Current Wikileaks and Assange News & Releases

[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 :muscle: That is an underlying message to all this here.

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

:heart:

[Tintin]

Doctors for Assange respond (https://doctorsassange.org/doctors-for-assange-reply-to-australian-government-march-2020/) 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-for-assange-reply-to-australian-government-march-2020/

http://avalonlibrary.net/Julian_Assange_and_Wikileaks/%5bLetter%5d_DoctorsForAssange_reply_to_Australian_government_March_2020/DoctorsForAssange_reply_to_Australian_government_March_2020_%5bLetter%5d.pdf

[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.

PSYwncX0J2A

[Tintin]

Hacking Justice (2017)

Another fascinating documentary this time focusing on the herculean efforts of Spanish judge turned lawyer Baltasar Garzón (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltasar_Garz%C3%B3n), 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.

https://challengepower.info/files/HACKING%20JUSTICE%20aka%20THE%20CHALLENGE%20-%20international%20feature%20version.mp4

[Tintin]

Last night Julian Assange called me. Here is what we talked about
By Yanis Varoufakis (https://www.yanisvaroufakis.eu/2020/03/24/last-night-julian-assange-called-me-here-is-what-we-talked-about/) 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 (https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/03/assange-bail-application-today/), March 25th

Related post: http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?101183-Current-Wikileaks-and-Assange-News-Releases&p=1340047&viewfull=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 (https://www.ibanet.org/Article/NewDetail.aspx?ArticleUid=c05c57ee-1fee-47dc-99f9-26824208a750):



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


The International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute (https://www.ibanet.org/IBAHRI.aspx) (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 (https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/ProfessionalInterest/cat.pdf), 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 (https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/human-rights/human-rights-act), which came into force in the UK in October 2000, every person tried in the UK is entitled to a fair trial (Article 6 (https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/human-rights-act/article-6-right-fair-trial)) and freedom from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment (Article 3 (https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/human-rights-act/article-3-freedom-torture-and-inhuman-or-degrading-treatment)). Similarly, Article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-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 (http://avalonlibrary.net/Julian_Assange_and_Wikileaks/%5bREPORT%5d_Nils_Melzer_report_to_UNHRC_Feb_Mar_2020/Melzer_Nils_Report_to_UNHRC_A_HRC_43_49_AUV.pdf) 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 (https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30383-4/fulltext) 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 (https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/03/the-armoured-glass-box-is-an-instrument-of-torture/) 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/doctors4assange-statement-on-assange-bail-hearing-over-coronavirus-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

http://avalonlibrary.net/Julian_Assange_and_Wikileaks/%5bStatement%5d_DoctorsForAssange_Response_to_denial_of_bail_March_2020/Doctors4Assange_Statement_on_Assange_Bail_Hearing_over_Coronavirus_Risk_(March%2027th%202020).pdf

[Tintin]

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

March 2020

Source: https://detentionaction.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Report-on-Detention-and-COVID-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

http://avalonlibrary.net/Julian_Assange_and_Wikileaks/%5bStatement%5d_DoctorsForAssange_Response_to_denial_of_bail_March_2020/Report-on-Detention-and-COVID-Final-1_Richard_Coker_Prof_Mar_2020_compressed.pdf

[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-international-solidarity-event-freethetruth-11th-april-530-pm-uk-tickets-98461477931?utm_source=eventbrite&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=event_reminder&utm_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-international-solidarity-event-freethetruth-11th-april-530-pm-uk-tickets-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.


43044

***********

Accessible here as a download: https://concurrentdisorders.ca/2020/04/03/psychological-torture-coronavirus-and-julian-assange/

[onawah]

Julian Assange Case Update — Assange not Eligible for Release
Apr 4, 2020

zjVWxj0gbiI

[Tintin]

Mohammed Al-Maazi from Sputnik, today:


"(THREAD) At Westminster Magistrates' Court for #JulianAssange's last scheduled case management hearing. This is the final hearing listed before the substantive extradition hearings are due to begin again in May. I will tweet from today's court hearing via this thread.
@SputnikInt (https://twitter.com/SputnikInt)"

1247447591979233280

[Tintin]

[ALARM BELLS] | This following piece is really very concerning and I'm positively perturbed at its timing, or rather, shouldn't be at all surprised at the timing but ever watchful about whether this may be of even greater concern for Julian, now already in a dire enough situation, although with considerable support out there.

***

U.S. appeals court hands win to Trump plan to resume federal executions
Source: Thomson Reuters (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-deathpenalty/u-s-appeals-court-hands-win-to-trump-plan-to-resume-federal-executions-idUSKBN21P2LN)

U.S. LEGAL NEWS | APRIL 7, 2020 / 5:19 PM /

Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Chizu Nomiyama and David Gregorio

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Trump administration’s effort to resume federal executions got a boost on Tuesday from a U.S. appeals court, which tossed a district judge’s injunction that blocked four death penalty sentences from being carried out.

The 2-1 ruling by a three judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit could pave the way to the Justice Department carrying out the first execution of federal death row inmates since 2003, although other issues remain to be litigated.

The two judges in the majority, Greg Katsas and Neomi Rao, were both appointed to the bench by Republican President Donald Trump. The dissenting judge, David Tatel, was appointed by Democratic President Bill Clinton.

The court concluded that U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan was wrong to find in her November ruling that a law called the Federal Death Penalty Act requires the federal government to follow all execution protocols in the state where the execution is set to take place. The two judges in the majority differed on what aspects of state rules the federal government have to follow.

The judges left unresolved separate claims brought under different federal laws, which the district judge will now address when the case returns to her.

In December, the Supreme Court rejected a Trump administration request to intervene in the case at an early stage to allow the executions to proceed.

Most executions in the United States have been carried out by states rather than the federal government, which has been hindered by protracted litigation over the drugs used in lethal injection executions.

The inmates scheduled for execution by lethal injection all were convicted in federal courts of murder. They are Daniel Lee, Wesley Purkey, Alfred Bourgeois and Dustin Honken.

[Tintin]

Mohamed Al-Maazi from Sputnik, today:


"(THREAD) At Westminster Magistrates' Court for #JulianAssange's last scheduled case management hearing. This is the final hearing listed before the substantive extradition hearings are due to begin again in May. I will tweet from today's court hearing via this thread.
@SputnikInt (https://twitter.com/SputnikInt)"

1247447591979233280

The follow-up from Mohamed Al-Maazi, as promised; extradition hearing expected still to go ahead:

Source: Sputnik News (https://sputniknews.com/uk/202004071078866522-judge-says-assanges-main-extradition-hearings-will-continue-despite-difficulties-due-to-covid-19/)


"As you will be aware, there is a long history of problems [in having] access to him, even before the outbreak of COVID-19", Fitzgerald told the court.


The second part of Julian Assange's substantive extradition hearings is set to begin on 18 May 2020, when expert testimony will be presented by the defence and the prosecution.

Judge Vanessa Baraitser decided on Tuesday that Julian Assange's substantive extradition hearings will re-commence as originally planned, despite pleas from his defence team that COVID-19 related restrictions will make it impossible for him to have a fair hearing.

Edward Fitzgerald QC, speaking for the defence via telephone link, told the court that it would be impossible for Assange to have "equality of arms" with the prosecution on due to the impossibility of their client instructing his legal team while locked down in the Belmarsh maximum-security prison. Fitzgerald detailed how the restrictions now in place by the government mean that they can't visit the WikiLeaks founder in prison, and that the video conferencing facilities are rarely suitable, even when they are available.

James Leiws QC, speaking for the US government, said he recognised there will "considerable difficulties" in holding the substantive extradition hearings in May. He said the US government remains neutral on the matter, noting only that they will be ready for the substantive hearings to recommence in May if one of their medical experts is able to visit Assange in prison examine him.

But while the judge determined that parts of the substantive extradition hearings will likely have to be delayed, "to take place over the summer, likely July", she was not convinced that circumstances, as they currently stand, warrant the hearings being postponed.

Baraitser explained her decision almost immediately. She said that her current view is that 18 May is "still five weeks away" and the global picture is still unclear and rapidly changing.

"I can't assume the courts won't be operating normally by then", the judge said. She also added that, "in relation to contested [extradition] hearings at this courthouse, these are expected and intended to resume from 20 April, in two weeks' time, with the requested person attending in hearing in person".

She said that "with this in mind" it's her intention to, "hear as much of this case as possible in May".

"Assange is in custody and there is real urgency to this case being heard to its conclusion. At [the] hearing in May it is entirely possible for some witnesses….. to appear using video link. The use of video link for witnesses is routinely made and would be entirely appropriate", she added.

The district judge said that her decision would be subject to review should matters change. The proceedings were constantly interrupted by the teleconference voice announcing people joining and leaving the conference call, as lawyers and journalists either decided to leave the hearings or found themselves being kicked off the system.

Baraitser adjourned the extradition hearing until 22 April for a "non-effective" admin hearing to be held in Belmarsh Magistrates' Court, "in the hope additional instructions can be taken from Assange [by his legal team] - and for no other purpose".

[Tintin]

Beyond Words by Craig Murray, April 8th, 2020

43084
Pieter Evert sent me this rather good cartoon, for which many thanks.

Link: https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/04/beyond-words/



"There have been two Covid-19 deaths in Belmarsh prison so far. For obvious reasons the disease is ripping through the jail like wildfire. The Department of Justice is admitting to one death, and refuses to give statistics for the number of cases. As even very sick prisoners are not being tested, the figures would arguably not mean much anyway. As the court heard at the bail application, over 150 Belmarsh prison staff are off work self-isolating and the prison is scarcely functioning. It is the most complete definition of lockdown."

***

Yesterday Mark Sommers QC, the extremely erudite and bookish second counsel for Julian Assange in his extradition hearing, trembled with anger in court. Magistrate Vanessa Baraitser had just made a ruling that the names of Julian Assange’s partner and young children could be published, which she stated was in the interests of “open justice”. His partner had submitted a letter in support of his Covid 19 related bail application (which Baraitser had summarily dismissed) to state he had a family to live with in London. Baraitser said that it was therefore in the interests of open justice that the family’s names be made public, and said that the defence had not convincingly shown this would cause any threat to their security or well-being. It was at this point Sommers barely kept control. He leapt to his feet and gave notice of an appeal to the High Court, asking for a 14 day stay. Baraitser granted four days, until 4pm on Friday.

I am in lockdown in Edinburgh, but received three separate eye witness reports. They are unanimous that yet again Baraitser entered the court carrying pre-written judgements before hearing oral argument; pre-written judgements she gave no appearance of amending.

There have been two Covid-19 deaths in Belmarsh prison so far. For obvious reasons the disease is ripping through the jail like wildfire. The Department of Justice is admitting to one death, and refuses to give statistics for the number of cases. As even very sick prisoners are not being tested, the figures would arguably not mean much anyway. As the court heard at the bail application, over 150 Belmarsh prison staff are off work self-isolating and the prison is scarcely functioning. It is the most complete definition of lockdown.

The Prison Governors’ Association submitted to the House of Commons Justice Committee (which yesterday morning considered prisoner releases in closed session) that 15,000 non-violent prisoners need to be released to give the jails any chance of managing COVID-19. The Department of Justice has suggested releasing 4,000 of whom just 2,000 have been identified. As of a couple of days ago, only about 100 had actually been released.

The prisons are now practising “cohorting” across the estate, although decisions currently lie with individual governors. Prisoners who have a cough – any cough – are being put together in segregated blocks. The consequences of this are of course potentially unthinkable. Julian has a cough and chronic lung condition for which he has been treated for years – a fact which is not in dispute.

Yesterday Baraitser again followed her usual path of refusing every single defence motion, following pre-written rulings (whether written or merely copied out by herself I know not), even when the prosecution did not object. You will recall that at the first week of extradition hearing proper, she insisted that Julian be kept in a glass cage, although counsel for the US government made no objection to his sitting in the body of the court, and she refused to intervene to stop his strip searching, handcuffing and the removal of his court papers, even though the US government joined the defence in querying her claim she had no power to do this (for which she was later roundly rebuked by the International Bar Association).

Yesterday the US government did not object to a defence motion to postpone the resumption of the extradition hearing. The defence put forward four grounds:

1) Julian is currently too ill to prepare his defence
2) Due to Covid-19 lockdown, access to his lawyers is virtually impossible
3) Vital defence witnesses, including from abroad, would not be able to be present to testify
4) Treatment for Julian’s mental health conditions had been stopped due to the Covid-19 situation.

Baraitser airily dismissed all these grounds – despite James Lewis QC saying the prosecution was neutral on the postponement – and insisted that the May 18 date remains. She stated that he could be brought to the cells in Westminster Magistrates Court for consultations with his lawyers. (Firstly, in practice that is not the case, and secondly these holding cells have a constant thoughput of prisoners which is very obviously undesirable with Covid19).

It is worth noting that the prosecution stated that the US government’s own psychiatrist, appointed to do an assessment of Julian, had been unable to access him in Belmarsh due to Covid 19 restrictions.

This is getting beyond me as it is getting beyond Mark Sommers and the defence team. Even before Covid 19 became such a threat, I stated that I had been forced to the conclusion the British Government is seeking Assange’s death in jail. The evidence for that is now overwhelming.

Here are three measures of hypocrisy.

Firstly, the UK insists on keeping this political prisoner – accused of nothing but publishing – in a Covid 19 infested maximum security jail while the much-derided Iranian government lets Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe out and hopefully will release her altogether.
Which is the inhumane regime?

Secondly, “open justice” allegedly justifies the release of the identities of Julian’s partner and kids, while the state enforces the secrecy of Alex Salmond’s busted accusers, even though the court heard evidence that they specifically colluded to destroy him using, as a deliberate tool, the anonymity afforded to people making sexual accusations.

Thirdly, nobody cultivates her own anonymity more than Vanessa Baraitser who has her existence carefully removed from the internet almost entirely. Yet she seeks to destroy the peace and young lives of Julian’s family.

Keep fighting for Julian’s life and for freedom.

[jaybee]

This makes me so mad and I could cry with the frustration of how wrong all this is... on all levels ....

Clearly the centre of the web of............of what can only be described as evil is the Judge Vanessa Baraitser -

If she were gone maybe another one would be just as heartless and corrupt but right now it is her..

In practical terms it would be a lot less expensive for Julian to be allowed to go and live with his family in London and have police guard outside while he is on house arrest - while this Coronavirus thing is going on at least... seeing as he is a danger to no one - not the public, not anyone.. it's so infuriating to see this playing out - and if he gets the virus and dies in prison they will blame it all on the virus and hope history will just accept that as an unexpected turn of events...

They might event infect his food with the virus on purpose to make sure...

There is an artist's sketch of Julian and the judge in this article - (I tried to get the image onto the post but it didn't work..)


https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/oct/21/julian-assange-extradition-judge-refuses-request-for-delay-wikileaks


I am going to visualize her being rubbed out with a rubber or eraser as some call it, or a finger - not specifying what should happen to her because that's not up to me - that's up to her at the end of the day karmic-wise - and don't want to bring anything nasty upon myself by thinking harmful thoughts... BUT... I want her OFF the case.... GONE from Julian's court hearings - preferably she will remove herself for some reason...

And I want Julian surrounded by healing and protective light - he has suffered too much and this can't be allowed to go on....

[jaybee]

Just had a look for something to hold the focus for sending love protection to Julian and this seems to be suitable...

I've just done it and as it was going on visualized it happening for Julian as well.... it felt like it got through to him -

I'm going to try and make it a regular thing because it will help Julian and it felt good for me as well...


QfmvYNM5LI0

[Tintin]

:bump:

[Original post #185 (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?101183-Current-Wikileaks-and-Assange-News-Releases&p=1346968&viewfull=1#post1346968) here][REMINDER for tomorrow] for anybody interested in joining this.

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-international-solidarity-event-freethetruth-11th-april-530-pm-uk-tickets-98461477931?utm_source=eventbrite&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=event_reminder&utm_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-international-solidarity-event-freethetruth-11th-april-530-pm-uk-tickets-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

[Billy]

:bump:

[Original post #185 (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?101183-Current-Wikileaks-and-Assange-News-Releases&p=1346968&viewfull=1#post1346968) here][REMINDER for tomorrow] for anybody interested in joining this.

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-international-solidarity-event-freethetruth-11th-april-530-pm-uk-tickets-98461477931?utm_source=eventbrite&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=event_reminder&utm_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-international-solidarity-event-freethetruth-11th-april-530-pm-uk-tickets-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

Bumping Tintin's post.
This even Blasts off in 20 minutes.

EDIT to add LIVE link here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xr4OkKXKUDY

xr4OkKXKUDY

[Tintin]

“My close relationship with Julian has been the opposite of how he is viewed – of reserve, respect for each other and attempts to shield each other from some of the nightmares that have surrounded our lives together,” Moris said.


*****

There have been two very contradictory items from Guardian journalists today. This unsavoury offering from a Hannah Jane Parkinson on her Twitter feed that Craig Murray has rightly in my view 'called out'. You can view that HJP tweet here (https://twitter.com/ladyhaja/status/1249095236007202816) as I'm not dignifying posting that vile nonsense for public view on Avalon.

The other is this from Jedidajah Otte which is the first mention of Julian Assange on a Guardian/Observer page for really quite some time, albeit it is largely a precis of a Mail on Sunday interview.

Beneath the article I'm going to link to a historical interview that Julian conducted with David Frost the content of which ties in quite appropriately with his current plight. He does outline the attitude taken within the Guardian newspaper at that time as well.

An update on the #FreeTheTruth (https://twitter.com/deepa_driver/status/1249272520802533379?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet) April 11th meeting will follow in due course.

*****

Release Julian Assange, says woman who had two children with him while in embassy
Stella Moris, who had two sons with Wikileaks founder while he was in Ecuadorian embassy, says he is in danger from coronavirus while in prison

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/apr/12/release-julian-assange-says-woman-who-had-two-children-with-him-while-in-embassy

April 12th, 2020

43134

The partner of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has revealed that she had two children with him while he was living inside the Ecuadorian embassy in London.

Stella Moris, 37, a South African-born lawyer, issued a plea for the father of her two young sons, Gabriel, three, and Max, one, to be released from prison and said there were genuine fears for Assange’s health.

Assange was forcibly dragged out of the embassy and arrested in April last year, after Ecuador revoked his political asylum and invited Metropolitan police officers inside their Knightsbridge premises. He had been living at the embassy for nearly seven years.

Assange has since been held in Belmarsh prison in London, where he is serving a 50-week jail term for violating his bail conditions. He is awaiting an extradition hearing on 18 May on behalf of the US, where he is wanted for questioning over the activities of WikiLeaks and likely facing espionage charges.

In a statement to the courts supporting an application for bail, Moris revealed that she met Assange in 2011 when she was a legal researcher and looking into ways to halt Assange’s extradition.

“Over time Julian and I developed a strong intellectual and emotional bond. He became my best friend and I became his,” she wrote.

In 2015, Moris and Assange began a relationship despite the “extraordinary circumstances”, she said, and became engaged in 2017.

She said she had gone to great lengths to protect the couple’s children from the climate that surrounds Assange, adding that she was making the statement now because their lives were “on the brink” and she feared Assange could die.

According to Moris, Assange is in isolation for 23 hours a day and all visits have stopped.

“My close relationship with Julian has been the opposite of how he is viewed – of reserve, respect for each other and attempts to shield each other from some of the nightmares that have surrounded our lives together,” Moris said.

In an interview with the Mail on Sunday, Moris said Assange had watched the births of both children in London hospitals via live video link and met Gabriel after he was smuggled into the embassy.

She further revealed that both boys had visited their father in prison, and that the couple were planning to marry, whether Assange is released or not.

Friends and supporters of Assange, among them celebrities including Pamela Anderson, have said he has been in poor health for many months and have expressed growing concern for his wellbeing since the coronavirus outbreak.

HMP Belmarsh has repeatedly come under scrutiny in recent years, lastly after a remand prisoner was found dead in his cell in January, triggering an investigation by the prisons and probation ombudsman.

The man was the third prisoner to have died in Belmarsh within the past year. Another inmate was found dead there in November.

A judge at Westminster magistrates court rejected the request for an adjournment of Assange’s extradition hearing in May until September over what his legal team said were “insuperable” difficulties preparing his case because of the Covid-19 pandemic.

*****

Frost over the World - interview with Julian Assange published December 2010
Duration: 24:00 minutes

U6mcSXge4Qo

[Tintin]

#FreeTheTruth April 2020 update

1249272520802533379

This was a very interesting and engaging two hours spent in the same virtual room with names very familiar to all of us who have been following WikiLeaks over the years. On a personal note I was extremely grateful to Kristinn Hrafnsson for providing a very helpful clarification around the Ellsberg proposal I shared on the Q&A area - a big thanks to him for making the time to address that directly :heart:

The speakers were as follows:



Kristinn Hrafnsson: Editor-in-Chief, WikiLeaks https://twitter.com/khrafnsson?lang=en
Stefania Maurizi: Journalist @ La Republicca https://twitter.com/SMaurizi?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor
Dr Catherine Brown: Senior Lecturer https://www.nchlondon.ac.uk/faculty/dr-catherine-brown/
Peter Oborn: Journalist and Author https://twitter.com/OborneTweets?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor
Chris Williamson former Labour MP https://twitter.com/DerbyChrisW?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor
Craig Murray: Human Rights Activist, Author, Journalist and former UK Ambassador to Uzbekistan https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/
Andrew Feinstein Author of 'Shadow World' and former ANC politician https://twitter.com/andrewfeinstein?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

Now, there's roll-call of some pretty amazing and special people there.

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

The recording of the event now available for those unable to attend, or participate, here, as it happened:

https://zoom.us/rec/play/7MItcOGs-jk3GIGcswSDVP9xW425J6-s1HdKqfJcnhvkAHYEZFGgZ-NEasQNPh6lUwd9hPl9_vJu4bc?continueMode=true&_x_zm_rtaid=dyiqPWSfT9aNqgb9PWeGXA.1586696081328.afc96e46a486c45b2e1db58ed08800e8&_x_zm_rhtaid=192

43152

[Tintin]

What follows is an interview with Julian's partner, Stela Moris and the article published on Consortium News (https://consortiumnews.com/2020/04/12/assange-partner-speaks-out-after-threat-from-judge/), April 12th 2020.

Assange Partner Speaks Out After Threat from Judge
April 12, 2020

Julian Assange’s partner and the mother of his two children has spoken out in a video released by WikiLeaks after Judge Vanessa Baraitser threatened to make her name public. - Consortium News

The mother of Assange’s two boys speaks of meeting the WikiLeaks‘ publisher and of their relationship after Assange’s lawyers first tried to protect her and their sons from harm. In the 11-minute video, released by WikiLeaks late on Saturday night, his partner explains how attempts were made to steal the DNA of one their children.

On the video she identifies herself as Stella Morris and their children are Gabriel and Max. At Assange’s case management hearing last week, Judge Vanessa Baraitser ruled that there was no reason not to reveal her identity, despite threats made to her and the children. In releasing the video on the first anniversary of Assange’s arrest in the Ecuador Embassy in London, WikiLeaks has one-upped Baraitser, neutralizing her questionable tactic.

Video embedded below and now in the Avalon Library, here (http://avalonlibrary.net/Julian_Assange_and_Wikileaks/Assange_family_Stela_Moris_and_children_April_2020.mp4):

http://avalonlibrary.net/Julian_Assange_and_Wikileaks/Assange_family_Stela_Moris_and_children_April_2020.mp4

[Tintin]

CIA Spying on Assange’s Privileged Legal Conversations
Craig Murray, April 15th 2020

Link to blog article: https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/04/cia-spying-on-assanges-privileged-legal-conversations/

Here is an image of Julian and I talking in the Ecuadorean Embassy, part of the spycam footage that was commissioned by the CIA from Spanish security firm Global. Julian and I were discussing a number of overseas missions to liaise with foreign governments, which I was carrying out on his behalf.

43295

(Incidentally can anybody explain why the precise image you see there is an image which does not appear at any stage when you run the video? I am not even hinting at anything suspicious, just technically interested).

Having been on the inside and knowing their capabilities, I have always assumed that the security services know everything I say and do, so I cannot claim this comes as a great shock or that my behaviour would have been much altered had I known. The shadowing on those overseas trips was unsubtle in any case, more of a warning off than attempt at covert surveillance. As anyone who has read my books will realise, I have always rather enjoyed the more shadowy elements, with me since my former profession. During a visit to Washington in September 2016 which has become somewhat infamous, for fun I entered an establishment of low repute and spent an afternoon giving out free flash drives with my tips to various young ladies and barmen, just to give the FBI lots of particularly wild geese to chase. I have wondered occasionally whether subsequent embarrassment is connected to Robert Mueller’s lack of desire to accept my evidence. (If you have no idea what I am talking about do not worry, you haven’t missed much and just skip this para).

While I am gently rambling away, I might add that it was most amusing to be portrayed as a housebound obsessive blogger by MSM journalists attacking me on Twitter over my Salmond coverage: that is attacked by MSM journalists who have never done anything in their life except copy and paste the odd establishment press release and pick up fat pay cheques from their billionaire owners.

There is however a point to this post. As the ABC news item above shows, Julian’s privileged conversations with his lawyers on his legal defence were being spied on, by the government which is now seeking to extradite him. In any jurisdiction in the civilised world, that should be enough immediately to bring proceedings to a halt. The first witnesses to be called when the hearing resumes are the witnesses who will attest to this. The defence have requested an adjournment of the case beyond May 18, because at present they have no access to their client due to Covid 19 lockdown in the jail, and because it is not at all clear witnesses will be able to travel from abroad by 18 May. Judge Vanessa Baraitser has refused to reschedule.

It is also worth asking why has nothing like that ABC coverage been seen on the BBC or Sky, where this case is actually being heard and Julian is a prisoner?

——————————————
[I]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.

——————————————

ABC news article, below, from 2015:

siigAameuGg

[Tintin]

Julian's hearing scheduled for today has been put back with no as yet confirmed date.

1254713871232794625

1254714837768253440

A Consortium News article, here (https://consortiumnews.com/2020/04/27/assange-extradition-hearing-put-off-until-july-or-november-because-of-virus/)

ASSANGE EXTRADITION: Hearing Put Off Until July or November Because of Virus

The judge will decide on May 4 whether to resume Assange’s hearing in July or as late as November, when the first court dates are open. By Joe Lauria (https://consortiumnews.com/tag/joe-lauria/)

Magistrate Vanessa Baraitser proposed postponing Julian Assange’s extradition hearing until either three non-consecutive weeks in July and August or three consecutive weeks in November because of the difficulties posed by the Coronavirus outbreak.

Baraitser on Monday adjourned a technical hearing until May 4 at which time a decision will be made on when the full hearing will resume.

Assange’s lawyers had submitted a petition to delay the hearing, originally scheduled to resume on May 18, because of the difficulties of consulting with Assange and of having him appear either in the courtroom, or by video-link because of unsafe conditions in Belmarsh Prison’s video room.

Baraitser said that though witnesses could appear via video, the defendant and lawyers “must be physically present” in the courtroom.

Though she said an adjournment for three weeks beginning either in July or on Nov. 2 would be a “significant delay” and that the interests of justice must be meted out “expeditiously,” Baraitser conceded that the problems presented by the Coronavirus lockdown in London made it “at best uncertain” to resume on May 18, saying that the hearing should be “vacated” to a later date.

It was the first significant concession that Baraitser has granted the defense.

The hearing will resume on May 4, at which time the new court date will be set.

The audio of the hearing, made available by conference call to journalists and lawyers, was marred by technical difficulties, requiring that the lawyers’ statements be repeated into another microphone by a court official.

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

Joe Lauria is editor-in-chief of Consortium News and a former correspondent for The Wall Street Journal, Boston Globe, Sunday Times of London and numerous other newspapers. He began his professional career as a stringer for The New York Times. He can be reached at joelauria@consortiumnews.com and followed on Twitter @unjoe .

[Tintin]

An interesting historical footnote to the current situation, shared on Twitter by Don't Extradite Assange pressure group.

43553

1259123727490592768

***

From Craig Murray (https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/) on May 6th with an update on the likely venue for the next instalment in this 'farce' but is actually a piece of positive news in many respects:



"For the first time, there was something of a court victory for Assange’s defence team, as they obtained their preferred date of September for resumption of the extradition hearing. Last week magistrate Baraitser had tried to impose a choice of July or November based on the availability of Woolwich Crown Court. As defence witnesses have to come from around the world, July was too early for the defence, while November would mean another lengthy period of incarceration for the unconvicted Assange. This is not the first time the defence have secured the agreement of the US-led prosecution to a procedural request, but it is the very first time Baraitser has acceded to anything proposed by the defence, throughout all the lengthy proceedings.

SO the Assange hearing will resume in September, and of course I intend to be there to report it, if not myself incarcerated. The exact date is not yet known nor the venue. It will not be Woolwich but another Crown Court which has availability. I suspect it may be at Kingston-upon-Thames, because the government will want to maintain the theatre of the peaceful Julian being an ultra-dangerous offender and that is the other purpose built “anti-terrorism court” in London."

[Tintin]

An interesting 'live' conversation happening with Helena Kennedy Q.C and David Davis MP currently hosted by Consortium News.

Source: https://twitter.com/Consortiumnews/status/1259121200887771149

"Why the US-UK Extradition Treaty should be replaced".


1259121200887771149

[NewParadigmGuy]

NSA Has Communications Between Seth Rich and WikiLeaks, Attorney Claims

Comes as transcripts reveal Crowdstrike CEO admitted under oath DNC servers not ‘hacked’ — Russian collusion a total lie

Jamie White | Infowars.com - May 10, 2020 30 Comments

NSA Has Communications Between Seth Rich and WikiLeaks, Attorney Claims

The National Security Agency is in possession of at least some communications between murdered DNC staffer Seth Rich and WikiLeaks, according to lawyer Ty Clevenger.

In a letter to Rick Grenell, the acting Director of National Intelligence sent Thursday, Clevenger explained how the FBI lied to him about possessing documents related to Rich while he was seeking FOIA documents about FBI agent Peter Strzok, one of the “Russian collusion” lead operatives.

“I am reliably informed that the NSA or its partners intercepted at least some of the communications between Mr. Rich and Wikileaks. Before elaborating on that, however, I should first note the extent to which the “deep state” has already tried to cover up information about Mr. Rich,” Clevenger wrote.

Read the rest here:

https://www.infowars.com/nsa-has-communications-between-seth-rich-and-wikileaks-attorney-claims/

[onawah]

New court files expose Sheldon Adelson’s security team in US spy operation against Julian Assange
5/15/20
https://thegrayzone.com/2020/05/14/american-sheldon-adelsons-us-spy-julian-assange/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
https://i2.wp.com/thegrayzone.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/assange-pompeo-adelson.jpg?resize=1536%2C864&ssl=1

"An exclusive Grayzone investigation reveals new details on the critical role Sheldon Adelson’s Las Vegas Sands played in an apparent CIA spying operation targeting Julian Assange, and exposes the Sands security staff who helped coordinate the malicious campaign.
By Max Blumenthal

“I was the CIA director. We lied, we cheated, we stole.”

–Mike Pompeo, College Station, TX, April 15, 2019

As the co-founder of a small security consulting firm called UC Global, David Morales spent years slogging through the minor leagues of the private mercenary world. A former Spanish special forces officer, Morales yearned to be the next Erik Prince, the Blackwater founder who leveraged his army-for-hire into high-level political connections across the globe. But by 2016, he had secured just one significant contract, to guard the children of Ecuador’s then-President Rafael Correa and his country’s embassy in the UK.

The London embassy contract proved especially valuable to Morales, however. Inside the diplomatic compound, his men guarded Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, a top target of the US government who had been living in the building since Correa granted him asylum in 2012. It was not long before Morales realized he had a big league opportunity on his hands.

In 2016, Morales rushed off alone to a security fair in Las Vegas, hoping to rustle up lucrative new gigs by touting his role as the guardian of Assange. Days later, he returned to his company’s headquarters in Jerez de Frontera, Spain with exciting news.
https://i2.wp.com/thegrayzone.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Morales-Vegas.png?w=638&ssl=1
“From now on, we’re going to be playing in the first division,” Morales announced to his employees. When a co-owner of UC Global asked what Morales meant, he responded that he had turned to the “dark side” – an apparent reference to US intelligence services. “The Americans will find us contracts around the world,” Morales assured his business partner.

Morales had just signed on to guard Queen Miri, the $70 million yacht belonging to one of the most high profile casino tycoons in Vegas: ultra-Zionist billionaire and Republican mega-donor Sheldon Adelson. Given that Adelson already had a substantial security team assigned to guard him and his family at all times, the contract between UC Global and Adelson’s Las Vegas Sands was clearly the cover for a devious espionage campaign apparently overseen by the CIA.

Unfortunately for Morales, the Spanish security consultant charged with leading the spying operation, what happened in Vegas did not stay there.

Following Assange’s imprisonment, several disgruntled former employees eventually approached Assange’s legal team to inform them about the misconduct and arguably illegal activity they participated in at UC Global. One former business partner said they came forward after realizing that “David Morales decided to sell all the information to the enemy, the US.” A criminal complaint was submitted in a Spanish court and a secret operation that resulted in the arrest of Morales was set into motion by the judge.

Morales was charged by a Spanish High Court in October 2019 with violating the privacy of Assange, abusing the publisher’s attorney-client privileges, as well as money laundering and bribery. The documents revealed in court, which were primarily backups from company computers, exposed the disturbing reality of his activities on “the dark side.”

Obtained by media outlets including The Grayzone, the UC Global files detail an elaborate and apparently illegal US surveillance operation in which the security firm spied on Assange, his legal team, his American friends, US journalists, and an American member of Congress who had been allegedly dispatched to the Ecuadorian embassy by President Donald Trump. Even the Ecuadorian diplomats whom UC Global was hired to protect were targeted by the spy ring.

The ongoing investigation detailed black operations ranging from snooping on the Wikileaks founder’s private conversations to fishing a diaper from an embassy trash can in order to determine if the feces inside it belonged to his son. According to witness statements obtained by The Grayzone, weeks after Morales proposed breaking into the office of Assange’s lead counsel, the office was burglarized. The witnesses also detailed a proposal to kidnap or poison Assange. A police raid at the home of Morales netted two handguns with their serial numbers filed off along with stacks of cash.

One source close to the investigation told The Grayzone an Ecuadorian official was robbed at gunpoint while carrying private information pertaining to a plan to secure diplomatic immunity for Assange.

Throughout the black operations campaign, US intelligence appears to have worked through Adelson’s Las Vegas Sands, a company that had previously served as an alleged front for a CIA blackmail operation several years earlier. The operations formally began once Adelson’s hand-picked presidential candidate, Donald Trump, entered the White House in January 2017.

In its coverage of the alleged relationship between the CIA, UC Global, and Adelson’s Sands, the New York Times claimed it was “unclear whether it was the Americans who were behind bugging the embassy.” Though he outlined work for an “American client” in company emails, Morales insisted before a Spanish judge that the spying he conducted in the embassy was performed entirely on behalf of Ecuador’s SENAIN security services. He has even claimed to CNN Español that he was merely seeking to motivate his employees when he boasted about “playing in the first division” after returning from his fateful trip to Las Vegas.

This investigation will further establish the US government’s role in guiding UC Global’s espionage campaign, shedding new light on the apparent relationship between the CIA and Adelson’s Sands, and expose how UC Global deceived the Ecuadorian government on behalf of the client Morales referred to as the “American friends.” Thanks to new court disclosures, The Grayzone is also able to reveal the identity of Sands security staff who presumably liaised between Morales, Adelson’s company and US intelligence.

According to court documents and testimony by a former business associate and employees of Morales, it was Adelson’s top bodyguard, an Israeli-American named Zohar Lahav, who personally recruited Morales, then managed the relationship between the Spanish security contractor and Sands on a routine basis. After their first meeting in Vegas, the two security professionals became close friends, visiting each other overseas and speaking frequently.

During the spying operation, Lahav worked directly under Brian Nagel, the Director of Global Security for Las Vegas Sands. A former associate director of the US Secret Service and cyber-security expert, Nagel was officially commended by the CIA following successful collaborations with federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies. At Sands, he seemed to be an ideal middleman between the company and the US national security state, as well as a potential guide for the complex surveillance tasks assigned to Morales.

When Adelson’s favored candidate, Donald Trump, moved into the Oval Office, the CIA came under the control of Mike Pompeo, another Adelson ally who seemed to relish the opportunity to carry out illegal acts, including spying on American citizens, in the name of national security.

Pompeo outlines the attack on Assange
https://i2.wp.com/thegrayzone.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Pompeo.png?resize=768%2C453&ssl=1

Pompeo’s first public speech as CIA Director, hosted at the Washington DC-based Center for Strategic and International Studies think tank on April 13, 2017, was one of the most paranoid and resentful addresses ever delivered by an agency chief.

The former Republican congressman from Kansas opened his speech with an extended tirade against the “Philip Agees in the world,” referring to the CIA whistleblower who handed over thousands of classified documents to leftist publishers that revealed shocking details of illegal US regime change and assassination plots around the world.

Alluding to Agee’s contemporary “soulmates,” Pompeo declared, “The one thing they don’t share with Agee is the need for a publisher. All they require now is a smart phone and internet access. In today’s digital environment, they can disseminate stolen US secrets instantly around the globe to terrorists, dictators, hackers and anyone else seeking to do us harm.”

The CIA director made no secret about the identity of his target. “It is time to call out WikiLeaks for what it really is – a non-state hostile intelligence service often abetted by state actors like Russia,” he rumbled from the podium.

For the next several minutes, Pompeo ranted against Assange, branding him as a “narcissist,” “a fraud,” “a coward.” The right-wing Republican even quoted criticism of the Wikileaks publisher by The Intercept’s Sam Biddle.

Next, Pompeo pledged a “long term” campaign of counter-measures against Wikileaks. “We have to recognize that we can no longer allow Assange and his colleagues the latitude to use free speech values against us. To give them the space to crush us with misappropriated secrets is a perversion of what our great Constitution stands for. It ends now,” he vowed.

Though Pompeo said he recognized that “the CIA is legally prohibited from spying on people through electronic surveillance in the United States,” he seemed to have already put into motion an aggressive program to spy not only Assange, but on his American friends, lawyers and virtually everyone in his immediate vicinity. Carried out by UC Global, the campaign entailed recording private conversations of US targets, opening their phones, photographing their personal information, and even stealing their email passwords.

The CIA’s apparent attack on Assange had been activated weeks earlier, when Wikileaks announced the publication of the CIA’s Vault 7 files. It would not be long before Adelson’s security team began preparing space for Morales in Las Vegas.

Journey to “the dark side”
On February 26, 2017, Wikileaks announced the forthcoming release of a major tranche of CIA files revealing details of the agency’s hacking and electronic surveillance tools. One such spying application called “Marble” allowed agency spies to implant code that obfuscated their identity on computers they had hacked. Other files contained evidence of programs that allowed hackers to break into encrypted messaging applications like Signal and Telegram, and to turn Samsung smart TV’s into listening devices.

Two days after Wikileaks’ initial announcement, on February 28, Morales was junketed from Spain to a hotel in Alexandria, Virginia – just a stone’s throw from CIA headquarters in Langley. Though UC Global had no publicly known contracts with any company in Virginia, court documents obtained by The Grayzone establish that Morales sent encrypted emails from an Alexandria IP address and paid bills from a local hotel for the next eight days.

From that point on, he traveled back and forth almost each month between Spain, the DC area, New York City, Chicago, or the Las Vegas base of Adelson’s operations.

When in DC, Morales sent emails from a static IP address at the Grand Hyatt Hotel just four blocks from the White House.

The Instagram posts of Morales’ wife and travel partner, Noelia Páez, highlighted the frequency of his trips:

https://i2.wp.com/thegrayzone.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Paez-Morales-Vegas.jpg?resize=768%2C432&ssl=1

Instagram posts by Morales’ wife, Noelia Páez, posted while in Las Vegas on January 20, 2017
Fellow UC Global executives began to grow suspicious of Morales and his secretive dealings in the US. According to their testimonies, he spoke constantly about his working relationship with the Americans. Yet UC Global had been contracted by Ecuador’s intelligence agency, SENAIN, to provide security to the country’s embassy in London – not to spy on its occupants.

It was increasingly clear to them that Morales was deceiving one client in Quito to serve a more powerful force in Washington.

“I remember that David Morales asked a person from the company to prepare a safe phone, with safe applications, just like an encrypted computer to communicate with ‘the American friends,’ to take his relationship with the US out of the company’s range,” a former UC Global employee recalled.

A former business partner at UC Global stated in their testimony, “Sometimes, when I insistently asked him who his ‘American friends’ were, on some occasions David Morales answered that they were ‘the US intelligence.’ However, when I asked him for a particular person from intelligence he was meeting with to give them information, Mr. Morales cut the conversation and pointed out that the subject was exclusively managed by him aside from the company.”

The ex-partner suspected that Morales was receiving payments from US intelligence through a bank account managed by his wife, Páez. “On one occasion,” they testified, “I heard a conversation related to payments to that account from which Mr. Morales didn’t want to inform the rest of the company members about.”

Suspicion turned to rage when the former UC Global partner recognized the full extent of Morales’ subterfuge. “I started [lashing out] at him openly in violent discussions in which I reiterated to him that a company like ours is based on ‘creating trust’ and that he can’t ‘give out information to the opposing side,’” the ex-associate recalled. At the end of several such arguments, he said Morales tore open his shirt, puffed out his chest and exclaimed, “I am a wholehearted mercenary!”

One camera feed for Ecuador, another for “the American client”
Two former UC Global workers and the ex-business partner said Morales began implementing a sophisticated spying operation at the embassy in London in June 2017. His testimony was corroborated by emails Morales sent to employees who oversaw the surveillance.

Before that point, the cameras in and around Ecuador’s embassy in London were standard CCTV units. Their sole function was to detect intruders. Most importantly, they did not record sound.

To transform the cameras from security instruments into weapons of intrusion, Morales emailed a friend, “Carlos C.D. (spy),” who owned a surveillance equipment company called Espiamos, or, “We Spy.” He informed Carlos that “our client” demanded new cameras be placed in the embassy that were equipped with undetectable microphones.

On the 27th of the same month, Morales wrote to the same employee: “the client wants to have streaming control of the cameras, this control will have to be possessed from two different locations.” He requested a separate storage server that could be operated “from out of the enclosure where the recorder is located.”

By altering the cameras so they could be controlled from the outside, and outfitting them with hidden microphones, Morales put in place the mechanism to snoop on Assange’s intimate conversations with friends and lawyers. He also took steps to feed the footage to a separate, exterior storage server, thus keeping the operation hidden from Ecuador’s SENAIN. His marching orders came from an organization he described simply as “the American client.”

Every 15 days or so, Morales sent one of the workers to the embassy to collect DVR recordings of the surveillance footage and bring it to company headquarters in Jerez, Spain. Some important clips were uploaded to a server named “Operation Hotel,” which was later changed to a website-based system. In cases when the DVR size was too large to upload, Morales personally delivered it to his “client” in the US.

In December 2017, Morales was summoned to Las Vegas Sands for a special session with “the American friends.” On the 10th of that month, he sent a series of emails from a static IP address at Adelson’s Venetian Hotel to his spy team. The messages contained a new set of instructions.

“Nobody can know about my trips, mainly my trips to the USA,” Morales emailed his employees, “because SENAIN is onto us.”

To further limit the Ecuadorian government’s access to the surveillance system installed in the embassy, he instructed his workers, “We can’t give them access to some of the program’s services, so they don’t realize who has more log-ins or who is online inside the system… [but] everything must look like they have access to it.”

Morales sent his team a powerpoint presentation containing instructions for the new system. The aim of the instructions was to create two separate users: an administrator for the Ecuadorian client with no access to the log-in so they would not be able to notice the second user; and a separate security log-in for the Americans, who would be in full control of the system’s surveillance features.

Obtained by The Grayzone, the slides were composed in perfect English by a native speaker who was clearly not Morales.

https://i2.wp.com/thegrayzone.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Powerpoint-Sands-CIA.png?resize=768%2C491&ssl=1

From the powerpoint surveillance instructions provided to Morales by the “American client” while he stayed at Adelson’s Venetian hotel in December 2017
“David Morales obviously didn’t have the technical knowledge,” a former UC Global IT specialist who received the instructions, “so the document must have been sent by another person. Because it was in English, I suspect that it could’ve been [created by] US intelligence.”

Whoever authored the powerpoint instructions was clearly an expert in cyber-security with experience in electronic surveillance and hacking. That person demonstrated their tradecraft by erasing all of the document’s metadata except for the username, “PlayerOne.” The powerpoint was handed down in the apparent physical presence of Morales, who proceeded to tell his employees, “these people have given me the following instructions, drafted in English.”

In Adelson’s orbit, there was at least one cyber-security expert with a long record of collaboration with US law enforcement and intelligence: Senior Vice President and Global Head of Security at Las Vegas Sands Brian Nagel.

From top US cyber-crime investigator to Adelson’s security chief
During his lengthy career in the US Secret Service, Nagel worked at the nexus of federal law enforcement and US intelligence. In the 1990’s, Nagel not only served on the personal protection detail of Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, he was assigned to “work with two foreign protective services after the assassination and attempted assassination of their respective heads of state,” he said in sworn testimony in a US District Court in 2011. Nagel also stated that he later protected the director and deputy director of a federal agency he neglected to name.

During the same testimony, Nagel said he received the CIA’s Intelligence Community Seal Medallion, an award given to non-CIA personnel “who have made significant contributions to the Agency’s intelligence efforts.”

As the deputy director of the Secret Service, he appeared alongside then-US Attorney General John Ashcroft at a November 2003 press conference on combating cybercrime, and testified before the House Homeland Security Subcommittee in March 2007. Besides those two public events, Nagel has not appeared on camera.

http://https://i0.wp.com/thegrayzone.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Nagel.png?w=511&ssl=1
One of just a few publicly available photos of Las Vegas Sands Director of Global Security Brian Nagel, from his congressional testimony in 2007
While the public tends to associate the US Secret Service with burly men in dark suits and aviator shades who whisper into their sleeves while shadowing presidents, the agency also functions as the country’s leading computer crime investigative body.

In November 2002, the LA Times reported on Nagel’s role in creating the Los Angeles Electronic Crimes Task Force, a massive federal operation that occupied an entire floor of a downtown LA skyscraper. Dedicated to fighting electronic crime and cyber terrorism, the task force included the FBI, local law enforcement, private security contractors, and the US Secret Service. The initiative, said Nagel, “was all about enhancing our current partnerships and building new ones.”

In October 2004, Nagel was credited with taking down a major international cybercrime outfit called shadowcrew.com (no relation to the Shadow Brokers hacker outfit that leaked NSA secrets). According to TechNewsWorld, under Nagel’s watch, “The Secret Service used wiretaps, an undercover informant and their own hackers to gain access to the private portions of the [shadowcrew] site.”

These tactics seemed remarkably similar to those deployed thirteen years later to spy on Assange.

Before leaving public life in 2008, Nagel helped the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) create the National Computer Forensic Institute. Then-DHS Director Michael Chertoff vowed the institute would “turn the tables on criminal groups” by empowering law enforcement to use “the same technologies” hackers and cyber-criminals typically employed.

Two years later, when Wikileaks first appeared, the special federal cyber-security units Nagel helped create were likely on the frontlines of the US fight to combat Assange’s online information clearinghouse.

Adelson’s Israeli-American bodyman turns spying middleman
When Nagel joined Las Vegas Sands as its Global Security Director, he was placed in charge of securing an international financial and political empire that spanned from the US to Israel to Macau in the People’s Republic of China. Sands chairman Sheldon Adelson possessed a fortune valued at around $30 billion that placed him consistently in the top ten of Forbes’ list of wealthiest Americans.

Adelson’s political activities were guided by two factors: his desire to expand his gambling operations around the globe, and his fanatical Zionism. He was so committed to the self-proclaimed Jewish state, he once lamented having served in the US Army as a young man rather than in Israel’s military.

As a personal friend and financial benefactor of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Adelson plowed his money into a failed attempt to prevent President Barack Obama’s re-election and the signing of the Iran nuclear deal. In 2016, he became a top donor to Trump’s presidential campaign, helping to cultivate the most pro-Likud administration in US history.

To ensure his personal protection, Adelson assembled a collection of former Israeli soldiers and intelligence officers as bodyguards. At the head of his security detail was Zohar Lahav, an Israeli citizen who served as the Vice President for Executive Protection at Las Vegas Sands. "

MUCH MORE AT THE LINK: https://thegrayzone.com/2020/05/14/american-sheldon-adelsons-us-spy-julian-assange/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

[Tintin]

Well done onawah :thumbsup:

I was about to post this up but you beat me to it :)

[Kryztian]

Well done onawah :thumbsup:



Yes indeed, and godspeed to the Spanish High Court that is investigating this activity. This should land David Morales a lengthy stay in a Spanish prison.

[Wind]

The Jimmy Dore Show - Julian Assange's Trial Is FIXED! w/Chris Hedges

YGxh6UYNRpw

[Tintin]

"Free flow of information is the oxygen of democracy. If journalists can't breathe democracy will die."

- Kristinn Hrafnsson, June 1st, 2020

UPDATE: Julian Assange hearing June 1st - online

The main take-away from yesterday's meeting was a lack of audibility which some of the journalists present suspected was probably a deliberate attempt to obfuscate the finer detail and further frustrate attempts to report the case more widely.

In short, little to report of any particular substance I'm afraid. Julian's health is still fragile, to say the least, and DoctorsForAssange do continue to press the case for his discharge from HMP Belmarsh on health grounds, and Australia seems to have now imbibed a half gallon of coffee to shake it awake, finally. Whether their realisation and late-in-the-day action can start to build momentum towards a fair outcome of course remains to be seen but better now than never.

And Consortium News have offered some help with addressing sound issues for future meetings.

So, below, a selection of tweets which may help to succinctly capture the latest news, as sparse as it is. If anything of more substance does appear I'll of course report it here.

Kristinn Hrafnsson statement June 1st 2020
1267457147828416515

DoctorsForAssange request for compassionate release of Julian

Letter in full at this link, here:
https://doctorsassange.org/request-for-compassionate-release-of-julian-assange/

Consortium News offer of technical assistance
1267695227675934720

Stella Moris update
1267413067488530432

Assange misses court hearing amid calls in Australia for his release - Guardian article



"Eight Australian MPs, four senators and a number of members of Australia’s legislature, including Andrew Wilkie, George Christensen, Zali Steggall, Richard Di Natale and Adam Bandt, are among those who wrote to their foreign affairs minister before Monday’s hearing and urged that a diplomatic representation be made to the UK government to ask that Assange be released on bail."

Article here: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/jun/01/julian-assange-misses-court-hearing-amid-calls-in-australia-for-his-release

[onawah]

Assange too Unwell to Attend Hearing & Police Disrupt Supporters Outside of Courthouse
3,202 views•Jun 4, 2020
acTVism Munich
78.3K subscribers

"In this video, we provide an update on the Julian Assange case and recap the main points from the June 1st administrative hearing. Assange, who was too ill to attend the hearing, faces the second half of his substantive extradition hearings in September. Judge Baraitser failed to secure a venue for the September hearings and gave both parties until July 31 to submit a psychiatric report on Assange. Meanwhile, journalists continue to have a difficult time listening in on the hearings using the audio call-in link."
VCCXQuH3G3g

[Tintin]

Julian continues to garner support from an impressive array of people who have, in English parlance, some clout.

The Shift News report (https://theshiftnews.com/2020/06/10/assanges-deteriorating-health-raises-concerns/) that:



A group of 11 current and former statesmen from Europe and the US wrote an open letter to the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice Robert Buckland and UK Commons Justice Committee Chari Bob Neill, asking for Assange to be released into home detention with a 24-hour monitoring ankle bracelet.

There's still a glimmer of some hope flickering within me that something fair and just can come out of his terrible predicament. From a personal viewpoint this is the most important ongoing story of our times as the very freedom to express and disseminate truth and hold those in power accountable to it is under serious threat.

And there is a person involved here: a son, a father, a gentle intellectual giant, a truthseeker, someone who has provided a genuine service to others, who along with a small band of volunteers has exposed the deep and sordid truth that lies at the rotten core of governments worldwide, in a way that no other generation before has ever seen.

And he is being ritually murdered by a state, day by day, in torturous conditions. No one's filming that.

If ever there were a candidate for recognition of true worth to the world then there'd be millions worldwide protesting his release. Alas, no. We are subject to another peculiar circus.

Here's the latest letter dated June 1st 2020 from DoctorsForAssange:

Source: https://doctorsassange.org/request-for-compassionate-release-of-julian-assange/

______________________________


FAO The Rt Hon Robert Buckland QC MP
Lord Chancellor & Secretary of State for Justice

CC The Hon Bob Neill MP
UK Commons Justice Committee Chair

Dear Sir,

REQUEST FOR COMPASSIONATE RELEASE OF JULIAN ASSANGE

As current and former elected representatives in democracies committed to human rights, the presumption of innocence and the rule of law, we wish to support the urgent appeal sent to you by Australian MPs Andrew Wilkie and George Christensen, who wrote:



“We ask that you urgently reconsider providing Mr Assange with release from Belmarsh Prison to monitored home detention, as he fits all of the grounds noted for such early release by leading organisations as the World Health Organisation, the United Nations and the UK Prison Officers Association. These organisations have been unanimous in calling for the release of all non-violent COVID-19 prisoners, and we ask that you give compassionate consideration to the following:

Mr Assange is a non-violent remand prisoner with no history of harm to the community. He is not convicted and is thus entitled to the presumption of innocence.
Doctors of Mr Assange warn he is at high risk from dying if he contracts COVID-19 as he has a pre-existing chronic lung condition.

We are advised that COVID-19 is rapidly spreading throughout UK prisons, and that there are infections [and at least one death] at Belmarsh Prison.

We understand that the prison is short staffed and normal activity regimes are suspended.

Mr Assange is in poor mental health due to spending so much time in solitary confinement over recent years, and prison COVID-19 lockdown measures are further undermining his mental health.

We ask that you give further consideration to the very reasonable request by Mr Assange’s lawyers that this non-violent Australian prisoner be released into home detention with a 24-hour ankle monitor.”

With the director of the Centre for Disease Control and Prevention warning of a second wave of coronavirus during influenza season, we stress that even those vulnerable prisoners, such as Julian Assange, who survive the current crisis remain at risk.

Yours sincerely,

Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans, former Member of the Legislative Council of NSW, Australia

Clare Daly, Member of the European Parliament, Republic of Ireland

Andrew Feinstein, former Member of the African National Congress, South Africa

Mike Gravel, former US Senator, United States

Heike Hänsel, Member of the German Bundestag, Germany

Eva Joly, former Member of the European Parliament, France

Ogmundur Jonasson, former Member of the Icelandic Parliament, Iceland

Ron Paul, former US Congressman, United States

Yanis Varoufakis, Member of the Greek Parliament, Greece

Mick Wallace, Member of the European Parliament, Republic of Ireland

Chris Williamson, former Member of Parliament, United Kingdom

[Tintin]

From Stella Moris earlier today:

1271371467599601665

[Tintin]

Some good news for Julian today: he's finally been allowed to have a radio in his cell.

His partner Stella Moris summarises, here:

1272908621903548416

[Tintin]

60 Minutes Australia - forthcoming documentary: air date June 21st

This should make an interesting hour of viewing although some legitimate preview comments, in lieu of seeing it, have expressed a hope that all parties are given a fair representation.

Still one will not rush to any judgment until we've seen it, as is usually the case. 60 minutes (ABC) do, to their credit, often produce very well researched documentaries.

Here's Christine Assange (Julian's mum) tweet relating to this:

1273438824434204672

[Tintin]

Well done 60 minutes, and, definitely not a hit-job as Julian's mother had hoped it would avoid being. Delivered with a subtle kind of class in fact.

A measured, grounded interview which avoided too much pathos, and any real hint of salaciousness, although it did flirt extremely mildly with it concerning Pamela Anderson who, although never crassly ever openly stated by her, clearly has a crush which is tempered by a genuine friendship she has struck with Julian over the years.

That aside, and suitably so, the focus is on Stella and the children and the very human emotional predicament that they, and Julian, are facing.

A reminder that amidst the dangerous hullabaloo being enacted outside the dimly lit room where Julian is incarcerated and the collective neurocide which it seems the rest of the western world is presently engaged, and sadly embracing, there is here a real human story that more than echoes the plight of Winston Smith and Julia in Orwell's 1984 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four).

The ingenuity and wit involved is inspirational: how to conduct a love affair under constant surveillance, possible assassination and theft of your child's DNA, under already very trying circumstances.

Yes, it is emotional in places - how couldn't it be.

There is genuine grace and dignity exhibited by all the subjects here in stark contrast to the appalling scenes to which we have been privy of late - perhaps some of Stella and Julian's dignity may rub off. While the twin pandemics of a real virus and gross stupidity grips the world, here, quietly and with a true iron will and beating effervescent conscience, four people (the children too without even really knowing) are taking on the might of one of the most evil empires that has ever set its leaden excrement covered boot on the face of humankind.

I know where my attention and any very small efforts made really deserve to be, and they are focused here.

It's only 28 minutes or so long but another perspective levelling story playing out to which, if you haven't already, you really should turn your attention to now.

Here's the film:

http://avalonlibrary.net/Julian_Assange_and_Wikileaks/Julian_Assange_hidden_%20family_%20revealed_top_%20secrets_inside_the_Embassy_%2860_Minutes_Australi a_June_2020%29.mp4

[Tintin]

Tweeted by Stella Moris earlier this afternoon:

https://twitter.com/StellaMoris1/status/1274714852443987969

1274714852443987969

[Tintin]

THE ASSANGE CASE & COLLATERAL MURDER - Kristinn Hrafnsson, Jen Robinson, Dale Yates & Sami Ramadami

The text below, in full, from the Consortium News Youtube page.

Consortium News June 21st, 2020

Wikileaks editor-in-chief Kristinn Hrafnnson & Julian Assange lawyer Jennifer Robinson respond to two Guardian articles this week that delivered significant context to Wikileaks‘ 2010 “Collateral Murder” video release: In this video by Don’t Extradite Assange, Hrafnnson and Robinson are joined by former Reuters’ Baghdad bureau chief Dale Yates and Sami Ramadani, an Iraqi lecturer and writer.

Yates, subject of one of The Guardian articles, held the Baghdad post in 2007 when an Apache helicopter airstrike killed two of his staff members, Saeed Chmagh and Noor-Eldeen. Yates wasn’t allowed to report on what two U.S. Generals had shown Reuters at the time.

What we learn now is what Reuters wasn’t able to report, in particular how the death of one Reuters employee strongly appears to be a war crime. Yates reels at the deception and says Reuters was cheated by the U.S. brass.

Sami Ramadani speaks of the Iraqi reaction to the ‘Collateral Murder’ release and the evidence WikiLeaks published of torture at Abu Ghraib prison. The second Guardian article points out that in Assange’s indictment there is no mention of the Baghdad air strike footage, even though 40 of the 175 years in prison Assange faces relates to “Collateral Murder.”

Robinson explains that the charges are in fact about the publication of the Rules of Engagement, which Manning leaked to show that the Baghdad air strike had violated them.

Watch the replay of Saturday night’s program here, courtesy of Don’t Extradite Assange.

_pcPJObjjXA

[Franny]

Just Released: U.S. Intelligence planned to destroy WikiLeaks

Tags: Destroy Wikileaks, freedom of speech, Julian Assange, Julian Assange persecution, Persecution journalists, US Intelligence Plan Against Wikileaks, US Plan Destroy Wikileaks, wikileaks

June 18, 2020A government document detailing how U.S. Intelligence was planning to destroy Wikileaks (http://wikileaks.org/) has just been released on the Wikileaks website. Here are the details:

Title: Wikileaks.org – An Online Reference to Foreign Intelligence Services, Insurgents, Or Terrorist Groups?

Date: March 18, 2008

Group: United States Army Counterintelligence Center, Cyber Counterintelligence Assessments

Branch; Department of Defence Intelligence Analysis Program

Author: Michael D. Horvath

Note: Spelling errors below are consistent with original document

Description of this document by Julian Assange:

This document is a classifed (SECRET/NOFORN) 32 page U.S. counterintelligence investigation into WikiLeaks.

“The possibility that current employees or moles within DoD or elsewhere in the U.S. government are providing sensitive or classified information to Wikileaks.org cannot be ruled out”. It concocts a plan to fatally marginalize the organization. Since WikiLeaks uses “trust as a center of gravity by protecting the anonymity and identity of the insiders, leakers or whisteblowers”, the report recommends “

The identification, exposure, termination of employment, criminal prosecution, legal action against current or former insiders, leakers, or whistlblowers could potentially damage or destroy this center of gravity and deter others considering similar actions from using the Wikileaks.org Web site”.

[As two years have passed since the date of the report, with no WikiLeaks’ source exposed, it appears that this plan was ineffective]. As an odd justification for the plan, the report claims that “Several foreign countries including China, Israel, North Kora, Russia, Vietnam, and Zimbabwe have denounced or blocked access to the Wikileaks.org website”.

The report provides further justification by enumerating embarrassing stories broken by WikiLeaks—U.S. equipment expenditure in Iraq, probable U.S. violations of the Cemical Warfare Convention Treaty in Iraq, the battle over the Iraqi town of Fallujah and human rights violations at Guantanmo Bay. Note that the report contains a number of inaccurances, for instance, the claim that WikiLeaks has no editorial control. The report concludes with 13 items of intelligence to be answered about WikiLeaks.

Executive Summary from Government Document

(S//NF) Wikileaks.org, a publicly accessible Internet Web site, represents a potential force protection, counterintelligence, operational security (OPSEC), and information security (INFOSEC) threat to the US Army. The intentional or unintentional leaking and posting of US Army sensitive or classified information to Wikileaks.org could result in increased threats to DoD personnel, equipment, facilities, or installations. The leakage of sensitive and classified DoD information also calls attention to the insider threat, when a person or persons motivated by a particular cause or issue wittingly provides information to domestic or foreign personnel or organizations to be published by the news media or on the Internet.

Such information could be of value to foreign intelligence and security services (FISS), foreign military forces, foreign insurgents, and foreign terrorist groups for collecting information or for planning attacks against US force, both within the United States and abroad. (S//NF) The possibility that a current employee or mole within DoD or elsewhere in the US government is providing sensitive information or classified information to Wikileaks.org cannot be ruled out. Wikileaks.org claims that the ―leakers‖ or ―whistleblowers‖ of sensitive or classified DoD documents are former US government employees.

These claims are highly suspect, however, since Wikileaks.org states that the anonymity and protection of the leakers or whistleblowers is one of its primary goals. Referencing of leakers using codenames and providing incorrect employment information, employment status, and other contradictory information by Wikileaks.org are most likely rudimentary OPSEC measures designed to protect the identity of the current or former insiders who leaked the information.

On the other hand, one cannot rule out the possibility that some of the contradictions in describing leakers could be inadvertent OPSEC errors by the authors, contributors, or Wikileaks.org staff personnel with limited experience in protecting the identity of their sources.

(U) The stated intent of the Wikileaks.org Web site is to expose unethical practices, illegal behavior, and wrongdoing within corrupt corporations and oppressive regimes in Asia, the former Soviet bloc, Sub-Saharan Africa, and the Middle East. To do so, the developers of the Wikileaks.org Web site want to provide a secure forum to where leakers, contributors, or whistleblowers from any country can anonymously post or send documentation and other information that exposes corruption or wrongdoing by governments or corporations.

The developers believe that the disclosure of sensitive or classified information involving a foreign government or corporation will eventually result in the increased accountability of a democratic, oppressive, or corrupt the government to its citizens.[2] (S//NF) Anyone can post information to the Wikileaks.org Web site, and there is no editorial review or oversight to verify the accuracy of any information posted to the Web site.

Persons accessing the Web site can form their own opinions regarding the accuracy of the information posted, and they are allowed to post comments. This raises the possibility that the Wikileaks.org Web site could be used to post fabricated information; to post misinformation, disinformation, and propaganda; or to conduct perception management and influence operations designed to convey a negative message to those who view or retrieve information from the Web site.[3]

(U) Diverse views exist among private persons, legal experts, advocates for open government and accountability, law enforcement, and government officials in the United States and other countries on the stated goals of Wikileaks.org. Some contend that the leaking and posting of information on Wikileaks.org is constitutionally protected free speech, supports open society and open government initiatives, and serves the greater public good in such a manner that outweighs any illegal acts that arise from the posting of sensitive or classified government or business information.

Others believe that the Web site or persons associated with Wikileaks.org will face legal challenges in some countries over privacy issues, revealing sensitive or classified government information, or civil lawsuits for posting information that is wrong, false, slanderous, libelous, or malicious in nature.

For example, the Wikileaks.org Web site in the United States was shutdown on 14 February 2008 for 2 weeks by court order over the publishing of sensitive documents in a case involving charges of money laundering, grand larceny, and tax evasion by the Julius Bare Bank in the Cayman Islands and Switzerland. The court case against Wikileaks.org was dropped by Julius Bare Bank, the US court order was lifted and the Web site was restored in the United States. Efforts by some domestic and foreign personnel and organizations to discredit the Wikileaks.org Web site include allegations that it wittingly allows the posting of uncorroborated information, serves as an instrument of propaganda, and is a front organization of the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).[4] (S//NF) The governments of China, Israel, North Korea, Russia, Thailand, Zimbabwe, and several other countries have blocked access to Wikileaks.org-type Web sites, claimed they have the right to investigate and prosecute Wikileaks.org and associated whistleblowers, or insisted they remove false, sensitive, or classified government information, propaganda, or malicious content from the Internet.

The governments of China, Israel, and Russia claim the right to remove objectionable content from, block access to, and investigate crimes related to the posting of documents or comments to Web sites such as Wikileaks.org. The governments of these countries most likely have the technical skills to take such action should they choose to do so.[5] (S//NF) Wikileaks.org uses trust as a center of gravity by assuring insiders, leakers, and whistleblowers who pass information to Wikileaks.org personnel or who post information to the Web site that they will remain anonymous. The identification, exposure, or termination of employment of or legal actions against current or former insiders, leakers, or whistleblowers could damage or destroy this center of gravity and deter others from using Wikileaks.org to make such information public.

See full original PDF document (https://file.wikileaks.org/file/us-intel-wikileaks.pdf)…


https://file.wikileaks.org/file/us-intel-wikileaks.pdf

[Tintin]

WikiLeaks Founder Charged in Superseding Indictment dated June 24th, 2020.

Source: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/wikileaks-founder-charged-superseding-indictment

Rubbing more salt into an already weeping wound, although, without having drilled into the detail thoroughly at this late hour here I rather think that this may smack of a little desperation on the part of the US Government. The charges don't seem to have much to merit them and appear a little fabricated and hastily put together, but without further scrutiny I may just be being blindly optimistic.

Why now?

Anyway, the details as per released today:

https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1289641/download

[Tintin]

Superseding Indictment - follow-up.

Fabulous. This is a collection of commentary from journalists and media analysts published on the Defend Wikileaks site and really provides some further clarity.

Source: https://defend.wikileaks.org/2019/06/05/media-analysis-of-julian-assanges-superseding-indictment/

___________________________

Media analysis of Julian Assange’s superseding indictment


The precedent
Glenn Greenwald: The indictment of Assange is a blueprint for making journalists into felons (https://www.washingtonpost.com/gdpr-consent/?next_url=https%3a%2f%2fwww.washingtonpost.com%2foutlook%2f2019%2f05%2f28%2findictment-assange-is-blueprint-making-journalists-into-felons%2f)

The argument offered by both the Trump administration and by some members of the self-styled “resistance” to Trump is, ironically, the same: that Assange isn’t a journalist at all and thus deserves no free press protections. But this claim overlooks the indictment’s real danger and, worse, displays a wholesale ignorance of the First Amendment. Press freedoms belong to everyone, not to a select, privileged group of citizens called “journalists.” Empowering prosecutors to decide who does or doesn’t deserve press protections would restrict “freedom of the press” to a small, cloistered priesthood of privileged citizens designated by the government as “journalists.” The First Amendment was written to avoid precisely that danger.

Most critically, the U.S. government has now issued a legal document that formally declares that collaborating with government sources to receive and publish classified documents is no longer regarded by the Justice Department as journalism protected by the First Amendment but rather as the felony of espionage, one that can send reporters and their editors to prison for decades. It thus represents, by far, the greatest threat to press freedom in the Trump era, if not the past several decades.
…
The vast bulk of activities cited by the indictment as criminal are exactly what major U.S. media outlets do on a daily basis. The indictment, for instance, alleges WikiLeaks “encouraged sources” such as Chelsea Manning to obtain and pass on classified information; that the group provided technical advice on how to obtain and transmit that information without detection, and that it then published the classified information stolen by its source. The indictment also explicitly states “part of the conspiracy that ASSANGE and Manning used a special folder on a cloud drop box of WikiLeaks to transmit classified records containing information related to the national defense of the United States.” It includes as part of the criminal conspiracy the fact that Assange and his source “took measures to conceal Manning as the source” by using encrypted chat programs.

Outside the parameters of the Trump DOJ’s indictment of Assange, these activities are called “basic investigative journalism.”
…
Justifying Assange’s prosecution on the grounds that he is “not a journalist” reveals a grand, dark irony: To declare that publishing relevant materials about powerful actors is a right possessed only by those designated by the government to be “real journalists” is itself an obvious threat to press freedom. That was the historical danger the First Amendment sought to avoid.
…
The criminal case against Assange, if it were to succeed, would provide the perfect blueprint, the most powerful precedent imaginable, for criminalizing journalism in the United States. Once it is established that working with sources to publish classified information is no longer journalism but espionage, it will be impossible to limit that menacing principle.



Matt Taibbi: Julian Assange Must Never Be Extradited (https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/wikileaks-julian-assange-extradited-taibbi-842292/)

The 18-count indictment (https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1165556/download) is an authoritarian’s dream, the work of attorneys who probably thought the Sedition Act was good law and the Red Scare era Palmer raids a good start. The “conspiracy to commit computer intrusion” is there again, as the 18th count. But counts 1-17 are all subsection 793 charges, and all are worst-case-scenario interpretations of the Espionage Act as pertains to both the receipt and publication of secrets.

Look at the language:

Count 1: Conspiracy to Receive National Defense Information. Counts 2-4: Obtaining National Defense Information. Counts 5-8: Obtaining National Defense Information. And so on.

The indictment is an insane tautology. It literally charges Assange with conspiracy to obtain secrets for the purpose of obtaining them. It lists the following “offense”:

To obtain documents, writings, and notes connected with the national defense, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense…

Slowly – it’s incredible how slowly – it is dawning on much of the press that this case is not just an effort to punish a Russiagate villain, but instead a deadly serious effort to use Assange as a pawn in a broad authoritarian crackdown.

The very news outlets that have long blasted Donald Trump for his hostility to press freedoms are finally coming around to realize that this case is the ultimate example of all of their fears.
…
this is a genuine effort to expand the ability of the U.S. government to put a vice-grip on classified information, scare whistleblowers into silence, and scare the pants off editors across the planet.

The Assange case is more than the narrow prosecution of one controversial person. This is a crossroads moment for the whole world, for speech, reporting, and transparent governance.

It is happening in an era when the hegemonic U.S. government has been rapidly expanding a kind of oversight-free zone within its federal bureaucracy, with whole ranges of activities – from drone killings to intelligence budgets to surveillance – often placed outside the scope of either congress or the courts.

One of the few outlets left that offered any hope of penetrating this widening veil of secrecy was the press, working in conjunction with the whistleblower. If that relationship is criminalized, self-censorship will become the norm, and abuses will surely multiply as a result.



Bruce Shapiro: Trump’s Charges Against Julian Assange Would Effectively Criminalize Investigative Journalism (https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/assange-wikileaks-journalism-free-press/)

The DNA of these new charges runs deep into the history of presidential abuse of power. President Trump and Attorney General William Barr are explicitly picking up the foiled press-punishment ambitions of President Richard Nixon in the Pentagon Papers case. When The New York Times first published the Pentagon Papers in June of 1971, Nixon might have let the storm pass. After all, the papers, leaked by former Pentagon analyst Daniel Ellsberg, didn’t directly critique the new Republican president; they exposed the disastrous, cynical Vietnam policies of Nixon’s hated Democratic predecessor, who had been repudiated by his own party. But Nixon saw in the publication of a secret Defense Department study of US involvement in Vietnam something else: his opportunity to muzzle restive, critical journalists. So his Justice Department went to court and, citing the Espionage Act, won an injunction blocking the Times from continuing to publish its series.



The legal theory
Kevin Gosztola: Trump Justice Department’s Prosecution Of Julian Assange Relies On Contrived Conspiracy Theory (https://medium.com/@kevin_33184/trump-justice-departments-prosecution-of-julian-assange-relies-on-contrived-conspiracy-theory-86aae70f131c)

At Chelsea Manning’s trial, prosecutors pushed a contrived theory:

Manning worked for Assange, as if she was an insider or spy that WikiLeaks turned against the U.S. government and recruited to steal documents for the media organization.

This theory is fundamental to the allegations in the superseding indictment against Assange, yet one massive dilemma for prosecutors exists — Chelsea Manning’s statement during her court-martial.

On February 28, 2013, Manning outlined in great detail her role in disclosing over a half million documents to WikiLeaks. She meticulously described each set of information, why she was drawn to releasing the documents to the public, and how she downloaded, prepared, and electronically transferred the documents to WikiLeaks.

Manning’s statement conflicts with the government’s theory so they are abusing the grand jury process. They are punishing her so she bends to their will and testifies in front of the grand jury, where they hope they will be able to discredit her statement.
…
In the superseding indictment, prosecutors emphasize the fact that the list requested “bulk databases,” including Intellipedia, a classified Wikipedia for U.S. intelligence analysts. Yet, Manning never released this database to WikiLeaks nor did she release the complete CIA Open Source Center database or PACER database containing U.S. federal court records, which were listed as “important bulk databases.”
…
Assange, who was WikiLeaks editor-in-chief, allegedly established a relationship with Manning, a source, via encrypted chat. She submitted materials that were reviewed. They engaged in discussions of the materials, and she asked for help from WikiLeaks to protect her identity. They employed privacy tools to try and avoid detection by military or government authorities.

What Assange did with Manning is fairly standard in journalism. Perhaps that is why media organizations and press freedom groups unanimously opposed the decision to charge Assange with Espionage Act offenses.
…
Evidence showing Assange recruited Manning to act as an insider for WikiLeaks does not exist. Yet, that is exactly why the government will not withdraw the subpoena against her.

The government knows it is unlikely to succeed in prosecuting Assange unless they undercut the truth Manning asserted in a military court. They must abuse the grand jury process and use confinement and steep financial penalties to force her testimony. She has to be tripped up or baited into making statements useful against Assange or else all they have is a preposterous conspiracy theory that not even the anti-leaks Obama administration was willing to pursue.



The Espionage Act
Miriam Schneir: The Law Being Used to Prosecute Julian Assange (https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/julian-assange-wikileaks-1917-espionage-act/)

Few would dispute that governments may need to keep certain data secret in the interest of national security. At the same time, the decision not to divulge information must be scrupulously weighed in a democracy against the public’s right to know.

The 1917 Espionage Act does not concern itself with such quibbles, however; it comes down wholeheartedly on the side of secrecy and national security. It does not require proof that the information at issue is highly significant or even that it is secret, but merely that it is “connected with” or “relating to” national defense. Nor does it demand that the alleged perpetrator must actually have harmed the United States or benefited a foreign country, only that he or she intended to do so. Partly because demonstrating intent is so difficult (and refuting it even more so), attorney Susan Buckley, a specialist in media litigation, pronounced the act “one of the scariest statutes around.” Although it is widely acknowledged to be a woefully crude legal instrument—the eminent First Amendment attorney Floyd Abrams recently characterized it as “almost farcically overbroad”—it remains on the books essentially as it was written a century ago.
…
Over the years the Supreme Court has handed down a number of decisions that have reined in the Espionage Act. Still, during the hundred-year lifetime of the act, the government has been able to use it to restrict freedom of speech; imprison anti-war activists, socialists, anarchists, communists, and ideological whistle-blowers; and help to destroy numerous progressive organizations and publications. Moreover, who knows how many people have been dissuaded from speaking or acting politically because of the harsh penalties inflicted on some defendants. Eugene Debs was sentenced to 10 years at the age of 63, Emma Goldman was imprisoned for two years and then deported, both Rosenbergs were executed, Rosenberg co-defendant Morton Sobell was given 30 years and sent to Alcatraz, Chelsea Manning suffered prison conditions verging on torture and received a 35-year sentence (later commuted).

Now, we wait to see whether a president who has insulted individual journalists and has labeled the news media “the enemy of the people” will succeed in wielding this ill-formed statute to strike at freedom of the press.



The specific charges
- Count 1: Conspiracy to violate § 793(b)-(e) of the Espionage Act in violation of § 793(g);
- Count 2: Violation of § 793(b) and 18 U.S.C. § 2 in connection with Manning obtaining the Guantanamo Bay detainee assessment briefs;
- Count 3: Same as count 2, but with the State Department cables;
- Count 4: Same as count 2, but with the Iraq rules of engagement files;
- Count 5: Attempt to obtain national defense information from SIPRNet in violation of § 793(c) and § 2.
- Count 6: Unlawfully obtaining and receiving detainee assessment briefs in violation of § 793(c) and § 2.
- Count 7: Same as count 6, but with State Department cables;
- Count 8: Same as count 6, but with Iraq rules of engagement files;
- Count 9: Causing unlawful disclosure by Manning of detainee assessment briefs in violation of § 793(d) and § 2;
- Count 10: Same as count 9, but with State Department cables;
- Count 11: Same as count 9, but with Iraq rules of engagement files;
- Count 12: Causing Manning to communicate, deliver and transmit the detainee assessment briefs to Assange in violation of § 793(e) and § 2;
- Count 13: Same as count 12, but with the State Department cables;
- Count 14: Same as count 12, but with the Iraq rules of engagement files;
- Count 15: “Pure publication” of the Afghanistan SIGACTs in direct violation of § 793(e);
- Count 16: Same as count 15, but with the Iraq SIGACTs;
- Count 17: Same as count 15, but with the State Department cables;
- Count 18: Conspiracy to violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 (the general conspiracy statute), 1030(a)(1) (the rarely used hacking access-restricted government information provision), 1030(a)(2) (unauthorized access to obtain information from government), and 1030(c)(2)(B)(ii) (establishing 5 year sentence).


Gabe Rottman: The Assange Indictment Seeks to Punish Pure Publication (https://www.lawfareblog.com/assange-indictment-seeks-punish-pure-publication)

The 17 Espionage Act charges in the indictment can be grouped in three categories. The first category includes just count one, a conspiracy charge under § 793(g) (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793) of the Espionage Act.

The second category includes counts two through 14. Those look similar to the only other case involving a non-governmental third party charged under the Espionage Act: the unsuccessful prosecution of two employees at the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) for allegedly conspiring with a Pentagon analyst to receive and disseminate information about Iran. In that case, the government charged one AIPAC employee, Steven Rosen, with aiding and abetting the analyst’s disclosures under both the Espionage Act and 18 U.S.C § 2 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2), the federal statute that permits someone who induces or causes another to commit a crime to be punished just like the offender. The Assange charges do the same but go further than the § 2 claim in the Rosen case. They allege that Assange “aided, abetted, counseled, induced, procured and willfully caused” Manning to leak the documents in violation of the Espionage Act (emphasis added).

But it’s the third category—counts 15 through 17—that gets at pure publication. These counts focus only on Assange’s having posted the documents on the internet and do not depend on some other action, such as encouraging the leak or receiving the information. Of course, those are also activities similar to newsgathering, which should also receive First Amendment protection . But counts 15 through 17 are totally divorced from any concerted action between Assange and Manning. The theory behind them would permit prosecution even if Assange had received the material anonymously in the mail.

Those counts allege that Assange directly violated the Espionage Act when he “communicated” significant activity, SIGACT, reports from the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, and State Department cables, “by publishing [the documents] on the internet.” In other words, counts 15 through 17 allege a direct violation of 18 U.S.C. § 793(e) based purely on publication.



Reporters Committee for a Free Press: Special Analysis of the May 2019 Superseding Indictment of Julian Assange (https://www.rcfp.org/may-2019-assange-indictment-analysis/)

Does it matter if Julian Assange is a journalist?

No. The First Amendment covers everyone. If, for instance, a private citizen had received the Pentagon Papers, recognized their newsworthiness, and published them in a small-town newsletter, the epic 1971 Supreme Court ruling rejecting the government’s injunction should not have turned out differently. The First Amendment also covers non-citizens such as Assange.

Furthermore, there is no journalist carve-out in the Espionage Act. It applies to anyone who obtains or discloses national defense information. So answering the question of whether Assange is a journalist is immaterial in this regard. Indeed, given the risk in permitting the government to determine who is or is not a journalist, advocates of Espionage Act reform often argue for a new protection that would not turn on that question, but would create a “public interest defense” that would protect those who disclose information about, among other things, government misconduct.

Does the First Amendment apply to the publication of government secrets?


because the government has never tried to prosecute someone for the pure publication of classified information, we would argue that the government must allege that Assange did something in coordination with Manning that takes him out of these long-standing protections for the publication of truthful information. The indictment’s general allegations begin with three primary claims against Assange — that he “encouraged sources to (i) circumvent legal safeguards on information; (ii) provide that protected information to Wikileaks for public dissemination; and (iii) continue the pattern of illegally procuring and providing protected information to WikiLeaks for distribution to the public.”

It is true that trained investigative reporters will be more circumspect in how they seek the disclosure of government secrets, but it’s difficult to see how one could legally distinguish less sophisticated journalists from this alleged conduct. National security reporting, in particular, relies on the disclosure and occasional publication of government secrets, as well as developing relationships with sources who have access to classified information and are willing to provide it to journalists.

If those three allegations are enough to bring Assange out of the scope of Bartnicki protections, it would be a challenge, as a legal matter, to draw principled distinctions that could be consistently applied between Assange’s conduct and that of an investigative reporter, sufficient to protect that reporter from a similar Espionage Act claim.

_____________________________________


Jeremy Scahill’s The Intercepted Podcast: [I]Prosecuting Julian Assange for espionage is a coup attempt against the First Amendment (https://theintercept.com/2019/05/29/prosecuting-julian-assange-for-espionage-is-a-coup-attempt-against-the-first-amendment/)
Audio: https://defend.wikileaks.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/FLM4111562161.mp3

INTERVIEW: Joe Lauria explains Assange indictments and US Espionage Act
(Audio at end of page)

_______________________________

Other related media:
Gizmodo: DOJ's New WikiLeaks Indictment Has Significant, Convenient Plot Holes (https://gizmodo.com/dojs-new-wikileaks-indictment-has-significant-convenie-1844166678)

[onawah]

Glenn Greenwald breaks down new 'bogus' charges against Julian Assange
29,136 views•Jun 26, 2020
The Hill
623K subscribers

"Co-Founding Editor of The Intercept Glenn Greenwald discusses developments in the indictment against Wikileak's founder Julian Assange."
RUhYgFGBEf4

[Tintin]

"The new indictment does not contain any charges additional to those filed in May 2019. The 17 Espionage Act counts over WikiLeaks’ publication of documents leaked by Chelsea Manning exposing historic war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan and illegal global diplomatic intrigues remain. These represent the greatest attack on press freedom and the First Amendment of the US Constitution in decades, directly targeting the right of all journalists to publish “national security” material."


"In Thordarson, a convicted paedophile and conman, and Monsegur, a former petty criminal turned stool pigeon, the US government has found the fitting representatives of its campaign against Assange. The reliance on testimony from both men demonstrates that the US extradition request should be dismissed as a criminal operation, involving individuals who themselves should be in prison."

_________________________

US indictment of Assange based on testimony of FBI assets, convicted child molester
By Oscar Grenfell
25 June 2020

Source: World Socialist Website (https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/06/25/assa-j25.html)

https://www.wsws.org/asset/9bc13755-3c89-4f42-92ce-5d21eb8f150N/image.png?rendition=image480

The Department of Justice today issued a superseding indictment against Julian Assange in the latest salvo of a decade-long campaign by the US government and its intelligence agencies to destroy the WikiLeaks founder and besmirch his reputation.

The new indictment does not contain any charges additional to those filed in May 2019. The 17 Espionage Act counts over WikiLeaks’ publication of documents leaked by Chelsea Manning exposing historic war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan and illegal global diplomatic intrigues remain. These represent the greatest attack on press freedom and the First Amendment of the US Constitution in decades, directly targeting the right of all journalists to publish “national security” material.

The indictment also contains one charge of conspiracy to commit computer intrusion. It was the first US count unveiled against Assange after he was dragged by British police from Ecuador’s London embassy in April 2019.

The additional material added to the introductory section of the new indictment is a desperate attempt to bolster that count, and the broader narrative that Assange is a “hacker,” not a publisher or journalist.

Its inclusion follows the public discrediting of the computer intrusion allegation, including in the first week of Assange’s British extradition hearings last February. According to the indictment, in March 2010, Manning asked Assange for assistance with cracking a hash value, or a password, that would have enabled her to log into the US army computer network anonymously.

It is now almost universally acknowledged that the hash value was never hacked. Manning, moreover, had by that point already gathered the material that she would provide to WikiLeaks. The purpose of her request, apparently made half in jest, was to browse the internet and download music anonymously.

The new indictment further exposes the attempt to extradite Assange to the US as a dirty-tricks political operation, rather than any sort of legal proceeding. It paints a picture of US government operatives pouring through decade-old tabloid gossip and dredging up the most unsavoury creatures of their own intelligence agencies to fling mud at Assange. It is an attempt to salvage their claim that he is a “hacker,” more than a year after they first publicly-unveiled charges against him.

Almost all of the new material has been on the public record in one form or other, for six years or longer.

Points four through six, for instance, reference Assange’s speeches to public conventions of computer experts in the Netherlands and Malaysia, in 2009 and 2010. The indictment claims that he encouraged those present to use their computing abilities to access classified material. To assert that such a statement, made in public, constitutes evidence of a “conspiracy,” is laughable.

However, the accusation continues the strand that runs throughout the indictment of seeking to criminalise standard journalistic practices, including encouraging sources and potential sources to provide a media organisation with newsworthy information in the public interest.

Sections F and G similarly allege that Assange and WikiLeaks associates encouraged administrators and others with access to computer systems to expose illegal activities by the intelligence agencies and corporate malfeasance. They are, again, based on statements at public gatherings spanning from 2013 to 2016, some of which have been viewable on the internet ever since.

Significantly, none of the events was held in the United States, but are cited as evidence of intent, or conspiracy, to violate American laws. This is in line with the unprecedented assertion of extraterritorial jurisdiction on which the entire indictment is based. The Justice Department is essentially arguing that domestic US laws apply to all individuals and gatherings in every part of the world.

Unlike the previous indictment, the latest US charge sheet condemns Assange over WikiLeaks’ role in assisting Edward Snowden to travel from Hong Kong to Russia in 2013, where he successfully obtained political asylum. Snowden is a multi-award winning whistleblower, who exposed illegal global surveillance operations by the US National Security Agency.

The document complains that WikiLeaks publicised its role in defending Snowden to display its commitment to whistleblower protection. This alone brands the new indictment as a further assault on fundamental journalistic practices.

A substantial part of the new material in the indictment appears to be based on testimony and information provided by two acknowledged informants of the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI): Sigurdur “Siggi” Thordarson, named in the document as “Teenager,” and Hector Monsegur, known by the online pseudonym “Sabu.”

In June 2019, WikiLeaks issued a statement reporting that the US government could be preparing a new indictment against Assange, based on testimony from Thordarson. The Icelandic man had made it known on social media that he was being ferried to the US for discussions with American government agencies. In subsequent press interviews, he revealed that Monsegur was also involved. WikiLeaks’ warning has now come to pass.

The indictment alleges that in early 2010, “Teenager” provided Assange with information stolen from a bank. It claims that the WikiLeaks founder “asked Teenager to commit computer intrusion and steal additional information, including audio recordings of phone conversations between officials in NATO Country-1, including members of parliament…”

The country being referenced is Iceland. The allegation that WikiLeaks attempted to surreptitiously record parliamentary conversations there has been in circulation for years. The story was only publicly promulgated after Thordarson began secretly working with the FBI. Its transparent purpose was to jeopardise WikiLeaks’ activities in a relatively liberal country where it enjoyed high levels of popular support.

Assange, moreover, has never been accused, let alone charged with a crime by any Icelandic agency. Senior government officials, however, including then Interior Minister Ögmundur Jonasson, have stated that FBI dirty-tricks operations were afoot against WikiLeaks.

Jonasson has testified that in June 2011, he blocked a plane load of FBI agents who had been sent to seek “our cooperation in what I understood as an operation to set up, to frame Julian Assange and WikiLeaks.” The frame had been accompanied by warnings of a plot to hack Icelandic government infrastructure.

The related new strand of the indictment asserts ties between WikiLeaks and computer hackers. The first set of alleged contacts, from December 2010 until the end of 2011, all involved “Teenager,” i.e., Thordarson, who claims to have been acting under the direction of Assange.

The most significant of those, beginning in June 2011, was with Lulzsec, a loose affiliation of US hackers. The supposed contact between WikiLeaks and the group was again brokered by Thordarson. The indictment alleges that Assange encouraged Lulzsec to hack into private security companies, including Intelligence Consulting Company, and provided them with scripts to search material gathered. It does not claim that Assange was involved in the computer intrusion.

That WikiLeaks published material obtained by Lulzsec has been known for years. In 2012, one of the hackers Jeremy Hammond was arrested and convicted for hacking into Stratfor, a private company dubbed a shadow CIA. WikiLeaks released emails from the firm showing that it had spied on activists and revealing its close relations to US government agencies.

The threadbare character of the allegations, however, is overshadowed by the fact that when Thordarson first made contact with Lolzsec, it was already effectively controlled by the FBI. Monsegur (“Sabu”), its leader, had been arrested on June 7, 2011, and had immediately agreed to collaborate with the US government.

A Justice Department press release accompanying the indictment coyly states: “In 2012, Assange communicated directly with a leader of the hacking group LulzSec (who by then was cooperating with the FBI)...” This is a gross understatement. By that stage, Monsegur had been frantically burning associates for over six months, to avoid decades in prison, and had agreed to transform Lulzsec into a US government entrapment service.

It is not yet known whether Thordarson (“Teenager”) was already cooperating with the FBI when he made contact with Lulzsec. If he was, the conversations were between two FBI assets seeking to frame Assange.

Thordarson had insinuated himself into WikiLeaks as a 17-year-old volunteer in early 2010. In August 2011, Thordarson claims that he contacted the US embassy in Reykjavik, offering to assist in the “ongoing criminal investigation in the United States” against Assange.

By his own admission, Thordarson met with FBI agents multiple times in Reykjavik between 2011 and 2012. During that period, US authorities flew him to Denmark three times and to the US on one occasion, for secret meetings about WikiLeaks. He handed over WikiLeaks hard-drives and received thousands of dollars.

Some WikiLeaks collaborators who encountered him have stated that Thordarson’s behaviour was strange from the beginning, raising the possibility that he was sent into WikiLeaks as a plant.

Either way, Thordarson is an individual who could never be deemed a credible witness. WikiLeaks has alleged that he stole at least $50,000 from the organisation.

In 2014, he pled guilty in an Icelandic court to 18 counts of fraud, embezzlement and theft, some of them relating to his missapropriations from WikiLeaks. The combined offenses carried a dollar value estimated at $US240,000. Thordarson was also convicted of impersonating Assange.

The following year he pled guilty to a raft of sexual offences, after admitting that he had coerced underage boys into performing sexual acts on him. A court-appointed psychologist found that he was a sociopath suffering from a “severe anti-social personality disorder.”

In Thordarson, a convicted paedophile and conman, and Monsegur, a former petty criminal turned stool pigeon, the US government has found the fitting representatives of its campaign against Assange. The reliance on testimony from both men demonstrates that the US extradition request should be dismissed as a criminal operation, involving individuals who themselves should be in prison.

The British courts and government, however, have made clear their support for the US-led vendetta against Assange, underscoring that it is up to the working class to take forward the fight for his freedom.

[Tintin]

I'll be watching the space following tomorrow's response to the superseding indictment and update as soon as I can.

1277329949276463106

[Tintin]

The radio silence of late on this thread has really only come about due to there not being an enormously great deal to report on specifically although Julian has recently received two journalism awards - I'll try and source that news.

For now there was a further hearing yesterday where Julian was in fact able to participate remotely, which is encouraging, but his predicament remains as it has seemingly been for really quite a long time. Excluded from participation though were Reporters sans frontières - Reporters Without Borders (RSF) as confirmed on this tweet here:

1287684990784937985

The extradition process has of course been an entire farce, and a dangerous one, and well summed up here by Kristinn who lays out the absurd and somewhat desperate truth behind the latest episode concerning the 'new' (sic) indictment:

1287684369604280320

_________

Other related news: https://rappler.com/world/europe/assange-spied-on-like-film-lawyer-says - "Assange spied on like 'in a film,' lawyer says" (Baltasar Garzon)

[mountain_jim]

Not sure if this is significant in terms of any Seth Rich answers or not

https://twitter.com/IvanPentchoukov/status/1291113777442816000?s=20

1291113777442816000

[onawah]

US Judge Requests Assange Testimony in Case Brought by Parents of Slain DNC Staffer
BY IVAN PENTCHOUKOV
August 6, 2020
https://www.theepochtimes.com/us-judge-requests-assange-testimony-in-case-brought-by-parents-of-slain-dnc-staffer_3452280.html

https://img.theepochtimes.com/assets/uploads/2019/04/17/assange2-700x420.jpg

"A federal magistrate judge in New York requested assistance from a UK court on Aug. 5 in obtaining testimony from WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange for a U.S. civil lawsuit brought against Fox News and others by the parents of slain Democratic National Committee voter data director Seth Rich.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn requested the international assistance in accordance with the Hague Convention.

“In the proper exercise of its authority, this court has determined that the evidence cannot be secured except by the intervention of the English courts and that assistance from the English courts would serve to further the international interests of justice and judicial cooperation,” the judge wrote in a memorandum for the senior master of the Royal Courts of Justice.

Joel and Mary Rich, Seth Rich’s parents, sued Fox News in March 2018 nearly a year after the news network published and retracted an article titled “Seth Rich, slain DNC staffer, had contact with WikiLeaks, say multiple sources.” The Riches claimed the network inflicted intentional emotional distress on them by slandering their son. The case was dismissed in August 2018, but the Second Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the dismissal more than a year later.

The case has since entered the discovery phase and the judge determined that Assange’s testimony is crucial for determining the central dispute between the parties—whether the article was a “sham” as the Riches claim, or “substantially true” as maintained by Fox News.

“Mr. Assange, as founder of WikiLeaks, is exceptionally suited to provide testimony that will be highly relevant to these issues. Therefore, Fox News, by and through this letter of request issued by the District Court, is formally requesting the testimony of Mr. Assange for use at trial,” the request to the UK court states.

The attorneys for the Riches did not reply to a request for comment.
https://img.theepochtimes.com/assets/uploads/2019/06/04/assange-e1560523160283-600x413.jpeg
Seth Rich was slain in Washington on July 10, 2016, less than 2 weeks before WikiLeaks “released a collection of thousands of internal emails and documents taken from the DNC servers,” the U.S. court request states. One month after Rich’s murder, Assange referenced the DNC staffer in an interview with a Dutch television reporter when discussing the dangers faced by WikiLeaks sources. On Aug. 9, 2016, WikiLeaks offered $20,000 for information about Rich’s murder. The website increased the reward to $130,000 in January 2017.

The Fox News article—authored by Malia Zimmerman, one of the named defendants—cited an anonymous federal investigator who claimed to have reviewed the FBI forensic file on Rich and read emails between the slain staffer and WikiLeaks. Two days after the article was published, Joel Rich wrote to Zimmerman asking that the article be retracted. Fox News retracted the article on May 23, stating that “the article was not initially subject to the high degree of editorial scrutiny we require for all our reporting.”

The magistrate judge’s request for assistance includes a list of 20 specific questions for Assange, including how, when, and from whom WikiLeaks obtained the stolen DNC emails and whether Seth Rich played any role in obtaining the emails or providing them to WikiLeaks.

WikiLeaks did not respond to a request for comment.

The judge asked for a response from the UK counterparts by Sept. 1. Should the royal court oblige, the interview of Assange would proceed via video conference, according to Netburn’s request.

Assange is in a UK jail for failing to appear in court. He faces possible extradition to the United States, where he has been charged with espionage and hacking conspiracy for his work with Chelsea Manning, who was convicted in 2013 for illegally disclosing nearly 750,000 classified U.S. government files through Wikileaks.

Even if Assange provides no information on Seth Rich, the WikiLeaks founder’s testimony could have consequences reaching far beyond the civil lawsuit. While U.S. authorities blamed Russia for stealing the DNC emails, the claim remains an allegation with no conclusive evidence in the public realm.

After discovering hackers on its network in March 2016, the DNC hired cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike in early May to protect its system and oust the intruders. Special Counsel Robert Mueller alleged that the DNC email server was breached more than 3 weeks later. CrowdStrike told The Epoch Times that there is no indication that any DNC system protected by its technology was ever breached. Shawn Henry, who led the CrowdStrike team, told Congress that his company had no evidence that emails were stolen from the DNC."

[Tintin]

Premiering tomorrow in the United Kingdom,

No Extradition: Julian Assange’s Father & The Struggle for His Son’s Freedom. Documentary Premiere

Online International Launch: Thursday, August 13, 2020 at 7 PM – 8:30 PM BST (London, UK)

'No Extradition: Julian Assange’s Father & The Struggle for His Son’s Freedom.'

(Director, Pablo Navarrete, 36 mins, Alborada Films).

Featuring John Shipton plus Nils Melzer (UN Special Rapporteur on Torture), M.I.A, John Pilger, Lowkey, Lisa Longstaff and others.

The Online International Launch event includes post screening Q&A with Julian Assange’s father John Shipton, the documentary’s director Pablo Navarrete and Emmy Butlin from Committee to Defend Julian Assange

A quarter of the tickets revenues will go to the Committee to Defend Julian Assange.

Once you have purchased a ticket, you will receive an Eventbrite link from Alborada Films 5 hours prior to the the film commencing with a password and viewing link. This will be active from 7pm on Thursday 13 August. You will also be sent instructions regarding how to access the live Q&A. Please email info@alborada.net with any questions.

For this event we have broken down our ticket prices into 5 bands based on how much you earn each year. The idea is that the more money you have, the more you pay. This way everyone can access our event at an affordable price, while ensuring that the project remains financially sustainable.

MORE INFO: https://wiseupaction.info/2020/07/24/documentary-no-extradition-julian-assanges-father-the-struggle-for-his-sons-freedom/

> Read an interview about the film with the director here: https://sputniknews.com/analysis/202008051080069051-new-documentary-on-julian-assange-is-about-one-of-the-great-injustices-of-our-time-director-says/

[Tintin]

Ahead of tomorrow's hearing Stella Moris reports this:

1293895319047098368

[Tintin]

**UPDATE**

The final case management hearing is now underway, as per:

1294199361371480066

Edit to add

1294193130334552064

and has now ended.

Kristinn Hrafnsson earlier tweeted that (again) it was more or less impossible to hear what was going on during the phone-in.

Stella Moris updates, here:

1294232229091180545

[Tintin]

Final case management hearing - continued...

Juan Passerelli at #AssangeCase (https://twitter.com/hashtag/AssangeCase?src=hashtag_click) tries to capture what happened today.

1294226005322866688

1294221337163071488

1294226638545330178

1294226946965020672

[Tintin]

From DontExtraditeAssange a helpful summary of today's activity:

Source: https://dontextraditeassange.com/press-release/chaos-in-assange-case-management-hearing/

Chaos in Assange case management hearing

14. 08. 2020

Attorney General William Barr issued a replacement extradition request just two days after Julian Assange’s defence team submitted their full and final evidence for the extradition hearing due in September, Westminster Magistrates court heard today (Friday 14th August).

The clear attempt to blindside the defence by US Attorney General William Barr emerged as the court heard Julian Assange has not even seen the warmed-over extradition request, which contains no new charges but introduces new narrative content that the defence argued should be excluded from the proceedings.

The defence argued the replacement indictment introduced alleged conduct from 2010 and 2011 which the US had investigated almost a decade ago, and could therefore not plausibly be argued to be new information to the US investigation.

The defence considered the move by the prosecution to bring in the replacement extradition request at the eleventh hour “astonishing”, given the case had been prepared over the course of one year and was well into substantive hearings which began in February.

The defence was given a week to decide whether to ask for the September hearing to be adjourned, or to proceed as planned on 7 September.

And that was only part of the chaotic hearing in which Belmarsh prison did not initially bring Assange to the video room to join proceedings, the US prosecution failed to turn up (having got the time of the hearing wrong), and every journalist and NGO observer that tried to dial-in was directed to another trial entirely and never made it into the Assange hearing.

That left a mere of handful of journalists that could gain access to the court to report proceedings.

‘This was the worst hearing so far’, said Kristinn Hrafnsson, WikiLeaks’ Editor-in-chief . ‘The US government seem to want to change the indictment every time the court meet, but without the defence or Julian himself seeing the relevant documents’.

Even now Julian Assange has not been re-arrested under the replacement extradition request. Instead the re-arrest will take place on the first day of the hearings.

The reissued request appears to serve a PR purpose since it contains no new charges though still threatens Assange with 175 years in jail.

Julian Assange’s legal team have been denied in-person access to their client since March. Today was the first day Julian Assange was able to have a short video link meeting with his lawyers, prior to the hearing. Belmarsh prison denied Assange any facilities to talk to his lawyers after the hearing ended.

Julian Assange has not seen his family and young children since March.

[.... (https://dontextraditeassange.com/press-release/chaos-in-assange-case-management-hearing/)]

[Tintin]

ASSANGE EXTRADITION: Confusion Over Superseding Indictment May Delay Hearing
August 14, 2020
Source: Consortium News (https://consortiumnews.com/2020/08/14/assange-extradition-confusion-over-superseding-indictment-may-delay-hearing/)

Julian Assange’s defense team asked for a possible delay until next week in a procedural hearing after the United States introduced a superseding indictment to the court.

By Joe Lauria
Special to Consortium News

The defense for imprisoned WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange has asked for a possible delay in a procedural hearing on Friday after the United States introduced a superseding indictment to the court, leaving Magistrate Vanessa Baraitser uncertain about whether Assange would still be under arrest if she accepted the new indictment.

The defense argued that there wasn’t enough time before the scheduled resumption of the substantial hearing on Sept. 7 to deal with a new indictment and said it was too late to introduce new evidence to the court, according to tweets from WikiLeaks supporter Juan Passarelli. The U.S. had a June 2019 deadline to submit all evidence to the British extradition court.

The defense accused the prosecution of an “abuse of justice” and requested that the hearing resume in September as planned without inclusion of the new indictment, Passarelli said.

1294217649333981184

1294218013697355776

The media was allowed onto a conference call and stood by for an hour for the hearing to begin on Friday. After it began the media could hear Baraitser ask Assange to state his name and date of birth. Nothing was said in court after that for about 20 minutes when Baraitser left the conference call.

When the hearing resumed she did not rejoin the call, leaving the media in the dark, dependent on tweets from observers, such as Passarelli. Conference calls to Assange’s hearings have continually been marred by technical difficulties.

1294225772786388992

Passarelli reported on the prosecution’s response to the defense:



“The prosecution argue(d) that the US continued to investigate #Assange’s alleged criminal activity after the grand jury returned the indictment. There has been a continuing investigation, and that this is common in the American system. … Prosecution agree9d) that the indictment is similar to the previous indictment but with some added alleged conduct by #Assange. … Prosecution argues that this is a new prosecution case and that the court does not [have] the power to dismiss anything in the indictment.”

The defense, in turn, said rather than the new evidence being part of a “continuing investigation,” it was actually known to U.S. investigators in 2011.

1294220287240736768

The superseding indictment, made public by the U.S. Justice Department in June, merely adds details to the previous indictment of Assange for alleged conspiracy to commit computer intrusion and includes no new charges.

“Defence argues that this material was available in 2011, there is no reason that this is the fruit of new investigation,” Passarelli tweeted.

[...]

According to Passarelli, Baraitser then said it wasn’t even clear if Assange would still be under arrest if the U.S. wanted to start the extradition process over again by introducing new evidence past the June 2019 deadline.

“Judge says that #Assange has not been even arrested by this replacement indictment. She says she has to consider if the hearing can be just. She does not have the power to exclude new allegations. The defence may decide if they require more time,” Passarelli tweeted.

The defense then asked for the procedural hearing to be postponed until next Friday to give it time to decide whether to ask for an extension of the September date, he tweeted. Baraitser asked for it be pushed back to Wednesday. With this scheduling issue apparently unresolved, Baraitser adjourned the hearing until Sept. 7 “pending any applications for delay,” Passarelli said.

John Shipton, Assange’s father, said after the hearing that submissions have to be made by the defense “as to whether the court date [of Sept.7] will be vacated. I hope it is not. We work towards the hearing being on the 7th of September.”

The U.S., Shipton said, is “making every effort to ensure that the [substantive] hearing is not the 7th of September, but in fact after the American election.”

ApB716IdnbE

[Tintin]

Open Letter to the UK Prime Minister, Mr Boris Johnson, the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, Robert Buckland QC, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Dominic Raab and UK Home Secretary Priti Patel

From Lawyers for Assange

Letter download link, here (https://l4assange.mironet.ch/en/open-letter.html).

__________________



14 August 2020

Dear Prime Minister,

Dear Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice,

Dear Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs,

Dear Home Secretary,

We write to you as legal practitioners and legal academics to express our collective concerns about the violations of Mr. Julian Assange’s fundamental human, civil and political rights and the precedent his persecution is setting.

We call on you to act in accordance with national and international law, human rights and the rule of law by bringing an end to the ongoing extradition proceedings and granting Mr. Assange his long overdue freedom – freedom from torture, arbitrary detention and deprivation of liberty, and political persecution.

ILLEGALITY OF POTENTIAL EXTRADITION TO THE UNITED STATES
Extradition of Mr. Assange from the UK to the US would be illegal on the following grounds:

Risk of being subjected to an unfair trial in the US
Extradition would be unlawful owing to failure to ensure the protection of Mr. Assange’s fundamental trial rights in the US. Mr. Assange faces show trial at the infamous “Espionage court” of the Eastern District of Virginia, before which no national security defendant has ever succeeded. Here, he faces secret proceedings before a jury picked from a population in which most of the individuals eligible for jury selection work for, or are connected to, the CIA, NSA, DOD or DOS.[i]

Furthermore, Mr. Assange’slegal privilege, a right enshrined in Art. 8 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and long recognised under English common law, was grossly violated throughconstant and criminal video and audio surveillance at the Ecuadorian embassy carried out by the Spanish security firm, UC Global. This surveillance was, according to witness testimony, ordered by the CIA and has triggered an investigation into the owner of UC Global, David Morales, by Spain’s High Court, the Audiencia Nacional.[ii] The surveillance resulted in all of Mr. Assange’s meetings and conversations being recorded, including those with his lawyers. The Council of Bar and Law Societies of Europe, which represents more than a million European lawyers, has expressed its concerns that these illegal recordings may be used – openly or secretly – in proceedings against Mr. Assange in the event of successful extradition to the US.

The Council states that if the information merely became known to the prosecutors, this would present an irremediable breach of Mr. Assange’s fundamental rights to a fair trial under Art. 6 of the ECHR and due process under the US Constitution.[iii] Furthermore, the prosecuting state obtained the totality of Mr. Assange’s legal papers after their unlawful seizure in the Embassy. Upon hearing that the Government of Ecuador was planning to seize and hand over personal belongings of Mr. Assange, including documents, telephones, electronic devices, memory drives, etc. to the US, the UN Special Rapporteur on Privacy, Joseph Cannataci, expressed his serious concern to the Ecuadorian government and twice formally requested it to return Mr. Assange's personal effects to his lawyers, to no avail.[iv] The UN Model Treaty on Extradition prohibits extradition if the person has not received, or would not receive, the minimum guarantees in criminal proceedings, as enshrined in Art. 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).[v]

The political nature of the offence prohibits extradition
The US superseding indictment issued against Mr. Assange on the 24 June 2020 charges him with 18 counts all related solely to the 2010 publications of US government documents. The publications, comprising information about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, US diplomatic cables and Guantanamo Bay, revealed evidence of war crimes, corruption and governmental malfeasance.[vi]

Charges 1-17 are brought under the Espionage Act 1917, which, in name alone, reveals the political and antiquated nature of the charges.[vii]Furthermore, the essence of the 18 charges concerns Mr. Assange’s alleged intention to obtain or disclose US state “secrets” in a manner that was damaging to the strategic and national security interests of the US state, to the capability of its armed forces, the work of the security and intelligence services of the US, and to the interests of the US abroad. Thus, the conduct, motivation and purpose attributed to Mr. Assange confirm the political character of the 17 charges brought under the Espionage Act (‘pure political’ offences) and of the hacking charge (a ‘relative political’ offence). In addition, several US government officials have at various times ascribed motives “hostile” to the US to Mr. Assange, an Australian citizen.[viii] The UK-US Extradition Treaty, which provides the very basis of the extradition request, specifically prohibits extradition for political offences in Art. 4(1). Yet the presiding judge and prosecution wish to simply disregard this article by referring to the Extradition Act 2003 (“EA”) instead, which does not include the political offence exception.

This blatantly ignores the fact that the EA is merely an enabling act that creates the minimum statutory safeguards, but it does not preclude stronger protections from extradition as expressly provided in subsequently ratified treaties such as the UK-US Extradition Treaty. Furthermore, there is broad international consensus that political offences should not be the basis of extradition.[ix] This is reflected in Art. 3 of the 1957 European Convention on Extradition, Art. 3 ECHR, Art. 3(a) of the UN Model Treaty on Extradition, the Interpol Constitution and every bilateral treaty ratified by the US for over a century.

Risk of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in the US
The United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“the UN Rapporteur on Torture”), Professor Nils Melzer, has expressed with certainty that, if extradited to the US, Mr. Assange will be exposed to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Similar concerns have also been raised by the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, and Amnesty International has recently restated its concerns in relation to the unacceptable risk of mistreatment.[x]

The detention conditions, and the draconian punishment of 175 years, in a maximum security prison, which Mr. Assange faces under the US indictment, would constitute torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, according to the current UN Rapporteur on Torture and according to theconsistently expressed opinion of his predecessor, as well as of NGOs and legal authorities.[xi]

If extradited, Mr. Assange would, by the US government’s own admission, likely be placed under Special Administrative Measures. These measures prohibit prisoners from contact or communication with all but a few approved individuals, and any approved individuals would not be permitted to report information concerning the prisoner’s treatment to the public, thereby shielding potential torture from public scrutiny and government from accountability.[xii]

Under the principle of non-refoulement, it is not permissible to extradite a person to a country in which there are substantial grounds for believing that they would be subjected to torture. This principle is enshrined in the 1951 UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, specifically Art. 33(1) from which no derogations are permitted. Also relevant are Art. 3(1) UN Declaration on Territorial Asylum 1967, Art. 3 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), and Art. 2 of the Resolution on Asylum to Persons in Danger of Persecution, adopted by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe in 1967. As an obligation arising from the prohibition of torture, the principle of non-refoulement in this area is absolute and also takes on the character of a peremptory norm of customary international law, i.e. jus cogens.[xiii]

Mr. Assange, who was accepted as a political asylee by the Ecuadorian government owing to what have proved to have been wholly legitimate fears of political persecution and torture in the US, should clearly have been accorded protection of this principle, firstly by Ecuador and secondly by the UK. Ecuador violated its human rights obligations by summarily rescinding Mr. Assange’s asylum in direct contradiction of the ‘Latin American tradition of asylum’[xiv] and the Advisory Opinion OC-25/18 of 30 May 2018 of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights affirming the principle of non-refoulement in cases of persons who have entered an embassy for protection.[xv]
The entry of the Ecuadorian Embassy by UK police and the arrest of Mr. Assange were thus based on an illegal revocation of his nationality and asylum, which can only be rectified by the UK upholding its own duty to protect the principle of non-refoulement by denying extradition to the US.

B) VIOLATIONS OF THE FREEDOM OF THE PRESS AND THE RIGHT TO KNOW

Counts 1-17 of the indictment under the Espionage Act violate the right to freedom of expression, the right to freedom of the press and the right to know. These counts present standard and necessary investigative journalistic practices as criminal.[xvi] Such practices include indicating availability to receive information, indicating what information is of interest, encouraging the provision of information, receipt of information for the purpose of publication, and publication of information in the public interest.

Under the charge of conspiracy to commit computer intrusion, the initial indictment criminalised also Mr. Assange’s alleged attempt at helping his source to maintain their anonymity while providing the documents in question, which falls squarely under the standard journalistic practice and duty of protecting the source. In a bid to detract from this fact and re-paint Mr. Assange as a malicious hacker, the US DOC has published a new “superseding indictment” on 24 June 2020, without even lodging it with the UK court first, alleging the recruitment of, and agreement with, hackers to commit computer intrusion. The new indictment has emerged unjustifiably late in the day, is based on no new information and the testimony of two highly compromised sources.

We agree with the assessment of the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe that “The broad and vague nature of the allegations against Julian Assange, and of the offences listed in the indictment, are troubling as many of them concern activities at the core of investigative journalism in Europe and beyond.”[xvii] Extradition on the basis of the indictment would gravely endanger freedom of the press, a cornerstone of European democracies enshrined in Art. 10 ECHR.[xviii]

The US furthermore seemingly concedes the unconstitutionality of the charges, having stated in one of its submissions to the Court that Mr. Assange will be denied the protections of freedom of speech and the press guaranteed under the First Amendment due to his being a foreign national.[xix] Furthermore, extraditing Mr. Assange to the US with the knowledge of their intended discrimination against him would make the UK an accessory in a flagrant denial of his right to non-discrimination.

The extradition to the US of a publisher and journalist, for engaging in journalistic activities while in Europe, would set a very dangerous precedent for the extra-territorialisation of state secrecy laws and “would post an invitation to other states to follow suit, severely threatening the ability of journalists, publishers and human rights organisations to safely reveal information about serious international issues.”[xx] Such concerns for journalistic freedom are echoed by the journalistic profession – over a thousand journalists signed an open letter opposing Mr. Assange’s extradition.[xxi] Massimo Moratti, Amnesty International’s Deputy Europe Director has branded the US government’s unrelenting pursuit of Mr. Assange as “nothing short of a full-scale assault on the right to freedom of expression” which “could have a profound impact on the public's right to know what their government is up to.”[xxii]

Furthermore the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe has stated that member States should “consider that the detention and criminal prosecution of Mr Julian Assange sets a dangerous precedent for journalists, and join the recommendation of the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture” in his call to bar the extradition and for the release from custody of Mr. Assange.[xxiii]

C) VIOLATIONS OF THE RIGHT TO BE FREE FROM TORTURE, THE RIGHT TO HEALTH, AND THE RIGHT TO LIFE

The UN Rapporteur on Torture has reported, and continues to report, on the treatment of Mr. Assange as part of his United Nations mandate. On 9 and 10 May 2019, Prof. Melzer and two medical experts specialised in examining potential victims of torture and other ill-treatment visited Mr. Assange in Her Majesty's Prison Belmarsh (“HMP Belmarsh”). The group’s visit and assessment revealed that Mr. Assange showed “all symptoms typical for prolonged exposure to psychological torture, including extreme stress, chronic anxiety and intense psychological trauma.”[xxiv] The UN Rapporteur on Torture concluded “Mr. Assange has been deliberately exposed, for a period of several years, to persistent and progressively severe forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the cumulative effects of which can only be described as psychological torture”. The UN Rapporteur on Torture condemned “in the strongest terms, the deliberate, concerted and sustained nature of the abuse inflicted”, and characterised the failure of the UK government and the involved governments to take measures for the protection of Mr. Assange’s human rights and dignity as “complacency at best and complicity at worst”.[xxv]

The abuse includes systematic judicial persecution and violations of due process rights in all jurisdictions involved and in all related legal proceedings.[xxvi] It has most recently been demonstrated in the treatment of Mr. Assange during the extradition proceedings heard at Woolwich Crown Court, proceedings destined to be infamously remembered for the “glass box” to which Mr. Assange was confined as if he, an award winning journalist and a publisher, was a dangerous and violent criminal.

Mr. Assange was subjected to arbitrary detention and oppressive isolation, harassment and surveillance, while confined in the Ecuadorian embassy[xxvii] and continues to be so subjected as a prisoner in HMP Belmarsh. In Belmarsh, Mr. Assange has served the irregular and disproportionate sentence of 50 weeks[xxviii] for an alleged bail infringement. Perversely, the allegation, charge and conviction resulted from Mr. Assange legitimately seeking and being granted diplomatic asylum by the Ecuadorian government, which accepted Mr. Assange’s fear of politicised extradition to, and inhuman treatment in, the US, as well founded.[xxix] Although Mr. Assange has now served the sentence, he remains imprisoned without conviction or legal basis for the purpose of a political, and thereby illegal, extradition to the US. Further, he is imprisoned amid the Coronavirus pandemic, despite the above and despite his vulnerability to the virus owing to an underlying lung condition exacerbated by years of confinement and a history of psychological torture. It is particularly worrisome that, as a result of his health and the medical circumstances, he has even been unable to participate by videolink at recent hearings, yet he has been refused bail.[xxx]

UK authorities violated Mr. Assange’s right to health while deprived of his liberty in the Ecuadorian Embassy by denying him access to urgent medical diagnosis and care.[xxxi] The two medical experts who accompanied the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture on his May 2019 visit to HMP Belmarsh warned that unless pressure on Mr. Assange was alleviated quickly, his state of health would enter a downward spiral potentially resulting in his death.[xxxii] Mr. Assange’s father, Mr. John Shipton, has reported that his son was subjected to physical torture by his being placed in a “hot box.”[xxxiii] On 1 November 2019 the UN Rapporteur on Torture stated: “[u]nless the UK urgently changes course and alleviates his inhumane situation, Mr. Assange’s continued exposure to arbitrariness and abuse may soon end up costing his life.”[xxxiv] Soon after, on 22 November 2019, over 60 doctors from around the world raised concerns about the precarious state of Mr. Assange’s physical and mental health which included fears for his life, and requested his transfer to a hospital properly equipped and staffed for his diagnosis and treatment.[xxxv]

Furthermore, it has been revealed by the employees of UC Global, who worked at the Ecuadorian embassy, that the CIA actively discussed and considered kidnapping or poisoning Mr. Assange.[xxxvi] This shows a shocking disregard for his right to life and the due process of law of the very government seeking his extradition.

We would like to remind the UK government:

-of its duty to protect Mr. Assange’s right to life, which is the most fundamental human right enshrined in Art. 6 of the ICCPR, Art. 2 of the ECHR and Art. 2 of the Human Rights Act (HRA);

- that the prohibition of torture is a norm of international customary law and constitutes jus cogens. The prohibition is absolute and so there may be no derogation under any circumstances, including war, public emergency or terrorist threat. It is also enshrined in Art. 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), Arts. 7 and 10 ICCPR, CAT, and Art. 3 ECHR;

- of its unconditional obligation, under Art. 12 CAT, to ensure that its competent authorities proceed to a prompt and impartial investigation of reported torture, which it has thus far failed to undertake; and

- that it is a member State of the World Health Organization, whose Constitution states: “The enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health is one of the fundamental rights of every human being without distinction of […] political belief [,,,]everyone should have access to the health services they need, when and where they need them.”


We call on the UK government to take immediate action to cease the torture being inflicted upon Mr. Assange, to end his arbitrary and unlawful detention, and to permit his access to independent medical diagnosis and treatment in an appropriate hospital setting. That doctors, their previous concerns having been ignored, should have to call on governments to ‘End torture and medical neglect of Julian Assange’ in The Lancet is extremely worrying.[xxxvii]

D) VIOLATIONS OF THE RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL

We condemn the denial of Mr. Assange’s right to a fair trial before the UK courts. This right has been denied as follows.

Judicial Conflicts of Interest

Senior District Judge (Magistrates’ Courts) Emma Arbuthnot, who as Chief Magistrate oversees Mr. Assange’s extradition proceedings, has been shown to have financial links to institutions and individuals whose wrongdoings have been exposed by WikiLeaks, the organisation which Mr. Assange founded.[xxxviii] This seemingly clear conflict of interest was, however, not disclosed by the District Judge. District Judge Arbuthnot did not recuse herself and was permitted to make rulings to Mr. Assange’s detriment, despite the perceived lack of judicial impartiality and independence. District Judge (Magistrates’ Courts) Michael Snow has further exhibited bias and unprofessionalism by participating in the defamation of Mr. Assange’s character, labelling the multi-award-winning public interest publisher and Nobel Peace Prize Nominee a “narcissist who cannot get beyond his own selfish interests” in response, ironically, to Mr. Assange’s legal team raising what were patently legitimate concerns regarding bias in the proceedings.[xxxix]

Inequality of Arms
Mr. Assange has been denied time and facilities to prepare his defence in violation of the principle of equality of arms which is inherent to the presumption of innocence and the rule of law.

After his arrest, the British police did not allow Mr. Assange to collect and take his belongings with him.[xl] Subsequently, Mr. Assange was deprived of his reading glasses for several weeks.[xli] Until end of June 2020 he was also denied access to a computer. While a computer has now been provided it is without internet access and read only, preventing the possibility of Mr. Assange typing any notes thus being entirely unsuitable for the preparation of his defence. Mr. Assange was furthermore denied access to the indictment itself for several weeks after it had been presented, while his access to other legal documents remains limited to this day due to the bureaucracy and lack of confidentiality involved in prison correspondence. Furthermore, despite the complexity of the case and the severity of the sentence that Mr. Assange would face if extradited to be tried in the US, prison authorities are failing to ensure that Mr. Assange can properly consult with his legal team and prepare for his defence, by severely restricting both the frequency and duration of his legal visits. Since mid-March 2020, Mr. Assange has altogether not been able to meet in person with his lawyers.

The effects of the torture to which Mr. Assange has been subjected have further limited his ability to prepare his defence and, at times during proceedings, even to answer basic questions, such as questions about his name and date of birth.[xlii] While further hearings have been delayed until September, it is unclear whether this will enable Mr. Assange the necessary time and resources to prepare his defence, since he is unable to communicate with his lawyers (due to his imprisonment during the pandemic) apart from being given limited concessions for a limited period of time, i.e. phone calls restricted to 10 minutes.

Denial of the defendant’s ability to properly follow proceedings and direct his legal team
Mr. Assange and his lawyers have repeatedly informed the Court of his inability to properly follow proceedings, to consult with his lawyers confidentially and to properly instruct them in the presentation of his defence due to his being prevented from sitting with them and being confined to a bulletproof glass box. The arrangement has forced Mr. Assange to resort to waving to get the attention of the judge or the people sitting in the public gallery, in order to alert his lawyers who are seated in the courtroom with their backs to him. Although District Judge Vanessa Baraitser accepted that the decision as to whether Mr. Assange should be allowed to sit with his lawyers was within her powers, yet she refused to exercise her power in Mr. Assange’s favour, despite the prosecution having made no objection to the application. Amnesty International has expressed concerns that if adequate measures are not in place at further hearings to ensure Mr. Assange’s effective participation in, and thereby the fairness of, the proceedings would be impaired.[xliii]

Refusal to address mistreatment of the defendant
Mr. Assange's lawyers informed the Court that during a single day, on 22 February, prison authorities handcuffed him 11 times, placed him in 5 different cells, strip-searched him twice, and confiscated his privileged legal documents. Overseeing the proceedings, District Judge Vanessa Baraitser explicitly refused to intervene with prison authorities claiming that she has no jurisdiction over his prison conditions. This oppressive treatment has rightly been condemned by The International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute.[xliv] Co-Chair, Anne Ramberg Dr jur hc, branded it a “serious undermining of due process and the rule of law.”[xlv] Further, international psychiatrists and psychologists have cited this as further evidence of psychological torture.[xlvi]

We remind the UK government that the right to a fair trial is a cornerstone of democracy and the rule of law. It is a basic human right enshrined in Art. 10 UDHR, Art. 14 ICCPR, Art. 6 ECHR and Art. 6 HRA. These provisions, along with long-standing common law principles, demand a fair and public hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal, the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, the right to be informed promptly and in detail of the nature and cause of the charges, the right to be provided with adequate time and facilities for the preparation of one’s defence, and the right to have the ability to communicate with one’s counsel.

For all these reasons we respectfully request that the UK government bring an end to the US extradition proceedings against Mr. Assange and ensure his immediate release from custody.

Yours sincerely,

Lawyers for Assange

[Tintin]

Deepa Driver here explaining what happened at the court last week. It's quite something :facepalm:

5Qs3JCnhsNI

1295449863652405248

[onawah]

Assange Update: The United States Issues New Extradition Request
2,334 views•Aug 18, 2020
acTVism Munich
80.7K subscribers

"In this video, we discuss Assange’s latest court hearing held on Friday August 14th. During the hearing, it was revealed that the US Attorney General William Barr issued a new extradition request under the superseding indictment. The prosecution fails to attend the hearing. Assange attends via video link but appears unwell."
1QoAXwAH80w

[Tintin]

Stella Moris announces that she's created a crowdjustice campaign for Julian:

1296367084700565506

[Gwin Ru]

...
Oh boy what a shot (https://twitter.com/ohboywhatashot/status/1296383315784671232/photo/1)
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ef2tqzBX0AACUdW?format=jpg&name=large

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

Some interesting details:

John Solomon: US Had Agreement with Julian Assange on Wikileaks Hillary Emails but Comey Killed It

jwy2XPDXFqc

[Tintin]

Julian Assange, Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden nominated for the 2020 Nobel Peace Prize

From Defend Wikileaks (https://defend.wikileaks.org/2020/02/06/julian-assange-chelsea-manning-and-edward-snowden-nominated-for-the-2020-nobel-peace-prize/)

https://defend.wikileaks.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/2020-01-31-Nobel_Nomination_Julian-Assange_Chelsea-Manning_Edward-Snowden.pdf

[mountain_jim]

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/why-brennan-strzok-doj-needed-julian-assange-arrested-and-why-uk-officials-obliged

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2020/08/18/why-john-brennan-peter-strzok-and-doj-needed-julian-assange-arrested-and-why-uk-officials-obliged-2/

(images and links at link)



Why Brennan, Strzok, & DOJ Needed Julian Assange Arrested; And Why UK Officials Obliged...

According to reports in November of 2019, U.S Attorney John Durham and U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr were spending time on a narrowed focus looking carefully at CIA activity in the 2016 presidential election. One recent quote from a media-voice increasingly sympathetic to a political deep-state notes:

“One British official with knowledge of Barr’s wish list presented to London commented that “it is like nothing we have come across before, they are basically asking, in quite robust terms, for help in doing a hatchet job on their own intelligence services””. (Link)

It is interesting that quote came from a British intelligence official, as there appears to be evidence of an extensive CIA operation that likely involved U.K. intelligence services. In addition, and as a direct outcome, there is an aspect to the CIA operation that overlaps with both a U.S. and U.K. need to keep Wikileaks founder Julian Assange under tight control. In this outline we will explain where corrupt U.S. and U.K. interests merge.

To understand the risk that Julian Assange represented to CIA interests, it is important to understand just how extensive the operations of the CIA were in 2016. It is within this network of foreign and domestic operations where FBI Agent Peter Strzok is clearly working as a bridge between the CIA and FBI operations.

By now people are familiar with the construct of CIA operations involving Joseph Mifsud, the Maltese professor now generally admitted/identified as a western intelligence operative who was tasked by the CIA (John Brennan) to run an operation against Trump campaign official George Papadopoulos in both Italy (Rome) and London. {Go Deep}

In a similar fashion the CIA tasked U.S. intelligence asset Stefan Halper to target another Trump campaign official, Carter Page. Under the auspices of being a Cambridge Professor Stefan Halper also targeted General Michael Flynn. Additionally, using assistance from a female FBI agent under the false name Azra Turk, Halper also targeted Papadopoulos.

The initial operations to target Flynn, Papadopoulos and Page were all based overseas. This seemingly makes the CIA exploitation of the assets and the targets much easier.

One of the more interesting aspects to the Durham probe is a possibility of a paper-trail created as a result of the tasking operations. We should watch closely for more evidence of a paper trail as some congressional reps have hinted toward documented evidence (transcripts, recordings, reports) that are exculpatory to the targets (Page & Papadop). HPSCI Ranking Member Devin Nunes has strongly hinted that very specific exculpatory evidence was known to the FBI and yet withheld from the FISA application used against Carter Page that also mentions George Papadopoulos. I digress…

However, there is an aspect to the domestic U.S. operation that also bears the fingerprints of the CIA; only this time due to the restrictive laws on targets inside the U.S. the CIA aspect is less prominent. This is where FBI Agent Peter Strzok working for both agencies starts to become important.

Remember, it’s clear in the text messages Strzok has a working relationship with what he called their “sister agency”, the CIA. Additionally, Brennan has admitted Strzok helped write the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) which outlines the Russia narrative; and it is almost guaranteed the July 31st, 2016, “Electronic Communication” from the CIA to the FBI that originated FBI operation “Crossfire Hurricane” was co-authored from the CIA by Strzok…. and Strzok immediately used that EC to travel to London to debrief intelligence officials around Australian Ambassador to the U.K. Alexander Downer.

In short, Peter Strzok appears to be the very eager, profoundly overzealous James Bond wannabe, who acted as a bridge between the CIA and the FBI. The perfect type of FBI career agent for CIA Director John Brennan to utilize.

Fusion-GPS founder Glenn Simpson hired CIA Open Source analyst Nellie Ohr toward the end of 2015; at appropriately the same time as “FBI Contractors” were identified exploiting the NSA database and extracting information on a specific set of U.S. persons.

It was also Fusion-GPS founder Glenn Simpson who was domestically tasked with a Russian lobbyist named Natalia Veselnitskya. A little reported Russian Deputy Attorney General named Saak Albertovich Karapetyan was working double-agents for the CIA and Kremlin. Karapetyan was directing the foreign operations of Natalia Veselnitskaya, and Glenn Simpson was organizing her inside the U.S.

Glenn Simpson managed Veselnitskaya through the 2016 Trump Tower meeting with Donald Trump Jr. However, once the CIA/Fusion-GPS operation using Veselnitskaya started to unravel with public reporting… back in Russia Deputy AG Karapetyan fell out of a helicopter to his death (just before it crashed).

Simultaneously timed in late 2015 through mid 2016, there was a domestic FBI operation using a young Russian named Maria Butina tasked to run up against republican presidential candidates. According to Patrick Byrne, Butina’s handler, it was FBI agent Peter Strzok who was giving Byrne the instructions on where to send her. {Go Deep}

All of this context outlines the extent to which the CIA was openly involved in constructing a political operation that settled upon anyone in candidate Donald Trump’s orbit.

International operations directed by the CIA, and domestic operations seemingly directed by Peter Strzok operating with a foot in both agencies. [Strzok gets CIA service coin]

Recap: ♦Mifsud tasked against Papadopoulos (CIA). ♦Halper tasked against Flynn (CIA), Page (CIA), and Papadopoulos (CIA). ♦Azra Turk, pretending to be Halper asst, tasked against Papadopoulos (FBI). ♦Veselnitskaya tasked against Donald Trump Jr (CIA, Fusion-GPS). ♦Butina tasked against Trump, and Donald Trump Jr (FBI).

Additionally, Christopher Steele was a British intelligence officer, hired by Fusion-GPS to assemble and launder fraudulent intelligence information within his dossier. And we cannot forget Oleg Deripaska, a Russian oligarch, who was recruited by Asst. FBI Director Andrew McCabe to participate in running an operation against the Trump campaign and create the impression of Russian involvement. Deripaska refused to participate.

All of this engagement directly controlled by U.S. intelligence; and all of this intended to give a specific Russia impression. This predicate is presumably what John Durham is currently reviewing.

The key point of all that background is to see how committed the CIA and FBI were to the constructed narrative of Russia interfering with the 2016 election. The CIA, FBI, and by extension the DOJ, put a hell of a lot of work into it. Intelligence community work that Durham is now unraveling.

We also know specifically that John Durham is looking at the construct of the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA); and talking to CIA analysts who participated in the construct of the January 2017 report that bolstered the false appearance of Russian interference in the 2016 election. This is important because it ties in to the next part that involves Julian Assange and Wikileaks.

On April 11th, 2019, the Julian Assange indictment was unsealed in the EDVA. From the indictment we discover it was under seal since March 6th, 2018:

https://theconservativetreehouse.files.wordpress.com/2019/04/assange-indictment.jpg

On Tuesday April 15th more investigative material was released. Again, note the dates: Grand Jury, *December of 2017* This means FBI investigation prior to….

https://theconservativetreehouse.files.wordpress.com/2019/04/fbi-investigation-assange.jpg

The FBI investigation took place prior to December 2017, it was coordinated through the Eastern District of Virginia (EDVA) where Dana Boente was U.S. Attorney at the time. The grand jury indictment was sealed from March of 2018 until after Mueller completed his investigation, April 2019.

https://theconservativetreehouse.files.wordpress.com/2019/04/assange-indictment-2.jpg

Why the delay?

What was the DOJ waiting for?

Here’s where it gets interesting….

The FBI submission to the Grand Jury in December of 2017 was four months after congressman Dana Rohrabacher talked to Julian Assange in August of 2017: “Assange told a U.S. congressman … he can prove the leaked Democratic Party documents … did not come from Russia.”

(August 2017, The Hill Via John Solomon) Julian Assange told a U.S. congressman on Tuesday he can prove the leaked Democratic Party documents he published during last year’s election did not come from Russia and promised additional helpful information about the leaks in the near future.

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, a California Republican who is friendly to Russia and chairs an important House subcommittee on Eurasia policy, became the first American congressman to meet with Assange during a three-hour private gathering at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, where the WikiLeaks founder has been holed up for years.

Rohrabacher recounted his conversation with Assange to The Hill.

“Our three-hour meeting covered a wide array of issues, including the WikiLeaks exposure of the DNC [Democratic National Committee] emails during last year’s presidential election,” Rohrabacher said, “Julian emphatically stated that the Russians were not involved in the hacking or disclosure of those emails.”

Pressed for more detail on the source of the documents, Rohrabacher said he had information to share privately with President Trump. (read more)

Knowing how much effort the CIA and FBI put into the Russia collusion-conspiracy narrative, it would make sense for the FBI to take keen interest after this August 2017 meeting between Rohrabacher and Assange; and why the FBI would quickly gather specific evidence (related to Wikileaks and Bradley Manning) for a grand jury by December 2017.

Within three months of the grand jury the DOJ generated an indictment and sealed it in March 2018. The EDVA sat on the indictment while the Mueller probe was ongoing.

As soon as the Mueller probe ended, on April 11th, 2019, a planned and coordinated effort between the U.K. and U.S. was executed; Julian Assange was forcibly arrested and removed from the Ecuadorian embassy in London, and the EDVA indictment was unsealed (link).

As a person who has researched this three year fiasco; including the ridiculously false 2016 Russian hacking/interference narrative: “17 intelligence agencies”, Joint Analysis Report (JAR) needed for Obama’s anti-Russia narrative in December ’16; and then a month later the ridiculously political Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) in January ’17; this timing against Assange is too coincidental.

It doesn’t take a deep researcher to see the aligned Deep State motive to control Julian Assange because the Mueller report was dependent on Russia cybercrimes, and that narrative is contingent on the Russia DNC hack story which Julian Assange disputes.

This is critical. The Weissmann/Mueller report contains claims that Russia hacked the DNC servers as the central element to the Russia interference narrative in the U.S. election. This claim is directly disputed by WikiLeaks and Julian Assange, as outlined during the Dana Rohrabacher interview, and by Julian Assange on-the-record statements.

The predicate for Robert Mueller’s investigation was specifically due to Russian interference in the 2016 election. The fulcrum for this Russia interference claim is the intelligence community assessment; and the only factual evidence claimed within the ICA is that Russia hacked the DNC servers; a claim only made possible by relying on forensic computer analysis from Crowdstrike, a DNC contractor.

The CIA holds a massive conflict of self-interest in upholding the Russian hacking claim. The FBI holds a massive interest in maintaining that claim. All of those foreign countries whose intelligence apparatus participated with Brennan and Strzok also have a vested self-interest in maintaining that Russia hacking and interference narrative.

Julian Assange is the only person with direct knowledge of how Wikileaks gained custody of the DNC emails; and Assange has claimed he has evidence it was not from a hack.

This Russian “hacking” claim is ultimately so important to the CIA, FBI, DOJ, ODNI and U.K intelligence apparatus…. Well, right there is the obvious motive to shut Assange down as soon intelligence officials knew the Mueller report was going to be public.

Now, if we know this, and you know this; and everything is cited and factual… well, then certainly AG Bill Barr knows this.

The $64,000 dollar question is: will they say so publicly?

[Tintin]

‘NOT IN OUR NAME: The Psychological Torture of Julian Assange’

This powerful 24 minute long film summarises the psychological torture techniques being deployed against Julian.

And in light of what's going on at the moment with 'COVID', and in particular the lockdown traumas being experienced, one could argue that all of us to some degree or other have been targeted in the same way.

PaBUvxR3Pqo

‘NOT IN OUR NAME: The Psychological Torture of Julian Assange’ (24 mins)


“No-one should make any judgement about Julian Assange without watching this short and powerful film.” (Peter Oborne, journalist and broadcaster)


In February 2020 the UN Human Rights Commission (UNHRC) published a landmark report on psychological torture. It was written by their Special Rapporteur on Torture Professor Nils Melzer.

Melzer had been responsible for reporting to UNCHR on the case of Julian Assange, the world-famous founder of Wikileaks. He’d been asked by Assange’s defence team to investigate the conditon of a man who for 9 years had been the target of US authorities for publishing a treasure trove of US intelligence files given to the online publisher by whistleblower Chelsea Manning.

“I’m not going to defend this rapist, narcissist....” Melzer recalls disbelievingly in the new short documentary by independent filmmaker John Furse ‘NOT IN OUR NAME: The Psychological Torture of Julian Assange’.

But once he started to look into the case he realised that “When you scratched the surface things didn’t add up.”

After visiting Assange in London’s maximum security Belmarsh Prison last May with two medical specialists he came to the startling conclusion that Assange is the victim of psychological torture over a long period of time.

‘NOT IN OUR NAME: The Psychological Torture of Julian Assange’ is a unique first in both explaining the techniques of psychological torture as now classified by the UN and how Assange is a victim of this hitherto unrecognised abuse of human rights and international law.

In the film doctors with specialist knowledge in torture techniques, and a former diplomat who saw him daily during his refuge at the Ecuador Embassy in London, provide powerful testimony to Assange’s suffering.

We learn a very different story to the mythology publicly promulgated about one of Interpol’s ‘most wanted’ and how and why he has been targeted by those who see a free press as a threat to their power.

We discover how this mythology has been part of both a sustained assault on his credibility as a journalist and publisher and a deliberate enterprise to break his psychological and physical health as an example to others.

‘NOT IN OUR NAME: The Psychological Torture of Julian Assange’ is a disturbing and revealing film that will confound viewers just as the UN Special Rapporteur was confounded when he discovered the truth behind the headlines.

Film info: www.johnfurse.wordpress.com

[Tintin]

Julian Hill MP (Australian Parliament) here making a firm statement in support of Julian. Would that there had been more of this kind of activity long before now.

_OhKyWgJ1U0

[Tintin]

From The Activist Post (https://www.activistpost.com/2020/08/assange-is-in-a-lot-of-pain-and-looking-very-thin-partner-says-after-visit-to-prison.html):

Assange Is In “A Lot Of Pain” And Looking Very Thin, Partner Says After Visit To Prison

https://1bzk83pdqbs1pbyph40x4fm1-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/assange-prison-1024x571.jpg

By John Vibes

Julian Assange is not in good shape, according to his partner Stella Moris, who was recently able to visit him in prison for the first time in nearly six months. Moris had a 20-minute meeting with Assange at the Belmarsh Prison in south-east London, where he is currently being held. The couple’s two young children also came to meet their father, but everyone had to wear masks, and visitors were not allowed to touch one another.

She told the PA news agency that Assange is looking much thinner than he was the last time she saw him back in March. She says that the situation has been “incredibly stressful” and that he has been having some health problems, including a sprained ankle and a frozen shoulder. While the prison was taking virus precautions when Assange was having visitors, Moris says that they have done nothing to protect the prisoners during regular hours.

“We had to keep social distancing and Julian was told he would have to self-isolate for two weeks if he touched the children. Julian said it was the first time he had been given a mask because things are very different behind the doors. I could not see him very clearly because of the visors, but he looked a lot thinner. He was wearing a yellow armband to indicate his level of prisoner status, and you could see how thin his arms were,” Moris explained.

“At least he got to see the children, even though he couldn’t touch them. The children were both calm – we all remained seated the whole time,” she added.

She also said that he has not been able to have a face-to-face meeting with his legal team since the coronavirus lockdown began in March and has limited access to the paperwork and files needed for his case. Moris has also launched a crowdfunding campaign to help with legal costs for Assange as he fights extradition to the United States.



Today I'm launching a crowdjustice campaign to free Julian.

Our children need their father back. Please help me make that happen.#SaveJulian#FreeAssangehttps://t.co/cTboMeu8b7

— Stella Moris (@StellaMoris1) August 20, 2020

On the fundraising page, Moris said that,



"Julian is being targeted by the United States administration for the crime of journalism. He helped expose war crimes and human rights abuses which the US would have preferred to keep hidden from public view. No-one has been held responsible for the serious crimes Julian has exposed. This extradition aims to entomb and silence him forever. This is a monumental legal case which is an attack on everyone’s right to know about scandals which politicians and governments want buried. If the US government is successful, the ramifications are unthinkable."

So far, the campaign has raised £60,470.

The extradition hearing is scheduled to take place on the 7th of September at the Old Bailey which is being used as a Magistrates’ Court for this hearing. Moris described the venue as “an unprecedented forum for an extradition case which acknowledges that the case has huge importance beyond Julian himself.”

Many legal experts agree that this case could set a precedent and have far-reaching implications for journalists all over the world.

[Tintin]

'The War on Journalism: The Case of Julian Assange' by Juan Passarelli

Description from Consortium News:


Journalists are under attack globally for doing their jobs. Julian Assange is facing a 175 year sentence for publishing if extradited to the United States. The Trump administration has gone from denigrating journalists as 'enemies of the people' to now criminalising common practices in journalism that have long served the public interest. WikiLeaks founder and editor Julian Assange's extradition is being sought by the Trump administration for publishing US government documents which exposed war crimes and human rights abuses. He is being held in maximum security HMP Belmarsh in London and faces a 175 years sentence if extradited.

There is a war on journalism - Julian Assange is at the centre of that war. If this precedent is set then what happens to Assange can happen to any journalist.

Join director Ken Loach and film-maker Suzie Gilbert for a discussion with Juan Passarelli about his new documentary - The War on Journalism: The Case of Julian Assange

wmpgh8MTKfg

[Tintin]

Craig Murray is currently fighting his own defence case against the Crown and more on that can be viewed here (https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/08/the-great-cover-up/) for those of you interested in that particular travesty.

In his typically generous and humane way he's going to try and make it to London next week to cover Julian's case although the likely spanner in the works might be him being unable to get a press card, as outlined, below:

Assange Travesty Continues
August 30, 2020

Source article (https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/08/assange-travesty-continues/)

The travesty that is Julian Assange’s extradition hearing resumes fully on 7 September at the Old Bailey. I shall be abandoning my own legal team and going down to London to cover it again in full, for an expected three weeks. How this is going to work at the Old Bailey, I do not know. Covid restrictions presumably mean that the numbers in the public gallery will be tiny. As of now, there is no arrangement for Julian’s friends and family in place. It looks like 4am queuing is in prospect.

By 7 September it will be six months since I applied to resume my membership of the National Union of Journalists. I STILL have not the slightest idea who objected, or what the grounds were for objection. I have not heard from the NUJ for months. A senior official of an international journalists’ organisation has told us that he inquired, and learnt that the NUJ national executive has considered my application and set up a sub-committee to report. But if so, why is this secret, why have I not been informed, and why am I not allowed to know what the objection is? I find this all very sinister. At this stage it is not paranoid to wonder whose hand is behind this.

The practical effect of this is that without NUJ membership I cannot access a Press card, and avail myself of whatever media arrangements are in place for the Assange hearing (just as I was kept out of most of the Salmond trial). I have now reached the stage where I would like to take legal action against the NUJ, but the finances are beyond me. I am not going to ask you to donate because we are going to need all our resources for the contempt case against me, which the Crown drags out.

I shall be writing next week about my own case and that hearing earlier this week. I would just note now that the “virtual hearing” is entirely unsatisfactory and unfair on defendants. There was at least one occasion when my QC agreed with a suggestion of the judge when I would have instructed them not to had I been, as I should normally have been, seated near them in court and able to instruct.

——————————————

[Tintin]

"He and Wikileaks were on the front line of a war to remake journalism, to rebuild it as a true check on the runaway power of our governments. Journalists had a chance to join him in that struggle. Instead they fled the battlefield, leaving him as a sacrificial offering to their corporate masters" - Jonathan Cook, September 2020

Article link (https://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2020-09-02/media-assange-persecution/)

1301067144445284352
_________________________

A poignant piece here from Jonathan Cook which when combined with viewing the above thread linked War on Journalism film by Juan Passarelli astutely pulls all the pieces together in a succinct way. (I've shared a 'thanks' with Jonathan on our Twitter account which he has acknowledged.)

Note: due to the large number of visuals and links here I've opted to embed this as a pdf which will hopefully be viewable to all. Pretty much everything he links to has already been documented thoroughly on this thread. If the pdf fails to load appropriately then it can be viewed in the library here (http://avalonlibrary.net/Julian_Assange_and_Wikileaks/COOK%2C%20Jonathan/For_years_%20journalists_cheered_Assanges_abuse_now_they_have_paved_his_path_to_a_US_gulag_%28Jonath an_Cook_Sep_2020%29_compressed.pdf)

http://avalonlibrary.net/Julian_Assange_and_Wikileaks/COOK%2C%20Jonathan/For_years_%20journalists_cheered_Assanges_abuse_now_they_have_paved_his_path_to_a_US_gulag_%28Jonath an_Cook_Sep_2020%29_compressed.pdf

[Tintin]

An interview with Juan Passarelli by Mohamed Elmaazi for Sputnik News (https://sputniknews.com/analysis/202009021080337386-latest-assange-documentary-is-about-the-most-courageous-and-principled-man-i-know-director-says/)

Latest Assange Documentary is About the 'Most Courageous and Principled Man I know', Director Says

https://cdn1.img.sputniknews.com/img/07e4/09/01/1080337220_0:0:3640:1971_1000x0_80_0_1_e999745f0d9096ef885ab15ed879f141.jpg.webp

People in the West are witnessing "increasing authoritarianism" and need more than ever to know what is being done by their governments and in their name, the director of the new documentary The War on Journalism: The Case of Julian Assange (https://video.emergeheart.info/videos/watch/f2467447-f5a8-45c9-8d08-804d6a2d4747) tells Sputnik.

Juan Passarelli, an award-winning filmmaker and journalist, co-founded Guerrilla Pictures and Infosec Bytes. He has worked with WikiLeaks for ten years and collaborated with them on multiple projects. Mr. Passarelli explains what let him to direct his latest film: The War on Journalism: The Case of Julian Assange and his dire predictions for the future of journalism if the WikiLeaks publisher is successfully extradited to the United States.

Sputnik: How did you come to work with WikiLeaks?

Juan Passarelli: I came to the UK to do a master's degree in TV journalism. And in that course, I had to do an internship and I decided to do the internship with the most interesting person I met in the course, which was Gavin MacFadyen at the Centre for Investigative Journalism. I have never seen anything like it in the world and I hope to see something like that in the future, because it was a hub where new journalistic ventures were made and people were connected to other people and great stuff just came out of it.

Gavin was a good friend of Julian Assange. Also interning with me were Sarah Harrison and Joseph Farrell. I finished my internship and a few months later I saw them on TV. I messaged Sarah and they asked me to film for them, like a fly-on-the-wall-type documentary, for the release of the Iraq 'War Dogs'. That was October 2010 and ever since I've been filming them - for the last 10 years.

There's a lot of material and eventually I'll make a film out of that. That's how I met WikiLeaks, when I met Julian. I knew about WikiLeaks, but I didn't know about him. It struck me that he was a very intelligent man and something that I confirmed throughout the years is that he is not only a brilliant person and incredibly intelligent, who has basically created a world pre-WikiLeaks and post WikiLeaks. He is also one of the most courageous and principled men that I know... actually the most courageous and principled man.

And this is partly why he's in the place he is, because of his principles, because he stuck to his values.

Sputnik: Describe the premise of your new film The War on Journalism: The Case of Julian Assange.

Juan Passarelli: The premise of the film is simple. There is a war on journalism. There is an increasingly dangerous authoritarianism growing in the West, where people are being surveilled to a much greater extent than than the Germany Stazi ever was able to achieve, because of our digital spying apparatuses that we have in our pockets called smartphones.

And they have a lot of secrets that they don't want the public to know because if the public knows about them, they will lose the power they have. So the premise of the film is if you want the power to know and the ability to know what the government is doing in your name, you must support this case. You must support Julian Assange. And you must encourage people who have positions in technical [fields] - network managers and all these people that work in tech, that have access to a wide array of documentation, in whatever organisation they work in, to look at it and see if there's anything that they think the public should know.

And, if they do, go to WikiLeaks.org with a Tor browser and anonymously and safely release that information and it will be published and made available to the public in the most responsible manner and in the way that gets the maximum attention possible.

Sputnik: Why did you make this film?

Juan Passarelli: Well, I've abstained [until now] from making a WikiLeaks film because I have not felt that this story had finished yet. I needed a clear ending and I have seen, throughout the years, a systematised campaign to attack Julian and WikiLeaks, with five different countries involved and their major, you know, propaganda apparatus, legal apparatus, trying to destroy him and WikiLeaks. The countries are the United States, Ecuador, Australia, Sweden, and the UK, of course.

I thought that it was time to do something because I've been witness to all of these events throughout the years. I've been witness to the publications and I've suffered with the people that had been investigating these materials when they discovered, you know, details like a girl being tortured with a drill or a group of coalition forces invading the house of a farmer, with his family and extended family there, they tied them up, they executed them, including several children, and then they ordered an air strike to eliminate the evidence of the absolute horror of murder.

Obviously, there is [also] what we have seen so many times, and it's still gruelling to my stomach, the collateral murder video that shows the callousness and detachment of the pilots towards human lives. And they seem like they're playing a game, a video game, and they're having fun while killing these people and saying stuff like, 'Yeah, look at these dead bastards. Nice'.

So I saw that and I saw how important these revelations were. I just wanted to make sure that I could put this in very simple terms. This is what he published. This is exactly why he's being charged and why the US wants to get him into the US and put him in a black dungeon where he could never be seen again.

Sputnik: Who is it that you’re trying to reach with this documentary?

Juan Passarelli: So this is a difficult question for me, because I was trying to reach people whose lives do not revolve around WikiLeaks. And that actually for me is kind of difficult because I've been so attached to this project for such a long time. Every time I talk to people that have normal jobs and lives, they have questions that just need answering, because there have been such incredible, systematic, attacks on him and on the organisation, and it just needs clarification.

Also it's been a case that's been going on for 10 years. So I think people might not even remember what 10 years looked like.

So I was trying to remind people that this is not a difficult case to understand; that all the layers of propaganda and smears that have been laid upon it can be stripped bare really quickly to understand that what is at stake here is not only freedom of speech, but also their right to know what the government is doing in their name, with their taxes and with the mandate that they give them with the vote. If they are stripped of that right, there is no democracy. There is no way that they can make an informed decision as to who should be the leader of the country.

So that's the audience I'm trying to reach. I mean, as far and as wide an audience as possible, and people who might care about their right to know.

Sputnik: What do you say to those who argue that Julian Assange should face trial in the United States and that if he is innocent, he has nothing to fear?

Juan Passarelli: Well, the Espionage Act has never been used on a journalist, ever. So this is already a very worrying thing. And the precedent that some people say will be set if he is extradited in my mind has already been set. Because if journalists receive information that is of the calibre of the information that WikiLeaks published in 2010, I would think that they might actually self-censor and not publish everything, or have to protect themselves and limit the amount of information that the public receives.

In some way we saw this happening in the Panama papers. We're seeing all these attacks on journalists in Australia and Brazil with Glenn Greenwald, in the United States where journalists are getting beaten up and putting in prison. I think that in the Courts of Eastern Virginia, where he would be tried, where 80% of the population is made up of people that work for the CIA, the NSA, the Defence Department of Defense or Homeland Security, or their family members or security contractors, he doesn't stand a chance, just in [terms of] the jury.

Also, the CIA has been spying on his privileged legal conversations with his lawyers over the United States case. I mean, this is outrageous, the case should be thrown out just on those grounds.

How is it that he can possibly have a fair trial in the US if the United States has been spying on his legal conversations, you know, he cannot have a fair trial in the US.

And there is no reason why he should ever - setting apart all these illegalities - there is no reason why a journalist should go to another country where he could be prosecuted for espionage, when he didn't publish that information there to begin with.

What is happening here is that the US is outreaching its jurisdiction and literally taking over the sovereignty of the United Kingdom and applying its laws in the sovereign nation of the UK, in the Queen's land, shall we say, and using their laws to try to extradite him to the country where he would face a proceeding in secret - where his lawyers [may] not be able to talk about the case - and where... he's facing 175 years in prison. This is absolutely insane.

_________________________________________

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, Journalist Juan Passarelli and Latin American Rapper Rene Perez Jolgar pictured below. (Photo: JOSE PASSARELL)

https://cdn1.img.sputniknews.com/img/07e4/09/01/1080337986_0:0:1600:1067_768x0_80_0_1_b0f7e8d75527eae3e1a3e70988928204.jpg.webp

[Tintin]

I'm unsure I'll be able to tune into this but will see how things go of course.

1301298658936156160

Topic: Noam Chomsky, Alice Walker, and Daniel Ellsberg: Defending Julian Assange

Description: Julian Assange faces extradition from the United Kingdom to the United States, where he will face a potential sentence of 175 years prison. The WikiLeaks editor and publisher’s extradition is being sought for publishing U.S. government documents in 2010, which exposed war crimes and human rights abuses. The indictment marks the first-ever use of the Espionage Act for the publication of truthful information in the public interest, and it represents a gravely dangerous attempt to criminalize basic journalistic activity, threatening journalists' right to publish and your right to know.

Political comedian Jimmy Dore will host a panel featuring Noam Chomsky, Alice Walker, and Daniel Ellsberg, preeminent experts on free speech and the fight to protect it, for a discussion on Assange's persecution just 2 days before his extradition hearing resumes in London. They will examine the implications of his indictment and explain why they have joined up as co-chairs of a new U.S. support group for Assange.

This event will be livestreamed at Courage's YouTube channel: https://is.gd/CourageYouTube

Time: Sep 5, 2020 01:00 PM in Eastern Time (US and Canada)

[Tintin]

RSF-Reporters Without Borders have an ongoing petition, which I've signed. The opportunity for you to do so should you wish to is available via this link:

https://rsf.org/en/free-assange

More from RSF here:

Source (https://rsf.org/en/news/rsf-renews-calls-release-wikileaks-publisher-julian-assange-his-us-extradition-hearing-resumes)

With Wikileaks publisher Julian Assange’s US extradition hearing set to resume on 7 September, Reporters Without Borders (RSF) renews calls for his immediate release. RSF representatives will attempt to monitor the hearing in person, and will deliver a petition at 10 Downing Street with over 80,000 signatures calling for the UK authorities not to extradite Assange to the United States.

Wikileaks publisher Julian Assange’s US extradition hearing will resume at London’s Central Criminal Court on 7 September, when three to four weeks of evidence are expected to be heard. This follows an initial week of sittings in February at Woolwich Crown Court, when legal arguments were presented. The US government has since presented a new superseding indictment against Assange in June, followed by a new extradition request in August. Assange faces a total of 18 charges in the US, including 17 counts under the Espionage Act.




“As his extradition hearing resumes, we call yet again for Julian Assange to be immediately released, the charges against him dropped, and for him to not be extradited to the United States. We fully believe the case against him is connected to his contributions to public interest reporting, and his prosecution has extremely worrying implications for press freedom and the protection of journalistic sources internationally. The US and UK governments must drop this politically motivated case before their press freedom records are further tarnished,” said RSF’s Director of International Campaigns Rebecca Vincent.


In light of Covid-19 distancing measures, very few spaces are being made available to the media and the public in court during the September hearing, and RSF has been informed that NGO observers will not be guaranteed in-person access. RSF has experienced significant difficulty attempting to monitor previous hearings in Assange’s case, both in-person and remotely.


Ahead of the start of the hearing on 7 September, RSF representatives, along with Assange’s partner Stella Moris, will deliver a petition at 10 Downing Street with over 80,000 signatures calling for the UK authorities not to extradite Assange to the US.


The UK and the US are respectively ranked 35th and 45th out of 180 countries on RSF’s 2020 World Press Freedom Index.


Notes:

The petition will be delivered by RSF’s Director of International Campaigns Rebecca Vincent and Director of RSF Germany Christian Mihr, along with Julian Assange’s partner Stella Morris, at 10 Downing Street at 8 am on 7 September. They will be available for comments to the press.
RSF’s petition remains open for signatures. It is available in English, French, Spanish, Portuguese and Arabic here, and in German here.
Press contact: Rebecca Vincent at rvincent@rsf.org or +44 (0)7583 137751.

[Tintin]

Book: In Defence of Julian Assange - OR Books publication
Edited by Tariq Ali and Margaret Kunstler

I've just now purchased this book ($10.00) and have placed it in the Avalon Library. It comes in at approx 450 pages and includes contributions from:



Pamela Anderson, Julian Assange, Renata Avila, Katrin Axelsson, Franco “Bifo” Berardi, Sally Burch, Noam Chomsky, Patrick Cockburn, Naomi Colvin, The Courage Foundation, Mark Curtis, Daniel Ellsberg, Teresa Forcades i Vila, Charles Glass, Kevin Gosztola, Serge Halimi, Nozomi Hayase, Chris Hedges, Srećko Horvat, Caitlin Johnstone, Margaret Kimberley, Geoffroy de Lagasnerie, Lisa Longstaff, Alan MacLeod, Stefania Maurizi, Craig Murray, Fidel Narváez, John C. O’Day, John Pilger, Jesselyn Radack, Michael Ratner, Angela Richter, Geoffrey Robertson, Jennifer Robinson, Matt Taibbi, Natalia Viana, Ai Weiwei, Vivienne Westwood and Slavoj Žižek.

All royalties from the sales of this book will be donated to the Courage Foundation.
452 pages • Paperback ISBN 978-1-68219-221-4 • E-book 978-1-68219-223-8

Three file types have been provided: PDF, MOBI, and EPUB

They can all be accessed via this link here >> http://avalonlibrary.net/?dir=Julian_Assange_and_Wikileaks/%5BBOOK%5D_In_Defence_of_Julian_Assange_%28pub_2020%29

Link to the outline and extracts (https://www.orbooks.com/catalog/in-defense-of-julian-assange/)

1301650976420638721

[Tintin]

Courage Foundation: livestream follow-up

As reported here (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?101183-Current-Wikileaks-and-Assange-News-Releases&p=1375740&viewfull=1#post1375740) on September 3rd, here's the very interesting and very intelligent discourse with Chomsky, Ellsberg and Walker. Jimmy Dore did a pretty good job as moderator here although there wasn't much to need to moderate :)

The video audio and visual sync was way out (in spite of the count in :) ) so I've created an MP3 file and put it in the library.

You can listen to it here (http://avalonlibrary.net/Julian_Assange_and_Wikileaks/Courage-Foundation-DEFEND-JULIAN-ASSANGE---with-Noam-Chomsky-Dan-Ellsberg--Alice-Walker_Sept_05_2020.mp3)

[Tintin]

Your Man in the Public Gallery: the Assange Hearing Day 6 (September 7th 2020)
September 8, 2020 in Uncategorized by craig (https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/09/your-man-in-the-public-gallery-the-assange-hearing-day-6/)

I went to the Old Bailey today expecting to be awed by the majesty of the law, and left revolted by the sordid administration of injustice.

There is a romance which attaches to the Old Bailey. The name of course means fortified enclosure and it occupies a millennia old footprint on the edge of London’s ancient city wall. It is the site of the medieval Newgate Prison, and formal trials have taken place at the Old Bailey for at least 500 years, numbering in the hundreds of thousands. For the majority of that time, those convicted even of minor offences of theft were taken out and executed in the alleyway outside. It is believed that hundreds, perhaps thousands, lie buried under the pavements.

The hefty Gothic architecture of the current grand building dates back no further than 1905, and round the back and sides of that is wrapped some horrible cheap utility building from the 1930’s. It was through a tunnelled entrance into this portion that five of us, Julian’s nominated family and friends, made our nervous way this morning. We were shown to Court 10 up many stairs that seemed like the back entrance to a particularly unloved works canteen. Tiles were chipped, walls were filthy and flakes of paint hung down from crumbling ceilings. Only the security cameras watching us were new – so new, in fact, that little piles of plaster and brick dust lay under each.

Court 10 appeared to be a fairly bright and open modern box, with pleasant light woodwork, jammed as a mezzanine inside a great vault of the old building. A massive arch intruded incongruously into the space and was obviously damp, sheets of delaminating white paint drooping down from it like flags of forlorn surrender. The dock in which Julian would be held still had a bulletproof glass screen in front, like Belmarsh, but it was not boxed in. There was no top to the screen, no low ceiling, so sound could flow freely over and Julian seemed much more in the court. It also had many more and wider slits than the notorious Belmarsh Box, and Julian was able to communicate quite readily and freely through them with his lawyers, which this time he was not prevented from doing.

Rather to our surprise, nobody else was allowed into the public gallery of court 10 but us five. Others like John Pilger and Kristin Hrafnsson, editor in chief of Wikileaks, were shunted into the adjacent court 9 where a very small number were permitted to squint at a tiny screen, on which the sound was so inaudible John Pilger simply left. Many others who had expected to attend, such as Amnesty International and Reporters Without Borders, were simply excluded, as were MPs from the German federal parliament (both the German MPs and Reporters Without Borders at least later got access to the inadequate video following strong representations from the German Embassy).

The reason given that only five of us were allowed in the public gallery of some 40 seats was social distancing; except we were allowed to all sit together in consecutive seats in the front row. The two rows behind us remained completely empty.

To finish scene setting, Julian himself looked tidy and well groomed and dressed, and appeared to have regained a little lost weight, but with a definite unhealthy puffiness about his features. In the morning he appeared disengaged and disoriented rather as he had at Belmarsh, but in the afternoon he perked up and was very much engaged with his defence team, interacting as normally as could be expected in these circumstances.

Proceedings started with formalities related to Julian’s release on the old extradition warrant and re-arrest under the new warrant, which had taken place this morning. Defence and prosecution both agreed that the points they had already argued on the ban on extradition for political offences were not affected by the superseding indictment.

Magistrate Baraitser then made a statement about access to the court by remote hearing, by which she meant online. She stated that a number of access details had been sent out by mistake by the court without her agreement. She had therefore revoked their access permissions.

As she spoke, we in the court had no idea what had happened, but outside some consternation was underway in that the online access of Amnesty International, of Reporters without Borders, of John Pilger and of forty others had been shut down. As these people were neither permitted to attend the court nor observe online, this was causing some consternation.

Baraitser went on to say that it was important that the hearing was public, but she should only agree remote access where it was “in the interests of justice”, and having considered it she had decided it was not. She explained this by stating that the public could normally observe from within the courtroom, where she could control their behaviour. But if they had remote access, she could not control their behaviour and this was not in the “interests of justice”.

Baraitser did not expand on what uncontrolled behaviour she anticipated from those viewing via the internet. It is certainly true that an observer from Amnesty sitting at home might be in their underwear, might be humming the complete soundtrack to Mamma Mia, or might fart loudly. Precisely why this would damage “the interests of justice” we are still left to ponder, with no further help from the magistrate. But evidently the interests of justice were, in her view, best served if almost nobody could examine the “justice” too closely.

The next “housekeeping issue” to be addressed was how witnesses should be heard. The defence had called numerous witnesses, and each had lodged a written statement. The prosecution and Baraitser both suggested that, having given their evidence in writing, there was no need for defence witnesses to give that evidence orally in open court. It would be much quicker to go straight to cross-examination by the prosecution.

For the defence, Edward Fitzgerald QC countered that justice should be seen to be done by the public. The public should be able to hear the defence evidence before hearing the cross-examination. It would also enable Julian Assange to hear the evidence summarised, which was important for him to follow the case given his lack of extended access to legal papers while in Belmarsh prison.

Baraitser stated there could not be any need for evidence submitted to her in writing to be repeated orally. For the defence, Mark Summers QC was not prepared to drop it and tension notably rose in the court. Summers stated it was normal practice for there to be “an orderly and rational exposition of the evidence”. For the prosecution, James Lewis QC denied this, saying it was not normal procedure.

Baraitser stated she could not see why witnesses should be scheduled an one hour forty five minutes each, which was too long. Lewis agreed. He also added that the prosecution does not accept that the defence’s expert witnesses are expert witnesses. A Professor of journalism telling about newspaper coverage did not count. An expert witness should only be giving evidence on a technical point the court was otherwise unqualified to consider. Lewis also objected that in giving evidence orally, defence witnesses might state new facts to which the Crown had not had time to react. Baraitser noted that the written defence statements were published online, so they were available to the public.

Edward Fitzgerald QC stood up to speak again, and Baraitser addressed him in a quite extraordinary tone of contempt. What she said exactly was: “I have given you every opportunity. Is there anything else, really, that you want to say”, the word “really” being very heavily emphasised and sarcastic. Fitzgerald refused to be sat down, and he stated that the current case featured “substantial and novel issues going to fundamental questions of human rights.” It was important the evidence was given in public. It also gave the witnesses a chance to emphasise the key points of their evidence and where they placed most weight.

Baraitser called a brief recess while she considered judgement on this issue, and then returned. She found against the defence witnesses giving their evidence in open court, but accepted that each witness should be allowed up to half an hour of being led by the defence lawyers, to enable them to orient themselves and reacquaint with their evidence before cross-examination.

This half hour for each witness represented something of a compromise, in that at least the basic evidence of each defence witness would be heard by the court and the public (insofar as the public was allowed to hear anything). But the idea that a standard half hour guillotine is sensible for all witnesses, whether they are testifying to a single fact or to developments over years, is plainly absurd. What came over most strongly from this question was the desire of both judge and prosecution to railroad through the extradition with as little of the case against it getting a public airing as possible.

As the judge adjourned for a short break we thought these questions had now been addressed and the rest of the day would be calmer. We could not have been more wrong.

The court resumed with a new defence application, led by Mark Summers QC, about the new charges from the US governments new superseding indictment. Summers took the court back over the history of this extradition hearing. The first indictment had been drawn up in March of 2018. In January 2019 a provisional request for extradition had been made, which had been implemented in April of 2019 on Assange’s removal from the Embassy. In June 2019 this was replaced by the full request with a new, second indictment which had been the basis of these proceedings before today. A whole series of hearings had taken place on the basis of that second indictment.

The new superseding indictment dated from 20 June 2020. In February and May 2020 the US government had allowed hearings to go ahead on the basis of the second indictment, giving no warning, even though they must by that stage have known the new superseding indictment was coming. They had given neither explanation nor apology for this.

The defence had not been properly informed of the superseding indictment, and indeed had learnt of its existence only through a US government press release on 20 June. It had not finally been officially served in these proceedings until 29 July, just six weeks ago. At first, it had not been clear how the superseding indictment would affect the charges, as the US government was briefing it made no difference but just gave additional detail. But on 21 August 2020, not before, it finally became clear in new US government submissions that the charges themselves had been changed.

There were now new charges that were standalone and did not depend on the earlier allegations. Even if the 18 Manning related charges were rejected, these new allegations could still form grounds for extradition. These new allegations included encouraging the stealing of data from a bank and from the government of Iceland, passing information on tracking police vehicles, and hacking the computers both of individuals and of a security company.

“How much of this newly alleged material is criminal is anybody’s guess”, stated Summers, going on to explain that it was not at all clear that an Australian giving advice from outwith Iceland to someone in Iceland on how to crack a code, was actually criminal if it occurred in the UK. This was even without considering the test of dual criminality in the US also, which had to be passed before the conduct was subject to extradition.

It was unthinkable that allegations of this magnitude would be the subject of a Part 2 extradition hearing within six weeks if they were submitted as a new case. Plainly that did not give the defence time to prepare, or to line up witnesses to these new charges. Among the issues relating to these new charges the defence would wish to address, were that some were not criminal, some were out of time limitation, some had already been charged in other fora (including Southwark Crown Court and courts in the USA).

There were also important questions to be asked about the origins of some of these charges and the dubious nature of the witnesses. In particular the witness identified as “teenager” was the same person identified as “Iceland 1” in the previous indictment. That indictment had contained a “health warning” over this witness given by the US Department of Justice. This new indictment removed that warning. But the fact was, this witness is Sigurdur Thordarson, who had been convicted in Iceland in relation to these events of fraud, theft, stealing Wikileaks money and material and impersonating Julian Assange.

The indictment did not state that the FBI had been “kicked out of Iceland for trying to use Thordarson to frame Assange”, stated Summers baldly.

Summers said all these matters should be ventilated in these hearings if the new charges were to be heard, but the defence simply did not have time to prepare its answers or its witnesses in the brief six weeks it had since receiving them, even setting aside the extreme problems of contact with Assange in the conditions in which he was being held in Belmarsh prison.

The defence would plainly need time to prepare answers to these new charges, but it would plainly be unfair to keep Assange in jail for the months that would take. The defence therefore suggested that these new charges should be excised from the conduct to be considered by the court, and they should go ahead with the evidence on criminal behaviour confined to what conduct had previously been alleged.

Summers argued it was “entirely unfair” to add what were in law new and separate criminal allegations, at short notice and “entirely without warning and not giving the defence time to respond to it. What is happening here is abnormal, unfair and liable to create real injustice if allowed to continue.”

The arguments submitted by the prosecution now rested on these brand new allegations. For example, the prosecution now countered the arguments on the rights of whistleblowers and the necessity of revealing war crimes by stating that there can have been no such necessity to hack into a bank in Iceland.

Summers concluded that the “case should be confined to that conduct which the American government had seen fit to allege in the eighteen months of the case” before their second new indictment.

Replying to Summers for the prosecution, Joel Smith QC replied that the judge was obliged by the statute to consider the new charges and could not excise them. “If there is nothing proper about the restitution of a new extradition request after a failed request, there is nothing improper in a superseding indictment before the first request had failed.” Under the Extradition Act the court must decide only if the offence is an extraditable offence and the conduct alleged meets the dual criminality test. The court has no other role and no jurisdiction to excise part of the request.

Smith stated that all the authorities (precedents) were of charges being excised from a case to allow extradition to go ahead on the basis of the remaining sound charges, and those charges which had been excised were only on the basis of double jeopardy. There was no example of charges being excised to prevent an extradition. And the decision to excise charges had only ever been taken after the conduct alleged had been examined by the court. There was no example of alleged conduct not being considered by the court. The defendant could seek extra time if needed but the new allegations must be examined.

Summers replied that Smith was “wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong”. “We are not saying that you can never submit a new indictment, but you cannot do it six weeks before the substantive hearing.” The impact of what Smith had said amounted to no more than “Ha ha this is what we are doing and you can’t stop us.” A substantive last minute change had been made with no explanation and no apology. It could not be the case, as Smith alleged, that a power existed to excise charges in fairness to the prosecution, but no power existed to excise charges in fairness to the defence.

Immediately Summers sat down, Baraitser gave her judgement on this point. As so often in this hearing, it was a pre-written judgement. She read it from a laptop she had brought into the courtroom with her, and she had made no alterations to that document as Summers and Smith had argued the case in front of her.

Baraitser stated that she had been asked as a preliminary move to excise from the case certain conduct alleged. Mr Summers had described the receipt of new allegations as extraordinary. However “I offered the defence the opportunity to adjourn the case” to give them time to prepare against the new allegations. “I considered of course that Mr Assange was in custody. I hear that Mr Summers believes this is fundamental unfairness”. But “the argument that we haven’t got the time, should be remedied by asking for the time.”

Mr Summers had raised issues of dual criminality and abuse of process; there was nothing preventing him for raising these arguments in the context of considering the request as now presented.

Baraitser simply ignored the argument that while there was indeed “nothing to prevent” the defence from answering the new allegations as each was considered, they had been given no time adequately to prepare. Having read out her pre-prepared judgement to proceed on the basis of the new superseding indictment, Baraitser adjourned the court for lunch.

At the end of the day I had the opportunity to speak to an extremely distinguished and well-known lawyer on the subject of Baraitser bringing pre-written judgements into court, prepared before she had heard the lawyers argue the case before her. I understood she already had seen the outline written arguments, but surely this was wrong. What was the point in the lawyers arguing for hours if the judgement was pre-written? What I really wanted to know was how far this was normal practice.

The lawyer replied to me that it absolutely was not normal practice, it was totally outrageous. In a long and distinguished career, this lawyer had very occasionally seen it done, even in the High Court, but there was always some effort to disguise the fact, perhaps by inserting some reference to points made orally in the courtroom. Baraitser was just blatant. The question was, of course, whether it was her own pre-written judgement she was reading out, or something she had been given from on high.

This was a pretty shocking morning. The guillotining of defence witnesses to hustle the case through, indeed the attempt to ensure their evidence was not spoken in court except those parts which the prosecution saw fit to attack in cross-examination, had been breathtaking. The effort by the defence to excise the last minute superseding indictment had been a fundamental point disposed of summarily. Yet again, Baraitser’s demeanour and very language made little attempt to disguise a hostility to the defence.

We were for the second time in the day in a break thinking that events must now calm down and get less dramatic. Again we were wrong.

Court resumed forty minutes late after lunch as various procedural wrangles were addressed behind closed doors. As the court resumed, Mark Summers for the defence stood up with a bombshell.

Summers said that the defence “recognised” the judgement Baraitser had just made – a very careful choice of word, as opposed to “respected” which might seem more natural. As she had ruled that the remedy to lack of time was more time, the defence was applying for an adjournment to enable them to prepare the answers to the new charges. They did not do this lightly, as Mr Assange would continue in prison in very difficult conditions during the adjournment.

Summers said the defence was simply not in a position to gather the evidence to respond to the new charges in a few short weeks, a situation made even worse by Covid restrictions. It was true that on 14 August Baraitser had offered an adjournment and on 21 August they had refused the offer. But in that period of time, Mr Assange had not had access to the new charges and they had not fully realised the extent to which these were a standalone new case. To this date, Assange had still not received the new prosecution Opening Note in prison, which was a crucial document in setting out the significance of the new charges.

Baraitser pointedly asked whether the defence could speak to Assange in prison by telephone. Summers replied yes, but these were extremely short conversations. They could not phone Mr Assange; he could only call out very briefly on the prison payphone to somebody’s mobile, and the rest of the team would have to try to gather round to listen. It was not possible in these very brief discussions adequately to expound complex material. Between 14 and 21 August they had been able to have only two such very short phone calls. The defence could only send documents to Mr Assange through the post to the prison; he was not always given them, or allowed to keep them.

Baraitser asked how long an adjournment was being requested. Summers replied until January.

For the US government, Mark Lewis QC replied that more scrutiny was needed of this request. The new matters in the indictment were purely criminal. They do not affect the arguments about the political nature of the case, or affect most of the witnesses. If more time were granted, “with the history of this case, we will just be presented with a sleigh of other material which will have no bearing on the small expansion of count 2”.

Baraitser adjourned the court “for ten minutes” while she went out to consider her judgement. In fact she took much longer. When she returned she looked peculiarly strained.

Baraitser ruled that on 14 August she had given the defence the opportunity to apply for an adjournment, and given them seven days to decide. On 21 August the defence had replied they did not want an adjournment. They had not replied that they had insufficient time to consider. Even today the defence had not applied to adjourn but rather had applied to excise charges. They “cannot have been surprised by my decision” against that application. Therefore they must have been prepared to proceed with the hearing. Their objections were not based on new circumstance. The conditions of Assange in Belmarsh had not changed since 21 August. They had therefore missed their chance and the motion to adjourn was refused.

The courtroom atmosphere was now highly charged. Having in the morning refused to cut out the superseding indictment on the grounds that the remedy for lack of time should be more time, Baraitser was now refusing to give more time. The defence had called her bluff; the state had apparently been confident that the effective solitary confinement in Belmarsh was so terrible that Assange would not request more time. I rather suspect that Julian was himself bluffing, and made the call at lunchtime to request more time in the full expectation that it would be refused, and the rank hypocrisy of the proceedings exposed.

I previously blogged (https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/07/damage-to-the-soul/) about how the procedural trickery of the superseding indictment being used to replace the failing second indictment – as Smith said for the prosecution “before it failed” – was something that sickened the soul. Today in the courtroom you could smell the sulphur.

Well, yet again we were left with the feeling that matters must now get less exciting. This time we were right and they became instead excruciatingly banal. We finally moved on to the first witness, Professor Mark Feldstein, giving evidence to the court by videolink for the USA. It was not Professor Feldstein’s fault the day finished in confused anti-climax. The court was unable to make the video technology work. For ten broken minutes out of about forty Feldstein was briefly able to give evidence, and even this was completely unsatisfactory as he and Mark Summers were repeatedly speaking over each other on the link.

Professor Feldstein’s evidence will resume tomorrow (now in fact today) and I think rather than split it I shall give the full account then. Meantime you can see these excellent summaries from Kevin Gosztola (https://twitter.com/kgosztola/status/1302888230115737600) or the morning (https://assangecourt.report/september-7-morning) and afternoon (https://assangecourt.report/september-7-afternoon) reports from James Doleman. In fact, I should be grateful if you did, so you can see that I am neither inventing nor exaggerating the facts of these startling events.

If you asked me to sum up today in a word, that word would undoubtedly be “railroaded”. it was all about pushing through the hearing as quickly as possible and with as little public exposure as possible to what is happening. Access denied, adjournment denied, exposition of defence evidence denied, removal of superseding indictment charges denied. The prosecution was plainly failing in that week back in Woolwich in February, which seems like an age ago. It has now been given a new boost.

How the defence will deal with the new charges we shall see. It seems impossible that they can do this without calling new witnesses to address the new facts. But the witness lists had already been finalised on the basis of the old charges. That the defence should be forced to proceed with the wrong witnesses seems crazy, but frankly, I am well past being surprised by anything in this fake process.

You are free to republish this article, including in translation, without further permission. A brief note left in comments below detailing where it is republished is appreciated.

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/wp/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Screenshot-1234.png

[Tintin]

Your Man in the Public Gallery: Assange Hearing Day 7 (September 8th 2020)
September 9, 2020 in Uncategorized by craig (https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/09/your-man-in-the-public-gallery-assange-hearing-day-7/)

CLIVE STAFFORD SMITH

This morning we went straight in to the evidence of Clive Stafford Smith, a dual national British/American lawyer licensed to practice in the UK. He had founded Reprieve in 1999 originally to oppose the death penalty, but after 2001 it had branched out into torture, illicit detention and extraordinary rendition cases in relation to the “war on terror”.

Clive Stafford Smith testified that the publication by Wikileaks of the cables had been of great utility to litigation in Pakistan against illegal drone strikes. As Clive’s witness statement (https://dontextraditeassange.com/statements/clive-stafford-smith-witness-statement/) put it at paras 86/7:



86. One of my motivations for working on these cases was that the U.S. drone campaign appeared to be horribly mismanaged and was resulting in paid informants giving false information about innocent people who were then killed in strikes. For example, when I shared the podium with Imran Khan at a “jirga” with the victims of drone strikes, I said in my public remarks that the room probably contained one or two people in the pay of the CIA.

What I never guessed was that not only was this true but that the informant would later make a false statement about a teenager who attended the jirga such that he and his cousin were killed in a drone strike three days later. We knew from the official press statement afterwards that the “intelligence” given to the U.S. involved four “militants” in a car; we knew from his family just him and his cousin going to pick up an aunt. There is a somewhat consistent rule that can be seen at work here: it is, of course, much safer for any informant to make a statement about someone who is a “nobody”, than someone who is genuinely dangerous.

87. This kind of horrific action was provoking immense anger, causing America’s status in Pakistan to plummet, and was making life more dangerous for Americans, not less.

Legal action dependent on the evidence about US drones strike policy revealed by Wikileaks had led to a judgement against assassination by the Chief Justice of Pakistan and to a sea change to public attitudes to drone strikes in Waziristan. One result had been a stopping of drone strikes in Waziristan.

Wikileaks released cables also revealed US diplomatic efforts to block international investigation into cases of torture and extraordinary rendition. This ran counter to the legal duty of the United States to cooperate with investigation of allegations of torture as mandated in Article 9 of the UN Convention Against Torture (https://treaties.un.org/doc/Treaties/1987/06/19870626%2002-38%20AM/Ch_IV_9p.pdf).

Stafford Smith continued that an underrated document released by Wikileaks was the JPEL, or US military Joint Priority Effects List for Afghanistan, in large part a list of assassination targets. This revealed a callous disregard of the legality of actions and a puerile attitude to killing, with juvenile nicknames given to assassination targets, some of which nicknames appeared to indicate inclusions on the list by British or Australian agents.

Stafford Smith gave the example of Bilal Abdul Kareem, an American citizen and journalist who had been the subject of five different US assassination attempts, using hellfire missiles fired from drones. Stafford Smith was engaged in ongoing litigation in Washington on whether “the US Government has the right to target its own citizens who are journalists for assassination.”

Stafford Smith then spoke of Guantanamo and the emergence of evidence that many detainees there are not terrorists but had been swept up in Afghanistan by a system dependent on the payment of bounties. The Detainee Assessment Briefs released by Wikileaks were not independent information but internal US Government files containing the worst allegations that the US had been able to “confect” against prisoners including Stafford Smith’s clients, and often get them to admit under torture.

These documents were US government allegations and when Wikileaks released them it was his first thought that it was the US Government who had released them to discredit defendants. The documents could not be a threat to national security.

Inside Guantanamo a core group of six detainees had turned informant and were used to make false allegations against other detainees. Stafford Smith said it was hard to blame them – they were trying to get out of that hellish place like everybody else. The US government had revealed the identities of those six, which put into perspective their concern for protecting informants in relation to Wikileaks releases.

Clive Stafford Smith said he had been “profoundly shocked” by the crimes committed by the US government against his clients. These included torture, kidnapping, illegal detention and murder. The murder of one detainee at Baghram Airport in Afghanistan had been justified as a permissible interrogation technique to put fear into other detainees. In 2001, he would never have believed the US Government could have done such things.

Stafford Smith spoke of use of Spanish Inquisition techniques, such as strapado, or hanging by the wrists until the shoulders slowly dislocate. He told of the torture of Binyam Mohamed, a British citizen who had his genitals cut daily with a razor blade. The British Government had avoided its legal obligations to Binyam Mohamed, and had leaked to the BBC the statement he had been forced to confess to under torture, in order to discredit him.

At this point Baraitser intervened to give a five minute warning on the 30 minute guillotine on Stafford Smith’s oral evidence. Asked by Mark Summers for the defence how Wikileaks had helped, Stafford Smith said that many of the leaked documents revealed illegal kidnapping, rendition and torture and had been used in trials. The International Criminal Court had now opened an investigation (https://www.inquirer.com/news/nation-world/us-afghanistan-war-crimes-trial-international-criminal-court-hague-20200305.html) into war crimes in Afghanistan, in which decision Wikileaks released material had played a part.

Mark Summers asked what had been the response of the US Government to the opening of this ICC investigation. Clive Stafford Smith stated that an Executive Order had been issued initiating sanctions against any non-US citizen who cooperated with or promoted the ICC investigation into war crimes by the US. He suggested that Mr Summers would now be subject to US sanction for promoting this line of questioning.

Mr Stafford Smith’s 30 minutes was now up. You can read his full statement here (https://dontextraditeassange.com/statements/clive-stafford-smith-witness-statement/). There could not have been a clearer example from the first witness of why so much time yesterday was taken up with trying to block the evidence of defence witnesses from being heard. Stafford Smith’s evidence was breathtaking stuff and clearly illustrated the purpose of the time guillotine on defence evidence. This is not material governments wish to be widely aired.

James Lewis QC then cross-examined Clive Stafford Smith for the prosecution. He noted that references to Wikileaks in Stafford Smith’s written evidence were few and far between. He suggested that Stafford Smith’s evidence had tended to argue that Wikileaks disclosures were in the public interest; but there was specifically no public interest defence allowed in the UK Official Secrets Act.

Stafford Smith replied that may be, but he knew that was not the case in America.

Lewis then said that in Stafford Smith’s written evidence paras 92-6 he had listed specific Wikileaks cables which related to disclosure of drone policy. But publication of these particular cables did not form part of the indictment. Lewis read out part of an affidavit from US Assistant Attorney Kromberg which stated that Assange was being indicted only for cables containing the publication of names of informants.

Stafford Smith replied that Kromberg may state that, but in practice that would not be the case in the United States. The charge was of conspiracy, and the way such charges were defined in the US system would allow the widest inclusion of evidence. The first witness at trial would be a “terrorism expert” who would draw a wide and far reaching picture of the history of threat against the USA.

Lewis asked whether Stafford Smith had read the indictment. He replied he had read the previous indictment, but not the new superseding indictment.

Lewis stated that the cables Stafford Smith quoted had been published by the Washington Post and the New York Times before they were published by Wikileaks. Stafford Smith responded that was true, but he understood those newspapers had obtained them from Wikileaks. Lewis then stated that the Washington Post and New York Times were not being prosecuted for publishing the same information; so how could the publication of that material be relevant to this case?

Lewis quoted Kromberg again:


“The only instance in which the superseding indictment encompasses the publication of documents, is where those documents contains names which are put at risk”.

Stafford Smith again responded that in practice that was not how the case would be prosecuted in the United States. Lewis asked if Stafford Smith was calling Kromberg a liar.

At this point Julian Assange called out from the dock “This is nonsense. Count 1 states throughout “conspiracy to publish”. After a brief adjournment, Baraitser warned Julian he would be removed from the court if he interrupted proceedings again.

Stafford Smith said he had not said that Kromberg was a liar, and had not seen the full document from which Lewis was selectively quoting at him. Count 1 of the indictment is conspiracy to obtain national security information and this references dissemination to the public in a sub paragraph. This was not limited in the way Kromberg suggests and his claim did not correspond to Stafford Smith’s experience of how national security trials are in fact prosecuted in the United States.

Lewis reiterated that nobody was being prosecuted for publishing except Assange, and this only related to publishing names. He then asked Stafford Smith whether he had ever been in a position of responsibility for classifying information, to which he got a negative reply. Lewis then asked if had ever been in an official position to declassify documents. Stafford Smith replied no, but he held US security clearance enabling him to see classified material relating to his cases, and had often applied to have material declassified.

Stafford Smith stated that Kromberg’s assertion that the ICC investigation was a threat to national security was nonsense [I confess I am not sure where this assertion came from or why Stafford Smith suddenly addressed it]. Lewis suggested that the question of harm to US national interest from Assange’s activities was best decided by a jury in the United States. The prosecution had to prove damage to the interests of the US or help to an enemy of the US.

Stafford Smith said that beyond the government adoption of torture, kidnapping and assassination, he thought the post-2001 mania for over-classification of government information was an even bigger threat to the American way of life. He recalled his client Moazzam Begg – the evidence of Moazzam’s torture was classified “secret” on the grounds that knowledge that the USA used torture would damage American interests.

Lewis then took Stafford Smith to a passage in the book “Wikileaks; Inside Julian Assange’s War on Secrecy”, in which Luke Harding stated that he and David Leigh were most concerned to protect the names of informants, but Julian Assange had stated that Afghan informants were traitors who merited retribution. “They were informants, so if they got killed they had it coming.” Lewis tried several times to draw Stafford Smith into this, but Stafford Smith repeatedly said he understood these alleged facts were under dispute and he had no personal knowledge.

Lewis concluded by again repeating that the indictment only covered the publication of names. Stafford Smith said that he would eat his hat if that was all that was introduced at trial.

In re-examination, Mark Summers said that Lewis had characterised the disclosure of torture, killing and kidnapping as “in the public interest”. Was that a sufficient description? Stafford Smith said no, it was also the provision of evidence of crime; war crime and illegal activity.

Summers asked Stafford Smith to look at the indictment as a US lawyer (which Stafford Smith is) and see if he agreed with the characterisation by Lewis that it only covered publication where names were revealed. Summers read out this portion of the superseding indictment and pointed out that the “and” makes the point on documents mentioning names an additional category of document, not a restriction on the categories listed earlier.

You can read the full superseding indictment here (https://www.lawfareblog.com/wikileaks-founder-assange-charged-superseding-indictment); be careful when browsing as there are earlier superseding indictments; the US Government changes its indictment in this case about as often as Kim Kardashian changes her handbag.

Summers also listed Counts 4, 7, 10, 13 and 17 as also not limited to the naming of informants.

Stafford Smith again repeated his rather different point that in practice Kromberg’s assertion does not actually match how such cases are prosecuted in the US anyway. In answer to a further question, he repeated that the US government had itself released the names of its Guantanamo Bay informants.

In regard to the passage quoted from David Leigh, Summers asked Stafford Smith “Do you know that Mr Harding has published untruths in the press”. Lewis objected and Summers withdrew (although this is certainly true).

This concluded Clive Stafford Smith’s evidence. Before the next witness, Lewis put forward an argument to the judge that it was beyond dispute that the new indictment only related, as far as publication being an offence was concerned, to publication of names of defendants. Baraitser had replied that plainly this was disputed and the matter would be argued in due course.

(continued)

[Tintin]

(continued)

Your Man in the Public Gallery: Assange Hearing Day 7 (September 8th 2020)
September 9, 2020 in Uncategorized by craig (https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/09/your-man-in-the-public-gallery-assange-hearing-day-7/)

PROFESSOR MARK FELDSTEIN

The afternoon resumed the evidence of Professor Mark Feldstein, begun sporadically amid technical glitches on Monday. For that reason I held off reporting the false start until now; I here give it as one account. Prof Feldstein’s full witness statement is here (https://dontextraditeassange.com/press-release/mark-feldstein-statement/).

Professor Feldstein is Chair of Broadcast Journalism at Maryland University and had twenty years experience as an investigative journalist.

Feldstein stated that leaking of classified information happens with abandon in the United States. Government officials did it frequently. One academic study estimated such leaks as “thousands upon thousands”. There were journalists who specialised in national security and received Pulitzer prizes for receiving such leaks on military and defence matters. Leaked material is published on a daily basis.

Feldstein stated that “The first amendment protects the press, and it is vital that the First Amendment does so, not because journalists are privileged, but because the public have the right to know what is going on”. Historically, the government had never prosecuted a publisher for publishing leaked secrets. They had prosecuted whistleblowers.

There had been historical attempts to prosecute individual journalists, but all had come to nothing and all had been a specific attack on a perceived Presidential enemy. Feldstein had listed three instances of such attempts, but none had reached a grand jury.
[This is where the technology broke down on Monday. We now resume with Tuesday afternoon.]

Mark Summers asked Prof Feldstein about the Jack Anderson case. Feldstein replied he had researched this for his book “Poisoning the Press”. Nixon had planned to prosecute Anderson under the Espionage Act but had been told by his Attorney General the First Amendment made it impossible. Consequently Nixon had conducted a campaign against Anderson that included anti-gay smears, planting a spy in his office and foisting forged documents on him. An assassination plot by poison had even been discussed.

Summers took Feldstein to his evidence on “Blockbuster” newspaper stories based on Wikileaks publications:


• A disturbing videotape of American soldiers firing on a crowd from a helicopter above Baghdad, killing at least 18 people; the soldiers laughed as they targeted unarmed civilians, including two Reuters journalists.
• US officials gathered detailed and often gruesome evidence that approximately 100,000 civilians were killed after its invasion of Iraq, contrary to the public claims of President George W. Bush’s administration, which downplayed the deaths and insisted that such statistics were not maintained. Approximately 15,000 of these civilians killings had never been previously disclosed anywhere.
• American forces in Iraq routinely turned a blind eye when the US-backed government there brutalized detainees, subjecting them to beatings, whippings, burnings, electric shock, and sodomy.
• After WikiLeaks published vivid accounts compiled by US diplomats of rampant corruption by Tunisian president Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali and his family, ensuing street protests forced the dictator to flee to Saudia Arabia. When the unrest in Tunisia spread to other Mideast countries,WikiLeaks was widely hailed as a key catalyst for this “Arab Spring.”
• In Afghanistan, the US deployed a secret “black” unit of special forces to hunt down “high value” Taliban leaders for “kill or capture” without trial.
• The US government expanded secret intelligence collection by its diplomats at the United Nations and overseas, ordering envoys to gather credit card numbers, work schedules, and frequent flier numbers of foreign dignitaries—eroding the distinction between foreign service officers and spies.
• Saudi Arabian King Abdullah secretly implored the US to “cut off the head of the snake” and stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons even as private Saudi donors were the number-one source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide.
• Customs officials caught Afghanistan’s vice president carrying $52 million in unexplained cash during a trip abroad, just one example of the endemic corruption at the highest levels of the Afghan government that the US has helped prop up.
• The US released “high risk enemy combatants” from its military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba who then later turned up again in Mideast battlefields. At the same time, Guantanamo prisoners who proved harmless—such as an 89-year-old Afghan villager suffering from senile dementia—were held captive for years.
• US officials listed Pakistan’s intelligence service as a terrorist organization and found that it had plotted with the Taliban to attack American soldiers in Afghanistan—even though Pakistan receives more than $1 billion annually in US aid. Pakistan’s civilian president, Asif Ali Zardari, confided that he had limited control to stop this and expressed fear that his own military might “take me out.”

Feldstein agreed that many of these had revealed criminal acts and war crimes, and they were important stories for the US media. Summers asked Feldstein about Assange being charged with soliciting classified information. Feldstein replied that gathering classified information is “standard operating procedure” for journalists. “My entire career virtually was soliciting secret documents or records”

Summers pointed out that one accusation was that Assange helped Manning cover her tracks by breaking a password code. “Trying to help protect your source is a journalistic obligation” replied Feldstein. Journalists would provide sources with payphones, fake email accounts, and help them remove fingerprints both real and digital. These are standard journalistic techniques, taught at journalism college and workshops.

Summers asked about disclosure of names and potential harm to people. Feldstein said this was “easy to assert, hard to establish”. Government claims of national security damage were routinely overblown and should be treated with scepticism. In the case of the Pentagon Papers, the government had claimed that publication would identify CIA agents, reveal military plans and lengthen the Vietnam War. These claims had all proven to be untrue.

On the White House tapes Nixon had been recorded telling his aides to “get” the New York Times. He said their publications should be “cast in terms of aid and comfort to the enemy”.

Summers asked about the Obama administration’s attitude to Wikileaks. Feldstein said that there had been no prosecution after Wikileaks’ major publications in 2010/11. But Obama’s Justice Department had instigated an “aggressive investigation”. However they concluded in 2013 that the First Amendment rendered any prosecution impossible. Justice Department Spokesman Matthew Miller had published that they thought it would be a dangerous precedent that could be used against other journalists and publications.

With the Trump administration everything had changed. Trump had said he wished to “put reporters in jail”. Pompeo when head of the CIA had called Wikileaks a “hostile intelligence agency”. Sessions had declared prosecuting Assange “a priority”.

James Lewis then rose to cross-examine Feldstein. He adopted a particularly bullish and aggressive approach, and started by asking Feldstein to confine himself to very short, concise answers to his precise questions. He said that Feldstein “claimed to be” an expert witness, and had signed to affirm that he had read the criminal procedural rules. Could he tell the court what those rules said?

This was plainly designed to trip Feldstein up. I am sure I must have agreed WordPress’s terms and conditions in order to be able to publish this blog, but if you challenged me point blank to recall what they say I would struggle. However Feldstein did not hesitate, but came straight back saying that he had read them, and they were rather different to the American rules, stipulating impartiality and objectivity.

Lewis asked what Feldstein’s expertise was supposed to be. Feldstein replied the practice, conduct and history of journalism in the United States. Lewis asked if Feldstein was legally qualified. Feldstein replied no, but he was not giving legal opinion. Lewis asked if he had read the indictment. Feldstein replied he had not read the most recent indictment.

Lewis said that Feldstein had stated that Obama decided not to prosecute whereas Trump did. But it was clear that the investigation had continued through from the Obama to the Trump administrations. Feldstein replied yes, but the proof of the pudding was that there had been no prosecution under Obama.

Lewis referred to a Washington Post article from which Feldstein had quoted in his evidence and included in his footnotes, but had not appended a copy. “Was that because it contained a passage you do not wish us to read?” Lewis said that Feldstein had omitted the quote that “no formal decision had been made” by the Obama administration, and a reference to the possibility of prosecution for activity other than publication.

Feldstein was plainly slightly rattled by Lewis’ accusation of distortion. He replied that his report stated that the Obama administration did not prosecute, which was true. He had footnoted the article; he had not thought he needed to also provide a copy. He had exercised editorial selection in quoting from the article.

Lewis said that from other sources, a judge had stated in District Court that investigation was ongoing and District Judge Mehta had said other prosecutions against persons other than Manning were being considered. Why had Feldstein not included this information in his report? Assange’s lawyer Barry J Pollock had stated “they are not informing us they are closing the investigation or have decided not to charge.” Would it not be fair to add that to his report?

Prof Feldstein replied that Assange and his lawyers would be hard to convince that the prosecution had been dropped, but we know that no new information had in 2015/16 been brought to the Grand Jury.

Lewis stated that in 2016 Assange had offered to go to the United States to face charges if Manning were granted clemency. Does this not show the Obama administration was intending to charge? Should this not have been in his report? Feldstein replied no, because it was irrelevant. Assange was not in a position to know what Obama’s Justice Department was doing. The subsequent testimony of Obama Justice Department insiders was much more valuable.

Lewis asked if the Obama administration had decided not to prosecute, why would they keep the Grand Jury open? Feldstein replied this happened very frequently. It could be for many reasons, including to collect information on alleged co-conspirators, or simply in the hope of further new evidence.

Lewis suggested that the most Feldstein might honestly say was that the Obama administration had intimated that they would not prosecute for passively obtained information, but that did not extend to a decision not to prosecute for hacking with Chelsea Manning. “If Obama did not decide not to prosecute, and the investigation had continued into the Trump administration, then your diatribe against Trump becomes otiose.”

Lewis continued that the “New York Times problem” did not exist because the NYT had only published information it had passively received. Unlike Assange, the NYT had not conspired with Manning illegally to obtain the documents. Would Prof Feldstein agree that the First Amendment did not defend a journalist against a burglary or theft charge? Feldstein replied that a journalist is not above the law. Lewis then asked Feldstein whether a journalist had a right to “steal or unlawfully obtain information” or “to hack a computer to obtain information.” Each time Feldstein replied “no”.

Lewis then asked if Feldstein accepted that Bradley (sic) Manning had committed a crime. Feldstein replied “yes”. Lewis then asked “If Assange aided and abetted, consulted or procured or entered into a conspiracy with Bradley Manning, has he not committed a crime?” Feldstein said that would depend on the “sticky details.”

Lewis then restated that there was no allegation that the NYT entered into a conspiracy with Bradley Manning, only Julian Assange. On the indictment, only counts 15, 16 and 17 related to publishing and these only to publishing of unredacted documents. The New York Times, Guardian and Washington Post had united in condemnation of the publication by Wikileaks of unredacted cables containing names. Lewis then read out again the same quote from the Leigh/Harding book he had put to Stafford Smith, stating that Julian Assange had said the Afghan informants would deserve their fate.

Lewis asked: “Would a responsible journalist publish unredacted names of an informant knowing he is in danger when it is unnecessary to do so for the purpose of the story”. Prof Feldstein replied “no”. Lewis then went on to list examples of information it might be proper for government to keep secret, such as “troop movements in war, nuclear codes, material that would harm an individual” and asked if Feldstein agreed these were legitimate secrets. Feldstein replied “yes”.

Lewis then asked rhetorically whether it was not more fair to allow a US jury to be the judge of harm. He then asked Feldstein: “You say in your report that this is a political prosecution. But a Grand jury has supported the prosecution. Do you accept that there is an evidentiary basis for the prosecution?”. Feldstein replied “A grand jury has made that decision. I don’t know that it is true.” Lewis then read out a statement from US Assistant Attorney Kromberg that prosecution decisions are taken by independent prosecutors who follow a code that precludes political factors. He asked Feldstein if he agreed that independent prosecutors were a strong bulwark against political prosecution.
Feldstein replied “That is a naive view.”

Lewis then asked whether Feldstein was claiming that President Trump or his Attorney General had ordered this prosecution without a factual basis. The professor replied he had no doubt it was a political prosecution, this was based on 1) its unprecedented nature 2) the rejection of prosecution by Obama but decision to prosecute now with no new evidence 3) the extraordinary wide framing of the charges 4) President Trump’s narrative of hostility to the press. “It’s political”.

Mark Summers then re-examined Professor Feldstein. He said that Lewis had suggested that Assange was complicit in Manning obtaining classified information but the New York Times was not. Is it your understanding that to seek to help an official leaker is a crime? Professor Feldstein replied “No, absolutely not”.


“Do journalists ask for classified information?”
“Yes.”
“Do journalists solicit such information?”
“Yes.”
“Are you aware of any kind of previous prosecution for this kind of activity.”
“No. Absolutely not.”
“Could you predict it would be criminalised?”
“No, and it is very dangerous.”

Summers than asked Professor Feldstein what the New York Times had done to get the Pentagon Papers from Daniel Ellsberg. Feldstein replied they were very active in soliciting the papers. They had a key to the room that held the documents and had helped to copy them. They had played an active not a passive role. “Journalists are not passive stenographers.”

Summers reminded Prof Feldstein that he had been asked about hacking. What if the purpose of the hacking was not to obtain the information, but to disguise the source? This was the specific allegation spelt out in Kromberg memorandum 4 paras 11 to 14. Professor Feldstein replied that protecting sources is an obligation. Journalists work closely with, conspire with, cajole, encourage, direct and protect their sources. That is journalism.

Summers asked Prof Feldstein if he maintained his caution in accepting government claims of harm. Feldstein replied absolutely. The government track record demanded caution. Summers pointed out that there is an act which specifically makes illegal the naming of intelligence sources, the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. Prof Feldstein said this was true; the fact that the charge was not brought under the IIPA proves that it is not true that the prosecution is intended to be limited to revealing of identities and in fact it will be much broader.

Summers concluded by saying that Lewis had stated that Wikileaks had released the unredacted cables in a mass publication. Would it change the professor’s assessment if the material had already been released by others. Prof Feldstein said his answers were not intended to indicate he accepted the government narrative.

Edward Fitzgerald QC then took over for the defence. He put to Prof Feldstein that there had been no prosecution of Assange when Manning was prosecuted, and Obama had given Manning clemency. These were significant facts. Feldstein agreed.

Fitzgerald then said that the Washington Post article from which Lewis complained Feldstein had quoted selectively, contained a great deal more material Feldstein had also not quoted but which strongly supported his case, for example “Officials told the Washington Post last week that there is no sealed indictment and the Department had “all but concluded that they would not bring a charge.”” It further stated that when Snowden was charged, Greenwald was not, and the same approach was followed with Manning/Assange. So overall the article confirmed Feldstein’s thesis, as contained in his report. Feldstein agreed. There was then discussion of other material that could have been included to support his thesis.

Fitzgerald concluded by asking if Feldstein were familiar with the phrase “a grand jury would indict a ham sandwich”. Feldstein replied it was common parlance and indicated the common view that grand juries were malleable and almost always did what prosecutors asked them to do. There was a great deal of academic material on this point.

_______________________

THOUGHTS

Thus concluded another extraordinary day. Once again, there were just five of us in the public gallery (in 42 seats) and the six allowed in the overflow video gallery in court 9 was reduced to three, as three seats were reserved by the court for “VIPs” who did not show up.

The cross-examinations showed the weakness of the thirty minute guillotine adopted by Baraitser, with really interesting defence testimony cut short, and then unlimited time allowed to Lewis for his cross examination. This was particularly pernicious in the evidence of Mark Feldstein. In James Lewis’ extraordinary cross-examination of Feldstein, Lewis spoke between five and ten times as many words as the actual witness. Some of Lewis’s “questions” went on for many minutes, contained huge passages of quote and often were phrased in convoluted double negative. Thrice Feldstein refused to reply on grounds he could not make out where the question lay. With the defence initial statement of the evidence limited to half an hour, Lewis’s cross examination approached two hours, a good 80% of which was Lewis speaking.

Feldstein was browbeaten by Lewis and plainly believed that when Lewis told him to answer in very brief and concise answers, Lewis had the authority to instruct that. In fact Lewis is not the judge and it was supposed to be Feldstein’s evidence, not Lewis’s. Baraitser failed to protect Feldstein or to explain his right to frame his own answers, when that was very obviously a necessary course for her to take.

Today we had two expert witnesses, who had both submitted lengthy written testimony relating to one indictment, which was now being examined in relation to a new superseding indictment, exchanged at the last minute, and which neither of them had ever seen. Both specifically stated they had not seen the new indictment. Furthermore this new superseding indictment had been specifically prepared by the prosecution with the benefit of having heard the defence arguments and seen much of the defence evidence, in order to get round the fact that the indictment on which the hearing started was obviously failing.

On top of which the defence had been refused an adjournment to prepare their defence against the new indictment, which would have enabled these and other witnesses to see the superseding indictment, adjust their evidence accordingly and be prepared to be cross-examined in relation to it.

Clive Stafford Smith testified today that in 2001 he would not have believed the outrageous crimes that were to be perpetrated by the US government. I am obliged to say that I simply cannot believe the blatant abuse of process that is unfolding before my eyes in this courtroom.

[Tintin]

Dear Craig Murray tweeted yesterday that it takes him close to 7 hours to collate and produce this work for everyone. He's quite a hero really and I said as much in a tweet to his account late last night from the PA Twitter.

Here's his submission from yesterday's hearing.

_________________________

Your Man in the Public Gallery – Assange Hearing Day 8 (September 9th 2020)
September 10, 2020 in Uncategorized by craig (https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/09/your-man-in-the-public-gallery-assange-hearing-day-8/)

The great question after yesterday’s hearing was whether prosecution counsel James Lewis QC would continue to charge at defence witnesses like a deranged berserker (spoiler – he would), and more importantly, why?

QC’s representing governments usually seek to radiate calm control, and treat defence arguments as almost beneath their notice, certainly as no conceivable threat to the majestic thinking of the state. Lewis instead resembled a starving terrier kept away from a prime sausage by a steel fence whose manufacture and appearance was far beyond his comprehension.

Perhaps he has toothache.

PROFESSOR PAUL ROGERS

The first defence witness this morning was Professor Paul Rogers, Emeritus Professor of Peace Studies at the University of Bradford. He has written 9 books on the War on Terror, and has been for 15 years responsible for MOD contracts on training of armed forces in law and ethics of conflict. Rogers appeared by videolink from Bradford.

Prof Rogers’ full witness statement is here (https://dontextraditeassange.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Statement_of_Professor_Paul_Rogers.pdf).

Edward Fitzgerald QC asked Prof Rogers whether Julian Assange’s views are political (this goes to article 4 in the UK/US extradition treaty against political extradition). Prof Rogers replied that “Assange is very clearly a person of strong political opinions.”

Fitzgerald then asked Prof Rogers to expound on the significance of the revelations from Chelsea Manning on Afghanistan. Prof Rogers responded that in 2001 there had been a very strong commitment in the United States to going to war in Afghanistan and Iraq. Easy initial military victories led to a feeling the nation had “got back on track”. George W Bush’s first state of the union address had the atmosphere of a victory rally. But Wikileaks’ revelations in the leaked war logs reinforced the view of some analysts that this was not a true picture, that the war in Afghanistan had gone wrong from the start. It contradicted the government line that Afghanistan was a success. Similarly the Wikileaks evidence published in 2011 had confirmed very strongly that the Iraq War had gone badly wrong, when the US official narrative had been one of success.

Wikileaks had for example proven from the war logs that there were a minimum of 15,000 more civilian deaths than had been reckoned by Iraq Body Count. These Wikileaks exposures of the failures of these wars had contributed in large part to a much greater subsequent reluctance of western powers to go to war at an early stage.

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/wp/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Screenshot-942.png

Fitzgerald said that para 8 of Rogers’ report suggests that Assange was motivated by his political views and referenced his speech to the United Nations. Was his intention to influence political actions by the USA?

Rogers replied yes. Assange had stated that he was not against the USA and there were good people in the USA who held differing views. He plainly hoped to influence US policy. Rogers also referenced the statement by Mairead Maguire in nominating Julian for the Nobel Peace Prize:


"Julian Assange and his colleagues in Wikileaks have shown on numerous occasions that they are one of the last outlets of true democracy and their work for our freedom and speech. Their work for true peace by making public our governments’ actions at home and abroad has enlightened us to their atrocities carried out in the name of so-called democracy around the world."


Rogers stated that Assange had a clear and coherent political philosophy. He had set it out in particular in the campaign of the Wikileaks Party for a Senate seat in Australia. It was based on human rights and a belief in transparency and accountability of organisations. It was essentially libertarian in nature. It embraced not just government transparency, but also transparency in corporations, trade unions and NGOs. It amounted to a very clear political philosophy. Assange adopted a clear political stance that did not align with conventional party politics but incorporated coherent beliefs that had attracted growing support in recent years.

Fitzgerald asked how this related to the Trump administration. Rogers said that Trump was a threat to Wikileaks because he comes from a position of quite extreme hostility to transparency and accountability in his administration. Fitzgerald suggested the incoming Trump administration had demonstrated this hostility to Assange and desire to prosecute. Rogers replied that yes, the hostility had been evidenced in a series of statements right across the senior members of the Trump administration. It was motivated by Trump’s characterisation of any adverse information as “fake news”.

Fitzgerald asked whether the motivation for the current prosecution was criminal or political? Rogers replied “the latter”. This was a part of the atypical behaviour of the Trump administration; it prosecutes on political motivation. They see openness as a particular threat to this administration. This also related to Trump’s obsessive dislike of his predecessor. His administration would prosecute Assange precisely because Obama did not prosecute Assange. Also the incoming Trump administration had been extremely annoyed by the commutation of Chelsea Manning’s sentence, a decision they had no power to revoke. For that the prosecution of Assange could be vicarious revenge.

Several senior administration members had advocated extremely long jail sentences for Assange and some had even mooted the death penalty, although Rogers realised that was technically impossible through this process.

Fitzgerald asked whether Assange’s political opinions were of a type protected by the Refugee Convention. Rogers replied yes. Persecution for political opinion is a solid reason to ask for refugee status. Assange’s actions are motivated by his political stance. Finally Fitzgerald then asked whether Rogers saw political significance in the fact that Assange was not prosecuted under Obama. Rogers replied yes, he did. This case is plainly affected by fundamental political motivation emanating from Trump himself.

James Lewis QC then rose to cross-examine for the prosecution. His first question was “what is a political opinion?” Rogers replied that a political opinion takes a particular stance on the political process and does so openly. It relates to the governance of communities, from nations down to smaller units.

Lewis suggested that Assange’s views encompassed the governance of corporations, NGOs and trade unions. They could not therefore be considered as “political opinion”. Rogers replied that the province of the political in the last fifty years or so now includes much more beyond the strict governmental process. Assange particularly discusses relationships between government and corporations and the latter’s influence on government and society as part of a wider ruling establishment.

Lewis then asked “is simply being a journalist a person who expresses political opinions?” Rogers replied not necessarily; there were different kinds of journalist. Lewis than asked “So just being a journalist or publisher does not necessarily mean that you have political opinions, does it?” Rogers replied “not necessarily, but usually.” Lewis then suggested that the expression of editorial opinion was what constituted a political view in a journalist. Rogers replied that was one way, but there were others. Selection of material to publish could manifest a political view.

Lewis then rattled off a series of questions. Is transparency a political opinion? Does Assange hold the view that Governments may never hold secrets? Should that transparency enable putting individuals at risk? There were more.

Rogers replied that these questions did not permit of binary answers.

Lewis then took Rogers to Assange’s speech to the Stop the War Coalition, where he stated that the invasion of Poland at the start of the Second World War was the result of carefully concocted lies. Did Prof Rogers agree with that view? What political opinion did that view represent? Rogers replied it represented a strong political opinion and a particular view on the origin of war. Lewis then quoted another alleged comment of Assange, “Journalists are war criminals” and asked what political opinion that represented. Rogers replied that it represented a suspicion of certain journalistic practices.

Rogers said that he had never said he supported or identified with Assange’s views. He strongly disagreed with some. But that they were coherent political views there was no doubt.

Lewis then read out a lengthy quote by Assange to the effect that strongly anti-transparency governments will always result in more leaks, followed by more restrictions and this would set up a cycle. Lewis asked Rogers what political view this could be said to represent. Rogers replied it was an interesting analysis of the working of highly autocratic systems. Their concern with secrecy leads to increased leaks which decrease their security. He was not sure if it was explicit, but he believed Assange may be positing this as a new development made possible by the internet. Assange’s thesis was that autocratic regimes harbour the seeds of their own destruction. It was not a traditional view held by political scientists but it was worth consideration.

Lewis now changed tack. He stated that Prof Rogers was appearing as a “so-called expert witness” under a continuing obligation to be unbiased. He had a duty to consider all supporting evidence. US Assistant Attorney Gordon Kromberg had submitted an affidavit explicitly denying there was any political motivation for the prosecution, stating that it is evidence based. Why did Prof Rogers not mention the Kromberg statement in his report? An unbiased expert witness would take into account Kromberg’s statement.

Rogers replied that he spoke from his expertise as a political scientist, not a lawyer. He accepted that Kromberg had made his statement but believed a wider view to be more important.

Lewis stated that Kromberg’s first affidavit stated that “based on the available evidence and applicable law a grand jury had approved the charges.” Why had Rogers not mentioned the grand jury? Rogers said that he had taken a wider view about why there was a decision now to prosecute and not in 2011, why Kromberg’s statement was being made now after a gap of eight years. This was anomalous.

Lewis then asked “I want to consider why you did not consider the opposite view. Have you seen the evidence?” At this point he was grinning very strangely indeed, looking up at the judge, leaning back with one arm wide across his chair back, in some sort of peculiar alpha male gesture. I believe Rogers’ videolink only gave him a wide view of the whole courtroom, so how much he could see of the body language of his questioner I am unsure.

Rogers said he had seen the evidence. Lewis gurned in wild-eyed triumph “you cannot have seen the evidence. The evidence has only been seen by the grand jury and not released. You cannot have seen the evidence.” Rogers apologised, and said he had understood Lewis to mean Kromberg’s affidavit as the evidence. Rogers went on to say that less than 24 hours ago he had received an evidence bundle of 350 pages. It was unfair to expect him to have a precise mental picture of every document.

Lewis then returned to a Gordon Kromberg affidavit which said that prosecutors have a code which bars them from taking politically motivated decisions. Rogers replied that may be right in theory, but was untrue in practice, particularly in the USA where a much higher percentage of senior officials in the Department of Justice were political appointees who changed with each administration. Lewis asked Rogers whether he was alleging the prosecutors did not follow the code outlined by Kromberg. Rogers replied you had to consider the motivation of those above the prosecutors who influenced their decisions. “What you are giving me is a fair representation of how federal prosecutors are supposed to do their work. But they work as those above direct them.”

Lewis repeated that the code excludes political motivation for prosecution. Was Rogers claiming that Gordon Kromberg was acting in bad faith? Rogers replied no, but he was acting under political direction. The timing of this indictment after eight years was the key. Lewis asked whether that mattered if a crime had been committed. He referred to historic prosecutions of those soldiers who had allegedly committed crimes in Northern Ireland over twenty years ago. Was it political motivation that led to new prosecutions now? Rogers said this was more about bad faith.

Lewis asked if Rogers understood what Assange was being prosecuted for. Was he being prosecuted for publishing the collateral murder video? Rogers replied no, the charges were more specific and mostly related to the Espionage Act. Lewis stated the majority of charges were focused on complicity in theft and on hacking. Rogers responded there was obviously a wider political question as to why acts were being done in the first place. Lewis stated that on the question of publication, charges only related to the unredacted names of sources. Rogers said that he understood that was what the prosecution is saying, but was not agreed by the defence. But the question remained, why is this being brought now? And you could only look at that from the point of view of developments in American politics over the last twenty years.

Lewis asked Rogers to confirm that he was not saying US prosecutors were acting in bad faith. Rogers replied that he would hope not, at that level. Lewis asked if Rogers’ position was that at a higher level there had been a political decision to prosecute. Rogers said yes. These were complex matters. It was governed by political developments in the US since about 1997. He wished to speak to that… Lewis cut him off and said he preferred to look at evidence. He cited a Washington Post article from 2013 which stated that there had been no formal decision not to prosecute Assange by the Obama administration (this was the same article Lewis had quoted yesterday to Feldstein, on which he had been called out by Edward Fitzgerald for selective quotation). Rogers replied yes, but that must be considered in a wider context.

Lewis again refused to let Rogers develop his evidence, and gave the quotes from Assange’s legal team, again as given yesterday to Feldstein, to the effect they had in 2016 not been informed charges had been dropped. Rogers replied that was just what you would expect from Wikileaks at that time. They did not know and were bound to be cautious.


Lewis: Do you accept there had been a continuing investigation from Obama to Trump administrations.
Rogers: Yes, but we do not know at what level of intensity.
Lewis: Do you accept that there was no decision not to prosecute by Obama
Rogers: There was no decision to prosecute. It did not happen.
Lewis: How could they prosecute when Assange was in the Embassy?
Rogers: That would not preclude a prosecution going ahead and charges being brought. That might be a way to bring pressure on Ecuador.
Lewis: Assange’s lawyer said there was no decision not to prosecute by the Obama administration.
Rogers: I have accepted there was no decision not to prosecute. But there was no prosecution and it was considered.
Lewis: Judge Mehta said there was ongoing investigation of others beside Manning. And Wikileaks tweeted Assange’s willingness to come to the USA to face charges if Manning was granted clemency.
Rogers: Obviously Assange and his lawyer could not be sure of the situation. But it must be understood that bringing Julian Assange to the USA for a major trial of someone who was perceived by many Trump supporters and potential Trump supporters as an enemy of the state, might be of crucial political benefit to Mr Trump.

Lewis now responded that Rogers was not a real expert witness and “had given a biased opinion in favour of Julian Assange”.

Edward Fitzgerald QC then re-examined Prof Rogers for the defence. He said that Mr Lewis had appeared to see something sinister in Mr Assange’s statement that the invasion of Poland and second world war had been started by lies. To what lies did Prof Rogers think that Assange was referring? Rogers replied the lies of the Nazi Regime. Fitzgerald asked if this was a fair point. Rogers replied yes.

Fitzgerald read the context of Assange’s statement which also referred to lies starting the Iraq war. Rogers agreed that lies leading to war was a consistent Assange political theme. Fitzgerald then invited Rogers briefly to summarise the consequences of the change of US administration. Rogers stated that under Trump, the narrative from senior politicians on Wikileaks had changed.

The Bush administration had viewed the Iraq war as essential, with the support of most American people. That view had gradually changed until Obama had won basically on a “withdraw from Iraq” ticket. Similarly the Afghan war had been thought winnable but gradually the political establishment changed their mind. This shift in view was partly due to Wikileaks. By 2015/6 American politics had moved on from the wars and there was no political interest in prosecuting Wikileaks.

Then Trump came in with a completely new attitude to the entire fourth estate and to openness and accountability of the executive. That had led to this prosecution. Fitzgerald directed Rogers to a Washington Post article which stated:



"The previously undisclosed disagreement inside the Justice Department underscores the fraught, high-stakes nature of the government’s years-long effort to counter Assange, an Internet-age publisher who has repeatedly declared his hostility to U.S. foreign policy and military operations. The Assange case also illustrates how the Trump administration is willing to go further than its predecessors in pursuit of leakers — and those who publish official secrets."

Rogers agreed this supported his position. Fitzgerald then asked about Lewis’s comparison with prosecution of British soldiers for historical crimes in Northern Ireland. Rogers agreed that their prosecution in no way related to their political opinions, so the cases were not comparable. Rogers’ final point was that four months after Barr took office as attorney general, charges were increased from a single one to eighteen. This was a pretty clear indication of political pressure being put on the prosecutorial system.

TREVOR TIMM

The afternoon witness was Trevor Timm, co-founder of the Freedom of the Press Association in San Francisco, again via videolink. You can see his full evidence statement here (https://dontextraditeassange.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Trevor-Timm-statement-1.pdf). The Freedom of the Press Association teaches and supports investigative journalism and seeks to document and counter violations of media freedom in the USA.

Mr Timm testified that there is a rich history in the USA of famous reporters covering defence and foreign affairs related matters drawing upon classified documents. In 1971 the Supreme Court had decided the government could not censor the NYT from publishing the Pentagon Papers. There have been several instances over history where the government had explored using the Espionage Act to prosecute journalists but no prosecution had ever materialised because of First Amendment constitutional rights.

For the defence, Mark Summers QC put to Mr Timms that this was the prosecution’s case: Chelsea Manning had committed a crime in whistleblowing. So any act that helped Chelsea Manning or solicited material was also a crime. Timm replied this was not the law. It was standard practice for journalists to ask sources for classified material. The implications of this prosecution would criminalise any journalist in receipt of classified intelligence. Virtually every single newspaper in the United States had criticised this decision to prosecute on these grounds, including those that have opposed Wikileaks’ general activities.

This was the only attempt to use the Espionage Act against a person not in government employ apart from the AIPAC case, which had collapsed (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/may/01/aipac-israel-lobby-lobbying-washington) for that reason. Many great journalists would have been caught by this kind of prosecution, including Woodward and Bernstein for the cultivation of (https://www.history.com/news/watergate-deep-throat-fbi-informant-nixon)Deep Throat.

Summers asked about the prosecution’s characterisation of the provision of a drop box by Wikileaks to a whistleblower as criminal conspiracy. Timm replied that the indictment treats possession of a secure drop box as a criminal offence. But the Guardian, Washington Post, New York Times and over 80 other news organisations have secure drop boxes. The International Committee of Investigative Journalists has a drop box with a specific “leak to us” page requesting classified documents. Timms’ own foundation had developed in 2014 a secure drop box which they taught, and which had been adopted by multiple news organisations in the USA.

Summers asked if news organisations advertised drop boxes. Timm replied yes. The New York Times links to its secure drop box in its social media posts. Some even took out paid adverts for whistleblowers. Summers asked about the “most wanted list” which the prosecution characterised as criminal solicitation. Timm replied that multiple respectable news organisations actively solicited whistleblowers. The “most wanted” list had been a Wiki document which had been crowdsourced. It was not a Wikileaks document. His own foundation had contributed to it along with many other media organisations. Summers asked if this was criminal activity. Timm replied in the negative.

Summers asked Timm to expound his thoughts on the Senate Intelligence Committee Report on Torture in 2014. Timm said that this vital and damning report on CIA involvement in torture had been much redacted and was based on thousands of classified documents not made available to the public. Virtually the entire media had therefore been involved in trying to obtain the classified material that revealed more of the story. Much of this material was classified Top Secret – higher than the Manning material. Many newspapers appealed for whistleblowers to come forward with documents and he had himself published an appeal to that effect in the Guardian.

Summers asked if it had ever been suggested to Timm this was criminal behaviour. Timm replied no, the universal belief had been that it was first amendment protected free speech. The current indictment is unconstitutional.

James Lewis QC then cross-examined for the prosecution. He said this was claimed to be expert opinion, but did Timm know what that meant in UK law? Timm said he had an obligation to explain his qualification and to tell the truth. Lewis replied that he was also supposed to be objective, unbiased and have no conflict of interest. But the Free Press Foundation had contribute to Assange’s defence fund. Lewis asked how much? Timm replied US$100,000.

Lewis asked if there were any conditions under which the Foundation would get their money back. Timm replied no, not to his knowledge. Lewis asked whether Timm would feel personally threatened were this case to go to prosecution. Timm replied that would represent a threat to many thousands of journalists. The Espionage Act was so widely drafted it would even pose a threat to purchasers and readers of newspapers containing leaked information.

Lewis said that Timm had testified that he had written advocating a leaking of CIA material. Did he fear he would be prosecuted himself? Timm replied no, he had not asked for material to be leaked to himself. But this prosecution was a real threat to thousands of journalists represented by his organisation.

Lewis said that the prosecution position is that Assange is not a journalist. Timm replied that he is a journalist. Being a journalist does not mean working for the mainstream media. There was a long legal history of that going back to pamphleteers at the time of Independence.

This cross examination was not going so well, and Lewis reached yet again for Gordon Kromberg’s affidavit as for a comfort blanket. Kromberg had sworn that the Department of Justice takes seriously the protection of journalists and that Julian Assange is no journalist. Kromberg had further sworn that Julian Assange was only being prosecuted for conspiring to illegally obtain material, and for publishing unredacted names of informants who would be at risk of death. The government is going out of its way to stress it is not prosecuting journalism.

Timm replied that he based his opinion on what the indictment said, not on the Department of Justice press release from which Lewis had read. Three of these charges relate to publication. The other charges relate to possession of material. Lewis said that Timm was missing the hacking allegation which was central to Count 1 and several other counts. Lewis quoted an article in the Law Review of New York Law School, which said that it was illegal for a journalist to obtain material from the wreckage of a crashed airplane, from an illegal wiretap or from theft, even if the purpose were publication. Would it not be illegal to conspire with a source to commit hacking?

Timm replied that in this case the allegation appeared to be that the hacking was to protect the identity of the source, not to steal documents. Protection of sources was an obligation.

Lewis then asked Timm if he had seen the actual evidence that supports the indictment. Timm replied only some of it, in particular the Java script of the messages allegedly between Assange and Manning. Lewis said Timm could not have seen all the evidence as it had not been published. Timm replied he had not said he had seen it all. He had seen the alleged Assange/Manning messages which had been published.

Lewis said that Assange had published unredacted material which put lives in danger. That was the specific charge. Timm replied that, assuming the assertion was true, the prosecution was still unconstitutional. There was a difference between responsible and irresponsible, and legal and illegal. An act could be irresponsible, even blameworthy, and still not illegal.

There had never been a prosecution for publication of names of informants, even where they were allegedly put in harm’s way. Following the official line about harm to informants precisely due to Wikileaks’ publication of the cables, Senator Joe Liebermann had introduced the Shield Bill into Congress. It failed specifically on First Amendment grounds. The episode tells us two things; firstly that Congress considered publication of informants’ names was not illegal and secondly that neither did they wish to make it illegal.

Lewis quoted a Guardian editorial condemning the publication of names, and stated that the Washington Post, New York Times, El Pais and Der Spiegel among many others had condemned it too. Timm replied that still did not make it illegal. The US government ought not to be the arbiter of whether an editorial decision is correct or not. Timm also felt it worth noting in passing that all of those media outlets whose opinions Lewis held in such high regard, had condemned the current attempt at prosecution.

Lewis asked why we should prefer Timm’s opinion to that of the courts. Timm replied that his opinion was in line with the courts. Countless decisions over centuries upheld the First Amendment. It was the indictment which was out of tune with the courts. The Supreme Court had expressly stated that there was no balance of harm argument in First Amendment cases.

Lewis asked Timm what qualification he had to comment on legal matters. Timm replied he had graduated from Law School and had gained admission to the New York Bar, but rather than practice he had worked on academic analysis of media freedom cases. The Foundation often joined in with litigation in support of media freedom, on an amicus basis.

Lewis said (in a tone of disbelief) that Timm had stated this prosecution was part of “Trump’s war on journalism”. Timm cut in niftily. Yes, he explained, we keep track on Trump’s war on journalism. He has sent out over 2,200 tweets attacking journalists. He has called journalists “enemies of the people”. There is a great deal of available material on this.

Lewis asked why Timm had failed to note that US Assistant Attorney Gordon Kromberg had specifically denied that there was a war on journalists? Timm said he had addressed these arguments in his evidence, though without specifically referencing Kromberg. Lewis stated that Timm had also not addressed Kromberg’s assertion that Assange is not charged simply with receipt of classified material. Timm replied that is because Kromberg’s assertion is inaccurate. Assange is indeed charged with offences encompassing passive receipt. If you get to count 7, for example and look at the legislation it charges under, it does precisely criminalise passive receipt and possession.

Lewis asked why Timm had omitted Kromberg’s reference to the grand jury decision? Timm replied that it meant very little: 99.9% of grand juries agree to return a prosecution. An academic study of 152,000 grand juries had revealed only 11 which had refused the request of a federal prosecutor to prosecute.

Lewis asked Timm why he had failed to mention that Kromberg asserted that a federal prosecutor may not take political considerations into account. Timm replied that did not reflect reality. Prosecution was one prong of many in President Trump’s war on journalism. Lewis asked whether Timm was saying that Kromberg and his colleagues were acting in bad faith. Timm replied no, but there had been a story in the Washington Post that more senior federal prosecutors had been opposed to the prosecution as contrary to the First Amendment and thus unconstitutional.

Mark Summers then re-examined for the defence. He said that Kromberg presents two grounds for Assange not being a journalist. The first is that he conspired with Manning to obtain confidential material. Timm replied that this cultivating of a source was routine journalistic activity. The indictment is precluded by the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has ruled that even if a journalist knows that material is stolen (but not by him), he may still publish with entitlement to First Amendment protection.

Summers asked Timm about Lewis’s comparison of Assange’s contact with Manning to theft from an airplane wreck or illegal wiretap. Timm said this alleged offence did not reach that bar. The government does not allege that Assange himself helped Manning to steal the material. It alleges he provided help to crack a code that enabled Manning better to protect his identity.

Lewis here interrupted with a lengthy quote from one of Kromberg’s affidavits, to the effect that the government was now alleging that Assange helped Manning hack a password in order to facilitate obtaining classified information. Timm said yet again Kromberg’s affidavit did not appear to match the actual indictment. The claim there is that the password hacking “may have made it more difficult to identify Manning”. It is about source protection, not theft. Source protection is normal journalistic activity.

Summers stated that Kromberg’s second justification for stating that Assange is not a journalist was that he published the names of sources. Timm replied that he understood these facts were disputed, but in any event the Supreme Court had made plain such publication still enjoyed First Amendment protection. Controversial editorial choice did not render you “not a journalist”.

Summers asked Timm if he accepted Kromberg’s characterisation that Assange was only being prosecuted for alleged hacking and for publication of names. Timm said he did not. Counts 16, 17 and 18 were for publishing. All the other counts related to possession. Count 7 for example was for “knowingly unlawful receiving and obtaining”. That described passive receipt of classified information and would criminalise much legitimate journalistic activity. Huge swathes of defence, national security and foreign affairs reporting would be criminalised.

COMMENT

The defence have been attempting the last two days to make a rational case that this is a politically motivated prosecution and therefore not eligible under the terms of the UK/US extradition treaty of 2007 (relevant extract pictured above).

In opening argument back in February, the prosecution had run a frankly farcical argument that Article 4 of the treaty does not apply as incompatible with UK law, and an esto argument that Assange’s activity is not political as in law that word can only mean support for a particular party. Hence Lewis’s sparring on that point with Prof Rogers today, in which Lewis was well out of his depth.

Lewis primary tactic has been rudeness and aggression to disconcert witnesses. He questions their honesty, fairness, independence and qualifications. Today his bullying tactics ran foul of two classier performers than he. That is no criticism of Professor Feldstein yesterday, whose quiet dignity and concern was effective in a different way in exposing Lewis as a boor.

Lewis’s remaining tactic is to fall back repeatedly on the affidavits of Gordon Kromberg, US Assistant Attorney, and his statements that the prosecution is not politically motivated, and on Kromberg’s characterisation of the extent of the charges, which everybody else but Lewis and Kromberg finds inconsistent with the superseding indictment itself.

Witnesses understandably back away from Lewis’s challenge to call Kromberg a liar, or even to question his good faith. Lewis’s plan is very plainly to declare at the end that every witness accepted Kromberg’s good faith and therefore this is a fair prosecution and the defence have no case.

Perhaps I can assist. I do not accept Kromberg’s good faith. I have no hesitation in calling Kromberg a liar.

When the best thing your most supportive colleague can say about you, is that out-and-out Islamophobes do enjoy temporary popularity in the immediate aftermath of a terror attack, then there is a real problem. There is a real problem with Gordon Kromberg, and Lewis may very well come to regret resting the weight of the credibility of his entire case upon such a shoogly peg.

Kromberg has a repeated history of Islamophobic remarks, including about Muslim women. As the Wall Street Journal reported (https://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-LB-6478) on September 15th 2008,


“Kromberg has taken a lot of heat recently for comments made and tactics taken in terrorism prosecutions”… said Andrew McCarthy, a former federal terrorism prosecutor. “As long as nothing goes boom, they want to say you’re an Islamophobe. The moment something does go boom, if the next 9/11 happens, God help anyone who says they weren’t as aggressive as Gordon.”

For British readers, Kromberg is Katie Hopkins with a legal brief. Conjure up that image every one of the scores of times Lewis relies on Gordon Kromberg.

More to the point, all expert witnesses have so far said that Kromberg’s precious memoranda explaining the scope of the indictment are inaccurate. It is at odds either with actual practice in the USA (the lawyer Clive Stafford Smith made this point) or the actual statutes to which it refers (the lawyers Trevor Timm and of course Mark Summers QC for the defence both make this point).

Crucially, Kromberg has a proven history of precisely this kind of distortion away from the statute. Also from the Wall Street Journal:

Federal judge Leonie M. Brinkema lashed out at the prosecutor [Kromberg], calling his remark insulting. Earlier, she had chastised Kromberg for changing a boilerplate immunity order beyond the language spelled out by Congress and questioned whether Arian’s constitutional rights had been violated.


“I’m not in any respect attributing evil motives or anything clandestine to you, but I think it’s real scary and not wise for a prosecutor to provide an order to the Court that does not track the explicit language of the statutes, especially this particular statute,” Brinkema said at the hearing in the Alexandria courtroom.


Next time Lewis asks a witness if they are questioning Kromberg’s good faith, they might want to answer “yes”. It certainly will not be the first time. As Trevor Timm testified today, senior prosecutors in the Justice Department had opposed this prosecution as unconstitutional and refused to be involved. Trump was left with this discredited right wing sleazeball. Now here we are at the Old Bailey, with a floundering Lewis clutching at this oaf Kromberg for intellectual support.

____________________

I look forward to getting Craig's update/s on today's (September 10th) proceedings where there will be mention of the hearing adjournment until Monday 14th as one of the (prosecution?) lawyers appears to have been exposed to 'Covid-19' according to some reliable tweets circulating at the moment.

This has to rank as one of, if not the most bizarre cases in legal history, for so many different reasons - crazy times.

1303999798899474432

[Tintin]

Here's a most wonderful personal view from a friend and former student with Julian, Niraj Lal, writing on his Medium blog.

___________________________

Rubberhose cryptography and the idea behind Wikileaks: Julian Assange as a physics student

Niraj Lal (https://medium.com/@niraj.lal) Sep 7 · 17 min read
Article here (https://medium.com/@niraj.lal/rubberhose-cryptography-and-the-idea-behind-wikileaks-julian-assange-as-a-physics-student-4fd0578cbaa3).


“There is not a crime, there is not a dodge, there is not a trick, there is not a swindle, there is not a vice which does not live by secrecy.” — Joseph Pulitzer

The last dinner that Julian Assange had in relative freedom, 18 June 2012, was takeaway pizza and cheap red wine with a couple of the Wikileaks team and myself in a small flat in London, discussing possible trajectories of American politics for the coming decade. The next morning he walked into the Ecuadorian Embassy to claim political asylum; he hasn’t seen sunlight unguarded since.

I first met Julian in the Redmond Barry Physics Lecture Theatre ten years earlier, in 2002, on our first day at the University of Melbourne. The lecturer, the affable Professor Geoff Opat with curly hair and thick-rimmed glasses, in that first hour transformed the topic of ‘units’ — of length, time, and mass — into the powerful concept of ‘dimensional analysis’, a method of answering physics problems simply by determining the underlying units involved. It was a technique later applied to understanding structural opposition to government transparency.

Julian took two other subjects in addition to physics that first semester of 2002 — Advanced Maths and a first-year philosophy course titled “Critical Thinking — the Art of Reasoning”. We shared all three classes, but it was during a lunchtime discussion after the philosophy course, sitting on the sandstone steps of Melbourne Uni’s Old Quad, that I first heard him speak about the application of critical thinking to political questions.

He was working on a project he called ‘Rubberhose Cryptography’ — a method to allow anyone with valuable digital information to have “plausible deniability” of not having it if someone was standing behind them with a length of thick rubber hose.
Julian asked the question: if a journalist with leaked information stored on a USB thumb drive was being interrogated about its contents by a foreign intelligence agency, is there a way that cryptography could enable the journalist to not surrender it? Even if the intelligence agency were using a thick rubber hose to beat it out of them?

The answer, of course, is that agencies have varied means of extracting information that are almost always successful given enough time; rubber hoses are only a crude initial measure before more persuasive techniques can be employed. But Julian found that cryptography can have a role in supporting resistance. Rubberhose Cryptography formed the kernel of TrueCrypt — a program where folders on a drive can be protected by a password, but where the folders are themselves able to contain hidden folders which are only revealed by another password — but where (and here’s the kicker) there isn’t a way of determining whether all folders have been uncovered.

Such a program allows the possibility of “plausible deniability” — where a journalist could reveal one password to a small portion of sensitive information with it being plausible (and unverifiable) that that was all she had to reveal (even if the folder were hiding much larger amounts of sensitive information). Rubberhose and subsequently Truecrypt formed the basis of On-The-Fly-Encryption programs that are used by intelligence communities around the world to this day.

At the end of 2002 two things happened: the western world turned out for the largest protests in a generation against the War on Iraq, and the Melbourne Physics Students Society travelled to Ceduna in remote South Australia to witness the once-in-a-lifetime physical phenomena of a total solar eclipse that was to arc through that town in its brief traverse across Australia.

The protests brought millions of Australians from all walks of life and all political persuasions onto the streets across the country to protest against the tenuous link between Al-Qaeda and Iraq, Weapons of Mass Destruction, and the continuation of George H.W. Bush’s agenda by his son, aided willingly by Australia’s newly elected Prime Minister John Howard. The initial euphoria of protester solidarity would turn later to cynicism about regular civic engagement. If a million marching Australians couldn’t halt a nation going to an illegal war, what could? Julian and a handful of maths and physics students would later apply their freshly learnt skills in critical thinking to try to figure out an answer.

If the protests were undeniably worldly, the solar eclipse on the other hand was decidedly other-worldly. In a road-trip convoy organised by the Melbourne Uni Physics Students Society, thirty-odd university physics students bumped and farted their way from Parkville, across the Great Ocean Road, past Adelaide to the small country town of Ceduna, through which the eclipse’s ‘arc-of-totality’ would traverse.

Julian, myself and three other first-year students crammed into an old red Toyota Camry station-wagon, listening to a mix of 90s rock and Julian’s eclectic mix that introduced us to the tunes of Tom Lehrer, Monty Python (the Galaxy Song), and a quaint North American choir that sang about ‘Ampere’s Law of Electromagnetism’ which we had just found out we’d be studying in second year physics. We were a bunch of nerds on a summer roadtrip, having a blast.

A total eclipse is one of the sights of our planet — an all-too-fleeting study in stillness and a profound reminder that we really are all just ‘ghosts driving meat-covered skeletons made of stardust riding a rock hurtling through space.’

Both events were perhaps studies in the unalterable trajectories of structural movement that humans aren’t able to derail from their predetermined courses.

In 2004 Julian competed in the inaugural Australian National Physics Competition held at the ANU where I was now studying. He stayed with me with his girlfriend at the time, a mathematics PhD student at the ANU, and he mentioned that in addition to physics and maths he was learning neuroscience and the emerging empirical analytical tools being applied to explore the physiological underpinnings of consciousness, as well as exploring practical examples of cryptography for journalism.

In 2005 I received a broadcast email from him outlining the idea behind Wikileaks. It was clear even then that a revolutionary idea had been born.

Present-day analysis of Wikileaks often centres around political influence, Russia, Trump, Clinton and the 2016 US Presidential election. Articles about Julian typically centre around the Swedish allegations now cancelled, the geopolitics of his incarceration, the substance of the US Grand Jury indictments, or the legality of UK extradition.

But seldom do they focus on Julian’s idea behind Wikileaks — not just the leaks themselves and the changes they have swept before them, but the formidable concept of surveillance being applied to structural power. This article aims to help address this imbalance, providing some personal perspectives on Julian as a thinker, his motivation for harnessing the tools of cryptography for the strength of the fourth estate, and his profound achievements in shining light on structural influence in the 21st Century.

If the analysis of the possible UK extradition is what you’re after, the Open Letter from Lawyers for Assange is an excellent start: https://www.lawyersforassange.org/en/open-letter.html

For analysis of the steadily building Australian support, the Parliamentary Friends of Julian Assange led by Andrew Wilkie MP comprising 24 MPs (including Barnaby Joyce and George Christensen) has detailed information: https://www.assangecampaign.org.au/bring-julian-home-campaign/

This piece instead focuses on the concept of transparency being applied proportionally to structural power. And the battle is finally coming to a head. No longer can the discussion of Julian or Wikileaks hide behind anything other than the persecution of press freedom, and the fear of institutional unethical behaviour being exposed for what it is.


“To destroy this invisible government, to befoul the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day”

Theodore Roosevelt wrote in his autobiography in 1913. One hundred years hence, the task is still before us.

Julian argued that the greatest achievement of Wikileaks isn’t the exposure of 15,000 unreported civilian deaths in Iraq. Nor the corruption in Kenya, India, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Yemen, and countless countries around the world. Nor the exposure of the Church of Scientology, or the British National Party, or Stephen Conroy’s Internet filter, or the behaviour of Barclays, Kaupthing and the Julius Baer Bank. Nor the documentation of generations of global political fealty to the US State Department. Nor the exposure of vast privatised surveillance across continents.

Instead, the greatest achievement of Wikileaks is to shine the spotlight of surveillance on those who wield structural power. To help make a world where people who do wrong in the public’s name, get found out. To make governments of the future pause before they commit to the unethical, illegal or unconstitutional. To make those who would commit acts of atrocity consider the possibility of future exposure. Who polices the police? It must be the policed.


“No longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and the duress of small groups of dominant men.”

Wrote Woodrow Wilson, the 28th President of the United States of America, in 1914. But the nature of this domination has been obscured and forgotten over time, hidden and justified through the steady integration of business interests with the fabric of the national conversation.

Recent Australian examples of this integration include the former Minister for Defence Brendan Nelson allowing arms manufacturer sponsorship of the Australian War Memorial before accepting a position as Boeing advisor, the former Minister for Energy and Resources Martin Ferguson’s appointment as the Advisory Board Chair for the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association, and former Prime Minister Tony Abbott being appointed as an Adviser to the UK’s Board of Trade.

It is a curious phenomena that whilst there is significant pushback in the setting up of a national Independent Commission Against Corruption in Australia, and unprecedented attacks on whistleblowers in all fields from the military to the corporate governance to finance, there is at the same time an extraordinary increase in surveillance of our own lives.

Edward Snowden, who revealed the astonishing global surveillance being conducted by the five-eyes intelligence alliance between the UK, US, Canada, NZ and Australia writes about this phenomena succinctly:


“Saying that you don’t believe in privacy because you have nothing to hide is like saying you don’t believe in free speech because you have nothing to say”.

Acceptance of surveillance means thinking that no one should ever have anything to legitimately hide from our government — not journalists, or judges, or politicians, or lovers, or children, or even the police themselves. Seven years after Snowden’s revelations, the US court of appeals for the ninth circuit determined the warrantless telephone dragnet program that secretly collected millions of Americans’ telephone records violated the US Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and may well have been unconstitutional.

Julian, Edward and the cypherpunk community more broadly argue that it isn’t love letters that should be surveilled, nor facebook posts, nor family phone calls, but the decisions to go to illegal wars, the conversations to negotiate free trade agreements that are anything but, the analysis that leads to foreign bases on Australian soil, and the billion dollar deals between governments and arms manufacturers for military equipment that we questionably need.

It is worth pausing to consider the equivalent surveillance we are under today, 40 years ago would have been:

Australia Post postmen steaming open our every envelope at the post office, photocopying it, keeping it on file (in case we commit a future crime), and resealing it for forwarding. Telecom Australia placing bugs on our phones and recording our every call. Every street-directory recording every direction you have ever searched for. Every shop assistant recording our every purchase, just in case a future intelligence agency would like to look at it.

All without judicial oversight.

Would we have allowed this in a world without the internet? Does our use of the internet mean we must resign to this surveillance? It needn’t be so. Certainly not without increased scrutiny of those who watch us, commit our men and women to war, and spend our taxes. Wikileaks provided a way to shove the pendulum of surveillance the other way.

Donald Rumsfeld confuddled us in 2002 about the “known knowns” — (things on Wikipedia), and the “known-unknowns” — (university research). But it’s the category of the “unknown knowns” that we don’t have visibility over and that society perhaps should. These are the things that some know but not all, restricted information meant to be hidden, and the things we have forgotten. A large portion of this information is concealed by classification and secrecy, or drowned through the torrent of commercial television. But it is lucky that we have institutions dedicated to exposing that information which is in the broader public good.

Wikileaks shouldn’t have been as revolutionary idea as it was. The role it plays is what journalism should do as a matter of course. That it created such a stir is a statement of the paucity of current media. But the idea behind Wikileaks is an idea that can’t be stopped. Most major news organisations have now each implemented their own version of Wikileaks’ ‘Secure Drop Box’ — digital equivalents of the ability to leave a grey envelope on a park bench. But whilst these techniques are new, the principles behind them are old:


“For whatever is hidden is meant to be disclosed, and whatever is concealed is meant to be brought out into the open.” – Mark 4:22

A lack of transparency results in distrust and a deep sense of insecurity. – The 14th Dalai Lama

In 2009, as I completed my PhD in physics at the Cavendish Laboratory at Cambridge, and Wikileaks released The Afghan War Diary and the Public Library of Democracy, I stayed with Julian at Ellingham Hall in Norfolk where he was under house arrest awaiting questioning from Swedish authorities on the accusations of two women.

I’m not sure if I have any place as a man in discussing sexual misconduct allegations by a woman against a man. In the years hence I’ve had a daughter, accompanied by a growing awareness of the structural power of the patriarchy that this brings. But the statement of the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, Prof Nils Melzer, Human Rights Chair at the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law, should make us question whether other institutionalised power structures are at question:


“I have never seen a comparable case. Anyone can trigger a preliminary investigation against anyone else by simply going to the police and accusing the other person of a crime. The Swedish authorities, though, were never interested in testimony from Assange. They intentionally left him in limbo.”

“And of the complainant: while still in the police station, she wrote a text message to a friend saying that she didn’t want to incriminate Assange, that she just wanted him to take an HIV test, but the police were apparently interested in «getting their hands on him.» The police wrote down her statement and immediately informed public prosecutors. … two hours later, a headline appeared on the front page of Expressen, a Swedish tabloid, saying that Julian Assange was suspected of having committed two rapes.”


“I speak fluent Swedish and was thus able to read all of the original documents. I could hardly believe my eyes: According to the testimony of the woman in question, a rape had never even taken place at all. And not only that: The woman’s testimony was later changed by the Stockholm police without her involvement in order to somehow make it sound like a possible rape. I have all the documents in my possession, the emails, the text messages.” [1]

“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.[2]

— UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, Professor Nils Melzer, Human Rights Chair at the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law

The Swedish allegations have lapsed and have not been renewed. It is a shame for all involved that they will never be heard, for both the women and for Julian. The formal Agreed Facts of the Case and testimonies are available online if of interest [3], but Julian is now in custody for the sole reason that the USA has requested his extradition from the UK.

The Norfolk period of house arrest was painful for Julian; he was forced to wear a manacle around his ankle and report to the nearest police station every morning by 10am, but it wasn’t without its own restricted freedoms. In July 2011 he held his 40th birthday party at Ellingham Hall — my jazz band played music for it, and it was attended by many supporters of his, some famous, some secretive — all conscious of the grand struggle at play between a journalist determined to expose the ugly truths of structural power and the vast machinery of the US military.

We kept in touch through his house arrest, Embassy stay, and later through the Founding National Council of the Australian Wikileaks Party — the attempt to get Julian elected to the Australian Senate in 2013.

The attempt failed spectacularly, in no small part due to the difficulties in leading and organising a fledgling political party remotely (in the pre-COVID days before we all became used to Zoom meetings). But the story continued.

Julian moved from Ellingham, and the US government generated a Grand Jury indictment against him. On the morning of June 19 2012 Julian sought, and was granted, asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy by President Rafael Correa, who was strongly supportive of Wikileaks’ work in exposing American influence in South America, and one of the more appreciative national leaders Julian interviewed in his TV series ‘The World Tomorrow’ whilst under house arrest.

But Correa’s term ended, and in his place was the new President Moreno, more sympathetic to USA demands for expelling Julian, perhaps related to the subsequent awarding of more than $4bn in multilateral aid from US affiliated institutions [4], or the role of Wikileaks in exposing the INA Papers that included details of Moreno’s secret accounts [5].

Julian’s diplomatic immunity was revoked by Ecuador on April 11 2019, and British police were invited into the Embassy where they arrested Julian on breaching the Bail Act, sentencing him to 50 weeks in prison. That same day, the United States government finally unsealed an indictment from the Eastern District of Virginia against Julian for alleged computer intrusion related to the leaks provided by Chelsea Manning. On 23 May 2019, the United States government further charged Julian with violating the Espionage Act of 1917, revealing the end game of the battle, and the true challenge to press-freedom of the world.

The aim of the Espionage Act is “to punish acts of interference with the foreign relations, and the foreign commerce of the United States, to punish espionage, and better to enforce the criminal laws of the United States, and for other purposes.”

That an Australian journalist, publishing documents that reveal war crimes can be indicted on the US Espionage Act, whilst not on US soil, is a warning flag to the world. If Julian Assange and Wikileaks can be indicted under this act, so too can The Guardian, New York Times, and every media outlet that published any of the Wikileaks cables, or will publish any US document in the future.

Julian is Australia’s most internationally awarded journalist. Perhaps the world’s most awarded journalist of all time. Recipient of the 2011 Walkley Award for Most Outstanding Contribution to Journalism, 2008 The Economist New Media Award, 2009 Amnesty International UK Media Awards, 2010 Time Person of the Year, Reader’s Choice, 2010 Sam Adams Award, 2011 Sydney Peace Foundation Gold Medal, 2011, Martha Gellhorn Prize for Journalism, 2013 Yoko Ono Lennon Courage Award for the Arts, 2019 Gavin MacFadyen award, 2019 Catalan Dignity Prize, 2020 Stuttgart Peace Prize, and nominated seven times for the Nobel Peace Prize by members of European parliaments and past Nobel laureates.

The trial of Julian Assange places perhaps the world’s most decorated journalist against the most well-funded institution in the world. It will serve a test case for the might of structural power against press freedom. And it is likely structural power will win.

George Orwell once remarked: “the further a society drifts from the truth, the more it hates those who speak it.”


Julian will likely be extradited to the USA, and likely be convicted of either Conspiracy to Commit Computer Intrusion, or Espionage, or both. Perhaps he will be able to return to Australia to serve his sentence here if convicted — as suggested by former Attorney General Nicola Roxon in 2012 “should Mr Assange be convicted of any offence in the United States and a sentence of imprisonment imposed, he may apply for an international prisoner transfer to Australia” [6].

Support for Julian in Australia is steadily growing. The cross-party Parliamentary Group of MPs led by Andrew Wilkie has brought together 24 Federal MPs, including support against US extradition from participants as unexpected as George Christiansen and Barnaby Joyce:


“If a person commits a crime in another country while they are there, they should be judged by those laws. If a person is residing in Australia and commits a crime in another country, I don’t believe that that is a position for extradition, If they weren’t actually there, if they weren’t present there, that is a question for Australian law.”

- Barnaby Joyce [7]

The petition to free Julian, penned by Phillip Adams, is the third largest petition to be ever have been tabled in the Australian Parliament with over 500,000 signatories.[8]

But whilst we can write to our MPs and sign the petition, it is unlikely that this will stop the extraordinary legal precedent being established of the extradition and subsequent conviction of a non-American journalist to the USA for exposing USA war crimes.

Once extradited, it is likely that Julian will be found guilty by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on the crime of “Conspiracy to Commit Computer Intrusion” and perhaps also Espionage, an act that would place every woman, child and man in western society under USA extraterritorial authoritarian rule.

The story of Julian, alongside the incredible and ongoing bravery of Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden, are the stories of our generation. And we must not forget these personal sacrifices for our collective freedom.

Sign the petition, contact your MP in Australia or the UK if you’ve the time and energy to do so, but perhaps most effectively, share a moment of sorrow when a defender of human rights and press freedom is successfully silenced by the might of structural power.


“Most people, in the end, choose to lead safe, comfortable lives. We’re not interested in putting ourselves in the line of fire. Yet we owe a great debt to those people who do.” - Mary Kostakidis


The truth shall set you free. – John 8:32

Dr Niraj Lal is a physicist and author based in Melbourne.
w: nirajlal.org | t: nirajnlal

REFERENCES

[1] https://consortiumnews.com/2020/02/10/julian-assange-wins-2020-gary-webb-freedom-of-the-press-award/
[2] https://medium.com/@njmelzer/demasking-the-torture-of-julian-assange-b252ffdcb768
[3] https://www.scribd.com/document/80912442/Agreed-Facts-Assange-Case
[4] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ecuador-imf/ecuador-inks-4-2-billion-financing-deal-with-imf-moreno-idUSKCN1QA05Z
[5] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2019/04/11/how-ecuador-soured-assange/
[6] https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/assange-felt-abandoned-by-australian-government-after-letter-from-roxon-20120620-20npj.html
[7] https://www.assangecampaign.org.au/bring-julian-home-campaign/
[8] https://www.change.org/p/free-julian-assange-before-it-s-too-late-stop-usa-extradition
[9] http://www.wikileaksparty.org.au/why-i-support-wikileaks-and-the-wikileaks-party/
[10] https://www.smh.com.au/national/love-him-or-hate-him-or-simply-don-t-care-julian-assange-s-fight-for-freedom-concerns-us-all-20191202-p53g1q.html

[Tintin]

Here, a small gesture of support for Craig Murray and his sterling efforts shared with him and the wider Twitter community:

1304350738030747648

And confirmation from Craig that Julian's hearing will resume on Monday:

1304377142587928578

Yes, one does rather suspect that this may have been an attempt to buy more time on the part of the prosecution using 'Covid' as a cover story. In any case...

[onawah]

See: http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?111877-Fair-mainstream-reporting-starting&p=1377877&viewfull=1#post1377877

[Tintin]

Your Man in the Public Gallery: Assange Hearing Day 9
September 15, 2020 in Uncategorized by craig (https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/09/your-man-in-the-public-gallery-assange-hearing-day-9/)

Things became not merely dramatic in the Assange courtroom today, but spiteful and nasty. There were two real issues, the evidence and the procedure. On the evidence, there were stark details of the dreadful regime Assange will face in US jails if extradited. On the procedure, we saw behaviour from the prosecution QC that went well beyond normal cross examination and was a real attempt to denigrate and even humiliate the witness. I hope to prove that to you by a straightforward exposition of what happened today in court, after which I shall add further comment.

Today’s witness was Eric Lewis. A practising US attorney for 35 years, Eric Lewis has a doctorate in law from Yale and a masters in criminology from Cambridge. He is former professor in law at Georgetown University, an elected member of both the American Law Institute and the Council on Foreign Relations and a fellow of the American Bar Foundation. He is Chairman of Reprieve. He has represented high profile clients in national security and terrorism cases, including Seymour Hersh and Guantanamo Bay internees.

Lewis had submitted five statements to the court, between October 2019 and August 2020, addressing the ever changing indictments and charges brought by the prosecution. He was initially led through the permitted brief half hour summary of his statements by defence QC Edward Fitzgerald. (I am told I am not currently allowed to publish the defence statements or links to them. I shall try to clarify this tomorrow).

Eric Lewis testified that no publisher had ever been successfully prosecuted for publishing national security information in the USA. Following the Wikileaks publications including the diplomatic cables and the Iraq and Afghanistan war logs, Assange had not been prosecuted because the First Amendment was considered insuperable and because of the New York Times problem – there was no way just to prosecute Assange without prosecuting the New York Times for publishing the same material. The New York Times had successfully plead the First Amendment for its publication of the Pentagon Papers, which had been upheld in a landmark Supreme Court judgement.

Lewis here gave evidence that mirrored that already reported of Prof Feldstein, Trevor Timm and Prof Rogers, so I shall not repeat all of it. He said that credible sources had stated the Obama administration had decided not to prosecute Assange, notably Matthew Miller, a highly respected Justice Department figure who had been close to Attorney General Holder and would have been unlikely to brief the media without Holder’s knowledge and approval.

Eric Lewis than gave testimony on the change of policy towards prosecuting Assange from the Trump administration. Again this mostly mirrored the earlier witnesses. He added detail of Mike Pompeo stating the the free speech argument for Wikileaks was “a perversion of what our great country stands for”, and claiming that the First Amendment did not apply to foreigners.

Attorney General Sessions had accordingly stated that it was “a priority for the Justice Department” to arrest Julian Assange. He had pressured prosecutors in the Eastern District of Virginia to bring a case. In December 2017 an arrest warrant had been issued, with the indictment to be filled in later. The first indictment of a single count had been launched in March 2018, its timing possibly dictated by a limitation deadline.

In May 2019 a new superseding indictment increased the counts from one to eighteen, seventeen of which related to espionage. This tougher stance followed the appointment of William Barr as Attorney General just four months previously. The plain intention of the first superseding indictment was to get round the New York Times problem by trying to differentiate Assange’s actions with Manning from those of other journalists. It showed that the Justice Department was very serious and very aggressive in acting on the statements of Trump administration officials. Barr was plainly acting at the behest of Trump. This represented a clear abuse of the criminal enforcement power of the state.

The prosecution of a publisher in this way was unprecedented. Yet the facts were the same in 2018 as they had been in 2012 and 13; there was no new evidence behind the decision to prosecute. Crucially, the affidavits of US Assistant Attorney Gordon Kromberg present no legal basis for the taking of a different decision to that of 2013. There is no explanation of why the dossier was lying around with no action for five or six years.

The Trump administration had in fact taken a different political decision through the Presidential spokesperson Sarah Sanders who had boasted that only this administration had acted against Assange and “taken this process seriously”.

Edward Fitzgerald QC then turned to the question of probable sentencing and led Lewis through his evidence on this point. Eric Lewis confirmed that if Julian Assange were convicted he could very probably spend the rest of his life in prison. The charges had not been pleaded as one count, which it had been open to the prosecution to do. The judge would have discretion to sentence the counts either concurrently or consecutively. Under current sentencing guidelines, Assange’s sentence if convicted could range from “best case” 20 years to a maximum of 175 years. It was disingenuous of Gordon Kromberg to suggest a minimal sentence, given that Chelsea Manning had been sentenced to 35 years and the prosecution had requested 60.

It had been a government choice to charge the alleged offences as espionage. The history of espionage convictions in the USA had generally resulted in whole life sentences. 20 to 30 years had been lighter sentences for espionage. The multiple charges approach of the indictment showed a government intention to obtain a very lengthy sentence. Of course the final decision would lay with the judge, but it would be decades.

Edward Fitzgerald then led on to the question of detention conditions. On the question of remand, Gordon Kromberg had agreed that Julian Assange would be placed in the Alexandria City Jail, and there was a “risk” that he would be held there under Special Administrative Measures. In fact this was a near certainty. Assange faced serious charges related to national security, and had seen millions of items of classified information which the authorities would be concerned he might pass on to other prisoners. He would be subject to Special Administrative Measures both pre and post conviction.

After conviction Julian Assange would be held in the supermax prison ADX Florence, Colorado. There were at least four national security prisoners currently there in the H block. Under SAMS Assange would be kept in a small cell for 22 or 23 hours a day and not allowed to meet any other prisoners. He would be allowed out once a day for brief exercise or recreation excluded from other prisoners, but shackled.

Fitzgerald then led Lewis to the 2017 decision by the International Criminal Court to open an investigation into war crimes in Afghanistan, in which the evidence provided by the Wikileaks release of US war logs and diplomatic cables provided essential evidence. This had been denounced by Trump, John Bolton and Pompeo. The ICC prosecutor’s US visa had been canceled to hinder his investigation. An Executive Order had been issued imposing financial sanctions and blocking the banking access of any non US national who assisted the ICC investigation into crimes alleged against any US citizen. This would affect Julian Assange.

At this point, the half hour guillotine imposed by judge Baraitser on defence evidence came down. Fitzgerald pointed out they had not even reached the second superseding indictment yet, but Baraitser said that if the prosecution addressed that in cross examination, then the defence could question on it in re-examination.

James Lewis QC then rose to cross examine Eric Lewis. Yet again, he adopted an extremely aggressive tone. This is perhaps best conveyed as a dialogue.

NB this is not a precise transcript. It would be illegal for me to publish a transcript (of a “public” court hearing; fascinating but true). This is condensed and slightly paraphrased. It is I believe a fair and balanced representation of what happened, but not a verbatim record.

Eric Lewis was appearing by videolink and it should be borne in mind that he was doing so at 5am his time.


James Lewis QC Are you retained as a lawyer by Mr Assange in any way?
Eric Lewis No.
James Lewis QC Are you being paid for your evidence?
Eric Lewis Yes, as an expert witness. At a legal aid rate.
James Lewis QC Are you being paid for your appearance in this court?
Eric Lewis We haven’t specifically discussed that. I assume so.
James Lewis QC How much are you being paid?
Eric Lewis £100 per hour, approximately
James Lewis QC How much have you charged in total?
Eric Lewis I don’t know, haven’t worked it out yet.
James Lewis QC Are you aware of the rules governing expert witnesses?
Eric Lewis Yes, I am. I must state my qualifications and my duty is to the court; I have to give an objective and unbiased view.
James Lewis QC You are also supposed to set out alternative views. Where have you set out the arguments in Mr Kromberg’s five affidavits?
Eric Lewis The court has Mr Kromberg’s affidavits. I address his arguments directly in my statements. Are you saying that I should have repeated his affidavits and all the other evidence in my statements? My statements would have been thousands of pages long.
James Lewis QC You are supposed to be unbiased. But you had previously given views that Mr Assange should not be extradited.
Eric Lewis Yes, I published an article to that effect.
James Lewis QC You also gave an interview to an Australian radio station.
Eric Lewis Yes, but both of those were before I was retained as an expert witness in this case.
James Lewis QC Does this not create a conflict of interest?
Eric Lewis No, I can do an objective analysis setting aside any prejudice. Lawyers are used to such situations.
James Lewis QC Why had you not declared these media appearances as an interest?
Eric Lewis I did not think perfectly open actions and information needed to be declared.
James Lewis QC It would be much better if we were not forced to dig out this information. You give opinions on law. You also give opinions on penal conditions. Are you an expert witness?
Eric Lewis I am very familiar with prison conditions. I visit prisons. I studied criminology at Cambridge. I keep up to date with penology. I have taught aspects of it at university.
James Lewis QC Are you a qualified penologist?
Eric Lewis I think I have explained my qualification
James Lewis QC Can you point us to peer reviewed articles which you have published on prison conditions?
Eric Lewis No.
James Lewis QC Have you visited ADX Colorado?
Eric Lewis No, but I have had a professional relationship with a client in there.
James Lewis QC Have you represented anyone in Alexandra Detention Centre?
Eric Lewis Yes, one person, Abu Qatada.
James Lewis QC So you have no expertise in prisons?
Eric Lewis I have visited extensively in prisons and observed prison conditions. I have read widely and in detail on the subject.
James Lewis QC Abu Qatada was acquitted of 14 of the 18 charges against him. Was that not acquittal by the same jury pool that would try Julian Assange?
Eric Lewis No. That was Colombia, not Eastern Virginia. Very different jury pools.
James Lewis QC The prosecutors withdrew capital charges. You said that was a courageous but correct decision?
Eric Lewis Yes.
James Lewis QC So what was Qatada’s sentence and what was the maximum?
Eric Lewis The government asked for life but to my mind that was not legal for the charges on which he was convicted. He got 22 years. That was much criticised as harsh for those charges.
James Lewis QC Was the Abu Qatada trial a denial of justice?
Eric Lewis No
James Lewis QC Abu Qatada was held under Special Administrative Measures. Did that prevent you from spending many hours with him?
Eric Lewis No, but it made it extremely difficult. The many hours were spread out over a long period. That is why remand lasted for three years.
James Lewis QC Were your meetings with him monitored?
Eric Lewis Yes.
James Lewis QC But not by the prosecution.
Eric Lewis It was all recorded by the authorities. We were told that nothing would be passed to the prosecution. But from many other reports I am not convinced that is true.
James Lewis QC What jury pool was Zacarias Moussaoui convicted by?
Eric Lewis He was not convicted by a jury. He plead guilty.
James Lewis QC But the jury decided against the death penalty.
Eric Lewis Yes.
James Lewis QC What about Maria Butina? She was charged with being an agent of the Russian Federation but received a light sentence?
Eric Lewis That was a very weird case. She did no more than cultivate some figures in the National Rifle Association. She was sentenced to time served.
James Lewis QC But she only got 18 months when the maximum was 20 years?
Eric Lewis Yes. It was not a comparable case, and it was a plea deal.
James Lewis QC You have addressed prison conditions because the defence argue that Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights will be breached. You consider the case of Babar Ahmed. You state that it is “almost certain” that Julian Assange will be subject to administrative segregation. What is the procedure for administrative segregation?
Eric Lewis The bureau president will decide depending upon various factors including security risk, threat to national security, threat to other prisoners, seriousness of the charge. My experience is that national security charged prisoners go straight into administrative segregation.
James Lewis QC (very aggressive) What are you reading?
Eric Lewis Pardon?
James Lewis QC You are reading something there. What is it?
Eric Lewis It is my witness statement. (Holds it up). Is that not OK?
James Lewis QC That is alright. I thought it was something else. How many categories of administrative detention are there?
Eric Lewis I just went through the main ones. National security, serious charge, threat to other prisoners.
James Lewis QC You do not know the categories. They are (reels off a long list including national security, serious charge, threat to others, threat to self, medical custody, protective custody and several more). Do you agree there is no solitary confinement in administrative segregation and Special Administrative Measures?
Eric Lewis No
James Lewis QC US Assistant Attorney Kromberg states in his affidavit that there is no solitary confinement
Eric Lewis It is solitary confinement other than in the vernacular of the US prison service
James Lewis QC In that case it is also not solitary confinement in the vernacular of the English High Court, which has accepted there is no solitary confinement
Eric Lewis It is solitary confinement. When you are kept in a tiny cell for 23 hours a day and allowed no contact with the rest of the prison population even during the one hour you are allowed out, that is solitary confinement. The attempt to deny it is semantic.
James Lewis QC Was Abu Qatada in solitary confinement? When he was permitted unlimited legal visits?
Eric Lewis They were not unlimited. In reality there were practical and logistical obstacles. There was a single room that could be used, for the entire prison population. You had to get a booking for that one room. You had to book translation services. The FBI oversaw the visits and listened in. Now with Covid there are no visits at all. Theoretically visits are “unlimited” but in practice you do not get nearly as much time with your client as you need.
James Lewis QC You said that he would be held in solitary confinement. But is it not true that even prisoners under SAMs get a break schedule?
Eric Lewis There is a break schedule but it requires no other prisoner to be in the communal areas to have contact with the prisoner under SAM. So in practice the “one hour break” would typically be scheduled between 3am and 4am. Not many prisoners wanted to get out of bed at 3am to walk around a cold and empty communal area.

At this point there was a break. James Lewis QC used it forcefully to complain to Baraitser about the four hour limit set on his cross-examination of Eric Lewis. He said that so far he had only got through one and a half pages of his questions, and that Eric Lewis refused to give yes or no answers but instead insisted on giving lengthy explanations. James Lewis QC was plainly extremely needled by Eric Lewis’ explanations of “unlimited visiting time” and “no solitary confinement”. He complained that Baraitser was “failing to control the witness”.

It was plain that James Lewis’ real aim was not to get more time, but to get Baraitser to curtail Eric Lewis’s inconvenient answers. It is of course amazing that he was complaining about four hours when the defence had been limited to half an hour and had not even been permitted to get to the latest superseding indictment.

Baraitser, to her credit, replied that it was not for her to control the witness, who must be free to give his evidence so long as it was relevant, which it was. It was a question of fairness not of control. James Lewis was asking open or general questions.

James Lewis responded that the witness refused to give binary answers. Therefore his cross examination must be longer than four hours. He became very heated and told Baraitser that never in his entire career had he been subject to a guillotine on cross examination, and that this “would not happen in a real court”. He very definitely said that. “This would not happen in a real court”. I have of course been arguing all along that this is not a genuine process. I did not expect to hear that from James Lewis QC, though I think his intention was just to bully Baraitser, which was confirmed by Lewis going on to state he had never heard of such a guillotine in his capacity of “High Court Judge”. I find that Lewis is listed as “deputy high court judge”, which I think is like being 12th man at cricket, or Gareth Bale.

Baraitser only conceded very slight ground under this onslaught, saying she had never used the word guillotine, that the timings had been agreed between parties, and she expected them to stick to them. James Lewis said it was impossible in that way adequately to represent his client (the US government). He said he felt “stressed”, which for once seemed true, he had gone purple. Baraitser said he should try his best to stick to the four hours. He fumed away (though at a later stage apologised to Baraitser for his “intemperate language”).

James Lewis QC’s touting for business webpage describes him as “the Rolls Royce of advocates”. I suppose that is true, in the sense of foreign owned. Yet here he was before us, blowing a gasket, not getting anywhere, emitting fumes and resembling a particularly unloved Trabant.

Cross-examination of Eric Lewis resumed. James Lewis QC started by reiterating the criteria and categories for Administrative Segregation after conviction (as opposed to pre-trial). Then we got back into questioning.

James Lewis QC Gordon Kromberg states that there is no solitary confinement in ADX Colorado.
Eric Lewis Again this is semantic. There is solitary confinement.
James Lewis QC But there is an entitlement to participate in three programmes a week
Eric Lewis Not in Special Administrative Measures
James Lewis QC But which of the criteria for Special Administrative Measures might Julian assange fall into?
Eric Lewis Criteria 2, 4 and 5, at least.
James Lewis QC Can we agree there is a formal procedure?
Eric Lewis Yes, but not worth the name.
James Lewis Your opinion is based on one single client in ADX Colorado
Eric Lewis Yes, but the system is essentially the same as other supermaxes
James Lewis At para 14 of your report you state that the system lacks procedural rights, and is tantamount to solitary confinement. Had you read the European Court of Human Rights judgement on Barbar Ahmed when you wrote this.
Eric Lewis Yes
James Lewis That judgement specifically rejects the same claims you make.

James Lewis QC refers to a number of paragraphs in the original UK District court decision in the case of Babar Ahmad. Eric Lewis asks for more time to find the document as “I only received these documents from the court this morning”.


James Lewis QC But Mr Lewis, you have testified on oath that you had read the Babar Ahmad judgement.
Eric Lewis I have read the final judgement of the European Court of Human Rights. I had not read all the judgements from lower courts. I received them from the court his morning.
James Lewis QC The senior district judge ruled that although Special Administrative Measures were a concern, they did not preclude extradition. There were various safeguards to SAMs. For example although attorney/client conversations were monitored, that was only for the purpose of preventing terrorism and the FBI did not pass on the recordings to the prosecution. The judge rejected the idea that SAMs amounted to solitary confinement. The High Court upheld the District judge’s ruling and the House of Lords rejected Babar Ahmad’s application to appeal. In its ruling on admissibility of the case, the European Court of Human Rights considered six affidavits from US attorneys very similar to that submitted by Eric Lewis in this case. This included the affirmations that it would be “virtually certain” that Babar Ahmad would be subject to SAMs, and that these would interfere directly with the right to a fair trial, and would constitute cruel and degrading treatment. The ECHR found in relation to pre-trial detention that these allegations were wrong in the Babar Ahmad case.
Eric Lewis But that was a terrorism case, not a national security case. SAMs apply differently in national security cases. This is about a million classified documents. Different cases had to be considered each on their merits.
James Lewis QC In the Babar Ahmad case, the defence submissions were that the regime was harsh, amounted to solitary confinement nearly 24 hours a day, with one phone call every two weeks and one family visit a month. Is that not almost identical to your evidence here?
Eric Lewis Each case must be considered on its merits. There are key differences. Assange is charged with espionage not terrorism, and possession of classified intelligence is a factor. Mental health issues are also different. Under SAMS there is no intenet access and no access to any news source. Only approved reading material is allowed. These would be particularly hard for Assange.
James Lewis QC But the Babar Ahmad case does specifically deal with mental health issues, between Babar and co-defendants these include clinical depression, suicide risk and Asperger’s. The court agreed that SAM’s would be likely to be applied both before and after trial. But it ruled that the American government had good reasons for imposing SAMs, were entitled to do so, and that there was a clear and non-arbitrary procedure for implementing them.

Eric Lewis replied that he disagreed that would be true in this case. SAM’s could be applied without procedure, by the US Attorney-General, and William Barr would do that in this case, on the basis of statements by Trump and Gina Haspel. In practice, SAMs had never been overturned whatever the claimed procedure. Eric Lewis did not agree they were not arbitrary.

There now followed an episode where James Lewis QC successfully tripped up Eric Lewis by quoting a passage from an Ahmad case judgement and then confusing him as to whether it was from the final ECHR judgement, which Eric Lewis had read, or from an earlier English court judgement or the ECHR prior judgement on admissibility, which he had not.


James Lewis QC So the ECHR viewed the argument that the SAM regime in pre-trial detention breaches Article 3 as ill-founded and inadmissible. Do you agree with the European Court of Human Rights?
Eric Lewis They found that in the Babar Ahmad admissibility decision in 2008. New information and evidence and changes to the regime since then might change that view.
James Lewis QC What are the defence issues that Assange will raise that you say makes proper consultation under the SAM regime impossible?
Eric Lewis Well I don’t know the precise details of what his defence will be but…
James Lewis QC [interrupting] Well how can you possibly know what the issues will be if you do not know the case?
Eric Lewis Because I have read the indictment. The issues are very wide ranging indeed and involve national security documents.
James Lewis QC But you don’t know what defence at all will be put forward, so how can you opine?
Eric Lewis The charges themselves give a fair idea what might be covered
James Lewis QC Turning to the Babar Ahmad final judgement on post trial incarceration at ADX Colorado. Have you read this (sarcastic emphasis) judgement? Of 210,307 federal prisoners, only 41 of these had SAMs. 27 were in ADX Colorado.
Eric Lewis The Warden of ADX Colorado himself had stated that it was “not fit for humanity” and “a fate worse than death”.
James Lewis QC The ECHR said that SAMS was subject to oversight by independent authorities who looked after the interests of prisoners and could intervene.
Eric Lewis Since that ECHR judgement, a new US judgement had stated that prisoners have no Fifth Amendment right to appeal against the conditions of their incarceration.
James Lewis QC The ECHR found that the US prison authorities took cognisance of a prisoner’s mental state in relation to SAM measures
Eric Lewis Things have also moved on there since 2012. He referenced details from his written evidence.
James Lewis QC The ECHR also found that “the isolation experienced by ADX inmates is partial and relative. The court notes that their psychiatric conditions have not prevented their high security detention in the United Kingdom.” Do you accept that in 2012 the ECHR made a thorough finding?
Eric Lewis Yes, on the basis of what they knew in 2012, but much more information is now available. And there are specific reasons to doubt Mr William Barr’s impartiality.
James Lewis QC You say that Mr Assange will not receive adequate healthcare in a US prison. Are you a medical expert?
Eric Lewis No
James Lewis QC Do you hold any medical qualification?
Eric Lewis No
James Lewis QC What published statement gives the policy of the Bureau of Prisons on Mental Health?
Eric Lewis I was relying on the published statement of the US Inspector of Prisons and the study by Yale Law School of mental health in US prisons. The US Bureau of Prisons states that 48% of prisoners have serious mental health problems but only 3% receive any treatment. The provision for mental healthcare in jails has been cut every year for a decade. Suicides in jail are increasing by 18% a year.
James Lewis QC Have you read “The Treatment and Care of Prisoners with Mental Illness” by the US Department of Health?
Eric Lewis Yes.
James Lewis QC You purport to be an expert. Without looking it up what year was it published? You don’t know, do you?
Eric Lewis Could you be courteous. I have been courteous to you. Can you refer me to a relevant question?
James Lewis QC The policy has had eight changes since 2014. Can you list them?
Eric Lewis I am trying to testify on my experience and my knowledge in dealing with these questions on behalf of the may clients I have represented. If you are asking me am I a prison psychiatrist, I am not.
James Lewis QC Do you know the specific changes made since 2014 or not?
Eric Lewis I know that there were new regulations stipulating 1 mental health professional for every 500 inmates and guidelines for an increase in accessility, but I also know those have not in fact been implemented due to lack of resources.
James Lewis QC (smirking) How many levels of psychiatric assessment are there? What is level number three? What are you reading? You are reading! What are you reading! What are you reading! [Yes, this is not a mistake. He did pull this stunt again]
Eric Lewis I am looking at my own witness statement (shows it to camera).
James Lewis QC You are not a genuine expert witness you have no expertise in these matters. As you are being paid to give evidence and are not an expert, that is something the court will have to take account in deciding what weight, if any at all, to give to your evidence.

James Lewis QC’s conduct was very strange. It really is not normal courtroom behaviour. Were there a jury, they would completely have written him off now as rude and obnoxious, and even Baraitser finally seems to have found her limit of being pushed around by the prosecution. Eric Lewis is obviously a very distinguished man and a lawyer with immense experience of the US system. Trying to claim he has no expertise because he is not a psychiatrist or an academic in penology is no more than a shoddy trick, performed in a manner designed to humiliate.

The asking for the precise title of one particular Department of Health Pamphlet or for a specific point in it, as though that were a way of invalidating all that Eric Lewis knows, is so transparently invalid as a test of worth that I am astonished Baraitser let James Lewis pursue it, let alone the histrionic accusations about “reading”. This was really hard to sit through silently for me; goodness knows what it was like for Julian.

The mainstream media are turning a blind eye. There were three reporters in the press gallery, one of them an intern and one representing the NUJ. Public access continues to be restricted and major NGOs, including Amnesty, PEN and Reporters Without Borders, continue to be excluded both physically and from watching online. It has taken me literally all night to write this up – it is now 8.54am – and I have to finish off and get back into court. The six of us allowed in the public gallery, incidentally, have to climb 132 steps to get there, several times a day. As you know, I have a very dodgy ticker; I am with Julian’s dad John who is 78; and another of us has a pacemaker.

I do not in the least discount the gallant efforts of others when I explain that I feel obliged to write this up, and in this detail, because otherwise the vital basic facts of the most important trial this century, and how it is being conducted, would pass almost completely unknown to the public. If it were a genuine process, they would want people to see it, not completely minimise attendance both physically and online.

[Tintin]

A report from this morning's proceedings by The Assange Court Report (https://assangecourt.report/september-15-morning)

Assange Court Report September 15: Morning

Trump wants Assange jailed and kept quiet, court told.

A witness at the Julian Assange extradition case in London has testified that the prosecution of Julian Assange is part of a Donald Trump effort to distract attention from the help WikiLeaks gave him during the election, “He wants to put Assange in jail and keep him quiet,” he told the court.

Eric Lewis, a US attorney, was giving his third day of evidence in the case, which has been marred by numerous technical issues with his trans-Atlantic video link.

The lawyer testified that he believed political pressure was put on US district attorneys to prosecute Assange, citing a New York Times article which quotes a “senior official,” saying just that. Asked if US prosecutors were not immune to political pressure, he read out a quote from President Trump, “I can do what I want with the Justice Department,” adding that current US Attorney General, Bill Barr, saw himself as “the hand of the President.”

Lewis told the court that “all the facts were out there by 2012,” no-one has ever said that the facts had changed, yet the Trump administration suddenly decided to prosecute.

Asked by the prosecutor what qualifications he had in political affairs to make this statement, the witness replied that he has a degree in Public and International Affairs from Princeton University.

Before being cross-examined by his namesake, James Lewis QC, who is acting for US government, the witness cleared up the mystery of why his feed was interrupted yesterday by an apparent clip from US Fox news suddenly appearing on the screen, which had led to social media claims that he had been hacked. The witness explained that he had been trying to access a document on his own computer and the clip had been embedded in it and had accidentally played.

The prosecutor took issue with the witness’s earlier testimony that Mr Assange faced 175 years in prison if extradited to the United States on espionage charges over publishing classified government documents on the website he founded, WikiLeaks.

The prosecution suggested that only a tiny percentage of offenders in America received the statutory maximum sentence, quoting US government sentencing guidelines in their support.

They also cited the case of a former CIA agent, Jeffrey Sterling, an American lawyer and former CIA employee who was arrested, charged, and convicted of violating the Espionage Act for revealing details about an “Operation Merlin,” to journalist James Risen. Sterling, the prosecution said, had faced a sentence of 130 years, but after his conviction was only jailed for 42 months. Lewis replied, “But there has never been a case like this.”

The prosecution then moved onto to the issue of freedom of speech and national security, arguing that there were certain pieces of information that if leaked could jeopardise the security of the nation, Lewis replied that this applied to issues like publishing the date troop ships would be leaving port in wartime, but none of this applied to the actual information released by Wikileaks which, he said, exposed war crimes in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

He said the reason the Obama administration had decided not to prosecute Assange was what he called the New York Times problem, the Justice Department then had concluded that there was no way to prosecute him for publishing classified information without the same theory being applied to many other journalists. However, he said, the Trump administration had ignored this in a rush to prosecute Assange.

The witness also told the court that, if extradited, Mr Assange could face up to three years on remand before even facing a US court.

The trial continues.

Follow us on Twitter for live updates on the proceedings: @bridges4media

1305838337220112392

[Gracy]

A report from this morning's proceedings by The Assange Court Report (https://assangecourt.report/september-15-morning)

Assange Court Report September 15: Morning

Trump wants Assange jailed and kept quiet, court told.

A witness at the Julian Assange extradition case in London has testified that the prosecution of Julian Assange is part of a Donald Trump effort to distract attention from the help WikiLeaks gave him during the election, “He wants to put Assange in jail and keep him quiet,” he told the court.

He's come a long way baby.
xnEoVzLKNPw

What am I supposed to think now, when I see he's campaigning on being the champion of "The Forgotten Man"...

Really?

[onawah]

BEHIND THE DYSTOPIAN SHOW TRIAL OF JULIAN ASSANGE, AN ASSAULT ON JOURNALISM - WITH KEVIN GOSZTOLA
13 SEPTEMBER 2020
https://moderaterebels.com/show-trial-julian-assange-kevin-gosztola/

"Max Blumenthal and Ben Norton speak about the dystopian show trial going on against political prisoner Julian Assange with journalist Kevin Gosztola, who is covering the UK court hearings to potentially extradite the WikiLeaks publisher to the US.

We discuss the major threat this case poses to the freedom of the press — yet how it is being criminally under-reported and whitewashed in the corporate media.

(Episode recorded on September 11, 2020)


Behind the dystopian show trial of Julian Assange, an assault on journalism - with Kevin Gosztola
11,863 views•Sep 13, 2020
Moderate Rebels
20.5K subscribers
Max Blumenthal and Ben Norton speak about the dystopian show trial going on against political prisoner Julian Assange with journalist Kevin Gosztola, who is covering the UK court hearings to potentially extradite the WikiLeaks publisher to the US.

We discuss the major threat this case poses to the freedom of the press -- yet how it is being criminally under-reported and whitewashed in the corporate media.
2vWGVH1YweU

Audio: https://soundcloud.com/moderaterebels/show-trial-julian-assange-kevin-gosztola

Links and show notes
Read Kevin’s reporting at shadowproof.com
Follow Kevin on Twitter at twitter.com/kgosztola
Max’s report “‘The American friends’: New court files expose Sheldon Adelson’s security team in US spy operation against Julian Assange” at The Grayzone
Max’s report “Exclusive images from inside British court expose Assange’s un-democratic treatment, physical deterioration” at The Grayzone "

[onawah]

Max Blumenthal: The CIA/Assange Spy Shocker They're Not Reporting
28,960 views•Premiered Sep 20, 2020
The Zero Hour with RJ Eskow
40K subscribers
u09mP2x6NxE

[onawah]

The US is using the Guardian to justify jailing Assange for life. Why is the paper so silent?
22 September 2020
by Jonathan Cook
https://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2020-09-22/guardian-silent-assange-trial/

"Julian Assange is not on trial simply for his liberty and his life. He is fighting for the right of every journalist to do hard-hitting investigative journalism without fear of arrest and extradition to the United States. Assange faces 175 years in a US super-max prison on the basis of claims by Donald Trump’s administration that his exposure of US war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan amounts to “espionage”.

The charges against Assange rewrite the meaning of “espionage” in unmistakably dangerous ways. Publishing evidence of state crimes, as Assange’s Wikileaks organisation has done, is covered by both free speech and public interest defences. Publishing evidence furnished by whistleblowers is at the heart of any journalism that aspires to hold power to account and in check. Whistleblowers typically emerge in reaction to parts of the executive turning rogue, when the state itself starts breaking its own laws. That is why journalism is protected in the US by the First Amendment. Jettison that and one can no longer claim to live in a free society.

Aware that journalists might understand this threat and rally in solidarity with Assange, US officials initially pretended that they were not seeking to prosecute the Wikileaks founder for journalism – in fact, they denied he was a journalist. That was why they preferred to charge him under the arcane, highly repressive Espionage Act of 1917. The goal was to isolate Assange and persuade other journalists that they would not share his fate.

Assange explained this US strategy way back in 2011, in a fascinating interview he gave to Australian journalist Mark Davis that has recently been made available. (The relevant section occurs from minute 24 to 43.) This was when the Obama administration first began seeking a way to distinguish Assange from liberal media organisations, such as the New York Times and Guardian that had been working with him, so that only he would be charged with espionage.
Assange warned then that the New York Times and its editor Bill Keller had already set a terrible precedent on legitimising the administration’s redefinition of espionage by assuring the Justice Department – falsely, as it happens – that they had been simply passive recipients of Wikileaks’ documents. Assange noted (40.00 mins):

If I am a conspirator to commit espionage, then all these other media organisations and the principal journalists in them are also conspirators to commit espionage. What needs to be done is to have a united face in this.

During the course of the current extradition hearings, US officials have found it much harder to make plausible this distinction principle than they may have assumed.

Journalism is an activity, and anyone who regularly engages in that activity qualifies as a journalist. It is not the same as being a doctor or a lawyer, where you need a specific professional qualification to practice. You are a journalist if you do journalism – and you are an investigative journalist if, like Assange, you publish information the powerful want concealed. Which is why in the current extradition hearings at the Old Bailey in London, the arguments made by lawyers for the US that Assange is not a journalist but rather someone engaged in espionage are coming unstuck.


Jonathan Cook
@Jonathan_K_Cook
Corporate journalists have barely bothered to cover Assange's trial. But while they doze, the US has changed its argument, as ex-ambassador Craig Murray reports. Now the US is threatening to lock up other journalists for espionage if they expose its crimes
Your Man in the Public Gallery: Assange Hearing Day 10
The gloves were off on Tuesday as the US Government explicitly argued that all journalists are liable to prosecution under the Espionage Act (1917) for publishing classified information, citing the Ro
craigmurray.org.uk
6:10 AM · Sep 16, 2020
612
578 people are Tweeting about this

My dictionary defines “espionage” as “the practice of spying or of using spies, typically by governments to obtain political and military information”. A spy is defined as someone who “secretly obtains information on an enemy or competitor”.

Very obviously the work of Wikileaks, a transparency organisation, is not secret. By publishing the Afghan and Iraq war diaries, Wikileaks exposed crimes the United States wished to keep secret.

Assange did not help a rival state to gain an advantage, he helped all of us become better informed about the crimes our own states commit in our names. He is on trial not because he traded in secrets, but because he blew up the business of secrets – the very kind of secrets that have enabled the west to pursue permanent, resource-grabbing wars and are pushing our species to the verge of extinction.

In other words, Assange was doing exactly what journalists claim to do every day in a democracy: monitor power for the public good. Which is why ultimately the Obama administration abandoned the idea of issuing an indictment against Assange. There was simply no way to charge him without also putting journalists at the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Guardian on trial too. And doing that would have made explicit that the press is not free but works on licence from those in power.

Media indifference
For that reason alone, one might have imagined that the entire media – from rightwing to liberal-left outlets – would be up in arms about Assange’s current predicament. After all, the practice of journalism as we have known it for at least 100 years is at stake.

But in fact, as Assange feared nine years ago, the media have chosen not to adopt a “united front” – or at least, not a united front with Wikileaks. They have remained all but silent. They have ignored – apart from occasionally to ridicule – Assange’s terrifying ordeal, even though he has been locked up for many months in Belmarsh high-security prison awaiting efforts to extradite him as a spy. Assange’s very visible and prolonged physical and mental abuse – both in Belmarsh and, before that, in the Ecuadorian embassy, where he was given political asylum – have already served part of their purpose: to deter young journalists from contemplating following in his footsteps.

https://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/EVZlkjTXgAAIKKC.jpg

Even more astounding is the fact that the media have taken no more than a cursory interest in the events of the extradition hearing itself. What reporting there has been has given no sense of the gravity of the proceedings or the threat they pose to the public’s right to know what crimes are being committed in their name. Instead, serious, detailed coverage has been restricted to a handful of independent outlets and bloggers.

Most troubling of all, the media have not reported the fact that during the hearing lawyers for the US have abandoned the implausible premise of their main argument that Assange’s work did not constitute journalism. Now they appear to accept that Assange did indeed do journalism, and that other journalists could suffer his fate. What was once implicit has become explicit, as Assange warned: any journalist who exposes serious state crimes now risks the threat of being locked away for the rest of their lives under the draconian Espionage Act.



Jonathan Cook
@Jonathan_K_Cook
The BBC's Kuenssberg and ITV's Peston haven't mentioned Assange for years, even as his extradition hearing - our generation's Dreyfus Trial – is under way.

It should be proof, if more were needed, that these people aren't journalists, they are courtiers of the British state

FiveFilters.org ⏳
@fivefilters
Replying to @medialens @Peston and @bbclaurak
Twitter search shows last time BBC's politial editor Laura Kuenssberg @bbclaurak mentioned Assange was this tweet from 2014! https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/501288448540815361
7:23 AM · Sep 8, 2020
1K
683 people are Tweeting about this

This glaring indifference to the case and its outcome is extremely revealing about what we usually refer to as the “mainstream” media. In truth, there is nothing mainstream or popular about this kind of media. It is in reality a media elite, a corporate media, owned by and answerable to billionaire owners – or in the case of the BBC, ultimately to the state – whose interests it really serves.

The corporate media’s indifference to Assange’s trial hints at the fact that it is actually doing very little of the sort of journalism that threatens corporate and state interests and that challenges real power. It won’t suffer Assange’s fate because, as we shall see, it doesn’t attempt to do the kind of journalism Assange and his Wikileaks organisation specialise in.

The indifference suggests rather starkly that the primary role of the corporate media – aside from its roles in selling us advertising and keeping us pacified through entertainment and consumerism – is to serve as an arena in which rival centres of power within the establishment fight for their narrow interests, settling scores with each other, reinforcing narratives that benefit them, and spreading disinformation against their competitors. On this battlefield, the public are mostly spectators, with our interests only marginally affected by the outcome.
Gauntlet thrown down
The corporate media in the US and UK is no more diverse and pluralistic than the major corporate-funded political parties they identify with. This kind of media mirrors the same flaws as the Republican and Democratic parties in the US: they cheerlead consumption-based, globalised capitalism; they favour a policy of unsustainable, infinite growth on a finite planet; and they invariably support colonial, profit-driven, resource-grabbing wars, nowadays often dressed up as humanitarian intervention. The corporate media and the corporate political parties serve the interests of the same power establishment because they are equally embedded in that establishment.

(In this context, it was revealing that when Assange’s lawyers argued earlier this year that he could not be extradited to the US because extradition for political work is barred under its treaty with the UK, the US insisted that Assange be denied this defence. They argued that “political” referred narrowly to “party political” – that is, politics that served the interests of a recognised party.)

From the outset, the work of Assange and Wikileaks threatened to disrupt the cosy relationship between the media elite and the political elite. Assange threw down a gauntlet to journalists, especially those in the liberal parts of the media, who present themselves as fearless muckrakers and watchdogs on power.

Unlike the corporate media, Wikileaks doesn’t depend on access to those in power for its revelations, or on the subsidies of billionaires, or on income from corporate advertisers. Wikileaks receives secret documents direct from whistleblowers, giving the public an unvarnished, unmediated perspective on what the powerful are doing – and what they want us to think they are doing.

Wikileaks has allowed us to see raw, naked power before it puts on a suit and tie, slicks back its hair and conceals the knife.

But as much as this has been an empowering development for the general public, it is at best a very mixed blessing for the corporate media.


Hadley Freeman
@HadleyFreeman
Today’s column is a salute to Julian Assange, selflessly raising the bar on nightmare houseguest stories
I love stories of badly-behaved houseguests – and Julian Assange has raised the bar | Hadley Freeman
Surely no one is feeling any emotion as intensely as the happiness currently experienced by the staff, and especially the cleaners, at the Ecuador embassy
theguardian.com https://pbs.twimg.com/card_img/1306188936402939905/w1fzsul3?format=jpg&name=small
4:55 AM · Apr 20, 2019
219
232 people are Tweeting about this
In early 2010, the fledgling Wikileaks organisation received its first tranche of documents from US army whistleblower Chelsea Manning: hundreds of thousands of classified files exposing US crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan. Assange and “liberal” elements of the corporate media were briefly and uncomfortably thrown into each others’ arms.

On the one hand, Assange needed the manpower and expertise provided by big-hitting newspapers like the New York Times, the Guardian and Der Spiegel to help Wikileaks sift through vast trove to find important, hidden disclosures. He also needed the mass audiences those papers could secure for the revelations, as well as those outlets’ ability to set the news agenda in other media.

Liberal media, on the other hand, needed to court Assange and Wikileaks to avoid being left behind in the media war for big, Pulitzer Prize-winning stories, for audience share and for revenues. Each worried that, were it not to do a deal with Wikileaks, a rival would publish those world-shattering exclusives instead and erode its market share.

Gatekeeper role under threat
For a brief while, this mutual dependency just about worked. But only for a short time. In truth, the liberal corporate media is far from committed to a model of unmediated, whole-truth journalism. The Wikileaks model undermined the corporate media’s relationship to the power establishment and threatened its access. It introduced a tension and division between the functions of the political elite and the media elite.

Those intimate and self-serving ties are illustrated in the most famous example of corporate media working with a “whistleblower”: the use of a source, known as Deep Throat, who exposed the crimes of President Richard Nixon to Washington Post reporters Woodward and Bernstein back in the early 1970s, in what became known as Watergate. That source, it emerged much later, was actually the associate director of the FBI, Mark Felt.

DC3YFyah_Yg

Far from being driven to bring down Nixon out of principle, Felt wished to settle a score with the administration after he was passed over for promotion. Later, and quite separately, Felt was convicted of authorising his own Watergate-style crimes on behalf of the FBI. In the period before it was known that Felt had been Deep Throat, President Ronald Reagan pardoned him for those crimes. It is perhaps not surprising that this less than glorious context is never mentioned in the self-congratulatory coverage of Watergate by the corporate media.

But worse than the potential rupture between the media elite and the political elite, the Wikileaks model implied an imminent redundancy for the corporate media. In publishing Wikileaks’ revelations, the corporate media feared it was being reduced to the role of a platform – one that could be discarded later – for the publication of truths sourced elsewhere.

The undeclared role of the corporate media, dependent on corporate owners and corporate advertising, is to serve as gatekeeper, deciding which truths should be revealed in the “public interest”, and which whistleblowers will be allowed to disseminate which secrets in their possession. The Wikileaks model threatened to expose that gatekeeping role, and make clearer that the criterion used by corporate media for publication was less “public interest” than “corporate interest”.

In other words, from the start the relationship between Assange and “liberal” elements of the corporate media was fraught with instability and antagonism.

The corporate media had two possible responses to the promised Wikileaks revolution.

One was to get behind it. But that was not straightforward. As we have noted, Wikileaks’ goal of transparency was fundamentally at odds both with the corporate media’s need for access to members of the power elite and with its embedded role, representing one side in the “competition” between rival power centres.



suzanne moore
@suzanne_moore
I bet Assange is stuffing himself full of flattened guinea pigs. He really is the most massive turd.
5:28 PM · Jun 19, 2012
4
43 people are Tweeting about this

The corporate media’s other possible response was to get behind the political elite’s efforts to destroy Wikileaks. Once Wikileaks and Assange were disabled, there could be a return to media business as usual. Outlets would once again chase tidbits of information from the corridors of power, getting “exclusives” from the power centres they were allied with.

Put in simple terms, Fox News would continue to get self-serving exclusives against the Democratic party, and MSNBC would get self-serving exclusives against Trump and the Republican Party. That way, everyone would get a slice of editorial action and advertising revenue – and nothing significant would change. The power elite in its two flavours, Democrat and Republican, would continue to run the show unchallenged, switching chairs occasionally as elections required.

From dependency to hostility
Typifying the media’s fraught, early relationship with Assange and Wikileaks – sliding rapidly from initial dependency to outright hostility – was the Guardian. It was a major beneficiary of the Afghan and Iraq war diaries, but very quickly turned its guns on Assange. (Notably, the Guardian would also lead the attack in the UK on the former leader of the Labour party, Jeremy Corbyn, who was seen as threatening a “populist” political insurgency in parallel to Assange’s “populist” media insurgency.)


Marina Hyde
@MarinaHyde May 19, 2017
Assange possibly even the biggest arsehole in Knightsbridge. And what a field that is
11:52 AM · May 19, 2017
2.7K
760 people are Tweeting about this

Despite being widely viewed as a bastion of liberal-left journalism, the Guardian has been actively complicit in rationalising Assange’s confinement and abuse over the past decade and in trivialising the threat posed to him and the future of real journalism by Washington’s long-term efforts to permanently lock him away.

There is not enough space on this page to highlight all the appalling examples of the Guardian’s ridiculing of Assange (a few illustrative tweets scattered through this post will have to suffice) and disparaging of renowned experts in international law who have tried to focus attention on his arbitrary detention and torture. But the compilation of headlines in the tweet below conveys an impression of the antipathy the Guardian has long harboured for Assange, most of it – such as James Ball’s article – now exposed as journalistic malpractice.


Five Filters
The Guardian: Fake news and hostility toward Assange in 44 headlines. #DumpTheGuardian
The Guardian's war on Assange
The Guardian: fake news and hostility toward Assange in 44 headlines. Dump The Guardian!https://pbs.twimg.com/card_img/1306899821786169344/AiCUztiQ?format=jpg&name=small
theguardian.fivefilters.org

The Guardian’s failings have extended too to the current extradition hearings, which have stripped away years of media noise and character assassination to make plain why Assange has been deprived of his liberty for the past 10 years: because the US wants revenge on him for publishing evidence of its crimes and seeks to deter others from following in his footsteps.

In its pages, the Guardian has barely bothered to cover the case, running superficial, repackaged agency copy. This week it belatedly ran a solitary opinion piece from Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, Brazil’s former leftwing president, to mark the fact that many dozens of former world leaders have called on the UK to halt the extradition proceedings. They appear to appreciate the gravity of the case much more clearly than the Guardian and most other corporate media outlets.



Lawyers for Assange
@Lawyers4Assange
167 politicians, including past & present heads of state, back our appeal to UK government to bring an end to Julian Assange's extradition proceedings & grant him his long overdue freedom:

https://lawyersforassange.org/en/endorsements.html

We @Lawyers4Assange say the politico-legal show must not go on.
endorsements
lawyersforassange.org
6:31 PM · Sep 20, 2020
652
484 people are Tweeting about this

But among the Guardian’s own columnists, even its supposedly leftwing ones like Gorge Monbiot and Owen Jones, there has been blanket silence about the hearings. In familiar style, the only in-house commentary on the case so far is yet another snide hit-piece – this one in the fashion section written by Hadley Freeman. It simply ignores the terrifying developments for journalism taking place at the Old Bailey, close by the Guardian’s offices. Instead Freeman mocks the credible fears of Assange’s partner, Stella Moris, that, if Assange is extradited, his two young children may not be allowed contact with their father again.

Freeman’s goal, as has been typical of the Guardian’s modus operandi, is not to raise an issue of substance about what is happening to Assange but to score hollow points in a distracting culture war the paper has become so well-versed in monetising. In her piece, entitled “Ask Hadley: ‘Politicising’ and ‘weaponising’ are becoming rather convenient arguments”, Freeman exploits Assange and Moris’s suffering to advance her own convenient argument that the word “politicised” is much misused – especially, it seems, when criticising the Guardian for its treatment of Assange and Corbyn.

The paper could not make it any plainer. It dismisses the idea that it is a “political” act for the most militarised state on the planet to put on trial a journalist for publishing evidence of its systematic war crimes, with the aim of locking him up permanently.



Bean🔥
@SomersetBean
Shameful but not surprising. This is the sum total of the @guardian's "coverage" during Julian Assange's extradition hearing. Including a hit piece. #DumpTheGuardian #FreeAssange
9:18 PM · Sep 15, 2020
196
125 people are Tweeting about this

Password divulged
The Guardian may be largely ignoring the hearings, but the Old Bailey is far from ignoring the Guardian. The paper’s name has been cited over and over again in court by lawyers for the US. They have regularly quoted from a 2011 book on Assange by two Guardian reporters, David Leigh and Luke Harding, to bolster the Trump administration’s increasingly frantic arguments for extraditing Assange.

When Leigh worked with Assange, back in 2010, he was the Guardian’s investigations editor and, it should be noted, the brother-in-law of the then-editor, Alan Rusbridger. Harding, meanwhile, is a long-time reporter whose main talent appears to be churning out Guardian books at high speed that closely track the main concerns of the UK and US security services. In the interests of full disclosure, I should note that I had underwhelming experiences dealing with both of them during my years working at the Guardian.

Normally a newspaper would not hesitate to put on its front page reports of the most momentous trial of recent times, and especially one on which the future of journalism depends. That imperative would be all the stronger were its own reporters’ testimony likely to be critical in determining the outcome of the trial. For the Guardian, detailed and prominent reporting of, and commentary on, the Assange extradition hearings should be a double priority.

So how to explain the Guardian’s silence?

The book by Leigh and Harding, WikiLeaks: Inside Julian Assange’s War on Secrecy, made a lot of money for the Guardian and its authors by hurriedly cashing in on the early notoriety around Assange and Wikileaks. But the problem today is that the Guardian has precisely no interest in drawing attention to the book outside the confines of a repressive courtroom. Indeed, were the book to be subjected to any serious scrutiny, it might now look like an embarrassing, journalistic fraud.

The two authors used the book not only to vent their personal animosity towards Assange – in part because he refused to let them write his official biography – but also to divulge a complex password with which he had entrusted Leigh to an online cache of encrypted documents. That egregious mistake by the Guardian opened the door for every security service in the world to break into the file, as well as other files by cracking Assange’s sophisticated formula for devising passwords.

Much of the furore about Assange’s supposed failure to protect names in the leaked documents Assange published stems from Leigh’s much-obscured role in sabotaging Wikileaks’ work. Assange was forced into a damage limitation operation because of Leigh’s incompetence, forcing him to hurriedly publish files so that anyone worried they had been named in the documents could know before hostile security services identified them.



Jonathan Cook
@Jonathan_K_Cook
·
Sep 22, 2020
Computer expert at Assange hearing calls the Guardian's David Leigh 'a bad faith actor' over his publishing a Wikileaks password that opened the door to every security service in the world being able to access 250,000 encrypted cables
Your Man in the Public Gallery: Assange Hearing Day 14
Monday was a frustrating day as the Assange Hearing drifted deep into a fantasy land where nobody knows or is allowed to say that people were tortured in Guantanamo Bay and under extraordinary renditi
craigmurray.org.uk
Jonathan Cook
@Jonathan_K_Cook
The Guardian has sought for nearly a decade to obscure David Leigh's deeply irresponsible antics in publishing that critically important Wikileaks password.

It's another reason why the Guardian has barely covered the Assange hearings. It goes way beyond 'conflict of interest'
4:56 AM · Sep 22, 2020
241
155 people are Tweeting about this

This week at the Assange hearings, Professor Christian Grothoff, a computer expert at Berne University, noted that Leigh had recounted in his 2011 book how he pressured a reluctant Assange into giving him the password. In his testimony, Grothoff referred to Leigh as a “bad faith actor”.

‘Not a reliable source’
Nearly a decade ago Leigh and Harding could not have imagined what would be at stake all these years later – for Assange and for other journalists – because of an accusation in their book that the Wikileaks founder recklessly failed to redact names before publishing the Afghan and Iraq war diaries.

The basis of the accusation rests on Leigh’s highly contentious recollection of a discussion with three other journalists and Assange at a restaurant near the Guardian’s former offices in July 2010, shortly before publication of the Afghan revelations.

According to Leigh, during a conversation about the risks of publication to those who had worked with the US, Assange said: “They’re informants, they deserve to die.” Lawyers for the US have repeatedly cited this line as proof that Assange was indifferent to the fate of those identified in the documents and so did not expend care in redacting names. (Let us note, as an aside, that the US has failed to show that anyone was actually put in harm’s way from publication, and in the Manning trial a US official admitted that no one had been harmed.)

The problem is that Leigh’s recollection of the dinner has not been confirmed by anyone else, and is hotly disputed by another participant, John Goetz of Der Spiegel. He has sworn an affidavit saying Leigh is wrong. He gave testimony at the Old Bailey for the defence last week. Extraordinarily the judge, Vanessa Baraitser, refused to allow him to contest Leigh’s claim, even though lawyers for the US have repeatedly cited that claim.



Caitlin Johnstone ⏳
@caitoz
·
Sep 8
Statement from journalist John Goetz of Der Spiegel attesting that Assange never made the "they deserve it" comment he was accused of saying by The Guardian's David Leigh. Goetz was at the dinner Assange is alleged to have said it.https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EhY0E9_UMAAtzVc?format=png&name=small@MElmaazi
Replying to @MElmaazi
James Lewis QC:

Quotes from a book which said "Julian didn’t seem concerned" about revealing identities “Well they’re informants he said, so if they get killed they got it coming to them. They deserve it” Mr Assange is alledged to have said according to this book.
6:00 AM · Sep 8, 2020
169
129 people are Tweeting about this

Further, Goetz, as well as Nicky Hager, an investigative journalist from New Zealand, and Professor John Sloboda, of Iraq Body Count, all of whom worked with Wikileaks to redact names at different times, have testified that Assange was meticulous about the redaction process. Goetz admitted that he had been personally exasperated by the delays imposed by Assange to carry out redactions:

At that time, I remember being very, very irritated by the constant, unending reminders by Assange that we needed to be secure, that we needed to encrypt things, that we needed to use encrypted chats. … The amount of precautions around the safety of the material were enormous. I thought it was paranoid and crazy but it later became standard journalistic practice.

Prof Sloboda noted that, as Goetz had implied in his testimony, the pressure to cut corners on redaction came not from Assange but from Wikileaks’ “media partners”, who were desperate to get on with publication. One of the most prominent of those partners, of course, was the Guardian. According to the account of proceedings at the Old Bailey by former UK ambassador Craig Murray:

Goetz [of Der Spiegel] recalled an email from David Leigh of The Guardian stating that publication of some stories was delayed because of the amount of time WikiLeaks were devoting to the redaction process to get rid of the “bad stuff.”

When confronted by US counsel with Leigh’s claim in the book about the restaurant conversation, Hager observed witheringly: “I would not regard that [Leigh and Harding’s book] as a reliable source.” Under oath, he ascribed Leigh’s account of the events of that time to “animosity”.

Scoop exposed as fabrication
Harding is hardly a dispassionate observer either. His most recent “scoop” on Assange, published in the Guardian two years ago, has been exposed as an entirely fabricated smear. It claimed that Assange secretly met a Trump aide, Paul Manafort, and unnamed “Russians” while he was confined to the Ecuadorian embassy in 2016.

https://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/manafort.png

Harding’s transparent aim in making this false claim was to revive a so-called “Russiagate” smear suggesting that, in the run-up to the 2016 US presidential election, Assange conspired with the Trump camp and Russian president Vladimir Putin to help get Trump elected. These allegations proved pivotal in alienating Democrats who might otherwise have rallied to Assange’s side, and have helped forge bipartisan support for Trump’s current efforts to extradite Assange and jail him.

The now forgotten context for these claims was Wikileaks’ publication shortly before the election of a stash of internal Democratic party emails. They exposed corruption, including efforts by Democratic officials to sabotage the party’s primaries to undermine Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton’s rival for the party’s presidential nomination.

Those closest to the release of the emails have maintained that they were leaked by a Democratic party insider. But the Democratic leadership had a pressing need to deflect attention from what the emails revealed. Instead they actively sought to warm up a Cold War-style narrative that the emails had been hacked by Russia to foil the US democratic process and get Trump into power.

No evidence was ever produced for this allegation. Harding, however, was one of the leading proponents of the Russiagate narrative, producing another of his famously fast turnaround books on the subject, Collusion. The complete absence of any supporting evidence for Harding’s claims was exposed in dramatic fashion when he was questioned by journalist Aaron Mate.

9Ikf1uZli4g

Harding’s 2018 story about Manafort was meant to add another layer of confusing mischief to an already tawdry smear campaign. But problematically for Harding, the Ecuadorian embassy at the time of Manafort’s supposed visit was probably the most heavily surveilled building in London. The CIA, as we would later learn, had even illegally installed cameras inside Assange’s quarters to spy on him. There was no way that Manafort and various “Russians” could have visited Assange without leaving a trail of video evidence. And yet none exists. Rather than retract the story, the Guardian has gone to ground, simply refusing to engage with critics.

Most likely, either Harding or a source were fed the story by a security service in a further bid to damage Assange. Harding made not even the most cursory checks to ensure that his “exclusive” was true.

Unwilling to speak in court
Despite both Leigh and Harding’s dismal track record in their dealings with Assange, one might imagine that at this critical point – as Assange faces extradition and jail for doing journalism – the pair would want to have their voices heard directly in court rather than allow lawyers to speak for them or allow other journalists to suggest unchallenged that they are “unreliable” or “bad faith” actors.

Leigh could testify at the Old Bailey that he stands by his claims that Assange was indifferent to the dangers posed to informants; or he could concede that his recollection of events may have been mistaken; or clarify that, whatever Assange said at the infamous dinner, he did in fact work scrupulously to redact names – as other witnesses have testified.

Given the grave stakes, for Assange and journalism, that would be the only honourable thing for Leigh to do: to give his testimony and submit to cross-examination. Instead he shelters behind the US counsel’s interpretation of his words and Judge Baraitser’s refusal to allow anyone else to challenge it, as though Leigh brought his claim down from the mountain top.

The Guardian too, given it central role in the Assange saga, might have been expected to insist on appearing in court, or at the very least to be publishing editorials furiously defending Assange from the concerted legal assault on his rights and journalism’s future. The Guardian’s “star” leftwing columnists, figures like George Monbiot and Owen Jones, might similarly be expected to be rallying readers’ concerns, both in the paper’s pages and on their own social media accounts. Instead they have barely raised their voices above a whisper, as though fearful for their jobs.

These failings are not about the behaviour of any single journalist. They reflect a culture at the Guardian, and by extension in the wider corporate media, that abhors the kind of journalism Assange promoted: a journalism that is open, genuinely truth-seeking, non-aligned and collaborative rather competitive. The Guardian wants journalism as a closed club, one where journalists are once again treated as high priests by their flock of readers, who know only what the corporate media disclose to them.

Assange understood the problem back in 2011, as he explained in his interview with Mark Davis (38.00mins):

There is a point I want to make about perceived moral institutions, such as the Guardian and New York Times. The Guardian has good people in it. It also has a coterie of people at the top who have other interests. … What drives a paper like the Guardian or New York Times is not their inner moral values. It is simply that they have a market. In the UK, there is a market called “educated liberals”. Educated liberals want to buy a newspaper like the Guardian and therefore an institution arises to fulfil that market. … What is in the newspaper is not a reflection of the values of the people in that institution, it is a reflection of the market demand.

That market demand, in turn, is shaped not by moral values but by economic forces – forces that need a media elite, just as they do a political elite, to shore up an ideological worldview that keeps those elites in power. Assange threatened to bring that whole edifice crashing down. That is why the institutions of the Guardian and the New York Times will shed no more tears than Donald Trump and Joe Biden if Assange ends up spending the rest of his life behind bars."

[onawah]

Weekly Update --- The War on Assange is a War on Truth
3,772 views•Sep 22, 2020
RonPaulLibertyReport
247K subscribers

"Truth is treason in an empire of lies."
KaX5VtBch0E

[Tintin]

For personal (good) reasons I have simply been much much too busy to have kept up with Craig Murray's daily reporting but lest anyone need a reminder he works his socks off to produce these on his blog, here >> https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/. It takes me some quite considerably less time to reproduce them here than it does for him to labour diligently over, for all.

With a further thanks to onawah for sharing good quality related articles in the interim, and in particular Jonathan Cook's work.

https://twitter.com/StellaMoris1/status/1308688750512402432

1308688750512402432

[Billy]

Dear friend,

I’m Rebecca Vincent, RSF’s international campaigns director. It’s now Week 3 of Wikileaks publisher Julian Assange’s US extradition hearing at the Old Bailey in London.

Despite severe restrictions on observers, RSF is the only NGO that has gained access to the hearing, and we’ve managed to monitor proceedings on most days. We will continue to do so whenever possible. Yesterday I was in court to witness the powerful testimony of Professor Michael Kopelman, a neuropsychiatrist and the first medical expert to testify in this hearing.

Professor Kopelman’s testimony was strong and disturbing. He spoke of Julian Assange’s history of depression, his anxiety, his frequent suicidal thoughts, his auditory hallucinations, his PTSD, and his sleep disorder. He painted a clear picture of extreme vulnerability. According to Professor Kopelman, Assange experiences hundreds of suicidal thoughts per day. If extradited to the US, Professor Kopelman stated resolutely that Assange was likely to find a way to commit suicide. His extradition could be a matter of life or death.

This testimony added urgency to the humanitarian need for Assange’s release. RSF believes that Assange should be unconditionally released, the charges against him dropped, and his extradition to the US prevented. We will continue to monitor the ongoing proceedings, and to keep up our broader campaign to #FreeAssange!

SUPPORT RSF
Also connected to our campaign in support of Assange, RSF has become aware of a spambot attack on our website, primarily targeting our #FreeAssange petition. Tens of thousands of falsified signatures were simultaneously added to the call to #FreeAssange and other areas of the RSF website. The RSF team took immediate action to rectify the situation and secure the petition tool, and no data was compromised.

A large number of false signatures have been removed from the petition, but 82,000 are real and were verified prior to the spambot attack - in addition to nearly 7,000 more signatures on the German version of the petition. Now we need your help to replace the false signatures with even more real ones - and we have promised to attempt again to deliver all of the signatures to 10 Downing Street at the end of the extradition proceedings.

We will not be deterred by this online attack - quite the contrary. We are more determined than ever to secure Julian Assange’s release and stop his extradition.

Thank you for your help and continuous support!
--
REPORTERS WITHOUT BORDERS
Rebecca Vincent
Director of International Campaigns
SIGN THE #FREEASSANGE PETITION

https://rsf.org/en/free-assange

[onawah]

He Who Must Not Be Mentioned! (Moment of Clarity)
LEE CAMP
9/26/20
https://www.facebook.com/LeeCampComedian/?__tn__=%2CdkC-R&eid=ARA2llNEQBd9ko__D3C3VT1lAy0OnYqhVQ-ekAylGcKbkVrV1fPfjZgbujJ4mCGretlaP5o2n3QINLUf&hc_ref=ARQYhTAvKAN4F_GIVcaE6q4Sn0Q0-Eho9YhHWONbESPiJhiaBUIYTDhWXIjPv0M-Qj0

3486922114687557/
https://www.facebook.com/LeeCampComedian/videos/3486922114687557/
3486922114687557

[Billy]

More than 160 world leaders and diplomats call for UK to release Julian Assange

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/wikileaks-julian-assange-letter-uk-prison-leaders-b519304.html?fbclid=IwAR2_rW02UghcksLUCC8Gv6yGBuwoL7aj4fuvCa31yfk44O-WbE_8hjeH_2g

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange should be released from a UK prison and not be extradited to the US, according to more than 160 world leaders, politicians and diplomats.

The high-powered group gave their support to Assange in an open letter addressed to prime minister Boris Johnson and other government ministers.

Signatories of the letter, include the president of Argentina, Alberto Fernandez, and two former presidents of Brazil, Dilma Rousseff and Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva.

The letter was also signed by a string of US critics, including Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro, and former Ecuadorian leader Rafael Correa.

Mr Assange, 49, is fighting extradition to the US where he faces espionage charges over WikiLeaks release of confidential diplomatic cables in 2010 and 2011.

He could face a prison sentence of up to 175 years if convicted.

The letter was first written by the Lawyers for Assange group in August and the names of the politicians were released on Monday.

It contains a series of legal arguments about why Assange should not be extradited, including claims he would not receive a fair trial and “be exposed to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

“This demonstrates the growing opposition around the world to US efforts to extradite and prosecute Assange, and the political nature of this case,” Assange's lawyer, Jennifer Robinson, told NBC News.

Mr Assange was arrested at the Ecuadorian embassy in April 2019 having claims asylum there for seven years.

He was immediately arrested and sentenced to 50 weeks in prison for breaching the Bail Act and will remain in HM Prison Belmarsh until his extradition hearing is completed.

[Tintin]

Source: https://www.assangecountdowntofreedom.com/episodes/craig-murray

Craig Murray in conversation with Randy Credico

Episode 42: Craig Murray: Your Man In The Public Gallery



Continuing where we left off in February, Ex UK Diplomat, author and human rights activist Craig Murray summed up his daily unique, lively and colorful dispatches from the Assange extradition hearing public gallery—rife with sharp commentary and ironic analysis of the cruel and malicious prosecution of award winning journalist and publisher Julian Assange. In this exclusive fast paced one hour interview Murray provides a dazzling overview of 17 days of the Kafka show trial now underway at the notorious medieval Old Bailey. The FCO whistleblower Murray with his rapier like aim takes on the ongoing machinations , deceit and complicity of the UK legal system with the immoral and vengeful US DOJ.

Duration: 1:18:10

This can also be listened to and downloaded directly from here: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5e88730d6d955621fdc3cc43/t/5f70acca4278c74ee0dcf94f/1601219865637/Assange+Countdown+To+Freedom+%2342++Craig+Murray%2C+Your+Man+In+The+Public+Gallery.mp3/original/Assange+Countdown+To+Freedom+%2342++Craig+Murray%2C+Your+Man+In+The+Public+Gallery.mp3

And also now here in the Avalon Library: http://avalonlibrary.net/Julian_Assange_and_Wikileaks/MURRAY%2C%20Craig%20%28Former%20UK%20ambassador%29/Assange%2BCountdown%2BTo%2BFreedom%2B%2342%2B%2BCraig%2BMurray%2C%2BYour%2BMan%2BIn%2BThe%2BPublic%2 BGallery_%28Randy_Credico%29.mp3

The audio drops occasionally but not sufficiently enough to disrupt the flow.

[onawah]

LETTER FROM LONDON: The Surreal US Case Against Assange
September 28, 2020
By Alexander Mercouris
https://consortiumnews.com/2020/09/28/letter-from-london-the-surreal-us-case-against-assange/

"The fox is guarding the henhouse and Washington is prosecuting a publisher for exposing its own war crimes. Alexander Mercouris diagnoses the incoherence of the U.S. case for extradition."

https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Screen-Shot-2020-09-28-at-2.27.12-PM-1000x553.png
Julian Assange’s father John Shipton outside the court where his son is on trial in London, September 2020.

"Following the Julian Assange case as it has progressed through its various stages, from the original Swedish allegations right up to and including the extradition hearing which is currently underway in the Central Criminal Court in London, has been a troubling and very strange experience.

The U.S. government has failed to present a coherent case.

Conscious that the British authorities should in theory refuse to extradite Assange if the case against him were shown to be politically motivated and/or related to Assange’s legitimate work as a journalist, the U.S. government has struggled to present a case against Assange which is not too obviously politically motivated or related to Assange’s legitimate work as a journalist.

This explains the strange succession of one original and two superseding indictments.

The U.S. government’s first indictment was based on what was a supposedly simple allegation of computer interference, supposedly coordinated in some sort of conspiracy between Assange and Chelsea Manning.

This was obviously done in an attempt to dispel the idea that the request for Assange’s extradition was politically motivated or was related to Assange’s legitimate work as a journalist.

However lawyers in the United States had no difficulty pointing out the “inchoate facts” of the alleged conspiracy between Assange and Manning, whilst both lawyers and journalists in the United States and elsewhere pointed out that the facts in the indictment in fact bore all the hallmarks of action by a journalist to protect a source.The result was that the U.S. government replaced its indictment with a first superseding indictment, which this time was founded largely on the 1917 Espionage Act, and was therefore closer to the real reasons why the case against Assange was being brought.

However, that made the case look altogether too obviously politically motivated, so it has in turn been replaced by a second superseding indictment, presented to the court and the defence team virtually on the eve of the trial, which has sought to veer back towards strictly criminal allegations, this time of involvement in computer hacking.

More Problems for Another Indictment

The allegations in the second superseding indictment have however faced major difficulties, in that they do not seem to concern the United States and may not even be actual crimes. Also they rely heavily on the evidence of a known fraudster, whose “evidence” is inherently unreliable.

The U.S. government has failed to make clear whether the additional allegations in the second superseding indictment are intended to constitute a separate standalone case. Initially they appeared to deny that they did; then they hinted that they might do; now however they seem to be acting as if they don’t.

As if that were not confusing enough, the U.S. government and its British lawyers have floated confusing and contradictory theories about whether or not the British authorities can extradite Assange even if the case against him is politically motivated, and even if it is related to his journalistic activities.

Initially they seemed to be arguing that — contrary to all British precedent and the actual text of the extradition treaty between the U.S. and Britain — Britain can in fact extradite Assange to the U.S. on a politically motivated charge, because the enabling Act which the British Parliament passed, which made the extradition treaty between the U.S. and Britain a part of British law, is silent on whether or not individuals can be extradited to the U.S. on a politically motivated charge.

This argument of course came close to conceding that the case against Assange is politically motivated after all.
This threadbare argument, at least for the moment, seems to have been abandoned. At least nothing has been heard of it throughout the current hearing. Instead the U.S. government and its British lawyers have argued, in the face of the incredulity of a string of expert and factual witnesses, that the case is not politically motivated after all.

The same inconsistencies have beset the U.S. government’s arguments as to whether or not Assange is being charged under the Espionage Act for activities related to his work as a journalist.

Initially the U.S. government’s position was that he was not. This was based on some theory — never satisfactorily explained or articulated — that Assange in some way is not a journalist, even though he is charged with doing things that journalists do.

Faced by a barrage of expert witnesses who pointed out that the charges brought against Assange under the Espionage Act do in fact relate to work journalists do, the U.S. government midway through the hearing reversed course.

Now it says that the charges against Assange not only do relate to his work as a journalist, but that they can be brought against any journalist who does the things Assange is being charged with having done. The U.S. government has even argued that The New York Times would have been successfully prosecuted under the Espionage Act for publishing the Pentagon Papers, because that was an action essentially identical to the ones for which Assange is being charged.

The implications for journalists of this astonishing reversal are truly shocking. It is staggering that in the media it has attracted no attention.

Trouble with Witnesses

The U.S. government has shown the same lack of coherence in its response to the defence’s impressive lineup of expert witnesses.

The conventional way of responding to an expert is to call another expert to state a contrary view. On the critical issues of U.S. law, especially the protections provided to journalists by the First Amendment to the Constitution, as well as on the politics in the U.S. behind the Assange prosecution, the U.S. government has however done no such thing. Presumably it has found it difficult or impossible to find experts who can be relied upon credibly to state a contrary view.

Instead, armed only with affidavits from U.S. Justice Department officials, who are of course not impartial experts at all, but who are part of the U.S. government’s legal team, the U.S. government’s British lawyers have been left to argue that the defence’s experts are not really experts at all — an impossible argument to make convincingly in my opinion — and to debate with the experts points of U.S. politics and U.S. law — including difficult points of U.S. constitutional and case law — about which the experts are by definition far more knowledgeable than the British lawyers.

The result, inevitably, has been a series of humiliations, as the lawyers have been repeatedly caught out by the experts making basic errors of fact and interpretation about the points which they have sought to argue.

Unsurprisingly, the lawyers have attempted to make up for this by trying to intimidate and denigrate the experts, in a way that has only highlighted their own lack of expertise in the relevant areas by comparison with that of the experts.

Given the collapse into incoherence of the U.S. government’s case, it is unsurprising that the U.S. government’s British lawyers are now reportedly trying to persuade the Judge against hearing closing arguments.

Given the constant shifts and reversals in the U.S. government’s position, preparing and presenting a closing argument to the court which would be internally consistent and credible must be fast becoming a nightmare. If closing arguments do take place, as I still expect, it will be interesting to see which of the many conflicting arguments and theories they have made the U.S. government’s lawyers finally run with.

On its face the U.S. government’s case ought to be close to collapse. There was even a point in the hearing where one of the U.S. government’s British lawyers apparently admitted to the judge that the reason for the second superseding indictment was that the first superseding indictment was “failing.”

If so, then given that the charges being prosecuted against Assange are still basically those set out in the first superseding indictment, the case against Assange ought to be dismissed, and the U.S. government’s request for his extradition ought to be refused.

The Underlying Truth

It remains to be seen whether that is what actually happens. However, that brings me to the single most important fact, and the underlying truth, about this extraordinary case.

It is very easy when following the intricacies of such a complex legal process to lose sight of what this case is really about.

Ultimately the U.S. government is not pursuing Julian Assange because he helped Chelsea Manning take certain steps with a computer to conceal her identity, or because he had some historic contacts with hackers, or because he became involved in some activities in Iceland, which caused him to fall foul of a fraudster (and FBI informant).

Nor is it because Assange received and published classified material. In the U.S. the receipt and publication by the news media of classified material has grown to almost industrial levels.

It is because Assange, to a greater extent than any other journalist since the end of the war in Vietnam, has exposed the darkest and most terrible secrets of the U.S. government.



John Pilger
@johnpilger
Outside the court where his son endures what the judge now admits is a political trial, Julian #Assange's father, John Shipton, describes the human carnage caused by America and utters an unforgettable truth: "Julian didn't do anything, they did."

Don't Extradite Assange
@DEAcampaign
WATCH: John Shipton 'Julian didn't do anything, they did'
TWEET]1309502641202962434[/TWEET]
https://twitter.com/i/status/1309502641202962434
https://twitter.com/i/status/1309502641202962434
3:38 AM · Sep 26, 2020
4.9K
3.2K people are Tweeting about this
The case against Assange has its origin in the calamitous “War on Terror” launched by the Bush administration in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks.

That “war” provided the cover for a series of violent military aggressions, primarily in the Middle East, by the U.S. and its closest allies, first and foremost Britain but also including other countries such as Saudi Arabia and France.

The result has been a series of wars in a succession of Middle East countries — Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yemen— fought by the U.S. and its allies and proxies, which have caused the devastation of whole societies, and the death and dispersal of millions.

In the process the U.S. has become drawn increasingly into practices which it once condemned, or at least said it condemned. These include the “extrajudicial killing” (i.e. murder) of people — who have included children and U.S. citizens — by drone strikes, a practice which has now become routine; the kidnapping of individuals and their detention without trial in places like Guantanamo, a practice which despite unconvincing protestations that “extraordinary rendition” no longer happens almost certainly continues; and the practice of torture, at one time referred to as “enhanced interrogation techniques,” which almost certainly still continues, and indeed appears to have become normalized.

All of this activity straightforwardly violates international (and domestic U.S.) law, including war crimes law and human rights law, and does so moreover in fundamental ways.

It also requires, in order to implement the policies that result in these unlawful acts, in the creation of a vast and ultimately unaccountable national security apparatus of a sort that is ultimately incompatible with a democratic society. Inevitably its activities, which have become routinely unlawful, are becoming unlawful within the territory of the United States, as well as outside it.

This manifests itself in all sorts of ways, for example through the vast, indiscriminate and illegal bulk-surveillance program exposed by the whistleblower Edward Snowden, and by the systemic FISA surveillance abuse exposed over the course of the Russiagate “scandal.”

The extent to which the very existence of the national security apparatus, required to implement various U.S. illegal activities and to achieve its foreign policy goals, has become incompatible with a democratic society, is shown by one of the most alarming of recent developments, both in Britain and in the United States.

This is the growing complicity of much of the media in concealing its illegal activities. Obviously without that complicity these activities would be impossible, as would the serial violations of international law, including war crimes law and human rights, which the United States and some of its allies now routinely engage in.



Joe Lauria
@unjoe
US post-war aggressive history of coups and invasions for geo-strategic & economic interests has been covered up by the establishment media, explained as 'spreading democracy', and Julian Assange, almost single-handedly, lifted that cover. Hence he is in the dock.
9:48 AM · Sep 20, 2020
41
34 people are Tweeting about this
All this explains the extreme reaction to Julian Assange, and the determined attempts to destroy him, and to pulp his reputation.

Julian Assange and his organization WikiLeaks, have done those things which the U.S. government and its national security apparatus most fear, and have worked hardest to prevent, by exposing the terrible reality of much of what the U.S. government now routinely does, and is determined to conceal, and what much of the media is helping the U.S. government to conceal.

Thus in a series of astonishing revelations Julian Assange and WikiLeaks have exposed in the so-called embassy cables the extraordinarily manipulative conduct of U.S. foreign policy; in the Vault 7 disclosures the instruments the CIA uses in order to — as U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has said, “lie” and “cheat” — and, most disturbingly, in collaboration with Chelsea Manning, the rampant war crimes and egregious human rights abuses carried out by the U.S. military during the illegal war and occupation of Iraq.

This is an extraordinary record for a journalist, and for an organization, WikiLeaks, which was only set up in 2006.

Not surprisingly, the result has been that the pursuit of Assange by the U.S. government has been relentless, whilst the media, much of which has been complicit in covering up its crimes, has preferred to look the other way.

Hence, the Surreal Quality

It is this underlying reality which gives the whole case currently unfolding in London’s Central Criminal Court its surreal quality.

That the true purpose of the U.S. government’s relentless pursuit of Assange is to prevent him from exposing more of its crimes, and to punish him for exposing those of its crimes which he did expose, if only so as to deter others from doing the same thing, is perfectly obvious to any unbiased and realistic observer. However, the hearing in London is being conducted as if this were not the case.

Thus, the extraordinary zigzags in the U.S. government’s rationale for bringing the case, as it cannot admit the true reason why the case has been actually brought.

Thus, also the U.S. government’s strenuous efforts throughout the hearing to prevent evidence being produced of its crimes which Assange exposed.

The U.S. government has strenuously opposed all attempts to introduce as evidence the appalling “Collateral Murder” video, which shows the deliberate murder of civilians in Iraq by members of the U.S. military. It has also strenuously opposed the introduction of evidence from a defence witness about his own torture. This despite the fact that in both cases the fact of the U.S. crimes is scarcely disputed, and has in fact been all but admitted.

HfvFpT-iypw

The result is the paradoxical and bizarre situation whereby the U.S. authorities try to cobble together a case against Assange based on a confusing medley of discordant and conflicting claims and facts, whilst failing to prosecute or hold to account those who were responsible for the very serious crimes which he has exposed.

In fact, as the U.S. government’s case has unraveled, the argument has become increasingly confined to the discrete issue of whether — by exposing the U.S. government’s crimes —Assange “irresponsibly” put the safety of various U.S. government informants at risk.

As it happens the evidence is clearly that he did not. Over the course of the hearing the court has heard of Assange’s many and serious attempts to conceal the identities of these informants, and of the reckless and even possibly malicious actions of certain others, who actually exposed them.

The court has also been told of the absence of any evidence that any one of these informants has in fact been harmed by any disclosure by WikiLeaks or Assange. Moreover, an expert witness has argued convincingly that the disclosure by a journalist of the identities of such informants would not under U.S. law be a crime anyway.

In response the U.S. government’s lawyers have relied heavily, not on the evidence of any actual witness, but on passages in a book by two Guardian journalists who are known to be hostile to Assange, and who — by publishing a password — seem to have done more to compromise the identities of the informants than Assange ever did.

https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/WikiLeaks_Inside_Julian_Assanges_War_on_Secrecy.jpg

Neither of these journalists has been called to give evidence on oath about the contents of their book. Doing so would, of course, have exposed them to cross-examination by the defence about the truth of the book’s contents. Given the weight the U.S. government is apparently placing on the book, I find it astonishing that they were not called.

The surreal quality of the U.S. government’s treatment of this issue is shown by the fact that when an actual witness — the German journalist John Goetz — did in fact come forward and offer to give evidence on oath about a specific allegation in the book — refuting an allegation in the book that Assange supposedly made comments at a dinner, which Goetz attended, that showed a reckless disregard for the safety of the informants — the U.S. government’s lawyers strenuously objected, and were able to get the judge to exclude this evidence.

However, it is the staggering disproportion between the scale of the crimes Assange has exposed, and the crimes of which he is accused — if they are even crimes, and of which he anyway appears to be innocent — which for me stands out.

Assange and WikiLeaks have exposed rampant war crimes and human rights abuses over the course of illegal wars waged by the U.S. government and its allies. The death toll from these wars runs at the very least into the tens of thousands, and more plausibly into the hundreds of thousands or even millions.

By contrast over the course of the entire hearing no evidence whatsoever has been produced that as a result of any of Assange’s actions anyone has come to any actual physical harm.

Yet it is Assange who is in the dock, facing demands for his extradition to the United States, where a 175-year sentence may await him, whilst the persons responsible for the colossal crimes he has exposed, not only walk free, but are amongst those who are trying to jail him.

The point was made forcefully during the hearing by one of the defence’s most powerful witnesses, Daniel Ellsberg.

It was also made forcefully to Consortium News by one of its readers, who has correctly pointed out that the crimes which Assange exposed were clearly defined as war crimes by the Nuremberg Tribunal, whose decisions are universally accepted as forming the bedrock of international war crimes law.

The Nuremberg Tribunal moreover made it clear that there is not only a positive duty to refuse to participate in such crimes, even when ordered to do so, but that no sanctions should ever been imposed for exposing such crimes when they occur.

In other words, it is Assange and his sources, first and foremost Chelsea Manning, who are the defenders of international law, including the Nuremberg Principles, and including in the case which is currently underway, whilst it is those who persecute them, including by bringing the current case against Assange, who are international law’s violators.

This is the single most important fact about this case, and it explains everything about it.

Assange and Manning have paid an enormous price for their defence of international law, and for the principles of basic human decency and humanity.

Manning was recently held in long spells of solitary detention, and has had her savings confiscated by the U.S. authorities, for no reason other than that she has refused to testify against Assange.

Assange has been subjected to what various UN agencies have characterized as long periods of arbitrary detention and psychological torture.

He continues to be denied bail, despite his known health problems, and is separated from his family.

He continues to have difficulties consulting privately with his lawyers, and has been exposed to the indignity — qualified in other cases by the European Court for Human Rights as a human rights violation — of being kept inside court rooms confined to a glass box or cage.

John Pilger has described vividly and in great detail, including to Consortium News, the inhuman conditions to which Assange is daily exposed to. That these amount to human rights violations ought not to require discussion or explanation.

International Conventions

That these human rights violations breach a host of international conventions to which Britain is a signatory, including against torture and arbitrary detention, in respect of the right to a fair trial, in respect of the right to privacy and dignity of the person, and of the right to a family life, also ought not to require discussion or explanation.

Recently there has been an outcry in Britain because legislation the British government is proposing, which would allow it to modify unilaterally the terms of the Withdrawal Agreement it agreed last year with the European Union, breaches international law.

Without in any way disputing the importance of this issue, which may have important consequences for peace in Ireland, I find the angry protestations of some British journalists and politicians, that Britain never violates international law, frankly unreal.

If they want examples of Britain violating international law they need look no further than the facts of Assange’s case. They might also benefit from looking at what has been said over the course of the ongoing hearing in the Central Criminal Court.

Despite all the difficulties, there is however no reason to give up hope.The extraordinary zigzags the U.S. government has been forced to make as it tries and fails to put a coherent and convincing case against Julian Assange together, show that the law, for all its many flaws, remains an important defence.

I am aware of the many criticisms which have been made of Vanessa Baraitser, the judge who is hearing Assange’s case. I don’t disagree with any of them.

However, I do get the impression that Baraitser’s patience has been sorely tried by the U.S. government’s repeated and dizzying changes of position. I also get the impression that she was particularly annoyed when the U.S. government, on the virtual eve of the hearing, presented to the court and the defence its second superseding indictment, which in effect made a nonsense of the first.

That may explain why the U.S. government’s British lawyers have largely conducted the case as if the second superseding indictment did not exist, basing their arguments mostly on what the first superseding indictment says, though perhaps unsurprisingly, and to the bafflement of the experts, they are now increasingly making arguments which have no basis in any indictment.

Moreover, and perhaps more importantly, Baraitser has rejected the U.S. government’s various attempts to exclude en masse the evidence of defence witnesses, even if she has imposed a 30-minute guillotine on their examination in chief (direct examination) by defence lawyers.

In summary, and in my opinion, there is still a chance, however small, that Baraitser will decide the case in Assange’s favour.

If she does not do so, then I would have thought, based on what has happened over the course of the hearing, that Assange will have good prospects on appeal.

More encouraging than what has been happening inside the court, where the outcome remains very much in doubt, and where the prospects must be considered problematic to say the least, is what has been happening outside.

My wife, who attended one of the hearings last week, saw placards held up by some of Assange’s supporters outside the court, which called on road users to honk their horns in support of Assange. To her delighted astonishment, despite the media blackout which surrounds the case, and despite the long campaign of character assassination to which Assange has been subjected, an extraordinarily high proportion of road users (more than a quarter) did so.

That reinforces my sense that the tide of opinion, at least in Britain, is shifting. The battle is far from over, and can still be won.

Alexander Mercouris is a political commentator and editor of The Duran.

The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of Consortium News."

[onawah]

Exclusive: Spanish judge seeks Sheldon Adelson security chief in Assange spying case
MAX BLUMENTHAL·JULIAN ASSANGE·
SEPTEMBER 29, 2020
https://thegrayzone.com/2020/09/29/spanish-judge-sheldon-adelson-assange-spying/?fbclid=IwAR1zTtl9XvYuvICbMDS0er_iQ-CYfgIWXpTTvir45maSd31pI4V4DhdrbuQ

"A Spanish judge’s request to probe a Las Vegas Sands staffer’s apparent role in a criminal spying operation against Julian Assange indicates the investigation is homing in on US intelligence. Tellingly, the Department of Justice is stonewalling the application.

By Max Blumenthal

"The Spanish judge presiding over the trial of a security firm owner apparently hired to spy on jailed Wikileaks publisher Julian Assange has sent a request to the US Department of Justice for an interview with Zohar Lahav, the Israeli-American vice president for executive protection at Las Vegas Sands.

Sands is owned by the ultra-Zionist casino tycoon Sheldon Adelson, one of the single largest donors to Donald Trump’s presidential campaigns and the Republican Party.

According to court documents reviewed by The Grayzone, the judge seeks to probe Lahav’s relationship with disgraced UC Global CEO David Morales, who was indicted for an array of crimes after allegedly presiding over a spying operation targeting Assange while he was confined within Ecuador’s embassy in London.

This request follows a previous attempt at securing witness interviews that was effectively blocked by the US Department of Justice.

The judge outlined four objectives for the interview with Lahav:

Determine Lahav’s relationship with Morales
Determine the occasions when Morales and Lahav met in the United States and Spain
Determine if Lahav had communications and meetings with Morales regarding the alleged illegally obtained information under investigation
Determine if Lahav or his superiors in Las Vegas Sands, Sheldon Adelson and Brian Nagel, had access to the alleged illegally obtained information under investigation.
The judge’s interest in Nagel indicates that the Spanish investigation is now probing the suspected role of US intelligence as the guiding hand behind UC Global’s criminal spying operation.
Before he was hired as Adelson’s director of global security, Nagel serving as the top cyber-crime investigator for the US Secret Service – a role which earned him a medal of commendation from the CIA. Together with Lahav, he was likely to have played a central role in coordinating between Sands, UC Global, and US intelligence.

Morales has fervently denied being a double agent, maintaining that UC Global was contracted exclusively by the Ecuadorian security service known as SENAIN to protect Assange while he was trapped in Ecuador’s embassy in London.

Fernando Garcia, the lawyer defending Morales in the Spanish case, insisted to The Grayzone in a garbled email, “David Morales never spied [on] anybody, never sent any legal information [to] anybody but helped Assange [stay] safe and comfortable [in the] Ecuador Embassy with NO[T] ONE incident under their protection.”

But as The Grayzone first reported in May, witnesses in the Spanish case testified that Lahav recruited UC Global’s Morales when the Spanish mercenary visited a security fair hosted at Adelson’s Las Vegas Sands Convention Center. The two became fast friends, with Lahav communicating constantly with Morales as the operation escalated from snooping to theft, fraud, and assassination plots, according to testimony by several witnesses.

Emails obtained by the Spanish court and reviewed by The Grayzone contained IP addresses revealing that Morales sent spying instructions to his employees while he was staying at Adelson’s Venetian Hotel in Las Vegas.

The Grayzone has now learned that Lahav and Morales have been identified together in at least one US-allied South American country since the operation at the embassy ended. Further, a Spanish police document seen by this reporter placed Morales on Adelson’s Queen Miri luxury yacht in July 2019.

Private communications by Morales and testimony by his former employees strongly suggested that Adelson’s Sands was functioning as a front for the CIA.

According to a former UC Global business partner, Morales boasted that he was “working for the dark side” after returning from his first trip to Las Vegas and explicitly stated he had been contracted by US intelligence, describing the CIA alternately as his “American friends” and “the American client.”

In a text message obtained by The Grayzone, Morales told an employee that his company had been hired to spy on Assange by “the agency of the stars and stripes.”

By seeking an interview with Lahav and information about Nagel, the Spanish judge presiding over the criminal trial of Morales is effectively investigating the role of Adelson’s security team as a channel between the CIA and UC Global.

American cooperation with the Spanish judge’s request for a US-based witness is mandated under the 2004 US-Spain Mutual Legal Assistance Instrument.

However, in an email reviewed by The Grayzone, DOJ trial attorney Susan Park Hunter attempted to stall the investigation with vague and frivolous requests for “additional information,” including the “factual basis to suspect [David] Morales Guillen of bribery and money laundering.”

Hunter’s language indicates that the US government recognizes the gravity of the judge’s request, and given the consequence of allowing a figure like Lahav to testify, has resolved to do whatever is necessary to avoid compliance.

The CIA’s men in Vegas?
Proof of UC Global’s spying campaign and evidence of the firm’s relationship with the CIA emerged following the September 2019 arrest of David Morales. Spanish police had initiated a secret investigation called “Operation Tabanco” under a criminal case managed by the same Madrid-based National Court that presided over the arrest of former Chilean military dictator Augusto Pinochet in 1998.

Morales was charged in October 2019 by the Spanish court with violating the privacy of Julian Assange and abusing his attorney-client privileges, as well as money laundering and bribery. A former Spanish special forces officer turned mercenary, Morales was also accused of illegal weapons possession when police found two guns with the serial numbers filed off on his property.

Documents and testimony revealed in the Spanish court have exposed shocking details of UC Global’s campaign against Assange, his lawyers, friends, and even American journalists. Evidence of crimes ranging from spying to robberies to kidnapping and even a proposed plot to eliminate Assange by poisoning has emerged from the ongoing legal proceedings.

Several former UC Global employees stated in court this August that Morales explicitly proposed killing Assange with poison. One former staffer testified that Morales devised the extreme measures after being informed that “the Americans were desperate” to end Assange’s presence in the embassy.

Perhaps the most striking element exposed in the Spanish courtroom has been the apparent relationship between UC Global, Adelson’s Las Vegas Sands, and Mike Pompeo’s CIA.

In a previous report, The Grayzone detailed how the Las Vegas Sands corporation of Trump mega-donor Sheldon Adelson seemingly operated as a liaison between UC Global and US intelligence, contracting the former on behalf of the latter.

It was the second time Adelson’s company had been identified as a CIA asset. The first was in 2010, when a private intelligence report sponsored by the gambling industry alleged that an Adelson-owned casino in Macau was capturing footage of Chinese officials blowing huge sums of money at card tables and feeding it back to US intelligence so those officials could be blackmailed into serving as CIA informants.
https://i0.wp.com/thegrayzone.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Nagel.png?w=511&ssl=1

One of just a few publicly available photos of Las Vegas Sands Director of Global Security Brian Nagel, taking during congressional testimony in 2007
Throughout this period, Adelson’s Las Vegas Sands employed Brian Nagel as its director of global security. Nagel earned his stripes through nearly two decades at the US Secret Service, helping the agency set up an array of anti-cybercrime partnerships with the FBI, Los Angeles Police Department, and Department of Homeland Security.

To take down cyber-thieves, Nagel reportedly employed wiretaps, used undercover informants, and oversaw an initiative to “turn the tables on criminal groups” by empowering law enforcement to use “the same technologies” hackers and cyber-criminals typically employed.

His efforts ultimately earned him the CIA’s Intelligence Community Seal Medallion, an award given to non-CIA personnel “who have made significant contributions to the Agency’s intelligence efforts.”

Nagel was mentioned in the Global Intelligence Files published by Wikileaks, which consist of thousands of internal communications by employees of Stratfor, a US-based intelligence firm known as the “Shadow CIA.” In an October 2009 email, a Stratfor analyst detailed Nagel’s offer of a contract for Stratfor to conduct “proactive monitoring” of security threats against Las Vegas Sands casinos around the globe.

In December 2017, UC Global’s David Morales made one of several trips to Adelson’s Venetian hotel in Las Vegas. From there, he sent instructions to employees on setting up a secret surveillance channel from the Ecuadorian embassy in London that could be fed back to another party without Ecuador’s security services noticing.

“David Morales obviously didn’t have the technical knowledge,” a former UC Global IT specialist who received the instructions testified, “so the document must have been sent by another person. Because it was in English, I suspect that it could’ve been [created by] US intelligence.”

The Spanish-speaking Morales told his employees at the time, “these people have given me the following instructions, drafted in English.”

Which employee of Las Vegas Sands had the technical expertise in electronic surveillance to conceive the instructions? And who boasted years of coordination with US intelligence and federal law enforcement, developing the very tools that would have been deployed against Wikileaks when it first came online? All evidence pointed to Nagel.

Now, a Spanish judge seeks to probe Nagel’s involvement in the illegal spying ring run by UC Global. But first, the judge has to secure an interview with Lahav, who was Nagel’s colleague at Las Vegas Sands and, by all indications, the personal handler of Morales.

https://i2.wp.com/thegrayzone.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Morales-Vegas.png?w=638&ssl=1
UC Global CEO David Morales (left) at a 2016 security fair in Las Vegas

Business in Bolsonaro’s Brazil, cruising on the Queen Miri
The relationship between David Morales and Sheldon Adelson’s security team began during a trip the Spanish mercenary took to Las Vegas in 2016, according to testimony by former UC Global employees. At a security fair hosted inside Adelson’s Sands Expo Convention Center, Morales was approached by Zohar Lahav, the VP of the billionaire’s executive protection team.

A former UC Global business partner testified against Morales in Spanish court, “the head of security of Las Vegas Sands, a Jewish guy named Zohar Lahav, made contact with Mr. Morales, getting to become good friends with him at the security fair in Las Vegas. I sense that this person offered him to collaborate with American intelligence authorities to send information about Mr. Assange.”

https://i1.wp.com/thegrayzone.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Lahav-recommendation-1.png?w=1067&ssl=1
A recommendation letter written by Zohar Lahav on official Sands letterhead for his friend, UC Global CEO David Morales

Morales and Lahav formed a close friendship that has outlasted UC Global’s contract to spy on Assange inside the embassy. According to a witness in the Spanish case, the two pals took a business trip to Brazil in 2018.

Fernando Garcia, the lawyer of Morales, told The Grayzone his client has “decided to stop talking about any travel because no journalist has published his version of facts.”
However, Garcia confirmed that “UC Global has clients in Mexico, Colombia, Brazil and other countries in South America.” He would not deny that Morales traveled to Brazil for work.
In 2018, when Morales allegedly traveled to Brazil with Lahav, the country was governed by President Jair Bolsonaro, a right-wing ally of the US. During his first US trip in March 2019, Bolsonaro made a special visit to CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia.
Adelson has lobbied hard for a relaxation of Brazilian laws forbidding casino gambling in the country. This January, he experienced a breakthrough when the president’s son, Senator Flavio Bolsonaro, traveled to Las Vegas for a meeting with the Sands tycoon to discuss a proposal to allow casinos inside Brazilian resorts. (Flavio Bolsonaro was indicted by Brazilian police this September for embezzlement, money laundering, and operating a criminal organization.)

https://i2.wp.com/thegrayzone.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Brazil-Adelson.jpg?w=768&ssl=1
Flavio Bolsonaro’s letter announcing a meeting with Sheldon Adelson to discuss “investments for the installation of new resorts in our country”

Morales, for his part, appeared to have maintained his working relationship with Adelson and Lahav up until the point that he was arrested in September 2019. Notes by Spanish police agents surveilling Morales as part of the “Operation Tabanco” investigation indicate his presence on Adelson’s yacht, the Queen Miri, while it was docked on the Spanish island of Ibiza.

“I’m busy now with a client that always comes in summer,” Morales told a friend, referring to Adelson, “and we have a lot of activity going on in August with this yacht thing. I’m now at Ibiza, like, I’ve been a couple of weeks, been to Palermo, Saint Tropéz, Mónaco, and now we’ve arrived to Ibiza and I’m staying here with these people until the 5th.”

Morales continued by complaining about “these messes at the [Ecuadorian] embassy,” and commented, “I’m fed up with the company, I’m going to send it all to hell.”

The conversation was recorded on July 29, 2019 by Spanish police, according to a document reviewed by The Grayzone. Less than three months later, Morales was arrested by those investigators.
https://i0.wp.com/thegrayzone.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/pjimage.jpg?resize=1200%2C675&ssl=1
L) Loren Slocum Lahav with her husband, Sands VP for executive protection Zohar Lahav. It is the only publicly available photo of the security professional. (R) Slocum Lahav with longtime business partner Tony Robbins.

Family ties to Trump Inc.’s favorite self-help guru
Zohar Lahav’s status as director of executive protection for Adelson, perhaps the largest individual donor to the president, is not his only connection to Trump Inc. The Israeli-American is married to a motivational speaker, Loren Slocum Lahav, who has worked closely with Tony Robbins, facilitating 160 workshops for the wealthy self-help guru over the past 14 years, according to her bio.

Robbins happens to have been a business partner of Trump during his brief and abortive campaign for president in 2000. During Robbins’ Results 2000 speaking tour, he reportedly paid Trump $1 million to deliver 10 speeches at seminars where participants were charged $229 each for entry. Candidate Trump’s exploratory committee described the appearances as campaign events. “Trump is making money running for president,” an advisor told the press at the time.

Coverage of Trump’s ethically questionable business relationship with Robbins surfaced during the 2016 campaign when Wikileaks published an email by a Democratic National Committee employee disseminating opposition research on the rival candidate.

When Trump entered the Oval Office in January 2017, the UC Global spying campaign against Assange began. Initiated under the apparent watch of then-CIA Director Mike Pompeo, who labeled Wikileaks a “hostile non-state intelligence agency,” the operation appears to have been managed by Lahav from its inception.

Sworn testimony by Lahav in a Spanish court might provide the final confirmation of his suspected role as a liaison between US intelligence and Trump’s most influential donor in an illegal spying operation that violated the rights of Assange, his lawyers, and associates while he was trapped in Ecuador’s embassy in the UK.

As The Grayzone reported, former employees of Morales have publicized a rumor that Lahav was fired by Las Vegas Sands. When Morales was asked during a court appearance this February if the rumor was true, he confirmed it, stating that Lahav was terminated because of the “mess” he helped create.

Further evidence demonstrating the CIA’s hand in a campaign of sabotage, surveillance, and assassination plots would be certain to reverberate in the Old Bailey courtroom in London, where lawyers for Assange are battling a US demand for the journalist’s extradition and prosecution under the Espionage Act.

Perhaps it is no wonder that the Department of Justice is stonewalling the request for Lahav."

[onawah]

LIVE Outside the Old Bailey as Assange's extradition hearing reaches its final stages
/3320995634636602/
https://www.facebook.com/RTUKnews/videos/3320995634636602/

[onawah]

The U.S. reportedly considered poisoning Assange court heard
3,508 views•Sep 30, 2020
RT UK
180K subscribers

"The U.S. reportedly considered poisoning or kidnapping Julian Assange while at the Ecuadorian embassy, his extradition has heard.

RT UK’s Shadia Edwards-Dashti reports from outside the Old Bailey. "

4Dfz9bauOSM

[onawah]

6 Wikileaks Revelations Expose Corporate Abuse at Expense of People and Planet
OCTOBER 02, 2020
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/wikileaks-revelations-expose-corporate-abuse-expense/?utm_source=salsa&eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=c4477440-fda3-4b3e-b993-fd97f29acaa0

"By Jeremy Loffredo

People around the world are watching as U.K. Judge Vanessa Baraitser hears arguments and decides whether or not to extradite Wikileaks Founder Julian Assange to the U.S.

While the Obama administration chose not to charge Assange, wary of the precedent it might set in criminalizing journalism, the Trump administration indicted him with 18 criminal charges that may land Assange in one of the U.S.’s most notorious prisons for 175 years.

Assange’s Wikileaks has won numerous journalism awards and has never had to retract a single publication despite releasing more than 10 million documents exposing, among other things, U.S. war crimes. Former CIA Director Leon Panetta recently indicated that the ongoing persecution of Assange is meant to “send a message to others not to do the same thing.”

As the world debates whether Assange is a hero or a traitor, Children’s Health Defense takes a step back to examine some of the things his organization has revealed for those fighting for health and environmental justice.

1. U.S. diplomatic efforts to overturn resistance to GMOs at the behest of Monsanto

Wikileaks published hundreds of diplomatic cables exhibiting attempts by the U.S. to quell opposition to genetically modified organisms or GMOs. As reported by The Guardian, “the cables show U.S. diplomats working directly for GM companies such as Monsanto.”

In a 2007 cable, Craig Stapleton, then U.S. Ambassador to France, advised the U.S. to prepare for economic war with countries unwilling to introduce Monsanto’s GM corn seeds. He recommended the U.S. “calibrate a target retaliation list that causes some pain across the E.U.”

Another dispatch, this one from 2009, demonstrated that the U.S. funded a GMO workshop in Mozambique that, according to the authors, helped advance biotech-friendly policies in the country.

In another cable from 2009, a U.S. diplomat stationed in Germany relayed intelligence on Bavarian political parties to several U.S. federal agencies and the U.S. Secretary of Defense, telling them which parties opposed Monsanto’s M810 corn seed and tactics that the U.S. could impose to resolve the opposition.

One cable from Hong Kong shows a State Department employee requesting $92,000 in U.S. public funds for “media education kits” to combat a growing popular movement calling for the labeling of GMO foods in Hong Kong. The cable indicates a desire to “make it much more difficult for mandatory labelling advocates to prevail.” The State Department’s Anita Katial, who wrote the cable, also recalled a time when her office facilitated the sending of pro-biotech and bio-agriculture DVDs to every highschool in Hong Kong.

According to Food & Water Watch Executive Director Wenonah Hauter, the trove of cables “really gets down to twisting the arms of countries and working to undermine local democratic movements that may be opposed to biotech crops, and pressuring foreign governments to also reduce the oversight of biotech crops.”

2. Multinational commodities trader dumping toxic waste in West Africa

In 2006, Trafigura, the world’s second largest oil trader, illegally discharged more than 500 tons of highly toxic oil waste near the Port of Abidjan in the Ivory Coast. Some of the dump sites were near agriculture fields or water supplies, and the UN estimates that more than 100,000 people sought medical treatment due to the incident. Wikileaks would later call this incident “possibly the most culpable mass contamination incident since Bhopal.”

Trafigura’s lawyer commissioned a confidential study that listed what the environmental and health impacts of the dumping incident would be after people living near the port started flooding hospitals.

The report explained that contact with the offloaded compounds could lead to eye damage, lung damage, skin burns, headaches, breathing difficulty, permanent skin ulceration, coma and death. The report also states that the chemical compounds would have a “severe and negative effect” on the environment.



As recently as 2016, residents were complaining about the smell of the waste, headaches, breathing problems and skin problems.

Wikileaks published the classified report in 2009, the first time the public could see the company’s true negligence.

3. Gates Foundation sees environmental activists as a threat

In 2008, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation hired an intelligence firm called Stratfor to put together a “threat assessment report” and determine current and future threats to the foundation.

Stratfor’s report saw environmental activists, indigenous farming groups, and peasant political parties in Asia and South America, as “potential threats” to the foundation.

“Threats to the foundation are likely to be directly related to the public association between the foundation and a controversial issue such as GMOs, animal testing, clinical trials and reproductive rights,” the report reads.

Stating that the primary threat to the foundation’s agriculture program comes from its work promoting GMOs, the report notes the rise of anti-GMO campaigning in developing countries, including a “staunch opposition to GMOs in India.” It even names specific activists, such as the U.S.-based anti-GMO campaigner Jeffrey Smith.

The report also mentions the work of large organizations like Greenpeace and PETA as well as alternative media outlets like the Center for Public Integrity, Mother Jones, AlterNet and the LA Times, which had just published a series accusing the foundation of “reap[ing] vast financial gains from investments in companies that contribute to the human suffering in health, housing and social welfare.”

Wikileaks published the threat assessment as part of its release of more than 5 million Stratfor emails in 2012.

4. Pharma intel and espionage operation

In 1996, Pfizer, one of the world’s largest pharmaceutical companies, conducted clinical trials in Nigeria for an antibiotic called Trovan. The results were devastating, as Nigerian officials reported more than 50 children died in the experiment and dozens became disabled.

In 2006, a Nigerian government panel concluded that Pfizer violated international law and called the experiment “an illegal trial of an unregistered drug.” In 2007, Nigerian state and federal authorities sued Pfizer for $7 billion, alleging the company did not have proper consent from the children’s parents.

A 2009 U.S. diplomatic cable published by Wikileaks revealed that while the case was in federal court, Pfizer had hired a private intelligence firm to get blackmail on Nigerian Attorney General Michael Aondoakaa.

According to the cable, “Pfizer’s investigators were passing this information to local media,” who published articles on the attorney general’s “alleged” corruption. “Aondoakaa’s cronies were pressuring him to drop the suit for fear of further negative articles,” it reads.

A few months after the negative articles, the Nigerian ministry of justice signed a settlement with Pfizer.

5. U.S. is a climate bully

Cables disclosed by Wikileaks in 2010 present the U.S. using what The Guardian called “spying, threats and promises of aid” to get international support for the 2009 Copenhagen Accord — an industry-friendly international climate deal with non-binding agreements to lower emissions. (Climate activist Naomi Klein described, at the time, the accord as “nothing more than a grubby pact between the world’s biggest emitters”.)

The State Department sent a secret cable to foreign embassies seeking human intelligence, or “dirt,” on UN diplomats regarding climate policy. And, as reported by Democracy Now!, the cables also indicated that the U.S. cut funding to Bolivia and Ecuador after both governments opposed the accord.

Bill McKibben, founder of the climate organization 350.org, said the cables exposed that “the U.S. was both bullying and buying countries into endorsing their do-little position on climate.”

6. International organizations consulting with Big Pharma

In 2009, Wikileaks revealed documents that the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers & Associations (IFPMA) gave its members a report by the UN’s World Health Organization(WHO)’s Expert Working Group on research and development financing.

IFPMA members include pharmaceutical giants like Bayer, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer and Sanofi, and the organization represents these entities when dealing with the UN. What makes the Wikileaks document dump significant is that the working group gave IFPMA access to these documents months before their scheduled public release, suggesting that the UN’s health expert group was more accountable to the pharmaceutical industry than to its own member states.

“The compilation of documents shows the influence of ‘Big Pharma’ on the policy making decisions of the WHO,” Wikileaks commented when publishing the files."

[onawah]

Julian Assange’s extradition hearing comes to close
6,931 views•Oct 1, 2020

RT UK
180K subscribers
"RT UK’s Shadia Edwards-Dashti reports from outside the #OldBailey as Julian Assange’s hearing comes to a close."
wpmuW0wXu3E

[Tintin]

"We were here for the ultimate of what the philosopher Guy Debord called The Society of the Spectacle: a man fighting for his life. Yet his crime is to have performed an epic public service: revealing that which we have a right to know: the lies of our governments and the crimes they commit in our name. His creation of WikiLeaks and its failsafe protection of sources revolutionised journalism, restoring it to the vision of its idealists. Edmund Burke’s notion of free journalism as a fourth estate is now a fifth estate that shines a light on those who diminish the very meaning of democracy with their criminal secrecy. That’s why his punishment is so extreme." - John Pilger, October 2020

__________________________

Here, the legendary John Pilger in conversation with Arena giving a perspicacious account of the 'show trial' over what must have felt like an excruciating three weeks for all, not the least of which for Julian.

Related: regarding the astounding UC Global 'Witness 2' testimony on the penultimate day of the hearing Craig Murray presented the statement on his blog post (https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/10/your-man-in-the-public-gallery-assange-hearing-day-21/) on October 1st. Craig had provided these as JPG files on his write-up and I've saved these along with Noam Chomsky's contribution and have now placed them in the appropriate place in the Avalon library. (http://avalonlibrary.net/?dir=Julian_Assange_and_Wikileaks/Extradition%20hearing%20-%20Old%20Bailey%20%28September%202020%29/Day_21_with_JPGs_of_Chomsky_and_UC_Global_witness)

In the meantime back to John:

EYEWITNESS TO THE AGONY OF JULIAN ASSANGE

Source: Arena (https://arena.org.au/eyewitness-to-the-agony-of-julian-assange/)

ARENA ONLINE | JOHN PILGER | 2 OCT 2020

Journalist John Pilger has spent the last three weeks watching Julian Assange’s extradition trial at London’s Old Bailey. He spoke with Arena Online’s editor, Timothy Erik Ström:

Q: Having watched Julian Assange’s trial firsthand, can you describe the prevailing atmosphere in the court?

The prevailing atmosphere has been shocking. I say that without hesitation; I have sat in many courts and seldom known such a corruption of due process; this is due revenge. Putting aside the ritual associated with ‘British justice’, at times it has been evocative of a Stalinist show trial. One difference is that in the show trials, the defendant stood in the court proper. In the Assange trial, the defendant was caged behind thick glass, and had to crawl on his knees to a slit in the glass, overseen by his guard, to make contact with his lawyers. His message, whispered barely audibly through face masks, was then passed by post-it the length of the court to where his barristers were arguing the case against his extradition to an American hellhole.

Consider this daily routine of Julian Assange, an Australian on trial for truth-telling journalism. He was woken at five o’clock in his cell at Belmarsh prison in the bleak southern sprawl of London. The first time I saw Julian in Belmarsh, having passed through half an hour of ‘security’ checks, including a dog’s snout in my rear, I found a painfully thin figure sitting alone wearing a yellow armband. He had lost more than 10 kilos in a matter of months; his arms had no muscle. His first words were: ‘I think I am losing my mind’.

I tried to assure him he wasn’t. His resilience and courage are formidable, but there is a limit. That was more than a year ago. In the past three weeks, in the pre-dawn, he was strip-searched, shackled, and prepared for transport to the Central Criminal Court, the Old Bailey, in a truck that his partner, Stella Moris, described as an upended coffin. It had one small window; he had to stand precariously to look out. The truck and its guards were operated by Serco, one of many politically connected companies that run much of Boris Johnson’s Britain.

The journey to the Old Bailey took at least an hour and a half. That’s a minimum of three hours being jolted through snail-like traffic every day. He was led into his narrow cage at the back of the court, then look up, blinking, trying to make out faces in the public gallery through the reflection of the glass. He saw the courtly figure of his dad, John Shipton, and me, and our fists went up. Through the glass, he reached out to touch fingers with Stella, who is a lawyer and seated in the body of the court.

We were here for the ultimate of what the philosopher Guy Debord called The Society of the Spectacle: a man fighting for his life. Yet his crime is to have performed an epic public service: revealing that which we have a right to know: the lies of our governments and the crimes they commit in our name. His creation of WikiLeaks and its failsafe protection of sources revolutionised journalism, restoring it to the vision of its idealists. Edmund Burke’s notion of free journalism as a fourth estate is now a fifth estate that shines a light on those who diminish the very meaning of democracy with their criminal secrecy. That’s why his punishment is so extreme.

The sheer bias in the courts I have sat in this year and last year, with Julian in the dock, blight any notion of British justice. When thuggish police dragged him from his asylum in the Ecuadorean embassy—look closely at the photo and you’ll see he is clutching a Gore Vidal book; Assange has a political humour similar to Vidal’s—a judge gave him an outrageous 50-week sentence in a maximum-security prison for mere bail infringement.

For months, he was denied exercise and held in solitary confinement disguised as ‘health care’. He once told me he strode the length of his cell, back and forth, back and forth, for his own half-marathon. In the next cell, the occupant screamed through the night. At first he was denied his reading glasses, left behind in the embassy brutality. He was denied the legal documents with which to prepare his case, and access to the prison library and the use of a basic laptop. Books sent to him by a friend, the journalist Charles Glass, himself a survivor of hostage-taking in Beirut, were returned. He could not call his American lawyers. He has been constantly medicated by the prison authorities. When I asked him what they were giving him, he couldn’t say. The governor of Belmarsh has been awarded the Order of the British Empire.

At the Old Bailey, one of the expert medical witnesses, Dr Kate Humphrey, a clinical neuropsychologist at Imperial College, London, described the damage: Julian’s intellect had gone from ‘in the superior, or more likely very superior range’ to ‘significantly below’ this optimal level, to the point where he was struggling to absorb information and ‘perform in the low average range’.

This is what the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture, Professor Nils Melzer, calls ‘psychological torture’, the result of a gang-like ‘mobbing’ by governments and their media shills. Some of the expert medical evidence is so shocking I have no intention of repeating it here. Suffice to say that Assange is diagnosed with autism and Asperger’s syndrome and, according to Professor Michael Kopelman, one of the world’s leading neuropsychiatrists, he suffers from ‘suicidal preoccupations’ and is likely to find a way to take his life if he is extradited to America.

James Lewis QC, America’s British prosecutor, spent the best part of his cross-examination of Professor Kopelman dismissing mental illness and its dangers as ‘malingering’. I have never heard in a modern setting such a primitive view of human frailty and vulnerability.

My own view is that if Assange is freed, he is likely to recover a substantial part of his life. He has a loving partner, devoted friends and allies and the innate strength of a principled political prisoner. He also has a wicked sense of humour.

But that is a long way off. The moments of collusion between the judge—or magistrate, a Gothic-looking Vanessa Baraitser, about whom little is known—and the prosecution acting for the Trump regime have been brazen. Until the last few days, defence arguments have been routinely dismissed. The lead prosecutor, James Lewis QC, ex SAS and currently Chief Justice of the Falklands, by and large gets what he wants, notably up to four hours to denigrate expert witnesses, while the defence’s examination is guillotined at half an hour. I have no doubt, had there been a jury, his freedom would be assured.

The dissident artist Ai Weiwei came to join us one morning in the public gallery. He noted that in China the judge’s decision would already have been made. This caused some dark ironic amusement. My companion in the gallery, the astute diarist and former British ambassador Craig Murray wrote:


I fear that all over London a very hard rain is now falling on those who for a lifetime have worked within institutions of liberal democracy that at least broadly and usually used to operate within the governance of their own professed principles. It has been clear to me from Day 1 that I am watching a charade unfold. It is not in the least a shock to me that Baraitser does not think anything beyond the written opening arguments has any effect. I have again and again reported to you that, where rulings have to be made, she has brought them into court pre-written, before hearing the arguments before her.

I strongly expect the final decision was made in this case even before opening arguments were received.

The plan of the US Government throughout has been to limit the information available to the public and limit the effective access to a wider public of what information is available. Thus we have seen the extreme restrictions on both physical and video access. A complicit mainstream media has ensured those of us who know what is happening are very few in the wider population.

There are few records of the proceedings. They are: Craig Murray’s personal blog (https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/09/your-man-in-the-public-gallery-assange-hearing-day-16/), Joe Lauria’s live reporting on Consortium News (https://consortiumnews.com/) and the World Socialist Website (https://www.wsws.org/en?redirect=true). American journalist Kevin Gosztola’s blog, Shadowproof (https://shadowproof.com/), funded mostly by himself, has reported more of the trial than the major US press and TV, including CNN, combined.

In Australia, Assange’s homeland, the ‘coverage’ follows a familiar formula set overseas. The London correspondent of the Sydney Morning Herald, Latika Bourke, wrote this (https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/julian-assange-s-risk-of-suicide-very-high-psychiatrist-tells-court-20200923-p55y80.html) recently:


The court heard Assange became depressed during the seven years he spent in the Ecuadorian embassy where he sought political asylum to escape extradition to Sweden to answer rape and sexual assault charges.

There were no ‘rape and sexual assault charges’ in Sweden. Bourke’s lazy falsehood is not uncommon. If the Assange trial is the political trial of the century, as I believe it is, its outcome will not only seal the fate of a journalist for doing his job but intimidate the very principles of free journalism and free speech. The absence of serious mainstream reporting of the proceedings is, at the very least, self-destructive. Journalists should ask: who is next?

How shaming it all is. A decade ago, the Guardian exploited Assange’s work, claimed its profit and prizes as well as a lucrative Hollywood deal, then turned on him with venom. Throughout the Old Bailey trial, two names have been cited by the prosecution, the Guardian’s David Leigh, now retired as ‘investigations editor’ and Luke Harding, the Russiaphobe and author of a fictional Guardian ‘scoop’ that claimed Trump adviser Paul Manafort and a group of Russians visited Assange in the Ecuadorean embassy. This never happened, and the Guardian has yet to apologise. The Harding and Leigh book on Assange—written behind their subject’s back—disclosed a secret password to a WikiLeaks file that Assange had entrusted to Leigh during the Guardian’s ‘partnership’. Why the defence has not called this pair is difficult to understand.

Assange is quoted in their book declaring during a dinner at a London restaurant that he didn’t care if informants named in the leaks were harmed. Neither Harding nor Leigh was at the dinner. John Goetz, an investigations reporter with Der Spiegel, was at the dinner and testified that Assange said nothing of the kind. Incredibly, Judge Baraitser stopped Goetz actually saying this in court.

However, the defence has succeeded in demonstrating the extent to which Assange sought to protect and redact names in the files released by WikiLeaks and that no credible evidence existed of individuals harmed by the leaks. The great whistle-blower Daniel Ellsberg said that Assange had personally redacted 15,000 files. The renowned New Zealand investigative journalist Nicky Hager, who worked with Assange on the Afghanistan and Iraq war leaks, described how Assange took ‘extraordinary precautions in redacting names of informants’.

Q: What are the implications of this trial’s verdict for journalism more broadly—is it an omen of things to come?

The ‘Assange effect’ is already being felt across the world. If they displease the regime in Washington, investigative journalists are liable to prosecution under the 1917 US Espionage Act; the precedent is stark. It doesn’t matter where you are. For Washington, other people’s nationality and sovereignty rarely mattered; now it does not exist. Britain has effectively surrendered its jurisdiction to Trump’s corrupt Department of Justice. In Australia, a National Security Information Act promises Kafkaesque trials for transgressors. The Australian Broadcasting Corporation has been raided by police and journalists’ computers taken away. The government has given unprecedented powers to intelligence officials, making journalistic whistle-blowing almost impossible. Prime Minister Scott Morrison says Assange ‘must face the music’. The perfidious cruelty of his statement is reinforced by its banality.

‘Evil’, wrote Hannah Arendt, ‘comes from a failure to think. It defies thought for as soon as thought tries to engage itself with evil and examine the premises and principles from which it originates, it is frustrated because it finds nothing there. That is the banality of evil’.

Q: Having followed the story of WikiLeaks closely for a decade, how has this eyewitness experience shifted your understanding of what’s at stake with Assange’s trial?

I have long been a critic of journalism as an echo of unaccountable power and a champion of those who are beacons. So, for me, the arrival of WikiLeaks was exciting; I admired the way Assange regarded the public with respect, that he was prepared to share his work with the ‘mainstream’ but not join their collusive club. This, and naked jealousy, made him enemies among the overpaid and undertalented, insecure in their pretensions of independence and impartiality.

I admired the moral dimension to WikiLeaks. Assange was rarely asked about this, yet much of his remarkable energy comes from a powerful moral sense that governments and other vested interests should not operate behind walls of secrecy. He is a democrat. He explained this in one of our first interviews (http://johnpilger.com/videos/julian-assange-in-conversation-with-john-pilger) at my home in 2010.

What is at stake for the rest of us has long been at stake: freedom to call authority to account, freedom to challenge, to call out hypocrisy, to dissent. The difference today is that the world’s imperial power, the United States, has never been as unsure of its metastatic authority as it is today. Like a flailing rogue, it is spinning us towards a world war if we allow it. Little of this menace is reflected in the media.

WikiLeaks, on the other hand, has allowed us to glimpse a rampant imperial march through whole societies—think of the carnage in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Yemen, to name a few, the dispossession of 37 million people and the deaths of 12 million men, women and children in the ‘war on terror’—most of it behind a façade of deception.

Julian Assange is a threat to these recurring horrors—that’s why he is being persecuted, why a court of law has become an instrument of oppression, why he ought to be our collective conscience: why we all should be the threat.

________________________________________________

The judge’s decision will be known on the 4th of January.

John Pilger in conversation with Julian Assange (https://player.vimeo.com/video/18269080?color=EE8020&title=0&byline=0&portrait=0)

http://avalonlibrary.net/Julian_Assange_and_Wikileaks/John_Pilger_in_conversation_with_Julian_Assange.mp4

[Tintin]

Usually I'll have had a chance to have had a proper listen before adding this here, but, while this isn't possible to do right away there's every reason to expect this is a must listen approx 29 minutes.

Source: Consortium News (https://consortiumnews.com/2020/10/04/watch-john-pilger-the-hell-that-wikileaks-exposed-is-now-being-imposed-on-assange/)

WATCH: John Pilger: The Hell That WikiLeaks Exposed Is Now Being Imposed on Assange
October 4, 2020

John Pilger, the legendary journalist and filmmaker, who attended the Assange hearing, spoke to Afshin Rattansi on the RT show “Going Underground.”

Description provided:



On this episode of Going Underground, we speak to legendary journalist and filmmaker John Pilger. He discusses the extradition trial of Julian Assange being held at the Old Bailey in London, the war crimes Julian Assange uncovered, why the United States and Wear want to persecute him, key statements delivered in court by witnesses that may help the Wikileaks founder, allegations of bias against Judge Baraitser, the gruelling schedule Julian Assange has to go through for court hearings, the likelihood of Julian Assange committing suicide if he is jailed in a supermax prison which John Pilger describes as a ‘clean hell’, the role of the mainstream media outlets such as The Guardian in facilitating the persecution of Julian Assange and more.

E_w8hWXoD6k

[onawah]

Reporters Claim Facebook is Censoring Information on Julian Assange Case
by Alan Macleod
https://www.mintpressnews.com/reporters-claim-facebook-is-censoring-information-on-julian-assange-case/271773/?#.X3xbOP62JNg.twitter
10/5/20
https://www.mintpressnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/AP20275582197027_edited.jpg

"Craig Murray, the former British ambassador to Uzbekistan and longtime confidant of Julian Assange, has been fastidiously reporting on the Australian publisher’s extradition hearing to the United States. Yet few people have been reading it. This, according to Murray, is because of a deliberate decision by online media giants to downplay or suppress discussion of the case. On his blog, Murray wrote that he usually receives around 50 percent of his readers from Twitter and 40 percent from Facebook links, but that has dropped to 3 percent and 9 percent, respectively during the hearing. While the February hearings sent around 200,000 readers to his site daily, now that figure is only 3,000.
To be plain that is very much less than my normal daily traffic from them just in ordinary times. It is the insidious nature of this censorship that is especially sinister – people believe they have successfully shared my articles on Twitter and Facebook, while those corporations hide from them that in fact it went into nobody’s timeline,” he added.

Asked about the situation by former New York Times reporter Chris Hedges, Murray explained that

Anybody who is at all radical or takes any view of anything that is outwith the official establishment view gets used to occasional shadow banning, but I have never seen anything on this scale before.”

“90% of my traffic has just been cut off by what seems to be a general algorithm command of some kind to downplay Assange,” he added. “I think it is as simple as that.”

ZtwpzqAJMBo

There has been considerable public interest in the court proceedings, but very little mainstream attention given to them. To be fair, British authorities have made it inordinately difficult to cover the case, allowing only a small handful of journalists into the Old Bailey court system, where they can watch a live television link up but cannot bring in recording devices. An online stream can only be watched if one registers and signs in between exactly 9:30 and 9:40 a.m., and if they suffer even a momentary lapse in wifi connection, they are shut out of the session. The court system has also blocked human rights groups, including Amnesty International, from monitoring proceedings.


Still, considering the implications for the future of journalism, the lack of coverage might surprise some. The New York Times, the flagship outlet of American print media (and a Wikileaks partner) printed only two articles on the subject and has not mentioned Assange in over two weeks. Its broadcast journalism equivalent CNN, meanwhile, has not touched the issue at all.

Online media creators have, for many years, lived with the threat of algorithmic suppression or demonetization of content on sensitive or controversial issues. YouTube regularly cuts all advertising on videos on the Syrian Civil War, fracking, or other topics on which advertisers might not wish to promote scrutiny. Even airsoft and paintball enthusiasts have learned not to use words like “shoot” and “gun” in their titles, lest the platform demonetizes their content.

Perhaps more alarmingly, however, Silicon Valley tech giants are becoming increasingly closely intertwined with the state department, to the point where it is often difficult to tell where one ends, and another begins. “What Lockheed Martin was to the twentieth century…technology and cyber-security companies [like Google] will be to the twenty-first,” wrote Google executives Eric Schmidt and Jared Cohen in their book, “The New Digital Age: Reshaping the Future of People, Nations and Business.” For example, Facebook is now in a close partnership with the Atlantic Council, who essentially decides for them what content to promote in people’s news feeds and what content is discarded as fake news, misinformation, or low quality. The problem is that the Atlantic Council is a NATO cutout, and a government-funded organization whose board of directors is a who’s who of deep state officials, including virtually every living ex-C.I.A. director, Bush-era cabinet members like Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell, and military generals like Wesley Clark and David Petraeus. Thus, an organization like this deciding what the world sees on their screens is barely one step removed from total government control of the flow of information.

The U.S. government also frequently directly interferes with content appearing on prominent social media. Earlier this year, Facebook announced that it would remove all comments or posts in praise of recently-slain Iranian General Qassem Soleimani from all its platforms. This was done to comply with the Trump administration’s designation of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (which Soleimani led) as a terrorist organization. The problem is that Soleimani was Iran’s most popular political figure, with an over 80 percent approval rating, and that Instagram is used by around one-third of the entire Iranian population. Thus, Iranians speaking in their local language were barred from sharing a majority opinion with their country folk because of a decision by Donald Trump.

The Middle East is a particularly contentious area of the world. Yet when news broke that the British Army’s online psychological operations brigade had managed to become a senior Twitter executive, responsible for Middle Eastern content, media largely ignored it, raising even more questions. Algorithm changes have also hammered independent alternative media outlets — often precisely the ones most likely to cover the Assange case — drastically reducing their search engine traffic flow.

Former C.I.A. chief Leon Panetta (an honorary director of the Atlantic Council) recently admitted that Assange is being prosecuted as a warning to journalists. “All you can do is hope that you can ultimately take action against those that were involved in revealing that information so you can send a message to others not to do the same thing,” he told a German documentary crew. While the message is being heard loud and clear by journalists, the public is far less aware that anything is going on, thanks, in part, to online suppression of news about the case. Judge Vanessa Baraitser is scheduled to pronounce judgment on the media “trial of the century” on January 4, after the U.S. presidential election. Murray will doubtless be there. But will anyone read what he has to say?"

Alan MacLeod is a Staff Writer for MintPress News. After completing his PhD in 2017 he published two books: Bad News From Venezuela: Twenty Years of Fake News and Misreporting and Propaganda in the Information Age: Still Manufacturing Consent. He has also contributed to Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, The Guardian, Salon, The Grayzone, Jacobin Magazine, Common Dreams the American Herald Tribune and The Canary.

[Billy]

Tulsi Gabbard calls for USA to drop prosecutions of Edward Snowden and Jillian Assange.

40TYI07tXws

[Bill Ryan]

Tulsi Gabbard calls for USA to drop prosecutions of Edward Snowden and Jillian Assange.

Many thanks indeed, and that's truly impressive.

A personal note: for anyone who's so out of touch as to think that I'm some kind of alt-right supremacist :facepalm:, I'm a very strong Tulsi Gabbard supporter. She has a ton of integrity. That she wasn't invited to attend the US Democratic Convention tells us everything we may need to know.

:focus:

[TomKat]

Tulsi Gabbard calls for USA to drop prosecutions of Edward Snowden and Jillian Assange.

Many thanks indeed, and that's truly impressive.

A personal note: for anyone who's so out of touch as to think that I'm some kind of alt-right supremacist :facepalm:, I'm a very strong Tulsi Gabbard supporter. She has a ton of integrity. That she wasn't invited to attend the US Democratic Convention tells us everything we may need to know.

:focus:

A palm reader on Coast Radio recently said Gabbard is a probable future president.

[Sarah Rainsong]

Tulsi Gabbard calls for USA to drop prosecutions of Edward Snowden and Jillian Assange.

Many thanks indeed, and that's truly impressive.

A personal note: for anyone who's so out of touch as to think that I'm some kind of alt-right supremacist :facepalm:, I'm a very strong Tulsi Gabbard supporter. She has a ton of integrity. That she wasn't invited to attend the US Democratic Convention tells us everything we may need to know.

:focus:

A palm reader on Coast Radio recently said Gabbard is a probable future president.

I would love to see that! And I hope she's able to bring the right attention to the Assange trial. Public outrage would be his best chance at freedom.

[Gracy]

A palm reader on Coast Radio recently said Gabbard is a probable future president.

I would love to see that! And I hope she's able to bring the right attention to the Assange trial. Public outrage would be his best chance at freedom.

It would have to be a third party kind of thing, neither major party would ever allow "the likes of her".

[Hym]

Tulsi, Tulsi, Tulsi. Sister. I think to myself....What a waste of a heart. What a waste of an intellect. Then I say, what a waste of the Truth you just flushed down the toilet. Maybe that's the best the intel minions can do these days.

How about this? During a democratic party debate earlier this year, she refuted another candidate on the stage, by noting his inaccurate depiction of the (non-existent) foreign plotters of an attack by stating, "The Taliban didn't attack us. Al Queda did". It's irrefutable that neither attacked us in our country.

What? She really said that. Count on the ego of a politician to go against their handlers and "go there". ("Hey Rufus, didn't you tell her, remind her at least, to keep our crimes out of the discussions?", said one handler to the other.)


Really? You think you can get that past who? So, you're okay with protecting Assange's rights while lying about the attack on your own country, against your own soldiers, and ultimately against your OATH AS A SOLDIER? You know those just like me. You wanna get something off of your mind? I'm listening................................................................

Hey, keep doing good. Just don't expect any support from me. Don't protect the bigger lies and not just if it means a threat to your career or your political life. Let the truth out Because it is a threat to your financial and career aspirations, along with all of those years of grooming yourself and being groomed by the dogs of the deeper wars being created in the minds of their real enemies, humans. That's what real warriors, real oath takers do.

She's not clueless about any of this. She's all in and you can see when she gets that righteous buzz about doing that right thing she does. What slightly surprises me is seeing heartfelt and intelligent people not recognizing her deceit.

Is this because the times are so full of mental abuse that you take it wherever you can get it? I do understand position and opposition, the craft of double speak and the imaginary limitations of the truth. Those imaginary limitations can only exist in a very dishonest and emotionally manipulated construct, on a planet just like this has been, for a very long time. Just like now. Though that is possible, it is obviously impossible to deny the truth.

'Well, we like 90% of what she is saying', the truthful say. 'Maybe even 95% of it all'. 'She can't tell the whole truth, can she?' That is my query to all of you.



When you breathe in the fresh scent of a new politicians truths(?) make sure you breathe in very deeply.

Hold that breath and pause........

It'll come to you, whatever that WHOLE and COMPLETE truth is. Let's discuss it, if you are willing to investigate, to share your insights, your gut feelings and listen. But hey, why should I care. We're all awake here. Right?



I'd warn about Tulsi's incomplete truths, but you'll take them, because you are so conditioned to locking yourselves in the globalist prison you become accustomed to, even at the far end of the media narratives, still attached to some blindness of the soul. None of those are close to the Heart of The Matter. Not a one.

In the real world, in the Grand Plot of These Lives, this is about YOU. Yes, even the narrative that is much more humanitarian than the others becomes a bigger lie when it is restricted and manipulated. In the context of living, these truths are forever bound together. There is no exception to the truth.

Love has no restrictions. The Truth has no barriers, especially in political speech. This is about our lives and our integrities, not any other.

Watch out for the slick ones who do the "good" deeds, but who will NEVER challenge the giant corruption that has deeply enslaved your society. That day and the world that followed is much bigger than the day, Dec.7, 1941, that "lived in infamy". Until those bigger lies are confronted, adjudicated and resolved, as much as murder, grand larceny, collusion, digital enslavement and global "cleansing" can be resolved....expect more infamies in your lives.

Who wouldn't take that support for Julian Assange, when it is given to support free speech, the freedom of movement and the right to confront oppression and corruption anywhere, especially from her own government. I see she forgot to include her own right to "free speech", or was it just not the "right time" to tell the truth. Is that her honest reason for introducing the bills in congress, or her partial acceptance of the truth which, of course, is an oxymoron?

The difference between me and you is I'd confront her about her political and career protecting suppression of her own knowledge about the facts that have changed this country into what it isn't today. In the space of us standing together as humans and talking, all of the spirit in these words could be summed up in a very short period of time, seconds likely. I doubt she'd respond. I'd wish her well and watch her move on her way to her plastic stardom.


Like the show Democracy Now, I agree with some of the reporters focus, while disagreeing about the rest and noting the proofs of their being gatekeepers of the controlled opposition. THEY ALL know the truth of the fictitious narratives they never mention. Like all paid gatekeepers she furthers the gigantic criminality of the attack on her own country, her own people, the theft of billions in taxpayers monies, the implementation of unconstitutional "acts" upon her fellow citizens and the death of a million people in another country. Trust that now, do you?

Here is what I wrote on the thread "The Real Life Adventures of Shadowman", Post #81, on June 24th, 2020:

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?107614-The-Real-Life-Adventures-of-Shadowman&p=1362595&viewfull=1#post1362595


FYI: I toned this post way down, because even though she has heard the same words in her OATH BOUND years in the military, many here would think that more than a little harsh. Though I'll never meet her and I don't want or need to, she knows the truth she just b.s.'d about.


And now she wants to protect a whistle blower? Good for her. Do some good, Gabbs. Remember, not one of us in the real world of challenging the war on consciousness and truth will back you.

Yes. She looks like a presidential candidate. She's already paid into the system. Just watch her connections and the pay offs. It's up to you as a voter to accept the conditions of your surrender, or accept your answer to the call of your rational mind, your heart and your soul. Her handlers gave her a pass way before she began to look the way she has looked in her public persona.

Around me, like that of anyone speaking truth to b.s., she would only get to the topic of the truth of this country's attack on itself, or we wouldn't be talking. She has handlers too, even if one is permanently parked in her mind. Handlers don't count points made for or against political narratives . They only punish truths. That's their pay point. What's hers, beyond those she's already worked for? As a voter you should ALWAYS know this.

[TomKat]

During a democratic party debate earlier this year, she refuted another candidate on the stage, by noting his inaccurate depiction of the (non-existent) foreign plotters of an attack by stating, "The Taliban didn't attack us. Al Queda did".


You're blaming 9/11 on the Taliban?

[Hym]

Of course not, TomKat. Neither of them did it. It was all DS from the states and their global partners. It sure wasn't Al Queda or the Taliban, or some guy on dialysis running it all, hiding in a cave in Tora Bora either.

When the inserted link I added is read, it's clear that I'm doing my best to give the reader a view into the mindset of those who purposely kill innocent civilians for political and financial gain alone. Those who plan and carry out those crimes do not do so without the knowledge, even the tertiary, yet clearly accurate testimonies they hear from others in their same professions, like Gabbard.



Granted, few national political figures have acknowledged the real criminals in their own gov't and military who planned all that happened on that day, with ramifications that now affect the entire world. Either way it is egregious for any politician to lie about who really carried out such a far reaching operation, knowing full well it was the elite in their own country who perpetrated the crimes and their own countrymen, as well as the world, who were and are still the victims of those crimes.

I call it complicity in the crimes when a politician knowingly pays that price to enter the political theater, which few with integrity dare to take on.
If a politician doesn't know who did it, why would anyone choose to vote for someone that ignorant?

The gist of my comments were all about the hypocrisy of Tulsi Gabbard saying that Al Queda did that. It would have been as dishonest to say the Taliban did it. What a load of crap, especially when dealing with Assange, the one who exposed some of that deep state criminality.

I did like what she said about some other things, like helping out Assange, but that pales in comparison to lying about any other group, outside of the military terrorists we train and hire to do what they do all over the world and have done for decades.

Most people know them as their military or ex-military and their inside, technical partners. Home grown and the best trained, national and international military contractors/killers/assassins, scientists, bankers, financiers, investors, media moguls, etc..

I do not compare them for one second with those mostly honest, self-sacrificing service members, who outnumber those specialist, deep inside, well-paid military psychopaths 10,000 to 1. (I know many in the services would dispute that number, with all of the crap, as well as abuse, some take from each other, but we're talking about the hard core killers here.)

Our hard working military members are the ones owed continued care, in all the ways they need. If the country and the corporate controlled politicians really cared about them, they'd prevent all wars and end their use as pawns in dominating the world. Pay them, MORE, to keep the peace, not the killers who get paid way too much.

TG is a refreshing breed of politician who connects on some levels that I agree with, then she completely sells out. Very disappointing if you connect with those issues. And she is nothing like Assange, nor will she likely ever do what he has done in telling the truth. If she does ever tell the truth she knows, and it surely has its limitations knowing her rank, I'll be appreciative.

Like I said, she'd most likely never have the honesty to discuss this with me or anyone else personally. Yeah, she represents the servants of this country, and Yes I'll call her and any other oath taker out when they lie like that.

I highly recommend Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler's "War Is A Racket", to get an insiders view on the complex system of corporate controlled, military criminality that has terrorized the world for years, not unlike those in the west, the east and elsewhere.

Butler was, at one time in the 1930's, offered a large contingent of military personnel by the banking and corporate cartel to overthrow his own government, but being the most honest man of his generation, as well as a two time Congressional Medal of Honor recipient, he refused. He also said he left military service because he was tired of killing for corporations.

[Billy]

Tasmanian senator Whish-Wilson speaks on Assange and his recent extradition hearing in the Australian senate on Wednesday 7th October 2020, calling for his release from prison and return to Australia with his family.

2Xfu7978uow

Peter Whish-Wilson,s video communication is not the best but gets his message over.

[TomKat]

Of course not, TomKat. Neither of them did it. It was all DS from the states and their global partners. It sure wasn't Al Queda or the Taliban, or some guy on dialysis running it all, hiding in a cave in Tora Bora either.

When the inserted link I added is read, it's clear that I'm doing my best to give the reader a view into the mindset of those who purposely kill innocent civilians for political and financial gain alone. Those who plan and carry out those crimes do not do so without the knowledge, even the tertiary, yet clearly accurate testimonies they hear from others in their same professions, like Gabbard.



Granted, few national political figures have acknowledged the real criminals in their own gov't and military who planned all that happened on that day, with ramifications that now affect the entire world. Either way it is egregious for any politician to lie about who really carried out such a far reaching operation, knowing full well it was the elite in their own country who perpetrated the crimes and their own countrymen, as well as the world, who were and are still the victims of those crimes.

I call it complicity in the crimes when a politician knowingly pays that price to enter the political theater, which few with integrity dare to take on.
If a politician doesn't know who did it, why would anyone choose to vote for someone that ignorant?

The gist of my comments were all about the hypocrisy of Tulsi Gabbard saying that Al Queda did that. It would have been as dishonest to say the Taliban did it. What a load of crap, especially when dealing with Assange, the one who exposed some of that deep state criminality.

I did like what she said about some other things, like helping out Assange, but that pales in comparison to lying about any other group, outside of the military terrorists we train and hire to do what they do all over the world and have done for decades.

Most people know them as their military or ex-military and their inside, technical partners. Home grown and the best trained, national and international military contractors/killers/assassins, scientists, bankers, financiers, investors, media moguls, etc..

I do not compare them for one second with those mostly honest, self-sacrificing service members, who outnumber those specialist, deep inside, well-paid military psychopaths 10,000 to 1. (I know many in the services would dispute that number, with all of the crap, as well as abuse, some take from each other, but we're talking about the hard core killers here.)

Our hard working military members are the ones owed continued care, in all the ways they need. If the country and the corporate controlled politicians really cared about them, they'd prevent all wars and end their use as pawns in dominating the world. Pay them, MORE, to keep the peace, not the killers who get paid way too much.

TG is a refreshing breed of politician who connects on some levels that I agree with, then she completely sells out. Very disappointing if you connect with those issues. And she is nothing like Assange, nor will she likely ever do what he has done in telling the truth. If she does ever tell the truth she knows, and it surely has its limitations knowing her rank, I'll be appreciative.

Like I said, she'd most likely never have the honesty to discuss this with me or anyone else personally. Yeah, she represents the servants of this country, and Yes I'll call her and any other oath taker out when they lie like that.

I highly recommend Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler's "War Is A Racket", to get an insiders view on the complex system of corporate controlled, military criminality that has terrorized the world for years, not unlike those in the west, the east and elsewhere.

Butler was, at one time in the 1930's, offered a large contingent of military personnel by the banking and corporate cartel to overthrow his own government, but being the most honest man of his generation, as well as a two time Congressional Medal of Honor recipient, he refused. He also said he left military service because he was tired of killing for corporations.

Sounds like the discussion of Tulsi Gabbard is just an excuse for you to ride your hobby horse. You can do that with anyone. Find something they said that does not 100% agree with your beliefs and off you go. Happy trails!

[Hym]

You're welcome TomKat.

[edina]

Tulsi Gabbard calls for USA to drop prosecutions of Edward Snowden and Jillian Assange.

40TYI07tXws

Here's are links to the House Resolutions Tulsi introduced, for people who want to follow-up/track/act on this:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/845/text
13 Co-sponsors (https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/845/cosponsors?searchResultViewType=expanded), in House Foreign Affairs
(https://foreignaffairs.house.gov/members)
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/1162/text
Tulsi's co-sponsor is Rep. Gaetz, Matt [R-FL-1], in the House Judiciary and the use Intelligence (Permanent Select) (https://clerk.house.gov/committees/IG00)

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/1175/text
Tulsi's co-sponsor is Rep. Massie, Thomas [R-KY-4], in the House Committee on the Judiciary (https://judiciary.house.gov/about/members.htm).

So far these have only been introduced to their respective committees. Now's the time to express your support, call your elected representatives and the members of the related House Committees.

I would also like to see protections extended to contractors/sub-contractors who whistleblow.

If this is something you feel strongly about, help keep the pressure on.

Sending letters/postcards is also helpful.

[onawah]

TRIAL OF JULIAN ASSANGE - Roger Waters, John Pilger, & Ray McGovern DISCUSSION
7,667 views•Streamed live on Oct 15, 2020
Source: Consortium News (https://consortiumnews.com/2020/10/15/watch-the-trial-of-julian-assange-with-roger-waters-john-pilger-ray-mcgovern/)
8.22K subscribers
Guest Panel:
Roger Waters – Cofounder of Pink Floyd, Songwriter & Musician, Activist
John Pilger – Journalist, Documentary Filmmaker
Ray McGovern – Ex-CIA Presidential Briefer, Writer, Activist

"Recently, U.S. prosecutors indicted WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange on seventeen espionage charges stemming from the disclosure of atrocities committed by the U.S. armed forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. With global consequences directly affecting the freedom of the press, Assange stands to be extradited from the UK to trial in the U.S. under the Espionage Act.

In this event, author and activist, Miko Peled, speaks with three prominent activists who have persistently advocated for Assange’s release and freedom. Miko and the panel will tackle the following topics:



Julian Assange and WikiLeaks’ contributions to journalism


The campaign to prosecute Assange


Assange’s eviction from the embassy and his corresponding treatment by the British authorities


The likelihood of Assange’s extradition to the U.S. to face espionage charges

The lack of journalistic support and solidarity for Assange


LNskcUR-L3s

[Billy]

44897


IYh_Me6sUbg

[onawah]

THE REVELATIONS OF WIKILEAKS: No. 9—Opening the CIA’s Vault
October 26, 2020
By Patrick Lawrence
https://consortiumnews.com/2020/10/26/the-revelations-of-wikileaks-no-9-opening-the-cias-vault/

"On Feb. 6, 2017, WikiLeaks released documents detailing the Central Intelligence Agency’s espionage program in the months leading up to and following France’s presidential election in 2012.

The agency used spies and cyberweapons to infiltrate and hack into the major political parties with competing candidates — the Socialists, the National Front and the Union for a Popular Movement. Their candidates — respectively François Hollande, Marine Le Pen and incumbent Nicolas Sarkozy — were also spied upon individually, as were many other prominent political figures.

The objectives of the program included ascertaining the contending parties’ political strategies and platforms, their views of the U.S., and their relations with the European Union, with other European nations (Germany, Britain) as well as Israel, Palestine, Libya, Syria, and others. The CIA’s French operation lasted 10 months, beginning in November 2011 and enduring until September 2012, several months after Hollande won the election and formed a Socialist government.

WikiLeaks’ disclosure of the agency’s project bears a special irony: It was just as WikiLeaks published this material in 2017 that the CIA helped propagate unsubstantiated (and later discounted) “intelligence” that Russian hackers and propagandists were interfering with France’s presidential election that year. Similar allegations (similarly lacking in evidence) were floated as the European Union held parliamentary elections in May 2019.

As WikiLeaks reported at the time of the releases on the CIA’s covert activities in France, those revelations were to serve “as context for its forthcoming CIA Vault 7 series.” WikiLeaks’ apparent intent was to display a CIA’s hacking operation in action.

Vault 7, the subject of this latest report on the history of WikiLeaks disclosures, stands as the most extensive publication on record of classified and confidential CIA documents. Never before and not since have the agency’s innumerable programs and capabilities been so thoroughly exposed to public scrutiny.

Biggest Since Snowden
Julian Assange, WikiLeaks founder and publisher, described the Vault 7 publications as the most significant since Edward Snowden, the former CIA data analyst, released an unprecedented trove of National Security Agency documents in the summer of 2013.

The Vault 7 series concerns the extraordinarily sophisticated inventory of cyber weapons the CIA has developed to spy on or hack into the communications of any person or entity it targets. Apart from the espionage function, certain of the programs in Vault 7 — this designation is WikiLeaks’, not the CIA’s — can also plant documents and data without being detected as the source — when, for example, the agency wishes to compromise an adversary via a false-flag operation.

The program wherein this capability was developed, called Marble, may have been crucial to creating the orthodox “narrative” that Russia was responsible for the theft of Democratic Party email in 2016 — the cornerstone allegation in the construct we now call Russiagate.

The Vault 7 releases expose the CIA’s hacking activities from 2013 to 2016. The series began on March 7, 2017, with the publication of “Year Zero,” an introductory survey and analysis of the agency’s globally deployed hacking programs. The Vault 7 series ran for six months, concluding on Sept. 7, 2017.

Complete as of that date, the series is comprised of 23 publications, each of which focuses on an individual hacking or cyber-espionage program. Marble is one of these.

The CIA’s development of its hacking capabilities began as a joint effort with the National Security Agency. But the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and the subsequent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, begun in 2001 and 2003 respectively, proved a turning point for the agency. It was during this time that the CIA, as WikiLeaks puts it in its introduction to the Vault 7 series, “gained political and budgetary preeminence over the NSA.”

According to former U.S. intelligence sources, the CIA has invested some $175 billion in its vast variety of cyber programs in the post–2001 years. “The agency’s hacking division, WikiLeaks notes, “freed it from having to disclose its often controversial operations to the NSA (its primary bureaucratic rival) in order to draw on the NSA’s hacking capacities.”

A Near Deal to Free Assange
WikiLeaks launched the Vault 7 series at a delicate moment for Assange, who was at the time taking asylum at the Ecuadoran embassy in London.

Shortly after Donald Trump took office in January 2017, Assange’s attorneys approached a lawyer named Adam Waldman, who was noted for his Washington connections.

Assange’s team proposed negotiations that would commit the U.S. to granting Assange limited immunity and safe passage from the Ecuadoran embassy in exchange for his agreement to limit publication of classified CIA documents. The agency knew by this time that WikiLeaks had an extensive inventory of CIA documents it was prepared to publish. These included what WikiLeaks soon named Vault 7.

Crucially, Assange signaled that he was also willing to reveal technical evidence that would shed light on who was not responsible for the theft of email from the Democratic National Committee in mid–2016. This was key: By this time the “narrative” that Russia had hacked the DNC’s computer servers was well-established; the Democratic Party, the intelligence agencies, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the media were heavily invested in it. Assange, while observing the WikiLeaks principle of not revealing sources, had by this time asserted that Russia had nothing to do with the intrusion.

The Justice Department and Assange’s attorneys drafted an immunity deal in the course of the negotiations that both sides agreed to pursue. The attorneys’ initial contact, through Waldman, was a DoJ official named Bruce Ohr. The lead DoJ negotiator was named David Laufman. When WikiLeaks released “Year Zero” on March 7, 2017, these negotiations were still in progress; the release had no apparent impact on the talks.

But at this point the contacts between Assange and the U.S. government took a fateful turn. The only full account of the events summarized below was written by John Solomon, who has followed the Russiagate phenomenon from the first, and was published in The Hill on June 25, 2018.

Shortly after negotiations began, Waldman, the go-between, contacted Mark Warner, the Democratic senator from Virginia, to see if the Senate Intelligence Committee, of which Warner was vice-chairman, wished to contact Assange on its own in connection to matters related to Russia. This proved a miscalculation.

Warner, who had vigorously pressed the Russiagate narrative from the first, soon contacted James Comey, then the FBI director. Comey was also an aggressive Russiagate advocate and had a direct interest in sustaining the official account of events: It was while he ran the FBI that the bureau worked with CrowdStrike, the infamous cybersecurity firm hired by the DNC, to build what is now demonstrated to be an entirely false case to support the Democrats’ assertions of Russian responsibility for the mail intrusion.

Any proof that Russia had no role in the DNC mail theft would have discredited the FBI and Comey and very likely destroyed the career of Comey and numerous others.

Comey, working through Sen. Warner, immediately ordered Waldman to cut off the Assange–DoJ talks. Although negotiations continued a brief while longer, Comey had effectively dealt them a soon-to-be-fatal blow. By this time WikiLeaks had released two other Vault 7 document collections, including what it called the Marble Framework.

The DoJ finally broke off the negotiations on April 7, when WikiLeaks released a fourth set of documents, this one called Grasshopper. Six days later Mike Pompeo, then CIA director, gave a notably aggressive speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, the Washington think tank, in which he called WikiLeaks “a nonstate hostile intelligence service often abetted by state actors like Russia.”


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pe3ApagvwNM

With the CSIS speech, Pompeo effectively opened the Trump administration’s rigorously pressed campaign to have Assange extradited from Britain. The WikiLeaks founder appears never to have had another chance to negotiate an agreement providing for his freedom.

Run Amok

The Vault 7 releases continued at a steady pace, roughly four a month, for the next five months. The documents WikiLeaks made public, along with descriptions of the programs WikiLeaks deemed significant, can be found via its “Vault 7: Projects” report. Taken together they describe an expensively funded U.S. government organization that has run frighteningly amok, operates with no regard for U.S. or international law, and stands entirely beyond civilian control. Many of the projects exposed in the Vault 7 releases, and very likely most or all, violate Fourth Amendment rights to privacy and the CIA’s charter, which bars the agency from activity on U.S.

The history of the CIA, reaching back to Allen Dulles’ tenure as director (1953 to 1961), indicates that from its earliest days it entertained a diabolic desire to accumulate the power to operate with no reference to constraints of any kind, including those imposed by ordinary standards of decency. In this way it was effectively the id of America’s exceptionalist consciousness. What we see in the Vault 7 series is the perversely logical outcome of this culture of limitless impunity and immunity.

By the end of 2016, the hacking division of the CIA’s Center for Cyber Intelligence had more than 1,000 hacking, malware, virus-implanting, remote-control and Trojan-horse programs in its inventory. These comprised more than 700 million lines of computer code.

Former CIA and NSA officials told Consortium News that a line of code costs roughly $25 to produce, putting the cost of the agency’s hacking tools over the years these programs were developed at $175 billion. “The CIA had created its ‘own NSA,’” WikiLeaks noted when it began releasing the Vault 7 publications, “with even less accountability and without publicly answering the question as to whether such a massive budgetary spend on duplicating the capacities of a rival agency could be justified.”
What follows are accounts and summaries of the most significant of the 23 Vault 7 releases. We present these chronologically, the earliest first, to give readers a clear idea of how WikiLeaks organized and presented the Vault 7 project.

Year Zero

March 7, 2017

With the publication of “Year Zero,” it was immediately clear that WikiLeaks had penetrated into or very near the core of the CIA’s cyberoperations. This first Vault 7 release is comprised of 8,761 documents and files obtained from what WikiLeaks describes as “an isolated, high-security network situated inside the CIA’s Center for Cyber Intelligence in Langley, Virginia, the agency’s headquarters.As WikiLeaks notes, the agency had “lost control of the majority of its hacking arsenal” shortly before it published “Year Zero.” There had been a massive leak, to put this point in simple terms. “The archive appears to have been circulated among former U.S. government hackers and contractors in an unauthorized manner,” WikiLeaks reported, “one of whom has provided WikiLeaks with portions of the archive.” This occurred at some point in 2016.

“Year Zero” serves as an overview of “the scope and direction of the CIA’s global hacking program” and an introduction to material included in the Vault 7 releases to follow. The agency’s inventory of tools was the purview — and we can assume continues to be so — of the Engineering Development Group (EDG), a technology department under the authority of the Center for Cyber Intelligence.

The EDG also tests and operates its products once they are perfected and added to the agency’s arsenal. The engineering group, Wikileaks reported, has developed some 500 projects, each with its own malware and hacking tools. The EDG’s focus is on penetration, implanting, control and exfiltration. “Year Zero” analyzes the most important of these.

High among the objectives of Vault 7 programs was to achieve the capability of penetrating the manufacturers of cellular telephones and other electronic devices for a variety of operations. Among the products targeted for this purpose were Apple’s iPhone and iPad, Google’s Android operating system, Microsoft Windows and Samsung televisions.

Programs included in the Vault 7 collection were designed to hack these and other commonly used devices and systems remotely so they can corrupt the targets and also send the CIA the owner’s geographic location and all audio and text communications. Other programs were capable of turning on a device’s microphone and camera without the owner’s knowledge. Other attack-and-control programs targeted MAC OS X, Solaris and Linux operating systems.

A number of the CIA’s programs revealed in the Vault 7 releases focus exclusively on one or another of these companies, most commonly Microsoft.“Grasshopper” (April 7, 2017) is a platform for the development of malware designed for attacks on Windows operating systems. “AfterMidnight” (May 12, 2017) and “Brutal Kangaroo” (June 22, 2017) also target the Microsoft Windows platform, while “Weeping Angels” (April 21, 2017) infiltrated Samsung televisions. “Outlaw Country” (June 30, 2017) is designed for attack on computers that use the Linux OS.

“Year Zero” also details the CIA’s use of what the agency calls “zero days.” These are commonly occurring software code imperfections and vulnerabilities in electronic devices that the CIA knows and makes use of but does not disclose to manufacturers or the public.

In some respects, zero days are treated as commodities. While the CIA discovered some zero days on its own, it obtained others from the NSA, GCHQ (the NSA’s British counterpart), or the FBI. It also purchased zero days from private cyber-weapons manufacturers much as the Pentagon would buy a weapons system from a defense contractor.

The CIA’s stockpile of zero days enables it to bypass encryption systems installed in such communications applications as WhatsApp, the widely used long-distance telephone and text service. This makes zero days, which can be used either locally or remotely, especially significant in extending the reach of the agency’s hacking operations. The CIA’s practice of keeping zero days secret — effectively hoarding them, as WikiLeaks notes — is especially cynical and dangerous.

As WikiLeaks explains:

“If the CIA can hack these phones then so can everyone else who has obtained or discovered the vulnerability. As long as the CIA keeps these vulnerabilities concealed from Apple and Google (who make the phones) they will not be fixed, and the phones will remain hackable. The same vulnerabilities exist for the population at large, including the U.S. Cabinet, Congress, top CEOs, system administrators, security officers and engineers. By hiding these security flaws from manufacturers like Apple and Google, the CIA ensures that it can hack everyone– at the expense of leaving everyone hackable.”

Most malware developed by the EDG and related units in the CIA’s organizational structure is designed to remain in implanted devices for considerable lengths of time — in some cases years — after it is installed. So long as it is present it communicates regularly and in two-way fashion with the CIA’s Command and Control systems.

While many programs are implanted remotely, some require a physical presence. This typically means an agent infests a targeted device on site. But in some cases, the CIA covertly intervened into supply chains and delivery services, including postal services, by opening, infecting, and on-sending products without the knowledge of either the manufacturer or the purchaser.

As it began its Vault 7 series with “Year Zero,” WikiLeaks took the occasion to note “an extreme proliferation risk in the development of cyber ‘weapons,’” as Assange put it at the time. He drew a comparison between these weapons and the global arms trade, noting “the inability to contain them, combined with their high market value.”

The source of the Vault 7 trove, who was among the former government hackers and contractors circulating the Vault programs among themselves, shared these and other concerns:

“In a statement to WikiLeaks the source details policy questions that they say urgently need to be debated in public, including whether the CIA’s hacking capabilities exceed its mandated powers and the problem of oversight of the agency. The source wishes to initiate a public debate about the security, creation, use, proliferation, and democratic control of cyber-weapons.”

This is Consortium News’s intent in publishing its report on Vault 7.

Mindful of the risks attached to proliferation, and perhaps of past (and unfounded) charges that its publications compromised U.S. national security and American personnel, WikiLeaks notes that it was careful to avoid distributing what it termed “‘armed’ cyber-weapons” as it published the Vault 7 series.

It also said it redacted “tens of thousands of CIA targets and attack machines throughout Latin America, Europe, and the United States.” In a note in an FAQ section appended to “Year Zero,” WikiLeaks states, “Names, email addresses, and external IP addresses have been redacted in the released pages (70,875 redactions in total) until further analysis is complete.”

Dark Matter
March 23, 2017

Projects developed in the “Dark Matter” program were designed to penetrate Apple Macs and iPhones with what is called firmware — that is, malware that continues to infect the units attacked even if the OS is reinstalled. “Sonic Screwdriver,” a sub-project in this group, allowed attackers to install and activate computer code while users booted up these Apple devices.WikiLeaks’ “Dark Matter” release also included the manual for using the agency’s “Nightskies” program, “a beacon/loader/implant tool” intended for attacks on Apple iPhones. “Nightskies” had been upgraded by the time WikiLeaks received the Vault 7 documents. “Noteworthy is that Nightskies had reached Nightskies 1.2 by 2008,” WikiLeaks observed, “and is expressly designed to be physically installed into factory fresh iPhones, i.e., the CIA has been infecting the iPhone supply chain of its targets since at least 2008.”

Marble Framework
March 31, 2017

The “Marble” program, consisting of 676 source code files, was specifically intended to incapacitate anti-virus software programs and block the work of forensic scientists and investigators attempting to trace the origin of malware, hacking attacks and Trojan horse attacks.

The core function of Marble is what the CIA terms “obfuscation,” that is hiding all traces of an agency intervention from investigators. Marble also has a “deobfuscating” capability. This enables the agency to reverse an obfuscation so that investigators detect what appears to be evidence of an attack’s origin.

It is with this deobfuscating tool that the CIA can mislead investigators by implanting false evidence in the attacked device or program — for example, by leaving signs that the language used in a malware attack was not English but, say, Chinese. In addition to Mandarin, the languages Marble was capable of false-flagging were Russian, Korean, Arabic and Farsi, Iran’s national language.

Marble’s anti-forensics capability made “Marble Framework” among the most significant of the Vault 7 releases, not least due to the timing of its publication, very shortly before the intrusion into the Democratic Party’s email servers. As the DNC, the FBI, and the CIA constructed their case purportedly proving Russia’s responsibility for the theft, they cited malware metadata with extensive script in Cyrillic.

There is no direct evidence that the CIA used its Marble program in the DNC case, but the presence of Cyrillic in the metadata suggests this may have been the case. It is highly unlikely that a Russian intelligence agency would have amateurishly left behind Cyrillic characters as prominently in the metadata as U.S. authorities presented them.

Ellen Nakashima of The Washington Post reported on the Marble program when WikiLeaks released it March 31, 2017. “WikiLeaks’ latest disclosure of CIA cyber-tools reveals a technique used by the agency to hide its digital tracks,” she wrote, “potentially blowing the cover on current and past hacking operations aimed at gathering intelligence on terrorists and other foreign targets.” We note that this remains the only mention of the Marble program in mainstream media.

Weeping Angel
April 21, 2017

The agency’s Embedded Services Branch, tasked with developing programs that worked by way of physically implanted devices, built a program called “Weeping Angel” specifically to compromise Samsung’s F Series line of “smart televisions.”

This program is a measure of the exceptional reach the agency’s hacking division has achieved. When a target TV is infested, the implant gives a “fake off” mode so that the owner is deceived into thinking the TV is off when it is still on and operating as a standard bug to record conversations and send them over the internet to a remote CIA server at Command and Control. In effect, televisions were turned into listening devices capable of surveilling entire offices or households.

“Weeping Angel” was developed jointly with MI5, Britain’s domestic intelligence service, and a U.K. intelligence entity called BTSS. The program requires a tool to be physically implanted in targeted televisions. Given it is intended to attack an ordinary consumer product, “Weeping Angel” is likely to count among those tools that were implanted on a mass basis via intrusions into Samsung’s supply chains or delivery services.

Archimedes
May 5, 2017

The CIA’s “Archimedes” program developed the agency’s capability to attack computers connected by a Local Area Network, or LAN. With the Archimedes tool, CIA hackers can compromise the network to divert message traffic from the targeted device or devices by infecting and controlling a computer in the LAN. In addition to message traffic, the targeted devices’ web browsers are also redirected to the covert server while maintaining the appearance of a normal browser for the targeted computer’s user.

Archimedes was effectively a self-expanding tool. It was designed to invade protected environments, as WikiLeaks put it, by attacking one or more computers in a LAN and using those to infect other devices in the network.

CherryBlossom
June 15, 2017

The CIA developed its “CherryBlossom” programs in cooperation with the Stanford Research Institute International, or SRI, a Menlo Park, California, scientific research organization with long-established ties to the CIA, notably in the field of parapsychology research.

CherryBlossom programs are dedicated to penetrating wireless networking devices such as commonly used routers with the intent of monitoring internet activity and implanting targeted devices with malware that enables the agency to execute a variety of operations: With CherryBlossom, CIA hackers can monitor, control and manipulate the internet traffic of those connected to a compromised wireless device; they can also implant malware and malicious content into data streams by taking advantage of “zero day” vulnerabilities in operating systems or computer applications.

The intricacies of the CherryBlossom program are worth noting, as they are typical of the sophistication common to the hacking operations WikiLeaks exposed in its Vault 7 releases. The program’s ability to engage in two-way communication between infected devices and the agency’s Command and Control unit, and control’s ability to assign tasks to the program, are especially to be noted:

“The wireless device itself is compromised by implanting a customized CherryBlossom firmware on it; some devices allow upgrading their firmware over a wireless link, so no physical access to the device is necessary for a successful infection. Once the new firmware on the device is flashed, the router or access point will become a so-called FlyTrap. A FlyTrap will beacon over the Internet to a Command & Control server referred to as the CherryTree. The beaconed information contains device status and security information that the CherryTree logs to a database. In response to this information, the CherryTree sends a Mission with operator-defined tasking. An operator can use CherryWeb, a browser-based user interface to view Flytrap status and security info, plan Mission tasking, view Mission-related data, and perform system administration tasks.”

Many of the programs detailed in the Vault 7 series were designed for deployment via remote hacking operations; products that required physically implanted devices in targeted hardware or software were the responsibility of the agency’s Embedded Services Branch, which focused in part on “the Internet of Things,” or IoT.“Weeping Angels” is an example of an ESB product. Another program of this kind, which WikiLeaks reports was under consideration as of 2014, was conceived to infiltrate the computer systems in motor vehicles and override the driver’s ability to control the vehicle by, for example, causing it to accelerate beyond safe speeds.

“The purpose of such control is not specified,” WikiLeaks notes, “but it would permit the CIA to engage in nearly undetectable assassinations.” WikiLeaks came upon a reference of this project in notes of a Branch Direction Meeting held Oct. 23, 2014. It is not clear if this project has since been completed and gone operational.

Official Reaction: Get Assange

The Trump administration, two months in power when WikiLeaks released “Zero Day” and announced the Vault 7 series, reacted swiftly and vigorously to the news.

Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary at the time, told reporters, “Anybody who leaks classified information will be held to the highest degree of law. We will go after people who leak classified information. We will prosecute them to the full extent of the law.”

It was at this time President Donald Trump announced his determination to extradite and prosecute Assange. But even as the White House reacted with fury, the Justice Department was well along in its negotiations with Assange via Waldman, the go-between attorney Assange’s legal team had contacted after Trump’s inauguration in January. While there is no evidence that the CIA had a role in these talks, it is clear the DoJ was negotiating for the purpose of limiting the damage to the agency’s covert hacking operations. While the CIA was also stunned by WikiLeaks’ penetration of the walls of secrecy erected around its extensive inventory of cyber-weapons, the events of March 7, 2017, may not have landed in Langley by surprise. A news report by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation published a day after the “Year Zero” release indicated that the agency was aware of a significant breach of its Center for Cyber Intelligence by the end of the previous year.

However, the CIA’s WikiLeaks Task Force final report of Oct. 17, 2017, which probed the leak, says the agency was not aware of the breach until it read about it in WikiLeaks on March 7 of that year:

“Because the stolen data resided on a mission system that lacked user activity monitoring and a robust server audit capability, we did not realize the loss had occurred until a year later, when WikiLeaks publicly announced it in March 2017. Had the data been stolen for the benefit of a state adversary and not published, we might still be unaware of the loss—as would be true for the vast majority of data on Agency mission systems.”

The CIA did know by then that over the previous three years it had sustained (along with NSA, other intelligence agencies and contractors such as Booz Allen Hamilton) what WikiLeaks described as “an unprecedented series of data exfiltrations by its own workers.” Until Vault 7, the Snowden releases in 2013 were the most prominent such case.

By the time “Year Zero” was published, WikiLeaks noted, “a number of intelligence community members not yet publicly named have been arrested or subject to federal criminal investigations in separate incidents.” WikiLeaks singled out the case of Harold T. Martin III, who, a month before “Year Zero” came out, was indicted by a grand jury on 20 counts of mishandling classified information.

Martin was accused of hacking some 50 terabytes of data from the NSA while working as a contractor for Booz Allen. He was sentenced to nine years in prison in July 2019.

Vault 7 comprises what remain among WikiLeaks’ most extensive publications for their penetration into the CIA’s culture of secrecy. As earlier noted, it was in apparent response to the launch of the Vault 7 series that Director Pompeo signaled the U.S. government’s campaign to extradite Assange from Britain.

This case is now proceeding. If Assange is extradited to the U.S., he faces 18 charges of espionage and conspiracy to intrude into a government computer system with combined maximum sentences of 175 years.

There is a final irony here of the sort typical of the Trump administration. Jennifer Robinson, one of Assange’s attorneys, testified last month at Assange’s extradition hearing in London that Trump offered to pardon Assange in the course of 2017 if he had agreed to reveal the source of the DNC email trove leaked in 2016 that was published on WikiLeaks.

The offer was conveyed at a meeting with Assange by Dana Rohrabacher, the then Republican congressman, and Charles Johnson, an associate of Rohrabacher’s with ties to the Trump administration. Given that confidentiality is WikiLeaks’ most fundamental principle, Assange declined the offer.

Media ReactsBy the time WikiLeaks began the Vault 7 series, U.S. media in particular, and Western media altogether, had followed the U.S. government’s lead and turned decisively against the publisher with which they had previously collaborated. Press and broadcast coverage of Vault 7 releases reflected this. Reporting of the Vault 7 series was minimal and avoided any examination of the profound political and legal questions Vault 7 raised.

The New York Times and The Washington Post reported the release of “Year Zero” as a spot news story. Both papers reviewed in broad-brush fashion a few of the programs contained in the first Vault 7 release, as for example, in these paragraphs from the Times story :

“The documents amount to a detailed, highly technical catalog of tools. They include instructions for compromising a wide range of common computer tools for use in spying: the online calling service Skype; Wi-Fi networks; documents in PDF format; and even commercial antivirus programs of the kind used by millions of people to protect their computers. A program called Wrecking Crew explains how to crash a targeted computer, and another tells how to steal passwords using the autocomplete function on Internet Explorer. Other programs were called CrunchyLimeSkies, ElderPiggy, AngerQuake and McNugget.”

This quick-gloss treatment was typical of U.S. press coverage. Without exception, it was arms-length, incurious, minimally dutiful, and at bottom unserious. No major news outlet published a news analysis or addressed questions related to the CIA’s Fourth Amendment abuses, its compromises of individuals and private and publicly listed corporations, or its breach of its charter.

None quoted transparency or anti-secrecy advocates, public policy analysts, or defenders of individual privacy. Consumer Reports published a “what consumers need to know” piece.

“There is no evidence that the C.I.A. hacking tools have been used against Americans,” the Times reported in contradiction to the list of devices and services the agency’s tools were designed to attack. The paper went on to quote an analyst at CSIS, where Pompeo was shortly afterward to speak forcefully against Assange, suggesting “that a foreign state, most likely Russia, stole the documents by hacking or other means and delivered them to WIkiLeaks.” This ignored WikiLeaks forthright account of the source of the documents — which the Timesquoted earlier in its story.

The U.S. press effectively dropped the Vault 7 story after “Year Zero” was published. There was very little reporting on any of the other releases. As noted, the Post’s Nakashima was the only reporter to put out a story on the highly significant “Marble” program.

This year Nakashima was also among the few journalists to report on an internal CIA report concluding that the leak of the documents collected as Vault 7 “was the result of a workplace culture in which the agency’s elite computer hackers ‘prioritized building cyber weapons at the expense of securing their own systems.”

Patrick Lawrence, a correspondent abroad for many years, chiefly for the International Herald Tribune, is a columnist, essayist, author and lecturer. His most recent book is Time No Longer: Americans After the American Century (Yale). Follow him on Twitter @thefloutist. His web site is Patrick Lawrence. Support his work via his Patreon site.

[Franny]

At the end the writer, Ron Paul, states that reporting the truth should not be a crime and Assange should be pardoned immediately. I tend to think that Assange has not committed any crimes by reporting the truth and should be exonerated and released immediately.

However, deep state guy Mike we-lied-we-cheated-we-stole Pompeo and Trump seem determined to see him in a US prison if he survives his stay in a British prison.

What message does Assange's treatment by the US send to journalists about this administration's policy on the First Amendment and truthful journalists reporting facts uncomfortable to government entities.


https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/iraq-war-diaries-ten-years-truth-remains-treason

'Iraq War Diaries' At Ten Years: Truth Remains Treason
Authored by Ron Paul via The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity,

The purpose of journalism is to uncover truth – especially uncomfortable truth – and to publish it for the benefit of society. In a free society, we must be informed of the criminal acts carried out by governments in the name of the people. Throughout history, journalists have uncovered the many ways governments lie, cheat, and steal – and the great lengths they will go to keep the people from finding out.

Great journalists like Seymour Hersh, who reported to us the tragedy of the Mai Lai Massacre and the horrors that took place at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, are essential.

Ten years ago last week, Julian Assange’s Wikileaks organization published an exposé of US government wrongdoing on par with the above Hersh bombshell stories.

Publication of the "Iraq War Diaries" showed us all the brutality of the US attack on Iraq. It told us the truth about the US invasion and occupation of that country. This was no war of defense against a nation threatening us with weapons of mass destruction. This was no liberation of the country. We were not “bringing democracy” to Iraq.

No, the release of nearly 400,000 classified US Army field reports showed us in dirty detail that the US attack was a war of aggression, based on lies, where hundreds of thousands of civilians were killed and injured.

We learned that the US military classified anyone they killed in Iraq as “enemy combatants.”

We learned that more than 700 Iraqi civilians were killed for “driving too close” to one of the hundreds of US military checkpoints – including pregnant mothers-to-be rushing to the hospital.

We learned that US military personnel routinely handed “detainees” over to Iraqi security forces where they would be tortured and often killed.

Ten years after Assange’s brave act of journalism changed the world and exposed one of the crimes of the century, he sits alone in solitary confinement in a UK prison. He sits literally fighting for his life, as if he is successfully extradited to the United States he faces 175 years in a “supermax” prison for committing “espionage” against a country of which he is not a citizen.

On the Iraq war we have punished the truth-tellers and rewarded the criminals. People who knowingly lied us into the war like Dick Cheney, George W. Bush, the Beltway neocon “experts,” and most of the media, faced neither punishment nor professional shaming for their acts. In fact, they got off scot free and many even prospered.

Julian Assange explained that he published the Iraq War Diaries because he “hoped to correct some of the attack on truth that occurred before the war, and that continued on since that war officially ended.” We used to praise brave journalists not afraid to take on the “bad guys.” Now we torture and imprison them.

President Trump has made a point of singling out the US attack on Iraq as one of the “stupid wars” that he was committed to ending. But we wouldn’t know half of just how stupid – and evil – it was were it not for the brave actions of Julian Assange and whistleblower Chelsea Manning. Journalism should not be a crime and President Trump should pardon Assange immediately.

[onawah]

One big reason why I've never felt that Trump is truly a hero, and not more than merely the lesser of two evils.
His stance on Assange speaks volumes; why else except that he is a member of a Deep State faction?


However, deep state guy Mike we-lied-we-cheated-we-stole Pompeo and Trump seem determined to see him in a US prison if he survives his stay in a British prison.

[Tintin]

Some very encouraging news which is tempered only as a result of waiting on whichever administration assumes power in the US and who, if any, may decide to exonerate Julian. It has been suggested that this is something Donald Trump could do as a revenge strike on the Democratic machine should he not retain the presidency.

I wouldn't hold my breath on that; if their is one stain on the Trump administration's tenure it is their complicity, or at least perceived complicity, in the appalling and shameful treatment of Julian, along with their bosses within the UK branch of the (same) deep state. I may be being a little too generous here but there may well be reasons that none of us are yet aware as to why Trump was unable to intervene. He may have had his hands tied inexorably, for whatever reason.

Anyway, the news from Australia:

1325686381151055872

[Tintin]

"The closing argument asserts, “It is highly significant that the Department of Justice under the Obama administration recognized that it would be both wrong and impolitic to prosecute Julian Assange.”

“It is equally significant that the DOJ under the Trump administration, for blatantly political reasons, was pressured into reversing the approach of the Obama administration and prosecuting Julian Assange despite the implications of the prosecution for the constitutional protection of the First Amendment, and despite the nature of the revelations.”"

_____________________________

Assange Legal Team Submits Closing Argument Against Extradition To United States


In submission to magistrates' court in London, attorneys detail the "politically motivated" case the Trump administration pursued against the WikiLeaks founder.

Kevin Gosztola | November 9 2020

Source: The Dissenter (https://dissenter.substack.com/p/assange-closing-argument-extradition)

https://cdn.substack.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F74eebc29-6642-4fc7-8264-f4580b57ff91_2020x1044.png

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange’s legal team submitted their closing argument to a British magistrates’ court. They argue, “It is politically motivated, it is an abuse of the process of this court, and it is a clear violation of the Anglo-U.S. treaty that governs this extradition.”

The closing argument relies on evidence presented by witnesses, who testified during a trial in September, and details how President Barack Obama’s administration declined to prosecute Assange. President Donald Trump’s administration reversed this “principled” position because of the nature of Assange’s “disclosures to the world and the nature of his political opinions, which inevitably attracted the hostility of the Trump administration and the CIA.”

Prosecutors will submit their closing argument on November 20, and Judge Vanessa Baraitser is expected to rule on the extradition request on January 4.

While Trump’s campaign for re-election failed, the outcome of the U.S. presidential election is not expected to impact the decision. (In fact, the submission contains zero references to President-elect Joe Biden.)

Assange was charged by the United States Justice Department with 17 counts of violating the Espionage Act and one count of conspiracy to commit a computer intrusion that contains elements of an Espionage Act offense.

The charges criminalize the act of merely receiving classified information, as well as the publication of state secrets from the U.S. government. It targets common practices in newsgathering, which is why the case is widely opposed by press freedom organizations throughout the world.

All of the charges relate to the documents Pfc. Chelsea Manning provided to WikiLeaks in 2010.

Assange’s defense refers to the “political agenda” of the Trump administration and their “obvious hostility” to Assange’s “exposure and condemnation of U.S. war crimes and human rights abuses.”

“Trump’s ‘America First’ policy supporting immunity for U.S. crimes, denouncing the investigations by the ICC [International Criminal Court] of U.S. war crimes in Afghanistan, occurred in harmony with the CIA’s motivation for targeting Julian Assange,” the submission declares.

Beginning in 2017, Trump officials publicly condemned Assange. Charges were “ratcheted up” between December 2017 and June 2020, and “breaches of the rule of law” allegedly occurred, as Assange was targeted by a U.S. intelligence-backed surveillance operation while he lived under political asylum in the Ecuador embassy in London.

What unfolded was an “unprecedented prosecution for the receipt and publication of documents, where the international publications were plainly in the public interest,” the legal team contends.

“To this end, the U.S. prosecution has sought to distort the facts in order to present what is plainly a prosecution for political offenses into a prosecution for ‘ordinary’ crimes.”

CIA Seeks Revenge After WikiLeaks Publishes ‘Vault 7’ Materials

The Washington Post reported on May 24, 2019, that the decision to indict Assange under the Espionage Act led to protest and the resignation of career prosecutors in the Justice Department.

Back in 2013, former Justice Department spokesperson Matthew Miller told the Post, “If you are not going to prosecute journalists for publishing classified information, which the department is not, then there is no way to prosecute Assange.” Miller later said Assange acted as a publisher and not a hacker. So, the Obama administration never charged Assange.

In February 2017—Trump’s first month in office—WikiLeaks published (https://wikileaks.org//cia-france-elections-2012/) “CIA espionage orders” that called attention to how major political parties in France were “targeted for infiltration” in the run-up to the 2012 presidential election.

[Document: https://wikileaks.org//cia-france-elections-2012/document/2012-CIA-FRANCE-ELECTION/2012-CIA-FRANCE-ELECTION.pdf ]

About a month later, WikiLeaks brought further scrutiny to the CIA when they published the “Vault 7” material, which they described as the “largest ever publication of confidential documents on the agency.”

The files exposed the CIA’s “fleet of hackers,” who targeted smartphones and computers. They called attention to a program called “Weeping Angel” that made it possible for the CIA to attack Samsung F8000 TVs and convert them into spying devices.

As CNBC reported, the CIA had 14 “zero-day exploits,” which were “software vulnerabilities” that had no fix yet. The agency used them (https://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/08/wikileaks-dump-apple-samsung-microsoft-react-to-claims-cia-hacked-iphones-tv.html) to “hack Apple’s iOS devices such as iPads and iPhones.” Documents showed the “exploits were shared with other organizations including the National Security Agency (NSA) and GCHQ, another U.K. spy agency. The CIA did not tell Apple about these vulnerabilities.”

WikiLeaks additionally revealed that the CIA targeted Microsoft Windows users, as well as Signal and WhatsApp users, with malware.

Mike Pompeo, who was the CIA director, responded to the publication on April 13, 2017. “The false narratives that increasingly define our public discourse cannot be ignored. There are fictions out there that demean and distort the work and achievements of CIA and of the broader intelligence community.”

“And in the absence of a vocal rebuttal, these voices—ones that proclaim treason to be public advocacy—gain a gravity they do not deserve. It is time to call these voices out. The men and women of CIA deserve a real defense.”

“That is one of the many reasons why we at CIA find the celebration of entities like WikiLeaks to be both perplexing and deeply troubling.”

Stunningly, in Pompeo’s first public remarks as CIA director, and with zero evidence, he labeled WikiLeaks a “non-state hostile intelligence service often abetted by state actors like Russia.”

Pompeo said Assange had “no First Amendment freedoms” because “he is not a U.S. citizen,” which to Assange’s legal team was a preview of the legal theory top administration officials later “devised” to justify pursuing charges.

“We’ve had administrations before that have been squeamish about going after these folks under some concept of this right-to-publish,” Pompeo also declared.

A Target Of Espionage And Lawfare
Unlike the Obama administration, Pompeo would not let principles of freedom of the press under the Constitution stop the CIA from seeking revenge—through espionage and lawfare.

Lawyers for Assange maintain the case “coincided with the grant of diplomatic status by the Ecuadorian government” in December 2017. “That grant of diplomatic status was of course well-known to the U.S. authorities because US intelligence agencies had access to recordings in the embassy” collected by UC Global.

“By then, prosecution had become a political imperative, and they wished to counteract the potential effects of the granting of diplomatic status by Ecuador.”

Extralegal measures were taken that involved making attorneys representing Assange priority targets for surveillance (https://dissenter.substack.com/p/uc-global-employee-thwarted-plan). Legally privileged papers were seized (https://dissenter.substack.com/p/fbi-seized-legally-privileged-materials) by Ecuador authorities so they could be handed over to the FBI’s office in the United Kingdom.

Furthermore, the legal team for Assange sees a connection between this prosecution and the Trump administration’s retaliation against the ICC. They sanctioned ICC officials in June after the body asserted the authority to investigate war crimes by U.S. forces in Afghanistan.

Pompeo and Attorney General Bill Barr stated, “Those who assist the ICC’s politically motivated investigation of American service members and intelligence officers without the United States’ consent will suffer serious consequences. The Department of Justice fully supports these measures and will vigorously enforce the sanctions imposed today under the executive order to the fullest extent of the law.”

***

Assange and WikiLeaks revealed war crimes and exposed the U.S. agenda to obstruct international bodies and foreign governments from holding the U.S. government accountable for human rights violations.

Numerous examples were raised by witnesses at the extradition trial and mentioned in the closing argument submitted to the court.

The CIA and U.S. forces were involved in extrajudicial assassinations in Pakistan. Civilians were killed.

European countries were pressured by U.S. officials to not investigate torture. This included efforts to ensure the German government did not prosecute CIA personnel involved in the abduction, rendition, and torture of German citizen Khaled el-Masri, who submitted (https://dissenter.substack.com/p/khaled-el-masri-survivor-of-cia-torture) testimony in defense of Assange.

According to diplomatic cables published by WikiLeaks, the Yemeni government held their own citizens in prison for the U.S. government, even though they had “no evidence they were involved in terrorist acts.”

The CIA enlisted U.S. officials to spy on the UN Secretary-General, UN Security Council members and foreign diplomats at the UN in New York in violation of international law. Officials were encouraged to collect “DNA samples, iris scans, and computer passwords” of foreign government officials.

Measures were put in place to limit the scope of the “Chilcot Inquiry,” which was established to examine the British government’s involvement in the Iraq War.

U.S. war crimes in Iraq were exposed, including a 2006 raid by U.S. troops, where an elderly woman and her five-month old child were killed. An airstrike was called in to wipe out evidence of the killing. (This revelation eventually led to the withdrawal of U.S. troops because the Iraqi government refused to grant soldiers immunity for war crimes.)

The closing argument asserts, “It is highly significant that the Department of Justice under the Obama administration recognized that it would be both wrong and impolitic to prosecute Julian Assange.”

“It is equally significant that the DOJ under the Trump administration, for blatantly political reasons, was pressured into reversing the approach of the Obama administration and prosecuting Julian Assange despite the implications of the prosecution for the constitutional protection of the First Amendment, and despite the nature of the revelations.”

“Indeed,” as attorneys conclude, “the prosecution was part of a political drive to punish leakers, intimidate journalists, and assert worldwide U.S. impunity for war crimes, rendition, and torture.”

[onawah]

COVID outbreak in Belmarsh & Possibility of a Pardon
13,034 views•Nov 27, 2020
acTVism Munich
87.3K subscribers

"In this video, we provide the latest update on the Julian Assange case. Following a COVID-19 outbreak in Belmarsh prison, Assange chose not to attend his latest hearing for fear of contracting the virus. Belmarsh prison is on a strict lockdown due to a recent increase in positive cases. As a result, RSF and Doctors 4 Assange have called for Assange’s immediate release from prison. In addition, we examine the possibility of President Trump issuing a preemptive pardon to Julian Assange following a heartfelt plea from his fiance Stella Moris on social media."

To view all of our previous updates & reports on this case:
https://bit.ly/2MZhjAh
To read the transcript of this video:
https://bit.ly/3q8WV23eIqVtioiAs8

[iota]

One big reason why I've never felt that Trump is truly a hero, and not more than merely the lesser of two evils.
His stance on Assange speaks volumes; why else except that he is a member of a Deep State faction?


However, deep state guy Mike we-lied-we-cheated-we-stole Pompeo and Trump seem determined to see him in a US prison if he survives his stay in a British prison.


i DO have to agree with this assessment Onawah and the reasoning behind it

i had already been deceived by Obama when he turned out to be .... oh don't even want to discuss it ....

so despite being convinced that hell would arrive with a Hillary timeline (Bill provided some details in that dept to corroborate my personal views/feelings) and actually crying the night he got elected, i was keeping guarded watch on Trump

there were two points that would be determining factors for me as to his true status, i stated:

1.) Epstein

2.) Assange

and here we are

one thing .. and i want to bring this up in your other thread ...

the man who gave the fantastically inspirational speech, without hesitation, with confidence, not needing a script .. speaking from his heart

where is he?

that voice and those traits are not there now .. and i'm not sure i want to know the answer to that question

at the moment we're in battle .. but after? the question begs an answer :flower:

this is the video that inspired me:
http://projectavalon.net/What_President_Trump_Stands_For.mp4

[onawah]

I'm willing to give Trump more the benefit of the doubt these days, especially given his work on exposing the fraudulent election tactics of the Dems.
Pardoning Assange might actually have resulted in even worse treatment of him in the UK.
If Assange is extradited, he would probably have a better chance of surviving in a US prison, at least until he was pardoned, or even if he wasn't.
I'm just speculating here--I'm not familiar enough with the logistics to know.
As for Trump's current lackluster quality, I imagine that like all POTUS's at the end of 4 years in office, he is probably a lot more tired and world-weary than when he started out.
As for Obama and HRC--I hear you!!


One big reason why I've never felt that Trump is truly a hero, and not more than merely the lesser of two evils.
His stance on Assange speaks volumes; why else except that he is a member of a Deep State faction?


i DO have to agree with this assessment Onawah and the reasoning behind it

the man who gave the fantastically inspirational speech, without hesitation, with confidence, not needing a script .. speaking from his heart

where is he?

that voice and those traits are not there now .. and i'm not sure i want to know the answer to that question

[iota]

I'm willing to give Trump more the benefit of the doubt these days, especially given his work on exposing the fraudulent election tactics of the Dems.
Pardoning Assange might actually have resulted in even worse treatment of him in the UK.
If Assange is extradited, he would probably have a better chance of surviving in a US prison, at least until he was pardoned, or even if he wasn't.
I'm just speculating here--I'm not familiar enough with the logistics to know.
As for Trump's current lackluster quality, I imagine that like all POTUS's at the end of 4 years in office, he is probably a lot more tired and world-weary than when he started out.
As for Obama and HRC--I hear you!!


One big reason why I've never felt that Trump is truly a hero, and not more than merely the lesser of two evils.
His stance on Assange speaks volumes; why else except that he is a member of a Deep State faction?


i DO have to agree with this assessment Onawah and the reasoning behind it

the man who gave the fantastically inspirational speech, without hesitation, with confidence, not needing a script .. speaking from his heart

where is he?

that voice and those traits are not there now .. and i'm not sure i want to know the answer to that question



I really and truly hope that is ALL that it is, logic suggests it, my inner senses picking up on it indicates something else ... i've actually been meaning to ask Arcturian108 what her take on this might be ...

just in case, i think i'll send him lots of positive energy a few times a day ...
because i kinda am really concerned ....
as well as Julian who is and will always be a personal hero
to whom ( i believe) the world is indebted

thanks for the input, you know i value it!
always a pleasure Onawah! :flower:

[Tintin]

Nils Melzer today makes another (https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=26574&LangID=E) plea for Julian's immediate release:

United Kingdom: UN expert calls for immediate release of Assange after 10 years of arbitrary detention

GENEVA (8 December 2020) – The UN Special Rapporteur on torture, Nils Melzer, today appealed to British authorities to immediately release Julian Assange from prison or to place him under guarded house arrest during US extradition proceedings.

He made the urgent call 10 years after Mr. Assange's first arrest on 7 December 2010, amid an outbreak of COVID-19 at Belmarsh prison. Reports say 65 of approximately 160 inmates, including a number in the wing where Mr. Assange is being held, have tested positive.

In an opinion rendered in December 2015, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention found that since his arrest on 7 December 2010, Mr. Assange had been subjected to various forms of arbitrary deprivation of liberty, including 10 days of detention in London's Wandsworth prison; 550 days of house arrest, and the continuation of the deprivation of liberty in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London which lasted almost seven years. Since 11 April 2019, Mr. Assange has been held in near total isolation at Belmarsh.

"The British authorities initially detained Mr. Assange on the basis of an arrest warrant issued by Sweden in connection with allegations of sexual misconduct that have since been formally dropped due to lack of evidence. Today, he is detained for exclusively preventative purposes, to ensure his presence during the ongoing US extradition trial, a proceeding which may well last several years," said Melzer.

"Mr. Assange is not a criminal convict and poses no threat to anyone, so his prolonged solitary confinement in a high security prison is neither necessary nor proportionate and clearly lacks any legal basis."

The progressively severe suffering inflicted on Mr. Assange, as a result of his prolonged solitary confinement, amounts not only to arbitrary detention, but also to torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Melzer said.

He expressed particular concern about Mr. Assange's exposure to COVID-19 given his pre-existing medical condition. "Prison decongestion measures seen around the world in response to COVID-19 should be extended to all inmates whose imprisonment is not absolutely necessary," the expert said. "First and foremost, alternative non-custodial measures should be extended to those with specific vulnerabilities such as Mr. Assange who suffers from a pre-existing respiratory health condition."

Due to the significant risks associated with Mr. Assange's continued imprisonment, in conjunction with the broader concerns that have been repeatedly expressed concerning his treatment and conditions of detention, the expert reiterated previous appeals for Mr. Assange to be immediately released or placed under guarded house arrest.

"Mr. Assange's rights have been severely violated for more than a decade. He must now be allowed to live a normal family, social and professional life, to recover his health and to adequately prepare his defence against the US extradition request pending against him," he said.

In light of the expected first instance decision on his extradition on 4 January 2021, the expert also reiterated his call to the British authorities not to extradite Mr. Assange to the US due to serious human rights concerns.

ENDS

*The expert: Mr. Nils Melzer, Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment

The Special Rapporteurs, Independent Experts and Working Groups are part of what is known as the Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council. Special Procedures, the largest body of independent experts in the UN Human Rights system, is the general name of the Council's independent fact-finding and monitoring mechanisms that address either specific country situations or thematic issues in all parts of the world. Special Procedures' experts work on a voluntary basis; they are not UN staff and do not receive a salary for their work. They are independent from any government or organization and serve in their individual capacity.

UN Human Rights, Country Page – United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (https://www.ohchr.org/EN/countries/ENACARegion/Pages/GBIndex.aspx)

For more information and media requests, please contact: Koat Aleer (+41 22 917 9194 / kaleer@ohchr.org).

For media enquiries regarding other UN independent experts, please contact Renato de Souza (+41 22 928 9855 / rrosariodesouza@ohchr.org), Jeremy Laurence (+ 41 22 917 7578 / jlaurence@ohchr.org) and Kitty McKinsey (kmckinsey@ohchr.org)

[onawah]

HUGE: After 4 Years of Stonewalling Corrupt FBI Finally Admits They’re Holding Seth Rich’s Laptop
By Larry Johnson
Published December 9, 2020
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/12/huge-4-years-stonewalling-corrupt-fbi-finally-admits-holding-seth-richs-laptop/

"A stunning development on the legal front that directly impacts the so-called conspiracy theory that the death of Seth Rich was something more than routine street crime. The FBI now admits it has Seth Rich’s laptop. This information has just been posted on Lawflog.com courtesy of Ty Clevenger: https://lawflog.com/?p=2410
According to an email posted at Lawflog.com and sent to attorney Ty Clevenger, the attorney for the FBI now admits that the FBI has completed the initial search identifying approximately 50 cross-reference serials, with attachments totaling over 20,000 pages, in which Seth Rich is mentioned. FBI has also located leads that indicate additional potential records that require further searching. . . . FBI is also currently working on getting the files from Seth Rich’s personal laptop into a format to be reviewed. As you can imagine, there are thousands of files of many types. The goal right now is to describe, generally, the types of files/personal information contained in this computer.

After more than four years of repeated denials from the FBI that they had searched their files and had no information on Seth Rich, we now know that was a blatant lie. It was David Hardy, a FBI Senior official, who put that denial in writing in September 2017. Hardy was the Section Chief of the Record/Information Dissemination Section (“RIDS”), Information Management Division (“IMD”),1 Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), in Winchester, Virginia. He stated under oath that the FBI had no records on Seth Rich:

(19) CRS Search and Results. In response to Plaintiff’s request dated September 1, 2017, RIDS conducted an index search of the CRS for responsive main and reference file records employing the UNI application of ACS. The FBI searched the subject’s name, “Seth Conrad Rich,” in order to identify files responsive to Plaintiff’s request and subject to the FOIA. The FBI’s searches included a three-way phonetic breakdown5 of the subject’s name. These searches located no main or reference records responsive to Plaintiff’s FOIA request.(9) By letter executed on November 9, 2017, OIP advised Plaintiff it affirmed the FBI’s determination. OIP further advised Plaintiff that to the extent his request sought access to records that would either confirm or deny an individual’s placement on any government watch list, the FBI properly refused to confirm or deny the existence of any such records because their existence is protected from disclosure pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(E). In his 2018 declaration, Mr. Hardy also testified under oath that the Metropolitan Police Department in D.C. was solely responsible for investigating Mr. Rich’s murder.

Now we learn that not only does the FBI have more than 20,000 pages relevant to the search term, “Seth Rich,” the FBI still has Seth Rich’s laptop computer. This does not compute. If Seth Rich truly was a victim of a senseless street crime in the middle of the night in Northeast DC, why would the FBI have his laptop? The FBI is not a computer repair shop. The FBI is not a computer storage facility. The FBI collects and retains evidence of federal crimes. It also has responsibility for counterintelligence matters. I can understand the FBI collecting Seth Rich’s computer as possible evidence after he was murdered. It would have been entirely appropriate to investigate whether or not Rich was in contact with Wikileaks. The FBI only retains evidence on an active, open case.

But the FBI has insisted for more than four years that it was never involved actively in the investigation of Seth Rich’s murder and that it never opened a case. That lie is now exposed. What is even more troubling is the fact that the FBI still holds Seth Rich’s computer. If their investigation turned up nothing then the computer would have been returned to the Rich family. The laptop is still with the FBI. It is now clear that the FBI did open a case regarding the murder of Seth Rich and whether he was a source for the DNC dump to Wikileaks. And that case remains open. Today’s disclosure from the FBI supports the claim of renowned investigative journalist, who testified in a recent deposition:that one of his sources had received information from an FBI report stating that Seth Rich had leaked emails to Wikileaks, requested payment and made copies of the emails as a precautionary measure.

After four years of stonewalling, the FBI is now starting to come clean and admit to its previous lies. Why now? If the FBI was confident that Joe Biden and friends would take over in January, they could have continued to lie. Today’s revelation means the FBI is now trying to get ahead of revelations to come. The importance of this development extends beyond the case of Seth Rich and his alleged role in the leaking of DNC emails."

[onawah]

After Years of Stonewalling FBI Finally Comes Clean on Seth Rich FOIA with Guest Ty Clevenger
2,762 views•Streamed live 62 minutes ago 12/10/20
Jason Goodman
119K subscribers

"Attorney Ty Clevenger joins me to discuss the latest explosive development in the Seth Rich murder case as the FBI fesses up to having the laptop everyone has been looking for."

UR3slLGR6eE

[onawah]

FBI Has Files From Laptop of Slain DNC Staffer Seth Rich
BY ZACHARY STIEBER December 11, 2020
https://www.theepochtimes.com/fbi-has-tens-of-thousands-of-pages-mentioning-seth-rich_3613282.html?utm_source=newsnoe&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=breaking-2020-12-11-2

"The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has files from the laptop computer belonging to Seth Rich, a Democratic National Committee (DNC) employee who was killed in 2016, according to a new email.

The bureau also has tens of thousands of documents mentioning Rich.

The FBI “has completed the initial search identifying approximately 50 cross-reference serials, with attachments totaling over 20,000 pages, in which Seth Rich is mentioned,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Andrea Parker wrote in the message to attorney Ty Clevenger, who is representing a plaintiff in Huddleston v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, a case dealing with a Freedom of Information Act request to the bureau.

“FBI has also located leads that indicate additional potential records that require further searching,” Parker added.

The Epoch Times confirmed the email is legitimate.

Parker, who is representing the FBI in the case, didn’t respond to an email or return a voicemail.

The bureau also confirmed it has files from Rich’s laptop and suggested it still has the computer in its possession.

The bureau is “currently working on getting the files from Seth Rich’s personal laptop into a format to be reviewed,” Parker said in the email. She also said the FBI plans on undertaking some level of review of the computer.

The disclosure came as part of a case brought in federal court by Texas resident Brian Huddleston, who filed a Freedom of Information Act request in April asking the FBI to produce all data, documents, records, or communications that reference Seth Rich or his brother, Aaron Rich.

The FBI told the plaintiff in June that it would take 8 to 10 months to provide a final response to the request, prompting the filing of the case in the U.S District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.

Rich was working for the DNC when he was shot and killed in Washington on July 10, 2016. The murder remains unsolved.

The new email bolsters a key charge in Huddleston’s filing: that David Hardy, the FBI’s records chief, was wrong when he said in two affidavits that the FBI searched for records pertaining to Rich but could not find any.

https://img.theepochtimes.com/assets/uploads/2020/12/10/seth-rich-poster.jpg

The first sign that the testimony was erroneous came earlier this year when the nonprofit watchdog Judicial Watch received emails exchanged between FBI agent Peter Strzok and Department of Justice lawyer Lisa Page. The production included several emails mentioning Rich.

Another sign came in March, when former Assistant U.S. Attorney Deborah Sines was deposed in a separate case, Ed Butowsky v. David Folkenflik et. al.

Sines testified that the FBI conducted an investigation into possible hacking attempts on Seth Rich’s electronic accounts following his murder. She said FBI agents examined Rich’s laptop as part of the probe and that a search should uncover emails between her and FBI personnel. She also said she met with a prosecutor and an FBI agent assigned to special counsel Robert Mueller’s team.

The FBI declined to comment, citing a policy of not commenting on pending litigation.

The judge overseeing the Huddleston case in October ordered the defense to produce documents and an index.

In the new email, the government lawyer said the FBI has made “significant progress” in searching for documents mentioning Rich, but still has much work left, including processing the approximately 50 cross-references, undertaking some level of review of the laptop, and completing all remaining services.

The efforts are hampered by the FBI’s Freedom of Information Act office being at 50 percent of its normal workforce due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The government is proposing an amended schedule that would give it three more months to produce the records.

Clevenger, Huddleston’s lawyer, told The Epoch Times via email that his client is hoping to find out why the FBI was involved in the case, and why it originally denied involvement.

“We suspect the FBI may be right that the Metropolitan Police Dept. in D.C. was responsible for investigating Seth’s murder, so that leaves a couple of likely explanations for the FBI’s role: it was investigating a counterintelligence matter or a computer crime. Either scenario would be consistent with Seth transmitting DNC emails to Wikileaks,” he added, referencing a theory about the source of emails from inside the DNC that were later published by Wikileaks.

The theory was the core of a story Fox News published in 2017. It later retracted the report but was sued by Rich’s family.

Fox settled with Rich’s family last month.

A federal judge overseeing the case had earlier this year requested testimony from Wikileaks’ founder Julian Assange.

Rich was killed less than two weeks before WikiLeaks “released a collection of thousands of internal emails and documents taken from the DNC servers,” according to a court filing. One month after Rich’s murder, Assange referenced the DNC staffer in an interview with a Dutch television reporter when discussing the dangers faced by WikiLeaks sources. On Aug. 9, 2016, WikiLeaks offered $20,000 for information about Rich’s murder. The website increased the reward to $130,000 in January 2017.

The Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) several weeks after Rich was shot dead offered a reward for information. A spokeswoman told The Epoch Times via email that the case “remains under active investigation.”

The spokeswoman declined to answer whether the FBI assisted police with its probe. “MPD remains the lead investigative agency over this homicide,” she said.

A firm investigating the DNC situation, Crowdstrike, alleged that the committee’s servers were hacked by Russian actors, but a transcript declassified in May showed the firm had no direct evidence of that claim.

Clevenger said he thinks the timing of the email from Parker, the assistant U.S. attorney, is significant.

“Some of my colleagues suspect the Trump Administration has pushed the release, but I doubt that,” he wrote. “With the purported election of Joe Biden, the FBI brass probably think they are in the clear, and nothing will ever happen to them, so they no longer have any reason to hide what they did.”

Ivan Pentchoukov contributed to this report."

[pueblo]

I don't think this is a new drop so apologies if it's been linked to here already, it's new to me.

https://file.wikileaks.org/file/

[Gwin Ru]

I don't think this is a new drop so apologies if it's been linked to here already, it's new to me.

https://file.wikileaks.org/file/What I understood regarding these files, is that new ones have been included.

1338787865514422272

[Tintin]

I don't think this is a new drop so apologies if it's been linked to here already, it's new to me.

https://file.wikileaks.org/file/What I understood regarding these files, is that new ones have been included.

1338787865514422272

Okay, that might take some sifting through to find the newbies as they're all time-stamped 01/01/1984 and I've had that link bookmarked for ages now - probably a good 18 months or so ago :)

[Operator]

I don't think this is a new drop so apologies if it's been linked to here already, it's new to me.

https://file.wikileaks.org/file/What I understood regarding these files, is that new ones have been included.

1338787865514422272

Okay, that might take some sifting through to find the newbies as they're all time-stamped 01/01/1984 and I've had that link bookmarked for ages now - probably a good 18 months or so ago :)

If you somehow have the previous listing as text you can use Winmerge to compare 2 textfiles: https://winmerge.org/

[palehorse]

I am using the directory history recorded by waybackmachine and then I compare using Meld on Linux, free program.
There was diff between 2016 and 2020, but no diff between 2019 and 2020.

Here is the printscr from the directory listing in 25th December 2019 and the current one.

https://i.imgur.com/CHNExYU.png

remarks: It is a directory listing comparison of the first level only, I have no idea if each sub folder (second level deep onward) was update, the only way to know is downloading the entire thing and comparing with an older version, OR if Wikileaks make this info available somewhere.. I couldn't find anything.

[Tintin]

Several outlets have reported this today - here's the Gateway Pundit article. The original audio recording between Julian and Cliff Johnson

Project Veritas Releases Shocking Never-Before-Heard Phone Call Between Julian Assange and Hillary Clinton’s State Department
By Cassandra Fairbanks
Published December 16, 2020 at 10:10am

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/12/breaking-project-veritas-releases-shocking-never-heard-phone-call-julian-assange-hillary-clintons-state-department/

Project Veritas has obtained a never before heard phone call between Julian Assange and Hillary Clinton’s State Department from prior to the publication of 251,000 US embassy cables that the WikiLeaks founder has now been charged with releasing.
The stunning phone call between Assange and State Department lawyer Cliff Johnson sheds light on the efforts Assange went through to minimize the damage caused by the release of the cables.

Notably, the audio from the call on August 26, 2011, makes clear that WikiLeaks only re-published the full US embassy cables after they were on hundreds of websites, torrent sites and Twitter. Specifically, the full cables were published on Cryptome.org and the Pirate Bay — days before they were published on WikiLeaks.

1339239283673059329

“Yes, so the situation is that we have intelligence that the State Department Database Archive of 250,000 diplomatic cables including declassified cables is being spread around and is to the degree that we believe that within the next few days it will become public and we’re not sure but the timing could be imminently or within the next few days to a week. And there may be some possibility to stop it,” Assange warns in the call.

Johnson responds by asking, “And who would be releasing these cables? Is this WikiLeaks?”


“No, we would not be releasing them, we are doing our usual thing of continuing on with our redaction plan, but we have in the past 24 hours released a some 100,000 unclassified cables as an attempt to head off the incentives for others to release the entire archive, but I believe that nonetheless while we may have delayed things a little by doing that they will do so unless attempts are made to stop them. We have already engaged in some legal attempts to get them to stop but I think that it will not be enough,” Assange explains.

The audio shows that Assange went to great lengths to try to prevent the uncontrolled publication of the full US State Department cables by third parties on the internet. He attempted to get editors not to run stories that would call attention to the unredacted cables and tried to get an injunction on Daniel Domscheit-Berg, a previous employee who had been suspended a year prior, and the German publication Freitag, but was told by his German lawyers that he had no standing because they cables weren’t his — they belonged to the US State Department.

See, the password for the unredacted files was published by Guardian journalist Luke Harding in his book about Wikileaks and Domscheit-Berg was spreading around the link. The establishment journalist and the rogue former employee never had to plead for asylum in a foreign embassy however, and Harding remains employed by the Guardian.

Assange repeatedly reached out to the State Department to offer his assistance with mitigating the damage. He explained to them how to stop the spread six full days before the broader public gained access. Clinton’s State Department did nothing. He explained that the US would need to get an injunction in Germany, because WikiLeaks did not have the right to do so. They ignored his warnings.

During the call, Johnson asks if WikiLeaks had taken any efforts to stop the rogue employee and others from publishing the unredacted materials. They explained that they had, but that the only real way to stop it was for the State Department to step in and, at the very least, warn people who may be at risk that the publication could happen within a week.


“What we want the State Department to do is to step up its warning procedures which it was engaged in earlier in the year, like last year, to a State Department sources to mention it in the cables. I assume but am not sure that all of those individuals at the State Department at risk in despotic regimes have been contacted and certainly they’ve had because of the press significant warning that this sort of thing was coming, but in case they are any individuals who haven’t been warned that they should be warned. Insofar as the State Department can impress upon people within Germany to encourage them to desist that behavior that would be helpful,” Assange explained.


Assange also asked for someone to meet him in person from the US embassy, because he was on house arrest and could not get to London. He wanted them to meet him so that he could provide the file location and password because he did not want to give it to them over unsecure lines. They declined to do so.

The audio makes it very clear that WikiLeaks spent nine months diligently working to protect people who would have been at risk and slowly rolling out stories as they were verified and properly redacted.

He was publishing journalism, and doing so responsibly.

The US government knows that Cryptome and others published first, but never charged them or targeted them the way that they did to Assange.

This is clear evidence that the prosecution of Assange is selective and political.

The full call can be heard here:

lfZQcV-frnY

[onawah]

BOMBSHELL Audio Recording Released of Assange & US State Dept. Lawyer
57,915 views•Dec 23, 2020

"In this Assange-Update, we examine the recently released audio recording published by Project Veritas of a phone call between Julian Assange and a US State Department lawyer dating back to August 2011. During the call, Assange warns that minor media organizations were given access to a location file to an unredacted, encrypted State Department archive database from a former rogue employee. In addition, we overview the latest initiatives by various politicians who are calling upon President Trump to pardon Julian Assange." Link to the full audio recording: https://youtu.be/lfZQcV-frnY
y0EE8tqZICw

[onawah]

Let’s Be Absolutely Clear What’s At Stake In The Assange Case
JANUARY 2, 2021
CAITLIN JOHNSTONE0
https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2021/01/02/lets-be-absolutely-clear-whats-at-stake-in-the-assange-case/

"When it comes to human behavior, things only change for the better when there is a lucid and unobstructed perception of what’s going on.

Self-destructive behavior patterns only go away when there’s a lucid and unobstructed perception of the previously unconscious psychological dynamics which were driving them.

Victims of abuse only end their abusive relationships when they obtain a lucid and unobstructed perception of the abusive dynamics as they truly are.

Toxic social dynamics like racism, sexism and homophobia only begin moving toward health when society collectively begins gaining a lucid and unobstructed understanding of how disordered and damaging those dynamics really are.

It only becomes unacceptable to have a totalitarian monarch who tortures and executes people without trial, murders anyone who speaks ill of him, and rules by divine right when society begins collectively gaining a lucid and unobstructed awareness of how ridiculous, unjust and unacceptable such models of government are.

Whether you’re talking about individuals or humanity in its entirety, the story of human progress has always been a story of moving from blindness to seeing. From unawareness to awareness. From the lights in the room being off to the lights being switched on.

There is no progress without clear seeing. We cannot move in the direction of health and harmony if we cannot lucidly perceive the ways in which we are still sick and dysfunctional. We can’t move forward if we’re unaware of the specific ways in which we are stuck in place.

Most of us, on some level, want things in our world to change for the better. Some few others want things to stay the same, because the status quo happens to be treating them quite well thank you very much. The struggle between the deep desire of the many for healthy change and the corrupt desire of the few to maintain the status quo is the struggle between turning the lights on and keeping them off. Between wanting to become aware of the various ways we are stuck so that we can move forward, and wanting the light of awareness as far away from our stuck points as possible.

The struggle for our species, which is really the struggle for our very survival, is therefore between the many who desire truth and the few who desire confusion. We’ve got numbers and truth on our side, but they have power, wealth, and a remarkable knack for psychological manipulation.

We see this struggle playing out in many ways in our world right now. Between propaganda and those trying to learn and share the truth. Between the push for internet censorship and the fight against it. Between government secrecy and freedom of information. Between the campaign to imprison WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange for exposing US war crimes, and the campaign to free him.


Barring a pardon, the extradition process concerning Julian Assange, will likely drag on no matter how Baraitser rules Monday.
Appeals could take 18-24 months with possible challenges going to the UK Supreme Court and even European Court of #HumanRights.https://t.co/IkSMvm3cAO

— Anonymous Scandinavia🌐 Assange⏳ #NoExtradition (@AnonScan) December 31, 2020

On Monday January 4th a UK judge will be ruling on whether or not to allow the process of Assange’s extradition to the United States to move forward. It’s important for opponents of this extradition to be aware that the fight will not end at this time; there’s still a gruelling appeals process to go through which could take 18 to 24 months or longer in the likely event that the incredibly biased judge overseeing the case rules against Assange.

So as we prepare for the next stage in this fight, it’s important for us to be perfectly clear what’s at stake here.

It is absolutely true that this case will have far-reaching implications for press freedoms around the world. The imperial narrative managers have been toiling for years to frame the persecution of Julian Assange as something other than what it is, but in reality this case is about whether the most powerful government in the world is allowed to extradite journalists anywhere on earth who expose its malfeasance. Whether or not the United States should be allowed to imprison journalists for exposing its war crimes.

If the US succeeds in normalizing the legality of extraditing any journalist anywhere in the world who exposes its wrongdoing, there will be a worldwide cooling effect on national security journalism which will greatly impede humanity’s ability to form a lucid and unobstructed understanding of what’s going on in the world. The largest power structure on earth will have succeeded in not just turning the lights off in the room, but in uninstalling the light switch.

There is no legal case in the world right now where the struggle for lucid and unobstructed seeing has so much on the line. For this reason, this isn’t just about journalism: we really are collectively deciding the fate of our species with our response to the prospect of Assange’s extradition.

Are we going to allow the most powerful government on the planet to set a legal precedent which allows it to obstruct truth around the entire world? Or are we going to oppose this tooth and claw?

Are we going to allow power to remain corrupt and unaccountable? Or are we going to insist on our right to know what’s going on?

Are we going to let them keep the lights off? Or are we going to turn them on?

Are we going to let the bastards lock us into an omnicidal, ecocidal status quo while they drive us at a rapidly accelerating pace toward extinction and dystopia? Or are we going to move toward the kind of lucid and unobstructed perception of our situation which will allow us to progress into a healthy world?

These are the questions that we are in the process of answering together. I hope we can get everyone to very seriously consider what they want their own answer to be."

[Tintin]

Bracing myself here for what is certainly going to be without doubt a difficult day for Julian Assange tomorrow. I held out a fair amount of hope even during the 'show trial' back in September but am extremely cautious about getting too optimistic about his prospects now.

Perhaps a miraculous turn of events, a deus ex machina if you like, might happen, but it isn't likely. Who as well knows, outside of Madam Baraitser....

[Eric J (Viking)]

Just a thought with all these wiki leak downloads is there any information about 911.

Anyone...?

Viking

[Tintin]

Just a thought with all these wiki leak downloads is there any information about 911.

Anyone...?

Viking

Nothing explicit but there wouldn't really be. The degrees of compartmentalisation that abound within the intelligence services hierarchical structure wouldn't allow for anything truly useful to necessarily be contained therein. One may have to content oneself with what's been available in the wider public domain for the last 15 years or so.

If WikiLeaks do have any smoking guns in their armoury specific to 911 that they haven't published yet, only they will know. I doubt that they do though. That doesn't mean to say that there isn't anything in the published material, it will be case of I'd imagine tying for example any name found to a larger picture, available from other sources.

[Airelle77]

Thanks to this brave overlooked genuine activist the term Cyber Torture now exists due to the involvement of Pro Nils Melzer a truly inspiring and courageous spokesperson as this gives hope to victims of gang stalking, organized harassment, and electronic torture via induced voices and silent speech live streaming otherwise referred to as CT.

Things are slowly changing whether you see and believe it or not, the last laugh last.

[ByTheNorthernSea]

Live Julian Assange extradition hearing court details being provided here...

https://twitter.com/kgosztola

[ByTheNorthernSea]

Live Julian Assange extradition hearing court details being provided here...

https://twitter.com/kgosztola

BREAKING: Judge rules against US extradition of Julian Assange, contending extradition would be oppressive by reason of Assange’s mental health

Wow...I never saw that coming! :clapping:

[ByTheNorthernSea]

https://shadowproof.com/2021/01/04/assange-decision-judge-approves-us-extradition-request/

Citing harsh federal prison conditions in the United States, a British district court judge rejected the United States government’s extradition request against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.

Judge Vanessa Baraitser found Assange suffers from a “recurrent depressive disorder.” Although he functions at a high level, he suffers from autism as well.

She accepted that he would likely be imprisoned at a supermax prison in the U.S. under special administrative measures (SAMs) and would find a way to commit suicide.

“Extradition would be oppressive by reason of Assange’s mental health,” Baraitser stated.

The US government will submit an appeal with the High Court of Justice, and he will have an opportunity to apply for bail from Belmarsh high-security prison, where he has been detained since April 2019.

Assange was charged in 2019 with 17 counts of violating the Espionage Act and one count of conspiracy to commit a computer intrusion that contains elements of an Espionage Act offense.

A superseding indictment in 2020 contained new general allegations that targeted his speech at conferences and the role he allegedly played in helping NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden leave Hong Kong.

The charges criminalized common newsgathering practices, including the receipt and publication of secret government information. Press freedom organizations throughout the world condemned the charges.

[Billy]

UK judge refuses to allow Julian Assange extradition
The UK's top court ruled whether the WikiLeaks founder should be extradited to the US for publishing hundreds of thousands of secret documents online. In the US, he could face up to 175 years in prison.

A UK judge on Monday refused a US request to extradite WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange on espionage charges.

District Judge Vanessa Baraitser gave the decision in the course of the morning, saying it would be "oppressive" because of his mental health.

Assange was likely to commit suicide if sent to the US, Baraitser said.

Assange faces 18 charges in the US relating to the 2010 release by WikiLeaks of 500,000 secret files detailing aspects of military campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq.

If convicted in the US, Assange would be jailed for up to 175 years.

The Judicial Office tweeted a link to the full judgement in the Assange case.

Read more here.

https://www.dw.com/en/uk-judge-refuses-to-allow-julian-assange-extradition/a-56122295?fbclid=IwAR0unCqoWqXfMKm-MvY4C4-WaHD1K0ihv7B3ZHAqMhZyZsLZizFp9Is5uP0

Wow. Fantastic news :clapping:

[ByTheNorthernSea]

Kevin Gosztola
@kgosztola

"95 percent of this judge's remarks supported prosecution...The one fact that swayed her into refusing the extradition was that the US prison system is so brutal that it will increase the risk of suicide, and she wasn't willing to put him in an oppressive prison system."

https://publish.twitter.com/?query=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fkgosztola%2Fstatus%2F1346063344990621697&widget=Tweet

No support for press freedom or JA's right to publish from the judge...the only thing that saved him was the fragile state of his mental health when faced the prospect of stateside imprisonment (what a savage indictment of that system). A big personal victory for JS, but not for the wider principles of journalistic freedom of expression it seems.

¤=[Post Update]=¤


Live Julian Assange extradition hearing court details being provided here...

https://twitter.com/kgosztola


Further good news...


Judge grants Assange legal team's request for time to prepare bail application and schedules hearing for Wednesday

[Tintin]

I sent a very simple message out on Twitter earlier acknowledging our delight at this first and important step in the process. The next crucially important one is ensuring his release so that he can be allowed to recover and spend time with his family. Then I hope he'll assess his life and where he wants to take it from there; he deserves at the very least the opportunity to do that.

1346087486251032578

[Kryztian]

From https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/jan/04/julian-assange-cannot-be-extradited-to-us-british-judge-rules


In her ruling, the judge accepted that Assange was likely to be held in conditions of isolation in a so-called supermax prison and that he would find a way to take his own life with the “single-minded determination” of the Autism spectrum disorder he had been diagnosed with.

It appeared to be impossible to prevent suicide where a prisoner was determined to go through with it, added the judge, whose ruling twice referenced Jeffrey Epstein, the US billionaire who took his own life in August 2019 at the New York Metropolitan correctional centre before a trial for sex trafficking and conspiracy charges.

:facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:

[Kryztian]

‘We’ll give him protection’: Mexican president promises asylum for Julian Assange

Mexico’s president has offered asylum to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, hours after a British judge refused to extradite Assange to the US to face espionage charges.

“Assange is a journalist and deserves a chance, I am in favor of pardoning him,” President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador told reporters on Monday, saying “we'll give him protection.”

“Our tradition is protection,” Obrador added.

Story continues: https://on.rt.com/ayoo

[Kryztian]

‘Journalists should be worried’: UK court’s ruling was victory for Assange but not for journalism, former Ecuadorian consul warns

The UK court has spared WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange from extradition to the US, but Monday’s ruling came as a grim verdict for free speech, Fidel Narvaez, a former Consul at the Ecuadorian embassy in London, told RT.

The fact that the US request to extradite Assange was rejected is a “victory to celebrate,” Narvaez said. But the British judge’s ruling is also a very “worrying” sign, since the WikiLeaks founder was only spared from extradition due to his health condition and the risk of suicide, the former diplomat said.

“This is very, very worrying that the judge basically criminalized journalistic activity,” Narvaez said, adding that, were it not for his poor state of health, Assange “would be extradited.” The former consul, who played a role in helping Assange get refuge at the Ecuadorian embassy in London, then warned that such an outcome is a reason for concern to all other journalists around the world.

Narvaez also believes that, although an important battle has been won, many more still lie ahead, given that Washington is unlikely to abandon its persecution of Assange until the US authorities have some “options available.”

1346075242565754880

“They want to set a precedent with him,” Narvaez believes. He also says that the precedent might have already been set, since the decade-long persecution has dealt “irreversible” damage to the WikiLeaks founder’s physical and psychological health.

Story continues at: https://www.rt.com/uk/511525-assange-court-ruling-threat-journalism/

[Gracy]

‘Journalists should be worried’: UK court’s ruling was victory for Assange but not for journalism, former Ecuadorian consul warns

The UK court has spared WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange from extradition to the US, but Monday’s ruling came as a grim verdict for free speech, Fidel Narvaez, a former Consul at the Ecuadorian embassy in London, told RT.

The fact that the US request to extradite Assange was rejected is a “victory to celebrate,” Narvaez said. But the British judge’s ruling is also a very “worrying” sign, since the WikiLeaks founder was only spared from extradition due to his health condition and the risk of suicide, the former diplomat said.

“This is very, very worrying that the judge basically criminalized journalistic activity,” Narvaez said, adding that, were it not for his poor state of health, Assange “would be extradited.” The former consul, who played a role in helping Assange get refuge at the Ecuadorian embassy in London, then warned that such an outcome is a reason for concern to all other journalists around the world.

Narvaez also believes that, although an important battle has been won, many more still lie ahead, given that Washington is unlikely to abandon its persecution of Assange until the US authorities have some “options available.”

1346075242565754880

“They want to set a precedent with him,” Narvaez believes. He also says that the precedent might have already been set, since the decade-long persecution has dealt “irreversible” damage to the WikiLeaks founder’s physical and psychological health.

Story continues at: https://www.rt.com/uk/511525-assange-court-ruling-threat-journalism/

This comes across to me as a sort of: "So long as you're so incapacitated because of the way we've treated you, we'll hold off on the extradition".

Then on the back burner it may well be: "Hopefully he dies soon to save the trouble".

[onawah]

Talking with the only journalist in the Netherlands who reported on the Julian Assange case about how the main stream media is keeping people away from what's really happening
502 Views
Vrijheid Radio
Yesterday at 7:39 PM
"We talked with Rico Brouwer about the Julian Assange case"

818476515368695
https://www.facebook.com/VrijheidRadio/videos/818476515368695/


More info:
Twitter: https://twitter.com/ricobrouwer
LBRY: https://lbry.tv/@potkaars:f

[Tintin]

Craig Murray who even through his own personal travails has been a kind of superhero throughout the whole process, addressing the press outside the magistrates' court yesterday:

2f10i0UV95o

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

Julian Assange: Imminent Freedom
Article source: https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2021/01/julian-assange-imminent-freedom/

January 5, 2021
Craig Murray

It has been a long and tiring day, with the startlingly unexpected decision to block Julian’s extradition. The judgement is in fact very concerning, in that it accepted all of the prosecution’s case on the right of the US Government to prosecute publishers worldwide of US official secrets under the Espionage Act. The judge also stated specifically that the UK Extradition Act of 2003 deliberately permits extradition for political offences. These points need to be addressed. But for now we are all delighted at the ultimate decision that extradition should be blocked.

The decision was based equally on two points; the appalling conditions in US supermax prisons, and the effect of those conditions on Julian specifically given his history of depression. The media has concentrated on the mental health aspect, and given insufficient attention to the explicit condemnation of the inhumanity of the US prison system.

I was the only person physically present in the public gallery inside the court, having been nominated by John Shipton to represent the family, aside from two court officials. I am quite sure that I again noted magistrate Baraitser have a catch in her throat when discussing the inhumane conditions in US supermax prisons, the lack of human contact, and specifically the fact that inmates are kept in total isolation in a small cage, and are permitted one hour exercise a day in total isolation in another small cage. I noted her show emotion the same way when discussing the al-Masri torture evidence during the trial, and she seemed similarly affected here.

Julian looked well and alert; he showed no emotion at the judgement, but entered into earnest discussion with his lawyers. The US government indicated they will probably appeal the verdict, and a bail hearing has been deferred until Wednesday to decide whether he will be released from Belmarsh pending the appeal – which court sources tell me is likely to be held in April in the High Court. I should be very surprised if Julian is not released on Wednesday pending the appeal. I shall now be staying here for that bail hearing.

I apologise for not giving a full analysis of the judgement yet, it has all been rather hectic, but wonderful. Here is a brief video giving more detail. I can produce a more considered piece tomorrow.

qGRCNBU70o4

[Kryztian]

Excerpted from "The Assange Extradition Ruling Is A Relief, But It Isn't Justice" by Caitlin Johnstone: https://caitlinjohnstone.substack.com/p/the-assange-extradition-ruling-is

Indeed, the ruling today was a huge relief for Assange, his family, and for all his supporters around the world. But it wasn't justice.

"It's good to hear that court has ruled against the extradition of Julian Assange but I am wary of the fact it's on mental health grounds," AP's Joana Ramiro commented on the ruling. "It's a rather feeble precedent against the extradition of whistleblowers and/or in defence of the free press. Democracy needs better than that."

"This wasn't a victory for press freedom," tweeted journalist Glenn Greenwald. "Quite the contrary: the judge made clear she believed there are grounds to prosecute Assange in connection with the 2010 publication. It was, instead, an indictment of the insanely oppressive US prison system for security 'threats'."

It is good that Baraitser ultimately ruled against extradition, but her ruling also supported the entirety of the US government's prosecutorial narrative that would allow for extradition of journalists under the Espionage Act in the future. The ruling is a significant step toward freedom for Julian Assange, but it changes nothing as far as global imperialist tyranny is concerned.

So the appropriate response at this time is a sigh of relief, but not celebration. The Assange case has never been about just one man; the greater part of the battle, the one we are all fighting, continues unabated.

https://caitlinjohnstone.substack.com/p/the-assange-extradition-ruling-is

[Tintin]

More from Craig here. As others have pointed out - correctly - the underlying message throughout this whole saga has been that the US can seek to extradite in this way anyone, in any jurisdiction outside of the USA, if it can demonstrate that its own national interests are at risk from classified information leaks that hitherto are published. That, for those of us who got that early on in the saga remains probably the only blight on what has been a momentously positive development for Julian, and quite beyond expectation.

This is not over, not by a long way, and the struggle will continue but we can celebrate for now, and hopefully tomorrow.

Craig lays out what he thinks may happen in the immediate future.

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

The Assange Verdict: What Happens Now

Craig Murray (https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2021/01/the-assange-verdict-what-happens-now/), January 5th 2021

I fully expect that Julian will be released on bail this week, pending a possible US appeal against the blocking of his extradition.

There was discussion of when and how to make the bail application on Monday, after magistrate Vanessa Baraitser announced her decision not to grant extradition as it would be oppressive on health and welfare grounds. Lead Defence QC Edward Fitzgerald was prepared to make an immediate application for release on bail, but was strongly steered by Baraitser towards waiting a couple of days until he could have the full bail application ready in good order with all the supporting documentation.

I had the strong impression that Baraitser was minded to grant bail and wanted the decision to be fireproof. I have spoken to two others who were in court who formed the same impression. Indeed, in the past, she has more than once indicated that she will reject a bail application before one has been made. I can think of no reason why she would steer Fitzgerald so strongly to delay the application if there were not a very strong chance she would grant it. She gave him the advice and then adjourned the court for 45 minutes so Fitzgerald and Gareth Peirce could discuss it with Julian, and on return they took her advice. If she were simply going to refuse the bail application, there was no reason for her not to get it over with quickly there and then.

Fitzgerald briefly made the point that Assange now had very little incentive to abscond, as there had never been a successful appeal against a refusal to extradite on medical grounds. Indeed it is very difficult to see how an appeal can be successful. The magistrate is the sole determinant of fact in the case. She has heard the evidence, and her view of the facts of Assange’s medical condition and the facts of conditions in American supermax prisons cannot be overturned. Nor can any new evidence be introduced. The appeal has rather to find that, given the facts, Baraitser made an error in law, and it is difficult to see the argument.

I am not sure that at this stage the High Court would accept a new guarantee from the USA that Assange would not be kept in isolation or in a Supermax prison; that would be contrary to the affidavit from Assistant Secretary of State Kromberg and thus would probably be ruled to amount to new evidence. Not to mention that Baraitser heard other evidence that such assurances had been received in the case of Abu Hamza, but had been broken. Hamza is not only kept in total isolation, but as a man with no hands he is deprived of prosthetics that would enable him to brush his teeth, and he has no means of cutting his nails nor assistance to do so, and cannot effectively wipe himself in the toilet.

Not only is it hard to see the point of law on which the USA could launch an appeal, it is far from plain that they have a motive to do so. Baraitser agreed with all the substantive points of argument put forward by the US government. She stated that there was no bar on extradition from the UK for political offences; she agreed that publication of national security material did constitute an offence in the USA under the Espionage Act and would do so in the UK under the Official Secrets Act, with no public interest defence in either jurisdiction; she agreed that encouraging a source to leak classified information is a crime; she agreed Wikileaks’ publications had put lives at risk.

On all of these points she dismissed virtually without comment all the defence arguments and evidence. As a US Justice Department spokesman said yesterday (https://www.ft.com/content/a20df809-f3fc-417d-a87b-9ec3c665f92e):

“While we are extremely disappointed in the court’s ultimate decision, we are gratified that the United States prevailed on every point of law raised. In particular, the court rejected all of Mr Assange’s arguments regarding political motivation, political offence, fair trial, and freedom of speech. We will continue to seek Mr Assange’s extradition to the United States.” That is a fair categorisation of what happened.

Appealing a verdict that is such a good result for the United States does not necessarily make sense for the Justice Department. Edward Fitzgerald explained to me yesterday that, if the USA appeals the decision on the health and prison condition grounds, it becomes open to the defence to counter-appeal on all the other grounds, which would be very desirable indeed given the stark implications of Baraitser’s ruling for media freedom.

I have always believed that Baraitser would rule as she did on the substantial points, but I have always also believed that those extreme security state arguments would never survive the scrutiny of better judges in a higher court. Unlike the health ruling, the dispute over Baraitser’s judgement on all the other points does come down to classic errors in law which can successfully be argued on appeal.

If the USA does appeal the judgement, it is far more likely that not only will the health grounds be upheld, but also that Baraitser’s positions on extradition for political offences and freedom of the media will be overturned, than it is likely that the US will achieve extradition. They have fourteen days in which to lodge the appeal – now thirteen.

An appeal result is in short likely to be humiliating for the USA. It would be much wiser for the US to let sleeping dogs lie. But pride and the wound to the US sense of omnipotence and exceptionalism may drive them to an appeal which, for the reasons given above, I would actually welcome provided Julian is out on bail. Which I expect he shall be shortly.

More analysis of Baraitser’s judgement will follow.

—————————————————–

[Kryztian]

Sad news :(





Assange denied bail by British court, forced to stay in high-security prison

WikiLeaks co-founder Julian Assange has been denied bail and is forced to remain at the high-security Belmarsh prison in London. The court previously refused to allow his extradition for prosecution in the US.

Assange was seeking bail in the Westminster Magistrates’ Court presided over by District Judge Vanessa Baraitser, who on Monday ruled against his extradition.

The activist had already served a 50-week sentence in the UK for jumping bail in 2012 when he hid in London's Ecuadorian Embassy to avoid extradition to Sweden.

The judge said Assange “has an incentive to abscond,” adding that there is a good chance he would not return to court if freed.


Story continues at: https://www.rt.com/uk/511678-assange-denied-bail-court/

[Kryztian]

Long and short of it: Assange will remain in jail for several months while US appeals the decision on extradition. Seems to hint that a Biden administration could refuse to pursue the extradition which I think is unlikely. Of course, Trump could pardon Assange, but considering how hard his administration has worked to extradite him, I think that is also unlikely. But I wouldn't mind being proven wrong.






Will Biden DOJ Pursue Assange Extradition? Outgoing Prosecutor Isn't Sure


https://www.npr.org/2021/01/05/953280737/will-biden-doj-pursue-assange-extradition-outgoing-prosecutor-isnt-sure

The federal prosecutor seeking to try WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange on Espionage Act charges said he's uncertain about whether the administration of President-elect Joe Biden would continue the extradition effort.

Zachary Terwilliger, the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, pointed out that the Assange case had already consumed years of work by line prosecutors and other officials. A judge in the United Kingdom dealt American prosecutors a blow Monday by rejecting their efforts to transfer Assange to the United States, citing his mental health troubles.

The Justice Department pledged that it would appeal — a process that could drag on for months, if not longer.



Story continues at: https://www.npr.org/2021/01/05/953280737/will-biden-doj-pursue-assange-extradition-outgoing-prosecutor-isnt-sure

[Airelle77]

Justice doesn't just happen, justice is forced by people coming together are exercising strength, unity, and intelligence.

A quote by Julian Assange

Strangely the very surname Assange means 'Bring Together' in South African.

[Tintin]

A small but important victory from earlier today:

1354413513163362306

1354513290970411016

[onawah]

For those of us in the minority who don't own cell phones or engage with Twitter, could you let us know what info the messages contain?
Thanks!

A small but important victory from earlier today:

1354413513163362306

1354513290970411016

[Innocent Warrior]

For those of us in the minority who don't own cell phones or engage with Twitter, could you let us know what info the messages contain?
Thanks!

A small but important victory from earlier today:

1354413513163362306

1354513290970411016

Stefania

WE WON! My amazing lawyers
@estelledehon

@suigenerisjen
and I and all other parties won! My #Foia litigation in Uk to defend the right of the press to access the full documentation on Julian #Assange
@khrafnsson
#SarahHarrison
@SwaziJAF
will go ahead!

Juan

This is a huge victory for our right to know what governments do in our name and for the press’s right to access information to hold them accountable.
@SMaurizi
thank you and congratulations in the name of democracy, #JulianAssange and
@wikileaks
!
#DropTheCharges #FreeAssange




That’s the entirety of the message. The only thing you’re missing when you don’t click on the tweets is all the tweets replying and commenting on these tweets.

A little context might clear things up for you. Stefania is an outstanding, Italian journalist who covers WikiLeaks content and has been covering Julian’s situation courageously and honestly.

This is a massive win, for the reason stated in Juan’s tweet, especially as a win for Stefania, she’ll take it for all it’s worth.

[onawah]

OK, but what was the important victory from earlier today? IS it "Foia litigation in Uk to defend the right of the press to access the full documentation on Julian #Assange"?


For those of us in the minority who don't own cell phones or engage with Twitter, could you let us know what info the messages contain?
Thanks!

A small but important victory from earlier today:

1354413513163362306

1354513290970411016

That’s the entirety of the message. The only thing you’re missing when you don’t click on the tweets is all the tweets replying and commenting on these tweets.

A little context might clear things up for you. Stefania is an outstanding, Italian journalist who covers WikiLeaks content and has been covering Julian’s situation courageously and honestly.

This is a massive win, for the reason stated in Juan’s tweet, especially as a win for Stefania, she’ll take it for all it’s worth.

[Innocent Warrior]

OK, but what was the important victory from earlier today? IS it "Foia litigation in Uk to defend the right of the press to access the full documentation on Julian #Assange"?

Not quite.

“WE WON! My amazing lawyers and I and all other parties won! My #Foia litigation in Uk to defend the right of the press to access the full documentation on Julian [and co.] will go ahead!”

Further clarification...

“Victory for journalists, press freedom after tribunal finds there is no reason to bar people from using the UK's freedom of information act simply because they are not in the UK.”
Tweet (https://twitter.com/Williamrt/status/1354433365064167429).

“The decision comes after the First-Tier tribunal stayed 16 Freedom of Information by appeals by journalists and ordinary people, because they were either not UK citizens, or had UK nationality but were living abroad.”

“Today's decision means that the Freedom of Information Act will continue to operate as it always has done for the past 15 years. It is open to any person regardless of nationality or place of residence.”

“Italian journalist Stefania Maurizi can now continue her appeal against the Metropolitan Police for refusing to disclose its correspondence with the US about three UK-based journalists involved in WikiLeaks.”

Click on tweet link to see full thread on this topic.

[onawah]

Do we know how that will likely affect Assange's case, and if he has a better chance now of being released?



OK, but what was the important victory from earlier today? IS it "Foia litigation in Uk to defend the right of the press to access the full documentation on Julian #Assange"?

Not quite.

“WE WON! My amazing lawyers and I and all other parties won! My #Foia litigation in Uk to defend the right of the press to access the full documentation on Julian [and co.] will go ahead!”

Further clarification...

“Victory for journalists, press freedom after tribunal finds there is no reason to bar people from using the UK's freedom of information act simply because they are not in the UK.”
Tweet (https://twitter.com/Williamrt/status/1354433365064167429).

“The decision comes after the First-Tier tribunal stayed 16 Freedom of Information by appeals by journalists and ordinary people, because they were either not UK citizens, or had UK nationality but were living abroad.”

“Today's decision means that the Freedom of Information Act will continue to operate as it always has done for the past 15 years. It is open to any person regardless of nationality or place of residence.”

“Italian journalist Stefania Maurizi can now continue her appeal against the Metropolitan Police for refusing to disclose its correspondence with the US about three UK-based journalists involved in WikiLeaks.”

Click on tweet link to see full thread on this topic.

[Innocent Warrior]

I’m not aware of anything specific that Stefania may be looking for in the correspondence between metro police and the US.

Between the obvious collusion between the UK and the US and the unusual attempt to manoeuvre their way out of releasing that information, it’s possible the correspondence would further expose the political agenda of the US. This of course would weaken the US’ legal position.

Although it should it’s unlikely to have an effect on his case directly, they’re not following the law, further evidenced by the grounds on which the judge blocked the extradition. However, this was always going to be a case that was won from beyond the courtroom, it comes down to public pressure and the more obvious and clear the political agenda is, the more it chips away at the case and the support of the figures and agencies/departments involved, this includes the support required for the cooperation between the parties involved. At some point it falls apart too much and they themselves are forced to drop it, like what happened with the Swedish case.

The far larger and more important win is for everyone, because of the necessity of being able to hold governments accountable for their actions, of which the FOIA plays an important role. But yes, I think it’s likely the correspondence could affect Julian’s case, the degree of which is subject to the content and who’s involved. As for getting him released, sheesh, who ****in’ knows, he should never have been arrested in the first place and at this point it’s shamefully absurd that he’s still locked up.

[Tintin]

and at this point it’s shamefully absurd that he’s still locked up.

Absolutely.

One longs for the day when this here from Banksy may be possible. Many of us here may have often imagined, as I have, finding a crack team that would infiltrate and spring Julian to freedom.

https://twitter.com/StellaMoris1/status/1368598764265607169

(related) onawah: thanks for mentioning upthread (https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?101183-Current-Wikileaks-and-Assange-News-Releases&p=1407237&viewfull=1#post1407237) that, forgiveably incorrectly ( :) ) one needs be a social media and smartphone user, none of which are necessary to be able to view embedded tweets. You ought to be able to open a tweet anywhere even without an account and ought to be able to view embedded tweets. However, I think we determined a while ago that this may be a browser issue?

:focus:

[Tintin]

There's no real way of being certain of the provenance of the 'news' that the Ecuadorean Foreign Minister shared on Twitter a while ago. It really serves no helpful purpose at all and is yet another reason why we need to discern very carefully indeed any, if not nearly all information on the internet.

This understandably caused great distress to Stella Moris, as you'll see from the feed below:

1372216135932911616

[Tintin]

Has it really been two years now? Wow, that's gone far too quickly, but not for Julian and his family of course :flower:

Vigils planned in support of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange

Events will be held this weekend to mark the second anniversary of Assange being dragged out of the Ecuadorian embassy by police.

By Alan Jones 1 day ago

Source: London Evening Standard (https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/julian-assange-belmarsh-prison-wikileaks-ecuadorian-london-b928720.html)

https://static.standard.co.uk/2021/04/09/11/a4a193f74c0a4df3871e548da39cb2b2Y29udGVudHNlYXJjaGFwaSwxNjE4MDQ4Njgy-2.57386998.jpg?width=990&auto=webp&quality=75&crop=968%3A645%2Csmart

V
igils are to be held this weekend to mark the second anniversary of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange being detained in prison after being dragged out of the Ecuadorian embassy in London

Supporters demanding his release will join events on Sunday outside the embassy, at Westminster Magistrates’ Court, and at Belmarsh prison in London where he is being held.

Assange lived inside the embassy for several years before being forcibly removed and arrested by police on April 11 2019.


"It has now been two years of incarceration, isolation and psychological torture, all for exposing war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan."


A bid by the United States to extradite him was rejected at Westminster Magistrates’ Court earlier this year but he has remained in prison until the outcome of an appeal.

WikiLeaks spokesman Kristinn Hrafnsson told the PA news agency that Assange’s continued imprisonment was an “outrage and a travesty of justice”.

He said:


“April 11 marks two years since one of the world’s most important journalists was silenced when Metropolitan Police officers stormed into the Ecuadorian embassy and subsequently arrested and imprisoned Julian Assange on the United States’ behalf.

“It has now been two years of incarceration, isolation and psychological torture, all for exposing war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan, the same journalism for which Julian has been applauded all over the world for and nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.

“It’s long past time for this injustice to end and we continue to appeal to the United States and the Department of Justice to drop the appeal and all the charges against Julian."

“In January, a judge in London ruled that Julian should not be extradited and so we are today calling for him to be released from Belmarsh prison and be a free man to be able to spend his time with his young family.”

Mr Hrafnsson added that dozens of human rights and media organisations are supporting the case for Assange to be freed, saying: “This gross injustice must come to an end.”

It was recently revealed that Pope Francis sent a personal message to Assange, whose partner Stella Moris said: “After a hard night, Julian woke up this morning to a kind, personal message from Pope Francis @pontifex delivered to his cell door by the prison priest.”

[onawah]

FBI Releases Info on Seth Rich
FBI Releases Documents on Investigation Into Death of Democrat National Committee Worker Seth Rich
BY ZACHARY STIEBER
April 24, 2021
https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_breakingnews/fbi-releases-documents-on-investigation-into-death-of-democrat-national-committee-worker-seth-rich_3789686.html?utm_source=newsnoe&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=breaking-2021-04-24-2&mktids=a980eaa4063e7847a1a214ccbf0bfde3&est=xpFPNDUQkv8FqKuOXx7CtOq5xWnbCRXD50H0352q%2BRhrv9g6DyizW7JhU5o%3D

"The FBI has produced 68 pages relating to a Democrat National Committee (DNC) worker who was shot dead in 2016 in Washington, including an investigative summary that appears to suggest someone could have paid for his death.

Seth Rich, the worker, was shot dead in the early morning hours on July 16, 2016, near his home in the nation’s capital.The murder, which is unsolved to this day, fueled widespread media coverage, especially after WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange suggested that Rich was the person who provided internal DNC emails to WikiLeaks. Rich’s family has called the notion that Rich leaked documents to WikiLeaks a conspiracy theory.

The newly released files show top Department of Justice officials met in 2018 and discussed Rich’s murder. They reviewed Rich’s financial records and did not identify any unusual deposits or withdrawals.

Additionally, none of the witnesses interviewed during the investigation reported to authorities anything unusual about Rich’s life prior to the homicide.

One witness saw an individual walking away from the location where Rich was killed but thought Rich was merely drunk so did not alert authorities. They realized something bad had happened when they saw a bloodstain on the ground in the same place the following day, as well as police tape surrounding the scene.

A person whose name was redacted took Rich’s personal laptop to his house, according to one of the newly released documents. The page also indicates that authorities were not aware if the person deleted or changed anything on Rich’s personal laptop.

The FBI came into possession of Rich’s work laptop, the bureau previously revealed.

On another page, it was said that “given [redacted] it is conceivable that an individual or group would want to pay for his death.”

“That doesn’t sound like a random street robbery,” Ty Clevenger, a lawyer, told The Epoch Times.

Law enforcement officials have suggested Rich was the victim of an attempted robbery, according to news reports, though none of his belongings were stolen. They have said no evidence links the shooting to Rich’s employment by the Democratic National Committee.

The files were released this week in a lawsuit filed on behalf of Texas resident Brian Huddleston, who Clevenger represents.Huddleston sued the FBI after it told him it would take 8 to 10 months in June 2020 to respond to his Freedom of Information Act request. Huddleston asked the FBI to produce all data, documents, records, or communications that reference Seth Rich or his brother, Aaron Rich.

A federal judge earlier this year ordered the FBI to produce documents concerning Rich by April 23. The FBI identified 576 relevant documents but only produced 68 of them to Huddleston.

The FBI has declined to speak about the lawsuit. Attorneys for Rich’s parents did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The documents show that some reporting on Rich’s death was wrong, such as an ABC News report that claimed the FBI was not involved in investigating the murder.

Clevenger said he found concerning how the government apparently does not know whether anything was deleted from Rich’s personal laptop.

The documents were largely redacted but the information that did get through “shows that their whole narrative is falling apart,” he added. “It’s a step in the right direction.”

The attorney plans to ask U.S. District Judge Amos Mazzant, an Obama nominee, to produce unredacted copies for his perusal. The judge could rule that some redactions were improper.

Defendants could also face repercussions for not producing all of the documents they have concerning Rich, including fines.

U.S. Attorney Andrea Parker, who is representing the FBI, told the judge in a court filing this week that the bureau can only process 500 pages per month for each Freedom of Information Act request. She asked the court to give the bureau additional time to produce all of the relevant records.

Clevenger told the judge in a court filing this week that the private sector routinely processes 500 pages or more per day and that the government should be afforded no more than two weeks to produce the remaining 1,063 pages. "


FBI Has Files From Laptop of Slain DNC Staffer Seth Rich
BY ZACHARY STIEBER December 11, 2020
https://www.theepochtimes.com/fbi-has-tens-of-thousands-of-pages-mentioning-seth-rich_3613282.html?utm_source=newsnoe&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=breaking-2020-12-11-2

"The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has files from the laptop computer belonging to Seth Rich, a Democratic National Committee (DNC) employee who was killed in 2016, according to a new email.

The bureau also has tens of thousands of documents mentioning Rich.

The FBI “has completed the initial search identifying approximately 50 cross-reference serials, with attachments totaling over 20,000 pages, in which Seth Rich is mentioned,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Andrea Parker wrote in the message to attorney Ty Clevenger, who is representing a plaintiff in Huddleston v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, a case dealing with a Freedom of Information Act request to the bureau.

“FBI has also located leads that indicate additional potential records that require further searching,” Parker added.

The Epoch Times confirmed the email is legitimate.

Parker, who is representing the FBI in the case, didn’t respond to an email or return a voicemail.

The bureau also confirmed it has files from Rich’s laptop and suggested it still has the computer in its possession.

The bureau is “currently working on getting the files from Seth Rich’s personal laptop into a format to be reviewed,” Parker said in the email. She also said the FBI plans on undertaking some level of review of the computer.

The disclosure came as part of a case brought in federal court by Texas resident Brian Huddleston, who filed a Freedom of Information Act request in April asking the FBI to produce all data, documents, records, or communications that reference Seth Rich or his brother, Aaron Rich.

The FBI told the plaintiff in June that it would take 8 to 10 months to provide a final response to the request, prompting the filing of the case in the U.S District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.

Rich was working for the DNC when he was shot and killed in Washington on July 10, 2016. The murder remains unsolved.

The new email bolsters a key charge in Huddleston’s filing: that David Hardy, the FBI’s records chief, was wrong when he said in two affidavits that the FBI searched for records pertaining to Rich but could not find any.

https://img.theepochtimes.com/assets/uploads/2020/12/10/seth-rich-poster.jpg

The first sign that the testimony was erroneous came earlier this year when the nonprofit watchdog Judicial Watch received emails exchanged between FBI agent Peter Strzok and Department of Justice lawyer Lisa Page. The production included several emails mentioning Rich.

Another sign came in March, when former Assistant U.S. Attorney Deborah Sines was deposed in a separate case, Ed Butowsky v. David Folkenflik et. al.

Sines testified that the FBI conducted an investigation into possible hacking attempts on Seth Rich’s electronic accounts following his murder. She said FBI agents examined Rich’s laptop as part of the probe and that a search should uncover emails between her and FBI personnel. She also said she met with a prosecutor and an FBI agent assigned to special counsel Robert Mueller’s team.

The FBI declined to comment, citing a policy of not commenting on pending litigation.

The judge overseeing the Huddleston case in October ordered the defense to produce documents and an index.

In the new email, the government lawyer said the FBI has made “significant progress” in searching for documents mentioning Rich, but still has much work left, including processing the approximately 50 cross-references, undertaking some level of review of the laptop, and completing all remaining services.

The efforts are hampered by the FBI’s Freedom of Information Act office being at 50 percent of its normal workforce due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The government is proposing an amended schedule that would give it three more months to produce the records.

Clevenger, Huddleston’s lawyer, told The Epoch Times via email that his client is hoping to find out why the FBI was involved in the case, and why it originally denied involvement.

“We suspect the FBI may be right that the Metropolitan Police Dept. in D.C. was responsible for investigating Seth’s murder, so that leaves a couple of likely explanations for the FBI’s role: it was investigating a counterintelligence matter or a computer crime. Either scenario would be consistent with Seth transmitting DNC emails to Wikileaks,” he added, referencing a theory about the source of emails from inside the DNC that were later published by Wikileaks.

The theory was the core of a story Fox News published in 2017. It later retracted the report but was sued by Rich’s family.

Fox settled with Rich’s family last month.

A federal judge overseeing the case had earlier this year requested testimony from Wikileaks’ founder Julian Assange.

Rich was killed less than two weeks before WikiLeaks “released a collection of thousands of internal emails and documents taken from the DNC servers,” according to a court filing. One month after Rich’s murder, Assange referenced the DNC staffer in an interview with a Dutch television reporter when discussing the dangers faced by WikiLeaks sources. On Aug. 9, 2016, WikiLeaks offered $20,000 for information about Rich’s murder. The website increased the reward to $130,000 in January 2017.

The Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) several weeks after Rich was shot dead offered a reward for information. A spokeswoman told The Epoch Times via email that the case “remains under active investigation.”

The spokeswoman declined to answer whether the FBI assisted police with its probe. “MPD remains the lead investigative agency over this homicide,” she said.

A firm investigating the DNC situation, Crowdstrike, alleged that the committee’s servers were hacked by Russian actors, but a transcript declassified in May showed the firm had no direct evidence of that claim.

Clevenger said he thinks the timing of the email from Parker, the assistant U.S. attorney, is significant.

“Some of my colleagues suspect the Trump Administration has pushed the release, but I doubt that,” he wrote. “With the purported election of Joe Biden, the FBI brass probably think they are in the clear, and nothing will ever happen to them, so they no longer have any reason to hide what they did.”

Ivan Pentchoukov contributed to this report."

[Tintin]

Julian Assange's Father and Brother Announce US Tour to Demand Journalist's Freedom

"Gabriel and I are excited to talk to the American public on why protecting journalism and freeing Julian is so important to a free press," says John Shipton, the WikiLeaks founder's father.

by Jessica Corbett, staff writer
Friday, May 28 2021

Source: https://www.commondreams.org/news/2021/05/28/julian-assanges-father-and-brother-announce-us-tour-demand-journalists-freedom

The father and brother of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange are planning a nationwide tour of the United States next month to advocate for the release of the detained journalist and for the Biden administration to drop its extradition effort—and to highlight the broader implications that his prosecution has for global press freedom.

John and Gabriel Shipton, Assange's father and brother, will kick off the #HomeRun4Julian tour in Miami on June 6, then travel to over a dozen U.S. cities for the rest of the month, wrapping up in Washington, D.C. in July. Some events will be live-streamed, and the pair plans to meet with activists, journalists, and policymakers along the away.

"My brother Julian Assange has effectively been a prisoner for over a decade because he published evidence of war crimes," said Gabriel Shipton in a statement Thursday. "The U.S. government wants to make an example out of him to deter journalists and whistleblowers."

[Schedule here (https://assangedefense.org/tour/)]

https://twitter.com/couragefound/status/1398212868873523202

Article continues in full here (https://www.commondreams.org/news/2021/05/28/julian-assanges-father-and-brother-announce-us-tour-demand-journalists-freedom)...

[Kryztian]

UN’s torture expert condemns persecution of Julian Assange as efforts to free journalist ramp up ahead of G7 summit

https://i.imgur.com/fRyE56Q.jpg

Efforts to free WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange from Belmarsh Prison in the UK were ramped up this week ahead of the G7 summit with an action in Geneva, a petition, and an intervention by the UN special rapporteur on torture.

Assange’s fiancee Stella Moris, Geneva Mayor Frederique Perler, and UN Special Rapporteur on Torture Nils Melzer called for the journalist’s release and an end to US extradition proceedings against him on Friday.

Melzer, who also serves as the Swiss human rights chair at the Geneva Academy, called Assange’s incarceration “one of the biggest judicial scandals in history” and referred to the WikiLeaks founder, as well as whistleblowers Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning, as the “skeletons in the cupboards of Western countries.”

“It is the story of a man being persecuted in our part of the world for having told the truth,” Melzer said. “He has exposed war crimes, he has exposed torture, he has exposed corruption. It’s an inconvenient truth.

“Are you teaching your children that it’s a good thing or a bad thing to tell the truth?” he continued, concluding that he cannot leave his children a world “where it has become a crime to tell the truth because, once that has happened, we are living in tyranny.”

1400929425294774276

A temporary monument to Assange, Snowden, and Manning was unveiled in Geneva on Friday. The mobile art installation, made by Italian artist Davide Dormino in 2015 and dubbed ‘Anything to Say?’ shows the three figures standing on chairs with a fourth empty chair next to them. A petition set up by the Geneva Press Club also went live, demanding Assange’s immediate release.

“In the name of respect for inalienable human rights and the values promoted by human rights organizations based in Geneva,” the Geneva Press Club called on the British authorities “to refuse the extradition of Julian Assange and to restore his freedom” and for the US government “to drop the prosecution of Julian Assange.”

The Geneva Press Club also called on democratic states such as Switzerland “to ensure Julian Assange [has] a territory of refuge where he can protect himself from new prosecutions.”

Though he has not been found guilty of any crime, Assange has spent over two years in Her Majesty’s Prison Belmarsh, a maximum-security jail which has housed some of the UK’s most infamous and dangerous criminals, including several high-profile terrorists, serial killers, and rapists. Assange remains at Belmarsh despite a judge ruling in January that he could not be extradited to the United States due to mental health concerns.

Assange’s fiancee said on Saturday that the journalist is “barely hanging on” in the prison and has been in “a terrible state, unable to even string a sentence together” as he is confined to a small cell for 22 hours a day.

“Julian is not violent, he is not a danger to society. He is a publisher and this case is about freedom of information. This situation shames the UK’s justice system. It is a blight on the UK’s global reputation,” Morris declared, as quoted by the Daily Mail.

She called it “unacceptable” that a “foreign power” like the United States is able to “tell Britain what to do.”

“It’s time for President Joe Biden to drop the charges against Julian, and Boris Johnson should ask him to do so at the G7 meeting in Cornwall this week. Hopefully then, justice will prevail,” Morris concluded.

The Mail reported that Assange “has a cork board” in his prison cell “on which he has pinned pictures of his two youngest sons – Gabriel, four, and Max, two,” and he also “feeds a pair of mallards nesting beneath his cell window.”

The 47th G7 summit is set to take place in the UK between June 11 and 13. The UK, the US, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, the European Union, and Japan will participate.

[Delight]

Not sure if this is true but passing it on....


Wikileaks just dumped all of their files online. Everything from Hillary Clinton's emails, McCain's being guilty, Vegas shooting done by an FBI sniper, Steve Jobs HIV letter, PedoPodesta, Afghanistan, Syria, Iran, Bilderberg, CIA agents arrested for rape, WHO pandemic. Happy Digging! Here you go, please read and pass it on..... https://file.wikileaks.org/file/... These are Clinton’s emails: https://file.wikileaks.org/file/clinton-emails/

Index file! https://file.wikileaks.org/file/?fbclid=IwAR2U_Evqah_Qy2wxNY12FMqFC5dAFUcZL5Kl4FIfQuMFMp8ssbM46oHXWMI

Send to everyone you can as fast as you can! 😎 Read it and pass it on.

[onawah]

If it's true, the info should probably be added to the Avalon library.

Not sure if this is true but passing it on....


Wikileaks just dumped all of their files online. Everything from Hillary Clinton's emails, McCain's being guilty, Vegas shooting done by an FBI sniper, Steve Jobs HIV letter, PedoPodesta, Afghanistan, Syria, Iran, Bilderberg, CIA agents arrested for rape, WHO pandemic. Happy Digging! Here you go, please read and pass it on..... https://file.wikileaks.org/file/... These are Clinton’s emails: https://file.wikileaks.org/file/clinton-emails/

Index file! https://file.wikileaks.org/file/?fbclid=IwAR2U_Evqah_Qy2wxNY12FMqFC5dAFUcZL5Kl4FIfQuMFMp8ssbM46oHXWMI

Send to everyone you can as fast as you can! 😎 Read it and pass it on.

[onawah]

Chris Hedges speech in support of Assange
By Chris Hedges
Scheer Post
6/11/21
https://consortiumnews.com/2021/06/11/chris-hedges-assange-the-collapse-of-the-rule-of-law/
Chris Hedges gave this talk at a rally Thursday night in New York City in support of Julian Assange. John and Gabriel Shipton, Julian’s father and brother, also spoke at the event, which was held at The People’s Forum.

jaYPHrOGXFc

"A society that prohibits the capacity to speak in truth extinguishes the capacity to live in justice.

This why we are here tonight. Yes, all of us who know and admire Julian decry his prolonged suffering and the suffering of his family. Yes, we demand that the many wrongs and injustices that have been visited upon him be ended. Yes, we honor him up for his courage and his integrity. But the battle for Julian’s liberty has always been much more than the persecution of a publisher. It is the most important battle for press freedom of our era. And if we lose this battle, it will be devastating, not only for Julian and his family, but for us.

Tyrannies invert the rule of law. They turn the law into an instrument of injustice. They cloak their crimes in a faux legality. They use the decorum of the courts and trials, to mask their criminality. Those, such as Julian, who expose that criminality to the public are dangerous, for without the pretext of legitimacy the tyranny loses credibility and has nothing left in its arsenal but fear, coercion and violence.

The long campaign against Julian and WikiLeaks is a window into the collapse of the rule of law, the rise of what the political philosopher Sheldon Wolin calls our system of inverted totalitarianism, a form of totalitarianism that maintains the fictions of the old capitalist democracy, including its institutions, iconography, patriotic symbols and rhetoric, but internally has surrendered total control to the dictates of global corporations.

I was in the London courtroom when Julian was being tried by Judge Vanessa Baraitser, an updated version of the Queen of Hearts in Alice-in Wonderland demanding the sentence before pronouncing the verdict. It was judicial farce. There was no legal basis to hold Julian in prison. There was no legal basis to try him, an Australian citizen, under the U.S. Espionage Act. The CIA spied on Julian in the embassy through a Spanish company, UC Global, contracted to provide embassy security. This spying included recording the privileged conversations between Julian and his lawyers as they discussed his defense. This fact alone invalidated the trial. Julian is being held in a high security prison so the state can, as Nils Melzer, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, has testified, continue the degrading abuse and torture it hopes will lead to his psychological if not physical disintegration.

The U.S. government directed, as Craig Murray so eloquently documented, the London prosecutor James Lewis. Lewis presented these directives to Baraitser. Baraitser adopted them as her legal decision. It was judicial pantomime. Lewis and the judge insisted they were not attempting to criminalize journalists and muzzle the press while they busily set up the legal framework to criminalize journalists and muzzle the press. And that is why the court worked so hard to mask the proceedings from the public, limiting access to the courtroom to a handful of observers and making it hard and at times impossible to access the trial online. It was a tawdry show trial, not an example of the best of English jurisprudence but the Lubyanka.Now, I know many of us here tonight would like to think of ourselves as radicals, maybe even revolutionaries. But what we are demanding on the political spectrum is in fact conservative, it is the restoration of the rule of law. It is simple and basic. It should not, in a functioning democracy, be incendiary. But living in truth in a despotic system is the supreme act of defiance. This truth terrifies those in power.

The architects of imperialism, the masters of war, the corporate-controlled legislative, judicial and executive branches of government and their obsequious courtiers in the media, are illegitimate. Say this simple truth and you are banished, as many of us have been, to the margins of the media landscape. Prove this truth, as Julian, Chelsea Manning, Jeremy Hammond and Edward Snowden have by allowing us to peer into the inner workings of power, and you are hunted down and persecuted.

Shortly after WikiLeaks released the Iraq War Logs in October 2010, which documented numerous US war crimes—including video images of the gunning down of two Reuters journalists and 10 other unarmed civilians in the Collateral Murder video, the routine torture of Iraqi prisoners, the covering up of thousands of civilian deaths and the killing of nearly 700 civilians that had approached too closely to U.S. checkpoints—the towering civil rights attorneys Len Weinglass and my good friend Michael Ratner, who I would later accompany to meet Julian in the Ecuadoran Embassy, met with Julian in a studio apartment in Central London. Julian’s personal bank cards had been blocked. Three encrypted laptops with documents detailing US war crimes had disappeared from his luggage in route to London. Swedish police were fabricating a case against him in a move, Ratner warned, that was about extraditing Julian to the United States.

“WikiLeaks and you personally are facing a battle that is both legal and political,” Weinglass told Assange. “As we learned in the Pentagon Papers case, the US government doesn’t like the truth coming out. And it doesn’t like to be humiliated. No matter if it’s Nixon or Bush or Obama, Republican or Democrat in the White House. The US government will try to stop you from publishing its ugly secrets. And if they have to destroy you and the First Amendment and the rights of publishers with you, they are willing to do it. We believe they are going to come after WikiLeaks and you, Julian, as the publisher.”

“Come after me for what?” asked Julian.

“Espionage,” Weinglass continued. “They’re going to charge Bradley Manning with treason under the Espionage Act of 1917. We don’t think it applies to him because he’s a whistleblower, not a spy. And we don’t think it applies to you either because you are a publisher. But they are going to try to force Manning into implicating you as his collaborator.”

“Come after me for what?

That is the question.

They came after Julian not for his vices, but his virtues.

They came after Julian because he exposed the more than 15,000 unreported deaths of Iraqi civilians; because he exposed the torture and abuse of some 800 men and boys, aged between 14 and 89, at Guantánamo; because he exposed that Hillary Clinton in 2009 ordered US diplomats to spy on UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon and other UN representatives from China, France, Russia, and the UK, spying that included obtaining DNA, iris scans, fingerprints, and personal passwords, part of the long pattern of illegal surveillance that included the eavesdropping on UN Secretary General Kofi Annan in the weeks before the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003; because he exposed that Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and the CIA orchestrated the June 2009 military coup in Honduras that overthrew the democratically elected president Manuel Zelaya, replacing it with a murderous and corrupt military regime; because he exposed that George W. Bush, Barack Obama and General David Petraeus prosecuted a war in Iraq that under post-Nuremberg laws is defined as a criminal war of aggression, a war crime, that they authorized hundreds of targeted assassinations, including those of U.S. citizens in Yemen, and that they secretly launched missile, bomb, and drone attacks on Yemen, killing scores of civilians; because he exposed that Goldman Sachs paid Hillary Clinton $657,000 to give talks, a sum so large it can only be considered a bribe, and that she privately assured corporate leaders she would do their bidding while promising the public financial regulation and reform; because he exposed the internal campaign to discredit and destroy British Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn by members of his own party; because he exposed how the hacking tools used by the CIA and the National Security Agency permits the wholesale government surveillance of our televisions, computers, smartphones and anti-virus software, allowing the government to record and store our conversations, images and private text messages, even from encrypted apps.

Julian exposed the truth. He exposed it over and over and over until there was no question of the endemic illegality, corruption and mendacity that defines the global ruling elite. And for these truths they came after Julian, as they have come after all who dared rip back the veil on power. “Red Rosa now has vanished too. …” Bertolt Brecht wrote after the German socialist Rosa Luxemburg was murdered. “She told the poor what life is about, And so the rich have rubbed her out.”

We have undergone a corporate coup, where the poor and working men and women are reduced to joblessness and hunger, where war, financial speculation and internal surveillance are the only real business of the state, where even habeas corpus no longer exists, where we, as citizens, are nothing more than commodities to corporate systems of power, ones to be used, fleeced and discarded. To refuse to fight back, to reach out and help the weak, the oppressed and the suffering, to save the planet from ecocide, to decry the domestic and international crimes of the ruling class, to demand justice, to live in truth, is to bear the mark of Cain. Those in power must feel our wrath, and this means constant acts of mass civil disobedience, it means constant acts of social and political disruption, for this organized power from below is the only power that will save us and the only power that will free Julian. Politics is a game of fear. It is our moral and civic duty to make those in power very, very afraid.

The criminal ruling class has all of us locked in its death grip. It cannot be reformed. It has abolished the rule of law. It obscures and falsifies the truth. It seeks the consolidation of its obscene wealth and power. And so, to quote the Queen of Hearts, metaphorically of course, I say, “Off with their heads.”

Chris Hedges is a Pulitzer Prize–winning journalist who was a foreign correspondent for 15 years for The New York Times, where he served as the Middle East bureau chief and Balkan bureau chief for the paper. He previously worked overseas for The Dallas Morning News, The Christian Science Monitor and NPR. He is the host of the Emmy Award-nominated RT America show “On Contact.” "

[ExomatrixTV]

Julian Assange's family speak out on 'Tucker Carlson Tonight':

-Y42E-YNFWk


Julian Assange (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange)



When his son looks older than his dad! :(

[Tintin]

If it's true, the info should probably be added to the Avalon library.

Not sure if this is true but passing it on....


Wikileaks just dumped all of their files online. Everything from Hillary Clinton's emails, McCain's being guilty, Vegas shooting done by an FBI sniper, Steve Jobs HIV letter, PedoPodesta, Afghanistan, Syria, Iran, Bilderberg, CIA agents arrested for rape, WHO pandemic. Happy Digging! Here you go, please read and pass it on..... https://file.wikileaks.org/file/... These are Clinton’s emails: https://file.wikileaks.org/file/clinton-emails/

Index file! https://file.wikileaks.org/file/?fbclid=IwAR2U_Evqah_Qy2wxNY12FMqFC5dAFUcZL5Kl4FIfQuMFMp8ssbM46oHXWMI

Send to everyone you can as fast as you can! 😎 Read it and pass it on.

No new information here folks :flower:

This is a recycle of a previously circulated link from >= 2 years ago.

[Kryztian]

Key witness in Assange case admits to lies in indictment

A maj­or wit­n­ess in the United States’ Depart­ment of Justice ca­se against Ju­li­an Assange has admitted to fabricat­ing key accusati­ons in the indict­ment against the Wiki­leaks found­er.
26. júní 2021 10:00
https://stundin.is/grein/13627/key-witness-in-assange-case-admits-to-lies-in-indictment/

Bjartmar Oddur Þeyr Alexandersson
bjartmar@stundin.is
Gunnar Hrafn Jónsson
ritstjorn@stundin.is


https://stundin.is/media/uploads/images/thumbs/2SysvJg5eRKV_1200x1200_5Ea1dNfU.jpg

A major witness in the United States’ Department of Justice case against Julian Assange has admitted to fabricating key accusations in the indictment against the Wikileaks founder. The witness, who has a documented history with sociopathy and has received several convictions for sexual abuse of minors and wide-ranging financial fraud, made the admission in a newly published interview in Stundin where he also confessed to having continued his crime spree whilst working with the Department of Justice and FBI and receiving a promise of immunity from prosecution.

The man in question, Sigurdur Ingi Thordarson, was recruited by US authorities to build a case against Assange after misleading them to believe he was previously a close associate of his. In fact he had volunteered on a limited basis to raise money for Wikileaks in 2010 but was found to have used that opportunity to embezzle more than $50,000 from the organization. Julian Assange was visiting Thordarson’s home country of Iceland around this time due to his work with Icelandic media and members of parliament in preparing the Icelandic Modern Media Initiative, a press freedom project that produced a parliamentary resolution supporting whistleblowers and investigative journalism.

The United States is currently seeking Assange’s extradition from the United Kingdom in order to try him for espionage relating to the release of leaked classified documents. If convicted, he could face up to 175 years in prison. The indictment has sparked fears for press freedoms in the United States and beyond and prompted strong statements in support of Assange from Amnesty International, Reporters without borders, the editorial staff of the Washington Post and many others.

US officials presented an updated version of an indictment against him to a Magistrate court in London last summer. The veracity of the information contained therein is now directly contradicted by the main witness, whose testimony it is based on.

No instruction from Assange

The court documents refer to Mr Thordarson simply as “Teenager” (a reference to his youthful appearance rather than true age, he is 28 years old) and Iceland as “NATO Country 1” but make no real effort to hide the identity of either. They purport to show that Assange instructed Thordarson to commit computer intrusions or hacking in Iceland.

The aim of this addition to the indictment was apparently to shore up and support the conspiracy charge against Assange in relation to his interactions with Chelsea Manning. Those occurred around the same time he resided in Iceland and the authors of the indictment felt they could strengthen their case by alleging he was involved in illegal activity there as well. This activity was said to include attempts to hack into the computers of members of parliament and record their conversations.

In fact, Thordarson now admits to Stundin that Assange never asked him to hack or access phone recordings of MPs. His new claim is that he had in fact received some files from a third party who claimed to have recorded MPs and had offered to share them with Assange without having any idea what they actually contained. He claims he never checked the contents of the files or even if they contained audio recordings as his third party source suggested. He further admits the claim, that Assange had instructed or asked him to access computers in order to find any such recordings, is false.

Nonetheless, the tactics employed by US officials appear to have been successful as can be gleaned from the ruling of Magistrate Court Judge Vanessa Baraitser on January 4th of this year. Although she ruled against extradition, she did so purely on humanitarian grounds relating to Assange’s health concerns, suicide risk and the conditions he would face in confinement in US prisons. With regards to the actual accusations made in the indictment Baraitser sided with the arguments of the American legal team, including citing the specific samples from Iceland which are now seriously called into question.

Other misleading elements can be found in the indictment, and later reflected in the Magistrate’s judgement, based on Thordarson’s now admitted lies. One is a reference to Icelandic bank documents. The Magistrate court judgement reads: “It is alleged that Mr. Assange and Teenager failed a joint attempt to decrypt a file stolen from a “NATO country 1” bank”.

Story continues at: https://stundin.is/grein/13627/key-witness-in-assange-case-admits-to-lies-in-indictment/

[jaybee]

Julian's father and brother have appeared on the Jimmy Dore Show... (26th June)

Julian and his Dad have a very similar voice and way of speaking - a kind of calm and gentle tone -


Julian Assange’s Father Pleads For His Son’s Freedom in America

HPp7JbynLmM

[iota]

https://stundin.is/media/uploads/images/thumbs/2SysvJg5eRKV_1200x1200_5Ea1dNfU.jpg

Key witness in Assange case admits to lies in indictment


A maj­or wit­n­ess in the United States’ Depart­ment of Justice ca­se against Ju­li­an Assange has admitted to fabricat­ing key accusati­ons in the indict­ment against the Wiki­leaks found­er.

Stundin reports:

"Amajor witness in the United States’ Department of Justice case against Julian Assange has admitted to fabricating key accusations in the indictment against the Wikileaks founder. The witness, who has a documented history with sociopathy and has received several convictions for sexual abuse of minors and wide-ranging financial fraud, made the admission in a newly published interview in Stundin where he also confessed to having continued his crime spree whilst working with the Department of Justice and FBI and receiving a promise of immunity from prosecution.

The man in question, Sigurdur Ingi Thordarson, was recruited by US authorities to build a case against Assange after misleading them to believe he was previously a close associate of his. In fact he had volunteered on a limited basis to raise money for Wikileaks in 2010 but was found to have used that opportunity to embezzle more than $50,000 from the organization. Julian Assange was visiting Thordarson’s home country of Iceland around this time due to his work with Icelandic media and members of parliament in preparing the Icelandic Modern Media Initiative, a press freedom project that produced a parliamentary resolution supporting whistleblowers and investigative journalism. "

read full article here:
https://stundin.is/grein/13627/key-witness-in-assange-case-admits-to-lies-in-indictment/


https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/1408802413176315908

this is where ALL of our conditioning to tolerate in our every day normal life shows up as

what IS, in fact, being tolerated on an international basis

it is not that we have NOT had the evidence nor the power

it is OUR willingness to ALLOW injustice to preavail that has it be this way

and it is the ONE failure to pardon of Trump's that i in turn fail to pardon HIM for :(

i feel the continuation of imprisonment and attack on Assange to truly be a "test" for humanity

i don't think we're going to be "allowed" to have too many "sacrificial lambs" permitted by US on our record as humanity and have that be "ok"

**UPDATE **


and JUST as i stated the above? i come across:



https://media.townhall.com/townhall/reu/ha/2019/143/6ade3e5d-dc64-4160-a5f1-2026b2ebb475.png


Julian Assange's Fiancée Says Biden Must Free Him
to Show the US Defends a Free Press

Townhall reports:

The fiancée of Julian Assange said that if President Joe Biden wants to separate himself from the legacy of former President Donald Trump and have the United States be considered a supporter of a free press, he needs to grant the WikiLeaks founder his freedom.

U.S. officials have supported the extradition of Assange, who has been in jail or self-incarceration in Britain for the past nine years, for his leak of classified military records and diplomatic cables, which they allege put American lives at risk.

Assange's fiancée Stella Moris and the British judge overseeing the extradition have been wary of the move, fearing that sending him to the U.S. could result in his death.

Moris, who said she was hopeful that Assange's freedom would be granted under Biden, told Reuters in an interview:


If Biden really wants to break with the Trump legacy, then he has to drop the case.

They can't maintain this prosecution against Julian while saying that they defend a global press freedom.

While Biden was vice president during the Obama administration, Assange’s extradition was not sought after because they said WikiLeaks' actions were on par with journalistic practices that are protected by the First Amendment.

Trump officials, however, filed criminal charges against Assange, accusing him of being involved in a computer hacking conspiracy. The U.S. Justice Department in February announces its intentions to continue looking for Assange's extradition over the charges.

Judge Vanessa Baraitser said in January after rejecting the request to extradite Assange that he would be a suicide risk due to mental health issues.

U.S. prosecutors coined Assange as an enemy whose careless actions put in danger the lives of agents named in the leaked government documents.

However, his supporters, namely those who consider themselves to be anti-government, see him as a hero who exposed the immorality of the U.S. to American citizens. They allege that his prosecution is a politically-motivated attack on a free press, allowing oppressive regimes around the world to remain.


Moris said the 49-year-old Australian had low morale but was not giving up the fight. She said his treatment mirrored the experiences of the media in places such as China and Saudi Arabia, who do not have a free press.

She said that the U.S. must protect her fiancée:


A superpower that has a free press is very different

in nature from one that does not.


read full article here:
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/landonmion/2021/06/26/julian-assanges-fianc%C3%A9e-says-biden-must-free-him-to-show-the-us-defends-a-free-press-n2591633

[onawah]

That Trump allowed the continued persecution of Assange was a big reason why I never could consider him to be the great hero that Trumpers proclaim him to be.
If he does get back into the White House, this issue will be a real litmus test, but only one of many.
Doing what is expeditious as a politician is not the same thing as being a real, integral leader.
It might be all that we can get at this point, and though I agree that it would be better if Trump was POTUS than Biden, it's still far from an optimal solution.
There hasn't been a good POTUS since JFK, and he wasn't perfect either.
But so goes politics in these tumultuous times...

[iota]

i think with Trump i was forced out of my fantasy that there TRULY is such a position of power as that of "President of the United States"

and i'm pretty sure it came as a HUGE shock for him as well

i KNOW his "type" and "having his hands tied" in ANY way does NOT "sit well" with him

however, another marked characteristic of his "type" is patience

"NO" does NOT "compute" to them as it does to normal folk

"NO" ... simply means ... "i NEED to find ANOTHER way"

so ...

i'm disappointed that he didn't

but i'm no longer entertaining delusions that HE had much say in the running of this goverment much less the WHOLE say

in this forum we are aware of MUCH more information than the average folk

which of course is to our credit FOR pursuing this knowlege and taking action to procure it

they COULD TOO .....

so i feel at some point, it will be prudent, if not outright necessary to pull all the "pieces of the puzzle" together in order to see the WHOLE

otherwise we are just a "more infomed" version of the people we call sheeple

and what i mean by that is we CANNOT KNOW that there ARE agencies (entities) in the shadows

and YET be in a continual of state of


"WHY ... THIS just DOES NOT MAKE SENSE!"

because at THAT point? then its kinda ... "you're kidding, right?"

WE KNOW there are forces CONTROLLING NOT just the US but the ENTIRE planet

they are PSYCHOPATHIC and PARASITIC hell bent on Domiation and ENSLAVEMENT of HUMANITY

so let's just begin there

with THOSE forces, INDISPUTABLY in existence?

what WOULD be "incredible" (the "i just can't believe!" factor)

would be for someone to act with impunity

i hold him responsible

because the TRUTH is that ALL sentient BEINGS ARE responsible

BOTH for what they do > and WHAT they do NOT do

this is the measure of the universe

so its useless to pretend otherwise or cajole and say "there .. there .. it will be all right"

when the TRUTH is that:

NOTHING WILL BE ALL RIGHT

UNLESS WE CHOOSE

AND ACT

TO MAKE IT SO

at the very least, that is what life has demonstrated so far ...

irrespective? > I AM HERE

it is happening in MY presence

so the universe says the ONLY reason for this to be so?

is to SEE .... > WHAT THE heck i aim to do about it?

so ... i need to think on that

and THEN ... i NEED to ACT on that ...

cus i know for a FACT i won't get a "pass" on this as i haven't gotten one on anything else Life has presented me with ...

for starters? i just need to do my very best right where i AM

tolerating crap is what got us here?

ok .. then AT HOME .. in PERSONAL relationships? THAT CAN stop, right?

so that's always a good place to start .. right wherever it is we find ourselves ...

but yes, i have to agree with the reservations Onawah expressed

because THAT? was definitely a "signal" that ALL was not kosher .. something was off

and AGAIN, if it were NOT for the prevalent conditioning to just hypnotically nod

and tolerate SEEING that "ALL is NOT OK" > BUT doing NOTHING to rectify this ...

THEN this would not be in continuance

and AGAIN, this comes back to EVERYONE's personal lives

there is ABSOLUTELY NO HOPE of terminating the "Tolerance" on a COLLECTIVE PLANETARY basis

WHILE we maintain TOLERANCE in our personal every day lives

we should actually just forget about the political specter that WILL REMAIN AS IT IS

AS long as WE REMAIN AS WE ARE

and "get" that people that ERADICATE tolerance on a personal level?

ERADICATE it in their government as well

and that is just the truth of it

:flower:

[onawah]

When ET/ED presence and assistance/interference/aggression. etc. is factored in, however, whether benign, neutral or malignant, there is a huge, additional element which humankind as a whole has not yet recognized, much less learned how to deal with.
And that's where it gets complicated...

[iota]

When ET/ED presence and assistance/interference/aggression. etc. is factored in, however, whether benign, neutral or malignant, there is a huge, additional element which humankind as aw whole has not yet recognized, much less learned how to deal with.
And that's where it gets complicated...

exactly!!

couldn't agree more!

its time we start including that in our analysis!
:flower:

[Dennis Leahy]

Biden isn't going to save Julian. His democrat predecessor (in my opinion, the most effective spokesmodel for the Ameri-centric Global Empire, yet) was merciless in prosecuting whistleblowers. (see the documentary, "Silenced.") That is to say, Obama acted-out on the agenda of the actual individuals that control the Ameri-centric Global Empire from behind the curtain. That doesn't exonerate Obama.

My friends that saw Trump as different than the other Ameri-centric Global Empire spokesmodels (primarily because they thought that since he wasn't steeped in the political process like the typical democrat or republican, that he would act differently and not follow the prescribed agenda from the real controllers) simply excuse the fact that Trump spearheaded the rendition and torture and false prosecution of Julian Assange, whistleblower. Julian Assange is rotting in Belmarsh prison because of Trump's actions, not due to Trump's inaction. Trump acted-out on the agenda of the actual individuals that control the Ameri-centric Global Empire from behind the curtain. That doesn't exonerate Trump.

All of my democrat-supporting friends make excuses for the democrat presidents persecution of whistleblowers.

All of my republican-supporting friends make excuses for the republican presidents persecution of whistleblowers.

None of my democrat-supporting friends and none of my republican-supporting friends seem to even notice how much of the Ameri-centric Global Empire agenda is followed - without skipping a beat - when the opposite political party gains power. Gee, just maybe the Ameri-centric Global Empire agenda is simply administered by the political party du jour.

[onawah]

Absolutely. Also see from Avalonian Pam: https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?115473-Great-Reset-2030-Agenda-Plan-B--more-human-ideas-and-visions-for-a-positive-future-&p=1437027&viewfull=1#post1437027
" I believe the very first thing we, as humans have to understand is what psychopathy is , and that there are people that will harm us for their own perceived benefit and will never have a moment of remorse over it. We have to understand that some of those people appear to be very "nice" and responsible. We need to understand that it is alright to say "NO' to those people if they are causing us detriment or trying to harm us or those around us even if they have labeled themselves 'experts' or 'authorities'. That is the cornerstone we can build on. A new culture were honesty and sincerity earn merit and positions of trust. We will be rebuilding an inversion of the current inversion. From this point on we humans, really do have the ability to create heaven on earth, even with our flaws and frailties.

The current system is broken beyond redemption. The corruption permeates at all levels. New rules upon new rules. Pretend attempts at mandating decency and teaching division and hatred at the same time. This system is dead."


Biden isn't going to save Julian. His democrat predecessor (in my opinion, the most effective spokesmodel for the Ameri-centric Global Empire, yet) was merciless in prosecuting whistleblowers. (see the documentary, "Silenced.") That is to say, Obama acted-out on the agenda of the actual individuals that control the Ameri-centric Global Empire from behind the curtain. That doesn't exonerate Obama.

My friends that saw Trump as different than the other Ameri-centric Global Empire spokesmodels (primarily because they thought that since he wasn't steeped in the political process like the typical democrat or republican, that he would act differently and not follow the prescribed agenda from the real controllers) simply excuse the fact that Trump spearheaded the rendition and torture and false prosecution of Julian Assange, whistleblower. Julian Assange is rotting in Belmarsh prison because of Trump's actions, not due to Trump's inaction. Trump acted-out on the agenda of the actual individuals that control the Ameri-centric Global Empire from behind the curtain. That doesn't exonerate Trump.

All of my democrat-supporting friends make excuses for the democrat presidents persecution of whistleblowers.

All of my republican-supporting friends make excuses for the republican presidents persecution of whistleblowers.

None of my democrat-supporting friends and none of my republican-supporting friends seem to even notice how much of the Ameri-centric Global Empire agenda is followed - without skipping a beat - when the opposite political party gains power. Gee, just maybe the Ameri-centric Global Empire agenda is simply administered by the political party du jour.

[onawah]

Attorney: U.S. Case Against Julian Assange Falls Apart, as Key Witness Says He Lied to Get Immunity
35,973 viewsJun 28, 2021
#DemocracyNow
2K
Democracy Now!
906K subscribers

"One of the main witnesses in Julian Assange’s extradition case has admitted he made false claims against Assange in exchange for immunity from prosecution, a bombshell revelation that could have a major impact on the WikiLeaks founder’s fate. Assange faces up to 175 years in prison if brought to the U.S., where he was indicted for violations of the Espionage Act related to the publication of classified documents exposing U.S. war crimes. According to a new article in the Icelandic newspaper Stundin, the convicted hacker Sigurdur “Siggi” Thordarson falsely claimed he was a prominent WikiLeaks representative instructed by Assange to carry out hacking attacks, but he was in fact only tangentially involved with the organization. The article suggests the U.S. Justice Department collaborated with Thordarson to generate the indictment for Assange that was submitted to the British courts. “This is just the latest revelation to demonstrate why the U.S. case should be dropped,” says Jennifer Robinson, a human rights attorney who has been advising Assange and WikiLeaks since 2010. “The factual basis for this case has completely fallen apart.” "
DGYDPBKYbo4

[Flowerpunkchip]

RurOVzCm-us
We went to Belmarsh this morning to support Stella.
RT news were there. No other news agencies (as usual).

[onawah]

Julian Assange and WikiLeaks — story of a whistleblower | DW Documentary
282,617 viewsJul 3, 2021
6.4K
DW Documentary
3.15M subscribers

"The decision not to extradite Julian Assange to the US is unlikely to be the end of his struggle. For the past 10 years, a team of reporters has followed Assange and the WikiLeaks network.

In their first film in 2011, they portrayed Julian Assange and his team as transparency activists, fighting for a new, open relationship between citizens and information. Since then, Wikileaks has come under constant pressure from the US government. But the site nevertheless continued to publish secret and explosive information that has both illuminated and shaped our world.

In 2013, the team met Julian Assange again, interviewing him in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London. At the time, Assange had no idea that he was going to spend the next seven years in these rooms, observed by surveillance cameras.

In 2016, Wikileaks played a crucial role in the election of US President Donald Trump. In 2017, it tried to similarly influence the French election. Throughout the years, the reporters have kept filming, talking to Julian Assange’s father, who regularly visits him in London’s Belmarsh prison, as well as to his lawyers.

Today, Julian Assange and WikiLeaks are at a turning point in their history. To his detractors, Assange is a spy and a traitor, and deserves his fate. His supporters say the US extradition request is a serious and unprecedented attack on the freedom of information, protected by the US constitution. And who’s to say that the news outlets that have collaborated with WikiLeaks won’t be prosecuted, as well?"

y9Ajc4R-mpI

[ExomatrixTV]

Julian Assange and WikiLeaks — story of a whistleblower | Documentary:

y9Ajc4R-mpI

[onawah]

Marianne Williamson: DOJ CAUGHT in COVER UP War Crime w/ Charges Against Assange
87,184 viewsJul 3, 2021
The Hill
1.2M subscribers

"Activist and former Democratic presidential candidate, Marianne Williamson, discusses the latest updates in the Julian Assange case."

pY5vY9iI38E

[Tintin]

Stella Moris with an update on the US appeal against M. Baraitser's judgement in January:

1412830165755891716

[Kryztian]

U.S. Says Assange Would Be Kept Out of Supermax Prison as U.K. Court Reopens Door to Extradition
https://www.democracynow.org/2021/7/8/headlines/us_says_assange_would_be_kept_out_of_supermax_prison_as_uk_court_reopens_door_to_extradition
Headline Jul 08, 2021

The United Kingdom’s High Court has granted the Biden administration the right to appeal a lower court’s ruling blocking the extradition of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange to the United States. This comes as The Wall Street Journal reports U.S. officials have given assurances to the U.K. that Julian Assange wouldn’t be held in a “supermax” prison if extradited to the U.S. On Wednesday, Assange’s fiancée Stella Moris called on the Biden administration to end its pursuit of Assange.



Stella Moris: “The lawyers of Julian were spied on. Their offices were broken into. Even our 6-month-old baby was targeted while he was in the embassy. And now the High Court has limited the grounds on which they are allowed to appeal. So the case is falling apart. … If the Biden administration is serious about respecting the rule of law, the First Amendment and defending global press freedom, the only thing it can do is drop this case. This case is the most vicious attack on global press freedom in history.”

Assange faces up to 175 years in prison in the U.S. for violations of the Espionage Act related to the publication of classified documents exposing U.S. war crimes.

[onawah]

Pink Floyd's Roger Goes Off On Mark Zuckerberg, Refuses Giant Facebook Offer
152,606 viewsJun 15, 2021
8.4K
Rock Feed
609K subscribers
"Pink Floyd's Roger Waters goes off on Mark Zuckerberg in a rant during a recent public appearance. Roger Waters says Mark Zuckerberg reached out to him about using the band's music for an Instagram project."
Cur-N77uMws


Roger Waters - Thoughts on Facebook Ad Offer
130,272 viewsJun 18, 2021
7.8K
Roger Waters
353K subscribers
"Zuckerberg was a little prick when he was grading co-eds. Being very rich changes nothing, he’ll always be a little prick!"
-TGBcAZ55D4

[ExomatrixTV]

Corporate Media SHUNNED Julian Assange - How Can We Trust Them??:

Dq5vpRGr674

[Tintin]

August 11, 2021
_______________

British High Court Expands US Government's Appeal In Assange Extradition Case

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange was overheard after the hearing, as he tried to process the High Court of Justice's decision

Source: The Dissenter (https://thedissenter.org/british-high-court-expands-us-appeal-in-assange-extradition-case/)

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange was astounded by Britain’s High Court after it reversed a prior decision and permitted the United States government’s appeal on grounds related to his health.

Lord Justice Timothy Holroyde accepted the U.S. could challenge the weight that was given to Professor Michael Kopelman’s evidence (https://thedissenter.org/us-prosecution-accuses-assange-of/) because he “misled” the district court and did not disclose the fact that he knew Assange was in a relationship with Stella Moris and fathered two children in the Ecuador embassy.

He also allowed the U.S. to argue the district judge had erred when considering the evidence that went to Assange’s risk of suicide.

The High Court of Justice already granted an appeal on grounds related to how Assange would be treated in a U.S. jail or prison and whether Judge Vanessa Baraitser should have sought "assurances" from the U.S. to alleviate human rights concerns.

Speaking via video link from Belmarsh prison after the hearing, Assange told Edward Fitzgerald QC, one of his defense attorneys, an “expert witness has a legal obligation to protect people from harm.”

Kopelman, a neuropsychiatrist who treated him from May to December 2019, was looking out for "my children," Assange added.

Assange referred to the guns that were found in UC Global director David Morales’ home when a search was conducted by police. The brand and serial numbers were erased on both weapons. (UC Global is the private security company that spied on the Ecuador embassy, tried to obtain a diaper from one of Assange’s children for DNA testing, and discussed potentially kidnapping or poisoning him.)

Fitzgerald agreed that human rights need to be considered, but now the legal team must turn to the “assurances” the U.S. is offering to persuade the court Assange will not be cruelly or inhumanely treated.

He further noted that the decision by the High Court was part of a preliminary hearing. It was not the appeal. The court simply ruled that the grounds were “arguable,” and it’s “not the end of the line,” Fitzgerald pointed out. They would discuss the implications of what unfolded later when they could do so privately.

It was an extraordinarily rare moment, where press on the video link were given a glimpse of how this case that has unfolded over the past two years is wearing on Assange.

The Constant Threats And Intimidation


“The judges today said that the court will allow the factual evidence to be argued at the final hearing on the 27th and 28th of October. They'll allow the factual evidence to be argued,” Moris declared. “What has not been discussed today is why I fear for my safety and the safety of our children and Julian's life.”

Moris highlighted the “constant threats and intimidation” that they have endured for the past few years. Threats have been issued against her, against their children, against Assange’s eldest son, Daniel, and against Assange's life.

Of course, Moris added, there are “threats of a 175-year prison sentence and the actual ongoing imprisonment of a journalist for doing his job. These are sustained threats to his life for the past 10 years. These are not just items of law. This is our lives. We have the right to exist. We have a right to live and we have a right for this nightmare to come to an end once and for all.”

Clair Dobbin QC, who is with the Crown Prosecution Service representing the U.S. government, relied on a declaration to the district court that Kopelman signed, where he agreed to be an impartial expert witness. It informed him of his obligation to the court and instructed him not to withhold information that could adversely impact the evidence he provided.

“If an expert has misled the court, he has failed in his duty,” Dobbin stated. She maintained Baraitser did not “appreciate the significance of the fact that Kopelman was willing to mislead” the court.

In response, Fitzgerald contended the district judge was fully aware of the prosecution’s criticism and she concluded that Kopelman misled the court. However, in light of all the evidence, which included two psychiatric reports and in-person testimony in court, Baraitser decided (https://thedissenter.org/us-incarceration-system-deemed-too/) Kopelman did not fail in his duty to the court.

There was no “tactical advantage being gained,” Fitzgerald said. It was simply a matter of concern for the “human predicament.” For example, there were “very real fears and concerns” around UC Global and their surveillance (https://thedissenter.org/uc-global-employee-testifies-assange-spying/) against Assange and his family.

“Where is the point of law? Where is the arguable point of principle? Where indeed is the basis for the reviewing court to say this is wrong?” Fitzgerald rhetorically asked.

“I did not accept that Professor Kopelman failed in his duty to the court when he did not disclose Ms. Moris’s relationship with Mr. Assange,” Baraitser ruled. “In my judgment Professor Kopelman’s decision to conceal their relationship was misleading and inappropriate in the context of his obligations to the court, but an understandable human response to Ms. Moris’s predicament.”

Baraitser additionally detailed, “He explained that her relationship with Mr. Assange was not yet in the public domain and that she was very concerned about her privacy. After their relationship became public, he had disclosed it in his August 2020 report. In fact, the court had become aware of the true position in April 2020, before it had read the medical evidence or heard evidence on this issue.”

In other words, Baraitser was not misled by the omissions. She assessed his medical evidence while considering the fact that Assange had a new family that he started while in the Ecuador embassy.

The Judge Should Be The Primary Decision Maker

The High Court judges also concluded that a separate ground of appeal, previously rejected by the court, can now be argued by the U.S. government in the appeal hearing scheduled for October 27 and 28.

As to the risk of suicide, the U.S. government asserted Baraitser misinterpreted medical evidence or gave insufficient weight to evidence presented by forensic psychiatrists Professor Seena Fazel and Dr. Nigel Blackwood. They told the court too much weight was given to Kopelman and Dr. Quinton Deeley's evidence.

Deeley is a consultant psychiatrist specializing in autism and various mental health conditions. He concluded (https://thedissenter.org/doctor-diagnosed-julian-assange-with/) that Assange is on the “high functioning end” of the autism spectrum.

The prosecution’s written appeal argued that the evidence given last year by Deeley showed that any suicide risk would be the result of a rational and voluntary choice. If this is the case, then the relevant legal test prohibiting his extradition could not be satisfied.

But this interpretation of Deeley’s evidence was contradicted by the actual testimony he gave in September 2020 at the extradition hearing. Deeley made clear that Assange's autism combined with the conditions under which he would be held in the U.S. would result in a high risk of suicide—a point raised by Fitzgerald during today’s hearing.

Assange’s legal team emphasized that Baraitser weighed the testimony and evidence of all of the experts and was ultimately entitled, as the decision maker, to determine whom she found most convincing.

“[The prosecution’s] attack [on Baraitser’s decision to prefer the defense's medical evidence] totally fails to recognize the entitlement of the primary decision maker to reach her own decision on the weight to be attached to the expert evidence of the defense on the one hand and the prosecution experts on the other," Assange’s lawyers argued in their written submissions.

The High Court determined, since they allowed the prosecution to challenge how Baraitser weighed the evidence from Kopelman, it was only logical to permit this ground to be argued as well. (Though Holroyde, who was one of two judges at the hearing, appeared to doubt whether these arguments added much to the prosecution’s case.)

Fazel, one of the prosecution's preferred doctors, argued in 2020 that suicide risks are "dynamic." They can change as circumstances change, and it is "very, very difficult to anticipate" with any certainty what one’s suicide risk would be over the course of many months.

He did not concur with Deeley’s autism diagnosis but did recognize that, unlike Deeley, he did not specialize in the field. Fazel also noted, as an expert in suicides in prisons, that the U.S. has a lower suicide rate than that of the U.K.

Fitzgerald pointed out that the latter issue was raised during the extradition hearings when Fazel accepted that U.S. incarceration rates are six to seven times higher than that of the U.K., and therefore, the suicide rates “are not comparable."

Previously, the High Court had no response to the request from Assange's legal team for a cross-appeal. They would like to challenge the legal arguments Baraitser accepted, which pose a threat to press freedom.

Holroyde indicated the High Court would wait until after resolving the appeal from the U.S. before proceeding with any arguments from the cross-appeal.

[thepainterdoug]

Scathing indictment of western media by Paul Craig Roberts regarding the Julian Assage situation . Brave independant journalism is all but dead according to Mr Roberts, who I follow everyday.

https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2021/08/12/washington-is-the-center-of-evil-in-the-universe/?&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=washington_is_the_center_of_evil_in_the_universe&utm_term=2021-08-12

[Tintin]

John Pilger outside the Ministry of Justice responding to the decision yesterday:

1425473126192791570

1425538652382371840

[Tintin]

The reputation of British justice now rests on the shoulders of the High Court in the life or death case of Julian Assange.

https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/2048px-Royal_Courts_of_Justice_2019.jpeg

By John Pilger, in London
Special to Consortium News

Source: Consortium News (https://consortiumnews.com/2021/08/12/john-pilger-a-day-in-the-death-of-british-justice/)

I sat in Court 4 in the Royal Courts of Justice in London Wednesday with Stella Moris, Julian Assange’s partner. I have known Stella for as long as I have known Julian. She, too, is a voice of freedom, coming from a family that fought the fascism of Apartheid. Today, her name was uttered in court by a barrister and a judge, forgettable people were it not for the power of their endowed privilege.

The barrister, Clair Dobbin, is in the pay of the regime in Washington, first Trump’s then Biden’s. She is America’s hired gun, or “silk”, as she would prefer. Her target is Julian Assange, who has committed no crime and has performed an historic public service by exposing the criminal actions and secrets on which governments, especially those claiming to be democracies, base their authority.

For those who may have forgotten, WikiLeaks, of which Assange is founder and publisher, exposed the secrets and lies that led to the invasion of Iraq, Syria and Yemen, the murderous role of the Pentagon in dozens of countries, the blueprint for the 20-year catastrophe in Afghanistan, the attempts by Washington to overthrow elected governments, such as Venezuela’s, the collusion between nominal political opponents (Bush and Obama) to stifle a torture investigation and the CIA’s Vault 7 campaign that turned your mobile phone, even your TV set, into a spy in your midst.

WikiLeaks released almost a million documents from Russia which allowed Russian citizens to stand up for their rights. It revealed the Australian government had colluded with the U.S. against its own citizen, Assange. It named those Australian politicians who have “informed” for the U.S. It made the connection between the Clinton Foundation and the rise of jihadism in American-armed states in the Gulf.

About Those Who Take Us to War


There is more: WikiLeaks disclosed the U.S. campaign to suppress wages in sweatshop countries like Haiti, India’s campaign of torture in Kashmir, the British government’s secret agreement to shield “U.S. interests” in its official Iraq inquiry and the British Foreign Office’s plan to create a fake “marine protection zone” in the Indian Ocean to cheat the Chagos islanders out of their right of return.

In other words, WikiLeaks has given us real news about those who govern us and take us to war, not the preordained, repetitive spin that fills newspapers and television screens. This is real journalism; and for the crime of real journalism, Assange has spent most of the past decade in one form of incarceration or another, including Belmarsh prison, a horrific place.

Diagnosed with Asperger’s syndrome, he is a gentle, intellectual visionary driven by his belief that a democracy is not a democracy unless it is transparent, and accountable.

On Wednesday, the United States sought the approval of Britain’s High Court to extend the terms of its appeal against a decision by a district judge, Vanessa Baraitser, in January to bar Assange’s extradition. Baraitser accepted the deeply disturbing evidence of a number of experts that Assange would be at great risk if he were incarcerated in the U.S.’s infamous prison system.

Professor Michael Kopelman, a world authority on neuro-psychiatry, had said Assange would find a way to take his own life — the direct result of what Professor Nils Melzer, the United Nations rapporteur on torture, described as the craven “mobbing” of Assange by governments – and their media echoes.

Those of us who were in the Old Bailey last September to hear Kopelman’s evidence were shocked and moved. I sat with Julian’s father, John Shipton, whose head was in his hands. The court was also told about the discovery of a razor blade in Julian’s Belmarsh cell and that he had made desperate calls to the Samaritans and written notes and much else that filled us with more than sadness.

Watching the lead barrister acting for Washington, James Lewis — a man from a military background who deploys a cringingly theatrical “aha!” formula with defence witnesses — reduce these facts to “malingering” and smearing witnesses, especially Kopelman, we were heartened by Kopelman’s revealing response that Lewis’s abuse was “a bit rich” as Lewis himself had sought to hire Kopelman’s expertise in another case.

No Contradiction

Lewis’s sidekick is Clair Dobbin, and Wednesday was her day. Completing the smearing of Professor Kopelman was down to her. An American with some authority sat behind her in court.

Dobbin said Kopelman had “misled” Judge Baraister in September because he had not disclosed that Julian Assange and Stella Moris were partners, and their two young children, Gabriel and Max, were conceived during the period Assange had taken refuge in the Ecuadorean embassy in London.

The implication was that this somehow lessened Kopelman’s medical diagnosis: that Julian, locked up in solitary in Belmarsh prison and facing extradition to the U.S. on bogus “espionage” charges, had suffered severe psychotic depression and had planned, if he had not already attempted, to take his own life.

For her part, Judge Baraitser saw no contradiction. The full nature of the relationship between Stella and Julian had been explained to her in March 2020, and Professor Kopelman had made full reference to it in his report in August 2020. So the judge and the court knew all about it before the main extradition hearing last September. In her judgement in January, Baraitser said this:


“[Professor Kopelman] assessed Mr. Assange during the period May to December 2019 and was best placed to consider at first-hand his symptoms. He has taken great care to provide an informed account of Mr. Assange background and psychiatric history. He has given close attention to the prison medical notes and provided a detailed summary annexed to his December report. He is an experienced clinician and he was well aware of the possibility of exaggeration and malingering. I had no reason to doubt his clinical opinion.”


She added that she had “not been misled” by the exclusion in Kopelman’s first report of the Stella-Julian relationship and that she understood that Kopelman was protecting the privacy of Stella and her two young children.

In fact, as I know well, the family’s safety was under constant threat to the point when an embassy security guard confessed he had been told to steal one of the baby’s nappies so that a CIA-contracted company could analyse its DNA. There has been a stream of unpublicised threats against Stella and her children.

Based on a Fraudster

For the U.S. and its legal hirelings in London, damaging the credibility of a renowned expert by suggesting he withheld this information was a way, they no doubt reckoned, to rescue their crumbling case against Assange. In June, the Icelandic newspaper Stundin reported that a key prosecution witness against Assange has admitted fabricating his evidence. The one “hacking” charge the Americans hoped to bring against Assange if they could get their hands on him depended on this source and witness, Sigurdur Thordarson, an FBI informant.

Thordarson had worked as a volunteer for WikiLeaks in Iceland between 2010 and 2011. In 2011, as several criminal charges were brought against him, he contacted the FBI and offered to become an informant in return for immunity from all prosecution. It emerged that he was a convicted fraudster who embezzled $55,000 from WikiLeaks, and served two years in prison. In 2015, he was sentenced to three years for sex offenses against teenage boys. The Washington Post described Thordarson’s credibility as the “core” of the case against Assange.

On Wednesday, Lord Chief Justice Holroyde made no mention of this witness. His concern was that it was “arguable” that Judge Baraitser had attached too much weight to the evidence of Professor Kopelman, a man revered in his field. He said it was “very unusual” for an appeal court to have to reconsider evidence from an expert accepted by a lower court, but he agreed with Ms. Dobbin it was “misleading” even though he accepted Kopelman’s “understandable human response” to protect the privacy of Stella and the children.

If you can unravel the arcane logic of this, you have a better grasp than I who have sat through this case from the beginning. It is clear Kopelman misled nobody. Judge Baraitser – whose hostility to Assange personally was a presence in her court – said that she was not misled; it was not an issue; it did not matter. So why had Lord Chief Justice Holroyde spun the language with its weasel legalise and sent Julian back to his cell and its nightmares? There, he now waits for the High Court’s final decision in October – for Julian Assange, a life or death decision.

In the Land of Magna Carta

And why did Holroyde send Stella from the court trembling with anguish? Why is this case “unusual”? Why did he throw the gang of prosecutor-thugs at the Department of Justice in Washington — who got their big chance under Trump, having been rejected by Obama – a life raft as their rotting, corrupt case against a principled journalist sunk as surely as Titantic?

This does not necessarily mean that in October the full bench of the High Court will order Julian to be extradited. In the upper reaches of the masonry that is the British judiciary there are, I understand, still those who believe in real law and real justice from which the term “British justice” takes its sanctified reputation in the land of the Magna Carta. It now rests on their ermined shoulders whether that history lives on or dies.

I sat with Stella in the court’s colonnade while she drafted words to say to the crowd of media and well-wishers outside in the sunshine. Clip-clopping along came Clair Dobbin, spruced, ponytail swinging, bearing her carton of files: a figure of certainty: she who said Julian Assange was “not so ill” that he would consider suicide. How does she know?

Has Ms. Dobbin worked her way through the medieval maze at Belmarsh to sit with Julian in his yellow arm band, as Professors Koppelman and Melzer have done, and Stella has done, and I have done? Never mind. The Americans have now “promised” not to put him in a hellhole, just as they “promised” not to torture Chelsea Manning, just as they promised ……

And has she read the WikiLeaks’ leak of a Pentagon document dated 15 March, 2009? This foretold the current war on journalism. U.S. intelligence, it said, intended to destroy WikiLeaks’ and Julian Assange’s “centre of gravity” with threats and “criminal prosecution”. Read all 32 pages (https://wikileaks.org/wiki/U.S._Intelligence_planned_to_destroy_WikiLeaks,_18_Mar_2008) and you are left in no doubt that silencing and criminalising independent journalism was the aim, smear the method.

I tried to catch Ms. Dobbin’s gaze, but she was on her way: job done.

Outside, Stella struggled to contain her emotion. This is one brave woman, as indeed her man is an exemplar of courage. “What has not been discussed today,” said Stella, “is why I feared for my safety and the safety of our children and for Julian’s life. The constant threats and intimidation we endured for years, which has been terrorising us and has been terrorising Julian for 10 years. We have a right to live, we have a right to exist and we have a right for this nightmare to come to an end once and for all.”

[mountain_jim]

https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/082/368/054/original/96d4503f7be4181f.jpeg

[Tintin]

Following the confirmation that the CIA had planned a 'hit' on Julian and (presumably) other associates, WikiLeaks have provided a link to the Archive.org resource of footage strongly believed to be showing a CIA grab team staking out the Ecuadorean Embassy in late 2017.

999295444617453569

Source: https://ia801008.us.archive.org/14/items/assange-grabteam-K6-20171224002600_20171224003000-competition1/assange-grabteam-K6-20171224002600_20171224003000-competition1.mp4

https://ia801008.us.archive.org/14/items/assange-grabteam-K6-20171224002600_20171224003000-competition1/assange-grabteam-K6-20171224002600_20171224003000-competition1.mp4

[Kryztian]

CIA was ready to wage gun battle in London streets against Russian operatives to kill or snatch Assange, bombshell report claims
https://www.rt.com/usa/535871-cia-war-assange-yahoo/
26 Sep, 2021 14:43

Under Obama, the CIA wanted to define Julian Assange and other journalists as “information brokers” in order to ramp up their spying on them. And during the Trump era, it prepared plans to abduct or kill the WikiLeaks founder.

The claims about the extraordinary lengths to which the CIA under Director Mike Pompeo were prepared to go to get Assange were made on Sunday in a Yahoo News report based on interviews with more than 30 former US officials. The report offers an insight into how the US national security apparatus was escalating its war with WikiLeaks under two consecutive US administrations.

At the peak of preparations for hostilities in 2017, the CIA was allegedly expecting Russian agents to help Assange flee the Ecuadorian Embassy in London. In such a contingency, the Americans, together with the British, were planning to engage in street battles against the Russians, potentially starting a firefight, ramming a Russian diplomatic vehicle, or shooting at the tires of a Russian plane to prevent it from lifting off, the story said. The attempt to spring Assange was reportedly expected on Christmas Eve.

“It was beyond comical,” a former senior official told the outlet regarding the situation in the vicinity of the embassy at the time. “It got to the point where every human being in a three-block radius was working for one of the intelligence services – whether they were street sweepers or police officers or security guards.”

The CIA was also deliberating plans to kill Assange and other members of WikiLeaks, the report said. Alternatively, the agency was considering snatching him from the embassy and bringing him to the US, or handing him over to the British authorities. At the time, the UK wanted Assange for skipping bail in an extradition trial on a request from Sweden – a case that has since been dropped.

The possibility of carrying out a successful rendition or assassination were described as “ridiculous” by one intelligence official, because of the location. “This isn’t Pakistan or Egypt – we’re talking about London,” the source was quoted as saying. There was also resistance in the Trump administration because such an operation might be deemed illegal under US law. A source said using CIA powers meant only for spy-versus-spy activities would be “the same kind of crap we pulled in the War on Terror.”

As far as the CIA was concerned, WikiLeaks prompted these extreme measures after the so-called ‘Vault 7’ publications, which exposed a cyber-offensive toolkit used by US agents. The leak of those tools was a major humiliation for US intelligence, so “Pompeo and [then-Deputy CIA Director Gina] Haspel wanted vengeance on Assange,” Yahoo was told.

Pompeo had to do some legal maneuvering so the agency could go more aggressively after Assange and WikiLeaks without having then-president Donald Trump sign off such operations. When, shortly after taking office, he infamously called WikiLeaks a “non-state hostile intelligence service” during a public speech, it was more than just rhetoric, according to the report. Designating in that way allowed the CIA to file its snooping under “offensive counterintelligence” activities, which it’s allowed to conduct on its own volition.

“I don’t think people realize how much [the] CIA can do under offensive [counterintelligence] and how there is minimal oversight of it,” a former official said.

While Pompeo’s CIA ramped up its “war on WikiLeaks” to 11, even under then-president Barack Obama the agency was likewise angling for ways to target the transparency group. It lobbied the White House to redesignate WikiLeaks and a number of high-profile journalists, including Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras as “information brokers,” allowing more surveillance powers to be deployed against them, the report says.

“Is WikiLeaks a journalistic outlet? Are Laura Poitras and Glenn Greenwald truly journalists?” a source speculated in an interview with Yahoo News. “We tried to change the definition of them, and I preached this to the White House, and got rejected.”

Ultimately, Assange was dragged out of the Ecuadorian Embassy and currently remains in custody in a high-security British prison. The US has appealed a court decision to deny its request to extradite him on charges related to hacking. Proceedings are expected to resume next month.

Concerns about jeopardizing the US case against Assange were among the factors that prevented the CIA’s plants from going further, according to Yahoo News. Assange’s defense team hopes this proves true.

“My hope and expectation is that the UK courts will consider this information and it will further bolster its decision not to extradite him to the US,” his lawyer, Barry Pollack, told the outlet when asked about the alleged CIA plans targeting his client.

Resentment towards Assange is a bipartisan endeavor in the US establishment. Hillary Clinton, Trump’s opponent in the 2016 election, reportedly joked about “droning” the Australian citizen back in 2010, but later said she didn’t remember having said that.

The presidential election and WikiLeaks’ publication of Democratic emails was a pivotal moment for the CIA’s campaign against Assange, according to Yahoo News, since it was able to claim the leak was carried out in collaboration with Russian intelligence. WikiLeaks denied it and Moscow insists the accusation of election interference was baseless and was part of the Democrats’ attempt to downplay Clinton’s defeat.

https://www.rt.com/usa/535871-cia-war-assange-yahoo/

[Tintin]

Julian Assange and WikiLeaks — story of a whistleblower | Documentary:

y9Ajc4R-mpI

In the library since July 6th 2021 :muscle:

https://avalonlibrary.net/Julian_Assange_and_Wikileaks/Julian_Assange_and_WikiLeaks_Story_of_a_Whistleblower_DW_Documentary_%282021%29.mp4

[onawah]

Pompeo Effectively Admits To Assange Allegations
https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2021/09/30/pompeo-effectively-admits-to-assange-allegations/
by CAITLIN JOHNSTONE
SEPTEMBER 30, 2021

(There are Tweets, a sound recording and videos which I haven't embedded here, but a Mod might want to. It's a good article!)

We are unable to embed soundcloud at this time, enjoy listening at the link:

https://w.soundcloud.com/player/?visual=true&url=https%3A%2F%2Fapi.soundcloud.com%2Ftracks%2F1133398447&show_artwork=true&maxheight=1000&maxwidth=1060

"In the process of issuing another not-really-a-denial about a Yahoo News report that the CIA plotted to kidnap, extradite and assassinate WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange in 2017, former CIA director Mike Pompeo said that the 30 former government officials the report was based on “should all be prosecuted for speaking about classified activity inside the Central Intelligence Agency.”

Here are some quotes from the exchange on Pompeo’s recent Megyn Kelly Show appearance courtesy of Mediaite:

Kelly asked Pompeo about the claims.

“Makes for pretty good fiction, Megyn,” said Pompeo. “They should write such a novel.”

He added, “Whoever those 30 people who allegedly spoke with one of these reporters, they should all be prosecuted for speaking about classified activity inside the Central Intelligence Agency.”

Pompeo called Wikileaks a “non-state hostile intelligence service” that is “actively seeking to steal American classified information.”

“You deny the report?” asked Kelly.

“There’s pieces of it that are true,” said Pompeo. “We tried to protect American information from Julian Assange and Wikileaks, absolutely, yes. Did our justice department believe they had a valid claim which would’ve resulted in the extradition of Julian Assange to the United States to stand trial? Yes. I supported that effort for sure. Did we ever engage in activity that was inconsistent with U.S. law?… We’re not permitted by U.S. law to conduct assassinations. We never acted in a way that was inconsistent with that.”

1443364303923466240

Pompeo’s point that “We’re not permitted by U.S. law to conduct assassinations” is not especially convincing considering how the Trump administration openly assassinated Iran’s top military commander Qassem Soleimani in a drone strike last year, a move which Pompeo supported and defended.

“President Trump and those of us in his national security team are re-establishing deterrence, real deterrence, against the Islamic Republic of Iran,” Pompeo gushed in support of the assassination at the time.

Pompeo’s pseudo-denial is of course further undermined by his position that the former officials who spoke to the press should all be prosecuted for “speaking about classified activity inside the Central Intelligence Agency.” Is it false or is it “classified activity”? It can’t be both. The two things Pompeo admitted to, trying to “protect American information” and working to extradite Assange, are not classified information. The classified information he wants them prosecuted for is therefore something else.

After a lot of flailing and humming and hawing Pompeo does eventually make what sounds like a concrete denial with the curiously-worded phrase “I can say we never conducted planning to violate US law.” But even this wouldn’t be a denial of the claims in the Yahoo News report, because the report is mostly about the intelligence community and the Trump administration trying to find legal loopholes that would allow them to take out Assange.

For example, this quote from the Yahoo News article: “A primary question for U.S. officials was whether any CIA plan to kidnap or potentially kill Assange was legal.” This would in no way be contradicted by Pompeo’s claim that “we never conducted planning to violate US law.” It would mean that there were discussions and plans about assassinating Assange amid conversations and debates about whether it would be legal to do so. The fact that they didn’t plan to violate US law doesn’t mean they didn’t plan to assassinate Assange if they could find a legal loophole for it.

1442670286592151553

This follows an earlier non-denial by Pompeo of the exact same nature in an interview with conservative pundit Glenn Beck. Pompeo points out that one of the article’s authors was a Russiagater and says of the former officials cited in the report that “those sources didn’t know what we were doing.” But he doesn’t actually deny it.

If Pompeo had not been involved in plots to kidnap, rendition and assassinate Julian Assange, he would have just said so. He wouldn’t have engaged in all kinds of verbal gymnastics to squirm his way out of a difficult question, and he certainly wouldn’t be calling for the criminal prosecution of his accusers for “speaking about classified activity inside the Central Intelligence Agency.”

Mike Pompeo is a literal psychopath. He chuckles about lying, cheating and stealing with the CIA. He defends murderous sanctions and openly admits to using them to foment civil war in empire-targeted nations. He defends assassination. He strongly implied the US would interfere in UK politics if Jeremy Corbyn became Prime Minister. And yet somehow he escaped the Trump administration the mass media so despised with nary a scratch of media criticism on him.

This is because Mike Pompeo, as full of centipedes and demon spawn as his enormous head may be, is highly representative of the mainstream US power establishment. He is the embodiment of the empire’s values. He’s just one of its less-subtle representatives."

Also posted here: https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?106650-The-thread-of-Caitlin-Johnstone-s-words&p=1454823&viewfull=1#post1454823

[Tintin]

As it relates to Julian's situation it will be interesting to see where this leads next. I'd admit to not feeling optimistic but there's a slim hope (perhaps) that the extradition case will career off the tracks.

Couldn't Iceland perhaps rescue Julian?

In any case, it's pretty big news here all the same although the main thrust being that this appears to be mainly an Iceland domestic incident/multiple instances of violation of local laws.

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


"Last week we learned of the CIA plan to kidnap or kill Assange in the centre of London and now the key witness of the US prosecution against him is in prison for serial offences - the same person that a few weeks ago confirmed in interviews that the elements in the indictment against Julian where he was the only witness, were total fabrications. The case against Assange should be dropped and under no circumstances, given recent revelations, can the UK extradite him.” - Kristin Hrafnsson

Key witness in Assange case jailed in Iceland after admitting to lies and ongoing crime spree

Source: https://stundin.is/grein/14117/sociopathic-witness-assange-case-jailed-iceland-after-admitting-lies-and-ongoing-crime-spree/

The judgment utilizes a rar­ely in­vo­ked law in­t­ended to stop repeat of­f­end­ers from runn­ing amok and accumulat­ing crim­inal cases before the system has a chance to catch up.

Sigurdur Thordarson, a key witness for the FBI against Julian Assange, has been jailed in Iceland. The notorious alleged hacker and convicted pedophile was remanded to custody in Iceland’s highest security prison, Litla Hraun, on September 24. Þórðarson´s lawyer, Húnbogi J. Andersen, confirms that he is in custody. Thordarson was given immunity by the FBI in exchange for testimony against Julian Assange.

Thordarson was arrested the same day he arrived back in Iceland from a trip to Spain, and was subsequently brought before a judge after police requested indefinite detention intended to halt an ongoing crime spree. The judge apparently agreed that Thordarson’s repeated, blatant and ongoing offences against the law put him at high risk for continued re-offending.

On a crime spree accourding to the Icelandic police
The judgment utilizes a rarely invoked law intended to stop repeat offenders from running amok and continuing to violate the law before the system has a chance to catch up. It requires very specific criteria to be met and the legal bar is set high. One can only be remanded to custody under the law if there is a clear and present reason to assume the offender will continue on a path of crime as long as he is a free man and thus pose a danger to the public.

Whether Thordarson’s recent admissions to Stundin about his continued crime spree played any part in this decision is unknown at this time.

Indeed, he plainly admitted to continuing his crimes in a recent interview with Stundin. In the same interview he said: “The idea behind all the companies [that I run in Iceland] is to squeeze out every last penny, knowing it will inevitably lead to bankruptcy by request of the tax authorities and the bill would end with them. Is it illegal? No, it’s just very immoral, that much I would agree with. But I have not heard of anyone being convicted for this sort of thing,” he claimed. Yet people have been convicted of very similar things in Iceland.

Key witness for the FBI
Thordarson is a key witness for the United States Justice Department according to documents presented to a UK court in an effort to secure the extradition of Julian Assange. He was recruited by US authorities to build a case against Assange after misleading them to believe he was previously a close associate of his. In a recent interview with Stundin he admitted to fabricating statements to implicate Assange and contradicted what he was quoted as saying in US court documents.

In fact he had volunteered on a limited basis to raise money for Wikileaks in 2010 but was found to have used that opportunity to embezzle more than $50,000 from the organization. Julian Assange was visiting Thordarson’s home country of Iceland around this time due to his work with Icelandic media and members of parliament in preparing the Icelandic Modern Media Initiative, a press freedom project that produced a parliamentary resolution supporting whistleblowers and investigative journalism.

[article continues (https://stundin.is/grein/14117/sociopathic-witness-assange-case-jailed-iceland-after-admitting-lies-and-ongoing-crime-spree/)...]

[onawah]

House Intelligence Committee Seeks Answers from CIA on Plot Against Assange
October 19, 2021
By Joe Lauria
Consortium News
https://consortiumnews.com/2021/10/19/house-intelligence-committee-seeks-answers-from-cia-on-plot-against-assange/?fbclid=IwAR1naECWLv6h4xyzh77Gj3WFzJyjtaYSaO6DcfKURb8GvTUkaHXzNchEN7A

"The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee told Yahoo! News that the committee has asked Langley to explain reports of plans to kill or kidnap the WikiLeaks publisher.

Adam Schiff, the chairman of the U.S. House Intelligence Committee, said Tuesday the committee has requested information from the CIA about reported plans to assassinate or abduct Julian Assange, the imprisoned WikiLeaks publisher.

Schiff told Yahoo! News that the request has already been made to the agency but refused to comment on whether the CIA has yet replied, the news site reported.

Schiff acted after reading a Yahoo! story last month that confirmed and expanded upon earlier reports from a Spanish court case that the CIA was seriously discussing killing or renditioning Assange.

Assange is next week to face a U.S. appeal of a January decision by lower court Judge Vanessa Baraitser not to extradite him because of a high-risk of suicide. The U.S. is seeking to overturn the ruling that Assange is too sick to be sent to a U.S. prison. U.S. prosecutors allege that Assange is a malingerer.

Assange’s lawyers intend to bring up the CIA’s plans. Yahoo! reported Tuesday that “lawyers for Assange intend to raise the issue of what they view as the CIA’s misconduct, arguing that returning him to a country where some top officials once plotted to kidnap him strengthens the judge’s conclusions about the risk of suicide and should be an additional basis for turning down the U.S. extradition request.”

Baraitser, who heard testimony in Assange’s extradition hearing about the CIA plot against him, showed little concern, even sympathy with the agency, writing in her judgement that “if the allegations are true, they demonstrate a high level of concern by the US authorities regarding Mr. Assange’s ongoing activities.”

The CIA plot against Assange was discussed at senior levels of the Trump administration and was instigated by Trump’s CIA chief Mike Pompeo, Yahoo! reported. Schiff was a bitter foe of Donald Trump. The Yahoo! reporting mentions that discussions about covert action against Assange had already been discussed in the Obama administration, presumably by Obama’s CIA director John Brennan.

Fears that he could be assassinated go back to at least October 2010, when the Obama CIA refused to say if there were such plans after a Freedom of Information Act request. This tweet is from eleven years ago:



WikiLeaks
@wikileaks
CIA refuses to confirm or deny plot to assassinate WikiLeaks editor; open government-Obama style http://is.gd/gLvcn
8:34 PM · Nov 5, 2010
88
9
Share this Tweet

Joe Lauria is editor-in-chief of Consortium News and a former UN correspondent for The Wall Street Journal, Boston Globe, and numerous other newspapers. He was an investigative reporter for the Sunday Times of London and began his professional work as a stringer for The New York Times. He can be reached at joelauria@consortiumnews.com and followed on Twitter @unjoe . "

[onawah]

Chief Justice of England & Wales, Who Blocked Lauri Love Extradition, Joins Bench for Assange Hearing
October 22, 2021
https://consortiumnews.com/2021/10/22/chief-justice-of-england-wales-who-blocked-lauri-love-extradition-joins-bench-for-assange-hearing/?fbclid=IwAR2eeeflwgj3xV6t9OZITHtQiojAD1yVT2im05Z12INsmWqqg5_SHR_Vu8w
By Joe Lauria
Consortium News

https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Baron-Burnett.jpeg

"The most senior judge in England and Wales, who let activist Lori Love evade extradition to the U.S. on humanitarian grounds, will join Lord Justice Timothy Holroyde at the U.S. appeal hearing against Julian Assange next week.
Ian Duncan Burnett, the most powerful judge in England and Wales, will join Lord Justice Timothy Holroyde on the bench next week for the two-day U.S. appeal in the extradition case of WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange at the High Court in London, according to a spokesman at the Royal Courts of Justice.

Burnett, known as Baron Burnett of Maldon, was the High Court justice who on humanitarian grounds overturned a lower court ruling that British activist Lauri Love should be extradited to the United States. Burnett ruled in February 2018 that Love’s extradition would be “oppressive by reason of his physical and mental condition.”

Burnett and Mr. Justice Duncan Ouseley said in their decision that, “We accept that the evidence shows that the fact of extradition would bring on severe depression, and that Mr. Love would probably be determined to commit suicide, here or in America.”

Instead they recommended that Love be tried in the United Kingdom on charges of hacking into U.S. government computers. Unlike Love, Assange is accused of no crimes in Britain. But like Love, he has been deemed (by the magistrate’s court) at high risk of suicide if he were to be extradited to the United States.

The U.S. is appealing the lower court’s decision not to extradite Assange to the U.S. based on his propensity for suicide. The U.S. is arguing that Assange is not too sick to be sent to the U.S. and that he is a malingerer.

Holroyde is the High Court judge who on Aug. 11 reversed an earlier High Court order limiting the U.S. from appealing Assange’s medical issues. Holroyde was originally to sit with Dame Judith Farbey, according to the Ministry of Justice.

Burnett has presided over some of the most high profile cases in Britain in recent years, including the 1987 Kings Cross fire, the inquiry into the convictions of the Guildford Four and Maguire Seven, the 1997 Southall rail crash and 1999 Ladbroke Grove rail crash inquiries and the 1997 inquest into the deaths of Diana, Princess of Wales, and Dodi Fayed.

Joe Lauria is editor-in-chief of Consortium News and a former UN correspondent for The Wall Street Journal, Boston Globe, and numerous other newspapers. He was an investigative reporter for the Sunday Times of London and began his professional work as a stringer for The New York Times. He can be reached at joelauria@consortiumnews.com and followed on Twitter @unjoe . "

[avid]

Time Assange was freed - this is not just an unconscionable situation of justice, but an unconscionable excuse for political stand-offs, this man is NOT a PAWN. He is just an honest international HUMAN journalist who are now a rare breed. Let him go free to prove we are not monsters who deny reality. FREE ASSANGE, he has a wife and children.

[onawah]

The Assange Persecution Is Western Savagery At Its Most Transparent
OCTOBER 28, 2021
by CAITLIN JOHNSTONE
https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2021/10/28/the-assange-persecution-is-western-savagery-at-its-most-transparent (https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2021/10/28/the-assange-persecution-is-western-savagery-at-its-most-transparent/)

https://soundcloud.com/going_rogue/the-assange-persecution-is-western-savagery-at-its-most-transparent (https://soundcloud.com/going_rogue/the-assange-persecution-is-western-savagery-at-its-most-transparent?utm_source=caitlinjohnstone.com&utm_campaign=wtshare&utm_medium=widget&utm_content=https%253A%252F%252Fsoundcloud.com%252Fgoing_rogue%252Fthe-assange-persecution-is-western-savagery-at-its-most-transparent)

https://projectavalon.net/The_Assange_Persecution_Is_Western_Savagery_At_Its_Most_Transparent_(Caitlin_Johnstone_28_Oct_2021). mp3

"The first day of the US appeal of the Julian Assange extradition case saw grown adults arguing in a court of law that the US government could guarantee that it would not treat the WikiLeaks founder as cruelly as it treats its other prisoners.

I wish I was kidding.

In their write-up on Wednesday’s proceedings, The Dissenter’s Kevin Gosztola and Mohamed Elmaazi report that the prosecution argued that “the High Court should accept the appeal on the basis that the U.S. government offered ‘assurances’ that Assange won’t be subjected to Special Administrative Measures (SAMs) or incarcerated in ADX Florence, a super-maximum prison in Colorado.”

What this means is that in order to overturn the January extradition ruling which judge Vanessa Baraitser denied on the basis that the notoriously draconian US prison system is too cruel to guarantee Assange’s health and safety, the prosecution has established as one of their grounds for appeal the claim that they can offer “assurances” that they would not inflict some of their most brutal measures upon him. These would include the aforementioned Special Administrative Measures, wherein prisoners are so isolated that they effectively disappear off the face of the earth, or sending him to ADX Florence, where all prisoners are kept in solitary confinement 23 hours a day.

Mohamed Elmaazi
@MElmaazi
Prosecution bashes judge for blocking Julian Assange’s extradition

My latest w/ @kgosztola via The Dissenterhttps://thedissenter.org/prosecutor-attacks-judges-decision-which-blocked-us-from-extraditing-assange/ …


Prosecutor Bashes Judge For Blocking Assange Extradition
At the High Court of Justice, the Crown Prosecution Service presented U.S. government's appeal in the extradition case against Julian Assange.
https://pbs.twimg.com/card_img/1453479450025373701/Ub9Btvzu?format=jpg&name=600x314
thedissenter.org
45
5:05 PM - Oct 27, 2021What’s ridiculous about these “assurances”, apart from the obvious, is that within its own legal argument the US government reserves the right to reverse those assurances at any time and impose SAMs or maximum security imprisonment upon Assange if it deems them necessary. As Amnesty International explains:

“They say: we guarantee that he won’t be held in a maximum security facility and he will not be subjected to Special Administrative Measures and he will get healthcare. But if he does something that we don’t like, we reserve the right to not guarantee him, we reserve the right to put him in a maximum security facility, we reserve the right to offer him Special Administrative Measures. Those are not assurances at all. It is not that difficult to look at those assurances and say: these are inherently unreliable, it promises to do something and then reserves the right to break the promise.”

So the prosecution’s legal argument here is essentially “We promise we won’t treat Assange as cruelly as we treat our other prisoners, unless we decide we really want to.”

This is not just a reflection on the weakness of the extradition appeal, it’s a reflection on the savagery of all the so-called free democracies that have involved themselves in this case.


Caitlin Johnstone ⏳
@caitoz
This argument made minutes after Assange had to excuse himself from his own hearing due to ill health. https://twitter.com/kgosztola/status/1453326702155870213 …

Kevin Gosztola
✔
@kgosztola
Replying to @kgosztola
The position of the Crown Prosecution Service—and therefore the US government—is that Assange's medical problems are limited to his mental condition. Because Love's problems were physical and mental, Love should not apply to the Assange case.

109
6:46 AM - Oct 27, 2021
Twitter Ads info and privacy
63 people are talking about thisThis same prosecution argued that Assange should not be denied US extradition from the UK on humanitarian grounds as in the case of activist Lauri Love because Love suffered from both physical and psychological ailments while Assange’s ailments are only psychological. They stood before the court and made this argument even as Assange was visibly pained and unwell in his video appearance from Belmarsh, which he was only able to attend intermittently due to his frail condition.

“For my newspaper, I have worked as media partner of WikiLeaks since 2009,” tweeted journalist Stefania Maurizi who attended the hearing via video link. “I have seen Julian Assange in all sorts of situations, but I have never ever seen him so unwell and so dangerously thin.”

So they’re just openly brutalizing a journalist for exposing US war crimes, while arguing that they can be trusted to treat him humanely and give him a fair trial if granted extradition. This after it has already been confirmed that the CIA plotted to kidnap and assassinate him during the Trump administration, after we learned that the prosecution relied on false testimony from a convicted child molester and diagnosed sociopath, after it was revealed that the CIA spied on Assange and his lawyers in the Ecuadorian embassy, and after intelligence asset Jeffrey Epstein famously died under highly suspicious circumstances in a US prison cell.


Consortium News
#Assange Lawyer in Fiery Rebuttal at Day’s Conclusion https://consortiumnews.com/2021/10/27/day-one-assange-lawyer-in-fiery-rebuttal-at-days-conclusion/
https://pbs.twimg.com/card_img/1453447541261934594/RUfBeheW?format=png&name=600x314
DAY ONE: Assange Lawyer in Fiery Rebuttal at Day's Conclusion
Edward Fitzgerald QC, a lawyer for Julian Assange, ended the first day of the U.S. appeal with a thunderous response to the case put forward by a prosecutor for the United States. Consortium News has...
consortiumnews.com
133
2:45 PM - Oct 27, 2021The worst atrocities in history have all been legal. All the worst examples of genocide, slavery, tyranny and bloodshed have been allowed or actively facilitated by the state. The persecution of Assange is geared toward entering the imprisonment of journalists into this category.

The goal is to set a legal precedent which allows journalists who expose the crimes of the powerful to be persecuted not covertly as is normally done in “free democracies”, but right out in the open. To tell journalists “We’ll just throw you in prison if you cross us.”

What makes this precedent uniquely dangerous is that it is not just threatening to imprison American journalists who expose US crimes, but any journalist anywhere in the world. This is an Australian journalist in the process of being extradited from the UK for publishing facts about US war crimes in the nations it has invaded. The aim is to set up a system where anyone in the US-aligned world can be funneled into its prison system for publishing inconvenient facts.

This is the savagery of the western world at its most transparent. It’s not the greatest evil the US-centralized empire has perpetrated; that distinction would certainly be reserved for its acts of mass military slaughter that it has been inflicting upon our species with impunity for generations. But it’s the most brazen. The most overt. It’s the most powerful part of the most depraved power structure on earth looking us all right in the eyes and telling us exactly what it is.

And if we can really look at this beast and what it is doing right now, really see it with eyes wide open, it reveals far more about those who rule over us than anything any journalist has ever exposed."

[Tintin]

As ever, I've been keeping as close an eye as possible on the current episode in Julian's plight, namely the US appeal, and there's a lot of synoptic and sympathetic commentary from multiple sources doing their level best to keep us informed that it is simply too much to be posting up as it comes in.

For interest - and this is too large to embed here - here's the link to the Assange defence team Appeal arguments and extradition glossary:

https://defend.wikileaks.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Assange-Defense-Appeal-Arguments-and-Extradition-Glossary.pdf

[onawah]

From Press Freedom To Prison Systems, Everything Assange Touches Gets Illuminated
OCTOBER 29, 2021
by CAITLIN JOHNSTONE
https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2021/10/29/from-press-freedom-to-prison-systems-everything-assange-touches-gets-illuminated/

https://soundcloud.com/going_rogue/from-press-freedom-to-prison-systems-everything-assange-touches-gets-illuminated?utm_source=caitlinjohnstone.com&utm_campaign=wtshare&utm_medium=widget&utm_content=https%253A%252F%252Fsoundcloud.com%252Fgoing_rogue%252Ffrom-press-freedom-to-prison-systems-everything-assange-touches-gets-illuminated

"The US appeal of a British court ruling on the Assange extradition case has concluded, and the judges will probably not have a decision ready until at least January—a full year after the extradition was denied by a lower court. Assange, despite being convicted of no crime, will have remained in Belmarsh Prison the entire time.

During that time the judges will be weighing arguments they’d heard about the cruel nature of the US prison system, which formed a major part of the reasoning behind Judge Vanessa Baraitser’s rejection of the US extradition request. They’ll be considering the draconian policy of Special Administrative Measures, whose victims are cut off from human contact and from the outside world. They’ll be considering the brutality of the supermax ADX facility in Florence, Colorado whose inmates are kept in solitary confinement for 23 hours a day, and where Assange could easily wind up imprisoned despite the prosecution’s flimsy assurances.

Assange probably never set out on this journey with the goal of calling attention to the abuses of the US prison system as his foremost priority, but, as is so often the case with anything his journey touches, those abuses keep getting pulled into the light of public awareness anyway. His case is now no longer just about press freedom, US war crimes, corrupt governments collaborating to stomp out inconvenient truth tellers, and the malfeasance of US alphabet agencies, but about the abusive nature of the US prison system as well.



Consortium News
@Consortiumnews
Chris Hedges: The Most Important Battle for Press Freedom in Our Time https://consortiumnews.com/2021/10/28/chris-hedges-the-most-important-battle-for-press-freedom-in-our-time/ …
Chris Hedges: The Most Important Battle for Press Freedom in Our Time
If Assange he is extradited and found guilty of publishing classified material it will set a legal precedent that will effectively end national security reporting. By Chris Hedges in Washington, D.C....
https://pbs.twimg.com/card_img/1453892779210203136/DQYGAdOM?format=jpg&name=600x314
consortiumnews.com
399
8:16 PM - Oct 28, 2021

And this is a big part of what I find so endlessly captivating about the life of this extraordinary individual. No matter what he’s doing, no matter where he is, no matter how beaten down and silenced and immobilized they may appear to have him, his life keeps exposing things. Keeps bringing things into the light.

It’s been a constant throughout his life as near as I can tell, from when he was a young man using his technical prowess to help Australian police bring down distributors of online child pornography in the mid-nineties. This curious impulse to bring what is hidden in the dark out into the light where it can be seen is what gave birth to WikiLeaks and all the major revelations about the criminality and corruption of the powerful which resulted from its publications.

And as paradigm-shattering as those many bombshell revelations were, they were arguably small potatoes compared to the criminality Assange exposed by simply standing his ground until the most powerful institutions in the world conspired to drag him from the Ecuadorian embassy and lock him in Belmarsh Prison for telling the truth.

Assange created an innovative publishing platform which allowed whistleblowers to upload files anonymously on the premise that corrupt power needs to be able to communicate secretly in order to operate efficiently. Corrupt power responded by silencing, immobilizing, isolating, imprisoning and torturing him. In so doing, corrupt power exposed itself and its true nature far more than any WikiLeaks drop ever could.

Since Assange’s imprisonment there’s been a jaw-dropping deluge of revelations about the malfeasance of the power structures which rule over us which could not have been exposed to such an extent in any other way.

It was revealed that the US power alliance will openly jail journalists for telling the truth with as much brazenness and despotism as any other tyrannical regime, giving US-targeted nations the ability to rightly call out the hypocrisy of Washington’s concern trolling about human rights.



Hua Chunying 华春莹
✔
@SpokespersonCHN

China government official
If the #US truly defends freedom, why won't they allow others to tell the truth when they are making up lies? Why has Mr. #Assange been thrown in prison after being forced to shelter in the #Ecuadorian Embassy in London for 7 years?
https://twitter.com/i/status/1391792014388121600
3,319
11:27 AM - May 10, 2021

It was revealed that because he inconvenienced the most powerful government in the world, Assange has been subjected to abuses which amount to psychological torture according to a UN special rapporteur on torture.

It was revealed that the CIA plotted to kidnap and assassinate Assange, an earth-shaking discovery we wouldn’t have been able to confirm for decades under normal circumstances, but due to a miraculous combination of partisan feuding and their frantic compulsion to silence him it was confirmed just a few short years after the fact.

It was revealed that CIA proxies spied on Assange and his lawyers at the Ecuadorian embassy and conspired to collect the DNA of his child from a soiled diaper.

It was revealed that the US prosecution relied on false testimony from a diagnosed sociopath and convicted child molester who collaborated with the FBI.

It was revealed that the western news media are so propagandistic and morally bankrupt that they will viciously smear a dissident journalist for years to manufacture consent for his arrest and imprisonment, and then act completely guiltless when the most powerful government on earth works to extradite him into its dungeons.

And now we’re seeing the same US government which has been plotting this man’s destruction and even death for many years humiliating itself by hilariously trying to argue that he would be safe under their care, just so they can get their claws into him. Like Count Olaf in Lemony Snicket’s A Series of Unfortunate Events taking on whatever disguise might allow him to nab the Baudelaire orphans.



Caitlin Johnstone ⏳
@caitoz
The Assange Persecution Is Western Savagery At Its Most Transparent

"So the prosecution's legal argument here is essentially 'We promise we won't treat Assange as cruelly as we treat our other prisoners, unless we decide we really want to.'"https://caitlinjohnstone.substack.com/p/the-assange-persecution-is-western …


The Assange Persecution Is Western Savagery At Its Most Transparent
The first day of the US appeal of the Julian Assange extradition case saw grown adults arguing in a court of law that the US government could guarantee that it would not treat the WikiLeaks founder...
https://cdn.substack.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F58883a6d-569d-43f1-a416-d0c56754d8c7_800x449.png
caitlinjohnstone.substack.com
799
7:44 PM - Oct 27, 2021

The more they come after him, the more damage they do to themselves. It’s like Assange is standing in a beam of sunlight surrounded by vampires, and every time they reach in to grab him they wind up disintegrating their own limbs.

Their old tactics never seem to have the intended effect. The harder they struggle to keep him from being able to expose their crimes, the more of their own criminality they reveal.

It always reminds me of the lyrics to that Johnny Cash song: “Well you may throw your rock and hide your hand, workin’ in the dark against your fellow man/ But as sure as God made black and white, what’s done in the dark will be brought to the light.”

And the struggles of our world today really do seem to come down to a battle between light and darkness. I say this not in any kind of mystical or metaphysical sense, but in the sense that there are on all levels forces which wish to bring the unseen out of hiddenness and forces which have a vested interest in keeping things hidden.

On the global level there are vast power structures which have a vested interest in keeping their misdeeds out of public attention and making sure we all remain confused and misinformed about what’s really going on in the world. On a sociological level there are individuals who have a vested interest in keeping their personal actions out of the light and preventing anyone from clearly seeing what they’re really up to. On an internal level we’ve all got subconscious forces at play within ourselves whose existence depends on avoiding the light of conscious perception.

And on every level there’s a struggle to bring those things into the light. On a global level there are forces working to expose the corruption and tyranny of ruling power structures. On a sociological level there are forces working to expose liars, manipulators, abusers, crooks and psychopaths. On an internal level there are always forces working to bring the endarkened aspects of ourselves into consciousness.

eJlN9jdQFSc

It’s a struggle that’s happening on every level of our species, and Julian Assange seems to be one of the very brightest points in that struggle.

It appears to be a very reliable principle of the human condition that if you firmly and sincerely resolve deep within yourself to desire truth above all else and to seek it at all cost, it causes everything your life touches to move into the light: the good, the bad, and the ugly. Hidden psychological tendencies become seen, understood and resolved. Abusive family dynamics, manipulative behavior patterns and everything untruthful around you and in you all starts to move into the spotlight. Some relationships end, others deepen. It upends your world while grounding you in something far more meaningful than the sources in which you’d formerly sought stability.

This movement into truth can be devastating, humbling, humiliating or downright terrifying, and sometimes all of them at once, because it’s a relinquishing of control and a surrendering to whatever’s true, no matter what that turns out to be, no matter how insecure or embarrassed or inadequate it might make you feel at first. But looking back there’s an immediate understanding that you wouldn’t have had it any other way.

I don’t know Julian Assange personally, but I suspect he may have signed an internal contract like this at some point in his life. The desire for truth, come what may, whatever the cost, whatever the consequences. Whether he did or did not, that has been the result of the luminescent path his journey has blazed through humanity during his time on this planet. And the world is a much better place for it."

[Tintin]

Some slightly more upbeat news from the last few days is that Julian Assange and Stella Moris have been granted permission to marry, albeit that will take place in HMP Belmarsh.

https://twitter.com/DEAcampaign/status/1459456362409345024

Source tweet (https://twitter.com/DEAcampaign/status/1459456362409345024)

[Dennis Leahy]

Edward Snowden on Julian Assange's imprisonment:
"Most People Don't Even Realize What's Coming" | Edward Snowden (2021)
Nov 24, 2021

5KEBC9Ng4tA

[Tintin]

From Defend WikiLeaks (https://defend.wikileaks.org/2021/12/01/assange-briefing-note-1-december-2021/) published yesterday, December 1st:

Assange Briefing Note 1 December 2021

On 4 January 2021, a UK judge ruled that extraditing Julian Assange to the United States would be “oppressive,” would amount to a death sentence, and must be stopped.

Two days before leaving office the Trump Administration appealed this decision, and appeal arguments were heard by the UK’s High Court on 27-28 October 2021. The High Court is due to rule on the U.S. appeal imminently. See Julian Assange’s full response to the U.S. appeal effort here. [NB: this link doesn't work - Tintin

The U.S. purports to give “assurances” about the treatment Assange would face in a U.S. prison, in its attempt to overturn the district judge’s opinion. These “assurances” specifically allow the U.S. to inflict torture on Julian Assange, explicitly asserting that the U.S. government can still impose the very conditions that the magistrate found would kill him. Amnesty International has described these so-called assurances as “inherently unreliable” and has said that Assange “must be released immediately.”

The U.S. prosecution is entirely related to documents Assange published in 2010 revealing war crimes and major human rights abuses. Assange faces a 175-year sentence if extradited.

The decision to prosecute Assange has been universally condemned by all major free speech, human rights and media organizations as an unprecedented threat to the public’s right to know.

The ACLU and 24 other groups recently reiterated their opposition to Assange’s prosecution as a “grave threat to journalists and freedom of the press,” which the government should “drop immediately,” following the extraordinary revelation that the CIA deployed a multipronged informational and operational operation against WikiLeaks which included plans to assassinate or kidnap Assange. Discussions over kidnapping or killing Assange occurred “at the highest levels” of the U.S. administration.

Assange is being held as an unconvicted remand inmate at the high-security Belmarsh prison, where he has been since April 2019. Prior to this he spent seven years in effective detention in London’s Ecuadorian Embassy, having been granted political asylum. Julian Assange has been in one form of detention since 2010. Julian has a fiancée, Stella Moris, with whom he has two young children.

Reporters Without Borders and the UK National Union of Journalists say: “Our government must ensure the UK is a safe place for journalists and publishers to work. Whilst Julian Assange remains in prison facing extradition, it is not.”

The U.S. government’s ‘star witness’ against Assange on which the CFAA charge relies and which are repeatedly referenced throughout the lower court’s judgement, has recanted his testimony and admitted that he lied about his allegations against Assange.

[Tintin]

The UK court, on UN International Human Rights Day, of all days, upholds the US request to extradite Julian Assange. :facepalm:

High Court decision “Grave miscarriage of justice,” says Julian Assange’s fiancée

Source: DefendWikiLeaks (https://defend.wikileaks.org/2021/12/10/high-court-decision-grave-miscarriage-of-justice-says-julian-assanges-fiancee/)

A UK court has overturned an earlier decision blocking the extradition of Julian Assange to the United States where he is accused of publishing true information revealing crimes committed by the US government in the Guantanamo Bay detention camp, Iraq, and Afghanistan, and details of CIA torture and rendition. Julian Assange was not given permission to attend the appeal hearing in person.

The prosecution against Julian Assange is an existential threat to press freedom worldwide. Leading civil liberties groups, including Amnesty International, Reporters Without Borders, ACLU, and Human Rights Watch have called the charges against Julian Assange a “threat to press freedom around the globe.” Journalist unions, including the National Union of Journalists and the International Federation of Journalists, have said that “media freedom is suffering lasting damage by the continued prosecution of Julian Assange.” He faces a 175-year prison sentence.

Responding to the decision of the High Court to overturn the lower court’s earlier ruling to block the extradition of Mr. Assange, Stella Moris, Julian Assange’s fiancee, said: “We will appeal this decision at the earliest possible moment.”

Moris described the High Court’s ruling as “dangerous and misguided” and a “grave miscarriage of justice.” “How can if be fair, how can it be right, how can it be possible, to extradite Julian to the very country which plotted to kill him?” she said.

On September 26, CIA plans to assassinate Julian Assange were uncovered in a bombshell report. The detailed investigation revealed that discussions of assassinating Julian Assange in London had occurred “at the highest levels” of the CIA and Trump White House, and that kill “sketches” and “options” had been drawn up on orders of Mike Pompeo, then CIA director. The investigation revealed that plans to kidnap and rendition Assange were far advanced and the CIA’s operations prompted a political decision to produce charges against him.

Editor-in-chief of WikiLeaks, Kristinn Hrafnsson said, “Julian’s life is once more under grave threat, and so is the right of journalists to publish material that governments and corporations find inconvenient. This is about the right of a free press to publish without being threatened by a bullying superpower.”

Amnesty International says the so-called ‘assurances’ upon which the US government relies “leave Mr. Assange at risk of ill-treatment,” are “inherently unreliable,” and “should be rejected,” adding that they are “discredited by their admission that they reserved the right to reverse those guarantees.” Amnesty concluded the charges against Assange are “politically motivated” and must be dropped.

Julian Assange and Stella Moris are engaged to be married and have two children, who are British and live in London.

Stella Moris will be giving a statement outside court following the decision; updates via @wikileaks

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

Extracts from Stella Moris' emotional statement outside the court:

Mr Assange's fiancee hits out at High Court's decision

Source: Sky News (https://news.sky.com/story/julian-assange-high-court-reverses-decision-not-to-extradite-wikileaks-founder-to-the-us-12491646)

Speaking outside the High Court, a visibly emotional Ms Moris said:


"Today, it's been almost a year since I stood outside court with our victory of the blocking of the extraction.


For the past two and a half years, Julian has remained in Belmarsh Prison and in fact, he has been detained since 7 December 2010 in one form or another. For how long can this go on?

"Today is International Human Rights Day. What a shame. How cynical. To have this decision on this day, to have one of the foremost publishers of the past 50 years in a UK prison accused of publishing the truth about war crimes and CIA kill teams. Julian exposed the crimes of CIA tortures and CIA killers, and now we know those CIA killers were planning to kill him too.



"How can these courts approve an extradition request under these conditions? How can they accept an extradition to the country that plotted to kill Julian? This goes to the fundamentals of press freedom and democracy."

Ms Moris added her finance represents what it "means to live in a free society" and accused the UK of imprisoning journalists "on behalf of a foreign power, which is taking an abusive, vindictive prosecution against a journalist".

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

Other sources:

Stella Moris Twitter account (https://twitter.com/StellaMoris1/with_replies)

LIVE YouTube broadcast from Ruptly (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qO651kfNFSc&ab_channel=Ruptly) (at the time of writing this up Stella can be heard at around -42:00 or so, but obviously that will shift)

qO651kfNFSc

[mountain_jim]

via email from Glenn (free subscriber level - bold mine)



Julian Assange Loses Appeal: British High Court Accepts U.S. Request to Extradite Him for Trial

Press freedom groups have warned Assange's prosecution is a grave threat. The Biden DOJ ignored them, and today won a major victory toward permanently silencing the pioneering transparency activist.

In a London courtroom on Friday morning, Julian Assange suffered a devastating blow to his quest for freedom. A two-judge appellate panel of the United Kingdom's High Court ruled that the U.S.'s request to extradite Assange to the U.S. to stand trial on espionage charges is legally valid.

As a result, that extradition request will now be sent to British Home Secretary Prita Patel, who technically must approve all extradition requests but, given the U.K. Government's long-time subservience to the U.S. security state, is all but certain to rubber-stamp it. Assange's representatives, including his fiancee Stella Morris, have vowed to appeal the ruling, but today's victory for the U.S. means that Assange's freedom, if it ever comes, is further away than ever: not months but years even under the best of circumstances.

In endorsing the U.S. extradition request, the High Court overturned a lower court's ruling from January which had concluded that the conditions of U.S. prison — particularly for those accused of national security crimes — are so harsh and oppressive that there is a high likelihood that Assange would commit suicide. In January's ruling, Judge Vanessa Baraitser rejected all of Assange's arguments that the U.S. was seeking to punish him not for crimes but for political offenses. But in rejecting the extradition request, she cited the numerous attestations from Assange's doctors that his physical and mental health had deteriorated greatly after seven years of confinement in the small Ecuadorian Embassy where he had obtained asylum, followed by his indefinite incarceration in the U.K.

In response to that January victory for Assange, the Biden DOJ appealed the ruling and convinced Judge Baraitser to deny Assange bail and ordered him imprisoned pending appeal. The U.S. then offered multiple assurances that Assange would be treated "humanely" in U.S. prison once he was extradited and convicted. They guaranteed that he would not be held in the most repressive "supermax” prison in Florence, Colorado — whose conditions are so repressive that it has been condemned and declared illegal by numerous human rights groups around the world — nor, vowed U.S. prosecutors, would he be subjected to the most extreme regimen of restrictions and isolation called Special Administrative Measures ("SAMs”) unless subsequent behavior by Assange justified it. American prosecutors also agreed that they would consent to any request from Assange that, once convicted, he could serve his prison term in his home country of Australia rather than the U.S. Those guarantees, ruled the High Court this morning, rendered the U.S. extradition request legal under British law.

What makes the High Court's faith in these guarantees from the U.S. Government particularly striking is that it comes less than two months after Yahoo News reported that the CIA and other U.S. security state agencies hate Assange so much that they plotted to kidnap or even assassinate him during the time he had asylum protection from Ecuador. Despite all that, Lord Justice Timothy Holroyde announced today that “the court is satisfied that these assurances” will serve to protect Assange's physical and mental health.

The effective detention by the U.S. and British governments of Assange is just months shy of a full decade. Ecuador granted Assange asylum in August 2012 on the ground that his human rights were imperiled by U.S. attempts to imprison him for his journalism. For the next seven years, Assange remained in that embassy — which is really a tiny apartment in central London — with no outdoor space other than a tiny balcony, which he typically feared using due to the possibility of assassination. Ecuador withdrew its asylum in 2019 after its sovereignty-protective president Rafael Correa was succeeded in office by the meek and submissive Lenin Moreno. Trump officials led by then-Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Ambassador Richard Grenell persuaded and coerced the new Ecuadorian president to withdraw Assange's asylum protection, clearing the way for London police to enter the building and arrest him on April 11, 2019. Ever since, Assange has been imprisoned in the high-security Belmarsh prison, described in the BBC in 2004 as “Britain's Guantanamo Bay.” He has thus spent close to seven years inside the embassy and two years and eight months inside Belmarsh: just five months shy of a decade with no freedom.

The British government justified Assange's 2019 arrest by pointing to pending charges of “bail-jumping": meaning that he sought and obtained legal asylum from Ecuador in 2012 rather than attend a scheduled hearing in a British court over whether he should be extradited to Sweden to be questioned about claims of sexual assault made by two Swedish women. Swedish prosecutors closed that investigation in 2017, citing the time that had elapsed. But once he was arrested, Assange was sentenced by a British judge on the bail-jumping charges to 50 months in prison, close to the maximum punishment allowed by law (one year). With the Swedish case closed, Assange was set to finally be free after he served that 50-month jail term.

Knowing Assange's release was finally imminent, the U.S. Government quickly acted to ensure he remained in prison indefinitely. In May 2019, it unveiled an 18-count felony indictment against him for espionage charges, based on the role he played in WikiLeaks’ 2010 publication of the Iraq and Afghanistan War Logs and diplomatic cables, which revealed multiple war crimes by the U.S. and U.K. as well as rampant corruption by numerous U.S. allies throughout the world. Even though major newspapers around the world published the same documents in partnership with WikiLeaks — including The New York Times, The Guardian, El Pais and others — the DOJ claimed that Assange went further than those newspapers by encouraging WikiLeaks’ source, Chelsea Manning, to obtain more documents and by trying to help her evade detection: something all journalists have not only the right but the duty to their sources to do.

Because the acts of Assange that serve as the basis of the U.S. indictment are acts in which investigative journalists routinely engage with their sources, press freedom and civil liberties groups throughout the West vehemently condemned the Assange indictment as one of the gravest threats to press freedoms in years. In February, following Assange's victory in court, “a coalition of civil liberties and human rights groups urged the Biden administration to drop efforts to extradite” Assange, as The New York Times put it.

That coalition — which includes the ACLU, Amnesty International, the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University and the Committee to Protect Journalists — warned that the Biden DOJ's ongoing attempt to extradite and prosecute Assange is “a grave threat to press freedom,” adding that “much of the conduct described in the indictment is conduct that journalists engage in routinely — and that they must engage in in order to do the work the public needs them to do.” Kenneth Roth, Director of Human Rights Watch, told The New York Times that “most of the charges against Assange concern activities that are no different from those used by investigative journalists around the world every day.” Shortly after the indictment was issued, I explained in a Washington Post op-ed why the theory on which the indictment was based “would make journalism a felony” (and indeed, just eight months after I wrote that op-ed warning of the dangers to all journalists, the Brazilian government copied the U.S. indictment of Assange and the theories it embraced in its unsuccessful effort to prosecute me for the reporting I did that exposed corruption by senior Brazilian security officials and prosecutors). “Brazil’s Attack on Greenwald Mirrors the US case against Assange,” was the headline used by the Columbia Journalism Review to condemn the charges against me as a blatant retaliatory act against my reporting.

But the Biden administration — led by officials who, during the Trump years, flamboyantly trumpeted the vital importance of press freedoms — ignored those pleas from this coalition of groups and instead aggressively pressed ahead with the prosecution of Assange. The Obama DOJ had spent years trying to concoct charges against Assange using a Grand Jury investigation, but ultimately concluded back in 2013 that prosecuting him would pose too great a threat to press freedom. But the Biden administration appears to have no such qualms, and The New York Times made clear exactly why they are so eager to see Assange in prison:

Democrats like the new Biden team are no fan of Mr. Assange, whose publication in 2016 of Democratic emails stolen by Russia aided Donald J. Trump’s narrow victory over Hillary Clinton.

In other words, the Biden administration is eager to see Assange punished and silenced for life not out of any national security concerns but instead due to a thirst for vengeance over the role he played in publishing documents during the 2016 election that reflected poorly on Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee. Those documents published by WikiLeaks revealed widespread corruption at the DNC, specifically revealing how they cheated in order to help Clinton stave off a surprisingly robust primary challenge from Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT). WikiLeaks’ reporting led to the resignation of the top five DNC officials, including its then-Chair, Rep. Debbie Wassserman Schultz (D-FL). Democratic luminaries such as Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Al Gore's 2000 campaign chair Donna Brazile both said, in the wake of WikiLeak's reporting, that the DNC cheated to help Clinton.

Press freedom groups expressed indignation this morning over the U.K.'s ruling approving Assange's extradition. Rebecca Vincent, Director of International Campaigns and UK Bureau Director for the international press freedom group Reporters Without Borders, said: “This is an utterly shameful development that has alarming implications not only for Assange’s mental health, but also for journalism and press freedom around the world.” The organizational statement issued this morning from Reporters Without Borders went further:

We condemn today’s decision, which will prove historic for all the wrong reasons. We fully believe that Julian Assange has been targeted for his contributions to journalism, and we defend this case because of its dangerous implications for the future of journalism and press freedom around the world. It is time to put a stop to this more than decade-long persecution once and for all. It is time to free Assange.

The Freedom of the Press Foundation (on whose Board I sit) issued a statement this morning which described the ruling as “an alarming setback for press freedom in the United States and around the world.” The group's Executive Director, Trevor Timm, said that “these proceedings, and today's ruling, are a black mark on the history of press freedom,” adding: "That United States prosecutors continued to push for this outcome is a betrayal of the journalistic principles the Biden administration has taken credit for celebrating.”

It is difficult at this point to avoid the conclusion that Julian Assange is not only imprisoned for the crime of journalism which exposed serious crimes and lies by the west's most powerful security state agencies, but he is also a classic political prisoner. When the Obama DOJ was first pursuing the possibility of prosecution, media outlets and liberal advocacy groups were vocal in their opposition. One thing and only one thing has changed since then: in the interim, Assange published documents that were incriminating of Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party, and Democrats, as part of their long list of villains who they blamed for Clinton's defeat (essentially everyone in the world except Clinton and the Democratic Party itself), viewed WikiLeaks' reporting as a major factor in Trump's victory.

That is why they and their liberal allies in corporate media harbor so
much bloodlust to see Assange imprisoned. Julian Assange is a pioneer of modern journalism, a visionary who was the first to see that a major vulnerability of corrupt power centers in the digital age was mass data leaks that could expose their misconduct. Based on that prescient recognition, he created a technological and journalistic system to enable noble sources to safely blow the whistle on corrupt institutions by protecting their anonymity: a system now copied and implemented by major news organizations around the world.

Assange, over the last fifteen years, has broken more major stories and done more consequential journalism than all the corporate journalists who hate him combined. He is not being imprisoned despite his pioneering journalism and dissent from the hegemony of the U.S. security state. He is imprisoned precisely because of that. The accumulated hostility toward Assange from employees of media corporations who hate him due to professional jealousy and the belief that he undermined the Democratic Party, and from the U.S. security state apparatus which hates him for exposing its crimes and refusing to bow to its dictates, has created a climate where the Biden administration and their British servants feel perfectly comfortable imprisoning arguably the most consequential journalist of his generation even as they continue to lecture the rest of the world about the importance of press freedoms and democratic values.

No matter the outcome of further proceedings in this case, today's ruling means that the U.S. has succeeded in ensuring that Assange remains imprisoned, hidden and silenced into the foreseeable future. If they have not yet permanently broken him, they are undoubtedly close to doing so. His own physicians and family members have warned of this repeatedly. Citizens of the U.S. and subjects of the British Crown are inculcated from birth to believe that we are blessed to live under a benevolent and freedom-protecting government, and that tyranny only resides in enemy states. Today's judicial approval by the U.K. High Court of the U.S.'s attack on core press freedom demonstrates yet again the fundamental lie at the heart of this mythology.


Glenn Greenwald
Dec 10

[norman]

a big wikileaks dump . . .

. . . . apparently, but I think I've seen some of it before. Maybe the missing gaps are there this time, like the Podesta emails around the time he and his brother were in Portugal (when Madeleine McCann vanished)

THE DUMP (https://file.wikileaks.org/file/?fbclid=IwAR2U_Evqah_Qy2wxNY12FMqFC5dAFUcZL5Kl4FIfQuMFMp8ssbM46oHXWMI)

[palehorse]

If I were under his skin I would just pull the plug, it is torture what they are doing with him and I am against torture of any sort.

[Tintin]

From: Judiciary Office (https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/USA-v-Assange-summary-101221.pdf)

Judiciary Office landing page for reports: https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/usa-v-julian-assange-2/


Case No: CO/150/2021

In the High Court of Justice
Queen’s Bench Division
Administrative Court
Royal Courts of Justice

10 December 2021

Before The Lord Burnett of Maldon, Lord Chief Justice of England And Wales
and Lord Justice Holroyde

Between The Government of the United States of America – Appellant
and Julian Paul Assange – Respondent

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/USA-v-Assange-summary-101221.pdf

[onawah]

The Assange Case Is The US Defending Its Right To Lie: Notes From The Edge Of The Narrative Matrix
DECEMBER 11, 2021
by CAITLIN JOHNSTONE
https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2021/12/11/the-assange-case-is-the-us-defending-its-right-to-lie-notes-from-the-edge-of-the-narrative-matrix/

"The Assange case is the most powerful government in the world defending its right to lie to you.

Q: What’s the difference between how the US deals with journalists it hates and how Saudi Arabia deals with journalists it hates?

A: Speed.

The US is currently building a network of long-range missile systems on a chain of islands near China’s coast for the explicit purpose of threatening China. You can tell who is the aggressor in US-China tensions by asking yourself what would happen if this situation was reversed.

Per Washington’s own logic it would be perfectly reasonable, and indeed responsible, for China to set up military arsenals along both US coastlines to “contain” it and “deter” attacks on Latin American nations, as the US has an extensive history of launching such attacks and will surely try to again. But we all know what the US response to such behavior would be.

It’s a bit annoying living in a world that’s ruled by a dying empire whose increasing desperation to retain control could lead it to initiate a dangerous military confrontation with a major power at any time.

The rise of China crashing into the Washington doctrine that US unipolar hegemony must be preserved at all cost is an unstoppable-force-meets-immovable-object situation that could very easily end in nuclear armageddon.

If the preservation of US unipolar hegemony requires continually escalating military brinkmanship against nuclear-armed Russia and China as well as powerful forces like Iran, then the claim that US unipolar hegemony makes the world a more peaceful place is plainly false.

You currently have a much higher chance of dying as a result of a nuclear war instigated by your government or its allies than as a result of someone else refusing to take a Covid vaccine. You hear about the latter threat but not the former because the mass media exist to protect imperialist agendas from scrutiny.

You know you’re getting scammed when your government ends a long and expensive war and then the military budget goes up.

There is no sector of US government policy more significant and consequential than the command of the most powerful military force ever assembled. There is also no sector of US government policy with less oversight, accountability, or press scrutiny.

Besides a brief window after 9/11 the US has never really been able to sell the narrative that governments it wants to ramp up aggressions against are about to attack its easily-defended shores. So instead it does ridiculous things like claiming those governments are about to invade Ukraine and Taiwan.

The US empire never attacks, it only “defends”. All its aggressions are always about “defending” freedom and democracy, “defending” human rights, “defending” nations that can’t defend themselves, etc. Often it even “defends” preemptively, before the attacker has done anything. Sometimes the attacker is the last to find out that they were planning an attack.

Ever since getting our eviction notice I’ve struggled to be creative because my mind is so focused on the daunting task of finding a nice yet affordable place for my family to live, and it really makes me feel for everyone for whom housing security is a chronic creativity drain. All to pay for the privilege of living on the ****ing planet we were ****ing born on.

I mean, think about how much creativity and innovation our species is missing out on because our dopey, primitive societal models force people to spend so much brainpower just figuring out how to stay fed and housed. That brainpower could have gone toward improving our world.

Really I’m just a mother. I’m just a mum who wants a healthy planet and a healthy society for her kids, and I advocate the things I believe will facilitate that. You can add whatever -ists and -isms you want on top of that, but my true ideology is motherhood.

Right now being smart and informed is a detriment to happiness because things are ****ty and the more you understand the harder it is to be happy. Once we create a healthy world this will reverse; the more you understand about the world the more uplifted and optimistic you’ll be."

[Tintin]

LIVE YouTube broadcast from Ruptly (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qO651kfNFSc&ab_channel=Ruptly) (at the time of writing this up Stella can be heard at around -42:00 or so, but obviously that will shift)

qO651kfNFSc

UPDATE: Full live recording now making its way to the Avalon Library but for those of you who'd like to listen to Craig Murray and Stella Moris, diving in at around the 2:23:00 mark is where to pick those up.

[Tintin]

From Stella Moris posted today I think.

Wow, we know his health is fragile, but this? :facepalm:

1469796539115708416

Source: Stella Moris (https://twitter.com/StellaMoris1/status/1469796539115708416)
https://twitter.com/StellaMoris1/status/1469796539115708416

[Gwin Ru]

...

... Julian Assange Suffers Stroke After Prison’s Forced Vaccination According To Father (https://en-volve.com/2021/12/13/julian-assange-suffers-stroke-after-prisons-forced-vaccination-according-to-father/)


... that's (attempted) murder by injection...

[onawah]

The Assange Case Explained Simply
DECEMBER 16, 2021
by CAITLIN JOHNSTONE
https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2021/12/16/the-assange-case-explained-simply/

"One of the most common reasons I hear from people on their reluctance to wade into the Assange debate is that they don’t understand it. It looks like a complicated issue to them, so they leave it to the experts.

In reality, the complexity of this case is a complete illusion. It’s very, very simple. It only looks complicated because many years of media distortion have made it appear so.

The US government is trying to extradite a journalist and prosecute him under the Espionage Act for exposing its war crimes, with the long-term goal of normalizing this practice.

That’s it. That’s the whole entire thing. So simple you can sum it up in a single sentence. In a single breath. The most powerful government on earth setting a legal precedent which would allow it to extradite any journalist anywhere in the world for exposing its malfeasance would unquestionably have a massive chilling effect on journalism everywhere in precisely the area where press scrutiny is most sorely needed. It’s not any more complex or nuanced than that.

The Assange issue is simple. What makes it seem complicated is the lies people have been fed by the media class whose job is to manipulate the public into consenting to the agendas of the US power alliance and its war machine.

ZPazn1XNDQI



Caitlin Johnstone Hourglass with flowing sand
@caitoz
Debunking All The Assange Smears

Here it is, the comprehensive debunking of the 27 most common smears against Julian Assange. This is an ongoing project, so if there's anything missing or inaccurate just let me know. #FreeAssange #ProtectJulian
caityjohnstone.medium.com
Debunking All The Assange Smears
https://pbs.twimg.com/card_img/1469987145469333507/YqYo0IC2?format=png&name=small
Have you ever noticed how whenever someone inconveniences the dominant western power structure, the entire political/media class rapidly…
7:56 PM · Apr 19, 2019·Twitter Web Client
https://twitter.com/caitoz/status/1119404497116127232?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1119404497116127232%7Ctwgr% 5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fcaitlinjohnstone.com%2F2021%2F12%2F16%2Fthe-assange-case-explained-simply%2F

Do you see how that works? Do you see how what’s actually happening with the Assange case is extremely simple and easy to understand, but all the narratives justifying his persecution make it necessary to engage in a bunch of complicated counter-arguments? This obfuscation didn’t happen by accident, which is why I refuted as many such distortions as possible in this long article written after Assange’s imprisonment.

The most powerful government in the world trying to lock up a foreign journalist for telling the truth about it is as insanely tyrannical an abuse as you could possibly come up with. It’s as obvious as it gets. The Assange case is so simple and so common sense it should be one of the most mainstream, normie positions anyone could possibly have, right up there with believing racism is bad and child molesters should be stopped. It’s only because imperial spinmeisters muddy the waters with lies and distortions that this isn’t happening.

Everyone should oppose the agenda to normalize the imprisonment of journalists who embarrass the US empire. This shouldn’t be a job left to fringe bloggers, podcasters and YouTubers, it should be happening in every sector of society, across the entire political spectrum. The fact that a very large sector of the population fails to see this as a priority issue shows you just how brainwashed the empire’s propaganda engine has made us."

[Bill Ryan]

From Zero Hedge, yesterday.


https://zerohedge.com/political/russia-compares-wests-treatment-assange-cannibalism

Russia Compares West's Treatment of Assange To Cannibalism

Russian officials are comparing the West's treatment of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange to cannibalism, saying Washington and London's purpose in this instance is the "annihilation of an individual".

Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova described in her latest press briefing that covered commentary on the Assange extradition trial that "The actions taken by our Western partners over the past few years smack of cannibalism."

The comparison suggested that the West is 'eating its own' who stand for justice, all while Western nations claim to champions of justice and equal rights. "This is no longer about double standards or about trampling the principles and ideals [the West claims to champion]," the Kremlin official added (https://www.rt.com/russia/543331-assange-west-cannibalism-zakharova/).

https://assets.zerohedge.com/s3fs-public/styles/inline_image_mobile/public/inline-images/assange1_0.jpg?itok=FLf-0jSp

The statement explained (https://tass.com/world/1376171), "All this is not about some double standards or defiance of lofty principles and ideals. It’s about the annihilation of an individual, revenge for his stance, for his courage and for the fact that he deemed it necessary, apparently aware of the potential risks, to share with the world some crucial information that shed light on the lies and deceit committed by a number of states."

The Kremlin's lashing out came amid new revelations (https://www.zerohedge.com/political/julian-assange-suffered-stroke-due-us-extradition-battle-fiancee-says) that Assange suffered a "mini-stroke" while confined at Belmarsh prison in London, and amid continuing reports of his extremely frail health, which his Fiancée Stella Moris has explained is taking a heavy toll mentally. She described days ago that the prior stroke was likely due to the extreme stress of the ongoing US extradition attempts.

Zakharova addressed this in her Wednesday statement: "Everybody can see that this man is being annihilated. He looks like two different people. Everybody can see his current condition, not to mention the campaign of victimization the champions of democracy have organized against him," she added.

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/1471432414799015944
1471432414799015944
Most recently, the Court of Appeal of England and Wales sided with the US in upholding the Justice Department's prior appeal filed to keep the extradition proceedings alive.

Pundits and supporters of WikiLeaks have pointed out that short of a quick extradition to the US - a scenario yet to materialize in Washington's favor - the DOJ's strategy and that of its Western intelligence allies is likely to ensure Assange waste's away in confinement while drawing out the legal process and endless appeals as long as possible.

[mountain_jim]

https://rumble.com/vqvoyn-joe-scarborough-and-claire-mccaskil-lie-to-smear-assange.html



The Real Disinformation Agents: Watch as NBC Tells 4 Lies in a Two-Minute Clip
Glenn Greenwald Published December 16, 2021 30,885


from Glenn's email



As mentioned in yesterday’s newsletter, we produced an hour-long segment (https://email.mg2.substack.com/c/eJwlkcluhDAMhp9mcgsiAQIccuilrxGZxDBps9AsbenTNzMjWbYsb78-ayh4xHTJM-ZCHk6V60QZ8Cc7LAUTqRmTskayZelHPg3EyNGwZVqIzWpPiB6skyVVJGfdnNVQbAzPCb4Iwcldgt41WxgzQ1vBtk2sPY77YMSil8 lg_zoM1VgMGmUM7lInWEOcvJdy5tvwduPvzVL1m8NOR9-S76_veAX6EZFmDWmLKdbjTiEYqh3YhNRrDfnTOuos0hJp9giJQs4QDuzuxTtiJe85Y5zNbBzmaex4N6-ag9GrQcYF7kN3TJpV_vd7G3t_8C7XLRfQnw8ZJEkfayhgg_qwvnXsKYZiMT2rDYhq0ddgy6UwQFNvXqzKC_mTnjowYGqvMAqKZGJ Y54mtTIh5fqFpMMdJPPT1pJ03sU0FeTT44Qec-QftCZwd) dissecting the battery of lies spewed by Joe Scarborough and Claire McCaskill in a two-minute NBC report on the prosecution of Julian Assange. We realize that not every subscriber wants or has the time to watch an hour-long segment, so as always, we’ve produced a full transcript of the video for those who prefer to read the report.

Glenn Greenwald: Hi, everyone, this is Glenn Greenwald, and I am excited about our new episode of System Update here on our home at Rumble, and I say I'm excited because I feel what we're about to do is quite important. What I want to do is show you how readily and casually and aggressively and clearly corporate media outlets disseminate outright lies.
And I wanted to use a two minute clip from Morning Joe involving the host of that show, Joe Scarborough, and the former two-term Democratic senator from Missouri, Claire McCaskill, and break down this clip to show you why it is that I so often say that fake news and disinformation comes not from people on Facebook or teenagers on 4chan or whatever else is blamed for the dissemination of fake news and disinformation. ...

Subscribe to Glenn Greenwald to read the rest.
Become a paying subscriber of Glenn Greenwald to get access to this post and other subscriber-only content.





vo9iuh/

[Tintin]

Source: AssangeDefense (https://assangedefense.org/press-release/stella-moris-statement-on-julian-assanges-supreme-court-appeal/)

Stella Moris statement on Julian Assange’s Supreme Court appeal

December 23, 2021 — This morning at 11:05 Julian Assange filed an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court the High Court’s ruling that he can be extradited to the US on three grounds.

The High Court’s ruling in USA v Assange raises three points of law of general public importance that have an impact on the procedural and human rights safeguards of a wide range of other types of cases.

On December 10th, the High Court upheld the Magistrates’ Court’s assessment, based on the evidence before her, that there was a real risk that, should Julian Assange be extradited to the United States, he would be subjected to near total isolation, including under the regimes of SAMs (Special Administrative Measures) and/or ADX, (administrative maximum prison) and that such isolation would cause his mental condition to deteriorate to such a degree that there was a high risk of suicide. These findings led the lower court to block the extradition under s. 91 of the Extradition Act (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/41/section/91), which bans “oppressive” extraditions.

However, the High Court overturned the lower court’s decision to block the extradition, based solely on the fact that after the US lost the extradition case on January 4th 2021, the US State Department sent a letter to the UK Foreign Office containing conditional assurances in relation to Julian Assange’s placement under SAMs and ADX. The assurances letter explicitly states (https://twitter.com/StellaMoris1/status/1474071950465150986) in points one and four that “the United States retains the power” to “impose SAMs” on Mr. Assange and to “designate Mr. Assange to ADX” should he say or do anything since January 4, 2021 that would cause the US government to determine, in its subjective assessment, that Julian Assange should be placed under SAMs conditions and/or in ADX Florence. These conditional assurances alone were considered sufficient by the High Court to overturn the lower court’s decision.

Under English law, in order for the application to have a chance to be considered by the Supreme Court, first the same High Court judges who ordered Julian Assange’s extradition must certify that at least one of the Supreme Court appeal grounds is a point of law of general public importance (s.114 of the 2003 Extradition Act (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/41/section/114)).

Julian Assange’s application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court is therefore currently under consideration by the High Court judges. It is not known how long it will take for the decision to come down, but it is not expected before the third week of January.

For background, see Julian Assange’s filing (https://defend.wikileaks.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Assange-Defense-Appeal-Arguments-and-Extradition-Glossary.pdf) opposing the US extradition in the High Court.

— Stella Moris

[onawah]

WATCH: Assange Protest at Justice Dept. LIVE
January 21, 2022
https://consortiumnews.com/2022/01/21/watch-assange-protest-at-justice-dept-live/?fbclid=IwAR0OAGsQMm4H0KcWY7nKLHVNrNP6dQttmtrNMzd2lA9OKYGos6lz2NiLp-8
https://youtu.be/Q7qLCnqsDv4

"Speakers: Brian Becker, Max Blumenthal, Randy Credico, Leo Flores, Eleanor Goldfield, John Kiriakou, Marianne Williamson and Ann Wilcox.

On Monday at 10:45 GMT the High Court in London will announce its decision on whether it will permit Assange to appeal to the U.K. Supreme Court on its ruling to allow his extradition. The High Court’s decision is a formality however, as Assange can apply directly to the Supreme Court to appeal if the High Court does not grant permission.

The Supreme Court’s website says: “An application for permission to appeal must be made first to the Court of Appeal. If that Court refuses permission, an application may be made to The Supreme Court. An application is made by filing an application for permission to appeal.”
**************************

LIVE: Free Assange Protest at the DOJ in DC - January 2022
70 views Streamed live 1/21/22
ProPeace Report
146 subscribers

"Livestreaming from the Department of Justice building in Washington D.C. as Free Assange activists gather to put pressure on the Biden Administration to drop all charges against Julian Assange for his award-winning investigative journalism about the Iraq War. International free press organizations warn that charges against Assange for his journalistic activities risk setting a dangerous precedent for investigative journalists around the world.

Expected speakers include Former CIA Whistleblower John Kiriakou and 2020 Presidential Candidate Marianne Williamson.

If you're interested in getting involved: https://assangedefense.org/ "

IJAaEmgm44A

[gini]

PjYDVFm9ThU....Ruptly is live outside a London court on Monday, January 24, as an appeal request is reviewed in the case of Julian Assange.

The hearing comes following the lower court ruling that the Wikileaks co-founder could be extradited to the US, where he faces multiple charges. The High Court is expected to decide whether the appeal could be submitted to the Supreme Court, which is the last court of appeal in the UK.

[onawah]

High Court Allows Assange to Appeal to Supreme Court
January 24, 2022
By Joe Lauria
Special to Consortium News
https://consortiumnews.com/2022/01/24/high-court-allows-assange-supreme-court-appeal/?fbclid=IwAR3COKBSBQY_InrpH6lGYt2iBixC3jYPiesLnjaKGIF978A_OZHh4fSu4vA

"The High Court in London has allowed Julian Assange leave to appeal its own ruling to the U.K. Supreme Court. The High Court ruled in December that Assange can be extradited to the U.S., overturning the district court’s decision.

The High Court of England and Wales on Monday in essence allowed Julian Assange, the imprisoned WikiLeaks publisher, the right to appeal at the U.K. Supreme Court last month’s High Court judgement permitting Assange’s extradition to the United States.

The High Court technically refused to allow an appeal to the Supreme Court, but left it up to that court to determine for itself whether it will grant permission to consider one legal issue.

“We certify a single point of law … in what circumstances can an appellate court receive assurances from a requesting state which were not before the court of first instance in extradition proceedings,” the High Court said in an appearance that lasted less than a minute. That refers to whether the United States was legally permitted to provide assurances to the High Court after it had failed to do so during the district court’s hearing of Assange’s extradition case in September 2020.

On Dec. 10, the High Court ruled that Assange’s extradition could go ahead, vacating the district court’s decision that Assange was too suicidal and U.S. prisons too harsh to send him there. District Judge Vanessa Baraitser ruled in January 2021 that under section 91 of the U.S.-U.K. extradition treaty it would be oppressive to do so.

The High Court did not disagree with the substance of that ruling. However it accepted U.S. “assurances” that it would not put Assange under the harshest incarceration regime, namely Special Administrative Measures (SAMS), and that he would receive adequate physical and mental health care. On the basis of those assurances alone the High Court overturned Baraitser’s ruling, clearing the way for extradition.

Assange’s lawyers argued before the High Court in December that the court should not have accepted the assurances because they were made after the district judge had ruled not to extradite.

But the High Court in December rejected the defense’s argument. “The court rejected various criticism argued on Mr. Assange’s behalf …that the assurances …were not sufficient,” said Lord Justice Timothy Holroyde.

Siding with the United States, which argued that the assurances could come at any point in the legal process, he read:

“For the reasons given in the judgment which is today handed down, the court allowed the appeal on the grounds that .. a. the DJ [District Judge], having decided that the threshold for discharge under section 91 of the Extradition Act 2003 was met, ought to have notified the USA of her provisional view, to afford it the opportunity to offer assurances to the court; and b. the USA has now provided the United Kingdom with a package of assurances which respond to the DJ’s specific findings.”

“In our view, a court hearing an extradition case, whether at first instance or on appeal, has the power to receive and consider assurances whenever they are offered by a requesting state,” the High Court judgment said.

It said further:

“An offer of assurances in an extradition case is a solemn matter, requiring careful consideration by the requesting state of its willingness to give specific undertakings to another state. It would not be appropriate to require that to be done on a contingent or hypothetical basis; and we doubt the practicability of such an approach. We do not accept that the USA refrained for tactical reasons from offering assurances at an earlier stage, or acted in bad faith in choosing only to offer them at the appeal stage.”

The High Court also tried to justify why the U.S. waited until after the extradition hearing in September 2020 to make its assurances. “We observe that the decision that all closing submissions should be made in writing, in a case in which the arguments had ranged far and wide over many days of hearing, may well have contributed to the difficulty faced by the USA in offering suitable assurances any earlier than it did,” the court said.

Had the defense known about the assurances during the extradition hearing in district court it could have argued with evidence from previous cases about their unreliability. But they were never given that chance.

It will now be up to the Supreme Court, if it accepts the appeal, to decide whether the U.S. could have legally made its assurances after Baraitser had decided in Assange’s favor. Assange has 14 days to apply to the Supreme Court to hear his case.

Even if the High Court had completely denied Assange’s right to appeal to the Supreme Court, he would still have been free to apply to the highest court directly for the right to appeal. The court’s website says: “An application for permission to appeal must be made first to the Court of Appeal. If that Court refuses permission, an application may be made to The Supreme Court. An application is made by filing an application for permission to appeal.”

If the Supreme Court takes the case its decision could set a precedent on the matter of whether government assurances must be filed with the court of first instance before its judgement is made. The Supreme Court would not be deciding on whether the U.S. assurances are believable but at what point in the legal process they should have been made.

The court would essentially be deciding whether a state can shift the goalposts after it had lost a case.

Assange is wanted in the United States on one charge of conspiracy to commit computer intrusion and 17 counts of violating the Espionage Act for possessing and publishing defense information that revealed prima facie evidence of U.S. war crimes and corruption.

Speaking outside the Royal Courts of Justice after the High Court’s decision on Monday, Stella Moris, Assange’s fiancee and lawyer, said, “What happened in court today is precisely what we wanted to happen. The High Court certified that we had raised a point of law of general public importance and that the Supreme Court has good grounds to hear this appeal. … Make no mistake, we won today in court.” "

WikiLeaks
@wikileaks
Julian Assange fiancee Stella Moris speaking outside court after todays victory: "Today we won - but Julian continues to suffer - Julian must be freed"
1485582138531586049
@SkyNews
#FreeAssangeNOW
@stellamoris1
3:55 AM · Jan 24, 2022·Twitter Web App

[Tintin]

I for one am very glad to see Craig Murray active again.

Your Man in the Public Gallery: Assange Hearing Day Oh God It Never Ends

Source: Craig Murray (https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2022/01/your-man-in-the-public-gallery-assange-hearing-day-oh-god-it-never-ends/)

t feels like a recurring nightmare. On the sadly misnamed sleeper train once again, down to London and a dash to the Royal Courts of Justice to hear yet another judgement intoned. Julian not in court again and not in good health; Stella battling on but fighting to keep her health as well; Gareth Peirce her calm and unstoppable self; my friends from Wikileaks marshaling legal and media resources and remaining determinedly resolute and cheerful.

The Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, Ian Duncan Burnett, is just the sort of chap you would want to play the role in a comic opera production. Burly, with a broad open face crowned with full white hair, he exudes solidity, bonhommie and natural command. You expect him to deliver his judgement and then stroll over the Strand to Simpson’s for a few thick slices of roast sirloin and a bumper of claret. I don’t mean that as a criticism; I like nothing better myself.

The Lord Chief Justice doesn’t just get his own office; he does not just get the best scarlet silly costume you can imagine; he gets his very own court. What a court it is; acres of polished wood, larger than some theatres; galleried and storeyed, walls at every level lined all round with thousands upon thousands of exquisitely bound law books, locked behind glass doors which I strongly suspect are only ever opened to add another book destined to spend its natural life in there unvisited, with no possibility of parole.

The Lord Chief Justice gets a very high bench, so you all have to look right up to him; a construction made of several tons of mahogany, which looks like it should be draped with potted palms, have moustachioed waiters in tight white jackets popping in and out of its various stairways and entrances carrying silver trays, and house a string quartet in the corner. Rumour has it that there is in fact a string quartet in a corner, which has been trying to leave since 1852.

The Lord Chief Justice suddenly materialises from his own entrance behind his bench, already high above us, so he doesn’t have to mount the mahogany and risk tripping over his scarlet velvet drapery. I like to imagine he was raised up to the requisite level behind the scenes by a contraption of ropes and pulleys operated by hairy matelots. Next to him, but discreetly a little lower, was Lord Justice Holroyde, who delivered the judgement now appealed against, and today looked even more smug and oleaginous in the reflected glow of his big mate.

The appearance lasted two minutes. Burnett told us that the Court certified, as being a matter of general public interest, the question of whether “Diplomatic Assurances” not submitted in the substantive hearing, could be submitted at the appeal stage. It did not so certify the other points raised; it refused leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.

You can ignore the last phrase; it is customary that the High Court refuses leave to appeal; with the certification of public interest, Julian can now appeal direct to the Supreme Court which will decide whether or not to take the case. The refusal of leave by the High Court is purely a show of deference to the Supreme Court, which decides itself what it will take. The lawyers put this as “the Supreme Court dines a la carte”.

Now some of the appeal points which the High Court refused to certify as arguable and of general public interest, were important. One point was that the diplomatic assurances by the United States promised not to engage in certain illegal practices amounting to torture, but made that assurance conditional on Assange’s future behaviour.

Now, legally prohibited treatment of prisoners does not become lawful if the prisoner does something wrong. That ought to have been a slam-dunk argument, even without the fact that the decision on Assange’s future behaviour would be made by precisely the same authorities who plotted to kidnap or murder him.

All of which was not certified as an arguable point of law of general public interest.

What is certified and going forward is the simple question of whether the diplomatic assurances were received too late. Rather peculiarly, the High Court judgement of Burnett and Holroyde, against which Julian was seeking leave to appeal, blamed extradition magistrate Vanessa Baraitser for not having asked the United States for diplomatic assurances at the earlier stage.

The doctrine that a judge should suggest to counsel for one party, helpful points to strengthen their case against the other party, is an entirely new one in English law. The United States could have submitted their diplomatic note at any stage, but chose not to do so, in order to see if they could get away with making no commitment as to Assange’s treatment. They only submitted a diplomatic note after they lost the original case. It was not for Baraitser to ask them to do it earlier and the suggestion is a ludicrous bit of special pleading by Burnett.

This is more than just a procedural point. If the assurances had been submitted to the magistrate’s court, their value could have been objected to by Assange’s defence. The self-canceling conditionalities within the assurances themselves could have been explored, and the United States’ long record of breaking such assurances could have been discussed.

By introducing them only at the appeal stage, the United States had evaded all scrutiny of their validity.

That was confirmed by today’s judgement. Questions of the viability of assurances that, inter alia, make torture a future option, were ruled not to be arguable appeal points.

So the certified point, whether assurances can be submitted at the appeals stage, is not really just about timing and deadlines, it is about whether there should be scrutiny of the assurances or not.

However it does not look like a substantial point. It looks like just a technical point on timing and deadlines. This is very important, because it may be the screen behind which the British Establishment is sidling slowly towards the exit. Was Lord Burnett looking to get out of this case by one of the curtained doors at his back?

If any of the other points had been certified, there would have been detailed discussion in court of the United States’ penchant for torture, its dreadful prison conditions, and its long record of bad faith (it is an accepted point of law in the United States that domestic authorities are not bound by any assurance, commitment or even treaty given to foreign governments). For the Supreme Court to refuse Assange’s extradition on any of those grounds would be an official accusation against the United States’ integrity, and thus diplomatically difficult.

But the Supreme Court can refuse extradition on the one point now certified by the High Court, and it can be presented as nothing to do with anything bad about the USA and its governance, purely a technical matter of a missed deadline. Apologies all round, never mind old chap, and let’s get to the claret at Simpson’s.

Can there really be an end in sight for Julian? Is the British Establishment quietly sidling to the exit?

[onawah]

New Legal Hurdles for Julian Assange
March 15, 2022
by Craig Murray
https://consortiumnews.com/2022/03/15/craig-murray-new-legal-hurdles-for-julian-assange/?fbclid=IwAR0lBZMbeFaL5m5J_rv3P5u9gbaah1HXjAcxGPgBFu_vCUjtTmCnA4HX_yQ
https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Middlesex_Guildhall-2048x1362.jpg
Middlesex Guildhall in London, home of U.K.Supreme Court. (Tristan Surtel, CC BY-SA 4.0, Wikimedia Commons)

"Assuming Home Secretary Priti Patel authorizes extradition, the matter returns to the original magistrate’s court for execution. That is where this process takes a remarkable twist.

With Julian Assange still, for no rational reason, held in maximum security, the legal process around his extradition continues to meander its way through the overgrown bridlepaths of the UK’s legal system. On Monday, the U.K. Supreme Court refused to hear Assange’s appeal, which was based on the grounds of his health and the effect upon it of incarceration in the conditions of the United States prison service. It stated his appeal had “no arguable legal grounds.”

This is a setback which is, most likely, going to keep him in jail for at least another year.

The legal grounds which the High Court had previously ruled to be arguable were that the U.S. government should not have been permitted to give at appeal new (and highly conditional) diplomatic assurances about Assange’s treatment, which had not been offered at the court of first instance to be considered in the initial decision. One important argument that this should not be allowed is that if given to the original court, the defence could argue about the value and conditionality of such assurances; evidence could be called and the matter weighed by the court.

By introducing the assurances only at the appeal stage – which is only on points of law and had no fact-finding remit – the U.S. had avoided any scrutiny of their validity. The Home Office have always argued that diplomatic assurances must simply be accepted without question. The Home Office is keen on this stance because it makes extradition to countries with appalling human rights records much easier.

In saying there is no arguable point of law, the Supreme Court is accepting that diplomatic assurances are not tested and are to be taken at face value – which has been a major point of controversy in recent jurisprudence. It is now settled that Britain will send someone back to Saudi Arabia if the Saudis give us a piece of paper promising not to chop their head off.

It interested me in particular that the Supreme Court refused to hear Assange’s appeal on the basis that there was “no arguable point of law.” When the Supreme Court refused to hear my own appeal against imprisonment, they rather stated their alternative formulation, that there was “no arguable point of law of general public interest.” Meaning there was an arguable point of law, but it was merely an individual injustice, that did not matter to anybody except Craig Murray.

My own view is that, with the Tory government very open about their desire to clip the wings of judges and reduce the reach of the Supreme Court in particular, the Court is simply avoiding hot potatoes at present.

https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/50544050757_34c6641f7f_b.jpg
U.K. Home Secretary Priti Patel at Essex Police Headquarters for new recruits’ graduation parade, October 2020. (Pippa Fowles, No 10 Downing Street, Flickr)

So the extradition now goes to Priti Patel, the home secretary, to decide whether to extradite. The defence has four weeks to make representations to Patel, which she must hear. There are those on the libertarian right of the Tory party who oppose the extradition on freedom of speech grounds, but Patel has not a libertarian thought in her head and appears to revel in deportation, so personally I hold out no particular hope for this stage.

Assuming Patel does authorise extradition, the matter returns to the original magistrate’s court and to Judge Vanessa Baraitser for execution. That is where this process takes a remarkable twist.

The appeals process that has just concluded was the appeal initiated by the United States government, against Baraitser’s original ruling that the combination of Assange’s health and the conditions he would face in U.S. jails, meant that he could not be extradited. The United States government succeeded in this appeal at the High Court. Assange then tried to appeal against that High Court verdict to the Supreme Court, and was refused permission.

But Assange himself has not yet appealed to the High Court, and he can do so, once the matter has been sent back to Baraitser by Patel. His appeal will be against those grounds on which Baraitser initially found in favour of the United States. These are principally:

the misuse of the extradition treaty which specifically prohibits political extradition;
the breach of the UNCHR Article 10 right of freedom of speech;
the misuse of the U.S. Espionage Act
the use of tainted, paid evidence from a convicted fraudster who has since publicly admitted his evidence was false
the lack of foundation to the hacking charge
None of these points have yet been considered by the High Court. It seems a remarkably strange procedure that having been through the appeals process once, the whole thing starts again after Priti Patel has made her decision, but that is the crazy game of snake and ladders the law puts us through. It is fine for the political establishment, of course, because it enables them to keep Assange locked up under maximum security in Belmarsh.

The defence had asked the High Court to consider what are called the “cross-appeal” points at the same time as hearing the U.S. appeal, but the High Court refused.

So the ray of light that was Baraitser’s ruling on health and prison conditions is now definitively snuffed out. That means that rather than the possibility of release by the Supreme Court this summer, Assange faces at least another year in Belmarsh, which must be a huge blow to him just before his wedding.

On the brighter side, it means that finally, in a senior court, the arguments that will really matter will be heard. I have always felt ambivalent about arguments based on Assange’s health, when there is so much more at stake, and I have never personally reported the health issues out of respect for his privacy. But now the High Court will have to consider whether it really wishes to extradite a journalist for publishing evidence of systematic war crimes by the state requesting his extradition.

Now that will be worth reporting."

Craig Murray is an author, broadcaster and human rights activist. He was British ambassador to Uzbekistan from August 2002 to October 2004 and rector of the University of Dundee from 2007 to 2010. His coverage is entirely dependent on reader support. Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.

This article is from CraigMurray.org.uk.

[onawah]

WATCH: A Wedding For the Ages
March 24, 2022
https://consortiumnews.com/2022/03/24/watch-a-wedding-for-the-ages/?fbclid=IwAR2pMRrcg3dNxM-W3a_NLeVzSGTWhmLzWJlJZ2887iBEn-s9Qx-7cRuZXjc

"Julian and Stella Assange were married yesterday at Belmarsh Prison in London. Here are the wedding videos."

(Go to the link to see the vids)

[onawah]

Julian Assange's lawyer reveals how the WikiLeaks founder is coping in prison | 60 Minutes Australia
230,359 views Mar 27, 2022
3.9K
60 Minutes Australia
4.35M subscribers

"Aitor Martinez, Julian Assange's Spanish lawyer, tells 60 Minutes the Australian WikiLeaks founder has been "destroyed" by his time in prison."

ZB04WZwH0Sk

[onawah]

Conflicts in Priti Patel’s Power Over Assange
March 30, 2022
By Matt Kennard
Declassified UK
https://consortiumnews.com/2022/03/30/conflicts-in-priti-patels-power-over-assange/?fbclid=IwAR0-JbrB3nBc5SAmYXlTbAXRCHPJplCMxuEKn0wZNbKC5L_1NMB0bz36yl4
https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/51126667070_14a173edc2_b.jpg
U.K. Home Secretary Priti Patel in April 2021.

"Priti Patel, who will soon decide whether to extradite the WikiLeaks publisher, has links to a group that has attacked Assange in the media for a decade, Matt Kennard reports

Patel sat on advisory council of Henry Jackson Society (HJS) with Lord Arbuthnot, whose wife later made two key legal rulings against Assange
Former C.I.A. Director James Woolsey has been an HJS patron since 2006
HJS has hosted three other ex-C.I.A. directors in London since 2014
Patel was paid £2,500 by HJS to fly to Washington for a “security” program in the U.S. Congress
Patel ignores Declassified’s request for clarification of her role in HJS
Priti Patel sat on the Henry Jackson Society’s (HJS) advisory council from around 2013-16, although the exact dates are unclear as neither the HJS nor Patel responded to Declassified’s requests for clarification.

She has also received funds from the HJS, and was paid £2,500 by the group to visit Washington in March 2013 to attend a “security” program in the U.S. Congress.

Patel, who became an MP in 2010 and was appointed home secretary in 2019, also hosted an HJS event in parliament soon after she returned from Washington.

After the U.K. Supreme Court said this month it was refusing to hear Assange’s appeal of a High Court decision against him, the WikiLeaks founder’s fate now lies in Patel’s hands. He faces life in prison in the U.S.

The Henry Jackson Society, which was founded in 2005 and does not disclose its funders, has links to the C.I.A., the intelligence agency behind the prosecution of Julian Assange and which reportedly developed plans to assassinate him.

One of the HJS’s international patrons is James Woolsey, C.I.A. director from 1993-95, who was in this role throughout the period Patel was advising the group. Woolsey’s affiliation to the Henry Jackson Society goes back to at least 2006, soon after it was founded.

In 2014, the group hosted General David Petraeus, C.I.A. director from 2011-12, at a U.K. Parliament meeting from which all media were barred.

Three years later, in 2017, the Henry Jackson Society organized another event at Parliament with General Michael Hayden, C.I.A. director from 2006-9, to “discuss the current state of the American Intelligence Community and its relationships with foreign partners.”

Hayden described “the relationship within the Five Eyes community as strong as ever, despite potential concerns over recent intelligence leaks between members.” Five Eyes is an intelligence alliance comprising Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the U.K. and the U.S.

‘Perception of Bias’

During a visit to the U.K. in July 2020, then U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo spoke at a roundtable hosted by the Henry Jackson Society with what the Washington Post referred to as a group of “hawkish” members of the Conservative Party.

As director of the C.I.A. in 2017, Pompeo had launched a blistering attack on WikiLeaks calling the media organization a “hostile intelligence service” that makes “common cause with dictators.”

Pompeo did not provide evidence but added a threat: “To give them the space to crush us with misappropriated secrets is a perversion of what our great Constitution stands for. It ends now.”

https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Pompeo-Assange.png
Mike Pompeo as C.I.A. director calling WikiLeaks a nonstate hostile actor. (Screenshot)

On the Henry Jackson Society advisory council at the same time as Patel was Lord James Arbuthnot, a former Conservative defence minister. His wife, Lady Emma Arbuthnot, was Westminster chief magistrate from 2016-2021.

For part of her tenure, she was in charge of the Assange case and made two key rulings against him in 2018. Lady Arbuthnot eventually stepped aside from ruling on the case because of a “perception of bias” but never declared a conflict of interest.

The links between Patel and Lord Arbuthnot go further. In 2010, soon after becoming an MP, Patel was appointed one of five parliamentary officers of the Conservative Friends of Israel when the group was chaired by Lord Arbuthnot.

The Conservative Friends of Israel has been described as “beyond doubt the most well-connected and probably the best funded of all Westminster lobbying groups.” It also does not disclose its funders.

Patel was forced to resign as secretary of state for international development in November 2017 after it was revealed that she had held more than a dozen undeclared meetings with Israeli ministers and organizations while on holiday in the country.

Many of these were arranged by the Conservative Friends of Israel’s honorary president, Lord Polak. Patel’s resignation letter accepted that her conduct “fell below…standards of transparency and openness.”

‘Bonkers & Paranoid’

https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Screen-Shot-2021-11-01-at-2.58.24-PM.png
Assange supporters in London during the hearing of the U.S. appeal. (Don’t Extradite Assange Campaign)

HJS staff have been repeatedly critical of Assange and WikiLeaks in the British media since 2011 when its then associate director, Douglas Murray, engaged in a combative debate with Assange.

The following year, the Henry Jackson Society posted a video of Murray stating on media channel Al-Jazeera English: “There is not a witch-hunt of WikiLeaks. An organisation illegally obtained, or stole as we used to call it, a whole set of government documents and published them with consequences which are still not fully understood.”

Murray continued: “I think Mr. Assange has been bonkers and paranoid for years, it’s part of his alleged political makeup, and indeed I would allege that of many of his supporters.”

Over the following years, the Henry Jackson Society and its staff continued to be among the most active civil society voices for impugning the motives and reputation of Assange.

This stands in contrast to nearly all human rights and press freedom organizations which argue that extraditing the WikiLeaks publisher to the U.S. would be a grave blow to media freedom.

‘Conspiracy Theories’

In October 2016, the Henry Jackson Society released a statement to the media, which claimed:

“Mr. Assange has a long track record of stealing and distributing information, peddling conspiracy theories, and casting aspersions on the moral standing of western democratic governments. He has done this whilst supporting, and being supported by, autocratic regimes.”

No evidence was supplied to support the assertions.

A number of other Henry Jackson Society staff — including spokesperson Sam Armstrong and then chief of staff Ellie Green — have made anti-Assange interventions in the British media.

In April 2019, after Julian Assange was seized from the Ecuadorian embassy in London by British police, Henry Jackson Society Executive Director Alan Mendoza was put up as the counterweight against Assange’s lawyer on BBC’s flagship Newsnight program.

Posted to the Henry Jackson Society’s Youtube channel, Mendoza told the national broadcaster: “Journalists are not allowed to break the law in obtaining their materials.”

He added: “I think it’s quite clear Mr. Assange has spent many years evading justice, hiding in a room in Knightsbridge … Isn’t it time he actually answered questions in a court of law?”

Secrecy

In October 2019, as home secretary, Patel visited Washington again to meet William Barr, the then U.S. attorney general who was in charge of the Assange case as head of the Department of Justice.

Together they signed the Cloud Act which made it easier for American and British law enforcement agencies to demand electronic data on targets as they undertake investigations.

Assange’s defense team had previously raised the concern in court that Barr may have used Assange’s extradition case in the U.K. for political ends.

https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/ag_barr_and_uk_home_secretary_priti_patel_-68_2.jpg
Then U.S. Attorney General William Barr and Priti Patel sign the Cloud Act in Washington, D.C., Oct. 3, 2019. (U.S. Department of Justice)

In August 2020, Declassified requested basic information about Patel’s 2019 trip to Washington. The Home Office confirmed it held the information but refused to release it because the department considered “that disclosure of some of the information would prejudice relations between the U.K. and the United States.”

In May 2020, Declassified also requested information about any calls or emails made or received by Patel since she became home secretary which concerned the case of Julian Assange, or mentioned his name.

The Home Office told us “we can neither confirm nor deny whether we hold the information you have requested” because “to do so either way would disclose information that constitutes the personal data of Julian Assange.”

The same request for Sajid Javid’s tenure as home secretary from 2018-19 was rejected because the department said “we have carried out a thorough search and we have established that the Home Office does not hold the information that you have requested.”

This was despite the fact Javid signed the initial U.S. extradition request for Assange in June 2019. The shadow home secretary at the time, Diane Abbott, opposed approving the U.S. extradition request.

Declassified previously revealed that before signing the U.S. request, Javid had attended six secretive meetings, some attended by former C.I.A. directors, which were organized by a U.S. lobby group which has published calls for Assange to be assassinated or taken down.

The Home Office recently admitted it had eight officials working on Operation Pelican, the U.K. government campaign to seize Assange from the Ecuadorian embassy in London.

The department, however, claimed it did not know which other U.K. government ministries were involved in the operation.

Priti Patel and the Henry Jackson Society did not respond to requests for information and comment."

Matt Kennard is chief investigator at Declassified UK. He was a fellow and then director at the Centre for Investigative Journalism in London. Follow him on Twitter @kennardmatt

This article is from Declassified UK.

[onawah]

Chris Hedges on Jailed WikiLeaks Founder Julian Assange’s Wedding: He’s "Crumbling" in London Prison
57,863 views Apr 1, 2022
2.6K
Democracy Now!
1.01M subscribers

"Imprisoned WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is "crumbling" physically and psychologically, says journalist Chris Hedges, who last week attended Assange's wedding to his longtime partner Stella Moris at London's Belmarsh prison. Assange has been behind bars for nearly three years awaiting a possible extradition to the United States on espionage charges for publishing documents revealing war crimes committed in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Hedges says Assange exposed the "most important information" of this generation, along with NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden."
PqNNlGBThCM

[Flowerpunkchip]

New Hearing at the Westminster Magistrates Court, Wednesday April 20th.
The magistrate will issue the order to extradite Julian Assange to the USA.
The order will then go to Priti Patel for approval.
Assange's defence team will make submissions to Patel (deadline 18th of May)

Wikileaks supporters will there. If you're based near or in London, do please come along.

[onawah]

Assange appears in court today, live coverage
CN LIVE! S4E9 THE ASSANGE FAMILY STRUGGLE
5 waiting Scheduled for Apr 19, 2022
Consortium News
14.1K subscribers

(It looks like it will start airing live at 11pm tonight, CST. )

"Julian Assange will later today appear in Westminster Magistrates Court where an extradition order will be issued. Consortium News will be reporting live from the courtroom. We talk to his father John Shipton, brother Gabriel and Ben Lawrence, director of the film 'Ithaka' which documents the Assange family struggle and is now screening in Australian cinemas."

S2OZd04WPWQ

[Anna70]

God help him.

[onawah]

‘The Assange Family Struggle’
April 19, 2022
https://consortiumnews.com/2022/04/19/watch-cn-live-the-assange-family-struggle/?fbclid=IwAR2sXzBOEDR-q1RKSnMnj3SUlLEbazorQSwDZEMZJj6BEAe9NFRUmKBBfJ8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2OZd04WPWQ

"Hours before Julian Assange’s extradition order Wednesday, CN Live! speaks to his father John Shipton, brother Gabriel Shipton and Ben Lawrence, director of Ithaka. Watch the replay.
The extradition order of imprisoned WikiLeaks‘ publisher Julian Assange will be sent to U.K. Home Secretary Priti Patel on Wednesday by Westminster Magistrate’s Court after the U.K. Supreme Court declined to hear Assange’s appeal of a High Court decision to allow the extradition to the United States to go ahead.

Assange faces 175 years in prison for publishing accurate information revealing prima facie evidence of war crimes by the United States. There is a human side to Assange’s story rarely seen.

It is revealed in the new film Ithaka by director Ben Lawrence.
See: https://documentaryaustralia.com.au/project/ithaka/

It tells the story of a father and a wife’s struggle to save their son and husband. The film follows Assange’s father, John Shipton, and his wife, Stella Assange, during the days of Assange’s extradition hearing in February and September 2020 and Shipton’s journeys to the United States and Europe to gain support for his son with governments and the public.

Shipton and Assange’s brother Gabriel Shipton joined CN Live! to discuss the film and their struggle to free Assange. With your hosts Elizabeth Vos and Joe Lauria. Produced by Cathy Vogan. "

[onawah]

The UNTHINKABLE just happend to Julian Assange | Redacted with Natali and Clayton Morris
25,080 views Apr 20, 2022
1.5K
Redacted
644K subscribers
"Julian Assange is one step closer to being extradited to the United States. Do you see the irony here? While he published true data accusing the United States for war crimes, the United States is calling to try Putin for war crimes. This could have chilling consequences for journalism and dissemination of facts."

BBfiQwNsOLA

[onawah]

Who Is the Hero? Albright vs. Assange
April 28, 2022
By Lawrence Davidson
https://consortiumnews.com/2022/04/28/who-is-the-hero-albright-vs-assange/?fbclid=IwAR2QLj4RZDlsHfUQnZX9pEASjwZIbUD77dGhI0mQNKyps9lJYT3XxnLYVd4

https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Davide_Dormino_-_Anything_to_say-2.jpg
The traveling art installation Anything to Say? by Davide Dormino in Berlin on May Day 2015. Bronze sculptures of Julian Assange, Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning stand on chairs; a fourth, empty, chair invites individuals “to stand up instead of sitting like the others.” (CC BY-SA 4.0, Wikimedia Commons)

"Our image of a hero has two aspects. The first consists of generic, stereotypical traits: bravery, determination in the face of adversity, achievement against heavy odds — the kind of person who saves the day.

The second aspect is more culturally specific, describing and contextualizing the circumstances of bravery and determination, and the nature of achievement in terms that are narrowly defined. In other words, cultural descriptions of bravery are most often expressed in terms compatible with the social and political conditions of the hero’s society.

Heroes are ubiquitous. For instance, there are American heroes, Russian heroes, Israeli heroes, Arab heroes, Ukrainian heroes, and so on. Where does good and bad come into it? Well, that too becomes a cultural judgment. Below are two examples of “heroes.” I will leave it to the reader to decide who is good and who is bad.

Albright —From Outside the Establishment

Madeleine Albright was the first woman to serve as American secretary of state (1997-2001). She served in this capacity under President Bill Clinton during his second term.

As such, she must be seen as a loyal promoter of her president’s foreign policy — a policy she may have helped create — regardless of any moral or ethical considerations. In other words, she is a “company” point person.

Whether this requires bravery is questionable. As we will see, it will require a persistence toward a single end defined in societal or national terms. This does indicate determination and achievement in the face of an alleged foe.When Madeleine Albright died in 2022, the following “achievements” were critically cited in the obituaries written by those outside the establishment and thus critical of Albright:

(1) Russia was “her obsession” and this led to her being the U.S. government’s point person on the expansion of NATO eastward into what had been the Soviet sphere of influence. This was done in violation of guarantees given to Russia in 1989 that NATO would not go further than the border of the newly united Germany — an act that helped prepare the ground for the present war in Ukraine.

(2) In 1997-1998, acting as secretary of state, she threatened Iraq with aerial bombardment if its government did not allow for weapons inspections at designated sites. The Iraqis eventually complied but got bombed anyway.

(3) She also made sure draconian sanctions were applied (including banning many medicines) to Iraq for an extended period of time. The result was the death of hundreds of thousands of civilians, including 500,000 Iraqi children. When asked by the journalist Lesley Stahl on the TV show 60 Minutes whether the draconian sanctions were worth the price of the deaths of approximately a half-million Iraqi children, she replied, “we think this was a very hard choice, but the price—we think the price is worth it.”

This led one critic of the U.S. government to judge Albright’s career as follows:

“It is the ultimate moral crime to target for misery, pain and death those least responsible for the offenses of their tyrannical rulers. Yet this is the very policy Madeleine Albright, made “Standard Operating Procedure for US diplomacy.”

Albright — From Inside the Establishment

From inside the establishment, that is, from inside the U.S. government and foreign policy establishment as well as an allied media, she was lauded as a dedicated, talented and energetic leader.

One member of the House of Representatives said upon her death,

“Our nation lost a hero today. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was the face of US foreign policy throughout some of the most difficult times for our nation and the world. … She brought nations together to expand NATO and defend the very pillars of democracy across the world. … She taught us that we can solve some of the world’s most difficult issues by bringing people together and having tough, uncomfortable conversations.”

According to the eulogistic obituary published by The New York Times,

“Her performance as secretary of state won high marks from career diplomats abroad and ordinary Americans at home. Admirers said she had a star quality, radiating practicality, versatility and a refreshingly cosmopolitan flair.”

What can we conclude from these contrasting views? We quickly come to realize that inside the establishment one rarely, if ever, hears any reference to such things as the human cost of a policy, the end of which is defined in terms of national interest. In the case of Madelene Albright, national interest trumped human interest. Still, she was held a hero nonetheless.

Assange & Manning

Julian Assange is an Australian computer specialist who founded WikiLeaks in 2006. It is a website dedicated to providing “primary source materials” to journalists and the public alike.

WikiLeaks eventually released “thousands of internal or classified documents from an assortment of government and business entities.” The site raised immediate hostility from many governments and corporations, which decried the “lack of ethics” of Assange and his fellows — who were exposing the often unethical, and sometimes murderous, behavior of those now attacking the website.

Bradley (aka Chelsea) Manning was an Army intelligence specialist assigned to a base near Baghdad during the Iraq War. Manning was suffering from a gender identity crisis. He also had serious second thoughts about the Iraq War.

Eventually, his growing opposition to the war led him to secretly send Assange “750,000 classified, or unclassified but sensitive, military and diplomatic documents.” Manning was later exposed and arrested, court-martialed and eventually had his sentence commuted by President Barack Obama.

From Inside the Establishment

As the writer and therapist Steven Berglas observes,

“for as long as there have been moral canaries in our societal coal mines they have been denigrated for being as corrupt, or more so, than the miscreants they attack.”

Assange and Manning face just such charges.

The complaints were, if you will, weaponized in 2010 after

WikiLeaks released “half a million documents” relating to U.S. actions in Iraq and Afghanistan, obtained from the then young, disillusioned Army intelligence analyst Manning.
This was followed by another release of about a quarter-million U.S. diplomatic cables, many of which were classified.
Assange was now deemed “a terrorist” by the government terrorists he had exposed. Subsequently, these actions were deemed “a threat to U.S. national security” by the U.S. government.As a result, Manning was jailed and suffered court-martial while Assange, now living in England, has been fighting extradition to the U.S. for years.

From inside the establishment both Assange and Manning are criminals. Both exposed secrets of governments and it is an established principle that states cannot run without secrets. This is partially because all states sometimes act in criminal ways. To expose these episodes is deemed more criminal than criminal acts of the states. Why so? Because governments say so and design their laws accordingly.

This rather arbitrary position taken by governments has been sold to the citizenry as necessary for the security of their state, but as we see, the consequences of WikiLeaks’mass release of classified documents has not been shown to have endangered the nation in any obvious way. Nonetheless, Assange and Manning are deemed criminals for setting a precedent that threatens other potential criminals employed by state and business.

From Outside the Establishment Outside the establishment the view is 180 degrees in the other direction. Again, to quote Steven Berglas

“whistleblowers are rare, courageous birds that should be considered national treasures not disgraces.… It is clear that most snitches have more integrity–-and are infinitely more altruistic-than their government or corporate counterparts.”

For instance, according to journalist Glenn Greenwald, Manning is “a consummate hero, and deserves a medal and our collective gratitude, not decades in prison.”

At court-martial, Manning stated that the leaked material to WikiLeaks was intended to

“spark a domestic debate of the role of the military and foreign policy in general … and cause society to reevaluate the need and even desire to engage in counterterrorism and counterinsurgency operations that ignore their effect on people who live in that environment every day.”

A heroic act, but also perhaps a naive one.

The Issue of EthicsGovernmental leaders and their aides often reserve for themselves the right to do illegal things such as

(a) using sanctions that undermine opposition governments while ignoring the negative consequences on the wellbeing of civilian populations;

(b) aiding and abetting coups that overthrow democratic and undemocratic governments alike, depending on how, in each case, Washington sees their economic and military stance; and

(c) carrying out of illegal actions such as assassination, torture, and illegal imprisonment. All of this is immoral and unethical while being deemed necessary within the context of national interest.

Nonetheless the common citizen, who lives within what we shall call a propaganda bubble spun by his/her own government and its cooperating mainstream media, has a hard time understanding events except in propaganda designed terms.

Most will pay no attention at all to the fate of whistleblowers, who speak in opposition to the propaganda, because their actions do not touch their lives, which are locally focused. For the small number who find that there is something not quite right about negative media reports of whistleblower revelation, there is often a sense of helplessness and inertia that causes their momentary uneasiness to go nowhere.

The unfortunate truth is that this phenomenon of mass indifference to what the government does in the name of national interest and security, backed up by seemingly blind support of the media, has become one of the pillars of societal stability.

That does not mean that challenges such as those launched by Assange and Manning are not worth the effort. They might lead to reforms (the Watergate scandal and its consequences comes to mind), but under ordinary circumstances the status quo will carry on.

So, who are the heroes? Is it those who promote state policies which, regardless of their immorality, allegedly sustain state prestige, security and stability? Or is it those who shine a momentary light into dark places and reveal the immorality of state behavior — often at the cost of the destruction of their careers and reputations? You choose.

Lawrence Davidson is professor of history emeritus at West Chester University in Pennsylvania. He has been publishing his analyses of topics in U.S. domestic and foreign policy, international and humanitarian law and Israel/Zionist practices and policies since 2010.

This article is from the author’s site, TothePointAnalysis.com. "

[onawah]

The Latest in Assange Case
May 17, 2022
https://consortiumnews.com/2022/05/17/watch-cn-live-at-home-office-protest-for-assange-interview-with-wikileaks-editor-in-chief/?fbclid=IwAR1920tlHDfODHtHMCWEL95vjVlr6x-4fvOzWUIkfYAontqN_g1iCjRwqhg

"Consortium News is in London as the home secretary decides whether to extradite Julian Assange. Watch Stella Assange’s address at the Home Office plus a CN Live! interview with Kristinn Hrafnsson.

Stella Assange spoke to about 300 protestors on Tuesday outside the Home Office in London, where Home Secretary Priti Patel will decide by May 31 whether to extradite imprisoned WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange, to the United States. He faces up to 175 years in prison for revealing America’s war crimes and other dirty secrets. On Tuesday, Assange’s lawyers made their final submissions to Patel. Following Stella Assange’s address, CN Live! spoke for 22 minutes with WikiLeaks Editor-in-Chief Kristinn Hrafnsson. Interview and photos by Joe Lauria. Videos by Cathy Vogan. "

md9aBUZ0Q1Q

_BCPYY7eGWc

[Michel Leclerc]

Juridical rationality is perhaps one degree less estranged from Life and wisdom than technological rationality but it is estranged nevertheless, as rationality is when it is not integrated into Life itself. Those who defend wisdom ("the right thing") will not forget that and if and when they prevail the absence of wisdom of the technicians of "the rule of law" will find little mercy with the wise judges. Karma will be meted out, and nothing prevents those judges from being its instruments in the "here and now". The Sin against Life is the same as the Sin against the Holy Ghost. It is unforgivable.

I hope – pray – Ms Patel will remember the values of her ancestors’ civilisation and act wisely.

[onawah]

Caitlin Johnstone: They Fear Information, Not Disinformation
May 23, 2022
by Caitlin Johnstone
https://consortiumnews.com/2022/05/23/caitlin-johnstone-they-fear-information-not-disinformation/?fbclid=IwAR1zuXDaFWaCxQJqoJg2e32HtY-uJ5VLrT396IQAU3eOk8VPemvUL9dGDtU
https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Screen-Shot-2022-05-23-at-4.12.15-PM.png

"All the safeguards being setting up now to manipulate information online are not there to eliminate lies, they’re there to eliminate truth.
We’re in the final countdown to British Home Secretary Priti Patel’s decision on the fate of Julian Assange, with the WikiLeaks founder’s extradition to the United States due to be approved or rejected by the end of the month. Joe Lauria has an article out with Consortium News on the various pressures that Patel is facing from both sides of this history-making issue at this crucial time.

And I can’t stop thinking, as this situation comes to a boil, about how absurd it is that the U.S. empire is working to set a precedent that essentially outlaws information-sharing that the U.S. doesn’t like at the same time Western news media are full of hand-wringing headlines about the dangerous threat of “disinformation.”

Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR) has an article “‘Disinformation’ Label Serves to Marginalize Crucial Ukraine Facts” about the way the mass media have been spinning that label to mean not merely the knowing distribution of false information but also of information that is true but inconvenient to imperial narrative-weaving.

“In defense of the U.S. narrative, corporate media have increasingly taken to branding realities inconvenient to U.S. information goals as ‘disinformation’ spread by Russia or its proxies,” writes FAIR’s Luca Goldmansour.



FAIR
@FAIRmediawatch
'Disinformation' Label Serves to Marginalize Crucial Ukraine Facts
fair.org
https://pbs.twimg.com/card_img/1527100271507165185/DDuZQLEZ?format=png&name=small
‘Disinformation’ Label Serves to Marginalize Crucial Ukraine Facts
Corporate media have increasingly taken to branding realities inconvenient to US information goals as “disinformation” spread by Russia.
5:14 PM · May 18, 2022·FAIRmediawatch

Online platforms have been ramping up their censorship protocols under the banner of fighting disinformation and misinformation. Those escalations always align with narrative control agendas of the U.S.-centralized empire.

Just the other day we learned that Twitter has a new policy which expands its censorship practices to fight “misinformation” about wars and other crises, and the Ukraine war (surprise surprise) will be the first such situation about which it will be enforcing these new censorship policies.Then there’s the recent controversy over the Department of Homeland Security’s “Disinformation Governance Board,” a mysterious institution ostensibly designed to protect the American people from wrongthink coming from Russia and elsewhere.

The board’s operations (whatever they were) have been “paused” pending a review which will be led by Michael Chertoff, a virulent swamp monster and torture advocate. Its operations will likely be resumed in one form or another, probably under the leadership of someone with a low profile who doesn’t sing show tunes about disinformation.



Nina Jankowicz 🇺🇦🇺🇸
@wiczipedia
You can just call me the Mary Poppins of disinformation 💁🏻‍♀️
1362153807879303171
3M views
0:39 / 0:45
Quote Tweet
Nina Jankowicz 🇺🇦🇺🇸
@wiczipedia
· Feb 17, 2021
I had two on-camera interviews today and still have a face full of makeup; what should I make a TikTok about?

And this all comes out after U.S. officials straight up told the press that the Biden administration has been deliberately sowing disinformation to the public using the mainstream press in order to win an infowar against the Kremlin. They’ve literally just been circulating completely baseless stories about Russia and Ukraine, but nobody seems to be calling for the social media accounts of Biden administration officials to be banned.



Consortium News
@Consortiumnews
Pressure Mounts on Patel Over Assange Decision
consortiumnews.com
Pressure Mounts on Patel Over Assange Decision
https://pbs.twimg.com/card_img/1528525585328259072/SMB35ViU?format=jpg&name=small
The British home secretary is under pressure as she's about to decide whether to extradite WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange. By Joe Lauria Special to Consortium News At some point during the next...
7:00 PM · May 22, 2022·Twitter Web App

You see so many discrepancies between what the oligarchic empire says and what it actually does regarding the issue of disinformation because the empire has no problem with disinformation. The empire that is built on propaganda and lies has no problem with propaganda and lies. It has a problem with the truth.

They’re not worried about disinformation, they’re worried about information. They’re worried about journalists using the unprecedented information-sharing power of the internet to reveal inconvenient facts about the largest and most murderous power structure on earth. They’re worried about people finding out that they’ve been lied to their entire lives about their world, their nation and their government. They’re worried about people using their newly connected minds to decide together that they don’t much like the status quo as it’s been laid out for them, and deciding to build a new one.

All the safeguards they’re setting up now to manipulate the flow of information online are not there to eliminate lies, they’re there to eliminate truth. These people have a vested interest in keeping things dark and confused, and we the ordinary people of the world have a vested interest in shining a big inconvenient spotlight on everything. The elite agenda to keep things endarkened is at direct odds with the people’s agenda to get things enlightened.

We are not being protected by a compassionate alliance of corporations and governments who only want us to know the truth. We are being manipulated and oppressed by an oligarchic empire that wants us to believe lies. That’s why they’re locking up Assange, that’s why they’re censoring the internet, that’s why they’re filling our minds with propaganda and that’s why we can’t let them win."

This article is from CaitlinJohnstone.com and re-published with permission.

[onawah]

WATCH: CN Live! — Assange: Remembering the Embassy
May 31, 2022
https://consortiumnews.com/2022/05/31/watch-cn-live-assange-remembering-the-embassy/?fbclid=IwAR2MRu4f-llNtOYRj35omoNEfxOhjUUPwcPuLF7ueLG8BS4SmwRASH-zMB8
NhiFCCdhBgM

"CN Live! is in London and looks back at the seven years that the WikiLeaks publisher was exiled in the Ecuador Embassy, with Fidel Narváez and Emmy Butlin.On June 19, 2012 Julian Assange, fearing extradition to the United States for publishing some of the biggest news of the day, sought refuge in the Embassy of Ecuador in London. Ten years later, he sits in a maximum security prison in London as the United States is still trying to put the journalist on trial for exposing its dirtiest secrets.

Some of its biggest scoops came when WikiLeaks‘ de facto headquarters were confined to two small rooms on the first floor of a redbrick building in Knightsbridge.

As we approach the 10th anniversary of Assange entering the embassy, CN Live! looks back on those important years. CN Editor Joe Lauria speaks with Fidel Narváez, who was consul at the Embassy until he was fired in 2018 for helping Assange; and Emmy Butlin, who stood outside the Embassy protesting Assange’s treatment until April 11, 2019, the day he was dragged out by London police. "

[Michel Leclerc]

(...)

We are not being protected by a compassionate alliance of corporations and governments who only want us to know the truth. We are being manipulated and oppressed by an oligarchic empire that wants us to believe lies. That’s why they’re locking up Assange, that’s why they’re censoring the internet, that’s why they’re filling our minds with propaganda and that’s why we can’t let them win."

(...).

Actually, they do not care whether we believe them or not. They themselves do not believe them.

What they want us to do is to say we believe them, lying ourselves. They want us to lie the Lie, to live the Lie.

Be the Lie we lie to you! Lie the Lie we want you to be!

[onawah]

John 8:44
"You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies."





(...)

We are not being protected by a compassionate alliance of corporations and governments who only want us to know the truth. We are being manipulated and oppressed by an oligarchic empire that wants us to believe lies. That’s why they’re locking up Assange, that’s why they’re censoring the internet, that’s why they’re filling our minds with propaganda and that’s why we can’t let them win."

(...).

Actually, they do not care whether we believe them or not. They themselves do not believe them.

What they want us to do is to say we believe them, lying ourselves. They want us to lie the Lie, to live the Lie.

Be the Lie we lie to you! Lie the Lie we want you to be!

[onawah]

The Power of Lies
June 2, 2022
By Craig Murray
CraigMurray.org.uk
https://consortiumnews.com/2022/06/02/craig-murray-the-power-of-lies/?fbclid=IwAR3l4ChUQpL9oXfPb9XU-HjjJkHB49c4xW8FpZytDVJq0e1m3Da9vBpwskI

"The comments on Peter Oborne’s excellent article on Julian Assange in The Guardian on May 20 are a damning indictment of the media’s ability to instill near universal acceptance of “facts” which are easily proven lies.

The Guardian chose a comment full of these entirely untrue assertions as its “Guardian pick” to head the section:

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/wp/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Screenshot-1754.png

If you look through all the comments, they repeat again and again that Wikileaks published un-redacted documents, including names of U.S. agents, which put lives at risk. The entire basis of most of the comments is simply untrue – and none of the readers seems to have any information to contradict them.

Julian Assange has never said that governments should have no secrets. That would be a ridiculous position and clearly some information held by government is rightly confidential. He has said that governments should be very much more open to the public, and that most government secrecy is unjustified.

Nor has Wikileaks ever dumped data unread and unedited onto the internet. The commenter is correct to say that Wikileaks has shared editing responsibilities with organisations including The Guardian and The New York Times. This is precisely because the material needs to be edited to avoid revealing inappropriate material, and to make journalistic decisions on what to write stories about.

The notion that Assange was “lazy” because he did not read all the material and do all the editing himself is self-evidently ridiculous. The U.S. diplomatic cables and Iraq and Afghan war logs alone constituted over 600,000 documents. It was simply impossible for Assange to read it all personally. He was the editor of Wikileaks. This is tantamount to criticising Katherine Viner for not writing every single article in The Guardian personally.

The extradition hearing of Julian Assange heard numerous highly professional and respected journalists testify to the rigorous nature of Wikileaks’ editing process to remove names. Here is one extract from my reporting of the trial:

“John Goetz was the first witness this morning. Senior Investigations Editor at NDR since 2011, he was at Der Spiegel from 2007-11. He had published a series of articles on German involvement in the Afghan War, including one on a bombing raid on Kunduz which massacred civilians, for which he had won Germany’s highest journalism award. In June 2010 he went to London to meet with Wikileaks and the Guardian to work on the Afghan War Logs.

In a series of meetings in ‘the bunker’ at the Guardian with the NYT and the other major media partners, the partnership was formed whereby all would pool effort in researching the Afghan War Logs but each party would choose and publish his own stories. This cooperative venture between five major news organisations – normally rivals – was unique at the time.

Goetz had been struck by what seemed to him Julian Assange’s obsession with the security of the material. He insisted everything was encrypted and strict protocols were in place for handling the material. This had been new territory for the journalists. The New York Times was tasked with liaison with the White House, the Department of Defence and State Department on questions of handling the material.

Asked by Mark Summers to characterise the Afghan War Logs, Goetz said that they were fascinating first-hand material giving low level reports on actual operations. This was eye witness material which sometimes lacked the larger view. There was abundant first-hand evidence of war crimes. He had worked with Nick Davies of the Guardian on the Task Force 373 story.

Julian Assange had been most concerned to find the names in the papers. He spent a lot of time working out technical ways to identify names in the tens of thousands of documents. Mark Summers asked f he had been looking for the names for the purpose of redaction, and Goetz confirmed it was for redaction. He had interviewed Assange on the harm minimisation programme of the operation.

On behalf of the group Eric Schmitt of the NYT had been speaking to the White House and he had sent an email identifying 15,000 documents the White House did not want published to prevent harm to individuals or to American interests. It was agreed not to publish these documents and they were not published. Summers asked Goetz if he was aware of any names that slipped through, and he replied not.

Goetz was not so involved for family reasons when the consortium went through the same process with the Iraq war logs. But he knew that when a large number of these were released in the USA under a FOIA request, it was seen that Wikileaks had redacted those they released more heavily than the Department of Defense did. Goetz recalled an email from David Leigh of the Guardian stating that publication of some stories was delayed because of the amount of time Wikileaks were devoting to the redaction process to get rid of the ‘bad stuff’”.

Further very detailed evidence on this point was given by Professor John Sloboda, by Nicky Hager and by Professor Christian Grothoff.

Yet there is no public awareness that this careful editing and redaction process took place at all. That is plain from those comments under The Guardian article. This is because people are simply regurgitating the propaganda that the media has given them.

My blog was effectively the only source for detailed reporting of the Assange hearings, which were almost ignored by the mainstream media. [Consortium News had access to the courtroom every day and filed daily written and video reports.]

This was deliberate choice – the information was freely available to the mainstream media. This is what the Reuters News Agency, to which they all subscribe, produced on Dr Goetz’s evidence, for example:

“WikiLeaks’ Assange was careful to protect informants, court hears
By Reuters Staff

LONDON, Sept 16 (Reuters) – WikiLeaks’ founder Julian Assange was careful to ensure that the names of informants in hundreds of thousands of leaked secret U.S. government documents were never published, his London extradition hearing was told on Wednesday.

Australian-born Assange, 49, is fighting against being sent to the United States, where he is charged with conspiring to hack government computers and violating an espionage law over the release of confidential cables by WikiLeaks in 2010-2011.

A lawyer for the United States told the court last week that it was requesting Assange’s extradition over the publication of informants’ names, and not for handling leaked documents.

John Goetz, an investigative reporter who worked for Germany’s Spiegel magazine on the first publication of the documents, said the U.S. State Department had been involved in a conference call suggesting redactions, and WikiLeaks had agreed to hold back about 15,000 documents for publication.

“There was sensitivity and it was one of the things that was talked about all the time,” Goetz told the court. Assange was concerned that the media should take measures “so no one would be harmed”, he said.

Goetz said WikiLeaks was later frustrated when a password that allowed access to the full, un-redacted material was published in a book by Guardian reporters in February 2011.

Assange made international headlines in 2010 when WikiLeaks published a U.S. military video showing a 2007 attack by Apache helicopters in Baghdad that killed a dozen people, including two Reuters news staff.”

I can find no evidence that any mainstream media used this report from Reuters, or indeed any of Reuters’ daily news feed that covered the major points for the defence. The BBC managed to report prominently the false claim that has entered public consciousness:

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/wp/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Screenshot-1756.png

But could not find space for any of the witnesses who contradicted this claim.

It is of course a very delicate subject for The Guardian, whose journalists David Leigh and Luke Harding were in fact responsible for the dumping of un-redacted material on the net. The court heard evidence of this from numerous witnesses, of whom Professor Christian Grothoff gave the most detail:

“Summers then asked Professor Grothoff whether David Leigh released the password. Grothoff replied that yes, Luke Harding and David Leigh had revealed the encryption key in their book on Wikileaks published February 2011. They had used it as a chapter heading, and the text explicitly set out what it was. The copies of the encrypted file on some mirrors were useless until David Leigh posted that key.
Summers So once David Leigh released the encryption key, was it in Wikileaks’ power to take down the mirrors?
Grothoff No.
Summers Could they change the encryption key on those copies?
Grothoff No.
Summers Was there anything they could do?
Grothoff Nothing but distract and delay.

Grothoff continued to explain that on 25 August 2011 the magazine Der Freitag had published the story explaining what had happened. It did not itself give out the password or location of the cache, but it made plain to people that it could be done, particularly to those who had already identified either the key or a copy of the file. The next link in the chain of events was that nigelparry.com published a blog article which identified the location of a copy of the encrypted file. With the key being in David Leigh’s book, the material was now effectively out. This resulted within hours in the creation of torrents and then publication of the full archive, unencrypted and unredacted, on Cryptome.org.

Summers asked whether Cryptome was a minor website. Grothoff replied not at all, it was a long established platform for leaked or confidential material and was especially used by journalists.”

It is telling that in The Guardian itself, scores of commenters on Oborne’s article reference the release of un-redacted files, but nobody seems to know that it was The Guardian that was actually responsible, or rather, massively irresponsible. The gulf between public perception and the truth is deeply troubling.

In a related matter, the editorial board of The Wall Street Journal has published an article with that attribution about the “Russiagate” hoax around the 2016 election, which is stunning:

“The Russia-Trump narrative that Clinton sanctioned did enormous harm to the country. It disgraced the FBI, humiliated the press, and sent the country on a three year investigation to nowhere. Putin never came close to doing as much disinformation damage.”

The problem is The Wall Street Journal has one thing wrong. The press is not humiliated – like Boris Johnson, it is entirely brazen and has no capacity for humiliation. The press has not been found out, because most of the country still believes the lies they were told and have not seen corrected.

Hillary’s 2016 campaign manager has stated “Russiagate” was a lie knowingly planted by Hillary. Mueller could find no firm evidence of Russian hacking, and the CEO of CrowdStrike, the Clinton appointed firm who made the original claim, testified to congress there was “no hard evidence”.

Neither the FBI nor Mueller even inspected the DNC servers. The Christopher Steele “peegate” dossier has fallen apart and is now a thing of ridicule. Roger Stone was jailed for false evidence to the FBI – which consisted of him inventing a Wikileaks-Trump link for purposes of self-aggrandisement. The Manafort/Assange story was the most egregious press fabrication since the Zinoviev letter.

But the media who pushed all these false narratives have never backed away from them.

My favourite example ever of almost entirely unreported news was the dismissal by New York federal judge John Koeltl of the Democratic National Committee’s lawsuit against Trump and the state of Russia over the 2016 elections. Judge Koeltl ruled that nothing whatsoever had been produced which met the bar of evidence.

There is plainly a crisis in western neo-liberal societies. The wealth gap between rich and poor has become so extreme as to be insupportable, and even in the wealthiest countries in the world, people in employment are struggling to achieve decent accommodation, heating and food. The billionaire-controlled state and media systems contrived to neuter both Jeremy Corbyn and Bernie Sanders, who sought to restore some social justice.

In consequence, inevitable public discontent has been channelled into populist courses – Brexit, Trump, Johnson – which themselves alarm the establishment, though less than Sanders and Corbyn did. There is a space for comforting fiction to explain the social shock.

Therefore the populist wave is explained, not as a result of popular discontent at the extreme economic imbalance of modern neo-liberalism, but by the Deus Ex Machina of hacking, or Cambridge Analytica, all of which is then itself sourced back to the designated devil Putin.

Modern society is not really much more rational than the Middle Ages. Myth is still extremely potent. Only the means of myth dissemination are more sophisticated.

Craig Murray is an author, broadcaster and human rights activist. He was British ambassador to Uzbekistan from August 2002 to October 2004 and rector of the University of Dundee from 2007 to 2010. His coverage is entirely dependent on reader support. Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.

This article is from CraigMurray.org.uk.

The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of Consortium News."

[Kryztian]

Spanish Court Demands Pompeo Testify on Apparent Plot to Kill Assange
EXPLIQUE, POR FAVOR
Rachel Olding - Breaking News Editor - Published Jun. 03, 2022 9:51AM ET
https://www.thedailybeast.com/spanish-court-demands-mike-pompeo-testify-on-apparent-plot-to-kidnap-or-kill-wikileaks-founder-julian-assange

Donald Trump’s former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has been ordered to appear in a Spanish court to explain a possible U.S. government plot to kidnap and assassinate WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, ABC Spain reports, citing legal sources close to the case. Yahoo News broke the news of the alleged 2017 plot last September, reporting that Trump’s then-CIA Director Pompeo wanted revenge after WikiLeaks published a massive trove of sensitive CIA hacking tools. “They were seeing blood,” an ex- Trump national security official told Yahoo. Separately, Spain’s National Court has been probing a Spanish security firm that may have spied on Assange for the CIA while providing security for the Ecuadorean Embassy in London. National High Court Judge Santiago Pedraz agreed to summon Pompeo and former U.S. counterintelligence official William Evanina as witnesses to explain whether a plot was drawn up. They must appear in June and can testify via videoconference. Pompeo has not yet commented on the ruling.

[onawah]

WATCH: CN Live! — ‘Doctors’ Orders: Don’t Extradite Assange’
June 13, 2022 6PM CST
https://consortiumnews.com/2022/06/13/watch-cn-live-doctors-orders-dont-extradite-assange/?fbclid=IwAR3O0A0sYPUHIcqvCUUPOwmeHIu5rWEWxDGOiAqpYFarZMPgnOgEWPOul2Q

"Jill Stein, Bill Hogan, Sue Wareham & Mary Kostakidis join CN Live! tonight 7pm EDT on Doctors for Assange’s letter telling Priti Patel it is medically and unethically “unacceptable” to extradite Julian Assange to the U.S.
More than 300 doctors have written to U.K. Home Secretary Priti Patel to remind her that Julian Assange‘s stroke has not been discussed in the courts and that the U.S. assurances, based on a mental health condition only, are obsolete.

Guests: Dr. Jill Stein, Prof. Bill Hogan, Dr. Sue Wareham & Mary Kostakidis.
Time: Monday June 13 at 7pm EDT / Tuesday June 14 12am BST / 9am AEST
Hosts: Elizabeth Vos, Joe Lauria and Cathy Vogan.
Producer: Cathy Vogan "

YSej_j71C9s