+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: The Coming Show Trial Of Julian Assange

  1. Link to Post #1
    UK Avalon Member Clear Light's Avatar
    Join Date
    8th September 2015
    Age
    48
    Posts
    805
    Thanks
    1,534
    Thanked 4,114 times in 752 posts

    Question The Coming Show Trial Of Julian Assange

    Courtesy of ZeroHedge : The Coming Show Trial Of Julian Assange (Published : Sun, 06/23/2019)

    Authored by Chris Hedges via Truthdig

    On Friday morning I was in a small courtroom at Westminster Magistrates’ Court in London. Julian Assange, held in Belmarsh Prison and dressed in a pale-blue prison shirt, appeared on a video screen directly in front of me. Assange, his gray hair and beard neatly trimmed, slipped on heavy, dark-frame glasses at the start of the proceedings. He listened intently as Ben Brandon, the prosecutor, seated at a narrow wooden table, listed the crimes he allegedly had committed and called for his extradition to the United States to face charges that could result in a sentence of 175 years. The charges include the release of unredacted classified material that posed a “grave” threat to “human intelligence sources” and “the largest compromises of confidential information in the history of the United States.” After the prosecutor’s presentation, Assange’s attorney, Mark Summers, seated at the same table, called the charges “an outrageous and full-frontal assault on journalistic rights.”

    Most of us who have followed the long persecution of Assange expected this moment, but it was nevertheless deeply unsettling, the opening of the final act in a Greek tragedy where the hero, cursed by fortuna, or fate, confronts the dark forces from which there is no escape.

    Click image for larger version

Name:	JA_1.png
Views:	11
Size:	410.8 KB
ID:	40922

    The publication of classified documents is not a crime in the United States, but if Assange is extradited and convicted it will become one. Assange is not an American citizen. WikiLeaks, which he founded and publishes, is not a U.S.-based publication. The message the U.S. government is sending is clear: No matter who or where you are, if you expose the inner workings of empire you will be hunted down, kidnapped and brought to the United States to be tried as a spy. The extradition and trial of Assange will mean the end of public investigations by the press into the crimes of the ruling elites. It will cement into place a frightening corporate tyranny. Publications such as The New York Times and The Guardian, which devoted pages to the WikiLeaks revelations and later amplified and legitimized Washington’s carefully orchestrated character assassination of Assange, are no less panicked. This is the gravest assault on press freedom in my lifetime.

    The WikiLeaks publisher was trapped for nearly seven years in the Ecuadorian Embassy, where he had been granted political asylum. He feared being sent to Sweden to face sexual offense allegations, which he has denied, and then extradited to the United States. Two months ago, although diplomatic missions are considered sovereign territory, he was physically dragged out of the embassy by British police when the new government of Ecuador revoked his asylum and the Ecuadorian citizenship that had been granted to him. (Assange retains his Australian citizenship.) He was transported to court within three hours of his arrest, given 15 minutes to prepare a defense and summarily handed a 50-week sentence for a dubious bail violation. He was sent to Belmarsh, a notorious high-security prison in southeast London.

    On Thursday, the day before Assange appeared in court, British Home Secretary Sajid Javid advanced the process for his removal to the United States by signing an extradition request. It is a clear signal to the courts where the British government stands.

    We know what will be done to Assange. It has been done to thousands of those we kidnapped and then detained in black sites around the world. Sadistic and scientific techniques of torture will be used in an attempt to make him a zombie. Assange, in declining health, was transferred two weeks ago to the hospital wing of the prison. Because he was medically unable to participate when the hearing was initially to be held, May 30, the proceeding was reset. Friday’s hearing, in which he appeared frail and spoke hesitantly, although lucidly, set the timetable for his extradition trial, scheduled to take place at the end of February. All totalitarian states seek to break their political prisoners to render them compliant. This process will define Assange’s existence over the next few months.

    Listen to Chris Hedges’ 2013 interview with Julian Assange in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London.

    Assange’s psychological and physical state, which includes a dramatic loss of weight that was apparent Friday, came as Nils Melzer, the United Nations’ special rapporteur on torture, spoke out after he, with two physicians, went to Belmarsh Prison to assess Assange. Melzer said Assange had undergone prolonged psychological torture. He went on to criticize what he called the “judicial persecution” of Assange by Britain, the United States, Ecuador and Sweden. He warned that Assange would face a politicized show trial in the United States if he were extradited to face 17 charges under the Espionage Act, each carrying a potential sentence of 10 years, for his role in publishing classified military and diplomatic cables, documents and videos that exposed U.S. war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan. An additional charge that he conspired to hack into a government computer carries a maximum sentence of five years.

    At last week’s hearing, Assange spoke only briefly

    He does not have access to a computer, and his attorneys have complained that the heavy restrictions imposed upon him make it nearly impossible for him to prepare his case
    Quote “I know there has been an indictment brought against me,” Assange said through the video conference system.

    “My lawyers have not yet given me the paperwork.”
    He raised objections to the prosecutor’s charge that he and WikiLeaks attempted to hack into a U.S. government computer, insisting “WikiLeaks is nothing but a publisher.” The United States has charged him with offering to hack into a government computer to help Chelsea Manning—who passed the files and documents to WikiLeaks—conceal her identity. The government concedes, however, that no such hack ever took place.

    Quote “The prosecution attorney told the BBC yesterday I was wanted in the U.S. for computer hacking,” he said.

    This is unquestionably false. Even the U.S. admits there was no hack. No passwords were broken. There is no evidence that I, WikiLeaks or Chelsea Manning engaged in hacking. I have 175 years of my life at stake. This is a signal that the prosecution will misrepresent the charges to mislead the press.”
    Click image for larger version

Name:	JA_2.png
Views:	10
Size:	378.9 KB
ID:	40923

    The judge, Emma Arbuthnot, cut him off, saying “this is not the time to go into this.”

    Commenting in 2018 when Assange’s lawyers requested that the warrant for his arrest be dropped, Arbuthnot said, “I accept that Mr. Assange had expressed fears of being returned to the United States from a very early stage in the Swedish extradition proceedings but, absent any evidence from Mr. Assange on oath, I do not find that Mr. Assange’s fears were reasonable,”

    This statement by the judge captures the Alice-in-Wonderland quality of the judicial persecution of Assange. She dismisses as unreasonable Assange’s fears that if he voluntarily left the Ecuadorian Embassy he would be arrested by British police and extradited to the United States because he did not appear in court to express them. And yet, she is now presiding over his extradition trial.

    This circular logic is not the only disturbing aspect of Judge Arbuthnot’s overseeing of the Assange case. She is married to James Arbuthnot, who sits in the House of Lords, is a British Conservative Party politician, was the minister of state at the Ministry of Defense and for nine years was the chairman of the Defense Select Committee in the House of Commons, a committee that oversees the operation of the Ministry of Defense and the armed forces. Arbuthnot, who was reprimanded while a member of Parliament for diverting public funds to maintain his two homes, is a director at SC Strategy, established by John Scarlett, the former head of the British foreign intelligence service MI6. The politician also is on the advisory board of Thales UK, a huge arms manufacturer whose corrupt business practices, which included massive bribes to heads of state in exchange for arms contracts, were exposed when some of its internal documents were published by WikiLeaks.

    The judge “has a strong conflict of interest,” Melzer said from Vienna when I interviewed him by video link for my television show, “On Contact.” “Her husband had been exposed by WikiLeaks.”

    Click image for larger version

Name:	JA_3.png
Views:	12
Size:	642.6 KB
ID:	40924

    Assange’s lawyers have asked the judge to recuse herself. She has refused.

    “I was able to visit Mr. Assange in Belmarsh Prison,” Melzer said in the interview. “I was accompanied by two medical experts—a forensic expert and a psychiatrist. Both of them were specialized in identifying, examining and documenting psychological and physical torture. What we found was Mr. Assange showed all the symptoms that are typical for a person who has been exposed to prolonged psychological torture. What we’re talking about is severe traumatization. Chronic anxiety. Intense, constant stress, and an inability to relax or focus, to think in a structured, straight line. Someone who is in a constant, hyper-stimulated stage and can no longer relax.”

    Psychological torture can have various consequences,” Melzer continued. “It is difficult to predict exactly how the situation will evolve. What you see now, during my visit, was already alarming. What we have seen since then, his state of health has dramatically deteriorated as predicted by the psychiatrist who accompanied my visit. What can happen during the prolongation is it can have irreversible damage, even on the physical level. First on the psychological and emotional level. But then also on the physical level it can lead to a nervous breakdown and to cardiovascular damage that is no longer reversible.”

    Melzer, who is an attorney, closely examined the 2010 Swedish allegations against Assange. He said he found a series of disturbing judicial anomalies and indications that the sexual assault charges were being manipulated by Swedish authorities to extradite the publisher to the United States. When legal proceedings were initiated against Assange, for example, they were immediately made public. Assange learned about the allegations in the press.

    “He was in Sweden at the time,” Melzer said. “He immediately went to a police station himself and said, ‘Could I please make my statement and participate in this?’ Sweden law prohibits the publication of the name of the complainant and the suspected offender in a sexual offense case. His statement was taken. Two or three days later, the prosecutor closed the case, saying, ‘There was no evidence of any crime being committed at all.’ ”

    But a few days later the case was reopened by a different prosecutor.

    “Mr. Assange voluntarily stayed on in Sweden for three weeks, saying, ‘I’m at the disposal of the prosecution for any questions you have to ask,’ ” Melzer said.

    Assange had a commitment in Britain and, Melzer noted, received permission from the prosecutor to leave Sweden. Once he arrived in the United Kingdom, however, Sweden issued an arrest warrant, claiming he was trying to avoid questioning.

    “They asked him to come back to Sweden for questioning,” Melzer said. “Then Mr. Assange became a little bit suspicious. ‘I thought we had dealt with this. What is the issue?’ He was afraid that he was being called back so Sweden could surrender him to the U.S.”

    Sweden has on several occasions surrendered foreign nationals to the CIA without due process, including handing over two Egyptian nationals, Mohammed al-Zari and Ahmed Agiza, to CIA operatives on Dec. 18, 2001, for transfer from Stockholm to Cairo. The men were seeking asylum in Sweden. Once returned to Egypt they were imprisoned and tortured. Sending asylum seekers to countries that are known to engage in torture is a violation of international law.

    When Assange’s lawyers asked for a guarantee that he would not be extradited to the United States, Swedish authorities refused. Assange’s lawyers said he would be willing to undergo questioning by video link from Britain, a proposal Sweden rejected despite having used this procedure in past criminal cases. Assange proposed to be questioned by Swedish officials in Britain. This offer, too, was rejected. The Swedish authorities insisted he return to Sweden.

    “That is why Mr. Assange looked for refuge in the Ecuadorian Embassy once the extradition proceedings to Sweden didn’t go in his favor at the Supreme Court in the U.K.,” Melzer said.

    “What is called a rape allegation [in the Swedish case] is not what would be called a rape in English or Swedish or any other language in the world,” Melzer said. “I know what I’m talking about because I speak Swedish. What the rape allegation refers to is an offense that doesn’t involve any violence. He has been alleged of intentionally ripping a condom during consensual intercourse with a woman. She said it was intentional. He said it was an accident. Predictably, this is something no one will ever be able to prove. The piece of evidence submitted to the prosecution, the condom, was examined and did not have any DNA on it from him, or from the complainant, or anyone else.”

    “There is no evidence that he committed a sexual offense … ,” Melzer said. “This whole narrative is extremely important. It dominated his presence in the Ecuadorian Embassy for seven years.”

    A leaked email exchange between Swedish judicial authorities, who sought to drop the case four years before they formally abandoned proceedings in 2017, and Britain’s Crown Prosecution Service, handling the Assange case, included a message to the Swedes warning them not to “get cold feet!!!

    Assange’s 50-week sentence is for violating his bail conditions by refusing to surrender to the British authorities and accept extradition to Sweden. After he requested and took political asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy, the British government refused him safe passage to the airport, trapping him in the Ecuadorian compound. The Swedish judiciary, which conveniently reopened its case against Assange the moment he was taken from the embassy, has since dropped its extradition request, clearing the way for his extradition to the United States.

    Click image for larger version

Name:	trump_then_and_now.png
Views:	11
Size:	379.6 KB
ID:	40925

    In 2017 Lenin Moreno was elected president of Ecuador. He sought to mend relations with the United States and agreed, apparently in exchange for debt relief, to unilaterally revoke Assange’s asylum status and the Ecuadorian citizenship he had been granted under the previous administration. Ecuador was given a $4.2 billion debt relief package by the International Monetary Fund three weeks before Moreno authorized British police to enter the embassy in London.

    Judge Michael Snow called a disheveled Assange “a narcissist who cannot get beyond his own self-interest” when he appeared in court three hours after being dragged out of the embassy April 11. The only words Assange spoke during that hearing were “I plead not guilty.” The 50-week sentence he received for bail violation is only two weeks short of the maximum provided by law.

    “This shows the disproportionate sentencing and bias against him,” Melzer said. “Normally a bail violation would end in a fine and perhaps in a very grave case a short prison sentence [much less than 50 weeks].”

    Melzer said he is convinced Assange cannot “get a fair trial in the United States” after nearly a decade of “unrestrained public mobbing, intimidation, calls for his assassination and instigation to violence against him.”

    “He has been exposed to public ridicule, including by serving officials and former officials of government, by prominent personalities,” Melzer said.

    “A fair trial requires legality—that he’s actually being charged for something that is punishable,” Melzer said. “Seventeen out of the 18 charges are under the Espionage Act. All of them relate to activities that any investigative journalist would conduct and would be protected under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The 18th charge, the so-called hacking charge, doesn’t relate to him. The U.S. doesn’t claim he actually hacked a computer to receive information. He obtained all of the information he published [from] someone who had full clearance. He received this information. He may have perhaps encouraged the source, as any journalist would do, to give him the information and then published it. The hacking charge relates to him unsuccessfully attempting to help the source break a password that would have allowed her to cover her tracks. But he didn’t succeed.”

    “I don’t see any possibility that Mr. Assange would be acquitted in the U.S. or that he would receive a very light sentence of six weeks in prison,” Melzer said. “That is utterly unrealistic, especially under the so-called espionage court, in the Eastern District of Virginia, where he has been charged. There has been no defendant that has been acquitted there of national security charges.”

    “A fair trial requires equality before the law,” Melzer said. “When a government prosecutes a whistleblower, let alone a journalist, for having exposed serious crimes by government agents—we’re talking about war crimes—and then these war crimes are not being prosecuted [this is not equality before the law].”

    “There is no longer the rule of law,” Melzer said. “There is no longer equality before the law. There are no longer transparent court proceedings when you have a secret grand jury and a secret session debating classified evidence. These are proceedings skewed against the defendant. I don’t think Julian Assange would get a fair trial.”

    “Britain, Sweden and Ecuador have violated the convention against torture,” Melzer said. “They should release Mr. Assange. They may question him in response to the sexual offenses. Frankly, I don’t think there is much behind that. If there is, I think he has suffered more than his share already through that ill treatment. He should be released. He should be compensated and rehabilitated by those states.”

  2. The Following 24 Users Say Thank You to Clear Light For This Post:

    angelfire (23rd June 2019), Ascension (28th June 2019), BMJ (29th June 2019), Dennis Leahy (23rd June 2019), Franny (23rd June 2019), Gemma13 (24th June 2019), graciousb (25th June 2019), ichingcarpenter (23rd June 2019), Intranuclear (23rd June 2019), jjjones (24th June 2019), mgray (24th June 2019), Omi (23rd June 2019), peterpam (24th June 2019), Philippe (27th June 2019), Sadieblue (25th June 2019), Satori (24th June 2019), scotslad (23rd June 2019), Sstarss (25th June 2019), Star Tsar (25th June 2019), Tintin (12th July 2019), toppy (23rd June 2019), Valerie Villars (23rd June 2019), Violet3 (24th June 2019), Wind (23rd June 2019)

  3. Link to Post #2
    UK Avalon Member Clear Light's Avatar
    Join Date
    8th September 2015
    Age
    48
    Posts
    805
    Thanks
    1,534
    Thanked 4,114 times in 752 posts

    Default Re: The Coming Show Trial Of Julian Assange

    From the ZH comments section :

    Quote “If wars can be started by lies,
    peace can be started by truth.”
    — Julian Assange

  4. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Clear Light For This Post:

    Ba-ba-Ra (23rd June 2019), Dennis Leahy (23rd June 2019), Franny (23rd June 2019), jjjones (24th June 2019), Sstarss (25th June 2019), Star Tsar (25th June 2019), toppy (23rd June 2019), Valerie Villars (23rd June 2019), Violet3 (24th June 2019)

  5. Link to Post #3
    UK Avalon Member Clear Light's Avatar
    Join Date
    8th September 2015
    Age
    48
    Posts
    805
    Thanks
    1,534
    Thanked 4,114 times in 752 posts

    Default Re: The Coming Show Trial Of Julian Assange

    Quote Posted by Clear Light (here)
    This circular logic is not the only disturbing aspect of Judge Arbuthnot’s overseeing of the Assange case. She is married to James Arbuthnot, who sits in the House of Lords, is a British Conservative Party politician, was the minister of state at the Ministry of Defense and for nine years was the chairman of the Defense Select Committee in the House of Commons, a committee that oversees the operation of the Ministry of Defense and the armed forces. Arbuthnot, who was reprimanded while a member of Parliament for diverting public funds to maintain his two homes, is a director at SC Strategy, established by John Scarlett, the former head of the British foreign intelligence service MI6. The politician also is on the advisory board of Thales UK, a huge arms manufacturer whose corrupt business practices, which included massive bribes to heads of state in exchange for arms contracts, were exposed when some of its internal documents were published by WikiLeaks.

    The judge “has a strong conflict of interest,” Melzer said from Vienna when I interviewed him by video link for my television show, “On Contact.” “Her husband had been exposed by WikiLeaks.”
    Oh, in reference to her (Emma Arbuthnot) clearly apparent "conflict of interest" in this particular case, I am sure she need not be reminded that :

    Quote It is essential that judges not only are, but are seen to be, absolutely impartial.
    As Quoted From : The Guardian (Aug 2018) : Judge in Uber’s London legal battle steps aside over husband’s links to firm

    As well :

    Quote Magistrates are bound by the Judicial Code of Conduct. It acknowledges that even the appearance of a possible conflict of interest may disqualify them. It ensures that a judge will be mindful of such possible conflicts and can draw relevant matters to the attention of the parties in the case. It states: “The question whether an appearance of bias or possible conflict of interest is sufficient to disqualify an officeholder from hearing a case is the subject of Strasbourg, English and Welsh and Commonwealth jurisprudence.”
    I mean, who is she kidding ... to deny that there is absolutely no conflict of interest is just blatantly untrue eh ?


  6. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Clear Light For This Post:

    Dennis Leahy (23rd June 2019), Franny (23rd June 2019), Intranuclear (23rd June 2019), jjjones (24th June 2019), Philippe (27th June 2019), Sstarss (25th June 2019), Star Tsar (25th June 2019), toppy (23rd June 2019), Violet3 (24th June 2019)

  7. Link to Post #4
    Australia Avalon Member Violet3's Avatar
    Join Date
    11th September 2015
    Location
    South West WA
    Age
    63
    Posts
    46
    Thanks
    1,265
    Thanked 277 times in 43 posts

    Default Re: The Coming Show Trial Of Julian Assange

    Thanks for this post and helping to keep this huge issue connected to freedom everywhere alive. Facts as comprehensively summarised above don't seem to have the slightest impact on the proceedings.

    I think of Julian a lot, and of everything that his own government and mine is not doing to help him. The dirty smear campaign seems to have turned people off his plight and many if not most either don't care or think he deserves what he gets.

    I will be praying for him.

  8. The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to Violet3 For This Post:

    Clear Light (24th June 2019), Dennis Leahy (2nd July 2019), Franny (24th June 2019), graciousb (25th June 2019), peterpam (24th June 2019), Philippe (27th June 2019), scotslad (24th June 2019), Sstarss (25th June 2019), Star Tsar (25th June 2019), Valerie Villars (24th June 2019)

  9. Link to Post #5
    United States Avalon Member
    Join Date
    24th June 2013
    Posts
    1,284
    Thanks
    622
    Thanked 3,500 times in 1,041 posts

    Default Re: The Coming Show Trial Of Julian Assange

    I was unaware of the ridiculousness of the sexual assault charge. In my opinion, Julian Assange has done absolutely NOTHING WRONG and if the USA does him wrong, as appears to be their intention from the above information, THEN IT IS THEY AND THE EVIL NEW WORLD ORDER AND THE SPIDER BRITISH GOVERNMENT WHO WANT TO HIDE UP THEIR CRIMES. We should all speak out for the protection of Julian because what is done to him is really being done to US, now and in the FUTURE. The CROWN and their cohorts created Hitler, Stalin, Poll Pot, Lenin and Trotsky and their Jewish Reds of the Revolution, they plotted WW1 and 2, they created the Capitalist and Communist systems (the latter now trying to bring down the United States (the Demoncrats) by flooding them with the super poor, drug dealers, etc.) and of Course, the deadly BANKING SYSTEM, shortly planned to evolve into the Smart Meter Mind Control System (currently being rolled out in China). I can hardly arrive at any conclusion but that the continued existence of that regime and its vipers represents a greater threat to the world even than Iran and its homosexual woman hating leaders and North Korea and its POLICY OF STARVATION OF ITS PEOPLE TO KEEP THEM IN LINE. Much as I hate the idea of atomic warfare, I might be tempted to press the button.

  10. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to amor For This Post:

    Ba-ba-Ra (27th June 2019), Dennis Leahy (2nd July 2019), meeradas (27th June 2019), peterpam (27th June 2019)

  11. Link to Post #6
    UK Avalon Member Clear Light's Avatar
    Join Date
    8th September 2015
    Age
    48
    Posts
    805
    Thanks
    1,534
    Thanked 4,114 times in 752 posts

    Default Re: The Coming Show Trial Of Julian Assange

    Demasking the Torture of Julian Assange

    By Nils Melzer, UN Special Rapporteur on Torture (Jun 26 · 5 min read)

    On the occasion of the International Day in Support of Torture Victims, 26 June 2019

    Quote I know, you may think I am deluded. How could life in an Embassy with a cat and a skateboard ever amount to torture? That’s exactly what I thought, too, when Assange first appealed to my office for protection. Like most of the public, I had been subconsciously poisoned by the relentless smear campaign, which had been disseminated over the years. So it took a second knock on my door to get my reluctant attention. But once I looked into the facts of this case, what I found filled me with repulsion and disbelief.

    Surely, I thought, Assange must be a rapist! But what I found is that he has never been charged with a sexual offence. True, soon after the US had encouraged allies to find reasons to prosecute Assange, two women made the headlines in Sweden. One of them claimed he had ripped a condom, and the other that he had failed to wear one, in both cases during consensual intercourse — not exactly scenarios that have the ring of ‘rape’ in any language other than Swedish. Mind you, each woman even submitted a condom as evidence. The first one, supposedly worn and torn by Assange, revealed no DNA whatsoever — neither his, nor hers, nor anybody else’s. Go figure. The second one, used but intact, supposedly proved ‘unprotected’ intercourse. Go figure, again. The women even texted that they never intended to report a crime but were ‘railroaded’ into doing so by zealous Swedish police. Go figure, once more. Ever since, both Sweden and Britain have done everything to prevent Assange from confronting these allegations without simultaneously having to expose himself to US extradition and, thus, to a show-trial followed by life in jail. His last refuge had been the Ecuadorian Embassy.

    Alright, I thought, but surely Assange must be a hacker! But what I found is that all his disclosures had been freely leaked to him, and that no one accuses him of having hacked a single computer. In fact, the only arguable hacking-charge against him relates to his alleged unsuccessful attempt to help breaking a password which, had it been successful, might have helped his source to cover her tracks. In short: a rather isolated, speculative, and inconsequential chain of events; a bit like trying to prosecute a driver who unsuccessfully attempted to exceed the speed-limit, but failed because their car was too weak.

    Well then, I thought, at least we know for sure that Assange is a Russian spy, has interfered with US elections, and negligently caused people’s deaths! But all I found is that he consistently published true information of inherent public interest without any breach of trust, duty or allegiance. Yes, he exposed war crimes, corruption and abuse, but let’s not confuse national security with governmental impunity. Yes, the facts he disclosed empowered US voters to take more informed decisions, but isn’t that simply democracy? Yes, there are ethical discussions to be had regarding the legitimacy of unredacted disclosures. But if actual harm had really been caused, how come neither Assange nor Wikileaks ever faced related criminal charges or civil lawsuits for just compensation?

    But surely, I found myself pleading, Assange must be a selfish narcissist, skateboarding through the Ecuadorian Embassy and smearing feces on the walls? Well, all I heard from Embassy staff is that the inevitable inconveniences of his accommodation at their offices were handled with mutual respect and consideration. This changed only after the election of President Moreno, when they were suddenly instructed to find smears against Assange and, when they didn’t, they were soon replaced. The President even took it upon himself to bless the world with his gossip, and to personally strip Assange of his asylum and citizenship without any due process of law.

    In the end it finally dawned on me that I had been blinded by propaganda, and that Assange had been systematically slandered to divert attention from the crimes he exposed. Once he had been dehumanized through isolation, ridicule and shame, just like the witches we used to burn at the stake, it was easy to deprive him of his most fundamental rights without provoking public outrage worldwide. And thus, a legal precedent is being set, through the backdoor of our own complacency, which in the future can and will be applied just as well to disclosures by The Guardian, the New York Times and ABC News.

    Very well, you may say, but what does slander have to do with torture? Well, this is a slippery slope. What may look like mere «mudslinging» in public debate, quickly becomes “mobbing” when used against the defenseless, and even “persecution” once the State is involved. Now just add purposefulness and severe suffering, and what you get is full-fledged psychological torture.

    Yes, living in an Embassy with a cat and a skateboard may seem like a sweet deal when you believe the rest of the lies. But when no one remembers the reason for the hate you endure, when no one even wants to hear the truth, when neither the courts nor the media hold the powerful to account, then your refuge really is but a rubber boat in a shark-pool, and neither your cat nor your skateboard will save your life.

    Even so, you may say, why spend so much breath on Assange, when countless others are tortured worldwide? Because this is not only about protecting Assange, but about preventing a precedent likely to seal the fate of Western democracy. For once telling the truth has become a crime, while the powerful enjoy impunity, it will be too late to correct the course. We will have surrendered our voice to censorship and our fate to unrestrained tyranny.

    This Op-Ed has been offered for publication to the Guardian, The Times, the Financial Times, the Sydney Morning Herald, the Australian, the Canberra Times, the Telegraph, the New York Times, the Washington Post, Thomson Reuters Foundation, and Newsweek.

    None responded positively.
    Oh, I suppose none of the mainstream news-publishers will "touch" this side-of-the-story for fear of attracting the same kind of "treatment" at the hands of the apparent PTB eh ?

    Now of course some of "them" have very strong views about what WikiLeaks has revealed over the years BUT in this case of prosecution against Assange, their own Livelihood (as a publisher, or as a Journalist) is very clearly "at risk" too eh ?

    So will "they" just "sit on the sidelines" as it all unfolds and point their fingers and say "you had it coming Julian" or will it perhaps give "them" pause enough to start Reporting on the Far-Reaching Implications of the Assange prosecution ?


  12. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Clear Light For This Post:

    Ba-ba-Ra (27th June 2019), Dennis Leahy (2nd July 2019), Franny (27th June 2019)

  13. Link to Post #7
    UK Avalon Member Clear Light's Avatar
    Join Date
    8th September 2015
    Age
    48
    Posts
    805
    Thanks
    1,534
    Thanked 4,114 times in 752 posts

    Default Re: The Coming Show Trial Of Julian Assange

    Oh, so I suppose I should say thanks very much to "Google" with whom I set up an Alert Email for anything related to this particular thread's subject of interest, that brought my attention (indirectly) to the following video from the UK's Foreign & Commonwealth Office YT channel :



    Quote Defend Media Freedom Conference: Day 1 Main Plenary & Press Conference

    Streamed live on 10 Jul 2019

    Speakers: Jeremy Hunt, Foreign Secretary Chrystia Freeland, Canadian Minister for Foreign Affairs Amal Clooney, Special Envoy for Media Freedom Luz Mely Reyes, Journalist, Venezuela
    And within it, at approximately the 21:20 mark, Amal Clooney (A Human Rights Lawyer / Barrister) begins her (11 minute) speech on defending the right to a "Free Press" ... here are some snippets from it :
    • Progress is not inevitable, we can always move backwards such as the decline across the globe of the right to a "free press"
    • James Madison (the 4th U.S. President, a Founding Father) is quoted as saying "the right to a free press is the only effectual guardian of every other right"
    • Journalists who expose abuse face arrest while those who commit the abuses do so with impunity
    • The indictment against the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has alarmed journalists at newspapers around the world including the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal and The Guardian because as the editor of the Washington Post has put it : "it criminalises common practices in journalism that have long served the public interest"
    • Recent reports suggest that today only one in ten people in the world lives in a country with a free press, and today the country of James Madison has a leader who vilifies the media making honest journalists all over the world more vulnerable to abuse

    Last edited by Clear Light; 12th July 2019 at 14:58. Reason: Proof Reading

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts