1070 Deep State goes to Court to extradite Assange; signs of Torture; Spanish security company spied on him

Deep State goes to Court to extradite Assange; signs of Torture; Spanish
security company spied on him

Newsletter published on October 25, 2019

(1) Assange in Court; physical & mental deterioration indicates torture
- Craig Murray
(2) Spanish security company spied on Assange at Ecuadorian embassy in
London
(3) John Pilger: Court was swarming with US officials, their visible
instructions holding sway
(4) Julian Assange’s court hearing in London: Britain stages a lawless
show-trial
(5) Nationless Plutocrats are pulling the strings
(6) Assange: the charges are a "political offence" for which extradition
cannot be granted

(1) Assange in Court; physical & mental deterioration indicates torture
- Craig Murray

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/10/assange-in-court/

Assange in Court 437

22 Oct, 2019

by Craig Murray

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.

(2) Spanish security company spied on Assange at Ecuadorian embassy in
London

https://elpais.com/elpais/2019/07/09/inenglish/1562663427_224669.html

Spanish security company spied on Julian Assange’s meetings with lawyers

EL PAÍS has had access to video, audio and written reports showing that
the WikiLeaks founder was the target of a surveillance operation while
living at the Ecuadorian embassy in London

Madrid 9 JUL 2019 - 18:30 CEST

Julian Assange was spied on 24 hours a day during the time that he spent
at the Ecuadorian embassy in London, where he took refuge for seven years.

Documents, video and audio material that EL PAÍS has had access to show
that a Spanish private defense and security firm named Undercover Global
S. L., which was tasked with protecting the diplomatic building between
2012 and 2018, instructed its men to collect all possible information
about the cyberactivist, particularly regarding his lawyers and
collaborators.

Assange was so paranoid about being spied on that he conducted some of
his meetings inside the ladies’ bathroom

Several video cameras, which were equipped with audio recording
capability between December 2017 and March 2018, recorded dozens of
meetings between the WikiLeaks founder and his attorneys and visitors.
At these meetings, Assange’s legal defense strategy was discussed.

The recording equipment picked up on several secret plans drafted by
Assange’s team to spirit him out of the embassy in disguise and take him
to Russia or Cuba. The projects were never executed because the
Australian-born activist refused, as he considered this solution "a defeat."

UC Global’s feverish, obsessive vigilance of "the guest," as he is
described in the security firm’s notes, became more intense when Lenin
Moreno became the new president of Ecuador in May 2017. It was Moreno
who turned Assange over to British authorities. His predecessor, Rafael
Correa, had granted him asylum and allowed him to stay at the embassy in
London for seven years.

The security employees at the embassy had a daily job to do: to monitor
Assange’s every move, record his conversations, and take note of his
moods. The company’s drive to uncover their target’s most intimate
secrets led the team to carry out a handwriting examination behind his
back, which resulted in a six-page report. Company employees also took a
feces sample from a baby’s diaper to check whether Assange and one of
his most faithful collaborators were the child’s parents. This
intelligence work had nothing to do with protection duties.

The security team for the Spanish company, which is based in Puerto Real
(Cádiz), would write up a confidential report each day and send it to
the company chief, David Morales, a former member of the military who
trained with the special ops unit of the Marine Infantry, the marine
corps of the Spanish Navy.

The degree of detail found in these reports illustrates how the company
was bent on accumulating as much information as possible on a man who is
indicted on 18 counts for leaking thousands of cables from the US State
Department, as well as secret information about the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan.

"Great exaltation and nervousness by the guest after receiving news
about the sentence commutation for [Chelsea] Manning [the soldier
accused of passing secret documents to WikiLeaks]," reads the January
17, 2017 report. "Julian is providing a lot of information. The guest
keeps writing in his agenda. You can feel the tension in the room. The
guest hides his agenda with his hands at all times. Stella peeks out the
door, thinking somebody could be listening in," writes the security
employee about the visit made by Walaman Adan Robert on January 12, 2017.

Another report dated January 21, 2017 says: "3.30pm-6.28pm. Pamela
Anderson. They exchange information through notes. They take pictures
inside the meeting room. The voice-distortion device is on at all times."

On February 5 of that same year, the report says: "Approximately since
9pm, both the guest and Stella are moving things from the bedroom
(clothes, mattress, suitcases, etc) to the entrance room. It is 11.35pm
and they’re still at it."

One of the visitors who elicited the biggest response from the Spanish
security company was Andy Müller-Maguhn, a known German hacker. On one
of his visits to Assange, security personnel photographed the inside of
his travel bag and the numbers on his cellphones.

But if the security guards were obsessed with capturing every last
detail about the "guest" staying at the "hotel," the WikiLeaks founder
was no less obsessed about avoiding being spied on. Every time he met
with his lawyers and visitors, Assange would first turn on the
aforementioned voice-distortion device, which was concealed inside a
lamp. However, this did not prevent audio-recording equipment from
capturing every conversation. Some videos show the cyberactivist writing
with a folder covering the sheet of paper, to prevent any potential
cameras from zooming in on his notes.

The security employees at the embassy had a daily job to do: to monitor
Assange’s every move, record his conversations, and take note of his moods

Assange was so paranoid about being spied on that he conducted some of
his meetings inside the ladies’ bathroom, which he considered a safe
place. A report written by a security employee named José Antonio on
January 15, 2017 says: "11.18am Aitor Martínez [Spanish lawyer] brings a
briefcase, a telephone and a laptop; 11.20am guest, Stella and Aitor
Martínez head for the ladies’ room, where they hold the meeting. 1pm:
they exit the ladies’ room." A few days earlier, on January 9, another
employee reported on Assange’s meeting with his lawyers Melynda Taylor,
Jennifer Robinson, Aitor Martínez and Baltasar Garzón.

David Morales, the owner and director of UC Global S.L. declined to say
whether his company spied on Assange. "All the information is
confidential and it belongs to the government of Ecuador. We simply did
a job. I cannot comment on anything that we did there, I can’t provide
any details," he said in a telephone conversation.

Asked directly whether they spied on Assange, the answer was: "We have
our ethical and moral rules, and none of them were violated."

The interest in monitoring Assange’s meetings with his lawyers did not
end when the Lenín Moreno administration canceled the contract with UC
Global and hired Ecuadorian company Promsecurity to take its place.
Video cameras continued to record all meetings, and at least on one
occasion, either embassy personnel or the new security team photographed
a folder brought in by the lawyer Aitor Martínez during a meeting break.

These photographs, as well as dozens of video and audio recordings, were
recently used in an extortion attempt against Assange by several
individuals based in Alicante, Spain. The courts are investigating the
case, and two of the alleged extortionists were arrested.

Meanwhile, the UK has approved a request for Assange’s extradition made
by the US, where he faces 18 charges for leaking classified material.

(3) John Pilger: Court was swarming with US officials, their visible
instructions holding sway

https://twitter.com/johnpilger/status/1186641535523315716

John Pilger @johnpilger I have never known a judicial hearing like the
vicious travesty of justice meted out to Julian #Assange yesterday.
Swarming with US officials, their visible instructions holding sway, the
court's nominal "judge" Vanessa Baraitser was a disgrace ...

Stephen Emmott @StephenEmmott Oct 22 And not a word from Britain's
supposedly independent judiciary. Cowards all. British citizens are
given the impression that these stalwarts defend truth and justice. They
don't. They fold to political pressure. Utterly and completely pathetic.

Claire Titchmarsh @claire_IT_EN Oct 22 Rather more sinister than
pathetic. Terrifying how apathetic and credulous the British public are.
If it's accepted legal practice for foreign powers to dictate legal
process in this country (don't believe it is) why are we not ALL
demanding change.

(4) Julian Assange’s court hearing in London: Britain stages a lawless
show-trial

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/10/24/pers-o24.html

24 October 2019

Julian Assange’s hearing in London’s Westminster Magistrates Court on
Monday was a despicable show trial. Any pretence that this was somehow a
legal proceeding, aiming to enforce the law and respect the rights of
the accused, has been abandoned.

Assange, who defied the most powerful governments by revealing to the
world’s people war crimes and corruption, appeared gaunt and tormented
by what a leading UN expert has described as torture.

Craig Murray, a former British diplomat and current human rights
activist, wrote that he was "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."

Murray stated that Assange’s "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."

In a grave warning, Murray wrote: "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."

With all the vindictiveness of the British ruling elite, presiding judge
Vanessa Baraitser did not even attempt to conceal her hostility to
Assange, his legal team and supporters.

Baraitser waved away arguments from Assange’s lawyers, which should have
resulted in the immediate dismissal of proceedings for his extradition
from Britain to the US, and his release from prison. These included the
fact that existing treaties explicitly ban extradition from Britain to
the US on political offences, and that the US Central Intelligence
Agency (CIA) had conducted illegal spying against Assange while he was
being protected by political asylum in Ecuador’s London embassy. The
surveillance included audio and video recordings of Assange’s
confidential meetings and the theft of his legal documents.

Far from being scrutinised by the court, CIA henchmen were effectively
running the hearing, openly coaching the British prosecutors. As
investigative-journalist John Pilger wrote, the court was "swarming with
US officials, their visible instructions holding sway."

Finally, Baraitser rejected a request for a three-month delay to
Assange’s full extradition hearing in February. Struggling to speak,
Assange stated: "This superpower had 10 years to prepare for this case…
I can’t access any of my written work… They have an unfair advantage
dealing with documents… This is not equitable what is happening here."

Baraitser contemptuously declared that Assange could speak to his
lawyers later if he did not understand the proceedings. Neither the
judge, nor any other representative of the corrupt British judiciary,
has explained why he is being held in virtual solitary confinement in
the maximum-security Belmarsh Prison—despite the fact his custodial
sentence on a bogus bail charge expired in September.

The miserable show trial was not covered seriously by any major
corporate publication in the world. All of them have sought to cover-up
what it revealed: that the nine-year US vendetta against Assange has
been an illegal political persecution from the outset.

Every step of the way, the Guardian, the New York Times and a host of
other corporate outlets have functioned as the adjuncts of the US
government in its attempt to destroy the WikiLeaks’ founder.

They incessantly promoted the bogus Swedish investigation into alleged
sexual misconduct against Assange, which was the fraudulent basis for
his arrest by the British police in 2010 and which forced him to seek
asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy in June 2012.

The well-heeled journalists claimed that Assange was "hiding from
justice." They covered up the fact that Assange was never charged with a
crime in Sweden, and that one of the women involved said she had been
"railroaded by the police" into making a complaint. The corporate
journalists derided Assange’s insistence that the Swedish allegations
were aimed at blackening his name and providing an alternate route for
his extradition to the US over WikiLeaks’ exposures of American war crimes.

All of Assange’s warnings have come to pass. The entire pseudo-legal
veneer of the campaign against him, including the Swedish frame-up, has
been exposed as a fraud. Even before he has been extradited to the US,
Assange is facing a lawless show-trial in Britain.

But the corporate publications have not reversed their position. The
torrent of slander has continued, as they seek to keep the population in
the dark about the dire implications of Assange’s persecution.

For their part, innumerable corrupt pseudo-left organisations, from the
British Socialist Workers Party to the now defunct US International
Socialist Organisation, endorsed the CIA-concocted lies that Assange had
to answer the Swedish allegations. From Jacobin magazine in the US, to
Socialist Alternative in Australia, they have remained silent as the
attempted slow-motion assassination of Assange has proceeded this year.
Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of the British Labour Party, who occasionally
claims to be a socialist, has refused to defend the WikiLeaks’ founder.

The case is an abject lesson in the rotten character of every official
institution: from the courts, to the media, to the political
establishment, including its pseudo-left wing. All of them are hurtling
towards authoritarianism, amid the deepest crisis of capitalism since
the 1930s and a resurgence of the class struggle.

Assange will only be freed by a mass political movement of the working
class, the constituency for the defence of democratic rights. Around the
world, millions of workers are entering into explosive struggles, from
the 48,000 US auto-workers on strike, to the hundreds of thousands
protesting in Chile and Ecuador.

The World Socialist Web Site calls on workers to take up the fight for
the immediate freedom of all class war prisoners, including Assange and
Chelsea Manning—the courageous whistleblower incarcerated by the Trump
administration for refusing to give false testimony against Assange.

Some 90 years ago, the socialist workers’ movement mounted a campaign in
defence of Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti, who were framed-up by
the US government because of their political activism. That fight, which
mobilised millions of workers internationally, played a defining role in
world politics and has gone down in history as one of the great
struggles against state persecution. The Assange case is to this
generation what Sacco and Vanzetti was to the 1920s.

The pursuit of the WikiLeaks’ founder is aimed at creating a precedent
for the suppression of all opposition to militarism, authoritarianism
and government illegality. His defence must become the spearhead of a
counter-offensive by the working class for all its social and democratic
rights and against imperialist war.

There is no time to lose. Craig Murray’s warning, that "unless Julian is
released shortly, he will be destroyed," is an alarm that must be
answered by all defenders of democratic rights, through an active
campaign for Assange’s immediate freedom. In working class suburbs, in
factories and at university campuses, all workers and youth must be
apprised of Assange’s plight and mobilised for his freedom, including
through meetings, campaigns and rallies.

Contact us today to take part in this crucial struggle.

Oscar Grenfell

(5) Nationless Plutocrats are pulling the strings

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/johnstone-only-cowards-and-sadists-support-persecution-assange

Johnstone: Only Cowards And Sadists Support The Persecution Of Assange

Thu, 10/24/2019 - 05:00

Authored by Caitlin Johnstone via Medium.com,

Former British ambassador Craig Murray has published a very disturbing
account of Julian Assange’s court appearance yesterday which I recommend
reading in full. There have been many reports published about Assange’s
case management hearing, but the combination of Murray’s prior
experience with torture victims, his familiarity with British courts,
his friendship with Assange, and his lack of reverence for western power
structures allowed for a much more penetrating insight into what
happened than anyone else has been able to provide so far.

Here is a small excerpt:

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.

This may be the most important article you will ever read. I’m not
exaggerating. I beg you now to read it. #JulianAssange in Court - Craig
Murray https://t.co/D42gqKDsMz — George Galloway (@georgegalloway)
October 22, 2019

Murray reports that there were no fewer than five representatives of the
US government in the Westminster Magistrates Court that day, and that
there were seated behind the British prosecutors and essentially giving
them orders. The judge, Vanessa Baraitser, reportedly behaved coldly and
snarkily towards the defense, smirking and refusing their requests
without explanation, while behaving warmly and receptively toward the
prosecution. Assange’s extradition hearing will commence without delay
on February of next year, despite the case violating the 2003 US/UK
extradition treaty, and despite new evidence emerging of CIA-tied
espionage on Assange and his lawyers while he was at the Ecuadorian
embassy. It will commence in a tiny Belmarsh courtroom with almost no
room for the public to provide scrutiny, without Assange’s defense
having adequate time to prepare.

Assange’s lawyer Mark Summers told the court that the case was "a
political attempt" by the United States "to signal to journalists the
consequences of publishing information." And of course he’s right.
Nobody sincerely believes that the 175-year sentence that Assange is
looking at if he’s successfully extradited to the US by the Trump
administration is a reasonable punishment for publishing activities
which the Obama administration had previously declined to prosecute
based on the exact same evidence, citing concern for the damage the
precedent would do to press freedoms. These charges have nothing to do
with justice, and they aren’t meant to be merely punitive. They’re made
to serve as a deterrent. A deterrent to journalists anywhere in the
world who might otherwise see fit to publish inconvenient facts about
the US government.

This is obvious. It is obvious that the US government is destroying
Assange to signal to journalists the consequences of publishing
information. It is therefore also obvious that any journalist who fails
to use whatever platform they have to speak out against Assange’s
persecution has no intention of ever publishing anything that the US
government doesn’t want published. Their silence on or support for what
is being done to this man can and should be taken as an admission that
they are nothing other than state propagandists. State propagandists,
sycophants, and cowards.

Today in court, Julian Assange struggled to say his own name and date of
birth as he appeared in the dock. He claimed to have not understood what
happened in the case management hearing, and was holding back tears as
he said: "I can't think properly". — Tristan Kirk (@kirkkorner) October
21, 2019

Cowardice is driving public support for Assange’s persecution. Cowardice
and sadism. Even if every single bogus smear against him were true, from
the lies about feces on embassy walls to the still evidence-free
allegation of Trump/Russia collusion, even if every single one of those
ridiculous fantasies were true, his punishment to date would be more
than enough. I mean, exactly how much torture is appropriate because
your preferred candidate wasn’t the one who was elected? How weird is it
that such entitled sadism goes unquestioned? To continue to call for
more is to reveal your sick fetish, whether you’re one of the powerful
people he pissed off or just another mindless repeater in the comments
section. Enough. You’ve had your pound of flesh.

We are watching a great tragedy unfold in a fractal-like way, from the
zoomed-out meta tragedy of the worldwide death blow to press freedom,
drilled down to the personal tragedy of this death blow to a man called
Julian Assange. His once encyclopaedic brain can now barely remember his
own birthday. This guts me. There are no other minds on earth that
understood the power dynamics of invisible imperialism and the Orwellian
dangers humanity now faces as we hurtle towards and AI-dominated
information landscape as well as his did. That mind has been purposely
destroyed. We must never forget that. We must never forgive that.

It’s been a tough day. My heart has been hurting and my sighs have been
long. The only brightness I can see through the bleakness is the
quandary that appears to be emerging for these nationless plutocrats who
are pulling the strings. The more they get their way, the more obvious
their actions must necessarily be, because the thing they are attempting
to do is so totally abnormal. Yesterday’s court proceedings were
blatantly farcical, from the curious rulings, to the strange sight of US
advisers interfering in a UK case about an Australian citizen, down to
even the dismissive smirk on the judge’s face. None of this is normal,
and when things aren’t normal there is a risk that people will notice,
and things are only going to get stranger as they attempt to pull this off.

(6) Assange: the charges are a "political offence" for which extradition
cannot be granted

https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/i-m-in-an-unfair-fight-against-a-superpower-julian-assange-tells-uk-court-20191021-p532vc.html

By Nick Miller

October 21, 2019 — 11.07pm

London: A gaunt, hesitant and apparently confused Julian Assange has
told a London judge he is in an inequitable fight against a superpower
that has been spying on his "interior life" and on confidential meetings
with his legal team.

The WikiLeaks founder is trying to avoid extradition to the US to face
17 espionage charges and one computer hacking charge.

Julian Assange will face an extradition hearing in February 2020, after
a British judge declined a request by his lawyers to delay proceedings
by three months.

His legal team revealed on Monday they want to deal a knockout blow to
the case against him, by establishing that the charges are a "political
offence" for which extradition cannot be granted.

Assange appeared in person before District Judge Vanessa Baraitser in
Westminster Magistrates Court, appearing tired and unwell and speaking
hesitantly.

"I can’t think properly," he complained at the end of the brief
administrative hearing, saying the US had "unlimited resources" and an
"unfair advantage".

"I can’t research anything [in prison], I can’t access any of my
writing, it’s very difficult where I am [in Belmarsh Prison in South
London] to do anything," he said.

"This is not equitable what’s happening here."

His lawyer Mark Summers, QC, told the court the US administration was
prosecuting Assange in a "concerted and avowed drive to escalate its
existing war on whistleblowers, to encompass investigative journalists".

"Our case is that it is a political attack to signal to journalists the
consequences of publishing [classified] information."

Summers appealed for extra time to gather evidence in support of
Assange's case, after allegations emerged this year that a Spanish
security firm had been passing on to US intelligence agencies video,
audio and documents secretly gathered during Assange’s time in the
Ecuador embassy in London.

Last week a judge of the Spanish National Court issued an order to
investigate the Cadiz company Undercover Global, for "crimes against
privacy and the secrecy of lawyer-client communications, bribery and
money laundering", in response to a complaint from Assange’s lawyers
that Undercover Global had installed hidden microphones at the embassy
and delivered information to Ecuador authorities and "agents of the
United States".

"The American state has been actively engaged in intruding on privileged
discussions between Assange and his lawyers," Summers told the
Westminster court on Monday.

He said there was evidence of unlawful "copying" of Assange’s telephones
and computers, and "hooded men breaking into lawyers’ offices".

Assange complained to the judge the US had obtained details of his
"interior life" through psychologist reports, and suggested they had
tried to get hold of his children’s DNA.

Kristinn Hrafnsson, the official WikiLeaks representative, said outside
court that this was a reference to claims US agents had even collected
DNA samples from nappies discarded at the embassy.

Hrafnsson said the US had behaved like a "rogue state" in its
investigation of Assange.

Assange’s legal team, in a note distributed outside the court, said
there was evidence before Spanish courts of "a sustained series of
actions by a Spanish security company in conjunction with US
intelligence services to obtain information by unlawful acts, theft and
clandestine surveillance within the Ecuadorian embassy whilst Julian
Assange was present there". ...

with Nick Bonyhady