Current Wikileaks and Assange News & Releases

[onawah]

Julian Assange Forced to Change Prison Cell 5 TIMES at Night!
Mar 2, 2020
Going Underground on RT

"We speak to Sevim Dagdelen MdB of Die Linke after she witnessed the trial in court during Julian Assange’s Extradition. She discusses the treatment of Julian Assange in the court, bias of the judges, the Wikileaks Editor-in-Chief Kristin Hrafnsson being temporarily banned from viewing the proceedings. She also invites Kier Starmer to witness the extradition trial!"

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=RIDmX3JZnSU

[onawah]

Sneers and imperious indifference--Vanessa Baraitser serves as a District Judge at Westminster Magistrates' Court...
(she's not a judge, actually, according to this article, but a magistrate, and apparently a psychotic)
...where, on 21 October 2019, she refused to extend Julian Assange's UK extradition proceedings, telling Assange his full extradition case would begin on 24 February 2020.[1]
(Very odd that she would ride a bicycle home after the proceedings, though perhaps that's one reason why she doesn't want photos taken even outside the courtroom. If I were her, I would definitely be going home in a car, and leaving by a back door.)
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Vanessa_Baraitser

"Sneers and imperious indifference"
On 28 October 2019, John Pilger described the disturbing scene inside a London courtroom the previous week when the WikiLeaks publisher, Julian Assange, appeared at the start of a landmark extradition case that will define the future of free journalism:

"The worst moment was one of a number of 'worst' moments. I have sat in many courtrooms and seen judges abuse their positions. This judge, Vanessa Baraitser - actually she isn't a judge at all; she's a magistrate - shocked all of us who were there.

Her face was a progression of sneers and imperious indifference; she addressed Julian with an arrogance that reminded me of a magistrate presiding over apartheid South Africa's Race Classification Board. When Julian struggled to speak, he couldn't get words out, even stumbling over his name and date of birth.

When he spoke truth and when his barrister spoke, Baraister contrived boredom; when the prosecuting barrister spoke, she was attentive. She had nothing to do; it was demonstrably preordained. In the table in front of us were a handful of American officials, whose directions to the prosecutor were carried by his junior; back and forth this young woman went, delivering instructions.

The judge watched this outrage without a comment. It reminded me of a newsreel of a show trial in Stalin's Moscow; the difference was that Soviet show trials were broadcast. Here, the state broadcaster, the BBC, blacked it out, as did the other mainstream channels.

Having ignored Julian's barrister's factual description of how the CIA had run a Spanish security firm that spied on him in the Ecuadorean embassy, she didn't yawn, but her disinterest was as expressive. She then denied Julian's lawyers any more time to prepare their case - even though their client was prevented in prison from receiving legal documents and other tools with which to defend himself.

Her knee in the groin was to announce that the next court hearing would be at remote Woolwich, which adjoins Belmarsh prison and has few seats for the public. This will ensure isolation and be as close to a secret trial as it's possible to get. Did this happen in the home of the Magna Carta? Yes, but who knew?

Julian's case is often compared with Dreyfus; but historically it's far more important. No one doubts - not his enemies on The New York Times, not the Murdoch press in Australia - that if he is extradited to the United States and the inevitable supermax, journalism will be incarcerated, too.

Who will then dare to expose anything of importance, let alone the high crimes of the West? Who will dare publish 'Collateral Murder'? Who will dare tell the public that democracy, such as it is, has been subverted by a corporate authoritarianism from which fascism draws its strength.

Once there were spaces, gaps, boltholes, in mainstream journalism in which mavericks, who are the best journalists, could work. These are long closed now. The hope is the samizdat on the internet, where fine disobedient journalism is still practised. The greater hope is that a judge or even judges in Britain's court of appeal, the High Court, will rediscover justice and set him free. In the meantime, it's our responsibility to fight in ways we know but which now require more than a modicum of Julian Assange's courage."

Extradition case

MOD NOTE: Craig Murray article already published here






References
"Julian Assange extradition judge refuses request for delay"
"Did this happen in the home of Magna Carta?"
"The judge...#VanessaBaraitser cycles home after court!"
"Two flames"
"Your Man in the Public Gallery – The Assange Hearing Day 3"

[Dennis Leahy]

Makes me wonder if there are English activists that are trying to formulate a plan for the citizens of England to take over the English government, and end the monarchy. You do know you need it as bad as the USA does, right?

(I say "England" rather than "the UK" because the other nations (and the north of Ireland) that got absorbed into the UK really need to Wexit and Scexit and NIexit the hell out of the UK.) That ain't your queen. That ain't your "crown."

[gini]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azjUBSolWPc The Duran discus the latest Tucker Carlson interview with Rogers Waters about the media spin around Julian Assange. The actual interview starts at 10.00.

[Tintin]

A statement released today by the IBAHRI condemning Julian's treatment with kind acknowledgement to Nils Melzer for bringing this to our attention.

Tweet link: https://twitter.com/NilsMelzer/statu...71979440807936

Text:

Thanks to the International Bar Asscoiation @IBAHRI for its timely condemnation of the #UK judiciary for its sustained exposure of #Assange to gross due process violations & #PsychologicalTorture in his US extradition trial!

Their statement, in full, below.

IBAHRI condemns UK treatment of Julian Assange in US extradition trial
Tuesday 10 March 2020


The International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI) condemns the reported mistreatment of Julian Assange during his United States extradition trial in February 2020, and urges the government of the United Kingdom to take action to protect him. According to his lawyers, Mr Assange was handcuffed 11 times; stripped naked twice and searched; his case files confiscated after the first day of the hearing; and had his request to sit with his lawyers during the trial, rather than in a dock surrounded by bulletproof glass, denied.

The UK hearing, which began on Monday 24 February 2020 at Woolwich Crown Court in London, UK, will decide whether the WikiLeaks founder, Mr Assange, will be extradited to the US, where he is wanted on 18 charges of attempted hacking and breaches of the 1917 Espionage Act. He faces allegations of collaborating with former US army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning to leak classified documents, including exposing alleged war crimes in Afghanistan and Iraq. The hearing was adjourned after four days, with proceedings set to resume on 18 May 2020.

IBAHRI Co-Chair, the Hon Michael Kirby AC CMG, commented:

‘The IBAHRI is concerned that the mistreatment of Julian Assange constitutes breaches of his right to a fair trial and protections enshrined in the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, to which the UK is party. It is deeply shocking that as a mature democracy in which the rule of law and the rights of individuals are preserved, the UK Government has been silent and has taken no action to terminate such gross and disproportionate conduct by Crown officials. As well, we are surprised that the presiding judge has reportedly said and done nothing to rebuke the officials and their superiors for such conduct in the case of an accused whose offence is not one of personal violence. Many countries in the world look to Britain as an example in such matters. On this occasion, the example is shocking and excessive. It is reminiscent of the Abu Grahib Prison Scandal which can happen when prison officials are not trained in the basic human rights of detainees and the Nelson Mandela Rules.’

In accordance with the Human Rights Act 1998, which came into force in the UK in October 2000, every person tried in the UK is entitled to a fair trial (Article 6) and freedom from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment (Article 3). Similarly, Article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights upholds an individual’s right to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal.

IBAHRI Co-Chair, Anne Ramberg Dr jur hc, commented:

‘The IBAHRI concurs with the widespread concern over the ill-treatment of Mr Assange. He must be afforded equality in access to effective legal representation. With this extradition trial we are witnessing the serious undermining of due process and the rule of law. It is troubling that Mr Assange has complained that he is unable to hear properly what is being said at his trial, and that because he is locked in a glass cage is prevented from communicating freely with his lawyers during the proceedings commensurate with the prosecution.’

A recent report from Nils Melzer, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture and Inhumane Treatment, presented during the 43rd session of the UN Human Rights Council (24 February – 20 March 2020), argues that the cumulative effects of Mr Assange’s mistreatment over the past decade amount to psychological torture. If Mr Assange was viewed as a victim of psychological torture, his extradition would be illegal under international human rights law.

ENDS

Notes to the Editor

Related material: Watch the interview of Julian Assange given to IBA Executive Director Mark Ellis during the IBA’s 2017 Annual Conference in Sydney, Australia. www.ibanet.org/Conferences/238921283.aspx

The International Bar Association (IBA), the global voice of the legal profession, is the foremost organisation for international legal practitioners, bar associations and law societies. Established in 1947, shortly after the creation of the United Nations, it was born out of the conviction that an organisation made up of the world's bar associations could contribute to global stability and peace through the administration of justice.

In the ensuing 70 years since its creation, the organisation has evolved from an association comprised exclusively of bar associations and law societies to one that incorporates individual international lawyers and entire law firms. The present membership is comprised of more than 80,000 individual international lawyers from most of the world’s leading law firms and some 190 bar associations and law societies spanning more than 170 countries.

The IBA has considerable expertise in providing assistance to the global legal community, and through its global membership, it influences the development of international law reform and helps to shape the future of the legal profession throughout the world.

The IBA’s administrative office is in London, United Kingdom. Regional offices are located in: São Paulo, Brazil; Seoul, South Korea; and Washington DC, United States, while the International Bar Association’s International Criminal Court and International Criminal Law Programme (ICC & ICL) is managed from an office in The Hague, the Netherlands.

The International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI), an autonomous and financially independent entity, works to promote, protect and enforce human rights under a just rule of law, and to preserve the independence of the judiciary and the legal profession worldwide.

[Mari]

Posted by Dennis Leahy (here)
Makes me wonder if there are English activists that are trying to formulate a plan for the citizens of England to take over the English government, and end the monarchy. You do know you need it as bad as the USA does, right?

(I say "England" rather than "the UK" because the other nations (and the north of Ireland) that got absorbed into the UK really need to Wexit and Scexit and NIexit the hell out of the UK.) That ain't your queen. That ain't your "crown."

She ain't mine either. We have become too dumbed-down ( I never thought I'd ever say this) & any 'voices' out there are systematically drowned out by our 'media' - which of course is the 100% propaganda arm of the establishment - which I have to say is still very much alive & kicking over here!

[Tintin]

[LETTER] Doctors for Assange: End torture and medical neglect of Julian Assange

Link: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...383-4/fulltext

Published in The Lancet, a copy of the letter and supplementary appendix can be found here in the library

---------------------------------------------------

On Nov 22, 2019, we, a group of more than 60 medical doctors, wrote to the UK Home Secretary to express our serious concerns about the physical and mental health of Julian Assange.1In our letter,1 we documented a history of denial of access to health care and prolonged psychological torture. We requested that Assange be transferred from Belmarsh prison to a university teaching hospital for medical assessment and treatment. Faced with evidence of untreated and ongoing torture, we also raised the question as to Assange's fitness to participate in US extradition proceedings.

Having received no substantive response from the UK Government, neither to our first letter1 nor to our follow-up letter,2 we wrote to the Australian Government, requesting that it intervene to protect the health of its citizen.3 To date, regrettably, no reply has been forthcoming. Meanwhile, many more doctors from around the world have joined us in our call. Our group currently numbers 117 doctors, representing 18 countries.

The case of Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, is multifaceted. It relates to law, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, journalism, publishing, and politics. It also clearly relates to medicine. The case highlights several concerning aspects that warrant the medical profession's close attention and concerted action.

We were prompted to act following the harrowing eyewitness accounts of former UK diplomat Craig Murray and investigative journalist John Pilger, who described Assange's deteriorated state at a case management hearing on Oct 21, 2019.4, 5 Assange had appeared at the hearing pale, underweight, aged and limping, and he had visibly struggled to recall basic information, focus his thoughts, and articulate his words. At the end of the hearing, he “told district judge Vanessa Baraitser that he had not understood what had happened in court”.6

We drafted a letter to the UK Home Secretary, which quickly gathered more than 60 signatures from medical doctors from Australia, Austria, Germany, Italy, Norway, Poland, Sri Lanka, Sweden, the UK, and the USA, concluding: “It is our opinion that Mr Assange requires urgent expert medical assessment of both his physical and psychological state of health. Any medical treatment indicated should be administered in a properly equipped and expertly staffed university teaching hospital (tertiary care). Were such urgent assessment and treatment not to take place, we have real concerns, on the evidence currently available, that Mr Assange could die in prison. The medical situation is thereby urgent. There is no time to lose.”1

On May 31, 2019, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, Nils Melzer, reported on his May 9, 2019, visit to Assange in Belmarsh, accompanied by two medical experts: “Mr Assange showed all symptoms typical for prolonged exposure to psychological torture, including extreme stress, chronic anxiety and intense psychological trauma.”7 On Nov 1, 2019, Melzer warned, “Mr. Assange's continued exposure to arbitrariness and abuse may soon end up costing his life”.8 Examples of the mandated communications from the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture to governments are provided in the appendix.

Such warnings and Assange's presentation at the October hearing should not perhaps have come as a surprise. Assange had, after all, prior to his detention in Belmarsh prison in conditions amounting to solitary confinement, spent almost 7 years restricted to a few rooms in the Ecuadorian embassy in London. Here, he had been deprived of fresh air, sunlight, the ability to move and exercise freely, and access to adequate medical care.

Indeed, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention had held the confinement to amount to “arbitrary deprivation of liberty”.9

The UK Government refused to grant Assange safe passage to a hospital, despite requests from doctors who had been able to visit him in the embassy.10 There was also a climate of fear surrounding the provision of health care in the embassy. A medical practitioner who visited Assange at the embassy documented what a colleague of Assange reported:

“[T]here had been many difficulties in finding medical practitioners who were willing to examine Mr Assange in the Embassy. The reasons given were uncertainty over whether medical insurance would cover the Equadorian Embassy (a foreign jurisdiction); whether the association with Mr Assange could harm their livelihood or draw unwanted attention to them and their families; and discomfort regarding exposing this association when entering the Embassy.

One medical practitioner expressed concern to one of the interviewees after the police took notes of his name and the fact that he was visiting Mr Assange. One medical practitioner wrote that he agreed to produce a medical report only on condition that his name not be made available to the wider public, fearing repercussions.”

11

Disturbingly, it seems that this environment of insecurity and intimidation, further compromising the medical care available to Assange, was by design. Assange was the subject of a 24/7 covert surveillance operation inside the embassy, as the emergence of secret video and audio recordings has shown.12 He was surveilled in private and with visitors, including family, friends, journalists, lawyers, and doctors. Not only were his rights to privacy, personal life, legal privilege, and freedom of speech violated, but so, too, was his right to doctor–patient confidentiality.

We condemn the torture of Assange.

We condemn the denial of his fundamental right to appropriate health care. We condemn the climate of fear surrounding the provision of health care to him. We condemn the violations of his right to doctor–patient confidentiality. Politics cannot be allowed to interfere with the right to health and the practice of medicine. In the experience of the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, the scale of state interference is without precedent: “In 20 years of work with victims of war, violence and political persecution I have never seen a group of democratic states ganging up to deliberately isolate, demonise and abuse a single individual for such a long time and with so little regard for human dignity and the rule of law.”7

We invite fellow doctors to join us as signatories to our letters to add further voice to our calls. Since doctors first began assessing Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy in 2015, expert medical opinion and doctors' urgent recommendations have been consistently ignored. Even as the world's designated authorities on arbitrary detention, torture, and human rights added their calls to doctors' warnings, governments have sidelined medical ethics, medical authority, and the human right to health. This politicisation of foundational medical principles is of grave concern to us, as it carries implications beyond the case of Assange.

Abuse by politically motivated medical neglect sets a dangerous precedent, whereby the medical profession can be manipulated as a political tool, ultimately undermining our profession's impartiality, commitment to health for all, and obligation to do no harm.

Should Assange die in a UK prison, as the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture has warned, he will effectively have been tortured to death. Much of that torture will have taken place in a prison medical ward, on doctors' watch. The medical profession cannot afford to stand silently by, on the wrong side of torture and the wrong side of history, while such a travesty unfolds.

In the interests of defending medical ethics, medical authority, and the human right to health, and taking a stand against torture, together we can challenge and raise awareness of the abuses detailed in our letters. Our appeals are simple: we are calling upon governments to end the torture of Assange and ensure his access to the best available health care before it is too late. Our request to others is this: please join us.

-----------------------------------------------

This online publication has been corrected. The corrected version first appeared at thelancet.com on February 19, 2020

-----------------------------------------------

[Mari]

Posted by Tintin (here)
[LETTER] Doctors for Assange: End torture and medical neglect of Julian Assange

Link: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...383-4/fulltext

Published in The Lancet, a copy of the letter and supplementary appendix can be found here in the library

---------------------------------------------------

On Nov 22, 2019, we, a group of more than 60 medical doctors, wrote to the UK Home Secretary to express our serious concerns about the physical and mental health of Julian Assange.1In our letter,1 we documented a history of denial of access to health care and prolonged psychological torture. We requested that Assange be transferred from Belmarsh prison to a university teaching hospital for medical assessment and treatment. Faced with evidence of untreated and ongoing torture, we also raised the question as to Assange's fitness to participate in US extradition proceedings.

Having received no substantive response from the UK Government, neither to our first letter1 nor to our follow-up letter,2 we wrote to the Australian Government, requesting that it intervene to protect the health of its citizen.3 To date, regrettably, no reply has been forthcoming. Meanwhile, many more doctors from around the world have joined us in our call. Our group currently numbers 117 doctors, representing 18 countries.

The case of Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, is multifaceted. It relates to law, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, journalism, publishing, and politics. It also clearly relates to medicine. The case highlights several concerning aspects that warrant the medical profession's close attention and concerted action.

We were prompted to act following the harrowing eyewitness accounts of former UK diplomat Craig Murray and investigative journalist John Pilger, who described Assange's deteriorated state at a case management hearing on Oct 21, 2019.4, 5 Assange had appeared at the hearing pale, underweight, aged and limping, and he had visibly struggled to recall basic information, focus his thoughts, and articulate his words. At the end of the hearing, he “told district judge Vanessa Baraitser that he had not understood what had happened in court”.6

We drafted a letter to the UK Home Secretary, which quickly gathered more than 60 signatures from medical doctors from Australia, Austria, Germany, Italy, Norway, Poland, Sri Lanka, Sweden, the UK, and the USA, concluding: “It is our opinion that Mr Assange requires urgent expert medical assessment of both his physical and psychological state of health. Any medical treatment indicated should be administered in a properly equipped and expertly staffed university teaching hospital (tertiary care). Were such urgent assessment and treatment not to take place, we have real concerns, on the evidence currently available, that Mr Assange could die in prison. The medical situation is thereby urgent. There is no time to lose.”1

On May 31, 2019, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, Nils Melzer, reported on his May 9, 2019, visit to Assange in Belmarsh, accompanied by two medical experts: “Mr Assange showed all symptoms typical for prolonged exposure to psychological torture, including extreme stress, chronic anxiety and intense psychological trauma.”7 On Nov 1, 2019, Melzer warned, “Mr. Assange's continued exposure to arbitrariness and abuse may soon end up costing his life”.8 Examples of the mandated communications from the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture to governments are provided in the appendix.

Such warnings and Assange's presentation at the October hearing should not perhaps have come as a surprise. Assange had, after all, prior to his detention in Belmarsh prison in conditions amounting to solitary confinement, spent almost 7 years restricted to a few rooms in the Ecuadorian embassy in London. Here, he had been deprived of fresh air, sunlight, the ability to move and exercise freely, and access to adequate medical care.

Indeed, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention had held the confinement to amount to “arbitrary deprivation of liberty”.9

The UK Government refused to grant Assange safe passage to a hospital, despite requests from doctors who had been able to visit him in the embassy.10 There was also a climate of fear surrounding the provision of health care in the embassy. A medical practitioner who visited Assange at the embassy documented what a colleague of Assange reported:

“[T]here had been many difficulties in finding medical practitioners who were willing to examine Mr Assange in the Embassy. The reasons given were uncertainty over whether medical insurance would cover the Equadorian Embassy (a foreign jurisdiction); whether the association with Mr Assange could harm their livelihood or draw unwanted attention to them and their families; and discomfort regarding exposing this association when entering the Embassy.

One medical practitioner expressed concern to one of the interviewees after the police took notes of his name and the fact that he was visiting Mr Assange. One medical practitioner wrote that he agreed to produce a medical report only on condition that his name not be made available to the wider public, fearing repercussions.”

11

Disturbingly, it seems that this environment of insecurity and intimidation, further compromising the medical care available to Assange, was by design. Assange was the subject of a 24/7 covert surveillance operation inside the embassy, as the emergence of secret video and audio recordings has shown.12 He was surveilled in private and with visitors, including family, friends, journalists, lawyers, and doctors. Not only were his rights to privacy, personal life, legal privilege, and freedom of speech violated, but so, too, was his right to doctor–patient confidentiality.

We condemn the torture of Assange.

We condemn the denial of his fundamental right to appropriate health care. We condemn the climate of fear surrounding the provision of health care to him. We condemn the violations of his right to doctor–patient confidentiality. Politics cannot be allowed to interfere with the right to health and the practice of medicine. In the experience of the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, the scale of state interference is without precedent: “In 20 years of work with victims of war, violence and political persecution I have never seen a group of democratic states ganging up to deliberately isolate, demonise and abuse a single individual for such a long time and with so little regard for human dignity and the rule of law.”7

We invite fellow doctors to join us as signatories to our letters to add further voice to our calls. Since doctors first began assessing Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy in 2015, expert medical opinion and doctors' urgent recommendations have been consistently ignored. Even as the world's designated authorities on arbitrary detention, torture, and human rights added their calls to doctors' warnings, governments have sidelined medical ethics, medical authority, and the human right to health. This politicisation of foundational medical principles is of grave concern to us, as it carries implications beyond the case of Assange.

Abuse by politically motivated medical neglect sets a dangerous precedent, whereby the medical profession can be manipulated as a political tool, ultimately undermining our profession's impartiality, commitment to health for all, and obligation to do no harm.

Should Assange die in a UK prison, as the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture has warned, he will effectively have been tortured to death. Much of that torture will have taken place in a prison medical ward, on doctors' watch. The medical profession cannot afford to stand silently by, on the wrong side of torture and the wrong side of history, while such a travesty unfolds.

In the interests of defending medical ethics, medical authority, and the human right to health, and taking a stand against torture, together we can challenge and raise awareness of the abuses detailed in our letters. Our appeals are simple: we are calling upon governments to end the torture of Assange and ensure his access to the best available health care before it is too late. Our request to others is this: please join us.

-----------------------------------------------

This online publication has been corrected. The corrected version first appeared at thelancet.com on February 19, 2020

-----------------------------------------------

I hear all this, I see all this - the brave professionals willing to speak out. There are courageous souls today who are willing to put their heads above the parapet for the support of this man & what he stands for.
Sadly, I feel it doesn’t look good for him.

In my view, the ONLY thing that in the long run, will save him is if enough people, & I mean at least thousands, if not millions (ha- I can dream, can’t I?) get off their backsides, take to the streets, a-la ‘Extinction Rebellion’, & show their support. The media will not be able to ‘ignore’ the crowds if enough turn up as they’re doing now with a ‘paltry’ few hundred (I mean no disrespect to them whatsoever, at least they show up)

But that won’t happen, because not enough ppl are motivated to care enough, or they do not have the full facts of this scenario & cannot see just what’s at stake here, or (in my experience from what I’ve heard in my locality) believe what the media tells them: ‘rapist, ‘putting people’s lives at stake’, ‘traitor to country’, cat’ molestor’ granny basher, or whatever crap msm (deliberate lower case) tells them, day to day to believe. And that’s even if it makes it into print….. There was virtually NO coverage of his recent first, or subsequent days in court on the bbc

I feel sick at what’s at stake & can’t see any way out of this, given that the system & courts are so completely rigged in favour of Human Control.
What to do? All I, a mere I, can do, is ‘visualise’ JA walking free from that court after the case against him collapses.
But come the month of May, when he’s back in that dock, I will make sure I’m there outside, cheering everything he stands for.

[onawah]

We hear sometimes that getting out in numbers and demonstrating doesn't do much good because the mainstream media doesn't report such actions, or if they do, try to minimize the numbers, the effect it has in the immediate environment, etc.
I think it's the positive energy that is generated by demonstrating that's just as important, and the good that it does to the demonstrator's morale, and those witnessing it in person, even if the press doesn't cover it adequately or properly.
And certainly, it helps those for whom the demonstrators are turning out, and they will hear of it (even if the press doesn't cover it) from their supporters.
Even if Assange dies from all the abuse, at least he will die knowing that he has plenty of allies who were willing to rally to his defense.

[RogeRio]

Posted by onawah (here)
We hear sometimes that getting out in numbers and demonstrating doesn't do much good because the mainstream media doesn't report such actions, or if they do, try to minimize the numbers, the effect it has in the immediate environment, etc.

there is a very interesting answer on public interview about " the peaceful majority were irrelevant "

worth to watch, who hasn't watched yet ..

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=Ry3NzkAOo3s

[Tintin]

Well, nobody here is hero worshipping that's for sure, but, we do absolutely know that Julian's bravery and nerve, in seeking to do what he can, and has, to inform folk about what is really going on should be supported, and championed.

And, we can individually each do this our own way. Demonstrate if you will; create meaningful art and poetry and music, if you will; send healing power with the extraordinary talent to do so, if you will; protest, if you will; share good information about what's happening, if you will. Perhaps start a local bulletin/gazette/journal exposing what you feel to be true based on these exposés, or anything that comes your way if you will.

YOUR will

Don't feel powerless or worse still be made to feel powerless.

Get a grip, and feel, and more importantly BE empowered, and share that your OWN way That is an underlying message to all this here.

It's throbbing, and pregnant with potential positive outcomes.

[Tintin]

Doctors for Assange respond to the Australian Government's repeated refusals to intervene and apply the necessary pressure on the UK Government, in support of Julian.

"Now, with the president of the Prison Governor's Association warning that prisons provide "fertile breeding grounds for coronavirus, Julian Assange's life and health are at heightened risk due to his arbitrary detention during this global pandemic. That threat will only grow as the coronavirus spreads.

These are surely matters in which Government ministers have not only the ability but the obligation to raise concerns about gross violations of rights with their UK counterparts."

Linked here: https://doctorsassange.org/doctors-f...nt-march-2020/

[Tintin]

"There is nothing new in this world except the history you don't know yet" - Julian Assange (2010)

------------------------------------------

Admittedly not 'current' this fabulous short film made back in better days goes behind the scenes with Julian. Called Inside Wikileaks the viewer feels like a fly on his shoulder through its duration as Julian strives and succeeds in shining a light on truth, but not so brightly that it can't be seen by those with eyes to seek.

Description: Inside Wikileaks (2010): Julian Assange is adamant that his leak of over 90,000 war files was justified, and threatens to release even more.


----------------------------------------

At about 03:53 into the film we accompany Julian on his way to the "bunker" in The Guardian's offices, an airless soporific space where regular meetings take place with Guardian, Der Spiegel and New York Times colleagues. Suffice to say that just that detail, never mind the extraordinary work he has done, should allay any misguided notions in the minds of anyone who simply can't accept that Julian is, albeit incarcerated at present, was actively, and always will be regarded by those of us who know, a journalist, and a very fine one.

At 11:34 there s an interesting exchange with the interviewer where Julian reveals that The New York Times wanted Wikileaks to publish the material first so that they could claim to be "reprinting somebody else's work." Perhaps Julian's legal representatives would find some value in that being documented as it is here, on film

Do enjoy, I did.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=PSYwncX0J2A

[Tintin]

Hacking Justice (2017)

Another fascinating documentary this time focusing on the herculean efforts of Spanish judge turned lawyer Baltasar Garzón, who became famous for securing the arrest of Augusto Pinochet in 1998.

There is plenty of fascinating behind the scenes footage of Julian in the Ecuadorian Embassy and documents the many small battles that were won. There are also, lest we needed them, sobering reminders of the blatant disregard for international law inherent in the UK and Swedish states. Yet the film is in turns both uplifting and yet in light of Julian's current situation, also leaves one nostalgic for fairer outcomes.

Julian is on occasion here in very humorous form, in particular in the scene where he discusses the UVB light solution adopted to mitigate against his dreadful lack of exposure to any sunlight during his detention in the Ecuadorian Embassy. The extraordinary efforts of those not really so well known at all to us can be marveled at here too; heroes and heroines each and every one of them.

Perhaps, as evidenced a little further up this thread on this page, with the rather late in the day stirring to action from voices both medical and legal, maybe, just maybe, there can be some justice done, finally.

The audio doesn't quite sync with the visual but with subtitles provided as well still manages to hold the viewer's attention; another important document in this convoluted tale.

[Tintin]

Last night Julian Assange called me. Here is what we talked about
By Yanis Varoufakis March 24, 2020

Last night, immediately after our first DiEM25 TV event, my phone rang. It was Julian. From prison. It was not that first time that he honoured me deeply by using the few phone calls prison allows him to make to call me. Like every other such occasion, when I unexpectedly recognise his voice a torrent of emotions comes flooding in. Guilt, primarily, at the thought that, the moment the line is disconnected, he will remain there – in the exceedingly dark place to which he has been confined because of a decision he made long ago to help the rest of us grasp what the powers-that-be have been doing on our behalf without our knowledge or consent.

Julian wanted to talk about the effects of Covid-19 on the world we live in and, of course, on his case. He remarked that Jeremy Corbyn’s election manifesto, that the establishment had lambasted for being too radical, now seems unreasonable moderate. We laughed at the audacity of those who were telling the people of Britain that it was irresponsible to spend a few tens billions on providing proper funding to the NHS and social care for all, on turning broadband into a public utility, and on taking the railways into public ownership to make them work properly – the very same people who, now that big business and capitalism more generally, are in serious trouble seem to have discovered the money tree, announcing trillions to be pumped into the economy.

Julian did not know (how could he, when the prison authorities deny him access to newspapers, the internet, even to BBC Radio 4?) that Boris Johnson had, earlier yesterday, announced the temporary nationalisation of the railways – seeing that privateers can never provide a decent service in the midst of a national emergency.

After a few minutes during which we allowed ourselves to bask in the neoliberals’ Waterloo, in the hands of some RNA that the system could simply not cope with without abandoning all its certainties, we discussed what this means for the future. Julian said, quite correctly, that this new phase of the crisis is, at the very least, making it clear to us that anything goes – that everything is now possible. To which I added that anything ranges from the best to the worst possible developments. Whether the epidemic helps deliver the good or the most evil society will depend, of course, on us – on whether progressives manage to band together. For if we do not, just like in 2008 we did not, the bankers, the spivs, the oligarchs and the neofascists will prove, again, that they are the ones who know how not to let a good crisis go to waste.

Will we succeed? Julian had a hopeful comment on this: At the very least, transnational organisations like Wikileaks and DiEM25 had honed the digital tools for online debates and campaigns well before Covid-19 came on the scene. In some measure, we are better prepared than others.

Then we talked about his case. His prison conditions are deteriorating. Now that visits have stopped, his isolation is getting worse. His lawyers are about to petition the court for bail. If any prisoner’s health at Belmarsh High Security prison is in jeopardy from Covid-19 infection, it is Julian’s. Will the court grant him bail? Unlikely. Will the new crisis change the odds of his extradition? We agreed that the answer to the last question is: probably, but only a little – now that the national security complex in the US and in the UK have things to worry about that did not feature a few weeks ago.

Our conversation lasted ten minutes and one second. Then the prison warden cut the line. The one man who knows the perils and pains of isolation better than all of us, had emerged from it to give me, us, a ten-minute lesson in how not to lose it while in confinement.

Make no mistake dear reader: Julian is struggling to keep his faculties, not to lose his mind. For hours every day in solitary he fights the darkness and the despair. When he sounds lucid, funny even, on the phone it is so because he has worked for 20 hours in anticipation of the moment when he will have to communicate his side of the story, his thoughts, to the outside world. No one should have to live that way.

And so it is that, now that we are all in some state of isolation, Julian’s plight – as well as insights – must give us pause, and cause, to discover in ourselves the power, and the solidarity, necessary to ensure that this crisis is not wasted – that the inane and corrupt powers-that-be do not end up, once again, the beneficiaries.

[Tintin]

"The government has stated that it is actively considering releasing some prisoners to reduce prison populations because of COVID-19. That a non-violent remand prisoner, whose current position is an innocent man facing charges in a foreign state, is in the fortress Belmarsh prison is already self-evidently ludicrous."


From Craig Murray, March 25th

Related post: https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...=1#post1340047

------------------------------------

Assange Bail Application

Unfortunately I am in lockdown at home in Edinburgh and cannot get down to Westminster Magistrates Court for Julian Assange’s urgent bail application today. Several hearings ago, Magistrate Baraitser stated pre-emptively that she would not grant bail, before any application had been made. Today’s application will argue that Assange’s ill health puts him at extreme danger from COVID-19, and that prison conditions make it impossible to avoid infection.

The government has stated that it is actively considering releasing some prisoners to reduce prison populations because of COVID-19. That a non-violent remand prisoner, whose current position is an innocent man facing charges in a foreign state, is in the fortress Belmarsh prison is already self-evidently ludicrous.

Both the British Government and Vanessa Baraitser personally came in for extreme criticism from the highly authoritative International Bar Association over both the conditions in which he is being held and over the conduct of his extradition hearing to date. This is from the International Bar Association’s own website:

IBAHRI condemns UK treatment of Julian Assange in US extradition trial
Tuesday 10 March 2020


The International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI) condemns the reported mistreatment of Julian Assange during his United States extradition trial in February 2020, and urges the government of the United Kingdom to take action to protect him. According to his lawyers, Mr Assange was handcuffed 11 times; stripped naked twice and searched; his case files confiscated after the first day of the hearing; and had his request to sit with his lawyers during the trial, rather than in a dock surrounded by bulletproof glass, denied.

The UK hearing, which began on Monday 24 February 2020 at Woolwich Crown Court in London, UK, will decide whether the WikiLeaks founder, Mr Assange, will be extradited to the US, where he is wanted on 18 charges of attempted hacking and breaches of the 1917 Espionage Act. He faces allegations of collaborating with former US army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning to leak classified documents, including exposing alleged war crimes in Afghanistan and Iraq. The hearing was adjourned after four days, with proceedings set to resume on 18 May 2020.

IBAHRI Co-Chair, the Hon Michael Kirby AC CMG, commented:

‘The IBAHRI is concerned that the mistreatment of Julian Assange constitutes breaches of his right to a fair trial and protections enshrined in the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, to which the UK is party. It is deeply shocking that as a mature democracy in which the rule of law and the rights of individuals are preserved, the UK Government has been silent and has taken no action to terminate such gross and disproportionate conduct by Crown officials. As well, we are surprised that the presiding judge has reportedly said and done nothing to rebuke the officials and their superiors for such conduct in the case of an accused whose offence is not one of personal violence. Many countries in the world look to Britain as an example in such matters. On this occasion, the example is shocking and excessive. It is reminiscent of the Abu Grahib Prison Scandal which can happen when prison officials are not trained in the basic human rights of detainees and the Nelson Mandela Rules.’

In accordance with the Human Rights Act 1998, which came into force in the UK in October 2000, every person tried in the UK is entitled to a fair trial (Article 6) and freedom from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment (Article 3). Similarly, Article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights upholds an individual’s right to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal.

IBAHRI Co-Chair, Anne Ramberg Dr jur hc, commented:

‘The IBAHRI concurs with the widespread concern over the ill-treatment of Mr Assange. He must be afforded equality in access to effective legal representation. With this extradition trial we are witnessing the serious undermining of due process and the rule of law. It is troubling that Mr Assange has complained that he is unable to hear properly what is being said at his trial, and that because he is locked in a glass cage is prevented from communicating freely with his lawyers during the proceedings commensurate with the prosecution.’

A recent report from Nils Melzer, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture and Inhumane Treatment, presented during the 43rd session of the UN Human Rights Council (24 February – 20 March 2020), argues that the cumulative effects of Mr Assange’s mistreatment over the past decade amount to psychological torture. If Mr Assange was viewed as a victim of psychological torture, his extradition would be illegal under international human rights law.

117 medical doctors, including several world prominent experts in the field, had published a letter in the Lancet warning that Assange’s treatment amounts to torture and that he could die in jail.

"Should Assange die in a UK prison, as the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture has warned, he will effectively have been tortured to death. Much of that torture will have taken place in a prison medical ward, on doctors’ watch. The medical profession cannot afford to stand silently by, on the wrong side of torture and the wrong side of history, while such a travesty unfolds."

You may recall that I myself concluded that the extraordinary and oppressive treatment of Assange, and the refusal of Baraitser to act to ameliorate it, could only be part of a deliberate policy to cause his death. I could, and can, think of no other possible explanation.

If the authorities now refuse to allow him out on bail during the Covid-19 outbreak, I do not see how anybody can possibly argue there is any intention other than to cause his death.

With grateful thanks to those who donated or subscribed to make this reporting possible.

This article is entirely free to reproduce and publish, including in translation, and I very much hope people will do so actively. Truth shall set us free.

[Tintin]

Doctors4Assange Statement on Assange Bail Hearing over Coronavirus Risk
March 27th 2020
Link: https://doctorsassange.org/doctors4a...onavirus-risk/

*Due to the number of links herein I'm embedding the pdf on this occasion, in the hope that it is viewable, and supplying the link (above). The responses at the end of the statement are very telling indeed - Tintin Q

[Tintin]

REPORT ON CORONAVIRUS AND IMMIGRATION DETENTION
Professor Richard Coker MB BS, MSc, MD, FRCP, FFPH

March 2020

Source: https://detentionaction.org.uk/wp-co...ID-Final-1.pdf

One of the responses contained in the Doctors4Assange statement (above) supplied by Prof. Richard Coker. His credentials speak for themselves.

As he outlines after his introduction, he was instructed to address the following questions:

My instructions
I have been instructed to address the following questions:

1. What is COVID-19 and how is it spread between individuals?
2. What are the symptoms of COVID-19? Please explain what kind of symptoms a person who is severely affected by the infection would suffer, and the likely duration of such symptoms? Please also explain whether a person who is severely affected by the infection but does not die, is at risk of suffering future health complications.
3. How long may a person who has contracted COVID-19 be asymptomatic?
4. Please explain the accuracy of tests administered to screen people for COVID-19?
5. What underlying conditions (including age and pre-existing health conditions) may increase the risk of an individual (i) contracting COVID-19; (ii) suffering severe
symptoms; (iii) dying?
6. What is the current rate of (i) infection; (ii) suffering severe symptoms; and (iii)
mortality, within the community?
7. What is the likelihood of COVID-19 entering an immigration detention centre?
8. What is the likely rate of (i) infection; (ii) suffering severe symptoms; and (iii)
mortality, within a detention centre?
9. Please explain whether the conditions in immigration detention centres described
above (including for example the regular transfer of detainees in and out of detention centres; standards of hygiene; ventilation; the ‘lock-in’ regime; and limited space) may increase the risk of a widespread outbreak of COVID-19. Please explain whether any other factors may increase the likely infection rate in a detention centre.
10. What practical measures would be necessary within an immigration detention centre to (i) minimise the risk of individuals who are currently detained contracting COVID19; (ii) properly isolate and contain COVID-19 if an individual (or individuals) contract the virus?
11. Please explain the concept of cluster amplification, and the impact that the spread of COVID-19 to the immigration detention estate may have on the spread of the virus amongst the UK population.
12. Please express a view on the urgency with which preventative measures should be taken to reduce the risk of COVID-19 entering the immigration detention estate or spreading amongst detainees

[Tintin]

[UPDATE]

I'll now obviously make every best effort to ensure I'll be online for this. As previously mentioned on this thread I'd booked a ticket for the actual event but as this message from the organisers makes perfectly clear this has now had to move online, for obvious reasons.

This of course now provides any of you wishing to do something anywhere in the world now an opportunity for participation.

Here's the link: https://www.eventbrite.com/e/online-...term=eventname

ONLINE INTERNATIONAL SOLIDARITY EVENT: #FreeTheTruth, 11th April, 5:30 pm UK

A Message from Deepa Govindarajan Driver & Professor Iain Munro

Dear Attendees

Due to Covid-19, the time, format and date of the next #FreeTheTruth event in London have changed. We will be meeting online on Saturday 11th April at 5:30 pm. Attendees will be able to join via their phone or via the internet. Further details about the event are here:https://www.eventbrite.com/e/online-...ts-98461477931

Since you have a ticket for the event on 20th April, it will automatically be carried over to the new event. You do NOT need to register again.

We hope you and your loved ones are well and remain deeply worried for Julian's safety at Belmarsh prison

In solidarity

Iain Munro and Deepa Govindarajan Driver

[Tintin]

From the Concurrent Disorders Society - April, 2020
'Psychological Torture, Coronavirus, and Julian Assange'

Author: LISSA JOHNSON, Ph.D., Sydney, N.S.W., Australia for the Journal of Concurrent Disorders Vol. (TBD) No. (TBD), 2020 (pp. TBD )

[extracted - a preliminary release before publication]:

Another form of abuse with devastating psychological and physical consequences, which is currently undergoing just such a contextual shift, is psychological torture. Perhaps because psychological torture occurs largely in political and politicised contexts and is often perpetrated by authorities, relative to other forms of abuse it has been markedly neglected by psychology and psychiatry, whether empirically, theoretically, or in practical terms.

Although the sequelae of psychological torture have been well documented, and assessment tools developed, the peer-reviewed academic literatures lack coherent conceptualisations of the specific components or tactics deployed, the psychological processes targeted for abuse, and the mechanisms by which harm is caused.

Psychological-torture-coronavirus-and-Julian-Assange (Concurrent Disorders Society, Canada - Apr.pdf

***********

Accessible here as a download: https://concurrentdisorders.ca/2020/...ulian-assange/