|
U.S. War On Journalism – Assange Fights Extradition In British Court
Today the London show trial over the extradition of Wikileaks editor Julian Assange to the U.S. has begun. U.S. prosecutors claim that Assange's publishing of evidence of U.S. war crimes has violated the U.S. Espionage Act.
Why an Australian publisher who worked from Europe and evidently published truthful evidence of war crimes should by guilty under a political U.S. law is beyond me.
The trial in front of the British court is nominally public. But access to it has been severely restricted:
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.
Some 40 NGOs, including Amnesty International, had been told that they would have remote access to the trial but today the judge revoked that access without giving any reason.
With only a few selected and system conforming reporters allowed to watch the proceedings the public will get a very biased picture of the case and the trial:
Right now every journalist in the world ought to be up in arms, protesting at the abuses Assange is suffering, and has suffered, and the fate he will endure if extradition is approved. They should be protesting on front pages and in TV news shows against the endless and blatant abuses of legal process at Assange’s hearings in the British courts, including the gross conflict of interest of Lady Emma Arbuthnot, the judge overseeing his case.
[…]
Journalists do not need to care about Assange or like him. They have to speak out in protest because approval of his extradition will mark the official death of journalism. It will mean that any journalist in the world who unearths embarrassing truths about the US, who discovers its darkest secrets, will need to keep quiet or risk being jailed for the rest of their lives.
That ought to terrify every journalist. But it has had no such effect.
The vast majority of western journalists, of course, never uncover one significant secret from the centres of power in their entire professional careers – even those ostensibly monitoring those power centres. These journalists repackage press releases and lobby briefings, they tap sources inside government who use them as a conduit to the large audiences they command, and they relay gossip and sniping from inside the corridors of power.
That is the reality of access journalism that constitutes 99 per cent of what we call political news.
The renewed but 'politically correct' reporting about Wikileaks' founder and editor will also see the repeat of a number of false allegations that have been made against Assange.
Caitlin Johnstone has published a handy complete refutation of the 31 most often used smears against Assange. She also has good advice on how to defeat other arguments used against him.
Kevin Gosztola has talked with Barry Pollack, Julian Assange's U.S. lawyer, who outlines the case the U.S. government is making:
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.
The defense arguments against the extradition from Britain to the U.S. are as follows:
The defence team, headed by Edward Fitzgerald QC, argue that the extradition proceedings amounts to an abuse of process in three separate but overlapping categories:
- The request seeks extradition for what is a classic “political offence”. […]
- The prosecution is being pursued for ulterior political motives and not in good faith. […]
- The request fundamentally misrepresents the facts in order to bring this case within the bounds of an extradition crime; both by misrepresenting that Julian Assange materially assisted Chelsea Manning in accessing national security information; and then by misrepresenting that there was a reckless disclosure of the names of particular individuals. […]
There are additional arguments why the extradition request should be rejected by the British court. But it is not likely that the court will accept any of them. There is not much doubt about the likely outcome of the trial:
[J]udging from the first week of hearings in February at Woolwich Crown Court, all signs point to a decision already having been made to extradite Assange, and that the next three to four weeks will be simply justice going through the motions to make it appear that the WikiLeaks publisher is getting a fair trial.
After the current round of the extradition hearings it will still take some time until the British court system will come to a final decision:
District Judge Vanessa Baraitser is likely to take weeks or even months to consider her verdict, with the losing side likely to appeal.
It is a shame that first the Swedish and then the British justice system have let themselves become henchmen in a fundamentally unjust prosecution of a journalist who has brought more crimes to light than any other living person.
Actually, I think Amendment VI, as opposed to amendment V, of the USA constitution might be a better defense.. for Assange.. ” It says ” in all criminal prosecutions.. (<=meaning domestic or foreign persons?) the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy trial and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
His trial has not been speedy <=so the case should be dismissed?
His trial must be public <= very interesting outcomes come to mind
impartial jury, from a place where crime was committed.. <=
be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation...<=
be confronted with th witnesses against him.. <= wonder who that might be?
to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor.. who might that be?
to have assistance of counsel for his defense.. <=
below are comments about other amendments and rights..
Thanks for this timely post, b.
I read an article about this Kangaroo court trial yesterday which I thought was on SST or Strategic Culture Foundation. But can't find it at either place today.
Anyhow, the author was talking about AmeriKKKa's 5th Amendment and whether or not it applied to Assange. He asserted that a US trial of Assange, under the ancient Espionage Act, SHOULD be impossible and illegal. This is because Assange is not a US Citizen and the Espionage Act applies ONLY to US Citizens employed in "sensitive" roles who have signed an Oath not to disclose secrets they discover in the course of their employment.
Its not AmeriKKKa's 5th Amendment,, the amendment was made to the Founders who wrote the Constitution .. the Founders themselves were forced to amendement their constitution by very upset and angry Americans at the time.
If those ten amendment are changed, modified, or eliminated or expanded or the government itself fails to honor and enforce those ten amendments, there is no constitution and without a constitution, there is no authority for anyone to govern, except at the point of a gun. Those ten amendments are all that keep the Oligarchs from using the Authority of the Constitution and the government that operates under it from just doing away with the pesky Americans it must take the trouble to manage.
by: Hoarsewhisperer @ 14
There is a very rational argument that this is not about assange but about the precedent, about press freedom. It's a valid argument. The question then is why so few are motivated by it.by: Tuyzentfloot @ 24
<= I don't think so.. when it comes to the agreement made between the anti-federalist and the federalist Americans understand that ratification of the Founders 1787 Philadelphia generated Constitution of the USA there was<=then and is =>now many angry people about it. Those angry people (called Anti federalist) agreed to the ratification of the Founders constitution, if and only if conditions precedent to the ratification were included as amendments and enforced . .. all ten of the first amendments were conditions precedent to the ratification.. if the USA fails to honor any of them for any reason, does not the constitution automatically end? its that simple .. no argument exist except maybe if they kill you or nuke your neighborhood, can change the fact that the 1st 10 amendments must not only be honored by all who serve under the Constitution but must also be enforced by the government against the governors as well as against all public and private interests operating within the jurisdiction of the governing power of the USA.. If there is anything that would make a revolution by the people justified it seems to me, failure on the part of the government to honor those preconditions would be high on the list. Those ten amendments are not just ten amendments tmade by law under Article I, they are the essence of, and basis for, the authority for the existing government to pay governors to manage the government, because that authority comes to the constitution through ratification.
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. by: Hoarsewhisperer @ 25 <= Still the question is jurisdication over a foreign person in violation of a USA law. Also the documents are labeled confidential is there any international law that would allow USA law to attach because of that label? ?
The Ministry of Injustice is quite clearly endorsing the United States "right" to try international citizens under an act that clearly should have jurisdictional limits to the boundaries of the country passing the act.
by: William Heflin @ 32 <= it seems there are, but there must be an international law, treaty or agreement for them to do that.. and still as already pointed out Assange is not a USA citizen. . so where is the authority.. ?
They confirm that the attempted extradition of Assange is a criminal enterprise, aimed at silencing someone who has exposed US war crimes in Afghanistan and Iraq, and to intimidate all opponents of imperialist war. …"
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/03/03/assa-m03.html For info, Idk. William Bowles – some Ok articles, etc.
https://williambowles.info by: Noirette @ 39 <= thank you for the link.. I think you hit the nail on its head..
criminal enterprise using the power of the nation state to silence someone.. It is important I think to assign responsibility clearly. The nation state cannot do anything it is a structural paper tiger.. so its like a corporation, and if the corporation favors criminals, then the corporation will be managed by salaried persons for the benefit of rich privileged criminals.
I don't think the intense interest to get Assange is about control of communications. or even about any particular thing his work disclosed, nor do i think this prosecution is about precedent.. as above suggested.. I think its about total international control over all nation states. Remember federalism was about sucking to the center and top all state power.. and all individual power.. no one would be allowed to breath without a license. That is what the Framers wanted from their USA constitution and it was exactly what the Anti Federalist did not want. .. Nothing has changed the fact that the Constitution is authoritative only so long as it honors those conditions precedent. infringement of one of the ten amendments should quash the constitution and deny the government that then sits.
chu teh @ 64 discovers article I of the Constitution of the USA gives legislative powers.. to the USA congress, but the question is not “law” its constitutional authority, to apply the foreign espionage act [Law] written by the Congress under Article I, to convict a foreign born, non USA citizen person.
IANAL.. very interesting issues Assange case.
Posted by: snake | Sep 8 2020 5:47 utc | 82
|
