Category: Uncategorized

On the 2nd October 2020, the Progressive International posted this discussion on the formation of the Belmarsh Tribunal

The Belmarsh Tribunal will investigate and evaluate US war crimes in the 21st century — and defend Julian Assange’s right to reveal them.

It is time for progressives of the world to unite.
Show your support. https://progressive.international/sup…
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/progintl
Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/progintl
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/progintl_en

Music in this video

Wish You Were Here
Artist: Pink Floyd
Album: Wish You Were Here
Writers: David Gilmour, Roger Waters

The Whistleblowers (Diamond Version Remix)
Artist: Laibach
Album: Spectre

References

The Belmarsh Tribunal

The Progressive International is putting the US on trial for its war crimes in the twenty-first century.

The five questions being asked of the Government of the United and conspirators

• Has the United States Government (and conspirators) committed acts of aggression according to international law?
• Has the American army made use of or experimented with new weapons or weapons forbidden by the laws of war?
• Has there been bombardment of targets of a purely civilian character, for example hospitals, schools, sanatoria, dams, etc., and on what scale has this occurred?
• Have Vietnamese prisoners been subjected to inhuman treatment forbidden by the laws of war and, in particular, to torture or mutilation? Have there been unjustified reprisals against the civilian population, in particular, execution of hostages?
• Have forced labour camps been created, has there been deportation of the population or other acts tending to the extermination of the population and which can be characterised juridically as acts of genocide?

The Russell Tribunal

The Russell Tribunal, also known as the International War Crimes Tribunal, Russell-Sartre Tribunal, or Stockholm Tribunal, was a private People’s Tribunal organised in 1966 by Bertrand Russell, British philosopher and Nobel Prize winner, and hosted by French philosopher and writer Jean-Paul Sartre, along with Lelio Basso, Ken Coates, Ralph Schoenman, Julio Cortázar and several others. The tribunal investigated and evaluated American foreign policy and military intervention in Vietnam. This had taken place in the decade following the 1954 defeat of French forces at Diên Biên Phu and the establishment of North and South Vietnam. 

Bertrand Russell justified the establishment of this body as follows:

If certain acts and violations of treaties are crimes, they are crimes whether the United States does them or whether Germany does them. We are not prepared to lay down a rule of criminal conduct against others which we would not be willing to have invoked against us. 

Justice Robert H. Jackson, Chief Prosecutor, Nuremberg War Crimes Trials

Editor’s Note: References to Wikipedia re Russell Tribunal

On the 26th September 2020, Jonathan Cook writes,

In my recent post on the current hearings at the Old Bailey over Julian Assange’s extradition to the United States, where he would almost certainly be locked away for the rest of his life for the crime of doing journalism, I made two main criticisms of the Guardian.

A decade ago, remember, the newspaper worked closely in collaboration with Assange and Wikileaks to publish the Iraq and Afghan war diaries, which are now the grounds on which the US is basing its case to lock Assange behind bars in a super-max jail.

My first criticism was that the paper had barely bothered to cover the hearing, even though it is the most concerted attack on press freedom in living memory. That position is unconscionably irresponsible, given its own role in publishing the war diaries. But sadly it is not inexplicable. In fact, it is all too easily explained by my second criticism.

A journalist due to testify at Julian Assange's extradition hearing makes a very pertinent point. This is the biggest attack on press freedom in our lifetimes. Why are UK editors not demanding to be heard at the Old Bailey? Where are they? Where is the Guardian? https://t.co/fFRFvGpYdi

— Jonathan Cook (@Jonathan_K_Cook) September 8, 2020

That criticism was chiefly levelled at two leading journalists at the Guardian, former investigations editor David Leigh and reporter Luke Harding, who together wrote a book in 2011 that was the earliest example of what would rapidly become a genre among a section of the liberal media elite, most especially at the Guardian, of vilifying Assange.

In my earlier post I set out Leigh and Harding’s well-known animosity towards Assange – the reason why one senior investigative journalist, Nicky Hager, told the Old Bailey courtroom the pair’s 2011 book was “not a reliable source”. That was, in part, because Assange had refused to let them write his official biography, a likely big moneymaker. The hostility had intensified and grown mutual when Assange discovered that behind his back they were writing an unauthorised biography while working alongside him.

But the bad blood extended more generally to the Guardian, which, like Leigh and Harding, repeatedly betrayed confidences and manoeuvred against Wikileaks rather the cooperating with it. Assange was particularly incensed to discover that the paper had broken the terms of its written contract with Wikileaks by secretly sharing confidential documents with outsiders, including the New York Times.

A journalist due to testify at Julian Assange's extradition hearing makes a very pertinent point. This is the biggest attack on press freedom in our lifetimes. Why are UK editors not demanding to be heard at the Old Bailey? Where are they? Where is the Guardian? https://t.co/fFRFvGpYdi

— Jonathan Cook (@Jonathan_K_Cook) September 8, 2020

Leigh and Harding’s book now lies at the heart of the US case for Assange’s extradition to the US on so-called “espionage” charges. The charges are based on Wikileaks’ publication of leaks provided by Chelsea Manning, then an army private, that revealed systematic war crimes committed by the US military.

Inversion of truth

Lawyers for the US have mined from the Guardian book claims by Leigh that Assange was recklessly indifferent to the safety of US informants named in leaked files published by Wikileaks.

Assange’s defence team have produced a raft of renowned journalists, and others who worked with Wikileaks, to counter Leigh’s claim and argue that this is actually an inversion of the truth. Assange was meticulous about redacting names in the documents. It was they – the journalists, including Leigh – who were pressuring Assange to publish without taking full precautions.

Prof Sloboda, of Iraq Body Count, joins others in offering first-hand evidence that Assange was scrupulous in redacting names. He 'resisted pressure from media partners [Guardian?] to speed up the process. Assange always meticulously insisted on redaction' https://t.co/vD2TqDVmlD

— Jonathan Cook (@Jonathan_K_Cook) September 18, 2020

Of course, none of these corporate journalists – only Assange – is being put on trial, revealing clearly that this is a political trial to silence Assange and disable Wikileaks.

But to bolster its feeble claim against Assange – that he was reckless about redactions – the US has hoped to demonstrate that in September 2011, long after publication of the Iraq and Afghan diaries, Wikileaks did indeed release a trove of documents – official US cables – that Assange failed to redact.

This is true. But it only harms Assange’s defence if the US can successfully play a game of misdirection – and the Guardian has been crucial to that strategy’s success. Until now the US has locked the paper into collaborating in its war on Assange and journalism – if only through its silence – by effectively blackmailing the Guardian with a dark, profoundly embarrassing secret the paper would prefer was not exposed.

In fact, the story behind the September 2011 release by Wikileaks of those unredacted documents is entirely different from the story the court and public is being told. The Guardian has conspired in keeping quiet about the real version of events for one simple reason – because it, the Guardian, was the cause of that release.

Betrayal of Assange and journalism

Things have got substantially harder for the paper during the extradition proceedings, however, as its role has come under increasing scrutiny – both inside and outside the courtroom. Now the Guardian has been flushed out, goaded into publishing a statement in response to the criticisms.

It has finally broken its silence but has done so not to clarify what happened nine years ago. Rather it has deepened the deception and steeped the paper even further in betrayal both of Assange and of press freedom.

The February 2011 Guardian book the US keeps citing contained something in addition to the highly contentious and disputed claim from Leigh that Assange had a reckless attitude to redacting names. The book also disclosed a password – one Assange had given to Leigh on strict conditions it be kept secret – to the file containing the 250,000 encrypted cables. The Guardian book let the cat out of the bag. Once it gave away Assange’s password, the Old Bailey hearings have heard, there was no going back.

Assange's lawyers are noting the long-known fact that Guardian journalists made the unredacted cables accessible through incompetence – they published the file's password. The point is: If anyone should be in the dock (and no one should be!), it would be the Guardian, not Assange https://t.co/4fQlUEXLTP

— Jonathan Cook (@Jonathan_K_Cook) February 25, 2020

Any security service in the world could now unlock the file containing the cables. And as they homed in on where the file was hidden at the end of the summer, Assange was forced into a desperate damage limitation operation. In September 2011 he published the unredacted cables so that anyone named in them would have advance warning and could go into hiding – before any hostile security services came looking for them.

Yes, Assange published the cables unredacted but he did so – was forced to do so – by the unforgivable actions of Leigh and the Guardian.

But before we examine the paper’s deceitful statement of denial, we need to interject two further points.

First, it is important to remember that claims of the damage this all caused were intentionally and grossly inflated by the US to create a pretext to vilify Assange and later to justify his extradition and jailing. In fact, there is no evidence that any informant was ever harmed as a result of Wikileaks’ publications – something that was even admittedby a US official at Manning’s trial. If someone had been hurt or killed, you can be sure that the US would be clamouring about it at the Old Bailey hearings and offering details to the media.

Second, the editor of a US website, Cryptome, pointed out this week at the hearings that he had published the unredacted cables a day before Wikileaks did. He noted that US law enforcement agencies had shown zero interest in his publication of the file and had never asked him to take it down. The lack of concern makes explicit what was always implicit: the issue was never really about the files, redacted or not; it was always about finding a way to silence Assange and disable Wikileaks.

Cryptome and another website published unredacted cables, and only after this did @WikiLeaks republish the already published documents. The US prosecution is trying to confuse the chain of events. pic.twitter.com/zmjVMui8Ev

— Don't Extradite Assange (@DEAcampaign) September 21, 2020

The Guardian’s deceptions

Every time the US cites Leigh and Harding’s book, it effectively recruits the Guardian against Assange and against freedom of the press. Hanging over the paper is effectively a threat that – should it not play ball with the US campaign to lock Assange away for life – the US could either embarrass it by publicly divulging its role or target the paper for treatment similar to that suffered by Assange.

And quite astoundingly, given the stakes for Assange and for journalism, the Guardian has been playing ball – by keeping quiet. Until this week, at least.

Under pressure, the Guardian finally published on Friday a short, sketchy and highly simplistic account of the past week’s hearings, and then used it as an opportunity to respond to the growing criticism of its role in publishing the password in the Leigh and Harding book.

The Guardian’s statement in its report of the extradition hearings is not only duplicitous in the extreme but sells Assange down the river by evading responsibility for publishing the password. It thereby leaves him even more vulnerable to the US campaign to lock him up.

Here is its statement:

Let’s highlight the deceptions:

1. The claim that the password was “temporary” is just that – a self-exculpatory claim by David Leigh. There is no evidence to back it up beyond Leigh’s statement that Assange said it. And the idea that Assange would say it defies all reason. Leigh himself states in the book that he had to bully Assange into letting him have the password precisely because Assange was worried that a tech neophyte like Leigh might do something foolish or reckless. Assange needed a great deal of persuading before he agreed. The idea that he was so concerned about the security of a password that was to have a life-span shorter than a mayfly is simply not credible.

It is strictly false that the Guardian was told the password or file were temporary, hence the elaborate password handover method.

— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) September 1, 2011

2. Not only was the password not temporary, but it was based very obviously on a complex formula Assange used for all Wikileaks’ passwords to make them impossible for others to crack but easier for him to remember. By divulging the password, Leigh gave away Assange’s formula and offered every security service in the world the key to unlocking other encrypted files. The claim that Assange had suggested to Leigh that keeping the password secret was not of the most vital importance is again simply not credible.

3. But whether or not Leigh thought the password was temporary is beside the point. Leigh, as an experienced investigative journalist and one who had little understanding of the tech world, had a responsibility to check with Assange that it was okay to publish the password. Doing anything else was beyond reckless. This was a world Leigh knew absolutely nothing about, after all.

But there was a reason Leigh did not check with Assange: he and Harding wrote the book behind Assange’s back. Leigh had intentionally cut Assange out of the writing and publication process so that he and the Guardian could cash in on the Wikileak founder’s early fame. Not checking with Assange was the whole point of the exercise.

4. It is wrong to lay all the blame on Leigh, however. This was a Guardian project. I worked at the paper for years. Before any article is published, it is scrutinised by backbench editors, sub-editors, revise editors, page editors and, if necessary, lawyers and one of the chief editors. A Guardian book on the most contentious, incendiary publication of a secret cache of documents since the Pentagon Papers should have gone through at least the same level of scrutiny, if not more.

So how did no one in this chain of supervision pause to wonder whether it made sense to publish a password to a Wikileaks file of encrypted documents? The answer is that the Guardian was in a publishing race to get its account of the ground-shattering release of the Iraq and Afghan diaries out before any of its rivals, including the New York Times and Der Spiegel. It wanted to take as much glory as possible for itself in the hope of winning a Pulitzer. And it wanted to settle scores with Assange before his version of events was given an airing in either the New York Times or Der Spiegel books. Vanity and greed drove the Guardian’s decision to cut corners, even if it meant endangering lives.

5. Nauseatingly, however, the Guardian not only seeks to blame Assange for its own mistake but tells a glaring lie about the circumstances. Its statement says: “No concerns were expressed by Assange or WikiLeaks about security being compromised when the book was published in February 2011. WikiLeaks published the unredacted files in September 2011.”

It is simply not true that Assange and Wikileaks expressed no concern. They expressed a great deal of concern in private. But they did not do so publicly – and for very good reason.

Computer expert at Assange hearing calls the Guardian's David Leigh 'a bad faith actor' over his publishing a Wikileaks password that opened the door to every security service in the world being able to access 250,000 encrypted cables https://t.co/QLJj1McNrJ

— Jonathan Cook (@Jonathan_K_Cook) September 22, 2020

Any public upbraiding of the Guardian for its horrendous error would have drawn attention to the fact that the password could be easily located in Leigh’s book. By this stage, there was no way to change the password or delete the file, as has been explained to the Old Bailey hearing by a computer professor, Christian Grothoff, of Bern University.  He has called Leigh a “bad faith actor”.

So Assange was forced to limit the damage quietly, behind the scenes, before word of the password’s publication got out and the file was located. Ultimately, six months later, when the clues became too numerous to go unnoticed, and Cryptome had published the unredacted file on its website, Assange had no choice but to follow suit.

This is the real story, the one the Guardian dare not tell. Despite the best efforts of the US lawyers and the judge at the Old Bailey hearings, the truth is finally starting to emerge. Now it is up to us to make sure the Guardian is not allowed to continue colluding in this crime against Assange and the press freedoms he represents.

Read original article and more on Jonathan’s Blog

Read original article in Johnahan Cook’s Blog

This article is a collection of letters to various players in the apparent media black Out of the September Assange Hearings

On Court Access

Date: 24 September 20202
From: Niki Konstantinidis
To: King, Laura <Laura.King1@Justice.gov.uk>

Dear Ms King,

In one of your earlier emails to me, you gave me certain assurances as to open justice and stated that ‘[t]he Judge has now confirmed that observers, trial monitors and other interested parties can attend the hearing virtually via the Cloud Video Platform (CVP)’.  Said statement indicates that the arrangements for open justice are the Judge’s decision, not that of a private security firm.
It is common knowledge that, to date, the court’s Cloud Video Platform (CVP) service has been fraught with countless problems. If ‘justice must be seen to be done’, CVP is not facilitating the view. 
Does the Judge consider it fair and reasonable and in the interests of justice to risk the exclusion of people like Dr Deepa Govindarajan Driver  (a legal observer with a mandate from the Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyers) from the main courtroom? Has the Judge made any formal ruling delegating a portion of her powers over to the said security firm? If so, could you please provide such ruling?  If not, please provide evidence of her instructions to said security firm (in particular, insofar as concerns access of the public to the courtrooms in the Assange case).
It is worthwhile noting, once again, that Dr Deepa Govindarajan Driver is not just any member of the public, but a mandated legal observer with high credentials and should be allowed to occupy one of the court’s reserved VIP seats in such a high-profile case of historical importance. The fact that the court is imposing seemingly arbitrary obstacles on such members of the public raises significant questions as to its independence and impartiality. 
I would be grateful if you could forward this email to Judge Baraitser and I look forward to your response.
Yours sincerely,
Niki Konstantinidis

Date: 24 September 2020
From: King, Laura <Laura.King1@Justice.gov.uk> wrote:

Good morning,
I’m sorry for not replying to you sooner.
Arrangements for the public gallery are managed by security at the Central Criminal Court so you will need to speak to them regarding the number of seats available in the gallery for court 9 and court 10.
I’m sorry I can’t be of more help.
Kind regards 

Date: 24 September 2020
To: King, Laura <Laura.King1@Justice.gov.uk>
From: Deepa Govindarajan Driver
Dear Ms King
I have not yet received a reply regarding this request. I am still queueing every day for the 2 public spaces in court 9 and am aware that theVIP seats have now been released to allow the public to have 5 spaces.  I would be grateful if i could be permitted to observe in court 10 if more seats may be available in court 10. 
Kind regards
Deepa 

Date: Sun, Sep 6
From: Deepa Govindarajan Driver
To: King, Laura <Laura.King1@Justice.gov.uk>

Dear Ms King
Please would you arrange to grant me access to court for the Julian Paul Assange hearing. I am a UK – academic researching state and corporate criminality and accountability.
I am the founder of an international network bringing together eminent jurists, academics & other professionals with citizens campaigning for the protection of whistleblowers and against the torture & persecution of Julian Assange. We host public events at which I am the main convenor. 
I would like to attend court as an observer to follow the case . 
Kind Regards
Dr Deepa Govindarajan Driver 

On Court Capacity

On the 23rd September 2020
From: Niki Konstantinidis
To: King, Laura <Laura.King1@Justice.gov.uk>
Jourdan.Wong-Muhammad@justice.gov.uk

Dear Ms King and Mr Jourdan,
Please note that I have received no response from the HMCTS Communications team, as promised in your earlier emails.
You informed me in an earlier email that you added my name to the list of those who have requested to attend, that the list would be put before the Judge and that she would make the final decision on who can join via CVP. I was never contacted again regarding this. Please advise as to the basis on which the Judge rejected my application.  
Regarding your statement that ‘[t]he Judge has now confirmed that observers, trial monitors and other interested parties can attend the hearing virtually via the Cloud Video Platform (CVP)’, I would be grateful for all information explaining the Judge’s radical turnaround position on this aspect of a public hearing (a public hearing is one of the requirements of article 6 of the ECHR and of the UK Human Rights Act). 
Furthermore, please advise as to the basis on which Mr Charlie Jones (twitter handle @CharlieDanJones) was accepted to sit in the main courtroom. In his tweet dated  20/09/2020, he states: ‘FROM BEING IN THE ROOM. I was the first journo to sit in court with Assange for a full day after successfully applying to the court. Here’s some goss’. Does Mr Jones have higher credentials than the reporters gathered in another courtroom at room temperature of approximately 16°C with inadequate or poorly functioning CVP or video equipment and viewing screens? Are all courtrooms in the Central Criminal Court temperature-controlled in the same way and is all technological and viewing equipment of the same standard and quality? What size screens are available in the Central Criminal Court for viewing by the public gallery? 
You assured me on 20/08/2020 that ‘[t]here is no intention to exclude anyone from attending (…). The Central Criminal Court will host Julian Assange’s final extradition hearing because they have the best facilities for the press and extensive experience with managing high profile cases’ yet the reality of the court conditions seems to contradict this, unless we have different perceptions as to the meaning of ‘best facilities for the press’.  I would be grateful for a list of said ‘best facilities’ and specifics as to their use in the Assange case (including incident reports where said ‘best facilities’ have not been functioning at optimum level and reasons therefor).
The two allocated courts (9 and 10) have sufficient seats for a greater portion of the public to be inside (even with social distancing rules). Please provide the Central Criminal Court’s social distancing rules and policies and state the reasons for not allowing journalists with solid credentials into the main courtroom. The same goes for observers, trial monitors and other interested parties (such as, Amnesty and RSF). Do the Central Criminal Court’s social distancing rules and policies differ from the rules and policies of other UK courts? Do they deviate from mainstream rules and policies applicable in the UK, and if so, in what way and why? 
Furthermore, please explain why individuals with health problems are forced to queue for hours and climb up several flights of stairs (when operating lifts are available). 
Please handle this email as an FOI request.
For your information, I have attached an Internal Review of FOI 200629017 (on FOI by Ms Emmy Butlin) which states, among other things, that ‘seats cannot be reserved’ and that the public can take notes during the court hearing.
I look forward to your reply.
Yours faithfully,
Niki Konstantinidis

On Arrangements for Julian’s Hearings

On the 20rd September 2020
From: Niki Konstantinidis

Dear Ms King and Mr Jourdan,
I have received no reply to my email below. 
Given the importance of the Assange case and the assurances given to me and other members of the public regarding open justice, I urge you to treat my request promptly.
Yours sincerely,
Niki Konstantinidis

On the 9th September 2020
From: Niki Konstantinidis

Dear Ms King,
Further to my previous emails on this matter, I also seek information relating to all or any rulings, instructions or directions limiting, disallowing or prohibiting the public in any way whatsoever from attending the above hearing and/or taking notes in the course of the said hearing, as well as the legal basis thereof. 
Information as to the problems with the communications equipment and the reason(s) for their continued inefficacy, malfunctioning or general unfitness for purpose.
I also seek the names of members of the public and/or other entities on the list of those allowed in the public gallery and the reasons for such preferential treatment.
Finally, I seek copies of the witness statements filed with the court.
Yours faithfully,
Niki Konstantinidis

On the 20th August 2020
From: Laura King

Good evening,
I can confirm I am responding on behalf of Westminster Magistrates’ Court and the Central Criminal Court.
My apologies, my email should have stated that the arrangements are still to be confirmed for press, NGOs and all of those who have contacted us to request to attend the hearing, not just the press.
I can confirm that we have received the letter to the Lord Chancellor from Rebecca Vincent regarding arrangements for this hearing and concerns about access to previous hearings.
There is no intention to exclude anyone from attending but it isn’t possible for any court in England or Wales to accommodate all of those who want to attend. The Central Criminal Court will host Julian Assange’s final extradition hearing because they have the best facilities for the press and extensive experience with managing high profile cases.
I can assure you I will contact you once the arrangements are finalised. In the meantime, I will pass your other points and questions to the HMCTS Communications team to respond to.

Kind regards
Laura

On the 20th August 2020
From: Niki Konstantinidis
To: King, Laura <Laura.King1@Justice.gov.uk>;
SouthLondonMC <SouthLondonMC@justice.gov.uk>;
centralcriminalcourt <centralcriminalcourt@Justice.gov.uk>
Cc: Robert Buckland.mp <robert.buckland.mp@parliament.uk>
Subject: Re: Right to a fair trial–Court Hearings defacto ‘secret’ trials–Julian Paul Assange

Dear Ms King,
Thank you for your email which I assume was written also on behalf of SouthLondonMC and CentralCriminalCourt.
I wish to point out that my previous email dated 19 August 2020 (scroll below) does not relate exclusively to access by the press, which, to date, has been systematically denied in fact. This de facto denial of access to the press has been so flagrantly outrageous that Ms Rebecca Vincent, Director of International Campaigns for Reporters Without Borders stated: ‘I have never in my career faced so much difficulty attempting to trial monitor as in Julian Assange’s case.’  (https://www.tareqhaddad.com/news-what-happens-if-julian-assange-dies-in-a-british-prison-journalists-and-monitors-voice-concerns/)
I do not understand why the Westminster Magistrates’ Court or the Central Criminal Court would refuse to address my legitimate concerns relating to systematic violations of Mr Assange’s and the public’s right to open justice. I am sure you are aware of the great importance placed on ‘open justice’ by the sitting magistrate, Ms Baraitser, who forced Mr Assange’s partner Stella Moris and two toddlers into the spotlight (despite evidence resulting from the UC Global case showing that Mr Assange’s young family had been specifically targeted by UC Global and Intelligence services to which information was being fed regularly). My previous emails and the Open Letter by Lawyers4Assange highlight the fact that a public hearing constitutes by law an institutional guarantee, a way of ensuring that the administration of justice is subject to public scrutiny. ‘Public scrutiny’ means scrutiny by the public at large, not just by a handful of accredited journalists.
As stated in my earlier emails, to my knowledge, neither Westminster Magistrates Court nor any other authority has provided any explanation justifying an exclusion of the public from this rendition hearing. If there are any special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice, these have never been stated in open court or elsewhere, and I look forward to being informed in that regard. 
Furthermore, please provide the legal basis as to why Mr Assange has been totally silenced in the entire interim period prior to his rendition hearing. Journalists and human rights activist groups wish to interview him as a matter of urgency and the public has a right to be informed, especially as to his prison conditions and other matters relating to his treatment in custody. 
I am certain that you appreciate the importance of the public interest in this case, especially since Mr Assange is a journalist on the Council of Europe list of protected journalists.
I look forward to being updated on the ‘arrangements for the press’ as well as being fully informed on the other matters raised in my previous emails below.

Kind Regards,
Niki Konstantinidis

On the 2nd March 2020 Double Down News posted a Video of John McDonnell MP and former Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer

and a recent tweet

I made this video some months ago. As the trial of Julian Assange recommences today I’m even more certain now that his extradition must be opposed. Allowing his extradition to proceed would massively deter future whistleblowers & investigative journalists in exposing injustices. https://t.co/VnZITuP4G0

— John McDonnell MP (@johnmcdonnellMP) September 7, 2020

More on John McDonnell at his web site

On the 7th September 2020, the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) reports

On Monday 7 September, hearings for the extradition of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange to the United States will resume in the UK for at least three weeks. The International Federation of Journalists(IFJ) once again denounces the unrelenting judicial and political harassment.

Since April 2019, Julian Assange has been behind bars in the British prison of Belmarsh, in the east of London. Images of an emaciated man with shaggy hair, being forcibly removed by the British police from the Ecuadorian embassy where he had spent six years, will remain seared in the minds of many.

Initially placed in solitary confinement without any decision justifying it, Julian Assange is still in detention and will therefore begin his third round of hearings on Monday 7 September, after those of February and June. These next three weeks will be crucial for the founder of Wikileaks, a member of IFJ Australian affiliate MEAA and holder of the IFJ International Press Card.

Assange, who faces 175 years in prison if extradited to the US and convicted , is accused by the Americans of encouraging whistleblower Chelsea Manning in 2010 to break into the government’s computer system to provide information containing clear evidence of war crimes, including the publication of the video Collateral murders . The video showed ,via an onboard camera on a US Apache helicopter in Iraq, the deliberate shooting on 12 July 2007 in Baghdad of civilians by the US military. At least 18 people were killed in the incident, including two journalists from the Reuters agency. 

“Even though Assange was able to meet his relatives at the end of August, including his children, his health is still very worrying and no measures are being taken to improve it,” said Anthony Bellanger, IFJ General Secretary, who is in regular contact with Assange’s father, John Shipton. “The situation is also critical from a judicial point of view as British courts will have to rule on the extradition of Julien Assange to the US, opening the door to a life sentence for the founder of Wikileaks. The IFJ continues to work with freedom of expression groups and reminds members of the Council of Europe and the international community that the UK is holding without shame a man who has made public information of public interest.”

Read original posting in the IFJ web site

On 7th September 2020 Craig Murray posted

Today, the corporate media that cried “Media freedom” when Extinction Rebellion blocked the billionaire owned propaganda presses, is silent as Julian Assange’s Calvary for bringing real truth unfiltered to the public moves on to its next station; the macabre Gothic architecture of the Old Bailey.

The Tories appeared remarkably tolerant in the days when Extinction Rebellion were causing general disruption to the public. But to threaten the interests of billionaire paymasters is something against which the entire political class will unite. At a time when the government is mooting designating Extinction Rebellion as Serious Organised Crime, right wing bequiffed muppet Keir Starmer was piously condemning the group, stating: “The free press is the cornerstone of democracy and we must do all we can to protect it.”

It is surely time we stopped talking about “free press”, as if it was Thomas Paine or William Cobbett distributing pamphlets. Print media is now the subject of phenomenonal ownership concentration. It broadcasts the propaganda of some very nasty billionaires to a shrinking audience of mostly old people. The same ownerships have of course moved in to TV and Radio and increasingly into new media, and have a political stranglehold over those who control state media. At the same time, the corporate gatekeepers of Facebook and Twitter purposefully strangle the flow of readers to independent online media. The idea of a “free press” as an open marketplace of democratic ideas has no real meaning in modern society, until anti-monopoly action is taken. Which is the last thing those in power will do.

Quite the opposite, they are actively seeking to eliminate dissent even from the internet.

I do not want permanently to close down the Sun or the Telegraph; neither do Extinction Rebellion. But their excellent action is an important opening to the debate about controlled public narrative, not least on climate change. The highly paid stenographers to power have been quick to protest. Murdoch mouthpiece David Aaronovitch tweeted out that in fact 99% of the time there was no editorial interference from Murdoch. But that is the point. Murdoch employs reliable right wingers like Aaronovitch; he does not need to tell them what to write.

Show me the Murdoch journalist who has more than once published about the human rights abuses against the Palestinians. Murdoch ejected his own son from his media empire because James was insufficiently enthusiastic about the slow genocide of the Palestinians, and does not believe that the market will magically fix climate change.

The corporate media selects its mouthpieces. Scotland has become an extreme example, where 55% of the population support Independence, but only about 5% of state and corporate media “journalists” support Independence.

Julian Assange has been a light in this darkness. Wikileaks have opened a window into the secret world of war crime, murder and corruption that underlies so much of the governance we live under throughout the “free” world. Coming in the wake of the public realisation that we had been blatantly lied into the destruction of Iraq, there was a time when it seemed Assange would lead us into a new age where whistleblowers, citizen journalists and a democratic internet would revolutionise public information, with the billionaire stranglehold shattered.

That seems less hopeful today, as the internet world itself corporatised. Julian is in jail and continuing today is an extradition hearing that has been one long abuse of process. The appalling conditions of solitary confinement in which he has been kept in the high security Belmarsh Prison, with no access to his legal team or a working computer, to his papers or to his mail, have taken a huge toll on his physical and mental health. The UN Special Representative has declared he is subject to torture. A media which is up in arms about the very dubious attack on Navalny, has no emotion for state torture victim Assange other than contempt.

It is constantly asked by Julian’s supporters why the media do not see the assault on a publisher and journalist as a threat to themselves. The answer is that the state and corporate media are confident in their firm alliance with the powers that be. They have no intention of challenging the status quo; their protection from those kicking Assange lies in joining in with the kicking.

I hope to be in court today, and throughout the extradition hearing. The public gallery of 80 has been reduced to 9 “due to Covid”. 5 seats are reserved for Julian’s family and friends, and I have one of these today, but not guaranteed beyond that. There are just 4 seats for the general public.

Journalists and NGO’s will be following the hearing online – but only “approved” journalists and NGO’s, selected by the Orwelian Ministry of Justice. I had dinner last night with Assange supporters from a number of registered NGO’s, not one of which had been “approved”. I had applied myself as a representative of Hope Over Fear, and was turned down. It is the same story for those who applied for online access as journalists. Only the officially “approved” will be allowed to watch.

This is supposed to be a public hearing, to which in normal times anybody should be able to walk in off the street into the large public gallery, and anyone with a press card into the press gallery. What is the justification for the political selection of those permitted to watch? An extraordinary online system has been set up, with the state favoured observers given online “rooms” in which only the identified individual will be allowed. Even with approved organisations, it is not the case that an organisation will have a login anyone can use, not even one at a time. Only specifically nominated individuals have to login before proceedings start, and if their connection breaks at any point they will not be readmitted that day.

Given these restrictions, I was very conscious I may need to queue from 5am tomorrow, to get one of the 4 public places, if I drop off the family list. So I went this morning at 6am to the Old Bailey to check out the queue and work out the system. The first six people in the queue were all people who, entirely off their own bat, without my knowledge and with no coordination between them, had arrived while London slept just to reserve a place for me. I was swept up by their goodness, their trust in me and by their sheer humanitarian concern about Julian and the whole miscarriage of justice. I chatted cheerily with them for a while, then came back to write this, but just got round the corner when I burst into floods of tears, overwhelmed by all this kindness.

I have to pull myself together now and get into that court.

More on Craig Murray’s Blog

On the 6th September, Julia Hill, Amnesty International’s expert on human rights in Europe, published this option editorial

Assange’s extradition to the US would set a chilling precedent for those who publish leaked or classified information.

The last time I saw Julian Assange he looked tired and wan.

Dressed neatly in casual business attire, the WikiLeaks founder was sitting in a glass-enclosed dock, at the back of a court adjoining Belmarsh high-security prison in London, flanked by two prison officers. 

I had travelled from the United States to observe the hearing. He had travelled via a tunnel from his cell to the courtroom.

On Monday, Assange will be in court again, for the resumption of proceedings that will ultimately decide on the Trump administration’s request for his extradition to the US.

But it is not just Assange that will be in the dock. Beside him will sit the fundamental tenets of media freedom that underpin the rights to freedom of expression and the public’s right of access to information. Silence this one man, and the US and its accomplices will gag others, spreading fear of persecution and prosecution over a global media community already under assault in the US and in many other countries worldwide.

The stakes really are that high. If the United Kingdom extradites Assange, he would face prosecution in the US on espionage charges that could send him to prison for decades – possibly in a facility reserved for the highest security detainees and subjected to the strictest of daily regimes, including prolonged solitary confinement. All for doing something news editors do the world over – publishing public interest information provided by sources.

Indeed, President Donald Trump has called WikiLeaks “disgraceful” and said its actions in publishing classified information should carry the death penalty.

The chilling effect on other publishers, investigative journalists and any person who would dare to facilitate the publication of classified information of government wrongdoing would be immediate and severe. And the US would boldly go beyond its own borders with a long arm to reach non-citizens, like Assange, who is Australian.

The US government’s relentless pursuit of Assange – and the UK’s willing participation in his hunt and capture – has now landed him in a prison typically reserved for seasoned criminals. It has diminished him both physically and emotionally – often to the point of disorientation. Breaking him by isolating Assange from family, friends and his legal team, seems part and parcel of the US’s strategy – and it seems to be working.

You do not need to know the vagaries of extradition law to understand that the charges against Assange are not only classic “political offences” and thus barred under extradition law, but more crucially, the charges are politically motivated.

The 17 charges levelled by the US under the 1918 Espionage Act could bring 175 years in prison; add a conviction on the single computer fraud charge (said to complement the Espionage Act by dragging it into the computer era), and you get another gratuitous five years. Assange is the only publisher ever to bear the brunt of such espionage charges. 

There is no doubt that the charges are politically motivated under this US administration, which has all but convicted Assange in the public arena. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has claimed that WikiLeaks is a “hostile intelligence service” whose activities must be “mitigated and managed”. The flagrantly unfair prosecution of Assange is an example of how far the US will go to “manage” the flow of information about government wrongdoing and thus undermine the public’s right to know. 

Assange was on Barack Obama’s radar, too, but the Obama administration declined to prosecute him. Current US Attorney General William Barr, however, has turned out not one, but two indictments since 2019, the latest at the end of June. That second indictment was a surprise not only to Assange’s defence team, but to the crown lawyer and the judge who were also taken unawares by the new indictment.

Earlier this year, sitting 20 feet away from Assange, I was struck by how much of a shadow of his former self he had become. He did spontaneously stand up several times during that week of hearings to address the judge. He told her he was confused. He told her he could not properly hear the proceedings. He said barriers in the prison and in court meant that he had not been able to consult with his lawyers. He was not technically permitted to address the judge directly, but he did repeatedly, flashes of the aggressive tactics used in the past to advocate for himself and the principles he has espoused. 

If Assange is extradited it will have far-reaching human rights implications, setting a chilling precedent for the protection of those who publish leaked or classified information that is in the public interest.

Publishing such information is a cornerstone of media freedom and the public’s right to access information. It must be protected, not criminalised.

Original article in Al Jazeera

On the 6th September, 2020 Kevin Gosztola reports

Pollack outlines why the U.S. government’s position in the case against Assange is a “very dangerous one.”

*Kevin Gosztola will be covering WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange’s extradition hearing all week. If you’re able to support his work, go to shadowproof.com/donate and chip in a few dollars or become a paid subscriber of this newsletter and support his work that way.

The trial portion of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange’s extradition hearing will unfold from September 7 until at least September 24.

Ahead of the extradition hearing, Shadowproof managing editor Kevin Gosztola interviewed Barry Pollack, who is Assange’s lawyer in the United States.

In the interview, Pollack outlines why the U.S. government’s position in the case is a “very dangerous one.” He describes several aspects that would likely lead one to believe Assange would be denied justice if extradited to the U.S. for a trial and what makes this hearing September so crucial for Assange’s legal team. 

***

The following is a transcript of the interview with Barry Pollack, who is WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange’s lawyer in the United States. It was edited for clarity in a few sections.

GOSZTOLA: What aspects of defending Julian Assange do you focus upon as his U.S. lawyer, and where does your work fit into the larger defense? 

POLLACK: I represent him with respect to the charges here. So if the United States were ever successful in getting him extradited to the United States, I would be the one who would represent in court against those charges. Right now, obviously, what is happening is the extradition in the U.K. That extradition, whether or not he’s going to be extradited, will be determined by U.K. law, not by U.S. law. He has a team of British lawyers representing him in that proceeding. 

I am coordinating with them, advising them on U.S. law, U.S. procedures, what Julian would face if he were brought here because some of that is quite relevant to the extradition proceedings. But they are very much his lawyers in the U.K. for purposes of the extradition hearing. I am his lawyer here in the United States to defend him if and when he is required to face those charges.

GOSZTOLA: And you’ve, to some degree, represented him before the extradition request? 

POLLACK: Yes, I’ve been part of his legal team for a number of years. He was already in the [Ecuador] embassy when I first started representing him. But I represented him for a number of years prior to the criminal charges or the extradition request having been made. 

GOSZTOLA: One of the issues that has become pronounced is we see the U.S. government making this argument that Julian should be denied First Amendment rights while at the same time suggesting they can bring a prosecution under the Espionage Act. But many defense attorneys have defended alleged leakers by claiming the Espionage Act is too broad when it comes to the First Amendment, making First Amendment defenses to try to see how far those might go. 

How do you view this dynamic that is part of the U.S. prosecution? 

POLLACK: The position that the U.S. is taking is a very dangerous one. The position the U.S. is taking is that they have jurisdiction all over the world and can pursue criminal charges against any journalist anywhere on the planet, whether they’re a U.S. citizen or not. But if they’re not a U.S. citizen, not only can the U.S. pursue charges against them but that person has no defense under the First Amendment. It remains to be seen whether a U.S. court would accept that position, but that certainly is the position that the government is taking. 

In the cases that have been brought under the Espionage Act to date, efforts to build defenses around the First Amendment have been quite unsuccessful. The courts have not [generally allowed or supported defenses] based on the First Amendment. But those are cases where the defendant was a leaker, not a publisher. 

This case is unique. The U.S. government has never tried to charge a journalist or a publisher under the Espionage Act. 

GOSZTOLA: That raises an important question in my mind, which is, how can someone who is not from the U.S. be expected to submit to these U.S. secrecy laws and regulations, especially when he never signed a non-disclosure agreement? 

A key part of these Espionage Act prosecutions are that they are brought forward as strict liability offenses, that he signed something. It seems that there is no evidence whatsoever in favor of the U.S. government that he signed anything to agree to not disclose information. 

POLLACK: That’s correct. In the cases that have been brought to date, the charges have been against an employee of the government, a government contractor, a former employee of the government, all people who entered into an agreement with the government that they would not disclose classified information. 

Journalists don’t enter into that type of agreement, and every day the New York Times and the Washington Post publish classified information. The Department of Justice has never charged a domestic reporter under the Espionage Act. Up until the current administration, I think it was widely understood that doing so would be inconsistent with the First Amendment. 

Publishers do not have those kinds of non-disclosure agreements. They report what is newsworthy, and that includes classified information that comes into their possession.

What the government is doing here is not only charging a publisher who has no non-disclosure obligation but charging a publisher who is not in the United States. They’re charging an Australian citizen, who is publishing from the U.K. So it is an unprecedented prosecution. 

GOSZTOLA: What concerns do you have about the U.S. criminal justice system? One aspect is that there are such things as coercive pleas. Are you concerned about what would happen if he was put on trial and the way in which he could be pressured to not go to trial in the United States? 

POLLACK: The pressure on defendants in the federal criminal justice system in the United States generally is extraordinary. In a case like this, it would be even greater. There is frequently in the United States a tremendous disparity between the penalty somebody receives if they plead guilty versus the penalty that they would receive if they go to trial and are ultimately unsuccessful. 

So there is a tremendous disincentive to go to trial. Approximately 97 percent of all federal criminal cases end in the plea, not going to trial, for that reason. 

Here one would expect Julian would be kept in an isolated administrative detention. In other words, he would be in jail effectively under solitary confinement, even awaiting trial, awaiting appeals. Once sentenced and put into the Bureau of Prisons system, he would likely be sent to a maximum security system. 

And the potential sentences if he is convicted after trial are extraordinary. He’s facing a maximum of 175 years. Under those conditions, it would be very, very difficult for somebody to say I want to go trial, and if I’m unsuccessful, I want to appeal and be heard in the Supreme Court. Even if you were ultimately successful, you would spend years in draconian prison conditions fighting the charges. 

Yes, there would be tremendous on him to accept some sort of a deal that mitigated some of those consequences. 

GOSZTOLA: If you’re the prosecutors, you bring 18 charges. You only have to convince a court that he committed three offenses, and then you’ve essentially put him behind bars for what amounts to a life sentence because you just consider his age. 

Have you gained any greater awareness through being able to work with U.K. attorneys on how out-of-line this is by comparison to European countries in the way that they wouldn’t stack sentences that add up to 175 years? 

POLLACK: There are all kinds of differences between the way the U.K. would treat this situation and how the United States would treat the situation. Not only is it charged much more aggressively in the United States, but in the U.K., there clearly are public interest exceptions to the publication of state secrets. 

In the U.K., it is pretty clear that this would not be a crime, and that certainly will be an issue in the extradition proceeding. 

Also, the conditions of confinement in the U.K. are different. In the U.K., if you are convicted of a crime, in this case a nonviolent crime, you would not be held in isolation, essentially solitary confinement indefinitely, potentially for years, potentially for the rest of your life. That would not happen in the U.K. 

In the U.K., there is better access to medical care in the prison system. There is better access to mental health treatment in the prison system. So, there are all kinds of differences between the U.S. system of justice and U.S. conditions of confinement and those in the U.K. And I think all of those are likely to come up in the extradition hearing as reasons why the U.K. should not be willing to extradite him. 

GOSZTOLA: How would you describe the Eastern District of Virginia? And how do you see the makeup of a possible jury pool as bolstering this argument that justice would be denied to Assange? Can the demographics of a judicial district work in favor of arguing against extradition? 

POLLACK: You would have to ask the U.K. lawyers where that fits in terms of extradition law, but there is no question in the United States there are different demographics in different districts. And the Eastern District of Virginia is a district that has a disproportionately high number of Defense Department employees, intelligence community employees, family members of those employees, people who hold a security clearance, etc.

It is certainly not a representative district. If the case were being tried in Iowa, you would have a very different jury pool then you do in Alexandria, Virginia. I don’t think the U.S. government is blind to the fact. The U.S. government could have chosen to charge him in any district in the country because the law is when an alleged crime is committed abroad there is venue in whatever district is the first district that you arrive in the United States. 

Since Mr. Assange would be brought in custody, the U.S. government could take him to any district they wanted to and have venue in that district. It has chosen the Eastern District of Virginia, and that’s not a coincidence. The U.S. government thinks it will get a favorable jury pool in the Eastern District of Virginia. 

GOSZTOLA: I could be off in my analogy, but to take an issue that has captivated the country for the last six-to-seven months, it’s almost to me like if you had jury made up almost entirely of police officers, and they were hearing a case involving involving an officer who shot and killed somebody. It doesn’t seem like we would think it was fair for them to be the only people on that jury. 

POLLACK: We would not think it was fair to give somebody in a police shooting case a jury pool that was disproportionately made up of police officers. I think we would also not think it was fair that one side gets to pick which district and which jury pool it wants to have. But that’s exactly what the law allows. 

GOSZTOLA: Finally, I understand this upcoming hearing that will span three weeks is a very crucial hearing for the legal team. Clarify for me what this hearing means and how essential it is for certain evidence to be brought in order to undermine what the U.S. government is doing. 

POLLACK: This is the main taking of evidence regarding the extradition request. So this is essentially the equivalent of the trial for purposes of developing the facts on which the decision will be made whether or not to extradite. 

The various legal issues that come into play in extradition: Is this is a political offense? Has there been some sort of abuse of process? Has the government accurately represented the nature of the charges and the allegations to the court? Are the conditions of confinement in the United States comparable to what they are in the U.K.? Is this even a crime in the U.K.? 

All of those things that will go into deciding whether or not extradition is appropriate—What’s going to unfold over the next three weeks is we’re going to hear from witnesses who are going to speak to those issues to inform the court as to whether or not each of those things are in fact true. 

Obviously, from our perspective, we hope and believe that the witnesses are going to be very compelling on each of those issues and that each one of those issues militates against extraditing.

Read Original Article and interesting commentary in the Dissenter

On the 28th August 2020, Oscar Grenfell  reports

ulian Assange received his first visitors in six months, less than a fortnight out from British court hearings for the extradition of the persecuted WikiLeaks publisher to the US, where he faces life imprisonment for exposing American war crimes.

Stella Morris, Assange’s partner and an internationally-respected human rights attorney, was allowed to meet with the WikiLeaks founder earlier this week, after authorities at London’s Belmarsh Prison eased restrictions introduced in response to the coronavirus pandemic. It was the first time that Morris and their two young children Gabriel and Max had seen Assange since March 22.

The visit is welcome news for all supporters of Assange and democratic rights. But it has underscored the brutal conditions in which he is held by the British authorities, despite not having been convicted of any crime, and has sparked renewed fears that his health is continuing to deteriorate.

In comments to the PA news agency after the visit, Morris said that the experience had been “incredibly stressful” but that she was relieved to have been able to see Assange.

“We had to keep social distancing and Julian was told he would have to self-isolate for two weeks if he touched the children,” Morris said. “Julian said it was the first time he had been given a mask because things are very different behind the doors.”

She added: “At least he got to see the children, even though he couldn’t touch them. The children were both calm. We all remained seated the whole time.”

Morris said that the older of the boys, Gabriel, who is three-years old, showed off his abilities to count and to recite the alphabet. Gabriel was born when Assange was a political refugee in Ecuador’s London embassy, where his arbitrary detention was enforced by British threats to arrest him if he set foot outside the building.

The infant child was immediately targeted for intrusive surveillance and other human rights violations by the US Central Intelligence Agency. Max, who is one-year-old, first met Assange in 2019 at Belmarsh, a facility dubbed Britain’s Guantánamo Bay.

Speaking of Assange’s physical condition, Morris said: “He is in a lot of pain.” She stated that he continues to suffer from a frozen shoulder, a long-term condition compounded by a lack of adequate medical treatment. He had also recently sprained his ankle.

“I could not see him very clearly because of the visors, but he looked a lot thinner. He was wearing a yellow armband to indicate his level of prisoner status, and you could see how thin his arms were,” Morris explained.

The confirmation that Assange has not been provided with a mask is evidence that the British state wants him dead. That the most high-profile political prisoner in the world, detained in a country falsely held up as a beacon of democracy, was not provided with the most basic protection during an unprecedented global pandemic sums up the criminality of the decade-long persecution of Assange.

At the height of the crisis, hundreds of prison staff and inmates at penitentiaries across the country were struck down by the virus, including in Belmarsh. Warnings from medical experts that Assange was particularly susceptible to succumbing to COVID-19, given his chronic respiratory issues, were ignored and an application for bail contemptuously dismissed.

The calls for Assange’s release on medical grounds during the pandemic followed statements of concern by doctors from around the world since November last year that Assange could die in Belmarsh due to a lack of adequate treatment.

United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture Nils Melzer has repeatedly condemned Assange’s imprisonment as a continuation of government abuses that have resulted in the WikiLeaks founder displaying the medically-verifiable symptoms of psychological torture.

The latest indications of Assange’s physical condition follow reports that he looked poorly when he attended his last court hearing by video link on August 14. Assange was reportedly coughing through much of his brief appearance and appeared to be unwell.

As the WSWS wrote in a perspective article, the August 14 hearing “made clear, if any further proof was needed, that the prosecution of Julian Assange is a shameful and degrading show trial, intended to railroad an innocent man to prison or death for revealing the crimes of US imperialism.”

In a blatant violation of legal procedures and due process, the US filed a superseding indictment of Assange days before the hearing, and more than a year after the deadline elapsed for them to present a final charge sheet. This is a transparent attempt to prevent Assange’s legal team from presenting any defence.

The new indictment contains no new information or charges. It is the tortured product of American intelligence agents and two of their informants, including one previously convicted of impersonating Assange and stealing money from WikiLeaks.

The gross abuse has not been condemned by any of the official political parties in Britain, the US or Australia. By their silence, all of them, including Labor and the Greens in Australia and the British Labour Party, have given their blessing to the show trial that Assange is set to be subjected to when extradition hearings recommence on September 7.

The unprecedented persecution of the WikiLeaks publisher has also been treated as a non-event by the corporate media, which enjoy the closest ties with the military and intelligence agencies that have spearheaded the pursuit of Assange.

The substantial public support that Assange enjoys, which stands in marked contrast to the stance of the political and media establishments, has been expressed in the response to an online fundraiser for his legal expenses, initiated last week by Morris.

The initial target of £25,000 was achieved within days. A stretch goal of £50,000 has since been surpassed and the appeal is well on its way to the new target of £75,000. As of this writing, almost £68,000 has been contributed by 1,563 people from around the world.

Morris provided an update on Wednesday, writing: “Julian wanted me to thank you personally for all of the help you have provided in covering his legal fees to fight the extradition to the USA, where he faces 175 years in prison.”

Read Original Article in the World Socialist Web Site
Similar reportings :
The Daily Mail
The Telegraph