Most people might be excused for not knowing it, because the story is mainly ignored, or is shamelessly misreported in the corporate media when it does get any attention. A courageous Australian journalist, abandoned by his own country, is being railroaded by a British court towards extradition to the US where he could face life in prison in solitary confinement for the “crime of espionage”—exposing US war crimes in Afghanistan and Iraq.
What Julian Assange and his organization Wikileaks have revealed for the whole world to see is the systematic devastation of peoples, of lands, and perennial military pollution of planet earth. The main perpetrator is the most powerful and self-declared “greatest democratic nation” in the world, the United States of America—accompanied by its European and Commonwealth vassal states, plus proxy allies in the Middle East and Zionist Israel.
The villainous perpetrators are the prosecutors. The truth-telling hero is their prisoner.
That is what the British extradition hearing holding Julian Assange’s fate in its hands is all about. The testimony aspect of the court case has ended after four grueling weeks. While awaiting closing arguments and the judge’s decision, the truth-teller is forced to deteriorate in a prison cell where he has been languishing for 18 months.
The defense and prosecution are now preparing for closing arguments, which, however, will not be held orally. The public will be denied court interaction. The extradition judge, Vanessa Baraitser, will take only written arguments on November 16. She will make her ruling on extradition January 4, 2021.
Magistrate Baraitser noted in this purportedly “non-political” court case that the election might have an impact on the hearing. She said, “I agree that one way or the other my decision will come after an election in the United States. For that reason, I find no reason not to give you the four weeks,” to prepare closing arguments, she told the arguing parties.
Assange and his publication Wikileaks have not murdered anyone. Nevertheless, Assange is treated as a dangerous criminal, because he and his staff have published well over 10 million government/military secret documents showing crimes and corruption of scores of governments, above all how the United States, with its always faithful “United” Kingdom, have committed massive war crimes during their “war on terror”. This three-decade-long war has resulted in the deaths of three to five million humans, and forced between 37 and 58 million to flee their bombed out countries seeking refuge in neighboring countries and in Europe.
Wikileaks’ disclosures are clearly in the “public interest”. Yet the public’s interest is not allowed as evidence in United States grand jury courts nor in the British courts created as part of the Magna Carta—heralded by “Lord” “Baron” “King’s Counsel” Alfred Thompson Denning as “the greatest constitutional document of all times – the foundation of the freedom of the individual against the arbitrary authority of the despot”. The Magna Carta is a forbearer to the U.S. Constitution.
Julian Assange has been held in isolation 23 hours every day at Belmarsh high-security prison since he was dragged out of the Ecuadorian embassy, in London, on April 11, 2019. This was just the beginning of a “charade of justice”, as former British ambassador Craig Murray has called court proceedings against Julian. (1)
President Donald Trump successfully pressured, or to put it more accurately bribed, Ecuador’s new president, Lenin Moreno, to expel Assange from its embassy in London. Moreno also expunged Assange’s Ecuadoran citizenship. In return, the U.S. saw to it that Ecuador got a much-needed loan from the International Monetary Fund, and improved trade deals. Ecuador would realign its foreign policy to meet U.S. terms, such as recognizing Juan Guadió as the self-declared president of Venezuela, and have Ecuador’s troops trained by the U.S.
Moreno also met with Trump in Washington D.C. Trump and about what he termed this “great meeting,” said, “We’re working on military options including the purchase of a lot of our military equipment.”
Upon expulsion (actually more of a kidnapping by British Metropolitan police) from Ecuador’s embassy, Assange was immediately convicted of jumping bail. He had been given 15 minutes with his lawyer before the hearing. A judge called him a narcissist. He was sentenced to 50 weeks in the country’s hardest prison.
Violating conditions of bail is usually punished by a fine or a few days in jail. Although never charged with any violent crime, and although the deportation request in Sweden which was at issue in the court hearing for which he had jumped bail had expired along with the issue in Sweden on which he was sought for questioning) Assange is incarcerated in Britain’s most maximum prison. He can have no contact with other prisoners, who, otherwise, have contact with one another. Assange has long since served his time, but the government won’t release him pending results on the extradition matter, which could take years.
A decade ago, December 2010, a British court granted Assange bail weeks after being arrested, because Sweden sought his extradition, in order to “question” him regarding allegations of sexual misconduct. Assange was never cited for “rape” charges, as the mass media constantly claims.
When Britain decided to send Assange to Sweden, in June 2012, Assange then sought asylum in Ecuador’s embassy, in order to avoid imprisonment in the U.S. Sweden had refused to guarantee that it would not send him to the U.S. where a grand jury was conducting secret hearings regarding possible severe charges against him, which could have led to his execution.
Then President Rafael Correa granted him asylum and Ecuadorian citizenship. Assange remained in a small space in the embassy for nearly seven years. A member of his legal team, Stella Moris, became his lover and fiancée during his enclosed exile. Their only privacy was in a camping tent in his small room, hoping to avoid probable surveillance cameras, which, it was revealed, did exist. Stella bore him two sons, Gabriel (6 years old), and Max (4).
The first extradition hearing was held briefly in February 2020 once the United States filed its first request to have him bound over to the US for prosecution. The chief magistrate is “Lady” Emma Arbuthnot. (2) Magistrate Vanessa Baraitser was later appointed to conduct the hearings.
Magistrate Baraitser has three main points to consider regarding the U.S. request for extradition of Julian Assange: 1) Political motivation. Article 4 of UK law on extradition: “Extradition shall not be granted if the offense for which extradition is requested is a political offense.” 2) Abuse of Power. The defense showed such abuse occurred when the CIA contracted a Spanish security company, UC Global, to illegally surveil Assange, his lawyers and medical personnel while he was in asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy, in London. 3) Cruel and Inhumane Treatment if Extradited. The defense argues that Assange’s medical history, psychological torture imposed, combined with the condition of U.S. prisons where he would be imprisoned would amount to cruelty if extradited.
Cruel treatment includes Julian’s daily life during the hearings. After Assange is wakened and strip-searched, eats his breakfast, he is transported shackled and standing in a van to the courtroom where he is enclosed in a glass cage. Those closest to him who are not his defense team but rather prosecutors, who could hear him ief he speaks. Meanwhile, he cannot speak to his lawyers. Instead he has had to write notes and bend down on his knees to place them through a slit. A court employee takes the notes to his lawyers.
It must be noted that those are conditions that the UK and U.S. governments both call human rights violations when their enemies treat defendants in such a manner.
The public was supposed to have heard what NGO observers could have informed them about the hearings. Forty NGOs were granted seats in court or in a courtroom beside the hearing room where they could have seen/heard what was going on over a screen. Without any rational explanation, Magistrate Baraitser revoked this right. Amnesty International, PEN, and Reporters Without Borders (RWB), for instance, were thus prohibited from witnessing this travesty of justice. A British RWB representative told people at a closing rally that it had never been so treated when investigating abuse of media personnel in other countries.
Only five persons closely connected to Assange, other than his attorneys, could sit in the hearing courtroom. A few more, plus mainstream journalists and some independent ones could sit before a tiny screen and watch proceedings from another room.
At first, Magistrate Baraitser did not want any defense oral testimony — only written statements sent to her. Assange’s defense team won a compromise. The witnesses that the judge would accept could have one-half-hour of testimony whilst the prosecution would have four hours of cross-examination.
Here is what Craig Murray writes about this:
“The plan of the U.S. government throughout has been to limit the information available to the public, and limit the effective access to a wider public of what information is available. Thus, we have seen the extreme restrictions of both physical and video access. A complicit mainstream media has ensured…that very few in the wider population” get to know what is happening. Censorship also exists in the social media world.
“Even my blog has never been so systematically subject to shadow banning from Twitter and Facebook as now. Normally about 50 percent of my blog readers arrive from Twitter and 40 percent from Facebook. During the trial, it has been 3 percent from Twitter and 9 percent from Facebook. That is a fall from 90 percent to 12 percent.”
“It is the insidious nature of this censorship that is especially sinister—people believe they have successfully shared my articles.” In fact, though, they have not, he says.
What the Prosecution Case is all about
The original indictment was based on a rather simple accusation of computer interference, something Assange had allegedly somehow assisted Chelsea Manning in downloading secret documents, evidence of war crimes. This narrow indictment sought to obscure the real political reason for U.S. prosecution once he would be extradited, treason under rarely used Espionage Act of 1917, a law passed primarily to prosecute leftist and anti-war immigrants in the US.
Yet the U.S. government had no real evidence of Assange’s assisting Manning. No authorities had even done the basic task of forensics (collect, preserve, and analyze scientific evidence during the course of an investigation).
Realizing they were getting nowhere, the U.S. government introduced a superseding indictment during the hearings, giving the defense just a few hours before filing it with the court.
So that meant there were then 17 additional charges, all related to the Espionage Act, for which Chelsea Manning had already been convicted in not a court but a military courtmartial, by a jury of military officers and a military judge in what many legal observers called a “Kangaroo court.” She served seven years in prison for disclosing nearly 750,000 classified and otherwise sensitive military and diplomatic documents. These disclosures revealed U.S. war crimes against the peoples of Afghanistan (90,000 reports) and Iraq (over 400,000 reports), the horrific Baghdad airstrike killing a dozen civilians (“Collateral Damage” video), and 250,000 diplomatic “cablegate” documents.
WikiLeaks’ disclosure of those diplomatic cables to media organizations between 1966 and 2010 remain an extreme embarrassment to the U.S. government, not to mention evidence of war crimes should any country ever want to prosecute them. Among the disclosures were various Hillary Clinton orders to U.S. diplomats, U.S. ambassadors’ complaints about allies and other embarrassing commentary and revelations. These revelations were new while war crimes are old hat, so to speak.
Another part of the indictments, not related to Manning, include the release of 800,000 Guantánamo Bay detainee assessments documenting routine torture of kidnapped and imprisoned individuals suspected, but never tried or convicted of “terrorism.”
Manning was sentenced to 35 years in prison. She was a victim of Bush and Obama’s wars. At the end of Obama’s term, he granted her parole. Yet the same grand jury in Alexandria Virginia responsible for the indictment(s) that have led to the current imprisonment of Julian Assange in the UK sent her to prison again — this time for contempt of court. She sat in prison against for a year (March 2019 to March 2020), and was fined $256,000 simply for heroically standing on principle and refusing to be forced to testify against Assange.
The case against Assange thus has its origins in the “War on Terror” launched by the Bush administration as his response to four hijacked aircraft attacks on September 11, 2001. The second indictment of alleged violations of the Espionage Act belatedly filed by the US against Wikileaks founder Julian Assange actually should not include him since there is no contention that he spied for any warring enemy, nor is he a U.S. citizen or resident, which the 1917 law targeted.
Fishing for an acceptable ‘crime’ to indict on
The original indictment focused on allegations that Assange had criminally aided Chelsea Manning in “hacking” into and downloading secret documents that show U.S. war crimes. That case went sour when the government prosecutors could not find any evidence. Furthermore, Manning (at that time while known as Bradley Manning) was a private in the US Army working in Iraq as an intelligence analyst and was authorized to download those documents so she had no need of assistance from Assange.
Hence the second indictment admitted Assange is a publisher, but claimed he had put government informant lives in danger — a differnt crime. Ample defense evidence was presented showing how Assange had carefully redacted the names of informants. Some names were mentioned by The Guardian and other mass media, but that was because of a choice by those editors who chose not redact their names.
Part of the prosecution’s case was now built on Assange’s ordering 18-year-old Sigurdur Thordarson to hack into Iceland politicians’ phone conversations. Even if earlier charges fell apart, the new allegation could still form grounds for extradition. The new charges included using FBI informant Thordarson, but he had been convicted in Iceland for fraud, embezzlement, and impersonating Assange. He served time in an Icelandic prison, and was diagnosed as a sociopath. Significantly, Iceland has not sought to prosecute Assange or Wikileaks for any crime.
In 2010-11, Thordarson worked with Wikileaks first as a volunteer and for some months on staff. In August, 2011, he contacted the U.S. embassy in Reykjavik to give them information about Assange and Wikileaks. Eight FBI agents and a prosecutor flew to Iceland in a private jet to interview him. The Icelandic government had the courage to tell them to leave, fearing that the FBI and a mole sought to frame Assange. The FBI took their pigeon to ever-compliant Denmark to interview him. They did this several times.
In 2013-5, Thordarson was also tried for various sexual offenses, promising boys from 15-20 years of age cars and money in exchange for sex. This is the man whom the U.S. government had as its key witness in the new indictment. The UK hearing judge appeared to have no problem with that.
Another problem with the government’s admitting that Assange is a publisher is that under the US Constitution’s First Amendment journalist-publishers have special protection against prosecution for engaging in free-speech and press activities. So, in another change of tactic, the US government now interprets the Espionage Act to mean that anyone, journalists and publishers alike, can be charged with crimes of violating the Espionage Act. That includes any and all media personnel in the entire world — perhaps ordinary citizens too, who simply access Wikileaks materials. It’s a fact that journalists and editors and publishers the world over who have been ignoring or misreporting on this case should be paying close heed to because of the dangerous precedent it is setting.
Edward Snowden wrote about reading former British ambassador Craig Murray’s daily accounts of court proceedings: “Read this and tell me the show trial of Assange doesn’t read like something from Kafka. The judge permits the charges to be changed so frequently the defense doesn’t know what they are. The most basic needs are denied. No one can hear what the defendant says—a farce.”
I draw here on Murray’s daily reports published at Consortium News:
“The willingness of Judge Vanessa Baraitser to accept American red lines on what witnesses can and cannot say has combined with a joint and openly stated desire by both judge and prosecution to close this case down quickly by limiting the number of witnesses, the length of their evidence and the time allowed for closing arguments.
“Andy Worthington was one such case. He was ‘at court and ready to give evidence, but was prevented from doing so. The United States government objected to his evidence about his work on the Guantanamo Detainee files being heard, because it contained allegations of inmates being tortured at Guantanamo.” [Hardly a surprise to anyone, certainly].
“Baraitser said her ruling was not going to consider whether torture took place at Guantanamo, or if extraordinary rendition had happened. Baraitser said she wanted the prosecution and defense to produce a witness schedule that would get the case finished by the end of next week, including closing statements. She wanted them to agree what evidence could and could not be heard. Where possible she wanted evidence in uncontested statements with the defense just reading out the gist.”
World-renowned linguist and political author Noam Chomsky was granted such a “gist” of FOUR minutes, in order to show that the U.S. case against Assange is political.
Murray criticized defense attorneys for not protesting omission of the significant stories that Wikileaks had obtained and made available exposing U.S. torture. “The truth of these matters plainly goes to the Article 10 of Defense, and by pandering to the denial of a notorious and plain fact, this court will be held up to mockery.”
This is clearly selective political prosecution as Julian Assange is the only publisher in the US to be charged with crimes for publishing vital information when hundreds of mainstream media personnel who also published what Assange/Wikileaks provided have not been indicted.
It was President Donald Trump, a political figure, who ordered Assange’s arrest. The Espionage Act was made law to imprison U.S. citizens or residents who campaigned against U.S. participation in the European war, particularly anti-war activists, labor leaders, and socialists such as its key leader Eugene Debs. President Woodrow Wilson, who initiated the law as he prepared to invade Russia to crush its socialist revolution, called the law a “firm hand of stern repression”.
Trump’s political engagement in these illegal juridical proceedings included an attempted bribe. Jennifer Robinson, a member of Assange’s legal team, had a statement read out in court on her behalf. She recounted a visit by then U.S. Congressman Dana Rohrabacher to Julian Assange at the Ecuadorian embassy, on August 15, 2017, to which Robinson was present.
Robinson stated that Rohrabacher claimed to be representing President Trump, who would look “favorably” on preventing an indictment of Assange in return for his naming his source for the Democratic National Committee emails, which Wikileaks had released. These emails led to Democratic Party allegations—repeated by the CIA director, John Brennan, who Obama had appointed—that Russia had hacked into the DNC network and provided those documents to Wikileaks, and that Trump was in league with both Russia and Wikileaks, in order to hurt his challenger, Hillary Clinton.
Trump tried to appeal to Assange’s political sense of morality by having Rohrabacher tell him that Assange could help de-escalate new Cold War tensions if he could provide evidence who the actual leaker of the emails was. Assange refused to provide any information he might have had.
Defense witness Bradford University political science professor Paul Rogers established that Assange is motivated by a political viewpoint placing him as a political opponent to his accusers. Rogers cited statements of intent to take down both Assange and Wikileaks made by attorney generals Trump had appointed, Jeff Sessions and William Barr, and his Secretary of State and former CIA director, Mike Pompeo.
Recall what Secretary of State Pompeo told an audience at Texas A&M University, April 15, 2019.
“When I was a cadet [West Point] our motto was: You will not lie, cheat, or steal, or tolerate those who do… [when] I was the CIA director, we lied, we cheated, we stole. It was like we had entire training courses. It reminds you of the glory of the American experiment.”
The selected audience whistled and applauded his glorious admission.
I wonder if by “the glory of the American experiment”, the second most powerful man in the United States government was referring to American Exceptionalism, which seems to give every U.S. government, even every U.S. citizen, the “right” to dominate the world by lying, cheating, stealing, and, left unsaid, a permanent state of war.
In response to the second indictment, the defense provided a history of why no journalist had ever been prosecuted for violating the Espionage Act. Three U.S. presidents sought to charge journalists but they were opposed by their own lawyers, as well as Justice Department lawyers and attorney generals, because doing so would violate the 1st amendment guarantee of “free press.” No prosecution of journalists has ever materialized because of that.
In 1971, the Supreme Court decided the Nixon government could not censor The New York Times from publishing the secret Pentagon Papers by invoking this law. President Barack Obama’s Attorney General Eric Holder decided not to prosecute Assange under the Espionage Act, reportedly because he felt the move would be found to be unconstitutional.
Nevertheless, Britain’s attorneys, arguing on behalf of the Trump government, told the court that the U.S. “Supreme Court has never held that a journalist cannot be prosecuted for publishing national defense information.”
That is to say that NYT journalists could have been so prosecuted when publishing the Pentagon Papers but the charges were not brought and so the courts have not ruled on the issue.
Daniel Ellsberg, who leaked the Pentagon Papers, was a defense witness. He testified that if Assange were extradited to the U.S. and convicted of charges under the Espionage Act no journalist in the world would be safe from being kidnapped to the U.S. to face life imprisonment for reporting on truthful information such that whistleblower Chelsea Manning released to Wikileaks.
One of the most striking matters in this open defiance of and threat to the First Amendment is that the mass media either ignored it, or simply stated what the prosecution stated. There has been no editorial outrage, no solidarity among journalists with Assange by the mainstream mass media in England, and not in the U.S. either, as far I know.
In Denmark, where I live and monitor the media, the hearings are not even covered, as far as I can ascertain. When I pointed this out to the leading liberal daily here, Politiken, I actually got an email answer from the chief editor. “Thank you for your mail and encouragement to cover this case. We continuously have our attention on it.” That was September 9. As I write, October 6-8, Politiken has still not written a word about the hearings nor has the government-sponsored mass media Denmark Radio print and broadcast media.
Abuse of Power
Defense witness law professor Michael Tigar showed how the Nixon grand jury case against Daniel Ellsberg, 1971-3, was thrown out due to a finding of presidential abuse of power. President Nixon had Howard Hunt and Gordon Liddy (4) , two of his criminal “plumbers”— a secret group of thugs, spies and private saboteurs answering directly to him and his closest White House aides—break into Ellsberg’s psychiatrist’s office to steal confidential files on his client. He also had Ellsberg illegally wiretapped; and attempted to bribe the judge overseeing Ellsberg’s trial by offering him the FBI directorship. Because of that the judge ordered a mistrial.
Compare that decisive action with the response of the British court to evidence of the CIA contracting a Spanish security firm to illegally spy 24/7 on Assange in his sanctuary within the Ecuadorian embassy in London, recording privileged talks between Assange and his attorneys, doctors, journalists even visiting diplomats. Assange’s defense documents were stolen and sent to the U.S. If that is not enough “abuse of power”, the CIA discussed plans to kidnap and poison Julian Assange. All in a day’s work of United States’ “intelligence community” and clearly of no concern to the British court considering the US government’s extradition case.
Ellsberg wrote in an email that what the Nixon administration did to him is comparable to, but not even as bad as what the Obama and Trump administrations have done and are doing to Assange. He says the documented illegal actions taken by the US against Assange are “essentially the same information that ended my case and confronted Nixon with impeachment, leading to his resignation. In other words, Julian may, miraculously, walk free on the basis of this (eventually), just as I did!”
Testimony read out to the court from one of Assange’s attorneys, Gareth Pierce, explained how his attorneys still feel “anxiety” and “fear” about being monitored even now. Attorney Pierce also spoke of Assange’s belongings at the embassy, including thumb drives and legal documents, which were purloined and put in a diplomatic pouch, sent to Ecuador and from there on to the United States “intelligence community.” Assange possessions have not been returned.
The U.S. government, and the British prosecutors working on its behalf, admit by their silence that this all happened yet contend that what happened in the embassy and with Assange’s possessions is “irrelevant” to its indictments against him, and to his extradition.
Judge Baraitser did not seem concerned about these intrusions either — not even the fact that the US government prosecution has benefitted from knowing, through illegal surveillance, what its defense preparations might be in case of extradition procedures. An objective judge would have called for a mistrial on the basis of this evidence alone.
Instead Judge Baraitser usually rules in favor of the prosecution’s objections to defense evidence as she did about an important matter of political motivation, as well as abuse of power. The defense tried to introduce a statement made by U.S. Attorney General William Barr on September 15, 2020.
Bar said, “The power to execute and enforce the law is an executive function altogether. That means discretion is invested in the executive to determine when to exercise the prosecutorial power,” as reported by the New York Times.
The NYT maintained that Barr’s “actions have thrust the Justice Department into the political fray at a time when Democrats and former law enforcement officials have expressed fears that he is politicizing the department, particularly by intervening in legal matters in ways that benefit Mr. Trump or his circle of friends and advisers.”
The defense interpreted Barr’s contention of executive authority’s “right” to prosecute as it sees fit rather than consider what the constitution stipulates as bolstering its argument that this case is political. Yet the judge rejected this as a new piece of evidence.
Here is what Murray wrote, Day 12. He called the hearings, a “Charade Court Case”:
“It has been clear to me from Day No. 1 that I am watching a charade unfold. It is not in the least a shock to me that Baraitser does not think anything beyond the written opening arguments has any effect…where rulings have to be made, she has brought them into court pre-written, before hearing the arguments before her. I strongly expect the final decision was made in this case even before opening arguments were received.”
Could it be that conflict-of-interest “Lady” Arbuthnot has a hand in what Baraitser types on her laptop without needing to hear defense witnesses and attorneys?
Assange in Poor Health
Julian’s health is debilitated by callous cruelty imposed upon him by the English state. His right to “humane treatment”, which the court maintains he has, is a sham. He is rarely allowed to see his father, his fiancée and children. When he can, he is forbidden to touch them. Mostly, he has to call them from a pay-phone. He must wait in his cell for his turn to make a short call. The phone is in a hallway and he can’t be by other prisoners. Robinson, his long-time attorney, hasn’t been allowed to see him for six months. Other lawyers are severely limited in how often they can see and talk with him. When attorney-client discussion is allowed, it is for an hour. Lawyers have to send him pertinent case documents through the postal service. Sometimes documents sent are not delivered to him, or he cannot keep those that are. He is denied a computer making it extra difficult to participate in his defense. Basically, he is already imprisoned under gothic conditions common in most US prisons.
Somehow, Assange had hidden a razor blade in his cell. The prosecution wanted to deny this fact, because medical personnel had failed to record it. Nevertheless, two wardens saw the blade and confiscated it. Assange admitted having it. At first, he was charged with a crime. Then the prison governor dropped the charges.
Defense witness, Michael Kopelman, a neuropsychologist, testified that Assange is so anxiety ridden that he is a suicide candidate. Kopelman testified that he had seen Assange 17 times in prison and was certain that he suffered from severe depression with loss of sleep, appetite and weight loss.
The magistrate backed up the prosecution’s objection, contending that this expert opinion was not a factor since there were no longer any charges against Assange for having the razor blade.
If that reasoning wouldn’t make a sane person mad nothing would. “Alice in Wonderland” is, after all, a British literary fantasy, and George Orwell’s “double think” (double speak) is a British political phenomenon, one which did not become extinct in 1984.
Conditions under which Julian Assange is imprisoned have been investigated by the United Nations rapporteur on torture Nils Melzer. He and two medical specialists on torture conditions examined Assange in prison and concluded that he is a victim of “psychological torture,” he said. (5)
The Convention on Torture—to which the U.S., UK, Sweden and Ecuador are parties persecuting and/or prosecuting Assange—requires that member countries conduct investigations into such charges by the UN rapporteur. They all refused to do so.
If Assange is extradited, experts on prison conditions in the U.S., focusing on the two where he would be held, first during a trial, and then where he would serve his sentence if convicted, testified that conditions are extremely debilitating to one’s health. He would be subject to what the U.S. euphemistically calls Special Administrative Measures (SAM). Designated federal prisoners are confined behind steel doors and walls and can only speak with other prisoners by shouting through these barriers. SAM allows the government to monitor any and all contact with any visitors, including attorneys and doctors. Yet it has still been possible for some prisoners subjected to these brutal conditions to find means of taking their lives. Others have become clinically insane.
No Fair Trial Is Possible in U.S.
Several U.S. politicians, among Hillary Clinton, have called for “droning” him, or “hunted down”, Sarah Palin. A Canadian politician, Tom Flanagan, former senior adviser to Canadian PM Stephen Harper when issuing “a fatwa against Assange” on the Canadian TV station CBC. “I think Assange should be assassinated…I think Obama should put out a contract and maybe use a drone…”
U.S. government officials contend that Assange has committed the largest “crimes” of compromises of information in U.S. history. It is irrelevant to the U.S. and UK governments that the “compromises of information” exposed truths of major governmental war crimes punishable by years to life imprisonment.
“Irrelevant”? No, not so! In the view of the Magistrate Baraister, quite the contrary in fact. It is so relevant that the messenger of such truths must be tortured under her authority. She, or her chiefs, has the authority to improve his conditions in prison or grant him bail.
According to Alexandria Virginia’s demographics, the city of 159,000 people is located 12 kilometers from downtown Washington, D.C. Of 96,500 employed persons, 24,000 work directly for the government, mainly for intelligence services (CIA, NSA) and defense departments. In addition, many private company employees are government contractors.
Grand Jury selection always includes government employees and private workers contracted by the government. That is why the government always prosecutes accused violators of national security laws there, and why they never lose a case. Grand jury jurors also only see the evidence which a prosecutor chooses to show them, with no evidence presented by the accused.
During these hearings, 160 current and former world leaders (13 former presidents) and lawmakers have sent a letter to British Prime Minister Boris Johnson asking him not to send Assange to the U.S.
At the end of the testimony part of the trial, Craig Murray recalled Harold Pinter’s sage words a decade and a half ago when accepting the 2005 Nobel Prize for Literature: “It seems perfectly fit to the trial of Julian Assange.”
“It never happened. Nothing ever happened. Even while it was happening it wasn’t happening. It didn’t matter. It was of no interest. The crimes of the United States have been systematic, constant, vicious, remorseless, but very few people have actually talked about that. You have to hand it to America. It has exercised a quite clinical manipulation of power worldwide while masquerading as a force of universal good. It’s a brilliant, even witty, highly successful act of hypnosis.”
One of many ironies about this tragic current abuse of power taking place in a British courtroom is that what is now happening, Julian had predicted a decade ago. That was why he sought and received asylum in Ecuador’s embassy. He knew what was awaiting him at the hands of UK and US “justice.” Another irony is that he has received as many or more journalistic awards for doing an excellent job as journalist-publisher than any journalist.
In a Consortium News roundtable discussion following the hearings, Craig Murray offered a bit of optimism. He said that if the current judge rules for the U.S., there is real hope that a higher court in the UK will overrule her. That, however, could take years. The court system could still keep him imprisoned pending appeal, but Murray hopes that bail would be forthcoming.
Julian’s father, John Shipton, expressed warmth for the many supporters throughout the hearings. Standing before a London rally, he said there had been 560 vigils and rallies around the world.
Stella, Julian’s partner, ended her speech thusly:
“Julian is a publisher. He is also a son, a friend. He’s my fiancée and a father. Our children need their father. Julian needs his freedom, and democracy needs a free press.”