I wish the answer was yes but it’s unlikely at this point. At least with Judge Vanessa Baraitser at the helm. It is obvious in her treatment in prior hearings she already has formed an opinion without ever knowing the plaintiff himself. She has allowed him to be tortured and lawyer’s access to their client has been almost zero. With 7 days until the trial actually begins, he still has not had a half a dozen meetings with his lawyers to prepare his defense. Is that justice or just a show trial?
What about the fact that he is spent much of his time in solitary confinement only to be released a few short weeks ago? Did they release him because of the many petitions from supporters and inmates or because his trial starts soon and they want him at his best for appearance sake? They have withheld his mail, put him in a “hot box” prior to a hearing, limited his access to legal documents and the internet and library and who knows what else has happened. This is not justice in itself.
We also know that the actual judge assigned to this case, Lady Arbuthnot, is compromised due to her husband and son being exposed. Wikileaks exposed her husband’s wrongdoings and Arbuthnot’s son is connected to a national security agency in the U.S. Baraitser is under Arbuthnot. Fair trial? I think not. Prejudice is apparent and a decision has probably already been made.
Assange’s hope lies in the fact that the CIA spied on him and his lawyers through a Spanish security agency while in the embassy. It also may help that the U.S. has refused to extradite Anne Sacoolas, wife of a U.S. diplomat, accused in the death of Harry Dunn. (See article here). By using diplomatic immunity, in this case, it further renders Assange’s extradition moot as Ecuador once gave him the title of a diplomat. It also further renders the U.S./ U.K. extradition treaty moot. If the U.S. cannot keep its side of the bargain, why should British authorities?
According to the Business Insider, (article seen here), Trump and Johnson are feuding.
UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson has canceled a trip to the US planned for next month after a furious phone call from President Donald Trump in which Trump slammed down the phone on the prime minister.
Johnson had been due to visit Washington last month but repeatedly delayed the trip after a series of rows with the president over Iran, Huawei, and a rejected request by the prime minister to extradite the wife of a US diplomat.
The disagreements culminated in a phone call last month in which Trump hung up on Johnson, according to officials with knowledge of the conversation.
Johnson has now canceled his trip altogether, and is not planning on visiting the country until the G7 summit in June.
In an article by WSWS seen here, Jeremy Corbyn, who remained silent for the last ten months on the subject of Assange, asked Boris Johnson about the extradition of Assange.
In a question to Prime Minister Boris Johnson in the House of Commons yesterday, Jeremy Corbyn condemned the attempt to extradite WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange to the United States.
During Prime Minister’s Questions, he cited a recent report by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe branding the attempt to extradite Assange as a “threat to all journalists.” The Labour leader said that Assange had been charged by the US “for exposure of war crimes, the murder of civilians and large-scale corruption.”
He asked: “Will the prime minister agree with the parliamentary report that’s going to the Council of Europe that this extradition should be opposed and the rights of journalists and whistleblowers upheld for the good of all of us?”
Johnson, whose chief ally is President Donald Trump and who gloated over Assange’s arrest last year, declared that he would “not mention any individual cases,” before absurdly claiming that his government would “continue to uphold” “the rights of journalists and whistleblowers.”
The question still remains, will justice be served in this case or will it take an uprising to save Assange from literal extermination in the United States?