Hearty Congratulations to Julian Assange For Completing 1,000 Days In His Putrid Cell
Can we please focus this thread on Julian Assange and the **** meals he will be eating alone for the rest of his life in Britain's worst prison?
Does anyone think he will be getting bangers and mash every day? And if so, is he permitted to remove the meal worms from the plate? I would hate to see him eat them. That would be cruel.
ml1 said:
Even if he was convicted, should we be endorsing torture?
Julian Assange Is Suffering Psychological Torture, U.N. Expert Says
I like the UN, but stuff like this makes it look stupid
Even the most heinous criminals - and Assange is not among their ranks - are entitled to speedy justice.
tjohn said:
Even the most heinous criminals - and Assange is not among their ranks - are entitled to speedy justice.
The opponents of speedy justice for Assange are Assange and his supporters.
The US won an appeal and the judge ruled he could be extradited.
But it says that his fiancée would appeal the decision. Not sure where it stands at this very moment.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-59608641
Julian Assange can be extradited to the US, court rules
By Becky Morton
BBC News
Wikileaks founder Julian Assange can be extradited from the UK to the US, the High Court has ruled.
The US won its appeal against a January UK court ruling that he could not be extradited due to concerns over his mental health.
Judges were reassured by US promises to reduce the risk of suicide. His fiancee said they intended to appeal.
Mr Assange is wanted in the US over the publication of thousands of classified documents in 2010 and 2011.
Senior judges found the lower judge had based her decision in January on the risk of Mr Assange being held in highly restrictive prison conditions if extradited.
However, the US authorities later gave assurances that he would not face those strictest measures unless he committed an act in the future that merited them.
Giving the judgement, Lord Chief Justice Lord Burnett said: "That risk is in our judgement excluded by the assurances which are offered.
"It follows that we are satisfied that, if the assurances had been before the judge, she would have answered the relevant question differently."
Mr Assange's fiancee Stella Moris called the ruling "dangerous and misguided", adding that the US assurances were "inherently unreliable".
In an emotional statement outside the court, Ms Moris said: "For the past... two years and a half, Julian has remained in Belmarsh prison, and in fact he has been detained since 7 December 2010 in one form or another, 11 years. For how long can this go on?"
Wikileaks editor-in-chief Kristinn Hrafnsson said in a statement: "Julian's life is once more under grave threat, and so is the right of journalists to publish material that governments and corporations find inconvenient.
"This is about the right of a free press to publish without being threatened by a bullying superpower."
Amnesty International described the ruling as a "travesty of justice" and the US assurances as "deeply flawed".
Nils Muiznieks, the human rights organisation's Europe director, said it "poses a grave threat to press freedom both in the Unites States and abroad".
Judges ordered the case must return to Westminster Magistrates' Court for a district judge to send it formally to Home Secretary Priti Patel.
Mr Assange's legal team - Birnberg Peirce Solicitors - said any appeal to the Supreme Court would relate to the question of assurances, rather than on issues such as free speech or "the political motivation of the US extradition request".
Two of the country's most senior judges have concluded there is nothing in law to stop the UK sending Julian Assange to America.
In line with previous cases, the Lord Chief Justice and Lord Justice Holroyde ruled that when the US administration gives a promise to the UK of fair and humane treatment of a detainee, its word should not be doubted.
Team Assange are likely to try to reverse this judgement in two ways. First, they want to challenge last January's findings that his leaks amounted to an alleged crime - but it is not clear if such an appeal would be heard.
Second, they may ask the Supreme Court to examine today's judgement on the US's diplomatic assurances - but there is no guarantee it will take the case because they would have to argue that there is a fundamental problem with the law - which has never been the case in the past. And so time may be running out.
The US had offered four assurances, including that Mr Assange would not be subject to solitary confinement pre or post-trial or detained at the ADX Florence Supermax jail - a maximum security prison in Colorado - if extradited.
Lawyers for the US said he would be allowed to transfer to Australia to serve any prison sentence he may be given closer to home.
And they argued Mr Assange's mental illness "does not even come close" to being severe enough to prevent him from being extradited.
But lawyers representing Mr Assange argued the assurances over his future treatment were "meaningless" and "vague".
If convicted in the US, Mr Assange, 50, faces a possible penalty of up to 175 years in jail, his lawyers have said. However the US government said the sentence was more likely to be between four and six years.
Mr Assange faces an 18-count indictment from the US government, accusing him of conspiring to hack into US military databases to acquire sensitive secret information relating to the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, which was then published on the Wikileaks website.
He says the information exposed abuses by the US military.
But US prosecutors say the leaks of classified material endangered lives, and so the US sought his extradition from the UK.
Extradition is the process under which one country can ask another to hand over a suspect to face trial.
Mr Assange was jailed for 50 weeks in May 2019 for breaching his bail conditions after going into hiding in the Ecuadorian embassy in London.
He sought refuge in the embassy for seven years from 2012 until he was arrested in April 2019.
At the time he fled to the embassy, he had been facing extradition to Sweden on allegations of sexual assault which he denied. That case was later dropped.
Despite serving his sentence for breaching bail conditions, Mr Assange remains in prison while he fights extradition because of his history of absconding.
One step closer to extradition.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/20/uk/julian-assange-extradition-order-intl/index.html
London (CNN) WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has moved one step closer to being extradited to the United States, where he is set to be tried under the Espionage Act, after a London court sent his handover order to the British government for approval.
The court issued a formal extradition order in a hearing Wednesday, leaving UK Home Secretary Priti Patel to rubber-stamp his transfer to the US after a yearslong legal wrangle. Assange is able to appeal the decision.
Get the cell ready Uncle Joe. Give him a nice one. Extra toilet paper.
Um, yeah.
The latest:
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-61839256 Extradition, with 14 days to appeal. There are many people here who are urging P.M. Albo & Cabinet to do something positive to help Assange, however I don’t believe the subject was brought up in today’s first (official) Cabinet meeting. No doubt there will be further developments before I wake in the morning (it’s only 8:30pm here)
I watched an interview with Julian's brother and he said the view on him in Australia has warmed so he hopes the government there will help him. It's a horrible situation and he should be free. There is lots of criticism of other countries that suppress the media but when it happens in the US there is either cheering or crickets.
He should be free to walk in his cell at a maximum security prison in the US.
I have mixed feelings. Assange is a sh!t. And laws are laws and you have to face the consequences.
But I generally think that government malfeasance should be exposed.
drummerboy said:
I have mixed feelings. Assange is a sh!t. And laws are laws and you have to face the consequences.
But I generally think that government malfeasance should be exposed.
Why do you think he's a ****? And what law do you think he broke? He's a journalist/publisher. They are supposed to be protected.
I can’t find all the details, however apparently our new PM and new Attorney General are in agreement that the case has dragged on for too long, and that ‘full consular assistance will continue to be provided’.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jun/17/the-guardian-view-on-julian-assanges-extradition-a-bad-day-for-journalism Interesting editorial piece on the implications.
nan said:
drummerboy said:
I have mixed feelings. Assange is a sh!t. And laws are laws and you have to face the consequences.
But I generally think that government malfeasance should be exposed.
Why do you think he's a ****? And what law do you think he broke? He's a journalist/publisher. They are supposed to be protected.
Well, I think he may have broken the law(s) that he is being charged with breaking. I assume you can look up his charges as well as I can.
This is what trials are for. To determine whether he actually broke the law or not.
Journalists are not protected from breaking any/every law on the books that may pertain to information.
Why is he a ****? Dunno. He just seems like one. I have a good sense about this.
Breaking laws like anti-espionage laws, which you may think are unjust, have to be treated like civil-disobedience situations. Break the law if you feel you must, but face the consequences like someone with integrity.
Assange does not appear to be the latter.
drummerboy said:
Well, I think he may have broken the law(s) that he is being charged with breaking. I assume you can look up his charges as well as I can.
This is what trials are for. To determine whether he actually broke the law or not.
Journalists are not protected from breaking any/every law on the books that may pertain to information.
Why is he a ****? Dunno. He just seems like one. I have a good sense about this.
He's a hero. He risked his life to tell us the truth about war and what the Democratic party was up to and so much else (check out https://www.wikileaks.com/). The mainstream media has smeared him to no end because he actually spoke truth to power, unlike most journalists today.
If he is convicted then then the New York Times could be convicted for publishing something like the Pentagon Papers. Even if you hate Assange, you should support him because his conviction would set a devastating precedent for all publishers.
I wrote a lot about this on another thread with a less provocative title.
drummerboy said:
Breaking laws like anti-espionage laws, which you may think are unjust, have to be treated like civil-disobedience situations. Break the law if you feel you must, but face the consequences like someone with integrity.
Assange does not appear to be the latter.
He did not break a law. He published what others hacked. That's not a crime. Today, the only way we find out about what our evil overlords are doing is through hacking. The people who do this are brave heros. We need to know this stuff. We need to know how are tax dollars are being used and what is being said behind closed doors. We should not just be unquestioning sheep being led to slaughter.
He's really not a hero. He's kind of a whiny little *******. (I didn't write a word there. fill it in yourself.)
Are you aware of the charges against him? Doesn't look like it, based on your posts.
As I said, I'm all for exposing government malfeasance. But the real hero faces up to the consequences of his actions.
And jesus, he doesn't "speak truth to power". He's a middleman with a website, though he may have overstepped here, hence the charges. Or not. As I said, that's what trials are for.
But he's certainly not any kind of crusading journalist.
drummerboy said:
He's really not a hero. He's kind of a whiny little *******. (I didn't write a word there. fill it in yourself.)
Are you aware of the charges against him? Doesn't look like it, based on your posts.
As I said, I'm all for exposing government malfeasance. But the real hero faces up to the consequences of his actions.
And jesus, he doesn't "speak truth to power". He's a middleman with a website, though he may have overstepped here, hence the charges. Or not. As I said, that's what trials are for.
But he's certainly not any kind of crusading journalist.
You are just repeating the mainstream media narrative on Assange. He is actually a huge hero and the best journalist/publisher of the 21st century. We should all be grateful and if you don't think he has faced consequences than catch up on where he has been the last ten years or so. First holed up in an embassy and then years in a high security prison. That's torture. He also had the US government plotting to kill him (for real) and Sheldon Adelson paying to have him illegally video surveyed 24/7. No one in the crimes Assange revealed has ever been prosecuted and no one who committed crimes against him personally has faced even a slap on the hand.
He has exposed the people who did wrong, the people with money and power. He is on our side.
The French are considering making him a citizen, and awarding a high medal of honour, if Macron loses the election.
This is the latest news summary here, although if you’re on Twitter then seeing what’s happening at Julian Hill MP’s page and Andrew Wilkie’s page tells you more:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-06-18/julian-assange-to-be-extradited-to-us/101164152
nan said:
drummerboy said:
He's really not a hero. He's kind of a whiny little *******. (I didn't write a word there. fill it in yourself.)
Are you aware of the charges against him? Doesn't look like it, based on your posts.
As I said, I'm all for exposing government malfeasance. But the real hero faces up to the consequences of his actions.
And jesus, he doesn't "speak truth to power". He's a middleman with a website, though he may have overstepped here, hence the charges. Or not. As I said, that's what trials are for.
But he's certainly not any kind of crusading journalist.
You are just repeating the mainstream media narrative on Assange. He is actually a huge hero and the best journalist/publisher of the 21st century. We should all be grateful and if you don't think he has faced consequences than catch up on where he has been the last ten years or so. First holed up in an embassy and then years in a high security prison. That's torture. He also had the US government plotting to kill him (for real) and Sheldon Adelson paying to have him illegally video surveyed 24/7. No one in the crimes Assange revealed has ever been prosecuted and no one who committed crimes against him personally has faced even a slap on the hand.
He has exposed the people who did wrong, the people with money and power. He is on our side.
I'm not repeating anything. I read very little from the MSM regarding Assange. He's not a terribly interesting subject.
Anyway, wrong again.
And do you define journalist the way you define coup?
And I don't think you're actually reading my posts. I'm glad Assange exposed govt corruption. But if he broke the law, then he needs to man up and go to trial. Like a hero would. I'm sure his fans would pay for a robust defense, though, as we have recently learned, it's not possible to get a fair trial in D.C. (the presumed venue) because of all of the Demoncrats in the jury pool.
Frankly, his life would probably have been a lot better if he faced trial years ago, rather than trying to hide the way he has. I just have little sympathy for him.
drummerboy said:
I'm not repeating anything. I read very little from the MSM regarding Assange. He's not a terribly interesting subject.
Anyway, wrong again.
And do you define journalist the way you define coup?
And I don't think you're actually reading my posts. I'm glad Assange exposed govt corruption. But if he broke the law, then he needs to man up and go to trial. Like a hero would. I'm sure his fans would pay for a robust defense, though, as we have recently learned, it's not possible to get a fair trial in D.C. (the presumed venue) because of all of the Demoncrats in the jury pool.
Frankly, his life would probably have been a lot better if he faced trial years ago, rather than trying to hide the way he has. I just have little sympathy for him.
The woman who signed off on the extridition has connections to an anti-Assange group (https://declassifieduk.org/priti-patel-was-part-of-cia-linked-lobby-group-with-husband-of-assange-judge/) The CIA spied on him and had an assassination plot to kill him. He's not going to get a fair trial. He did not break the law but they can say he did and that will have dangerous implications for us all.
Assange has been at Belmarsh prison for three years and he's not even serving a sentence. This is only because the US wanted him and could not get him until now. https://twitter.com/DEAcampaign/status/1537915848353951745?s=20&t=xasos8n-9u2Do5DoN6OFdg
This whole ordeal has exposes the destructive power of American imperialism and the lie that we have a free press.
https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2022/06/18/assange-is-doing-his-most-important-work-yet/
Assange’s fight against US extradition benefits us not just because the empire’s war against truth harms our entire species and not just because he cannot receive a fair trial under the Espionage Act, but because his refusal to bow down and submit forces the empire to overextend itself into the light and show us all what it’s really made of.
Washington, London and Canberra are colluding to imprison a journalist for telling the truth: the first with its active extradition attempts, the second with its loyal facilitation of those attempts, and the third with its silent complicity in allowing an Australian journalist to be locked up and persecuted for engaging in the practice of journalism. By refusing to lie down and forcing them to come after him, Assange has exposed some harsh realities of which the public has largely been kept unaware.
The fact that London and Canberra are complying so obsequiously with Washington’s agendas, even while their own mainstream media outlets decry the extradition and even while all major human rights and press freedom watchdog groups in the western world say Assange must go free, shows that these are not separate sovereign nations but member states of a single globe-spanning empire centralized around the US government. Because Assange stood his ground and fought them, more attention is being brought to this reality.
ugh. Caitlin Johnston. You can really pick'em.
But things are picking up! A CIA plot to kill Assange! Exciting!
drummerboy said:
ugh. Caitlin Johnston. You can really pick'em.
But things are picking up! A CIA plot to kill Assange! Exciting!
I almost did not post it because I know she makes you nauseous. I was going to be nice. But, I had to do what's right for my country. Democracy was threatened. (yes, I'm being sarcastic - I have to get off here and do some real work).
nan said:
drummerboy said:
I'm not repeating anything. I read very little from the MSM regarding Assange. He's not a terribly interesting subject.
Anyway, wrong again.
And do you define journalist the way you define coup?
And I don't think you're actually reading my posts. I'm glad Assange exposed govt corruption. But if he broke the law, then he needs to man up and go to trial. Like a hero would. I'm sure his fans would pay for a robust defense, though, as we have recently learned, it's not possible to get a fair trial in D.C. (the presumed venue) because of all of the Demoncrats in the jury pool.
Frankly, his life would probably have been a lot better if he faced trial years ago, rather than trying to hide the way he has. I just have little sympathy for him.
The woman who signed off on the extridition has connections to an anti-Assange group (https://declassifieduk.org/priti-patel-was-part-of-cia-linked-lobby-group-with-husband-of-assange-judge/) The CIA spied on him and had an assassination plot to kill him. He's not going to get a fair trial. He did not break the law but they can say he did and that will have dangerous implications for us all.
The personal attack on the British government official is a classic example of deception. Here's what it says in the link: "Priti Patel sat on the Henry Jackson Society’s (HJS) advisory council from around 2013-16, although the exact dates are unclear as neither the HJS nor Patel responded to Declassified’s requests for clarification."
Then:
On the HJS advisory council at the same time as Patel was Lord James Arbuthnot, a former Conservative defence minister. His wife, Lady Emma Arbuthnot, was Westminster Chief Magistrate from 2016-2021.
For part of her tenure, she was in charge of the Assange case and made two key rulings against him in 2018. Lady Arbuthnot eventually stepped aside from ruling on the case because of a “perception of bias” but never declared a conflict of interest.
That's it. It's the type of tenuous "connection" that is meaningless. However, if it's "explained" with the type of short summary such as the one Ms. Nan uses, it forms the basis of dishonest accusations.
nohero said:
That's it. It's the type of tenuous "connection" that is meaningless. However, if it's "explained" with the type of short summary such as the one Ms. Nan uses, it forms the basis of dishonest accusations.
OK, try this article. It goes into more detail:
https://thegrayzone.com/2022/05/18/leaked-emails-uk-home-secretary-priti-patels-mi6-operation/
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
Brandon is driving….