Craig Murray has been covering this trial from the public gallery. He certainly has his opinions and I don't want to get in the weeds on that account. He did mention that very few people were allowed in the public gallery, the rest where to sit in a room next door where (he claims) the sound is difficult to hear.[0]<p>My understanding at this point is that the public isn't really allowed access at all. The poor sound quality makes it impossible to understand what is happening, it's not access in the sense that they can follow the proceedings. Craig Murray seemed to be saying that Amnesty International was excluded even from this room. I believe this may be the crux of Amnesty International's complaint.<p>"Rather to our surprise, nobody else was allowed into the public gallery of court 10 but us five. Others like John Pilger and Kristin Hrafnsson, editor in chief of Wikileaks, were shunted into the adjacent court 9 where a very small number were permitted to squint at a tiny screen, on which the sound was so inaudible John Pilger simply left. Many others who had expected to attend, such as Amnesty International and Reporters Without Borders, were simply excluded, as were MPs from the German federal parliament (both the German MPs and Reporters Without Borders at least later got access to the inadequate video following strong representations from the German Embassy)."<p>[0]: <a href="https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/09/your-man-in-the-public-gallery-the-assange-hearing-day-6/" rel="nofollow">https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/09/your-man-in-...</a>
This piece of news has been interpreted by user stevespang. the fact his comment is now dead and the fact that Amnesty Interntaional are being denied access to this trial really support his point of view. The comment should not be dead, to be clear about it.<p>I disagree in that I still hope it's merely arrogance and exceptionalism by the UK courts thinking, unlike courts in poorer parts of the world, they are utterly above reproach in all things and so there is no need for Amnesty International at the trial of a publisher who has reported and published evidence of war crimes. For all that arrogance I hope the court will make the correct decisions according to statute and precedence.<p>The job that has been done on Assange has been astonishingly effective. People don't /like/ him enough to notice his rights being removed are precisely their own rights and are removed for all. I put him with Tony Blair, George Bush jnr, Hilary, Donald, Boris as someone I would cross the road to avoid having to talk to - as is my right. It's also my right to note that it matters not at all in defending the rights of all of these people to fair due process because even the worst asshole imaginable's rights are yours and mine. Of my list of assholes above, I think Assange is the only asshole with no evidence to suggest his actions have actually killed anyone at all. Blair and Bush jnr in particular deserve fair trials so they can rigorously defend the extremely prevalent belief that they did kill people, knowingly, making decisions supported with jusification made in bad faith to enable the actions leading to the carnage. I would completely support their rights and Amnesty being present at their trials.<p>The rule of law and equality before it is the most important thing to ensure civilisation continues.
This is a tweet. It is, by itself, misleading. It is about a legal matter. The thread of tweets it begins is not an analysis of the legal context of the decision returned to Amnesty International by the judge.<p>Amnesty International has not been "denied access" to the extradition hearing. The judge has declined to provide them with special status and guaranteed access by an AI observer within the courtroom itself. The proceedings will be broadcast live to members of he press in auxiliary room, where AI is apparently welcome.<p>Other comments speculate about various extralegal shenanigans that could occur in such a situation. Information about that might make up a good article, an informative article, that I might be glad to read on HN. However I already have a place where I can indulge in soapboxing in response to tweets, it is called Twitter, and I am not sure that providing redundancy for this activity is a good use of HN.
Craig Murray’s notes from the public gallery make for some incredible reading <a href="https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/09/your-man-in-the-public-gallery-assange-hearing-day-10/" rel="nofollow">https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/09/your-man-in-...</a>
Given the poor quality (to the point of utter uselessness) of the audio and video links provided by the court for "public access", AI's objection is justified.<p>I hope that one or more folks actually in the room are surreptitiously recording the proceedings so they can be leaked later.
No they haven't. They just won't make special provision for them.<p>Is there any recognition in UK law for this role?<p>Can they not watch the same feed as the media?
Is there a real difference between video-link access, and being physically present in this case?<p>From all the reporting, including Craig Murray's (who's in the public gallery and definitely not on the government side in all this), it seems like the controversial aspects of the trial are based on what's being said in the courtroom rather than physical actions in the courtroom.<p>Is there a suspicion of physical foul play that needs to be monitored and/or guarded against here rather than legal, evidential, or procedural foul play?
i fully expect assange to get life in prison/executed.
would be par for the course with how authoritarian governments are getting.<p>Snowden should watch out
"We've made 3 applications requesting recognition as expert fair trial monitors and all denied" . . .<p>Because it's not a fair trial, it's a sham trial which is being overshadowed by the US Gov't.