[geekpowa]

The authors writing is quite moving, certainly moved me.

But taking a step back, my read is that the author wants the allegations to be essentially tried in detail here and now.

To what extent is this appropriate in such a hearing?

Other link you shared is useful here. Still I have no real insight into what to ordinarily expect. More neutral reporting source would be valuable.

From the article, Assange's very limited access to his legal team, of itself, seems appalling and very unfair on its face. Surely access is an easy thing to accommodate.

[goodcanadian]

Basically, the point of an extradition hearing is to determine whether what he is charged with is a crime under both US and UK law. If yes, he can be extradited unless it can be shown that there is an ulterior motive in requesting the extradition or that he won't receive a fair trial.

The actual trial would occur in the US, so at this point, there is very limited scope to argue the merits of the charges themselves.

As for ulterior motives, it seems pretty clear to me that the motivation is political, but proving that is difficult. Likewise, proving that he won't get a fair trial in the U.S. will be an up hill battle even if I am somewhat skeptical, myself.

[Cthulhu_]

I think (personal opinion, not a lawyer, biased, etc) that it is very much appropriate to consider the allegations before extradition; the US is pissed off at him and it's probable he won't be getting a fair treatment, or he may even "disappear" entirely.

Wouldn't be the first time, plenty of people branded "terrorist" have vanished off the face of the earth, or been incarcerated and tortured without fair trial in Guantanamo Bay.

[vidarh]

Determing aspects such as whether or not the allegations actually amount to a crime both in the US and UK is a pre-requisite for justifying extradition, and as such essential.