Assange Extradition: Proceedings so Far
This was originally an update to our discussion thread on Julian Assange’s arrest and “trial”, but as that post was two days old many readers seemed to miss the updated information. In light of that, we decided it was better suited to a separate article.
Some are calling it the “trial of the century” but, to this point, it seems more a piece of badly-staged political theatre. Day 3 of Assange’s trial closes, and so far it’s painting a grim picture of the British legal system.
Anybody interested in a detailed run-down of each day of the Julian Assange’strial, Craig Murray has been attending and writing up reports on a day-by-day basis. They make interesting reading.
Day 1 saw something perverse taking place, an acknowledgement that this is a piece of performance art as much as a trial:
James Lewis QC made the opening statement for the prosecution. It consisted of two parts, both equally extraordinary. The first and longest part was truly remarkable for containing no legal argument, and for being addressed not to the magistrate but to the media. It is not just that it was obvious that is where his remarks were aimed, he actually stated on two occasions during his opening statement that he was addressing the media, once repeating a sentence and saying specifically that he was repeating it again because it was important that the media got it.
Along with examples of the mainstream media totally failing in their public duty…again:
There was a separate media entrance and a media room with live transmission from the courtroom, and there were so many scores of media I thought I could relax and not worry as the basic facts would be widely reported. In fact, I could not have been more wrong. I followed the arguments very clearly every minute of the day, and not a single one of the most important facts and arguments today has been reported anywhere in the mainstream media.
Day 2 saw the defence protesting Assange’s treatment in prison,
Day 2 proceedings had started with a statement from Edward Fitzgerald, Assange’s QC, that shook us rudely into life. He stated that yesterday, on the first day of trial, Julian had twice been stripped naked and searched, eleven times been handcuffed, and five times been locked up in different holding cells. On top of this, all of his court documents had been taken from him by the prison authorities, including privileged communications between his lawyers and himself, and he had been left with no ability to prepare to participate in today’s proceedings.
Which lead to a classic example Judicial bias when the defense asked the Magistrate Vanessa Baraitser to intercede with the prison on Assange’s behalf:
Baraitser flat-out denied any knowledge of such a practice, and stated that Fitzgerald should present her with written arguments setting out the case law on jurisdiction over prison conditions. This was too much even for prosecution counsel James Lewis, who stood up to say the prosecution would also want Assange to have a fair hearing, and that he could confirm that what the defence were suggesting was normal practice. Even then, Baraitser still refused to intervene with the prison.
And another addition to the ever-growing pile of evidence that Assange doesn’t stand a chance:
Then, to wrap up proceedings, Baraitser dropped a massive bombshell. She stated that although Article 4.1 of the US/UK Extradition Treaty forbade political extraditions, this was only in the Treaty. That exemption does not appear in the UK Extradition Act. On the face of it therefore political extradition is not illegal in the UK, as the Treaty has no legal force on the Court.
You can’t help but agree when he concludes:
There were moments today when I got drawn into the court process and achieved the suspension of disbelief you might do in theatre, and began thinking “Wow, this case is going well for Assange”. Then an event such as those recounted above kicks in, a coldness grips your heart, and you recall there is no jury here to be convinced. I simply do not believe that anything said or proved in the courtroom can have an impact on the final verdict of this court.
You can read Craig’s full, detailed reports on his blog. He has requested they be shared as widely as possible.
We would also recommend following Kevin Gosztola from Shadow of Proof, he has been live-tweeting updates (here’s his thread summarising Day 3) and Christine Assange, Julian’s mother.
SUPPORT OFFGUARDIAN
If you enjoy OffG's content, please help us make our monthly fund-raising goal and keep the site alive.
For other ways to donate, including direct-transfer bank details click HERE.
I hadn’t looked very closely at Ethan McCord but what he says in the video, WikiLeaks’ Collateral Murder: U.S. Soldier Ethan McCord, where Ethan addresses the United National Peace Conference, July 23-25, 2010 provides another angle supporting the hypothesis that Collateral Murder is a fake. At 4:26 he says about his platoon’s setting off for door knocking to check for weapons in the early morning: “You could get caught up in the silence if you weren’t so afraid of being shot in the throat or in the thigh by a sniper. Snipers usually went for these areas because they were unprotected. The throat for obvious reasons and the thigh for your femoral artery. Many of us usually walked with the butts stuck up our M4s close to our neck for an almost futile attempt at protecting ourselves.” Then at 5:14 he says: “The hours passed at doing this and we… Read more »
Apologies, wrong YouTube link. This is it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kelmEZe8whI&list=PLmtCQX-bqrMPUFCOrzqjjEwrIHB9vw9O8
I’m mystified at why it is so difficult for me to get a meme going that Chelsea Manning is an intelligence asset and Collateral Murder is faked. I know there are a million things wrong with what’s happening to Julian, however, I think that the propagation of the simple truth of Chelsea being an agent and the video being faked would help his case and I know many OffGers would like to help Julian. What I don’t understand about OffGers attitude towards my claim: — Hypothetically, do OffGers think it doesn’t make much difference whether or not Chelsea is an agent or whether the video is fake or not? Do OffGers think it doesn’t really matter so not worth discussing? Is this why there is mostly silence on the topic. While there are a a number of people downvoting/showing derision, someone expressing apoplectic rage, and another making an unsupported claim,… Read more »
Four downvotes, no argument. Few men are willing to brave the disapproval of their fellows, the censure of their colleagues, the wrath of their society. Moral courage is a rarer commodity than bravery in battle or great intelligence. Yet it is the one essential, vital quality for those who seek to change the world which yields most painfully to change. Robert Kennedy I’m not brave – if I were I would’ve pushed so much harder for the truth about Chelsea and Collateral Murder. I was brought up to believe that thinking like others and groupthink are virtual crimes so while I certainly don’t like the flak I receive I know that it simply reflects hostility emanating from a challenge to beliefs. I do have to say that it does surprise me though how attached to beliefs people are and how much hostility is produced as a result of it. A… Read more »
Every picture tells a story, and I will deal with the sketch at the top of this article first. We all have an innate ability to read body language and physiognomy – though oftentimes we may be wrong (for which we should be grateful). I just found the quote (by St. Jerome apparently): “The face is the mirror of the mind, and eyes without speaking confess the secrets of the heart”. What does the body language and facial expression say about Judge Baraitser? It says to me that she is not fully in control, is quite out of her depth. There is both fear and worry in her posture and I would almost feel sorry for her if I did not know the context of the sketch. (But what do I know?). Dealing with the other sketches atop the 2 latest OffG articles, I am confused about Julian’s beard. Has… Read more »
“What does the body language and facial expression say about Judge Baraitser?”
It’s an artist’s rendition. He may be trying to emulate an “objective” reporter, he may not.
Julian may have perceived a domineering, vicious kunt.
P.S. Baraitser is a lowly District Court Judge, which is about as far down the kick tree as one can get, having only barristers, solicitors and their clients left to kick down to. In the order of things she kisses up to Arbuthnot, who is the Chief Magistrate and the Senior District Judge, who seems not to have recused herself from hearing the Assange case but has merely delegated the role to Baraitser, whom she formally “leads” (kicks down to). In other words, in the matter of Julian Assange’s Extradition hearing, Baraitser is what would be popularly termed “Arbuthnot’s bitch”.
The wife of an American embassy employee can run over and kill a Brit, yet nothing is really done to extradite that killer back to stand trial, while Assange gets tortured to death for exposing American war crimes.
Warnings from the Deep State. Expose our crimes and you’ll either rot in prison or get shot in the back and killed, like Seth Rich.
As it ever was-Crazy Horse got it the back, too.
The fact that filth like Tony Blair can amass vast wealth for ‘services rendered’ and spend not one day in jail, while Julian Assange goes thru this vengeance based show trial, and that so many ‘polite’ and ‘values based’ citizens of the West say nothing and do nothing and many actually approve of what is taking place sickens me. Completely shameful.
I have no legal background but you keep hearing reference to international law does it exist or just a convenient phrase for something that doesn’t but should. It amuses me that Chomsky is often accused of being an anarchist and in a way they are right in that an anarchist believes that there should be an international law that covers everybody even if you are “exceptional”. One learns today that it was the Guardian that was responsible for putting informants lives at risk so really it should be their editor facing extradition to a closed court in America. Reading all that is going on, the term that comes to mind is that this is a British judicial lynching and that whatever is said will make no difference to the final outcome and that Assange will be sent to an American closed court with a carefully selected jury. Quite rightly many… Read more »
There is NO such thing as ‘British justice’. There is ruling elite power, and various sham facades to hide its operation.
“I have no legal background but you keep hearing reference to international law does it exist or just a convenient phrase for something that doesn’t but should.”
It is something that has been trying to exist for a very long time. Some would say very trying.
I don’t know if this will work here. If it doesn’t and you have Facebook, go watch it there, it is well worth the while:
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1641329726020815
https://www.facebook.com/GeorgeGallowayOfficial/videos/1641329726020815/
It works. George’s Facebook page (or whatever it’s called) is public.
What I meant by “I don’t know if this will work here.” was that I didn’t know if the actual video would show up here. It didn’t, therefore it didn’t work in the sense I explained in my first sentence. 🙂
“What I meant by “I don’t know if this will work here.” was that I didn’t know if the actual video would show up here.”
“Actual videos” do or do not show up, according to the current beat state of the juju on. If they don’t show up then it seems that the link they would have shown up on shows up instead. Facebook, YouTube, whatever…
Today the Guardian repeated another lie about Assange’s reasons for seeking refuge in the Ecaudorian embassy.
“He did so to avoid extradition to Sweden over sexual assault allegations.”
That isn’t true. In fact he wanted the case in Sweden resolved. What he was afraid of was that Sweden would hand him over to the Americans once he was in Sweden and isolated from his supporters. Pointedly, the Swedes refused to assure Assange that they wouldn’t extradite him to the US and bow to American demands for his head on a silver platter.
The Guardian is such den of fucking liars. It’s like they breed them and nuture them. What a bunch of swine they are.
Your Man in the Public Gallery – The Assange Hearing Day 3
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/02/your-man-in-the-public-gallery-the-assange-hearing-day-3/
James Lewis QC in action (different case, same silk):
https://www.supremecourt.uk/watch/uksc-2018-0040/140319-am.html
‘Can’t participate, can’t communicate’: Day 3 of Assange’s US extradition hearing as it happened
https://www.rt.com/uk/481756-assange-extradition-hearing-treaty/
Debunking The Smear That Assange Recklessly Published Unredacted Documents
AUTHOR: CAITLIN JOHNSTONE
https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2020/02/26/debunking-the-smear-that-assange-recklessly-published-unredacted-documents/
Regarding the Magistrates claim that the extradition treaty differs from the UK Act, it should make no difference since the Primary legislation of the Act does not conflict with the treaty even if it is silent. The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) is an international agreement regulating treaties between states.The VCLT is considered a codification of customary international law and state practice concerning treaties. The Hague regulations are not, however the customary international law of the Hague regulations will be interpreted as part of UK law provided that it is not in conflict with any law not already on the statute books. In Chung Chi Cheng V the King (1939) AC160 Lord Atkin stated that when faced with a customary rule “UK courts will treat it as incorporated into the domestic law, so far as it is not inconsistent with rules enacted by statutes or finally declared… Read more »
“Regarding the Magistrates claim that the extradition treaty differs from the UK Act, it should make no difference since the Primary legislation of the Act does not conflict with the treaty even if it is silent. The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) is an international agreement regulating treaties between states.”
However, the fact that the provision in the relevant Acts prior to 2003 was conspicuously absent from the superseding 2003 Act is what has given Baraitser her (so to speak) opinion that that putatively intentional omission renders the 2007 Treaty irrelevant, so that is the argument that must be conclusively quashed.
As Harry Stotle begins to say below: the real travesty is that it is the abnegated and alienated powers of the British People that are being used here to strip, torture, and dehumanise an innocent man. The UK is still a Common Law Jurisdiction – which has been usurped toward some sort of statute biased Civil Law Jurisdiction – by the successive abuse of the jural power of the People being used against the People. Largely, with the covenant of consensual legitimisation of the People, by the People. In that we/they – 31 million of us – voted to legitimate this farce not two months ago. And handed our abnegated powers to the prosecution to prosecute Julian in our name. Which in a collective act of cultural amnesis: we promptly not only forget …but create a discursive trail of procedural silencing and personal innocence that separates the People from the… Read more »
The mere existence of such a court operating in this manner is a mark of historical shame to the British justice system.
It is also a historical shame to all Western Democracies (a.k.a. US allies) for turning a blind eye to the abuse of process. A process that started with the persecution of a hero by the Swedish justice.
Not shame at all-just the system operating as it ALWAYS does. Protecting the genocidaires while hounding, remorselessly, anyone who dares to tell the truth. We are all Palestinians, now and always.
Craig was in good form this morning. Just before queuing to get in the courtroom on Day 4 (today) he posted his Day 3 account. With Assange in a bullet proof cage, unable to communicate with his lawyers, even the prosecution took issue with Baraitser on the matter. Clearly dismayed at the absurdity of her arguments, Prosecution Counsel James Lewis, looked at the judge,:
“… like a kindly uncle whose favourite niece has just started drinking tequila from the bottle at a family party …”
I recommend putting a few quid at the bookies on the judge becoming ‘Lady’ Baraitser as soon as she has packed Julian off to meet his fate in the USA.
I honestly never thought British justice could sink so low.
Baraitser started to throw out jargon like a Dalek when it spins out of control. “Risk assessment” and “health and safety” featured a lot. She started to resemble something worse than a Dalek, a particularly stupid local government officer of a very low grade. “No jurisdiction” – “Up to Group 4”.
From todays post by Craig Murray, on which Clive P comments on the absurdity of Baraitsers claim that the defendant couldn’t sit with his lawyer – as Clive was allowed from day 1.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0n88tZQc4Q
Mr. Baraitser to his wife: “How was Julian today?”.
Judge Baraitser: “Not very well…”
Mr. Baraitser: “Why was that dear?”
Judge Baraitser: “I exterminated him. Put him in the curry.”
Applause Hugh superb Spike Milligan Q quote 🤣
Washington’s satraps don’t do self respect.
bernard has pulled it all together too for links.
https://www.moonofalabama.org/2020/02/the-british-kangaroo-court-proceedings-against-julian-assange-.html#comments
The hanging judges and those behind the scenes instructing them have always been able to rely on the monumental naivety of the British electorate (the same way they can in the USA). Lets be clear, the road to the kangaroo court at Belmarsh pretending to conduct an impartial trial is drenched in the blood of over a million Iraqis, Afghanis, Libyians, Syrians, Yemenese and Palestinians. All along politician have lied about their motives for invading country after country while at no point has the MSM made any serious effort to analyse or explain why the west’s policy of brute military force is both illegal and littered with egregious humans rights abuses. Quite the opposite – the MSM embodies the dark heart of the west’s totalitarianism system, and can always be relied on to sanitise endless atrocities while neutralising any journalist or politician who poses even the most feeble threat to… Read more »
Don’t forget the blood of a few hundred million Indians, Chinese, Africans and sundry others during the glory days of the ‘Empire on Which the Sun Never Sets’.
Is this not part of the breakdown of communication to its exposure as parody in use as a weapon of coercion? A loveless and unreasoning dictate cannot mask over its own exposure in grotesque pretence of a trial. This is not just revealing a lack of moral integrity or true substance, but an open attack on true integrity by giving power to the lie. Without integrity, there is no law but only war. A closed system is not acting in relation to its environment, but set against it as the intent to limit threat to its face or masking identification so as to gain and maintain an inner domain of control that hides its own intent by projection onto the outer or other. It outsources and generates conflict to mitigate ‘trouble at home’ or inner conflicted-ness – and maintain a narrative illusion of unity and continuity under notional security. It… Read more »
Sir Keir Starmer while head of the CPS directly approved the witchhunt of Julian Assange.
He is personally responsible for this grossest miscarriage of legal process.
He should NOT become Labour Leader because of just that simple fact.
Indeed.
I’ve been flagging up his deep state links on the alternative fora for a long time. At last, people are picking up on it. but it’s probably too late. He will probably be the next Labour leader, and very likely be our next prime minister. And I never refer to him as ‘Sir’. Wasn’t that ‘honour’ bestowed on him by our most eminent war criminal?
I vividly recall Starmer at the time supporting the ‘Western Allied Regime’ (WAR!) military attack on Syria despite the absence of evidence of guilt on the part of the Syrian or Russian forces. There would appear to have been some fundamental 180 degree about-turn in law education during his, and presumably Baraitser’s, studentship whereby defendants are to be deemed guilty as charged; the barrister’s role now being to ensure the guilty charge is upheld at all cost.
But Polly Toynbee lerves him. And please don’t use the ‘Sir’ bull-dust-it’s Starmer, the Blairite thug.
This probably doesn’t even need mentioning, though I do believe it illustrates and is symbolic of the lurch away from traditional liberal democracy towards the strong, national security state; that the Guardian has effectively abolished the Comment is Free idea. The number of articles where one is allowed to comment or invited to comment, has shrunk dramatically since the Security Services enrolled the Guardian in their ‘battle to protect freedom.’ This is especially evident when one looks at the stuff they’ve produced about Assange recently and especially the show-trial. That the Guardian is so afraid of the opinions of its own readership is telling. I think the shifts at the Guardian reflect the death of liberal values and their total capitulation to the ideology of neo-conservatism, neo-liberalism and neo-imperialism, similiar to what’s happening inside the Labour Party. The fate of Assange seems linked to all of this, the almost ritualised… Read more »
They have published an absurd and vicious attack on China and Xi by some dissident who left in the 80’s today.
That’s a favourite tactic. Ignore the massive efforts ongoing in China, and instead feature one or two local traitor compradore scum, who usually end up going hysterical, the even viler emigre traitor compradore scum, and disinterested organs like Epoch Times ie Falun Gong ie the CIA. Show a few videos of people going hysterical in A&E, which happens every day in every Emergency Department on Earth, even when not dealing with an epidemic, and sundry other hate propaganda predicting ‘China’s fall’, or ‘China’s Chernobyl moment’ or some such shite, some already shown to be faked like the bat soup being consumed in Palau, but said to be being consumed in China. Just another day in the Western MSM sewer.
Individuals may have hidden fears but the underlying intent is the manipulation of the ‘opinions’ of the unworthy. Having aligned against humanity as part of elitism, of course the expectation is of the perceived ‘evils’ or threat to such control and ‘security’ as seeking to undermine and overthrow ‘Order’. To anyone who does not align in such elitism or its mirrored anti-elitism, this is an insanity – but self-sealed from any real dialogue. I often get the image of an armed and dissociated gunman (as in hostage situations) in which communication has so broken down as to lose all trust of any communication with anyone ‘outside’. Forceful intervention may get that particular ‘cancer’ but lose the patient. Appeasing the demands will establish precedent for always more such demands. Opening a communication or indeed establishing relationship is the key – but the ability of another under fear to pick up on… Read more »
Maybe China and Xi wants to test their extradition with the UK directly for the vicious and lie laden Opinion piece by ‘Ma Jian from Qingdao, China. Who left Beijing for Hong Kong in 1987 as a dissident,’
Wasn’t the HK ‘color’ agitation kicked off with US backing to OPPOSE extradition to the Mainland??
Should we get school kids to go on strike and stop traffic?
Extradition Extinction – anyone?
Come on you sjw’s and concerned humans!
But the trick is to effectively abolish freedom of speech while continuing to give the impression that you haven’t abolished it and indeed to make it look like you are upholding it. Better still, to paint the ones speaking truth as if they are attacking freedom and vice versa. You would think that was impossible but then again the owners of the media can accomplish anything by repetition.
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” Joseph Goebbels “His primary rules were: never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if… Read more »
That description is Trump, BoJo and our very own ‘Smoko’ Morrison to the life!
‘Freedom of Speech’ for Rupert Murdoch and his ilk.
Mossange is::
– pro Israel
– anti 9-11 truth
– made famous by CIA media NY Times Guardian who ignore most real dissidents
– Netanyahu tells Israel media Assange is Mossad asset
– Brzezinski admits on US TV PBS News Hour Assange is intel
– 3 people trusting Assange dead
– has Rothschild fam lawyer
– Rothschild relative pays his bail
– Assange leaks to wreck Rothschild rival bank
– Refuses to use US fed judge bribery files that stopped other extraditions
– Fake “living” in Ecuador embassy just there for photos
– Fake being in Belmarsh prison
– Rat trap for real dissidents duped into contacting him
– Useful idiots around the world think this clown is real cuz CIA media said so
you can negate how much you want it will not change the fact that Tolstoy described so beautifully:
“I know that most people, even those who deal with the problems of the highest complexity, are rarely able to accept even the simplest and most obvious truth, if it forces them to declare the falsehood of the conclusions that they happily presented to their colleagues, telling them about them with pride, and from which, thread by thread, they woven the matter of their lives. “
I’m prepared to consider any proof you have to support your thesis – link it.
evidence: – pro Israel https://www.haaretz.com/1.5146664 – anti 9-11 truth https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zG23AyiIObk Belfast Telegraph: What about 9/11? Mossange: “I’m constantly annoyed that people are distracted by false conspiracies such as 9/11, when all around we provide evidence of real conspiracies, for war or mass financial fraud.” https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/life/features/wanted-by-the-cia-julian-assange-wikileaks-founder-28548843.html – made famous by CIA media NY Times Guardian who ignore most real dissidents Only a finite idiot will believe that MSM (superhero published in NYT, Spigel, Guardian, Economist, etc.) would allow to publish anything against its owners. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjW4s5EtG6s – Netanyahu tells Israel media Assange is Mossad asset – Brzezinski admits on US TV PBS News Hour Assange is intel https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyFYZC2ZTqI – has Rothschild fam lawyer – Rothschild relative pays his bail – Assange leaks to wreck Rothschild rival bank https://www.radios.cz/pl/articles/wikileaks-is-a-rothschild-operation/ – Refuses to use US fed judge bribery files that stopped other extraditions – Fake ‘living’ in Ecuador embassy just there for photos –… Read more »
Item 1 from 2010 –
“Netanyahu added that Israel had worked in advance to limit any damage from leaks.”
So your first claim is actually proved to be bullshit from your own link.
I expect the rest are crap too but may look into them later if bored.
However your attempt at diverting attention from the gross abuse of process at Belmarsh – which started with the fake rape investigation in Sweden and was encouraged by Starmers CPS to get us to this point – makes you a straw man constructing/ dead cat on table throwing / squizzle pointing, TROLL, at first sight.
Unfortunately, “controlled opposition” lawyers have infiltrated Julian and Wikileaks.
And you believe him?
Do you not think that Julian looks as if he has been through a great ordeal while Chelsea, on the other hand, was in top form, last time we saw her? Can you not see the difference and see that there is a very good reason for it? Shouldn’t their demeanour look a bit more similar?
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/inmates-lobby-belmarsh-jail-to-get-julian-assange-out-of-isolation-5nbmllfmt
https://www.thedailybeast.com/chelsea-manning-trans-health-care-is-necessary-if-we-dont-get-our-treatment-we-die
You are misreading the evidence, der einzige – big time.
This is so stupid that I have no words for it!He spent 7 years locked in embassy, then locked in another few years in jail to be handed over to USA to be convicted to 175 years in prison, just to please Israel?What kind of moron would do that?And he is not even Jewish!
It’s GREAT to have Mossad agents advocating for transparecy. The world desperately needs more heros like him!!
In particular, he was in favor of transparency in case 911. bravo!
You seem you’re willing to help. What would be on your list of websites dealing with 9/11 truths?
don’t deal with it, you didn’t understand what the superhero was saying to you
“I’m constantly annoyed that people are distracted by false conspiracies such as 9/11, when all around we provide evidence of real conspiracies, for war or mass financial fraud.”
you’ll find all the answers in MSM, there superhero published his “revelations”
Do you mean, you don’t deal with 9/11?
Anyway, do you think we should have doubts about the authenticity of what Wikileaks published?
What else you would like to tell us?
Assange is being mopped up – that’s why the rules don’t apply. But then they routinely don’t apply at Westminster Magistrates’ or the Old Bailey for prisoners who go to Belmarsh afterwards. Of course, these other cases, and there are plenty of them and so plenty of opportunity, never excite the ex-ambassador to the role (so heartily executed) as chief court correspondent to the beguiled alternative media audience.
Instead of pasting silly gifs, answer the question:
You believe that MSM (superhero published in NYT, Spigel, Guardian, Economist, etc.) would allow to publish anything against its owners?
yes or no?
if “yes” you are finite idiot
if “no” I’m right
These gifs are perfectly ad hoc, whether you like it or not. However, you are obviously entitled to post all the bullshit you like.
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/02/27/assa-f27.html
Some interesting and bizarre details from the show-trial that I’m convinced the Guardian won’t be reporting!
I’m finding it increasingly difficult to read about the extradition court proceedings as the result has been blatantly predetermined and sitting on my arse 14,000 kilometers away makes reading about this travesty feel increasingly voyeuristic. Face it we all know the only way to rescue Mr Assange is through direct intervention – direct action. The only ‘fix’ would be if sufficient humans in and around england created sufficient fuss to wake the englander ptb up with the realisation that “This cannot stand”. Of course the chances of that happening anywhere outside some badly acted feelgood movie are negligible. Everyome will whine & whinge but ultimately because this railroad isn’t happening to Us none of Us will do anything about it, apart from wail and post pithy remarks. USuk know this, just as they know in a few years (years that will seem an eternity to Mr Assange) people will say… Read more »
So everyone wants to just sit on the sidelines while this trainwreck of a trial continues until a seemingly inevitable result of extradition of Julian. No one wants to take the oh-so-brave step of calling out Chelsea and the Collateral Murder video, both easily proven not to be genuine – similarly, Adrian Llamo and Ethan McCord. Everyone just wants to sit on the sidelines wailing and gnashing their teeth. If it ever goes public who Chelsea et al are and what Collateral Murder is, I beg you, please don’t say, as many said after the reign of German Nazism: “I didn’t know.” If, of course, anyone has any evidence to show that Chelsea Manning or Collateral Murder are genuine please indicate in comments. If you have no evidence by all means go ahead and indicate your hostility to the truth by downvoting or derisive comments/gifs but do it with the… Read more »
“…by all means go ahead and indicate your hostility to the truth by downvoting or derisive comments/gifs…”
I’ ve responded to your evidence-free denigration of Chelsea–and, by implication, Julian’s intelligence–at least twice before, but as you request some specific additions:
GIF and not-really-hostility-more-like-derision at https://imgur.com/QJW1YWk
Downvote is, per the system, anonymous (you’ll have to take my word for it).
HTH
For one who makes free with Occams Razor you seem extraordinarily naive on matters of epistemology. Your comment reverses burden of proof. Worse, you wasted fifteen minutes of my life. I actually read your linked musings on the matter, searching in vain for evidence that “Chelsea Manning and Collateral Damage are fake“.
No, I didn’t downvote you. I never do, however absurd I find a comment.
“For one who makes free with Occams Razor you seem extraordinarily naive on matters of epistemology.”
It’s not for shaving one’s legs?
Well, maybe Petra has in mind the cut-throat kind as favoured by nineteen-twenties street gangs …
I don’t believe I do reverse the burden of proof, Philip, as I give my own points of proof and people have the choice of either refuting my evidence or providing their own – OK I didn’t state explicitly “provide your own evidence or refute mine” but that is an obvious choice. A priori, however, there is no reason to believe that Chelsea and the video are genuine, is there? Surely, you would agree that it would be completely expected for the power elite to attempt to infiltrate a group such as Wikileaks, no? That as soon as they were aware of such a group on the distant horizon that they would already be preparing their welcoming party for them. Thus, not so outlandish to think that Chelsea may be an infiltrator at the outset and what better way to make her a credible leaker than to provide her with… Read more »
Petra even your short comment here demonstrates both the reversed burden of proof I speak of, and an intermingling of “points”, “claims” and “evidence” as if these things were interchangeable.
You do the same with reasoning, which is not the same as evidence. You offer a reason – “well they would do that, wouldn’t they?” argument – which may or may not be true but in principle cannot be refuted because it is not, contrary to your protests, a statement of fact which can be falsified empirically.
Please offer a summary of your factual grounds for an argument whose very nature demands a very high degree of empirical substantiation. Please do so in the body of a comment as I will waste no more time on specious links. I’ve done enough of that, of late, with Louis Proyect.
Philip, You made a claim without backup and I asked you to back it up. Please do that.
?
You made the claim that you searched in vain for evidence on my webpage. I’d argue that whatever words I used in my second-last comment, there is certainly information that counts as evidence on my webpage. I think you’re misinterpreting what I claim with my words “they would, wouldn’t they”. I do not make the claim of evidence at all. I completely agree with you that speculation is definitely not evidence as I’ve only finished a 56-email exchange with Noam Chomsky, arguing that he uses speculation as evidence. So I’m totally with you on speculation not counting as evidence and I certainly didn’t mean to imply it was, although it can have a supporting role – we shouldn’t discount that. I only meant to make the point that it is not outlandish at the outset to think that Chelsea might be an intelligence asset as we would expect the power… Read more »
More wasted time. Actually taking the trouble – the last time I shall do so on this matter – to read and unravel your latest screed, I surmise that the claim I need to substantiate is this from my initial reply:
You ask me to substantiate what I did not find? Truly bizarre. Over and decidedly out.
You found material purporting to be evidence so to make a valid claim that you found none you need to explain how the purported evidence doesn’t qualify as evidence.
It is very much you, Philip, who is the timewaster. You make a completely unsupported claim about my work, waste time giving specious arguments why you don’t have support that claim and demand that I waste my time putting my work into a particular form when in the first instance you should have backed your claim. You really have a nerve.
Robbob’s Razor says, “Fuck off, Petra.”
“unsupported claims have zero value”
Short, nice, sweet and to the point!
“I completely agree with you that speculation is definitely not evidence as I’ve only finished a 56-email exchange with Noam Chomsky, arguing that he uses speculation as evidence.”
The man is 91, Petra; how dare you waste any of his remaining time with your, nasty, manipulative, psychotically narcissistic–thus obsessively a priori–mind fuck; you rabidly slandering, tenth rate apology for a polemicist with your shitty little distortions of second hand opinions (think your repeated web-wide plagiarism of paranoia-plagued bullshitters is undetectable?) dressed up as the intellectual centre of the actual, ex-Petra universe. How fucking dare you. Oh, I forgot, I’ve already covered that: “psychotically narcissistic”, that’s how.
My apologies, Philip. My ego got in the way. As I claim that my interest is only in the truth it would have been much simpler for me to respond to your request for a summary rather than carry on in high-and-mighty fashion. Julian’s situation is not about trying to win arguments. I provide a number of points to support my hypothesis below. I also add that taken separately, the evidence for Chelsea being an intelligence asset and Collateral Murder being faked each support the other. The first thing to consider is that when the power elite hoax us they – most counterintuitively – slip us the clues. So there is always a two-part hypothesis. H1a. Chelsea is an agent and Collateral Murder is faked H1b. They let us know in implausibilities and ridiculousness, sloppiness of execution, things not adding up, contradictions in the story and different versions of it,… Read more »
And now for some light relief from better days…
“Julian had twice been stripped naked and searched, eleven times been handcuffed, and five times been locked up in different holding cells. On top of this, all of his court documents had been taken from him by the prison authorities, including privileged communications between his lawyers and himself, and he had been left with no ability to prepare to participate in today’s proceedings.”
The dehumanization of Assange is intended to humiliate not only its targeted victim, but to intimidate all other independent publishers, investigative journalists, and whistleblowers. The mainstream media news feels quite content to ignore this unjust political show trial, and to indifferently accept the callous treatment of Assange. These guileless dunces think they’re forever immuned from the arbitrary heavy-handedness of authoritarian law.
That is beyond inhumane and beyond scandalous.
Under Stalin they got Gulag for telling truths he did not like.