AuthorTopic: Golden Oxen's Newz Channel  (Read 184212 times)

Offline AJ

  • Bussing Staff
  • **
  • Posts: 227
    • View Profile
Re: Golden Oxen's Newz Channel
« Reply #1575 on: April 11, 2019, 05:08:37 AM »
Indeed, a terrible day. He might have helped throw the election to Trump BUT that's always the price of true journalism (letting the truth out on Hilary and crew). It appears that the U.S. is out for blood - both Chelsea Manning and Assange in prison. One can hope that Sweden renews it's case against Assange and extradicts him there. If he sets foot on U.S. soil they will ask for the death penalty for espionage. Nothing can stop the Empire from going after it's critics.
AJ :'(
Nullis in Verba

Offline g

  • Golden Oxen
  • Contrarian
  • Master Chef
  • *
  • Posts: 12280
    • View Profile

In light of the horrible news that Julian Assange was arrested by British police inside the Ecuadorian embassy this morning, what is there to say that we haven’t already said?   :( :-[

We originally published this essay on May 16 2018.

Julian Assange appears to be painfully close to being unceremoniously thrown out of the Ecuadorian embassy in London. If that happens, the consequences for journalism, for freedom of speech, and for press freedom, will resound around the world for a very long time. It is very unwise for anyone who values truth and freedom to underestimate the repercussions of this.

In essence, Assange is not different from any journalist working for a major paper or news channel. The difference is he published what they will not because they want to stay in power. The Washington Post today would never do an investigation such as Watergate, and that’s where WikiLeaks came in.

It filled a void left by the media that betrayed their own history and their own field. Betrayed the countless journalists throughout history, and today, who risked their lives and limbs, and far too often lost them, to tell the truth about what powers that be do when they think nobody’s looking or listening.

Julian is not wanted because he’s a spy, or even because he published a number of documents whose publication was inconvenient for certain people. He is wanted because he is so damn smart, which makes him very good and terribly effective at what he does. He’s on a most wanted list not for what he’s already published, but for what he might yet publish in the future.

He built up WikiLeaks into an organization that acquired the ultimate trust of many people who had access to documents they felt should be made public. They knew he would never betray their trust. WikiLeaks has to date never published any documents that were later found out to be false. It never gave up a source. No documents were ever changed or manipulated for purposes other than protecting sources and other individuals.

Julian Assange built an ’empire’ based on trust. To do that he knew he could never lie. Even the smallest lie would break what he had spent so much time and effort to construct. He was a highly accomplished hacker from a very young age, which enabled him to build computer networks that nobody managed to hack. He knew how to make everything safe. And keep it that way.

Since authorities were never able to get their hands on WikiLeaks, its sources, or its leader, a giant smear campaign was started around rape charges in Sweden (the country and all its citizens carry a heavy blame for what happened) and connections to America’s favorite enemy, Russia. The rape charges were never substantiated, Julian was never even interrogated by any Swedish law enforcement personnel, but that is no surprise.

It was clear from the get-go what was happening. First of all, for Assange himself. And if there’s one thing you could say he’s done wrong, it’s that he didn’t see the full impact from the campaign against him, sooner. But if you have the world’s largest and most powerful intelligence services against you, and they manage to find both individuals and media organizations willing to spread blatant lies about you, chances are you will not last forever.

If and when you have such forces running against you, you need protection. From politicians and from -fellow- media. Assange didn’t get that, or not nearly enough. Ecuador offered him protection, but as soon as another president was elected, they turned against him. So have news organizations who were once all too eager to profit from material Assange managed to obtain from his sources.

That the Guardian today published not just one, not two, but three what can only be labeled as hit pieces on Julian Assange, should perhaps not surprise us; they fell out a long time ago. Still, the sheer amount of hollow innuendo and outright lies in the articles is astonishing. How dare you? Have you no shame, do you not care at all about your credibility? At least the Guardian makes painfully clear why WikiLeaks was needed.

No, Sweden didn’t “drop its investigation into alleged sexual offences because it was unable to question Assange”. The Swedes simply refused to interview him in the Ecuador embassy in London, the only place where he knew he was safe. They refused this for years. And when the rape charges had lost all credibility, Britain asked Sweden to not drop the charges, but keep the pressure on.

No, there is no proof of links from Assange to Russian hackers and/or to the Russian government. No, there is no proof that DNC computers were hacked by Russians to get to John Podesta’s emails. In fact there is no proof they were hacked at all. No, Ecuador didn’t get tired of Julian; their new president, Moreno, decided to sell him out “at the first pressure from the United States”. Just as his predecessor, Correa, said he would.

Julian Assange has been condemned by Sweden, Britain, the US and now Ecuador to solitary confinement with no access to daylight or to medical care. Without a trial, without a sentence, and on the basis of mere allegations, most of which have already turned out to be trumped up and false. This violates so many national and international laws it’s futile to try and count or name them.

It also condemns any and all subsequent truth tellers to the prospect of being treated in the same way that Julian is. Forget about courts, forget about justice. You’ll be on a wanted list. I still have a bit of hope left that Vladimir Putin will step in and save Assange from the gross injustice he’s been exposed to for far too many years. Putin gets 100 times the lies and innuendo Assange gets, but he has a powerful nation behind him. Assange, in the end, only has us.

What’s perhaps the saddest part of all this is that people like Chelsea Manning, Kim Dotcom, Edward Snowden and Julian Assange are among the smartest people our world has to offer. We should be cherishing the combination of intelligence, courage and integrity they display at their own risk and peril, but instead we let them be harassed by our governments because they unveil inconvenient truths about them.

And pretty soon there will be nobody left to tell these truths, or tell any truth at all. Dark days. By allowing the smartest and bravest amongst us, who are experts in new technologies, to be silenced, we are allowing these technologies to be used against us.

We’re not far removed from being extras in our own lives, with all significant decisions taken not by us, but for us. America’s Founding Fathers are turning in their graves as we speak. They would have understood the importance of protecting Julian Assange.

To say that we are all Julian Assange is not just a slogan.


 https://www.theautomaticearth.com/2019/04/i-am-still-julian-assange/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+theautomaticearth%2FOCyb+%28The+Automatic+Earth+3.0%29  :icon_study: :icon_study: :icon_study: :icon_study: :icon_study:

                                       

                                       

Offline Eddie

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 17502
    • View Profile
Re: Golden Oxen's Newz Channel
« Reply #1577 on: April 11, 2019, 12:21:30 PM »
Now we get a big show trial, I guess.

I am not optimistic for Mr. Assange. I expect he will get railroaded. We need the other Kunstler (Bill Kunstler) here, but he's dead. I wonder who will defend Assange.
What makes the desert beautiful is that somewhere it hides a well.

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 38029
    • View Profile
Re: Golden Oxen's Newz Channel
« Reply #1578 on: April 11, 2019, 12:29:17 PM »
Now we get a big show trial, I guess.

I am not optimistic for Mr. Assange. I expect he will get railroaded. We need the other Kunstler (Bill Kunstler) here, but he's dead. I wonder who will defend Assange.

I'm sure he'll get good representation.  Everybody from John Pilger to Democracy Now and all the rest of the Liberals are ready to back him up.

RE
Save As Many As You Can

Offline azozeo

  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 8635
    • View Profile
Re: Golden Oxen's Newz Channel
« Reply #1579 on: April 11, 2019, 12:55:37 PM »
MSM needed a poster child to pump up the volume on viewers. Mo' chevy & tampon commercial forthcoming  :icon_mrgreen:
I know exactly what you mean. Let me tell you why you’re here. You’re here because you know something. What you know you can’t explain, but you feel it. You’ve felt it your entire life, that there’s something wrong with the world.
You don’t know what it is but its there, like a splinter in your mind

Offline K-Dog

  • Global Moderator
  • Sous Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 3135
    • View Profile
    • K-Dog
Re: Golden Oxen's Newz Channel
« Reply #1580 on: April 11, 2019, 09:02:57 PM »
Now we get a big show trial, I guess.

I am not optimistic for Mr. Assange. I expect he will get railroaded. We need the other Kunstler (Bill Kunstler) here, but he's dead. I wonder who will defend Assange.

I'm sure he'll get good representation.  Everybody from John Pilger to Democracy Now and all the rest of the Liberals are ready to back him up.

RE

I'm going with Eddie on this one.  Look at what happened to 'Black Snake' Defendants.  The feds want you the feds get you.  Julian is old news and he isn't the flavor of the month.  Media has moved on.  They are going to put that 45 years in front of Julian and his lawyers will say this is the deal you get if you 'sign this' and this is your only chance. 

John Pilger is good for making a video of you after you are dead.  Lot of good that does you.
« Last Edit: April 11, 2019, 09:10:49 PM by K-Dog »
Under ideal conditions of temperature and pressure the organism will grow without limit.

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 38029
    • View Profile
Re: Golden Oxen's Newz Channel
« Reply #1581 on: April 12, 2019, 12:08:38 AM »
Now we get a big show trial, I guess.

I am not optimistic for Mr. Assange. I expect he will get railroaded. We need the other Kunstler (Bill Kunstler) here, but he's dead. I wonder who will defend Assange.

I'm sure he'll get good representation.  Everybody from John Pilger to Democracy Now and all the rest of the Liberals are ready to back him up.

RE

I'm going with Eddie on this one.  Look at what happened to 'Black Snake' Defendants.  The feds want you the feds get you.  Julian is old news and he isn't the flavor of the month.  Media has moved on.  They are going to put that 45 years in front of Julian and his lawyers will say this is the deal you get if you 'sign this' and this is your only chance. 

John Pilger is good for making a video of you after you are dead.  Lot of good that does you.

I didn't say it would stop him from being railroaded.  All I said was he will probably get as good a lawyer as there is for this type of thing.  The ACLU is also getting in the act, pitching out a condemnation yesterday.  Every Lefty organization out there is in Assange's corner.  Which of course guarantees his being Burnt at the Stake by the Righties who run the FSoA.

RE
Save As Many As You Can

Offline g

  • Golden Oxen
  • Contrarian
  • Master Chef
  • *
  • Posts: 12280
    • View Profile
Re: Golden Oxen's Newz Channel
« Reply #1582 on: April 12, 2019, 06:49:02 AM »
Now we get a big show trial, I guess.

I am not optimistic for Mr. Assange. I expect he will get railroaded. We need the other Kunstler (Bill Kunstler) here, but he's dead. I wonder who will defend Assange.

I'm sure he'll get good representation.  Everybody from John Pilger to Democracy Now and all the rest of the Liberals are ready to back him up.

RE

I'm going with Eddie on this one.  Look at what happened to 'Black Snake' Defendants.  The feds want you the feds get you.  Julian is old news and he isn't the flavor of the month.  Media has moved on.  They are going to put that 45 years in front of Julian and his lawyers will say this is the deal you get if you 'sign this' and this is your only chance. 

John Pilger is good for making a video of you after you are dead.  Lot of good that does you.

I didn't say it would stop him from being railroaded.  All I said was he will probably get as good a lawyer as there is for this type of thing.  The ACLU is also getting in the act, pitching out a condemnation yesterday.  Every Lefty organization out there is in Assange's corner.  Which of course guarantees his being Burnt at the Stake by the Righties who run the FSoA.

RE

Here are a few Righties that want to burn Julian at the stake.

What a shame the more prominent of the two gents wasn't given the opportunity to restore some integrity and dignity to the Office of President of the United States.  :'( :-[
 

                    US Henchmen Violently Arrest Assange! Show Trial To Follow.
                                         

                                           <a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/unp-1wNyIk4" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/unp-1wNyIk4</a>


                  RonPaulLibertyReport

 UK Metropolitan Police were allowed into the Ecuadorian Embassy today to violently arrest Wikileaks publisher Julian Assange, after the Ecuadorian government cancelled his asylum. He's already been convicted in the UK court this morning, but the real show trial awaits him after extradition to the US.



                                               


                                             



                                                                     

Offline Eddie

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 17502
    • View Profile
Re: Golden Oxen's Newz Channel
« Reply #1583 on: April 12, 2019, 07:35:57 AM »
Agree.

But political parties still run everything, and they are both unbelievably distorted and stupid.
What makes the desert beautiful is that somewhere it hides a well.

Offline g

  • Golden Oxen
  • Contrarian
  • Master Chef
  • *
  • Posts: 12280
    • View Profile
Is Julian Assange another Pentagon Papers case? - Alan Dershowitz
« Reply #1584 on: April 12, 2019, 08:38:22 AM »

Alan Dershowitz: Is Julian Assange another Pentagon Papers case?


Before WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange gained asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London in 2012, he and his British legal team asked me to fly to London to provide legal advice about United States law relating to espionage and press freedom. I cannot disclose what advice I gave them, but I can say that I believed then, and still believe now, that there is no constitutional difference between WikiLeaks and The New York Times.

If The New York Times, in 1971, could lawfully publish the Pentagon Papers, knowing that it included classified documents stolen by Rand Corporation military analyst Daniel Ellsberg from our government, then WikiLeaks was entitled, under the First Amendment, to publish classified material that Assange knew was stolen by former Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning from our government.

So if prosecutors were to charge Assange with espionage or any other crime for merely publishing the Manning material, this would be another Pentagon Papers case with the same likely outcome. Many people misunderstand the actual Supreme Court ruling in the 1971 case. It did not say that the newspapers that were planning to publish the Pentagon Papers could not be prosecuted if they published classified material. It only said they could not be restrained — that is, stopped in advance — from publishing them. They did publish, and they were not prosecuted.


The same result would probably follow if Assange were prosecuted for publishing classified material on WikiLeaks, though there is no guarantee that prosecutors might not try to distinguish the two cases on the grounds that The New York Times is a more responsible media outlet than WikiLeaks. But the First Amendment does not recognize degrees of responsibility. Indeed, when the First Amendment was written, our nation was plagued with irresponsible scandal sheets and broadsides. No one ever described political pamphleteers Thomas Paine or James Callender as responsible journalists.

It is likely, therefore, that a prosecution of Assange for merely publishing classified material would fail. Moreover, Great Britain might be unwilling to extradite Assange for such a “political” crime. That is why prosecutors have chosen to charge him with a different crime: conspiracy to help Manning break into a government computer to steal classified material. Such a crime, if proven beyond a reasonable doubt, would have a far weaker claim to constitutional protection. The courts have ruled that journalists may not break the law in an effort to obtain material whose disclosure would be protected by the First Amendment.

The problem with the current effort is that, while it might be legally strong, it seems on the face of the indictment to be factually weak. It alleges that “Assange encouraged Manning to provide information and records” from government agencies. It alleges that “Manning provided Assange with part of a password” and that “Assange requested more information.” But it goes on to say that although Assange had “been trying to crack the password,” he had “no luck so far.” Not the strongest set of facts!

The first question is whether a legal theory based on such inchoate facts will be sufficient for an extradition request to be granted. Even if it is, a grant of extradition could be appealed through several layers of courts, which would take a long time. The second question is what would happen to Assange while these appeals proceeded. If he were locked up, he might well waive extradition in the hope of winning his case in the United States. The third question is whether American prosecutors might amend the indictment to make it legally and factually stronger and, if they did, whether they would do so before or after he was extradited.

The last question is whether Manning will testify against Assange. It is not clear whether prosecutors really need her testimony or whether they can make the case based on emails and other documents, but her testimony surely would be helpful if she were to corroborate or expand on the paper trail. President Obama commuted her sentence in 2017 and she was freed from prison, but she was jailed last month for refusing to testify against Assange before a grand jury. She could be given immunity from further prosecution and compelled to testify. But if she refused, would they keep her in prison?

There are lots of moving parts to this process, all of which make its outcome and timetable unpredictable.

Alan M. Dershowitz is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law, Emeritus, at Harvard Law School. His new book is “The Case Against the Democratic House Impeaching Trump.” You can follow him on Twitter @AlanDersh.


ttps://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/438578-alan-dershowitz-is-julian-assange-another-pentagon-papers-case  :icon_study: :icon_study: :icon_study:

                                                                     

Offline Eddie

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 17502
    • View Profile
Re: Is Julian Assange another Pentagon Papers case? - Alan Dershowitz
« Reply #1585 on: April 12, 2019, 09:40:37 AM »

Alan Dershowitz: Is Julian Assange another Pentagon Papers case?


Before WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange gained asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London in 2012, he and his British legal team asked me to fly to London to provide legal advice about United States law relating to espionage and press freedom. I cannot disclose what advice I gave them, but I can say that I believed then, and still believe now, that there is no constitutional difference between WikiLeaks and The New York Times.

If The New York Times, in 1971, could lawfully publish the Pentagon Papers, knowing that it included classified documents stolen by Rand Corporation military analyst Daniel Ellsberg from our government, then WikiLeaks was entitled, under the First Amendment, to publish classified material that Assange knew was stolen by former Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning from our government.

So if prosecutors were to charge Assange with espionage or any other crime for merely publishing the Manning material, this would be another Pentagon Papers case with the same likely outcome. Many people misunderstand the actual Supreme Court ruling in the 1971 case. It did not say that the newspapers that were planning to publish the Pentagon Papers could not be prosecuted if they published classified material. It only said they could not be restrained — that is, stopped in advance — from publishing them. They did publish, and they were not prosecuted.


The same result would probably follow if Assange were prosecuted for publishing classified material on WikiLeaks, though there is no guarantee that prosecutors might not try to distinguish the two cases on the grounds that The New York Times is a more responsible media outlet than WikiLeaks. But the First Amendment does not recognize degrees of responsibility. Indeed, when the First Amendment was written, our nation was plagued with irresponsible scandal sheets and broadsides. No one ever described political pamphleteers Thomas Paine or James Callender as responsible journalists.

It is likely, therefore, that a prosecution of Assange for merely publishing classified material would fail. Moreover, Great Britain might be unwilling to extradite Assange for such a “political” crime. That is why prosecutors have chosen to charge him with a different crime: conspiracy to help Manning break into a government computer to steal classified material. Such a crime, if proven beyond a reasonable doubt, would have a far weaker claim to constitutional protection. The courts have ruled that journalists may not break the law in an effort to obtain material whose disclosure would be protected by the First Amendment.

The problem with the current effort is that, while it might be legally strong, it seems on the face of the indictment to be factually weak. It alleges that “Assange encouraged Manning to provide information and records” from government agencies. It alleges that “Manning provided Assange with part of a password” and that “Assange requested more information.” But it goes on to say that although Assange had “been trying to crack the password,” he had “no luck so far.” Not the strongest set of facts!

The first question is whether a legal theory based on such inchoate facts will be sufficient for an extradition request to be granted. Even if it is, a grant of extradition could be appealed through several layers of courts, which would take a long time. The second question is what would happen to Assange while these appeals proceeded. If he were locked up, he might well waive extradition in the hope of winning his case in the United States. The third question is whether American prosecutors might amend the indictment to make it legally and factually stronger and, if they did, whether they would do so before or after he was extradited.

The last question is whether Manning will testify against Assange. It is not clear whether prosecutors really need her testimony or whether they can make the case based on emails and other documents, but her testimony surely would be helpful if she were to corroborate or expand on the paper trail. President Obama commuted her sentence in 2017 and she was freed from prison, but she was jailed last month for refusing to testify against Assange before a grand jury. She could be given immunity from further prosecution and compelled to testify. But if she refused, would they keep her in prison?

There are lots of moving parts to this process, all of which make its outcome and timetable unpredictable.

Alan M. Dershowitz is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law, Emeritus, at Harvard Law School. His new book is “The Case Against the Democratic House Impeaching Trump.” You can follow him on Twitter @AlanDersh.


ttps://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/438578-alan-dershowitz-is-julian-assange-another-pentagon-papers-case  :icon_study: :icon_study: :icon_study:

                                                                     

Good piece.
What makes the desert beautiful is that somewhere it hides a well.

Offline g

  • Golden Oxen
  • Contrarian
  • Master Chef
  • *
  • Posts: 12280
    • View Profile

Julian Assange Suffered Severe Psychological and Physical Harm in Ecuadorian Embassy, Doctors Say

James Risenjim.risen@​firstlook.org


An American doctor who conducted several medical and mental health evaluations of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange inside Ecuador’s Embassy in London over the last two years says that she believes she was spied on and that the confidentiality of her doctor-patient relationship with Assange was violated.

Dr. Sondra Crosby, an associate professor of medicine and public health at Boston University and an expert on the physical and psychological impact of torture, has evaluated detainees held by the United States, including at its prison in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. She quietly began meeting with and evaluating Assange in 2017 inside the embassy where he had sought refuge.

During her last session with Assange on February 23, Crosby says that her confidential medical notes were removed when she briefly left the embassy to get food to bring back to Assange who, she wrote, “had not eaten.” The notes were taken from where she had been evaluating Assange and only later discovered in another space used by the embassy’s surveillance staff.

“Mr. Assange’s right to doctor-patient confidentiality was violated, and his confidential information had been breached,” Crosby wrote in a March 1 affidavit she gave to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. In her affidavit, she states that her medical notes were “presumably” read by embassy personnel.

She also says that her medical visit with Assange in February was monitored by two cameras, and that she had to speak with Assange “over the noise of a radio playing” to mask their conversations because of what he said were listening devices in the room.

In addition, when she returned to the embassy after getting food, she was questioned by embassy security staff and asked for a copy of her medical license, even though she had earlier provided her passport and explained the purpose of her visit.

“The hostile, nonconfidential, and intimidating environment was palpable,” she wrote in her affidavit.

In an April 8 letter sent to both U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet and Dunja Mijatovic, the commissioner for human rights for the Council of Europe, Crosby added that during her February visit to the embassy, the conditions of Assange’s confinement had significantly worsened since her first visit in 2017. Her letter noted the severe psychological toll Assange suffered in his prolonged and indefinite confinement.

“Mr. Assange’s situation [inside the embassy] differs from a typical prisoner in a conventional prison,” she wrote in her letter. “In fact, his position is worse than a conventional prison in many respects. His confinement is indefinite and uncertain, which increases chronic stress and its myriad of chronic physical and serious psychological risks, including suicide.”

During seven years of confinement, Assange had suffered “a number of serious deleterious effects of sunlight deprivation,” she wrote, including “neuropsychological impairment, weakened bones, decreased immune function, and increased risk for cardiovascular disease and cancer.” He also displayed physical and psychological symptoms as a result of “prolonged social isolation and sensory deprivation.”

“I believe the psychological, physical, and social [aftereffects] will be long-lasting and severe,” Crosby wrote.

Assange was expelled from the Ecuadorian Embassy and arrested by British authorities on April 11, three days after her letter was sent to the U.N. and the Council of Europe. He is now in prison in Britain on charges of jumping bail, but also faces an indictment in the United States on a hacking charge in connection with the 2010 publication of classified U.S. documents obtained from former Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning. Assange has been charged in the U.S. with trying to help Manning crack a government password; he also faces the possibility of a renewed investigation by Sweden into sexual assault charges. His lawyers have vowed to fight his extradition.

Assange sought refuge in Ecuador’s Embassy in 2012, when Sweden was seeking his extradition in the sexual assault case, and remained in the embassy until his arrest last Thursday. British officials repeatedly vowed to arrest him for jumping bail if he ever set foot outside the embassy.

In 2012, when Ecuador agreed to give Assange refuge, the country had a leftist president, Rafael Correa, who was sympathetic to the WikiLeaks founder. But Ecuador’s current president, Lenín Moreno, has been far less tolerant of Assange and grew impatient with his presence in the embassy.

Both before and since his arrest and expulsion from the embassy, Assange has been criticized and mocked for his erratic behavior. But Crosby’s observations and statements make it clear that he has suffered severe psychological harm.

Crosby wrote in her letter to the U.N. and the Council of Europe that Assange suffered from “multiple medical conditions” that had become “more complex and urgent” over the two years she had evaluated him. “He has no ability to access necessary medical care, and he does not have access to the outdoors and sunlight. Even minimum standards for prisoners dictate at least one hour of sunlight daily and access to natural light.”

While the British government and Assange’s many critics say that it was his choice to stay in the embassy, Crosby argues that Assange was denied the fundamental right to health care that should have been afforded to him as a refugee.

In her April 8 letter, Crosby wrote that the “highest priority” for Assange’s medical care was his “critical need for an oral surgery procedure,” adding that “the severe daily pain” from his dental condition is “inhumane.” She had consulted with a dentist who had examined Assange, she wrote, and learned that the dental surgery could not be performed in the embassy. In her letter, Crosby says that the British government had repeatedly rejected requests to give Assange safe passage to a hospital for treatment.

In addition to Crosby, Dr. Brock Chisholm, a British clinical psychologist who was previously retained as an expert witness in a case involving allegations of torture at CIA black sites, evaluated Assange over the past two years. Dr. Sean Love, now at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, initially met with Assange and arranged for an introduction to Crosby and Chisholm, but did not conduct any of the evaluations. Love said that Assange and WikiLeaks gave the doctors permission to make Crosby’s affidavit and letter public.

Love criticized the British government for denying Assange medical care while he was in the embassy.

“Whatever you think of his politics, he is a human being,” Love said, “and under international law, he deserved to be treated fairly and not in cruel or inhumane ways.”

https://theintercept.com/2019/04/15/julian-assange-health-medical-care/ :icon_study: :icon_study: :icon_study:


         

                                                                             
« Last Edit: April 15, 2019, 06:44:46 PM by Golden Oxen »

Offline g

  • Golden Oxen
  • Contrarian
  • Master Chef
  • *
  • Posts: 12280
    • View Profile
GO"s News - Sri Lanka Attacks Likely the Work of Islamist Militants: Experts
« Reply #1587 on: April 22, 2019, 05:01:54 AM »

reuters.com

Sri Lanka attacks likely the work of Islamist militants: experts
Kanupriya Kapoor



JAKARTA/SINGAPORE (Reuters) - Coordinated Easter Sunday bombings at churches and hotels in Sri Lanka bore the hallmarks of militant groups Islamic State or al Qaeda, security experts said on Monday, citing the level of sophistication of the attacks.

No group has claimed responsibility for the explosions, many of them suicide bombings, which killed 290 people and wounded 500 others - the deadliest attack in the island nation since the end of a civil war in 2009.

Experts said the targeting of churches and hotels where foreign tourists stay in Sri Lanka, which endured several suicide bombings targeting government officials and installations during the civil war, was a “new and worrying development” in the predominantly Buddhist country.

“These synchronized attacks are out of the ordinary for Sri Lanka. Compared with similar attacks in the Middle East and Southeast Asia, it has the DNA of attacks carried out by Islamic State and al Qaeda,” said Alto Labetubun, an anti-terrorism expert who has researched the two groups for a decade.

A senior Asian counter-terrorism official who declined to be identified said the attack was likely carried out by a group with “significant operational capability and skilled commanders”.

Sri Lankan President Maithripala Sirisena’s office said intelligence reports indicated foreign terrorist organizations were behind Sri Lankan militants and asked for help from foreign nations.

Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe acknowledged on Sunday the government had some prior information about possible attacks on churches involving a little-known Islamist group.

Rohan Gunaratna, a Singapore-based security expert, said the Sri Lankan group was the Islamic State branch in Sri Lanka and perpetrators were known to have links to Sri Lankans who traveled to the Middle East to join the hardline group in Syria and Iraq.
‘FOREIGN ACTORS’

Four of the bombs went off at roughly the same time on Sunday, at 8.45 a.m., with two others coming within 20 minutes.

 :'( :'(

The U.S. State Department issued a travel warning that said there was a threat of more attacks.

Churches have been bombed in various parts of Asia and the Middle East over the years.

Last year, there were suicide attacks on churches in the Indonesian city of Surabaya and in the town of Jolo in the Philippines this year. Islamic State claimed responsibility for both those attacks.

Sri Lanka saw frequent suicide bombings before 2009 but ethnic minority Tamil separatist insurgents mostly went for government targets.

Sunday’s attacks marked a shift to churches and places associated with Western interests, experts said.

A history of conflict also means it was possible the perpetrators of Sunday’s attacks had access to weapons and explosives but it was also likely that foreign actors were involved, they said.

“With this scale of attacks, I don’t think this was only carried out by locals. There is most likely involvement of foreign groups or people, including people moving in and out of India or Pakistan,” said terrorism expert Labetubun.

Pratyush Rao, south Asia analyst at the Control Risks consultancy, said explosives were widely available in Sri Lanka.

“While the scale and sophistication of the attacks suggest an overseas link, there does not appear to be any evidence so far to link it directly to IS,” Rao said.

“It is plausible though that the attacks may have been inspired by IS tactics and ideology.”

Reporting by Kanupriya Kapoor in Jakarta and Joe Brock in Singapore, Additional reporting by Tom Allard in Bangkok; Editing by Raju Gopalakrishnan, Robert Birsel

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-sri-lanka-blasts-hallmarks/sri-lanka-attacks-likely-the-work-of-islamist-militants-experts-idUSKCN1RY0LO  :( :( :( :( :(


     

Offline g

  • Golden Oxen
  • Contrarian
  • Master Chef
  • *
  • Posts: 12280
    • View Profile
Re: Golden Oxen's Newz Channel - Surly's Back!!
« Reply #1588 on: April 23, 2019, 05:17:31 AM »
 :emthup: :emthup: :emthup:

Offline Eddie

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 17502
    • View Profile
Re: Golden Oxen's Newz Channel
« Reply #1589 on: April 23, 2019, 05:18:34 AM »
Well done.
What makes the desert beautiful is that somewhere it hides a well.

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
0 Replies
514 Views
Last post November 17, 2016, 01:16:07 PM
by Palloy
3 Replies
875 Views
Last post June 30, 2017, 07:42:20 PM
by Palloy2
0 Replies
309 Views
Last post February 12, 2019, 02:39:25 PM
by azozeo