63

Julian Assange and the Imperium’s Face: Day One of the Extradition Hearings

Binoy Kampmark

Protesters stood outside the Crown Court building, chanting in support of Julian Assange

If we are to believe it, Julian Assange of WikiLeaks, the man behind showing the ugliness of power, is the one responsible for having abused it. It is a running theme in the US case against this Australian publisher, who has been given the coating of common criminality hiding the obvious point: that the mission is to make journalism on official secrets, notably those covering atrocity and abuse, a crime.

The first day of full extradition hearings against Assange at Woolwich Crown Court was chocked with a predictable prosecution case, and a robust counter by the defence. Central to the prosecution’s case for extradition to the US is the emphasis on the ordinariness of Assange’s alleged criminality, to diminish the big picture abuses of empire and focus on the small offences of exposure. In so doing, that seemingly insurmountable problem of journalism becomes less important. If you publish pilfered material from whistleblowers, you are liable, along with those unfortunates who dared have their conscience tickled.

As James Lewis QC advanced at London’s Woolwich Crown Court, “What Mr Assange seems to defend by freedom of speech is not the publication of the classified materials but the publication of the names of the sources, the names of the people who had put themselves at risk to assist the United States and its allies.”

Here, the rhetorical shift is clear: there were those who assisted the US, and Assange was being very naughty in exposing them via the State Department cables and the Iraq and Afghanistan war logs. In doing so, he had also conspired with US army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning to hack a password and conceal his identity in accessing and downloading relevant files.

Relegating Manning to the status of wooed conspirator was a ploy convincingly swatted by defence barrister Edward Fitzgerald QC. He merely had to consult Manning’s own court-martial, in which she clearly stated that “the decisions I made to send documents and information to the WikiLeaks website were my own decisions and I take full responsibility for my actions.”

According to Lewis, the disclosures by WikiLeaks had grave consequences. Fascinatingly enough, enough, these were not the sort identified by Pentagon studies which took a less punitive view on the subject. Unconvincingly, the prosecution argued that, “The US is aware of sources, whose redacted names and other identifying information was contained in classified documents published by WikiLeaks, who subsequently disappeared, although the US can’t prove at this point that their disappearance was the result of being outed by WikiLeaks” [emphasis added]. This is almost incompetent in its measure: to accuse WikiLeaks of inflicting such harm, only to suggest that proof of causation was absent.

Lewis was also keen to shrink the panoramic view of the proceedings against Assange, preferring to see it as a hearing rather than a trial on the merits of the case. He does not want broader issues of reporting or journalism to be considered, nor thinks it relevant. The only issue on that front, insisted the prosecution, was whether crimes alleged by the US would also constitute crimes in the UK, a matter surely not in dispute from the defence. Fitzgerald begged to differ on that point as the Official Secrets Act that accords with the US Espionage Act contravenes the freedom of expression and information right outlined in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The US Department of Justice indictment, which makes essential if grotesque reading, links journalism on national security matters to the punitive nature of the national security state, cocooned, as it were, by the US Espionage Act of 1917. Counts 15 to 17, as was noted by Gabe Rottman in Lawfare last year:

represent a profoundly troubling legal theory, one rarely contemplated and never successfully deployed. Under these counts, the Justice Department now seeks to punish the pure act of publication of newsworthy government secrets under the nation’s spying laws.”

The very fact that the documents in question were posted is what is central to them. They do not even lie in any conduct of inducement or seduction. For even the most reserved legal commentators, this suggests a gluttonous overreach on the part of the imperium.

The issue was raised in questioning by Judge Vanessa Baraitser. In making their remarks, the prosecution was stopped to clarify what was meant by “obtaining” classified documents. Could anybody obtaining them, even in the absence of “aiding and abetting”, be the subject of prosecution? The response, after hesitation was: Yes. Newspapers and media outlets, beware.

The defence effort was sharp and to the point. The entire prosecution against Assange, submitted Fitzgerald, was an abuse of process, constituting a “political offence” which would bar extradition under the US-UK Extradition Treaty of 2003. The judge was reminded that the alleged offences took place a decade ago, that the Obama administration had decided not to prosecute Assange, and that the decision to do so in 2017 by the Trump administration saw no adducing of any new evidence or facts. The decision by Trump to initiate a prosecution was an “effective declaration of war on leakers and journalists.” The US president’s own disparaging remarks on the Fourth Estate were cited. Assange “was the obvious symbol of all that Trump condemned.”

Trump’s own erratic behaviour – instructing US Republican Congressman Dana Rohrabacher to take a message to Assange in the embassy in 2017 – was also noted. The message was uncomplicated enough. Should Assange disclaim any Russian involvement in the 2016 Democratic National Committee leaks, he would be pardoned. Fitzgerald was cool on the president’s blanket denial that this ever took place. “He would, wouldn’t he?”

More broadly, the entire prosecution and extradition effort was based on the naked political act of state, spiced with a good deal of violent endeavour. The destruction of legal professional privilege, the principle protecting the confidences of Assange and those of his defence team, suggest that point. “We know,” submitted Fitzgerald, “that the US intelligence agency was being provided with surveillance evidence of what was being done and said in the Ecuadorean Embassy.”

And that’s not the half of it. According to Assange’s barrister, various “extreme measures” against the long-time embassy tenant were also considered. Kidnapping or poisoning were high on the list. With such rich attitudes, it is little wonder that the defence reiterated the dangers facing Assange should he make his way across the Atlantic to face the US judicial system. In the Eastern District of Virginia, punitive sentences are all but guaranteed. Special Administrative Measures would spell mental ruin and death. The second day awaits.

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: [email protected]

can you spare $1.00 a month to support independent media

OffGuardian does not accept advertising or sponsored content. We have no large financial backers. We are not funded by any government or NGO. Donations from our readers is our only means of income. Even the smallest amount of support is hugely appreciated.

Our Bitcoin JTR code is: 1JR1whUa3G24wXpDyqMKpieckMGGW2u2VX

avatar
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
bob
bob

I see my comment with links for the brave and good has disappeared – why?

Admin2
Admin
Admin2

Hello bob, had a look and can’t find your post. Very rarely this happens – the ghost in the machine, the monkey in the wrench etc. We always encourage people to make a copy of their posts, just in case. Please feel free to repost. Thanks

Francis Lee
Francis Lee

The most monumental political event of the 21st century and where are the mainstream media? Answer – somewhere else. Not in the Guardian, or the Independent apparently. Anywhere but where the really important issues are taking place. Moreover, this is not accidental. This surely is confirmation of the existence of a MSM which is essentially a government controlled propaganda and surveillance apparatus.

This is becoming more and more apparent to anyone wishing to open the eyes.

RobG

I’ve had a look through the comments and no one seems to have mentioned what came out on the first day of Assange’s hearing…

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/us-plotted-kidnap-or-kill-julian-assange-wikileaks-attorney-tells-london-court

Also check out Cassandra Fairbanks on Twitter, for revelations over the last few days about President Trump’s involvement in the arrest and extradition of Assange.

Vierotchka
Vierotchka

You couldn’t have looked very hard, because I posted a link to both of Craig Murray’s accounts of Day 1 and Day 2.

bob
bob

and i posted 3 links to summaries which have, interestingly, disappeared!!

Vierotchka
Vierotchka

They didn’t disappear, they simply haven’t yet appeared.

If one includes more than two links in a post, the post is automatically hidden until one of the admins/moderators revises it – the admins/moderators usually approve these posts and one gets an automatic notification by email of the fact. It takes a while, though, so be patient. 🙂

Vierotchka
Vierotchka

Your Man in the Public Gallery – Assange Hearing Day 2

By Craig Murray

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/02/your-man-in-the-public-gallery-assange-hearing-day-2/

michaelk
michaelk

I’ll be honest. Though I attempt to keep a calm and rational distance to what’s going on, the grotesque character of it all, in reality I am… incandescent with barely controllable rage at what’s happening to Julian Assange. The staggering injustice of it all is so brazen and obvious.

It’s as if a man is on trial for revealing during the Nazi era that concentration camps existed and people are being murdered en masse. Yet, he’s the one the Germans want to extradite on the grounds that he broke the law by interviewing the inmates of the camps through the barbwire fence without seeking permission from the relevant Nazi authorities!

It’s the stunning and collosal difference, the almost cosmic contrast, between Assange’s alleged ‘crime’ and the crimes carried out by the Americans that he had a moral duty to reveal.

My righteous scorn for the journalists working for the Guardian, BBC and the rest of the UK media, knows no bounds. I truly despise them. They are all such craven cowards and really they’re not fit to lick the soles of Assange’s shoes. To think they can remain so passive, so silent, when something like this is happening in London right under their noses. It’s a total disgrace. But that’s Guardian liberals for you. Anything that gets in the way of paying the school fees is to be avoided at all costs!

Gezzah Potts

Perfect analogy about Germany Michael, and excellent comment. Grotesque and travesty are words that fit also.
Recently been on street campaigns to raise support for Julian Assange and have attended meetings and protests here in Melbourne also.
The people who refused to even take a leaflet, or glared, or made revolting comments or made it very clear they couldn’t give a rats tinker about Julian Assange were the Hipster and Yuppie crowds.
Those that have fully drowned themselves in identity politics.
I share your anger as well at this complete injustice. And mass murderers like Tony Blair, John Howard and George Bush walk round as free as birds.

Richard Le Sarc
Richard Le Sarc

Those are stupid, pig ignorant and vicious fools, brainwashed from birth by the Murdochs, Fairfaxes, Packers etc of life, and the presstitute scum who serve them. Aussie, Aussie, Aussie, Oink!, Oink!, Oink!.

Richard Le Sarc
Richard Le Sarc

The Assange lynching simply illustrates, as do thousands of other incidents every day, that the Atlanticist Empire of ‘Western Civilization’ led by the USA remains the greatest force for Evil that humanity has ever seen.Assange is one of billions of victims.

bob
bob

Exactly – over the last 10 years the disable people of the UK have been treated to the same kind of treatment – denied benefits by the use of american slaughter companies, degraded, disbelieved, made to wait, made to take their own lives as the rich and powerful deliberately make their lives unliveable. The ‘environment of hate’ so loved by teresa may is still with us. What is happening is not justice – it is state sanctioned murder

Richard Le Sarc
Richard Le Sarc

Hatred is their existential fuel. That is what drives the Rightwing Authoritarian Personality.

Loverat
Loverat

Indeed. Although we should always remain positive and resilient. Just remember, the hacks of the Guardian and fraud sites such as Bellingcat will get their karma. Not only for Assange but their contribution to the death and carnage in Libya and Syria. If you want some inspiration look to Syrian people who have stood up to proxy armies and the lies of British and American journalists. Watch the Twitter accounts of these charlatans – they’re running scared that their narratives are crumbling. I bet you they’re struggling to sleep at night. After all, would you sleep if you were responsible for the deaths of thousands through misreporting misleading and misrepresenting events? It cant be that long before justice prevails – not in court maybe but it nearly always does one way or another in the end.

Lysias
Lysias

Psychopaths don’t have consciences.

Antonym
Antonym

Presstitutes is the word – with appoligies to prostitutes.

paul
paul

JA has many achievements and many acts of public service to his credit.
He has revealed evidence of systemic war crimes and institutionalised torture and human rights abuses, Orwellian blanket surveillance and snooping, lies, hypocrisy, and monumental, cynical abuse of power.
He has done the job which the supine, servile, contemptible MSM could never and would never do.
His contribution to society and genuine journalism is unique and without parallel.
It could be argued that he had not merely the right to act as he did, but the duty.
But even all this pales into insignificance when set aside his most important achievement.
He has forced those who rule over us to take off the mask and reveal their true ugly face for all the world to see.
And for that we owe him an enormous debt of gratitude.
All the blather about democracy and human rights, “our values”, our “rules based order”, our “rule of law” and our “independent judiciary” has been exposed for what it is, a hollow sham.
The Emperor has no clothes, and JA is the little boy who called him out.
The arrogant and deluded fools who rule over us are digging their own graves every time, like cheap mafia hoods, they threaten to “whack the son of a bitch in the street,” displaying the essentially criminal and terrorist nature of their regime. When they conspire to “wreak reputational damage” on JA with bogus rape allegations, the real casualties are the integrity and credibility of their “judicial” systems in the US, UK and Sweden.
Whatever they do to JA, whether they murder him in his cell like Epstein or David Kelly, whether they torture and imprison him for 500 years, it doesn’t matter.
He has won.
He has inspired and awakened millions.
And the genie cannot be put back in the bottle.
Trump likes to sneer at “losers.” It is his biggest insult.
But they are the losers.
They have lost.

Rhys Jaggar
Rhys Jaggar

Amazing that there is no criminality which cannot be covered up if you are ‘acting in the interests of National Security’, which apparently includes murdering 1 million entirely innocent Iraqis; selling arms to bomb millions of absolutely defenceless Yemenis; completely destroying environments with toxic carcinogens, teratogens etc etc over decades, not hours; not to mention lying your heads off claiming that every single miscreant in the USA can simply blame ‘Putinism’ and ‘Russian bots’ to explain away any criminal actions they committed because they are not capable of gaining the trust of ordinary American voters.

I would love Assange’s lawyer to use the simple defence that ‘as the crimes described above are infinitely worse than any alleged crimes committed by my client; and since the perpetrators of all the aforementioned horrendous crimes have been spared any judicial proceedings over several decades; there can be no case for my client, nor any other minor criminal worldwide, being liable for any kind of prosecution until such a time as the biggest criminals, almost always to be found in silent nooks and cranny’s of Deep States around the world, have received their entirely just desserts and have been sentenced in a manner which is consistent with having committed genocide against humans, genocides against biodiversity and wilful lying under oath to justify such murdering both ex ante and post facto.’

Or would such a statement lead to prosecution under Section II of the Official Secrets Act???!!!

michaelk
michaelk

I was wondering whether the continued persecution of Assange really serves a rational purpose anymore? It seems like the example that’s been made of him has had the desired effect on the rest of the corporate/state/trusted media, doesn’t it? Judging by the lack of coverage of the extradition hearing, the lack of interest, this view seems valid. The American media strategy for dealing with Assange and Wikileaks, has worked very well indeed. The rest of the media has been cowed and put back in a safe box. True investigative journalism within the mainstream hardly exists anymore. It’s as if Wikileaks never existed and the link between Assange and the mainstream is broken, busted and over. Lessons have been learned from his fate. No one wants to follow in his footsteps.

For example, the reporting of our overseas military ‘adventures.’ They are now framed totally in line with the views of the state and one hardly hears a murmur of criticism or dissent anymore. One could name Syria as an example. Or the way Russia is labeled the greatest threat to our ‘democracy.’ Regardless that there’s hardly a shred of solid evidence to support this propaganda narrative. Or that Corbyn is a rabid antisemite and the Labour Party is swarming with Brownshirts straining to start attacking Jewish businesses! The lies that are believed are just getting bigger and bigger and easier to tell these days. It’s a really dangerous and disturbing pattern that’s repeating and emerging.

Persecuting Assange has served its purpose. Just look at the creeps who work for the Guardian now, for example Luke Harding. It’s really like we’ve slipped back into the Middle Ages and the ghastly witchtrials. Does one really need to pursue Assange any longer? Hasn’t the persecution served its purpose? Why bother to create a focus for discontent and a martyr? It could easily swing around and become counter-productive, especially as the longer it drags on, and it could take years, the harder it’ll be to deny what’s really happening to Assange and what’s at stake.

paul
paul

Arrogant, venal, corrupt, deluded, irredeemably ignorant, and ideologically driven, those who rule over us can safely be relied upon to dig their own graves. The leopards cannot change their spots. You just have to let them get on with it. You don’t interrupt them when they’re busy shooting themselves in the foot. More power to their elbow.

michaelk
michaelk

It’s telling that the Guardian is less than enthusiastic about covering yesterday’s proceedings because way too much of them touched on the ‘blunders’ and less than flattering role played by the Guardian itself in ‘recklessly’ releasing material that Assange desparately tried to stop them releasing because lives could be at stake.

Judge Baraitser is completely out of her depth here and is ‘cocking it up’ big time. She seems openly partisan in accepting prosecution arguments that are clearly not true and contradict the facts and proveable so! Yet, her argument is that in my court ‘facts’ are what I say they are!

She seems not to grasp pretty basic logic, which seems to frustrate the defence council, as he has to repeatedly explain, simply, why what she’s saying doesn’t really make sense if one unpicks it carefully and slowly. This is somewhat embarrassing to say the least.

Is someone going to step in and stop this? If Baraister ‘fucks up’ too obviously this’ll be a gift to the defence, who might even go for a mistrial at this early stage.

She seems to have massively blundered into arguing that even if it can be proven that the defence argument that Assange’s actions were indeed political, which is blatantly and increasingly obvious; that this doesn’t matter because the ‘political get out of jail’ defence against extradition doesn’t apply because it isn’t contained in the parliamentary act itself, but ‘only’ in the international treaty between the UK and the US, therefore Assange can be extradited! And she’s demanded that the defence address this issue!

Only it appears that what she said in court isn’t accurate. The Act does contain reference to the ‘political’ and is arguably stronger than the international treaty on this point. Anyway, usually, international treaties are seen as being legally ‘stronger’ than mere UK laws. If here argument was true and accepted, this would undermine the entire basis of international treaties agreed by the UK and other states, as they’ed be useless and hardly worth the paper they were written on if the UK could just nulify them by some Act of parliament.

On the face of it, this looks like a huge ‘blunder’ by the Judge and a sign of real desparation on the part of the UK state, which appears to be attempting to move the goalposts and reinterpret the law in order to make it easier to extradite Assange because they are losing the argument in law.

I think this is borderline mistrial territory, that the Judge has barged into here. Certainly I can’t imagine that the UK Supreme Court would allow such a controversial ruling to stand.

This thing is like something from Alice in Wonderland. The logical twists the Judge is getting herself into in order to bend the law to provide the outcome that’s expected, would be amusing, if the lives of real people weren’t involved.

The thin and tattered veil of bourgeois liberal democracy is being ripped to shreds before our very eyes. Underneath, and increasingly visible is the cruel and powerful, though not as yet all powerful, iron fist of the totalitarian state emerging.

paul
paul

Sentence first! Then the verdict! Then we’ll hear the evidence!!
Baraitser may turn up for the next hearing in a Queen of Hearts costume.

Shardlake
Shardlake

Judge Baraitser is the 21st century equivalent of Roland Freisler who presided over political trials during 1930’s and early 1940’s Germany. Freisler didn’t see his end coming as it came through the roof of his courthouse, courtesy of the USAF. Baraitser must know her legal career will also eventually come to an end sooner or later. What she doesn’t probably realise is that she is writing her own epitaph and will be remembered in a similar light to that of Freisler, as the Judge who abandoned natural justice in the pursuit of purely expeditious results that affords her personal gain. I am persuaded Baraitser is not a very clever political operator for I believe she will be abandoned and thrown to the wolves by the very people who are directing her in this show trial.

Richard Le Sarc
Richard Le Sarc

Baraitser exposes the Big Lie that the West enjoys ‘ The Rule of Law’. Under the Common Law, judges can find anything they like, according to their personal psychopathology, class background, and political ideology. Judges are OPENLY selected for their ideological preferences in the USA, and more subtly so in the UK. Their ‘judgments’ are often overthrown by higher courts, signalling either incompetence or political priorities. ‘Learned’ (the groveling is nauseating)judges on panels will frequently disagree, and ‘arguments’ are lengthy and turgid, deterring inspection, which, if undertaken, reveal real prodigies of bias, sophistry and casuistry. That a hanging judge like Baraitser can openly display her stupidity and malignant bias, merely marks her for future promotion.

Jen
Jen

Vanessa Baraitser is a Westminster District Judge to whom Westminster Chief Minister Lady Emma Arbuthnot passed on the case after her various conflicts of interest, including both her husband Lord James Arbuthnot (former UK Defence minister) and their son Alexander (who is vice-president of a private equity firm with heavy investments in a cyber-security company founded by GCHQ and MI6 and staffed with former CIA and NSA employees) with regard to the Julian Assange extradition case became public knowledge. Arbuthnot may not have completely recused herself from the case and Baraitser may be taking instructions from her.

Arbuthnot and her husband also travelled to Turkey in the past to attend talks promoting British-Turkish government co-operation. No doubt they spoke to many Turkish officials who had an interest in seeing off Assange to a US jail. Allah knows who else attended apart from Prince Andrew and of course the Turkish President who said something uncomplimentary about his next-door neighbour President Bashar al Assad.

Ah, I just checked now and Emma Arbuthnot has not recused herself from the case.

Perhaps the decent thing Baraitser should do is to refuse to continue acting for Arbuthnot and resign. But that just means Arbuthnot passes the case onto another District Judge.

Jen
Jen

Vanessa Baraitser is a Westminster District Judge to whom Westminster Chief Minister Lady Emma Arbuthnot passed on the case …

Sorry, Lady Emma Arbuthnot is Westminster Chief Magistrate.

Vierotchka
Vierotchka

CNLIVE! S2E5 – ASSANGE EXTRADITION SPECIAL (part 1)

CNLIVE! S2E5 – ASSANGE EXTRADITION SPECIAL (part 2)

Dungroanin
Dungroanin

I expect that the old lags of Belmarsh and maybe prisons across the Land may be a bit peeved by the treatment of JA – convicted of nothing in this country. The screws must be embarrassed by their ‘colleagues’ actions and should also be considering protesting. As for the treatment of the public atendees all court staff across the country and Lawyers associations should be rushing to object! As should the media.

WHY are they NOT?

Brexiteers where are you? Your sovereign Parliament is PANTS. Do we have to rely on the EU for justice?

This farce must be ended today and the Judges senior colleagues ought to be immediately convened – oh but is she just a MAGISTRATE!! Does that make her immune from censure for making up the Law during a break?

tonyopmoc
tonyopmoc

Dungroanin, “The screws must be embarrassed by their ‘colleagues’ actions and should also be considering protesting”

I know several people socially who work in prisons at various levels, including “screws”. I have not spoken to any of them about this, but they are all decent people, and I know they would all be horrified at what is being reported, if in fact they saw the reports. There is nothing in the media or TV about this, but I do not doubt the integrity of Craig Murray, nor the accuracy of these reports. At the end of the day, prison officers, canteen staff, and even senior managers and psychologists, spend their lives working in jails. If there is not mutual respect, empathy and tolerance, all hell would break loose. I am just wondering where the people responsible for Julian Assange’s treatment in prison have been recruited from. I find it hard to believe they are of British origin. Have they been seconded from Guantanamo Bay?

Tony

Dungroanin
Dungroanin

I use the terms affectionately Compo me old dear from Porridge watching days.

Though privatisations has left many prisons without these professionals. They are after all cost/profit units nowadays.

Belmarsh is the high security Terrorist prison for these that need hiding from ordinary prisoners …like Yaxley-Lenon probably staffed by psycho state military types. Who knows what actually goes on there? There used to be the Prisons inspectors but they have been dispatched into obscurity.

Your mates should be up in arms at the grubbiness of it all but then again the likes of G4 are their employers.

tonyopmoc
tonyopmoc

Dungroanin,

I have attended two weeks of jury service, and took it very seriously. I have attended numerous courts, but only been prosecuted once. I was 16. The copper who attended as a witness for driving my BSA250, which was completely legal, insured and everything- though I did have “L” plates at 40mph on my way back from College, said – look in your mirror next time..He was dead nice.

I have attended court twice to get two friends of ours released from jail as a witness (loads of us turned up), cos their ex-wives had read the script, given them by their solicitors, when they decided to get rid…(the most evil people in the world are not men IMHO) Both my friends were completely innocent, except they made the mistake of marrying them, and having kids with them. Numbers of witnesses do make a big difference when they actually turn up at court.

I have had to attend court on numerous other occasions – getting my 5 year old kid – into our local school, and at least two work related, and several others.

I have Never Yet Attended Court for The Prosecution..but I am Ready and Raring To Go…and have been since 2003, and I do have some legal personal contacts who might help…I want to start with…

No 1 ANTHONY CHARLES LYNTON BLAIR

I hope we can agree on Something,

compo

Dungroanin
Dungroanin

Lol. You must know by now I’m a argumentative curr on most Narrative constructions. That’s why i was muzzled by the Groaniad. I expect my time on here is getting shorter. I’ll always be happy to agree to dis-agree as long as actual facts are discussed on the issue at hand.

I’ll not go down the line away from the subject at hand too far to keep the thread on track. So Blair’s guily gets a pass here. Which doesn’t mean I disagree.

All best.

Dung.

Gezzah Potts

It absolutely galls me that filth like Tony Blair amass vast wealth and walk round having spent 0 days in jail.
Here in Aussie in recent times, the rehabilitation of war criminals like John Howard and Jim Molan (Fallujah) have been underway by the Aussie presstitutes; fully complicit themselves in enabling and cheering on war crimes.
The chardonnay drinking Guardian readers don’t bat an eyelid.

Brozza
Brozza

Is madge berater hoping for a wealthy retirement?

Harry Stotle
Harry Stotle

Depressingly these early reports suggest things have gone way too far for the abusers to perform a volte face and offer Julian Assange a fair trial.

In terms of the chain of command it is suggested Arbuthnot is pulling Baraisters strings, while at a deeper level it is almost certain intelligence or political figures are instructing the pliable Arbuthnot, a judge who has done more than most to dispel any illusions that the judiciary is in any way independent once US militray intrests are at stake.

The behaviour of pawns like Arbuthnot and Baraister has become all the more brazen because of a MSM blackout and a complete lack of interest in the immense significance of this case.

On the few occasions the media can be arsed to ask questions like a stuck record they start with the same old discredited allegations about sex offences in Sweden – this tack is so entrenched that continually refuting or correcting them has become utterly soul destroying (obviously they aware that it is hard to garner public sympathy when they have sown in the minds of the viewer the idea that Assange is in fact a rapist who got away with it).

At the same time the MSM has not pursued prima facie evidence that state sanctioned violence has repeatedly been inflicted on Assange both in prison and outside it – violence so severe that Nils Melzer quite correctly concluded that it was tantamount to torture.

This is the point we have reached – a pseudo legal system overseen by hanging judges (certainly for alleged political offenders) media complicity, or indifference, and business as usual for the terror states currently murdering their way across the Middle East (led by the USA and dutifully followed by their ever dependable lapdog, Britain).

Assange has got about s much chance of receiving fair treatment as an Irish loyalist accused of terrorist offences in Thatchers Britain – this is all the more shocking given that Julian Assange has never been involved in acts of political violence.

milosevic
milosevic

I think you should look up what is meant by the term “Irish Loyalist”. You probably meant to say “Irish Republican”, which is approximately the direct opposite.

Harry Stotle
Harry Stotle

Thanks for the correction, that is indeed what I meant to say

Richard Le Sarc
Richard Le Sarc

An Irish Republican is loyal to Ireland, and a ‘Loyalist’ is loyal to England.

Vierotchka
Vierotchka

RAY McGOVERN: Queen’s Counsel Charges vs Assange ‘Significantly Overwrought’

The CIA and Pentagon are saying, in effect, “Trust Us.” What could possibly go wrong? — aside from a publisher of accurate information spending the rest of his life in prison .

By Ray McGovern

https://consortiumnews.com/2020/02/25/ray-mcgovern-queens-counsel-charges-vs-assange-significantly-overwrought/

der einzige

Sounds like Bush or Satanyahu? No, it’s Mossange.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8296956/WikiLeaks-al-Qaeda-is-planning-a-dirty-bomb.html

Elite give us two false choices to choose from. Both options are controlled by the Elite in order to benefit themselves. It is designed to fool us with the ability to choose the lesser of two evils.

Socialism or Fascism, never a Constitutional Republic.

Democrats or Republicans, never a true Independent.

Wall St. or D.C., never Main St.

Ahhh freedom! (Where is that sarcasm button…)

So now we have the new Hegelian Dialectic of Wikileaks or CIA/MI6/Mossad, never any real truth to rock the world.

tonyopmoc
tonyopmoc

der einzige,

I have followed the history of Julian Assange, since before he was in Sweden, and almost live when he was in Sweden, from the girl’s own twitter messages, neither of who never accused him of rape. In fact the first girl involved, bragged about it, cooked him breakfast, drove him back, and organised a party for him, where he met the second girl.

It is entirely possible, in his earlier history he has had close relationships to “Intelligence Services”, though I have no direct proof of that, though he was certainly in close proximity.

Whilst, I understand the points you are making re wikileaks releases of cables that support the Official US Government Story of 9/11, and that Assange did neither refute, nor censor, nor make any personal judgement on them, that does not mean that they are either true, nor that he agreed with them. He simply released them for publication. He never considered his role, as a censor. He was simply a publisher.

No one should assume, that all of the information released by wikileaks is true, especially if it comes from the US Government.

A publisher publishes. He can hardly be expected to verify, especially considering the enormous volume, whether or not all of if it is true, just because it comes mainly from Government sources.

I think he has been used and supported, and then thrown under the bus, as a massive warning to anyone else, who would dare do what he did.

I think he is an honest man of integrity, who has committed no crime, and I am completely disgusted as how he is being treated in England. It makes me ashamed of my Country. At the end of the day, he moved to England because he trusted our laws, institutions and reputation of fairness and justice.

Tony

der einzige

He participated in slandering many countries (including Iran and Syria), supporting the “Arab spring” and destroying competition for Rothschild. “Arab spring” and the war in Syria are full of crime so the hands are kind of dirty.

Richard Le Sarc
Richard Le Sarc

Assange began Wikileaks with lots of anti-Chinese sewage, but that was long ago. Perhaps he ‘left the reservation’, and he’s being punished for that, too.

Francis Lee
Francis Lee

What we have here is a 21st century version of the Dreyfus affair. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, this involved a Jewish artillery captain in the French army, Alfred Dreyfus (1859-1935), who was falsely convicted of passing military secrets to the Germans. In the anti-semitic atmosphere of that age Dreyfus could not get a fair hearing and was to be deported to to life behind bars on Devil’s Island off of French Guiana.

Does this sound familiar?

The Assange affair represents a replica of this injustice in our own century. It was the famous novelist Emile Zola who stuck his neck out in defence of Dreyfus with his exclamation of J’Acusse in an open letter to a French newspaper accusing the military of a major cover-up in the case. As a result, Zola was convicted of libel, although he escaped to England and later managed to return to France. Since it was Major Ferdinand Walsin Esterhazy who was the real culprit Dreyfus was eventually pardoned after a long battle for his innocence.

Now it is our turn to J’Acusse the PTB in the MSM, the political class, the Deep State, the Security State MI5, MI6, CIA, NSA the Judiciary – Assange will not be forgotten. We are all Assange. La Lotta Continua.

Vierotchka
Vierotchka
Jen
Jen

Incidentally the film “J’Accuse” (aka “An Officer and a Gentleman”) which is about the Dreyfus affair has yet to be released in cinemas in English-language countries even though it has done good business in France and Italy since November 2019 and has had good reviews from members of the public.

The delay couldn’t be due to #MeToo’s targeting of the director for statutory rape of a teenage girl over 40 years ago and its attempts to smear the film by asserting that anyone who likes it must be an apologist for rape, could it?

Richard Le Sarc
Richard Le Sarc

Are you saying that MeToo is ‘antisemitic’? It’s EVERYWHERE!

lundiel
lundiel

I found this from day 2 of Craig Murray’s blog astoundingly autistic:

Magistrate Baraitser twice made major interruptions. She observed that if Chelsea Manning did not know she could not be traced as the user who downloaded the databases, she might have sought Assange’s assistance to crack a code to conceal her identity from ignorance she did not need to do that, and to assist would still be an offence by Assange.

Summers pointed out that Manning knew that she did not need a username and password, because she actually accessed all the materials without one. Baraitser replied that this did not constitute proof she knew she could not be traced. Summers said in logic it made no sense to argue that she was seeking a code to conceal her user ID and password, where there was no user ID and password. Baraitser replied again he could not prove that. At this point Summers became somewhat testy and short with Baraitser, and took her through the court martial evidence again. Of which more…

Baraitser also made the point that even if Assange were helping Manning to crack an admin code, even if it did not enable Manning to access any more databases, that still was unauthorised use and would constitute the crime of aiding and abetting computer misuse, even if for an innocent purpose.

After a brief break, Baraitser came back with a real zinger. She told Summers that he had presented thefindings of the US court martial of Chelsea Manning as fact. But she did not agree that her court had to treat evidence at a US court martial, even agreed or uncontested evidence or prosecution evidence, as fact.

“Are you suggesting, Mr Summers, that the authorities, the Government, should have to provide context for its charges?”

Antonym
Antonym

Do read Craig Murray‘s in court reporting – stunning stuff!

Confirmation that the UK is still worse than a banana republic, even after Brexit. Elected PM Johnson & President Trump appear to be among the hostages on board of a Five Eyed pirate flotilla.

Loverat
Loverat

Confirmation that it is a kangeroo court, court proceedings so inconsistent with any others seen here in the last 100 years – that it is no wonder it is being carried out in virtual secrecy limiting attendees.

Conflicts of interests, making law up on the go and intimidation. No words to sufficently describe how the judges are mere puppets in a US extradition hearing carried out on our soil.

This is quite literally on par with the trials conducted by Judge Jeffries in the 1680s. We know mainstream media have betrayed Assange. Where is the legal profession, the ‘human rights’ lawyers?.Does any lawyer reading here have any problem with my analogy? The legal profession in the main have been very quiet.

Antonym
Antonym

Too busy defending illegal immigrants or blocking development projects in court?

Open
Open

The Pentagon is now controlling the court proceedings as well as having a tight grip on corporate media.

And that’s why a Regime Change in the UK is not required:

Dungroanin
Dungroanin

Censorship on Off-G ???

Dungroanin
Dungroanin

Sorry just VERY laggy !

Comment appeared published then 5 minutes letter after reloading site it was not visible.