Hate Marches

It was hard to know what the London Israeli counter protest thought it was doing. Laughing behind a heartrending banner saying ‘Bring them Home Now’ was one thing: people behave oddly in the face of horror. But enthusiastically waving the flags of a government starving, bombing, imprisoning, torturing, maiming, and burning people alive, while shouting playground taunts through a megaphone, to a soundtrack of Bob Marley?

Unlike the Maccabi Tel Aviv football supporters who recently rampaged through Amsterdam, they looked perfectly normal, even respectable, these 150 odd people. And yet the dimension they added to the huge London march for Palestine on Saturday November 2^nd was surreal. It’s possible to understand those who still cling to the beautiful myths of the state of Israel; the sanctuary to which Holocaust survivors fled, even though around a third of those still surviving are living there in conditions of shocking poverty and isolation. Children have been born there, forced into the military there, lived there, killed for it, died there. A homeland founded on death and dispossession is a homeland nonetheless.

But who can now say they don’t know what the government of this US satrapy is doing, and who can say they support it, without being obviously psychopathic? Without going to Tel Aviv, here, in a small, barricaded corner next to Vauxhall Bridge, was the opportunity to find out, and unfortunately, it was, obviously, people driven beyond human empathy by something – fear, nihilism, racism, guilt, sadism, revenge lust, desperation, tragedy: who can tell? “They’re probably paid” said a friend of mine.

Prominent commentators and politicians have long demonised these vast, peaceful marches as antisemitic ‘hate marches’, and indeed, the hate was here: while sneering and jeering at all the 100,000 or so passing marchers, the counter protest’s shrieks and howls rose to an incoherent crescendo as the Jewish Bloc marchers, who included descendants of Holocaust survivors, appeared. This is not, as Torah Jews in the West, or the ultra-Orthodox Jews beaten and humiliated by the state police in Tel Aviv, or Israeli peace institutions such as B’Tselem, or Breaking the Silence, or Israeli conscientious objectors, can attest, about religion or nationality, or Judaism, at all, of course.

Such a sad, disturbing spectacle aside, the 21^st London march against genocide was somewhere no-one wanted to be: even the third march had felt like a stretch too far; as though something else in the communal contract had been shattered. Poll after poll over the last year has shown only tiny minorities of the UK population are against an immediate ceasefire, or against suspending arms sales to Israel. The revelation that a change of UK government has done precisely nothing to alleviate the horror, instead adding more fiddling with words, while, against all international laws and humanity, cities and people burn, did not, however, seem to diminish the spirit of resistance.

I was helping to steward the London march: a line of us holding hands in front of the barricades and the counter protest; standing between it and the marchers they were trying to provoke; protecting the marchers from anything more than lame insults, and the triumphant Israeli tunes which replaced Bob Marley. ‘Tel Aviv! Tel Aviv!’ yodelled the sound system, as the waving Israeli flags conjured images of thousands of small, dead bodies, of hospitals, schools, homes, lands razed to rubble, of prisoners stripped and marched and disappeared; of traumatised, suicidal IDF soldiers; of the Israeli hostages whose families have been fighting their government for a ceasefire since October 7^th.

Sure, the marchers responded: their expressions of solidarity, determination and rejection changing to almost universal revulsion when the counter protest came into view. Otherwise, out of 100,000 people, the Jewish Chronicle had discovered one marcher ‘ranting’ about ‘Synagogues of Satan’. Two marchers were arrested, the JC also reported the Metropolitan police claiming, ‘after being observed carrying a placard suspected of expressing support for a proscribed organisation’. Certainly, one young Muslim woman, terrified and crying, had been arrested, dragged out of the crowd by police at the end of the march, held on her own behind shutters in a car park, and then driven off in a police van, for a placard saying ‘If you’re not enraged, you’re not informed’ on one side, and ‘Resistance is not terrorism’ on the other. She was later released without charge.

Since then, of course, the counter protest’s less middle class, uninhibited side has been on public view, at least on social media, attacking Dutch citizens, tearing down Palestinian flags, disrupting a minute’s silence for the victims of the Valencia floods with whistles, jeers and flares, and chanting ‘Fuck the Arabs’, among witticisms about schools not being open in Gaza because ‘all the children are dead’. Children aged 5 – 9 years old are the age group most represented among the dead in Gaza, a recent UN study has found. Almost 70 percent of victims are women and children.

A young Dutch reporter filmed the Maccabi gang grabbing metal poles and planks of wood, before they roamed the streets. ‘They began attacking houses of people in Amsterdam with Palestinian flags, so that’s actually where the violence started’ Amsterdam council member Jazie Veldhuyzen told Al Jazeera. ‘As a reaction, Amsterdammers mobilised themselves and countered the attacks that started on Wednesday by the Maccabi hooligans’.

The prime minister of the UK retweeted its foreign secretary’s response to this: he was standing ‘with Israeli citizens and Jewish people across the world’.  Other world leaders, including Biden, joined the UK to condemn these ‘anti-semitic attacks’. The Israeli government, mainstream news sources, Western politicians and the UK Daily Telegraph described this as, or compared it to, a ‘pogrom’; for those unaware of the origins of the word, it was used to describe a wave of attacks which ‘raped and murdered their Jewish victims and looted their property’ in pre and post Tsarist Russia.

‘Chilling scenes in Amsterdam remind us of an ancient evil’, the Telegraph explained. If you’d only watched the BBC you would have been horrified on behalf of the Maccabi supporters and, by extension, on behalf of anyone Jewish. Some Maccabi supporters were attacked, at least one reportedly thrown into a canal. Four people are being held in custody. Overall, five people, of unknown nationality, were taken to hospital, and later released. Meanwhile Sky News deleted a report which showed and analysed the timeline of Maccabi violence, re-edited it to include the words ‘anti-semitic violence’, and then deleted it again.

The Israeli government continues its genocidal ethnic cleansing of Gaza. Attacks in the West Bank are following a similar path. Lebanon is being destroyed, block by block, village by village. Another UK national march is planned in London for the 30^th November. The UK Trades Union Congress, which passed a unanimous motion in September demanding an end to all arms trade with Israel, and reiterating support for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) is encouraging a Workplace Day of Action on November 28th in support of an immediate ceasefire.

Meanwhile, on the 8^th November, a week after the London counter protest was waving its flags, and just around the time when Maccabi Tel Aviv supporters were chanting ‘Let the IDF win to fuck the Arabs!’;  Philippa Greer, human rights lawyer and Head of Legal for UNWRA in Gaza reported as follows:

‘Today entering Gaza City. The ruins of life. A donkey laying dead attached to a cart with someone’s possessions. Clusters of people crossing to the South, with too much to walk with under the sun and given the length of the journey. A man carrying a white flag in front of his family. Women about to collapse, dragging bags over the ground, walking backwards, stopping and closing their eyes. A man on the ground in underwear, with soldiers near the checkpoint. A woman presumably crossing with him, stalled, distraught, in desperation. They passed by these ruins’.

My government is supporting this. Let us not pass by.

Report of ASSANGE v GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 20/21 February 2024

Appeal against extradition heard by (senior) judge Victoria Sharp and judge Jeremy Johnson.

Lawyers for Assange: Edward Fitzgerald and Mark Summers

Lawyers for the US: Claire Dobbin and Joel Smith

Contemporaneous notes/tweets from the hearing, in chronological order. Spelling has been tidied up and hash tags removed.

DAY ONE 20/2/24

Plagued with problems for those trying to watch via video link. Finally managed to hear some of it. Richard Medhurst (@richimedhurst) has details but a few things which struck me today, when I finally got the link to work.

The numerous sources listed showing publishers of classified info have never been prosecuted. That this inditement was unforeseeable in 2010.

That the previous judge (District Judge Vanessa Baraitser) simply refused to deal with ‘flagrant’ violation of Article 7. That ECHR at Strasbourg would consider Chelsea Manning covered by whistleblower protection. Judge here questions whether she was ‘actively’ seeking info, rather than just coming across it –

– which is irrelevant, as Manning would still be covered. The underscoring of the fact that there was no evidence that anyone was harmed, the ‘extraordinary efforts to redact’. The fact that the previous judge never addresses the balance of public interest

The monumental, unprecedented scale of that public interest – exposing ongoing war crimes – murder, torture. Although the judge had the authorities on this. Assange’s ‘conduct’ was in giving accurate, reliable, not spun, not edited material

The idea of what to the ECHR would be a ‘disproportionate and grossly disproportionate’ sentence – which would last for the rest of Assange’s life- also engages Article 3, as well as most heavily, Article 10

DAY TWO: 21/2/24

Surreal to hear the ‘case’ against Assange being laid out after it was so effectively demolished yesterday. Focusing on Chelsea Manning again: who has been pardoned. (NB correction: Ms Manning was actually granted clemency.)

After initial problems with the mic, everyone can now hear Claire Dobbin, for the US, clearly, along with someone wheezing horribly over the top. Suitable counterpoint for the leaden recital of material already shown to be irrelevant & claims that Assange is not a publisher, so there

Suggestion that Ms Manning would somehow just be treated as a ‘whistleblower’ is ‘unrealistic’ – just an opinion voiced, no authorities given, not what Strasbourg would conclude as demonstrated yesterday.

Dobbin: this goes far beyond the acts of a journalist merely gathering information. Again, no sources, witnesses invoked yesterday who all said these were absolutely normal acts of journalism ignored.

“curious eyes never run dry” Dobbin quotes Assange saying to Manning. An odd little phrase on which to try and condemn a man. Quite apart from the fact that lawyers demolished the issue of harm yesterday

Again, Dobbin back on the issue of the possibility of causing harm through publication. Has never been used in a prosecution (as I remember from yesterday), even with the guy who hunted down and exposed CIA members.

Effectively “although his prosecution may be unprecedented, it rests on precedents”. No immunity for journalists, never mind Article 10, apparently

Accusation that the prosecutor has lied by saying this is not a political prosecution; again a concentration on the names released. “When they announced the prosecution it was on the basis that they did not regard the appellant as being a journalist”.

Attempt yesterday to minimise harm done by release of names, says Dobbin. But people had to move homes. Some lost employment. Some have disappeared but there is no proof that this was linked to publication, she admits.

Basically just an assertion that Assange is not a publisher or a journalist, and a continuation of recital of the ‘harms’ done by disclosures; people ‘put at risk’. Broader consequences for US ability to gather information from individuals, too. Chilling effect

Assertion that evidence demonstrates profound consequences extending beyond the human cause (?) and extending to US ability to gather information from sources

The appellant now faces the 2nd superseding inditement; the allegation is not just that he conspired with Miss Manning to steal &disclose information, but engaged in conspiracy with others to hack, and recruit other hackers and leakers. Not conventional journo/publisher

No mention by Dobbin so far of what would have been put in the balance by the Strasbourg court: what those disclosures were, what level of criminality/crimes they exposed and what the public interest is overall in having access to them

Where is Dobbin getting the definition for what makes ‘a responsible journalist’? GBNews? We don’t know. Just an assertion that the findings are ‘unimpeachable’. But if this were espionage, as set out yesterday, espionage is a political issue and not one for deportation

Dobbin: Essence of the case: the material that he published unredacted attracts no public interest whatsoever

Judge Jeremy Johnson intervenes to say surely other people had published names before the appellant did. Dobbin effectively: “he is free to pursue that in the United States”. Critical point is that the appellant obtained the material and he is responsible

Dobbin “2003 act expressly omitted the political offence exception”.

Attempt, says Dobbin, to resurrect a bar which parliament has expressly removed. Judge JJ asks for parliamentary detail. Dobbin: Fundamental position is that you don’t even get to parliamentary material as wording unambiguous.

Dobbin: a 1996 case before Lord Mustill, foreshadowing 2003,says political offence exception ‘out of date’. Exception features in the Trade and Cooperation agreement which sets up a presumption that the political offence exception will not apply

Statute must be applied regardless of terms of any treaty, says Dobbin. “Unarguable” as already been determined by case of Norris (?) in which reliance was being placed on the 1972 treaty as providing an enforceable right but High Court concluded that the act of 2003 stood alone.

Dobbin very unclear about whether this is, as alleged yesterday a process in ‘bad faith’. Mainly repeating that domestic law trumps international law, effectively.

Dobbin: None of the other exceptions have any application here. In Kuwaiti airport case it was a UN resolution (?) and UK parliament wanted to support it. Not the case here. UK has indicated that there will not be a political exception

Statutory language – Dobbin acknowledges that extradition is barred if it is for political reasons or to get them to punish or persecute them because of their political opinion

is this prosecution really just a front or an artifice to punish the appellant for political reasons? asks Dobbin. Apparently there has to be a ‘fundamental assumption of good faith’ when it comes to the US as one of the most long-standing partners of the UK.

Dobbin: I reiterate the point that the administration of US has changed but prosecution of appellant remains firmly on foot. District Judge rejected allegations that pressure had been brought to bear on prosecutors. She pointed to praise of the appellant & Wikileaks

The US has given assurances that Assange will be transferred to Australia “after he has been convicted” says Dobbin. High hopes of a fair trial in the US from their lawyer, then,

Dobbin goes on to Article 10. The ‘frontispiece’ of this appeal. Point remains impossible after ruling of District Judge, who took all this into account (tho yesterday this was demolished). Dobbin goes on to what is ‘ordinary journalism’ again.

Dobbin asks what ‘ordinary journalism’ is; has no answer but Assange/Wikileaks is not it. Overlooks numerous witness testimonies showing Assange/Wikileaks operating as journalists/publishers – not like the Sun hacks, admittedly. Encouragement and incitement to steal

Incitement to steal material says Dobbin, puts Assange ‘at one end of the scale of gravity’ (whatever that means). Apparently journalists don’t encourage sources to ‘steal’ information, (which from my own experience is nonsense, again – what is ‘stealing’ info?

Court must ascertain whether appellant’s actions capable of causing damage to national security, says Dobbin – apparently this trumps the public interest

‘Was the material capable of causing considerable damage to national security’ says Dobbin. Journalists not exempt from obeying national law, she says, which is not the point.

If a journalist breaks criminal law they have to be aware that they must face consequences says Dobbin. Repeats again that the publication of names (where is that Guardian journalist?) ‘not in the public interest’.

Dobbin tries to deny that Manning was a whistleblower at all. ‘No issue here, unrealistic’ etc. She didn’t do anything to protect those people says Dobbin. Also these are national security documents. Assange being done for complicity in unlawful actions of Manning

Dobbin: District Judge bound to categorise Wikileaks & the appellant in the way she did and right to lay weight on the password hash cracking, and right that the problem with the appellant’s arguments was that he arrogated to himself to decide what was in public interest

No public interest argument available in this jurisdiction, says Dobbin.

Dobbin: Even if you were to look at it through the lens of Article 10 this would not be a flagrant breach. Judge JJ intervenes. “If in this country a journalist had information of very serious wrong doing by an intelligence agency and incited a employee for information”

Judge continues: “and it was published, do you say that this would be incompatible with Article 10? The submission you’ve just made has no scope for fact balancing exercise, Article 10 has no role to play is that your submission?”

Dobbin cites Shayler. Judge JJ says “do you accept that a journalist may be in a different position?” Dobbin: “Yes, I can accept that”

Dobbin: US law does not allow journalists to commit crimes in order to obtain material. It does not confer any immunity – earlier she was arguing that Assange was not a journalist, of course.

Dobbin: the judge said that the constitutional protections in US are analogous to those provided by Article 5. Someone in the court laughs rather hysterically, perhaps thinking of the 35 year sentence for Chelsea Manning

Dobbin tries to bring in a reference to Truro. Judge Victoria Sharp dismisses this, as Summers had yesterday, apparently rather amused by it, go figure

Judge JJ: The test in 81B is that he might be prejudiced on grounds of his nationality & you have prosecutor himself saying a foreign national might not be covered by 1st amendment – asks Dobbin if that isn’t difficult to reconcile, effectively.

Dobbin waffles in reply about ‘the tenuous nature…just a possible argument”. Can provide no case law about treatment of foreign nationals by US.

Judge VS asks Assange’s Fitzgerald to clarify – fairly inaudibly, he reiterates the case for public interest and that the prosecutor in USA could argue that Assange doesn’t have any rights as he is a foreigner. You wouldn’t have a defence of public interest

Dobbin says that they need to be a bit careful about lack of freedom of speech/public interest defence (having done nothing so far to address them). Judge VS asks for point to be sorted out. Court rises

LUNCH

Everyone fiddling with mikes. Dobbin, without wig, looks around rather wistfully, puts it on. New lawyer for US, Joel Smith, takes over, very loudly, judge inaudible.

Smith says rights which would be afforded to Assange in US greater than here in UK, how lovely of them. Large amount of feedback, but judge now audible.

Grounds that applicant would risk being punished is a ‘specialty’ argument says Smith. Article 6 advanced yesterday, not speciality, but that was not formerly the case.

Oooh headers in previous submission specifically invoked ‘speciality’. Article 6 was not centre: now features far more prominently. Speciality argument is doomed to fail, says Smith. Cites cases. Legal principles established in Welsh (? name not country)

Speciality protection is how an individual will be dealt with including punishment. UK courts must decide – not a bar to extradition to the US

Judge VS: your submission is speciality or nothing, is that right? Smith: Yes. He then goes on to say that even if Article 6 is relevant, it does not apply? Article 6 (2) does not apply to sentencing procedures unless it amounts to bringing a new charge

Smith says don’t worry about Article 6 (2). Article 6 (1) deals with fair trial – the applicant will be entitled to a fair trial, says US’ lawyer.

Smith: a sentence of 175 years could be achieved by totting up maximum for every offence – but he doesn’t see that will happen so that’s OK.

Apparently ‘avoiding disparity is a key factor in American sentencing’ – Manning sentenced to 35 by a military tribunal, would’ve been eligible for parole after a third . No eligibility for parole in a civilian court, which is good apparently. 11 -12 years likely for Assange

Smith: no doubt that the offending this applicant is alleged to have done is serious. Only basis on which it could be said that sentencing in the upper echelons would be valid would be on aggravated grounds. Smith seems fine with that prospect. Offence is grave

Smith now getting fairly emotional about damage of unredacted names: people moving homes, accounts frozen etc. Beyond anything UK court has had to grapple with. It cannot be said that any of range of sentences would be grossly disproportionate.

NB At some point around here, unclear from watching on video link, Ben Watson, KC, takes over from Smith, on behalf of the UK Home Secretary.

Does not engage Article 10 at all, allegations in the case do not reflect responsible journalism. Nor is this a whistleblower case, he says. Again, no sources, no authorities, no reasons, just statements.

Again cites ‘criminality looked at holistically’ – hacking, collusion etc at very top end of the spectrum. ‘Grave and unprecedented criminality’. Says that Dobbin addressed balancing exercises re Article 10, which she did not

‘Addresses’ the treaty point. Intention of parliament clear. Language is mandatory. Can be no doubt of terms. Previous judicial scrutiny: Lord Justice Laws confirms ‘unless SoS prohibited by any of 3 matters specified, extradition should be ordered’

Applicant’s points: 1. Treaty not ratified until 2007 after 2003 Act – he argues this is irrelevant. Suggestion that the SoS action known to be prohibited by international law – lawyer says it is a significant overstatement

Judge JJ says he is  ‘struggling to keep up’  – with welter & mixture of examples of political offence exception, presumably

Lawyer appears to be simultaneously mumbling and gabbling

Up until now arguments have been pretty easy to follow, even if inconsistent/self-contradictory/previously disproved. This current mish-mash is almost incomprehensible

Lawyer now quoting the MP for Dudley.

Judge JJ – the consequence of your submission I think is that there is a treaty between US and UK that political extradition will not be granted. But if UK receives a request from the US SoS will be obliged to grant it. (?)

Lawyer: Chelsea Manning not now charged with any treasonable offence. Sentence was commuted, Nothing here to suggest that applicant faces a genuine risk of death penalty

Lawyer: repeats ‘no real risk of a death penalty’. Sentence discussed may be at least as high as 30 -40 years but no arguable basis to suggest there is a risk of death penalty. Keeps repeating this.

Lawyer refers to the assurances given by US that Assange can apply for transferral to Australia, becomes briefly inaudible. Judge JJ: if the appellant is extradited is there anything to prevent the charge of aiding and abetting treason/ espionage being added to inditement?

Lawyer (in answer). No. Judge JJ: So if there’s nothing to prevent that, do you accept those charges could carry the death penalty? Lawyer: Yes. Judge JJ: Is there anything to prevent it being imposed? Lawyer: mumbles/ gabbles

Fitzgerald for Assange takes over. Now saying silence of 2003 act on political exceptions not necessarily deliberate.

Fitzgerald: Parliament has not ‘expressly’ precluded, as claimed, reliance on the previous treaty.

Fitzgerald: What’s the basis of detention here? The US has made a request on the basis of a treaty. One can’t ignore the treaty. It is the foundation of the request and the detention.

Fitzgerald: They then say political offence exception was out of date. Fitzgerald explains why Mustill said that, and adds it’s impossible to say that the treaty, same as we’ve made with every other jurisdiction except Kuwait and UAE is out of date – we’re doing it the whole time!

Fitzgerald: treaties extend fundamental protection to individuals. Point was parliament hadn’t legislated to give protection to attempting to obtain by deception. Didn’t afford protection, Article 31 does. It’s abuse to disentitle someone to protection given in treaty.

Fitzgerald cites Pompeo et al and submits a real risk that Assange would not be protected, but would be discriminated against because of foreign nationality, not given protections of a US citizen.

Fitzgerald: Speciality is an age old protection – concept of fair trial a developing modern concept. If court doesn’t regard it (as wrong) to be punished for something they’ve not been convicted of…”If it’s not speciality it can’t be not fair” just semantics

Fitzgerald: Specific risk of a flagrant denial of justice – not just turning down any application for extradition. Risk to life – needs a court’s consideration

Fitzgerald: It would be strange as my Lord put to Mr Watson (?) – in the US I’m being extradited against the terms of a treaty but UK courts are powerless, SoS powerless. Can’t be right, he says.

Summers for Assange: says it’s extraordinary that the reason for this case – exposure of state crime – has not even been mentioned. Learned friend seems to suggest you can ignore all of that because it’s an extradition case, not asylum – can’t understand this.

Summers: When you prosecute for the very publications which have exposed the crime…as in case of Zola a refugee in terms of the Extradition Act. We’ve had no reference at all to the fact that prosecuting someone for exposing that state’s crime means they are protected.

Summers – case inexplicably not prosecuted for 6 years, followed by demonstrably political statements re Mr Assange. Trump praised Assange occasionally when we all know now he was plotting to kill him (court falls silent)

Summers: It was put to you that the US was acting in good faith at all times – we can’t imagine how this could have been said with a straight face. It was plotting to rendition Mr Assange and murder him.

Summers: The fact is there was no indication whatsoever in 2010 that criminal liability may attach (apart from discredited & dismissed Truro example)

Summers: No precedent that info acquired through eg phone tapping has ever been a subject for prosecution as the publisher. So far as harm is concerned that too takes the gov nowhere in terms of Article 7. Conspicuous absence of prosecution eg NYT.

Summers: Article 10: 2 preliminary issues. Much was made about wider allegations of computer hacking. They have never been the subject of our submissions. Our case on Art. 10 is & always has been directed at the Manning disclosures

Summers: If rest of Article 10 disregarded and count 2 stands alone, there would be an immediate submission under Article 8 because he’s already served the maximum time under that.

Summers: Shayler (cited by US): nothing to do with the press. Before Human Rights Act. Strasbourg repeatedly said there must be an Article 10 balancing exercise in these cases.

Summers: A lot of authority at Strasbourg that says in respect of the press and national security leaks there is a duty on court to engage with the public interest of publication itself

Summers: what did you hear in respect of the balance which needs to be undertaken? With respect, not much. Strasbourg would look at district judge case and remove, because the district judge was wrong, all references to Shayler and secrecy

Summers: the court would remove any reference to secrecy, Shayler, secrecy, publication from the scales. What would remain would be harm to sources. Only 3 of the 18 counts. Court would look at reality of sitn, the facts. Extraordinary efforts by Assange & Wikileaks to redact…

…all details, followed a year later by one of the media partners deliberately publishing in his book the key to the media files where those names existed followed by Mr Assange scrabbling around desperately to prevent them being published including phoning the White House.

Summers: no proof that any harm was caused: highest point is that it created the risk, re Article 10 that would go in the scales. On other side horrendous punishment – 30 to 40 years, it’s been said. If you look at guidelines in US starting point is life sentence

Summers: sentence which would shock the conscience of every journalist. And also on that side the harm disclosed – Strasbourg regard exposure of state crimes as highest level of public interest. This was murder, torture, waterboarding etc.

Summers: District judge failed to even undertake the balance. The role of the court on an appeal is significant. Court must assess it de novo. It must come from this court and we respectfully suggest that leave can only be withheld on this in Article 10

Summers; the real ongoing harm and wrongdoing versus the possibility of some harm. Judge JS: references the names again, even tho Summers has just made it clear that was 0 to do with Assange.

Summers: possibility of death penalty: Submission is that there is no real risk. Not in the decision of SoS. Not prohibited as SoS concluded. Mandatory if facts ‘could’ be recharged as capital offence Article 18 (?) is engaged. Assange revealed the crimes that underly this.

Summers: Fourthly the suggestion that there’s something to be read into fact we haven’t made an Article 3 argument out of this is unbecoming.

Summers: opportunistic submission made not in writing but orally: it is said because America has said it will accede to request for transfer it precludes them from instituting the death penalty, it is not true.

Summers: you can’t apply for prisoner transfer if you’ve been killed, We don’t understand why there is no usual, normal assurance on the death penalty in this case

16.21 Court rises. Judge VS: We will make our decision and notify of it. Asks for speaking note, written submissions. Thanks to all. Court rises.

ENDS