Tag Archives: Julian Assange extradition

British Judicial Cowardice on Assange, by Jacob G. Hornberger

It’s a realization that goes down hard that in both Great Britain and the US, the progenitors of Anglo-American law, the judges and judicial systems are just as corrupt as the rest of their governments. From Jacob G. Hornberger at fff.org:

This morning British Judge Venessa Baraitser denied the U.S. government’s extradition request for Julian Assange. That of course was the right thing to do. The problem though is with Baraitser’s reason for the denial: She says that there is a high danger that Assange will commit suicide if he is extradited. That was the justification she used for her decision.

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

What judicial cowardice! Baraitser should have denied the extradition request for the right reason: The U.S. government, specifically the U.S. national-security establishment (i.e., the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA) simply wants vengeance for Assange’s disclosing the truth about the evil and immoral actions of the U.S. government. That’s why they have been seeking Assange’s extradition for years — to punish him for committing the dastardly “crime” of disclosing the truth about them.

After all, let’s keep something important in mind: Assange isn’t accused of perjury or lying, like former Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr. was (and who wasn’t charged with anything for doing so). Assange’s “crime” is that he told the truth about the deep state. That’s verboten in any national-security state, whether it’s Russia, China, North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, Egypt. Pakistan, Nazi Germany, or the United States.

Assange, who isn’t even a U.S. citizen, had to be taught a lesson. Moreover, he had to be used to send a message to anyone else who was contemplating disclosing the dark-side, sordid secrets of the U.S. national-security state. That message is a simple one: “Disclose our secrets and this is what will happen to you. We will harass you, persecute you, prosecute you, abuse you, and torture you until you want to kill yourself — that is, unless we have the opportunity to kill you first.”

Continue reading→

Assange Wins. The Cost: The Crushing of Press Freedom, and the Labeling of Dissent as Mental Illness, by Jonathan Cook

The decision on Julian Assange’s extradition was the right outcome for the wrong reason. From Jonathan Cook at antiwar.com:

The unexpected decision by Judge Vanessa Baraitser to deny a US demand to extradite Julian Assange, foiling efforts to send him to a US super-max jail for the rest of his life, is a welcome legal victory, but one swamped by larger lessons that should disturb us deeply.

Those who campaigned so vigorously to keep Assange’s case in the spotlight, even as the US and UK corporate media worked so strenuously to keep it in darkness, are the heroes of the day. They made the price too steep for Baraitser or the British establishment to agree to lock Assange away indefinitely in the US for exposing its war crimes and its crimes against humanity in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But we must not downplay the price being demanded of us for this victory.

Continue reading→

The Assange Extradition Ruling Is A Relief, But It Isn’t Justice, by Caitlin Johnstone

Essentially the judge agreed with the US arguments, but ruled against the US because the prisons are so bad. From Caitlin Johnstone at caitlinjohnstone.com:

British Judge Vanessa Baraitser has ruled against US extradition for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, but not for the reasons she should have.

Baraitser’s frightening ruling supported virtually every US prosecutorial argument that was made during the extradition trial, no matter how absurd and Orwellian. This includes quoting from a long-discredited CNN report alleging without evidence that Assange made the embassy a “command post” for election interference, saying the right to free speech does not give anyone “unfettered discretion” to disclose any document they wish, dismissing arguments from the defense that UK law prohibits extradition for political offenses, parroting the false claim that Assange’s attempt to help protect his source Chelsea Manning while she was exfiltrating documents she already had access to was not normal journalistic behavior, saying US intelligence might have had legitimate reasons to spy on Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy, and claiming Assange’s rights would be protected by the US legal system if he were extradited.

“Judge is just repeating the US case, including its most dubious claims, in Assange case,” tweeted activist John Rees during the proceedings.

in the end, though, Baraitser ruled against extradition. Not because the US government has no business extraditing an Australian journalist from the UK for exposing its war crimes. Not because allowing the extradition and prosecution of journalists under the Espionage Act poses a direct threat to press freedoms worldwide. Not to prevent a global chilling effect on natsec investigative journalism into the behaviors of the largest power structures on our planet. No, Baraitser ultimately ruled against extradition because Assange would be too high a suicide risk in America’s draconian prison system.

Continue reading→

Prosecution of Assange Is an Attack on Our Own Humanity, by Nozomi Hayese

Monday, one of the bravest men in history will have his fate decided by a pack of braying jackals. From Nozomi Hayese at antiwar.com:

On January 4, 2021 the London Court will release the hearing verdict of WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange’s US extradition case. The indictment against Assange is politically motivated. Judge Vanessa Baraitser, who is presiding over hearings, has even acknowledged the political nature of this case when she decided not to rule until at least after the US Presidential election on November 3, 2020.

The verdict will not only determine the life of Assange, but also the future of journalism. The extra-territorial overreach involved in the US government charging a journalist who exposed their war crimes under the Espionage Act threatens press freedom everywhere. This is why all major media and human rights organizations have now stepped forward to oppose the extradition proceedings against Assange.

Their message is clear. Publishing documents that are verified to be authentic and are of public interest is not a crime. It is a central role of the press in a functioning democracy to defend the public’s right to know, and to help keep the government honest. WikiLeaks has done exemplary work in fulfilling this duty. This is journalism, and journalism is not a crime.

The attempted prosecution of Assange is already creating chilling effects on journalists, with a dangerous precedent having been set. One Turkish journalist has now been sentenced to more than 27 years in prison for allegedly supporting terrorism and engaging in political espionage. As we now face a critical moment for our democracy, it is important for us to think about what this war on journalism means and what WikiLeaks represents to all of us.

Continue reading→

London Court Hears Details Of CIA Plot To Poison Julian Assange, Steal DNA From Family Members, by Tyler Durden

No surprises here—there is just no low to which the US government will not stoop in its vendetta against Julian Assange, including murder. From Tyler Durden at zerohedge.com:

Now in its second week, Julian Assange’s extradition hearing at the Old Baily in London just heard explosive testimony based on previously reported revelations that the CIA had actively plotted to assassinate him, by either poisoning or via a kidnapping plot.

The testimony is part of the defense team’s attempt to frame the US extradition case as entirely political in nature, and not based on breaking US law, but also toward convincing the judge that the WikiLeaks founder would certainly face extreme and excessive punishment, which would be cause for Britain to block the extradition.

Though mainstream media has by and large ignored much of the bombshell testimony from the hearing since last week, this latest cloak-and-dagger type information detailing just how far US intelligence was willing to go is impossible to ignore.

Continue reading→

LETTER FROM LONDON: The Surreal US Case Against Assange, by Alexander Mercouris

This is the best dissection of the incoherent US case against Julian Assange that we’ve seen. From Alexander Mercouris at consortiumnews.com:

The fox is guarding the henhouse and Washington is prosecuting a publisher for exposing its own war crimes. Alexander Mercouris diagnoses the incoherence of the U.S. case for extradition.

Julian Assange’s father John Shipton outside the court where his son is on trial in London, September 2020. (Twitter)

Following the Julian Assange case as it has progressed through its various stages, from the original Swedish allegations right up to and including the extradition hearing which is currently underway in the Central Criminal Court in London, has been a troubling and very strange experience.

The U.S. government has failed to present a coherent case.

Conscious that the British authorities should in theory refuse to extradite Assange if the case against him were shown to be politically motivated and/or related to Assange’s legitimate work as a journalist, the U.S. government has struggled to present a case against Assange which is not too obviously politically motivated or related to Assange’s legitimate work as a journalist.

This explains the strange succession of one original and two superseding indictments.

The U.S. government’s first indictment was based on what was a supposedly simple allegation of computer interference, supposedly coordinated in some sort of conspiracy between Assange and Chelsea Manning.

This was obviously done in an attempt to dispel the idea that the request for Assange’s extradition was politically motivated or was related to Assange’s legitimate work as a journalist.

However lawyers in the United States had no difficulty pointing out the “inchoate facts” of the alleged conspiracy between Assange and Manning, whilst both lawyers and journalists in the United States and elsewhere pointed out that the facts in the indictment in fact bore all the hallmarks of action by a journalist to protect a source.

Continue reading→

The Guardian’s deceit-riddled new statement betrays both Julian Assange and journalism, by Jonathan Cook

The Guardian sinks to new lows. From Jonathan Cook at jonathancook.net:

In my recent post on the current hearings at the Old Bailey over Julian Assange’s extradition to the United States, where he would almost certainly be locked away for the rest of his life for the crime of doing journalism, I made two main criticisms of the Guardian.

A decade ago, remember, the newspaper worked closely in collaboration with Assange and Wikileaks to publish the Iraq and Afghan war diaries, which are now the grounds on which the US is basing its case to lock Assange behind bars in a super-max jail.

My first criticism was that the paper had barely bothered to cover the hearing, even though it is the most concerted attack on press freedom in living memory. That position is unconscionably irresponsible, given its own role in publishing the war diaries. But sadly it is not inexplicable. In fact, it is all too easily explained by my second criticism.

Continue reading→

British Ambassador Craig Murray Exposes the Corrupt and Censored Assange Extradition Hearing, by Paul Craig Roberts

The fix is in on the Assange extradition proceeding. From Paul Craig Roberts at paulcraigroberts.com:

Ambassador Murray is upfront: “I strongly expect the final decision was made in this case even before opening arguments were received.”

Although the hearing is being conducted in a British court, the US government has controlled the hearing and has determined what evidence could be presented:

“The plan of the US Government throughout has been to limit the information available to the public and limit the effective access to a wider public of what information is available. Thus we have seen the extreme restrictions on both physical and video access. A complicit mainstream media has ensured that those of us who know what is happening are very few in the wider population.”

Even Ambassador Murray’s reports on the hearing are censored by social media:

“Even my blog has never been so systematically subject to shadowbanning from Twitter and Facebook as now. Normally about 50% of my blog readers arrive from Twitter and 40% from Facebook. During the trial it has been 3% from Twitter and 9% from Facebook. That is a fall from 90% to 12%. In the February hearings Facebook and Twitter were between them sending me over 200,000 readers a day. Now they are between them sending me 3,000 readers a day. To be plain that is very much less than my normal daily traffic from them just in ordinary times. It is the insidious nature of this censorship that is especially sinister – people believe they have successfully shared my articles on Twitter and Facebook, while those corporations hide from them that in fact it went into nobody’s timeline. My own family have not been getting their notifications of my posts on either platform” ( https://www.craigmurray.org.uk ).

Continue reading

What’s the Difference Between ‘Villain’ Assange & ‘Intrepid’ Woodward? by Lee Camp

There is no discernible difference between what Julian Assange has done as a journalist and what Bob Woodward has done his entire career. From Lee Camp at counterpunch.org:

The completely fair super awesome trial of Julian Assange continues in the U.K. as I write this. It’s a beautiful blend of the works of Kafka, Stalin and Joseph Heller.

Seeing as Julian is kept in a glass container in the courtroom, like a captured cockroach, maybe Kafka wins the day.

The court clearly must keep Julian in that giant Tic-Tac container because he’s undoubtedly as dangerous as Hannibal Lecter. If he weren’t in there, no one would know when he might lurch forward and PUBLISH SOMETHING THAT’S TOTALLY TRUE!

What they’re deciding in this trial is whether Assange should be extradited to the United States, or “kidnapped” as the kids call it these days.

If he is lovingly black-bagged by our government, they have promised he will face 175 years in prison if convicted by another super rad show trial presided over by an American government puppet judge. (A puppet judge is just like a real judge but they’ve got the government so far up their backside they can taste the Cheetos.)

Countless excitable activists out there say this persecution of Julian Assange is unheard of. They’re acting like no journalist has ever been prosecuted under the Espionage Act. They’re acting like it’s unprecedented for the U.S. to go after a journalist who’s not even a U.S. citizen and has never operated his organization from the U.S. They’re acting like it’s ridiculous to add on new superseding indictments days before the trial begins.

But all the people saying that are… um… correct. Yeah, they nailed it. (Sorry for the buildup – I thought that paragraph would come out differently.)

Continue reading→

The Murder of the First Amendment, by Paul Craig Roberts

If Julian Assange is extradited to the US and then convicted, the First Amendment is a dead letter. From Paul Craig Roberts at paulcraigroberts.org:

The illegal and unwarranted prosecution of Julian Assange by the US Government in a British court, if court it is and not a Star Chamber, is in fact the prosecution of the First Amendment. It will prevent journalists in the future from informing the public of criminal activity by government. This is already the case in a number of countries, and the US and UK are about to join them.  Washington, working through a British judge and a British prosecutor, is murdering the First Amendment and, thereby, accountable government.

The US government’s case for Assange’s extradition to the US that is working its way through a CIA-suborned British court redefines journalists who hold government accountable as spies.  In other words, journalists who reveal criminal actions of governments are quilty of espionage.  If this were in fact the case, the New York Times would have been prosecuted for publishing the Pentagon Papers.

Once upon a time when law still ruled a person had to spy on his own country in order to have committed a crime.  Julian Assange is an Australian citizen, but he is accused of  committing espionage against the United States while living in Europe.  If this were a crime under law, all the Israeli Mossad spies spying on the United States would be arrested and treated as Assange.  Indeed, all spies of all countries spying on other countries, including the CIA and the British MI6, could be arrested and tried for espionage in the countries that they are spying on. Generally speaking, countries prosecute their own citizens who spy on their own country for foreign governments, but send foreign spies caught spying on them home ( https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2010/07/why-doesn-t-the-fbi-prosecute-more-spies.html ).

Continue reading