Noam Chomsky testifies -- Re: Wikileaks: Julian Assange - Journalism, Leaks, Collateral Murder, Censorship

[Zenaan Harkness]

Noam Chomsky, bless his Soul, testified in the Julian Assange extradition case, and shockingly to ZERO cross examination - one imagines the lawyers acting for the USA to extradite Assange from the UK had That Feeling When you just know that any cross examination of a particular witness will only make your case worse.

Also the below reports on various of the crimes and planned crimes done by the US side against legal process, against Assange, against Assange's lawyers and against the Ecuadorian embassy (and remember, Ecuador got a bit fat financial shot in the arse from the IMF for standing down on principles to give up Assange to the UK/USA authorities.
)

   Noam Chomsky Testifies In Assange Hearing; Extradition Decision Not Expected Till Next Year
      Craig Murray
   https://www.antiwar.com/blog/2020/10/01/chomsky-cockburn-and-worthington-forced-to-testify-only-in-writing-in-assange-case/
   https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/noam-chomsky-testifies-assange-hearing-extradition-decision-not-expected-till-next

      I really do not know how to report Wednesday’s events. Stunning evidence,
      of extreme quality and interest, was banged out in precis by the lawyers
      as unnoticed as bags of frozen chips coming off a production line.

      The court that had listened to Clair Dobbin spend four hours
      cross-examining Carey Shenkman on individual phrases of first instance
      court decisions in tangentially relevant cases, spent four minutes as
      Noam Chomsky’s brilliant exegesis of the political import of this
      extradition case was rapidly fired into the court record, without
      examination, question or placing into the context of the legal arguments
      about political extradition.

      [pic of Chomsky with Assange on Ecuadorian UK embassy balcony]

      Twenty minutes sufficed for the reading of the “gist” of the astonishing
      testimony of two witnesses, their identity protected as their lives may
      be in danger, who stated that the CIA, operating through Sheldon Adelson,
      planned to kidnap or poison Assange, bugged not only him but his lawyers,
      and burgled the offices of his Spanish lawyers Baltazar Garzon. This
      evidence went unchallenged and untested.

      The rich and detailed evidence of Patrick Cockburn on Iraq and of Andy
      Worthington on Afghanistan was, in each case, well worthy of a full day
      of exposition. I should love at least to have seen both of them in the
      witness box explaining what to them were the salient points, and adding
      their personal insights. Instead we got perhaps a sixth of their words
      read rapidly into the court record. There was much more.

      I have noted before, and I hope you have marked my disapproval, that some
      of the evidence is being edited to remove elements which the US
      government wish to challenge, and then entered into the court record as
      uncontested, with just a “gist” read out in court. The witness then does
      not appear in person. This reduces the process from one of evidence
      testing in public view to something very different. Wednesday confirmed
      the acceptance that this “Hearing” is now devolved to an entirely paper
      exercise. It is in fact no longer a “hearing” at all. You cannot hear a
      judge reading. Perhaps in future it should be termed not a hearing but an
      “occasional rustling”, or a “keyboard tapping”. It is an acknowledged,
      indeed embraced, legal trend in the UK that courts are increasingly paper
      exercises, as noted by the Supreme Court.

         In the past, the general practice was that all the argument and
         evidence was placed before the court orally, and documents were read
         out, Lady Hale said.

         She added: “The modern practice is quite different. Much more of the
         argument and evidence is reduced into writing before the hearing takes
         place. Often, documents are not read out.

         “It is difficult, if not impossible, in many cases, especially
         complicated civil cases, to know what is going on unless you have
         access to the written material.”

         https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/open-justice-principle-applies-to-all-courts-and-tribunals-supreme-court-rules/#:~:text=The%20open%20justice%20principle%20applies,documents%20used%20during%20a%20trial.

      ...

      ["the eloquent and brief statement by Noam Chomsky on the political nature of Julian Assange’s actions" is included, but as scanned images, not text, so no transcription of that atm.]

      ...