Assange skipped bail because he was terrified of being "renditioned" to Guantanamo Bay on charges that could lead to the death penalty in the US, the court had been told.

But Judge Deborah Taylor told Assange "you had a choice, and your course of action you chose was to commit this offence".

 

Read more:

https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/assange-to-spend-almost-a-year-in-ja...

 

 

The Judge Deborah Taylor is an idiot. She should have followed the course of the court "letting Bull go free in the 1850s".  This is what JUSTICE is about. 

 

 

Note: I could have picked other paintings by Bull, but The wreck of 'George the Third' is highly representative of our present loony social endeavours. The people on the beach are scavenging the bits... And by the way Knud Geelmuyden Bull NEVER printed one fake banknote. He was only caught with the plates to print some, probably dobbed in by one of his "mates", like Assange and Chelsea Manning were...

Author Urges ‘People to Free Assange’ as London Court Start Extradition Hearing

This comes after WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange was sentenced on Wednesday to fifty weeks in prison by a UK Court for violating the terms of his bail.

On 2 May, there will be a hearing in London’s Westminster Magistrate Court on the US request for extradition of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange; the hearing is scheduled to begin at 10 a.m. local time (09:00 GMT).

If found guilty of espionage, Assange could face the death penalty or imprisonment for life.

The US Department of Justice said, in turn, that they were seeking Assange's extradition over “conspiracy to commit computer intrusion for agreeing to break a password to a classified US government computer”.

READ MORE: Ecuador Spied on Julian Assange, Lawyer of WikiLeaks' Founder Says

Under the 2003 Extradition Act, however, the UK is prohibited from extraditing someone to a country where they could face the death penalty.

The Thursday hearing comes after Assange was sentenced to fifty weeks in prison by a UK court on Wednesday for violating his bail conditions in 2012, when he was facing extradition to Sweden over allegations of rape, which he described as politically motivated.

Commenting on the matter, author and free speech advocate Nozomi Hayase said that the 1 May “sentencing at Southwark Crown Court was a clear sign of the failure of Western institutions”.

Hayase noted that “Assange received just under the maximum possible sentence for skipping bail, which he did in seeking and obtaining political asylum to mitigate the risk of extradition to the US, relating to his publishing activities”.

READ MORE: UN Expert Says Concerned Assange Faced at Least 2 Forms of Privacy Infringement

She recalled that the right to asylum is “a basic human right enshrined in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights”.

“The court abused its judicial authority to punish Assange, who was exercising this right. This sentence is another confirmation that Assange’s justice cannot rely on the legal system and that people need to mobilise and take action to free him”, she concluded.

The WikiLeaks whistleblower sought refuge at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London in 2012 and resided there for a span of almost seven years before his asylum was revoked on 11 April 2019, leading to his arrest the same day by UK police for jumping bail in Westminster Magistrate's Court.

 

 

read more:

https://sputniknews.com/europe/201905021074637198-assange-london-court-e...

 

 

FREE ASSANGE TODAY ! READ FROM TOP.

Julian Assange has told a London court he does not consent to an extradition request from the United States over charges related to leaks of classified government material.

Key points:

• Assange's court appearance came a day after being sentenced to 50 weeks in prison
• Charges against Assange involved one of the biggest compromises of US classified information
• He faces up to five years in a US prison if convicted

 

The typically defiant WikiLeaks founder appeared at a packed Westminster Magistrates' Court via video-link, telling the court he would not surrender for doing award-winning work that had "protected" people.

"I do not wish to surrender myself for doing journalism that has won many, many awards and protected many, many people," he said from Belmarsh prison, wearing a black blazer, pale t-shirt, jeans and sneakers.

 

Read more:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-03/wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-...

 

We need to expose the US and English Nazis for who they are... Ruthless EMPIRE BUILDERS — worse than Hitler's Germany. FREE ASSANGE TODAY ! EINSTEIN WOULD BE APPALLED...

 

READ FROM TOP.

Last month he posted about a family in the Siberian city of Novosibirsk whose HIV-positive adopted child had been barred from school, and a sick, elderly patient in Irkutsk who reportedly killed himself in hospital after waiting hours for a simple blood test.

"It is impossible to be silent when mad things happen [in Russia]," he told the BBC.

The man behind StalinGulag has a back story that was extraordinary long before he became the Kremlin's biggest social media critic.

Born in Makhachkala in the North Caucasus in 1992, he was diagnosed with spinal muscular atrophy, an incurable muscle-wasting condition that has made him a wheelchair-user for most of his life.

Gorbunov started his first business aged just 13, selling dietary supplements online. 

From these humble beginnings he moved on to become a successful financial trader, specialising in derivatives and crypto-currencies. 

He now lives in Moscow with his wife, enjoying what he describes as a good life with regular outings to restaurants and the theatre.

But he's keen to stress that someone with his disabilities needs to be able to make money in order to pay for all the support he requires to have a normal life.

 

Read more:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-48132193

 

Yes the BBC seems to support dissent — dissent in Russia... Lovely... But support Assange? Yes the Western media carries on with more sticks to hit Assange with... WE NEED THE BBC TO TELL THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UK THAT IT IS NOT RIGHT TO SEND ASSANGE TO THE USA, NOR TO CHARGE ASSANGE WITH JUMPING BAIL, WHEN THE REASONS ARE AS CLEAR AS DAYLIGHT. 

Interview with WikiLeaks Editor-in-Chief

'Everything Was Done To Make Julian Assange's Life Miserable'

In his first interview since Julian Assange's arrest, WikiLeaks Editor-in-Chief Kristinn Hrafnsson discusses the "disgraceful" detention of the platform's founder, criticism of its links to Russia and what he describes as the "appalling" treatment of Chelsea Manning.

Kristinn Hrafnsson, 56, spent three decades working as a journalist for media in Iceland, including the country's public broadcaster. In his reporting, including his research into the collapse of Iceland's Kaupthing Bank, he used documents from WikiLeaks. In 2010, he established Sunshine Press Productions in Iceland together with the Australian national Julian Assange. Before replacing Assange as editor-in-chief of WikiLeaks, Hrafnsson served as the platform's spokesman for six years.

DER SPIEGEL: Mr. Hrafnsson, on Wednesday you saw WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange in a court room in London, where he was sentenced to 50 weeks in jail for violating the conditions of his bail. British police arrested him on April 11 in the Ecuadorian Embassy after the government of Ecuador withdrew his political asylum. How is he doing?

Hrafnsson: He is in the Belmarsh high-security prison in South London. There, he is waiting for his trial for the extradition request from the United States government. On Wednesday, a court found him guilty of a bail act offense when he was using his human right to seek asylum. As you may remember, he was released on bail in December 2010 after friends had paid a deposit of 200,000 pounds. Before he entered the Ecuadorian Embassy in June 2012, he cut off his ankle monitor.

DER SPIEGEL: As the new editor-in-chief of WikiLeaks, do you sometimes worry you could end up in a high-security prison like Assange?

Hrafnsson: As WikiLeaks has been under attack for 10 years, I am aware of the dangers that come with the job. I have been working full-time for WikiLeaks since midsummer 2010. It is obvious that I am in the cross hairs of the U.S. government, its military and its secret services. We have known since 2014 that not only Julian Assange, but also other people who are connected with the organization are under investigation.

DER SPIEGEL: How do you know this?

Hrafnsson: Google took it to court that they were forced by a secret U.S. court to hand over data from me and others on the WikiLeaks team to an investigating U.S. secret court. Google won the right to inform us. So, Sarah Harrison, Joseph Farrell and I were informed in December 2014 that our mails were seized because of a grand jury investigating us in an espionage case.

DER SPIEGEL: How has Assange changed during his time in the embassy?

Hrafnsson: I have been quite surprised that he has been withholding and withstanding this situation in a more resilient manner than I would expect from anybody else.

DER SPIEGEL: How did the diplomatic asylum end which Assange was granted by the Ecuadorian government in August 2012?

Hrafnsson: The ambassador asked him into the meeting room of the embassy and presented a letter, which he read out loud, saying the diplomatic asylum had been revoked and that he had to leave the embassy immediately. When Julian left the meeting room and wanted to go back to his room, the lobby of the embassy was full of British Policemen who grabbed him.

DER SPIEGEL: That doesn't really fit with diplomatic rules.

Hrafnsson: Well, it was a long prepared, politically motivated move. Already last year, the embassy started a war of attrition, psychological warfare: cutting off the Internet, installing cell phone jammers, restricting visitors, turning off the heating. Everything was done to make Julian Assange's life miserable.

DER SPIEGEL: He certainly didn't look particularly well when he was dragged out of the embassy.

Hrafnsson: I am not sure if anyone would look really well when he was handcuffed and dragged out by seven policemen -- not to mention spending seven years inside one flat. It was disgusting and disgraceful.

DER SPIEGEL: How was Assange's life in the embassy before he got arrested?

Hrafnsson: The security staff and diplomats spied on him 24/7. They copied documents from his lawyers, they recorded the visits of doctors. The United Nations' special rapporteur on the right to privacy was supposed to meet with him in the embassy, but the Ecuadorians obviously wanted to expel him before the rapporteur could collect any evidence in the embassy. He has now visited him in Belmarsh prison.

DER SPIEGEL: Is it true that you were offered the surveillance material from the embassy?

Hrafnsson: Somebody was offering it on Twitter, so I contacted the person who immediately said that this was for sale. The offer was to buy the material for 3 million euros -- otherwise the information would be spread in the media. This was extortion. I flew to Madrid and had meetings with the special division of the Madrid police on blackmail and extortion. We filed a complaint there and it was taken very seriously by the Spanish police and now it is before a court. A complaint has now also been filed against the Ecuadorian minister of foreign affairs and the staff of the embassy in London.

DER SPIEGEL: Were you able to view some of the material?

Hrafnsson: I was allowed to browse through 104 folders with masses of material on every aspect of Assange's life. Videos, photographs, audio recordings. The intensity of the surveillance was shocking.

DER SPIEGEL: There were reports of Assange not behaving in a way that one would expect from a guest of the embassy. He supposedly didn't flush the toilet, and he has been described as arrogant and narcissistic.

Hraffnsson: It is not hard to manufacture some kind of supposed evidence of negative behavior when you have somebody under total surveillance for years. The security guards and diplomats were instructed to collect selectively negative material. They once found a stain on the light switch of the toilet and alleged it was feces from Julian. This report was used by the president of Ecuador as evidence that Julian had been smearing feces all over the walls of the embassy. I mean, how low can you go?

DER SPIEGEL: What kind of guy is Assange?

Hrafnsson: I have had to work with a few editors in my 30 years as a journalist, and I would describe my relationship with editors as sometimes problematic. I am rather stubborn and independent. The relationship with Julian was the least problematic of all of them. He has a very clear vision of where he wants to go. We had disagreements, but he listened to my views. Sometimes we only agreed to disagree.

DER SPIEGEL: Do you consider him a journalist or an activist?

Hrafnsson: As both. Back in 2009, I found it extremely interesting to hear his opinions on information freedom coming from his background as a digital activist in Melbourne when the term "hacker" did not yet have a negative connotation but was a label for creative people who wanted to use the internet in a democratic or anarchistic way. Although I came from the totally different background of mainstream media journalism, at the end of the day I found out that we shared the same values.

DER SPIEGEL: So, you consider yourself to be an activist and journalist as well?

Hrafnsson: If you are a journalist and you are not fighting for information freedom, for accountability and transparency, then you are not a journalist in my eyes. Besides that, I am absolutely convinced that the struggle for Julian Assange's freedom of is the biggest struggle for press freedom we have experienced so far in the 21st century.

DER SPIEGEL: WikiLeaks has a rather simple but radical approach. If documents are in the public interest and authentic, they will be published. Is this still the idea?

Hrafnsson: WikiLeaks' approach would not have been radical a few decades ago, but that changed with the enormous escalation of secrecy of those in power after 9/11. State secrecy and corporate secrecy have been increasing without being convincingly justified. In this environment, the fight of an organization like WikiLeaks is becoming more radical in an environment changing for the worse. At the same time, regular people are unprotected against the invasion of their privacy, as former CIA employee and whistleblower Edward Snowden revealed to us. And private entities like Google, Facebook and others are harvesting our private information as well. So, yes, this is still the idea.

DER SPIEGEL: In the beginning, WikiLeaks said: "We don't discriminate, we publish what we get." Does that still apply today?

Hrafnsson: When we started to publish U.S. military documents in 2010 on a massive scale, we were criticized for just "dumping documents" unredacted. We were accused of having "blood on our hands." In 2013, during Chelsea Manning's trial, a Pentagon official was called to testify about the harm the publications had caused and the people who had been killed because of these. He had to admit that nobody had been harmed.

DER SPIEGEL: But of course, you still have a responsibility for the people mentioned in the documents.

Hrafnsson: Once again: There have been millions of documents published by WikiLeaks. Where is the harm? And where is the harm in truthful information? And that compared to the harm that has been exposed and the bloodshed that was caused by the parties that were exposed.

DER SPIEGEL: But why was it necessary to publish full names? Does WikiLeaks have any limits at all?

Hrafnsson: Of course, there are. Parts of the Afghan war documents were withheld by WikiLeaks. If you would have the manual for how to launch intercontinental ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads, would you publish it? Of course not!

DER SPIEGEL: What will happen to Julian Assange in the future?

Hrafnsson: He almost got the maximum sentence of one year in jail for skipping bail, but the real battle is the extradition case. It can take two or three years. The U.S. government has been given two months, until June 12, to produce additional information supporting the extradition request.

DER SPIEGEL: The request is based on an indictment on a charge of conspiracy to commit computer intrusion that holds a maximum sentence of five years. Will that be the only charge?

Hrafnsson: It is obviously only the first step, and it would be extremely naive to try to maintain that other charges will not be added when he is on American soil. Letters were issued to individuals connected with WikiLeaks where they were offered immunity if they provided information pertaining to the investigation into what obviously was being described as the violation of the Espionage Act of 1917.

DER SPIEGEL: Do you think the government in Washington is trying to get Assange to the U.S. in the first place on the pretext of the relatively benign charge of conspiracy to commit computer intrusion, so that it can then come up with additional charges that might lead to a life sentence or even the death penalty?

Hrafnsson: That's an absolute certainty. That is the playbook.

DER SPIEGEL: When American whistleblower Edward Snowden escaped to Moscow, a lot of people in Germany demanded that he be provided with political asylum here. Assange's arrest has been met with silence. Why?

Hrafnsson: My impression is different. We are seeing increasing support because people are starting to understand the severity of this situation, and even some journalists are getting how important the case is for the freedom of the press.

DER SPIEGEL: It's a slow start though.

Hrafnsson: The blueprint for what has been happening was written out by the CIA and some companies working for high corporate interests, leaked to WikiLeaks and published by WikiLeaks almost 10 years ago. The concept includes fighting the support base of WikiLeaks. And it's done by attacking the individuals who are in the circle of WikiLeaks and especially by attacking Julian Assange with attempted character assassination.

DER SPIEGEL: You probably mean the investigation into him regarding

alleged minor rape. Is it possible these Swedish investigations will be reopened? 

Hrafnsson: I find it highly unlikely for the simple reason that the Swedish state prosecutors wanted to close down the case in 2013 and it was the British Crown Prosecution Service that actually was pushing them to keep the investigation alive.

DER SPIEGEL: Female WikiLeaks supporters, in particular, have been deterred by these allegations. Even more supporters might have turned away after WikiLeaks published emails from Hillary Clinton and other leading U.S. Democrats. They believe that helped Donald Trump to win the election. Was it a mistake to publish those emails?

Hrafnsson: Absolutely not. It would have been a severe violation of all journalistic principles not to publish information passed to a journalistic entity about a political party and an individual prior to an election. The journalistic entity reviewed the material, found it to be truthful and in the public interest to publish it, precisely because there was a forthcoming election. It is not even a choice -- it is a duty for journalists to give the electorate access to all such information.

DER SPIEGEL: Robert Mueller stated in his report that two Twitter accounts allegedly connected to a Russian intelligent service provided WikiLeaks with these documents. Has WikiLeaks been instrumentalized by Russian intelligence?

Hrafnsson: It is worth noting that Mueller declined the offer to hear Julian's testimony. There is no evidence anything was sent by Russian entities that later was published. Mueller jumps to a conclusion, but it is not based on evidence. But usually there is an agenda attached to leaked information. There are sometimes individuals who leak information because they believe it is in the public interest to do so. They are very honorable whistleblowers, but you could call that an agenda as well. We have to scrutinize all leaked information and publish if it is in the public interest.

DER SPIEGEL: But it was more than just getting information. Assange was in contact with Donald Trump, Jr., Mr. Trump's oldest son, during the campaign. Was he an active part in the political game?

Hrafnsson: There is nothing per se unusual about journalists being in direct contact with political campaigns. Trump Jr. was not given, in advance, substantive information. It is not a crime to inform a political campaign of information that has already been published.

DER SPIEGEL: How do you address suspicions that WikiLeaks has been fed and used by Russia?

Hrafnsson: I'm not a fan of Putin. I'm generally a skeptic of power. There's definitely a lot of criticism, justifiably pointed at Putin's Russia. However, according to the latest statistics, Russia fell from second to sixth place on the list of countries' spending on military and defense, so now Saudi Arabia is No. 2. A few days ago, there were 37 beheadings in Saudi Arabia. We are talking about a nation that sends out assassination squads to torture and kill journalists. We are talking about the incubator of Islamist terrorism. So, why don't we put things into perspective?

DER SPIEGEL: But it's conspicuous that WikiLeaks has mostly published documents relating to the U.S. and not, for example, Russia.

Hrafnsson: We have already published information about corruption in Russia. Putin is mentioned in our database 82,940 times. We have published information about private companies working for secret services in Russia. Of course, we would publish material about the Kremlin if we could authenticate it and if it was in the public interest to publish it.

DER SPIEGEL: The next time when you get documents and you know they are from Russian intelligence, will you deal with it in the same way as you did it in the past?

Hrafnsson: There's an interesting premise in your question. You said, if you knew it was from Russia. It should be fairly well-recognized now that WikiLeaks tries its utmost not to know the source of its submissions. It's our policy, that's why we have a very advanced system, where you can submit information to us without being traced. Not knowing the source is probably the best security you can offer a source.

DER SPIEGEL: But if you happen to know the source, you have to deal with it.

Hrafnsson: I would say this in general terms: If the devil himself offered me truthful information about corruption in the Kingdom of Heaven, I would publish it. That's journalistic duty.

DER SPIEGEL: Chelsea Manning, a former military analyst who has been WikiLeaks's source for the Iraq war logs and other documents, has been jailed again because she refused to testify against Julian Assange. Did the two ever meet personally -- and could that explain the degree of loyalty?

Hrafnsson: No, they never met. But I must say: What is being done to Chelsea Manning is such a serious violation of any principle of law that is absolutely appalling. Chelsea Manning basically stated: "I do not accept the mandate of a secret court, where I am being hauled in front of it to demand I give information on a crime that I was sentenced for, for which I served seven years, after which the president of the United States reduced my sentence and I was released. I've said everything that I know in my trial." Because of this stance, she has been thrown in jail again. This is something that could have happened in the German Democratic Republic or countries where there is no respect for the rule of law. This is extortion, she is being extorted into giving evidence in the attempt to get a harsher sentence for Julian Assange.

DER SPIEGEL: What conclusions do you draw from Manning's treatment?

Hrafnsson: It looks like that when it comes to the criminal justice system in the U.S., in certain cases, it's just a criminal system without justice. Look at the letters that have been sent out to several individuals who were connected with WikiLeaks and are now living in exile -- some here in Germany, some in Iceland -- threat letters with the offer of immunity if they work with the grand jury in Virginia in the persecution of WikiLeaks. In other words: If you don't cooperate, we will go after you. I refer to this as the Don Corleone offer, which is from the Godfather, an offer you can't refuse.

DER SPIEGEL: What are you hoping for from the Germans?

Hrafnsson: There has to be some resistance to that overreach. The other day Julian Assange was given the Daphne Galizia Award by the members of the left group in the European Parliament. One of the members of parliament who presented it said that the extradition request for Assange was an attack on European democratic principles, and I do agree with that. Not only are we seeing the basic principles of press freedom under attack, the whole case is an attack on our democracy.

DER SPIEGEL: So, what do you expect from the German politicians or the government?

Hrafnsson: I would like to see more spine. It's about drawing a line in the sand, it's not about the person of Julian Assange, it's not about whether you like him or not, but about the core principles at stake. If we sacrifice this one, my god, we're in a pretty nasty territory.

DER SPIEGEL: How will WikiLeaks proceed from here, and how are you going to finance the platform?

Hrafnsson: Through donations. The majority of them are relatively small, 20 euros on average.

DER SPIEGEL: Can you reveal how many people work for WikiLeaks?

Hrafnsson: It's a floating number. The core team is very small and staff numbers vary depending on the publication. But, of course, our resources have been strained and we have been affected by these constant fights going on throughout the years.

DER SPIEGEL: Do you think WikiLeaks will still exist 10 years from now?

Hrafnsson: Definitely. But what is more important, is that the ideas introduced by WikiLeaks have gained momentum and have totally transformed journalism. WikiLeaks is proof of the power of strong ideas with mass appeal. History has proved that ideas are more resilient than empires.

DER SPIEGEL: Mr. Hrafnsson, we thank you very much for this interview.

 

Read more:

https://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/wikileaks-everything-was-don...

 

 

Read from top.

 

You won't find this interview on the Daily Telegraph....

In 1788 William Blake annotated Lavater's Aphorisms of Man. Lavater published 632 aphorisms in all. Blake considered the following aphorism to be an excellent example of an aphorism.

"40. Who, under pressing temptations to lie, adheres to truth, nor to the profane betrays aught of a sacred trust, is near the summit of wisdom and virtue."

 

 

 

Read from top.

Assange Extradition Will Have Chilling Effect on Investigative Journalism, Free Speech

May 3, 2019

We speak to Julian Assange's lawyer, Jennifer Robinson, about the first extradition hearing Assange had in London, where he refused to voluntarily turn himself over to US authorities

Story Transcript

GREG WILPERT It’s The Real News Network and I’m Greg Wilpert in Baltimore. WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange faced his first extradition hearing in London on Thursday in which he declared that he does not want to be extradited to the United States on charges of conspiring to hack a military computer. Assange and his supporters though, argue that the case is really about punishing someone who published embarrassing information that the US government wants to keep secret. Shortly before the extradition hearing, Assange had been sentenced to 50 weeks in prison in the UK for violating bail conditions. Assange is now being held in a maximum-security prison even though he was never charged with having committed a violent crime. We’re now joined by Assange’s lawyer, Jennifer Robinson. She is an Australian human rights lawyer and barrister with Doughty Street Chambers in London. Thanks for joining us today, Jennifer.

JENNIFER ROBINSON You’re very welcome.

GREG WILPERT So let’s start with the 50-week prison sentence that Assange received so far for violating bail. What’s your reaction to the sentence and are there any plans to appeal it if that’s even possible?

JENNIFER ROBINSON We are very disappointed with the nature of the sentence that was handed down this week. It is incredibly harsh, at the far end of the spectrum of what’s even possible for bail breaches and certainly in light of the evidence that we put about and the reasons that Julian Assange sought asylum in the first place. Of course, the breach of bail conviction relates to his decision to go into the Ecuadorian embassy in 2012 and seek asylum. And that was because he was concerned about the risk of extradition and being sent to the US to face prosecution for his publishing activities with WikiLeaks. That’s precisely what’s happened. But unfortunately, the judge was not very sympathetic with that and he got a sentence that in our view is disproportionate to the nature of the crime that’s been alleged against him. Breaching bail is not a serious offense.

GREG WILPERT So let’s turn to the extradition hearing itself. There are some estimates in the press that this process could take years. Do you believe that this might be the case, or will there be a concerted effort on the part of the UK and US authorities to expedite the process?

JENNIFER ROBINSON US extradition proceedings usually take about a year to complete, but in a case like this which will be fought very hard by Assange’s defense team because of the fundamental questions about free speech that it raises, this could go on for many years yet. Julian will of course remain in Belmarsh Prison serving out the sentence in relation to the breach of bail, but nevertheless even once that sentence is over, it is likely that the authorities will try to keep him in prison on remand while we fight the extradition proceedings. So it is going to be a very big and long fight.

GREG WILPERT And now regarding the arguments on the US aside, what will the decision for an extradition be based on? Do they need to prove that Assange actually participated in the hacking effort that he’s being accused of and that he’s denying, or are there other issues that need to be proven on their part?

JENNIFER ROBINSON Questions of proving the factual allegations in the warrant and in the indictment, are for a criminal trial in the United States, but of course we hope that it never gets that far. We will be resisting extradition here and defending him against being sent to the United States precisely because this case raises such fundamental questions about free speech. The indictment if you look at it, and the factual allegations that are made, it really boils down to a journalist and a publisher communicating with a source, asking that source to provide information, and having conversations with the source about how to protect their identity. This is the kind of activity that journalists and indeed good journalists should be having all the time. That’s why we heard Julian say in the hearing yesterday, which was just a procedural hearing, that he would not consent to extradition because he would not be extradited for having done journalism. That would be a key part of the arguments that we make. We’re also obviously concerned about the treatment that he would receive once he’s returned to the United States. We need only look to the way that Chelsea Manning is being treated, treatment that the UN said amounted to unusual and degrading treatment. And we’re concerned about the politicization of this case. WikiLeaks has been a key subject of discussion in the United States and US politicians and officials [have been] calling for him to be killed by drone strikes. These are very serious issues, and these are all issues that we’ll be raising in our case here in the UK.

GREG WILPERT Now here on The Real News Network, we in the past spoke to Ecuador’s former Foreign Minister Guillaume Long who has talked about the extremely difficult conditions under which Assange was granted asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy in London, especially over the past year. What are his prison conditions like now? Has the situation at all improved, or has it gotten worse? What’s the situation?

JENNIFER ROBINSON Of course for more than six and a half years, the time in which Julian was in the embassy, he was confined almost to a room, had no outdoor access for exercise purposes, and was denied medical treatment. The British authorities refused to allow him to leave the embassy without giving up his asylum status to seek medical treatment. So we were very concerned already about the long-term impact this was having on his health. His health and his well-being had significantly deteriorated. I think everyone saw that when they saw the footage of him being dragged out of the embassy by the police. It was visually obvious, but now he’s inside Belmarsh Prison, which is a high-security prison here in the UK and significant concerns have been raised about the standards and the conditions in that prison for the whole prison population. Julian himself has been inside his cell almost all day long, every day. At least now he’s getting medical treatment. We remain very concerned about his health, but the conditions inside that prison are very tough and he’s finding it very difficult.

GREG WILPERT Now if the extradition process takes more than the 50 weeks that he’s supposed to be held so far for the bail violation, will he be able to leave the prison while the extradition hearings continue if they last longer than that?

JENNIFER ROBINSON That remains to be seen. He will of course have to serve out at least half of the sentence that was granted. As we heard from the judge on Wednesday, at Wednesday’s hearing when the sentence was handed down, he will have to serve at least half of those 50 weeks in prison and after that would otherwise be released on what we call license here, conditional upon not committing another crime. But because of the US extradition proceedings, it remains to be seen whether the prosecutors will insist that he remains in prison. So it may well be that he has to spend more time in prison even after having served the sentence because of the US extradition request.

GREG WILPERT Now what could happen now? You already touched on this, but I want you to go into a little bit more detail. What could happen to Assange if he reaches US soil against his will?

JENNIFER ROBINSON Well we are very concerned given the widespread speculation in the American media over the past couple of weeks since he was arrested, that the US may well seek to add additional charges to the indictment against him once he’s back in the US. We are very concerned about that prospect. We’re also concerned about the politicization of this case. Dating back to 2010, you’ve had politicians calling him to be to be killed and I think post the 2016 publications in relation to the US election, Donald Trump’s election, and some of the comments that have been made by figures within his administration. For example, Mike Pompeo as Director of the CIA and now Secretary of State said that WikiLeaks was a hostile, non-state intelligence agency, that he would take them down, and that if prosecuted, Julian Assange should not benefit from the first amendment protections. This is a very serious statement to make from a key member of the Trump administration. And I think that everyone ought to be thinking very carefully in the US about what this indictment and prosecution would mean to media freedoms in the US because the indictment itself covers, if you read it in close detail and get beyond the Department of Justice press release headline referring to hacking, there is no suggestion that Julian Assange hacked material. There’s no suggestion he even helped Chelsea Manning hack material. It’s simply about discussions about protecting identities, about the discussions with a source about how to and what information to provide. These are actions that journalists do all the time and I think it will have a massively chilling impact upon investigative journalism and that’s why free speech groups in the US have been stating their concern about the nature of this indictment and what it will mean for the media.

GREG WILPERT Okay. Well we’re going to leave it there for now. I was speaking to Jennifer Robinson, Julian Assange’s lawyer in Britain. Thanks again, Jennifer, for having joined us today.

JENNIFER ROBINSON You’re welcome.

GREG WILPERT And thank you for joining The Real News Network.

 

Read more:

https://therealnews.com/stories/assange-extradition-will-have-chilling-e...

 

FREE ASSANGE TODAY !

 

 

Read from top.

Julian Assange’s father John Shipton has blasted the US for seeking “vindictive revenge” on his son for WikiLeaks exposing the US “destruction” of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria and the “millions killed” in wars. 

Assange is being punished for exposing the “grand narrative of every heinous crime of the late 20th century,” Lipton told protesters at a rally in Sydney, Australia, on Friday. 

The consequence of WikiLeaks revealing these crimes, the destruction of Iraq, the destruction of Afghanistan, the destruction of Syria, the destruction of Libya, millions killed, they want their vindictive revenge,” he said.

Assange was sentenced to 50 weeks in prison on Wednesday for breaching bail when he took refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy in London seven years ago. He faces extradition to the US where he is accused of ‘conspiracy to commit computer intrusion’ for allegedly trying to help whistleblower Chelsea Manning. The war logs and cables leaked by Manning in 2010 revealed potential US war crimes and shocking details about foreign policy and civilian casualties.

“Part of this resentment against Julian revealing these crimes is manifested by the English magistrate judiciary," Lipton said, pointing to “bizarre statements” being made against Assange in court, like that he is a narcissist.

Lipton also took aim at Ecuador, telling the crowd that “in order to get a loan, they sold an Australian citizen for money,” referring to the recent $4.2 billion International Monetary Fund (IMF) loan Ecuador secured before Assange was removed from the embassy.

He called on the Australian people to give the government the courage to “stop assisting this by doing nothing,” and help to bring Assange home to his family.

 

READ MORE:

https://www.rt.com/news/458365-assange-dad-vindictive-revenge/

 

 

Read from top

 

Cyber-security and privacy expert Ola Bini was arrested in Ecuador the same day that Ecuador revoked Julian Assange's asylum. A court now affirmed his pre-trial detention, while his parents and his lawyers say it has no basis

GREG WILPERT: Ola Bini, a friend of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, was required to remain in jail on Thursday in his appeal for release from an Ecuadorian prison. Bini, a cyber-security expert, has been in prison since the day that Ecuador revoked Julian Assange’s asylum at the Ecuadorian embassy in London. Prosecutors have vaguely accused Bini of hacking Ecuadorian government computers, but have not filed any specific charges against him. An appeals panel of the Provincial Court in Quito ruled, in a 2 to 1 decision after three hours deliberation, that Bini must remain in prison while the investigation against him continues. Prosecutors argued that Bini represents a flight risk and could interfere in the investigation. Bini’s lawyers, Carlos Soria and Jose Charry Dávalos, reacted to the ruling as follows:

CARLOS SORIA, OLA BINI’S LAWYER: This is an embarrassment, dear journalists. My client, our client, is an innocent person, who has contributed to the entire world on matters of privacy of information, and now, because he is a friend of Julian Assange, or because he travels a lot…

JOSE CHARRY DAVALOS, OLA BINI’S LAWYER: Three hours of deliberation and the court’s majority opinion still couldn’t tell us what are the charges or how the elements of the detention are enough, simply justifying preventative prison with a supposed jurisprudence that was never named, supposed sentences that were never cited, and supposed juridical rules, that were also never named, this isn’t enough.

[TRNN INTRO]

SHARMINI PERIES It’s The Real News Network. I’m Sharmini Peries coming to you from Baltimore. When the Ecuadorian government had revoked Julian Assange’s asylum and kicked him out of the embassy in London on April 11th, they also had a friend of his arrested— Ola Bini, who was living in Ecuador. He was arrested the same day. The Ecuadorian government accuses Ola Bini, who is a Swedish citizen, of helping Assange to hack Ecuadorian government computers, including President Moreno’s telephone. Bini’s friends and family vehemently deny that he would be involved in such activities, since he is a well-known defender of digital privacy. Joining me now from Quito, Ecuador to discuss the case is Ola Bini’s parents— his mother, Dag Gustafsson and his father, Gorel Bini. I thank you so much for joining us today.

DAG GUSTAFSSON Thank you for being here.

GOREL BINI Thank you.

SHARMINI PERIES First of all, let me begin by saying how sorry I am that you’re undergoing these horrible and terrifying circumstances with your son being held in this way.

DAG GUSTAFSSON Thank you.

GOREL BINI Thanks.

SHARMINI PERIES Alright. Dag, let me go to you first here. The last tweet we saw from Ola is that he was going to leave to go to Japan to do some training. He was excited. He had never been to Japan. He was just doing his normal day’s work, heading out to do some training. Tell us what exactly happened to him.

DAG GUSTAFSSON What exactly happened is when he got to the airport and checked in and went to the gate where he should leave from, he was arrested by the police. They took him aside and took him.

SHARMINI PERIES Took him. When did you discover that he was arrested? And now, you find yourself in Quito, Ecuador. How did you come to know that he was arrested?

DAG GUSTAFSSON Because Ola had a little time before they took his phone to send text messages to a couple of his friends. And his friends, very fast, spread the news that Ola has been arrested. So late in the evening, Thursday night, at home in Sweden, Ola’s former wife called us and told us what has happened. So we knew it after a couple of hours, what’s happened.

SHARMINI PERIES Alright. You’ve had a chance to visit with Ola. Do we know the charges that he’s been charged with by the Ecuadorian government? What is he accused of?

DAG GUSTAFSSON No. As far as the information we got from his lawyer, it is very vague. It’s some kind of data intrusion, some kind of hacking of the president’s phone, but there has not been a precise accusation made from the prosecutor. So he [doesn’t] know what crime he is supposed to have been doing, how it should have been, where, or when. So it’s very vague.

SHARMINI PERIES Right. Gorel, you can answer this. What do we know about Ola’s relationship with Assange? Were they working together? What is the connection?

GOREL BINI No, they were friends. Just friends.

SHARMINI PERIES Okay. And just by virtue of being his friend, he has been arrested. There must be some trail off activity leading to Ola. Do we know, or had they mentioned any of this to warrant an arrest of this sort?

GOREL BINI No, they haven’t mentioned that at all, I believe. And just being a friend to Assange shouldn’t be a crime, I believe.

SHARMINI PERIES Yeah. And what was Ola doing in Ecuador? He’s a Swedish citizen but was he working in Ecuador?

GOREL BINI Yes. He’s lived here for six years, I believe, and working. He started working in ThoughtWorks when he came here. And then, he had started with a nonprofit organization called CAD, right? A few months ago, I believe?

DAG GUSTAFSSON Yes. He started this year.

SHARMINI PERIES Tell us about the organization that he has built and why he needed to be in Ecuador to do that work.

DAG GUSTAFSSON Yeah. He started building up this organization based on what he’s passionate about and that’s the digital aspects of human rights and freedom of speech on the internet. He’s very active on that and that is his passion— to make the internet working better for privacy causes and so on. That we ordinary people could speak, communicate, have the freedom of speech on the internet, without risking to be overheard from organizations and governments, and so on. So that is basically what this organization is working with.

SHARMINI PERIES Okay. We, here at The Real News, interviewed Guillaume Long, who was Ecuador’s former foreign minister and he said that he believes President Lenin Moreno is partly motivated by vengeance here. That he’s very upset that certain documents were leaked about his personal financial situation, about his accounts, and photographs were released of the kind of people he was hanging around with. And this all led to him being publicly embarrassed, which led to the arrest of Ola Bini. Do you think there’s any truth to that?

DAG GUSTAFSSON We are not so— we don’t know so much about the political situation in Ecuador and don’t know enough to say anything about that really.

SHARMINI PERIES Okay. So in terms of Ola’s case here, what are the next steps? What are you waiting for? You’re obviously waiting for his release, but what are the conditions that they are placing on him before he could be released?

DAG GUSTAFSSON Next step is now Thursday, the 2nd of May because then there is going to be a new hearing. The first hearing was-— I don’t know the English word, but— overruled by his lawyer and therefore, there’s a new one happening now on the 2nd of May. Our hope is, of course, that the judge will take into consideration the actual evidence. The evidence that they have is the book of Noam Chomsky, a couple of USB sticks, and a couple of computers. There’s no witness of any crime being done. And as I said earlier, it has not been specified exactly what the crime he was supposed to have been doing. So there is no legal ground for Ola to be in prison. So of course, he should be released on Thursday.

SHARMINI PERIES And is there any message that Ola asked you to communicate with the world?

DAG GUSTAFSSON Yes. I don’t know if I have the words right now, but he has been communicating from the prison out on social media on different places. One with the headline: “the most important thing,” and that is something quite good. I think what he means by that is he had a friend that once said, what are you doing right now? Are you doing the most important thing you can do? If not, why are you not doing that? And that is one of the things that really Ola introduced, privacy work on the internet, because he realized with his skills and abilities, he finds that’s the most important thing he could do for mankind really.

GOREL BINI And he said that he will continue to do that when he gets out.

DAG GUSTAFSSON Yeah.

SHARMINI PERIES Alright. I thank you so much for joining us today and letting us into the life of Ola Bini and also what you’re experiencing there. I wish you all the best in trying to get him out of prison.

GOREL BINI Thank you.

DAG GUSTAFSSON Thank you.

SHARMINI PERIES I was speaking with Dag Gustafsson and Gorel Bini, the parents of Ola Bini, who had been arrested two weeks ago in Ecuador in connection with the revocation of Julian Assange’s asylum in London. I thank you all for joining us here on The Real News Network.

 

 

https://therealnews.com/stories/guilt-by-association-arrest-of-assange-friend-has-no-basis

Actor Pamela Anderson says she felt "sick" after visiting Julian Assange in a British maximum security prison to support the jailed WikiLeaks founder.

Key points: 

• Anderson said Assange did not deserve to be in a prison for violent offenders
• The US actor has supported Assange for several years, visiting him in the Ecuadorian embassy
• Assange is due again in court on May 30 over US extradition proceedings

 

Former Baywatch star Anderson visited Assange at Belmarsh Prison in southeast London on Tuesday morning, saying the 47-year-old had been unable to get out of his cell and that it was "very difficult" to see him.

"He does not deserve to be in a supermax prison, he has never committed a violent act," she told media outside the prison.

"He is an innocent person."

Anderson, 51, said Assange had no access to information and had been "cut off from everybody", including his own children.

"He's a good man, he is an incredible person," she said.

"I love him, I can't imagine what he has been going through."

 

Read more:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-08/pamela-anderson-visits-julian-ass...

 

 

Read from top.

Translation and adaptation by Jules Letambour

Dozens of French Yellow Vests went to protest in London, where, in the name of freedom of expression, they wanted to support the spokesman [Assange] of WikiLeaks, now threatened with extradition to the United States. RT France traveled with these Yellow Vests.


It’s 1 a.m. May 2, and only a few lights illuminate the street of La Chapelle, close to the ring-road, in the north of Paris. There, on the pavement, about 80 people, Yellow Vests and sympathisers, meet to take a bus to London, where the hearing on the potential extradition to the United States of journalist Julian Assange would take place in the morning.

The trip has been organised through social media networks by Breton Yellow Vest leader Maxime Nicolle, a main figure of the movement, and by the legal counsel of WikiLeaks in France, Juan Branco.

As the group slowly assembles, the Yellow Vests, which a few hours earlier protested in Paris on May the 1st, talk about things to do and how to organise. 

Some are young, some are in their forties and there are also a few retirees who came from the Paris region and from other departments.

People meet in small groups, telling each other the anecdotes of the day. Surprised, a neighbourhood youth on a bike stops and scrutinises the small crowd. "What's going on?", He asks… "We're going to London, to do the Revolution," a man in the group tells him, smiling.

At 2 am, the [double-decker] bus called "Robin Bus” ("Robin des Bus" — a take on "Robin Hood") arrives.

The bus is packed. Seated, the passengers come to know their neighbour. They converse for nearly an hour, then silence gives time for everyone to doze before arriving at Calais.

After several hours of being on the road and of having to wait at customs, the group gets on the ferry — giving some of the people the opportunity to state the clear connection between the Julian Assange cause and what it means for a citizen movement such as that of Yellow Vests. Carole, coming from Angers, evokes the conflicting relationship between media and Yellow Vests: "More people realise for the first time that the mass media are doing a very very bad job. If people are not informed, they cannot make proper decisions" And one of the Angevin Yellow Vest affirms:"We need people like [Julian Assange], they are heroes of the truth..."

(Read also: The mistrust of Yellow Vests for the media, due to the poor coverage of their movement?…)


Should Assange be a Russian or Chinese journalist imprisoned by his government, everyone would rise to say that it is a dictatorship and that it is scandalous!

"It's important to defend someone who exposes disturbing truths" says Philippe, a carpenter by profession. Coming from Bordeaux, he is indignant at the fact that France does not propose to grant political asylum to Julian Assange: “Should it be a Russian or Chinese journalist imprisoned by its government, everyone would rise to say that it is a dictatorship and that it is scandalous,"he argues.

As for Hugo, a student in Lorient, he explains how important it is for him to support the editor-in-chief of WikiLeaks currently in prison in the United Kingdom. "He has shown a great deal of selflessness and sacrifice" he recalls.

The day breaks and the English coast is now seen from the ferry. A few minutes before docking at the port of Dover, the group meets for a photo on the deck of the boat.

Back in the bus, Maxime Nicolle, Juan Branco and the driver, alternate on the speaker, to explain the organisation of the day and on the Assange case. We reach south-east London just after 9am.

The protest first goes to the Westminster Court, where Julian Assange's extradition to the United States is discussed at a first hearing — of a likely long series before the British courts decide.

Julian Assange being held in Belmarsh prison, his lawyer Jennifer Robinson and the current director of WikiLeaks, Kristinn Hrafnsson, attend the session. While awaiting their exit from the court, the Yellow Vests coming from France join other supporters of the Australian journalist who, placards in hand, chant slogans for his immediate release.

"It was hard financially but I am happy to have made the trip" says a Yellow Vest from Vannes. "It's a cause that touches me... Julian Assange is a person who wants the best for humanity, we cannot leave him in this situation, we must do everything we can do to recognise what he has done for us” she adds.


Integrity has become rare, Julian Assange shows us the way.

Coming from Aix-en-Provence, regretting having forgotten her iconic vest in a rush, another French citizen came as a mother: "I want to transmit a better world to my children... Integrity has become rare, Julian Assange shows us the way” she explains before underlining the link, in her view, between the fight of the founder of Wikileaks and the challenge of the government language against the Yellow Vests movement. Having come from Metz, a retired couple is also involved in the adventure. By the side of his wife, the man explains that they made the trip "to defend freedom of expression".

The presence of French citizens does not leave the acting director of WikiLeaks indifferent: "People are starting to understand how the case of Julian Assange is related to greater general issues, especially with regard to access to information. [...] The freedom of the press is a fundamental aspect of democracy” Kristinn Hrafnsson said to the crowd, at the end of the hearing.


Direction Ecuadorian Embassy

Later in the day, in front of the Embassy of Ecuador, the procession of Yellow Vests is joining Kristinn Hrafnsson, as he tries to enter the building to recover the personal effects of Julian Assange. Access is denied. Hrafnsson does not hesitate to call a patrol of police that passes by. Some policemen are willing to help him as he tells them he wants to access the building. But the goodwill of the London police cannot defeat the refusal from the ambassador...

At 9:30 pm, the Yellow Vests return to their two-story bus in southeastern London. Tiredness does not prevent people to comment on the highlights of the trip. "It was an extraordinary adventure" said a participant of the regular Saturday events, impressed by their smooth appearances in front of the English court and of the embassy.

As the Yellow Vests movement has been for many of its members, this committed initiative will have been marked by a friendly atmosphere: from widespread camaraderie among citizens who did not know each other, to the now iconic chant of the Yellow Vests, sung and whistled in chorus, several times a day: "We're here, we're here, and even if Macron does not like us, we're here, we’re here to stay..."



Fabien Rives

International [RT]

Tell the news





https://francais.rt.com/international/61786-immersion-periple-londonien-gilets-jaunes-venus-soutenir-julian-assange-reportage

Read from top.

 

By David Macilwain

 

It has just been announced that Facebook is banning some “dangerous people” from its platforms, particularly those promoting and allowing “hate speech” of various colours, but also including “conspiracy theorist” Alex Jones. This action follows on from measures taken after the Christchurch gunman used Facebook to screen his incendiary Islamophobic attack, and the sudden recognition of the threat posed by “White Supremacist” ideology.

At that time I wrote an article for the Australian blog “Pearls and Irritations”, which drew an uncomfortable comparison between “two Australians abroad” – the “Firearm terrorist” Brenton Tarrant, and the “Cyber terrorist” Julian Assange. It’s not of course that I think Assange is a terrorist of any description – but given the treatment he has been afforded by the Australian government he may as well be.

The reason I made this comparison, aside from the fact that the two men are both Australian citizens in prison for offences* committed abroad, was because there is something else that connects their perceived crimes, and which sprang to mind following the Christchurch massacre – the live vision of men being gunned down in Baghdad by US soldiers, screened around the world thanks to Wikileaks.

It was not immediately after the massacre of unarmed Muslims in the Christchurch mosques that this similar show of White Man’s brutality some 12 years earlier came to mind, but rather following the draconian legislation rushed through the Australian Parliament shortly afterwards. The circumstances around this, described in more detail in my article, were frankly suspect – though it was dangerous to say so.

Many people expressed concern that the new laws and severe punishments for the broadcasting of violent and provocative content could punish or restrict the legitimate activities of whistleblowers deemed in the public interest – but the laws passed with reluctant submission from the Opposition Labor party:

Nonetheless, Mr Dreyfus (Labor’s former Attorney General) told the lower house the opposition would help pass the laws, as part of its commitment to bipartisanship on matters of national security.

He said Labor would refer the laws to the powerful intelligence and security parliamentary committee and amend them to deal with any issues, if it wins the election.

Mr Dreyfus said tech giants such as Facebook must do more to deal with violent content on their platforms. But hundreds of smaller companies would also be captured by the bill’s “onerous obligations”.

The laws might also hamper whistle-blowing activities, Mr Dreyfus said.

The following day, Wikileaks issued a warning that Julian Assange could be evicted from the Ecuadorian embassy “within hours or days”, a claim denied and dismissed by Ecuador, but proven true within a week.

But it wasn’t just the “Ecuadorian collusion” that was proven true; this was the final act in a seven year-long conspiracy to capture and imprison our most valued whistleblower, as well as a revelation that there was indeed such a conspiracy, and that Assange’s fear of rendition was wholly justified.

With the benefit of hindsight it now becomes clear just how the exposure of this conspiracy as well as its denouement was handled by the Western media machine. The primary method was evidently to use a diversionary tactic, which also served as a pretext for Assange’s arrest and “trial”. As if on cue, a group of 70 UK MPs wrote a letter to the UK Home Office Minister, demanding that he “allow the extradition of Julian Assange to Sweden”, which backed up the false story that Assange was arrested for skipping bail. Combined with the disgusting and politically motivated personal attack on Assange by the judge, the pervasive broadcasting of this fabricated smear story allowed the real story to be blotted out of existence.

Yet it was plain as day – the UK and Sweden had collaborated with the US in the vindictive punishment of Julian Assange for exposing the criminal operations of the Empire in the Middle East. Over seven years they had never given up their malign plan to “render” and silence him. They had also repeatedly lied about their true intentions and shown themselves quite untrustworthy, as well as capable of gross abuses of the human rights and justice they constantly espouse.

Confirming the operation as a conspiracy, involving mainstream Western media knowingly or unknowingly colluding in a criminal deception, was the way the story of Assange’s arrest was presented the following day in Australian media. I wrote a complaint to the quasi-State broadcaster SBS, whose story was constructed around the “rape charges” from Sweden, and the UK MPs’ demands. The report included a brief interview with Jeremy Corbyn, asked to comment not on the threat of extradition to the US but on whether he opposed Assange’s extradition to Sweden. Having cast Corbyn in this negative defensive light, the report then noted that he was opposed to Assange’s extradition to the US, and “along with Wikileaks supporters” was more concerned about the US war crimes Assange had helped to reveal.

At this point in the SBS TV news report, just eight seconds of the notorious Iraq war crime film “Collateral Murder” was included, and became the focus of my complaint, and claim that SBS had engaged in a “calculated deception”:

In this extract, a group of unarmed men, including the Reuters journalists, are seen walking in a street just before being gunned down from the US helicopter. We hear the machine gun fire open up, but see nothing happen as the video cuts to a view of the next target – the van that pulled up several minutes later, and which was also targeted.

We see none of the men hit by the fire, because two seconds elapses between the sound and the bullets hitting the target.

Why did SBS cut the video at that very point, so that the whole significance of the atrocity is concealed?

The same criticism may be made over the shooting of the men trying to rescue the only survivor, where the key footage is before the shooting. An examination of the whole sequence is obligatory, and noting that since it was posted on Youtube in 2010, it has registered over 16 million views.

What irony is it, that the very reason that Assange – Australia’s Assange – is regarded as a hero and whistleblower by most decent and thinking Australians is because he revealed what SBS now seeks to conceal – the serial war crimes of the US government in its illegal wars in the Middle East?

SBS was of course doing exactly the same as other Western mainstream broadcasters, whose cuts from Collateral Murder also failed to show the shocking sight of unarmed men being killed. It was equally noticeable that non-Western media – RT for instance – made a special point of showing the cut with the men falling down under fire, along with the callous commentary; that after all was the point of the story. RT even interviewed that other Australian abroad – John Pilger – from Sydney!

Surprisingly perhaps, SBS agreed to investigate my complaint – which I backed up by a close analysis of their clip that found it was subject to some subtle manipulation as well as the closely timed cut. I submitted it before further developments however, and the dawning realisation that the story about extradition to Sweden was completely false, and just a ruse to enable Assange’s arrest.

Once the disinformation about his alleged unsavoury personal habits was established in the minds of those on the left who should have supported him, the story of extradition to Sweden just faded away; he was now being held in prison so that he wouldn’t abscond while the US prepared its extradition case. If there were a few cries of protest over his illegal extradition to the US, they were mostly now for pointless reassurance on his fair treatment, when already the worst possible outcome of Assange’s seven year incarceration had eventuated; the system now had him in its grip.

Looking back now it is remarkable to see how the most egregious miscarriage of justice has been enabled by the media, acting on behalf of a criminally corrupted legal system operating in the service of those who hold power. None of these is acting in the public interest, or on behalf of the public. Rather they have colluded in a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice operating beyond any democratic process or control.

The serious implications for press freedom and International law of Assange’s “extrajudicial abduction” have been well examined by independent and non-Western media, just as they have been ignored or dismissed by Western leaders and media commentators. The ability to perform such a feat of “double-think” is hard to comprehend, yet is so pervasive amongst millions of normal people that we have to accept it as a feature of human psychology.

It is this that makes us so susceptible to manipulation by “psy-ops”, or “disinformation warfare”, of which SBS’ eight-second clip of Collateral Murder is the perfect example. I wait in anticipation of SBS’ reponse to my complaint, perhaps along these lines:

In the context of the report, which concerned Assange’s evasion of sexual misconduct charges in Sweden, as well as recent restrictions on the screening of violent and abusive content, SBS considers the brief reference to Wikileaks’ video on a separate issue was sufficient to inform the viewer.”

Of course they might just come clean and admit that they simply screened the extract of relevant footage provided to them by the Department of Information Control (Global) at CentCom, and that other versions provided by conspiracy theorist websites such as Wikileaks may have been manipulated.

 

Read more 

https://off-guardian.org/2019/05/08/shooting-the-whistleblowers/

 

 

Read from top.

 

* Gus note: Assange has not committed any offence to be convicted with. See also:

 http://www.yourdemocracy.net.au/drupal/node/32971%23comment-43352

 

Although I make light weight of some women point of view in regard to conspiracies, on average experience, I feel quite close to the mark: men do conspire, women do less of it. I could be wrong.

Chemical Torture of Julian Assange

Karen Kwiatkowski via LewRockwell.com

There is great evil being perpetrated by Washington D.C. here and around the world.

A persistent terrible hate for life, liberty and humanity arrived on little cat feet and has taken over our country.  This did not begin with Trump, but sadly it also is not going to end with him either.

Trump promised to drain the swamp, implying change, transparency and accountability.

Instead he brought in neoconservative king-makers and warmongers, and allowed their influence to grow disproportionately, while his co-dependents in the other party facilitate the agenda of death.

The criminal pursuit and indictment of Wikileak founder, Julian Assange is the proof in the pudding.   The 40 page criminal complaint contains a lot of detail but not much crime.  In fact, the “crimes” are more like descriptions of how journalism is done in the information age, if it is true that the job of journalism is to tell the stories, name the names, and state the facts that governments don’t want told, named or stated.

In a normal world, none of this is worth much energy or attention.  There is very little legally here to work with, and success so far on the part of the US Government has been solely via a reliable judge in the Eastern District Court of Virginia, and other people’s money and other people’s governments, beholden or paid by the US.

But in the world that exists today, we see these overblown aggressive tactics and we can feel the excitement, the goosebumps and the hot necks of the FBI and CIA suits as they make their bones.

Chelsea Manning is back in prison, ordered back into solitary.  She [sic] is not the person she was after years of torture, isolation and chemical interrogation.  Ironically, her cognitive function as a result of her previous treatment is likely to render any future interrogation useless in court, legally and practically.  She received the Jose Padilla treatment, albeit refined by some years of USG practice.  Her resultant mental malleability may have produced the ideal Soviet Amerikan Woman.

The US appears to be a nation of laws, and yet, we absolutely are not.  One of many lessons and perspectives we gain from the study of Julian Assange is just that.  US political influence and debt-funded largesse resulted in Assange’s ejection from the Ecuadorian Embassy into the UK prison for terrorists in Belmarsh.   US domestic corruption and misreading of the Constitution produced his indictment.

Furthermore, US government employees, from the DoD, FBI and the CIA have been interviewing Assange in Belmarsh Prison, prior to any extradition decision.

Interviewing is the wrong word.  I’d like to say doctoring him, because it would be more accurate, except that word implies some care for a positive outcome.  Chemical Gina has her hands in this one, and we are being told that Assange is being “treated” with 3-quinuclidinyl benzilate, known as BZ.  What BZ does, from the New Yorker:

 

“Exposed soldiers exhibited bizarre symptoms: rapid mumbling, or picking obsessively at bedclothes and other objects, real or imaginary. “…The drug’s effect lasted for days. At its peak, volunteers were totally cut off in their own minds, jolting from one fragmented existence to the next. They saw visions: Lilliputian baseball players competing on a tabletop diamond; animals or people or objects that materialized and vanished. ….

Soldiers on BZ could remember only fragments of the experience afterward. As the drug wore off, and the subjects had trouble discerning what was real, many experienced anxiety, aggression, even terror. Ketchum [Dr. James Ketchum, DoD Edgewood Arsenal, MD] built padded cells to prevent injuries, but at times the subjects couldn’t be contained. One escaped, running from imagined murderers. Another, on a drug similar to BZ, saw “bugs, worms, one snake, a monkey and numerous rats,” and thought his skin was covered in blood. “Subject broke a wooden chair and smashed a hole in the wall after tearing down a 4-by-7-ft panel of padding,” his chart noted. Ketchum and three assistants piled on top of the soldier to subdue him. “He was clearly terrified and convinced we were intending to kill him,” his chart said.

One night, Ketchum rushed into a padded room to reassure a young African-American volunteer wrestling with the ebbing effects of BZ. The soldier, agitated, found the air-conditioner gravely threatening. After calming him down, Ketchum sat beside him. Attempting to see if he could hold a conversation, Ketchum asked, “Why do they have taxes, income taxes, things like that?”

The soldier thought for a minute. “You see, that would be difficult for me to answer, because I don’t like rice,” he said.”

 

BZ is an interesting drug, certainly not the only one used by the US government, but one of them.

Why give it to Assange?  What do they want from him?  Is it truth they seek, or more information, or is this whole farce something more like obsessive retaliatory rage at feeling powerless, as the world laughed at US State department memorandums and became angry at the idiocy and hate demonstrated by US soldiers 15 years ago.  Or maybe something more sinister – that they need Julian Assange psychologically and physically drawn and quartered because he revealed state corruption and weakness?   Is it because to the state this is the war, the real war it always fights, a war with the rest of the population for its very survival?   Or is Ray McGovern on to the real reason the deep state wants to destroy him?

It is difficult to know if the state is more sociopathic or more psychopathic.  What US government employees and/or contractors are currently doing to Julian Assange, and those who may have used Wikileaks as a journalistic avenue, may indicate it is the latter.  Torture, isolation, brutality, and the use of psychotropic drugs during interrogations and hiding this from the defendant’s own lawyers by denying them access — this is Lubyanka in the 1950s, not London and DC in 2019.

Allow me to get to the point.  The latest word I have received from England is as follows:

“[Julian Assange] is presently under close observation in prison hospital because he has suffered ‘severe transient psychotic episodes.’ My source(s) indicate these episodes occurred after two sessions of coercive interrogation at the hands of UK and US officials. The source(s) stated the HUMINT interrogators used psychotropic drugs in the course of the sessions.”

There are no words.  Nothing can be said.  2 plus 2 does equal 5.  The FBI is our own special Cheka.  The CIA Director’s hands are wet and her organization does not serve American values.  Rather than choosing to stay secretive for national security, the modern CIA must stay secretive in order to survive, because it has become functionally illegal.  Our president, who puts America first, is putting American values last, even as he tweets his concern for freedom of speech.

The agenda is to destroy Assange as a human being, and they may well succeed.  In doing this evil deed, in all of our names, America herself – whether we put her first, last, or somewhere in the middle – will have dug her own grave.

 

Read more:

https://off-guardian.org/2019/05/10/chemical-torture-of-julian-assange/

 

Ecuador's move to turn items and documents belonging to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange over to the US emphasizes the power that the Trump administration can exert over the famed publisher, activist and comedian Randy Credico told Sputnik.

"It's completely outrageous," Credico told Radio Sputnik's Loud & Clear on Monday of the development. "I don't see the legal basis for that. This was done without any kind of court hearing."

"How they could turn that stuff over — his personal belongings — to the US, not even to the Brits, but to the US… it just shows you the level of control that the US government, the [US] State Department [and] every other agency has over [Ecuadorian President] Lenin Moreno, who has totally sold out."

Read more:

https://sputniknews.com/analysis/201905211075178174-julian-assange-perso...

 

Read from top.

 

 

Prosecutors in Sweden have asked the courts to detain Julian Assange in his absence as part of an investigation into rape allegations. If the request is accepted, Sweden will issue an arrest warrant for the Wikileaks founders.

In an announcement on Monday morning the deputy director of public prosecutions in Sweden said that she had requested the District Court to detain Assange in his absence, “on probable cause suspected for rape (less serious crime). If the court decides to detain him, I will issue a European Arrest Warrant concerning surrender to Sweden."

The prosecutor, Eva-Marie Persson, added that if there is a conflict between a European arrest warrant and a request for extradition from the US, it would be up to UK authorities to decide where Assange would be sent after he finishes his current prison sentence.

“The outcome of this process is impossible to predict. However, in my view the Swedish case can proceed concurrently with the proceedings in the UK,” she said.

 

Read more:

https://www.rt.com/news/459764-swedish-prosecutors-file-request-assange/

 

What a lot of bull...

Read from top.

The whistleblower and WikiLeaks founder is currently serving a 50-week sentence in a London jail for violating his bail conditions in 2012, when he took refuge inside the Ecuadorian Embassy to avoid extradition to Sweden on sexual assault charges which have been dropped and reopened repeatedly.

UK Home Secretary Sajid Javid has confirmed that he has signed a request for Julian Assange to be extradited to the United States.

Speaking on the Today Programme on Thursday morning, the minister said Assange was "rightly behind bars."

"There's an extradition request from the US that is before the courts tomorrow but yesterday I signed the extradition order and certified it and that will be going in front of the courts tomorrow," Javid said.

According to the minister, while it's "ultimately" up to the court to determine Assange's fate, "there is a very important part of it for the home secretary and I want to see justice done at all times and we've got a legitimate extradition request, so I've signed it..."

 

Read more:

https://sputniknews.com/world/201906131075838284-uk-extradition-request-...

 

Justice will never be served by the US, the UK or Sweden... or Australia or ... any country being a bitch to the US administration of fascists...