Doomstead Diner Menu => Geopolitics => Heroes of the Revolution => Topic started by: RE on July 30, 2012, 08:38:16 PM

Title: Wikileaks Updates-Julian Assange Thread
Post by: RE on July 30, 2012, 08:38:16 PM
Hey, did any of you hear before this that Julian Assange is now Holed Up in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London to avoid Extradition to Sweden, or worse to the FSofA?  If there was Newz of this before, I missed it.  In there since Mid-June.

RE

Quote
Assange Mom Says WikiLeaks Founder Suffering (http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/assange-mom-wikileaks-founder-suffering-16887028)

 By DIEGO TORRES Associated Press

QUITO, Ecuador July 30, 2012 (AP)

 The mother of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange said Monday after meeting with Ecuador's foreign minister that she's worried about her son's health after nearly seven weeks' confinement at the South American nation's London embassy.
 
"He is under a lot of stress and it's been long-term stress now for nearly two years and in conditions which are similar to detention," Christine Assange told The Associated Press.
 
Her son took refuge in the embassy on June 19, requesting political asylum after exhausting all legal appeals to avoid extradition to Sweden, where he is wanted for questioning about sexual misconduct allegations.
 
Julian Assange, who angered U.S. officials by publishing secret U.S. diplomatic cables and military documents, calls the accusations trumped up and says he fears Sweden will extradite him to the United States for trial.
 
Ecuadorean officials have said they will not announce a decision on the asylum request until after the London Olympic Games end in mid-August.
 
Foreign Minister Ricardo Patino said his country is doing "everything possible to protect the life of Mr. Assange."
 
"For that reason we are engaged in conversation with the Swedish and government and also with Great Britain before speaking to the United States," he added.

 Ecuador's Foreign Minister Ricardo Patino,... View Full Caption

 Ecuadorean officials are seeking assurances that Sweden and Britain would not allow Julian Assange to be extradited to the United States, Britain's Guardian newspaper reported last week, citing unnamed officials at the country's London embassy.
 
Patino did not confirm that but echoed the concern expressed by Assange's mother that the WikiLeaks founder would be mistreated if sent to the United States.
 
"We have received very sensitive information about torture that Australian citizens have received at the (U.S.) Guantanamo base, American citizens, too, and of a possible trial that a grand jury in Virginia is preparing against Julian Assange," he told reporters after meeting with her.
 
The reference was to terror suspects that the U.S. has kept at Guantanamo and unconfirmed claims by Julian Assange's supporters that U.S. officials plan to indict him, as occurred with U.S. serviceman Bradley Manning, who is accused of leaking documents to WikiLeaks.
 
Patino said Ecuador's ambassador in Sweden is requesting that Swedish prosecutors visit Julian Assange in the London embassy and question him there.
 
Christine Assange was asked by the AP if Ecuador would grant asylum to her son if it is unable to secure guarantees from Sweden and Britain that he will not be extradited to the United States.
 
"I don't know," she said in an interview.
 
She said she speaks to her son about every 10 days, and they don't much discuss his day-to-day life.
 
"We are also aware that our phones are being monitored and do not wish to talk about personal matters," she said,.
 
Christine Assange said her son doesn't get any natural sun light so she is arranging "for thinks like a sunlamp."
 
She said he has a treadmill to run on for exercise, and friends "turn the music on and encourage him to dance with them."
 
———
 
Associated Press writer Frank Bajak contributed to this report from Lima, Peru
Title: Re: Wikileaks Updates-Julian Assange Thread
Post by: agelbert on July 30, 2012, 11:41:51 PM
RE,
I've kept up on Julian and was waiting to see what he would do as the clock was ticking on his extradition to Sweden (for at least a day until he was sent to share a room with Bradley Manning at Leavenworth). So I noticed when the news came out that he whipped into the Ecuadorian embassy. What gets me about this guy is his ridicule of the UFO phenomena and total absence of damning emails showing prior knowledge of 9/11 by elites in the U.S. and Israel. Nothing about airline stock shorting either. Then those two lawyers he had were not very convincing. The one that looked like a recovering alcoholic always looked out of breath and the other (the female) lawyer fawning over Julian like he was Elvis or something. Sure, he was being set up by the two honey pots in Sweden because he pissed off the MIC but why the blind spot on Israel? Is he trying to pick his battles and do some realpolitik with everyone else?

He did blow the whistle on the Monsanto/U.S. government full court press on Europe complete with threats of economic retaliation if Europe didn't allow GM crap in so that was a nice kick in the nuts to the predatory capitalists but he isn't saying anything good about Syria right now when it's an in-your-face imperialist takeover attempt by the U.S. and NATO.

Maybe he has been turned and now they will use wikileaks for disinfo or some kind of controlled opposition like Thom Hartmann and Amy Goodman. I no longer trust the dude but he did some great stuff so I hope he makes it to Ecuador.
Title: Re: Wikileaks Updates-Julian Assange Thread
Post by: g on July 31, 2012, 05:36:35 AM
RE Quote "Hey, did any of you hear before this that Julian Assange is now Holed Up in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London to avoid Extradition to Sweden, or worse to the FSofA?  If there was Newz of this before, I missed it.  In there since Mid-June."

Yes I was aware. He became convinced the Brits were going to screw him and sought sanctuary.

What a remarkable person. I hold him in very high esteem and he is a great inspiration as to how much good one person can perform. Nothing makes me more ashamed of our press and governments than their treatment of this heroic individual. In exile for exposing the dirty linen of the swine that rule over us.  :(
Title: Re: Wikileaks Updates-Julian Assange Thread
Post by: RE on August 23, 2012, 12:30:56 PM
The pursuit of Julian Assange is an Assault on Freedom and a Mockery of Journalism (http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=32459)
by John Pilger

(http://globalresearch.ca/coverStoryPictures2/32459.jpg)

Global Research, August 23, 2012
http://www.johnpilger.com/ (http://www.johnpilger.com/) 

The British government's threat to invade the Ecuadorean embassy in London and seize Julian Assange is of historic significance. David Cameron, the former PR man to a television industry huckster and arms salesman to sheikdoms, is well placed to dishonour international conventions that have protected Britons in places of upheaval. Just as Tony Blair's invasion of Iraq led directly to the acts of terrorismin London on 7 July 2005, so Cameron and Foreign Secretary William Hague have compromised the safety of British representatives across the world.

Threatening to abuse a law designed to expel murderers from foreign embassies, while defaming an innocent man as an "alleged criminal", Hague has made a laughing stock of Britain across the world, though this view is mostly suppressed in Britain. The same brave newspapers and broadcasters that have supported Britain's part in epic bloody crimes, from the genocide in Indonesia to the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, now attack the "human rights record" of Ecuador, whose real crime is to stand up to the bullies in London and Washington.
 
It is as if the Olympics happy-clappery has been subverted overnight by a revealing display of colonial thuggery. Witness the British army officer-cum-BBC reporter Mark Urban "interviewing" a braying Sir Christopher Meyer, Blair's former apologist in Washington, outside the Ecuadorean embassy, the pair of them erupting with Blimpish indignation that the unclubbable Assange and the uncowed Rafael Correa should expose the western system of rapacious power. Similar affront is vivid in the pages of the Guardian, which has counselled Hague to be"patient" and that storming the embassy would be "more trouble than it is worth". Assange was not a political refugee, the Guardian declared, because "neither Sweden nor the UK would in any case deport someone who might face torture or the death penalty".

The irresponsibility of this statement matches the Guardian's perfidious role in the whole Assange affair. The paper knows full well that documents released by WikiLeaks indicate that Sweden has consistently submitted to pressure from the United States in matters of civil rights. In December 2001, the Swedish government abruptly revoked the political refugee status of two Egyptians, Ahmed Agiza and Mohammedel-Zari, who were handed to a CIA kidnap squad at Stockholm airport and "rendered" to Egypt, where theywere tortured. An investigation by the Swedish ombudsman for justice found that the government had "seriously violated" the two men's human rights. In a 2009 US embassy cable obtained by WikiLeaks, entitled "WikiLeaks puts neutrality in the Dustbin of History", the Swedish elite's vaunted reputation for neutrality is exposed as a sham. Another US cable reveals that "the extent of [Sweden'smilitary and intelligence] cooperation [with Nato] is not widely known" and unless kept secret "would open the government to domestic criticism".

The Swedish foreign minister, Carl Bildt, played a notorious leading role in George W Bush's Committee for the Liberation of Iraq and retains close ties to the Republican Party's extreme right. According to the former Swedish director of public prosecutions Sven-Erik Alhem, Sweden's decision to seek the extradition of Assange on allegations of sexual misconduct is "unreasonable and unprofessional, as well as unfair and disproportionate". Having offered himself for questioning, Assange was given permission to leave Sweden for London where, again, he offered to be questioned. In May, in a final appeal judgment on the extradition, Britain's Supreme Court introduced more farce by referring to non-existent "charges".

Accompanying this has been a vituperative personal campaign against Assange. Much of it has emanated from the Guardian, which, like a spurned lover,has turned on its besieged former source, having hugely profited from WikiLeaks disclosures. With not a penny going to Assange or WikiLeaks, a Guardian book has led to a lucrative Hollywood movie deal.The authors, David Leigh and Luke Harding, gratuitously abuse Assange as a "damaged personality" and "callous". They also reveal the secret password he had given the paper in confidence, which was designed to protect a digital file containing the US embassy cables. On 20 August, Harding was outside the Ecuadorean embassy, gloating on his blog that "Scotland Yard may get the last laugh". It is ironic, if entirely appropriate, that a Guardian editorial putting the paper's latest boot into Assange bears an uncanny likeness to the Murdoch press's predictable augmented bigotry on the same subject. How the glory of Leveson, Hackgate and honourable, independent journalism doth fade.
 
His tormentors make the point of Assange's persecution. Charged with no crime, he is not a fugitive from justice. Swedish case documents, including the text messages of the women involved, demonstrate to any fair-minded person the absurdity of the sex allegations - allegations almost entirely promptly dismissed by the senior prosecutor in Stockholm, Eva Finne, before the intervention of a politician, Claes Borgstr?At the pre-trial of Bradley Manning, a US army investigator confirmed that the FBI was secretly targeting the "founders, owners or managers of WikiLeaks" for espionage.
 
Four years ago, a barely noticed Pentagon document, leaked by WikiLeaks, described how WikiLeaks and Assange would be destroyed with a smear campaign leading to "criminal prosecution". On 18 August, the Sydney Morning Herald disclosed, in a Freedom of Information release of official files, that the Australian government had repeatedly received confirmation that the US was conducting an "unprecedented" pursuit of Assange and had raised no objections. Among Ecuador's reasons for granting asylum is Assange's abandonment "by the state of which he is a citizen". In 2010, an investigation by the Australian Federal Police found that Assange and WikiLeaks had committed no crime. His persecution is an assault on us all and on freedom.

For more information on John Pilger, please visit his website at http://www.johnpilger.com/ (http://www.johnpilger.com/)
 
Title: Re: Wikileaks Updates-Julian Assange Thread
Post by: JoeP on August 25, 2012, 07:56:40 AM
Julian Assange arrest plan revealed accidentally
Picture shows officer holding document with instructions to arrest WikiLeaks founder whether he leaves in diplomatic car or bag

Damien Pearse
guardian.co.uk, Friday 24 August 2012 18.46 EDT

(http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/About/General/2012/8/24/1345847811641/Julian-Assange--008.jpg)

A police officer holding a document apparently saying Julian Assange is to be arrested in any circumstances if he comes out of the Ecuadorean embassy. Photograph: Lewis Whyld/PA

Plans to seize Julian Assange "under all circumstances" the moment he leaves the Ecuadorean embassy in London have accidentally been revealed by a police officer displaying restricted documents outside the embassy.

The document, pictured under the officer's arm by a Press Association photographer, appears to advocate arresting the WikiLeaks founder whether he leaves the building in a diplomatic bag or in a diplomatic car.

The handwritten plan was recorded at a police briefing and only partially covered by the officer's arm as he arrived at the embassy in Knightsbridge on Friday.

The brief begins: "BRIEF – EQ. Embassy brief – Summary of current position Re Assange. Action required – Assange to be arrested under all circumstances." It then makes reference to a "dip bag" and a "dip vehicle".

A Scotland Yard spokesman said: "The document is one officer's notes from a briefing. Our objective is to arrest Julian Assange for breach of bail. Under no circumstances would any arrest be made which was in breach of diplomatic immunity."

Assange, who has been in the building for two months, is wanted for questioning in Sweden over claims of sexual assault.

He is refusing to travel to Scandinavia amid fears he will be extradited to the United States over his controversial website. Ecuador granted the Australian political asylum last week.

The UK government has made it clear Assange, who denies the allegations, will be arrested if he steps outside the embassy after jumping bail.

Speculation has been rife about possible escape routes, and Assange's legal team and the Ecuadorean government have talked about the possibility of safe passage to Ecuador.

Ambassadors from several South American countries went to the embassy on Friday to show their solidarity with Ecuador.

The British government has threatened, under a 1987 Act, to enter the embassy and arrest the 41-year-old, but foreign secretary William Hague has said there is no intention to "storm" the building.

Ecuador's president has said the diplomatic row "could be ended tomorrow" if Britain gave the activist safe passage to South America.
 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/aug/24/julian-assange-ecuador-embassy-police-arrest-plan?newsfeed=true
Title: Re: Wikileaks Updates-Julian Assange Thread: No Assange DNA on Condom
Post by: g on September 19, 2012, 04:43:14 AM

A ripped condom given to Swedish police by one of Julian Assange’s accusers does not contain the WikiLeaks founder’s DNA, forensic scientists have reportedly found.

In a 100-page document shown to Assange’s lawyers, it was revealed that the torn prophylactic, having been examined by staff at two forensic laboratories, did not bear conclusive evidence that Assange had ever worn it, the Daily Mail reported on Sunday.

Assange’s lawyers said the lack of DNA evidence on the condom, which was allegedly used during a supposed August 2010 sexual assault, indicates that a fake one could have been submitted.

The woman in question, now aged 33, claims to have been molested by Assange at her flat in Stockholm. She says that at one point he deliberately broke a condom in order to have unprotected sex with her.

http://rt.com/news/assange-condom-no-dna-277/ (http://rt.com/news/assange-condom-no-dna-277/)
Title: Re: Wikileaks Updates-Julian Assange Thread
Post by: Karpatok on September 19, 2012, 09:48:33 AM
 Setting aside MR. REANTEBENS remarks that "all girls like to be fucked without a condom " since HE is so terribly and completely knowledgeable on such matters, how many people believe there is any truth to the claim by Assange's former partner that Assange bragged that he has four children by four different women in four different areas of the world. Four children that he neither sees nor helps to support materially or financially, the last being an infant born to a nineteen year old. If this is true, what a hero! What a MANLY man that he can throw his sperm around  no DNA evidence to the contrary. A mixed bag? A poor flawed but so intelligent human? Does doing good on the one hand exempt you from responsibility on the other. Or does spreading his nasty semen around prove he is ever so masculine an animal, overpopulating to the point of starvation come hell or high water, no brains or self control afterall, just a big mouth, and an out of control ego?
Title: Re: Wikileaks Updates-Julian Assange Thread
Post by: reanteben on September 19, 2012, 11:37:02 AM
karpatok, I didn't say ALL. I said "girls like..".  believe it or not, appropriately throwing caution to the wind during sex can intensify the experience, across all genders. in this secular age of pornography, morning-after pills, and "feminism", women can at long last be both the madonna AND the whore... that men have always wished they could be, LOL. just not simultaneously, LOL. I never said it was radical; on the contrary, it's dreadfully conventional.

Title: Re: Wikileaks Updates-Julian Assange Thread
Post by: Karpatok on September 19, 2012, 11:52:03 AM
   Well YEAH PRECIOUS REANTEBEN: Instead of your foot I guess you've put your dick in your mouth on this one and everything I said about Assange applies to you as well you Studly jerk.
Title: Re: Wikileaks Updates-Julian Assange Thread
Post by: reanteben on September 19, 2012, 01:49:03 PM
   Well YEAH PRECIOUS REANTEBEN: Instead of your foot I guess you've put your dick in your mouth on this one and everything I said about Assange applies to you as well you Studly jerk.

whatever, K. better that than choking down the Code of Hammurabi like david icke.
Title: Wikileaks Updates-Julian Assange Thread Julian Assange to make 'Balcony Speech'
Post by: g on December 19, 2012, 06:13:12 PM
Julian Assange to make 'balcony speech' from Ecuador embassy
Julian Assange Mr Assange wants to avoid extradition to Sweden
Continue reading the main story   
Related Stories

    Profile: Julian Assange
    Q&A: Julian Assange and the law
    Assange backers ordered to pay

Julian Assange is due to address his supporters from the Ecuadorean embassy in London, marking six months since he was granted asylum inside the building.

It will be the second time the WikiLeaks founder, who took refuge at the embassy in June, has delivered a message from the balcony.

He faces extradition to Sweden over sexual assault claims, which he denies.

Crowds are expected to gather outside the embassy in the Knightsbridge area to watch the speech.

Australian Mr Assange, 41 - whose Wikileaks website published a mass of leaked diplomatic cables embarrassing a number of countries - fears his extradition could lead to him being sent to the US and punished for releasing top secret documents.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20790604#sa-ns_mchannel=rss&ns_source=PublicRSS20-sa (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20790604#sa-ns_mchannel=rss&ns_source=PublicRSS20-sa)   :icon_study:
Title: Re: Wikileaks Updates-Julian Assange Thread: Interview from Democracy Now
Post by: g on June 02, 2013, 05:04:23 AM
Member Jaded Prole posted an interesting interview from DemocracyNow with Julian Assange that I thought I would call Diner's attention too. Could not imbed the video but link and description provided.

           
Sunday, June 02, 2013
Julian Assange Interview

on DemocracyNow! in which he speaks about fighting the U.S/CIA orchestrated international crackdown on WikiLeaks and others who challenge an ever more consolidated National Security Empire in service to global capital.

http://jadedprol.blogspot.com/2013/06/julian-assange-interview.html (http://jadedprol.blogspot.com/2013/06/julian-assange-interview.html) :icon_study:
Title: Re: Wikileaks Updates- Bradley Manning WikiLeaks trial begins, three years after
Post by: g on June 03, 2013, 08:50:02 AM
Everybody knows the war is over Everybody knows the good guys lost Everybody knows the fight was fixed :'( :-[

Bradley Manning WikiLeaks trial begins, three years after arrest

Bradley Manning, the US Army private, goes before a military judge, charged with leaking classified documents to an Internet website. Bradly Manning faces 21 charges.


 Fort Meade, Maryland

More than three years ago, Army Pfc. Bradley Manning was arrested in Iraq and charged in the biggest leak of classified information in US history.

Since then, he admitted to sending troves of material to the anti-secrecy website WikiLeaks and pleaded guilty to charges that would send him to prison for up to 20 years. The US military and the Obama administration weren't satisfied, though, and pursued a charge of aiding the enemy, which carries a potential life sentence.

The trial on that most serious charge and 20 other offenses begins Monday for the 25-year-old former intelligence analyst from Oklahoma. It's the most high-profile case for an administration that has come under criticism for its crackdown on leakers. The six prosecutions since Obama took office is more than in all other presidencies combined.

Manning chose to have his court-martial heard by a judge instead of a jury. It is expected to run all summer.

In February, Manning told military judge Army Col. Denise Lind he leaked the material to expose the American military's "bloodlust" and disregard for human life in Iraq and Afghanistan. He said he did not believe the information would harm the U.S. and he wanted to start a debate on the role of the military and foreign policy.

The judge accepted his guilty plea to reduced charges for about half of the alleged offenses, but prosecutors did not and moved forward with a court-martial on charges including violations of the Espionage Act and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

Manning's supporters hail him as a whistle-blowing hero and a political prisoner. Others view him as a traitor.

About 20 Manning supporters demonstrated Monday morning in the rain outside the visitor gate at Fort Meade. They waved signs reading "free Bradley Manning" and "protect the truth" while chanting "What do want? Free Bradley. When do we want it? Now."

US officials have said the more than 700,000 Iraq and Afghanistan battlefield reports and State Department cables sent to WikiLeaks endangered lives and national security.

The material WikiLeaks began publishing in 2010 documented complaints of Iraqi detainee abuses; a US tally of civilian deaths in Iraq; and America's weak support for the government of Tunisia — a disclosure Manning supporters said encouraged the popular uprising that ousted the Tunisian president in 2011 and helped trigger the Middle Eastern pro-democracy uprisings known as the Arab Spring.

Last month, the government agreed to accept Manning's guilty plea for one lesser version of one count, involving a single diplomatic cable summarizing US embassy discussions with Icelandic officials about the country's financial troubles.

Manning also acknowledged sending WikiLeaks unclassified video of a 2007 US Apache helicopter attack that killed civilians, including a Reuters photographer. An internal military investigation concluded the troops reasonably mistook the camera equipment for weapons; WikiLeaks dubbed the video "Collateral Murder."

The release of the cables and video embarrassed the US and its allies. The Obama administration has said it threatened valuable military and diplomatic sources and strained America's relations with other governments, but the specific amount of damage hasn't been publicly revealed and probably won't be during the trial.

Lind ruled the extent of any damage is irrelevant. Defense attorney David Coombs contends it was minimal.

Much of the evidence is classified, which means large portions of the trial are likely to be closed to reporters and the public.

Lead prosecutor Maj. Ashden Fein told Lind in February that more than half of the government's 141 anticipated witnesses would testify about classified information, which would close up to 30 percent of the trial.

The judge tested alternatives to closing the courtroom, such as using code words and unclassified summaries, but Lind said it didn't work.

Prosecutors revealed plans earlier this year to call a member of the Navy SEAL team that raided Osama bin Laden's compound in 2011. He was to testify in closed court, in disguise, that he found digital evidence indicating the al-Qaeda leader saw some of the material Manning released.

He will likely be scratched, though, if Lind accepts an agreement the lawyers announced last month to offer the bin Laden evidence without the testimony.

The court-martial's high degree of secrecy, including refusals to promptly release even routine filings and rulings, has fueled protests by Manning supporters. The Bradley Manning Support Network says it has raised more than $1.1 million for his defense and public outreach.

Supporters include documentary filmmaker Michael Moore, musician Graham Nash, actor John Cusack and Pentagon Papers leaker Daniel Ellsberg.

Ellsberg, a former military analyst, has said Manning's disclosures may be more significant than his own leak of a top-secret history of the Vietnam War expansion in 1971.

Manning's case gained even more attention when human rights groups and the United Nations' chief torture investigator complained about his pretrial confinement at a Marine Corps brig in Quantico, Va.

For nine months, Manning was held alone in a windowless cell 23 hours a day, sometimes with no clothing. Brig officials said it was to keep him from hurting himself or others.

Lind ruled Manning had been illegally punished and should get 112 days off any prison sentence he receives. Manning was moved in April 2011 to less restrictive conditions at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.

His case has also led to films. In a documentary released last month, Manning was portrayed sympathetically in "We Steal Secrets: The Story of WikiLeaks."

The film left an unflattering impression of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, who is the subject of a separate federal investigation into whether he can be prosecuted for publishing the information Manning leaked.

Manning told the court he corresponded online with someone he believed to be Assange but never confirmed the person's identity.

WikiLeaks has been careful never to confirm or deny Manning was the source of the documents.

Assange has been holed up in the Ecuadorean Embassy in London to avoid extradition to Sweden on sex-crimes allegations.
http://rss.csmonitor.com/~r/feeds/csm/~3/W4nm4ejSAtU/Bradley-Manning-WikiLeaks-trial-begins-three-years-after-arrest (http://rss.csmonitor.com/~r/feeds/csm/~3/W4nm4ejSAtU/Bradley-Manning-WikiLeaks-trial-begins-three-years-after-arrest) :icon_study: :(

                                                     
0603 us latestnews bradleymanning full 380
0603 us latestnews bradleymanning full 380

Title: Re: Wikileaks Updates-Julian Assange Thread
Post by: Eddie on June 03, 2013, 09:20:22 AM
That poor kid will never breathe free air in this lifetime. He's going to take the brunt of the intense hatred the military-industrial types have for Julian Assange in particular and truth in journalism in general. He's screwed.
Title: Re: Wikileaks Updates-Julian Assange Thread
Post by: g on June 03, 2013, 09:29:35 AM
That poor kid will never breathe free air in this lifetime. He's going to take the brunt of the intense hatred the military-industrial types have for Julian Assange in particular and truth in journalism in general. He's screwed.

Feel bad for him myself Doc, the idealism of youth sort of thing.

There are two sides to this coin however, Bradley was in the military and was under clear oaths and restrictions, while Assange's treatment as a free citizen and whistle blower makes me ashamed of the entire system of justice we are living under.
Title: Re: Wikileaks Updates-Bradley Manning: Patriotic Whistle-Blower or Traitor?
Post by: g on June 03, 2013, 05:50:12 PM
Bradley Manning: Patriotic whistle-blower or American traitor?

The court-martial of Pfc. Bradley Manning began Monday. Manning has said the documents he sent to WikiLeaks served a valuable purpose. Others agree, but that might  not help him legally.
                                                   
                                                   
0603 MANNING WIKILEAKS trial full 600
0603 MANNING WIKILEAKS trial full 600

Washington

It was during his tour in Iraq in 2010 as he was serving as an intelligence analyst that Pfc. Bradley Manning watched a video stored in the US military’s database that showed two pilots accidentally shooting civilians, among them children and two Reuters reporters.

What particularly bothered him, he said during a statement he read in a February pretrial court hearing, was not only that innocent civilians were killed. It was the cavalier banter of the US military pilots, whose cockpit audio was recorded along with the video.

The pilots were urging an mortally wounded civilian, who was attempting to crawl to safety to just "pick up a weapon" so they could shoot him. When they realized they had accidentally killed children by firing on a van that was trying to rescue the Reuters reporters, they said, “Well, it’s their fault for bringing their kids into a battle.”

When Reuters news filed a Freedom of Information Act request to see the video, US Central Command, which was running the war in Iraq, replied that “the video might no longer exist,” Private Manning said. Another US military spokesperson told reporters that CENTCOM did not believe that the video was authentic.

It was at that point, Manning said in February, that he “believed there was a compelling need” for him to release the video to the WikiLeaks website himself.

To Manning's defenders, these comments go to the heart of who he is: a conscientious and seminal whistle-blower in an administration highly averse to leaks. They add that his case is no less important – and bears striking similarities – to the Pentagon Papers, a top-secret study examining how the United States had become embroiled in the Vietnam War and, ultimately, how the government had misled the American people.

Want your top political issues explained? Get customized DC Decoder updates.

To critics, the Manning's WikiLeaks trove was nothing like the Pentagon Papers – it did not expose systemic lying by high-ranking government officials, but rather contravened clear rules for whistle-blowing simply to embarrass the military. Some have even called him a traitor.

The distinction might not ultimately have an effect on Manning's court-martial, which began Monday in Fort Meade in Maryland. The laws on whistle-blowing are clear, and Manning appears to have clearly broken them, legal experts say.

But Manning's trial has come to represent more than an ordinary court-martial. It has become a vessel for the impassioned debate over how America has carried out its "war on terror" from Iraq to Afghanistan and beyond, and how much the public has a right to know.

“I know we’re early in the century, but I think this will be one of the most important trials of the 21st century,” says Jesselyn Radack, an attorney and director of the Government Accountability Project’s National Security program.

Ms. Radack represented Thomas Drake, a former member of the US military who was accused under the Espionage Act of leaking information about a National Security Agency program that he said violated Fourth Amendment privacy laws. She and others have compared Manning's plight to that of Daniel Ellsberg, who leaked the Pentagon Papers to The New York Times.

Mr. Ellsberg agrees: “That man is not only a hero of mine, but I hope he knows he’s a hero to many people.”

“Of course there are differences” in the two cases, Ellsberg said at a roundtable discussion held Sunday at a protest rally for Manning in Washington.

“The stuff I put out was ‘top secret,’ ” he adds, noting that the material Manning released was given the lower classification rating of “secret.”

What’s more, the Pentagon Papers “didn’t rise to the same level of war crimes that was revealed by Bradley Manning,” he argues. “Manning showed numerous violations of law, not only under [President] Obama but going back to [former President George] Bush,” including, Ellsberg adds, “continuing to hand people over in the face of likelihood of torture.”

This last point is one that Manning stressed in his pretrial statement in February. To illustrate his point, Manning recalled an incident in March 2010 in which he was tasked by superior officers to look into a case of Iraqi police who detained 15 people for printing anti-Iraqi literature.

Manning was asked, he said, to figure out who these “bad guys” were.

As he dug into the case, Manning concluded that none of the individuals had ties to terrorist groups. He then received translations of the “anti-Iraqi” literature, which was a critique of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and detailed corruption within its cabinet as well as the “financial impact of that corruption on the Iraqi people,” Manning said in his pretrial hearing.

He forwarded this information to his superiors, noting the discrepency between the charges the Iraqi police were making and the translation of the actual materials. He was told to “drop it” and “find out where these print shops printing anti-Iraqi literature might be.”

He complained to his boss, who was sympathetic but unwilling to act, Manning said. “I knew that if I continued to assist Baghdad police, those people would be arrested... very likely tortured, and not seen again for a very long time, if ever.”

But even if there were individual cases of misconduct, the indiscriminate nature of the WikiLeaks release – which included reams of embarrassing diplomatic cables – was highly damaging to national security and different from the specific nature of the Pentagon Papers, some critics argue.

Ellsberg, for example, decided to keep confidential the volumes of the Pentagon Papers that described the diplomatic efforts to resolve the Vietnam War, which included “derogatory comments about the perfidiousness of specific persons involved, and statements which might be offensive to nations or governments,” noted Floyd Abrams, who was the lawyer for The New York Times during the Pentagon Papers proceedings, in a December 2010 opinion piece for The Wall Street Journal.

Mr. Abrams also pointed to other differences. “The Pentagon Papers revelations dealt with a discrete topic, the ever-increasing level of duplicity of our leaders over a score of years in increasing the nation’s involvement in Vietnam while denying it. It revealed official wrongdoing or, at the least, a pervasive lack of candor by the government to its people.”

“WikiLeaks is different,” he argues. “It revels in the revelation of ‘secrets’ simply because they are secret.”

Manning argues that he was well aware of what he was releasing. He said that he began looking through documents related to detainments at Guantánamo because of President Obama’s campaign assertions that the facility is a stain on America’s reputation and should be closed.

“I’m the type of person who likes to know how things work and as an analyst this means I always want to figure out the truth,” he said. “I wasn’t satisfied with just scratching the surface and producing canned or cookie-cutter assessments.”

As he began reading diplomatic cables, he says, he agreed with Mr. Obama. He also noticed that the diplomatic cables had two levels of security classifications.

The first level was “not for distribution,” meaning the cables were highly sensitive. The second classification was for people who had access to the US military’s computer network, which included thousands of US troops, defense department civilian employees, and civilian contractors.

Manning decided to release the second set of cables, but not the more sensitive ones, he told the judge in the February hearing.

In neither the Manning case nor the Ellsberg case, however, is whistle-blowing a viable defense, says Richard Rosen, former commandant of the Judge Advocate General School for the US Army and the director of the Center for Military Law and Policy at Texas Tech University School of Law.

“When you’re put in a position of confidence to protect these documents, it’s not for an individual to decide what to release,” says Mr. Rosen. “I think you can be a whistle-blower in the military. The problem is how he did it.”

“Whistle-blower statues are very specific – an individual has the right to communicate directly to a member of Congress, to an inspector general of the service, or to an immediate commander,” says a senior US military lawyer who asked to comment on condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to speak with the press. “He doesn’t have the right to go to the press or WikiLeaks.”

Ellsberg was also providing documents that were historical in nature, “not about ongoing operations,” Rosen argues.

What’s more, “Ellsberg wasn’t in the military. When you are in the military, you take an oath. It’s not for some specialist [Manning's rank before he was demoted to private first class] to determine what information should be declassified,” he adds. “He could have written his congressman saying, 'Look, here is information.' He took a risk. Maybe he thought that it was better in the public interest, and he may have to pay the consequences for it.”

Ellsberg was to be prosecuted under the same statute with which Manning is charged – specifically, “aiding the enemy,” which carries with it the death penalty.

That could be difficult for the government to prove, Rosen says. “He had to have actual knowledge that by dumping this information it would aid the enemy. It’s not enough that he released information ... thinking it would help people.”

But Manning also faces a lesser charge that “requires only that he had reason to know” that the enemy could be aided – in other words, that the leaked information could be released on the Internet and Osama bin Laden, for example, might read the Internet, the US military attorney says.

Ellsberg was ultimately not charged with aiding the enemy because it was revealed that US government officials attempted to break into his psychologist’s office to uncover damaging information against him. As a result of this prosecutorial misconduct, the charges against him were dismissed.

Neither Ellsberg or Manning were charged with treason, which is concisely and specifically defined in the US Constitution: “Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.”

“No one wanted to claim that I’d adhered to the Viet Cong, and no one claims that Manning adhered to the Taliban or wished them well,” Ellsberg said.

Still, as with Manning, he was often called a traitor. “It’s very unpleasant, particularly for someone who thinks of himself as a patriot,” Ellsberg said.

But he had a ready response for a journalist who once asked him what it was like to be labeled a traitor. “This country was founded by traitors. Every signer of the Declaration of Independence when they pledged their lives and their sacred honor knew they could be hanged for treason," he recalled saying. "And some of them were.”

http://rss.csmonitor.com/~r/feeds/csm/~3/dnqAE6a9hQ8/Bradley-Manning-Patriotic-whistle-blower-or-American-traitor (http://rss.csmonitor.com/~r/feeds/csm/~3/dnqAE6a9hQ8/Bradley-Manning-Patriotic-whistle-blower-or-American-traitor)  :icon_study:
Title: Re: Wikileaks Updates-Julian Assange Thread
Post by: Petty Tyrant on June 03, 2013, 06:18:21 PM
I defy anyone to watch the same video manning saw that prompted him to act and still condemn him.

I have seen it, and the drone or sattelite or whatever guided death from above weapon playstation was used was no fucking "battle", civilians innocently and unsuspectingly being targeted walking along. Then later when that was all over a Samaritan came along in a van to pick up the dead. The van was also targeted with children inside, "ah well thats what happens when you bring kids to a battle". And these joystick jockeys get given medals.

Title: Re: Wikileaks Updates-Julian Assange Thread
Post by: g on June 03, 2013, 06:36:18 PM
I defy anyone to watch the same video manning saw that prompted him to act and still condemn him.

I have seen it, and the drone or sattelite or whatever guided death from above weapon playstation was used was no fucking "battle", civilians innocently and unsuspectingly being targeted walking along. Then later when that was all over a Samaritan came along in a van to pick up the dead. The van was also targeted with children inside, "ah well thats what happens when you bring kids to a battle". And these joystick jockeys get given medals.

Sick Rotten Bastards!  They ruin all the good others have done in our name by their hideous actions. There should have been some accountability on something as deplorable and sick as this! Glad I did NOT see it Uncle.  :exp-angry: :exp-angry:
Title: Re: Wikileaks Updates-Julian Assange Thread
Post by: luciddreams on June 03, 2013, 08:27:29 PM
the U.S. Military is an evil fuckin' machine.  Regardless of who actually makes the decisions.  It's just pure evil.  I know, I was in the bowels of that bitch droppin' bombs on Afghanistan.  It's why I quit the military to.  That's right, I fuckin' quit...toldem I didn't give a shit about the consequences...lock me in a cage...cause I'm not contributing to this evil any longer. 

And they did...lock me in a cage.  For three days of bread and water in solitary confinement in a Class "Charile" federal penitentiary in Bangor Washington.  After confining me to the ship for 60 days I believe (this after a six month deployment in which we were at sea for 115 days with no land in sight dropping 6 million pounds of ordinance on red cross centers, mosques, fuckin' neighborhoods and shit. 

I know I tell it all the time...but it impacted my life greatly for obvious reasons.  It's why I proudly wear the title of a "Dysfunctional Veteran".  Suppose I am dysfunctional to societies standards.   

though the government does not consider me a veteran of "Operation Enduring Freedom"...fuck them to.  I went to war for America...and my soul paid the price in karma. 
Title: Re: Wikileaks Updates-Julian Assange Thread
Post by: g on June 03, 2013, 08:44:47 PM
the U.S. Military is an evil fuckin' machine.  Regardless of who actually makes the decisions.  It's just pure evil.  I know, I was in the bowels of that bitch droppin' bombs on Afghanistan.  It's why I quit the military to.  That's right, I fuckin' quit...toldem I didn't give a shit about the consequences...lock me in a cage...cause I'm not contributing to this evil any longer. 

And they did...lock me in a cage.  For three days of bread and water in solitary confinement in a Class "Charile" federal penitentiary in Bangor Washington.  After confining me to the ship for 60 days I believe (this after a six month deployment in which we were at sea for 115 days with no land in sight dropping 6 million pounds of ordinance on red cross centers, mosques, fuckin' neighborhoods and shit. 

I know I tell it all the time...but it impacted my life greatly for obvious reasons.  It's why I proudly wear the title of a "Dysfunctional Veteran".  Suppose I am dysfunctional to societies standards.   

though the government does not consider me a veteran of "Operation Enduring Freedom"...fuck them to.  I went to war for America...and my soul paid the price in karma.

I feel for you Lucid. I was drafted during the Viet Nam era, never saw combat, was sent to Germany and was Company Clerk for an Engineering support unit.

 Felt guilty and horrible about my friends from basic being sent to Nam.

Hated every second of military life, felt like I was in prison for a crime I didn't commit. Evil is the correct word for it. The world will never be a Good place until there is no more military anywhere in it. Wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that joyous day, that's for sure. :'( :(
Title: Re: Wikileaks Updates-Julian Assange Thread
Post by: Petty Tyrant on June 03, 2013, 09:13:35 PM
LD, you acted bravely not cowardly and I dont believe you would then suffer karma.

GO, you did the best you could, I think like my father who was an 18yo away from home having a whale of a time when his birthday was drawn, they seperate out the more compassionate humane types that they know wont ever shoot anyone and direct them to a noncombat area like admin or even in the civil govt to still do something.

Ive just now taken the afternoon off and grabbed some beers to take my time and write up a request for advice from the regular diner community, that will take some time to do properly, given my dilemma. Im going to ask RE to distribute it by PM. Thanks in advance.
Title: Re: Wikileaks Updates-Julian Assange Thread
Post by: luciddreams on June 04, 2013, 06:06:07 AM
Thanks Ox and Uncle.  I can't say I was drafted, just 18 and desperately wanting to get out of the concrete jungle of Southern CA.  Just young and stupid enough to believe that the military was a good idea (and it was...although I would never repeat it...I learned an immeasurable amount about myself and mankind in general via my naval experience...and I wouldn't give that up for anything...just wouldn't do it again). 

Of course when I joined it was 1999 and it had been eight years with no war, at least not to the scale of a Dessert Storm or Operation Enduring Freedom.  I was 10 when the last war went down.  So to me the military was just going to be fun.  Not to mention I was primed during 4 years of JROTC to believe in the flag and necessity of the military. 

Damn...I'm a thread driftin' fool ain't I :laugh:
Title: Re: Wikileaks Updates-Julian Assange Thread
Post by: g on June 04, 2013, 06:58:10 AM
Thanks Ox and Uncle.  I can't say I was drafted, just 18 and desperately wanting to get out of the concrete jungle of Southern CA.  Just young and stupid enough to believe that the military was a good idea (and it was...although I would never repeat it...I learned an immeasurable amount about myself and mankind in general via my naval experience...and I wouldn't give that up for anything...just wouldn't do it again). 

Of course when I joined it was 1999 and it had been eight years with no war, at least not to the scale of a Dessert Storm or Operation Enduring Freedom.  I was 10 when the last war went down.  So to me the military was just going to be fun.  Not to mention I was primed during 4 years of JROTC to believe in the flag and necessity of the military. 

Damn...I'm a thread driftin' fool ain't I :laugh:

No way Lucid, your posting fit's all TOO WELL.  :'(
Title: Re: Wikileaks Updates-Julian Assange Thread
Post by: luciddreams on June 04, 2013, 12:28:52 PM
Thanks Ox and Uncle.  I can't say I was drafted, just 18 and desperately wanting to get out of the concrete jungle of Southern CA.  Just young and stupid enough to believe that the military was a good idea (and it was...although I would never repeat it...I learned an immeasurable amount about myself and mankind in general via my naval experience...and I wouldn't give that up for anything...just wouldn't do it again). 

Of course when I joined it was 1999 and it had been eight years with no war, at least not to the scale of a Dessert Storm or Operation Enduring Freedom.  I was 10 when the last war went down.  So to me the military was just going to be fun.  Not to mention I was primed during 4 years of JROTC to believe in the flag and necessity of the military. 

Damn...I'm a thread driftin' fool ain't I :laugh:

No way Lucid, your posting fit's all TOO WELL.  :'(

I suppose it does.
Title: Re: Wikileaks Updates-Julian Assange Thread
Post by: Petty Tyrant on June 04, 2013, 05:42:13 PM
Redgum - I Was Only 19 (1983) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Urtiyp-G6jY#)

I knew a naturopath Dr McGrath about 20 yrs ago, who seemed to have a good life, nice cars nice house, younger wife, dressed well, neat and tidy, had a reputation for curing cancer cases. Then one day all of a sudden he hit the bottle, and he became this shirtless, unshowered, pain in the ass. Would roll around drunk and go vomit in your bathroom then wipe his mouth with the mat, then comment on how fine our ladies looked. When the asians living opposite appeared he would say "I used to blow GOOKS like those away, BOOM!!!" In less than a year he lost everything, was living in a trailer park on the edge of town, drinking daily to forget. Im sure by now if he didnt turn it around he would be dead.
Title: Re: Wikileaks Updates-Julian Assange Thread
Post by: luciddreams on June 04, 2013, 07:34:41 PM
well I don't want to misrepresent what's true.  I never saw "combat", as in...shootin' fuckers point blank.  Navy bullshit is like this.  You're eatin' a meal in the galley after being up 18 hours working in a nuclear power plant.  This is a normal day for you...like every other day.  4 hours of sleep was considered lucky. 

At any rate, there you are...eatin' your pancakes with syrup (that sorta resembles maple syrup...I mean just in a chemical way), and "butter" which ain't no way that shit was butter.  Fuckin' hydrofracked, hydrogenated, gobbledegook...maybe.  The food boxes said "not fit for human consumption, military and prisoner use only"...inked on the side of the boxes. 

And all of a sudden they start rollin' bombs right by you..."excuse me shipmate...we got fuckin' hajis to kill".  "Oh, no problem shipmate...blow them fuckers up...I gotta eat me some sorta pancakes and get two hours of sleep.  I've got to get up to sweep a ladder well before going down to the power plant to split atoms."  Ever heard of a neutron life cycle?  I used to know the equation that would tell you how many neutrons would be released from one neutron causing fission with another atom.

I never could figure that shit out.  I was standing 10 feet from a reactor core, opening and closing valves to keep fission and neutrons "happy" while we were at war.  But yet somehow it was more important for me to forgo sleep to fucking scrub a valve stem with a fucking wire brush :icon_scratch:

At any rate, all of that to kill people I never met and had no problem with. 

I can't imagine what vietnam vets went through.  Well..I can imagine it, Sergeant Simmons used to tell me stories...he was the Recondo facilitator...the retired Vietnam Vet who taught me how to be a Recon.  He did three tours in Cambodia as Special forces...fucker was crazy as hell.  Only had one lung from gettin' hung in a tree canopy jumpin' from a helicopter.  Toughest fucker I ever met.  He put me in a head lock for four years and then unleashed me into society :laugh:  I was a crazy ass fuckin 18 year old to put it mildly. 

My favorite activity was going out with some of my buddies to the highest rail road trestles we could find in the woods of Spartanburg county.  In 15...16 years old.  We'd tie off from the cross ties on the trestles and jump off head first.  Called it "spider repelling" I think.  I once slept under a trestle, drunk with some bodies, 0200 hrs, hangin' bout 120 feet over water in a tarp hammock I made.  There were four of us, sleepin' under that trestle like fuckin' spiders, suspended from that trestle with rope and tarps.  I wake up to the vibrations of that train about four feet above my head.  I remember a couple of oil droplets hitting my forehead. 

True story.   :D
Title: Re: Wikileaks Updates-Bradley Manning's Wikileaks Trial Shrouded in Secrecy
Post by: g on June 04, 2013, 10:09:03 PM
Bradley Manning's Wikileaks trial shrouded in secrecy

Bradley Manning has admitted turning over classified documents. His lawyer calls him 'naive but good-intentioned,' but prosecutors say he gave secrets to Osama bin Laden.
                                                                 
0604 bradley manning trial full 380
0604 bradley manning trial full 380
 By David Dishneau & Eric Tucker, Associated Press / June 4, 2013 at 11:52 pm EDT
FORT MEADE, Md.

The court-martial of Pfc. Bradley Manning, the central figure in a massive leak of government documents, is focused on secrecy and government security. Yet his trial has become a secretive drama that allows the public little insight into what's going on in the military courtroom.

One of the pretrial hearings was closed to the public. Many court documents have been withheld or heavily redacted. Photographers were blocked from getting a good shot of the soldier and even some of Manning's supporters had to turn their T-shirts inside out.

Military law experts say some of it is common for a court-martial, while other restrictions appear tailored to the extraordinary nature of the case. Manning has garnered an outpouring of support from whistleblowers, activists and others around the world.

"I think the judge is very concerned about not turning this trial into a theater, into a spectacle," said David J.R. Frakt, a military law expert at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law and a former military prosecutor and defense lawyer. "I cannot remember a situation where there was such a high degree of civilian interest, people not affiliated with the military, having intense and passionate interest in the outcome of the case."

Manning is charged under federal espionage and computer fraud laws, but the most serious offense the military has accused him of is aiding the enemy, which carries a life sentence. His supporters call him a hero; opponents say he is a traitor for leaking the material the anti-secrecy website WikiLeaks.

The trial for the soldier from Crescent, Okla., began Monday under a barrage of heavy restrictions.

Manning supporters wearing "truth" T-shirts had to turn them inside out before entering the courtroom. The shirts were made by the Bradley Manning Support Network in early 2012 as an alternative to "Free Bradley Manning" T-shirts banned from early pretrial hearings, spokesman Nathan Fuller said.

The military allowed the shirts Tuesday. Army spokeswoman Col. Michelle Roberts said the earlier decision made "out of a concern for public safety and to remove a potential cause for disturbance among members of the public." She said leaders assessed the situation and decided they were OK.

Since the case began, reporters covering hearings have been asked to sign a document saying they would withhold the names of spokespeople on-site because the military said some people directly involved in the case had received death threats. The Associated Press signed the document to be allowed to cover the trial, but the news organization is protesting it.

Photographers looking to snap pictures of Manning Monday missed the soldier leaving the courtroom because he was blocked by military police. On Tuesday, Manning was not surrounded.

The military also relaxed rules Tuesday about interviewing spectators outside the courtroom.

Courts-martial don't have a roadmap for guaranteeing public access like civilian courts, military law experts said.

The security in the Manning case appears determined to minimize distractions and maintain law-and-order — even if that means throwing up roadblocks to a public accustomed to transparency, experts said.

"I don't think it's good to turn the environs into an armed camp unless it is literally unavoidable," said Eugene Fidell, who teaches military law at Yale Law School. "People do occasionally act out in courtrooms, both spectators or witnesses or the accused, but I'm sure that the Army knows how to maintain order, and I'm not sure that it's necessary to do it with as heavy a hand as seems to be implied here."

Manning, 25, has admitted turning over hundreds of thousands of classified documents. His lawyer has called him a "young, naive but good-intentioned" soldier, but prosecutors say he put secrets directly into the hands of Osama bin Laden.

His trial, which is being heard by a judge instead of a jury, is expected to run all summer. Parts of it are expected to be closed.

At a pretrial hearing in April, the military judge, Army Col. Denise Lind, released written copies of two rulings to reporters. It was the first time since she got the case in February 2012 that she had made her written orders publicly available on a same-day basis.

The lack of public access to rulings and motions is being challenged in federal court by the Center for Constitutional Rights, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and a handful of journalists. Thirty news organizations, including the AP, plan to file a brief this week supporting the case.

In February, the military began releasing Lind's older rulings amid numerous Freedom of Information Act requests.

The court considers some documents so sensitive that they are stored off-site at locations in Maryland, the District of Columbia and Virginia. They will remain there, and even any appellate judges would have to travel to locations such as the Central Intelligence Agency to read them.

Philip Cave, a retired Navy judge advocate general, said it's not uncommon for portions of military trials to be kept away from the public.

"Does that automatically mean that there's a lack of transparency or that there's kind of hiding the ball going on? I don't think you can argue that," said Cave, who is now a military defense lawyer. "Then again," he added, "I don't necessarily believe my government. I do think they over-classify things."

The military released about 550 documents on Tuesday, including a photo of a noose Manning made from a bedsheet while he was being detained in Kuwait shortly after his arrest in May 2010.

The noose was presented as evidence at a hearing in December regarding Manning's confinement at a Marine Corps base in Quantico, Va., to show why jailers there considered him a suicide threat.

For nine months, Manning was held alone in a windowless cell 23 hours a day, sometimes with no clothing. Lind later ruled Manning had been illegally punished and should get 112 days off any prison sentence he receives.

Army spokesman George Wright said there was "no specific trigger" for the release of documents, but the military had been working to process as many records as possible.

Tucker reported from Washington.
http://rss.csmonitor.com/~r/feeds/csm/~3/PnVS3O25tYc/Bradley-Manning-s-Wikileaks-trial-shrouded-in-secrecy (http://rss.csmonitor.com/~r/feeds/csm/~3/PnVS3O25tYc/Bradley-Manning-s-Wikileaks-trial-shrouded-in-secrecy) :icon_study:
 
Title: Re: Wikileaks Updates-Bradley Manning's Wikileaks Trial Shrouded in Secrecy
Post by: luciddreams on June 04, 2013, 10:24:38 PM
Bradley Manning's Wikileaks trial shrouded in secrecy

Philip Cave, a retired Navy judge advocate general, said it's not uncommon for portions of military trials to be kept away from the public.


no shit :emthdown:

WTF?

I knew when I was locked up that I may never been seen or heard from again.  They made that no secret.  Those black blooded fucksticks that ran the joint regularly threw the fact up in my face.   That if I didn't do what they said I would never get out.  I was only in for three days.  Needless to say, I did what I was told. 
Title: The Siege of Julian Assange Is a Farce- John Pilger
Post by: RE on November 16, 2014, 11:46:42 PM

The Siege of Julian Assange is a Farce

 
assange us flag

The siege of Knightsbridge is a farce. For two years, an exaggerated, costly police presence around the Ecuadorean embassy in London has served no purpose other than to flaunt the power of the state. Their quarry is an Australian charged with no crime, a refugee from gross injustice whose only security is the room given him by a brave South American country. His true crime is to have initiated a wave of truth-telling in an era of lies, cynicism and war.

The persecution of Julian Assange must end. Even the British government clearly believes it must end. On 28 October, the deputy foreign minister, Hugo Swire, told Parliament he would “actively welcome” the Swedish prosecutor in London and “we would do absolutely everything to facilitate that.” The tone was impatient.

The Swedish prosecutor, Marianne Ny, has refused to come to London to question Assange about allegations of sexual misconduct in Stockholm in 2010 – even thoughSwedish law allows for it and the procedure is routine for Sweden and the UK. The documentary evidence of a threat to Assange’s life and freedom from the United States – should he leave the embassy – is overwhelming. On May 14 this year, US court files revealed that a “multi subject investigation” against Assange was “active and ongoing.”

Ny has never properly explained why she will not come to London, just as the Swedish authorities have never explained why they refuse to give Assange a guarantee that they will not extradite him on to the US under a secret arrangement agreed between Stockholm and Washington. In December 2010, the Independent revealed that the two governments had discussed his onward extradition to the US before the European Arrest Warrant was issued.

Perhaps an explanation is that, contrary to its reputation as a liberal bastion, Sweden has drawn so close to Washington that it has allowed secret CIA “renditions” – including the illegal deportation of refugees. The rendition and subsequent torture of two Egyptian political refugees in 2001 was condemned by the UN Committee against Torture, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch; the complicity and duplicity of the Swedish state are documented in successful civil litigation and WikiLeaks cables. In the summer of 2010, Assange had been in Sweden to talk about WikiLeaks revelations of the war in Afghanistan – in which Sweden had forces under US command.

The Americans are pursuing Assange because WikiLeaks exposed their epic crimes in Afghanistan and Iraq: the wholesale killing of tens of thousands of civilians, which they covered up; and their contempt for sovereignty and international law, as demonstrated vividly in their leaked diplomatic cables.

For his part in disclosing how US soldiers murdered Afghan and Iraqi civilians, the heroic soldier Bradley (now Chelsea) Manning received a sentence of 35 years, having been held for more than a thousand days in conditions which, according to the UN Special Rapporteur, amounted to torture.

Few doubt that should the US get their hands on Assange, a similar fate awaits him. Threats of capture and assassination became the currency of the political extremes in the US following Vice-President Joe Biden’s preposterous slur that Assange was a “cyber-terrorist”. Anyone doubting the kind of US ruthlessness he can expect should remember the forcing down of the Bolivian president’s plane last year – wrongly believed to be carrying Edward Snowden.

According to documents released by Snowden, Assange is on a “Manhunt target list”. Washington’s bid to get him, say Australian diplomatic cables, is “unprecedented in scale and nature”. In Alexandria, Virginia, a secret grand jury has spent four years attempting to contrive a crime for which Assange can be prosecuted. This is not easy. The First Amendment to the US Constitution protects publishers, journalists and whistleblowers. As a presidential candidate in 2008, Barack Obama lauded whistleblowers as “part of a healthy democracy [and they] must be protected from reprisal”. Under President Obama, more whistleblowers have been prosecuted than under all other US presidents combined. Even before the verdict was announced in the trial of Chelsea Manning, Obama had pronounced the whisletblower guilty.

“Documents released by WikiLeaks since Assange moved to England,” wrote Al Burke, editor of the online Nordic News Network, an authority on the multiple twists and dangers facing Assange, “clearly indicate that Sweden has consistently submitted to pressure from the United States in matters relating to civil rights. There is every reason for concern that if Assange were to be taken into custody by Swedish authorities, he could be turned over to the United States without due consideration of his legal rights.”

There are signs that the Swedish public and legal community do not support prosecutor’s Marianne Ny’s intransigence. Once implacably hostile to Assange, the Swedish press has published headlines such as: “Go to London, for God’s sake.”

Why won’t she? More to the point, why won’t she allow the Swedish court access to hundreds of SMS messages that the police extracted from the phone of one of the two women involved in the misconduct allegations? Why won’t she hand them over to Assange’s Swedish lawyers? She says she is not legally required to do so until a formal charge is laid and she has questioned him. Then, why doesn’t she question him?

This week, the Swedish Court of Appeal will decide whether to order Ny to hand over the SMS messages; or the matter will go to the Supreme Court and the European Court of Justice. In high farce, Assange’s Swedish lawyers have been allowed only to “review” the SMS messages, which they had to memorise.

One of the women’s messages makes clear that she did not want any charges brought against Assange, “but the police were keen on getting a hold on him”. She was “shocked” when they arrested him because she only “wanted him to take [an HIV] test”. She “did not want to accuse JA of anything” and “it was the police who made up the charges”. (In a witness statement, she is quoted as saying that she had been “railroaded by police and others around her”.)

Neither woman claimed she had been raped. Indeed, both have denied they were raped and one of them has since tweeted, “I have not been raped.” That they were manipulated by police and their wishes ignored is evident – whatever their lawyers might say now. Certainly, they are victims of a saga worthy of Kafka.

For Assange, his only trial has been trial by media. On 20 August 2010, the Swedish police opened a “rape investigation” and immediately — and unlawfully — told the Stockholm tabloids that there was a warrant for Assange’s arrest for the “rape of two women”. This was the news that went round the world.

In Washington, a smiling US Defence Secretary Robert Gates told reporters that the arrest “sounds like good news to me”. Twitter accounts associated with the Pentagon described Assange as a “rapist” and a “fugitive”.

Less than 24 hours later, the Stockholm Chief Prosecutor, Eva Finne, took over the investigation. She wasted no time in cancelling the arrest warrant, saying, “I don’t believe there is any reason to suspect that he has committed rape.” Four days later, she dismissed the rape investigation altogether, saying, “There is no suspicion of any crime whatsoever.” The file was closed.

Enter Claes Borgstrom, a high profile politician in the Social Democratic Party then standing as a candidate in Sweden’s imminent general election. Within days of the chief prosecutor’s dismissal of the case, Borgstrom, a lawyer, announced to the media that he was representing the two women and had sought a different prosecutor in the city of Gothenberg. This was Marianne Ny, whom Borgstrom knew well. She, too, was involved with the Social Democrats.

On 30 August, Assange attended a police station in Stockholm voluntarily and answered all the questions put to him. He understood that was the end of the matter. Two days later, Ny announced she was re-opening the case. Borgstrom was asked by a Swedish reporter why the case was proceeding when it had already been dismissed, citing one of the women as saying she had not been raped. He replied, “Ah, but she is not a lawyer.” Assange’s Australian barrister, James Catlin, responded, “This is a laughing stock … it’s as if they make it up as they go along.”

On the day Marianne Ny re-activated the case, the head of Sweden’s military intelligence service (“MUST”) publicly denounced WikiLeaks in an article entitled “WikiLeaks [is] a threat to our soldiers.” Assange was warned that the Swedish intelligence service, SAP, had been told by its US counterparts that US-Sweden intelligence-sharing arrangements would be “cut off” if Sweden sheltered him.

For five weeks, Assange waited in Sweden for the new investigation to take its course. The Guardian was then on the brink of publishing the Iraq “War Logs”, based on WikiLeaks’ disclosures, which Assange was to oversee. His lawyer in Stockholm asked Ny if she had any objection to his leaving the country. She said he was free to leave.

Inexplicably, as soon as he left Sweden — at the height of media and public interest in the WikiLeaks disclosures — Ny issued a European Arrest Warrant and an Interpol “red alert” normally used for terrorists and dangerous criminals. Put out in five languages around the world, it ensured a media frenzy.

Assange attended a police station in London, was arrested and spent ten days in Wandsworth Prison, in solitary confinement. Released on £340,000 bail, he was electronically tagged, required to report to police daily and placed under virtual house arrest while his case began its long journey to the Supreme Court. He still had not been charged with any offence. His lawyers repeated his offer to be questioned by Ny in London, pointing out that she had given him permission to leave Sweden. They suggested a special facility at Scotland Yard used for that purpose. She refused.

Katrin Axelsson and Lisa Longstaff of Women Against Rape wrote: “The allegations against [Assange] are a smokescreen behind which a number of governments are trying to clamp down on WikiLeaks for having audaciously revealed to the public their secret planning of wars and occupations with their attendant rape, murder and destruction… The authorities care so little about violence against women that they manipulate rape allegations at will. [Assange] has made it clear he is available for questioning by the Swedish authorities, in Britain or via Skype. Why are they refusing this essential step in their investigation? What are they afraid of?”

This question remained unanswered as Ny deployed the European Arrest Warrant, a draconian product of the “war on terror” supposedly designed to catch terrorists and organized criminals. The EAW had abolished the obligation on a petitioning state to provide any evidence of a crime. More than a thousand EAWs are issued each month; only a few have anything to do with potential “terror” charges. Most are issued for trivial offences—such as overdue bank charges and fines. Many of those extradited face months in prison without charge. There have been a number of shocking miscarriages of justice, of which British judges have been highly critical.

The Assange case finally reached the UK Supreme Court in May 2012. In a judgement that upheld the EAW – whose rigid demands had left the courts almost no room for manoeuvre – the judges found that European prosecutors could issue extradition warrants in the UK without any judicial oversight, even though Parliament intended otherwise. They made clear that Parliament had been “misled” by the Blair government. The court was split, 5-2, and consequently found against Assange.

However, the Chief Justice, Lord Phillips, made one mistake. He applied the Vienna Convention on treaty interpretation, allowing for state practice to override the letter of the law. As Assange’s barrister, Dinah Rose QC, pointed out, this did not apply to the EAW.

The Supreme Court only recognised this crucial error when it dealt with another appeal against the EAW in November last year. The Assange decision had been wrong, but it was too late to go back.

Assange’s choice was stark: extradition to a country that had refused to say whether or not it would send him on to the US, or to seek what seemed his last opportunity for refuge and safety. Supported by most of Latin America, the courageous government of Ecuador granted him refugee status on the basis of documented evidence and legal advice that he faced the prospect of cruel and unusual punishment in the US; that this threat violated his basic human rights; and that his own government in Australia had abandoned him and colluded with Washington. The Labor government of prime minister Julia Gillard had even threatened to take away his passport.

Gareth Peirce, the renowned human rights lawyer who represents Assange in London, wrote to the then Australian foreign minister, Kevin Rudd:

“Given the extent of the public discussion, frequently on the basis of entirely false assumptions… it is very hard to attempt to preserve for him any presumption of innocence. Mr. Assange has now hanging over him not one but two Damocles swords, of potential extradition to two different jurisdictions in turn for two different alleged crimes, neither of which are crimes in his own country, and that his personal safety has become at risk in circumstances that are highly politically charged.”

It was not until she contacted the Australian High Commission in London that Peirce received a response, which answered none of the pressing points she raised. In a meeting I attended with her, the Australian Consul-General, Ken Pascoe, made the astonishing claim that he knew “only what I read in the newspapers” about the details of the case.

Meanwhile, the prospect of a grotesque miscarriage of justice was drowned in a vituperative campaign against the WikiLeaks founder. Deeply personal, petty, vicious and inhuman attacks were aimed at a man not charged with any crime yet subjected to treatment not even meted out to a defendant facing extradition on a charge of murdering his wife. That the US threat to Assange was a threat to all journalists, to freedom of speech, was lost in the sordid and the ambitious.

Books were published, movie deals struck and media careers launched or kick-started on the back of WikiLeaks and an assumption that attacking Assange was fair game and he was too poor to sue. People have made money, often big money, while WikiLeaks has struggled to survive. The editor of the Guardian, Alan Rusbridger, called the WikiLeaks disclosures, which his newspaper published, “one of the greatest journalistic scoops of the last 30 years”. It became part of his marketing plan to raise the newspaper’s cover price.

With not a penny going to Assange or to WikiLeaks, a hyped Guardian book led to a lucrative Hollywood movie. The book’s authors, Luke Harding and David Leigh, gratuitously described Assange as a “damaged personality” and “callous”. They also revealed the secret password he had given the paper in confidence, which was designed to protect a digital file containing the US embassy cables. With Assange now trapped in the Ecuadorean embassy, Harding, standing among the police outside, gloated on his blog that “Scotland Yard may get the last laugh”.

The injustice meted out to Assange is one of the reasons Parliament will eventually vote on a reformed EAW. The draconian catch-all used against him could not happen now; charges would have to be brought and “questioning” would be insufficient grounds for extradition. “His case has been won lock, stock and barrel,” Gareth Peirce told me, “these changes in the law mean that the UK now recognises as correct everything that was argued in his case. Yet he does not benefit. And the genuineness of Ecuador’s offer of sanctuary is not questioned by the UK or Sweden.”

On 18 March 2008, a war on WikiLeaks and Julian Assange was foretold in a secret Pentagon document prepared by the “Cyber Counterintelligence Assessments Branch”. It described a detailed plan to destroy the feeling of “trust” which is WikiLeaks’ “centre of gravity”. This would be achieved with threats of “exposure [and] criminal prosecution”. Silencing and criminalising this rare source of independent journalism was the aim, smear the method. Hell hath no fury like great power scorned.

[url=http://www.johnpiler.com]www.johnpiler.com[/url]

For important additional information, click on the following links:

http://justice4assange.com/extraditing-assange.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/assange-could-face-espionage-trial-in-us-2154107.html

[url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ImXe_EQhUI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ImXe_EQhUI[/url]

http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/nlj/wikileaks_doj_05192014.pdf

[url=https://wikileaks.org/59-International-Organizations.html]https://wikileaks.org/59-International-Organizations.html[/url]

[url=https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1202703/doj-letter-re-wikileaks-6-19-14.pdf]https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1202703/doj-letter-re-wikileaks-6-19-14.pdf[/url]

Title: Wikileaks Updates-Julian Assange on TPPP
Post by: RE on May 27, 2015, 11:54:28 PM
Latest from Julian, via Mike Krieger and ZH.

RE

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-05-27/julian-assange-tpp-deal-isnt-about-trade-its-about-corporate-control (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-05-27/julian-assange-tpp-deal-isnt-about-trade-its-about-corporate-control)

Julian Assange On The TPP: "Deal Isn't About Trade, It's About Corporate Control"

Tyler Durden's picture



 

Submitted by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

Screen Shot 2015-05-27 at 2.38.05 PM

It’s mostly not about trade. Only 5 of the 29 chapters are about traditional trade.

 

– Julian Assange in a recent interview with Democracy Now

I’ve focused a little bit more of my attention on the Trans-Pacific Partnership lately, as the Obama Administration scrambles to attain “fast-track” authority from Congress.

The content of this unbelievably dangerous gift to multi-national corporations is being kept secret from the public, and for very good reason.

*  *  *

For some background on the TPP and where it stands, see:

Trade Expert and TPP Whistleblower – “We Should Be Very Concerned about What’s Hidden in This Trade Deal”

As the Senate Prepares to Vote on “Fast Track,” Here’s a Quick Primer on the Dangers of the TPP

*  *  *

What little we know about the TPP has come from whistleblower site, Wikileaks. This is what Julian Assange thinks of this “trade” treaty in his own words.

 

Title: Julian Assange: John Pilger Updates
Post by: RE on July 31, 2015, 01:35:10 PM
Assange: the untold story of an epic struggle for justice (http://johnpilger.com/articles/assange-the-untold-story-of-an-epic-struggle-for-justice)

John Pilger
31 July 2015

(http://johnpilger.com/photo/470x357-C3s.jpg)


The siege of Knightsbridge is both an emblem of gross injustice and a gruelling farce. For three years, a police cordon around the Ecuadorean embassy in London has served no purpose other than to flaunt the power of the state. It has cost £12 million. The quarry is an Australian charged with no crime, a refugee whose only security is the room given him by a brave South American country. His "crime" is to have initiated a wave of truth-telling in an era of lies, cynicism and war.

The persecution of Julian Assange is about to flare again as it enters a dangerous stage. From August 20, three quarters of the Swedish prosecutor's case against Assange regarding sexual misconduct in 2010 will disappear as the statute of limitations expires. At the same time Washington's obsession with Assange and WikiLeaks has intensified. Indeed, it is vindictive American power that offers the greatest threat - as Chelsea Manning and those still held in Guantanamo can attest.

The Americans are pursuing Assange because WikiLeaks exposed their epic crimes in Afghanistan and Iraq: the wholesale killing of tens of thousands of civilians, which they covered up, and their contempt for sovereignty and international law, as demonstrated vividly in their leaked diplomatic cables. WikiLeaks continues to expose criminal activity by the US, having just published top secret US intercepts - US spies' reports detailing private phone calls of the presidents of France and Germany, and other senior officials, relating to internal European political and economic affairs.

None of this is illegal under the US Constitution. As a presidential candidate in 2008, Barack Obama, a professor of constitutional law, lauded whistleblowers as "part of a healthy democracy [and they] must be protected from reprisal". In 2012, the campaign to re-elect President Barack Obama boasted on its website that he had prosecuted more whistleblowers in his first term than all other US presidents combined. Before Chelsea Manning had even received a trial, Obama had pronounced the whistleblower guilty. He was subsequently sentenced to 35 years in prison, having been tortured during his long pre-trial detention.

Few doubt that should the US get their hands on Assange, a similar fate awaits him. Threats of the capture and assassination of Assange became the currency of the political extremes in the US following Vice-President Joe Biden's preposterous slur that the WikiLeaks founder was a "cyber-terrorist". Those doubting the degree of ruthlessness Assange can expect should remember the forcing down of the Bolivian president's plane in 2013 - wrongly believed to be carrying Edward Snowden.

According to documents released by Snowden, Assange is on a "Manhunt target list". Washington's bid to get him, say Australian diplomatic cables, is "unprecedented in scale and nature". In Alexandria, Virginia, a secret grand jury has spent five years attempting to contrive a crime for which Assange can be prosecuted. This is not easy. The First Amendment to the US Constitution protects publishers, journalists and whistleblowers.

Faced with this constitutional hurdle, the US Justice Department has contrived charges of "espionage", "conspiracy to commit espionage", "conversion" (theft of government property), "computer fraud and abuse" (computer hacking) and general "conspiracy". The Espionage Act has life in prison and death penalty provisions.

Assange's ability to defend himself in this Kafkaesque world has been handicapped by the US declaring his case a state secret. In March, a federal court in Washington blocked the release of all information about the "national security" investigation against WikiLeaks, because it was "active and ongoing" and would harm the "pending prosecution" of Assange. The judge, Barbara J. Rosthstein, said it was necessary to show "appropriate deference to the executive in matters of national security". Such is the "justice" of a kangaroo court.

The supporting act in this grim farce is Sweden, played by the Swedish prosecutor Marianne Ny. Until recently, Ny refused to comply with a routine European procedure routine that required her to travel to London to question Assange and so advance the case. For four and a half years, Ny has never properly explained why she has refused to come to London, just as the Swedish authorities have never explained why they refuse to give Assange a guarantee that they will not extradite him on to the US under a secret arrangement agreed between Stockholm and Washington. In December 2010, The Independent revealed that the two governments had discussed his onward extradition to the US.

Contrary to its 1960s reputation as a liberal bastion, Sweden has drawn so close to Washington that it has allowed secret CIA "renditions" - including the illegal deportation of refugees. The rendition and subsequent torture of two Egyptian political refugees in 2001 was condemned by the UN Committee against Torture, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch; the complicity and duplicity of the Swedish state are documented in successful civil litigation and in WikiLeaks cables. In the summer of 2010, Assange had flown to Sweden to talk about WikiLeaks revelations of the war in Afghanistan - in which Sweden had forces under US command.

"Documents released by WikiLeaks since Assange moved to England," wrote Al Burke, editor of the online Nordic News Network, an authority on the multiple twists and dangers facing Assange, "clearly indicate that Sweden has consistently submitted to pressure from the United States in matters relating to civil rights. There is every reason for concern that if Assange were to be taken into custody by Swedish authorities, he could be turned over to the United States without due consideration of his legal rights."

Why hasn't the Swedish prosecutor resolved the Assange case? Many in the legal community in Sweden believe her behaviour inexplicable. Once implacably hostile to Assange, the Swedish press has published headlines such as: "Go to London, for God's sake."

Why hasn't she? More to the point, why won't she allow the Swedish court access to hundreds of SMS messages that the police extracted from the phone of one of the two women involved in the misconduct allegations? Why won't she hand them over to Assange's Swedish lawyers? She says she is not legally required to do so until a formal charge is laid and she has questioned him. Then, why doesn't she question him? And if she did question him, the conditions she would demand of him and his lawyers - that they could not challenge her - would make injustice a near certainty.

On a point of law, the Swedish Supreme Court has decided Ny can continue to obstruct on the vital issue of the SMS messages. This will now go to the European Court of Human Rights. What Ny fears is that the SMS messages will destroy her case against Assange. One of the messages makes clear that one of the women did not want any charges brought against Assange, "but the police were keen on getting a hold on him". She was "shocked" when they arrested him because she only "wanted him to take [an HIV] test". She "did not want to accuse JA of anything" and "it was the police who made up the charges". (In a witness statement, she is quoted as saying that she had been "railroaded by police and others around her".)

Neither woman claimed she had been raped. Indeed, both have denied they were raped and one of them has since tweeted, "I have not been raped." That they were manipulated by police and their wishes ignored is evident - whatever their lawyers might say now. Certainly, they are victims of a saga which blights the reputation of Sweden itself.

For Assange, his only trial has been trial by media. On August 20, 2010, the Swedish police opened a "rape investigation" and immediately - and unlawfully - told the Stockholm tabloids that there was a warrant for Assange's arrest for the "rape of two women". This was the news that went round the world.

In Washington, a smiling US Defence Secretary Robert Gates told reporters that the arrest "sounds like good news to me". Twitter accounts associated with the Pentagon described Assange as a "rapist" and a "fugitive".

Less than 24 hours later, the Stockholm Chief Prosecutor, Eva Finne, took over the investigation. She wasted no time in cancelling the arrest warrant, saying, "I don't believe there is any reason to suspect that he has committed rape." Four days later, she dismissed the rape investigation altogether, saying, "There is no suspicion of any crime whatsoever." The file was closed.

Enter Claes Borgstrom, a high profile politician in the Social Democratic Party then standing as a candidate in Sweden's imminent general election. Within days of the chief prosecutor's dismissal of the case, Borgstrom, a lawyer, announced to the media that he was representing the two women and had sought a different prosecutor in the city of Gothenberg. This was Marianne Ny, whom Borgstrom knew well, personally and politically.

On 30 August, Assange attended a police station in Stockholm voluntarily and answered all the questions put to him. He understood that was the end of the matter. Two days later, Ny announced she was re-opening the case. Borgstrom was asked by a Swedish reporter why the case was proceeding when it had already been dismissed, citing one of the women as saying she had not been raped. He replied, "Ah, but she is not a lawyer." Assange's Australian barrister, James Catlin, responded, "This is a laughing stock... it's as if they make it up as they go along."

On the day Marianne Ny reactivated the case, the head of Sweden's military intelligence service - which has the acronym MUST -- publicly denounced WikiLeaks in an article entitled "WikiLeaks [is] a threat to our soldiers." Assange was warned that the Swedish intelligence service, SAPO, had been told by its US counterparts that US-Sweden intelligence-sharing arrangements would be "cut off" if Sweden sheltered him.

For five weeks, Assange waited in Sweden for the new investigation to take its course. The Guardian was then on the brink of publishing the Iraq "War Logs", based on WikiLeaks' disclosures, which Assange was to oversee. His lawyer in Stockholm asked Ny if she had any objection to his leaving the country. She said he was free to leave.

Inexplicably, as soon as he left Sweden - at the height of media and public interest in the WikiLeaks disclosures - Ny issued a European Arrest Warrant and an Interpol "red alert" normally used for terrorists and dangerous criminals. Put out in five languages around the world, it ensured a media frenzy.

Assange attended a police station in London, was arrested and spent ten days in Wandsworth Prison, in solitary confinement. Released on £340,000 bail, he was electronically tagged, required to report to police daily and placed under virtual house arrest while his case began its long journey to the Supreme Court. He still had not been charged with any offence. His lawyers repeated his offer to be questioned by Ny in London, pointing out that she had given him permission to leave Sweden. They suggested a special facility at Scotland Yard commonly used for that purpose. She refused.

Katrin Axelsson and Lisa Longstaff of Women Against Rape wrote: "The allegations against [Assange] are a smokescreen behind which a number of governments are trying to clamp down on WikiLeaks for having audaciously revealed to the public their secret planning of wars and occupations with their attendant rape, murder and destruction... The authorities care so little about violence against women that they manipulate rape allegations at will. [Assange] has made it clear he is available for questioning by the Swedish authorities, in Britain or via Skype. Why are they refusing this essential step in their investigation? What are they afraid of?"

This question remained unanswered as Ny deployed the European Arrest Warrant, a draconian and now discredited  product of the "war on terror" supposedly designed to catch terrorists and organised criminals. The EAW had abolished the obligation on a petitioning state to provide any evidence of a crime. More than a thousand EAWs are issued each month; only a few have anything to do with potential "terror" charges. Most are issued for trivial offences, such as overdue bank charges and fines. Many of those extradited face months in prison without charge. There have been a number of shocking miscarriages of justice, of which British judges have been highly critical.

The Assange case finally reached the UK Supreme Court in May 2012. In a judgement that upheld the EAW - whose rigid demands had left the courts almost no room for manoeuvre - the judges found that European prosecutors could issue extradition warrants in the UK without any judicial oversight, even though Parliament intended otherwise. They made clear that Parliament had been "misled" by the Blair government. The court was split, 5-2, and consequently found against Assange.

However, the Chief Justice, Lord Phillips, made one mistake. He applied the Vienna Convention on treaty interpretation, allowing for state practice to override the letter of the law. As Assange's barrister, Dinah Rose QC, pointed out, this did not apply to the EAW.

The Supreme Court only recognised this crucial error when it dealt with another appeal against the EAW in November 2013. The Assange decision had been wrong, but it was too late to go back. With extradition imminent, the Swedish prosecutor told Assange's lawyers that Assange, once in Sweden, would be immediately placed in one of Sweden's infamous remand prisons.

Assange's choice was stark: extradition to a country that had refused to say whether or not it would send him on to the US, or to seek what seemed his last opportunity for refuge and safety. Supported by most of Latin America, the courageous government of Ecuador granted him refugee status on the basis of documented evidence and legal advice that he faced the prospect of cruel and unusual punishment in the US; that this threat violated his basic human rights; and that his own government in Australia had abandoned him and colluded with Washington. The Labor government of prime minister Julia Gillard had even threatened to take away his passport.

Gareth Peirce, the renowned human rights lawyer who represents Assange in London, wrote to the then Australian foreign minister, Kevin Rudd: "Given the extent of the public discussion, frequently on the basis of entirely false assumptions... it is very hard to attempt to preserve for him any presumption of innocence. Mr. Assange has now hanging over him not one but two Damocles swords, of potential extradition to two different jurisdictions in turn for two different alleged crimes, neither of which are crimes in his own country, and that his personal safety has become at risk in circumstances that are highly politically charged."

It was not until she contacted the Australian High Commission in London that Peirce received a response, which answered none of the pressing points she raised. In a meeting I attended with her, the Australian Consul-General, Ken Pascoe, made the astonishing claim that he knew "only what I read in the newspapers" about the details of the case.

Meanwhile, the prospect of a grotesque miscarriage of justice was drowned in a vituperative campaign against the WikiLeaks founder. Deeply personal, petty, vicious and inhuman attacks were aimed at a man not charged with any crime yet subjected to treatment not even meted out to a defendant facing extradition on a charge of murdering his wife. That the US threat to Assange was a threat to all journalists, to freedom of speech, was lost in the sordid and the ambitious.

Books were published, movie deals struck and media careers launched or kick-started on the back of WikiLeaks and an assumption that attacking Assange was fair game and he was too poor to sue. People have made money, often big money, while WikiLeaks has struggled to survive. The editor of the Guardian, Alan Rusbridger, called the WikiLeaks disclosures, which his newspaper published, "one of the greatest journalistic scoops of the last 30 years". It became part of his marketing plan to raise the newspaper's cover price.

With not a penny going to Assange or to WikiLeaks, a hyped Guardian book led to a lucrative Hollywood movie. The book's authors, Luke Harding and David Leigh, gratuitously described Assange as a "damaged personality" and "callous". They also revealed the secret password he had given the paper in confidence, which was designed to protect a digital file containing the US embassy cables. With Assange now trapped in the Ecuadorean embassy, Harding, standing among the police outside, gloated on his blog that "Scotland Yard may get the last laugh".

The injustice meted out to Assange is one of the reasons Parliament reformed the Extradition Act to prevent the misuse of the EAW. The draconian catch-all used against him could not happen now; charges would have to be brought and "questioning" would be insufficient grounds for extradition. "His case has been won lock, stock and barrel," Gareth Peirce told me, "these changes in the law mean that the UK now recognises as correct everything that was argued in his case. Yet he does not benefit." In other words, the change in the UK law in 2014 mean that Assange would have won his case and he would not have been forced to take refuge.

Ecuador's decision to protect Assange in 2012 bloomed into a major international affair. Even though the granting of asylum is a humanitarian act, and the power to do so is enjoyed by all states under international law, both Sweden and the United Kingdom refused to recognize the legitimacy of Ecuador's decision. Ignoring international law, the Cameron government refused to grant Assange safe passage to Ecuador. Instead, Ecuador's embassy was placed under siege and its government abused with a series of ultimatums. When William Hague's Foreign Office threatened to violate the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, warning that it would remove the diplomatic inviolability of the embassy and send the police in to get Assange, outrage across the world forced the government to back down. During one night, police appeared at the windows of the embassy in an obvious attempt to intimidate Assange and his protectors.

Since then, Julian Assange has been confined to a small room under Ecuador's protection, without sunlight or space to exercise, surrounded by police under orders to arrest him on sight. For three years, Ecuador has made clear to the Swedish prosecutor that Assange is available to be questioned in the London embassy, and for three years she has remained intransigent. In the same period Sweden has questioned forty-four people in the UK in connection with police investigations. Her role, and that of the Swedish state, is demonstrably political; and for Ny, facing retirement in two years, she must "win".

In despair, Assange has challenged the arrest warrant in the Swedish courts. His lawyers have cited rulings by the European Court of Human Rights that he has been under arbitrary, indefinite detention and that he had been a virtual prisoner for longer than any actual prison sentence he might face. The Court of Appeal judge agreed with Assange's lawyers: the prosecutor had indeed breached her duty by keeping the case suspended for years. Another judge issued a rebuke to the prosecutor. And yet she defied the court.

Last December, Assange took his case to the Swedish Supreme Court, which ordered Marianne Ny's boss - the Prosecutor General of Sweden Anders Perklev - to explain. The next day, Ny announced, without explanation, that she had changed her mind and would now question Assange in London.

In his submission to the Supreme Court, the Prosecutor General made some important concessions: he argued that the coercion of Assange had been "intrusive" and that that the period in the embassy has been a "great strain" on him. He even conceded that if the matter had ever come to prosecution, trial, conviction and serving a sentence in Sweden, Julian Assange would have left Sweden long ago.

In a split decision, one Supreme Court judge argued that the arrest warrant should have been revoked. The majority of the judges ruled that, since the prosecutor had now said she would go to London, Assange's arguments had become "moot". But the Court ruled that it would have found against the prosecutor if she had not suddenly changed her mind. Justice by caprice. Writing in the Swedish press, a former Swedish prosecutor, Rolf Hillegren, accused Ny of losing all impartiality. He described her personal investment in the case as"abnormal" and demanded that she be replaced.

Having said she would go to London in June, Ny did not go, but sent a deputy, knowing that the questioning would not be legal under these circumstances, especially as Sweden had not bothered to get Ecuador's approval for the meeting. At the same time, her office tipped off the Swedish tabloid newspaper Expressen, which sent its London correspondent to wait outside Ecuador's embassy for "news". The news was that Ny was cancelling the appointment and blaming Ecuador for the confusion and by implication an "uncooperative" Assange - when the opposite was true.

As the statute of limitations date approaches - 20 August 2015 - another chapter in this hideous story will doubtless unfold, with Marianne Ny pulling yet another rabbit out of her hat and the commissars and prosecutors in Washington the beneficiaries. Perhaps none of this is surprising. In 2008, a war on WikiLeaks and on Julian Assange was foretold in a secret Pentagon document prepared by the "Cyber Counterintelligence Assessments Branch". It described a detailed plan to destroy the feeling of "trust" which is WikiLeaks' "centre of gravity". This would be achieved with threats of "exposure [and] criminal prosecution". Silencing and criminalising such a rare source of truth-telling was the aim, smear the method. While this scandal continues the very notion of justice is diminished, along with the reputation of Sweden, and the shadow of America's menace touches us all.

For important additional information, click on the following links:

http://justice4assange.com/extraditing-assange.html (http://justice4assange.com/extraditing-assange.html)

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/assange-could-face-espionage-trial-in-us-2154107.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/assange-could-face-espionage-trial-in-us-2154107.html)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ImXe_EQhUI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ImXe_EQhUI)

https://justice4assange.com/Timeline.html (https://justice4assange.com/Timeline.html)

http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/nlj/wikileaks_doj_05192014.pdf (http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/nlj/wikileaks_doj_05192014.pdf)

https://wikileaks.org/59-International-Organizations.html (https://wikileaks.org/59-International-Organizations.html)

https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1202703/doj-letter-re-wikileaks-6-19-14.pdf (https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1202703/doj-letter-re-wikileaks-6-19-14.pdf)

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jul/23/julian-assange-ecuador-and-sweden-in-tense-standoff-over-interview?CMP=twt_gu (http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jul/23/julian-assange-ecuador-and-sweden-in-tense-standoff-over-interview?CMP=twt_gu)

http://assangeinsweden.com/2015/03/17/the-prosecutor-in-the-assange-case-should-be-replaced (http://assangeinsweden.com/2015/03/17/the-prosecutor-in-the-assange-case-should-be-replaced)

https://justice4assange.com/Prosecutor-cancels-Assange-meeting.html (https://justice4assange.com/Prosecutor-cancels-Assange-meeting.html)
Title: Sweden May Drop Case, But Risk Remains Of Arrest of Julian Assange
Post by: RE on August 17, 2015, 05:55:15 AM
The Swedes are capitulating, but not the NSA.

Julian will need to stay holed up in the Ecuadorian Embassy a while longer.

RE

http://www.globalresearch.ca/sweden-may-drop-case-against-julian-assange-but-risk-remains-of-arrest-and-extradition-to-us/5468940 (http://www.globalresearch.ca/sweden-may-drop-case-against-julian-assange-but-risk-remains-of-arrest-and-extradition-to-us/5468940)
Title: Assange to Accept Arrest if UN Panel Rules Against Him
Post by: RE on February 04, 2016, 03:16:57 AM
JA must be pretty sure of the outcome here being in his favor.

RE

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2016/02/03/world/europe/ap-eu-wikileaks-assange.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2016/02/03/world/europe/ap-eu-wikileaks-assange.html?_r=0)
Assange to Accept Arrest if UN Panel Rules Against Him

LONDON — WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange says he will accept arrest by British police if a U.N. working group investigating his claims decides that the three years he has spent inside the Ecuadorean Embassy doesn't amount to illegal detention.

Writing on WikiLeaks' Twitter account Wednesday night, Assange said if the U.N. panel finds he has lost his case against the United Kingdom and Sweden then he will turn himself in to police at noon on Friday.

"However, should I prevail and the state parties be found to have acted unlawfully, I expect the immediate return of my passport and the termination of further attempts to arrest me," Assange added.

The U.N. panel based in Geneva doesn't have any binding authority to impose its findings on the British or Swedish judicial authorities, which have been involved in years of legal wrangling involving Assange.

Its decision could, however, influence how aggressively Swedish prosecutors pursue Assange for questioning about allegations of sexual misconduct.

Assange voluntarily took refuge in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London to avoid extradition to Sweden where two women have accused him of sexual assault.

He has said his main legal concern is a possible indictment against him in the U.S. on charges related to WikiLeaks' release of government cables.

He has expressed the fear that British and Swedish authorities plan to send him to the U.S. to face charges against him there.

British police guarded the Ecuadorean Embassy for several years but removed the round-the-clock security cordon in October.

Police said they would still seek to arrest Assange if he leaves the embassy because of a valid arrest warrant. Police said both overt and covert means would be used to keep track of Assange.
Title: Freeing Julian Assange: the Final Chapter- John Pilger
Post by: RE on February 06, 2016, 07:15:36 AM
Still not free, but getting closer.

RE

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/02/05/freeing-julian-assange-the-final-chapter/ (http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/02/05/freeing-julian-assange-the-final-chapter/)

February 5, 2016
Freeing Julian Assange: the Final Chapter

by John Pilger

(http://uziiw38pmyg1ai60732c4011.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/dropzone/2016/02/shutterstock_66655795.jpg)

One of the epic miscarriages of justice of our time is unravelling. The United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention — — the international tribunal that adjudicates and decides whether governments comply with their human rights obligations — has ruled that Julian Assange has been detained unlawfully by Britain and Sweden.

After five years of fighting to clear his name — having been smeared relentlessly yet charged with no crime — Assange is closer to justice and vindication, and perhaps freedom, than at any time since he was arrested and held in London under a European Extradition Warrant, itself now discredited by Parliament.

The UN Working Group bases its judgements on the European Convention on Human Rights and three other treaties that are binding on all its signatories. Both Britain and Sweden participated in the 16-month long UN investigation and submitted evidence and defended their position before the tribunal. It would fly contemptuously in the face of international law if they did not comply with the judgment and allow Assange to leave the refuge granted him by the Ecuadorean government in its London embassy.

In previous, celebrated cases ruled upon by the Working Group — Aung Sang Suu Kyi in Burma, imprisoned opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim in Malaysia, detained Washington Post journalist Jason Rezaian in Iran, both Britain and Sweden have given support to the tribunal. The difference now is that Assange’s persecution and confinement endures in the heart of London.

The Assange case has never been primarily about allegations of sexual misconduct in Sweden —  where the Stockholm Chief Prosecutor, Eva Finne,  dismissed the case, saying, “I don’t believe there is any reason to suspect that he has committed rape”, and one of the women involved accused the police of fabricating evidence and “railroading” her, protesting she “did not want to accuse JA of anything” — and a second prosecutor mysteriously re-opened the case after political intervention, then stalled it.

The Assange case is rooted across the Atlantic in Pentagon-dominated Washington, obsessed with pursuing and prosecuting whistleblowers, especially Assange for having exposed, in WikiLeaks, US capital crimes in Afghanistan and Iraq: the wholesale killing of civilians and a contempt for sovereignty and international law.  None of this truth-telling is illegal under the US Constitution. As a presidential candidate in 2008, Barack Obama, a professor of constitutional law, lauded whistleblowers as “part of a healthy democracy [and they] must be protected from reprisal”.

Obama, the betrayer,  has since prosecuted more whistleblowers than all the US presidents combined. The courageous Chelsea Manning is serving 35 years in prison, having been tortured during her long pre-trial detention.

The prospect of a similar fate has hung over Assange like a Damocles sword. According to documents released by Edward Snowden, Assange is on a “Manhunt target list”. Vice-President Joe Biden has called him a “cyber terrorist”. In Alexandra, Virginia, a secret grand jury has attempted to concoct a crime for which Assange can be prosecuted in a court. Even though he is not an American, he is currently being fitted up with an espionage law dredged up from a century ago when it was used to silence conscientious objectors during the First World War; the Espionage Act has provisions of both life imprisonment and the death penalty.

Assange’s ability to defend himself in this Kafkaesque world has been handicapped by the US declaring his case a state secret. A federal court has blocked the release of all information about what is known as the “national security” investigation of WikiLeaks.

The supporting act in this charade has been played by the second Swedish prosecutor, Marianne Ny. Until recently, Ny had refused to comply with a routine European procedure that required her to travel to London to question Assange and so advance the case that James Catlin, one of Assange’s barristers, called “a laughing stock … it’s as if they make it up as they go along”. Indeed, even before Assange had left Sweden for London in 2010, Marianne Ny made no attempt to question him. In the years since, she has never properly explained, even to her own judicial authorities, why she has not completed the case she so enthusiastically re-ignited — just as the she has never explained why she has refused to give Assange a guarantee that he will not be extradited on to the US under a secret arrangement agreed between Stockholm and Washington. In 2010, the Independent in London revealed that the two governments had discussed Assange’s onward extradition.

Then there is tiny, brave Ecuador. One of the reasons Ecuador granted Julian Assange political asylum was that his own government, in Australia, had offered him none of the help to which he had a legal right and so abandoned him. Australia’s collusion with the United States against its own citizen is evident in leaked documents; no more faithful vassals has America than the obeisant politicians of the Antipodes.

Four years ago, in Sydney, I spent several hours with the Liberal Member of the Federal Parliament, Malcolm Turnbull. We discussed the threats to Assange and their wider implications for freedom of speech and justice, and why Australia was obliged to stand by him. Turnbull is now the Prime Minister of Australia and, as I write, is attending an international conference on Syria hosted the Cameron government — about 15 minutes’ cab ride from the room that Julian Assange has occupied for three and a half years in the small Ecuadorean embassy just along from Harrod’s. The Syria connection is relevant if unreported; it was WikiLeaks that revealed that the United States had long planned to overthrow the Assad government in Syria. Today, as he meets and greets, Prime Minister Turnbull has an opportunity to contribute a modicum of purpose and truth to the conference by speaking up for his unjustly imprisoned compatriot, for whom he showed such concern when we met.  All he need do is quote the judgement of the UN Working Party on Arbitrary Detention. Will he reclaim this shred of Australia’s reputation in the decent world?

What is certain is that the decent world owes much to Julian Assange. He told us how indecent power behaves in secret, how it lies and manipulates and engages in great acts of violence, sustaining wars that kill and maim and turn millions into the refugees now in the news. Telling us this truth alone earns Assange his freedom, whereas justice is his right.

John Pilger can be reached through his website: www.johnpilger.com (http://www.johnpilger.com)
Title: Julian Assange talks to RT EXCLUSIVE
Post by: RE on August 03, 2016, 08:00:51 PM
http://www.youtube.com/v/GU2-xBVwkOs
Title: Julian Assange Special: Does Wikileaks have the SMOKING GUN on Killary?
Post by: RE on August 06, 2016, 07:21:22 PM
Looks like JA and Vlad the Impaler have formed an Alliance.  Hopefully Vlad has stationed a few KGB Cleaners around the Ecuadorian Embassy in London.  ::)  It is Spy vs Spy time now.

(http://www.adagio.com/images2/custom_blends/38658.jpg)

RE

http://www.youtube.com/v/h2FfrNGcO3g
Title: A Break in the Julian Assange Impasse?
Post by: RE on August 11, 2016, 02:46:46 AM
IMHO, JA is as good as dead the minute he walks out the door of the Ecuadorian Embassy in London.  It' amazing he has lasted this long.

RE

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/12/world/europe/julian-assange-sweden-ecuador.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/12/world/europe/julian-assange-sweden-ecuador.html?_r=0)
'
 Europe
Julian Assange to Be Questioned by Sweden Over Rape Claim, Ecuador Says

By STEVEN ERLANGERAUG. 11, 2016

(https://static01.nyt.com/images/2016/08/12/world/12Assange-web/12Assange-web-master768.jpg)
Julian Assange, shown in February, was granted political asylum by Ecuador in 2012 after his appeal against extradition to Sweden was denied, and he has been confined to its London embassy ever since. Credit Peter Nicholls/Reuters

LONDON — Ecuador and Sweden have agreed to allow Julian Assange to be questioned by Swedish prosecutors inside the Ecuadorean Embassy in London, in a possible breakthrough to a four-year impasse, Ecuador said on Thursday, but no date for the interview was announced.

The Ecuadorean attorney general delivered a document agreeing to a request by the Swedish prosecutor to question Mr. Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, who is wanted by Sweden for questioning to respond to allegations of rape made against him, a charge he denies.

Mr. Assange was granted political asylum by Ecuador in 2012 after his appeal against extradition to Sweden was denied, and he has been confined to the embassy ever since.

He says he fears that if he is sent to Sweden, he will then be shipped to the United States, where he could be charged with espionage offenses.

WikiLeaks has published damaging and confidential information from the United States and many other governments, and although there is no open indictment against Mr. Assange in Washington, he and his organization are the subject of an investigation.

Mr. Assange has previously offered to be questioned inside the embassy, but prosecutors had insisted until last year that he be interviewed in Sweden.
Today’s Headlines: European Morning

Get news and analysis from Europe and around the world delivered to your inbox every day in the European morning.

Mr. Assange’s lawyers in Sweden recently made a new appeal to drop the arrest warrant against him, citing the “passivity” of the Swedish prosecutor in trying to question him.

Mr. Assange is sought for questioning to see whether he should be charged with “minor rape” after an episode in 2010 in Sweden. Earlier allegations of sexual abuse were dropped after the statute of limitations expired.

A statement issued in Ecuador said, “In the coming weeks, a date will be established for the proceedings to be held at the embassy of Ecuador in the United Kingdom.”

The statement said that Ecuador and Sweden had signed “an agreement on mutual legal assistance in criminal matters” last December, “which provides the legal framework for the questioning.”

In February, the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention of the United Nations ruled that Mr. Assange was being arbitrarily detained and should be released freely and with compensation for the violation of his rights. The opinion was nonbinding and has been rejected by Britain and Sweden.

Mr. Assange and WikiLeaks have recently attracted attention after the distribution of hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee and his statements criticizing Hillary Clinton, the Democratic presidential nominee.

“Ecuador’s Foreign Ministry reiterates its commitment to the asylum granted to Julian Assange in August 2012,” the statement from Ecuador said, “and reaffirms that the protection afforded by the Ecuadorean state shall continue while the circumstances persist that led to the granting of asylum, namely fears of political persecution.”

Follow Steven Erlanger on Twitter @StevenErlanger.
Title: Re: Wikileaks Updates-Julian Assange Thread
Post by: Eddie on August 11, 2016, 05:50:04 AM
IMHO, JA is as good as dead the minute he walks out the door of the Ecuadorian Embassy in London.  It' amazing he has lasted this long.

RE


I was  thinking exactly the same thing, before I even read what you wrote.
Title: Re: Wikileaks Updates-Julian Assange Thread
Post by: RE on August 11, 2016, 11:49:20 AM
IMHO, JA is as good as dead the minute he walks out the door of the Ecuadorian Embassy in London.  It' amazing he has lasted this long.

RE


I was  thinking exactly the same thing, before I even read what you wrote.

His only chance is if Vlad the Impaler sends a squad of KGB Agents to escort him to a chartered jet waiting at Heathrow heading straight for Moscow.  He can join Edward Snowden there.

RE
Title: Re: Wikileaks Updates-Julian Assange Thread
Post by: RE on August 11, 2016, 07:59:43 PM
Can't wait to see the vids of this "interview".  ::)

RE

http://www.youtube.com/v/pEuK8i39C3w
Title: Ecuador Says It Still Backs Assange, but WikiLeaks Says It Cut His Internet
Post by: RE on October 18, 2016, 08:08:19 AM
JA is obviously dependent on the Ecuadorian Embassy for his connection to the internet, including to his Twitter accounts.

The problem is that Ecuador is running short of money, and they don't print their own, they use the FSoA Dollar.  They have to be able to raise money on the Bond Market.

Ecuador can Save Face by still providing Asylum for JA, but with his internet cut off he is essentially neutered (and would probably go stir crazy also).

At this point IMHO I think JAs best chance is to voluntarily turn himself in to the Swedish Goobermint and face the one rape allegation still open.  In the process of transfer or during the trial in Sweden, perhaps the KGB can whisk him off to Moscow to join Edward Snowden in exile there.

To be sure, his days left leaking emails from the Ecuadorian Embassy in London are numbered.

RE

Ecuador Says It Still Backs Assange, but WikiLeaks Says It Cut His Internet

By STEVEN ERLANGEROCT. 18, 2016

(https://static01.nyt.com/images/2016/10/19/world/19Assange-web/19Assange-web-master768.jpg)
Julian Assange, founder of Wikileaks, emerging onto the balcony of the Ecuadorean Embassy in London to make a statement in February. Credit Chris Ratcliffe/Getty Images

LONDON — The strange tale of Julian Assange and Ecuador became a little odder on Tuesday, as the Ecuadorean government restated its commitment to providing Mr. Assange political asylum at its embassy in London but refused to even acknowledge the charge by WikiLeaks that it had cut off his access to the internet.

WikiLeaks, founded by Mr. Assange and known for its frequent release of confidential information about governments as well as private organizations and individuals, said on Twitter on Monday that Ecuador had severed Mr. Assange’s internet access Saturday afternoon.

Mr. Assange, who sought refuge in the embassy four years ago and is wanted for questioning by the Swedish authorities, lost internet access shortly after WikiLeaks published information about speeches that Hillary Clinton gave to Goldman Sachs, his organization said.

Mr. Assange and WikiLeaks have recently posted emails hacked from the Democratic National Committee and from John D. Podesta, a senior official in Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign, some of which have been highly embarrassing to the Democrats. WikiLeaks published more hacked emails from Mr. Podesta on Monday.

Although Mr. Assange has said that he did not know the source of the WikiLeaks material, the United States government has suggested that the hacking was the work of Russia and intended to help Mrs. Clinton’s opponent, Donald J. Trump.

The president of Ecuador, Rafael Correa, is a man of the left, and he recently told the Kremlin-backed broadcaster RT that he would personally support Mrs. Clinton.

At the same time, he suggested in the RT interview that a victory by Mr. Trump, who has made no secret of his admiration for the Russian president, Vladimir V. Putin, would be good for Latin America because it would, paradoxically, bolster left-wing parties.
Timeline
Julian Assange: A Legal History

Here are key points in his case since WikiLeaks burst onto the digital scene in 2010.
OPEN Timeline

“I sincerely believe that it would be better for Latin America if Trump won,” Mr. Correa said. “When did progressive governments come to power in Latin America? During the Bush administration. His primitive policies were rejected so much that it caused reaction in Latin America. Trump would do the same.”

Questions to the Ecuadorean Embassy on Tuesday were met with a polite reference to the mission’s website and to a brief statement.

“In view of recent speculations, the government of Ecuador reaffirms the validity of the asylum granted four years ago to Julian Assange,” the statement said. “We also ratify that the protection given by the Ecuadorean state will continue while the circumstances that led to the granting of asylum remain.”

There was no mention of internet access.

Mr. Assange is the subject of an arrest warrant in Sweden, which wanted to question him about allegations of rape and sexual abuse dating to 2010, to decide whether or not to bring charges.

Mr. Assange, saying that he feared extradition to the United States on espionage charges stemming from the publication by WikiLeaks of secret documents given to the website by Chelsea Manning, broke bail and took refuge in the Ecuadorean Embassy in June 2012. He has been in the tiny embassy since.

Given the statute of limitations, the one allegation Mr. Assange still faces in Sweden is one of rape. He is wanted for questioning but has not been charged.

After long negotiations, he was scheduled to be questioned on Monday by Swedish prosecutors in the presence of an Ecuadorean prosecutor. But Ecuador, at Mr. Assange’s request, postponed that session until Nov. 14, after the American presidential election.

There is no public indictment in the United States of Mr. Assange; if Sweden chooses not to press charges, he would presumably be free to leave the embassy without risk of arrest.
Title: The Cyber-War on Wikileaks
Post by: RE on October 21, 2016, 04:33:08 AM
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/10/18/the-cyber-war-on-wikileaks/ (http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/10/18/the-cyber-war-on-wikileaks/)

October 18, 2016
The Cyber-War on Wikileaks

by Srećko Horvat

(http://uziiw38pmyg1ai60732c4011.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/dropzone/2016/10/Screen-Shot-2016-10-18-at-12.46.10-PM.png)
Srećko Horvat & Julian Assange at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London – Sunshine Press Publications.

When the ruling class is in panic, their first reaction is to hide the panic.

They react out of cynicism: when their masks are revealed, instead of running around naked, they usually point the finger at the mask they wear. These days the whole world could witness a postmodern version of the infamous quote “Let them eat cake”, attributed to Marie-Antoinette, queen of France during the French Revolution.

As a reaction to WikiLeaks publishing his emails, John Podesta, the man behind Hillary Clinton’s campaign, posted a photo of a dinner preparation, saying “I bet the lobster risotto is better than the food at the Ecuadorian Embassy”.

A similar version of vulgar cynicism emerged earlier this month when Hillary Clinton reacted to the claim that she reportedly wanted to “drone” WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange (“Can’t we just drone this guy?”) when she was the US Secretary of State. Instead of denying her comments, Clinton said that she doesn’t recall any such joke, “It would have been a joke if it had been said, but I don’t recall that”.

One doesn’t have to read between the lines to understand that if Hillary Clinton had said that, she would have considered it a joke. But when emperors joke, it usually has dire consequences for those who are the objects of their “humor.”

Cyber-war Not with Russia…but WikiLeaks

During the last few months I have visited Julian Assange in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London several times and each time I came out of the Embassy, where he is spending his fifth year in political asylum under legitimate fear he might be extradited to the US, my thought was the following one: although he lives, without his family, in a postmodern version of solitary confinement (even prisoners are allowed to walk for up to one hour a day), although he has no access to fresh air or sunlight for more than 2000 days, although the UK government recently denied him safe passage to a hospital for an MRI scan, if his access to the internet would be cut off this would be the most severe attack on his physical and mental freedom.

The last time I saw him, which was only two weeks ago, he expressed the fear that, because he had already published leaks concerning US elections and with more to come, the US might find various ways to silence him, including pressuring Ecuador or even shutting down the internet.

What seemed a distant possibility only two weeks ago, soon became a self-fulfilling prophecy.

When the Obama administration recently announced that it is, as Biden said, planing an “unprecedented cyber covert action against Russia”, the first victim was not Putin, but precisely Julian Assange whose internet was cut off just a day after Biden’s self-contradictory proclamation.

No wonder Edward Snowden reacted immediately by saying that “nobody told Joe Biden what ‘covert operation’ means.

According to the U.S. Department of Defense’s Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms, a covert operation is “an operation that is so planned and executed as to conceal the identity of or permit plausible denial by the sponsor.”

It is no secret anymore that the Ecuadorian government has come under extreme pressure since Assange leaked the Democratic National Committee email database. We don’t know yet whether the US pressured Ecuador to shut down the internet, but it is clear that the present US government and the government to come is fighting a war with WikiLeaks which is all but “covert”. Is it really a coincidence that Julian Assange’s internet access was cut off shortly after publication of Clinton’s Goldman Sachs speeches?

If at the beginning we still had a “soft” version of postmodern McCarthyism, with Hillary calling everyone opposed to her campaign a Russian spy (not only Assange, but also Donald Trump and Jill Stein), then with Obama’s recent intervention it became more serious.

With Obama’s threat of a cyber-war, the “soft” McCarthyism didn’t only acquire geopolitical significance, but at the same time a new mask was revealed: Obama is obviously trying to cement the public debate and make the Russian threat “real”, or at least to use it as a weapon in order to help Clinton to get elected. Moreover, this new twist in something that has already become much more than only US elections (US elections are never only US elections!), shows not only how Obama is ready to strengthen Hillary’s campaign, but it also reveals that a cyber war is already in the making.

It is not a cyber war with Russia, but with WikiLeaks.

And it is not the first time.

What would Clausewitz say?

In 2010, when the Collateral Murder video was published, the Afghan and Iraq war logs were released, and we witnessed one of the most sinister attacks on freedom of speech in recent history. VISA, Mastercard, Diners, American Express and Paypal imposed a banking blockade on WikiLeaks, although WikiLeaks had not been charged with any crime at either state, federal or international level. So if the US government successfully convinced payment companies representing more than 97% of the global market to shut down an independent publisher, why wouldn’t they pressure Ecuador or any other state or company to cut off the internet?

The US is not only rhetorically trying to “get” Assange (it is worth to check out the Assassinate Assange video for evidence of the verbal masturbation of US officials), he poses a serious threat to the major elite factions in the US to remain in power. No wonder panic is rising in the US, which is now going even so far that a 16-year-old boy in Britain has been arrested on criminal charges related to the alleged hacking of email accounts used by CIA director John Brennan, which WikiLeaks published in October 2016.

What WikiLeaks obviously successfully challenged–and maybe one day (“history is written by the victors”, remember?) it will be learned in military strategy– is what the Prussian general and military theorist Carl von Clausewitz would call the “centre of gravity” (Schwerpunkt), which is the “central feature of the enemy’s power”.

Instead of speaking about the Russians, we should start speaking about the Schwerpunkt of the actual leaks, their real essence. Just take the following quotes by Hillary Clinton exposed by WikiLeaks, which reveal her true nature and the politics behind her campaign: “We are going to ring China with missile defence”, “I want to defend fracking” and climate change environmentalists “should get a life”, “you need both a public and a private position”, “my dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders”.

What WikiLeaks has shown is not only that Hillary is a hawkish war-monger, first it was Libya (over 1,700 of the 33,000 Clinton emails published by WikiLeaks reference Libya), then it was Syria (at a Goldman Sachs conference she explicitly stated she would like to intervene in Syria), tomorrow it will be another war.

It is now clear – and this is the real “centre of gravity” where we should focus our attention – that the future Clinton cabinet may already been filled with Wall Street people like Obama’s was. No wonder WikiLeaks revelations create utter panic not only in the Democratic Party itself but also the Obama administration.

One question remains, isn’t WikiLeaks, by leaking all these dirty secrets, influencing the US elections? Yes, it certainly is, but the current criticism misses its point: isn’t the very point of organisations such as WikiLeaks to publish the material they have and to influence public opinion?

The question should finally be turned around: isn’t the US mainstream media the one influencing the US elections? And isn’t Obama, by announcing a cyber-war with Russia, influencing the elections?

WikiLeaks is not only influencing the US elections, but transforming the US elections – as they should have been from the very beginning – into a global debate with serious geopolitical consequences at stake. What WikiLeaks is doing is revealing this brutal fight for power, but, as the old saying goes, “when a wise man points at the Moon, the idiot looks at the finger”. Instead of looking at the finger pointing to Russia, we should take a look at the leaks themselves.

If democracy and transparency means anything today, we should say: let them leak!
Join the debate on Facebook

Srećko Horvat is a philosopher and activist. He is co-author, with Slavoj Žižek, of What Does Europe Want? (Columbia University Press, 2014) and author of The Radicality of Love (Polity Press, 2015). Together with Yanis Varoufakis he co-created the movement DiEM 25. https://diem25.org/ (https://diem25.org/)
Title: Re: The Cyber-War on Wikileaks
Post by: g on October 21, 2016, 06:59:34 AM
Mr Horvat's article is most welcome but does not go  far enough in describing the pain and misery this hero is enduring. While briefly mentioned, Mr Assange is in severe pain and needs an MRI to diagnose the problem. This has been authenticated by a UN task force which has written a scathing article and condemnation of the treatment Julian is receiving, labeling it TORTURE. Medical treatment is allowed for the most heinous of criminals, murderers, child molesters, drug dealers, rapists, but denied a hero whose crime is the telling of what the lumps of shit who rule over us are really are and what they think about us.

Your a total disgrace England. You should know better, didn't Gandhi teach you anything? You went berserk when George the imbecile visited and shook London to it's core, yet you let this kid undergo torture in your country. You Suck you fucking has been nation.

You blew it Ecuador, had to ruin all the good with one dastardly deed. Couldn't stand tall when it counted.

You fucking Swedes and those strumpets you are using to torture Julian, your swill as well.

Australia, When are you lice going to do something for your fellow countryman?

As to my country. The beacon of light and freedom for the world. The land of free speech and justice. One has only to look at Chelsea Manning's reward for whistle blowing and showing films of soldiers laughing and jeering, shouting with glee as they watched the "Collateral Damage" on innocent civilians of their actions. Our other whistle blower is "On The Lamb" in Russia.

There was a Fourth Estate once to admonish, but they sold their souls to the devil, and only exist in microscopic fragments on the net.


Then there's the rest of us, who sit on our ass and do nothing like me. We should all be on a plane to London to protest in front of that embassy, tens of millions of us.  A Mass Liberation Army, with soldiers from every country on Earth, freeing our hero from his imprisonment by the elitists who lord over us with disdain. 

                                                     (https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?&id=OIP.Meef0c7d55aadd962e081c8cbcba7a064o1&w=299&h=235&c=0&pid=1.9&rs=0&p=0&r=0)

Title: Assange feels "sorry" for Killary as a person
Post by: RE on November 03, 2016, 06:29:31 AM
http://www.youtube.com/v/ZhWztU3Xcmw
Title: Re: The Cyber-War on Wikileaks
Post by: Eddie on November 03, 2016, 10:03:12 AM
Mr Horvat's article is most welcome but does not go  far enough in describing the pain and misery this hero is enduring. While briefly mentioned, Mr Assange is in severe pain and needs an MRI to diagnose the problem. This has been authenticated by a UN task force which has written a scathing article and condemnation of the treatment Julian is receiving, labeling it TORTURE. Medical treatment is allowed for the most heinous of criminals, murderers, child molesters, drug dealers, rapists, but denied a hero whose crime is the telling of what the lumps of shit who rule over us are really are and what they think about us.

Your a total disgrace England. You should know better, didn't Gandhi teach you anything? You went berserk when George the imbecile visited and shook London to it's core, yet you let this kid undergo torture in your country. You Suck you fucking has been nation.

You blew it Ecuador, had to ruin all the good with one dastardly deed. Couldn't stand tall when it counted.

You fucking Swedes and those strumpets you are using to torture Julian, your swill as well.

Australia, When are you lice going to do something for your fellow countryman?

As to my country. The beacon of light and freedom for the world. The land of free speech and justice. One has only to look at Chelsea Manning's reward for whistle blowing and showing films of soldiers laughing and jeering, shouting with glee as they watched the "Collateral Damage" on innocent civilians of their actions. Our other whistle blower is "On The Lamb" in Russia.

There was a Fourth Estate once to admonish, but they sold their souls to the devil, and only exist in microscopic fragments on the net.


Then there's the rest of us, who sit on our ass and do nothing like me. We should all be on a plane to London to protest in front of that embassy, tens of millions of us.  A Mass Liberation Army, with soldiers from every country on Earth, freeing our hero from his imprisonment by the elitists who lord over us with disdain. 

                                                     (https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?&id=OIP.Meef0c7d55aadd962e081c8cbcba7a064o1&w=299&h=235&c=0&pid=1.9&rs=0&p=0&r=0)

I'm in agreement with you here.
Title: Secret World of US Election: Julian Assange talks to John Pilger
Post by: RE on November 05, 2016, 04:59:50 AM
http://www.youtube.com/v/_sbT3_9dJY4
Title: Sweden Says Julian Assange To Face Questioning Next Week
Post by: RE on November 07, 2016, 05:30:55 PM
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/11/07/501057179/sweden-says-julian-assange-to-face-questioning-next-week (http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/11/07/501057179/sweden-says-julian-assange-to-face-questioning-next-week)

 International
Sweden Says Julian Assange To Face Questioning Next Week

November 7, 20165:11 PM ET

Merrit Kennedy

(http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2016/11/07/ap_16296518293314_custom-83743a80eba074138d68067ac915d2bfa5c27fd2-s800-c85.jpg)
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange participates via video link at a news conference in October in Berlin, marking the 10th anniversary of the group.
Markus Schreiber/AP

More than four years after he took refuge in Ecuador's embassy in London, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange will face questioning there on Nov. 14 over Sweden's allegations against him of sex crimes, including rape.

This could mark a breakthrough in the standoff. Assange has repeatedly denied the accusations, which date to 2010. He maintains that he would face extradition to the U.S. if he appeared in Sweden for questioning, as we reported. Sweden has said an interview is necessary before it can determine whether to file charges against Assange.
Ecuador Acknowledges It Restricted WikiLeaks Founder's Internet Connection
The Two-Way
Ecuador Acknowledges It Restricted WikiLeaks Founder's Internet Connection

Sweden's prosecution authority said in a statement that "Ecuador has granted the Swedish request for legal assistance in criminal matters." It said an Ecuadorean prosecutor will conduct the interview with a Swedish prosecutor and police investigator. They will also take a DNA sample from Assange, should he give his consent.

"I welcome the fact that the investigation can now move forward via an interview with the suspect," Director of Prosecution Marianne Ny said. The prosecutors said they will not release details after they conduct the interview because this is an ongoing investigation.

"Since he took refuge in the embassy, three of four sex-crimes allegations against Assange have expired, due to statutes of limitation," as we have reported. "The fourth allegation, of rape, remains."
Arrest Warrant For Julian Assange Still Stands, Swedish Court Says
The Two-Way
Arrest Warrant For Julian Assange Still Stands, Swedish Court Says

A Swedish court upheld the arrest warrant tied to the sexual assault investigations again in September, despite repeated attempts by Assange to overturn it.
Title: Re: The Cyber-War on Wikileaks
Post by: g on November 20, 2016, 05:32:29 PM
Mr Horvat's article is most welcome but does not go  far enough in describing the pain and misery this hero is enduring. While briefly mentioned


This is the draft when I open it
Title: Chelsea Manning pardon would get me to surrender, Julian Assange says
Post by: RE on January 13, 2017, 11:52:20 AM
Major mistake if JA goes through with this.

Obama Pardons Chelsea.  JA gives himself up.  Trumpty-Dumpty recinds Obama's pardon.  Now BOTH are jailed!

JA needs to find a way to get to Mother Russia and join Edward Snowden under the protective wing of Vlad the Impaler.

RE

http://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/01/13/chelsea-manning-pardon-would-get-me-to-surrender-julian-assange/21654573/ (http://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/01/13/chelsea-manning-pardon-would-get-me-to-surrender-julian-assange/21654573/)

Chelsea Manning pardon would get me to surrender, Julian Assange says

US News
Curt Mills
Jan 13th 2017 12:17PM
X

Julian Assange, the Wikileaks founder who has been in exile for nearly half-decade in the Ecuadorian embassy in London, says he will agree to extradition to the United States in exchange for clemency for whistleblower Chelsea Manning.

"If Obama grants Manning clemency Assange will agree to US extradition despite clear unconstitutionality of DoJ case," WikiLeaks tweeted late Thursday.

Manning, a 29-year-old transgender woman being held in men's prison, is a United States Army solider serving a 35-year sentence for passing classified information to WikiLeaks. NBC News reported on Tuesday she is on the "short list" for commutation by the president in the closing days of his time of office.

Assange has been living in the Ecuadorian embassy since 2012, evading Swedish sex assault charges he claims are spurious and politically-motivated. Assange, the famous hacker and publisher who plunged into the forefront of this past presidential election, "could also face possible espionage charges in the United States," The Hill reports.

AdChoices
Slideshow preview image
23 PHOTOS
Julian Assange
See Gallery

The Daily Mail reported that Edward Snowden, the former government contractor who became a fugitive whistleblower in 2013, also appealed to Obama on Manning's behalf this week.

"Mr. President, if you grant only one act of clemency as you exit the White House, please: free Chelsea Manning. You alone can save her life," Snowden, who is a fugitive from the United States living in Moscow, tweeted on Wednesday.
breaking-news logo

Sign up for Breaking News by AOL to get the latest breaking news alerts and updates delivered straight to your inbox.

Subscribe to our other newsletters

Emails may offer personalized content or ads. Learn more. You may unsubscribe any time.

A New York Times profile of Manning's incarceration published Friday noted that she is "struggling to transition to life as a woman while enduring a bleak existence at a male military prison." Chelsea, formerly Bradley, "poses particular challenges as a prisoner" because of past suicide attempts and a "need for treatment that the military has no experience providing."

More from US News:
Donald Trump Needs to Trust the American Intelligence Community
Donald Trump Hits Back at Reports Russia Gathered Compromising Info on Him
3 Simple Steps to Avoid Career Regret
Title: Re: Wikileaks Updates-Julian Assange Thread
Post by: K-Dog on January 13, 2017, 12:15:47 PM
Chelsea Manning pardon would get me to surrender, Julian Assange says

He is saying the same thing as when hell freezes over.  Nothing to see here, move along.
Title: Re: Wikileaks Updates-Julian Assange Thread
Post by: RE on January 13, 2017, 12:18:20 PM
Chelsea Manning pardon would get me to surrender, Julian Assange says

He is saying the same thing as when hell freezes over.  Nothing to see here, move along.

I tend to agree, but it would be a real nice Sneaky Trick to "pardon" Chelsea just long enough for JA to surrender.

RE
Title: OBAMA COMMUTES CHELSEA MANNING'S SENTENCE!!!!
Post by: RE on January 17, 2017, 02:51:50 PM
Will Julian Assange now give himself up for extradition?  ???  :icon_scratch:

RE

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/17/us/politics/obama-commutes-bulk-of-chelsea-mannings-sentence.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/17/us/politics/obama-commutes-bulk-of-chelsea-mannings-sentence.html)

Obama Commutes Bulk of Chelsea Manning’s Sentence

By CHARLIE SAVAGEJAN. 17, 2017

(https://static01.nyt.com/images/2017/01/18/us/18manning/18manning-master768.jpg)

Chelsea Manning’s 35-year sentence was by far the longest punishment ever imposed in the United States for a leak conviction. Credit United States Army

WASHINGTON — President Obama on Tuesday largely commuted the remaining prison sentence of Chelsea Manning, the army intelligence analyst convicted of an enormous 2010 leak that revealed American military and diplomatic activities across the world, disrupted the administration and made WikiLeaks, the recipient of those disclosures, famous.

The decision by Mr. Obama rescued Ms. Manning, who twice tried to kill herself last year, from an uncertain future as a transgender woman incarcerated at the men’s military prison at Fort Leavenworth, Kan. She has been jailed for nearly seven years, and her 35-year sentence was by far the longest punishment ever imposed in the United States for a leak conviction.

The act of clemency could be seen as a reversal, at least in part, of the Obama administration’s unprecedented criminal crackdown on leaking: The administration has brought charges in about nine cases, about twice as many as under all previous presidents combined.

At the same time that Mr. Obama commuted the sentence of Ms. Manning, a low-ranking enlisted soldier at the time of her leaks, he also granted a pardon to Gen. James E. Cartwright, the former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and one of the highest-ranking officials ensnared in the leak crackdown.
Continue reading the main story
Related Coverage

    Chelsea Manning Describes Bleak Life in a Men’s Prison JAN. 13, 2017
    Chelsea Manning Tried Committing Suicide a Second Time in October NOV. 4, 2016
    Chelsea Manning Asks Obama to Cut Sentence to Time Served NOV. 13, 2016
    Manning Sentenced to 35 Years for a Pivotal Leak of U.S. Files AUG. 21, 2013

Recent Comments
Everyman 1 minute ago

That's fine, but it's much more important to be sure that all the people still in jail for nonviolent drug offenses are freed. Please, Mr....
Peter Brine 1 minute ago

When there are serious and pressing problems facing the nation and the world, it's a relief to see Mr Obama do what he has always done, deal...
Bill 1 minute ago

All Snowden did was tell everybody that Obama recorded every text and phone call of every American. I thought it was something we really...

    See All Comments Write a comment

ADVERTISEMENT
Continue reading the main story

General Cartwright had pleaded guilty to lying about his conversations with reporters when questioned by F.B.I. agents in an investigation into leaks of classified information about cyberattacks on Iran’s nuclear program.

Under the terms of Mr. Obama’s commutation announced by the White House on Tuesday, Ms. Manning is set to be freed on May 17 of this year, rather than in 2045.

The commutation also relieved the Department of Defense of the difficult responsibility of her incarceration as she pushes for treatment for her gender dysphoria — including sex reassignment surgery — that the military has no experience providing.

In recent days, the White House had signaled that Mr. Obama was seriously considering granting Ms. Manning’s commutation application, in contrast to a pardon application submitted on behalf of the other large-scale leaker of the era, Edward J. Snowden, the former intelligence contractor who disclosed archives of top-secret surveillance files and is living as a fugitive in Russia.

Asked about the two clemency applications on Friday, the White House spokesman, Josh Earnest, discussed the “pretty stark difference” between Ms. Manning’s case for mercy and Mr. Snowden’s. While their offenses were similar, he said, there were “some important differences.”
Get the Morning Briefing by Email

What you need to know to start your day, delivered to your inbox Monday through Friday.
Receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York Times's products and services.

    See Sample Privacy Policy

“Chelsea Manning is somebody who went through the military criminal justice process, was exposed to due process, was found guilty, was sentenced for her crimes, and she acknowledged wrongdoing,” he said. “Mr. Snowden fled into the arms of an adversary and has sought refuge in a country that most recently made a concerted effort to undermine confidence in our democracy.”

He also noted that while the documents Ms. Manning provided to WikiLeaks were “damaging to national security,” the ones Mr. Snowden disclosed were “far more serious and far more dangerous.” (None of the documents Ms. Manning disclosed were classified above the merely “secret” level.)

Ms. Manning was still known as Bradley Manning when she deployed with her unit to Iraq in late 2009. There, she worked as a low-level intelligence analyst helping her unit assess insurgent activity in the area it was patrolling, a role that gave her access to a classified computer network.

She copied hundreds of thousands of military incident logs from the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, which, among other things, exposed abuses of detainees by Iraqi military officers working with American forces and showed that civilian deaths in the Iraq war were probably much higher than official estimates.

The files she copied also included about 250,000 diplomatic cables from American embassies around the world showing sensitive deals and conversations, dossiers detailing intelligence assessments of Guantánamo detainees held without trial, and a video of an American helicopter attack in Baghdad in which two Reuters journalists were killed, among others.

She decided to make all these files public, as she wrote at the time, in the hope that they would incite “worldwide discussion, debates, and reforms.” WikiLeaks disclosed them — working with traditional news organizations including The New York Times — bringing notoriety to the group and its founder, Julian Assange.

The disclosures set off a frantic scramble as Obama administration officials sought to minimize any potential harm, including getting to safety some foreigners in dangerous countries who were identified as having helped American troops or diplomats. Prosecutors, however, presented no evidence that anyone was killed because of the leaks.

At her court-martial, Ms. Manning confessed in detail to her actions and apologized, saying she had not intended to put anyone at risk and noting that she had been “dealing with a lot of issues” at the time she made her decision.

Testimony at the trial showed that she had been in a mental and emotional crisis as she came to grips, amid the stress of a war zone, with the fact that she was not merely gay but had gender dysphoria. She had been behaving erratically, including angry outbursts and lapsing into catatonia midsentence. At one point she had emailed a photograph of herself in a woman’s wig to her supervisor.
Got a confidential news tip?

The New York Times would like to hear from readers who want to share messages and materials with our journalists.

Prosecutors said that because the secret material was made available for publication on the internet, anyone — including Al Qaeda — could read it. And they accused Ms. Manning of treason, charging her with multiple counts of the Espionage Act as well as with “aiding the enemy,” a potential capital offense, although they said they would not seek her execution.

Ms. Manning confessed and pleaded guilty to a lesser version of those charges without any deal to cap her sentence. But prosecutors pressed forward with a trial and won convictions on the more serious versions of those charges; a military judge acquitted her of “aiding the enemy.”

In her commutation application, Ms. Manning said she had not imagined that she would be sentenced to the “extreme” term of 35 years, a term for which there was “no historical precedent.” (There have been only a handful of leak cases, and most sentence are in the range of one to three years.)

“I take full and complete responsibility for my decision to disclose these materials to the public,” she wrote. “I have never made any excuses for what I did. I pleaded guilty without the protection of a plea agreement because I believed the military justice system would understand my motivation for the disclosure and sentence me fairly. I was wrong.”

After her sentencing, Ms. Manning announced that she was transgender and changed her name to Chelsea.

The military, under pressure from a lawsuit filed on her behalf by Chase Strangio of the American Civil Liberties Union, has permitted her to partly transition to life as a woman, including giving her cross-sex hormones and letting her wear women’s undergarments and light cosmetics.

But it has not let her grow her hair longer than male military standards, citing security risks, and Ms. Manning said she had yet to be permitted to see a surgeon about the possibility of sex reassignment surgery.

Until recently the military discharged transgender soldiers. In June, Secretary of Defense Ashton B. Carter changed that policy and said the military would instead provide treatment for them, eventually including such surgery if doctors said it was necessary.

But President-elect Donald J. Trump mocked that change as excessively “politically correct,” raising the possibility that he will rescind it.

Even if he does, Ms. Manning will soon no longer be subject to the military’s control.
Title: The Global Collapse Soap Opera
Post by: RE on January 18, 2017, 04:06:56 AM
Will Chelsea catch a plane to Mother Russia when she walks out the prison doors in May?  Will Julian Assange give himself up to the Amerikan Gestapo if Chelsea makes it to sanctuary in Mother Russia?

Stay tuned to the Diner for the answers to these questions.  :icon_scratch:

These are the Days of our Collapse Lives.

http://www.youtube.com/v/98T3PVaRrHU

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38659068 (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38659068)

We are living a Global Collapse Soap Opera here Diners!

RE
Title: Wikileaks Releases Encrypted "Vault 7" Torrent, Will Unveil Password Tuesday 9am
Post by: RE on March 07, 2017, 12:43:42 AM
Looks like JA is gtting prepped for gtting booted out of the Ecuadorian Emabassy.

RE

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-03-06/wikileaks-releases-encrypted-vault-7-torrent-will-unveil-password-tuesday-9am (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-03-06/wikileaks-releases-encrypted-vault-7-torrent-will-unveil-password-tuesday-9am)

Wikileaks Releases Encrypted "Vault 7" Torrent, Will Unveil Password Tuesday 9am

by Tyler Durden
Mar 6, 2017 9:08 PM


Last month, following a series of seemingly random tweets by Wikileaks, we reported that starting on February 4th, each day Wikileaks began sending out a series of cryptic question Tweets teasing the world about “Vault 7”. The questions were framed in Who, What, When, Where, Why, and How format (but not in that order). Each came with an image “clue”.

Here they are in chronological order starting with the earliest.

    What: The first tweet shows a picture of the Svalbard Global Seed Vault.
    Where: The second tweet shows a picture of a vault in a former salt mine in Merkers, Germany where Nazis stored money, gold, paintings, and other valuables during World War II. This mine vault was captured by the United States in April 1945.
    When: The third tweet shows a picture of a Pratt & Whitney F119 airplane engine, which is the engine for the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor. The picture in the tweet was taken on April 9th, 2010 at Langley Air Force Base as part of a story published on April 12th about the soundproof "hush houses" used for jet engine testing.
    Who: The fourth tweet shows a picture of the Manning, Assange, and Snowden "infamous spies" posters released by the Defense Security Service.
    Why: The fifth tweet shows a picture from the article Keeping Structures Strong, which discusses the 509th Civil Engineer Squadron's work repairing infrastructure on Whiteman Air Force Base. The specific picture tweeted is captioned "Staff Sgt. Adam Boyd, 509th Civil Engineer Squadron structural supervisor, welds a box blade for a snow plow, Feb. 27. Structures Airmen perform jobs such as this one to save the Air Force from having to possibly spend money on parts made by civilian companies."
    How: Or, more specifically, "How did #Vault7 make its way to WikiLeaks?" The sixth tweet shows a picture of "Surveillance of mailboxes in Berlin". The picture is caption "When mailboxes were being observed by Stasi agents, every person posting a letter was photographed. Some films found in the Stasi archives also show persons dressed in civilian clothing emptying the mailbox after the conclusion of the surveillance action."

While it is possible that Vault 7 is directly related to one of these pictures, these pictures may just be representative images, part of some sort of pattern, or clues about the answers to the corresponding questions. As the pictures are images of entirely different things (and no longer just pictures of vaults), each individual picture being related to the answer of the question tweeted along with it seems quite plausible.

Then, after a flurry of appearances over a month ago, the topic of "Vault 7" faded away from the Wikileaks twitter account, until Monday evening, when in a tweet around 7:30pm, Wikileaks announced that it had released an encrypted 'torrent' file, just over 500 MB in size and which can be downloaded now at the following URL, will be made accessible for everyone tomorrow at 9am ET when Wikileaks releases the passphrase.
Title: WikiLeaks Julian Assange Press Conference On CIA Hacking (3/9/2017)
Post by: RE on April 20, 2017, 12:18:37 AM
http://www.youtube.com/v/lbSq3DHh6-E
Title: ‘Arresting Assange is a priority’: US to file charges against WikiLeaks founder
Post by: RE on April 22, 2017, 12:40:33 AM
http://www.youtube.com/v/_qevB4a9T94
Title: Prosecution of Assange is Persecution of Free Speech
Post by: RE on April 25, 2017, 12:29:11 AM


Monday, April 24, 2017

Common Dreams
Prosecution of Assange is Persecution of Free Speech

Nozomi Hayase

(https://www.commondreams.org/sites/default/files/styles/cd_large/public/views-article/wikileaks.jpg?itok=qPs1nNdJ)
'Demonizing and scapegoating of a particular group or organization is an alarming tendency toward an authoritarian state,' writes Hayase. (Image: Screenshot)

US authorities are reported to have prepared charges to seek the arrest of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. This overreach of US government toward a publisher, whose principle is aligned with the U.S. Constitution, is another sign of a crumbling façade of democracy. The Justice Department in the Obama administration could not prosecute WikiLeaks for publishing documents pertaining to the US government, because they struggled to determine whether the First Amendment protection applied in this case. Now, the torch of Obama’s war on whistleblowers seems to have been passed on to Trump, who had shown disdain toward free speech and even called the U.S. media as “enemies of the people”.

Earlier this month, CIA Director Mike Pompeo vowed to end WikiLeaks, accusing the whistleblowing site as being a “non-state hostile intelligence service often abetted by state actors like Russia.” He also once called Edward Snowden a traitor and claimed that he should be executed. This declaration of war against WikiLeaks may bring a reminiscence of George W. Bush’s speech in the aftermath of 9-11, where he said, ‘either you are with us or against us,’ and urged the nation to side with the government in his call to fight global ‘war on terror.’

In a recent interview on Democracy Now!, journalist at The Intercept, Glenn Greenwald, put this persecution of WikiLeaks in the context of a government assault on basic freedom. He spelled out their tactics, noting how the government first chooses a target group that is hated and lacks popular support, for they know attacking an idea or a group that is popular would meet resistance. He explained:

    “…. they pick somebody who they know is hated in society or who expresses an idea that most people find repellent, and they try and abridge freedom of speech in that case, so that most people will let their hatred for the person being targeted override the principle involved, and they will sanction or at least acquiesce to the attack on freedom because they hate the person being attacked”.

Demonizing and scapegoating of a particular group or organization is an alarming tendency toward an authoritarian state. At a news conference last Thursday, Attorney General Jeff Sessions also chimed in to emphasize how Assange’s arrest is a priority. This targeting of WikiLeaks is a threat to press freedom and could be seen a slippery slope toward fascism.

History Repeats Itself

Recall the Weimer Republic just before the rise of Adolf Hitler. He was successfully able to install hatred in the minds of Germans and carry out massive crimes against humanity. Americans often wondered what made many ordinary Germans accept these horrendous acts that led to the holocaust. Now, in Trump’s America, it is not so far a stretch to say that Muslims, Mexicans and other immigrants are becoming like the new Jews, to be a scapegoated under this right-wing administration.

Once he gained power, Hitler made his word to be above the law. Trump, in his first 75 days in office, turned the rhetoric of hatred into action through passing executive order barring refuges and citizens from seven majority Muslim nations from entering into the United States and enacting mass deportation with the ICE agents acting like Nazi Gestapo to track immigrants. Draconian policies that were more under the radar during the Obama administration are now becoming overt. More and more, Americans might now be able to get under the skin of those ‘Good Germans’.

In Hitler’s Germany, persecution of Jews didn’t happen overnight. It was a gradual escalation. The first thing Hitler did was to control media and create an arm of propaganda. By using this weapon of mass deception, the Nazi Regime garnered popular support on a platform of racial identity and nationalism and managed to brainwash citizens with the Nazi-Auschwitz ideology of anti-Semitism. Under the guise of fighting communism, the Party suppressed civil liberties, free speech and association and expanded its power by demonizing whoever stood in their way.

Identity Politics and Machination of Power

The Trump campaign slogan “Make America Great Again” spoke to middle class America and disfranchised populations who were fed up with corporate plunder enacted under both Democrats and Republicans. His message of putting America first also struck a chord with white nationalists. By channeling their frustration and desires, Trump successfully created a fertile soil to harvest identity politics that is now coming to resemble Nazi’s emphasis of nationalism and racial supremacy.

No one can deny how the Trump victory empowered white supremacist groups that until now were more on the fringe. These identity politics that seem to be spreading around the world tend to contract one’s heart. Whatever the ideology is, progressive or conservative, anyone gripped with it falls into a narrow vision of humanity and loses perspective. This identity, fixed by ideology becomes a point of manipulation, to be exploited by those in power and used to divide everyone into Us vs. Them.


Make a difference. Join us.

Donate to Common Dreams

When people lose capacity for dialogue, they become deaf to their own humanity. Then, the state can easily exert control over the masses and seize power through manufacturing wars of all against all. We are now seeing a new civil war unfolding in America. The city of Berkeley is becoming a battleground. In February, riots erupted on the UC Berkeley campus when protesters shut down an event scheduled for right wing commentator Milo Yiannopoulos. Also, at the recent free speech rally on Patriot Day, Trump supporters, along with members of far-right nationalists clashed with local activists and anti-fascist groups. Ironically, the birthplace of the Free Speech Movement in the 60s turned into a bloody fight, devolving into violence, with each camp acting totally contrary to the principles of free speech.

Height of McCarthy Era Hysteria

This attack against Julian Assange and WikiLeaks is not something new. Consorted efforts to delegitimatize the organization through character assassination and smearing of Assange have been persistent, ever since the site came to public prominence. Assange was called a high tech terrorist by former vice President Joe Biden and incitement for his murder came from high-level US officials.

Assange has been holed up in asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy for 5 years, despite a UN ruling clearly stating his detention is unlawful. This is not the first time he and his organization were declared to be enemies of the State. In 2012, the US military had designated them as such enemies.

So what is different now? The head of the CIA and the Department of Justice’s declaration of war against WikiLeaks comes in a particular political climate. These efforts to arrest Assange, now backed by President Trump, are taking place at the height of a kind of McCarthy-era style hysteria.

Just like the recent US government cruise missile attacks on Syria, carried out without any investigation or evidence that Assad was the one using chemical weapons, the echo-chamber of the liberal media has been amplifying their own speculation of WikiLeaks alleged source of DNC leaks and Podesta emails. With the narrative that Russia meddled in the US election, they branded Assange as a Putin sympathizer and/or Russian agent without backing it up. The Left’s seeming irrational obsession with Russia is also rooted in these identity politics, namely their allegiance to the Democratic Party and America’s post-cold war national identity, defined by a hysteric red scare and its mission of defeating communism.

Whistleblowers as Democracy’s Last Line of Defense

In the wake of the possible arrest of Assange, the ACLU noted that, “prosecuting Wikileaks would set a dangerous precedent that the Trump administration would surely use to target other news organizations.” We must never forget where hatred-driven identity politics led Nazi Germany. Martin Niemöller, the famous Protestant pastor who spoke against the rise of Hitler and spent years in concentration camps, reminds us of this:

    “First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out – Because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out – Because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out – Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me – and there was no one left to speak for me.”

Fascism begins in the mind. Its seed grows whenever we accept hatred toward someone who has different or opposing views. Enclosure happens when we suspend critical thinking in the hype of fear and turn the other into an enemy. It happens every time we close our hearts, shunning those who have been made into our enemies. Democracy dies whenever we choose to pick up the sword of ideology, rather than choosing to uphold our common humanity and instead engage in a self-righteous crusade of defeating the enemy.

When Trump signed a Muslim ban into law, outrage spread nationwide and people rallied at airports. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit refused to reinstate Trump’s travel ban and so the solidarity of the people won. As Trump pressured to cut funds in sanctuary cities, these cities defied the order, assuring to maintain their immigrant policy. Now, the US government is coming after WikiLeaks, a transnational journalistic organization, who has no allegiance to any nation, governments or corporations, only to the conscience of ordinary people around the world.

In the darkness that hovers in the veil of ideology, whistleblowers shine a light, through which we are able to recover perspectives that were lost. WikiLeaks, through their act of publishing, lets everyone see views that are forbidden, marginalized or shunned. They are last line of defense and are on the front line in this battle for democracy. One may dislike WikiLeaks and disagree with Assange, but whatever one’s opinion, we all need to stand up against this erosion of our civil liberties. Prosecution of WikiLeaks is persecution of free speech. Setting this precedent moves us down a dangerous path.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License
Nozomi Hayase

Nozomi Hayase, Ph.D., is a former WikiLeaks Central contributing writer who has been covering issues of freedom of speech, transparency and decentralized movement. Her work is featured in many publications. Follow on Twitter: @nozomimagine
Title: Re: Wikileaks Updates-Julian Assange Thread
Post by: RE on May 20, 2017, 05:52:15 AM
http://www.youtube.com/v/GJsheu-Gh5g
Title: GETTING JULIAN ASSANGE: THE UNTOLD STORY
Post by: RE on May 22, 2017, 12:46:24 AM
http://johnpilger.com/articles/getting-julian-assange-the-untold-story (http://johnpilger.com/articles/getting-julian-assange-the-untold-story)

GETTING JULIAN ASSANGE: THE UNTOLD STORY
20 May 2017

(http://johnpilger.com/photo/470x357-C46.jpg)

Julian Assange has been vindicated because the Swedish case against him was corrupt. The prosecutor, Marianne Ny, obstructed justice and should be prosecuted. Her obsession with Assange not only embarrassed her colleagues and the judiciary but exposed the Swedish state's collusion with the United States in its crimes of war and "rendition".

Had Assange not sought refuge in the Ecuadorean embassy in London, he would have been on his way to the kind of American torture pit Chelsea Manning had to endure.

This prospect was obscured by the grim farce played out in Sweden. "It's a laughing stock," said James Catlin, one of Assange's Australian lawyers. "It is as if they make it up as they go along".

It may have seemed that way, but there was always serious purpose. In 2008, a secret Pentagon document prepared by the "Cyber Counterintelligence Assessments Branch" foretold a detailed plan to discredit WikiLeaks and smear Assange personally.

The "mission" was to destroy the "trust" that was WikiLeaks' "centre of gravity". This would be achieved with threats of "exposure [and] criminal prosecution". Silencing and criminalising such an unpredictable source of truth-telling was the aim.

Perhaps this was understandable. WikiLeaks has exposed the way America dominates much of human affairs, including its epic crimes, especially in Afghanistan and Iraq: the wholesale, often homicidal killing of civilians and the contempt for sovereignty and international law.

These disclosures are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution. As a presidential candidate in 2008, Barack Obama, a professor of constitutional law, lauded whistle blowers as "part of a healthy democracy [and they] must be protected from reprisal".

In 2012, the Obama campaign boasted on its website that Obama had prosecuted more whistleblowers in his first term than all other US presidents combined. Before Chelsea Manning had even received a trial, Obama had publicly pronounced her guilty.

Few serious observers doubt that should the US get their hands on Assange, a similar fate awaits him. According to documents released by Edward Snowden, he is on a "Manhunt target list". Threats of his kidnapping and assassination became almost political and media currency in the US following then Vice-President Joe Biden's preposterous slur that the WikiLeaks founder was a "cyber-terrorist".

Hillary Clinton, the destroyer of Libya and, as WikiLeaks revealed last year, the secret supporter and personal beneficiary of forces underwriting ISIS, proposed her own expedient solution: "Can't we just drone this guy."

According to Australian diplomatic cables, Washington's bid to get Assange is "unprecedented in scale and nature". In Alexandria, Virginia, a secret grand jury has sought for almost seven years to contrive a crime for which Assange can be prosecuted. This is not easy.

The First Amendment protects publishers, journalists and whistleblowers, whether it is the editor of the New York Times or the editor of WikiLeaks. The very notion of free speech is described as America's " founding virtue" or, as Thomas Jefferson called it, "our currency".

Faced with this hurdle, the US Justice Department has contrived charges of "espionage", "conspiracy to commit espionage", "conversion" (theft of government property), "computer fraud and abuse" (computer hacking) and general "conspiracy". The favoured Espionage Act, which was meant to deter pacifists and conscientious objectors during World War One, has provisions for life imprisonment and the death penalty.

Assange's ability to defend himself in such a Kafkaesque world has been severely limited by the US declaring his case a state secret. In 2015, a federal court in Washington blocked the release of all information about the "national security" investigation against WikiLeaks, because it was "active and ongoing" and would harm the "pending prosecution" of Assange. The judge, Barbara J. Rothstein, said it was necessary to show "appropriate deference to the executive in matters of national security". This is a kangaroo court.

For Assange, his trial has been trial by media. On August 20, 2010, when the Swedish police opened a "rape investigation", they coordinated it, unlawfully, with the Stockholm tabloids. The front pages said Assange had been accused of the "rape of two women". The word "rape" can have a very different legal meaning in Sweden than in Britain; a pernicious false reality became the news that went round the world.

Less than 24 hours later, the Stockholm Chief Prosecutor, Eva Finne, took over the investigation. She wasted no time in cancelling the arrest warrant, saying, "I don't believe there is any reason to suspect that he has committed rape." Four days later, she dismissed the rape investigation altogether, saying, "There is no suspicion of any crime whatsoever."

Enter Claes Borgstrom, a highly contentious figure in the Social Democratic Party then standing as a candidate in Sweden's imminent general election. Within days of the chief prosecutor's dismissal of the case, Borgstrom, a lawyer, announced to the media that he was representing the two women and had sought a different prosecutor in Gothenberg. This was Marianne Ny, whom Borgstrom knew well, personally and politically.

On 30 August, Assange attended a police station in Stockholm voluntarily and answered the questions put to him. He understood that was the end of the matter. Two days later, Ny announced she was re-opening the case.

At a press conference, Borgstrom was asked by a Swedish reporter why the case was proceeding when it had already been dismissed. The reporter cited one of the women as saying she had not been raped. He replied, "Ah, but she is not a lawyer."

On the day that Marianne Ny reactivated the case, the head of Sweden's military intelligence service - which has the acronym MUST - publicly denounced WikiLeaks in an article entitled "WikiLeaks [is] a threat to our soldiers [under US command in Afghanistan]".

Both the Swedish prime minister and foreign minister attacked Assange, who had been charged with no crime. Assange was warned that the Swedish intelligence service, SAPO, had been told by its US counterparts that US-Sweden intelligence-sharing arrangements would be "cut off" if Sweden sheltered him.

For five weeks, Assange waited in Sweden for the renewed "rape investigation" to take its course. The Guardian was then on the brink of publishing the Iraq "War Logs", based on WikiLeaks' disclosures, which Assange was to oversee in London.

Finally, he was allowed him to leave. As soon as he had left, Marianne Ny issued a European Arrest Warrant and an Interpol "red alert" normally used for terrorists and dangerous criminals.

Assange attended a police station in London, was duly arrested and spent ten days in Wandsworth Prison, in solitary confinement. Released on £340,000 bail, he was electronically tagged, required to report to police daily and placed under virtual house arrest while his case began its long journey to the Supreme Court.

He still had not been charged with any offence. His lawyers repeated his offer to be questioned in London, by video or personally, pointing out that Marianne Ny had given him permission to leave Sweden. They suggested a special facility at Scotland Yard commonly used by the Swedish and other European authorities for that purpose. She refused.

For almost seven years, while Sweden has questioned forty-four people in the UK in connection with police investigations, Ny refused to question Assange and so advance her case.

Writing in the Swedish press, a former Swedish prosecutor, Rolf Hillegren, accused Ny of losing all impartiality. He described her personal investment in the case as "abnormal" and demanded she be replaced.

Assange asked the Swedish authorities for a guarantee that he would not be "rendered" to the US if he was extradited to Sweden. This was refused. In December 2010, The Independent revealed that the two governments had discussed his onward extradition to the US.

Contrary to its reputation as a bastion of liberal enlightenment, Sweden has drawn so close to Washington that it has allowed secret CIA "renditions" - including the illegal deportation of refugees. The rendition and subsequent torture of two Egyptian political refugees in 2001 was condemned by the UN Committee against Torture, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch; the complicity and duplicity of the Swedish state are documented in successful civil litigation and in WikiLeaks cables.

"Documents released by WikiLeaks since Assange moved to England," wrote Al Burke, editor of the online Nordic News Network, an authority on the multiple twists and dangers that faced Assange, "clearly indicate that Sweden has consistently submitted to pressure from the United States in matters relating to civil rights. There is every reason for concern that if Assange were to be taken into custody by Swedish authorities, he could be turned over to the United States without due consideration of his legal rights."

The war on Assange now intensified. Marianne Ny refused to allow his Swedish lawyers, and the Swedish courts, access to hundreds of SMS messages that the police had extracted from the phone of one of the two women involved in the "rape" allegations.

Ny said she was not legally required to reveal this critical evidence until a formal charge was laid and she had questioned him. Then, why wouldn't she question him? Catch-22.

When she announced last week that she was dropping the Assange case, she made no mention of the evidence that would  destroy it. One of the SMS messages makes clear that one of the women did not want any charges brought against Assange, "but the police were keen on getting a hold on him". She was "shocked" when they arrested him because she only "wanted him to take [an HIV] test". She "did not want to accuse JA of anything" and "it was the police who made up the charges". In a witness statement, she is quoted as saying that she had been "railroaded by police and others around her".

Neither woman claimed she had been raped. Indeed, both denied they were raped and one of them has since tweeted, "I have not been raped." The women were manipulated by police - whatever their lawyers might say now. Certainly, they, too, are the victims of this sinister saga.

Katrin Axelsson and Lisa Longstaff of Women Against Rape wrote: "The allegations against [Assange] are a smokescreen behind which a number of governments are trying to clamp down on WikiLeaks for having audaciously revealed to the public their secret planning of wars and occupations with their attendant rape, murder and destruction... The authorities care so little about violence against women that they manipulate rape allegations at will. [Assange] has made it clear he is available for questioning by the Swedish authorities, in Britain or via Skype. Why are they refusing this essential step in their investigation? What are they afraid of?"

Assange's choice was stark: extradition to a country that had refused to say whether or not it would send him on to the US, or to seek what seemed his last opportunity for refuge and safety.

Supported by most of Latin America, the government of tiny Ecuador granted him refugee status on the basis of documented evidence that he faced the prospect of cruel and unusual punishment in the US; that this threat violated his basic human rights; and that his own government in Australia had abandoned him and colluded with Washington.

The Labor government of the then prime minister, Julia Gillard, had even threatened to take away his Australian passport - until it was pointed out to her that this would be unlawful.

The renowned human rights lawyer, Gareth Peirce, who represents Assange in London, wrote to the then Australian foreign minister, Kevin Rudd: "Given the extent of the public discussion, frequently on the basis of entirely false assumptions... it is very hard to attempt to preserve for him any presumption of innocence. Mr. Assange has now hanging over him not one but two Damocles swords, of potential extradition to two different jurisdictions in turn for two different alleged crimes, neither of which are crimes in his own country, and that his personal safety has become at risk in circumstances that are highly politically charged."

It was not until she contacted the Australian High Commission in London that Peirce received a response, which answered none of the pressing points she raised. In a meeting I attended with her, the Australian Consul-General, Ken Pascoe, made the astonishing claim that he knew "only what I read in the newspapers" about the details of the case.

In 2011, in Sydney, I spent several hours with a conservative Member of Australia's Federal Parliament, Malcolm Turnbull. We discussed the threats to Assange and their wider implications for freedom of speech and justice, and why Australia was obliged to stand by him. Turnbull then had a reputation as a free speech advocate. He is now the Prime Minister of Australia.

I gave him Gareth Peirce's letter about the threat to Assange's rights and life. He said the situation was clearly appalling and promised to take it up with the Gillard government. Only his silence followed.

For almost seven years, this epic miscarriage of justice has been drowned in a vituperative campaign against the WikiLeaks founder. There are few precedents. Deeply personal, petty, vicious and inhuman attacks have been aimed at a man not charged with any crime yet subjected to treatment not even meted out to a defendant facing extradition on a charge of murdering his wife. That the US threat to Assange was a threat to all journalists, and to the principle of free speech, was lost in the sordid and the ambitious. I would call it anti-journalism.

Books were published, movie deals struck and media careers launched or kick-started on the back of WikiLeaks and an assumption that attacking Assange was fair game and he was too poor to sue. People have made money, often big money, while WikiLeaks has struggled to survive.

The previous editor of the Guardian, Alan Rusbridger, called the WikiLeaks disclosures, which his newspaper published, "one of the greatest journalistic scoops of the last 30 years". Yet no attempt was made to protect the Guardian's provider and source. Instead, the "scoop" became part of a marketing plan to raise the newspaper's cover price.

With not a penny going to Assange or to WikiLeaks, a hyped Guardian book led to a lucrative Hollywood movie. The book's authors, Luke Harding and David Leigh, gratuitously described Assange as a "damaged personality" and "callous". They also revealed the secret password he had given the paper in confidence, which was designed to protect a digital file containing the US embassy cables. With Assange now trapped in the Ecuadorean embassy, Harding, standing among the police outside, gloated on his blog that "Scotland Yard may get the last laugh".

Journalism students might well study this period to understand that the most ubiquitous source of "fake news" is from within a media self-ordained with a false respectability and an extension of the authority and power it claims to challenge but courts and protects.

The presumption of innocence was not a consideration in Kirsty Wark's memorable BBC live-on-air interrogation in 2010. "Why don't you just apologise to the women?" she demanded of Assange, followed by: "Do we have your word of honour that you won't abscond?"

On the BBC's Today programme, John Humphrys bellowed: "Are you a sexual predator?" Assange replied that the suggestion was ridiculous, to which Humphrys demanded to know how many women he had slept with.

"Would even Fox News have descended to that level?" wondered the American historian William Blum. "I wish Assange had been raised in the streets of Brooklyn, as I was. He then would have known precisely how to reply to such a question: 'You mean including your mother?'"

Last week, on BBC World News, on the day Sweden announced it was dropping the case, I was interviewed by Geeta Guru-Murthy, who seemed to have little knowledge of the Assange case. She persisted in referring to the "charges" against him. She accused him of putting Trump in the White House; and she drew my attention to the "fact" that "leaders around the world" had condemned him. Among these "leaders" she included Trump's CIA director. I asked her, "Are you a journalist?".

The injustice meted out to Assange is one of the reasons Parliament reformed the Extradition Act in 2014. "His case has been won lock, stock and barrel," Gareth Peirce told me, "these changes in the law mean that the UK now recognises as correct everything that was argued in his case. Yet he does not benefit." In other words, he would have won his case in the British courts and would not have been forced to take refuge.

Ecuador's decision to protect Assange in 2012 was immensely brave. Even though the granting of asylum is a humanitarian act, and the power to do so is enjoyed by all states under international law, both Sweden and the United Kingdom refused to recognise the legitimacy of Ecuador's decision.

Ecuador's embassy in London was placed under police siege and its government abused. When William Hague's Foreign Office threatened to violate the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, warning that it would remove the diplomatic inviolability of the embassy and send the police in to get Assange, outrage across the world forced the government to back down.

During one night, police appeared at the windows of the embassy in an obvious attempt to intimidate Assange and his protectors.

Since then, Assange has been confined to a small room without sunlight. He has been ill from time to time and refused safe passage to the diagnostic facilities of hospital. Yet, his resilience and dark humour remain quite remarkable in the circumstances. When asked how he put up with the confinement, he replied, "Sure beats a supermax."

It is not over, but it is unravelling. The United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention - the tribunal that adjudicates and decides whether governments comply with their human rights obligations - last year ruled that Assange had been detained unlawfully by Britain and Sweden. This is international law at its apex.

Both Britain and Sweden participated in the 16-month long UN investigation and submitted evidence and defended their position before the tribunal. In previous cases ruled upon by the Working Group - Aung Sang Suu Kyi in Burma, imprisoned opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim in Malaysia, detained Washington Post journalist Jason Rezaian in Iran - both Britain and Sweden gave full support to the tribunal. The difference now is that Assange's persecution endures in the heart of London.

The Metropolitan Police say they still intend to arrest Assange for bail infringement should he leave the embassy. What then? A few months in prison while the US delivers its extradition request to the British courts?

If the British Government allows this to happen it will, in the eyes of the world, be shamed comprehensively and historically as an accessory to the crime of a war waged by rampant power against justice and freedom, and all of us.
Title: The Meaning of Assange’s Persecution
Post by: RE on May 31, 2017, 02:17:57 AM
https://consortiumnews.com/2017/05/29/the-meaning-of-assanges-persecution/ (https://consortiumnews.com/2017/05/29/the-meaning-of-assanges-persecution/)

The Meaning of Assange’s Persecution
May 29, 2017

(https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/julianassangeheadshot.jpg)

Exclusive: The long legal ordeal of Julian Assange – and the continuing threats against the WikiLeaks founder – make a mockery of the West’s supposed commitment to press freedom and the public’s right to know, as Marjorie Cohn explains.

By Marjorie Cohn (Updated on May 30, 2017, to delete reference to Swedish prosecutors never submitting questions to Assange.)

Nearly five years ago, Ecuador granted WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange political asylum at its London embassy. The original purpose of the asylum was to avoid extradition to the United States. Two years earlier, Swedish authorities had launched an investigation of Assange for sexual assault. Sweden has now dropped that investigation.

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. (Photo credit: Espen Moe)

Assange called the Swedish decision to end the investigation an “important victory for me and for the U.N. human rights system.” But, he said, the “proper war was just commencing,” because the London Metropolitan Police warned if Assange leaves the Ecuadorian Embassy, they would arrest him on a 2012 warrant issued after he failed to appear at a magistrate’s court following his entry into the embassy.

The original reason for granting asylum to Assange remains intact. The U.S. government has been gunning for Assange since 2010, when WikiLeaks published documents leaked by whistleblower Chelsea Manning. Those documents, which included the Afghan and Iraq war logs and U.S. State Department cables, were ultimately published in the New York Times, the U.K. Guardian, and the German magazine Der Spiegel.

The leaked reports exposed 20,000 deaths, including thousands of children, according to Assange. Many of them contain evidence of war crimes. [Among the leaked material was the “Collateral Murder” video, a gruesome view from the gun-barrel of a U.S. helicopter gunship as it mowed down a group of Iraqi men, including two Reuters journalists, as they walked on a Baghdad street – and then killing a man who stopped to help the wounded and also wounding two children in his van.]

It was never clear what role Sweden played in the Assange saga. Criminal charges were never filed there. The long delay in the process resulted, in part, because the Swedish prosecutor insisted that Assange travel to Sweden to be interviewed. Assange declined, fearing that if he went to Sweden, that country would extradite him to the United States.

The Swedish investigation of Assange may have been instigated at the behest of the United States. Journalist John Pilger documented political pressure by the U.S. government on Swedish authorities: “Both the Swedish prime minister and foreign minister attacked Assange, who had been charged with no crime. Assange was warned that the Swedish intelligence service, SAPO, had been told by its U.S. counterparts that U.S.-Sweden intelligence-sharing arrangements would be ‘cut off’ if Sweden sheltered him.”

Although the Swedish investigation has now been dropped, the threat of arrest persists. The London police have indicated they will arrest Assange for failure to appear in a London Magistrates Court if he leaves the embassy. Britain would then likely extradite Assange to the United States for possible prosecution.

Arresting Assange a U.S. ‘Priority’

Attorney General Jeff Sessions declared in April that arresting Assange is a “priority” for the Department of Justice, even though the New York Times indicated that federal prosecutors are “skeptical that they could pursue the most serious charges, of espionage.” The Justice Department is reportedly considering charging Assange with theft of government documents.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions. (Flickr U.S. Customs and Border Protection)

A decision to prosecute Assange would mark a 180-degree change of direction for President Trump. During the 2016 presidential campaign Trump declared, “I love WikiLeaks” after it published confidential emails from the Democratic National Committee that some U.S. intelligence agencies claim were obtained by Russian hackers (although Assange denies getting the material from Russia).

In March, WikiLeaks published CIA documents containing software and methods to hack into electronics. This was the beginning of WikiLeaks’ “Vault 7” series, which, Assange wrote in an op-ed in The Washington Post, contained “evidence of remarkable CIA incompetence and other shortcomings.”

The publication included “the agency’s creation, at a cost of billions of taxpayer dollars, of an entire arsenal of cyber viruses and hacking programs – over which it promptly lost control and then tried to cover up the loss,” Assange added. “These publications also revealed the CIA’s efforts to infect the public’s ubiquitous consumer products and automobiles with computer viruses.”

CIA Director Michael Pompeo called WikiLeaks “a non-state hostile intelligence service often abetted by state actors like Russia.”

Pompeo said, “We have to recognize that we can no longer allow Assange and his colleagues the latitude to use free speech values against us.” Pompeo declared, “Julian Assange has no First Amendment privileges. He is not a U.S. citizen.”

But, the Supreme Court has long held that the Constitution applies to non-Americans, not just U.S. citizens. And, when the Obama Justice Department considered prosecuting WikiLeaks, U.S. officials were unable to distinguish what Wikileaks did from what the Times and Guardian did since they also published documents that Manning leaked. WikiLeaks is not suspected of hacking or stealing them.

A week before Trump fired FBI Director James Comey, Comey told the House Intelligence Committee, “WikiLeaks is an important focus of our attention.” He said the Justice Department’s position “has been [that] newsgathering and legitimate news reporting is not covered, is not going to be investigated or prosecuted as a criminal act,” adding, “Our focus is and should be on the leakers, not those [who] are obtaining it as part of legitimate newsgathering.”

But Comey said, “a huge portion of WikiLeaks’ activities has nothing to do with legitimate newsgathering, informing the public, commenting on important controversies, but is simply about releasing classified information to damage the United States of America.”

As Elizabeth Goitein, co-director of the Brennan Center for Justice’s Liberty and National Security Program, wrote at Just Security, Comey was drawing the line “not between leaking classified information and publishing it, but between publishing it for ‘good’ reasons and publishing it for ‘bad’ ones.”

And, “[a]llowing the FBI to determine who is allowed to publish leaked information based on the bureau’s assessment of their patriotism would cross a constitutional Rubicon,” Goitein wrote.

Other advocates for civil liberties also defended WikiLeaks as a news organization protected by the First Amendment. “The U.S. government has never shown that Assange did anything but publish leaked information,” Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch, told the Times.

Ben Wizner, director of the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy and Technology Project, stated in an interview with the Times, “Never in the history of this country has a publisher been prosecuted for presenting truthful information to the public.”

Assange’s Detention Called Unlawful

In 2016, following a 16-month investigation, the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention concluded that Assange’s detention by Britain and Sweden was unlawful. It stated, “[A] deprivation of liberty exists where someone is forced to choose between either confinement, or forfeiting a fundamental right – such as asylum – and thereby facing a well-founded risk of persecution.”

A scene from the “Collateral Murder” video in which an Iraqi man stops his van to aid those wounded in a lethal U.S. helicopter attack in Baghdad on July 12, 2007, only to be gunned down by the American gunners.

The U.N. group found, “Mr. Assange’s exit from the Ecuadorian Embassy would require him to renounce his right to asylum and expose himself to the very persecution and risk of physical and mental mistreatment that his grant of asylum was intended to address. His continued presence in the Embassy cannot, therefore, be characterized as ‘volitional’.”

Thus, the U.N. group concluded that Assange’s continued stay in the embassy “has become a state of an arbitrary deprivation of liberty,” in violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

Alfred de Zayas, U.N. Independent Expert on the Promotion of a Democratic and Equitable International Order, told Consortiumnews, “What is at stake here is freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds.” He cited Article 19 of the ICCPR, which guarantees the right to freedom of expression.

“Whistleblowers are key human rights defenders in the Twenty-first Century, in which a culture of secrecy, behind-closed-door deals, disinformation, lack of access to information, 1984-like surveillance of individuals, intimidation and self-censorship lead to gross violations of human rights,” said de Zayas, who is also a retired senior lawyer with the U.N. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and former Secretary for the UN Human Rights Committee.

Moreover, the Johannesburg Principles of National Security, Freedom of Expression and Access to Information, issued in 1996, provide, “No person may be punished on national security grounds for disclosure of information if the public interest in knowing the information outweighs the harm from the disclosure.”

Even some mainstream news organizations that have been critical of WikiLeaks for releasing classified U.S. information have objected to the idea of criminal prosecution. A Washington Post editorial in 2010 entitled “Don’t Charge Wikileaks” said: “Such prosecutions are a bad idea. The government has no business indicting someone who is not a spy and who is not legally bound to keep its secrets. Doing so would criminalize the exchange of information and put at risk responsible media organizations that vet and verify material and take seriously the protection of sources and methods when lives or national security are endangered.”

In the U.S. government’s continued legal pursuit of WikiLeaks, there is much more at stake than what happens to Julian Assange. There are principles of press freedoms and the public’s right to know. By publishing documents revealing evidence of U.S. war crimes, emails relevant to the U.S. presidential election and proof of CIA malfeasance, Assange did what journalists are supposed to do – inform the people about newsworthy topics and reveal abuses that powerful forces want concealed.

Assange also has the right to freedom of expression under both U.S. and international law, which would further argue for Great Britain dropping the failure-to-appear warrant and allowing Assange to freely leave the embassy and to finally resume his life.

Marjorie Cohn is professor emerita at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, former president of the National Lawyers Guild, and deputy secretary general of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers. Her most recent book is Drones and Targeted Killing: Legal, Moral, and Geopolitical Issues. Visit her website at http://marjoriecohn.com/ (http://marjoriecohn.com/) and follow her on Twitter https://twitter.com/marjoriecohn. (https://twitter.com/marjoriecohn.)
Title: Clinton, Assange and the War on Truth
Post by: RE on October 22, 2017, 03:45:43 AM
https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/10/20/clinton-assange-and-the-war-on-truth/ (https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/10/20/clinton-assange-and-the-war-on-truth/)

October 20, 2017
Clinton, Assange and the War on Truth

by John Pilger

(https://uziiw38pmyg1ai60732c4011-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/dropzone/2017/10/Screen-Shot-2017-10-20-at-10.49.24-AM.png)
Photo by Kyle Taylor | CC by 2.0

On 16 October, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation aired an interview with Hillary Clinton: one of many to promote her score-settling book about why she was not elected President of the United States.

Wading through the Clinton book, What Happened, is an unpleasant experience, like a stomach upset. Smears and tears. Threats and enemies. “They” (voters) were brainwashed and herded against her by the odious Donald Trump in cahoots with sinister Slavs sent from the great darkness known as Russia, assisted by an Australian “nihilist”, Julian Assange.

In The New York Times, there was a striking photograph of a female reporter consoling Clinton, having just interviewed her. The lost leader was, above all, “absolutely a feminist”. The thousands of women’s lives this “feminist” destroyed while in government — Libya, Syria, Honduras — were of no interest.

In New York magazine, Rebecca Traister wrote that Clinton was finally “expressing some righteous anger”. It was even hard for her to smile: “so hard that the muscles in her face ache”. Surely, she concluded, “if we allowed women’s resentments the same bearing we allow men’s grudges, America would be forced to reckon with the fact that all these angry women might just have a point”.

Drivel such as this, trivialising women’s struggles, marks the media hagiographies of Hillary Clinton. Her political extremism and warmongering are of no consequence. Her problem, wrote Traister, was a “damaging infatuation with the email story”. The truth, in other words.

The leaked emails of Clinton’s campaign manager, John Podesta, revealed a direct connection between Clinton and the foundation and funding of organised jihadism in the Middle East and Islamic State (IS). The ultimate source of most Islamic terrorism, Saudi Arabia, was central to her career.

One email, in 2014, sent by Clinton to Podesta soon after she stepped down as US Secretary of State, discloses that Islamic State is funded by the governments of Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Clinton accepted huge donations from both governments for the Clinton Foundation.

As Secretary of State, she approved the world’s biggest ever arms sale to her benefactors in Saudi Arabia, worth more than $80 billion. Thanks to her, US arms sales to the world – for use in stricken countries like Yemen – doubled.

This was revealed by WikiLeaks and published by The New York Times. No one doubts the emails are authentic. The subsequent campaign to smear WikiLeaks and its editor-in-chief, Julian Assange, as “agents of Russia”, has grown into a spectacular fantasy known as “Russiagate”. The “plot” is said to have been signed off by Vladimir Putin himself.  There is not a shred of evidence.

The ABC Australia interview with Clinton is an outstanding example of smear and censorship by omission. I would say it is a model.

“No one,” the interviewer, Sarah Ferguson, says to Clinton, “could fail to be moved by the pain on your face at that moment [of the inauguration of Trump] … Do you remember how visceral it was for you?”

Having established Clinton’s visceral suffering, Ferguson asks about “Russia’s role”.

    CLINTON: I think Russia affected the perceptions and views of millions of voters, we now know. I think that their intention coming from the very top with Putin was to hurt me and to help Trump.

    FERGUSON: How much of that was a personal vendetta by Vladimir Putin against you?

    CLINTON: … I mean he wants to destabilise democracy. He wants to undermine America, he wants to go after the Atlantic Alliance and we consider Australia kind of a … an extension of that …

The opposite is true. It is Western armies that are massing on Russia’s border for the first time since the Russian Revolution 100 years ago.

    FERGUSON: How much damage did [Julian Assange] do personally to you?

    CLINTON: Well, I had a lot of history with him because I was Secretary of State when ah WikiLeaks published a lot of very sensitive ah information from our State Department and our Defence Department.

What Clinton fails to say – and her interviewer fails to remind her — is that in 2010, WikiLeaks revealed that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had ordered a secret intelligence campaign targeted at the United Nations leadership, including the Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon and the permanent Security Council representatives from China, Russia, France and the UK.

A classified directive, signed by Clinton, was issued to US diplomats in July 2009, demanding forensic technical details about the communications systems used by top UN officials, including passwords and personal encryption keys used in private and commercial networks.

This was known as Cablegate. It was lawless spying.

    CLINTON:  He [Assange] is very clearly a tool of Russian intelligence. And ah, he has done their bidding.

Clinton offered no evidence to back up this serious accusation, nor did Ferguson challenge her.

    CLINTON: You don’t see damaging negative information coming out about the Kremlin on WikiLeaks. You didn’t see any of that published.

This was false. WikiLeaks has published a massive number of documents on Russia – more than 800,000, most of them critical, many of them used in books and as evidence in court cases.

    CLINTON:  So I think Assange has become a kind of nihilistic opportunist who does the bidding of a dictator.

    FERGUSON:  Lots of people, including in Australia, think that Assange is a martyr for free speech and freedom of information. How would you describe him? Well, you’ve just described him as a nihilist.

    CLINTON:  Yeah, well, and a tool. I mean he’s a tool of Russian intelligence. And if he’s such a, you know, martyr of free speech, why doesn’t WikiLeaks ever publish anything coming out of Russia?

Again, Ferguson said nothing to challenge this or correct her.

    CLINTON: There was a concerted operation between WikiLeaks and Russia and most likely people in the United States to weaponise that information, to make up stories … to help Trump.

    FERGUSON: Now, along with some of those outlandish stories, there was information that was revealed about the Clinton Foundation that at least in some of the voters’ minds seemed to associate you ….

    CLINTON: Yeah, but it was false!

    FERGUSON: … with the peddling of information …

    CLINTON: It was false! It was totally false!  …..

    FERGUSON: Do you understand how difficult it was for some voters to understand the amounts of money that the [Clinton] Foundation is raising, the confusion with the consultancy that was also raising money, getting gifts and travel and so on for Bill Clinton that even Chelsea had some issues with? …

    CLINTON: Well you know, I’m sorry, Sarah, I mean I, I know the facts ….

The ABC interviewer lauded Clinton as “the icon of your generation”. She asked her nothing about the enormous sums she creamed off from Wall Street, such as the $675,000 she received for speaking at Goldman Sachs, one of the banks at the centre of the 2008 crash. Clinton’s greed deeply upset the kind of voters she abused as “deplorables”.

Clearly looking for a cheap headline in the Australian press, Ferguson asked her if Trump was “a clear and present danger to Australia” and got her predictable response.

This high-profile journalist made no mention of Clinton’s own “clear and present danger” to the people of Iran whom she once threatened to “obliterate totally”, and the 40,000 Libyans who died in the attack on Libya in 2011 that Clinton orchestrated. Flushed with excitement, the Secretary of State rejoiced at the gruesome murder of the Libyan leader, Colonel Gaddafi.

“Libya was Hillary Clinton’s war”, Julian Assange said in a filmed interview with me last year. “Barack Obama initially opposed it. Who was the person championing it?  Hillary Clinton.  That’s documented throughout her emails … there’s more than 1700 emails out of the 33,000 Hillary Clinton emails that we’ve published, just about Libya. It’s not that Libya has cheap oil. She perceived the removal of Gaddafi and the overthrow of the Libyan state — something that she would use in her run-up to the general election for President.

“So in late 2011 there is an internal document called the Libya Tick Tock  that was produced for Hillary Clinton, and it’s the chronological description of how she was the central figure in the destruction of the Libyan state, which resulted in around 40,000 deaths within Libya; jihadists moved in, ISIS moved in, leading to the European refugee and migrant crisis.

“Not only did you have people fleeing Libya, people fleeing Syria, the destabilisation of other African countries as a result of arms flows, but the Libyan state itself was no longer able to control the movement of people through it.”

This – not Clinton’s “visceral” pain in losing to Trump nor the rest of the self-serving scuttlebutt in her ABC interview  — was the story. Clinton shared responsibility for massively de-stabilising the Middle East, which led to the death, suffering and flight of thousands of women, men and children.

Ferguson raised not a word of it.  Clinton repeatedly defamed Assange, who was neither defended nor offered a right of reply on his own country’s state broadcaster.

In a tweet from London, Assange cited the ABC’s own Code of Practice, which states: “Where allegations are made about a person or organisation, make reasonable efforts in the circumstances to provide a fair opportunity to respond.”

Following the ABC broadcast, Ferguson’s  executive producer, Sally Neighbour, re-tweeted the following: “Assange is Putin’s bitch. We all know it!”

The slander, since deleted, was even used as a link to the ABC interview captioned ‘Assange is Putins (sic) b****. We all know it!’

In the years I have known Julian Assange, I have watched a vituperative personal campaign try to stop him and WikiLeaks. It has been a frontal assault on whistleblowing, on free speech and free journalism, all of which are now under sustained attack from governments and corporate internet controllers.

The first serious attacks on Assange came from the Guardian which, like a spurned lover, turned on its besieged former source, having hugely profited from WikiLeaks’ disclosures. With not a penny going to Assange or WikiLeaks, a Guardian book led to a lucrative Hollywood movie deal. Assange was portrayed as “callous” and a “damaged personality”.

It was as if a rampant jealousy could not accept that his remarkable achievements stood in marked contrast to that of his detractors in the “mainstream” media. It is like watching the guardians of the status quo, regardless of age, struggling to silence real dissent and prevent the emergence of the new and hopeful.

Today, Assange remains a political refugee from the war-making dark state of which Donald Trump is a caricature and Hillary Clinton the embodiment. His resilience and courage are astonishing. Unlike him, his tormentors are cowards.
Title: 💻 The Scourging of Julian Assange
Post by: RE on February 16, 2018, 12:02:17 AM
https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/02/15/the-scourging-of-julian-assange/ (https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/02/15/the-scourging-of-julian-assange/)

February 15, 2018
The Scourging of Julian Assange

by John Wight

(https://uziiw38pmyg1ai60732c4011-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/dropzone/2018/02/Screen-Shot-2018-02-14-at-6.39.52-PM.png)
Photo by Jeanne Menjoulet | CC BY 2.0

Julian Assange’s latest attempt to have his outstanding UK arrest warrant dropped has failed in what stands as one of the most blatant and cruel examples of the British legal system being wielded as an instrument of persecution against a man whose only crime is speaking truth to power.

The judge presiding over his case, and who summarily dismissed it, was ‘Lady Arbuthnot of Edrom’. Yes, you read that right. In the second decade of the 21st century the UK legal system is still dominated by the kind of people whose morning workout consists of flogging the butler. Lady Arbuthnot also happens to be the wife of Tory peer and former junior Defence Minister Lord James Arbuthnot, whose father was Major Sir John Sinclair Wemyss Arbuthnot.

By now you should be getting the idea. These ridiculous products of privilege and the British public school system (private education for those unfamiliar with the quixotic and arcane code of the British ruling elite) are the guardians of a status quo of class oppression at home and imperialism abroad. In daring to rip off the mask of civility and moral rectitude behind which they and their masters in the US have long carried out their acts of brutality and barbarity at home and around the world, Assange is on the receiving end of their considerable wrath.

If Julian Assange had been confined to a foreign embassy in Moscow or Beijing for five years, on the same grounds on which he has been confined to the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, his plight would have been a cause celebre, sparking calls for boycotts, sanctions, and action at the UN on the part of free speech and prisoner of conscience liberals in the West who are never done excoriating Russia and China.

As it is the UN has already intervened in the matter of the plight of the Wikileaks founder. In February 2016 the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention determined that the “arbitrary detention of Julian Assange should be brought to an end, that his physical integrity and freedom of movement be respected, and that he should be entitled to an enforceable right to compensation.”

Given that the Swedish authorities dropped their investigation into the original charges of rape and sexual molestation – made against Assange in 2010 and which he has always denied and claims were politically motivated – the outstanding UK arrest warrant for breaching bail conditions in 2012 which relates to those charges is surely now moot. Julian Assange, you may recall, sought refuge in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London fearing not extradition to Sweden but to the US over his role as founder and public face of Wikileaks.

In 2018 not only does the threat of extradition to the US continue to hang over him with this outstanding UK arrest warrant, if anything the threat is even greater, what with the part Wikileaks played in disseminating damning facts about Hillary Clinton, the Clinton Foundation, and the leadership of the DNC in the run up to the 2016 US presidential election. The ensuing Washington liberal establishment rage that has ensued as a result of Clinton losing the election to Donald Trump has been positively volcanic.

Clinton, her supporters, and elements of the Washington establishment claim that the information Wikileaks published came by way of Russian hacking, while Assange and groups such as Veterans Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), made up of former US intelligence operatives and officials, maintain that the information came by way of a leak within Washington itself. Meanwhile, up to this point, the investigation into alleged Russian hacking, Russiagate, is yet to produce one scintilla of concrete evidence that any such hacking on the part of Moscow took place.

Again, the real crime Julian Assange committed was not breaching his bail conditions but daring to speak truth to power. Wikileaks under his stewardship has become the bête noire of governments, particularly Western governments, revealing the ugly truth of crimes committed by US forces in Iraq, the West’s role in the destabilization of Ukraine in 2014, the destruction of Libya – and this is without the part the whistleblowing outfit played in exposing Hillary Clinton as a politician whose record is a monument to mendacity.

Wikileaks is and continues to be a thorn in their side and must be destroyed. Which means that Julian Assange must be destroyed, a man who teaches us that believing you live in a free society and actually behaving as if you do is not the same thing. The former allows you to exist in a bubble of soporific comfort, while the latter is liable to get you confined to a foreign embassy for five years and counting.

The personal toll on Assange’s physical and psychological well being as a result of his confinement should not be overlooked. Indeed the toll it is having was recently confirmed by the medical opinion of two clinicians, who upon examining Assange at the embassy in October 2017 renewed calls for him to be granted safe passage to a London hospital for treatment. In an article for the Guardian, the clinicians write: “While the results of the evaluation are protected by doctor-patient confidentiality, it is our professional opinion that his continued confinement is dangerous physically and mentally to him and a clear infringement of his human right to healthcare.”

It bears repeating: Julian Assange, as was Chelsea Manning, as will be Edward Snowden if he dares set foot outside Russia, is being punished for removing the veil of freedom, human rights, and civil liberties from the face of an empire of hypocrisy and lies. They lied about Iraq, they lied about Libya, they lied about Syria, and they lie every day about the murky relationships between governments, corporations, and the rich that negates their oft made claims to be governing in the interests of the people.

Until Julian Assange is free none of us are.
Title: 📡 Julian Assange has internet cut at Ecuadorian embassy in London
Post by: RE on March 29, 2018, 01:40:03 AM
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-43573694 (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-43573694)

Julian Assange has internet cut at Ecuadorian embassy in London

    28 March 2018

(https://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/660/cpsprodpb/6217/production/_100611152_hi039572038.jpg)
Image caption Mr Assange has been holed up at the Ecuadorian embassy since 2012

Ecuador has cut Julian Assange's internet connection at its embassy in London, preventing him from communicating with the outside world.

The move is to prevent the WikiLeaks founder from interfering in other countries' affairs, Ecuador said.

It comes after Mr Assange questioned accusations that Moscow was responsible for the poisoning of a Russian ex-spy and his daughter in the UK on 4 March.

Mr Assange was granted political asylum at the Ecuadorian embassy in 2012.

He was initially staying in London to avoid extradition to Sweden to face questioning over allegations of sex crimes, which the 46-year-old has always denied.

The Swedish authorities have since dropped their investigation, but Mr Assange believes he will be extradited to the US for questioning over the activities of WikiLeaks if he leaves the building.

    Campaigner or attention-seeker?
    Baywatch star's 'love' for Assange

On Monday, Mr Assange used Twitter to question the decision by the UK and more than 20 other countries to retaliate against a nerve agent attack on Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia in the UK city of Salisbury by expelling Russian diplomats.
Image Copyright @JulianAssange @JulianAssange
Report

UK Foreign Office minister Alan Duncan responded to his comments by branding the Australian a "miserable little worm" who needs to turn himself over to authorities.

In 2016, Ecuador briefly suspended Mr Assange's internet connection after he published hacked emails from the campaign team of Hillary Clinton, a move seen as having an impact on the US presidential election campaign.

In May 2017, Ecuadorian President Lenin Moreno asked Mr Assange to refrain from expressing his public support for the independence campaign in Spain's Catalonia region after he tweeted that Madrid was guilty of "repression".

Mr Assange was granted asylum by President Moreno's predecessor, Rafael Correa.

Mr Moreno's government has said it will maintain Mr Assange's asylum. But it has also sought ways for him to leave the embassy without risking arrest for breaching his bail conditions, and possible extradition to the US over the 2010 publication of classified information by WikiLeaks.
Title: ⛔ The Isolation of Julian Assange Must Stop
Post by: RE on April 02, 2018, 02:32:03 AM
https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-isolation-of-julian-assange-must-stop/5634306 (https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-isolation-of-julian-assange-must-stop/5634306)

The Isolation of Julian Assange Must Stop
We call on the government of Ecuador to allow Julian Assange his right of freedom of speech.
By John Pilger
Global Research, April 02, 2018
Region: Latin America & Caribbean
Theme: Law and Justice, Police State & Civil Rights


(https://www.globalresearch.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/assange.jpg)
If it was ever clear that the case of Julian Assange was never just a legal case, but a struggle for the protection of basic human rights, it is now.

Citing his critical tweets about the recent detention of Catalan president Carles Puidgemont in Germany, and following pressure from the US, Spanish and UK governments, the Ecuadorian government has installed an electronic jammer to stop Assange communicating with the outside world via the internet and phone. As if ensuring his total isolation, the Ecuadorian government is also refusing to allow him to receive visitors. Despite two UN rulings describing his detention as unlawful and mandating his immediate release, Assange has been effectively imprisoned since he was first placed in isolation in Wandsworth prison in London in December 2010. He has never been charged with a crime. The Swedish case against him collapsed and was withdrawn, while the United States has stepped up efforts to prosecute him. His only “crime” is that of a true journalist — telling the world the truths that people have a right to know.

Under its previous president, the Ecuadorian government bravely stood against the bullying might of the United States and granted Assange political asylum as a political refugee. International law and the morality of human rights was on its side.

Today, under extreme pressure from Washington and its collaborators, another government in Ecuador justifies its gagging of Assange by stating that “Assange’s behaviour, through his messages on social media, put at risk good relations which this country has with the UK, the rest of the EU and other nations.”

This censorious attack on free speech is not happening in Turkey, Saudi Arabia or China; it is right in the heart of London. If the Ecuadorian government does not cease its unworthy action, it, too, will become an agent of persecution rather than the valiant nation that stood up for freedom and for free speech. If the EU and the UK continue to participate in the scandalous silencing of a true dissident in their midst, it will mean that free speech is indeed dying in Europe.

This is not just a matter of showing support and solidarity. We are appealing to all who care about basic human rights to call on the government of Ecuador to continue defending the rights of a courageous free speech activist, journalist and whistleblower.

We ask that his basic human rights be respected as an Ecuadorian citizen and internationally protected person and that he not be silenced or expelled.

If there is no freedom of speech for Julian Assange, there is no freedom of speech for any of us — regardless of the disparate opinions we hold.

We call on President Moreno to end the isolation of Julian Assange now.

List of signatories (in alphabetic order):

Pamela Anderson, actress and activist

Jacob Appelbaum, freelance journalist

Renata Avila, International Human Rights Lawyer

Sally Burch, British/Ecuadorian journalist

Alicia Castro, Argentina’s ambassador to the United Kingdom 2012-16

Naomi Colvin, Courage Foundation

Noam Chomsky, linguist and political theorist

Brian Eno, musician

Joseph Farrell, WikiLeaks Ambassador and board member of The Centre for Investigative Journalism

Teresa Forcades, Benedictine nun, Montserrat Monastery

Charles Glass, American-British author, journalist, broadcaster

Chris Hedges, journalist

Srećko Horvat, philosopher, Democracy in Europe Movement (DiEM25)

Jean Michel Jarre, musician

John Kiriakou, former CIA counterterrorism officer and former senior investigator, U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations

Lauri Love, computer scientist and activist

Ray McGovern, former CIA analyst, Presidential advisor

John Pilger, journalist and film-maker

Angela Richter, theater director, Germany

Saskia Sassen, sociologist, Columbia University

Oliver Stone, film-maker

Vaughan Smith, English journalist

Yanis Varoufakis, economist, former Greek finance minister

Natalia Viana, investigative journalist and co-director of Agencia publica, Brazil

Ai Weiwei, artist

Vivienne Westwood, fashion designer and activist

Slavoj Žižek, philosopher, Birkbeck Institute for Humanities
Title: 🥇 The Persecution Of Assange Proves Him Right
Post by: RE on April 04, 2018, 01:22:44 AM
Go to the link for the Tweets.

RE

http://www.greanvillepost.com/2018/04/01/the-persecution-of-assange-proves-him-right/ (http://www.greanvillepost.com/2018/04/01/the-persecution-of-assange-proves-him-right/)

The Persecution Of Assange Proves Him Right
April 1, 2018 Posted by Addison dePitt

(http://www.greanvillepost.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/caitlin-assange.png)

HELP ENLIGHTEN YOUR FELLOWS. BE SURE TO PASS THIS ON. SURVIVAL DEPENDS ON IT.
IN OUR VIEW ONE HAS TO WONDER IF THE MASSES OF IDIOTS PROCLAIMING THAT ASSANGE CAN LEAVE THE EMBASSY ANYTIME HE WANTS ARE REAL PEOPLE OR BOTS PLANTED IN NUMEROUS SOCIAL MEDIA BY THE EMPIRE.

The online Oxford dictionary defines the word siege as a “military operation in which enemy forces surround a town or building, cutting off essential supplies, with the aim of compelling those inside to surrender.”

The strategy dates back to medieval times after the proliferation of the castle, where a defending force could hole itself up inside an easily defended fortress against an invading enemy who would be at a major disadvantage in a direct attack. To get around this, an army who wanted to depose the leadership within a castle or other impregnable construct would simply surround it and refuse to allow any food or supplies to be brought in. With enough patience, those inside would be forced to either starve or surrender.

This is precisely the strategy that is being employed against Julian Assange. If you try to talk about Assange being in a state of functional house arrest on any online forum you will be swiftly inundated by accounts asserting in fascinatingly uniform language that Assange is free to leave the Ecuadorian embassy whenever he wants, which just so happens to be the desire of the empire which currently has him under siege.

Doctors who examined Assange earlier this year say that his health is in a “dangerous” state of deterioration. They had to conduct their examination using improvised means in an unsanitary environment because the embassy isn’t set up for medical examinations, much less healthcare. They say he badly needs care, and he can’t get that care from where he’s at.

In her epic breakdown of the way perception of WikiLeaks is being extensively manipulated by the empire titled “Being Julian Assange“, journalist Suzie Dawson thoroughly documents the effects that Assange’s detention are having on his mental and physical well being. Here is a small sample:

“In his most recent live appearance, Assange is insightful, learned and brilliant as ever. But he is visibly suffering the ever exacerbating physical effects of his 7 year confinement.

After more than half a decade without fresh air to breathe, he coughs and clears his throat constantly. He struggles to maintain cognitive flow – breaking and reforming his thoughts, soldiering on in a concerted effort to express his ideas. It is obvious to any viewer that his vision has been affected. Our eyes need regular exposure to both short and long distances, as well as natural light changes, to maintain their health. With only four close walls to look at, Assange faces partial blindness, as well as a host of other negative effects from his unjust confinement.

Although there are countless social media threads and tweets circulating about Julian and WikiLeaks every day, few if any seem to register the serious and grave possibility that, immersed in our collective complacency, we may lose them forever.”

Julian Assange cannot “leave whenever he wants”. A judge with severely corrupt ties ruled in February that his arrest warrant still stands for an absurd bail-jumping charge from 2012 that Assange has already served his sentence for many times over according to the law as it is written. As soon as he sets foot outside the embassy he will most certainly be arrested, and then most certainly extradited to the US where the Trump administration is aggressively pursuing his arrest.

Chelsea Manning was tortured. CIA black sites exist. The hoards of online trolls promulgating the narrative that Assange can “leave whenever he wants” would crack like eggs under the treatment that is inflicted upon individuals who have dared to stand up to the US-centralized empire.

Assange isn’t hiding from justice, he is hiding from injustice. There is no reason to believe that this draconian empire would give him a fair trial and humane treatment. He can no more “leave whenever he wants” than he could if there was a firing squad stationed outside the embassy door.

And now this same western empire has pressured Ecuador into cutting off Assange’s internet access, phone calls and visitors to its siege, with electronic jammers being placed inside the embassy to make doubly certain that he is completely cut off from the world. A whole new array of weapons have been added to the empire’s siege, and it’s getting a lot hotter in there.

What all this has done, however, is prove irrefutably that Julian Assange has been right all along. The empire that he has been railing against throughout his entire time in the spotlight is every bit as depraved, oppressive and Orwellian as he has claimed, and is unquestionably deserving of his relentless assault upon it.

If you speak out against the US-centralized empire, you will be silenced. If you expose the truth about it, it will lay siege to you until you either surrender or die. Dissent is being stomped out. Truth is being attacked.

Light is feared by vampires.

And we need to be real with ourselves: their siege might work. They may well succeed in squeezing the life out of Assange until he either sets foot outside the embassy, cracks under the mental pressure, or dies, and in any of those cases his voice will be cut off from the world forever.

But remember this! Never, ever forget this: if their siege does work and the empire finally does get its sociopathic claws on him alive or dead, all they will have accomplished is showing the world just how right he always was. They will force us all to become Julian Assange in order to take apart the oppression machine which forever snuffed out the voice of truth one day in London, and we will let truth roar through all of us.

No matter what the brainwashed MSM zombies tell you, any power establishment which will stomp out the voice of someone who simply shares facts about it is worthy of nothing other than relentless tooth-and-claw opposition.

Assange is right. He has always been right. Let’s take these bastards down.

(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/d9/ce/cc/d9ceccad52a79b96976e4dcc2e54c787.jpg)

________________________

Thanks for reading, clear-eyed rebel. My daily articles are entirely reader-funded, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook, following my antics on Twitter, bookmarking and getting on the mailing list for my website, checking out my podcast, throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypal, or buying my new book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers.
Title: 🌍 Ecuador hints it may hand over Julian Assange to Britain and the US
Post by: RE on May 15, 2018, 03:04:49 AM
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/05/12/assa-m12.html (http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/05/12/assa-m12.html)

Ecuador hints it may hand over Julian Assange to Britain and the US
By James Cogan
12 May 2018

(https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Julian-Assange-1280x640.jpg)

Julian Assange is in immense danger. Remarks made this week by Ecuador’s foreign minister suggest that her government may be preparing to renege on the political asylum it granted to the WikiLeaks editor in 2012 and hand him over to British and then American authorities.

On March 28, under immense pressure from the governments in the US, Britain and other powers, Ecuador imposed a complete ban on Assange having any Internet or phone contact with the outside world, and blocked his friends and supporters from physically visiting him. For 45 days, he has not been heard from.

Ecuadorian Foreign Minister Maria Fernanda Espinosa stated in a Spanish-language interview on Wednesday that her government and Britain “have the intention and the interest that this be resolved.” Moves were underway, she said, to reach a “definite agreement” on Assange.

If Assange falls into the hands of the British state, he faces being turned over to the US. Last year, US Attorney General Jeff Sessions stated that putting Assange on trial for espionage was a “priority.” CIA director Mike Pompeo, now secretary of state, asserted that WikiLeaks was a “non-state hostile intelligence service.”

In 2010, WikiLeaks courageously published information leaked by then Private Bradley [now Chelsea] Manning that exposed war crimes committed by American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. WikiLeaks also published, in partnership with some of the world’s major newspapers, tens of thousands of secret diplomatic cables, exposing the daily anti-democratic intrigues of US imperialism and numerous other governments.

For that, Assange was relentlessly persecuted by the Obama administration. By November 2010, it had convened a secret grand jury and had a warrant issued for his arrest on charges of espionage—charges that can carry the death sentence. The then Labor Party government in Australia headed by Prime Minister Julia Gillard threw Assange, an Australian citizen, to the wolves. It refused to provide him any defence and declared it would work with the US to have him detained and put on trial.

On June 19, 2012, under conditions in which he faced extradition to Sweden to answer questions over fabricated allegations of sexual assault, and the prospect of rendition to the United States, Assange sought asylum in the Ecuador’s embassy in London.

Since that time, for nearly six years, he has been largely confined to a small room with no direct sunlight. He has been prevented from leaving, even to obtain medical treatment, by the British government’s insistence it will arrest him for breaching bail as soon as he sets foot outside the embassy.

Now, for six weeks and three days, he has been denied even the right to communicate.

Jennifer Robinson, the British-based Australian lawyer who has represented Assange since 2010, told the London Times in an interview this month: “His health situation is terrible. He’s had a problem with his shoulder for a very long time. It requires an MRI [magnetic resonance imaging scan], which cannot be done within the embassy. He’s got dental issues. And then there’s the long-term impact of not being outside, his visual impairment. He wouldn’t be able to see further than from here to the end of this hallway.”

The effort to haul Assange before a US court is inseparable from the broader campaign underway by the American state and allied governments to impose sweeping censorship on the Internet. Lurid allegations of “Russian meddling” in the 2016 US election and denunciations of “fake news” have been used to demand that Google, Facebook and other conglomerates block users from accessing websites that publish critical commentary and exposures of the ruling class and its agencies—including WikiLeaks and the World Socialist Web Site.

WikiLeaks has been absurdly denounced as “pro-Russia” because it published leaks from the US Democratic Party National Committee that revealed the anti-democratic intrigues the party’s leaders carried out to undermine the campaign of Bernie Sanders in the 2016 presidential primary elections. It also published leaked speeches of presidential candidate Hillary Clinton that further exposed her intimate relations with Wall Street banks and companies.

As part of the justification for Internet censorship, US intelligence agencies allege, without any evidence, that the information was hacked by Russian operatives and supplied to WikiLeaks to undermine Clinton and assist Trump—whom Moscow purportedly considered the “lesser evil.”

In response to the hysterical allegations, WikiLeaks broke its own tradition of not commenting on its sources. It publicly denied that Russia was the source of the leaks. That has not prevented the campaign from continuing, with Assange even being labelled “the Kremlin’s useful idiot” in pro-Democratic Party circles. WikiLeaks is blamed for Clinton’s defeat, not the reality, that tens of millions of American workers were repulsed by her right-wing, pro-war campaign and refused to vote for her.

Under conditions in which the Ecuadorian government has capitulated to great power pressure and is collaborating with British and US agencies to break Julian Assange, there is an almost universal and reprehensible silence on the part of dozens of organisations and hundreds of individuals who once claimed to defend him and WikiLeaks.

The United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, which in February 2016 condemned Assange’s persecution as “a form of arbitrary detention” and called for his release, has issued no statement on his current situation.

In Britain, the Labour Party and its leader Jeremy Corbyn have said nothing on the actions by Ecuador. Nor have they opposed the determination of the Conservative government to arrest Assange if he leaves the embassy.

In Australia, the current Liberal-National government and Labor leadership are just as complicit. The Greens, which claimed to oppose the persecution of Assange, have not made any statement in parliament or issued a press release, let alone called for public protests. Hundreds of editors, journalists, academics, artists and lawyers across the country who publicly defended WikiLeaks in 2010 and 2011 are now mute.

A parallel situation prevails across Europe and in the US. The so-called parties of the “left” and the trade unions are all tacitly endorsing the vicious drive against Assange.

Around the world, the Stalinist and Pabloite pseudo-left organisations, anxious not to disrupt their sordid relations with the parties of the political establishment and the trade union apparatuses, are likewise silent.

The World Socialist Web Site and the International Committee of the Fourth International unconditionally defend Julian Assange and WikiLeaks. If the ruling elite can haul him before a court, it will hold him up as an example of what happens to those who speak out against social inequality, militarism, war and police-state measures. His prosecution would be used to try to intimidate and silence all dissent.

If Assange is imprisoned or worse, and WikiLeaks shut down, it will be a serious blow to the democratic rights of the entire international working class.

Workers and young people should join with the WSWS and ICFI in demanding and fighting for the immediate freedom of Julian Assange.
Title: Re: 🌍 Ecuador hints it may hand over Julian Assange to Britain and the US
Post by: Eddie on May 15, 2018, 04:11:58 AM
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/05/12/assa-m12.html (http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/05/12/assa-m12.html)

Ecuador hints it may hand over Julian Assange to Britain and the US
By James Cogan
12 May 2018

(https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Julian-Assange-1280x640.jpg)

Julian Assange is in immense danger. Remarks made this week by Ecuador’s foreign minister suggest that her government may be preparing to renege on the political asylum it granted to the WikiLeaks editor in 2012 and hand him over to British and then American authorities.

On March 28, under immense pressure from the governments in the US, Britain and other powers, Ecuador imposed a complete ban on Assange having any Internet or phone contact with the outside world, and blocked his friends and supporters from physically visiting him. For 45 days, he has not been heard from.

Ecuadorian Foreign Minister Maria Fernanda Espinosa stated in a Spanish-language interview on Wednesday that her government and Britain “have the intention and the interest that this be resolved.” Moves were underway, she said, to reach a “definite agreement” on Assange.

If Assange falls into the hands of the British state, he faces being turned over to the US. Last year, US Attorney General Jeff Sessions stated that putting Assange on trial for espionage was a “priority.” CIA director Mike Pompeo, now secretary of state, asserted that WikiLeaks was a “non-state hostile intelligence service.”

In 2010, WikiLeaks courageously published information leaked by then Private Bradley [now Chelsea] Manning that exposed war crimes committed by American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. WikiLeaks also published, in partnership with some of the world’s major newspapers, tens of thousands of secret diplomatic cables, exposing the daily anti-democratic intrigues of US imperialism and numerous other governments.

For that, Assange was relentlessly persecuted by the Obama administration. By November 2010, it had convened a secret grand jury and had a warrant issued for his arrest on charges of espionage—charges that can carry the death sentence. The then Labor Party government in Australia headed by Prime Minister Julia Gillard threw Assange, an Australian citizen, to the wolves. It refused to provide him any defence and declared it would work with the US to have him detained and put on trial.

On June 19, 2012, under conditions in which he faced extradition to Sweden to answer questions over fabricated allegations of sexual assault, and the prospect of rendition to the United States, Assange sought asylum in the Ecuador’s embassy in London.

Since that time, for nearly six years, he has been largely confined to a small room with no direct sunlight. He has been prevented from leaving, even to obtain medical treatment, by the British government’s insistence it will arrest him for breaching bail as soon as he sets foot outside the embassy.

Now, for six weeks and three days, he has been denied even the right to communicate.

Jennifer Robinson, the British-based Australian lawyer who has represented Assange since 2010, told the London Times in an interview this month: “His health situation is terrible. He’s had a problem with his shoulder for a very long time. It requires an MRI [magnetic resonance imaging scan], which cannot be done within the embassy. He’s got dental issues. And then there’s the long-term impact of not being outside, his visual impairment. He wouldn’t be able to see further than from here to the end of this hallway.”

The effort to haul Assange before a US court is inseparable from the broader campaign underway by the American state and allied governments to impose sweeping censorship on the Internet. Lurid allegations of “Russian meddling” in the 2016 US election and denunciations of “fake news” have been used to demand that Google, Facebook and other conglomerates block users from accessing websites that publish critical commentary and exposures of the ruling class and its agencies—including WikiLeaks and the World Socialist Web Site.

WikiLeaks has been absurdly denounced as “pro-Russia” because it published leaks from the US Democratic Party National Committee that revealed the anti-democratic intrigues the party’s leaders carried out to undermine the campaign of Bernie Sanders in the 2016 presidential primary elections. It also published leaked speeches of presidential candidate Hillary Clinton that further exposed her intimate relations with Wall Street banks and companies.

As part of the justification for Internet censorship, US intelligence agencies allege, without any evidence, that the information was hacked by Russian operatives and supplied to WikiLeaks to undermine Clinton and assist Trump—whom Moscow purportedly considered the “lesser evil.”

In response to the hysterical allegations, WikiLeaks broke its own tradition of not commenting on its sources. It publicly denied that Russia was the source of the leaks. That has not prevented the campaign from continuing, with Assange even being labelled “the Kremlin’s useful idiot” in pro-Democratic Party circles. WikiLeaks is blamed for Clinton’s defeat, not the reality, that tens of millions of American workers were repulsed by her right-wing, pro-war campaign and refused to vote for her.

Under conditions in which the Ecuadorian government has capitulated to great power pressure and is collaborating with British and US agencies to break Julian Assange, there is an almost universal and reprehensible silence on the part of dozens of organisations and hundreds of individuals who once claimed to defend him and WikiLeaks.

The United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, which in February 2016 condemned Assange’s persecution as “a form of arbitrary detention” and called for his release, has issued no statement on his current situation.

In Britain, the Labour Party and its leader Jeremy Corbyn have said nothing on the actions by Ecuador. Nor have they opposed the determination of the Conservative government to arrest Assange if he leaves the embassy.

In Australia, the current Liberal-National government and Labor leadership are just as complicit. The Greens, which claimed to oppose the persecution of Assange, have not made any statement in parliament or issued a press release, let alone called for public protests. Hundreds of editors, journalists, academics, artists and lawyers across the country who publicly defended WikiLeaks in 2010 and 2011 are now mute.

A parallel situation prevails across Europe and in the US. The so-called parties of the “left” and the trade unions are all tacitly endorsing the vicious drive against Assange.

Around the world, the Stalinist and Pabloite pseudo-left organisations, anxious not to disrupt their sordid relations with the parties of the political establishment and the trade union apparatuses, are likewise silent.

The World Socialist Web Site and the International Committee of the Fourth International unconditionally defend Julian Assange and WikiLeaks. If the ruling elite can haul him before a court, it will hold him up as an example of what happens to those who speak out against social inequality, militarism, war and police-state measures. His prosecution would be used to try to intimidate and silence all dissent.

If Assange is imprisoned or worse, and WikiLeaks shut down, it will be a serious blow to the democratic rights of the entire international working class.

Workers and young people should join with the WSWS and ICFI in demanding and fighting for the immediate freedom of Julian Assange.

I posted this yesterday, fwiw.
Title: Re: 🌍 Ecuador hints it may hand over Julian Assange to Britain and the US
Post by: RE on May 15, 2018, 05:24:12 AM
I posted this yesterday, fwiw.

Missed it.  Should be interesting if/when they boot him out the Embassy door.

RE
Title: Is Julian Assange About to be Arrested?
Post by: RE on May 27, 2018, 09:11:05 AM
https://www.globalresearch.ca/is-julian-assange-about-to-be-arrested/5641916 (https://www.globalresearch.ca/is-julian-assange-about-to-be-arrested/5641916)

Is Julian Assange About to be Arrested?
By True Publica
Global Research, May 26, 2018
TruePublica 25 May 2018
Region: Latin America & Caribbean
Theme: Law and Justice, Media Disinformation

(https://www.globalresearch.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Under-Intense-Pressure-Silence-Wikileaks-Secretary-of-State-Hillary-Clinton-Proposed-Drone-Strike-on-Julian-Assange-768x368.jpg)
According to numerous mainstream media reports, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is about to be forced to leave the Ecuadorian embassy in London. If that happened, he would face imminent arrest by British authorities and extradition to the US, where he would probably face life imprisonment on the one hand or execution on espionage charges on the other. The latter being the preferred option for the Trump administration.

It has now been exactly two months since Assange has been denied visitors and any outside communications since the Ecuadorian government cut off his access on March 28. He has no internet, phone, television and is no longer allowed visitors at all.

The truth is, no-one actually knows if Assange is still actually on the Ecuadorian premises.

Ecuador gave citizenship to Assange prior to their recent general election in the hope of providing safe transit out of England by giving him diplomatic status. However, the British government continued in its assigned role of jailer by fully rejecting Ecuador’s request for diplomatic status for Assange.

A British tribunal refused to release any documents pertaining to the reasons as to why Assange remains in an effective prison, at taxpayers expense, on the grounds that it had to protect the British Prosecution Service’s relationship with foreign authorities – in this case, the USA.

Britain is doing Washington’s dirty work and given the heavily increased ‘chatter’ on Assange’s fate – it is quite likely the British government is looking for public reaction to be muted enough to simply arrest him, go through the motions and send Assange to certain solitary confinement on death row.

The signs are not good. Since the new Equidorian President Mr Moreno was recently elected he described Mr Assange as an ‘inherited problem’ and ‘more than a nuisance.’

Mr Assange’s lawyer, Melinda Taylor, said:

    “For the last eight years, the UK has refused to either confirm or deny that they have received an extradition request from the US.”

Taylor continued:

    ‘At the same time, they have refused to provide assurances that Julian will not be extradited to the US if such a request were to be received, and maintained an ever-present vigil of the Embassy, notwithstanding a UN directive to take steps to ensure Julian’s immediate liberty. Their silence speaks volumes, particularly in light of recent statements from US officials that Julian’s arrest and extradition are a priority.’”

Foreign Policy Journal opines that:

    “Britain, as the most servile of Washington’s puppet states rejected the order by the UN Committee on Arbitrary Detention to immediately release Assange from his arbitrary detention.”

The mainstream media have obviously been alerted to quite possibly what will happen next. The language of the salivating establishment press is all too clear and clear:

    CNN: Julian Assange’s nearly six-year refuge at the Ecuadorian embassy in London is in danger, opening the WikiLeaks founder to arrest by British authorities and potential extradition to the US, multiple sources with knowledge tell CNN.
    NewYorkPost: WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange may have overstayed his welcome at the Ecuadoran embassy in London, where his situation is “unusually bad” and he could be forced out “any day now.”
    Daily Express: Julian Assange is on the verge of “eviction” from the Ecuadorian embassy in London, where he has been holed out for the last six years.
    Daily Mail: Julian Assange’s situation at the London Ecuadorian embassy is ‘unusually bad’ – the new President of Ecuador, Lenin Moreno, ordered the removal of extra security at the embassy.

Nowhere does the media report in this latest round of growing excitement that the United Nations has already fully stated that Assange’s detention is illegal based on international law. In a public statement, the UN called on the British authorities to end Julian Assange’s deprivation of liberty, respect his physical integrity and freedom of movement, and afford him the right to compensation.

Julian Assange is a political prisoner of Britain. This is a country who teaches its children by law, through a defined curriculum that British values include: “democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty, mutual respect for and tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs and for those without faith.”

Irrespective of your personal thoughts on whether Assange is a criminal or not, two of the five most basic principles of civil society in Britain has been completely discarded by the state in its subservience to a foreign power, in this case, Washington. It is a further sign of the breakdown of law and order in a country who once prided itself in such characteristics as justice.
Title: 📡 FREE JULIAN ASSANGE!
Post by: RE on June 06, 2018, 12:22:11 AM
https://www.greanvillepost.com/2018/06/04/lift-the-ban-on-communications-free-julian-assange/ (https://www.greanvillepost.com/2018/06/04/lift-the-ban-on-communications-free-julian-assange/)

Lift the ban on communications! Free Julian Assange!
June 4, 2018 Posted by Addison dePitt

(https://www.greanvillepost.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/assange-closeup.jpg)

BE SURE TO PASS THESE ARTICLES TO FRIENDS AND KIN. A LOT DEPENDS ON THIS. DO YOUR PART.

By James Cogan, wsws.org

    “The American state and its allies are seeking to destroy WikiLeaks and Julian Assange in order to intimidate every critical and independent media organisation…”

June 6 will mark 10 weeks since the Ecuadorian government blocked all communication by WikiLeaks’ editor Julian Assange with the outside world, including personal visitors. Assange has been trapped inside the Ecuadorian embassy in London since 2012, when Quito granted him asylum in the face of a legal witch-hunt by the governments of the United States, Britain and Sweden.

Britain was moving to extradite Assange to Sweden on trumped-up allegations of sexual abuse as the first step in transferring him to the US to face charges of espionage, which carry a possible death sentence. Washington had vowed to punish Assange for having exposed before the world war crimes committed by the US in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as US intrigues against other countries.

In remarks last Wednesday, Ecuadorian President Lenín Moreno attempted to defend the silencing of Assange. He sought to deny—unconvincingly—that this action was the outcome of his government’s capitulation to pressure and threats by the United States.

Moreno put forward an Orwellian conception of freedom of speech that lines up entirely with the standpoint of American imperialism and every enemy of democratic rights. Renouncing WikiLeaks’ right—and the right of all journalists and media—to publish information that reveals government and corporate criminality or challenges official propaganda, the Ecuadorian president asserted: “There are two types of liberty. The responsible liberty and the liberty in which everyone thinks they can do whatever they want, whenever they want and however they want. That is not liberty. Liberty must be used with a lot of responsibility.”
“Britain was moving to extradite Assange to Sweden on trumped-up allegations of sexual abuse as the first step in transferring him to the US to face charges of espionage, which carry a possible death sentence. Washington had vowed to punish Assange for having exposed before the world war crimes committed by the US in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as US intrigues against other countries…”

Moreno stated that the WikiLeaks editor had to accept that the “conditions of his asylum prevent him speaking out about politics or intervening in the politics of other countries.” He threatened that if Assange did not submit to such terms, Ecuador would “take a decision” to revoke its granting of asylum.

Assange’s entire mission in forming WikiLeaks in 2006 was to enable people to use the immense power of the Internet to break through the “responsible” disinformation and censorship that prevails in the corporate-controlled and state-owned media. All critical and independent journalism, by its very nature, involves “speaking out about politics.”

Assange is now in grave danger. It is more than two years since a United Nations working group condemned the British government for enforcing Assange’s “arbitrary detention,” calling it a “contravention of his fundamental human rights.”

His lawyer Jennifer Robinson and supporter Pamela Anderson have publicly warned in recent weeks about the seriousness of his medical condition. For six years, he has been confined in a small building with no access to sunlight or adequate medical treatment. For 10 weeks he has been subjected to the additional psychological pressure of what Moreno declares will be ongoing, indefinite isolation.

A calculated operation is underway to break the WikiLeaks editor. Moreno’s statements only underscore that the aim is to force him to “voluntarily” leave the Ecuadorian embassy, to be taken by waiting British police and placed in detention on bail-related charges without any means of contacting the outside world. That would be followed by further months or years of imprisonment while his legal defenders fight American extradition warrants.

The government of Australia, where Assange was born and holds citizenship, bears immense responsibility for the situation. In late 2010, instead of defending an Australian citizen whose rights were under attack, the Labor Party government of Prime Minister Julia Gillard sided with Washington. It labelled WikiLeaks’ actions “illegal” and declared it would support the prosecution of Assange for espionage. The current Liberal-National coalition government has not lifted a finger to oppose his ongoing persecution.

The American state and its allies are seeking to destroy WikiLeaks and Julian Assange in order to intimidate every critical and independent media organisation. The aim is to suppress the exposure of the crimes and lies of governments and to silence all those who seek to defend democratic rights and freedom of speech.

The attack on Assange is bound up with the aggressive moves by US and global intelligence agencies, working with social media and Internet companies, to suppress left-wing, anti-war and socialist views online. A pall of censorship is descending over the Internet, the most democratic form of communication in human history.

The International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI) and its publication, the World Socialist Web Site, are urging resistance. We call for the greatest possible international mobilisation in defence of WikiLeaks and Julian Assange. This is an essential part of a broader fight to defend Internet freedom, freedom of speech and all social and democratic rights of the working class.

A historical crossroads has been reached. Organisations and individuals will be judged by where they stand in this basic conflict over democratic rights.

The Socialist Equality Party, the Australian section of the ICFI, has called a demonstration in Sydney for 1:00 p.m. on Sunday, June 17 at the Sydney Town Hall Square. It is being held in conjunction with acclaimed journalist and filmmaker John Pilger, an unwavering defender of WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, media freedom and democratic rights.

The demonstration has also been endorsed by prominent civil liberties attorney Julian Burnside and by Terry Hicks, who waged a five-year struggle against the imprisonment of his son, David Hicks, in the hell-hole US prison camp at Guantanamo Bay.

Musician Roger Waters of Pink Floyd fame, who has for decades spoken out against war and injustice, has sent the WSWS a message of support endorsing action to defend WikiLeaks. On the stage of his concerts in Berlin over the weekend he posted the call: “Resist the Attempted Silencing of Julian Assange.”

The demonstration in Sydney will press the demand that the Australian government act immediately to secure Assange’s unconditional return to Australia, with a guarantee against any American attempt to extradite him to the US.

A vigil demanding freedom for Julian Assange will be taking place in London at the Ecuadorian embassy on Tuesday, June 19. The May government must end its persecution of Assange, drop the bail-related charges against him and allow him to leave the Ecuadorian embassy and the UK. Similar vigils on June 19 are being held in other cities around the world.

In contrast, a whole layer of trade union, Green Party and pseudo-left organisations that voiced support for WikiLeaks and Assange in 2010 and 2011 have repudiated any struggle against his persecution. They have shifted to supporting imperialism.

The working class and the youth, however, are entering into immense struggles, and there is enormous respect among them for Assange and WikiLeaks. The social force that will lead the fight to defend democratic rights is the international working class, as part of a broader struggle to secure its social rights and oppose war, inequality and the capitalist system.

We urge readers of the WSWS to turn to the workplaces, factories, campuses and high schools to fight for maximum support for the demonstrations and vigils demanding freedom for Julian Assange.
DO YOUR PART!Share by just clicking the social media b
|
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
The author is a reporter with wsws.org, a leading political analysis organization and publication arm of SEP (Social Equality Party).
Title: Julian Assange
Post by: Palloy2 on June 08, 2018, 11:40:43 PM
https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/why-bringing-assange-home-would-be-the-best-possible-thing-for-australia-5b897d509997
Why Bringing Assange Home Would Be The Best Possible Thing For Australia
Caitlin Johnstone
9 June 2018

Well I’ll be damned, it’s about time.

According to a new report by the Sydney Morning Herald, officials from Australia’s High Commission have just been spotted leaving the Ecuadorian embassy in London, accompanied by Julian Assange’s lawyer Jennifer Robinson. Robinson confirmed that a meeting had taken place, but declined to say what it was about “given the delicate diplomatic situation.”

So, forgive me if I squee a bit. I am aware how subservient Australia has historically been to US interests, I am aware that those US interests entail the arrest of Assange and the destruction of WikiLeaks, and I am aware that things don’t often work out against the interests of the US-centralized empire. But there is a glimmer of hope now, coming from a direction we’ve never seen before. A certain southerly direction.

If the Australian government stepped in to protect one of its own journalists from being persecuted by the powerful empire that has dragged us into war after war and turned us into an asset of the US war/intelligence machine… well, as an Australian it makes me tear up just thinking about it. It has been absolutely humiliating watching my beloved country being degraded and exploited by the sociopathic agendas of America’s ruling elites, up to and including the imprisonment and isolation of one of our own, all because he helped share authentic, truthful documents exposing the depraved behaviors of those same ruling elites. I have had very few reasons to feel anything remotely resembling patriotism lately. If Australia brought Assange home, this would change.

We Australians do not have a very clear sense of ourselves; if we did we would never have stood for Assange’s persecution in the first place. We tend to form our national identity in terms of negatives, by the fact that we are not British and are not American, without any clear image about what we are. A bunch of white prisoners got thrown onto a gigantic island rich with ancient indigenous culture, we killed most of the continent’s inhabitants and degraded and exploited the survivors, and now we’re just kind of standing around drinking tea as the dust settles saying, “Hmm… well, we’re not stuck-up like the Brits, and we’re not entitled like the Yanks.”

That’s pretty much our entire nation right now. A beautiful continent where the Aboriginal Dreamtime has been paved over with suburbs and shopping centers. We are a warm and charitable people, we value family and community, but we’ve got no sense of who we are and what it means to be Australian.

We try sometimes; there are attempts to uplift Australian art and culture which we call Australiana. I remember going to “bush dances” as a kid where old-timey settler music was played and everyone pretended to have some kind of connection with it. We like meat pies. The footy’s great. But our sense of ourselves has never really taken root.

Which is ultimately why attempts to assert our sovereignty, to leave the British commonwealth and stop having that ugly old woman’s face on our money have fallen short. It is also why we had no problem subjugating ourselves as a functional vassal state of the US as it emerged as a dominant superpower following the world wars. If we’d had a clear image of ourselves, what we stand for, and what our best interests are, this never would have happened. But because of our background we’ve been like the home schooled teenager going to high school for the first time and instantly being absorbed into a bad crowd because she didn’t understand the social dynamics.

I went to a community theater with my family the other day to see Spring Awakening, an English-language musical set in Germany. For no apparent reason, the actors on the stage spoke in American accents. They were Australians playing Germans, not Americans; there was no reason whatsoever for that to happen. But that sort of thing is so commonplace here the only person who pointed it out was my American husband. It seemed perfectly normal to me.

But it isn’t normal. It isn’t normal for a nation of people to be so neurotic and ashamed of their own nationality that they put on a foreign accent rather than their own for no reason. It isn’t normal that we have such a head-down, subservient society that most of our homegrown talent leaves Australia forever because we’ve got a weird slave-culture habit of cutting down the “tall poppies” whenever anyone is perceived to have risen above their station. It isn’t normal that we feel so ashamed of standing tall and shining bright in the world.

Nowadays the closest non-Aboriginal thing you ever see to a display of Australian identity typically involves Southern Cross tattoos, thuggishness, Islamophobia, and a desire to continue the cruel warehousing of human beings on Manus Island. That is plainly gross, and the Aboriginal people now hold their culture secret and close to their chests for completely understandable reasons, so what else is there? What else could there be that could begin to unite us as a people so we can begin to develop a little collective pride and cease allowing ourselves to be used as a tool of sociopathic imperialists?

Well, there’s Julian Assange. He’s something positive that we can all fight for, a clear force of good in the world that we can unify around as we begin a slow, sloppy, completely necessary divorce from the cancer of empire.

Assange confuses Americans in the same way Mountain Dew confuses me. Americans don’t have any cultural hook-ups for the kind of creature he is. In the same way that Mountain Dew looks, tastes, smells and feels like poison to me, they can’t tell if he’s right wing or left, if he’s a hero or a villain, or what motivates him. They don’t trust him because they don’t know what they’re looking at. As someone who grew up around the same time, in the same area, and in similar social circles to him, it seems very obvious to me what he is. And what he is is very Australian.
Traditionally Australians have lionized anti-establishment heroes such as Australian bushranger Ned Kelly, the son of an Irish convict who was hanged for killing a British cop.

Every country has its flavor. In my country, we grew up valuing innovation. Most people my age can reel off a list of Australian inventions, from the Hills Hoist to the postage stamp to the bionic ear to wifi. I did not even have to go and google that just now, that’s how much a part of our national conversation and our education is our pride in our use of insight for practical problem-solving.

There are some fundamental values that we grew up with as seventies children in Australia. There was the value of “do the right thing,” the value of “giving everyone a fair go”, and the value of “keeping the bastards honest.” These were key and oft-repeated phrases in my childhood during the seventies and eighties. Remember, we were small when there was a CIA/MI6 coup in our country and our parents were implored by the ousted Prime Minister Gough Whitlam to “maintain the rage” at the unforgivable attack on our democratic sovereignty. That’s in my living memory. When Julian and I were small, anti-establishment sentiment was at its loudest.
The badge from Gough Whitlam’s successful 1972 election as Prime Minister. Hugely popular and establishment-smashing, he was ousted by the Queen of England’s Governor General in a CIA/MI6 backed coup only three years later.

We have an inbuilt distrust of authority and a deep hatred of empire which probably stems from our convict roots, and then from the ongoing waves of refugees who were running from famine, wars and despotism. Aside from the indigenous population, we are a country full of people who were forced by empire to come here in one way or another. So we don’t like authority much and we instinctively cut people down before they get too powerful. This is why the unions are still strong and social programs are such a natural fit for us. We like things to be fair. We like everyone to have a say.

Julian Assange’s work is an embodiment of all those values. The initial innovative use of technology to create WikiLeaks, the belief in openness and transparency, the desire to democratize information for the good of the whole, and the joy in keeping the bastards honest — all of that is very Australian. Very child of a strong Mum and brought up in Melbourne. Very me. My seed took root in similar soil. He seems obvious to me.

His work is extraordinary. Never has a single innovation brought power to its knees in such a short amount of time. In an inverted totalitarian system where the ability to suck resources from the people is hidden under a veil of propaganda, the ability to rip through the veil of spin and government opacity is a powerful tool indeed. In just a little over a decade he has managed to make himself the most wanted man alive by the most powerful people on earth. That’s how effective WikiLeaks has been in bringing truth to power.
Title: Re: Julian Assange
Post by: RE on June 09, 2018, 01:06:34 AM
Even assuming the Aussies decide they want to give JA asylum, I wonder about the logistics of getting him out of the Ecuadorian Embassy and then on a plane to Oz without the Brits arresting him along the way?

Also, I am merging this with the Julian Assange thread in Heroes of the Revolution.

RE
Title: Re: Wikileaks Updates-Julian Assange Thread
Post by: Eddie on June 09, 2018, 09:37:25 AM
About time Australia did the right thing. Maybe they're finally getting tired of the US being so heavy handed all the time.

They can give Assange full diplomatic immunity and he can walk out without any fear of (legal) reprisal. Not sure about illegal.
Title: 🌏 Demands grow that Australian government act to free Julian Assange
Post by: RE on June 13, 2018, 01:22:52 AM
https://www.greanvillepost.com/2018/06/12/demands-grow-that-australian-government-act-to-free-julian-assange/ (https://www.greanvillepost.com/2018/06/12/demands-grow-that-australian-government-act-to-free-julian-assange/)

Demands grow that Australian government act to free Julian Assange
June 12, 2018 Posted by Addison dePitt

(https://www.greanvillepost.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Opposecapitalism5.jpg)

BE SURE TO PASS THESE ARTICLES TO FRIENDS AND KIN. A LOT DEPENDS ON THIS. DO YOUR PART.

By Mike Head, wsws.org

(https://www.greanvillepost.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Assange-EcuadorBalcony.jpg)

Last Sunday, Australia’s Channel 7 network broadcast an interview with Jennifer Robinson, an Australian-born, London-based lawyer who represents WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange. She issued a clear demand for the Australian government to carry out its responsibility to secure his freedom, as an Australian citizen.

The interview and 10-minute segment on the nationally-televised “Sunrise” morning program was a significant break in the general silence within the Australian corporate media on the more than seven-year detention of Assange. It came amid a renewed international campaign to fight for the unconditional freedom of the courageous journalist, who has continued to expose the war crimes, regime-change operations and mass surveillance conducted by the US and its allies around the world.

One of the central demands of this campaign is that Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull’s government act immediately to secure Assange’s freedom and his right to return to Australia, with guaranteed protection from any US request for his extradition on conspiracy and espionage charges. These charges can carry the death penalty.

http://www.youtube.com/v/TKrEVDato0w

Robinson’s interview came three days after she accompanied two Australian consular officials to meet with Assange inside the Ecuadorian embassy in London, where he sought political asylum on June 19, 2012. The visit was the first made by Australian officials to the Australian citizen in the six years since he has been effectively imprisoned inside the embassy, denied the right to obtain medical treatment or sunlight and outdoor physical exercise.

In her “Sunrise” interview, Robinson posed the pressing question: “What diplomatic representation is the Australian government willing to provide to protect Julian Assange from the risk of US extradition?”

Robinson pointed out that the Trump administration had taken “a far more public and aggressive stance” against WikiLeaks and Assange than even the Obama administration, under which a Grand Jury indictment was made for Assange’s arrest.

Since Trump’s election, Robinson explained, key members of his administration had called for WikiLeaks to be “taken down,” and for ways to be found to prosecute Assange, regardless of the US Constitution’s First Amendment guaranteeing free speech.

“When will the Australian government, which is uniquely placed to provide a resolution to this case, step forward to provide assistance?” she asked.

Robinson said Assange was willing to “face British justice, but not the risk of US injustice.” He is prepared to face court for breaching his British bail conditions when Ecuador granted him political asylum, but must have a guarantee against extradition to the US.

Such a guarantee was “standard procedure,” Robinson said. “If the Australian government would come to the fore, the case could be resolved quickly.”

As Robinson emphasised, both US Attorney General Jeff Sessions and CIA Director Mike Pompeo, now secretary of state, had made clear their intent to imprison Assange and shut down WikiLeaks, which Pompeo last year described as a “hostile non-state intelligence service.”

US threats against Assange escalated from March 2017, when WikiLeaks began publishing a massive leak of CIA documents, dubbed “Vault 7.” The documents lay bare a vast system of surveillance, hacking and cyberwarfare directed against the people of the United States and the entire planet.

(https://www.greanvillepost.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/AustralianTVcoveringAssange-hightime-520x268.jpg)
A rarity: An Australian TV network reporter covering the Assange case in London. The outrage is so great that not even these complicit corporadoes can ignore it much longer.

As the WSWS reported at the time, the documents indicate that the CIA has developed “more than a thousand hacking systems, trojans, viruses and other ‘weaponized’ malware” allowing it to seize control of devices, including Apple iPhones, Google’s Android operating system and devices running Microsoft Windows. By hacking these devices, the CIA can also intercept information before it is encrypted on social media platforms such as WhatsApp, Signal, Telegram, Weibo, Confide and Cloackman.”

These revelations came on top of the fury in the US political establishment after WikiLeaks published emails exposing the Democratic Party National Committee’s sabotage of Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign and Hillary Clinton’s secret speeches promising to protect the interests of Wall Street.

Since March 28 this year, Assange has faced further mistreatment, and is now in imminent danger. Under pressure from Washington, Ecuador’s government has deprived him of any form of communication with the outside world, including visitors. It has also threatened to renege on Assange’s asylum, and hand him over to waiting British police. Just before he was cut off, Assange had tweeted links to the WSWS series exposing the unprecedented number of former CIA agents running as Democrats in this year’s US midterm elections.

After Robinson’s interview, New Matilda, an Australian media outlet, published a commentary by Kellie Tranter, a lawyer and human rights activist. She detailed documents, obtained by freedom of information requests, showing that Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop had refused to “seek to ‘resolve’ Mr Assange’s case.” Bishop’s refusal followed the February 2016 findings of the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (WGAD) that Assange was being arbitrarily detained by Britain and Sweden in violation of international human rights law.

On February 12, 2016 Bishop, a former lawyer, signed a Ministerial Submission stating “we are unable to intervene in the due process of another country’s court proceedings or legal matters, and we have full confidence in the UK and Swedish judicial system.”

Tranter disclosed two further statements from Bishop’s department, on June 7 and 8 this year, adhering to the refusal to act on the WGAD verdict, even though in May 2017 Sweden finally dropped its trumped-up “investigation” into the sexual assault allegations against Assange. Among the exposures made of the politically motivated and dubious character of these allegations was a detailed examination undertaken by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s “Four Corners” program on July 23, 2012 (see: “Sex, Lies and Julian Assange”).

(https://www.greanvillepost.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/assangeMom-520x347.jpg)
Assange’s mother, Christine Assange, holding a picture of her son.

Tranter explained that the Swedish decision meant that the only outstanding “court proceeding” was the “relatively minor one of a breach of bail conditions by Assange when he sought asylum in 2012.” Tranter stated: t is incumbent upon a civilised nation to protect its citizens from risks posed by other nations to that citizen’s wellbeing.”

As a legal analysis published yesterday by the WSWS explained, both international and Australian law establishes that the Australian government clearly has the “discretion”—that is, the power—to take action against the United Kingdom in order to protect Assange, including, potentially, legal action in the British courts.

Robinson’s “Sunrise” interview is the second breach in the wall of corporate media silence. On June 2, Fairfax Media newspapers carried an opinion piece by Greg Barns, a barrister who is an adviser to Assange and WikiLeaks.

Barns called on Turnbull and Bishop “to assist in ensuring that this Australian citizen is no longer at risk of being subjected to US detention and can therefore leave the Ecuadorean embassy. This is because a key hurdle to Australian involvement in the Assange case has been removed, namely the Swedish warrant.”

On May 28, the WSWS and the International Committee of the Fourth International called for international action to defend Assange  and endorsed the vigil being prepared by WikiLeaks’ supporters outside the Ecuadorian embassy in London on June 19, and other vigils being organised around the globe.

In the same statement, the Socialist Equality Party (Australia), with the support of journalist and film-maker John Pilger, announced a demonstration to be held at Sydney Town Hall Square on Sunday, June 17 at 1:00 p.m. The rally will demand that the Turnbull government honour its responsibilities to Assange and intervene to secure his right to return to Australia, with guaranteed protection from any US extradition request.

Every effort must be made to mobilise the full strength of the international working class to win Assange’s freedom, as part of the defence of all basic democratic rights. Under the Trump administration, the American state and its allies have ramped up their efforts to destroy WikiLeaks and Assange as part of a broader agenda of censoring, silencing and intimidating every critical and independent media organisation.

Since WikiLeaks was created in 2006, both it and Assange have made an immense contribution to the exposure of great power criminality and abuses. That role will become even more important as the US and its partners, including Britain and Australia, escalate the drive toward trade war and war against China and Russia, and any other country regarded as a threat to Washington’s post-World War II hegemony.

We urge all our readers to join the demonstrations, vigils and other actions that are being organised internationally and to fight for an end to the persecution of Julian Assange and WikiLeaks.
DO YOUR PART!Do NOT forget to share this post widely! Defeati
|
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
The writer is a reporter and analyst with wsws.org, a Marxian publication.
Title: 🌏 John Pilger speaks: “Bring Julian Assange Home”
Post by: RE on June 20, 2018, 12:20:01 AM
"Hundreds of People" at a rally is not going to change many minds in the Oz Goobermint.  ::)

RE

https://www.greanvillepost.com/2018/06/18/watch-rally-to-free-julian-assange-held-in-sydney/ (https://www.greanvillepost.com/2018/06/18/watch-rally-to-free-julian-assange-held-in-sydney/)

Watch: Rally to Free Julian Assange held in Sydney; John Pilger speaks: “Bring Julian Assange Home”
June 18, 2018 Posted by Addison dePitt

“We’re not asking Malcolm Turnbull to defend Assange, we are telling him!”
18 June 2018

(https://www.greanvillepost.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Assange-CP.jpg)

Hundreds of people participated in Sunday’s demonstration in Sydney Town Hall Square to demand Julian Assange’s safe return to Australia. The rally, organised by the Socialist Equality Party, featured speeches from SEP Australia national secretary James Cogan and independent journalist and filmmaker John Pilger.

Bring Julian Assange Home

by JOHN PILGER
Photo by valerialaura | Public Domain

The persecution of Julian Assange must end. Or it will end in tragedy.

The Australian government and prime minister Malcolm Turnbull have an historic opportunity to decide which it will be.

They can remain silent, for which history will be unforgiving. Or they can act in the interests of justice and humanity and bring this remarkable Australian citizen home.

Assange does not ask for special treatment. The government has clear diplomatic and moral obligations to protect Australian citizens abroad from gross injustice: in Julian’s case, from a gross miscarriage of justice and the extreme danger that await him should he walk out of the Ecuadorean embassy in London unprotected.

We know from the Chelsea Manning case what he can expect if a US extradition warrant is successful — a United Nations Special Rapporteur called it torture.

I know Julian Assange well; I regard him as a close friend, a person of extraordinary resilience and courage. I have watched a tsunami of lies and smear engulf him, endlessly, vindictively, perfidiously; and I know why they smear him.

In 2008, a plan to destroy both WikiLeaks and Assange was laid out in a top secret document dated 8 March, 2008. The authors were the Cyber Counter-intelligence Assessments Branch of the US Defence Department. They described in detail how important it was to destroy the “feeling of trust” that is WikiLeaks’ “centre of gravity”.

This would be achieved, they wrote, with threats of “exposure [and] criminal prosecution” and a unrelenting assault on reputation. The aim was to silence and criminalise WikiLeaks and its editor and publisher. It was as if they planned a war on a single human being and on the very principle of freedom of speech.

Their main weapon would be personal smear. Their shock troops would be enlisted in the media — those who are meant to keep the record straight and tell us the truth.

The irony is that no one told these journalists what to do. I call them Vichy journalists — after the Vichy government that served and enabled the German occupation of wartime France.

Last October, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation journalist Sarah Ferguson interviewed Hillary Clinton, over whom she fawned as “the icon for your generation”.

This was the same Clinton who threatened to “obliterate totally” Iran and, who, as US secretary of State in 2011, was one of the instigators of the invasion and destruction of Libya as a modern state, with the loss of 40,000 lives. Like the invasion of Iraq, it was based on lies.

When the Libyan President was murdered publicly and gruesomely with a knife, Clinton was filmed whooping and cheering. Thanks largely to her, Libya became a breeding ground for ISIS and other jihadists.  Thanks largely to her, tens of thousands of refugees fled in peril across the Mediterranean, and many drowned.

Leaked emails published by WikiLeaks revealed that Hillary Clinton’s foundation – which she shares with her husband – received millions of dollars from Saudi Arabia and Qatar, the main backers of ISIS and terrorism across the Middle East.

As Secretary of State, Clinton approved the biggest arms sale ever — worth $80 billion — to Saudi Arabia, one of her foundation’s principal benefactors. Today, Saudi Arabia is using these weapons to crush starving and stricken people in a genocidal assault on  Yemen.

Sarah Ferguson, a highly paid reporter, raised not a word of this with Hillary Clinton sitting in front of her.

Instead, she invited Clinton to describe the “damage” Julian Assange did “personally to you”. In response, Clinton defamed Assange, an Australian citizen, as “very clearly a tool of Russian intelligence” and “a nihilistic opportunist who does the bidding of a dictator”.

She offered no evidence — nor was asked for any — to back her grave allegations.

At no time was Assange offered the right of reply to this shocking interview, which Australia’s publicly-funded state broadcaster had a duty to give him.

As if that wasn’t enough, Ferguson’s executive producer, Sally Neighour, followed the interview with a vicious re-tweet: “Assange is Putin’s bitch. We all know it!”

There are many other examples of Vichy journalism. The Guardian, reputedly once a great liberal newspaper, conducted a vendetta against Julian Assange. Like a spurned lover, the Guardian aimed its personal, petty, inhuman and craven attacks at a man whose work it once published and profited from.

The former editor of the Guardian, Alan Rusbridger, called the WikiLeaks disclosures, which his newspaper published in 2010, “one of the greatest journalistic scoops of the last 30 years”. Awards were lavished and celebrated as if Julian Assange did not exist.

WikiLeaks’ revelations became part of the Guardian’s marketing plan to raise the paper’s cover price. They made money, often big money, while WikiLeaks and Assange struggled to survive.

With not a penny going to WikiLeaks, a hyped Guardian book led to a lucrative Hollywood movie deal. The book’s authors, Luke Harding and David Leigh, gratuitously abused Assange as a “damaged personality” and “callous”.

They also revealed the secret password Julian had given the Guardian in confidence and which was designed to protect a digital file containing the US embassy cables.

With Assange now trapped in the Ecuadorean embassy, Harding, who had enriched himself on the backs of both Julian Assange and Edward Snowden, stood among the police outside the embassy and gloated on his blog that “Scotland Yard may get the last laugh”.

The question is why.

Julian Assange has committed no crime. He has never been charged with a crime. The Swedish episode was bogus and farcical and he has been vindicated.

Katrin Axelsson and Lisa Longstaff of Women Against Rape summed it up when they wrote, “The allegations against [Assange] are a smokescreen behind which a number of governments are trying to clamp down on WikiLeaks for having audaciously revealed to the public their secret planning of wars and occupations with their attendant rape, murder and destruction… The authorities care so little about violence against women that they manipulate rape allegations at will.”

This truth was lost or buried in a media witch-hunt that disgracefully associated Assange with rape and misogyny. The witch-hunt included voices who described themselves as on the left and as feminist. They willfully ignored the evidence of extreme danger should Assange be extradited to the United States.

According to a document released by Edward Snowden, Assange is on a “Manhunt target list”. One leaked official memo says: “Assange is going to make a nice bride in prison. Screw the terrorist. He’ll be eating cat food forever.”

In Alexandra, Virginia – the suburban home of America’s war-making elite — a secret grand jury, a throwback to the middle ages — has spent seven years trying to concoct a crime for which Assange can be prosecuted.

This is not easy; the US Constitution protects publishers, journalists and whistleblowers. Assange’s crime is to have broken a silence.

No investigative journalism in my lifetime can equal the importance of what WikiLeaks has done in calling rapacious power to account. It is as if a one-way moral screen has been pushed back to expose the imperialism of liberal democracies: the commitment to endless warfare and the division and degradation of “unworthy” lives: from Grenfell Tower to Gaza.

When  Harold Pinter accepted the Nobel Prize for Literature in 2005, he referred to “a vast tapestry of lies up on which we feed”. He asked why “the systematic brutality, the widespread atrocities, the ruthless suppression of independent thought” of the Soviet Union were well known in the West while America’s imperial crimes “never happened … even while [they] were happening, they never happened.”.

In its revelations of fraudulent wars (Afghanistan, Iraq) and the bald-faced lies of governments (the Chagos Islands), WikiLeaks has allowed us to glimpse how the imperial game is played in the 21st century. That is why Assange is in mortal danger.

Seven years ago, in Sydney, I arranged to meet a prominent Liberal Member of the Federal Parliament, Malcolm Turnbull.

I wanted to ask him to deliver a letter from Gareth Peirce, Assange’s lawyer, to the government. We talked about his famous victory — in the 1980s when, as a young barrister, he had fought the British Government’s attempts to suppress free speech and prevent the publication of the book Spycatcher — in its way, a WikiLeaks of the time, for it revealed the crimes of state power.

The prime minister of Australia was then Julia Gillard, a Labor Party politician who had declared WikiLeaks “illegal” and wanted to cancel Assange’s passport — until she was told she could not do this: that Assange had committed no crime: that WikiLeaks was a publisher, whose work was protected under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which Australia was one of the original signatories.

In abandoning Assange, an Australian citizen, and colluding in his persecution, Prime Minister Gillard’s outrageous behaviour forced the issue of his recognition, under international law, as a political refugee whose life was at risk. Ecuador invoked the 1951 Convention and granted Assange refuge in its embassy in London.

Gillard has recently been appearing in a gig with Hillary Clinton; they are billed as pioneering feminists.

If there is anything to remember Gillard by, it a warmongering, sycophantic, embarrassing speech she made to the US Congress soon after she demanded the illegal cancellation of Julian’s passport.

Malcolm Turnbull is now the Prime Minister of Australia. Julian Assange’s father has written to Turnbull. It is a moving letter, in which he has appealed to the prime minister to bring his son home. He refers to the real possibility of a tragedy.

I have watched Assange’s health deteriorate in his years of confinement without sunlight. He has had a relentless cough, but is not even allowed safe passage to and from a hospital for an X-ray .

Malcolm Turnbull can remain silent. Or he can seize this opportunity and use his government’s diplomatic influence to defend the life of an Australian citizen, whose courageous public service is recognised by countless people across the world. He can bring Julian Assange home.

This is an abridged version of an address by John Pilger to a rally in Sydney, Australia, to mark Julian Assange’s six years’ confinement in the Ecuadorean embassy in London.

John Pilger can be reached through his website: www.johnpilger.com (http://www.johnpilger.com)
Title: Re: Wikileaks Updates-Julian Assange Thread
Post by: Palloy2 on June 23, 2018, 08:42:50 PM
https://kurtnimmo.blog/2018/06/22/the-murder-of-julian-assange/
The 'Murder' Of Julian Assange
Kurt Nimmo
06/23/2018

It was a fool’s errand.

On the day Donald Trump was elected his supporters asked him to pardon the founder and frontman of WikiLeaks, Julian Assange. They flooded social media demanding Assange be allowed to leave the Ecuadorian embassy in London without arrest and extradition to the United States.

Stone silence from Trump and his administration.

A few months before the election, WikiLeaks released a searchable archive of over 30,000 emails and attachments taken from Hillary Clinton’s not-so private email server.

Trump held no aversion to exploiting the emails. He called them the Crooked Hillary emails and said they endangered the national security of the United States.

Democrats called foul, said Assange had colluded with Putin and the Russians.

In April, they filed a lawsuit in federal court against the Russian government, the Trump campaign, and WikiLeaks. They argue there was a widespread conspiracy to swing the 2016 election.

They have zero evidence of this. Evidence is no longer required. Accusations alone now serve to take down leaders and destroy careers.

Julian Assange and WikiLeaks are no longer of use to Donald Trump.

He dished out pardons to ex-Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio and neocon leaker Scooter Libby. Trump mulled other pardons, including a posthumous one for Muhammad Ali to wipe out his draft dodging conviction. It was reported in June Trump insiders are pushing to pardon the junk bond king Michael Milken and reverse his conviction on securities fraud. The Milken pardon is being pushed by Goldman Sachs alumnus and current Treasury secretary Steven Mnuchin and Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner.

Meanwhile, Julian Assange is left to twist in the wind.

Both Trump’s attorney general and his former CIA director, now secretary of state Mike Pompeo want Assange extradited to the United States where he will face trial and possible execution for espionage.

AG Jeff Sessions said the arrest and prosecution of Assange is a priority for the United States government, while Pompeo denounced him as a “hostile intelligence service,” never mind he had no problem using the Clinton emails to accuse the DNC of sabotaging the Bernie Sanders campaign.

The US has leaned heavy on Ecuador.

Following a meeting with General Joseph DiSalvo of the Southern Command - ostensibly to discuss “security cooperation”—Ecuadorian president Lenín Moreno rolled back security at the embassy and denied Assange access to family, friends, and doctors. They also shut down his internet connection.

This week Ecuador’s Foreign Minister Jose Valencia said his government working on an “exit” plan to remove Assange from the embassy where he has lived the past six years. Valencia told the Associated Press the plan would be “one that encourages an exit, that we do not want to be traumatic... we do not want it to be an exit that may cause dissonance with international law.”

Moreno said Assange interfered in Ecuador’s relationship with other countries by tweeting on political events. He also lamented the “nuisance” of Assange’s political asylum and said the Australian whistleblower is an “inherited problem” left over from the previous administration.

Moreno’s government granted Assange citizenship in a hope diplomatic immunity would be granted and he would leave the embassy. Assange knows better than to fall for this. Immunity or no, he will be arrested the minute he walks out of the embassy.

Activist and filmmaker John Pilger took the Left to task for abandoning Assange.

    “There is a silence among many who call themselves left,” he said in a statement.

    “The silence is Julian Assange. As every false accusation has fallen away, every bogus smear shown to be the work of political enemies, Julian stands vindicated as one who has exposed a system that threatens humanity.”

For the establishment, it’s imperative Assange be arrested, extradited, and brought up on espionage charges in the United States. The message will be priceless, the chilling effect invaluable.

The dirty secrets of war, political subterfuge, election fixing, and assorted other crimes and misdeeds are not for public consumption.

The release of the Collateral Damage video and the war logs of Afghanistan and Iraq should have resulted in a larger and more active antiwar movement. This didn’t happen.

Liberal and leftist opposition to war only occurs when a Republican sits in the Oval Office. Obama effectively destroyed what remained of the Bush era antiwar movement. Eights year of Obama worked like a lobotomy on the Left.

Democrats supported Hillary Clinton’s war on the people of Libya. They didn’t have a problem when she arranged weapons collected from the battlefields of Libya to be sent by the CIA to the “rebels” in Syria.

Democrats call for overthrowing Bashar al-Assad in Syria. They believe Russia got Trump elected and Vladimir Putin spreads lies and false news to undermine and destroy our democracy. Large NGOs, foundations, and think tanks are pushing this nonsense.

Due mostly to indoctrination as a result of public education and a herd mentality inculcated by leaders and media, it is a relatively easy task for the financial oligarchy and its corporate partners to brainwash the public. It now disguises war and conquest as humanitarianism.

I’m old enough to remember when millions of Americans praised Daniel Ellsberg for releasing the Pentagon Papers. That was then, this is now. Now liberals and progressives want to string up whistleblowers, same as their conservative Republican and neocon counterparts.

Gore Vidal said America suffers from amnesia.

Americans are largely blind to the war and financial crimes perpetuated in their name. Part of this is the result of indoctrination through propaganda media, but to a large degree Americans are incurious and unbothered by the criminality of their leaders and institutions.

Most don’t care Julian Assange is a dead man walking.

They are unable to see the criminal state for what it is - a global Mafia operation that shakes down entire continents and wages wars of conquest and pillage for profit.
Title: 🗽 Prosecution of Julian Assange Is Persecution of American Ideals
Post by: RE on July 30, 2018, 02:01:53 AM
https://dissidentvoice.org/2018/07/prosecution-of-julian-assange-is-persecution-of-american-ideals/ (https://dissidentvoice.org/2018/07/prosecution-of-julian-assange-is-persecution-of-american-ideals/)

Prosecution of Julian Assange Is Persecution of American Ideals

by Nozomi Hayase / July 27th, 2018

(https://dissidentvoice.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/assange-dont-shoot-the-messenger.-by-jack-taylor-for-getty-images-e1529869041477-300x174.jpg)
Over 50 years ago, in his letter from the Birmingham Jail, addressing a struggle of the civil right era, Martin Luther King Jr. wrote, “We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the hateful words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people.” His message is now more prevalent than ever in the current political climate surrounding WikiLeaks and its founder Julian Assange.

WikiLeaks stepped onto a global stage with release of a huge trove of classified documents revealing government secrecy. After the publication of war logs that exposed the atrocities committed by U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, the reaction of the Pentagon quickly escalated into a war against the First Amendment. WikiLeaks was subjected to unlawful financial blockades and there has been an ongoing secret grand jury against the organization and its associates since 2010.

These efforts to destroy WikiLeaks brought a long dreadful persecution of Assange. He has been detained for 8 years, first in prison, then under house arrest and now as a refugee living in the Ecuadorian embassy in London. In 2012 he was granted political asylum against the threat of extradition to the U.S., relating to his publishing activities with WikiLeaks. The UK government, in violation of UN rulings that indicated the situation of Assange as arbitrary detention, kept him in confinement, depriving him of medical care and sunlight.

In late March, this already untenable situation got worse. Pressured by the U.S., Ecuador’s new President Lenin Moreno put Assange in isolation by cutting off his access to the Internet, denying him phone calls and visitors, including Human Rights Watch. The latest news about him indicates that the Ecuadorian government is close to finalizing an agreement with British officials to evict Assange from the embassy. How did this all happen? Here we have a Western journalist, who has not been charged with any crime, being punished for providing information that shed light on crimes and corruption of governments. This plight of Assange has been largely ignored by American mainstream press and there has been an appalling silence on this issue even among political activists.

Villain, hero or useful idiot?

WikiLeaks has been consistently vilified by U.S. officials across two major political parties. After the publication of U.S. diplomatic cables, Rep. Peter King, a New York Republican, designated the whistleblowing site as a terrorist organization, calling for aggressive prosecution. Similar reactions were made by Democrats. Former Vice President Joe Biden compared Assange to a “high-tech terrorist”, while senator and chairman of the Intelligence Committee Dianne Feinstein urged him to be prosecuted for espionage.

As officials jumped to condemn this new media organization, the public responded differently. WikiLeaks, with the release of the collateral murder video in 2010, that provided an everyday scenery of the War on Terror in the Middle East instantly became a hero among liberals. This was contrasted with Republicans who tended to view the release of U.S. Diplomatic Cables as harmful, with conservative leaders calling Assange a traitor.

This attitude toward WikiLeaks flipped during the election season in 2016. WikiLeaks’ publication of damaging information from the Hillary Clinton campaign during the final weeks leading up to the election was met with Democrats’ hostile criticism. In their minds, WikiLeaks has changed. It no longer represented a champion of free speech that they once saw. To them, WikiLeaks appeared to have been taken over, being weaponized for the agenda of their political opponent.

As mainstream media hype of Russiagate came full on, demonization of WikiLeaks increased, depicting the transparency group as Putin’s puppet for meddling with the U.S. election. Contrary to progressives’ suspicion and animosity toward the organization, support for WikiLeaks grew among conservatives during the most recent presidential race. Right-wing commentators on Fox News and politicians like Sarah Palin cheered WikiLeaks. Trump repeatedly praised the organization during his campaign. Ever since it attained public notoriety, WikiLeaks has become many things for different people. Assange has been called a villain, a hero or a useful idiot. But what is WikiLeaks, who is Assange and what is his agenda?

Crushing bastards

Julian Paul Assange is a computer programmer and journalist with an independent mind and deep knowledge of the workings of hidden forces of control. Raffi Khatchadourian, a staff writer at the New Yorker, who profiled Assange in his article in 2010, described how this Australian citizen who recently obtained citizenship in Ecuador, came to “understand the defining human struggle not as left versus right, or faith versus reason, but as individual versus institution”.

In his 2006 seminal writing “Conspiracy as Governance”, Assange identified authoritarian regimes as patronage networks of political elites. He analyzed how this network maintains its power through the use of secrecy, restriction, and the control of national and global communication and information. Assange conceived WikiLeaks upon this understanding of the structure of power. With its innovative technical infrastructure and the method of transparency, the organization revolutionized the function of the press.

As a transnational journalistic entity that is entirely funded by public donations, WikiLeaks places no allegiance to any nations, corporations or political ideology. Its sole loyalty lies in the principle of democracy, using a leak as a tool for information warfare to perform a function of watchdog, restricting the power of institutions and protecting the rights of individuals. This fidelity to checks and balances is demonstrated in Assange’s ability to speak truth, no matter who is in power.

In Obama’s second term of presidency, while many who voted for him were still mesmerized under the spell of “hope and change”, Assange was able to penetrate the deception and see lies and hypocrisies of this president who received a Nobel Peace Prize, while simultaneously engaging in multiple wars. In the statement after one year in the embassy where he called for global support for the NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, who was charged with espionage, Assange fiercely denounced Obama’s war on whistleblowers.

During the 2016 presidential campaign, WikiLeaks released documents concerning one of the major candidates that would inherit the throne of this global imperial power. With the publication of documents that revealed internal workings of the Clinton campaign, WikiLeaks brought vital information that could help American people carefully scrutinize their political system and crush bastards that try to attack and undermine democracy.

If the organization had documents concerning Trump, WikiLeaks indicated that they would have published it. In responding to accusations of WikiLeaks favoring the Trump campaign with the DNC leaks, Assange made it clear that the role of the organization is to publish whatever is given to them, and they will not censor their publications for any political reasons.

The recent article written by an Italian journalist Stefania Maurizi, who worked with WikiLeaks for nine years, backs this claim. In sharing her insider view of the organization, she described how the decision of the timing of Podesta leaks was made and how Assange and his team were preparing to release material on Trump, which didn’t materialize, as it was already published before.

Defense of American ideals

This revolutionary journalism that Assange created through WikiLeaks resonates with the ideals that founded the United States. In fact, Assange pointed out how WikiLeaks derives its inspiration from the American revolutionary ideas and that it aligns its mission with these ideals.

Similar to the faith in the wisdom of ordinary people to govern themselves, expressed in the preamble of the Constitution with its first words “We the People”, Assange believed in the significance of ordinary people and their ability to engage in history. Thomas Jefferson recognized how, “Our liberty cannot be guarded but by the freedom of the press…” Just as founders of this country did not trust their own government and created a safeguard for individual liberty, Assange believed in the importance of an informed public in the functioning of democracy.

From its inception in 2006, WikiLeaks has been working to defend these American values. When the laws that protect whistleblowers were gutted, it is through Assange and WikiLeaks staff’s adamant commitment to the principle of free press that made it possible for former U.S. Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning to exercise her uncompromising free speech. Also, it is because of WikiLeaks journalist Sarah Harrison, with her courage in demonstrating extraordinary source protection that Snowden is now able to enjoy his rights that were denied by his own country.

WikiLeaks, as the world’s first global Fourth Estate, extended the freedom of speech, not only for Americans, but for people all around the world. As of late 2016, it published 10 million documents with a pristine record of authentication. The organization, by making full archives available in a searchable format, brought back information that belongs to the public, directly into their own hands. From the election in Kenya to the Icelandic revolution, WikiLeaks publications empowered people in many countries, creating greater social change and sparks for global uprisings. Information made available has been used to bring justice in courts and address numerous human rights abuses.

Until the moment he was cut out from the outside world, this editor in chief of the world’s most prosecuted publisher defended ordinary people’s right to self-determination. From a tiny sanctum in the Ecuadorian Embassy of London, Assange followed Catalans’ struggle for independence and continuously spoke out against Spanish Central government’s abuse of their democratic rights.

Self-righteous betrayal of democracy

So, did WikiLeaks change? Has this organization that once cracked our heart open with uncensored images of modern war lost its ideals? WikiLeaks illuminated our minds with a large cache of documents detailing dirty secrets of powerful figures, including over 650,000 critical documents concerning Putin’s Russia. Are they now really compromised?

WikiLeaks has not changed. It has not abandoned American ideals that have fueled the engine for this organization. WikiLeaks accepts information that is of public interest. It verifies and publishes authentic documents that fit the criteria of having “diplomatic, political, ethical, or historical significance, which has not been published before, and which is being suppressed”. It does this, no matter who is in office and which nation-state rises to global dominance, and even if doing so makes it a target of massive political retaliation.

WikiLeaks’ influence on U.S. politics in 2016 with the publication of documents that belong to Clinton campaign manager can be likened to efforts of consumer advocate Ralph Nader in the electoral arena. Nader, through his third party presidential run aimed to awaken in American people a fire in the belly that could challenge the corporate two-party duopoly. Similarly, WikiLeaks, by revealing the corruption of the American political system, tried to awaken moral courage for voters to take back their democracy that has long been stolen.

The publication of Podesta files exposed WikiLeaks to the same bigotry and bullying that Nader had faced back then, where the Democratic Party with their ardent middle class devotees blamed him for George W. Bush’s presidency and called him a spoiler. Now, the Democratic establishment, with MSNBC cable news stations and commentators, recycles the old tactics of defamation. They branded Assange as a Trump supporter and Russia’s intelligence asset. By even filing the lawsuit against the organization, they directed their vengeance to this whistleblowing site about the loss of Clinton’s campaign.

Yet, just as Nader’s third party presidential efforts could not spoil the election that was already so rotted, WikiLeaks could not ruin the political campaign that was so corrupted to the core. It is not WikiLeaks, but Americans who have been compromised. It is we who have fallen for a manufactured national politics that is designed to divide and conquer us every four years with new packaged candidates of the same product.

We have lost the revolutionary spirit that founded this nation, its vigilance toward government and have settled for the lesser of two evils. By engaging in our self-righteous crusade for defending our allegiance to leaders, parties and to the flag we plead to, we have betrayed our own interests and ideals.

Claiming our sacred heart

With the publication of Vault 7, a series of leaks on the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, fury against WikiLeaks now intensifies. The Trump cabinet continues the war on the First Amendment that began under the Obama administration. In recent months, Trump’s Justice Department Jeff Sessions stated that Assange’s arrest is a priority. Mike Pompeo, former CIA Director and the current U.S. Secretary of State, referred to the whistleblowing site as “a non-state hostile intelligence service” and indicated WikiLeaks as a force that subverts the U.S. Constitution.

From a traitor and a Kremlin puppet to a spoiler of American democracy, words are thrown around to create distortion. Bombarded by loud media sound bites, in this illusion of democracy, many can no longer hear a voice of conscience that knows what is right and they now remain silent. As Ecuador now prepares to hand over Assange to British authorities for a financial reward, by breaking its own Constitution of the Republic, our democracy’s last line of defense is about to be severed. Cruel treatment of Assange is no longer a character assassination and imprisonment of one innocent man. What is at stake is the death of the sacred heart of democracy that remembers our inherent obligation to one another. In his earlier blog, Assange wrote about the moral courage required in our age:

    Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence and thereby eventually lose all ability to defend ourselves and those we love.

He reminded us that what drives our will to crush bastards is a gentle love that inspires us to nurture the vulnerable. In a world where there is WikiLeaks, the veil of secrecy can no longer be maintained. The released information revealed the abuse of the powerful on the most vulnerable amongst us—those that are voiceless, ailing and impoverished. Calamity happening in Knightsbridge under the heightened security at the heart of London represents the injustice of the world that this fearless journalist and his courageous sources brought to us all to bear witness. It is now laid out for those who are willing and ready to see the truth.

Prosecution of Julian Assange is a persecution of American ideals. Criminalizing the act of publishing through the Espionage Act destroys the First Amendment as the guardian of democracy. This not only sets a dangerous precedent for press freedom, but it could allow the beginning of a new totalitarianism. We must break our silence and refuse to participate in the destruction of values that founded this country. It is time for us all to put aside ideological differences and unite in solidarity with people around the world who are engaging in non-violent resistance against this assault on WikiLeaks and our right to free speech.

Only through sincere efforts to keep our eyes open to the truth before us, can we have a chance to end the tyranny of the past that casts its shadow ever more into the present. If our silence has led to this great tragedy that we face now, the victory of democracy can be brought through each of us claiming the center of our heart to stand up for this fellow man who sacrificed his liberty so that all can be free.

*****

Update: #Unity4J, a platform to create social media movement in support of Julian Assange is now launched. Follow @Unity4J to join the campaign and updates. You can also support WikiLeaks by donating to their defense fund at http://iamwikileaks.org/donate. (http://iamwikileaks.org/donate.)

Nozomi Hayase, Ph.D., is an essayist and author of WikiLeaks, the Global Fourth Estate: History Is Happening (Libertarian Books, 2018). Find her on twitter @nozomimagine. Read other articles by Nozomi.

This article was posted on Friday, July 27th, 2018 at 9:42am and is filed under Political Prisoners, WikiLeaks.
Title: Re: 🗽 Prosecution of Julian Assange Is Persecution of American Ideals
Post by: g on July 30, 2018, 03:44:04 AM
The persecution and torture of Julian Assange for revealing the truth is one of the greatest arguments to have come about for those, like myself, that think government has become too big and Evil and folks should consider the Libertarian point of view.
Title: Re: 🗽 Prosecution of Julian Assange Is Persecution of American Ideals
Post by: RE on July 30, 2018, 05:49:45 AM
The persecution and torture of Julian Assange for revealing the truth is one of the greatest arguments to have come about for those, like myself, that think government has become too big and Evil and folks should consider the Libertarian point of view.

I thought you said Goobermint should step in and punish the Medical criminals who don't publish their prices and overcharge?  ???  I'm confused.  Do you want big Goobermint that protects the consumer all small Goobermint that lets criminal Capitalists rip off J6P?

RE
Title: Re: 🗽 Prosecution of Julian Assange Is Persecution of American Ideals
Post by: g on July 30, 2018, 06:05:02 AM
The persecution and torture of Julian Assange for revealing the truth is one of the greatest arguments to have come about for those, like myself, that think government has become too big and Evil and folks should consider the Libertarian point of view.



I thought you said Goobermint should step in and punish the Medical criminals who don't publish their prices and overcharge?  ???  I'm confused.  Do you want big Goobermint that protects the consumer all small Goobermint that lets criminal Capitalists rip off J6P?

RE

Your confused alright, very confused. Not just about Libertarian views but an entire litany of topics.

Find a rube to play your argue games with RE. 
Title: Re: 🗽 Prosecution of Julian Assange Is Persecution of American Ideals
Post by: RE on July 30, 2018, 06:43:57 AM
The persecution and torture of Julian Assange for revealing the truth is one of the greatest arguments to have come about for those, like myself, that think government has become too big and Evil and folks should consider the Libertarian point of view.



I thought you said Goobermint should step in and punish the Medical criminals who don't publish their prices and overcharge?  ???  I'm confused.  Do you want big Goobermint that protects the consumer all small Goobermint that lets criminal Capitalists rip off J6P?

RE

Your confused alright, very confused. Not just about Libertarian views but an entire litany of topics.

Find a rube to play your argue games with RE.

Tag, you're it.

RE
Title: Re: 🗽 Prosecution of Julian Assange Is Persecution of American Ideals
Post by: jdwheeler42 on July 30, 2018, 06:43:53 PM
The persecution and torture of Julian Assange for revealing the truth is one of the greatest arguments to have come about for those, like myself, that think government has become too big and Evil and folks should consider the Libertarian point of view.

I thought you said Goobermint should step in and punish the Medical criminals who don't publish their prices and overcharge?  ???  I'm confused.  Do you want big Goobermint that protects the consumer all small Goobermint that lets criminal Capitalists rip off J6P?
As Aristotle said, the opposite of one vice is not virtue but another vice.  For example, courage stands between cowardice and foolhardiness.

So it is in the case of government regulation.  It is not the government's job to protect J6P from himself.  Whatever people agree to with informed consent is their own business.  When it affects other people not part of the agreement, or when force or fraud is involved, is when it is proper for the government to step in.
Title: Re: Wikileaks Updates-Julian Assange Thread
Post by: g on August 02, 2018, 11:39:06 PM
First we must do something to help Julian. This interview makes that perfectly clear.

Secondly this interview is a must listen, an absolute must! After my second listen was going to give it a five star rating but realized it would be insulting.

Chris at his very best with incredible insights and not just about Julian. A new person for me, lovely brilliant lady named Suzy Dawkins who knows how to conduct an interview. Know nothing  about her but plan to know plenty and soon.

Don't miss it Diners, you know what a powerful impact the truth can have on you. 

In a world of divide and conquer, unity is the ultimate act of resistance. Friends of publisher Julian Assange are bringing together a diverse group of high-profile supporters of all political stripes in this online vigil event to advocate for Julian's freedom and protection. As has been widely reported, WikiLeaks’ Editor-In-Chief Julian Assange has had his human rights of freedom of association and to freely communicate restricted at the Ecuadorean Embassy, in which he is arbitrarily detained. This includes the ability for him to receive visitors, and all phone signals are being electronically jammed. There have also been countless reports of an imminent threat to his liberty in recent weeks, suggesting he is in danger of being expelled from the embassy and extradited to the United States to face espionage charges (which can invoke the death penalty). His friends, supporters and loved ones find this unacceptable and are again coming together to demand Julian's access to them be restored immediately, his political asylum respected and his human rights restored. We are calling upon members of the public in the UK to undertake solidarity actions at the Ecuadorian Embassy (3 Hans Crescent, opposite Harrods. Nearest tube station: Knightsbridge) to show their support for Julian. Everyone unable to attend the Embassy in person is encouraged to support these online events to help raise awareness about Julian's situation. Please amplify the hashtags: #Unity4J and #ReconnectJulian and share this video everywhere.
                                         





                                       http://www.youtube.com/v/1zzcDELakRM

 

Title: US Intel Will Bring Assange to the US in Chains
Post by: RE on November 15, 2018, 12:33:05 AM
https://www.greanvillepost.com/2018/11/14/us-intel-will-bring-assange-to-the-us-in-chains/ (https://www.greanvillepost.com/2018/11/14/us-intel-will-bring-assange-to-the-us-in-chains/)

US Intel Will Bring Assange to the US in Chains
November 14, 2018 Patrice de Bergeracpas

(https://www.greanvillepost.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Capitalismimplodingwhiteletterslogo5.jpg)

HELP ENLIGHTEN YOUR FELLOWS. BE SURE TO PASS THIS ON. SURVIVAL DEPENDS ON IT.

(https://www.greanvillepost.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/assange-Free.jpg)

By Ann Garrison, BAR contributor

Julian Assange, a hero in the struggle against imperial wars and the lies that states tell to justify them, is in mortal danger.

“Hillary Clinton suggested drone bombing Julian Assange, and other US politicians called for his execution by other means.”
Those of us who understand how revolutionary Wikileaks and its founder Julian Assange are hope that he won’t suffer that fate, but it seems more and more likely. It’s hardly a surprise given that, in 10 years’ time, Wikileaks published more classified information than all other media combined. It exposed human rights abuses, government spying, torture, and war crimes on an unprecedented scale. It put government, corporations, and even the Pentagon, the FBI, the CIA and other intel agencies on notice that they could no longer count on operating in secrecy. It created a trove of primary source material that serious journalists and researchers will mine for years to come. Its publications are accessible to readers who prefer primary sources to most mediated news.

Wikileaks so infuriates the USA’s most violent, corrupt, and criminal institutions that Hillary Clinton suggested drone bombing Julian Assange, and other US politicians called for his execution by other means. California’s 28th District Congressman Adam Schiff, who became the chair of the House Intelligence Committee when Democrats reclaimed the House, said that he would speak to Assange “when he is in US custody, not before.” Schiff is a vociferous and supremely self-righteous leader of the Democratic Party’s “Resistance,” which sullies the name of the underground movement formed in France during World War II to fight Nazi Germany’s occupying forces and the collaborationist Vichy government.

“Moral and racial superiority entitles the US to occupy the world with military bases, and ring any nation that challenges its hegemony with military aircraft, battleships, assault vehicles, and military surveillance.”

The Resistance is fascist in its own nature because it tolerates only one truth and one loyalty: Russia is the enemy, interfering in Syria, the Ukraine, and even US elections. Russia elected Trump. Russia dares to position missiles on its own borders in response to NATO’s missiles on the other side. The US must build more missiles, more drones, more nuclear weapons, and every other sort of weapon to defend the European world against Russia and its ally China. Moral and racial superiority entitles the US to occupy the world with military bases, and ring any nation that challenges its hegemony with military aircraft, battleships, assault vehicles, and military surveillance. The same moral and racial superiority entitles its spy state agencies to shut down access to information deviating from its narratives, and therefore to arrest and extradite Julian Assange.

Of course the Republican Party shares the same fascist nature but differentiates itself by insisting that although Russia is the enemy, Donald Trump did not collude with Russia to steal the 2016 presidential election. It also wants to silence the founder of Wikileaks and find a way to shut the organization down.

Are Assange and the movements to free him running out of time?
Assange has been an asylee in Ecuador’s London Embassy for more than six years—since August 2012. Ecuador and the UK, however, are no closer to an agreement that would allow him safe passage out of the embassy. In a recent video conference, #Unity4J organizer Suzie Dawson said she fears that Assange and those working to free him are running out of time:

“Right now time is not on our side. And I had someone today complaining because they want us to do a big big action day march. When you do those types of actions it takes two or three months to organize. You need to have an organizing committee, you need to wallpaper the town, you need to have one date that you do it on, you need to do a ton of advertising. You need to get all the unions and various other organizations to sign on board, and then you have this one action day.

“I honestly don’t think we have until February.”

“Well, there’s a couple of problems with that. First of all, I don’t think we have three months right now. If we schedule a February giant march in support of Julian, I honestly don’t think we have until February. I hope I’m wrong. I hope that the actions we take in the short term, in the next days and weeks, will buy us that much time for Julian, but I don’t see it.”

CIA whistleblower John Kiriakou, who spent two years in prison for exposing the agency’s official use of torture, said that if Assange walks out of the embassy without a guarantee of safe passage, he will be extradited to the US in chains:

“We all know why the British have that embassy ringed. It’s to snatch him and to turn him over to the United States. If that happens, the CIA and the FBI are both going to be on that plane and they’re both going to be at least attempting to interrogate him all the way back home.They will bring him back to the United States in chains because that’s what they do.“

“The CIA and the FBI are both going to be on that plane and they’re both going to be at least attempting to interrogate him all the way back home.”

Suzie Dawson said that the FBI and the CIA will interrogate and torture Assange to try to obtain information that would allow them to bring Wikileaks down, but that he has no doubt been preparing for this eventuality for years. She believes he will have made sure that the organization has adopted security codes and measures that he himself does not know and therefore cannot reveal—even if he’s tortured.

“They want to know about security files for example. They want to know about the inner processes and workings of Wikileaks. They want access to the knowledge that’s inside Julian’s brain. And they will torture him. And they will interrogate him in order to attempt to get that.

“They will torture him.”

“Now I trust Julian to be smart enough to have made sure that even he doesn’t possess a lot of that knowledge. In my personal opinion, Julian has spent years planning for these various eventualities, but it won’t stop them from trying.”

Dawson also said that the intelligence agencies are eager to punish him:

“At the end of the day they want to punish him for outing their corruption and their crimes. They’ve been waiting eight years to do it, and they will be rubbing their hands together with glee at the prospect of the UK detaining him and extraditing him to the USA.”

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Ann Garrison is an independent journalist based in the San Francisco Bay Area. In 2014, she received the Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza Democracy and Peace Prize for her reporting on conflict in the African Great Lakes region. She can be reached at ann@anngarrison.com.
Title: 🌍 Julian Assange: Wikileaks founder has been charged in US
Post by: RE on November 16, 2018, 03:00:08 AM
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/julian-assange-charged-us-wikileaks-prosecutors-court-filing-ecuador-embassy-a8636336.html (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/julian-assange-charged-us-wikileaks-prosecutors-court-filing-ecuador-embassy-a8636336.html)

Julian Assange: Wikileaks founder has been charged in US, prosecutors accidentally reveal

Wikileaks describes court filing which revealed the charges as an 'apparent cut-and-paste error'

    Adam Withnall
    @adamwithnall
    2 hours ago

http://www.youtube.com/v/TpzU57sByd8

The Independent US

The Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has been charged under seal with unspecified offences in the US, prosecutors have accidentally revealed in an unintentional court filing.

Federal prosecutors had hoped to keep the indictment prepared against Mr Assange a secret "due to the sophistication of the defendant, and the publicity surrounding the case", and so that Mr Assange would "no longer evade or avoid arrest and extradition in this matter".

Wikileaks said on social media that the US Justice Department had "accidentally revealed existence of sealed charges (or draft of them) against [Mr Assange] in apparent cut-and-paste error".
Read more

    Julian Assange loses legal fight and must now clean up after cat
    Ecuador says Julian Assange must sort out own issues
    Julian Assange sues Ecuador government for violating his 'rights'
    Ecuador attempted to move Julian Assange to Moscow embassy
    Julian Assange banned from political activity by Ecuador embassy

The document that reveals the charges, which prosecutors say was filed by mistake, asks a judge to seal documents in a criminal case unrelated to Mr Assange, and carries markings indicating it was originally filed in US District Court in Alexandria, Virginia in August.

A source familiar with the matter told Reuters news agency the document was initially sealed but unsealed this week for reasons that are unclear at the moment.

And Joshua Stueve, a spokesman for the prosecutors' office which filed the document that was unsealed, told the Reuters news agency: "The court filing was made in error. That was not the intended name for this filing."

According to the document, any procedure "short of sealing will not adequately protect the needs of law enforcement at this time because, due to the sophistication of the defendant, and the publicity surrounding the case, no other procedure is likely to keep confidential the fact that Assange has been charged".
Watch more

    Ecuador 'close to evicting' Julian Assange from UK embassy

It adds: "The complaint, supporting affidavit, and arrest warrant, as well as this motion and the proposed order, would need to remain sealed until Assange is arrested in connection with the charges in the criminal complaint and can therefore no longer evade or avoid arrest and extradition in this matter."

The Washington Post reported that the document had been penned by Assistant US Attorney Kellen S Dwyer. 

US officials have previously acknowledged that federal prosecutors based in Alexandria have been conducting a lengthy criminal investigation into Wikileaks and its founder.

Mr Dwyer had also been assigned to the WikiLeaks case, according to the Post. US media quoted sources familiar with the matter saying that what Mr Dwyer was disclosing was true, but unintentional.

Representatives of the Trump administration, including secretary of state Mike Pompeo, have publicly called for Mr Assange and Wikileaks to be aggressively prosecuted over the 2010 release of classified diplomatic cables.

Prosecutors are reported to have reopened their investigation into whether charges should be brought for the 2010 leak since Donald Trump came to power.
Support free-thinking journalism and subscribe to Independent Minds

And separately, special counsel Robert Mueller has also looked into WikiLeaks’ publication of emails from the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton’s then-campaign chairman, John Podesta, ahead of the 2016 election.

Officials have previously claimed the emails were hacked by Russian spies and transferred to Wikileaks.

Mr Assange entered the Ecuadorian embassy in London six years ago, to avoid extradition to Sweden to be questioned in a sexual molestation case.

Sweden has since dropped its request to extradite Mr Assange, but he still faces arrest by the Metropolitan Police if he leaves the embassy on a charge of skipping bail.

Mr Assange was initially treated as a welcome guest in the embassy, but his relations with Ecuadorian officials have become strained over time and he has often complained of his living conditions.

He and his supporters have periodically said US authorities had filed secret criminal charges against him, citing them as one of the reasons he must stay in the embassy - an assertion that US officials have pushed back against until recently.
Title: 🏰 Assange rejects deal between UK, Ecuador for him to leave embassy
Post by: RE on December 07, 2018, 03:33:10 AM
https://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/420183-assange-rejects-deal-between-uk-ecuador-for-him-to-leave-embassy (https://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/420183-assange-rejects-deal-between-uk-ecuador-for-him-to-leave-embassy)

Assange rejects deal between UK, Ecuador for him to leave embassy
By Morgan Gstalter - 12/06/18 08:08 PM EST

http://www.youtube.com/v/Ig_BVkqsUPM


WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange on Thursday rejected a deal brokered between Ecuador and the United Kingdom that would allow him to leave the Ecuadorian embassy in London for the first time in six years, the U.K.’s Telegraph reported.

Ecuadorian President Lenín Moreno said Assange can choose to leave the embassy without the risk of being extradited for charges abroad.

"The way has been cleared for Mr Assange to take the decision to leave in near-liberty,"  Moreno told The Telegraph, without elaborating on what “near liberty” meant.

Assange's lawyer, Barry Pollack, told The Telegraph that the U.K.-Ecuador agreement was not acceptable because it did not protect Assange from being extradited to the United States.

Assange has been under investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) since 2010 after WikiLeaks leaked thousands of classified reports on the war in Afghanistan stolen by the former U.S. Army Intelligence analyst now known as Chelsea Manning.

WikiLeaks also posted thousands of emails stolen from Democrats by Russian agents during the 2016 presidential election, which has been a focus of . special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe into possible links between Trump campaign associates and Russia.

The DOJ last month inadvertently revealed in a court filing that they have prepared charges against Assange.

The charges appear to be tied to Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election but it is unclear what the charges are.

Assange reportedly fears being convicted in the U.S. and facing prison time.

"The suggestion that as long as the death penalty is off the table, Mr Assange need not fear persecution is obviously wrong," Pollack told the outlet. "No one should have to face criminal charges for publishing truthful information.”

Pollack added that since it appears that the U.S. has brought charges against Assange, Ecuador should continue providing him asylum.

Assange fled to the embassy in 2012 when British courts ordered he be extradited to Sweden to be questioned in a sexual assault case, which has since been dropped. He still faces charges in U.K. for skipping bail.

He has accused the Ecuadorean government of trying to end his asylum because of new rules the embassy has imposed on him.

The set of new rules require Assange to do a variety of things including pay for medical bills and phone calls, stay away from commenting on controversial topics and clean up after his pet cat.
Title: 🌍 Julian Assange: No Surrender
Post by: RE on December 14, 2018, 04:02:39 AM
https://www.greanvillepost.com/2018/12/13/julian-assange-no-surrender/ (https://www.greanvillepost.com/2018/12/13/julian-assange-no-surrender/)

Julian Assange: No Surrender
December 13, 2018 Patrice de Bergeracpas

(https://www.greanvillepost.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Capitalismimplodingwhiteletterslogo5.jpg)

HELP ENLIGHTEN YOUR FELLOWS. BE SURE TO PASS THIS ON. SURVIVAL DEPENDS ON IT.

By Ann Garrison, BAR contributor
12 Dec 2018
(https://www.greanvillepost.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/BAR-assange-Garrison_845x400-1.jpg)
Supporters of the Wikileaks founder say he won’t leave the Ecuadorian embassy in London unless the British police drag him away.

“If you look at his enemies, and you look at who wants to lock him up forever, it’s clear that we have to defend him.”

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange appears to be one step closer to forcible removal from Ecuador’s London Embassy, most likely to be extradited to the US to face charges in the Eastern District Court of Virginia, which is commonly known as “the espionage court.” If UK police have to go in and remove him by force that will of course demonstrate the brutality of the state in the Gandhian tradition.

The US and UK governments may nevertheless be in a hurry to get hold of him however they can, with Theresa May’s Tory government so close to collapse and Jeremy Corbyn’s Labor Party so close to power. Given all that Corbyn has said about protecting journalists who take risks to reveal the truth about power, it’s hard to imagine him extraditing Assange in response to US demands, even though refusal would no doubt damage the longstanding Anglo-American alliance. [An alliance of criminals, to be sure.—Ed]

“It’s hard to imagine Jeremy Corbyn extraditing Assange in response to US demands.”

“Ecuador Envivo ” reports that Ecuador’s new ambassador to the UK has “very clear instructions” regarding Assange, who has been an asylee in the embassy for the past six years. And that the government said Assange’s asylum has been detrimental to its relationship with the UK and could further damage trade relations between the two countries.

Supporters of Assange met last Friday evening on an international online video conference about his worsening situation. Consortium News Editor Joe Lauria said that he does not expect Assange to leave the embassy of his own volition. Stefania Maurizi, Italian “La Republica” journalist and longtime Wikileaks publishing partner, told Lauria that she was able to see Assange about 10 days ago, and that he’s not planning to come out on his own, no matter what they do to him.

Black Agenda Report columnist Margaret Kimberley and Joe Lauria both said that the elite list of those determined to arrest and silence Assange prove that he deserves the support of the people:

Margaret Kimberley:  If you look at his enemies, and you look at who wants to lock him up forever, it’s clear that he’s important and it’s clear that we have to defend him.

Joe Lauria:  They want to lock him up because he’s directly threatening their interests. I’m talking about individuals inside the CIA, the NSA, the Pentagon, MI6, and big business. If you oppose Julian Assange, you’re on the side of the state against the people.

Chris Hedges said that defending Assange is equivalent to defending the possibility of investigative journalism despite mass surveillance:

“Investigative journalism into the inner workings of power has been frozen completely because of wholesale surveillance.”

Chris Hedges:  I really can’t reiterate enough times that this is the last chance we have not only to defend Julian Assange, but also to protect publishers’ ability to disseminate material on the inner workings of corporations and corporate states.

I worked as an investigative journalist for the New York Times and I still have colleagues there, and they are quite blunt about the fact that investigative journalism into the inner workings of power has been frozen completely because of wholesale surveillance.  Government officials, because they know they’re monitored, and journalists, because they know they’re monitored, can no longer shine a light into the inner workings of power. Leaks are the only mechanisms left by which we can understand power and particularly the crimes that are being committed by power, by the elites.

The three-hour video conferences regarding developments and possible responses to the UK and US governments pursuit of Julian Assange can be viewed every Friday evening beginning at 8 pm Eastern Time on the website Unity4J.com . Viewers can ask questions, make suggestions, and share details of upcoming Assange solidarity events in the YouTube chat window.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Ann Garrison is an independent journalist based in the San Francisco Bay Area. In 2014, she received the Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza Democracy and Peace Prize for her reporting on conflict in the African Great Lakes region. She can be reached at ann@anngarrison.com.
Title: 🌍 THE PRISONER SAYS NO TO BIG BROTHER
Post by: RE on March 05, 2019, 12:21:38 AM
http://johnpilger.com/articles/the-prisoner-says-no-to-big-brother (http://johnpilger.com/articles/the-prisoner-says-no-to-big-brother)

THE PRISONER SAYS NO TO BIG BROTHER
4 March 2019
101.JPG

(http://johnpilger.com/photo/470x357-C6v.jpg)
Image © George Burchett 2019

John Pilger invokes George Orwell in calling on his compatriots to stand up for the freedom of 'a distinguished Australian', the founder and editor of WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, and for 'real journalism of a kind now considered exotic'.

Whenever I visit Julian Assange, we meet in a room he knows too well. There is a bare table and pictures of Ecuador on the walls. There is a bookcase where the books never change. The curtains are always drawn and there is no natural light. The air is still and fetid.

This is Room 101.

Before I enter Room 101, I must surrender my passport and phone. My pockets and possessions are examined. The food I bring is inspected.

The man who guards Room 101 sits in what looks like an old-fashioned telephone box. He watches a screen, watching Julian. There are others unseen, agents of the state, watching and listening.

Cameras are everywhere in Room 101. To avoid them, Julian manoeuvres us both into a corner, side by side, flat up against the wall. This is how we catch up: whispering and writing to each other on a notepad, which he shields from the cameras. Sometimes we laugh.

I have my designated time slot. When that expires, the door in Room 101 bursts open and the guard says, "Time is up!" On New Year's Eve, I was allowed an extra 30 minutes and the man in the phone box wished me a happy new year, but not Julian.

Of course, Room 101 is the room in George Orwell's prophetic novel, 1984, where the thought police watched and tormented their prisoners, and worse, until people surrendered their humanity and principles and obeyed Big Brother.

Julian Assange will never obey Big Brother. His resilience and courage are astonishing, even though his physical health struggles to keep up.

Julian is a distinguished Australian, who has changed the way many people think about duplicitous governments. For this, he is a political refugee subjected to what the United Nations calls "arbitrary detention".

The UN says he has the right of free passage to freedom, but this is denied. He has the right to medical treatment without fear of arrest, but this is denied. He has the right to compensation, but this is denied.

As founder and editor of WikiLeaks, his crime has been to make sense of dark times. WikiLeaks has an impeccable record of accuracy and authenticity which no newspaper, no TV channel, no radio station, no BBC, no New York Times, no Washington Post, no Guardian can equal. Indeed, it shames them.

That explains why he is being punished.

For example:

Last week, the International Court of Justice ruled that the British Government had no legal powers over the Chagos Islanders, who in the 1960s and 70s, were expelled in secret from their homeland on Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean and sent into exile and poverty. Countless children died, many of them, from sadness. It was an epic crime few knew about.

For almost 50 years, the British have denied the islanders' the right to return to their homeland, which they had given to the Americans for a major military base.

In 2009, the British Foreign Office concocted a "marine reserve" around the Chagos archipelago.

This touching concern for the environment was exposed as a fraud when WikiLeaks published a secret cable from the British Government reassuring the Americans that "the former inhabitants would find it difficult, if not impossible, to pursue their claim for resettlement on the islands if the entire Chagos Archipelago were a marine reserve."

The truth of the conspiracy clearly influenced the momentous decision of the International Court of Justice.

WikiLeaks has also revealed how the United States spies on its allies; how the CIA can watch you through your iPhone; how Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton took vast sums of money from Wall Street for secret speeches that reassured the bankers that if she was elected, she would be their friend.

In 2016, WikiLeaks revealed a direct connection between Clinton and organised jihadism in the Middle East: terrorists, in other words. One email disclosed that when Clinton was US Secretary of State, she knew that Saudi Arabia and Qatar were funding Islamic State, yet she accepted huge donations for her foundation from both governments.

She then approved the world's biggest ever arms sale to her Saudi benefactors: arms that are currently being used against the stricken people of Yemen.

That explains why he is being punished.

WikiLeaks has also published more than 800,000 secret files from Russia, including the Kremlin, telling us more about the machinations of power in that country than the specious hysterics of the Russiagate pantomime in Washington.

This is real journalism - journalism of a kind now considered exotic: the antithesis of Vichy journalism, which speaks for the enemy of the people and takes its sobriquet from the Vichy government that occupied France on behalf of the Nazis.

Vichy journalism is censorship by omission, such as the untold scandal of the collusion between Australian governments and the United States to deny Julian Assange his rights as an Australian citizen and to silence him.

In 2010, Prime Minister Julia Gillard went as far as ordering the Australian Federal Police to investigate and hopefully prosecute Assange and WikiLeaks - until she was informed by the AFP that no crime had been committed.

Last weekend, the Sydney Morning Herald published a lavish supplement promoting a celebration of "Me Too" at the Sydney Opera House on 10 March. Among the leading participants is the recently retired Minister of Foreign Affairs, Julie Bishop.

Bishop has been on show in the local media lately, lauded as a loss to politics: an "icon", someone called her, to be admired.

The elevation to celebrity feminism of one so politically primitive as Bishop tells us how much so-called identity politics have subverted an essential, objective truth: that what matters, above all, is not your gender but the class you serve.

Before she entered politics, Julie Bishop was a lawyer who served the notorious asbestos miner James Hardie which fought claims by men and their families dying horribly with black lung disease.

Lawyer Peter Gordon recalls Bishop "rhetorically asking the court why workers should be entitled to jump court queues just because they were dying."

Bishop says she "acted on instructions... professionally and ethically".

Perhaps she was merely "acting on instructions" when she flew to London and Washington last year with her ministerial chief of staff, who had indicated that the Australian Foreign Minister would raise Julian's case and hopefully begin the diplomatic process of bringing him home.

Julian's father had written a moving letter to the then Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, asking the government to intervene diplomatically to free his son. He told Turnbull that he was worried Julian might not leave the embassy alive.

Julie Bishop had every opportunity in the UK and the US to present a diplomatic solution that would bring Julian home. But this required the courage of one proud to represent a sovereign, independent state, not a vassal.

Instead, she made no attempt to contradict the British Foreign Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, when he said outrageously that Julian "faced serious charges". What charges? There were no charges.

Australia's Foreign Minister abandoned her duty to speak up for an Australian citizen, prosecuted with nothing, charged with nothing, guilty of nothing.

Will those feminists who fawn over this false icon at the Opera House next Sunday be reminded of her role in colluding with foreign forces to punish an Australian journalist, one whose work has revealed that rapacious militarism has smashed the lives of millions of ordinary women in many countries: in Iraq alone, the US-led invasion of that country, in which Australia participated, left 700,000 widows.

So what can be done? An Australian government that was prepared to act in response to a public campaign to rescue the refugee football player, Hakeem al-Araibi, from torture and persecution in Bahrain, is capable of bringing Julian Assange home.

Yet the refusal by the Department of Foreign Affairs in Canberra to honour the United Nations' declaration that Julian is the victim of "arbitrary detention" and has a fundamental right to his freedom, is a shameful breach of the spirit of international law.

Why has the Australian government made no serious attempt to free Assange? Why did Julie Bishop bow to the wishes of two foreign powers? Why is this democracy traduced by its servile relationships, and integrated with lawless foreign power?

The persecution of Julian Assange is the conquest of us all: of our independence, our self respect, our intellect, our compassion, our politics, our culture.

So stop scrolling. Organise. Occupy. Insist. Persist. Make a noise. Take direct action. Be brave and stay brave. Defy the thought police.

War is not peace, freedom is not slavery, ignorance is not strength. If Julian can stand up to Big Brother, so can you: so can all of us.

John Pilger gave this speech at a rally in Sydney for Julian Assange, organised by the Socialist Equality Party. Follow John Pilger on twitter @johnpilger
Title: 📰 BREAKING: Julian Assange expulsion delayed
Post by: RE on April 07, 2019, 01:52:31 AM
http://www.youtube.com/v/V4Iw8MbPi_4
Title: Re: Wikileaks Updates-Julian Assange Thread
Post by: AJ on April 07, 2019, 04:54:18 AM
Thanks for the update. I was "taken in" by the MSM coverage on Assange some time back. You know the line, "there's an extradition warrant to Sweden for alleged sex crime". Now that that has been exposed (?) as bogus and we know the U.S. wants to take him I understand the narrative - Wikileaks is good and the U.S. is targeting Assange to shut up all leakers of the truth. (Correct me if I'm wrong).
AJ
Title: Re: Wikileaks Updates-Julian Assange Thread
Post by: Eddie on April 07, 2019, 11:45:26 AM
Assange'e problems are mainly related to the fact that his "journalism" targeted the outcome of the 2016 US election and possibly swung it to Trump. It certainly looks like he timed his leaks specifically to hurt Clinton (not that I'm a fan of Hillary).

Assange and Comey....the two of them, did far more to influence the outcome than Russia was able to do, no matter how much they wanted to see Trump win.

Forget the law. He pissed off the most powerful people on the planet. Australia will never stand up for him, and I doubt anybody else will either. Does he deserve what he's getting. Of course not. But it doesn't matter. Justice is not part of the equation here. It's damage control. Nothing is more important than controlling the news and keeping inconvenient facts from becoming public.
Title: 📰 “Assange Is Not A Journalist!” Yes He Is, Idiot.
Post by: RE on April 10, 2019, 01:59:35 AM
https://www.greanvillepost.com/2019/04/06/assange-is-not-a-journalist-yes-he-is-idiot/ (https://www.greanvillepost.com/2019/04/06/assange-is-not-a-journalist-yes-he-is-idiot/)

“Assange Is Not A Journalist!” Yes He Is, Idiot.


HELP ENLIGHTEN YOUR FELLOWS. BE SURE TO PASS THIS ON. SURVIVAL DEPENDS ON IT.

(https://www.greanvillepost.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/assange-receiving-award.jpg)

As we discussed yesterday, whenever Assange is in the news and people are defending him you always see a bunch of hyper-emotional empire loyalists running around online trying to manage the narrative about him. One of the most common talking points which comes up is that Assange is “not a journalist”.

The reason this talking point comes up, of course, is because the WikiLeaks founder is besieged by powerful forces who are attempting to imprison him for publishing inconvenient facts about them, and his defenders often voice their concerns about what this means for the future of press freedoms. The completely baseless claim that Assange is “not a journalist” is used in an attempt to defuse the argument that his prosecution by the US government could lead to the same fate for any news media outlet which publishes leaks on the US government anywhere in the world. If he’s not a journalist, then his prosecution sets no precedent for real journalists.

This argument, if you can call it that, is fallacious for a number of reasons. For starters, as The Intercept‘s Glenn Greenwald explained last year, there’s not any legal distinction in the US Constitution between news media outlets like the New York Times and an outlet which solely focuses on publishing leaks. If you set the precedent with any publisher, you’re necessarily setting it for all of them. Greenwald writes the following:

    To begin with, the press freedom guarantee of the First Amendment isn’t confined to “legitimate news outlets” – whatever that might mean. The First Amendment isn’t available only to a certain class of people licensed as “journalists.” It protects not a privileged group of people called “professional journalists” but rather an activity: namely, using the press (which at the time of the First Amendment’s enactment meant the literal printing press) to inform the public about what the government was doing. Everyone is entitled to that constitutional protection equally: there is no cogent way to justify why the Guardian, ex-DOJ-officials-turned-bloggers, or Marcy Wheeler are free to publish classified information but Julian Assange and WikiLeaks are not.

Secondly, anyone with a functioning brain can see that Julian Assange is indeed a journalist. Publishing facts so that the citizenry can inform themselves about what’s going on in their world and what’s happening with their government is the thing that journalism is. Duh. The need for an informed citizenry is the entire reason why press freedoms are protected so explicitly under the US Constitution, and publishing facts about the most powerful institutions on earth indisputably does create a more informed citizenry.

You can look at any conventional dictionary definition of the word and come to the same conclusion. Merriam-Webster offers “the public press” and “the collection and editing of news for presentation through the media”. The Oxford English Dictionary offers “The activity or profession of writing for newspapers, magazines, or news websites or preparing news to be broadcast.” Your Dictionary offers ” the work of finding, creating, editing and publishing news, or material written and presented for a newspaper, magazine or broadcast news source.” These are activities that WikiLeaks is undeniably involved in; they collect and publish newsworthy information to be circulated by themselves and other news sources. The fact that they do their part differently (and better) than other outlets doesn’t change that.

Which explains why the WikiLeaks team has racked up numerous awards for journalism over the years, including the Walkley Award for Most Outstanding Contribution to Journalism (2011), the Martha Gellhorn Prize for Journalism (2011), the International Piero Passetti Journalism Prize of the National Union of Italian Journalists (2011), the Jose Couso Press Freedom Award (2011), the Brazillian Press Association Human Rights Award (2013), and the Kazakstan Union of Journalists Top Prize (2014).

The claim that Assange is “not a journalist” is both an irrelevant red herring and a self-evident falsehood. It is made not by people with an interest in maintaining a small and specific linguistic understanding of what the word journalism means, but by people who want to see Julian Assange imprisoned by the same government which tortured Chelsea Manning because he made them feel emotionally upset. It’s a fact-free argument made entirely in bad faith for inexcusable motives: the desire to see a journalist imprisoned for telling the truth.

When someone says “Assange isn’t a journalist”, they aren’t telling you what Assange is. They’re showing you what they are.

I recognize no copyright of any kind on this work. You have my unconditional permission to republish it or use any part of it in any way you like, or any of my other writings. My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook, following my antics on Twitter, throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypal, purchasing some of my sweet merchandise, buying my new book Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone, or my previous book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers. The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish.

Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2
About the Author
 
Caitlin Johnstone is a brave journalist, political junkie, relentless feminist, champion of the 99 percent. And a powerful counter-propaganda tactician.
Title: 📰 WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange arrested in London
Post by: RE on April 11, 2019, 06:22:27 AM
http://www.14news.com/2019/04/11/julian-assange-arrested/ (http://www.14news.com/2019/04/11/julian-assange-arrested/)

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange arrested in London

 

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange arrested in London

Assange’s attorney said he faces a U.S. extradition request

 
Subtitle Settings
Font

Font Size Font Edge Font Color Background

 
Wikileaks co-founder Julian Assange arrested in London
 

(Gray News) - British law enforcement reported Julian Assange has been arrested.

The WikiLeaks founder was arrested in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, where he has been holed up after being granted political asylum in 2012.

Video shows arrest of Assange
CNN
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has been arrested at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, police announced.
Published at: 4:25 AM, Thu Apr 11 2019
 
 
 
 
 
  • Video shows arrest of Assange
     
  • Who is Julian Assange?

 
 

“He has been taken into custody at a central London police station where he will remain, before being presented before Westminster Magistrates’ Court as soon as is possible,” the Metropolitan Police said.

Assange has left the police station and is on his way to court.

Assange’s attorney Jen Robinson said he’s been arrested on a U.S. extradition request as well as for breaching UK bail conditions, the Associated Press reported. Metropolitan Police confirmed he was arrested at the request of the U.S. on an extradition warrant.

 

The UK Home Office further clarified that “he is accused in the United States of America computer related offences.”

Assange is the Australian-born founder of WikiLeaks, an organization that facilitates anonymous online leaking of classified information.

 

Officials said the police were invited into the embassy after the Ecuadorian government withdrew asylum for Assange.

Ecuador’s president said the government withdrew Assange’s asylum status, citing international convention violations, the Associated Press reported.

Authorities haul out Julian Assange, who can't really be seen in the crowd, on Thursday in London after Ecuadorian authorities withdrew his asylum at the Eduadorian Embassy.
Authorities haul out Julian Assange, who can't really be seen in the crowd, on Thursday in London after Ecuadorian authorities withdrew his asylum at the Eduadorian Embassy. (Source: Courtesy Adrian Cotterill/CNN)

Reuters said his relationship with his hosts deteriorated after they accused him of leaking information about Ecuador President Lenin Moreno’s personal life.

Moreno denounced Assange’s interference in the internal affairs of other states: "The most recent incident occurred in January 2019, when WikiLeaks leaked Vatican documents. This and other publications have confirmed the world’s suspicion that Mr Assange is still linked to WikiLeaks and therefore involved in interfering in internal affairs of other states.”

 
Subtitle Settings
Font

Font Size Font Edge Font Color Background

 
Assange repeatedly violated asylum terms, Ecuadorian president says

It’s been speculated that U.S. prosecutors could bring charges against Assange related to WikiLeaks’ role in releasing stolen emails from the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton’s campaign as part of the Russian government’s effort to meddle in the 2016 elections.

Special counsel Robert Mueller reportedly looked into WikiLeaks’ publication of the stolen emails as part of his investigation into Russian election meddling and any possible role the Trump campaign played.

 

WikiLeaks condemned on Twitter the arrest of Assange, saying “This man is a son, a father, a brother. He has won dozens of journalism awards. He’s been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize every year since 2010. Powerful actors, including CIA, are engaged in a sophisticated effort to dehumanise, delegitimize and imprison him. #ProtectJulian

Edward Snowden, who is in exile in Russia after leaking classified documents, said in a tweet that “the United Nations formally ruled his detention to be arbitrary, a violation of human rights. They have repeatedly issued statements calling for him to walk free - including very recently.”

 

Assange’s American lawyer called the arrest and “unprecedented effort by the United States seeking to extradite a foreign journalist.”

He founded WikiLeaks in 2006, and it was only a year later that the organization started to gain international infamy, starting with its release of a U.S. Army manual for handling prisoners at Guantanamo Bay.

 

In September 2008, WikiLeaks posted emails from vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin.

But it was in 2010 that WikiLeaks made its first really big splash, when it posted a video of a U.S. military helicopter shooting to death two journalists and several Iraqi civilians. Later that year, the organization released 90,000 classified U.S. military documents about the war in Afghanistan and classified military documents on the Iraq War.

 

It was also in 2010 that Assange ran into significant legal trouble, when he was accused of sexually assaulting two female WikiLeaks volunteers.

After Swedish authorities issued an arrest for Assange, he turned himself into London authorities but was soon released on bail and put on house arrest.

As Assange’s lawyers fought an extradition request from Sweden, WikiLeaks continued releasing classified information, including documents describing the treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay and more than 250,000 U.S. diplomatic cables.

 

On June 19, 2012, Assange entered the Ecuadorian Embassy in London to request political asylum, which was granted to him a month later. He’s been living there ever since.

But he stayed busy – and it was on July 22, 2016, that WikiLeaks released nearly 20,000 hacked emails from the DNC, which Assange admitted was timed to coincide with the Democratic National Convention.

On Oct. 7, 2016, WikiLeaks published 2,000 hacked emails from John Podesta, Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman.

In this May 19, 2017, file photo, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange gestures to supporters outside the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, where he has been in self imposed exile since 2012. He was arrested at the embassy Thursday.
In this May 19, 2017, file photo, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange gestures to supporters outside the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, where he has been in self imposed exile since 2012. He was arrested at the embassy Thursday.

Assange has denied that Russian hackers gave WikiLeaks the stolen emails, though in July 2018 the Justice Department announced indictments against 12 members of the Russian intelligence agency GRU for their alleged efforts in hacking Democratic party emails and computer networks during the 2016 election.

In April 2017, then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions said the Department of Justice was preparing charges against Assange related to WikiLeaks’ publication of secret documents, saying that arresting Assange was a “priority.”

A month later, Swedish prosecutors dropped their investigation into the rape allegations against Assange.

Title: Re: Wikileaks Updates-Julian Assange Thread
Post by: cernunnos5 on April 11, 2019, 07:03:35 AM
Something interesting. The Democracy Now report on this is being blocked on youtube
Title: Re: Wikileaks Updates-Julian Assange Thread
Post by: RE on April 11, 2019, 08:35:26 AM
Something interesting. The Democracy Now report on this is being blocked on youtube

I'm not having any trouble viewing it.  Maybe just in Canada?  Can you see the embed here?


RE
Title: Re: Wikileaks Updates-Julian Assange Thread
Post by: K-Dog on April 11, 2019, 08:48:21 AM
Probably bandwidth.  Everyone wanted to see it at once!
Title: Re: Wikileaks Updates-Julian Assange Thread
Post by: cernunnos5 on April 11, 2019, 03:10:35 PM
Thanks guys but no. The original video is gone. Democracy Now has powered through it. CNN propaganda showed up. No problem.


4-5 hours were bought. C5 goes XFiles if you wish... you guys know me. I poo poo that shit... but a few hours are missing.... and my anus hurts... what might have happened?
Title: Re: Wikileaks Updates-Julian Assange Thread
Post by: azozeo on April 11, 2019, 05:27:33 PM
Thanks guys but no. The original video is gone. Democracy Now has powered through it. CNN propaganda showed up. No problem.


4-5 hours were bought. C5 goes XFiles if you wish... you guys know me. I poo poo that shit... but a few hours are missing.... and my anus hurts... what might have happened?


Hypnotherapist can hook you up.  :icon_sunny:

BQH is a form of online hypnosis. Give it a whirl. It's your dime  :icon_mrgreen:
Title: 📰 The Latest on Wikileaks Founder Julian Assange’s Arrest, US Extradition
Post by: RE on April 12, 2019, 12:46:54 AM
Go to the link for all the Pics & Tweets.

RE

https://www.greanvillepost.com/2019/04/11/the-latest-on-wikileaks-founder-julian-assanges-arrest-us-extradition/ (https://www.greanvillepost.com/2019/04/11/the-latest-on-wikileaks-founder-julian-assanges-arrest-us-extradition/)

The Latest on Wikileaks Founder Julian Assange’s Arrest, US Extradition

Following nearly seven years and a protracted effort by US intelligence agencies, Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has been arrested by London Police.

April 11th, 2019

By MintPress News Desk / This is a crosspost with MintPress News

(https://www.greanvillepost.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/assange-arrested-23.jpg)

Latest | London Judge Michael Snow has found Assange guilty of breaching his bail at Westminster Magistrates’ Court after Assange appeared in a courtroom packed with supporters. Assange faces a sentence of up to one year for the conviction and has serious charges pending in the United States.

Assange’s defense hinges on the fact that he cannot expect a fair trial in British courts as the U.K.’s intends to “secure his delivery” to the United States.

The U.S. Justice Department charged WikiLeaks founder Assange with conspiring with Chelsea Manning to break into classified government computers on Thursday after Assange was taken into custody in London in connection with a U.S. extradition request, as well as for breaching U.K. bail conditions in 2012. His lawyer has previously said that Assange planned to fight any U.S. charges against him.

Watch | Julian Assange’s legal team make a statement following his arrest

The indictment accuses Assange of assisting Manning, a former U.S. intelligence analyst, in cracking a password that helped Manning infiltrate Pentagon computers.

According to Intercept journalist Glenn Greenwald, the U.S. Department of Justice indictment of Assange relates to Wikileaks’ publishing of U.S. war logs and diplomatic cables and is unrelated to the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Greenwald called the indictment a “huge attack on press freedom.”

 

Shadowproof Journalist Kevin Gosztola noted on Twitter that the language of the indictment contains the same words typically seen in Espionage Act charge. He said, “Prosecutors are clearly accusing Assange of aiding and abetting espionage, but they’re trying to do it within charge for computer crime.”

 

The full indictment can be read below:

Assange Indictment (1) by on Scribd

Initially, Sweden’s Chief Prosecutor Ingrid Isgren said, “we have not been able to decide on the available information” whether a stalled investigation into alleged sexual offenses against Julian Assange could be reopened if he returns to Sweden before the statute of limitations lapses in August 2020, but hours later following Assange’s appearance in the Westminster Magistrates’ Court, Swedish prosecutors reopened their preliminary investigation into allegations of rape against Assange after a lawyer for one of the alleged victims requested that Swedish prosecutors revisit the case. The prosecutors’ office has affirmed that the case against Assange will be reopened but did not give a deadline for the probe.

 

A senior member of Germany’s opposition Left party says Europe must not allow WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange to be extradited to the United States for trial. Sevim Dagdelen said in a statement that the withdrawal of Assange’s political asylum by Ecuador and his subsequent arrest by British police was a “scandal, a violation of international law, and at the same time a severe blow to independent journalism.” She says it is the German government’s “duty” now to prevent Britain, which earlier Thursday was granted an extension to its departure from the European Union, from extraditing Assange to the U.S., “where he faces life imprisonment or even the death penalty for exposing U.S. war crimes.”

Bolivian president, Evo Morales, also condemned the detention of Assange, tweeting:

 

Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said Thursday the way Assange was treated gave “the full impression of an open and rude disregard for the human dignity of the arrested.” She said: Russia hopes “all the rights of Julian Assange will be respected.”

The UK Home Shadow Secretary Diane Abbot on Assange took to Twitter to defend Assage’s leak of U.S. war files and diplomatic cables, saying,”states don’t have the right to kill willy-nilly. Whistle blowers do us all a service.” In a separate tweet, Abbot said, “only need look at Chelsea Manning to see what awaits Assange. She’s indefinitely detained for refusing to expose whistle-blowers. And US officials have already deemed Assange guilty.”

The UK’s Labour’s Shadow Justice Secretary Richard Burgon hinted that Assange’s release of information related to U.S. killing of civilians in Iraq was the motivation behind his arrest.

 

The ACLU has slammed the U.S. prosecution of Assange. Ben Wizner, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, issued the following comment in response:

    Any prosecution by the United States of Mr. Assange for Wikileaks’ publishing operations would be unprecedented and unconstitutional, and would open the door to criminal investigations of other news organizations. Moreover, prosecuting a foreign publisher for violating U.S. secrecy laws would set an especially dangerous precedent for U.S. journalists, who routinely violate foreign secrecy laws to deliver information vital to the public’s interest.”

Journalists right’s advocates have also come out in defense of Assange, warning of the dangerous precedent the moves against him sets. The center for investigative journalism released a statement saying in part, “Any attempt to extradite #Assange to the United States for prosecution under the deeply flawed cudgel of the Espionage Act 1917, is an attack on all of us.”

 

Britain’s National Union of Journalists also released a statement, calling the actions of authorities “shocking” and saying the UK “should not be working on behalf of the Trump administration.”

 

Earlier | London Metropolitan Police arrested WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange at the Ecuadorian embassy in London on Thursday after Ecuador revoked the political asylum that had given him sanctuary for almost seven years following a deluge of pressure by the United States and Britain.

London police said they were invited into the embassy by Ecuador’s ambassador. Assange took refuge in the embassy in 2012 after he was released on bail while facing extradition to Sweden on sexual assault allegations that he has always denied and that have since been dropped.

Assange has been under U.S. Justice Department scrutiny for years for Wikileaks’ role in publishing thousands of embarrassing government secrets and was an important figure in the special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia probe as investigators examined how WikiLeaks obtained emails stolen from Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and Democratic groups.

Video posted online by Ruptly showed several men in suits carrying Assange out of the embassy building and loading him into a police van while uniformed British police officers formed a passageway.

 

Assange sported a full beard and slicked-back grey hair and allegedly carried a copy of Gore Vidal’s History of the National Security State in his hands. The Wikileaks founder can also be heard shouting something as he is being dragged into the police van, but there is some debate about what he said. Wikileaks claims he was shouting “the UK must resist this attempt by the Trump administration.”

 

He was taken to a London police station and will be brought to Westminster Magistrates’ Court, according to his mother, Christine Assange.

 

Ecuador’s president, Lenin Moreno, said his government made a “sovereign decision” to revoke Assange’s political asylum due to “repeated violations to international conventions and daily-life.”  The moves came not long after the government of Ecuador accused Wikileaks of publishing embarrassing and potentially incriminating information on Moreno in a trove of documents referred to as the INA Papers.

“Today I announce that the discourteous and aggressive behavior of Mr. Julian Assange, the hostile and threatening declarations of its allied organization, against Ecuador, and especially the transgression of international treaties, have led the situation to a point where the asylum of Mr. Assange is unsustainable and no longer viable,” Moreno said in a video released on Twitter.  In the video, Moreno declared his Assange’s asylum “unsustainable and no longer viable” accused him of repeatedly violated “clear cut provisions of the conventions of on diplomatic asylum.”

 

Moreno lashed out against Assange again on Thursday evening, calling him a “miserable hacker” and “spoiled brat” who was disrespectful to officials charged with taking care of him at the country’s embassy in London. He then went on to repeat unproven allegations that Assange was smearing of his own fecal matter on the walls of the embassy building and said that was a sign of how the WikiLeaks founder viewed Ecuador as an insignificant, third-rate country.

“When you’re given shelter, cared for and provided food you don’t denounce the owner of the house,” said Moreno at an event outside Quito. He added that Ecuador will “be more careful in giving asylum to people who are really worth it and not miserable hackers whose only goal is to destabilize governments.”

Ecuador says that as part of its decision to expel Julian Assange from its embassy in London, it has withdrawn the Ecuadorian citizenship he was granted last year in a failed attempt to end the activist’s tumultuous stay at its diplomatic mission.

Ecuador also accused supporters of WikiLeaks and two Russian hackers of attempting to destabilize their country.

Interior Minister Maria Paula Romo said in Quito a close collaborator of WikiLeaks had traveled with former Foreign Minister Ricardo Patino this year to several countries, including Peru, Spain and Venezuela, in an attempt to undermine the government. She did not identify the individual but said their name, as well as two Russian hackers working in Ecuador, would be turned over to judicial authorities.

Former Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa accused the nation’s current leader of retaliating against Julian Assange for WikiLeaks’ publication of documents that could implicate President Lenin Moreno in corruption. Correa — who led the South American nation when Assange was granted asylum in Ecuador’s London embassy — said Thursday that the decision to revoke asylum is “cowardly.”

In a stream of remarks on Twitter, Correa criticized Moreno for allowing British authorities to arrest Assange, and linked that to WikiLeaks’ disclosure about an offshore bank account allegedly linked to Moreno’s family and friends. Correa said the decision “will never been forgotten by all of humanity.”

 

Wikileaks accused Ecuador of illegally terminating Assange’s asylum, adding that the Ecuadorian ambassador invited police inside the embassy to take Assange into custody and that Ecuadorian embassy officials denied the United Nations access to Assange in the weeks prior to his arrest.

 

 

 

UN Special Rapporteur on extra-judicial executions, Agnes Callamard, said that in “expelling Assange from the Embassy” and allowing his arrest, it had taken Mr. Assange “one step closer to extradition”. She added that the UK had now arbitrarily-detained the controversial anti-secrecy journalist and campaigner, “possibly endangering his life”.

 

His lawyer, Jennifer Robinson, said in tweet that he had been arrested for breaching his bail conditions and in relation to a U.S. extradition request. The U.S. warrant was apparently delivered in December 2017, meaning U.S prosecutors likely played a key role in Assange’s arrest.

 

 

Prosecutors in the Eastern District of Virginia have inadvertently disclosed the existence of a sealed criminal complaint against Assange, though no details have been publicly announced.

WikiLeaks quickly drew attention to U.S. interest in Assange.

“Powerful actors, including CIA, are engaged in a sophisticated effort to de-humanize, de-legitimize and imprison him,” said in a tweet over a photo of Assange’s smiling face.

Assange had not come out of the embassy for almost seven years because he feared arrest and extradition to the United States for publishing thousands of classified military and diplomatic cables through WikiLeaks. Although Sweden has dropped the sexual assault case that first led to Assange’s arrest in Britain, U.K. authorities said he would be rearrested if he ever left the embassy because he skipped bail in the original case.

Last week, a UN envoy on torture warned against the termination of Assange’s asylum, telling Ecuador that Assange could have torture at hands of U.S. officials if he were extradited to the United States.

Assange’s arrest came a day after WikiLeaks accused Ecuador’s government of an “extensive spying operation” against Assange. WikiLeaks claims that meetings with lawyers and a doctor inside the embassy over the past year were secretly filmed. The organization said in a tweeted statement that Ecuador illegally terminated Assange’s political asylum “in violation of international law.”

 

Following his arrest on Thursday, an independent U.N. human rights expert said that Assange’s arrest would not deter efforts to determine if the privacy rights of the WikiLeaks founder were violated, ostensibly by the Ecuadorian government who is accused of recording Assange and handing those recording to U.S. intelligence agencies.

UN Special Rapporteur Joe Cannataci had planned to travel to London on April 25 to meet with Assange at the Ecuadorian Embassy, where Assange sought asylum in 2012 to avoid extradition to Sweden. Cannataci says he still plans to keep the meeting despite Assange’s arrest at the embassy on Thursday.

Cannataci said in a statement: “I will visit him and speak to him in a police station or elsewhere in the U.K. where Cannataci in a statement. He says the U.N. human rights office plans to ask the British government to give him access to Assange on April 25. And if Assange is extradited to the United States by then, Cannataci said “then I will direct my request for access to the government of the United States.”

British Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt thanked Moreno for breaking the impasse, saying on Twitter that Assange “is no hero and no one is above the law.”

Wikileaks is asking supporters to donate to help Assange pay his legal fees as he readies for long and complicated trial and put blame on the CIA for orchestration his arrest.

 

 

Edward Snowden, the former security contractor who leaked classified information about U.S. surveillance programs, says the arrest of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is a blow to media freedom.

“Images of Ecuador’s ambassador inviting the UK’s secret police into the embassy to drag a publisher of–like it or not–award-winning journalism out of the building are going to end up in the history books,” Snowden said in a tweet.

He also beseeched journalists covering the story not to overlook United Nations rulings on Assange, which include calls for his release.

 

“Assange’s critics may cheer, but this is a dark moment for press freedom.”

Snowden was charged by the United States in 2013 of violating the country’s espionage act. He was granted asylum by Russia that year and the asylum has been extended until at least 2020.

Top photo | Julian Assange gestures as he arrives at Westminster Magistrates’ Court in London, after the WikiLeaks founder was arrested by officers from the Metropolitan Police and taken into custody Thursday April 11, 2019. (Victoria Jones | PA via AP

MintPress News and agencies.

The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff we publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for our website, which will get you an email notification for everything we publish.
Title: 📰 The Martyrdom of Julian Assange
Post by: RE on April 12, 2019, 01:48:04 AM
https://www.truthdig.com/articles/the-martyrdom-of-julian-assange/ (https://www.truthdig.com/articles/the-martyrdom-of-julian-assange/)

The Martyrdom of Julian Assange
by Chris Hedges

(https://www.truthdig.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/AP_19101473450299-850x550.jpg)
Matt Dunham / AP

The arrest Thursday of Julian Assange eviscerates all pretense of the rule of law and the rights of a free press. The illegalities, embraced by the Ecuadorian, British and U.S. governments, in the seizure of Assange are ominous. They presage a world where the internal workings, abuses, corruption, lies and crimes, especially war crimes, carried out by corporate states and the global ruling elite will be masked from the public. They presage a world where those with the courage and integrity to expose the misuse of power will be hunted down, tortured, subjected to sham trials and given lifetime prison terms in solitary confinement. They presage an Orwellian dystopia where news is replaced with propaganda, trivia and entertainment. The arrest of Assange, I fear, marks the official beginning of the corporate totalitarianism that will define our lives.

Under what law did Ecuadorian President Lenin Moreno capriciously terminate Julian Assange’s rights of asylum as a political refugee? Under what law did Moreno authorize British police to enter the Ecuadorian Embassy—diplomatically sanctioned sovereign territory—to arrest a naturalized citizen of Ecuador? Under what law did Prime Minister Theresa May order the British police to grab Assange, who has never committed a crime? Under what law did President Donald Trump demand the extradition of Assange, who is not a U.S. citizen and whose news organization is not based in the United States?

I am sure government attorneys are skillfully doing what has become de rigueur for the corporate state, using specious legal arguments to eviscerate enshrined rights by judicial fiat. This is how we have the right to privacy with no privacy. This is how we have “free” elections funded by corporate money, covered by a compliant corporate media and under iron corporate control. This is how we have a legislative process in which corporate lobbyists write the legislation and corporate-indentured politicians vote it into law. This is how we have the right to due process with no due process. This is how we have a government—whose fundamental responsibility is to protect citizens—that orders and carries out the assassination of its own citizens such as the radical cleric Anwar al-Awlaki and his 16-year-old son. This is how we have a press legally permitted to publish classified information and a publisher sitting in jail in Britain awaiting extradition to the United States and a whistleblower, Chelsea Manning, in a jail cell in the United States.

Britain will use as its legal cover for the arrest the extradition request from Washington based on conspiracy charges. This legal argument, in a functioning judiciary, would be thrown out of court. Unfortunately, we no longer have a functioning judiciary. We will soon know if Britain as well lacks one.

Assange was granted asylum in the embassy in 2012 to avoid extradition to Sweden to answer questions about sexual offense allegations that were eventually dropped. Assange and his lawyers always argued that if he was put in Swedish custody he would be extradited to the United States. Once he was granted asylum and Ecuadorian citizenship the British government refused to grant Assange safe passage to the London airport, trapping him in the embassy for seven years as his health steadily deteriorated.

The Trump administration will seek to try Assange on charges that he conspired with Manning in 2010 to steal the Iraq and Afghanistan war logs obtained by WikiLeaks. The half a million internal documents leaked by Manning from the Pentagon and the State Department, along with the 2007 video of U.S. helicopter pilots nonchalantly gunning down Iraqi civilians, including children, and two Reuters journalists, provided copious evidence of the hypocrisy, indiscriminate violence, and routine use of torture, lies, bribery and crude tactics of intimidation by the U.S. government in its foreign relations and wars in the Middle East. Assange and WikiLeaks allowed us to see the inner workings of empire—the most important role of a press—and for this they became empire’s prey.

U.S. government lawyers will attempt to separate WikiLeaks and Assange from The New York Times and the British newspaper The Guardian, both of which also published the leaked material from Manning, by implicating Assange in the theft of the documents. Manning was repeatedly and often brutally pressured during her detention and trial to implicate Assange in the seizure of the material, something she steadfastly refused to do. She is currently in jail because of her refusal to testify, without her lawyer, in front of the grand jury assembled for the Assange case. President Barack Obama granted Manning, who was given a 35-year sentence, clemency after she served seven years in a military prison.

Once the documents and videos provided by Manning to Assange and WikiLeaks were published and disseminated by news organizations such as The New York Times and The Guardian, the press callously, and foolishly, turned on Assange. News organizations that had run WikiLeaks material over several days soon served as conduits in a black propaganda campaign to discredit Assange and WikiLeaks. This coordinated smear campaign was detailed in a leaked Pentagon document prepared by the Cyber Counterintelligence Assessments Branch and dated March 8, 2008. The document called on the U.S. to eradicate the “feeling of trust” that is WikiLeaks’ “center of gravity” and destroy Assange’s reputation.

Assange, who with the Manning leaks had exposed the war crimes, lies and criminal manipulations of the George W. Bush administration, soon earned the ire of the Democratic Party establishment by publishing 70,000 hacked emails belonging to the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and senior Democratic officials. The emails were copied from the accounts of John Podesta, Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman. The Podesta emails exposed the donation of millions of dollars from Saudi Arabia and Qatar, two of the major funders of Islamic State, to the Clinton Foundation. It exposed the $657,000 that Goldman Sachs paid to Hillary Clinton to give talks, a sum so large it can only be considered a bribe. It exposed Clinton’s repeated mendacity. She was caught in the emails, for example, telling the financial elites that she wanted “open trade and open borders” and believed Wall Street executives were best positioned to manage the economy, a statement that contradicted her campaign statements. It exposed the Clinton campaign’s efforts to influence the Republican primaries to ensure that Trump was the Republican nominee. It exposed Clinton’s advance knowledge of questions in a primary debate. It exposed Clinton as the primary architect of the war in Libya, a war she believed would burnish her credentials as a presidential candidate. Journalists can argue that this information, like the war logs, should have remained hidden, but they can’t then call themselves journalists.

The Democratic leadership, intent on blaming Russia for its election loss, charges that the Podesta emails were obtained by Russian government hackers, although James Comey, the former FBI director, has conceded that the emails were probably delivered to WikiLeaks by an intermediary. Assange has said the emails were not provided by “state actors.”

WikiLeaks has done more to expose the abuses of power and crimes of the American Empire than any other news organization. In addition to the war logs and the Podesta emails, it made public the hacking tools used by the CIA and the National Security Agency and their interference in foreign elections, including in the French elections. It disclosed the internal conspiracy against British Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn by Labour members of Parliament. It intervened to save Edward Snowden, who made public the wholesale surveillance of the American public by our intelligence agencies, from extradition to the United States by helping him flee from Hong Kong to Moscow. The Snowden leaks also revealed that Assange was on a U.S. “manhunt target list.”

A haggard-looking Assange, as he was dragged out of the embassy by British police, shook his finger and shouted: “The U.K. must resist this attempt by the Trump administration. … The U.K. must resist!”

We all must resist. We must, in every way possible, put pressure on the British government to halt the judicial lynching of Assange. If Assange is extradited and tried, it will create a legal precedent that will terminate the ability of the press, which Trump repeatedly has called “the enemy of the people,” to hold power accountable. The crimes of war and finance, the persecution of dissidents, minorities and immigrants, the pillaging by corporations of the nation and the ecosystem and the ruthless impoverishment of working men and women to swell the bank accounts of the rich and consolidate the global oligarchs’ total grip on power will not only expand, but will no longer be part of public debate. First Assange. Then us.
Title: Re: Wikileaks Updates-Julian Assange Thread
Post by: AJ on April 12, 2019, 04:47:56 AM
Of course Chris Hedges is spot-on with his analysis of the politics surrounding Assange. Even though press freedom and a functioning democracy would be great it sadly doesn't even begin to address the truly existential problems we face in the coming collapse: climate catastrophe, over population with a massive die off, nuclear war/poisoning of the biosphere and of course our own extinction. Still Assange is important as a symbol of empire and its control of our lives.
AJ
Title: Re: Wikileaks Updates-Julian Assange Thread
Post by: azozeo on April 12, 2019, 01:28:45 PM

How Ecuador’s Globalist Regime Received Billions to Sell Out Julian Assange

Lenín Moreno will be remembered as one of the most cowardly and disgraceful leaders in world history.




Apr 11, 2019

By Shane Trejo

Ecuadorean President Lenín Moreno thrust a dagger into the heart of free speech today after he allowed a foreign country’s authorities into his nation’s embassy in Britain to arrest heroic whistle-blower and award-winning journalist Julian Assange.

What was Moreno’s price to commit this betrayal? A 4.2 billion loan guarantee from the International Monetary Fund (IMF), it seems.

The Economist published a profile on Moreno showing how he has reversed the policies of his predecessor, Rafael Correa. Correa was a populist who used oil revenues to fund social programs and stood firmly with Assange.

Moreno has moved Ecuador toward being a submissive vassal state of the globalists, begging international financiers for handouts to keep his corrupt regime afloat.

“Thanks to the firm decisions I have made, we are not what Venezuela is today . . . we have recovered democracy,” Moreno said in February. “This money will create work opportunities for those who have not found something stable.”

The IMF deal was announced on the seven-year anniversary of Julian Assange’s asylum at the Ecuadorean embassy in London, hardly a coincidence. It was clear in Moreno’s rhetoric that they were bowing to their global masters and readying to throw Assange under the bus.

“Our government is recovering its credibility,” Moreno said as he sold his nation to the IMF syndicate, also announcing that other globalist entities like Inter-American Development Bank and World Bank would be trampling over Ecuadorean sovereignty as well. “The fact that the world trusts us shows that we are on the right path.”

WikiLeaks noted that an embarrassing corruption scandal connected the Moreno government was being used as the pre-text to boot Assange:
WikiLeaks
✔@wikileaks
Corruption investigation opened against Ecuador’s president Moreno, after purported leaked contents of his iPhone (Whatsapp, Telegram) & Gmail were published. New York Times reported that Moreno tried to sell Assange to US for debt relief. http://inapapers.org/ (http://inapapers.org/)
4,048
4:53 PM – Mar 25, 2019
WikiLeaks
✔@wikileaks
BREAKING: A high level source within the Ecuadorian state has told @WikiLeaks that Julian Assange will be expelled within “hours to days” using the #INAPapers offshore scandal as a pretext–and that it already has an agreement with the UK for his arrest.https://defend.wikileaks.org/2019/04/03/ecuador-twists-embarrassing-ina-papers-into-pretext-to-oust-assange/ (https://defend.wikileaks.org/2019/04/03/ecuador-twists-embarrassing-ina-papers-into-pretext-to-oust-assange/) …




https://bigleaguepolitics.com/how-ecuadors-globalist-regime-received-billions-to-sell-out-julian-assange/ (https://bigleaguepolitics.com/how-ecuadors-globalist-regime-received-billions-to-sell-out-julian-assange/)
Title: Re: Wikileaks Updates-Julian Assange Thread
Post by: K-Dog on April 12, 2019, 10:29:00 PM
Thanks Az.  I used the info and link on my own website to show Moreno to be a pig.

http://chasingthesquirrel.com/ (http://chasingthesquirrel.com/)
Title: 🐈 Assange's Cat, not Schrödinger's
Post by: RE on April 13, 2019, 03:46:52 AM
(https://res.cloudinary.com/teepublic/image/private/s--OdRRcrW3--/t_Resized%20Artwork/c_fit,g_north_west,h_954,w_954/co_ffffff,e_outline:48/co_ffffff,e_outline:inner_fill:48/co_ffffff,e_outline:48/co_ffffff,e_outline:inner_fill:48/co_bbbbbb,e_outline:3:1000/c_mpad,g_center,h_1260,w_1260/b_rgb:eeeeee/c_limit,f_jpg,h_630,q_90,w_630/v1504930244/production/designs/1883360_1.jpg)

RE

https://www.npr.org/2019/04/12/712719377/the-mystery-of-julian-assanges-cat (https://www.npr.org/2019/04/12/712719377/the-mystery-of-julian-assanges-cat)

The Mystery Of Julian Assange's Cat

April 12, 20195:01 PM ET
Matthew S. Schwartz 2018

(https://media.npr.org/assets/img/2019/04/12/gettyimages-623141998-15cfc621ae6ba37d49ae099fa6b989899ba9223b-s800-c85.jpg)
Julian Assange's cat wears a striped tie and white collar as it looks out the window of the Ecuadorian Embassy in London in 2016.
Chris J. Ratcliffe/Getty Images

Ecuadorian President Lenín Moreno seemed annoyed when he announced an end to the seven-year residency of Julian Assange in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London:

"We've ended the asylum of this spoiled brat," he said.

But what about the asylum of Assange's cat?

The WikiLeaks founder, who was arrested Thursday, has been charged with conspiring to hack into a Pentagon computer network. Presumably, Assange's illegal interactions with former Army intelligence officer Chelsea Manning are the main interest of law enforcement.

Then there is the matter of paw enforcement. (Sorry.)

While holed up, Assange famously acquired a cat. The cat, named Michi, is more well known by its social media moniker, Embassy Cat. More than 30,000 Twitter followers, and 6,000 on Instagram, followed the self-described master of "counter-purrveillance."

Embassy Cat tweeted regularly beginning with its arrival in May 2016. Cute photos were the norm, with just a bit of political grandstanding thrown in — always with lots of puns. (Embassy Cat was proud to be a "#whiskerblower.")

But by the fall of 2016, its tweets had become much less frequent. In 2017 the cat tweeted only three times. In 2018, twice. It has been silent for more than a year. (The Instagram account has been crickets for more than two years.)
Article continues after sponsor message

The New Yorker reported in 2017 that Assange's interest in the cat was less as an animal lover and more as a master of his own brand. "Julian stared at the cat for about half an hour, trying to figure out how it could be useful, and then came up with this: Yeah, let's say it's from my children," the magazine quoted one of Assange's friends as saying. "For a time, he said it didn't have a name because there was a competition in Ecuador, with schoolchildren, on what to name him. Everything is P.R.—everything."

The cat arguably played a small role in Ecuador's decision to end its asylum agreement. Moreno explained that Assange treated his hosts disrespectfully; late last year the embassy implemented a series of rules for Assange, including a requirement to be responsible for the "well-being, food, hygiene and proper care of your pet." If Assange didn't, the embassy threatened to put the cat in a shelter.

In other words, it is likely that Assange didn't effectively clean up after his cat's own wiki-leaks.

After Assange was picked up Thursday, some people wondered what would become of Embassy Cat. "My sympathy to the cat," author Charlie Stross tweeted.

Journalist James Ball said that although he offered to adopt the cat, it was "reportedly given to a shelter by the Ecuadorian embassy ages ago."

But according to Hanna Jonasson, whom the Washington Post describes as a member of the Assange legal team, Assange was incensed by the threat to put Embassy Cat in the pound. "He asked his lawyers to take his cat to safety," Jonasson said. "The cat is with Assange's family. They will be reunited in freedom."

Wherever the cat is, it's no longer at the embassy. The Italian paper la Republicca wrote in November that the "friendly atmosphere" at the embassy was gone. "Not even the cat is there anymore. With its funny striped tie and ambushes on the ornaments of the Christmas tree at the embassy's entrance, the cat had helped defuse tension inside the building for years. But Assange has preferred to spare the cat an isolation which has become unbearable and allow it a healthier life."

The Ecuadorian Embassy in London did not respond to a request for comment. But a spokesperson told Sputnik that the cat hasn't been with the embassy since the fall. "It was taken by Mr. Assange's associates," the spokesperson said. "We are not a pet store, so we do not keep pets here."
Title: 🐈 Julian Assange 'must face Swedish justice' if country asks, say MPs
Post by: RE on April 13, 2019, 03:54:12 AM
Extradition to Sweden is definitely better than extradition to the FSoA.

RE

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-47917325 (https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-47917325)

Julian Assange 'must face Swedish justice' if country asks, say MPs

    6 hours ago

(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/660/cpsprodpb/33CF/production/_106436231_9197befb-9dd3-4899-a71c-461dd93f0265.jpg)
Image copyright Getty Images

More than 70 MPs have signed a letter urging the home secretary to ensure Julian Assange faces authorities in Sweden if they request his extradition.

Labour's Stella Creasy tweeted a copy of the note sent to Sajid Javid.

WikiLeaks co-founder Assange was arrested on Thursday in relation to an extradition request from the US, where he is facing computer hacking charges.

He had spent seven years in Ecuador's London embassy, evading trial in Sweden for sex assaults which he has denied.

At the time, Assange said he had had entirely consensual sex with two women while on a trip to Stockholm and that the Swedish claims against him were part of a smear campaign.

Swedish prosecutors dropped a rape investigation into Assange in 2017 because they were unable to formally notify him of the allegations while he stayed in the embassy.

Two other charges of molestation and unlawful coercion had to be dropped in 2015 because time had run out.

But Swedish prosecutors say they are now re-examining the 47-year-old's case at the request of the lawyer acting for the alleged rape victim.

    Wikileaks' document dumps that shook world
    Why Julian Assange is a wanted man
    Why Ecuador ended Assange's stay in embassy

The letter, signed by mostly Labour MPs, urges Mr Javid to "stand with the victims of sexual violence" and ensure the rape claim against the 47-year-old can be "properly investigated".

"We do not presume guilt, of course, but we believe due process should be followed and the complainant should see justice be done," it says.

The rape allegation has a limitation period which expires in August 2020, it adds.

Inquiries into claims of molestation and unlawful coercion have already been timed out.

On Friday evening, shadow foreign secretary Emily Thornberry said Assange should be extradited to Sweden before any attempt to get him to the US.

She said she was "disgusted" the American allegation had been "allowed to eclipse" the sex offence case.
Media captionVideo footage shows Julian Assange being dragged from the Ecuadorian embassy in London

Extradition proceedings are dealt with by the courts.

According to the Home Office, the home secretary can bring a limited number of factors into consideration when deciding whether to order a person's extradition.

These include whether the person might be at risk of the death penalty or whether the requesting state might try to add additional charges it has not specified.

However, lawyer Rebecca Niblock said that, if Sweden made an extradition request, it would be for the home secretary to decide which would take precedence, considering factors such as which was made first and the seriousness of the offence.

Australian-born Assange faces a charge of conspiracy to commit computer intrusion in the US for his alleged role in one of the largest ever leaks of government secrets, in 2010, which could result in a prison term of up to five years.

The US Department of Justice has accused him of conspiring with former intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning to commit "one of the largest compromises of classified information in the history of the United States".
Advance notice?

Assange sought refuge in the Ecuador embassy, in Knightsbridge, west London, in 2012 to avoid extradition to Sweden over allegations of sexual assault. But after seven years, Ecuador abruptly withdrew its asylum and invited the police to arrest him on Thursday.

The MPs' letter says both UK and US authorities seem to have been aware in advance of Ecuador's decision to rescind Mr Assange's political asylum.

"It is therefore of grave concern to us that it appears that the Swedish authorities were not aware of the plans made to arrest Mr Assange yesterday in London, and we would welcome clarity as to what action the UK authorities took to ensure that the Swedish prosecutors were informed in advance of this decision," it adds.

After his dramatic arrest, Assange was taken to Westminster Magistrates' Court and found guilty of a British charge of breaching bail. He spent Thursday night in custody and is facing up to 12 months in prison for that conviction.

Assange is due to face a hearing over his possible extradition to the US on 2 May.

Assange's lawyer Jennifer Robinson said they would be fighting the extradition request. She said it set a "dangerous precedent" for journalists publishing information about the US.

The UN has called for his right to a fair trial to be respected during any extradition process.
Title: Re: Wikileaks Updates-Julian Assange Thread
Post by: K-Dog on April 13, 2019, 07:34:06 AM
How someone can be extradited from one country to another for alleged sex crimes when alleged victims don't have to be identified is beyond bizarre.  It opens the door to making lies the rule of law.
Title: Re: Wikileaks Updates-Julian Assange Thread
Post by: RE on April 13, 2019, 07:39:13 AM
How someone can be extradited from one country to another for alleged sex crimes when alleged victims don't have to be identified is beyond bizarre.  It opens the door to making lies the rule of law.

That door was left open sometime back and the horses have left the barn.

RE
Title: Re: Wikileaks Updates-Julian Assange Thread
Post by: K-Dog on April 13, 2019, 09:20:59 AM
How someone can be extradited from one country to another for alleged sex crimes when alleged victims don't have to be identified is beyond bizarre.  It opens the door to making lies the rule of law.

That door was left open sometime back and the horses have left the barn.

RE

""European Arrest Warrant (EAW) abuse is one of the key intellectual reasons why the UK voted to leave the EU. If others control the use of force in your territory, it isn't your territory."

Brexit is involved.
Title: Re: Wikileaks Updates-Julian Assange Thread
Post by: RE on April 13, 2019, 10:13:53 AM
How someone can be extradited from one country to another for alleged sex crimes when alleged victims don't have to be identified is beyond bizarre.  It opens the door to making lies the rule of law.

That door was left open sometime back and the horses have left the barn.

RE

""European Arrest Warrant (EAW) abuse is one of the key intellectual reasons why the UK voted to leave the EU. If others control the use of force in your territory, it isn't your territory."

Brexit is involved.

It's basically the same as the FSoA States ceding sovereignty to the Federal Goobermint.  As soon as you joing a larger political union of states, your laws become subservient to the laws of the larger union.

RE
Title: Re: Wikileaks Updates-Julian Assange Thread
Post by: K-Dog on April 13, 2019, 12:25:53 PM
New menu at the Spreading Chestnut Tree  I'll have a five eyes burger with fries.  Oceania it is!
Title: 🐈 Julian Assange: Why is the Wikileaks co-founder a wanted man?
Post by: RE on April 14, 2019, 12:14:22 AM
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-47912180 (https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-47912180)

Julian Assange: Why is the Wikileaks co-founder a wanted man?

    12 April 2019

(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/660/cpsprodpb/77F9/production/_106431703_gettyimages-1136256458.jpg)
Image copyright Getty Images

The bearded figure being dragged from his home, into a waiting police van, was a far cry from the man who had entered the building seven years previously.

Julian Assange - who co-founded website Wikileaks - had sought sanctuary in Ecuador's embassy from extradition to Sweden and, he feared, to the US.

Ecuador withdrew his asylum on Thursday, leading to his arrest and then conviction for failing to surrender to the court.

But who exactly is Assange and what has he been accused of?
Media captionVideo footage shows Julian Assange being dragged from the Ecuadorian embassy in London
Who is Julian Assange?

Julian Assange was born in Townsville, Australia, in 1971. His parents ran a touring theatre and his childhood was filled with upheaval. He became a father at 18, later becoming entangled in custody battles.

He showed an aptitude for computers and was fined several thousand Australian dollars in 1995 after pleading guilty to hacking activities. Assange avoided jail on the condition that he would not reoffend.

He went on to help write a book about the internet, before studying physics and maths at Melbourne University.

In 2006, Assange co-founded the whistle-blowing website Wikileaks, along with a group of like-minded people from across the internet.

    Julian Assange: Campaigner or attention-seeker?
    iA timeline of the Julian Assange saga

What happened with Wikileaks?

The site published thousands of classified documents covering everything from the film industry to national security and war.

One of its most high-profile releases came in 2010, when it published a video from a US military helicopter that showed the killing of 18 civilians in Baghdad, Iraq.
Image caption Helicopter footage was posted on Wikileaks

In the same year, Wikileaks published hundreds of thousands of documents leaked by former US Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning.

They revealed how the US military had killed hundreds of civilians in unreported incidents during the war in Afghanistan.

Files from the Iraq war showed that 66,000 civilians had been killed and that prisoners had been tortured by Iraqi forces.

At the time, the US government made it clear it hoped to prosecute Assange over the leak of the secret files.

    Wikileaks' document dumps that shook world
    How likely is an Assange conviction in US?

How did Sweden get involved?

Sweden issued an international arrest warrant for Assange over allegations of sexual assault in 2010. He was detained in the UK, and later bailed over the allegations.

It followed claims that while on a visit to Stockholm to give a lecture, Assange had raped one woman and sexually molested and coerced another.

Assange says both encounters were entirely consensual and the Swedish efforts against him are part of a smear campaign.
Media captionHe's been in Ecuador's embassy for seven years - but why was Julian Assange there in the first place?
Why did he enter Ecuador's London embassy?

Following a long legal battle, the Wikileaks founder took refuge in Ecuador's embassy in 2012 to avoid being taken to Sweden to be questioned.

He argued that he could also be extradited to the US and put on trial for publishing the secret US documents

The Ecuadorian embassy was an obvious choice, since the South American country's then-president, Rafael Correa, was a strong advocate for Wikileaks,

Swedish prosecutors dropped the rape investigation into Assange in 2017 because they were unable to formally notify him of the allegations while he stayed in the embassy.

The two other charges of molestation and unlawful coercion had to be dropped in 2015 because time had run out.

But even after Sweden dropped the charges, Assange stayed in the embassy as he still faced a UK charge of failing to surrender to a court.

    Why Ecuador ended Assange's stay in its embassy

What do the authorities say?

Relations between Assange and Ecuador's government worsened under President Lenín Moreno, who took office in 2017.

Before withdrawing Assange's asylum, Ecuador accused him of improper behaviour, interference in the affairs of other countries and spying.

Prime Minister Theresa May welcomed Assange's arrest, saying it showed that "no one is above the law" in the UK.

But Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said Assange had revealed "evidence of atrocities in Iraq and Afghanistan" and that his extradition to the US "should be opposed by the British government".

Shadow home secretary Diane Abbott said Assange should face the criminal justice system if Swedish authorities decide to charge him.
What do his supporters say?

Assange's lawyer Jennifer Robinson said they would fight the US extradition request.

She said it set a "dangerous precedent" where any journalist could face US charges for "publishing truthful information about the United States".
Image caption Pamela Anderson visiting Julian Assange at the Ecuadorean Embassy

Actress Pamela Anderson - a friend of Assange - has said the UK is "America's bitch" in response to the arrest.
What will happen to him now?

Assange faces legal action in three countries - the UK, Sweden and the US.

Westminster Magistrates' Court found him guilty of a British charge of breaching bail on Thursday. He faces up to 12 months in prison for that conviction.

Meanwhile, Swedish authorities have said they are considering reopening their investigation into sexual assault allegations against him.

The US has already charged the 47-year-old with a single count of participating in the hacking of intelligence computers to reveal controversial intelligence operations in the United States.

But he is likely to face more charges if he is extradited to the US - a decision that will be taken by a judge and the UK home secretary.

If Sweden also makes an extradition request, one legal expert has said it would be for the home secretary to decide which request would take precedence.
Title: Re: Wikileaks Updates-Julian Assange Thread
Post by: K-Dog on April 14, 2019, 12:48:38 AM
I keep going back to my web page and writing more about Assange.  There is a personal element.  I'd move it to the Diner if  it was easy to do but it has life of its own sort of.  Besides I don't know that you want it there.  It has gotten very honest.  Consequently its radioactive.

http://chasingthesquirrel.com/ (http://chasingthesquirrel.com/)

Title: Re: Wikileaks Updates-Julian Assange Thread
Post by: RE on April 14, 2019, 01:32:40 AM
I keep going back to my web page and writing more about Assange.  There is a personal element.  I'd move it to the Diner if  it was easy to do but it has life of its own sort of.  Besides I don't know that you want it there.  It has gotten very honest.  Consequently its radioactive.

http://chasingthesquirrel.com/ (http://chasingthesquirrel.com/)

Absolutely.  Copy it to the Diner.

RE
Title: 🐈 Julian Assange and the Criminalization of Journalism
Post by: RE on April 16, 2019, 01:45:59 AM
https://www.truthdig.com/articles/julian-assange-and-the-criminalization-of-journalism/ (https://www.truthdig.com/articles/julian-assange-and-the-criminalization-of-journalism/)

Apr 14, 2019
Opinion
|
TD originals
Julian Assange and the Criminalization of Journalism

(https://www.truthdig.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Julian-Assange-portrait-1024-850x921.jpg)
Thomas Foucher's wall painting of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. (Thierry Ehrmann / CC BY 2.0)

After living under a grant of asylum in London’s Ecuadorian embassy for nearly seven years, WikiLeaks co-founder Julian Assange was forcibly ejected and arrested by British police on April 11. Ecuador’s president, Lenin Moreno, accused Assange of “repeated violations to international conventions and daily-life protocols.” After an anonymous source revealed the “INA Papers,” a dossier that implicated Moreno in money laundering and contained personal photos of his family, WikiLeaks tweeted about it but denied any connection to the hacking.

Rafael Correa, who was president of Ecuador until 2017, had granted Assange asylum in 2012 to protect him from extradition to the United States to answer for WikiLeaks’s publication of evidence of U.S. war crimes. Ecuador’s foreign minister at the time, Ricardo Patino, said that without this protection, Assange could suffer “political persecution” or extradition to the U.S. where he might face the death penalty.

In 2010, WikiLeaks published classified documentation of U.S. war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan, which Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning had provided. It included the “Collateral Murder Video” that showed U.S. soldiers in an Army helicopter gunship kill 12 unarmed civilians walking down a street in Baghdad.

Sweden investigated Assange in fall 2010 for allegations of sexual assault. Assange was living in Britain at the time. Sweden issued an extradition warrant so Assange could face questioning about the investigation in Sweden. Assange fought extradition but lost in Britain’s Supreme Court in June 2012. He sought and received refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy in London.

In spite of pressure from the British government, in August 2012, Correa granted asylum to Assange, who has remained in the Ecuadorian embassy ever since. Sweden dropped its investigation of Assange in 2017.

The Trump Administration Indicts Assange

Assange’s arrest comes thanks to the Trump administration’s decision to pursue WikiLeaks. The Obama administration refrained from indicting Assange for fear of establishing “a precedent that could chill investigative reporting about national security matters by treating it as a crime,” according to Charlie Savage of The NewYork Times. Obama’s government had difficulty distinguishing between what WikiLeaks did and what traditional news media organizations like the Times “do in soliciting and publishing information they obtain that the government wants to keep secret,” Savage wrote. News organizations, including the Times, published articles that drew on documents WikiLeaks had published in 2010, including “logs of significant combat events in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.”

But the Trump administration decided to come after Assange. In 2017, then-CIA Director Mike Pompeo said, “WikiLeaks walks like a hostile intelligence service and talks like a hostile intelligence service.”

An indictment filed on March 6, 2018, in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia charges Assange under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. It alleges he was part of a conspiracy to access a computer without authorization in order to obtain classified information that “could be used to the injury of the United States.” Assange faces five years in prison if convicted.

Assange’s April 11 arrest was based on two grounds: failure to appear on a British warrant in 2012, and a warrant of extradition to face indictment in the United States. After his arrest, Assange was taken before a British judge and pleaded not guilty to failing to surrender to the court in 2012. District Judge Michael Snow convicted Assange, who now faces 12 months in prison in the U.K. for that offense. This is unrelated to the charges Assange would face in the United States.The indictment says Manning provided WikiLeaks with 90,000 “war-related significant activity reports” about Afghanistan, 400,000 about Iraq, 800 Guantánamo detainee “assessment briefs” and 250,000 U.S. State Department cables. WikiLeaks published the vast majority in 2010 and 2011. The indictment alleges Assange helped Manning attempt to crack a password to make it harder to identify Manning as the source of the classified information.

U.K. Should Deny Extradition of Assange to the U.S.

Meanwhile, Assange vows to fight extradition to the United States. Under the 2003 extradition treaty between the U.S. and the U.K., the U.K. can deny extradition if the offense sought is punishable by death. The U.S. Justice Department is apparently planning to file new charges against Assange, in addition to those listed in the 2018 indictment. But under the 2003 treaty, the United States cannot charge Assange with violation of the Espionage Act, because it carries the death penalty.

Moreover, the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment forbids extradition to a country where there are substantial grounds to believe the person would be in danger of being tortured.

The danger of torture in the U.S. is real. During the first 11 months of Manning’s incarceration in 2010, she was held in solitary confinement and subjected to humiliating forced nudity during daily inspection. The former United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture called Manning’s treatment cruel, inhuman and degrading, possibly rising to the level of torture.

There is thus good reason to believe Assange might be subjected to such illegal treatment if he were extradited to the United States.

A few days before Assange’s removal from the embassy and arrest, Nils Metzer, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, warned that extradition to the U.S. “could expose him to a real risk of serious violations of his human rights, including his freedom of expression, his right to a fair trial and the prohibition of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

Assange’s Indictment Will Chill Freedom of the Press

Assange’s prosecution is unprecedented.

“The Justice Department has never charged journalists with violating the law for doing their jobs,” Savage wrote.

“Reporting on leaked materials, including reporting on classified information, is an essential role of American journalism,” the Electronic Frontier Foundation said in a statement.

The ACLU’s Ben Wizner cautioned that prosecuting Assange “would set an especially dangerous precedent for U.S. journalists, who routinely violate foreign secrecy laws to deliver information vital to the public’s interest.” He added that “while there is no First Amendment right to crack a government password, this indictment characterizes as ‘part of’ a criminal conspiracy the routine and protected activities journalists often engage in as part of their daily jobs, such as encouraging a source to provide more information.”

Kristinn Hrafnsson, editor-in-chief of WikiLeaks, responded to Assange’s indictment, saying, “This is journalism. It’s called ‘conspiracy.’ It’s conspiracy to commit journalism.”

Reporters Without Borders, an organization that protects freedom of the press, called on the U.K. to oppose extradition of Assange. It would “set a dangerous precedent for journalists, whistleblowers, and other journalistic sources that the U.S. may wish to pursue in the future.”

The 2003 treaty between the U.S. and the U.K. prohibits extradition if the request is “politically motivated.” That limitation is certainly at play here: Trump administration has made a political decision to single out WikiLeaks and make it an example. The administration wishes to send a message to other press organizations that they publish material critical of U.S. policy at their peril.

The U.K. must deny the extradition of Assange to the United States.
Title: Victor Laszlo : Role Model for Assange, Manning and Snowden
Post by: Guest on April 16, 2019, 05:22:37 AM


youtube-Logo-4gc2reddit-logoOff the keyboard of Phillip Farruggio



Follow us on Twitter @doomstead666

Friend us on Facebook



Published on the Doomstead Diner on April 16, 2019



 






Discuss this article at the Heroes of the Revolution Table inside the Diner



 




Victor Laszlo : Role Model for Assange, Manning and Snowden



 








This writer’s favorite film of all time, right ahead of Seven Days In May and JFK is of course Casablanca. The film had it all, from WW2 suspense to old fashioned romance… with a good dose of twists and turns. In the film Paul Henreid plays Victor Laszlo, the Czech resistance leader, who has already escaped and eluded the Gestapo a few times. Laszlo has  been tortured on more than one occasion, yet told them nothing important. He comes to Casablanca in search of a way to leave North Africa and go to the USA to continue his important work. In a powerful scene near the end of the film Laszlo and Humphrey Bogart’s lead character Richard Blaine (AKA Rick of Rick’s Cafe Americain)  discuss Laszlo’s work:



Rick:  Did you ever wonder if all of this is worth it?



Victor: You might as well question why we breathe. If we stop breathing we will die. We stop fighting our enemies and the world will die!



How many times those of us who swim against the current of popular belief have asked ourselves questions like that. How many times our close friends and loved ones may have asked us ” Hey, you’re not getting paid for what you’re doing and it’s getting you nowhere. Why not just chuck it and live a life?” The answer usually comes from deep within us. Look at the work of Julian Assange, Chelsea Manning and Eric Snowden. These three not only risked their entire careers but one did jail time, and all three face false charges of treason in their quest for truth and justice. When the US government, in league with their international lackeys, has committed so many war crimes and crimes against humanity, those three, like Victor Laszlo, jumped into the fray and told the truth. Remember the horrific and disgraceful Apache helicopter massacre of July, 2007? That was when gun crews were heard on tape firing on a group of unarmed Iraqi men ( with two Reuters journalists among them) as if it was some fucking video game! From ten to eighteen men were killed, and two children sitting in a car were badly wounded! Yet, the release of this film was seen by US authorities as a breach of what, national security? If Victor Laszlo had access to such information against the illegal occupiers of his country, he would have done the same thing.



I asked a few colleagues and guests of my radio show as to why they write and rally others for the cause of defying this empire:



Paul Edwards, filmmaker and columnist: I write because it’s what I can do to fight the sickening fraud, deceit and injustice and crime of my own vicious and corrupt country: America!



Peter Koenig, geopolitical analyst, lecturer and writer: Yes, we are surrounded by what some call the Devil’s Minions. … this should give us more energy to NOT LET GO! Do we have the stamina to bring sufficient conscience into the war arena to slowly turn that ship around?



Bob Koehler, Anti war and anti empire columnist : Activism isn’t about shaking your fist at the bad guys. It’s about co-creating the future. It’s participatory evolution. To the extent that I listen to my soul, I am an activist.



Edward Curtin, professor, historian and anti imperialist writer- It is the call of my conscience, a spiritual necessity. Or call it simply my human response to violence and injustice. I could not live with myself if I did not respond.



Patrice Greanville, Media & geopolitical analyst: Revulsion.  The US empire represents what organised, sociopathic selfishness—capitalism—will do on a global scale when given favorable circumstances. As a virulent plutocracy, America is and has been for a long time the worst enemy of peace, justice and democracy, and a scourge not only on humans and innumerable helpless creatures, but the lifegiving planet itself, which it sees only as a resource to endless wealth and power. All wrapped up in a monumental cocoon of hypocrisy. Minimum decency obligates us to resist.





It seems like Americans always look for leaders to speak for them in every such manner. NO, what we need here during these terrible times, are more regular folks, like those quoted above, to speak up and  speak out for themselves about the need for drastic change. Why drastic? Well, as with WW2 Europe, the forces of evil , with their lust for greed and power, are ‘ Too Big To Succeed’ and must be thwarted. Victor Laszlo , Julian Assange, Chelsea Manning and Eric Snowden were not schooled to become activists. They chose to!!



—PA Farruggio



Palm Sunday 2019



 



 



 



 




 



 



 







ABOUT THE AUTHOR



Philip A Farruggio  is contributing editor for The Greanville Post. He is also frequently posted on Global Research, Nation of Change, World News Trust and Off Guardian sites. He is the son and grandson of Brooklyn NYC longshoremen and a graduate of Brooklyn College, class of 1974. Since the 2000 election debacle Philip has written over 300 columns on the Military Industrial Empire and other facets of life in an upside down America. Philip has an internet interview show, “It’s the Empire… Stupid” with producer Chuck Gregory, and can be reached at paf1222@bellsouth.net



 



 



 




 



 



 




 



 



 




 



 



 




 



 



 




Title: 🐈 Julian Assange’s Victory
Post by: RE on April 17, 2019, 02:14:09 AM
https://www.greanvillepost.com/2019/04/16/julian-assanges-victory/ (https://www.greanvillepost.com/2019/04/16/julian-assanges-victory/)

Julian Assange’s Victory

(https://journal-neo.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/embassy.jpg)

Throughout history, dark and reactionary forces have always attempted to control the world; by violence, by deceit, by kidnapping and perverting the mainstream narrative, or by spreading fear among the masses.

Consistently, brave and honest individuals have been standing up, exposing lies, confronting the brutality and depravity. Some have fought against insane and corrupt rulers by using swords or guns; others have chosen words as their weapons.

Many were cut down; most of them were. New comrades rose up; new banners of resistance were unveiled.

To resist is to dream of a better world. And to dream is to live.

The bravest of the brave never fought for just their own countries and cultures; they fought for the entire humanity. They were and they are what one could easily define as “intuitive internationalists”.

Julian Assange, an Australian computer expert, thinker and humanist, had chosen a new and mostly untested form of combat: he unleashed an entire battalion of letters and words, hundreds of thousands of documents, against the Western empire. He penetrated databases which have been storing the evidence of the most atrocious crimes the West has been committing for years and decades. Toxic secrets were exposed; truths revealed. To those who have been suffering in silence, both face and dignity were finally returned.

Julian Assange was a ‘commander’ of a small team of dedicated experts and activists. I met some of them, and was tremendously impressed. But no matter how small in numbers, this team has been managing to change the world, or at least to give the Western public an opportunity to know, and consequently to act.

After WikiLeaks, no one in New York, Berlin, London or Paris has any right to say “we did not know”. If they do not know now, it is because they have decided not to know, opportunistically and cynically.

Julian Assange and his comrades published all that the West was doing to the Afghan people, as well as to those suffering from neo-colonialism and imperialism all over the Middle East, Africa, Asia and Latin America.

What is it that the critics of Wikileaks are holding against Mr. Assange? That the snitches and the agents of the Western empire got ‘exposed’? Is the world expected to feel pity for them? Are tens of millions of victims supposed to be forgotten just so that the members of the Western intelligence services and their lackeys could feel safe and protected?

*

A few days before this essay went to print, Julian Assange was cynically betrayed by a country which used to be governed by a socialist administration, and which gave him political asylum and citizenship, both. Its current ruler, Lenin Moreno, will be judged extremely harshly by history: he’ll be remembered as a man who began dismantling the socialist structure of Ecuador, and who then literally sold (to the twisted British and US judiciary systems) a man who has already sacrificed more than his life for the truth as well as for survival of our planet.

As the Metropolitan Police dragged Julian Assange from the Ecuadorian embassy in London into a van, the entire world could catch a glimpse of the naked essence of the Western regime; the regime in action – oppressive, gangrenous, murderous and vindictive.

But we should not forget: the regime is not doing it because it is confident and strong. It is actually terrified. It is in panic. It is losing. And it is murdering, wherever it feels ‘vulnerable’, which is, all over the world.

Why? Because the millions, on all continents, are waking up, ready to face Western terror, ready to fight it, if there is no other way.

It is because they now know the truth. It is because the reality cannot be hidden; the brutality of Western global dictates is something that no one can deny any longer. Thanks to the new media in countries that have managed to free themselves from Western influence. And of course, thanks to heroes like Julian Assange, and his comrades.

*

Julian Assange has not fallen. He was stabbed, betrayed. But he is here, he is alive, with us; with the millions of those who support him, admire him, and are grateful to him for his honesty, courage and integrity.

He confronted the entire Empire; the most powerful, evil, destructive and brutal force on earth. And he managed to damage its secret organizations, consequently spoiling some of the plans, therefore saving lives.

All this can be considered a victory. Not the final victory, but a victory nevertheless.

By arresting Assange, the empire showed its weakness. By dragging him from the embassy into a police van, it has admitted that it already has begun sewing its own funeral gown.

About the Author

Andre Vltchek is a philosopher, novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist. He has covered wars and conflicts in dozens of countries. Three of his latest books are his tribute to “The Great October Socialist Revolution” a revolutionary novel “Aurora” and a bestselling work of political non-fiction: “Exposing Lies Of The Empire”. View his other books here. Watch Rwanda Gambit, his groundbreaking documentary about Rwanda and DRCongo and his film/dialogue with Noam Chomsky “On Western Terrorism”. Vltchek presently resides in East Asia and the Middle East, and continues to work around the world. He can be reached through his website and his Twitter. [/su_box]
Title: 🐈 Assange's Cat now UP on Global Economic Intersection
Post by: RE on April 17, 2019, 05:21:55 AM
I've become the regular Gonzo Journalist of GEI.  :icon_sunny:  The Spirit of Hunter Thompson lives on!

http://econintersect.com/pages/opinion/opinion.php?post=201904170017 (http://econintersect.com/pages/opinion/opinion.php?post=201904170017)

RE
Title: Re: Wikileaks Updates-Julian Assange's arrest explained
Post by: UnhingedBecauseLucid on April 17, 2019, 09:33:18 AM
Honest Government Ad | Julian Assange :

http://www.youtube.com/v/1efOs0BsE0g
Title: Re: Wikileaks Updates-Julian Assange's arrest explained
Post by: RE on April 17, 2019, 10:07:51 AM
Honest Government Ad | Julian Assange :

<iframe width="853" height="480" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/1efOs0BsE0g" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Good one!  :icon_mrgreen:  I would have liked if the Brit Bitch had a better accent though.  :(

I fixed your embed below.

http://www.youtube.com/v/1efOs0BsE0g

RE
Title: Re: Wikileaks Updates-Julian Assange Thread
Post by: Eddie on April 17, 2019, 10:30:21 AM
Any day we'll hear he's getting extradited....not to the US, but to Saudi Arabia.

Because the US is their bitch. And they like to cut journalists into small pieces and carry them around in a suitcase.
Title: Re: Wikileaks Updates-Julian Assange Thread
Post by: K-Dog on April 17, 2019, 01:51:05 PM
I’m not their bitch.  I piss on their leg and i’ll dump in their MAGA hat.
Title: 🐈 Julian and Martin: Reflections on the Arrest of Assange
Post by: RE on April 18, 2019, 01:07:06 AM
https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/04/16/julian-and-martin-reflections-on-the-arrest-of-assange/ (https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/04/16/julian-and-martin-reflections-on-the-arrest-of-assange/)

April 16, 2019
Julian and Martin: Reflections on the Arrest of Assange
by Richard Rubenstein

(https://uziiw38pmyg1ai60732c4011-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/dropzone/2019/04/2560px-Sydney_Wikileaks_2010-Dec-10.jpg)
Photograph Source Elekhh – CC BY-SA 3.0

Will someone please explain to me why Martin Luther King, Jr. is considered a hero for violating laws sustaining the system of racial discrimination, while Julian Assange is considered a villain for violating laws sustaining the system of imperial war?

Democratic Party bigwigs are celebrating the arrest of the Wikileaks founder in London and the request of Donald Trump’s Justice Department for his extradition to the U.S. According to Senators Chuck Schumer, Mark Warner, and Joe Manchin – and, of course, ex-Senator Hilary Clinton – Assange deserves to be punished severely for plotting with Chelsea Manning to obtain and release classified military information, and for allegedly helping the Russians to influence the election of 2016.  These are War Democrats, of course, who never met a defense corporation or armed intervention that they didn’t like.  One is not surprised to hear them howling for revenge against the “traitor” who revealed American war crimes to the world.

Democrats calling themselves progressives are more inclined to defend Assange – sort of – on the ground that his imminent prosecution represents an attack on journalistic freedom that may make it difficult for the media to publish classified documents like those contained in the Pentagon Papers.  More legalistic progressives aren’t so sure about this, since they consider publishing classified info OK so long as it has been “sanitized” to avoid exposing intelligence agents, but obtaining the info by hacking into a government computer not ok: i.e., a crime.

What neither camp wants to talk about, however, is whether it’s ok to break securities laws in order to expose the American Empire’s war plans, errors, and misdeeds.

Thus, my earlier question: why is lawbreaker Martin Luther King, Jr. a hero and lawbreaker Julian Assange a villain?  Intelligent people whom I’ve asked about this give the most convoluted and irrelevant answers!  “Dr. King never threatened American security the way Assange did.”  “Dr. King submitted to arrest, but Assange fled to the security of an embassy.”  “King loved his enemies, but Assange hates America.”

The assumption disguised by these rather scholastic distinctions is that Martin attacked an obviously evil system – American institutional racism – while Julian only attacked . . . the American Empire.  So if you don’t want to admit that the empire is evil (or even that it exists), you talk about national security or journalistic freedom or something. Anything but imperialist warmaking.

Dr. King himself did not make that mistake.  What he finally came to understand was that racism, the oppression of the poor, and empire-building are co-dependent, interrelated diseases that can only be cured by strenuous efforts to heal all three conditions simultaneously.  He called this a “revolution of values.”  On April 4, 1967, at the Riverside Church in New York, he delivered an address called “Beyond Vietnam” that contained these lines:

    A true revolution of values will lay hands on the world order and say of war, “This way of settling differences is not just.” This business of burning human beings with napalm, of filling our nation’s homes with orphans and widows, of injecting poisonous drugs of hate into the veins of peoples normally humane, of sending men home from dark and bloody battlefields physically handicapped and psychologically deranged, cannot be reconciled with wisdom, justice, and love. Anation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death. [sustained applause]

I think there is not the slightest question that, were he alive, Dr. King would applaud the sort of civil disobedience that exposes the empire’s secrets to the world and makes people aware of the crimes and errors committed in places like the Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib prisons, the battlefields of Iraq, and the drone-infested provinces of Afghanistan.

Julian Assange is no saint, and neither was Martin Luther King.  They were very different personalities, to be sure.  But both put their “lives, fortunes, and sacred honor” on the line in order to expose the inhumanity, violence, and lies of the powerful elites that rule the globe.  On the scale of human values, both ranked Truth and Justice well ahead of Obedience to Authority.

Listen, Schumer and the rest of you!  If you honor Martin, you must also honor Julian.  And if you don’t understand why this is true, what is the difference between you and Trump?  If the U.S. government succeeds in extraditing Assange, let’s get ready to celebrate his arrival with a protest recalling the 1963 March on Washington. It’s what King would have done.
Title: 🐈 John Pilger: Julian Assange Exposed US' 'KILL THEM ALL' Mentality!
Post by: RE on April 19, 2019, 01:11:47 AM
http://www.youtube.com/v/siHgvx3t9V8
Title: No Place for a Cat, The Diner Edition.
Post by: Guest on April 20, 2019, 09:13:46 AM


youtube-Logo-4gc2reddit-logoOff the keyboard of K-Dog



Follow us on Twitter @doomstead666

Friend us on Facebook



Published on The Doomstead Diner on April 20, 2019






Discuss this article at the Heroes of the Revolution Table inside the Diner



 



The days rolled by last week and the strange case of the Assange affair kept me going back to my place on the net and putting up new content.  It wasn't just that I'm a comment dog who can't be on the internet without wanting to write something somewhere.  (Try it sometime if you don't write comments, see if you can make just one.)  And it wasn't simple outrage though I've plenty of that.  It was more personal.



Before Snowden and before Wikileaks I had become K-Dog.  It was early on when I became K-Dog.  The name was given to me by an anonymous commenter who had liked something I had written.  I was busy in those days.  I had come to the realization (actually horrible awareness) that smart people were not working the worlds problems.  No think tanks in universities coming up with plans to adapt the world to a future without oil or a climate.  No secret government bases with giant machines to scrub C02 out of the atmosphere or refine zero-point energy.  Nothing at all. 



Turns out if you think about the world's problems at all you right there with the smartest people in the room.  The common herd won't contemplate that which is beyond their vision.  Not even won't but can't!  Turns out be deep-seated psychological reasons for this cognitive black hole, and even that would not be so bad; if such people also did not vote.




Let us toast to animal pleasures, to escapism, to rain on the roof and instant coffee, to unemployment insurance and library cards, to absinthe and good-hearted landlords, to music and warm bodies and contraceptives… and to the "good life", whatever it is and wherever it happens to be.”  <== Hunter S. Thompson


 


Let's toast to being born at time when there was plenty of sugar in the worlds petri-dish for all the yeast to thrive.


 


The seventies had led me to believe that people were working the earth's problems but it turned out the 70's had led to the brain-dead 80's during which time the seeds for the absolute annihilation of mankind were planted.  America's ability to adapt was about to be destroyed. 


 


During the 80's and 90's electronics were refined so mass surveillance became possible and those of the common herd who had power could not resist the temptation to use it.  It is not in human nature to ignore a benifit of technology.  There are deep-seated psychological reasons for this it turns out.  Then came 9-11 a plan for a new American Century.  Neocons took control and America became a different place.  Mesmerized by shock and awe few people noticed.


 


Surveilance is one thing, and the instant reaction is to think no big deal but, it is a big deal.  Surveillance brings management with it, the temptation was not resisted.  James Howard Kunstler had honed in on the collapse movement and was writing about depletion issues.  I began to comment on his blog.  Long story short I soon realized that some of the commenters at his blog had super powers.  A few names needed no sleep.  And following I.P. Addys from his site that a tracking service plugin provided I learned that most of the identities who were commenting on his blog were using 'the Department of Defense Network' to get to the website.  Actual origins appeared to be from every small military base in the country.  America had become a country silently being brainwashed by ideologies of the most ossified and conservative kind.  The ability of America to adapt to change had been taken away and our doom was sealed.


 


I did not have a website at the time.  I appeared to be someone who could just be  rolled over using a bit of terror.  Gang stalking and electronic harassment of many kinds.  It worked for a while but I adapted and survived.  I registered my website and now with Julian's Arrest I'm ready because the same people who want him were the ones who were harassing me.  It is personal.  Vault 7 personal.  Being followed by men in black suits personal and this being the Diner I'll have a small taste of:


 


"La vengeance est un plat qui se mange froide"  (Revenge is a dish best served cold)


 


I have a picture of one of the suits, I could post it but this article is not about me.  I will only give a link to it. http://chasingthesquirrel.com/pics/DLR.png The pic came from a website he asked me to visit when we met in person.  A website intended to put the fear of god into me.  I downloaded it. 


 


I'm writing to do a small part in getting the promise of democracy working again or something like that.  Because we don't have it now.  We have only the illusion of it.


 


From my website:


 


No Place For a Cat



I haven't seen the internet controlled like this since BP got on top of their Public Relations and spun the Gulf Oil Spill the way they wanted it spun.  No news on Julian Assange.  It took some sleuthing to find out he is now at Belmarsh prison.    This from 'Free Malasia Today'.  Good luck finding anything in the American press.



"Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is being held in London’s high-security Belmarsh prison which has housed some of Britain’s most notorious inmates, a legal source told AFP Friday.






 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 




 



 



 



 



 



 



Aerial View



 



 



 



 



 




 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



The prison in southeast London became one of the country’s best-known jails after Great Train Robber Ronnie Biggs and career criminal Charlon Bronson – dubbed “the most violent prisoner in Britain” – were held there.






 



 



 



 



 



 



 




 



 



 



 



Main Gate



 



 



 




 



 



 



 



 



 



 



Opened in 1991 next to Woolwich Crown Court, it has frequently been used in high-profile national security cases."



From another Source:



Belmarsh, built in 1991 and located in southeast London, gained notoriety in the wake of the 9/11 attacks when foreigners were detained in the prison without being formally charged, leading some to call it 'Britain's Guantanamo Bay.'



What is it all about? This affidavit was unsealed Monday.



It is alleged that Julian Assange conspired to help Chelsea Manning commit computer intrusion of a classified military network. That's it thats all. Real reasons of course are not for public consumption. You can find out about that if you read on.



The world, America darkens with time. Ignorance is celebrated and cultivated in a cultural tower of babble that pushes truth behind shadows where it can no longer be seen. Things were not always this bad. It was clear forty years ago that power corrupts and the only legitimate power is power that is open to scrutiny. This awareness has eroded. The Vietnam war made the need for scrutiny as clear as the sight of a high school football hero returning home in a body bag. But America forgot. Graft, theft, racism, and corruptions of all kinds are possible when doors can't be opened for a peek inside. America forgot that. Now America wants to kill a messenger who's crime is that he wanted you to know stuff.



The American troll army pushes the meme that Julian has nothing to worry about. He will quietly be deported to Australia they all say. They also don't want you to know about the affidavit. They prefer you believe in cat feces on walls and other fables. They absolutely don't want you to know that Vault 7 tools are used on American citizens.



Yet only misbehaving dogs have to worry about such things and you don't misbehave.



And that can stay true until the rules change and then they come for you. In the meantime enjoy the show. Here is something entertaining. Seven years after the fact and you likely still don't know the names of the women or the circumstances but if hating is your thing enjoy a thick slice of 'Me Too'.



She Accused Assange of Rape. Give Her a Chance for Justice



If you enjoy the article too much I'd like to remind you that nowhere does Heather Barr mention the name of 'the woman' anywhere. International extradition for crimes where victims are not named is not Ok IMHO. I think someone with even a third of a brain should be able to figure out why. The devil is in the details, or in this case lack of them. Heather also does not say that one of the women has vanished and that the other woman is connected to the CIA. Heather had many years to learn this and that this sort of thing is very much 'her thing' is very clear, so I think if you were a baby Heather would steal your candy.



Read my stuff from last week and you will learn the names. (I did not need seven years to learn them.) Somebody clue Heather in. Please.



 



Thursday April 11th 2019: (with more recent edits)



Breaking News, The arrest. I stand in solidarity. All four paws. (Europeans will not have to look it up to find out what solidarity means. Most Americans will need to do exactly that.)



10 x 10 bare concrete walls, 24/7 florescent lighting, and a room thirty feet below ground. Comparatively the embassy had to be a palace. Moreno is a pig. Somebody follow the money please.



Update$$: A 4.2 billion loan (numbers vary) guarantee from the International Monetary Fund, it seems.



Below are the honeypots. One has vanished off the face of the earth.



I recall at the end of the 1981 movie "Body Heat" William Hurt playing the male lead character Ned Racine sits in prison. Ned receives the High School yearbook of Matty Walker his vanished female lead in the movie in his prison mail. He tears the brown wrapper off and begins to read. Matty is a femme fatale played by Kathleen Turner in this movie who has duped Ned into killing her husband for insurance money. That's why Ned sits in prison.



In the yearbook is written the line, if I can recall it right, in response to the age old High School yearbook question of 'what do you want to be in life', Matty had answered.



'To be rich and live in a far away land'



A line something to that effect. So what is the parallel? Matty had vanished with funds.






Now Trump can put out any fake news he wants.



WikiLeaks official Defense Fund



( 46 BC ) At Ceasars triumph, Vercingetorix was marched through the Eternal City, then strangled at the Tullianum.



I like the story of Vercingetorix’s men who at least in a movie spirited his body from the place of execution in the middle of the night to bury it with dignity in the woods. Likely at great risk. Before his execution I think Vercingetorix had been in prison for seven years. I could be wrong.



Obama got Osama and the golden puffball will also be taking a triumph. Unearned riches if ever there were.



"Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one."Thomas Paine



Donald Trump, praised WikiLeaks often during his 2016 presidential campaign yet now he just said WikiLeaks is not his thing. “I know nothing about WikiLeaks,” Trump said “It’s not my thing.”




  • How Ecuador’s Globalist Regime Received Billions to Sell Out Julian Assange


  • With Ecuador’s Cooperation Bought by IMF Loans, Washington Waxes Optimistic on Assange Extradition


  • Ecuador obtains $10.2 billion IMF loan package


  • Every Points to Julian Assange’s Accuser Being a CIA-Directed Liar


  • Where in the world is Sofia Wilén?


  • Ecuadorian Golf Courses

     



     



     



     



     



     



     



     



    Seven years is long enough for people to forget and make up all sorts of stories. What is Assange arrested for?



    For wanting you to see this.






    Should the rampant gaslighting make you forget.



    If I make an edit here in my HTML pile of text it takes about the same time as it takes for a hellfire missile to hit a target as it does for my edit to appear as a change on this page once I hit 'fire'. Just like a goddamn video game kiddies play. I just turned this green and it took the same time for me to see the change as it did for the three hellfire missiles to hit their targets in this video.



    My wierdness with Vercingetorix? I'll allow Chris Hedges to explain. It is about empire:



    "The Trump administration will seek to try Assange on charges that he conspired with Manning in 2010 to steal the Iraq and Afghanistan war logs obtained by WikiLeaks. The half a million internal documents leaked by Manning from the Pentagon and the State Department, along with the 2007 video of U.S. helicopter pilots nonchalantly gunning down Iraqi civilians, including children, and two Reuters journalists, provided copious evidence of the hypocrisy, indiscriminate violence, and routine use of torture, lies, bribery and crude tactics of intimidation by the U.S. government in its foreign relations and wars in the Middle East. Assange and WikiLeaks allowed us to see the inner workings of empire—the most important role of a press—and for this they became empire’s prey."



    Empire is evil with patience. Enemies of empire are dealt with after humanity screams move on. It is not fair but perhaps Julian has another service to do. There is much evil. The existence of the rampant gaslight shows this. Something makes it shine so bright. Julian's job may only be half done.



    Too bad, for Julian deserves a break. But evil is alive well and flourishing. I pray evil now bites more than it can chew so that it is exposed in all it's orangeness.



    Trumps idea of MAGA exposed. Preparing America for a future this does not do! It won't do at all. Who was the guy who said 'The buck stops here'? He is on the Eisenhower Dollar. I hope he is right but the buck these days seems to be made of golden Teflon. To expect Trump to do more than resurrect the Neocon Bush Playbook was fantasy. The link is to ten year old news true, but it has the freshest of ink.



    Ink more fresh there can't be.



    I've learned more according to this AP article. The American indictment is in response to what is known as the “Vault 7 leak” in 2017. Vault 7 comprises thousands of pages of documents revealing details about CIA tools used to break into computers, cellphones and other consumer electronics used by targeted individuals.



    I can speak to the veracity of the contents of Vault 7 because I have had my personal electronics targeted by the same tools when I became a targeted individual myself for discovering details about behind the scene government internet manipulations.



    These tools I can attest are not used exclusively by our CIA but are a feature of all agencies which use American fusion centers. They are used by the FBI and Homeland Security to terrorise and deal with American Citizens who dare to investigate how deep our domestic spying apparatus goes. I can attest that rabbit hole is very deep from my personal experience. As I make an allegation I'll be specific.



    They pulled a boner. Mike went to High School with one of the 'spooks' who shadowed me five years ago. This spook was in a coffee shop Mike owned when I was came in. The spook was in his shiny black suit and blinding bleached white shirt sans tie, their uniform. Until you learn to turn your phone off they frequently get places before you do. The same spook had been in the coffeehouse a few months before and had told Mike, the owner, about his new job with the TSA.



    One of the things they can do is control your Netflix viewing on your T.V.



    It can and will mess with your head. When they pop your screen to scenes of families getting brutally murdered it will affect you. Having the controls go to exactly the right spot for the best dramatic effect to freak you out the most is very Steven Kingish and I believe 'they' enjoy 'getting the bad guy' way too much. It really does mess you up, it along with gang-stalking is a means of control which leaves no trace. I experienced the Full Monty. It is not called 'targeted' for nothing. And what they can do with phones when they are trying to drive you out of your mind is impressive and scary in a leg shivering sort of way. Your heart will do a years worth of thumping in a month before they finish with you, or you adjust. I adjusted but part of me will always be pissed and it takes more than a month to adjust. It takes many months.



    Oceania in spades. Rats in my face. They'd have you believe Eurasia influences your elections but you have no idea of the Orwellian nightmare America became before Trump was even an orange blob on the Oval Office horizon. What happened to me happened on Obama's watch. Since then I've been waiting for Trump to amp it up and wonder what has taken him so long. The boy has toys. Meanwhile the thoughtstopper of 'It Can't Happen Here' echoes the common awareness.





Title: Re:No Country For Old Dogs Either
Post by: Eddie on April 20, 2019, 09:46:34 AM
Didn't the original trumped-up (Obama'ed-up?) rape charges get dropped? I seem to remember that case fell apart. I admit to losing track of the narrative after it became clear it was just a matter of time until Assange was hunted down and killed or otherwise, er, uh, neutralized.

For me that was about five years ago.

They can't extradite him to the US if he's charged here with a crime that might carry the death penalty. But nothing keeps them from charging him with such a crime AFTER he is safely in the hands of the designated agents of American Blind Justice. That's what will happen, most likely.

The thing that has fundamentally changed is that the judicial system, which (a generation ago) was willing to act as a check and a balance, as designed, has now been finally become a part of the machine.

Now they can have a mock trial for Julian, and nobody will bat an eye. Now they can stop a K-Dog on his way to work, get an instant e-warrant, draw his blood, and  probably sentence him to jail time for impaired driving. No wonder he was writing that paranoid shit. His moral fiber was destroyed by cannabis. Another victim of Reefer Madness.

http://www.youtube.com/v/sbjHOBJzhb0&fs=1

We had all the momentum; we were riding the crest of a high and beautiful wave... So now, less than five years later, you can go up on a steep hill in Las Vegas and look West, and with the right kind of eyes you can almost see the high water mark — that place where the wave finally broke, and rolled back.”

You-Know-Who

                                                             



Title: Re: Wikileaks Updates-Julian Assange Thread
Post by: RE on April 20, 2019, 09:51:21 AM
Didn't the original trumped-up (Obama'ed-up?) rape charges get dropped? I seem to remember that case fell apart. I admit to losing track of the narrative after it became clear it was just a matter of time until Assange was hunted down and killed or otherwise, er, uh, neutralized.

You should listen to my Morning Collapse Wake-Up Call.  I went over this.

Sweden dropped the case because they couldn't serve a subpoena on Julian while he was in the Ecuadorian Embassy.  Now that he is accessible in a London Jail Cell,they are considering reopening the case and extraditing him themselves.

RE
Title: Re: Wikileaks Updates-Julian Assange Thread
Post by: Eddie on April 20, 2019, 10:22:17 AM
My best recollection was that the "rape victims" recanted their allegations. Didn't I read that back then, or is it just that cannabis has destroyed my memory along with my moral fiber?
Title: Re: Wikileaks Updates-Julian Assange Thread
Post by: Eddie on April 20, 2019, 10:35:28 AM
Going back to the actual allegations, it's clear to me the whole case was a bunch of trumped-up #metoo bullshit. Both women willingly had sex with Assange and then decided to complain when it was obvious it was just a one-night stand for him.

https://www.thelocal.se/20101219/30946 (https://www.thelocal.se/20101219/30946)



Title: Re:No Country For Old Dogs Either
Post by: K-Dog on April 20, 2019, 12:38:01 PM

Now they can have a mock trial for Julian, and nobody will bat an eye. Now they can stop a K-Dog on his way to work, get an instant e-warrant, draw his blood, and  probably sentence him to jail time for impaired driving. No wonder he was writing that paranoid shit. His moral fiber was destroyed by cannabis. Another victim of Reefer Madness.


We had all the momentum; we were riding the crest of a high and beautiful wave... So now, less than five years later, you can go up on a steep hill in Las Vegas and look West, and with the right kind of eyes you can almost see the high water mark — that place where the wave finally broke, and rolled back.”

You-Know-Who
                                                           

Hemp is an excellent fiber.  It is very strong.  Nothing immoral about it.


No sympathy for the devil; keep that in mind. Buy the ticket, take the ride...and if it occasionally gets a little heavier than what you had in mind, well...maybe chalk it up to forced consciousness expansion: Tune in, freak out, get beaten.”

You-Know-Who
Title: Re: Wikileaks Updates-Julian Assange Thread
Post by: K-Dog on April 20, 2019, 12:43:41 PM
Going back to the actual allegations, it's clear to me the whole case was a bunch of trumped-up #metoo bullshit. Both women willingly had sex with Assange and then decided to complain when it was obvious it was just a one-night stand for him.

https://www.thelocal.se/20101219/30946 (https://www.thelocal.se/20101219/30946)

One worked for the CIA the other can't be found.  The name of this movie is:

The Seven Year Snitch !

(https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fanimationsa2z.com%2Fattachments%2FImage%2Fmarilyn-monroe%2Fmm17.gif&f=1)
Title: Re: No Place for a Cat, The Diner Edition.
Post by: RE on April 22, 2019, 09:22:16 AM
Now UP on Global Economic Intersection!

http://econintersect.com/pages/opinion/opinion.php?post=201904220128 (http://econintersect.com/pages/opinion/opinion.php?post=201904220128)

RE
Title: 📰 Daniel Ellsberg Speaks Out on the Arrest of Julian Assange
Post by: RE on April 28, 2019, 03:02:57 AM
https://progressive.org/dispatches/daniel-ellsberg-on-arrest-of-julian-assange-bernstein-190423/ (https://progressive.org/dispatches/daniel-ellsberg-on-arrest-of-julian-assange-bernstein-190423/)

Daniel Ellsberg Speaks Out on the Arrest of Julian Assange


(https://www.globalresearch.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/wikileaks-assange.jpg)

“Without whistleblowers we would not have a democracy. And there have to be people to distribute work and publish it.”

by Dennis J. Bernstein

April 23, 2019

Carol Leigh Scarlot Harlot

Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg argues that the recent arrest of Julian Assange poses a threat to American press freedoms and democracy itself.

As Julian Assange awaits his fate, socked away in maximum security lockdown in Great Britain, his supporters and friends—many of whom believe he is one of the most significant publishers of our time—are vigiling, writing, and speaking out in support of his work and calling for his immediate release.

I spoke to legendary Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg the morning after Assange was dragged out of the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, with the eyes of the world watching the scene unfold in real time.

Ellsberg says he is both outraged and deeply concerned about the impact this case might have on the free press. “Without whistleblowers,” Ellsberg tells me in the following interview, “we would not have a democracy.”

Q: You have been watching what has been going on with Julian Assange for some time. What do you make of what has just happened?

Daniel Ellsberg: It is not a good day for the American press, or for American democracy. Forty-eight years ago, I was the first journalistic source to be indicted. There have been perhaps a dozen since then, nine under President Obama. But Julian Assange is the first journalist to be indicted. If he is extradited to the U.S. and convicted, he will not be the last.

The First Amendment is a pillar of our democracy and this is an assault on it. If freedom of speech is violated to this extent, our republic is in danger. Unauthorized disclosures are the lifeblood of the republic.

Q: Some people say Assange was just a hacker. Others, including many major news organizations, felt that he was a legitimate source of information. What is the significance of WikiLeaks? Did it change history in a way similar to how the Pentagon Papers changed our knowledge of the Vietnam War?

Ellsberg: It would be absurd to say that Julian Assange was just a hacker. As a young man he was a hacker, and his philosophy is sometimes called “hacker philosophy,” referring to radical transparency, which goes beyond what I would agree with in some cases, in terms of not wanting to redact or curate any of the information at all. His theory is to lay it all out for the public and I think that can have some dangers for privacy in some cases. But that is not involved here.

In this case he was doing journalism of a kind which I think other outlets are jealous of and don’t practice as much as they should. This information was actually first offered by Chelsea Manning to The New York Times and The Washington Post, but neither one showed any interest in it. That is how it came to Julian Assange and WikiLeaks.

The collateral murder video shows up-front murder being done [in an airstrike in Baghdad in July 2007]. You see unarmed people in civilian clothes being gunned down and then as they are crawling away, wounded, being pursued until they are dead. That was murder. Not all killing in war is murder, although a lot of it is in modern war. Other people were watching that video when [Manning] saw it. They were all shocked by it, [but] she was the one who decided that people should be told about this.

    Without whistleblowers, our foreign policy would be almost entirely covert. We don’t have as many whistleblowers as we need to have any kind of public sovereignty.

That took great moral courage on her part, for which she paid ultimately with seven and a half years in prison, ten and a half months in solitary confinement. She was recently imprisoned again for refusing to cooperate with a grand jury that clearly is pursuing Julian Assange, hoping to get information beyond what she testified to in her hearings and court trials. . . .

She objects to grand juries in general, as unconstitutional and undemocratic in their secret proceedings. That is the same attitude my co-defendant in the Pentagon Papers trial, Anthony Russo, took forty-eight years ago. He refused to testify secretly to a grand jury. In fact, he offered to testify if they would give him a transcript that would show him exactly what he said and hadn’t said. They wouldn’t accept that and he spent over a month in jail before they decided instead to indict him. Chelsea is taking the same position now and showing the kind of moral courage that she has shown all along.

Julian, meanwhile, is being charged with having gone beyond the limits of journalism by helping Manning to conceal her identity with a new username. He is also charged with having encouraged her to give him documents. That is criminalizing journalism. I can’t count the number of times that I have been asked for documents by journalists or for more documents. She had already given hundreds of thousands of files to Assange and he wanted more. This is the practice of journalism.

Q: There wouldn’t really be much journalism without documents. People used to depend on eyewitness accounts but what beats a document?

Ellsberg: I have been asked what I would do today in the digital era. I would still give them to The New York Times in the hopes that they would print the documents at length. Not many papers take the space to do that and that is why I chose The New York Times. But it was four months after I gave them to Neil Sheehan when they actually published them. During that time he didn’t tell me that the Times was working on it. Nowadays I would not wait, I would give it to WikiLeaks or put it on the net myself.

Q: But Assange was focused on trying to protect his sources. This made it possible for more people to participate and that got on the nerves of the powers that be.

Ellsberg: None of his sources except Chelsea have been identified. Actually, Chelsea chose the wrong person to confide in, Adrian Lamo, who immediately informed on her. In terms of getting documents that are crucial, that is done every day. Very often the documents are not printed. The journalist just uses them to make sure that he or she has a valid story. A document is more likely to identify a source, as happened in the case of the Intercept, I am sorry to say.

Q: Finally, why is it important to protect whistleblowers? This is obviously meant to frighten off anyone with information.

Ellsberg: Without whistleblowers, our foreign policy would be almost entirely covert. We don’t have as many whistleblowers as we need to have any kind of public sovereignty. Unfortunately, people are simply not willing to risk their job or their clearance or their freedom.

In the past, before me and before President Obama, there were very few prosecutions. Freedom of the press was always held to preclude holding journalists and editors accountable for informing the public. This could be a major change. With classified information, which is nearly everything in the foreign policy field, the writer cannot predict what will be embarrassing in the future, what will appear criminal, what will be considered poor judgment. So they classify everything and it stays classified.

Only a tiny percentage of classified information deserves any protection from the public. A great deal of it the public needs and deserves to have. Most leaks were actually authorized, even though they were against regulations, because they served the interest of some boss in the system. They are really given for the benefit of the agency’s budget, or whatever. A small percentage are whistleblowing in the sense of revelation of wrongdoing or deception or criminality, information that the public should know, to avoid a war, for instance.

Q: What other information that the public has the right to see might still be bottled up?

Ellsberg: Eighteen years after it began, we still don't have the Pentagon Papers for Afghanistan. I am certain that they exist, within the CIA and the Pentagon and the White House, stacks of classified estimates that say stalemate is irrevocable in Afghanistan: We can stay there as long as we want but we will never serve American interests any more than now, which is essentially zero, unless it is to free the President of the charge that he has lost a war.

I think these estimates have been there from before the war but we have never seen them. How many people really want to get involved in a war with Russia and Assad in Syria? The estimates would reveal that, and we ought to have those.

    It is now up to us to make sure that the First Amendment is preserved.

A war with North Korea or Iran would be catastrophic and I am sure there are many authoritative statements to that effect. But if John Bolton persuades Trump to get involved in such a war, it will happen. It will probably happen without much disclosure beforehand, but if people did risk their careers and their freedom, as Chelsea Manning and Ed Snowden have done, we would have a much better chance that a democratic public would prevent that war from taking place.

Without whistleblowers we would not have a democracy. And there have to be people to distribute work and publish it. Julian Assange has done that in a way in which other publishers have not been willing to. Journalists should close ranks here against this abuse of the President's authority, and against Britain and Ecuador for violating the norms of asylum and making practically every person who has achieved political asylum anywhere in the world less secure.

It is now up to us to make sure that the First Amendment is preserved.
Tags
Whistleblowers First Amendment Journalism Dispatches
Dennis J. Bernstein

Dennis J Bernstein is an award-winning investigative reporter and the host and executive producer of Flashpoints, syndicated on Pacifica Radio.
Title: 🐈 Julian gets 50 weeks in the Brit Pokey for Jumping Bail
Post by: RE on May 01, 2019, 04:48:19 AM
Well, this keeps him out of FSoA custody for a year anyhow.

Live action from the Brit Parliament here.

RE

http://www.youtube.com/v/Ps8Ar8KWf-4
Title: 🐈 Assange: So Where Is the Swedish Warrant?
Post by: RE on May 02, 2019, 07:42:46 AM
https://www.globalresearch.ca/where-swedish-warrant/5676006 (https://www.globalresearch.ca/where-swedish-warrant/5676006)

Assange: So Where Is the Swedish Warrant?
By Craig Murray
Global Research, April 29, 2019
Craig Murray 27 April 2019
Region: Europe, USA
Theme: Law and Justice, Media Disinformation


(https://www.globalresearch.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Julian-Assange.jpg)
If the Swedish allegations against Julian Assange were genuine and not simply a ruse to arrest him for extradition to the United States, where is the arrest warrant now from Sweden and what are the charges?

Only the more minor allegation has passed the statute of limitations deadline. The major allegation, equivalent to rape, is still well within limits. Sweden has had seven years to complete the investigation and prepare the case. It is over two years since they interviewed Julian Assange in the Ecuadorean Embassy. They have had years and years to collect all the evidence and prepare the charges.

So where, Swedish prosecutors, are your charges? Where is your arrest warrant?

Julian Assange has never been charged with anything in Sweden. He was merely “wanted for questioning”, a fact the MSM repeatedly failed to make clear. It is now undeniably plain that there was never the slightest intention of charging him with anything in Sweden. All those Blairite MPs who seek to dodge the glaring issue of freedom of the media to publish whistleblower material revealing government crimes, by hiding behind trumped-up sexual allegations, are left looking pretty stupid.

What is the point of demanding Assange be extradited to Sweden when there is no extradition request from Sweden? What is the point in demanding he face justice in Sweden when there are no charges? Where are the charges from Sweden?
Assange: The Untold Story of an Epic Struggle for Justice

The answer to that is silence.

Sweden was always a fit-up designed to get Assange to the USA. And now they don’t need it, so Sweden has quietly gone away. All the false left who were taken in by the security services playing upon a feminist mantra should take a very hard look at themselves. They should also consider this.

If you seriously put forward that in allegations of sexual assault, the accuser must always be believed and the accused must automatically be presumed guilty, you are handing an awesome power to the state to lock people up without proper defence. The state will abuse that awesome power and fit people up. The Assange case shows us just that. And it is not the only case, currently, as everyone in Scotland should realise.

But there is more. If you believe that any sexual accusation against a person should be believed and automatically and immediately end their societal respectability, you are giving power to state and society to exclude dissidents and critics from political discourse by a simple act of accusation. That power will be used and abused by the security services.

In the case of the allegation in Sweden that did fall through the statute of limitation, the accusation was that during the act of consensual sex Julian Assange deliberately split the condom with his fingers, without consent. I quite agree that if true, it would amount to sexual assault. But the split condom given to Swedish police as evidence had none of Assange’s DNA on it – a physical impossibility if he had worn it during sex. And the person making the accusation had previously been expelled from Cuba as working for the CIA. So tell me again – we must always believe the accuser?

For once, I agree with the Blairites that should a warrant arrive from Sweden that Swedish request should be prioritised for extradition over the US request, not least because rape is much the more serious crime. As the only reason Julian Assange ever claimed asylum was that he saw the Swedish allegations as a ruse to get him into custody for extradition to the US, I would also say that should a warrant from Sweden arrive he should now voluntarily go without further legal resistance, the US extradition point being overtaken.

But do not hold your breath. No warrant is going to come. The states that coordinated so carefully his arrest and detention, timed with the Muellergate release and the demented Ecuadorean government lies about faeces on walls, don’t need the Swedish angle now.

I ask again. Where is the warrant from Sweden? Are there still people who cannot see the Swedish allegations for the CIA ruse that they always were?
Title: Re: Wikileaks Updates-Julian Assange Thread
Post by: Eddie on May 02, 2019, 09:43:55 AM
That whole warrant thing is so 20th century.

The Evil Empire don't need no stinkin' warrants no more. Anything goes and nothing matters.
Title: 🐈 Pamela Anderson and WikiLeaks editor-in-chief visit Julian Assange in prison
Post by: RE on May 10, 2019, 03:06:05 AM
https://www.greanvillepost.com/2019/05/09/pamela-anderson-and-wikileaks-editor-in-chief-visit-julian-assange-in-prison/ (https://www.greanvillepost.com/2019/05/09/pamela-anderson-and-wikileaks-editor-in-chief-visit-julian-assange-in-prison/)

Pamela Anderson and WikiLeaks editor-in-chief visit Julian Assange in prison
May 9, 2019

Another important dispatch from The Greanville Post. Be sure to share it widely.
“We need to save his life. That’s how serious it is”

(https://www.greanvillepost.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Screen-Shot-2019-05-09-at-3.46.24-PM.png)
Actress Pamela Anderson and WikiLeaks editor-in-chief Kristinn Hrafnsson met Julian Assange at Britain’s Belmarsh Prison yesterday. His first personal visitors since being imprisoned nearly one month ago, they issued a strong appeal for public support.

Emerging from the maximum-security prison, visibly shocked and angered, Anderson and Hrafnsson addressed the media. Their statements were a searing indictment of state criminality and lawlessness on the part of the British and US governments.

Hrafnsson said, “It is for me, shocking to see my friend—an intellectual, a publisher, a journalist, a man that has transformed the world of journalism with his work—sitting in a high security prison, spending 23 hours a day in a cell, having half an hour outdoors if weather allows and half an hour to do everything else. This is not justice. This is an abomination.”

He continued, “Someone said that you could judge the civilisation of a society by visiting its prisons and frankly, I have to say from my heart, that this visit did not reflect well on the society here.”

Anderson condemned the state persecution of her friend as a “misrule of law in operation.”

Pamela Anderson and Kristinn Hrafnsson

Constantly derided by corporate and state media outlets, Anderson stood head and shoulders above her detractors. “Obviously it’s been very difficult to see Julian here and to make our way through the prison. To get to him was quite shocking and difficult. He does not deserve to be in a supermax prison. He has never committed a violent act, he’s an innocent person.”

She described Assange’s near total isolation, “He’s really cut off from everybody, he hasn’t been able to speak to his children and public support is very important.”

Anderson urged supporters to write to Assange in prison to show their support and give him strength.

While at times visibly upset, Anderson spoke with dignity and determination, “He needs all the support he can get. Justice will depend on public support … we have to keep fighting because it’s unfair, he’s sacrificed so much to bring the truth out and we deserve the truth.”

Asked by reporters what condition Assange was in, Hrafnsson explained he had already suffered years of arbitrary detention. Over the previous year, Assange had been held in total isolation in Ecuador’s embassy, “being harassed everyday” to make his life “a misery.” He had lost weight, but his spirit was “still strong.”

Asked about conditions for Assange inside the prison, Hrafnsson replied, “What is it like for anybody to be in Belmarsh Prison? Especially when you are there because another country demands your extradition for journalistic activity. It’s outrageous.”

Hrafnsson explained that as a result of Assange’s solitary confinement in a supermax jail, “He has not been able to properly prepare his case, which is of course the most important fight, against his extradition to the United States.”

Despite the wall of disinformation, lies and slander directed against Assange, support for the WikiLeaks publisher is growing.

A poll conducted this week by America’s MSNBC asking, “Should Julian Assange be prosecuted for his involvement with WikiLeaks?” found 95 percent of respondents answering “No, he is a whistleblower and deserves protection.”

In Australia, a 60 Minutes poll published on April 28, found 85 percent opposed his extradition to the United States, favouring calls to bring him home. A petition calling on the Australian government to defend Assange has attained more than 136,000 signatures.

Anderson said that she and Hrafnsson conveyed an important message to Assange: “We told him about our feeling that there is growing support among the general public and the population, and he was heartened to hear that and that gives him added strength.”

Asked how concerned Assange was about the possibility of extradition and a long prison sentence in the US, Anderson replied bluntly: “We need to save his life. That’s how serious it is.”

The public statements of Anderson and Hrafnsson underscore the importance of building the broadest support throughout the working class, among students, young people and the most principled intellectuals and artists to demand freedom for Assange and whistleblower Chelsea Manning, currently being held in a jail in the US for refusing to testify before a grand jury against the WikiLeaks founder.

Send letters of support to Julian Assange
Mr Julian Assange
DOB: 3/07/1971
HMP Belmarsh
Western Way
London SE28 0EB
UK

(You must write your return address on the back of the envelope or it will not be delivered. You must include his date of birth in the address as above.)
Title: Are the Martyrs Coming Back? Julian Assange and the Fall of the Global Empire
Post by: Guest on May 11, 2019, 05:44:30 AM


youtube-Logo-2gc2reddit-logoOff the keyboard of Ugo Bardi



Follow us on Twitter @doomstead666

Friend us on Facebook



Published on Cassandra's Legacy on May 6, 2019



 






 


Discuss this article at the Heroes of the Revolution Table Inside the Diner



 



And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation, and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand (Matthew. 12:25)






 



 



 



 



 



 



The more the current world drama unfolds, the more I am amazed by how closely we are following the path that the ancient Roman Empire followed toward its final collapse. Dmitry Orlov, another student of civilization collapse, seem to think in the same way. In a post on his blog, he notes how Julian Assange could be the first martyr for truth of modern times, he calls him "St. Julian." Says Orlov:




If all goes well, he (Julian Assange) will be released and reestablish himself as a media personality of great stature. And if everything goes badly and the Americans do get their hands on him and torture him to death, he will die as a martyr and live in public memory forever.



I don’t know whether Assange has been baptized, but a proper choice of saint for him would be St. Julian of Antioch, who was martyred during Emperor Diocletian’s persecution of Christians between 303 and 313 AD. Julian was stuffed into a sack filled with sand, vipers and scorpions and dumped in the sea. Diocletian’s initiative was a failure: the son of one of his lieutenants, Constantine, not only canceled the persecution of Christians but made Christianity into Roman Empire’s state religion. He then moved its capital to New Rome (Constantinople), abandoning Old Rome to languish in the Dark Ages while his New Rome went on for a thousand glorious years.



Should Julian Assange end up martyred by the Americans, we can expect a vaguely similar result: future generations of Americans will say: “There once was a great journalist by the name of Julian. He died as a martyr for the truth. It was a long time ago, and we don’t know what’s been happening to us since then, because all we have been hearing ever since have been nothing but lies…”




I think this post by Orlov goes to the heart of the matter. A civilization collapse is, in the end, a collapse of trust. An empire, a state, a family, any social structure, can be rich or poor, powerful or weak, new or old, happy or sad, but if there is no trust keeping it together it cannot exist for long, it is like a solid turning into a gas when the chemical bonds keeping the atoms together are not strong enough. It is what happened to the Roman Empire, it is what's happening to us. As Matthew says, "Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation, and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand" (12:25).



Ultimately, trust is based on truth. Without truth, there cannot be trust. In Roman times, the fight of Christianity against the Empire of Lies was more than everything else a fight to rebuild trust by establishing a new truth, the revealed one. I wrote in a previous post that:

 




Augustine and other early Christian fathers were engaged, first of all, in an epistemological revolution. Paulus of Tarsus had already understood this point when he had written: "now we see as in a mirror, darkly, then we'll see face to face." It was the problem of truth; how to see it? How to determine it? In the traditional view, truth was reported by a witness who could be trusted. The Christian epistemology started from that, to build up the concept of truth as the result divine revelation. The Christians were calling God himself as witness.



In the name of truth, the Christian martyrs (a Greek term meaning "witness") were willing to give their life, to die vilified and tortured in the most gruesome manners. It was the courage of the early martyrs that eventually brought down the zombie creature that the once great Roman Empire had become.



And now? We are rapidly entering a phase when the lies told to us by our governments and our elites are so huge, so pervasive, so blatant to qualify as diabolical. But in the great confusion of our times even the good among us are confused, they can't discern the truth anymore. And the time may have come when we need a new generation of Martyrs for truth is needed.






 



…and in case you mised it…here's the story of another victim of this travesty, ASSANGE'S CAT!



 






 



 



 




 



 



 




 



 



 




Title: 🐈 Julian Assange rape case will be reopened by Sweden, prosecutors say
Post by: RE on May 13, 2019, 03:27:56 AM
He's better off in a Swedish prison than an Amerikan one.

RE

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/julian-assange-rape-case-will-be-re-opened-sweden-n1004801 (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/julian-assange-rape-case-will-be-re-opened-sweden-n1004801)

Julian Assange rape case will be reopened by Sweden, prosecutors say
The Australian national currently is in jail in the U.K., where he is serving a 12-month sentence for skipping bail in 2012.

(https://media3.s-nbcnews.com/j/newscms/2019_18/2841611/190501-julian-assange-cs-824a_912157579f6cd4975bcb1ef10cdd52fb.fit-2000w.jpg)
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange leaves a London court earlier this month.Daniel Leal-Olivas / AFP - Getty Images

May 13, 2019, 1:19 AM AKDT / Updated May 13, 2019, 2:07 AM AKDT
By Patrick Smith

A rape case against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange will be reopened, Swedish authorities announced Monday.

Eva-Marie Persson, the country's deputy director of public prosecutions, said that in her view "there is still probable cause to accuse Mr. Assange of rape."

The Australian national is currently in jail in the U.K., where he is serving a 12-month sentence for skipping bail in 2012, when he was fighting extradition to Sweden in connection with the same case.
Image: Eva-Marie Persson is Sweden's deputy director of public prosecutions
Eva-Marie Persson, Sweden's deputy director of public prosecutions, speaks at a press conference in Stockholm on Monday.Anders Wiklund / AP

Persson said Sweden will issue a European arrest warrant and request that Assange is brought to Stockholm for trial after he has served his British prison sentence.

The decision leaves Britain facing a decision on whether to extradite him to the Scandinavian country or the U.S.

Persson said that her team would also seek to interview Assange. "It is my assessment that a new questioning of Assange is required," she added.

Assange was arrested by police and carried out of the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, where he sheltered for almost seven years, on April 11.
00:00 / 00:00
Inside the Ecuadorian embassy where Julian Assange spent 7 years
April 14, 201901:04

The U.S. also is seeking the extradition of Assange, 47, so he can face charges relating to the release of hundreds of thousands of classified military documents provided by former Army intelligence officer Chelsea Manning.

That means a complex legal fight is certain to take place over his future, potentially involving a lengthy appeals process.

"When deciding which has precedence, a Swedish or U.S. extradition request, this decision will be left entirely to the British authorities," Persson said.

However, the clock is ticking: The statute of limitations on the rape charge expires in August 2020 and Persson confirmed that if the investigation would end if there was no conviction by this point.
Related
World news
Why Ecuador evicted 'spoiled brat' Assange from embassy

The case was opened following complaints from two Swedish women who said they were the victims of sex crimes committed by Assange. He has denied the allegations, asserting that they were politically motivated and that the sex was consensual.

Swedish prosecutors filed preliminary charges — a step short of formal charges — against Assange after he visited the country in 2010.

Seven years later, a case of alleged sexual misconduct was dropped when the statute of limitations expired. That left a rape allegation, and the case was closed as it couldn't be pursued while Assange was living at the embassy and there was no prospect of bringing him to Sweden.
Pamela Anderson's fears for Julian Assange: 'We need to save his life'
May 7, 201901:09

If convicted, Assange faces a maximum of four years in prison in Sweden.

Assange's Swedish lawyer Per E. Samuelsen told Swedish broadcaster SVT that he was "very surprised" by the decision to reopen the case and maintained that his client is innocent.

Kristinn Hrafnsson, the editor-in-chief of WikiLeaks, said in a statement: "Assange was always willing to answer any questions from the Swedish authorities ... This investigation has been dropped before and its reopening will give Julian a chance to clear his name."

Assange, who describes himself as a journalist, took refuge at the Ecuadorian Embassy in June 2012 to avoid extradition to Sweden.

Ecuador revoked his political asylum last month, accusing him of everything from meddling in the nation's foreign affairs to poor hygiene.
Patrick Smith

Patrick Smith is a London-based editor and reporter from NBC News Digital.
Title: 🐈 Assange Indicted Under Espionage Act, Raising First Amendment Issues
Post by: RE on May 23, 2019, 02:52:49 PM
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/23/us/politics/assange-indictment.html?login=email&auth=login-email (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/23/us/politics/assange-indictment.html?login=email&auth=login-email)

Assange Indicted Under Espionage Act, Raising First Amendment Issues

(https://static01.nyt.com/images/2019/05/23/us/politics/23dc-assange/merlin_153364929_858e9169-c909-4ec4-be9a-9f05782433c1-superJumbo.jpg?quality=90&auto=webp)
Though Julian Assange is not a conventional journalist, much of what he does at WikiLeaks is difficult to distinguish in a legally meaningful way from what traditional news organizations do.CreditCreditJack Taylor/Getty Images

By Charlie Savage and Adam Goldman

    May 23, 2019

WASHINGTON — Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks leader, has been indicted on 17 new counts of violating the Espionage Act for his role in publishing classified military and diplomatic documents in 2010, the Justice Department announced on Thursday — a novel case that raises profound First Amendment issues.

The new charges were part of a superseding indictment obtained by the Trump administration that significantly expanded the legal case against Mr. Assange, who is already fighting extradition proceedings in London based on an earlier hacking-related count brought by federal prosecutors in Northern Virginia.

The secret documents that Mr. Assange published were provided by the former Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning, who was convicted at a court-martial trial in 2013 of leaking the records.

Advertisement

“Assange, WikiLeaks affiliates and Manning shared the common objective to subvert lawful restrictions on classified information and to publicly disseminate it,” the indictment said.
Video
2:54Julian Assange: Friend and Foe to Left and Right
Over the years, the WikiLeaks founder has been embraced by everyone from Lady Gaga to Sean Hannity. But he’s also made enemies along the way. Our video shows how his anti-secrecy agenda has attracted, and repelled, people across the political spectrum.CreditCreditAndrew Testa for The New York Times

[Press freedoms and the case against Julian Assange, explained.]

The Justice Department’s decision to pursue Espionage Act charges signals a dramatic escalation under President Trump to crack down on leaks of classified information and aims squarely at First Amendment protections for journalists. Most recently, law enforcement officials charged a former intelligence analyst with giving classified documents to The Intercept, a national security news website.

    You have 5 free articles remaining.

Subscribe to The Times

Legal scholars believe that prosecuting reporters over their work would violate the First Amendment, but the prospect has not yet been tested in court because the government had never charged a journalist under the Espionage Act.

Though he is not a conventional journalist, much of what Mr. Assange does at WikiLeaks is difficult to distinguish in a legally meaningful way from what traditional news organizations like The New York Times do: seek and publish information that officials want to be secret, including classified national security matters, and take steps to protect the confidentiality of sources.

Mr. Assange was secretly indicted in March 2018 in federal court in Alexandria, Va., on a charge of conspiring to commit unlawful computer intrusion. Prosecutors accused Mr. Assange of agreeing to help Ms. Manning crack an encoded portion of a passcode that would have enabled her to log on to a classified military network.

Advertisement

Mr. Assange was arrested in London in April after being dragged out of the Ecuadorean Embassy, where he had resided for years to avoid capture. The United States has asked Britain to extradite Mr. Assange, who is fighting it.

The Obama administration considered charging Mr. Assange under the Espionage Act but never did out of concerns that such a case could chill traditional journalism.
Title: Re: Wikileaks Updates-Julian Assange Thread
Post by: AJ on May 24, 2019, 03:43:45 AM
Didn't we all know this was coming?? What a surprise!! The USA seeks to silence all critics wherever they exist on the planet, such chutzpah! Are laws apply to everyone everywhere!!  :evil4: We are surely the masters of the universe (at the end of civilization). :icon_scratch:
AJ
Title: Re: Wikileaks Updates-Julian Assange Thread
Post by: RE on May 24, 2019, 03:52:21 AM
Didn't we all know this was coming?? What a surprise!! The USA seeks to silence all critics wherever they exist on the planet, such chutzpah! Are laws apply to everyone everywhere!!  :evil4: We are surely the masters of the universe (at the end of civilization). :icon_scratch:
AJ

It was a foregone conclusion of course.  Now we get to see the theater as they try to extradite him.

RE
Title: Re: Wikileaks Updates-Julian Assange Thread
Post by: AJ on May 24, 2019, 11:49:06 AM
Maybe the outcry from the British citizenry will keep them from extraditing Julian, but I doubt it if Tories are still in power. All the world is looking more Kafkaesque to me all the time.  I'm wondering if this will even get mentioned on the MSM evening news tonight? Kinda doubt it as its not enough "bread and circuses" for their average viewer. Hard not to get depressed, hard not to have more to drink.
AJ
Title: 🐈 Assange Indicted, Facing 200 Years (plus Viewer Questions)
Post by: RE on May 27, 2019, 12:32:44 AM
http://www.youtube.com/v/DAoqVs8p1yo
Title: 🐈 Swedish Sex Pistol Aimed at Assange
Post by: RE on June 05, 2019, 03:01:14 AM
https://www.greanvillepost.com/2019/06/03/swedish-sex-pistol-aimed-at-assange/ (https://www.greanvillepost.com/2019/06/03/swedish-sex-pistol-aimed-at-assange/)

Swedish Sex Pistol Aimed at Assange
June 3, 2019
Jim Kavanaugh

(https://www.greanvillepost.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Assange-with-Target.jpg)
(Credit: ExtremeTech)

Another important dispatch from The Greanville Post. Be sure to share it widely.

In my article, Avoiding Assange, a month ago, right after the first US indictment was issued, I addressed two diversionary arguments that I knew would be used by those who want to hide their complicity with American imperialism under leftish cover—that is, those who don’t want to be seen as endorsing the United States government’s prosecution of Assange for, and intimidation of every journalist in the world from, reporting the embarrassing truth about American war crimes, but who also don’t really want to stand in the way of Assange’s extradition to the United States.

The first of those arguments was the denial that the USG’s charge against Assange posed any threat to press freedom—that it was just about “hacking,” not publishing. Both the New York Times (NYT) and the Washington Post (WaPo) pretended to believe in, and celebrated, the Trump administration’s meticulous threading of the legal/constitutional needle to avoid endangering freedom of speech and the press. For the NYT: “The administration has begun well by charging Mr. Assange with an indisputable crime…not with publishing classified government information, but with stealing it, skirting — for now — critical First Amendment questions.” For the WaPo, the indictment was “not the defeat for civil liberties of which his defenders mistakenly warn,” but “a victory for the rule of law.”

Well, that argument and pretense have now disappeared with the USG’s superseding indictment that uses the Espionage Act to threaten Assange with 175 years in prison. Even the most Assange-hating liberal media personalities and institutions—from the NYT and WaPo to MSNBC and the Guardian—have no way to deny the threat this poses to freedom of the press. As Alan Rusbridger, Assange-hating former editor of the Assange-hating Guardian, recognizes, the US indictment is an attempt “to criminalise things journalists regularly do as they receive and publish true information given to them by sources or whistleblowers.” And, for the NYT Editorial Board, the present indictment no longer “skirts,” but “aims at the heart of the First Amendment.”

(Though, as if it just couldn’t help itself, in its statement, the NYT sneaks in a pernicious point, saying Assange was “a source, not a partner.” This actually ratifies the USG’s “he’s not a publisher” argument, and I foresee the possibility of the USG quoting and using this editorial against Assange.)

At this point, nobody can pretend they don’t know what Assange is in for if sent to the United States. He’s facing 175 years of charges under the Espionage Act,which forbids a “public interest” defense. As John Kiriakou has stated, from personal experience: “A fair trial in the Eastern District of Virginia…is utterly impossible.”

Furthermore, by asserting the extraterritorial jurisdiction of A­­merican law to demand the extradition of another country’s (Australia) citizen from a third country (Great Britain) for activities that took place entirely outside the US, the present indictment is, as Joel Simon of the Committee to Protect Journalists, points out: “a direct threat to journalists everywhere in the world….Under this rubric, anyone anywhere in the world who publishes information that the U.S. government deems to be classified could be prosecuted for espionage.”

Indeed, under this legal rubric, China can demand that Italy extradite Dean Baquet (Executive Editor of the NYT) for publishing true, leaked information about Chinese military crimes, in contravention of Chinese espionage law! Hard to imagine, I know, because we all—and especially the US political leadership—assume that American imperialism makes that impossible. A correct assumption, for the moment. But we all also know the tricks “assume” can play on us.

Like many, I did not expect the USG would bare its fangs so quickly. I thought the Trump Administration would wait until Assange was on US soil before going for the jugular. The not-so-bad news is that by, for whatever reason, coming on so strong and fast with such an extraordinary threat, the USG has, I think, widened Assange’s base of support, at least for the moment.

This makes the real stakes clear in a way that’s particularly important in the British context, where Julian Assange’s fate is being decided. It also makes, more quickly than I expected, the second of those leftish diversions—a possible Swedish extradition request—a crucial tool for creating confusion in ways helpful to the US prosecution.

As I mentioned in the previous essay, it was heartening to see Jeremy Corbyn and his shadow Home Secretary, Diane Abbott, declare that “the extradition of Julian Assange to the US for exposing evidence of atrocities in Iraq and Afghanistan should be opposed by the British government,” and it was bizarre to see, immediately thereafter, a concerted campaign arise among liberal British politicians and press, with a letter from 70+ MPs, demanding that the present and future British governments “do everything…to ensure” that Assange be extradited to Sweden, “in the event Sweden makes an extradition request.”

In the space of 48 Hours, Jeremy Corbyn was pressured to say that Julian Assange “must answer” sex allegations “if Sweden decides to re-open their investigation.” It was bizarre because somehow a non-existent, hypothetical Swedish extradition request had instantly taken precedence in British liberal discourse over an actual US extradition request. Corbyn had immediately accepted that Great Britain must give greater priority to showing “the seriousness with which such [sex] allegations are viewed” than to protecting the freedom of the press to expose evidence of US atrocities.

Since then, the US extradition request has become considerably nastier and even more difficult for ostensibly anti-imperialist British left-liberals to leave unopposed. This leaves a possible Swedish sex-crime extradition request as the only remaining crutch for those who want to appear less complicit with the U.S. attack on Assange than they actually are.

Nothing epitomizes this more disgracefully than the Guardian’s editorial of 24 May, under the sub-head: “The founder of WikiLeaks faces charges of espionage in the US and rape in Sweden. He should stand trial for rape.” Yes, embedded among its repeated reminders of how much the Guardian “disapproves” of this “unattractive character” who revealed US war crimes to the world, is the statement that Assange “must be defended against this [US] extradition request because the indictments against him threaten to damage freedom and democracy.” Also because “the Espionage Act is quite the wrong instrument [Is there a right one?] to use against journalists or even their sources,” and “the American penal system would be more cruel than …even in our shameful prisons.” The Guardian’s editors even evoke, on point, the case of British hacker Lauri Love, whom Britain refused to extradite to the US because of the cruelty of its penal system.

But how is it that the Guardian proposes “defending” Assange against US extradition? By demanding that the UK “send Mr. Assange to Sweden”!

Somehow, the Guardian thinks that conjuring up an extradition request from Sweden that still does not exist trumps and solves all concerns about extraditing Assange to the US. The editors never consider the possibility that there may be no extradition request. (Perhaps they know something, but it’s not a sure thing.) Or what happens if Assange goes to Sweden and either is not charged with a crime (He is not, and never has been.), or is tried and found not guilty. In other words, they completely ignore the obvious: That the United States will demand extradition from Sweden just as it is doing from the UK, and that Sweden will comply. Sending Julian Assange to Sweden does not “defend” him from US extradition at all. It’s a liberal media version of “Don’t think of the elephant!”

Does the Guardian not see, or care, about this glaring logical and consequential fault in its position?

Of course it does. The Guardian knows exactly what it’s doing. The purpose of this editorial as written is not and cannot be to “defend…against this [US] extradition”; it is to support that extradition by ignoring it. The Guardian here is carefully crafting a discourse in which the threat of the US indictment and extradition disappears behind the evocation of a rape allegation. The intended effect is to encourage its British readers to support the capitulation to that threat as it will inevitably reappear in Sweden, while thinking they are not—while thinking that all they are doing is assuring their own virtuous adherence to “the seriousness with which such [sex] allegations are viewed.”

The Guardian isn’t asking the British government to honor an extradition request that doesn’t exist, it is suggesting a set-up by which Britain passes Assange through Sweden to the US.

This use of a sexual allegation against Assange to divert attention from, and effectively support, the American extradition demand is pernicious and phony. It’s an obvious attempt to give virtue-signaling identity-politics liberals a reason not to protest Assange’s extradition or imprisonment. It’s already the dominant ruse for such purposes in England, and it’s going to become more prominent everywhere now that the indictment can no longer be portrayed as a relatively minor matter.

As I said before, I agree with Katrin Axelsson and Lisa Longstaff of Women Against Rape that “the pursuit of Assange is political” and “the allegations against him are a smokescreen behind which a number of governments are trying to clamp down on WikiLeaks.”  The Swedish prosecution effort against Assange has been part of this stitch-up from the outset, and has been presented in misleading and mendacious ways by the western media, which is also part of it.

Most people do not understand that Julian Assange is not, and has never been, charged with a crime, and that the Swedish process has always been, and still is, a “preliminary investigation” that seeks to determine if there’s enough evidence to bring a criminal charge.

There is one extant allegation against Assange: that, after a night of sexual activity together, he initiated condom-less wake up sex with his partner (SW). It is agreed that the sex was consensual. It is agreed that the condom was at least asked about but definitely not insisted upon. The sole disagreement is over how fully awake his partner was at the moment of initiation—“half-asleep” according to a text she sent and what she told witnesses, “dozed off” according to a police summary (“protocol”) of her interview. Here’s how the Nordic New Networkexplains it: “According to the interview protocol Ms. Wilén somnade, which can be translated as “dozed off” or “went to sleep.” Prior to the interview, however, she had confided to friends that she was only ‘half asleep’ at the time of penetration.” The only open legal question is whether SW’s state of somnolence, at the moment Assange initiated a consensual act of intercourse, means she was “unduly exploit[ed]” while “in a helpless state,” supporting a charge of “rape.” (See the helpful video from Kim Iversen for the extremely expansive definition of “rape” in Swedish law.)

The Swedes have been “preliminarily investigating” this for nine years. They have all the physical and interview evidence they will ever have. If they could have charged Assange with a crime on the basis of that evidence, they would have. They don’t need him in Sweden to do so. They can charge him in absentia, as they have others. This means they do not have the evidence to make a charge.

And they are not going to get it. There is no new evidence that’s going to magically appear when Julian Assange arrives in Sweden. It is, therefore, unlikely that a charge will ever be made, or that a trial—in which Assange may very well be found not guilty—ever held.

It’s Assange who has been seeking the resolution of the sex allegations for nine years; it’s the Swedish prosecutors who have been avoiding it—and have been berated by the Swedish Court of Appeals and the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (UNWGAD) for doing so. The resolution of the sex allegation is not what any of state actors here—Sweden, Britain, or the US—want.

The purpose of all this is not to resolve the rape allegation—to make it into a real charge and bring it to trial. It is to get Assange moved judicially out of Britain to Sweden under the cloud of “rape,” and for Sweden to send him on to the US—precisely with the rape allegation unresolved and hanging over his head forever. Leaving so many with: “He deserves to be in prison, anyway.”

But, hey, that’s my wild and crazy take on the situation. There is a simple way for the Guardian and all liberal Brits to demonstrate both that the Swedish prosecutors are really interested in resolving the sex allegation, and that the Guardian liberals’ demand for the UK government to honor a Swedish extradition request is something other than a virtue-signaling gesture to wash their hands of imperialist stench with feminist soap: They can demand that any extradition to Sweden be made contingent on no onward extradition to the US. If Sweden is claiming to want Assange in country to resolve a rape allegation, then, to get him, it must promise to do just that—either charge and try him or close the case and release him, and not send him off to the US to face 175 years in prison for something entirely irrelevant to that allegation. If, per the Guardian, the UK really has the ethical obligation to defend Assange from US prosecution, then it must carry that defense through any process of extradition to Sweden.

And it can. The Swedish Prosecutorial Authority tells us so:

Once the British authorities enforce the UK Supreme Court’s decision to extradite Julian Assange to Sweden, Sweden is bound by the so-called “Doctrine of Speciality” which means that Sweden cannot extradite him further to a third country, for example the USA, without permission from the UK. This means that Julian Assange would be in the same position in Sweden as he would be in the UK with regard to further extradition to a third country.

Did you know about this rather significant point of law, which is publicly posted on the internet? Did the 70+ British MPs, and the entire editorial staff of the Guardian and of liberal politicians and media organizations crying for extradition to Sweden not know about this? Or did they just ignore it? Which is more damning?

Of course, we don’t need this law to demand no onward extradition from Sweden but it’s quite nice to know that it is there to support us, and quite interesting to know that nobody mentions it.

So, now we know: The British courts can, as a matter of ordinary law, make Sweden honor the defense of Assange from US extradition. And we can insist that anybody in Britain, Sweden, the US, or the outer planets who claims—as the Guardian and Jeremy Corbyn and most of the liberal media now do—to be concerned about resolving the sex allegation and to reject the threat to press freedom posed by the US indictment must demand that.

Even those who may claim not to care much about the US indictment, with all the issues it raises and penalties it carries, because resolving the sex allegation is so much more important to them, have to recognize now that it’s reasonable for Julian Assange and his supporters and most of the journalistic world to be very concerned about those issues and penalties. Indeed, those people especiallyshould be eager to demand that the entirely irrelevant US indictment, with all its heavy baggage, be taken off the table, so that proper, focussed attention can be paid to what they see as the much more important issue task of deciding, after nine years of preliminary investigation, whether consensual wake-up sex should be charged as felony rape.

In other words, in the present situation, the only people who would not demand that extradition to the United States be taken off the table as a condition for extradition to Sweden are those for whom the US  political charges are more important than the Swedish sex allegations, and who support extraditing Assange to the US for trial on those charges.

Bottom line: Anyone who explicitly supports extradition from Britain to Sweden without explicitly objecting to onward extradition to the United States is, in fact, supporting that onward extradition—and, now, knowingly.

Our principal task here, as it always has been, is to prevent Assange from being extradited and imprisoned in the US for revealing the truth about US war crimes. With the demise of the “hacking not publishing indictment” argument, the Swedish sex allegation is going to become the prominent tool for misdirecting us from that task over the next few months, as Julian Assange’s fate is settled in Britain. It is a ruse and a diversion whose purpose is to support Assange’s extradition to the US by ignoring it. This can be proved by raising the obvious and legally valid demand that any extradition to Sweden be conditioned on no onward extradition to the US, and watching the reaction from those who claim to be so concerned about resolving the sex allegation. Those who are speaking in good faith will accept that position immediately. Those who are liars and hypocrites, and are basically chill with Assange being extradited to the United States, will hem and haw and try to ignore. Don’t let them.

Those who actually do oppose extradition to the US cannot let that diversion stand unchallenged. Everyone—from the Guardian to Jeremy Corbyn—who demands Assange be extradited to Sweden must be challenged to also demand forbidding onward extradition to the United States. The defense of freedom of the press andthe just resolution of any investigation into a sexual allegation demand it.

I call on the Guardian, the 70+ MPs, and all the media voices who have been crying for the UK to honor any Swedish extradition request, to revise their calls to include the condition of no onward extradition, or stand exposed as lying, hypocritical enablers of the empire’s war on free speech and freedom of the press.

Never mind the bollocks.
Title: 🐈 The Coming Show Trial of Julian Assange
Post by: RE on June 17, 2019, 01:08:37 AM
https://www.truthdig.com/articles/the-coming-show-trial-of-julian-assange/ (https://www.truthdig.com/articles/the-coming-show-trial-of-julian-assange/)

Jun 17, 2019
The Coming Show Trial of Julian Assange
by Chris Hedges

(https://www.truthdig.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Empire-DC-418x500.jpg)
Mr. Fish / Truthdig

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

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

For more information on the Assange case, see Chris Hedges interview U.N. special rapporteur on torture Nils Melzer and read the transcript. Also, see Hedges interview WikiLeaks Editor in Chief Kristinn Hrafnsson.

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

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

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

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

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

At last week’s hearing, Assange spoke only briefly.

He does not have access to a computer, and his attorneys have complained that the heavy restrictions imposed upon him make it nearly impossible for him to prepare his case.

“I know there has been an indictment brought against me,” Assange said through the video conference system. “My lawyers have not yet given me the paperwork.”

He raised objections to the prosecutor’s charge that he and WikiLeaks attempted to hack into a U.S. government computer, insisting “WikiLeaks is nothing but a publisher.” The United States has charged him with offering to hack into a government computer to help Chelsea Manning—who passed the files and documents to WikiLeaks—conceal her identity. The government concedes, however, that no such hack ever took place.

“The prosecution attorney told the BBC yesterday I was wanted in the U.S. for computer hacking,” he said. “This is unquestionably false. Even the U.S. admits there was no hack. No passwords were broken. There is no evidence that I, WikiLeaks or Chelsea Manning engaged in hacking. I have 175 years of my life at stake. This is a signal that the prosecution will misrepresent the charges to mislead the press.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Britain, Sweden and Ecuador have violated the convention against torture,” Melzer said. “They should release Mr. Assange. They may question him in response to the sexual offenses. Frankly, I don’t think there is much behind that. If there is, I think he has suffered more than his share already through that ill treatment. He should be released. He should be compensated and rehabilitated by those states.”
Title: 🐈 Demasking the Torture of Julian Assange
Post by: RE on June 30, 2019, 02:26:52 AM
https://medium.com/@njmelzer/demasking-the-torture-of-julian-assange-b252ffdcb768

Demasking the Torture of Julian Assange

Jun 26, 2019

By Nils Melzer, UN Special Rapporteur on Torture

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

(https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1200/1*xfVvII2KnvquZes9XDQrnQ.jpeg)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

None responded positively.
Title: 🐈 The World’s Most Important Political Prisoner
Post by: RE on September 17, 2019, 09:46:24 AM
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/09/the-worlds-most-important-political-prisoner/ (https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/09/the-worlds-most-important-political-prisoner/)

The World’s Most Important Political Prisoner

15 Sep, 2019  by craig murray

(https://img.etimg.com/thumb/msid-68933299,width-640,resizemode-4,imgsize-1081728/the-journey.jpg)

We are now just one week away from the end of Julian Assange’s uniquely lengthy imprisonment for bail violation. He will receive parole from the rest of that sentence, but will continue to be imprisoned on remand awaiting his hearing on extradition to the USA – a process which could last several years.

At that point, all the excuses for Assange’s imprisonment which so-called leftists and liberals in the UK have hidden behind will evaporate. There are no charges and no active investigation in Sweden, where the “evidence” disintegrated at the first whiff of critical scrutiny. He is no longer imprisoned for “jumping bail”. The sole reason for his incarceration will be the publishing of the Afghan and Iraq war logs leaked by Chelsea Manning, with their evidence of wrongdoing and multiple war crimes.

In imprisoning Assange for bail violation, the UK was in clear defiance of the judgement of the UN Working Group on arbitrary Detention, which stated

    Under international law, pre-trial detention must be only imposed in limited instances. Detention during investigations must be even more limited, especially in the absence of any charge. The Swedish investigations have been closed for over 18 months now, and the only ground remaining for Mr. Assange’s continued deprivation of liberty is a bail violation in the UK, which is, objectively, a minor offense that cannot post facto justify the more than 6 years confinement that he has been subjected to since he sought asylum in the Embassy of Ecuador. Mr. Assange should be able to exercise his right to freedom of movement in an unhindered manner, in accordance with the human rights conventions the UK has ratified,

In repudiating the UNWGAD the UK has undermined an important pillar of international law, and one it had always supported in hundreds of other decisions. The mainstream media has entirely failed to note that the UNWGAD called for the release of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe – a source of potentially valuable international pressure on Iran which the UK has made worthless by its own refusal to comply with the UN over the Assange case. Iran simply replies “if you do not respect the UNWGAD then why should we?”

It is in fact a key indication of media/government collusion that the British media, which reports regularly at every pretext on the Zaghari-Ratcliffe case to further its anti-Iranian government agenda, failed to report at all the UNWGAD call for her release – because of the desire to deny the UN body credibility in the case of Julian Assange.

In applying for political asylum, Assange was entering a different and higher legal process which is an internationally recognised right. A very high percentage of dissident political prisoners worldwide are imprisoned on ostensibly unrelated criminal charges with which the authorities fit them up. Many a dissident has been given asylum in these circumstances. Assange did not go into hiding – his whereabouts were extremely well known. The simple characterisation of this as “absconding” by district judge Vanessa Baraitser is a farce of justice – and like the UK’s repudiation of the UNWGAD report, is an attitude that authoritarian regimes will be delighted to repeat towards dissidents worldwide.

Her decision to commit Assange to continuing jail pending his extradition hearing was excessively cruel given the serious health problems he has encountered in Belmarsh.

It is worth noting that Baraitser’s claim that Assange had a “history of absconding in these proceedings” – and I have already disposed of “absconding” as wildly inappropriate – is inaccurate in that “these proceedings” are entirely new and relate to the US extradition request and nothing but the US extradition request. Assange has been imprisoned throughout the period of “these proceedings” and has certainly not absconded. The government and media have an interest in conflating “these proceedings” with the previous risible allegations from Sweden and the subsequent conviction for bail violation, but we need to untangle this malicious conflation. We have to make plain that Assange is now held for publishing and only for publishing. That a judge should conflate them is disgusting. Vanessa Baraitser is a disgrace.

Assange has been demonised by the media as a dangerous, insanitary and crazed criminal, which could not be further from the truth. It is worth reminding ourselves that Assange has never been convicted of anything but missing police bail.

So now we have a right wing government in the UK with scant concern for democracy, and in particular we have the most far right extremist as Home Secretary of modern times. Assange is now, plainly and without argument, a political prisoner. He is not in jail for bail-jumping. He is not in jail for sexual allegations. He is in jail for publishing official secrets, and for nothing else. The UK now has the world’s most famous political prisoner, and there are no rational grounds to deny that fact. Who will take a stand against authoritarianism and for the freedom to publish?

——————————————

Unlike our adversaries including the Integrity Initiative, the 77th Brigade, Bellingcat, the Atlantic Council and hundreds of other warmongering propaganda operations, this blog has no source of state, corporate or institutional finance whatsoever. It runs entirely on voluntary subscriptions from its readers – many of whom do not necessarily agree with the every article, but welcome the alternative voice, insider information and debate.


Comments will be closed on September 25, 2019.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
191 thoughts on “The World’s Most Important Political Prisoner”
« Previous 1 2

    Reply ↓
    Ort
    September 15, 2019 at 18:45

    Assange’s appalling and reprehensible Via Dolorosa is now lengthened by another arbitrary, capricious, and malicious exercise in judicial fiat.

    Assange is obviously being treated in accordance with a vicious, brutal administration of ostensible justice in which Enemies of the State are subjected to ultra-sadistic, viciously violent treatment as a lesson to the rest of us.

    It recalls all of the worst of authoritarian “civil” punishment, from the Roman Empire’s punitive flagellation and crucifixions through the Spanish Inquisition, imprisonment and torture in the dungeons of the Tower of London, Bastille, etc.

    The present-day version of this slow degradation and death is more Kafkaesque and Orwellian, of course– mediated by bureaucracy and high hypocrisy in the name of the “rule of law”.

    It may be that the US government prefers to have Assange consigned to their tender mercies while he is still alive and relatively rational in order to wring information from him before finishing him off one way or the other.

    But, as is obvious from any number of sudden and suspicious deaths of persons in US custody, if the victim somehow “ups and dies” along the way, the ruthless captors will consider it a satisfactory lesson to the public: here’s what happens to people who rock the boat.

    I am not competent to assess the opinions of some who claim that Assange’s defense team is curiously inept or inadequate, and that more skilled or rigorous advocates might have more successfully resisted the continual depredations to which he’s been subjected.

    But I fear that even “ironclad” objections and appeals would be give “due consideration”, while the deadly “facts on the ground” proceed apace.
        Reply ↓
        SmilinJackAbbott
        September 16, 2019 at 07:29

        “the ruthless captors will consider it a satisfactory lesson to the public: here’s what happens to people who rock the boat.”

        This probably won’t be popular here but is there any doubt the continual imprisonment of Tommy Robinson on the sudden need to make an example of him & only him for some technical breach or other is the same thing? Interestingly Robinson said in an interview upon his release days ago he was in the same prison as Assange & communicating with him across a balcony.
            Reply ↓
            N_
            September 16, 2019 at 10:33

            Robinson is certainly a player, but probably almost anyone who didn’t speak with a public school accent would have been jailed for what he did.

            (Try waiting outside a courthouse and shouting abuse at a judge and see what happens. They’d much rather be feared than loved. Also the Home Office have a network across the country staffed with responsibilities including “inter-community relations”, by which they mean preventing the race riots that they have long thought will break out at a moment’s notice if someone lights the touchpaper. This network hardly ever gets mentioned in the media. The same kind of mentality inspires some of those who work in “Prevent”, although the networks aren’t the same.)

            I wouldn’t read too much into Robinson and Assange encountering each other at Belmarsh. If you’re in that situation, you’re going to say hello. There’s little point walking around with your nose stuck in the air.

            @Ort is right about the tradition of public cruelty in England against miscreants. Practically every town had a gallows hill. The rate of executions was far higher than in Scotland.

            Then again, even without the arbitrary public cruelty against Julian Assange would-be whistleblowers in say the NHS or local councils know to keep their mouths shut and just forget about stuff you can’t change. If they do start blowing the whistle, the most common path they then take is to crack up mentally. The authorities aren’t going to have an inquiry under Lord Muck that “finds” that the whole of the state is as corrupt as f****, which it is. Those who “have got anything to say” get individualised, just as under Stalinism in the USSR. If they potential whistleblower goes through official channels, the bureaucrats who handle their “concerns” will be far more interested in THEM than in what they have to say which might endanger the position of “proper people” on say £100K a year and who might wear Rolexes etc. The same is true in all parts of Britain.
            Reply ↓
            Ruth Gould
            September 16, 2019 at 18:26

            Surely the difference is that Robinson was found guilty of an offence, served his sentence and was released? None of these things apply to Assange.
    Reply ↓
    Mary Pau!
    September 15, 2019 at 18:49

    Has Liberty expressed a view on Julian Assange’s continuing detention ?
        Reply ↓
        pete
        September 16, 2019 at 11:54

        I searched though the first 20 pages of Liberty’s latest news to see if they had any mention of Assange, without success. I have written to them now about their attitude to this case, If I get a reply I will post it in this section of Craig’s blog
    Reply ↓
    Republicofscotland
    September 15, 2019 at 19:00

    From the plight of the Chagossians to the detaining of Assange in order for the Great Satan (US) to acquire him, Britain is in my opinion no longer seen around the globe as country of fairness and justice. The right wing coup by Johnson and the greatest recipient of state benefits ever Old Queen Lizzie reinforces that idea.

    If/when we Brexit without a deal as predicted, and we embrace the Trumpian ideology injustices will only grow in broken Britain, which is on the verge of moving to independent nations, the sooner the better I say.

    Assanges detainment and eventual handing over to the Great Satan, will be seen as just another nail in the coffin of British justice and fairness.
    Reply ↓
    Hatuey
    September 15, 2019 at 19:29

    The Lib-Dem’s is a party that is dedicated to representing middle class hypocrisy. They think they can stop Brexit but nobody can. If you stop it, you are into civil war territory anyway. It’s a lose/lose situation for them.

    Brexit is truly beautiful.

    Some day I will see a queue outside a food bank and half of them will be middle class people who have fallen from grace. That’s when I will know that Brexit has been a huge success.
        Reply ↓
        Republicofscotland
        September 15, 2019 at 19:50

        There is no successful form of Brexit, there’s only levels of self inflicted damage awaiting us.

        You’ll hear from leavers that not to leave is an affront to democracy, even though Johnson, Gove et al, lied from day one, on the severe impacts of a no deal Brexit, even the architect of the vote David Cameron is now running for cover blaming Johnson and Gove.

        As for the Lib/Dems, they’re nothing more than a gun for hire for whichever of the two main parties requires them to prop them up.
        Reply ↓
        Goose
        September 15, 2019 at 20:23

        @Hatuey

        Any smug satisfaction, schadenfreude, from such a scenario would quickly turn to sadness, set against the personal downsides for you and yours. Think of all the people in the UK with medical conditions etc. The first thing the Tories would target would be the NHS; we’d be softened up for change with endless stories about its current unaffordability. The US has that sort of pay for everything culture , a raw ‘winners and losers’ society, where the rich are really rich and the poor are dirt poor ,having to work three jobs, and it’s not really something we want to emulate.
            Reply ↓
            Hatuey
            September 15, 2019 at 22:47

            It’s already like that here for many, and has been for decades. That’s the point. And that’s why the many and not the few voted for Brexit.
                Reply ↓
                Davey Dee
                September 15, 2019 at 23:17

                I never voted for Brexit because i am poor, will still be poor afterward.
                But totally respect those who did.
                Guy Verhostadt said the world order of tomorrow. is not a world order based on nation states, or countries.
                It is a world order based on empires, this what he endorses, that the EU is an empire, how disgusting is that.
                    nevermind
                    September 16, 2019 at 13:00

                    You are living in a wannabe empire again, Davey De.
    Reply ↓
    doug scorgie
    September 15, 2019 at 20:28

    British judge jails Assange indefinitely, despite end of prison sentence
    By Oscar Grenfell
    14 September 2019

    A website worth noting.
        Reply ↓
        lysias
        September 15, 2019 at 22:17

        What website is that?
            Reply ↓
            Robyn
            September 16, 2019 at 03:47

            The article is on the World Socialist Web Site: https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/09/14/assa-s14.html (https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/09/14/assa-s14.html)
    Reply ↓
    Harry Law
    September 15, 2019 at 21:05

    In my opinion Julian Assange is being held in relation to an extradition request from the US government, who allege in 18 indictments his involvement in inter alia helping Manning continue her theft of classified documents and agreeing to help her crack a classified hash to a military computer https://www.scribd.com/document/411275244/Assange-superseding-indictment#from_embed (https://www.scribd.com/document/411275244/Assange-superseding-indictment#from_embed) In his defence Julian has denied he helped crack a computer password and that at all times he was acting as a good Journalist. The extradition Act I presume is being handled properly by Julian’s lawyers https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/extradition (https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/extradition) I also presume he has a top legal team who are unencumbered by ‘resources’, so I am rather perturbed by the accusations of Andrew F up thread, I hope Julian’s team can alleviate these concerns as soon as possible.
        Reply ↓
        kathy
        September 15, 2019 at 21:50

        His lawyer is the renowned Gareth Peirce who, almost single-handedly, was responsible for freeing the Guildford Four, wrongly convicted for the IRA Birmingham pub bombings for which they were imprisoned for many years.

        He couldn’t get a better lawyer than her.
            Reply ↓
            Ingwe
            September 16, 2019 at 00:01

            Uh, Kathy, the Guildford Four had nothing to do with the IRA bombings in Birmingham. That was the Birmingham Six. Just saying.
                Reply ↓
                kathy
                September 16, 2019 at 00:12

                “Gareth Peirce (born March 1940), is an English solicitor and human rights activist. She is best known for her work and advocacy in high-profile cases involving allegations of human rights injustices. Her work with Gerry Conlon and the Guildford Four – wrongly convicted of bombings carried out by the Provisional Irish Republican Army – was chronicled in the film In the Name of the Father (1993), in which she was portrayed by Emma Thompson.”

                As you can see from the above extract from wikipaedia, you are the one who has your facts wrong and I am correct.

                —
                [ Mod: Er, kathy, Guildford is not in Birmingham – Map ]
                    kathy
                    September 16, 2019 at 00:24

                    Oh, I see I made that mistake in the first post – sorry about that. I can only put it down to my ignorance of English geography since I am Scottish!
                Reply ↓
                Ren
                September 17, 2019 at 08:39

                She was involved with the Birmingham Six case too and several other high profile cases.

                “During her career she represented Judith Ward, a woman wrongfully convicted in 1974 of several IRA-related bombings, the Guildford Four, the Birmingham Six, several mineworkers after the Battle of Orgreave, the family of Jean Charles de Menezes and Moazzam Begg, a man held in extrajudicial detention by the American government.

                Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, appointed Peirce as his solicitor in Swedish Judicial Authority v Julian Assange”
            Reply ↓
            jmg
            September 16, 2019 at 00:04

            It seems that multiple lawyers from several countries (UK, US, Sweden, Australia, Spain…) are involved in the different aspects of Julian’s defense, including Gareth Peirce who has acted as his solicitor at Westminster Magistrates’ Court, and others like for example Baltasar Garzon, the former judge who requested the extradition of Augusto Pinochet and who is now preparing the extradition battle as one of the defense lawyers:

            Baltasar Garzón on Assange: This case involves an attack against the right of freedom of the press around the world
            http://theprisma.co.uk/2019/05/06/baltasar-garzon-on-assange-this-case-involves-an-attack-against-the-right-of-freedom-of-the-press-around-the-world/ (http://theprisma.co.uk/2019/05/06/baltasar-garzon-on-assange-this-case-involves-an-attack-against-the-right-of-freedom-of-the-press-around-the-world/)
                Reply ↓
                jmg
                September 16, 2019 at 09:33

                The UK extradition cases of Julian Assange and Augusto Pinochet

                – Assange: Investigative journalist and publisher of whistleblowers’ information of public interest for human rights.
                – Pinochet: Mass murderer and torturer, ended democracy in Chile with a coup d’etat, dictator for almost two decades.

                Charges in extradition requests:

                – Assange: 18 US federal charges related to collaboration with a whistleblower to publish war crimes protected by secrecy.
                – Pinochet: 94 counts of torture of Spanish citizens, the 1975 assassination of Spanish UN diplomat Carmelo Soria, etc.

                Who called upon the British government to release them:

                – Assange: UN working group on arbitrary detention, American Civil Liberties Union, Committee to Protect Journalists, multiple media organizations on First Amendment grounds, and many more.
                – Pinochet: Former UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, former US President George H. W. Bush, far-right Chileans.

                Situation during extradition proceedings:

                – Assange: Small cell in the Belmarsh High Security Prison, denied a computer, can’t prepare his own defense.
                – Pinochet: Under house arrest in a comfortable rented house, living with wife, visited by Margaret Thatcher.

                When ill health:

                – Assange: Moved to the health ward of Belmarsh prison. UK Home Secretary Sajid Javid signs US extradition request.
                – Pinochet: Released by UK Home Secretary Jack Straw. Upon arrival at the Chilean airport, ill health suddenly disappears:

                Pinochet’s return to Chile after his release in London for alleged ill health
                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilxqhdgs4uU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilxqhdgs4uU)
        Reply ↓
        Phil Espin
        September 16, 2019 at 08:17

        Kathy, Gareth Peirce has a remarkable reputation and is no doubt rightly revered by many. She is 79 years old. There is a reason judges have to retire at 75. I know nothing about her or her team but this single fact would have to make you think twice. Andrew F raises important points which need addressing.
            Reply ↓
            pretzelattack
            September 16, 2019 at 16:35

            she is 79, yes. age affects different people differently. do you have any reason to believe it is impairing her performance as a lawyer?
            Reply ↓
            kathy
            September 17, 2019 at 00:33

            While what you say has some truth in it, it can also work the other way. Her life long experience might make her unbeatable.
    Reply ↓
    Iain Melville
    September 15, 2019 at 21:53

    Time for a “free Assange” campaign.
        Reply ↓
        Carolyn Zaremba
        September 15, 2019 at 23:19

        A “free Assange” campaign has been going on for years, particularly supported by the World Socialist Web Site, journalists like John Pilger, Chris Hedges, Aaron Mate, and Caitlin Johnstone. In addition, such prominent people as Roger Waters, Pamela Anderson, and Vivienne Westwood have been speaking and writing about Julian’s case. Julian’s supporters have been writing to him in prison regularly to show our support for him. I have attended and spoken at rallies in support of Julian over the last couple of years.
            Reply ↓
            Tatyana
            September 16, 2019 at 08:42

            I understand the importance of keeping the case always in people’s minds, but besides showing the support, did it all help?
            I mean, did it make any official to perhaps choose less severe punishment term, or to interprete the law in favor of Mr. Assange?
                Reply ↓
                PhilW
                September 16, 2019 at 11:08

                It will help Julian if, when Corbyn becomes Prime Minister, he feels it is an issue he has to stand up to the US about. The consequences for Corbyn, and for all of us in the UK, could be huge.

                So far it has done nothing to help him. He is the human battleground in a great war between US imperialists and those who value freedom.

                Belmarsh should be our Bastille
                    Ren
                    September 17, 2019 at 09:06

                    “Belmarsh should be our Bastille”

                    From listening to TR’s account (whatever you think of the person) following his release, it would seem the governor may have that in the back of his mind?

                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjT1ogCKn80 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjT1ogCKn80)
                Reply ↓
                Borncynical
                September 16, 2019 at 11:29

                Tatyana

                Perversely for a supposedly democratic society, such campaigns are treated with disrespect, scorn and disdain and seem only to empower the dictators running our country. The latter don’t even feel it’s necessary to defend their position against those who challenge them. But, quite rightly and commendably, people of integrity and sound morals continue to persevere in their efforts to change the status quo.

                I wrote to my MP on 22 July asking for the Government’s explanation of the legal basis (purportedly ‘EU sanctions’) for the detention of the Grace 1 oil tanker in Gibraltar. Despite several reminders from me since, my request has been met with complete silence. I have to draw only one conclusion from that, but it also serves to exemplify how ‘ordinary’ citizens like me who raise awkward but sensible questions are treated with nothing but contempt because we aren’t prepared to just sit back and accept what we are told without question.

                J.
                    Ren
                    September 17, 2019 at 09:09

                    As for living in a democracy, most have no idea what that means…

                    (half way through)
                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUxV6SvQHc0&t=26m9s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUxV6SvQHc0&t=26m9s)
                    Tatyana
                    September 17, 2019 at 09:13

                    Let me tell it in other way.
                    Suppose, I’m a manager and one of my employees appears drunk in his workingplace. The reason is understandable by any human being, e.g. loss of a wife or a child, sort of that.
                    As a manager I have to dismiss the employee, but his coleagues ask me to let him stay. Everyone understands that I should act according to the law and everyone understands the man is not so very much guilty as to lose his job.
                    What am I supposed to do? To break the law, to replace the evidence or what?
                    There is a normal civilised way to make everyone happy – to change the law. Make ammendments to the law. Make legal precedent.
                    His coleagues might put forward an initiative so that the case will be examined in a special order, and amend the rules, instead of shouting “let him stay”, because I can’t let him stay under the current law.

                    It is not very good illustration, but I think you understand my idea.
    Reply ↓
    Brianfujisan
    September 15, 2019 at 22:09

    Great Post Craig

    Julian must have a VERY Strong Spirit.. No Sunlight, No Fresh Air to Breathe.. For all these Years.. is 9 now.

    Here, the Brilliant John Pilger speaks, at the recent Roger waters Event outside Patel’s H.O

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-k7Be1X-2E (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-k7Be1X-2E)
    Reply ↓
    A2
    September 15, 2019 at 22:09

    Have you considered that the US may actually prefer indefinite detention to extradition and a trial which could prove uncomfortable even if a guilty verdict was returned?
        Reply ↓
        Brianfujisan
        September 15, 2019 at 22:15

        Hi A2

        I don’t think so myself.. Certainly not for the reasons you speculate upon.. I think the U.S would love to get their hands on Julian.. Unless some other humane reason emerges.. Money is no Object after all.
        Reply ↓
        N_
        September 16, 2019 at 12:14

        @A2 – Would you argue for that being likely and on what basis?
    Reply ↓
    bevin
    September 15, 2019 at 22:28

    It seems to me fairly clear that the most obvious way to put an end to Julian’s sufferings, and, more importantly, the crippling of that essential arm of popular democracy that is wikileaks is to join local Labour Parties and ensure that at the coming General Election, a socialist committed to democracy, anti-imperialism and free speech represents you in Parliament.
    In the meantime CLPs can pass resolutions calling for the matter to be discussed at Conference. Labour MPs or candidates not ready to support Julian would not be likely to fight for their constituents either and should be de-selected.
    Of course, a similar option exists for Nationalists in Scotland and Wales. The commitment of the SNP to Assange is not obvious and some MPs are as bad as any in the PLP but joining the SNP and fighting for decent policies, including an end to the persecution of our friend and wikileaks is a viable policy.
    In any case, short of mass action, and there has been none of that in the past years, the best hope of translating pieties into policies is through the Parliamentary process.
    It is my considered opinion that the Assange issue-and the matter of imperialism- is of far more importance than the relatively trivial matter of Brexit. A point with which, I suspect Jonathan Cook would agree.
        Reply ↓
        Brianfujisan
        September 15, 2019 at 23:13

        You made a very Good Point Bevin

        And made me wonder.. that No One Man is should come before an Independence vote for SNP..

        Then I wonder if the Battle for Julian, and Wkileaks is lost.. Would any Scottish investigative journalist be safe WHILST IN Scotland, for exposing U.K ..US Crimes.

        The mind boggles at the elite’s webs and tentacles… and their latest Technological Eyes n Ears… Oh, and their Lust for ever more Land, Oil, Gold, BLOOD
            Reply ↓
            OnlyHalfALooney
            September 16, 2019 at 10:38

            Perhaps an independent Scotland can simply ban extradition of Scottish citizens and permanent residents (except possibliy within the EU). (Like France, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Norway and the Czech Republic).

            This is probably the only way for a country to protect it’s citizens against the USA, which seems to think it has jurisdiction over the whole world.
        Reply ↓
        Hatuey
        September 15, 2019 at 23:16

        As I said, the problem is that ‘the many and not the few’ voted for Brexit and they think it’s quite important.

        Of course, in causal terms, Brexit in itself represents a failure of the Labour Party.

        In Scotland, Labour are finished and will never be trusted again. It would be hypocritical of me to encourage English people to vote for them when I wouldn’t myself.

        If Corbyn’s Labour can’t give you a straight answer on the low lying fruit of trident renewal, it’s hard to believe that they will represent anything other than business as usual if they win power.

        I think England needs a new party to represent ordinary people.
            Reply ↓
            JeremyT
            September 16, 2019 at 06:55

            38% voted for leaving, 35% voted remain, 28% of voters didn’t bother.
            Not that many.
                Reply ↓
                Hatuey
                September 16, 2019 at 11:29

                This referendum gets more special by the day. Now we need to factor in those that didn’t vote too.
            Reply ↓
            Dom
            September 16, 2019 at 08:20

            Has your encouragement swayed anybody to vote a certain way in the past?
                Reply ↓
                Hatuey
                September 16, 2019 at 11:33

                It’s not about me.
            Reply ↓
            N_
            September 16, 2019 at 10:41

            Brexit represents a countrywide version of the campaign successfully fought in the Smethwick constituency in 1964 by Peter Griffiths.
                Reply ↓
                N_
                September 16, 2019 at 11:54

                Kirsten Johnson, the LibDem candidate in North Devon (who incidentally uses the style “Dr” legitimately – she is a doctor of music) let slip the real reason people voted for Brexit (or “White Power” or “Enoch was Right” as it is also known) and then she tried to backtrack.

                Personally I think if there’s a third Brexit referendum then even if you take away Brexit voters’ dinner and you tell them “Look, you cretins, you won’t be getting any food if you vote the same way you did last time, and you will agree that food in your belly is more important than living next to neighbours who all share your skin colour, yes?” they will STILL vote for Brexit and they will probably scrawl an extra big X in the box (if they can put down their smartphone for long enough) just to make sure, because “no-one tells THEM what to do”. Brexit voters are racist cretins and they should be called what they are. Yes there are a few exceptions and a man such as Dennis Skinner has my respect but they could probably all be fitted on a single double-decker bus.

                Creeping down to the polling station to vote for the nudge nudge wink wink “leave the EU” option rather than having the guts to put on their white hoods is their element.
                    Tony
                    September 16, 2019 at 19:16

                    Ugh!!! What a repulsive, ignorant post!
                    RenWeb
                    September 17, 2019 at 09:23

                    Why not try educating yourself, rather than believing propaganda…

                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUxV6SvQHc0&t=26m9s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUxV6SvQHc0&t=26m9s)
        Reply ↓
        N_
        September 16, 2019 at 12:18

        @Bevin – “Democracy” rarely denotes much that I ascribe great value to, but on what basis do you call Wikileaks, which functioned as a small secretive organisation acting out of a box number in Australia, an “arm of popular democracy”?
    Reply ↓
    tom kane
    September 15, 2019 at 23:00

    This is atrocious treatment… Is there even a precedent for keeping a man with no charges against him in jail, let alone Belmarsh?

    Surely this has to be a case for Amnesty International now? There is something about what we have become that is past creepy.

    Respect, Craig.
        Reply ↓
        Ingwe
        September 16, 2019 at 09:41

        Amnesty International? You’re joking aren’t you? What are Amnesty going to do?
        Reply ↓
        OnlyHalfALooney
        September 16, 2019 at 10:32

        Amnesty International does NOT consider Julian Assange a “prisoner of conscience” apparently.

        https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/05/23/assa-m23.html (https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/05/23/assa-m23.html)

        They didn’t recognise Chelsea Manning as a “prisoner of conscience” either, although AI did campaign for “clemency”.

        I’m afraid AI seems to become rather muzzled over the past decade. Isn’t Assange the perfect example of a prisoner of conscience?

        Perhaps AI is afraid rich “liberals” might not leave them lots of money in their wills any more?
            Reply ↓
            John A
            September 16, 2019 at 14:10

            Amnesty International is currently running a hate campaign in Norway against a Norwegian biathlon coach who was recently appointed coach of the Chinese national team.
            https://steigan.no/2019/09/amnestys-urimelige-angrep-pa-ole-einar-bjorndalen/ (https://steigan.no/2019/09/amnestys-urimelige-angrep-pa-ole-einar-bjorndalen/)

            Amnesty International argues China is using sport for propaganda purposes. As if China is somehow unique in this respect! Amnesty has become an American propaganda operation.
        Reply ↓
        N_
        September 16, 2019 at 10:46

        @Tom – Julian Assange has been charged in the US.
        Reply ↓
        Borncynical
        September 16, 2019 at 12:06

        Tom

        Besides the fact that Amnesty International is one of the many NGOs which operates entirely at the bidding of the US, a UK government that selectively ignores the views of the UN when it doesn’t suit their agenda (such as the UN General Assembly’s emphatic verdict supporting a non-binding ruling from the International Court of Justice that the UK should return the Chagos Islands to Mauritius) is highly unlikely (to use their favourite phrase) to pay any attention to the views of Amnesty International if it doesn’t accord with their agenda.

        Earlier this year the UN’s special rapporteur on torture, Nils Melzer, officially expressed extremely critical views on the treatment Julian Assange has been subjected to by the UK but his concerns were arrogantly met with no reaction whatsoever from the UK government.
            Reply ↓
            Tony
            September 16, 2019 at 19:21

            Didn’t he have a bit of a Twitter skirmish with bird-brain Hunt, in which he put Hunt firmly in his place?
                Reply ↓
                Borncynical
                September 17, 2019 at 16:17

                Indeed, Tony.

                https://twitter.com/nilsmelzer/status/1134400849097220102?lang=en (https://twitter.com/nilsmelzer/status/1134400849097220102?lang=en)
    Reply ↓
    Gary
    September 15, 2019 at 23:11

    No, to simply dwell on the words “these proceedings” is to overlook the fact that he avoided/evaded potential action against him by seeking political asylum. This was widely used against him s ‘if you’ve nothing to hide..’ He DID ‘make himself unavailable’ at the very least. Any court seeking to offer bail would have to consider that he might ‘make himself unavailable’ again. They WOULD look stupid if, when released, he did exactly the same again.

    But you’re right, he was punished for seeking political asylum. He was made out to be a sex offender. All of the charges, including the current ones, are pretexts. It IS entirely political, he is a political prisoner and this is not even being given the veneer of respectability by either the state or, more shockingly, or ‘so called’ free press. Are our press self-censoring or have they been given handouts on EXACTLY how to report on this case, a list of do’s and don’ts about what they must say? Words that must not be used? Reminds me of how the BBC report on ISIS, they never call them ‘ISIS’ they ALWAYS call them ‘so called Islamic State’ perhaps someone, somewhere is scared that if the BBC called ISIS a ‘state’ then they WOULD be considered a defacto state. But I suppose annexing land and calling it your sovereign state is solely the province of Israel these days…
        Reply ↓
        pretzelattack
        September 15, 2019 at 23:54

        he made himself unavailable because sweden wouldn’t give him assurance that they wouldn’t render him to the u.s., which was illegal in the first place, not that that has stopped any of the state actors in this drama.
        Reply ↓
        N_
        September 16, 2019 at 12:05

        “So-called Islamic State group” is another dogwhistle. Regime media are pretending to imply “We think real Muslims are OK” and “Britain is tolerant”. They are making the name of the enemy sound as foreign and outlandish as possible while in this case continuing to use the English language. Honky governments always speak with forked tongues. If there were any such thing as a nomenclature unbesmirched by either side’s propaganda in the war between the poshboy kingdom and the headchopper caliphate, the contenders would be called Britain and Iraq-Syria, which is what the second “IS” in “ISIS” stands for, or “Iraq-Levant” if you want to use the “ISIL” form. Which is not to say this foul organisation has ever been recognised as having legitimacy by any more than a small minority of people in those two countries, but that is what they call themselves. It is not as if there haven’t been two conflicting states each referencing the same nation before. For example there were two German republics, two Finnish republics, etc.
    Reply ↓
    Carolyn Zaremba
    September 15, 2019 at 23:15

    Dear Craig. It is not “leftists” who are not supporting Julian Asange. It is the bourgeois liberals. The true left, i.e., socialists, particularly the Socialist Equality Party and the World Socialist Web Site, have been publishing articles about this outrage and holding rallies all over the world in support of Julian Assange. Please do not write about the pseudo-lefts as though they represented anything approaching the real left.

    Other than that, I am grateful for your continued revelation of the truth behind the lies concerning the DNC computers and the Mueller “investigation”. Keep it up.
        Reply ↓
        Dom
        September 16, 2019 at 08:25

        Indeed, it’s as liberal an application of the term leftist as that used by Mike Pence.
    Reply ↓
    Andrew Nichols
    September 16, 2019 at 02:21

    Sadly the por sod has been consigned to the media memory hole – a deliberate voluntary act analogous to the SA Apartheid state “banning” which eliminated all mention of the targeted unfortunate from any public forum…ie they became an “unperson”. We are descending into a very dark period with no relief in sight.
    Reply ↓
    jmg
    September 16, 2019 at 09:23

    It appears that — at least according to law — on next Sunday (Sep 22) Julian should change from convicted prisoner to remand prisoner awaiting trial, with much less restrictions to prepare his defense:

    “The WikiLeaks founder would have been released from HMP Belmarsh on 22 September, Westminster magistrates court heard on Friday, but he was told he would be kept in jail because of ‘substantial grounds’ for believing he would abscond again. . . .

    “Another administrative hearing will take place on 11 October and a case management hearing on 21 October, the court heard. The final extradition hearing is expected in February.”

    Julian Assange to remain in jail pending extradition to US — 14 Sep 2019
    https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/sep/14/julian-assange-to-remain-in-jail-pending-extradition-to-us (https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/sep/14/julian-assange-to-remain-in-jail-pending-extradition-to-us)
        Reply ↓
        jmg
        September 16, 2019 at 09:25

        “Chief Magistrate Emma Arbuthnot ordered for a full extradition hearing, expected to last five days, to begin on 25 February 2020.”

        Julian Assange extradition case ‘outrageous assault on journalism’ — 14 June 2019
        https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-48633682 (https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-48633682)
        Reply ↓
        OnlyHalfALooney
        September 16, 2019 at 10:20

        F*ing Guardian: “Julian Assange to remain in jail pending extradition to US”

        As far as I know, the extradition hearing has yet to be held. I’m not optimistic in view of the obvious bias of the judges so far. But the headline suggests it has all already been decided.

        Why does this not surprise me from the UK’s prime mouthpiece for the intelligence services?
        .
            Reply ↓
            Borncynical
            September 16, 2019 at 11:41

            …and the Daily Mail reported three days ago:

            “Julian Assange will not get out of prison half way through his sentence like most criminals because the courts don’t trust him not to run away again ahead of his PLANNED [sic, and my emphasis] extradition to the US”.

            One can hope it’s ignorant and sloppy journalism (no surprise) but it’s a pretty emphatic statement.
    Reply ↓
    Hatuey
    September 16, 2019 at 11:52

    “Trump: US ‘locked and loaded depending on verification’ of attack on Saudi oil field“ (CNN)

    It looks like Iran will be bombed in the next 24 hours and the war in the Middle East that we have all been dreading is essentially underway.

    I suspect the timing will be more down to Israeli elections than any “verification” which means they will attack imminently.

    Iran will not take kindly to being bombed.
        Reply ↓
        Republicofscotland
        September 16, 2019 at 12:28

        Who’s to say the attack wasn’t perpetrated by the Saudi’s themselves in order to get a green flag from the Great Satan (US) to prepare for war against Iran.

        Even with British help in murdering countless civilians, starving women and children, and at one point using banned explosive devices, Saudi Arabia, hasnt neutralised the Houthis in Yemen.

        The plan now could be take out Iran and remove backing for the Yemeni fighters opposed to a Western state puppet leader.

        Expect a rise in prices at the petrol/diesel pumps in the UK, as they try and squeeze every last penny out of the attack.
        Reply ↓
        nevermind
        September 16, 2019 at 15:15

        Bibi would be very happy if that happens and his election/ failure to get elected, is postponed indefinitely due to the state of war Israel will put upon itself.
        He has the greatest reasons , and he would be helping his friends the Saudis to bring up the oil price, by bombing their insured oil refineries/infrastructure.
        How can it be possible that the newspapers writing futuristic copies of each others predictions that Julian will be extradited, as much as they can rig trials by choosing neocon judges, they can’t change the law, or erase facts as they have happened, and we can only hope that Gareth Pierce will hole their boast below the waterline.
    Reply ↓
    Northern
    September 16, 2019 at 12:12

    Couple of fantastic comments on this thread. Some equally risible ones from people who are still living in fantasy land too. Private finance has been asset stripping society for the last 4 decades but we’re supposed to all rally around the health service now? Where were all these people when they were busy farming out the contracts for the railways, prison services etc etc? We’re living through class war on steroids and it’s like the middle class just woke up and noticed after the EU referendum.

    RE: Julian – I agree with the commentators who are starting to question Julian’s own circle at this point. I note with interest that the ‘write to Julian’ website is still wrongly informing people not to include his prisoner number on their correspondence, thereby ensuring he will not receive it.
        Reply ↓
        Hatuey
        September 17, 2019 at 02:29

        “Private finance has been asset stripping society for the last 4 decades but we’re supposed to all rally around the health service now?“

        Anything that impinges on the “haves” is immoral. Everything can be explained with that simple idea.

        Thus, food banks, austerity, rising suicide rates, wars, etc., they’re good to go. And don’t forget about their environment and global warming…
        Reply ↓
        Richard
        September 17, 2019 at 16:50

        WRITING TO JULIAN

        Northern, you’re wrong! Belmarsh prison itself state that if you don’t know the prisoner’s number, then you must state their birth date, in the format stated by “writejulian”:

        https://www.prisonadvice.org.uk/hmp-belmarsh (https://www.prisonadvice.org.uk/hmp-belmarsh)

        It says: “If you do not know the prisoners’ prison number, please address the envelope as above with the prisoner’s date of birth next to his name.”
    Reply ↓
    Doghouse
    September 16, 2019 at 13:02

    Northern @ 12.12

    It would be foolish not to question both Assange’s inner circle of so called friends and his team of Counsel considering not an attributable word in 18 months. Let’s face it, the preferred method is both established and proven, infiltrate to control the top, just one person all it takes. The friendly Ecuador leader was replaced, the Swedish and British judiciary are bending the light laws of legal physics to a degree that would frazzle Einstein’s already frazzled barnet. By that measure one would consider that over a decade, what remains of essentially an internet team – don’t forget two including the PR representation have been subject to almost identical fate as Julian – and a bunch of lawyers should be the proverbial piece of piss think ye no…….

    It’s a no brainer imho.
    Reply ↓
    Sharp Ears
    September 16, 2019 at 13:02

    I have been watching various segments of the coverage of the LD conference. Chuka was boasting of their heritage in standing up for human rights and liberty, to much applause including from the Dear Leader.

    Throughout I heard not one mention of Julian or of his predicament.
    Reply ↓
    Chris Hopkins
    September 16, 2019 at 13:17

    Craig – Overall, I appreciate this article’s intent (to point out that Julian will soon be detained only for his releases of american secrets), but there is a factual error in the statement, ‘It is worth reminding ourselves that Assange has never been convicted of anything but missing police bail.’ In his much younger days, in Australia, Julian was convicted of computer crimes (he hacked into some Nortel systems in 1991). I’d hate to have the article dismissed for this small error.
        Reply ↓
        Courtenay Barnett
        September 16, 2019 at 13:29

        Chris,

        Julian was making the template to hand over to Chelsea so that she could later him hand him most useful and revealing information.

        However viewed – from my perspective – much kudos and respect to Julian Assange.

        And thank you Craig Murray.
        Reply ↓
        richard
        September 17, 2019 at 17:05

        Chris, the article is referring to convictions in relation to his imprisonment in Belmarsh, NOT in Assange’s enti