'Lies, lies and more lies': Lawyer slams day 2 of Julian Assange's US extradition hearing

As the hearing began, James Lewis QC, representing the US government, complained that the defense was receiving transcripts of court proceedings while the prosecution was not. Edward Fitzgerald QC, representing Assange, said the transcripts were privately made and they would share a copy if the prosecution paid half the costs.

At one point, journalist Kevin Gosztola, who was present in the press annex, tweeted to complain that Lewis "won't speak into the microphone" and that reporters "cannot hear a word."

Next, attention turned to WikiLeaks' 'most wanted' list of leaks it had asked for people to submit to the site. Summers said the list did not mention anything about US diplomatic cables and dismissed the "fantasy" claim that Manning uploaded the cables after seeing a request for them on that list.

To counteract the claim that Assange had recklessly released the leaks and put lives at risk (one of the prosecution's key arguments), the defense noted that Assange had partnered with major media organization to read and redact the cables, where necessary, before releasing them.

Shortly before midday, the public gallery was closed off to journalists, causing some confusion among journalists. The court rose for a short time to deal with the issue, before resuming again.

The defense continued to argue that documents Manning leaked on Iraq were "non-sensitive," would be of no use to an enemy and included no names. What's more, the defense claimed that Manning didn't require a username and passport to access the database where she obtained the Iraq and Afghanistan war logs, making the US government's hacking charge false.

"The other side must have something like 100 contact hours each day," Assange said upon the conclusion of the adjournment, before adding that his legal team is being spied on.

There is already enough spying on my lawyers as it is. There are a number of unnamed embassy officials here. There are two microphones in here. What's the point of asking if I can concentrate if I can't participate?

"I am as much a participant in these proceedings as I am at Wimbledon," Assange wistfully joked while alleging that there was a microphone in the glass defendants dock.

"It is your call Madam," the prosecutors said. Defense counsel Edward Fitzgerald argued that Assange is "no threat to anyone," adding: "He is a gentle man of an intellectual nature. There's no reason for him not to sit with us."

Presiding judge Vanessa Baraitser said during the close of Tuesday's proceedings that, although Article 4.1 of the US/UK Extradition Treaty cited does forbid political extraditions, this does not, in fact, appear in the UK Extradition Act - the only legal document which has force in court.

Picking up that point on Wednesday, Fitzgerald argued that international human rights law provides jurisdiction for an abuse of process argument under Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which prohibits arbitrary detention.

Fitzgerald cited numerous precedents tying international law and the ECHR with English law in determining the legality of detention, essentially arguing that Assange's detention is illegal under all three.

The defense also argued that many of the prosecution's arguments in favor of extradition were based on international law and precedent, not English. Any subsequent acts of parliament are irrelevant when the specific defense which precludes extradition for so-called 'political offenses' is contained within the treaty signed between the US and the UK.

• Tucker Carlson: Russia isn't attacking our democratic system - our own ruling class is
• The Big Lie: Senior US Democrats demand Russia sanctions over 2020 election interference
• US Intelligence sources reveal that ALL presidential candidates are Russian agents...except Pete Buttigieg
• US National Security Chief: No evidence of Russia meddling to help Trump
• Trump blames 'Shifty' Adam Schiff for 'Russiagate' Sanders leaks: '2016 all over again for Bernie'
• Russia isn't only behind election hacking! They're also trying to smear US over coronavirus ... according to State Department
• Democrats resurrect 'Russiagate' to go after both Trump and Bernie Sanders, hide their own election trickery

If Julian Assange's transfer to the US isn't stopped, other journalists and publishers face the imminent risk of being persecuted, detained or even tortured, his father exclaimed as his extradition trial got under way in London.

"We're here to vigorously and firmly support Julian in this ten-year-long oppression and political action that's [reached its] culmination here in Belmarsh," his father John Shipton told reporters outside the courthouse, which is adjacent to the prison.

Shipton, himself an anti-war activist in his youth, lashed out at "the oppression of journalism [and] the ceaseless malice" directed against his son. He drew attention again to the "ten-year-long arbitrary detention of Julian," as well as his inhuman and degrading treatment at HM Prison Belmarsh, which amounted to torture, according to UN Rapporteur Nils Melzer.

That is what will happen to journalists, publishers and publications if this extradition, this political extradition of Julian Assange, is successful.

Julian Assange was handcuffed 11 times, stripped naked twice and had his case files confiscated after the first day of his extradition hearing, according to his lawyers, who complained of interference in his ability to take part.

Their appeal to the judge overseeing the trial at Woolwich crown court in south-east London was also supported by legal counsel for the US government, who said it was essential the WikiLeaks founder be given a fair trial.

Edward Fitzgerald QC, acting for Assange, said the case files, which the prisoner was reading in court on Monday, were confiscated by guards when he returned to prison later that night and that he was put in five cells.

The judge, Vanessa Baraitser, replied that she did not have the legal power to comment or rule on Assange's conditions but encouraged the defence team to formally raise the matter with the prison.

The details emerged on the second day of Assange's extradition hearing, during which his legal team denied that he had "knowingly placed lives at risk" by publishing unredacted US government files.

The court was told Wikileaks had entered into a collaboration with the Guardian, El País, the New York Times and other media outlets to make redactions to 250,000 leaked cables secret cables in 2010 and publish them.

Mark Summers, QC, claimed the unredacted files had been published because a password to this material had appeared in a Guardian book on the affair. "The gates got opened not by Assange or WikiLeaks but by another member of that partnership," he said.

The Guardian denied the claim.

"There's absolutely nothing new that is being presented here this morning by the Crown Prosecution Service on behalf of US prosecution," Hrafnsson told a crowd of journalists who gathered outside Woolwich Crown Court where the extradition hearing for Assange began.

Lawyers representing US authorities presented arguments that were "more of the same things we've been hearing for ten years." Back in July 2010, WikiLeaks was accused of putting US lives at risk by exposing its military and intelligence operations worldwide, but "ten years later, there is no evidence of such harm."

"And to the contrary, a Pentagon official was forced to admit in Manning's trial in 2013 that nobody was physically harmed because of the revelations in 2010 and 2011. And now, in 2020, they are in court, not able to present a single evidence of that harm," Hrafnsson reminded the press, before hitting back at the US side.

And I'm sitting there listening to these claims, these subjective claims, and thinking: Why aren't we discussing the harm that was revealed by WikiLeaks in 2010 and 2011? Why aren't we talking in court about war crimes, the assassination of innocent civilians by the military, the slaughtering of Reuters journalists?

At any rate, the very existence of the extradition trial is a disgrace, Hrafnsson pointed out: "It is a shameful thing that we have to defend journalism in a court of law in this country."

The imprisoned publisher's legal team believe he is unlikely to receive a fair and unbiased trial in the US, but the ongoing proceedings in Britain are also far from flawless.

The courtroom in Woolwich has only a dozen seats reserved for the general public, Hrafnsson revealed, and journalists have trouble getting inside.

"Very hard to talk about open and transparent proceedings, especially when the microphones are so bad that you have to stretch your ear to hear what is being presented," the WikiLeaks editor-in-chief added.

• Putin details why Russia's military tech changes balance of power
• Bluster? Israel will shoot down rockets 'with space-age Laser Sword'
• Putin: Russia offered to sell Trump hypersonic weapons, balance everything

• Japan is again forced to stimulate its troubled economy
• Engdahl: Will coronavirus in China trigger worldwide depression? US economy already fragile
• UK economy faces weakest growth since second world war