UPDATE I have received scores of requests to republish and/or translate this article. It is absolutely free to use and reproduce and I should be delighted if everybody does; the world should know what is being done to Julian. So far, over 200,000 people have read it on this blogsite alone and it has already been reproduced on myriad other sites, some with much bigger readerships than my own. I have seen translations into German, Spanish and French and at least extracts in Catalan and Turkish. I only ask that you reproduce it complete or, if edits are made, plainly indicate them. Many thanks.
BEGINS
I was deeply shaken while witnessing yesterday’s events in Westminster Magistrates Court. Every decision was railroaded through over the scarcely heard arguments and objections of Assange’s legal team, by a magistrate who barely pretended to be listening.
Before I get on to the blatant lack of fair process, the first thing I must note was Julian’s condition. I was badly shocked by just how much weight my friend has lost, by the speed his hair has receded and by the appearance of premature and vastly accelerated ageing. He has a pronounced limp I have never seen before. Since his arrest he has lost over 15 kg in weight.
But his physical appearance was not as shocking as his mental deterioration. When asked to give his name and date of birth, he struggled visibly over several seconds to recall both. I will come to the important content of his statement at the end of proceedings in due course, but his difficulty in making it was very evident; it was a real struggle for him to articulate the words and focus his train of thought.
Until yesterday I had always been quietly sceptical of those who claimed that Julian’s treatment amounted to torture – even of Nils Melzer, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture – and sceptical of those who suggested he may be subject to debilitating drug treatments. But having attended the trials in Uzbekistan of several victims of extreme torture, and having worked with survivors from Sierra Leone and elsewhere, I can tell you that yesterday changed my mind entirely and Julian exhibited exactly the symptoms of a torture victim brought blinking into the light, particularly in terms of disorientation, confusion, and the real struggle to assert free will through the fog of learned helplessness.
I had been even more sceptical of those who claimed, as a senior member of his legal team did to me on Sunday night, that they were worried that Julian might not live to the end of the extradition process. I now find myself not only believing it, but haunted by the thought. Everybody in that court yesterday saw that one of the greatest journalists and most important dissidents of our times is being tortured to death by the state, before our eyes. To see my friend, the most articulate man, the fastest thinker, I have ever known, reduced to that shambling and incoherent wreck, was unbearable. Yet the agents of the state, particularly the callous magistrate Vanessa Baraitser, were not just prepared but eager to be a part of this bloodsport. She actually told him that if he were incapable of following proceedings, then his lawyers could explain what had happened to him later. The question of why a man who, by the very charges against him, was acknowledged to be highly intelligent and competent, had been reduced by the state to somebody incapable of following court proceedings, gave her not a millisecond of concern.
The charge against Julian is very specific; conspiring with Chelsea Manning to publish the Iraq War logs, the Afghanistan war logs and the State Department cables. The charges are nothing to do with Sweden, nothing to do with sex, and nothing to do with the 2016 US election; a simple clarification the mainstream media appears incapable of understanding.
The purpose of yesterday’s hearing was case management; to determine the timetable for the extradition proceedings. The key points at issue were that Julian’s defence was requesting more time to prepare their evidence; and arguing that political offences were specifically excluded from the extradition treaty. There should, they argued, therefore be a preliminary hearing to determine whether the extradition treaty applied at all.
The reasons given by Assange’s defence team for more time to prepare were both compelling and startling. They had very limited access to their client in jail and had not been permitted to hand him any documents about the case until one week ago. He had also only just been given limited computer access, and all his relevant records and materials had been seized from the Ecuadorean Embassy by the US Government; he had no access to his own materials for the purpose of preparing his defence.
Furthermore, the defence argued, they were in touch with the Spanish courts about a very important and relevant legal case in Madrid which would provide vital evidence. It showed that the CIA had been directly ordering spying on Julian in the Embassy through a Spanish company, UC Global, contracted to provide security there. Crucially this included spying on privileged conversations between Assange and his lawyers discussing his defence against these extradition proceedings, which had been in train in the USA since 2010. In any normal process, that fact would in itself be sufficient to have the extradition proceedings dismissed. Incidentally I learnt on Sunday that the Spanish material produced in court, which had been commissioned by the CIA, specifically includes high resolution video coverage of Julian and I discussing various matters.
The evidence to the Spanish court also included a CIA plot to kidnap Assange, which went to the US authorities’ attitude to lawfulness in his case and the treatment he might expect in the United States. Julian’s team explained that the Spanish legal process was happening now and the evidence from it would be extremely important, but it might not be finished and thus the evidence not fully validated and available in time for the current proposed timetable for the Assange extradition hearings.
For the prosecution, James Lewis QC stated that the government strongly opposed any delay being given for the defence to prepare, and strongly opposed any separate consideration of the question of whether the charge was a political offence excluded by the extradition treaty. Baraitser took her cue from Lewis and stated categorically that the date for the extradition hearing, 25 February, could not be changed. She was open to changes in dates for submission of evidence and responses before this, and called a ten minute recess for the prosecution and defence to agree these steps.
What happened next was very instructive. There were five representatives of the US government present (initially three, and two more arrived in the course of the hearing), seated at desks behind the lawyers in court. The prosecution lawyers immediately went into huddle with the US representatives, then went outside the courtroom with them, to decide how to respond on the dates.
After the recess the defence team stated they could not, in their professional opinion, adequately prepare if the hearing date were kept to February, but within Baraitser’s instruction to do so they nevertheless outlined a proposed timetable on delivery of evidence. In responding to this, Lewis’ junior counsel scurried to the back of the court to consult the Americans again while Lewis actually told the judge he was “taking instructions from those behind”. It is important to note that as he said this, it was not the UK Attorney-General’s office who were being consulted but the US Embassy. Lewis received his American instructions and agreed that the defence might have two months to prepare their evidence (they had said they needed an absolute minimum of three) but the February hearing date may not be moved. Baraitser gave a ruling agreeing everything Lewis had said.
At this stage it was unclear why we were sitting through this farce. The US government was dictating its instructions to Lewis, who was relaying those instructions to Baraitser, who was ruling them as her legal decision. The charade might as well have been cut and the US government simply sat on the bench to control the whole process. Nobody could sit there and believe they were in any part of a genuine legal process or that Baraitser was giving a moment’s consideration to the arguments of the defence. Her facial expressions on the few occasions she looked at the defence ranged from contempt through boredom to sarcasm. When she looked at Lewis she was attentive, open and warm.
The extradition is plainly being rushed through in accordance with a Washington dictated timetable. Apart from a desire to pre-empt the Spanish court providing evidence on CIA activity in sabotaging the defence, what makes the February date so important to the USA? I would welcome any thoughts.
Baraitser dismissed the defence’s request for a separate prior hearing to consider whether the extradition treaty applied at all, without bothering to give any reason why (possibly she had not properly memorised what Lewis had been instructing her to agree with). Yet this is Article 4 of the UK/US Extradition Treaty 2007 in full:
On the face of it, what Assange is accused of is the very definition of a political offence – if this is not, then what is? It is not covered by any of the exceptions from that listed. There is every reason to consider whether this charge is excluded by the extradition treaty, and to do so before the long and very costly process of considering all the evidence should the treaty apply. But Baraitser simply dismissed the argument out of hand.
Just in case anybody was left in any doubt as to what was happening here, Lewis then stood up and suggested that the defence should not be allowed to waste the court’s time with a lot of arguments. All arguments for the substantive hearing should be given in writing in advance and a “guillotine should be applied” (his exact words) to arguments and witnesses in court, perhaps of five hours for the defence. The defence had suggested they would need more than the scheduled five days to present their case. Lewis countered that the entire hearing should be over in two days. Baraitser said this was not procedurally the correct moment to agree this but she will consider it once she had received the evidence bundles.
(SPOILER: Baraitser is going to do as Lewis instructs and cut the substantive hearing short).
Baraitser then capped it all by saying the February hearing will be held, not at the comparatively open and accessible Westminster Magistrates Court where we were, but at Belmarsh Magistrates Court, the grim high security facility used for preliminary legal processing of terrorists, attached to the maximum security prison where Assange is being held. There are only six seats for the public in even the largest court at Belmarsh, and the object is plainly to evade public scrutiny and make sure that Baraitser is not exposed in public again to a genuine account of her proceedings, like this one you are reading. I will probably be unable to get in to the substantive hearing at Belmarsh.
Plainly the authorities were disconcerted by the hundreds of good people who had turned up to support Julian. They hope that far fewer will get to the much less accessible Belmarsh. I am fairly certain (and recall I had a long career as a diplomat) that the two extra American government officials who arrived halfway through proceedings were armed security personnel, brought in because of alarm at the number of protestors around a hearing in which were present senior US officials. The move to Belmarsh may be an American initiative.
Assange’s defence team objected strenuously to the move to Belmarsh, in particular on the grounds that there are no conference rooms available there to consult their client and they have very inadequate access to him in the jail. Baraitser dismissed their objection offhand and with a very definite smirk.
Finally, Baraitser turned to Julian and ordered him to stand, and asked him if he had understood the proceedings. He replied in the negative, said that he could not think, and gave every appearance of disorientation. Then he seemed to find an inner strength, drew himself up a little, and said:
I do not understand how this process is equitable. This superpower had 10 years to prepare for this case and I can’t even access my writings. It is very difficult, where I am, to do anything. These people have unlimited resources.
The effort then seemed to become too much, his voice dropped and he became increasingly confused and incoherent. He spoke of whistleblowers and publishers being labeled enemies of the people, then spoke about his children’s DNA being stolen and of being spied on in his meetings with his psychologist. I am not suggesting at all that Julian was wrong about these points, but he could not properly frame nor articulate them. He was plainly not himself, very ill and it was just horribly painful to watch. Baraitser showed neither sympathy nor the least concern. She tartly observed that if he could not understand what had happened, his lawyers could explain it to him, and she swept out of court.
The whole experience was profoundly upsetting. It was very plain that there was no genuine process of legal consideration happening here. What we had was a naked demonstration of the power of the state, and a naked dictation of proceedings by the Americans. Julian was in a box behind bulletproof glass, and I and the thirty odd other members of the public who had squeezed in were in a different box behind more bulletproof glass. I do not know if he could see me or his other friends in the court, or if he was capable of recognising anybody. He gave no indication that he did.
In Belmarsh he is kept in complete isolation for 23 hours a day. He is permitted 45 minutes exercise. If he has to be moved, they clear the corridors before he walks down them and they lock all cell doors to ensure he has no contact with any other prisoner outside the short and strictly supervised exercise period. There is no possible justification for this inhuman regime, used on major terrorists, being imposed on a publisher who is a remand prisoner.
I have been both cataloguing and protesting for years the increasingly authoritarian powers of the UK state, but that the most gross abuse could be so open and undisguised is still a shock. The campaign of demonisation and dehumanisation against Julian, based on government and media lie after government and media lie, has led to a situation where he can be slowly killed in public sight, and arraigned on a charge of publishing the truth about government wrongdoing, while receiving no assistance from “liberal” society.
Unless Julian is released shortly he will be destroyed. If the state can do this, then who is next?
——————————————
Unlike our adversaries including the Integrity Initiative, the 77th Brigade, Bellingcat, the Atlantic Council and hundreds of other warmongering propaganda operations, this blog has no source of state, corporate or institutional finance whatsoever. It runs entirely on voluntary subscriptions from its readers – many of whom do not necessarily agree with the every article, but welcome the alternative voice, insider information and debate.
Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.
Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:
IF YOU LIVE IN THE UK, PLEASE SIGN MY PETITION FOR OFFICIAL INTERNATIONAL OSCE OBSERVERS FOR THE NEXT SCOTTISH INDEPENDENCE REFERENDUM
Julian looks like good man. Too pity see this horror. But… Yes, but try to remember few cases.
Your government, papers, common burgers, inet comments incriminated Russians all unbelievable sins & crimes as you can image, without any proofs. Russians shoot down MH-17, killed Litvinenko, poisoned Skripals, USA election…
Did anybody hear bell ringing? May be it is ringing about you? About your liberty and “democracy”? Go on…
You are living in the Orwell world. We have not illusion about our governors. You do…
First they came for the Russians.
Which mechanisms in the west have effectively corrected state narratives about Julian Assange, the Skripals and MH17?
Our “free” politicians, judges and media?
Феликс
I think Russophobia has been particularly ramped up since 2014, just prior to the Sochi Olympic games and then of course the Ukraine coup/civil war which was particularly encouraged by the US. As someone who is very interested in sports, I find it quite depressing that Russian athletes are forbidden by the IAAF/IOC from competing under their own flag, this is clearly a politically motivated move and has nothing to do with doping in sport.
Indeed, no one impartial who has been paying attention to sports can be in any doubt that the real doping powerhouse is the USA. Alberto Salazar, anyone? Carl Lewis? Flo-Jo? The striking aspect of the long trail of American athletes and coaches who have admitted (eventually) suing illicit performance-enhancing drugs is that those exact people have usually spent years sincerely protesting their hatred for drugs and drug-takers. Not only are they cheats, they are hypocritical cheats.
Tom Welsh
The 1984 Los Angeles Olympic Games, where the whole US cycling team used blood doping.
https://tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09523367.2014.958667?src=recsys&journalCode=fhsp20
The BALCO scandal involving Marion Jones and others
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BALCO_scandal
When it comes to doping nobody beats the USA.
Not just the US. We mustn’t forget the official parliamentary UK enquiry into indications that UK Team Sky cycling team were using ‘underhand’ methods to achieve their success was suddenly put in mothballs many moons ago when the team doctor claimed illness prevented him from giving evidence to the Committee. Most of the UK’s mainstream media (The Times are one exception I know of) have failed to update the public on recent events, the implications of which are extremely damning.
https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/latest-news/new-date-set-dr-richard-freeman-medical-tribunal-mystery-testosterone-delivery-439933
Methinks that Dr Freeman has been thrown to the wolves by the true culprits as it’s just not credible that he was relying solely on his own initiative. That leads me to wonder when Brailsford, Wiggins, Dr Freeman et al will be recalled to a reconvened Parliamentary enquiry.
Borncynical
The Times has always been consistent when it comes to doping in sport. Remember David Walsh was talking about Lance Armstrong 9 years before the cheat was taken down. Walsh also mentioned Nike and Alberto Salazar back in 2012.
The Team Sky scandal is very complicated, because it wasn’t just the missing laptop/jiffy bag/testosterone patches, it was the ludicrous UCI policy of allowing riders to take TUE’s for every little illness.
Chris Froome won the Tour of Romandie after nearly missing the race because of a chest infection. He was allowed to take Prednisolone and went on to absolutely crush everyone – amazing what a sick athlete can achieve.
“Did anybody hear bell ringing? May be it is ringing about you?”
You are referring to our old friend John Donne, aren’t you?
“Ask not for whom the bell tolls, the bell tolls for thee…” John Donne
And you are right.
As a matter of fact, there is nothing new about these lies told about Russia, the same lies, essentially were told about the USSR and, before it, the Russia of the Romanovs. The constant is that there is always a “western” faction among the intelligentsia, for the most part, which despises Russia and is ashamed of the country’s position straddling two continents.
Massive pressure was put on athletes to boycott the 1980 Moscow Olympics because of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
We now know the Carter administration deliberately destabilized Afghanistan in order to provoke the invasion in the first place!
This appalling idea was the brainchild of Carter’s national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski:
https://www.counterpunch.org/1998/01/15/how-jimmy-carter-and-i-started-the-mujahideen/
I was talking to some XR SJW’s who had travelled into London to camp and ‘protest’ last week and suggested they set up a permanent camp at Belmarsh – whoosh! – is all i can say about their actual grasp of what is real and urgent, one of whom was a journalist too, but has NO IDEA or concern of JA except the lies of the Swedish accusation, has never accessed wikileaks but wants to save the world from exploitation! There are none so blind…
Anyway, maybe it is time to perhaps tie in the failure of justice for Harry Dunn and issue a arrest warrant and extradition for the US citizen.
Peaceful protests are no longer effective, nor adequate.
Liberty & justice living free citizens must storm the “castles”.
If the government can’t obey the rules of law, neither should citizens.
Burn down them prison walls.
Civil disobedience is every patriotic citizens civic duty.
The major political parties and their office-holding shills in both the U.K. & U.S. are complicit in this torture.
They need to be given the Russian Tsarist treatment.
Right On.
This Monday after the court hearing in London, a journalist — running next to the prison van — took what could be the last images of Julian Assange, since the final hearing in February will be held directly at the maximum security prison. This apparently following instructions from US representatives at yesterday’s hearing to further isolate Julian from the public.
In this short video, as in the courtroom, Julian seems absent and only partially conscious.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CiCnSuaCS_Q
It does not seem unlikely to me to the reason that he is still alive is that he has still not given them all they want, as the current imprisonment of Chelsea Manning, and the strange shenanigans in Ecuador with Ola Bini may very well indicate.
Possible prejudicial behaviour by Vanessa Baraitser over original Swedish case – if she is related to Lisa Baraitser who has published on feminist issues?
Not a common name but roots in South Africa.
It reveals her links to the “woke” politically correct element of the pro-yankee power structure. The magistrate is a disgrace, like Jeffries of the bloody assizes, but is even worse, acting for a foreign power structure. She deserves every obloquy this will generate, and is acting along the lines of famous modern representatives of totalitarian states like Roland Freisler or Vishinsky. If the legal system were still functioning under the rule of law, such people would not be allowed to operate.
Is she related to Michael Baraitser, doctor and scientist in London
https://genmedhist.eshg.org/fileadmin/content/website-layout/interviewees-attachments/Baraitser,%20Michael.pdf
Michael Baraitser has a record as a torturer, as described in that document. She might be his daughter, brought up not knowing right from wrong.
Should be investigated. Any personal links would disqualify as a supposed impartial magistrate. Then again, her very behaviour disqualified her as such.
Under the UK/US Extradition Treaty Article 4.
Extradition shall not be granted if the offense for which extradition is requested is a political offense.
Common political crimes include bribery, treason, sedition, espionage, theft, perjury, human rights violations, and whistle blowing.
In criminology, a political crime is an act or omission prejudicial to the interests of the state or government like espionage, sedition and treason. Political crimes generally arise from political disturbances. It includes offenses arising from attack on the political order.
All the above are included in the US indictments against Julian Assange https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1153486/download
They are Political offences and therefore NON EXTRADITABLE.
That assumes we live under the Rule of Law, the evidence of which does not even meet the balance of probabilities standard let alone come close to beyond reasonable doubt. I am hopeful that this will change, I am not hopeful that it will be achieved without considerable “collateral damage” especially in regards to “the great and the good” who now have transmogrified into “the tyrants and the wicked”.
It’s always the same fundamental problem, to which there is really no good solution. It’s this.
No laws, constitutions, regulations, procedures or guidelines can possibly force people to do what is right, or not to do what is wrong, against their wishes.
There is always some critical moment when a particular human being must exercise personal judgment; and that’s the fatal flaw. Was Jean-Charles de Menezes murdered? Of course he was – any fool can see it. But “justice” says no. Was there a foreign conspiracy to murder the Skripals? Obviously not. But the government says yes, and no one gainsays it – even though it is their bounden legal duty to do so.
Looks as though you’ve got this right. Surely his legal team will be pushing that line Harry? If not, why not?
All of those working for the yankees in this case, led by the magistrate, are traitors and enemies of the people. The yankee operatives and thugs in the courtroom are proof of this. Britain’s colonial status is also revealed by these facts.
“All of those working for the yankees in this case, led by the magistrate, are traitors and enemies of the people”.
Absolutely true. But they probably think of themselves as “on the winning side”. (Which is always the opposite side from the people).
If #BernieSanders2020 wins the Democratic nomination in the US, he has vowed not to prosecute whistleblowers. https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/10/23/whoa-says-edward-snowden-sanders-vows-end-prosecution-whistleblowers-under-espionage
Great, lets hope he survives a ferocious campaign. I’m sure our media and the BIBiCee are already quivering to cover the Yankee elections. Thats just it, whatever happens in the primitive barbarous countries and rogue states is far more interesting to the Limeys than what’s happening here in Europe.
Time to cut the umbilical cord and let Julian free to recouperate from the multifaceted torture under the western hegemony.
I hope Bernie Sanders promises to, and actually does, shut down the Guatanamo detention camp too, unlike Barack Obama who said he would and then kept it running all eight years he was US president.
BTW you’ve spelled Sanders’s name with four digits after it and a hash sign before it. Why encourage people to use a CIA-friendly NSA-friendly US advertising company like Twitter as a communications medium?
Yeah, but Obama promised a lot more and turned out to be an even bigger promoter US international aggression and trampling of domestic Rights than George W.! The Ruling Class are so cunning, they will put up all sorts of “Progressives” to fool the people into not rising up against their System. Only revolutions end tyrannies.
Too many people on this site appear to have accepted that nothing can be done and Julian has had it. However, there are few things that can still be done.
Yesterday, a lawyer called ‘Andrew F’ asked, on this site, why Julians defence team have never applied for bail. It’s a very important question and it requires an explanation. Everyone should be DEMANDING, not asking, his legal team apply for bail. From the moment he was imprisoned it should have been a priority, especially given his deteriorating health. Do his legal team want him in prison? They don’t appear to be in to much of a hurry to get him out.
According to Andrew F, under extradition rules, Julian could have been brought to court every four weeks for a bail decision. If bail is refused there’s an automatic right to appeal to the High Court. So why haven’t they done this? They need to get him before a court every four weeks and every time bail is refused appeal against the decision. If they are not prepared to do this, then Julians friends/supporters/family need to hire a solicitor and apply for bail asap. (I assume there is a fighting fund in existence). This is something that could be started tomorrow – so DO IT. Waving placards outside the court won’t achieve anything. If Julian can get bail, suitable medical treatment, and start to experience social interaction he might make some recovery by February, and will have a better chance.
Also, on the subject of the extremely biased magistrate, something else can be done. A quick internet search on how to complain about magistrates shows clear Government procedures for making such complaints, regarding behaviour in court. Initially, a complaint is made to the regional ‘Local Advisory Committee’, and if their response is not acceptable there is then a right to appeal to the ‘Office of Judicial Complaints’. This is something else that could be started tomorrow (or even this evening – you can do it online) so DO IT. Unfortunately, the complaint won’t change the magistrates decision, but at least she will be held accountable and hopefully subjected to disciplinary action.
Mr Sting,
He is produced to the court every four weeks – by videolink.
I do not know precisely why bail has not been applied for. I have of course asked the legal team. If they had asked for bail at the outset, it would have been summarily denied given, in the eyes of the law, he had just served a sentence for bail-jumping. I have however been told that there is a plan, to which I cannot be privy. I add that I would trust Gareth Peirce with my life, without a second’s hesitation, and if there is a reason she doesn’t want to tell me (or anyone at this stage) I am OK with that. As is Julian.
Let me, as a lawyer practicing for over 30 years, concur with Mr Murray that, if Gareth Peirce, and Mr Assange’s legal team has a plan, about which they are being discrete, I would trust them absolutely and accept that there is good reason for such discretion.
“I have however been told that there is a plan, to which I cannot be privy….”
The obvious problem to that is, if Mr Assange’s physical and mental condition is as bad as – or worse – than seems apparent, and if that seeming rapid onset has been deliberately induced by drugs, then there is a very good chance that the very people intended to be kept in the dark about the plan, are likely already more than au fait with it…..
….unless of course he himself is equally unaware as to the remotest detail.
I hope the last scenario you mentioned is true. If their “plan” fails, then they will also be suspect (not Proven as secretly working with US Authorities, but the possibility of such will remain in people’s minds).
Good to hear they have a plan. I think you have to accept that there was never any chance of bail. Also, I would take Gareth Pierce’s advice over a ‘quick internet search’.
@ craig Post author October 23, 2019 at 17:38
Craig, in 1978 I was forcibly injected with Largactyl in Brixton prison whilst on remand. As soon as I got out I went to see my lawyer and commenced a case against the Home Office. It took six years to come to court, but I won in the High Court, the first time they had ever been successfully sued for what was a very regular practice (known as the ‘Liquid Cosh’) .
I very much doubt that Julian is voluntarily accepting medication, given it’s obvious debilitating and disorienting effects, so although it would seem to be common sense, could you please check with his defense team as to whether they have taken steps to stop this drugging?
After I won the case, I learnt they had tightened up a lot, and had cut down heavily on using drugs such as Largactyl so proliferately.
Wow, my brother was on Largactyl most of his life (he was schizophrenic), but when you don’t need it for very troubling hallucinations it turns you into a zombie. I read there are also other anti-side-effect drugs you have to take, otherwise the Largactyl will send you into rigid catatonia? Good on you for suing and winning by the way. There was still some semblance of “democracy” in the West back in 1978.
The comments here piqued my interest,especially as this morning,Sydney, Aust time, a Google search of at least an hour was insufficent to locate any email contact details for an appropriate formal complaints body in the UK.
Thanks for the info which I will surely look in to further.
Have you heard about Lula’s (former brazilian president) trial? I’m from Brazil and Assange’s case looks eerily familiar, and a sign that we are no longer under a rule of law, worldwide.
Naomi Klein could write a book linking these two cases to neoliberalism and its failure, because these “trials” are a sign of weakness of the Empire, not of strength.
Right On Mark.
There needs to be international and official observers for February court date….and in an appeal filed.
How far have the UK and US Governments strayed from these ideals. And yet still the good people do nothing.
There are ten steps, or stages, to the evolution of a practical and efficient form of representative government, and these are:
image
1. Freedom of the person. Slavery, serfdom, and all forms of human bondage must disappear.
2. Freedom of the mind. Unless a free people are educated — taught to think intelligently and plan wisely — freedom usually does more harm than good.
3. The reign of law. Liberty can be enjoyed only when the will and whims of human rulers are replaced by legislative enactments in accordance with accepted fundamental law.
4. Freedom of speech. Representative government is unthinkable without freedom of all forms of expression for human aspirations and opinions.
5. Security of property. No government can long endure if it fails to provide for the right to enjoy personal property in some form. Man craves the right to use, control, bestow, sell, lease, and bequeath his personal property.
6. The right of petition. Representative government assumes the right of citizens to be heard. The privilege of petition is inherent in free citizenship.
7. The right to rule. It is not enough to be heard; the power of petition must progress to the actual management of the government.
8. Universal suffrage. Representative government presupposes an intelligent, efficient, and universal electorate. The character of such a government will ever be determined by the character and caliber of those who compose it. As civilization progresses, suffrage, while remaining universal for both sexes, will be effectively modified, regrouped, and otherwise differentiated.
9. Control of public servants. No civil government will be serviceable and effective unless the citizenry possess and use wise techniques of guiding and controlling officeholders and public servants.
10. Intelligent and trained representation. The survival of democracy is dependent on successful representative government; and that is conditioned upon the practice of electing to public offices only those individuals who are technically trained, intellectually competent, socially loyal, and morally fit. Only by such provisions can government of the people, by the people, and for the people be preserved.
Agreed, but you forgot the real 1st step: Revolution against the Ruling Minority. The Calvinists launched several throughout North Western Europe around 1600. The Bourbon parasites were removed by the French revolution in the late 18th Century. British Imperialism was evicted from the US a little earlier. The Romanov parasites and floggers (and promoters of Pogroms) were removed by the Bolshevik revolution of 1917; and not all of Cromwell’s democratic reforms were overturned despite the failure of the republican revolution he led.
I’m so sad and outraged to read about Julian Assange treatment by the British authority. It is exactly the same treatment we received in apartheid jails when we were detained and arrested by apartheid “security” police! Let all the peace and justice loving people of Britain and the world rise up against this injustice against Julian Assange.
We can say what we wish about the five Americans issuing orders (and my view is that by behaving as they have done, they have abrogated any right to either legal due process nor diplomatic immunity henceforth until the day they die), but they are foreign scum waltzing in like Hitlerian Gauleiters.
What we should focus our ire on are the scum of British society called James Lewis QC and Vanessa Baraitser. Neither are fit to ever again enter a court of law in any nation where the Rule of Law means anything. We can only conclude from this epistle that it means nothing in the Uk if Amerca says so.
I would at the same time seek for the Attorney General to behave like Bercow has behaved over Brexit, using the very widest interpretation of their powers to ensure that Baraitser is sidelined from this case for behaving as an impotent poodle to a foreign power with a vested interest in the case, thereby showing beyond doubt that she is neither intellectually nor morally capable of carrying out the duties required of her.
It is very important to organise heinously dreadful bullying of Lewis children, to teach them that having an unprincipled father with the letters QC after his name has consequences. He will have to decide between his loyalty to his children vs his loyalty to Americans. His British citizenship should be revoked immediately if he chooses the latter….and his QC status should be irrevocably revoked if he chooses the former. He crossed a rubicon from which there is no return. He has shamelessly abused legal procedures to deny a defendant a fair hearing. There is no greater professional misconduct that a QC can commit short of working for organised criminals (now that we are mentioning that….)
Assange will die if people say ‘we must remain pure’.
Baraitser and Lewis are pliant wastrels selected precisely because they are pliant wastrels.
They have no courage, they have no morals.
They must be placed in circumstances where lack of courage and morals puts them at a perilous disadvantage…
Um, no. I don’t think “heinously dreadful bullying” of the children of someone we don’t agree with is a good idea at all.
This isn’t the first time you’ve spoken of going after the children of people you don’t like.
I think you should seriously reconsider your approach to such matters.
Well said, Glenn. Going after children for the crimes of their parents is completely unacceptable.
Bullying of children is never justified.
And it’s not true that “there is no greater professional misconduct that a QC can commit short of working for organised criminals”. That’s not even misconduct. Do you seriously think there are some people, whether they are defendants or otherwise, who aren’t entitled to legal representation?
Nope, I am not up for bullying of children either.
Rhys Jaggar, Brilliant. I wish I could write like you. Thanks, Tony
The idea of going after someone’s children is so morally repugnant I can’t believe you are serious. You’re not, are you?
“It is very important to organise heinously dreadful bullying of Lewis children” then a bit later “…they have no morals.”
Major cognitive dissonance thing going on there.
Rhys, I like much of what you write here, and in many previous posts. But this incitement to bully children is wrong here, and in any other circumstance I can think of. Julian Assange is the child of his mother, who is devastated, distraught, broken by what our leaders are doing to her son. She would never agree with what you have said here. Please think it over, reconsider.
Well said sir!
@Craig – Did you have to walk through a metal detector? There’s surely no way that armed goons, let alone goons employed by a foreign government, would have been allowed past the foyer let alone into the courtroom itself unless permission had been granted by the British state at some level.
“Do they really think we are so powerful?”
James Lewis has been advising the FCA in the Barclays Bank and Qatari money case. He’s also the top judge in the Falklands.
Top Judge in the Falklands. Lot of competition there for sure. How many other sheep applied?
My understanding is that Julian Lewis is officially representing the US government and that the identity of his client is in no sense hidden. But is that correct? The British media are contradicting each other about this, which isn’t perhaps surprising when a lot of “journalism” in the national media nowadays amounts to cutting and pasting any old crap that “journalists” find on Twitter when they pick their mobile phones.
My understanding is that he is representing the CPS, which is seeking to comply with the US extradition request. But open to correction on which UK government body it is. I would expect the American government requesting extradition to have an observer in the room certainly. But it is the British authorities who are seeking to enforce extradition here, not the American, and it is quite wrong for the American authorities to be directly instructing the barrister.
It could be argued that it’s wrong for British prosecutors to involve themselves in extradition cases at all and they should leave it to barristers instructed by the foreign state to put the case for extradition before a British judge. But according to the CPS, “The CPS Extradition Unit represents the foreign authority seeking the return [sic] of the requested person in extradition cases. The CPS Extradition Unit provides advice to foreign authorities on the content and validity of extradition requests received from the NCA or Home Office and represents foreign authorities in extradition proceedings at Westminster Magistrates Court, the High Court, and the Supreme Court.”
I’d like to know how much money the US has paid the CPS, or professionals they’ve hired in, for “advice” and “representation” in this case.
Vanessa Baraitser seems quite a junior judge to be hearing this.
It’s a bit of a ‘give away’ isn’t it? Rather crude really. Oh well, if they get away with it, that will only prove that Britain has no sovereignty and that it is merely a satrap of the US World Military Empire.
It is James Lewis QC not Julian.
He comes from the chambers of Cameron’s brother, Alexander. He was called to the Bar in 2002.
https://3rblaw.com/barrister/james-lewis-qc/
James Lewis QC | Three Raymond Buildings
New Falklands Chief Justice appointed – GOV.UK
https://www.gov.uk › government › news › new-falklands-chief-justice-ap…
4 Jan 2018 – James Lewis QC sworn in as the Chief Justice of the Falkland Islands. … He was appointed a Queen’s Counsel in 2002. Mr Lewis commented: I am very much looking forward to taking up the appointment of Chief Justice and getting to know the Falkland Islands.
‘James Lewis QC, representing the US, opposed a delay, and District Judge Vanessa Baraitser refused to push the hearing back.’
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/julian-assange-fights-back-tears-as-he-describes-living-in-fear-during-court-appearance-over-a4266746.html
There is a video on that link of protesters outside the court.
Lewis’s connections are stranger than fiction.
Those people don’t want ‘these new people’ to go to the RF.
“Lewis then stood up and suggested that the defence should not be allowed to waste the court’s time with a lot of arguments”.
Lewis would prefer Julian to have no defence, the prosecution and the MSM having already given their decision. “No, no!” said the Queen. “Sentence first—verdict afterwards.”
FYI Going Underground. Russia Today Freeview Channel 234 9.30 pm tonight
John Pilger and Chris Williamson – On this episode of Going Underground, we speak to legendary journalist and filmmaker John Pilger about Julian Assange’s latest extradition hearing on Monday, which he attended. He discusses how Assange appeared at the trial, the bias of the judge against the journalist, the lack of mainstream media coverage of his persecution, his health and conditions in Belmarsh Prison, CIA spying on the WikiLeaks founder, and more!
Next, we speak to Chris Williamson MP about Assange’s extradition hearing, his motion in the House of Commons to condemn his treatment, why his persecution is of international importance, the silence of mainstream media on Julian Assange, the lack of vocal outrage from Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour front bench over Assange’s treatment, and more! Finally, Going Underground’s Deputy Editor Charlie Cooke discusses Boris Johnson’s plan to introduce mandatory voter ID at elections, which many suggest is a plot to suppress minority voters.
Mary.. Thanks for the Tip.. I hope you don’t mind if I add the link to that, As it is well worth watching.
John Pilger was Scathing of what went on in that court.. Chris. W..spoke well too –
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQEri7m1ZaM
Cheers Brian. I liked your haiku.
Poor, poor Julian. I am so angry at what they are doing to break him, even to kill him in the end.
Where are Amal Clooney, Meghan Markle and the others?
Craig – Why have you not been to visit Julian in prison?
Visitation rights are probably a bit limited if even his own lawyers can’t get to see and advise him.
Opportunities are very limited indeed. I will get a turn eventually but others have greater need of access.
They did more than favoured;
https://www.mintpressnews.com/classified-evidence-us-soldiers-raped-boys-in-front-of-their-mothers/200160/
With many tears for Assange, I would donate and vote for him as president of the USA. If he comes to the USA, the people are for him. Cities will see more demonstrations than Hong Kong. After my next credit card bill date, I will, by MC, donate $200.00.
Thank you for this article. This brilliant man is a martyr to truth and justice, which his torturers abhor. He’s not the first in the West in modern times and won’t be the last as long as the current interwoven regimes hold so much power over us. They don’t care that we now can see what they are doing because we haven’t been able to stop it, and they think we never will. Who will be next? Perhaps all of us, eventually, unless the average peaceable citizen discovers a way to defeat the behemoth of weaponized technology that the bad guys use to restrain us.
A wee Haiku I wrote on October 16th –
Evil Crushing Weight
Airless, lightless, Mindless Cell
Killing Julian.
Good work, Brian.
Will there be transcripts available after the next case management meeting/appearance at Belmarsh? (If that is not planned, it would need to be insisted upon by the legal team.)
‘Stockholm Syndrome – Julian Assange And The Limits Of Guardian Dissent’:
https://www.globalresearch.ca/stockholm-syndrome-julian-assange-limits-guardian-dissent/5689559
More evidence of the disgusting cover-ups of real news by our MSM Presstitutes.
I’m not a legal or lawyer of any persuasion, just a US citizen looking for justice. What literally smacks of a political vendetta, I don’t understand why the UN or any other international legal organization can’t be sought for a downright kangaroo court proceeding against a citizen of a foreign state (Australia). It is meant for silencing anyone who would dare go against the mafia superpower. Is this a military trial or (?). Can there be a demand for a new trial or hearing because of a corrupt(ed) judge with the interference of a foreign state (US)? My furry is beyond threshold and hope for Julian seem at its threadbare existence. May God be his Defender in such a hideous display of evil. How I hate being American.
What other country’s regime indoctrinates its citizens to call it by the name of a continent?
Hello to Craig and Ingwe,
Thank you both for responding to my post from earlier today.
Craig, having read ‘Andrew F’s post yesterday, it appeared that Julian wasn’t appearing before a court every four weeks, so thanks for confirming that he has been – even if it’s only by video link. However, each time this happened, did they actually apply for bail? If they did, and bail was refused, why didn’t they appeal to the High Court? How many times has Julian been in court on video, how many times have they actually applied for bail, how many times has it been refused and how many times have they appealed??? If they haven’t appealed, why not?
You describe Julians treatment in Belmarsh as torture, and document his physical, mental disorientation, confusion and struggle to assert free will.
You say that his legal team have a plan that your not privy to. Whether it’s a short term plan or a long term plan, it doesn’t help Julian. He has not got time. Craig, you state that on Sunday night, (20/10/19), a senior member of Julians legal team said that he ‘might not live to the end of the extradition process’. He’s dying! In plain sight! His legal team know it, they’ve even told you as much. So, again, why won’t they apply, and keep on applying for bail (and appealing if bail is refused). It’s all very well having a plan, but the plan is no use if Julian is found dead in a cell next week. Julian needs bail asap – his life depends on it, and he doesn’t have time to wait for plans.
Hello. Ingwe,
Thank you for your input. I’m impressed with your 30 years legal experience. Do you have any experience in pursuing formal complaints against magistrates who have abused their position so publicly, and in front of so many witnesses? We know there are formal complaint procedures that can be used against magistrates who have behaved as awful as Craig has witnessed. So when these complaints are made, what outcome can we expect? Also, can you give legal opinion on american officials (or even members of the public) giving instructions to a QC during a court case? Is that allowed? Can anyone just turn up and intervene?
Here’s the response I got from my, surprisingly Labour, MP:
“When I met Mr. Assange I found him to be a hysterical narcissist and my view is that he should return to Sweden when released from prison here and then establish his innocence or pay for his crimes.“
This was a few months back.
Please share the name of your MP. Then de-select same.
I can’ remener hearing of many Labpur MPs visiting Julian, but, going by your moniker, it must have been a London Mp. Do you care to share her/ his name or is that anonymous as well. Should we guess? Was it a friend of Israhel? Gis a clue
Estoy admirada de que en pleno siglo XXI exista esta clase de “justicia”.
No lo hubiera creído posible. Esperaría una reacción mayor de la opinión pública.
[ I’m astonished that this kind of “justice” exists in the 21st century.
I would not have thought it possible. I would expect a greater reaction from public opinion. ]
The Magistrate Will herself Be Judged !