Category: Uncategorized

On the 24th December 2020, Nina Cross continues research ‘how British Authorities maintained Julian in effective solitary confinement for several months while in the healthcare unit‘

This is the second article published in The Indicter that looks at how Julian Assange, founder of Wikileaks, journalist, publisher, nominee of the Nobel Peace prize and winner of multiple awards for journalism and human rights, was held in effective solitary confinement for several months while in the healthcare unit of high security Belmarsh prison between April 2019 and January 2020.

Since the publication of How British Authorities Circumvent the Treaty against Torture – Revelations from Assange’s Extradition Hearing, answers received from the prison authorities (HMPPS) to a Freedom of Information (FOI) request provide further indication that the treatment of Assange while in the healthcare unit was unlawful.

Testimonies by medical witnesses at Assange’s September hearing shed light on the questions raised by the UN Rapporteur on Torture

An expert medical witness named Dr Nigel Blackwood testified at Assange’s extradition hearing in September that the head of Belmarsh healthcare, Dr Rachel Daly, told him that Assange had been isolated in the healthcare unit because a video of him had been released by another prisoner.  

However, despite this it was shown that there was a serious condition relating to mental health for which Assange’s relocation was recommended.  Once in the healthcare unit it appears Assange was informed that he was being kept in healthcare because of the video.^. 

Witnesses visiting Assange over that period reported that he was subjected to a regime of virtual lockdown;  he was allowed no association – corridors were cleared when he was escorted anywhere in the prison. The UN Rapporteur on Torture, Nils Melzer, warned that Assange’s isolation amounted to solitary confinement.  The following is an excerpt from section 5 of Melzer’s statement issued to the British authorities in October last year.  We should consider September’s court hearing testimonies by medical witnesses regarding Assange’s isolation in light of Melzer’s statement – that Assange was being subjected to a regime of oppressive isolation in the healthcare unit that could not be explained:

According to reliable information made available to me, since his transfer to the health care unit, Mr. Assange’s state of health has further deteriorated and has recently entered a down-ward spiral which may well put his life in danger. Although Mr. Assange has served his sentence for bail violation and is now detained exclusively in relation to the US extradition request pending against him, he is reportedly held under oppressive conditions of isolation involving at least 22 hours per day in a single occupancy cell at the prison’s health care unit. His isolation is only interrupted by daily walks of 45 minutes, church services, as well as meetings with his lawyers and social visits. He is not allowed to socialize with other inmates and, when circulating in the prison, corridors are cleared and all other inmates locked in their cells. Contrary to assurances given to me by the prison administration during my visit, and contrary to the general population of the prison, Mr. Assange reportedly still is not allowed to work or to go to the gym, where he could socialize with other inmates. Moreover, Mr. Assange’s correspondence and contacts with visitors reportedly remain under close surveillance. Despite the obvious inappropriateness of such harsh and discriminatory treatment for a non-violent inmate held solely in relation to a pending extradition procedure, no adequate explanations appear to be given by the prison administration, and no alternative measures, such as house arrest, or his re-integration in the general population, seem to be envisaged.

Based on the information made available to me, the detention regime currently imposed on Mr. Assange appears to be unnecessary, disproportionate, and discriminatory and to perpetuate his exposure to psychological torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. I am very concerned that, if the UK does not take urgent remedial measures to alleviate Mr. Assange’s situation, his health may soon reach a critical stage, including the risk of death.⁵

A lack of legitimacy, transparency and accountability

Legitimate and accountable procedures regarding isolation do not appear to have been followed. Assange’s prolonged isolation does not appear to have been processed under prison rule 45, explained in our first article, and the reason for isolation would appear to be nothing more than a face-saving tactic of the prison officials which the health authorities seem to have accommodated.

It was made clear by doctors during the hearing that Assange’s mental health deteriorated significantly during this deliberate isolation (supporting the report of the UN Rapporteur) to the point that he experienced auditory hallucinations and repeated suicidal urges. Eminent experts have testified to the fact isolation exacerbated his condition. This deterioration was also documented by the healthcare professionals who were charged with his care.   Despite this, they did not intervene to move him out of isolation.

What happened to prison safeguards and procedures relating to isolation?

The Independent Monitoring Board (IMB) explains why it becomes involved when a prisoner is removed from association:

Removal from association is an administrative measure, not a punishment. This explains why there is no quasi-legal process (as for adjudications) and no appeal possible. There is no outside scrutiny of the use of R45/49/40 apart from that by the IMB or HMIP during an inspection. It is therefore important for Board members to speak to those held under these rules and attend the Reviews held in prisons when possible to check that the segregation decision is fair, that due process is followed, and that the total time spent segregated is not excessive.⁸

In recent correspondence the IMB stated that it has unfettered access to prisoners. 

However, in order for the IMB to be able to carry out its role, it relies on prison officials to fulfil their remit under the memorandum of understanding.   In a response to an FOI last month the IMB advised that it is not notified of prisoners removed from association other than those placed in the segregation unit in Belmarsh prison, indicating that it played no role in the oversight of Assange’s prolonged isolation.  Given this arbitrary treatment by prison officials, it is reasonable to ask whether the IMB was notified of Assange’s mental torment while isolated in the healthcare unit, which led to his mounting suicidal urges requiring suicide watch over a long period.  If the prison authorities failed to notify the IMB, this would represent a further breach of the memorandum of understanding (18a).

There are two reasons under prison rule 45 why a prisoner can be removed from association.  One of those relates to protection – if a prisoner is at risk amongst the general population. The other relates to good order and discipline (GOOD).

The Prison Reform Trust explains that GOOD is applied when the governor or operational manager has reasonable grounds to believe that the behaviour of a prisoner will be too disruptive to manage on the wing.  Note here this relates to the behaviour of the prisoner being removed from association. We remember that Dr Daly advised Dr Blackwood that Assange was isolated in the healthcare unit because another prisoner had taken a video of him.  Blackwood had said prison officials were embarrassed over this.  We should also remember that despite this account being given by Dr Daly, Assange was put there for a medical condition, indicating a lack of transparency, both in the initial reason for his going there and for his prolonged isolation from other prisoners while kept there.

In their recent answers to an FOI, the prison authorities state that 115 prisoners were removed from association between May 2019 and 2020 and they were all placed either in the segregation unit or in the high security unit (HSE) at Belmarsh.  Rule 45 was applied in all cases. They also state that unless a prisoner has received “loss of association” as part of an adjudication award, they cannot be isolated without being placed on Rule 45 Good Order and Discipline.  There is therefore strong evidence to indicate that the prison authorities behaved unlawfully in the way they isolated Assange in the healthcare unit.  It is also important to ask why the health authorities did not intervene to stop this, particularly as Assange’s condition was seen to deteriorate during his isolation.

Assange was removed from the healthcare unit in January this year.  He was removed due to the campaigning of inmates who petitioned the governor on three occasions.  It was not the result of any intervention by the authorities, either prison or health, or, it would appear, of the IMB most likely for reasons given.

There are now 11 days until Magistrate Vanessa Baraitser rules on Assange’s extradition.  The continuous abusive treatment by the British authorities is condemned by UN bodies, global networks of politicians and civil society, and countless individuals across the world that together form a mass movement of support for Assange. The British authorities have relied on state machinery, civil service, and tax funded public services for their complicity in abuse.  Together these have enabled the possibility of the death of Assange.  At each turn, for a decade, there have been irregularities, breaches of standards, exceptions, excesses, disproportion, lawfare –that piece by piece have built a platform from which an unprecedented violation of international law is now possible: the criminalisation of journalism and the slow murder of a principled journalist, a nominee of the Nobel Peace Prize, the holder of dozens of awards for his journalism and human rights.  This could not be possible without collusion.  Each irregularity,  breach, violation, each turning of a blind eye, – as the ones researched here – have brought Assange and us to this point.

Refer to original article in The Indicter

On the 10th December 2020, Nina Cross reports

Nina Cross: Assange’s persecution has exposed the extremes to which our country’s public officials and authorities can be politically compromised. Our courts are demeaned, as are our public institutions.  They are supposed to be accountable to us but instead appear hijacked, no less than instruments of US lawfare. If we allow our authorities to bend to US pressure to destroy Assange we will be consenting to our own destruction.

There are just weeks until Vanessa Baraitser, Magistrate at Westiminster Magistrates Court, rules on the extradition of Julian Assange, founder of Wikileaks.  There is a catalogue of reasons why a lawful Britain with uncompromised courts and political leaders would not just block extradition but would have allowed Assange to walk free from the Ecuadorian embassy years ago.   But the spirit of the law in the UK has faded under the crushing weight of US imperialism.   

Assange’s extradition hearing in September in the Old Bailey showed how the prosecution case is built on desperation and extremes.   Prosecuting a journalist for publishing evidence of wars crimes is an extreme political act leading to unprecedented levels of intolerance of speech and press freedom. This is reason to block extradition.

Assange almost certainly faces years of extreme solitary confinement and ill treatment if extradited.  Warnings have come from the UN Human Rights Commission, the UN Rapporteur on Torture, civil societies and experts on the US prison system that he will be treated inhumanely, almost definitely subjected to Special Administrative Measures (SAMS). A template for this ill- treatment can be seen in the case of Fahad Hashmi, who was extradited from the UK to the US in 2007 and placed in SAMS resulting in extreme solitary confinement, as documented here by a former UN Rapporteur and civil societies. The UN Convention against Torture states ;

No State Party shall expel, return (“refouler”) or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.

This is reason to block extradition.

Assange has born the effect of abusive treatment for years.   The medical testimonies that were given during his extradition hearing in September were filled with examples of extremes and revealed the chronic and debilitating health problems that years of arbitrary detention, human rights violations and inhumane treatment have caused him to suffer.  Another reason to block extradition.

The September hearings revealed the harsh isolation regime deliberately inflicted upon Assange in the NHS health provision in high security Belmarsh prison, and the circumventing by authorities of standard procedures designed to protect isolated prisoners.

They revealed a calculated attempt to assassinate Assange’s character and integrity by painting him as a malingering hypochondriac who might nevertheless muster the reserves not to commit suicide if extradited.  Those of us who have been watching recognised this as the continuing torture of a journalist. 

The following, based on revelations from the hearing, is a closer look at how basic rules and norms designed to prevent suffering appear to have been side-stepped in Belmarsh by authorities supposedly charged with duty of care, resulting in Assange’s increased psychological torment and therefore risk to his life.

Revelations from the medical sessions of Assange’s extradition hearing

It was revealed that the head of Belmarsh healthcare, Dr Rachel Daly had informed the prosecution medical witness Dr Peter Blackwood that Assange was placed in isolation in Belmarsh healthcare unit to protect prison officials from embarrassment following the release of video footage of Assange taken by a prisoner. Blackwood said the governor was concerned about ‘reputational damage’.

But Assange’s defence showed that there had been a serious medical reason for Assange’s move to healthcare:

The report Fitzgerald showed Blackwood said he was “very low in mood.” He had thoughts of self harm and suicide that were “hard to control.” So there was discussion of moving him to health care department. #AssangeTrial

— Kevin Gosztola (@kgosztola) September 24, 2020

It was revealed that Daly did not report this to Blackwood:

EF: This is very different to what Dr Daly told you
B: Dr Daly looks after his long-term health
EF: She didn’t mention this report

EF You agree on #Assange‘s long-term mental health record.
B Yes. I don’t agree w/ Dr Kopelman

EF: Well let’s find some common ground

— Consortium News (@Consortiumnews) September 24, 2020

According to reports of Blackwood’s testimony, it appears that at some point Assange was told he was in isolation for administrative reasons:

but engaged in activities & read. In July he said he didn’t want to take his own life but had thoughts about it. Was unhappy about being placed on “health care” as it had nothing to do with his health but was for admin reasons (that film footage)
Mary Kostakidis (@MaryKostakidis) September 24, 2020

It was revealed that Assange’s mental health deteriorated under this administrative isolation:

Blackwood: #Assange spoke to me about the isolation of health care. Said it had turned him into “a hallucinating puppet on the floor”. He was angry about that. Said it was an affront to his intelligence.

— Consortium News (@Consortiumnews) September 24, 2020

These revelations raise serious questions about transparency and procedure.  How could Assange be kept in deliberate isolation and in an NHS prison healthcare unit for so long and who had oversight as his condition was seen to deteriorate? Aside from questions around transparency, placing someone in effective prolonged solitary confinement in case they are filmed by another prisoner must be recognised as unacceptable and abusive. 

Circumventing the treaty against torture

Official segregation of a prisoner is allowed under prison rule 45. It states that the removal of a prisoner from association can be enforced:

“45.—(1) Where it appears desirable, for the maintenance of good order or discipline or in his own interests, that a prisoner should not associate with other prisoners, either generally or for particular purposes, the governor may arrange for the prisoner’s removal from association accordingly.

There are procedures that must be applied to all isolation practices, official and unofficial:

There should be clear, transparent procedures in place to guide the decision to isolate detainees, which should only happen in exceptional circumstances.

Procedures are subject to scrutiny by the National Preventive Mechanism (NPM).  Under the Optional protocol to the convention against torture (OPCAT) the NPM’s remit is to prevent ill‐treatment of people in detention.

The NPM defines isolation as

The physical isolation of individuals who are confined to cells or rooms for disciplinary, protective, preventive or administrative reasons, or who by virtue of the physical environment or regime find themselves largely isolated from others. Restrictions on social contacts and available stimuli are seldom freely chosen and are greater than for the general detainee population.

• Evidence should be provided to demonstrate that alternatives to isolation have been considered.
• Detainees at significant risk of suicide or self‐harm should not be held in isolation other than in exceptional circumstances which are clearly documented, for the minimum time necessary, regularly and substantively reviewed and authorised by the most senior manager in the institution.

The NPM fulfils its remit through the organisations that monitor or inspect places where people are detained.  For HMP Belmarsh these involve The Independent Monitoring Board (IMB) (monitors are volunteers) and HM Inspectorate of Prisons.

The IMB becomes involved when a prisoner is placed in isolation for administrative reasons because:

• Removal from association is an administrative measure, not a punishment. This explains why there is no quasi-legal process (as for adjudications) and no appeal possible. There is no outside scrutiny of the use of R45/49/40 apart from that by the IMB or HMIP during an inspection. It is therefore important for Board members to speak to those held under these rules and attend the Reviews held in prisons when possible to check that the segregation decision is fair, that due process is followed, and that the total time spent segregated is not excessive.

There exists a memorandum of understanding between the IMB and the prison authorities that states the prison will contact the IMB regarding:

Any prisoner transferred to the segregation unit or equivalent; 

Any review of a segregated prisoner under Rule 45, giving sufficient time to allow the member to attend;

It states that the prison may refuse access to records if they are protected or classified, and this is authorised by a senior official in the Ministry. The question here is – are the authorities protecting themselves from the IMB? Has the government placed Assange out of reach of those committed to prevent the torture and ill-treatment of prisoners?

It also states the prison will notify the IMB of:

a) Prisoners who have been subjected to close monitoring in accordance with
suicide and self-harm prevention policies (Assessment Care in Custody
Teamwork);

Here we ask – did Belmarsh officials send the IMB a notification that Assange was being monitored under suicide and self-harm prevention policies or was this risk to his life not disclosed to them?

Responding to an FOI request the IMB answered that they are only advised by Belmarsh prison of prisoners placed in the segregation unit, a further indication that Assange was denied normal process during isolation.

We are left to assume that last year Assange was placed in Belmarsh healthcare unit for a serious health condition.  Once there, he was held under a prolonged and deliberate isolation regime where scrutiny by the torture prevention mechanisms was avoided.

It was revealed Assange’s health deteriorated while in isolation for ‘administration reasons’ in the healthcare unit

It was shown that Assange’s isolation in healthcare caused suffering and exacerbated his condition. This was made clear by Professor Michael Kopelman, medical expert witness of Assange’s legal team:

MK makes clear to Lewis that #Assange‘s health and mental condition deteriorated when he was placed in isolation.
MK’s reports deal with the period from May 30 to December 2019.

— Consortium News (@Consortiumnews) September 22, 2020

But Assange’s deterioration was also witnessed by professionals working there, as acknowledged by the prosecution medical witness Blackwood:

Dr Blackwood notes that records show Mr Assange’s condition was worse by November and especially by December. Noted by staff to be sleeping under his bed, said he didn’t hallucinate, poor condition of cell, low mood, thoughts of self-harm, thinking he could hear people talk…

— Mohamed Elmaazi (@MElmaazi) September 24, 2020

Professor Kopelman identified that isolation exacerbated Assange’s pain:

Kopelman said Assange’s auditory hallucinations tell him things like “you’re worthless”, “you’re nothing”, “you’re dust”, “you’re dead”, and to kill himself. 

The prosecution argued these were self-reported. Kopelman pointed out hallucinations are always self-reported. 13/

— Rebecca Vincent (@rebecca_vincent) September 22, 2020

And yet Assange remained in the healthcare unit under the supervision of those charged with his care. Assange’s lengthy isolation in the healthcare unit clearly violates several UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners including indefinite and prolonged isolation. It raises questions about transparency, duty of care and legitimacy.

How Assange left the healthcare unit

During Assange’s isolation in the unit, which continued for several months, it was reported by his visitors and family that he was not allowed any contact with other prisoners, that corridors were cleared of inmates when he was escorted around the prison, and that isolation in the healthcare unit resulted in a devastating difficulty in accessing his lawyers.  Assange was reported to spend more than 22 hours in his cell while in the healthcare unit, which under rule 44 of the UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners amounts to solitary confinement. 

It was not through the intervention of professionals or officials that ended Assange’s isolation. This was the result of campaigning by inmates who petitioned the governor three times for his release from isolation.

It appears that Assange’s isolation for “administrative reasons” over several months, during which his health deteriorated, bypassed the scrutiny of torture prevention mechanisms.  Instead, we see that his relocation resulted from the intervention of inmates who in effect took up the cause of torture prevention and fulfilled the OPCAT remit on behalf of the UK authorities.

Propaganda of “relative isolation” in the healthcare unit

EF: Do you agree that isolation didn’t agree w/ Assange?
B: Relative isolation. He was in a medical ward.

EF: Do you see that from July 21st 2020, there are many records of #Assange requesting Samaritan’s phone. “Couldn’t handle things”?

B: You have to be careful of context.

— Consortium News (@Consortiumnews) September 24, 2020

The prosecution attempted to downplay Assange’s psychological torment resulting from the isolation inflicted on him in the healthcare unit. Blackwood claimed that had Assange’s depression been severe he would have been treated outside of Belmarsh.

Blackwood is young and has a strong Scottish accent.

His opinion: has a recurrent depressive disorder which he has managed apart from an episode of self harm as a young man.
He is puzzled why Prof Kopelman says he is severely depressed. If this were the case Dr Daly should …..
– Mary Kostakidis (@MaryKostakidis) September 24, 2020

… have referred him for appropriate care externally, that is the normal course of action & care, contrary to what Dr Kopelman said (that that is not available) which is just not correct.

He continues to say he is concerned that a 49 year old is diagnosed for the first time ..

– Mary Kostakidis (@MaryKostakidis) September 24, 2020

Blackwood described Assange’s isolation as “relative”. Relative to what exactly? And can the severity of depression be reliably and independently diagnosed on the basis of how the depressed person has until now been treated and how their condition has been perceived?

In fact, it is possible to argue that Assange was more cut off from meaningful human contact by being held in ‘relative isolation’ in Belmarsh healthcare unit than he was likely to be either in Belmarsh’s segregation unit or in a hospital away from the arbitrary practices of that prison.

We know from reports that in Belmarsh segregation unit it is possible to have more contact with family, both in the form of visits and telephone calls.  This was made evident during the detention there last year of Tommy Robinson (real name Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, founder of the English Defence League). Robinson was convicted for breaching contempt of court laws for streaming the trial of a sex trafficking grooming gang on Facebook Live outside Leeds court in 2018, and was later convicted as a civil prisoner. Robinson’s imprisonment there appeared to fall under the Belmarsh category of prisoner “requiring specific management arrangements because of their public and media profile”. There he was allowed unlimited phone calls everyday for 2 hours, and 3 to 4 visitors each week.  On one occasion the governor personally intervened to enable a journalist to visit him on a day not normally scheduled for his visits. 

Assange’s status changed to that of an unconvicted prisoner in October 2019, supposedly making him eligible to have all of the family contact Robinson was allowed as well as additional rights. Instead, his unconvicted prisoner status was meaningless and he was arbitrarily held in what amounts to indefinite isolation which exacerbated his depression and suicidal urges, watched by those charged with his care.

Belmarsh #Covid #outbreak update:

Everyone on Julian’s house block was tested on 18 Nov (49 positive) and 23 Nov (16 additional positives), bringing the number to 65 (excl staff).
I’m told several hospitalisations and at least one person on a respirator.#PardonAssange
(Thread)

— Stella Moris (@StellaMoris1) November 30, 2020

Despite being in a general wing since January, under current Covid-19 prison regime restrictions Assange is now in virtual permanent solitary confinement. Known to have a chronic lung condition, he is at risk of complications or death if he catches the Coronavirus. Calls for his release are seen daily from across the globe. This week marks the 10th anniversary of his arbitrary detention, and another statement by the UN Rapporteur on Torture, Nils Melzer, warning of risks to Assange’s life and listing violations of international law once more shames the British authorities.

10 years after #JulianAssange’s first arrest and amid an outbreak of #COVID19 at Belmarsh prison, UN expert @NilsMelzerappeals to British authorities to immediately release him or to place him under guarded house arrest during US extradition proceedings: https://t.co/4ek26NUnwe pic.twitter.com/okycDzdTub

— UN Special Procedures (@UN_SPExperts) December 8, 2020

What holds the house of cards together is silence. The authorities rely on complicity of those inside the public institutions, those who need the pay cheque, those who have signed the official secrets act, those who fear repercussions if they tell. But we know it only takes a few to bring the house down. We know the power of whistleblowers. That’s why Assange is in Belmarsh prison fighting for his life.

Read original article in The Indicter

On the 1st December Julian Assange’s Defence team filed their reply

201201_Defence_Reply

On the 23rd May 2017 this video was posted on Youtube

After the press conference on May 19, 2017, where prosecutor Marianne Ny declared that the Assange case [re preliminary investigations into sexual allegations] would be closed, Ny was interviewed by foreign journalists. She then said that she had been contacted by the FBI via an email that had been deleted. Asked if the name of the person who had contacted them could be obtained, she said that was not the case.

The prosecutor’s office writes, in its decision that the preliminary investigation is closed. There is no longer any reason to complete the preliminary investigation.

Editor’s Notes:

Cool as a cucumber #MarianneNy said the FBI contact could not be named … She did not think there was any reason to note a communication from the FBI
Did the FBI contact her often at the @aklagareSE?
She acts like this was an ordinary practice. 
Has anyone in Sweden made the effort to investigate any of this?

Question: What are the chances of both SPA @aklagareSE and @cpsuk accidentally deleting their emails re #Assange? When will #MarianneNy and #PaulClose be prosecuted for perverting the course of justice and other misconduct?

On 2nd December 2020, the ABC published this podcast by Pillip Adams

A one hour panel on how Wikileaks changed journalism and what it taught us about the realities of foreign policy.
Duration: 53min 37sec
Broadcast: Wed 2 Dec 2020, 10:05pm

Podcast is only available on the ABC web site

Phillip Adams is a long term supporter of Julian Assange, Wikileaks and Freedom of the Press

• Resist attempts to silence Wikileaks

On the 3rd July 2006. Boris Johnson writes

EXTRADITION OF DAVID BERMINGHAM AND THE NATWEST THREE

Are we just a poodle? No, a super-poodle

Yes, but why? Why are we so pathetic? Britain is so grovellingly submissive to America as to make lapdogs look positively butch and poodles like keen independent spirits. We are all, by now, familiar with the craven manner in which we have decided to hand over British subjects for trial in America.

The baffling question is why? We beg, we fetch, we sit, we look up adoringly and wait to have our mangy old ears tickled by Uncle Sam, and it is not at all clear to the casual observer what we are getting in return.

In two weeks, my constituent David Bermingham intends to be at the Goring and Streatley regatta, and I hope he takes a fond last imprint on his mental retina of the delights of the English summer: the picnics, the blazers, the girls in their filmy dresses, the blissful trailing of fingers in the river.

Because immediately thereafter, Mr Bermingham is going to be super-magnetically suctioned to spend at least two years on remand in a Texan penitentiary surrounded by the low-lifes Dubya never got round to executing.

He and two others are alleged to have committed a fraud against what was then the NatWest Bank. But the outrageous thing is that this fraud – if it took place – took place in this country, and against UK interests, and if it was committed, it was committed by UK citizens.

No UK authority has shown the slightest interest in prosecuting Mr Bermingham, and yet the Americans – without any prima facie evidence whatever – are able to snatch him from this country as if it were the 52nd state. No other European country is so invertebrate in the protection of its nationals.

All other governments insist on some political discretion in such cases, or at least that the US must provide prima facie evidence.

But oh no, says HM Government. You want some of our chaps, do you? Be our guest. Carry on. Frightfully good, sir.

It is time, for a second, to set aside our outrage and work out the possible reasoning of the apparently supine British ruling classes. It will be helpful to take our minds back to Gordon Brown’s audacious statement, two weeks ago, that he wants a replacement for Trident.

There was some perplexity about why Gordon was making this announcement, when it should surely have fallen to the Prime Minister. There was some doubt as to the intended target of our new nukes. Korea? France?

But no one seemed to contest the rationale for buying this terrifying and terrifyingly expensive new firecracker, namely that a nuke is your ticket to the top table. In the great regatta of international diplomacy, it is the nuke that gets you on to the stewards’ lawn.

And if you are in the upper reaches of the British establishment, and you think and care deeply about the long-term future of the country, then you know how important it is to have that shiny nuclear passepartout. Without a nuke, they fear, we would cease to be taken seriously in the comity of nations. We might be kicked off the UN security council.

We would cease, in the phrase of Douglas Hurd, to “punch above our weight”; and these vital nuclear tokens are, of course, provided by America. The current Trident D5 is deployed on four Vanguard-class submarines, and though we make the subs and their engines (Rollers, of course), the missile itself is American.

It is the Americans who supply the three-stage solid-fuel rocket measuring 13 metres and weighing 60 tonnes, and capable of delivering 12 warheads over 6,000 kilometres. It is the Americans who service the missiles and who provide many of the components of the warheads.

Now, when Gordon proclaimed his enthusiasm for Son of Trident, he wasn’t seriously suggesting that we were going to develop it all ourselves. Passionate though he is, these days, about “Britishness”, he wasn’t proposing that the new UK nuke should be as British as a Cornish pasty or a pair of Geri Halliwell’s pants.

He can’t conceivably have meant that Britain was going to create its own independent ballistic capability, not unless he was going to axe the NHS and the social security budget to pay for it. He knew that we were going to depend on America for our security, as we do in so many ways, visible and invisible, not least in intelligence.

That is the calculation that must always be at the back of the minds of the British establishment – whichever party is in power – and that is at least part of the explanation for the crushing and humiliating deference we show in the matter of this extradition treaty.

Indeed, I am sure this was the calculation, the importance of sticking with America, that weighed most with the Prime Minister when he joined the war in Iraq. As a narrow-eyed assessment of the UK interest, it is very far from irrational.

The only question is whether we are now in danger of poodling far more than even the Americans expect. Whatever you think about supporting Bush in Iraq, our posture on this one-sided extradition treaty amounts to a paranoid super-poodling.

No American administration is going to pull the plug on the transatlantic alliance – and 50 years of nuclear cooperation – if we decided to put some symmetry into an extradition treaty that allows the Americans to vacuum up our citizens without providing any evidence, and yet gives us no corresponding rights over suspects in America.

We should without delay repeal this disastrous treaty, signed by David Blunkett in 2003, and whatever the paranoia of the British officials who devised it, I bet it would make not a bean of difference to the transatlantic

Read Original article on Boris Johnson’s web site

Lawyers for Assange have written a 6 page open letter to the British government condemning the myriad of serious illegalities involved in the prosecution and potential extradition of Julian Assange.

It has been signed by over 400 lawyers associations, individual lawyers and legal academics and eminent politicians, including:

 40 Professors, including Professors of Criminal Law, Constitutional Law, Criminal Procedure, Public International Law and Human Rights Law. These include, Alberto Fernandez, the current President of Argentina who is a Professor of Criminal Law, Jose Luis Zapatero, the former Prime Minister of Spain, who is a Professor of Constitutional Law and Alfred-Maurice de Zayas, the former United Nations Independent Expert on the Promotion of a Democratic and Equitable International Order;

   6 judges, including former Norwegian Supreme Court Judge Ketil Lund and former Swiss Supreme Court Judge Giusep Nay;

   21 Lawyers Associations, 3 of which have consultative status with the United Nations Economic and Social Council; and

   13 former and current heads of state, 2 vice presidents and over 30 ministers, including former New Zealand Minister for Courts, Matthew Robson and former Brazilian Minister of Justice Jose Eduardo Cardozo (Brazil), 30 Members of the European Parliament and numerous other eminent politicians, many of whom are lawyers themselves.

The Letter Reads:

Lawyers-for-Assange-Open-Letter

On the 18th November 2020, Hans von Sponeck and Denis Halliday, each a former Assistant Secretary-General of the United nations sent this message to the Secretary General of the United Nations
Both have remarkable humanitarian backgrounds

UN_Secretary_General

On the 9th November 2020, Senator Which-Wilson tweeted

It is significant that the Australian Senate passed this #JulianAssange motion Only Gov Senators and @JacquiLambie voted against it. Thanks to @AustralianLabor for their support. This is something to continue building on within the Australian Parliament to bring #Assange home. pic.twitter.com/Mvhio4c9Wm

— Peter Whish-Wilson (@SenatorSurfer) November 9, 2020

Also see related article on the Senator Surfer’s web site

The motion reads:

Senator WHISH-WILSON:
I move the motion as amended:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that Julian Assange:
(i) is an Australian citizen,
(ii) is a father, son and partner, and
(iii) won the Walkley Award for Most Outstanding Contribution
to Journalism;
(b) acknowledges that during the recent extradition trial,
the court heard evidence about:
(i) the enormous harm revealed by Wikileaks of war crimes,
crimes against humanity and corruption,
(ii) the alleged spying operation conducted against Julian Assange
by UC Global on behalf of United States (US) intelligence agencies,
(iii) the alleged seizure of legally privileged material from the
Ecuadorian Embassy by the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
(iv) alleged plans to poison and kidnap Julian Assange, and
(v) the devastating health consequences that Julian Assange is
currently facing; and
(c) further acknowledges that:
(i) hundreds of protests and vigils happened all over the world in
support of Julian Assange during the extradition trial,
(ii) over 160 world leaders – current and former presidents,
prime ministers and officials – have called for the release of
Julian Assange,
(iii) a dozen councils have passed resolutions across Australia
calling on the Australian Government to act, and
(iv) Judge Vanessa Baraitser agreed to delay the decision of the
extradition trial until after the US election and is due to deliver
the verdict on 4 January 2021.

On the 10th November Oscar Grenfell commented

On Monday, the Australian Senate passed a motion “noting” the plight of WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange, who is imprisoned in Britain and faces extradition to the United States for his exposure of American imperialism’s war crimes, global diplomatic intrigues and human rights violations.

The motion was the first to be passed in either house of the federal parliament that is in any way supportive of Assange, since the British police illegally arrested him in April 2019. It is one of only a handful of times the WikiLeaks founder has been mentioned in parliament following last month’s conclusion of the final British show trial hearings for his extradition on unprecedented US espionage charges, on which he could be jailed for life.

The impetus for the motion was undoubtedly concern over popular hostility toward the complicity of the parliamentary establishment in the railroading of an Australian journalist and publisher.

Over 150 legal experts and lawyers’ associations around the world condemned the British court proceedings as a legal travesty. A group of 161 prominent international political figures, including 13 former national presidents, similarly denounced the hearings as a sham and demanded Assange’s immediate freedom.

The Australian government and the Labor Party opposition, aided by the corporate media, however, maintained a stony silence throughout the trial. This was in line with the support given by the entire political establishment for escalating US militarism and its corollary—efforts to quash anti-war opposition, epitomised by the campaign to destroy Assange.

With the verdict over Assange’s extradition due on January 4, the Australian ruling elite is well aware that the widespread latent public support for the WikiLeaks founder, which they have sought to suppress, will again come to the surface.

The motion’s function was to put on record the “concerns” of some parliamentary parties, without committing them to anything. The perfunctory character of such gestures is underscored by the fact that not a single corporate media outlet, including the publicly-funded Australian Broadcasting Corporation, reported the motion. Nor does it appear that any of those who passed it have gone to any great lengths to publicise the motion.

The resolution was moved by Greens Senators Peter Whish-Wilson, Sarah Hanson-Young and Janet Rice. The motion passed with the support of Labor Party senators and some crossbenchers. Those who voted against were members of the Liberal-National Coalition government and the right-wing populist Jacqui Lambie.

The text of the motion can be described only as ambivalent, tepid and mealy-mouthed. Its form is to state a series of incontestable facts, without commenting on their significance or putting forward any clear political position.

The motion begins by “noting” that Assange is an Australian citizen, that he has a family and that he won a 2011 Walkley Award for outstanding contributions to journalism, all of which can be discovered by looking at his Wikipedia entry.

The second section “acknowledges that during the recent extradition trial, the court heard evidence about” WikiLeaks’ exposure of war crimes and human rights abuses, along with

(ii) the alleged spying operation conducted against Julian Assange by UC Global on behalf of United States (US) intelligence agencies, (iii) the alleged seizure of legally privileged material from the Ecuadorian Embassy by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, (iv) alleged plans to poison and kidnap Julian Assange, and (v) the devastating health consequences that Julian Assange is currently facing.

The final section “acknowledges” that there have been demands from local councils for the Australian government to intervene in defence of Assange, that a number of “world leaders” have called for his freedom, and that protests have been held in support of the WikiLeaks founder.

The motion abruptly concludes by noting that a British court will rule on Assange’s extradition next January. Anyone looking for an indication of what the senators themselves are planning to do will be disappointed.

Significantly, the motion was amended between the time that it was put on notice on Sunday night, and passed on Monday. The change was to place the word “alleged” before each of the references to violations of Assange’s rights by the US government and intelligence agencies.

The purpose of these amendments was to prevent any direct condemnation of the crimes of the American state against Assange, or any suggestion that the senators were preempting the decision of the British courts.

Labor, like the Coalition government, has insisted that it has “full confidence” in the British and US legal processes, despite the fact that the attempt to extradite Assange and to prosecute him for publishing activities violates international laws and domestic legislation in both the UK and US.

See original commentary in the World Socialist Web Site

On the 30th October 2020, the Disclosure Team of the UK Ministry of Justice replied

MoJ-Court-Procedures-Covid-Open-Justice-201006017-FOI-response

4/ The total number of journalists refused accreditation by District Judge Baraitser (or, if by another officeholder, please provide name and office) to follow the hearing (virtually or physically), as well as their names, names of their media organisations and all criteria for rejection

Q4) Journalists have not been refused accreditation, a Court Video Platform (CVP) link to view the hearing was provided if they were unable to obtain a seat the court.

3/ The names of all journalists (and their media organisations) allowed physically into the main courtroom and the selection criteria enabling their entry and attendance.

Q3) There was one accredited journalist allowed into the main courtroom. Under Section 40(2) of the FOIA we are not obliged to disclose the name of the journalist.

14/ The number of courtrooms that have a glass cage to contain a defendant.

Q14 & 15) None of the courts within the Central Criminal Court have a glass cage, defendants are required to go sit in the dock unless otherwise instructed by the judiciary.