been argued has actually both affirmed the legality of the arrest warrant, and affirmed the right of the Swedish to issue it. No UK court has ruled it illegal, and most certainly no UK court has said what you claim they have said.
How about you get your facts in order before claiming bullshit, k?
Assange is accused of releasing state secrets of a country of which he is neither a citizen or resident, in which he was not present in when he released them, from which he never sought or received a security clearance, and to which he never gave a secrecy oath or signed an NDA.
By what stretch of the imagination do you think he is, or should be, obligated to keep those secrets?
Imagine all the people...
By what stretch of the imagination do you think he is, or should be, obligated to keep those secrets?
Absolutely none. He has no legal requirement not to publish the classified information of another country, as you pointed out. But that's not what he is in legal hot water for.
When someone can offer some proof otherwise - "zOMG Sweden must have made all this up this because the CIA has nude pictures of their bikini team and I heard this is 100% true from a dude on reddit" does not count - I will gladly listen.
"95% of all Slashdot
You don 't understand Assange's role in Wikileaks. He's the spokesperson. He doesn't actually get his hands dirty by releasing shit.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Ecuador opposes everything that Assange stands for.
No, I don't!
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
Assange is accused of releasing state secrets of a country of which he is neither a citizen or resident, in which he was not present in when he released them, from which he never sought or received a security clearance, and to which he never gave a secrecy oath or signed an NDA.
By what stretch of the imagination do you think he is, or should be, obligated to keep those secrets?
Did he come by those state secrets through legal means? Maybe, maybe not, that is what a trial could tell. Did he violate any laws from the countries involved with the possession of classified information? Many countries make it illegal to be in possession of classified materials one is not legally entitled to be in possession of. Again, that would take a court to decide. Finally, is he a willing accomplice to a crime in obtaining and disclosing this information? He may not have signed an oath or an NDA, but somebody might have done so. If so, he could, depending on the laws of said country, been an accomplice. Another thing for a court to decide.
The question shouldn't be about in what way is he obligated to keep or not to keep those secrets, but instead, whether or not he was involved, in any way, with espionage. Most "spies" don't do the actual theft of state secrets, either. The legal question to be answered is whether or not he is guilty of espionage and the answer either you, or me, or anybody else might give, doesn't really matter, it is a decision for the courts who hold jurisdiction to decide.
It seems that it is not in dispute that he willingly was in possession of and disclosed confidential information. You take the position that he has the moral, if not legal right to do so. Fine, if he took a moral stand and felt compelled to release the information as a matter of conscience, fine. But people take moral stands all the time and are willing to suffer the consequences. Why should he be different?
He's breached bail conditions in the UK. That makes him a fugitive from justice in the UK.
Whether he's committed a crime in another country is totally fucking irrelevant.
The judges can't listen to him because it would compromise their integrity - the absolute fucking opposite reason of your alleged moral corruption.
This isn't even fucking complicated, you're just skipping past the obvious in a blind frenzy to defend Assange.
My position is that there's no legitimate reason for Assange to be subject to US laws in any way whatsoever. Do you consider yourself subject to China's laws regarding to advocating for democracy? Should a UK citizen be subject to Saudi laws regarding pornography or not being muslim?
If Australia has a law obligating him to keep the secrets of third-party, non-Australian, governments; any charges or legal proceedings should be taking place in Australia. For the US to presume to export its laws beyond its own borders is absurd. And its subversion of both the British and Swedish legal systems (And the latters' willingness to do along with it.) is full-out sickening.
Imagine all the people...
[The judges] do not want to give the impression of colluding with fugitives, since that could undermine the public confidence in the legal system.
You've just hit the nail on the head. Bear in mind they were not merely listening to Mr Assange, but were to appear along with him as fellow speakers.
But the judges instead give the impression of not understanding ... what is going on.
I was under the impression that they had, in effect, been ambushed. The inclusion of Mr Assange as a fellow speaker was, to quote the Judicial Office, "at short notice and without consultation." So they freely admit they did not know this was going to happen. (If this is what you meant by not understanding what is going on).
Now the judges seem biased in favor of the established powers, blind to the allegations of abuse of powers.
They should seem so only to those ignorant of the reason the judges felt compelled to withdraw. Since you have enunciated that reason so succinctly, you of all people ought not to succumb to that unfounded interpretation.
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
The man is accused of releasing state secrets and threatening to release more.
No he's not, he is accused of rape. That is the accusation from which he is running away. As far as I'm aware, there have, so far been no formal charges of releasing state secrets.
No, he is being accused of being in position of releasing state secrets by countries the UK has extradition treaties with. However, neither that or the rape allegations are what make him a fugitive. The fact that he skipped bail is what makes him a fugitive. The other charges, espionage, rape, etc., still need to be proven in a court of law. The bail skipping is a matter of record and does not.
There's pretty good evidence that he committed sex crimes while in Sweden, and Sweden went through the proper legal channels to extradite him from the UK. The UK judiciary agrees that Sweden has a perfectly good extradition case, and therefore ordered his extradition. I assume the bail was so he could be free during the extradition case. When Assange finished losing appeals, he fled to the Ecuadorian embassy, breaching the bail conditions.
It is not legally possible to say he was guilty of sex crimes in Sweden; it is legally possible to say that Sweden made a valid extradition request, it was considered by UK judges, and so it is definite that Assange is a fugitive from justice.
This has nothing to do with Wikileaks. It's entirely possible for a person to do a great service for humanity and be a criminal when off the clock (not that I'm saying here whether he's a criminal, or did a great service).
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Assange has not been tried for alleged crimes committed in Sweden, but that's irrelevant. The judges didn't refuse to hear him on that basis. They are well aware that being accused of crimes is not the same as being convicted, and they do not presume he's guilty on any charges Sweden wishes to press.
Assange is a fugitive from justice, in that he fled rather than submit himself to legal authorities for legal proceedings. There is no question about that. He was ordered to present himself, and he went to the Ecuadorian embassy instead, where he remains. That's why the judges are staying away.
The UK has not abused its legal power with respect to Assange. His extradition warrant was reviewed by the UK judiciary and found to be correct. The alleged actions would be crimes in the UK. The UK has behaved correctly in this case. From what I've read, Sweden has probably acted correctly, but that's irrelevant here.
You don't seem to have any respect for the law, when it is impartially and correctly carried out. I don't think you're a good judge of judges.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes