In normal speech we present the argument that we believe and hope to convince. But in a court of law the lawyers present every argument that might convince the judge, and leave it up to the judge to decide which to be convinced by.
In this case:
Defense: Assange can't be extradited under the treaty because it excludes political acts and his act was political.
Prosecution: The treaty term about political acts is not enforceable in UK law...
Defense: The 2003 law empowers the treaty, and the term is in the treaty so it is enforceable.
Prosecution: ...and if it was enforceable it wouldn't apply because Assange's actions don't meet the definition in the treaty of a political act...
Defense: His actions did meet the definition.
Prosecution: ...and if it did meet the definition the treaty term still doesn't apply because the act did not take place in the USA...
Defense: If you rule the act did not take place in the USA then the USA has no jurisdiction to sue in the first place and Assange can't be extradited.
(And so on.)
Here the defense raised 1 argument. The prosecution raised three counter-arguments. The defense has 3 responses to each.
If the judge accepts any of the prosecution's counter-arguments, Assange will be extradited. To win, the defense has to win on every argument.
From the tone of the blog article, it looks like the judge will rule for the prosecution on the first argument, and the blogger thinks that the judge is wrong to do so.
Does that clarify?
The short answer as far as I have understood is that the Assange's defense is arguing that he can't be extradited to the US because the extradition treaty between the US/UK forbids extradition for "political offences."
The prosecution is arguing that the treaty is not actually law, and that the UK's domestic laws on extradition do not forbid extradition for "political offences."
The magistrate will rule on whether Assange should be extradited. This is not about guilt at this stage, but whether the US govt has a reasonable case, whether Assange would get a fair trail, etc.
One point (among many) is that (as I understood it until this trial started) one could not be extradited for 'political' reasons. The prosecution have argued that this is not true because although the US-UK extradition treaty says so, the UK law as passed by parliament does not.
Much of the discussion, as you say, is rather technical legal arguments. I find the individual arguments themselves fairly clear, but the 'context' and normality of what is going on is harder for me to judge. My own opinion, for what it is worth, is that UK judges are not always honest in certain 'high profile' cases (e.g. the Jeremy Thorpe case) and that this case may turn out to be another such example.
- The treaty cannot in fact prohibit extradition for "political offenses" because this was not included in an earlier 2003 Act of Parliament which also set forth rules around extraditions.
- Assange's publication of the WikiLeaks materials cannot be termed a "political offense" because according to a narrow reading, it did not have the objective of an immediate near-term change in government or its policy, and also because of jurisdictional hair splitting.
This is curious to me. It's pretty clear to me that Assange's disclosures have made significant impacts right from the start, which have only compounded considerably over time. This very trial is evidence of that fact.
Um, we haven't been that for a very long time.
We only pretend to ourselves that we are. And since none of us pay attention to what is going on that we don't want to hear, we can pretend indefinitely. No matter how threadbare our excuses become.
An additional note. The pretend courtesy between the lawyers and the judge is required by British tradition.
Parties agreeing on something then finding that a term of it is void is much more common than you think. This is why legal contracts usually include verbiage about being severable - aka if any part of it is void the rest still applies.
Moving on, it is very common for lawyers to present a multitude of incompatible arguments for their position. With the idea that they don't care which the judge accepts, any will win.
In this case, the terms of the treaty preventing extradition on political grounds are void. If they are not void, then this was not a political act. If it was a political act, then it didn't take place in the USA and so is not covered by the treaty provision.
The judge has to choose which argument(s) to accept or reject. But the lawyers are not going to help the judge reject an argument by failing to present it.
Also of note is a similar legal treaty case that the UK government lost in this same week, regarding the paris agreement and them trying to build a new Heathrow runway, trying to break a treaty they had signed.
If he was not in the US, then how could he have committed a criminal act, if US law applies only to the US territories. It is some mental gymnastics to pick and choose legality like a pick 'n mix sweet shop.
"in the courtroom itself, Julian Assange is confined at the back of the court behind a bulletproof glass screen. He made the point several times during proceedings that this makes it very difficult for him to see and hear the proceedings. The magistrate, Vanessa Baraitser, chose to interpret this with studied dishonesty as a problem caused by the very faint noise of demonstrators outside, as opposed to a problem caused by Assange being locked away from the court in a massive bulletproof glass box.
Now there is no reason at all for Assange to be in that box, designed to restrain extremely physically violent terrorists. He could sit, as a defendant at a hearing normally would, in the body of the court with his lawyers. But the cowardly and vicious Baraitser has refused repeated and persistent requests from the defence for Assange to be allowed to sit with his lawyers."
