On Thursday afternoon I was in Edinburgh High Court to get back my passport, which had been confiscated during my own court proceedings avowedly to stop me going to Spain to testify in the trial of David Morales of UC Global. He stands accused by whistleblowers in his own company of spying on Julian Assange, his lawyers and other associates (including myself), on behalf of the CIA, and in engaging with them on plans to kidnap or assassinate Assange.
Having got my passport, I was wandering down the Canongate to buy a new sporran. I fear that I only wear my kilt on occasions where I end up not at all sober, and invariably spend the next morning wondering what on earth happened to my tie, left hose, mobile phone etc. The loss of a sporran is a particularly expensive experience. While explaining to the maker that my sporran needs a long chain to accommodate my finely matured figure, my phone rang and I was asked whether I could get to the High Court in London by 9.45am, as the judgement in the United States’ appeal in Julian’s extradition case was imminent. Waverley Station being a short walk down a steep close from the sporran maker, and with the agreement of Nadira and the rest of my long suffering family, I was off to England.
The Royal Courts of Justice have nothing of the grimness of the Old Bailey, or of Woolwich Crown Court inside Belmarsh Prison. They are Victorian Gothic at its least inspired and most gingerbread house cheesy, as though Mad King Ludwig was working on a straitened budget. Once inside there is no visible security of any kind, and the courtrooms are laid out in aged oak benches like the smaller lecture rooms of an old university.
A lovely man named Derek had been at the front of the queue for me since 5am, but his kindness turned out to be unnecessary. For the first time at any Assange hearing, nobody asked me for identification papers or fired inappropriate questions about why I was at a public hearing. At the reception desk I asked where the Assange judgement would be given, and was told Court No.1, but that there was no point in attending because copies of the judgement would simply be handed out.
I walked with my friend, Assange activist Deepa, to Court No.1 shortly after 9.30, and there was nobody else there except one reporter from Reuters. Over the next half hour about twenty other people turned up, mostly journalists but including a few European activists. There was no sign of Julian and no sign of either legal team. Julian’s fiancee Stella Moris arrived just before ten, and we were allowed in to the courtroom. The clerk of court told us there would be no lawyers present so we could sit anywhere we wished. Reporters and activists jumbled in the first two rows immediately below the judge’s bench. I sat alongside Stella in the fourth row, and shortly before the judge appeared, Gareth Peirce (Julian’s solicitor) arrived and simply took a seat also in the fourth row. The well of the court was perhaps a third full, and the public gallery above was completely empty.
It is important to explain that Stella did not know the judgement at this stage. We had spoken briefly before going in and we were not hopeful, but she sat there awaiting the decision on whether Julian might be home for Christmas, or potentially in jail for many more years, with enormous composure and self-control. I had spoken with her the night before on the telephone and knew she was in serious emotional distress. But here in public, she did not betray it at all.
Lord Justice Holroyde entered and read out a brief summary of the judgement. Lord Chief Justice Burnett, the other member of the two man panel, apparently had better things to do. It was evident after a few seconds that the insufferably smug Holroyde was going to find in favour of the United States Government.
Julian was not present, neither in person nor by videolink. That judgement should be given on a prisoner in the presence neither of himself nor of his counsel seems to me a quite extraordinary proceeding. The entire event felt wrong. I was aware that Julian was unwell, and that he had been very unwell at the hearing in October on which this was a judgement. Mary Kostakidis has constructed an edit of those tweets from her reporting on that day which referenced Julian’s state of health. What we did not know was that he was actually suffering a stroke.
(In her retweeting the original relevant tweets, they have all ended up dated 12 December, but these are in fact Mary’s tweets from the courtroom in October).
What I can tell you from personal experience is that the appalling standard of healthcare is the single worst thing about prison, and the callous disregard of prisoners’ lives an ingrained feature of the system, about which I shall write more in due course.
So Holroyde briefly announced to the world the capitulation to the United States. His argument was simple and short. The High Court accepted that Baraitser had rightly judged the expert evidence on Assange’s health, so the diagnoses of serious depression and autism stand. However she had erred in not seeking diplomatic assurances from the United States that he would be kept in conditions that would not trigger suicide. Holroyde’s argument rested entirely on the Diplomatic Note received from the US government containing these assurances. They constituted, he stated, a “solemn assurance from one state to another”, as though that were a thing of unimpeachable surety.
Holroyde did not address the point that these were assurances from the very state whose war crimes and multiple breaches of international law Assange had exposed, resulting in this very extradition in the first place.
He did not address the fact that the United States has a record of breaking exactly these kind of assurances on prisoner conditions, and there is substantial European Court of Human Rights case law on the subject. In fact the legal force of diplomatic assurances has been the subject of a massive opus of recent jurisprudence that Holroyde simply ignored.
He did not address the fact that the very assurances in this Diplomatic Note were shot through with conditionalities.
He did not address the fact that repeated US court decisions stated that US domestic authorities were not bound by any diplomatic assurances given to foreign governments (which incidentally is precisely the same argument, accepted by Baraitser, that UK courts are not bound by the UK/US extradition treaty bar on political extradition).
He did not address the fact that the majority of the charges against Assange in the extradition request were now exposed as based on perjured evidence from a convicted paedophile and fraudster in the pay of the CIA, which some might see as reflecting poorly on the US authorities’ bona fides.
He did not address the fact that the government whose assurances as to treatment he viewed as unquestionable, had been plotting to kidnap or assassinate the subject of the extradition.
Holroyde whisked away in a flurry of dusty robes and horsehair wiggery. Gareth Peirce had advance knowledge of the result, but had been barred from telling anybody. She had been informed lawyers were not to attend court, but had come along to offer moral support, and simply sat with the public. Edward Fitzgerald QC, Julian’s counsel, was simultaneously giving the decision to Julian in the jail.
My admiration for Gareth is undisguised. In my view she is the greatest UK lawyer of post-war history, a notion I know she would find laughable. I also know she will be a bit cross about my writing about her, as she detests the limelight. If you don’t know of her, do a little research just now. I have been extremely fortunate in life to know many great people, but Gareth is the one of whose regard I am proudest. Anyway, Gareth was really cross about the judgement.
The effect of the judgement is that the case is now returned to Judge Baraitser with the instruction to reverse her decision and order Assange’s extradition. In doing so she passes the papers up to the Home Secretary, Priti Patel, with whom the final decision on all extraditions lies. Julian has until 23 December to submit an appeal against this High Court decision to the Supreme Court, something he is minded to do.
Now read this very carefully. The United States Government’s appeal to the High Court was only on those points on which Baraitser had ruled against extradition – Assange’s mental health and the effect upon it of extradition and US prisoner conditions. Assange’s appeal now to the Supreme Court will also be restricted to those subjects. The points on which Baraitser originally ruled in favour of the United States, including Assange’s First Amendment protections and the right of freedom of speech, the bar on political extradition and the inapplicability of espionage charges to journalism – will only be heard later, if he loses at the Supreme Court on what is still the US appeal.
If the Supreme Court decides for the US on the basis of diplomatic assurances, and the case returns to Baraitser to exercise the extradition warrant, at that time we finally have the cross appeal on all the issues this case is really about. If the High Court then accepts the cross-appeal as arguable (and Holroyde stated specifically that Assange’s wider points of appeal “would be heard at a later stage in proceedings”), then Patel’s trigger itching hand will be stayed while we restart the appeals process, quite possibly back to Holroyde and Burnett.
This benefits the Machiavellian state in two ways. For up to another year the legal argument will continue to be about Julian’s mental health, where the self-disparagement required by his defence suits the state political narrative. Nobody inside court is currently permitted to be talking about freedom of speech or the exposure of US war crimes, and that of course feeds in to the MSM reporting.
The state also is happy that this convoluted Supreme Court and then cross-appeal process will last for years not months, even before we look at the European Court of Human Rights, and all that time Julian Assange is stuck in high security in Belmarsh jail, treated as a terrorist, and his mental and physical health are visibly deteriorating in a way that is simply horrible. It is not hyperbole to state we may well be watching his slow murder by the state. It certainly appears now probable that he will never fully regain his health. The Julian who went into captivity is not the same man we would get back if ever released.
My worry is that I have no confidence that there is any hope of fairness in the judicial process. I most certainly would not wish anybody’s destiny in the hands of the supercilious Holroyde. There seems no alternative but to batter on through the endless Jarndyce vs Jarndyce, but I fear we are but dignifying a cruel charade. Political will, rather than judicial sense, appears the more likely route to a breakthrough. But I look at Johnson, Biden and Morrison and I see no more conscience, principle or probity than I do on the judicial bench.
There does appear to be a recognition in the mainstream media that aspects of the prosecution are a real threat to journalism even in the muted way that the mainstream media pursue the profession. Persuading the fourth estate to use their influence on key politicians, backed by popular mobilisation including online, appears to be the most hopeful tactic at the moment. But it is a hard and bitter slog.
On leaving the High Court, Stella and I both gave impromptu speeches to the waiting crowd and media. The BBC carried this live until I mentioned US war crimes, when they hurriedly cut it off. These below are the full speeches, and the video should start at the right point. We had come straight from consulting with Gareth after hearing the judgement, so remember what I have told you and consider how extraordinarily well Stella coped and spoke here. How can we not continue to fight?
———————————————
Forgive me for pointing out that my ability to provide this coverage is entirely dependent on your kind voluntary subscriptions which keep this blog going. This post is free for anybody to reproduce or republish, including in translation. You are still very welcome to read without subscribing.
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:
Paypal address for one-off donations: [email protected]
Alternatively by bank transfer or standing order:
Account name
MURRAY CJ
Account number 3 2 1 5 0 9 6 2
Sort code 6 0 – 4 0 – 0 5
IBAN GB98NWBK60400532150962
BIC NWBKGB2L
Bank address Natwest, PO Box 414, 38 Strand, London, WC2H 5JB
Bitcoin: bc1q3sdm60rshynxtvfnkhhqjn83vk3e3nyw78cjx9
Ethereum/ERC-20: 0x764a6054783e86C321Cb8208442477d24834861a
Subscriptions are still preferred to donations as I can’t run the blog without some certainty of future income, but I understand why some people prefer not to commit to that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hukDko8g0lk&t=2200s
Roger Waters and John Pilger are right – only direct action, civil disobedience, can curtail this political abuse of the legal system.
Agreed. And the rest. We are collectively WAY beyond the elastic limits set on the illusion of Democracy. The iron fist is no longer veiled. The choice is simple – cower in fear, or stand together and resist in numbers, without violence, and with zero tolerance for the violence and threats of the state.
Too right – also applies to Scottish Independence !
Where’s the point in playing by the enemy’s rules ? Particularly when they are happy to change those rules and disregard them to suit themselves. How does anyone really think they can achieve justice in such an environment ?
Play by their rules and you are truly being played.
Thank you both.
No government or state is coming to save us, so we have to organise. About the only experience I have of this is with Extinction Rebellion, with whom I have taken non-violent direct action (NVDA) training, and practised deliberative consensus-building. I found both extremely valuable. For protesting at COP26 in Glasgow I stayed at Baile Hoose, where deliberative consensus-building was the norm and worked very well. These skills are essential.
Very much so. My first experiences were in the context of “Skill and Knowledge Sharing” gatherings in the late 80’s where each morning the somewhat fluid group of teacher-attendees built a consensus [everyone had to bring SOMETHING to teach so there were ONLY participants] and we governed the gathering jointly. It was an amazing process. After a few days most attendees wished they did not have to return to the rat-race and the psycho-social pressures of groupthink. Good that those many baby steps are bearing fruit today.
Declassified UK is the only outlet who considered it relevant that the other member of the 2-man panel, Lord Chief Justice Burnett, is a 40-year close friend of Sir Alan Duncan, the former foreign minister who orchestrated JA’s arrest and called him a “miserable little worm” in Parliament.
https://declassifieduk.org/assange-judge-is-40-year-good-friend-of-minister-who-orchestrated-his-arrest/
The rest of the British media did not consider that relevant.
Yes, he is Burnett of Maldon in Essex. But I wonder if he is related to the Deeside Burnetts who rounded up their tenants for Theresa May’s fake election rally?
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2017/04/theresa-mays-fake-meetings/
Alan Duncan is a strange enigma. Very good on Palestine and not in general a supporter of neo-con policy. He was the Minister BICON were trying to get shafted through Israeli Embassy cash.
Very strange. Matt Kennard’s piece says Duncan referred to JA’s ‘supposed’ human rights, arranged a Daily Mail hit piece on JA the day after his arrest, tried to keep a smirk off his face as he watched the eviction, then flew to Ecuador specifically to thank President Moreno for handing over JA. Duncan reported he gave Moreno ‘a beautiful porcelain plate from the Buckingham Palace gift shop.” “Job done,” he added.
He and Burnett have been close personal friends since their student days at Oxford in the 1970s.
We are now it a situation where that flower of western civilization, the British legal system, has been reduced to a state-serving lackey, holding show trials and delivering judgements devoid of reason or justice. It’s worth remembering that the next time you hear a media psychopomp extolling the British system or accusing the Russian state of reverting to Stalinism.
I regret that the case of Diego Garcia supports your position, though an appeal for Assange is being processed, so we’re not near Stalinism yet. Give me British (or American) justice over Iranian or that of any dictatorship (like Stalin’s) any day!
I think that’s called “Damning with faint praise”.
Casuistry.
Pay no attention to any of this. Russia is about to invade Ukraine! China is about to invade Taiwan!
Nonsense.
I assumed this was sarcasm?
Sarcasm is cancelled. It’ll be irony next, you mark my words.
If facetiousness goes, I’ll really be in trouble.
Oh the irony of my sarcastic facetiousness being misinterpreted.
And Omicron is about to overwhelm the NHS (if enough of us don’t all get the booster in time), and we unworthy sinners, but for heaven’s mercy are in danger of – ah, I can’t even say it, it’s so unthinkable.
Mind you, I’m not saying Russia doesn’t have designs on Ukraine. or China on Taiwan, not to mention both Russia and China trying to expanding their international influence.
But one can only worry about so much at one time. Tell you what, make a good cup of tea and settle down with a good murder mystery. The Ellery Queen series is pretty good.
It is generally accepted that Taiwan is a part of China. The United States has subscribed to this position since 1972. So nobody doubts that China has designs on Taiwan. There is a complete absence of any evidence of China having changed its often stated policy of not seeking a military solution to re-unification. Charges that China is about to attack Taiwan are war propaganda and indicate, along with massive arms deliveries to Taipei, that the imperialists are returning to their policy of provoking China as they did for twenty years and more after 1949.
So far as Russia is concerned its often stated policy – indicated in the Minsk agreement that NATO and Ukraine dishonour daily – is that it will intervene to defend Russians, who comprise a large proportion of the population, from genocidal attacks inspired by the imperialists are carried out by an openly fascist regime.
Russia’s patience in this matter – the Maidan coup regime’s first move was to ban the use of Russian – has been exemplary in the most Christian tradition. Similarly it refrains from using its power to insist that millions of Russian speaking people in the Baltic states and elsewhere should be treated equally, allowed voting rights and their language accorded official status.
In short it is a good thing that you aren’t “..saying Russia doesn’t have designs on Ukraine. or China on Taiwan.” Were you to do so you would be serving the cause of imperial aggression.
I hope that the USA will keep its promise to defend Taiwan, should China attack. And I hope Ukraine will join NATO to be the better protected from what happened to Georgia and Crimea. Just as I hope that dictatorship will fall in North Korea, China, Iran, Syria, and Myanmar.
Oh, and I hope Assange gets freed as well.
That’ll do for starters …
M.J.
Assad should not forget Gaddafi being hosted in Paris shortly before his demise.
USUKIS ‘ dictators, our dictators , commit and have committed so many Western sponsored war and peace crimes against their populations that it is hard to understand how they can survive.
Maybe our side will swap Russian demands in Ukraine for Assad’s head.
He is long past his sell by date . I can’t understand why he is still alive.
Add Belarus to the list:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/14/belarus-jails-opposition-leaders-husband-for-18-years
Taiwan has been part of China for centuries. It separated only when Chiang Kai-shek and his gang of thieves and murderers descended on it as a place of refuge when Mao and the Communists took over the mainland – having driven out the Japanese and appearing too formidable for the Americans to try barging in. In those days the Chinese navy was weak or non-existent, and the US Navy was at its peak of strength, so even the narrow straits were sufficient to keep Chiang safe.
Washington immediately saw an opportunity to drive in a wedge and claim that Taiwan was separate from China. Note that, in 1945, Mao wrote personally to President Truman offering partnership and suggesting that there would be great synergy between their nations. His note was not even acknowledged, so he turned to the USSR which – in spite of its immense losses during WW2 – gave China considerable help.
Taiwan was an authoritative regime like Chile or Iran under the Shah, but nevertheless people had more freedom than under the present regimes. Communist or Islamist revolutions are methods of going from the frying pan into the fire!
Thanks bevin, the truth succinctly put. Russia doesn’t want the basket case that is Ukraine post-Maidan, just to protect the native Russian speaking parts of that country. China continues to tolerate the overt manipulation by the west of the political system in taiwan. NB UK, US, AUS all officially recognise the one-China policy, despite their continuing interference.
Taiwan is Chinese and the Russians wouldn’t touch a toilet like Nazi Ukraine with a ten foot pole.
More succinctly put than me 🙂
Pay no attention to any of this … and what about the parties at Downing Street ?
Priorities old boy, keep the masses occupied, Cake and Circuses.
Meanwhile, the evil Patel spins her web.
On Ukraine there’s a simple and honest 20 minutes video by Peter Kuznik, professor of History at the American University in Washington
https://youtu.be/yec0slK_2uk
The acTVism Munich channel is my latest discovery, they have some excellent videos on Julian Assange.
Delighted to see you back, and back on form, Craig.
Few readers of your blog will be unaware of Gareth Peirce, I imagine. However, I was not aware until this morning that she has published a book, which I instantly bought for my Kindle and am consuming at intervals. It is as good – and as shocking – as I thought it would be.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Dispatches-Dark-Side-Gareth-Peirce/dp/1844677591
Best wishes to you and your family.
Thanks for the reference. To be honest, I’m not sure I want to read about such horrible stuff. I agree with Craig’s testimony to Parliament that the UK shouldn’t be in the business of creating a market for such activity.
It told me a great deal about the Lockerbie atrocity, and the wrongful conviction that resulted, for example, that I did not know before. I knew some but not at this level of detail.
There is also a good little video here (1 Nov 2011)
https://www.democracynow.org/2011/11/1/exclusive_julian_assanges_attorney_gareth_peirce_speaks_about_imminent_british_decision_on_whether_or_not_to_extradite_assange_to_sweden
Thank you Fleur
I am glad there are people like you still opposing the one of the biggest attacks on freedom of speech in the West today while many remain silent.
For almost a decade, Julian’s life is being systematically destroyed, one slice at a time. The crime he is guilty of is helping to show that the emperor is naked. At an increasingly furious pace, this same naked emperor points at others and reproaches them for their nakedness. And threatens to trigger a great showdown of the naked emperors, an escape from the disastrous economic situation, into the annihilation of the world. Assange’s treatment is the foreshadowing of this.
While the analogy is tempting, I would rather say that the “emperor” likes to sneak out at night and murder defenceless civilians after torturing them. Millions of civilians.
Nice to see you’re not only out, Craig, but back.
I’d be grateful if anybody here with expertise in whatever relevant aspects of UK law apply can tell me whether I’m getting this wrong, but the way this appeal has proceeded seems really weird to me, even irrespective of the fundamental political and humanitarian concerns that make Julian’s case so important.
Weird Irregularity #1 is that the appeal was decided on the basis of facts not in the extradition hearing’s record. The “assurances” of the U.S. upon which the High Court based its reversal were submitted after the decision went against them on the mental health aspect. As a rule, that’s not supposed to happen. This much was obvious back in October, but not having read the appeal itself I was mystified how it was being justified. Now that I have read (quickly) the High Court’s judgment, I can see why (they say) they did it, but it just leads to:
Weird Irregularity #2, which is that the appellate court seems to say that the trial court had an affirmative duty to let the government side know she was not satisfied by their representations meant to allay the incarceration conditions/suicide risk claim, and to consider the additional assurances that would have been elicited had she done so (as they were on appeal). But how is that consistent with a judge’s impartiality? Is she supposed to coach each side to improve any aspects of their case she finds unconvincing? Or just one side and some aspects?
The judgment tackles this by stating that “[e]xtradition proceedings are not private law proceedings but a process through which solemn treaty obligations are satisfied in the context of a framework which ensures that a requested person is provided with proper safeguards.” (Para. 45) So, in other words, it’s ok because this is a special kind of a case, a case with the state as one party and a criminal defendant as the other, and with – like all extradition requests – at least some political aspect. This is the situation in which the High Court’s rule says the trial court should be *more* solicitous of the state’s interest by helping them with deficiencies in their presentation late in the game!
But if that’s the law then that’s the law, right? Well, the only thing I see in the judgement that goes to that question is when the judges say, “[w]e think it would have been better at that stage had the judge offered the USA the opportunity to consider providing assurances rather than proceeding straight to the discharge of Mr Assange. Had she done so, we have no doubt that the USA would have offered the assurances before the final decision was made.” (Para. 44)
“We think it would have been better …”?!? What’s the basis in statutory or case law that it would have been better? And how does “think it would have been better” equal reversible error even if it would have been better in their eyes?
Weird Irregularity #3 is that the High Court then made the final determination itself, rather than remand the case to Vanessa for further proceedings based on its finding that the new assurances were admissible evidence. This one may not be as weird, but at least in the U.S. I think a remand would have been the normal route barring some compelling reason to the contrary, unless the appeals court were rebuking the trial judge in some way. But maybe it’s different on Airstrip One.
Even if I’m wrong about all of the above, that doesn’t affect the really vital issues at stake in the persecution/prosecution of Assange. It’s more a matter of whether they’re even trying very hard to make it look legal at this point.
As Christmas approaches, can Hon. Baraitser expect to get less in her stocking hung by the fire than she would have if she had just rubber stamped the extradition, or does Santa know she has really been a good girl after all? Did she stop the request because her grinch heart actually grew 1/4 size, or was this all part of the script? While I’m sure the U.S. is prepared to proceed against Julian if they get their hands on him, I have long felt and still feel that the preferred outcome for them is the Jarndyce route: keep it going as long as possible in the British courts until he is physically or mentally extinguished (financially too, if they can swing it). Objectively speaking, this judgment enables that result.
– “…how does “think it would have been better” equal reversible error even if it would have been better in their eyes? […] Did she stop the request because her grinch heart actually grew 1/4 size, or was this all part of the script?” etc.
Possibly just the hot potato effect? No one wants to be either the one to deliver Julian Assange into his enemy’s hands and thus be seen as the betrayer of freedom of speech, nor to be the one to defy the US which can apply massive pressure even including assassination. So everyone placed in a position of having to make the decision passes it onto someone else, and thus the Establishment’s agenda is served of keeping him permanently imprisoned and silenced.
Macrocosm dominates microcosm. What we call “the Establishment” is a system. That it is comprised of individuals is incidental; those individuals come and go, but the system persists – note, for instance, the stability of US policy despite changing presidents and administrations. The system must, has to control the individuals of which it is currently comprised or it would begin to crumble.
This is the same principle as your body’s domination over the cells of which it is comprised, and an ant colony’s control over the individual ants. We are all tiny components of it, we all participate in it just by living our lives, buying stuff, paying bills, going to work, obeying the laws.
Time to stop cooperating? Gail Bradbrook and Money Rebellion:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjiKLKg_8xc&t=275s
Sorry to be glib, but just wanted to say your commentary is intriguing.
Also, can’t see last week’s ruling linked above so, it’s here.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2021/3313.pdf
Heartbreaking. No need to say it, but keep up the good fight.
I hope it is not considered inappropriate to speculate on personal medical details. But I fear that the Julian’s transient ischemic attack is likely related to his psychiatric treatment. It has been reported that he was being treated for psychosis. ‘Anti-psychotics’ have been linked to increased risk of such strokes. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4366389/
I imagine he would have been on a hefty dose of such a neuroleptic – perhaps one that is also used in relation to autism (eg risperdal, abilify etc). Such exposure can be damaging for anyone, but in his circumstances and perhaps on a cocktail of meds.
Long term use of neuroleptic drugs on psychiatric patients is associated with poorer outcomes.
Looking more and more like the old USSR.
Perhaps the old USSR was much worse than the old Great Britain, but today, I do regret that Mr. Assange didn’t consider modern Moscow as an alternative to modern London.
It wasn’t. The British Empire was responsible for more deaths world wide than any of the other regimes known to history. Its record was appalling.
As to its treatment of working people in the UK – that contrasted very badly with the achievements, under the most difficult conditions, of the Soviet regimes – for a taste of how the British Establishment treats people like Assange who have the guts to defy it and tell the truth, follow this case and examine not just the personas involved but their backgrounds, their class origins, their jobs before politics (Duncan was an oil trader in the Gulf) and their hatred of anything redolent of equality and solidarity.
Bevin, I agree, but past tense? The British Empire never exactly died. Its centre can no longer be pinned down, it is partly still in Westminster, quite a lot has migrated to Washington, it is partly in the Commonwealth, the Five Eyes, NATO and a host of rapacious corporations. It is in Israel and the Gulf Monarchies. It has become diffuse and yet far more powerful. It has cloaked itself in “democracy” and “human rights”, but its exploitative, manipulative and violent character remain unmistakable.
Clark, I agree with you. Like others I am of the opinion that the succession of Empires from Iberia to the Dutch, to the British over to the United States, constitute one Empire, based upon maritime long distance (armed) trade/piracy . It ‘took off’ with the enormous dividends of its conquest of the New World.
There is much more to it but the basic point agrees with yours – this monster is five hundred years old and Eurasia is destined to tame it.
Good for you, Craig – so glad to have your voice back. If you think there is any merit in Tweeting my short blog about the legal players behind Julian’s persecution, here’s the link: https://roysbleet.blogspot.com/2021/12/the-day-human-rights-died-in-plain-sight.html
It should be added to the appeal that US assurances in other cases have not been kept and ergo the current assurances on Assange cannot be taken at face value.
An argument Assange’s lawyers could have made if the case had just been remanded to Baraitser.
Good that you are back and blogging, sad that .the Assange torment continues. This is why we still need juries to cut through legal knots.
“Nobody inside court is currently permitted to be talking about freedom of speech…”
I think that speaks for itself. (If all speech isn’t forbidden).
“There does appear to be a recognition in the mainstream media that aspects of the prosecution are a real threat to journalism even in the muted way that the mainstream media pursue the profession”.
Unfortunately, having lost most of its subscribers and most of its advertising, the mainstream media increasingly eats out of the hand of government. I would as soon read Der Stuermer, Pravda, or Izvestia as today’s British press. As for listening to the BBC’s political coverage, I would as soon gargle with sewage.
“Persuading the fourth estate to use their influence on key politicians, backed by popular mobilisation including online, appears to be the most hopeful tactic at the moment”.
The popular mobilisation looks by far the better option.The thing about the fourth estate – as was abundantly demonstrated during Mr Murray’s own crucifiction – is that it has an intimate but usually tacit understanding with the establishment. It is allowed to raise topics of mild public concern, but it is always in possession of up-to-date maps of the minefields. And should anyone unwittingly or stupidly tread on a mine, the matter can be dealt with sub rosa by a few phone calls or maybe a glass of sherry with Sir Humphrey.
It is only the independent citizen who must be seen to be crushed should he speak whereof he has been warned not to speak.
From the singularly courageous, campaigning, and trailblazing tour de force, that is Craig Murray, a comment in his customary, comprehensively commendable critique of the latest, risible and reprehensible ruling from The Royal Courts of Justice, in the appalling, execrable, egregiously enacted and executed, Assange Extradition Hearing, which underlines Craig Murray’s (if it was ever in doubt) candidature as a forensic and fearless Force of Nature, himself, nonpareil, in any conscionable and circumspect consideration.
‘My admiration for Gareth (Peirce) is undisguised. In my view she is the greatest UK lawyer of post-war history, a notion I know she would find laughable. I also know she will be a bit cross about my writing about her, as she detests the limelight. If you don’t know of her, do a little research just now. I have been extremely fortunate in life to know many great people, but Gareth is the one of whose regard I am proudest. Anyway, Gareth was really cross about the judgement.’
I was there at 7.30am putting up signs and banners. Remember, I took a photograph of you.
They are preparing the narrative for Julian’s demise…it is excruciating watching it happen in real time.
– “I was there at 7.30am putting up signs and banners.”
Alison M, thank you. I could not be there myself.
Fabulous report not heard anywhere in the British media. Good to see the un-butchered press conference with powerfully emotional Stella and no doubt exhausted Craig. Good to see at least a few other world media there. Maybe a concise snippet covering just that can be made available?
Anyway thanks to CM and please get some rest especially if planning to use that passport – somewhere sunny after so many months inside I hope.
The bizarre, twist and turn arguments of law in this case really do suggest that the UK’s judicial system has been bought and paid for, and so has become the obedient poodle of the dark US hell making machine. A bleak thought. But let’s not lose all hope: UK jurisprudence has today shown its fundamental human decency, by allowing Mrs Ann Sacoolas to be “tried” by video at Westminster Magistrates Court for her careless killing of a fine young man. No inconvenient expectation to extradite her for trial, or remand her for years in inhuman gaols until she is in grave danger of dying.
In relying on the comforting words of the US prosecutors about how kindly Julian Assange will be treated after extradition, did our most senior judges consider that he has already been a prisoner in the UK, in terrible conditions, for far longer than the “probable” term of imprisonment suggested in the USA’s fairy tale “solemn assurance”? It seems not.
Like all our judges, those in the Assange and Sacoolas cases are bound by the judicial oath to “…do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this Realm, without fear or favour, affection or ill-will”.
Perhaps they have become so forgetful that Mrs Sacoolas can be treated with apparent affection, in the same moment that Mr Assange is treated with ill-will of the most malevolent kind.
Sacoolas, like those exposed by Julian and like the murderous drone operators are only enacting Americans God given right to murder foreigners without legal consequence or repercussions of any kind. Americans are special, exceptional even, the rest of the world needs to understand this and show respect. Our government and media subscribe to this view.
Craig do you think a deal has been done for the UK you give up Julian in turn for the US to give up Anne Saccolas???? Seems very strange that the family of the dead boy have settled out of court with the Saccolas????
When I read that yesterday I wondered the same.
If so a horribly cynical development.
The family’s civil case was settled out of court. It was jusr reported that the criminal case may be going ahead in January, by video, if Mrs Sacoolas doesn’t pull out.
Could anyone provide a timeline or a link to a timeline of the legal actions against Julian, including the machinations of the accusations of the two women (I understand neither ever woman wanted to press charges of rape) and the alleged intervention of the Right Honourable (yeah, right!) Sir Keir Starmer?
It would be very useful to put the whole thing in its overall perspective and context.
Thanks in advance.
Great article on Julian’s plight by the great Chris Hedges, The Execution of Julian Assange.
https://www.rt.com/op-ed/543082-execution-assange-empire-lies/
If the only way the decision makes any sense were for Burnet and Holroyde to have met with Jeffrey Epstein,
then the only way it can be allowed to stand must be for them to demonstrate having done so recently.
Craig,
your articles have been a great source for information for us all. Having recommended your blog to others interested in the Assange case, please consider filing all articles under a new category.
Thank you
Good to have you back Craig and thanks for making this malevolent theatre of the absurd somewhat intelligible. Here in Canada neither our mainstream nor alternative media disseminates anything more than official propaganda and smear. No politician dares raise the issue either. The Swedish ‘rape’ hoax and crooked Hillary’s emails are all that is remembered here.
Re: ‘…Political will, rather than judicial sense, appears the more likely route to a breakthrough. But I look at Johnson, Biden and Morrison and I see no more conscience, principle or probity than I do on the judicial bench…”
For obvious reasons I would take the liberty of adding Starmer.
Welcome back Craig,
After what you have been through most people would probably have called it a year and rested up until January.
Your commitment and sense of duty do you credit. But don’t forget to look after yourself and find time to recover.
So good to have you back Craig.
Thankyou for your support for Julian and his family and your true and accurate reporting on the extradition case which can’t be expected from the MSM.
I am in agreement with your assessment that we can’t rely on the judicial process to save Assange (literally) and Assange’s family have called for a re-focus on efforts from grass roots supporters.
In Scotland we have a support group:
@ScotsDefend on twitter
ScotsDefendAssange on Facebook
Or contact us at [email protected]
We need all the support to inform the Scottish public of Assange’s plight and what it means for investigative journalism.
Good to see categorical evidence, as if we needed it, that the BBC both condones and covers up US war crimes. That is our taxes that fund that disgraceful criminality. I am of the implacable opinion that anyone who says that ‘they are just following the party line’ must either be paid minimum wage as a non-thinking drone (do you hear me, Nick Robinson, Fiona Bruce and all the rest of you numpties?) or they have wilfully bought into the narrative for however many pieces of silver are necessary to bribe them. They no longer have the right to represent our views and hence the coercive license fee must be removed unless the BBC starts representing the views of the taxpayers/shareholders who underpin it.
Welcome back into the free, democratic world, Craig.
I see Biden has offered up the CIA woman on a Zoom as reward for Britain globally debasing itself with the Assange verdict.
Special Relationship operating as it has ever done.
How is it possible that a murderous country can appear in an English court and demand that a journalist who informed us on the war crimes committed, should be handed over to this unlawful murderous state.
That our judiciary and the BBC are collaborating with war criminals to physically torture and diminish the life out of Julian, in silence, when it is obvious that all their past heroics and so called justice at, lets say, the Nuremberg trials, were based on utter hypocrisy, faking concern for human rights they never respected beforehand. All this fake justice now does is to reiterate their very own inhumanity, again, in Julian’s case.
I agree that only mass protest and deliberate civil disobedience, to the point where they need to use all available forces internally.
The status quo merchants/establishment will use every available force via their disproportional and unfairly elected political string fellows, to keep us down.
nevermind.. Very well said
” How is it possible ” There are So many very well informed readers / commenters here.. Yet I keep asking myself this Question.. The UK. Is Torturing an innocent man to death – On the World Stage.. And after a slip up..the BBC cottons on to Craig’s Message and Silences him. In the year 2021 we still have cretins in Wigs … and Dusty robes – as Craig says – gathering in Elitist Evil Gangs Torturing Our Innocent Heroes, Heroines.
A Haiku that took all night last night –
Courageous Stella
We Stand By You In The Fight
Gentle Warrior.