Mexican President Andrés Manuel Lopez Obrador calls for Julian Assange freed and no longer tortured

English Translation

“Yes, I express my solidarity [with Assange] and hope that he is
pardoned and freed. I don’t know whether he has said that his actions
were confrontational to norms or to the political system, but what the
cables demonstrated is the workings of the global system and its
authoritarian nature, these are like state secrets that have became
known thanks to this investigation, thanks to these cables, and I hope
that this is taken into consideration and he is freed and he is no
longer tortured.

There are cables that came to light from when we were in opposition and
they spoke about our struggle and I can corroborate that they are true,
that is to say what is in them was accurate, they revealed illegal
relationships, illegitimate acts, violations of sovereignty, contrary to
democracy, against freedoms, this is what is in there.

So I express my solidarity, and my wish that he is pardoned and that it
is considered, that he is liberated he could offer an apology.
Liberating him will be a very just cause for human rights, it will be an
act of humility on the part of the authority that has to decide on the
liberty of this journalist, of this investigator, who managed to bring
to light these cables that revealed information about what happened
between governments. Not everything in those cables was legal. Most of
the things that emerged violated our sovereignty, freedoms, and I
insist, democracy. One cannot turn one’s back on human suffering. One
cannot apply the politics of the ostrich, of putting one’s head in the
sand. One has to speak out.”

Original Spanish

“Sí, expreso mi solidaridad y deseo que se le perdone y se le deje en
libertad, no sé si él ha reconocido que actuó en contra de normas y de
un sistema político pero en su momento y estos cables mostraron de cómo
funciona el sistema mundial en su naturaleza autoritaria, son como
secretos de Estado que se conocieron gracias a esta investigación, a la
obtención de estos cables, ojalá y se le tenga consideración y se le
libere y que no se le siga torturando…”.

El presidente López Obrador agregó “… aquí hay cables que se dieron a
conocer cuando nosotros estábamos en la oposición y hablaban de nuestra
lucha y puedo probar que son ciertos, es decir que lo que aquí se
expresa obedece a la realidad de ese entonces, de relaciones ilegales,
de actuaciones ilegítimas, violatorias de la soberanía, contrarias a la
democracia, a las libertades, lo que aquí se expresa. Entonces
manifiesto mi solidaridad. Mi deseo de que se le perdone, y que se
considere de que al liberarlo que él ofrece disculpa, y se le libera va
a ser una causa muy justa en favor de los derechos humanos del mundo, es
un acto de humildad de la autoridad que tenga que resolver sobre la
libertad de este periodista, investigador, que logró extraer estos
cables que revelan información de lo que sucedía entre gobiernos. No
todo lo aquí manifestado era legal. La mayor parte de las cosas aquí
expresadas eran violatorias de la soberanía, de las libertades, repito
de la democracia. No puede uno dar la espalda a los dolores de la
humanidad. No puede uno aplicar la política, y lo digo con respeto, de
abestruz, de meter la cabeza en al arena. Tiene uno que expresare.”

The Free Project names Julian Assange Person of the Year

In the past, the people we’ve named Person of the Year have been newsmakers in Greece. Assange’s case marks an exception, which we’ll try to explain. But for us to explain, we need to talk a bit about the founder of ThePressProject, Costas Efimeros, and the role that Assange played in making us what we are today.

Efimeros was very proud of his collaboration with Wikileaks. When he used to talk to students about journalism, he would say that all he wanted was for them to look up and learn about Assange.

It’s now been a century or so since the two sides of journalism—the two philosophies a journalist might choose from—were fully articulated.

The first is that journalism is a bridge between the ruling class and the ‘naïve’ citizens, the common people who need to be fed a version of the elite’s message that has been pre-chewed to make it go down more easily. The second position is that journalism is necessary for shining a light on what’s happening behind the scenes—for revealing corruption and criminality and checking power in the interest of the people.

…

Read full article in The Press Project

The Case Against WikiLeaks: a direct threat to our community

Presentation with Angela Richter, renataavila and Naomi Colvin

The unprecedented charges against Julian Assange and WikiLeaks constitute the most significant threat to the First Amendment in the 21st century and a clear and present danger to investigative journalism worldwide. But they also pose significant dangers to the technical community. This panel will explain the legal and political issues we all need to understand in order to respond to this historic challenge.

We’ve been warning you about it for years, and now it’s here. The talk will dissect the legal and political aspects of the US case against Wikileaks from an international perspective. It will describe the threats this prosecution poses to different groups and the key issues the case will raise. Most importantly, we will explain how we are still in time to act and change the course of history.

The unprecedented charges against Julian Assange and WikiLeaks constitute the most significant threat to the First Amendment in the 21st century and a clear and present danger to investigative journalism worldwide. But they also pose significant dangers to the technical community, the trans community, to human rights defenders and anti-corruption campaigners everywhere.

If we don’t take action now, the ramifications of this case will be global, tremendously damaging and potentially irreversible in times when the need to hold the powerful to account has never been more obvious. This is a historic moment and we need to rise to its challenge.

This talk will explain the legal and political aspects of the case against WikiLeaks, the reasons why Chelsea Manning and Jeremy Hammond have been imprisoned again, the governmental interests for and against prosecution, the dynamics of UK/US extradition and what it means to prosecute Assange as Trump runs for re-election.

This is a case with destructive potential like no other, with profound implications for the future of dissent, transparency, accountability and our ability to do the work we care about.

The situation is frightening but it isn’t hopeless: we will conclude with a guide to an effective strategy against the lawfare the journalist and technical communities are now facing courtesy of Donald Trump’s DOJ.

Sourced from 36C3: Resource Exhaustion includes audio and video files

Is Julian Assange safe under the care of Governor Rob Davis?

Written 21 December 2016 The Citizen raises concern at the abnormally high suicide rate at Woodhill prison under Governor Rob Davis

Governor Rob Davis disappears from Woodhill jail as latest death victim is named.

An inquest into 52-year-old Mr Basalat’s death opened this week and was adjourned until next year.

The tragedy brings the sad toll up to nine people who have died at Woodhill over the past 12 months.

It is understood he [Mr Davis] has been seconded elsewhere and a female acting governor called Amanda Moffett is now in charge.

Mr Basalat’s death came after other grieving relatives launched a judicial review to demand urgent measures are put in place to prevent more deaths.

The Prisons Ombudsman and HM Inspector of Prisons have also complained about the abnormally high suicide rate at Woodhill.

Mr Davis became Woodhill governor in 2013. Since then there has been 17 suicides.

Read full article in The Milton Keynes Citizen

Barrister Escalates ‘Conflict of Interest’ Complaint Against Top Judge in Julian Assange Case

Mohamed Elmaazi writes 27/12/2019

Investigative journalist Mark Curtis and Matt Kennard have detailed extensive undisclosed links between the Chief Magistrate Emma Arbuthnot, her husband, her son and the British national security state.

Niki Konstantinidis, a barrister and supporter of Julian Assange, has filed a complaint with the Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman (“the Ombudsman”) against England’s top magistrate for alleged violations of conflict of interest rules in the case of the WikiLeaks publisher.

This is Konstantinidis’s second complaint on this issue, having filed her first one with the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO), on 18 November 2019, in which she alleged “serious undisclosed conflicts of interest of Chief Magistrate, Senior District Judge Emma Arbuthnot”. But after that complaint ‘vanished’ she lodged a further one with the Ombudsman on 27 December 2019.

Konstantinidis, who is qualified in Australia as a barrister and in northern Ireland as a solicitor, said she sought “to expose the dilapidated UK judicial system with its alleged safeguards”.

“[The complaint] is a way of raising the political consciousness amongst the public” Konstantinidis said “so that they understand the real context of the situation–i.e., that there is no hope of getting a fair hearing when big political interests are at stake”.

Konstantinidis explained to Sputnik that after the JACO initially registered her 18 November complaint, it disappeared. “I got an email [dated 6 December] as to the change of status and abracadabrante …complaint gone”, she said.

“I knew that my [original] complaint to the ICJO would hit a dead end”, she said, “but I didn’t think they would do it this way”.

Read full article in Sputnik

America’s long history of meddling in other countries’ elections

Martin Williams Writes 23 November 2017
Editors Note: Getting old but very entirely relevant relevant current conversations

‘One in nine elections’

Dov Levin, an academic from the Institute for Politics and Strategy at Carnegie Mellon University, has calculated the vast scale of election interventions by both the US and Russia.

According to his research, there were 117 “partisan electoral interventions” between 1946 and 2000. That’s around one of every nine competitive elections held since Second World War.

The majority of these – almost 70 per cent – were cases of US interference.

And these are not all from the Cold War era; 21 such interventions took place between 1990 and 2000, of which 18 were by the US.

“60 different independent countries have been the targets of such interventions,” Levin’s writes. “The targets came from a large variety of sizes and populations, ranging from small states such as Iceland and Grenada to major powers such as West Germany, India, and Brazil.”

…

Read Complete Article in Chanel 4 News

Court finds Bush and Blair guilty of war crimes

Written 23 November 2011 – Editor notes: A bit old but most interesting and still pertinent

Those who lobbied to have George W. Bush and Tony Blair tried for their role in the Iraq War have finally got their wish. Though the verdict of the court carries no legal weight, its supporters believe its symbolic value is beyond doubt.

The court in Malaysia where the trial took place may not have the power to convict, but the verdict against the former British and American leaders was unanimous. “War criminals have to be dealt with – convict Bush and Blair as charged. A guilty verdict will serve as a notice to the world that war criminals may run but can never ultimately hide from truth and justice,” the statement from the Perdana Global Peace Foundation read.

…

Read whole article R T News

Five Things That Would Make The CIA/CNN Russia Narrative More Believable

Caitlin Johnstone writes 2018/7/14 on the burden of proof, election meddling, collusion, Russia, Wikileaks and the truth

Proof of a hacking conspiracy to elect Trump.
Proof that election meddling actually influenced the election in a meaningful way.
Some reason to believe Russian election meddling was unwarranted and unacceptable.
Proof that the election meddling went beyond simply giving Americans access to information about their government.
A valid reason to believe escalated tensions between two nuclear superpowers are worthwhile

The Editor wishes to highlight strength of reason in the fourth ‘thing’
“
If anything, Americans should be upset that they had to hear about Democratic Party corruption through the grapevine instead of having light shed on it by the American officials whose job it is to do so. Complaints about election meddling is only valid if that election meddling isn’t comprised of truth and facts.
“

Read full article in Medium

Judge’s acceptance of ‘complexity’ of Assange’s case “is an important win”, says historian John Rees

Mohamed Elmaazi writes

Baraitser: Main hearing now to be held over 3 – 4 weeks

At the case management hearing Judge Baraitser announced that the main extradition hearing will now be scheduled to be held over three to four weeks, after initially scheduling it for around five days. Judge Baraitser’s decision followed the defence’s submission of “40,000 pages worth of documents” separated in six separate court bundles on:

The 1917 USA Espionage Act under, which Assange faces 175 years in prison
Proceedings as they relate to ex-military whistle-blower Chelsea Manning
Medical evidence from “three distinguished psychiatrists”
The Spanish judicial investigations as they relate to the bugging of Assange’s conversations with his lawyers in the Ecuadorian embassy
Public statements by US officials ‘denouncing’ Assange
Trial issues and prison conditions

…

Judge Baraitser remains unwilling to intervene with Belmarsh prison authorities

Despite the Judge’s apparent recognition of the seriousness and ‘complexity’ of the case she still refused to intervene with prison authorities to compel them to give Assange proper access to his case files and lawyers.

Assange’s barrister Edward Fitzgerald QC reminded the court that of the “great difficulties” the legal team was having in “getting to see Mr Assange for sufficient periods of time”.

But the judge said she was not prepared to go further than making a generalised statement in open court that it would be “very helpful” if prison authorities aided Assange with what he needed. This is despite being confronted with precedent, on 13 December, of another judge in a separate case called up Belmarsh prison in order to get them to ensure a prisoner had sufficient access to their lawyers.

Ress argued that Assange can’t get a fair trial if he isn’t able to properly prepare for his defence

Read full articles in Sputnik International and The Interregnum

Open letter to Scott Morrison regarding Julian Assange

Article included in the Independent Australian 17 December 2019

To: Prime Minister Scott Morrison

Copies to:
Minister for Foreign Affairs Marise Payne
Leader of the Opposition Anthony Albanese
Shadow Minister of Foreign Affairs Penny Wong

Dear Prime Minister,

In accordance with its duty to every citizen, the Australian Government must act to defend the beleaguered rights of Julian Assange.

Political reaction has caused him to be sought by the U.S., where he faces an effective death sentence of 175 years in prison for his role in publishing its internal documents. These included U.S. State Department communications and army logs of the wars it led in Afghanistan and Iraq — the latter of which was declared illegal by the UN Secretary-General.

To rationalise this on account of Wikileaks’ impacts is to condone punishment for releasing facts disseminated by major outlets. This is incompatible with press freedom, which in times of peace and conflict alike, hinges on the assurance that it will not be traded off.

Free expression is integral to transparency, without which democracy is necessarily a treacherous illusion. Genuine security thus stands or falls with the availed freedom to render power transparent.

Conversely, the war of aggression and oppressive surveillance amount to fake security, like the silencing of those who expose them, which, as a rule, is on false pretexts.

In 2010, a U.S. official was told in a State Department briefing that the impact of the leaks “was embarrassing but not damaging”, according to Reuters.

Courthouse News reported in 2013 that a former brigadier general heading the Information Review Task Force investigating the same leaks testified that they “did not lead to the deaths of any military sources”.

Assange’s character has been much maligned, but is not subject to legislation and is accordingly no justification for extradition. Yet his rendition to the U.S. would be a precedent to weigh on all of good character — especially those who align with him in vital publishing.

Britain attempted to extradite him to Sweden over allegations of sexual violence, though Women Against Rape said,

“We do not believe that is why he is being pursued.”

In November 2019, after nine years of Assange being cast as a suspected rapist, the preliminary investigation was dropped for the third time. The last two of them spurred the impropriety of a press conference furthering a prosecutor’s contentions, at additional expense to his reputation and without provision for his defence counsel to respond.

Assange was never charged, and despite arguing in court that he would likely be charged in Sweden, poverty of evidence moved the Swedish prosecutor to withdraw their European arrest warrant in 2013, before receiving the exculpatory testimony that Assange waited until 2017 for an opportunity to provide. The investigation only continued in the meantime due to pointed intervention of the British Crown Prosecution Service: “Don’t you dare get cold feet!”

The UK persisted in refusing to let him leave the Ecuadorian Embassy without facing arrest and a UN panel ruled that such effective detainment was arbitrary.

In cooperation with Britain, a new president in Ecuador complied with a written request from the U.S. House Committee on Foreign Affairs to deliver Assange ‘to the proper authorities’.

Even the Ombudsman of Ecuador confirmed this expulsion as a breach of asylum laws, among others, and listed the violated articles.

Britain arrested and convicted Assange for breaching bail, citing failure to appear at a police station when requested. That request was issued with disrespect for the universal right to seek asylum, more than a week after the Embassy received him.

Assange was given a maximal sentence and endured the harshest prison conditions, simply for having sought and received asylum from another UN member state. Bail violation and absconding only apply if there is a breach of conditions without “reasonable cause”. Such causes naturally include asylum, which takes legal priority over extradition, including connected bail matters and for clearly justified reasons. Nevertheless, the judge was more interested in pronouncing him a “narcissist”.

The U.S. indictments against him only concern 2010 material from WikiLeaks and reveal no new information. Like the bail issue and Swedish investigation, such matters were evaluated by theUN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention for 16 months prior to its ruling.

Its independent findings remain applicable, and cannot be rivalled as authoritative, expert opinion on how Britain is constrained to act by its own ratification of covenants. Such binding legal protection of human rights would be absurd if optional.

In May this year, Nils Melzer, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, presented Britain, Ecuador, Sweden and the U.S. with evidence of their extensive violations of legal protocol and duty concerning Assange. He also detailed the consequences of this, including emaciation, cognitive abnormalities and severe psychological suffering, as well as mortal risk if the strain placed on him was not immediately reduced.

The opposite occurred and his condition has strikingly deteriorated.

More than 80 doctors have now petitioned the UK Home Secretary, Priti Patel, as well as the Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor Robert Buckland QC, to end this abuse and transfer him to a suitable hospital, in accordance with Professor Melzer’s explicit and urgent report to Patel’s predecessor.

To date, the UK Government has failed to respond in any way to the UN Rapporteur on Torture, other than by issuing a single reply and denying impropriety in two paragraphs, four months later.

This conduct is a brazen abrogation of absolute investigative and remedial obligations, under international and human rights law signed by Britain.

The UK Government is still resisting the hospital transfer request, which is a scandal that Australia will be increasingly culpable in, to the extent that it remains a passive witness.

No law or protocol prevents an Australian statesman from asking a British counterpart to relocate its citizen to a required university teaching hospital. Nor would it be possible in this case to refuse that request in a credible or politic way.

Julian Assange should not spend another day as a publisher held on remand, withering under effective solitary confinement in a poorly funded maximum-security prison.

Extradition to the U.S. would not culminate in a fair trial or bring an end to the torture, but likely make it worse and permanent, in Melzer’s researched, documented and mandated estimation, as a professor of international law at the University of Glasgow.

Relevant proceedings should be ended immediately by the UK Crown Prosecutor, who has the discretionary power to do this and like any person acting on the government’s behalf, must abide by ratified international law in that role. The Home Office should also commit in public to refuse any potential extradition directive from the judiciary.

All branches and parts of the implicated governments are obliged to uphold the spirit, as well as legally bound to the letter pertaining to international law.

This implies that Australia must do all in its power to ensure that Britain rectifies, in each way described, its treatment of an Australian citizen who happens to be the world’s most famous publisher.

It also means that extraterritorial prosecution must be vigorously opposed, and with particular respect to Assange, by way of openly and preemptively refusing his extradition from Australia to the U.S. This should occur in tandem with securing him the option, with an itinerary of his choosing, to be availed of diplomatic escort to a friendly Australian doorstep.

There is no latitude for a free and dignified nation to deviate from these positions, let alone the country of his birth.

In regards to U.S. relations, no alliance can remain special without healthy and respected boundaries. Foremost among these are sovereignty and human rights, neither of which are negotiable.

Parliamentary groups in support of Assange in Germany, Italy and the European Union as well as here in Australia are keenly mindful of that, and naturally gaining momentum.

London’s embarrassingly political prisoner has endured over 3,000 days of continuous detainment, and may not make it through the coming ones.

Intervention can be appropriate, and never more than now.

Bring Julian Assange home, safely and speedily.

Sincerely,

Daniel Ellsberg
Pentagon Papers Whistleblower

Julian Burnside AO QC
Human Rights Lawyer

Brian Toohey
Author and Australian Financial Review Columnist

William Binney
Former Technical Director, NSA

Mairead Maguire
Nobel Peace Laureate

Chris Hedges
Author and Pulitzer Prize-Winning Journalist

Craig Tuck
Transnational Defence Counsel

Wendy Bacon
Investigative Journalist and Walkley Award Winner, Pacific Media Centre

Ray McGovern
Former CIA Analyst, prepared daily brief for President Reagan’s top security advisers

Mary Kostakidis
Journalist and Former Chair, Sydney Peace Foundation

Margaret Ratner Kunstler
Civil Rights Attorney, Author and Editor

Andrew Fowler
Author and Journalist

John Kiriakou
CIA Torture Whistleblower

Chris Nash
Journalist and Former Professor of Journalism, Monash University

Dr Thomas Harré
Human Rights Lawyer

Dylan Welch
ABC Investigations Reporter

George Hunsinger
Professor of Systematic Theology

Jodie Evans
Co-founder of CODEPINK

Kellie Tranter
Lawyer, Researcher and Human Rights Activist

Emeritus Professor Brian Martin
Social Scientist, Wollongong University

Jeffrey Kaye PhD
Author of Cover-Up at Guantanamo

Carmen Grayson
Retired History Professor

Lakhdar Boumadiene
Former Guantanamo Prisoner

Emeritus Professor Frank Stilwell
Political Economy USyd. Vice President, Evatt Foundation

Tim Canova
Law Professor and Progress For All Chair

Andrej Hunko
MP German Bundestag and Member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe

Doug Valentine
Author of The CIA as Organized Crime

Dr Piers Robinson
Co-director of the Organisation for Propaganda Studies

Dr Tim Anderson
Center for Counter Hegemonic Studies

Jacob Applebaum
Investigative Journalist and TOR Pioneer

Afshin Rattansi
Journalist, Sony Award Winner for Outstanding Contribution to International Media

Alastair Thompson
Co-Founder Scoop Independent News

Peter Forrest FAHA
Australian Philosopher

Davide Dormino
Artist, Sculptor of ‘Anything to Say?’

Dr Luke Fischer
Philosopher, Author and Overland Award-Winning Poet USyd

Nozomi Hayase
Writer and Journalist

Dr Scott Burchill
Senior Lecturer in International Relations Deakin University

Jennifer Powell
NGO Executive Director & U.S. Citizen Abroad

Myrna Lim
Journalist, Public Access Television San Francisco/Sacramento

Margaret Flowers
Paediatrician and Activist, Popular Resistance

Ahmar Mahboob
Associate ProfessorLinguistics University of Sydney

Kevin Zeese
Attorney and Activist, Popular Resistance

Dr Lissa Johnson
Psychologist and New Matilda Columnist

Diani Barreto
Independent Researcher, Advocate, Journalist

Emmy Butlin
Committee to Defend Julian Assange, UK

Elizabeth Vos
Consortium News Live Co-host

Dr Nick Riemer
Senior Lecturer English and Linguistics USyd

Trevor Fitzgibbon
US Public Relations

Dr David Coady
Senior Lecturer in Philosophy UTAS

Taylor Hudak
Journalist, Co-host, Action 4 Assange

Catherine Vogan
Australian Filmmaker

Dr Tony Lynch
Senior Lecturer in Philosophy UNE

Mara Kupka
Screenwriter and Artist

Gail Malone
Action-taker providing instruments for traumatised kids in war zones

Arianna Marchionne
Postdoctoral Researcher, University of Helsinki

Christy Dopf
Activist, Unity4J Spokesperson, Free Assange Vigil Host

Dr Evan Jones
Political Economy USyd

Kelley Lane
Independent Journalist

Michelle Wood
Activist, Artist

Felicity Ruby
PhD Candidate

Danielle Wood
Activist/Artist with People for Assange

Dr Binoy Kampmark
Lecturer School of Global, Urban and Social Studies RMIT University

Bruce Haigh
Former Australian diplomat

John Pilger
Award-winning journalist and filmmaker

Simon Floth
Philosopher, UNE

Michelle Pini
Executive Editor Independent Australia

David Donovan
Managing Editor Independent Australia