[Diggers350] Craig Murray: What the London press won't tell you about this week's Assange appeal hearing

Tue Apr 2 11:26:48 BST 2024

Lots more anti-genocide info here, as usual ;-) 
https://politicsthisweek.wordpress.com/2024/03/28/not-the-bcfm-politics-show-presented-by-tony-gosling-183/

The Assange Hearing Permission Appeal Judgment: Mad and Bad.

March 29, 2024 by Craig Murray

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2024/03/the-assange-hearing-permission-appeal-judgment-mad-and-bad/

The latest judgment by the High Court in the 
Assange case achieved completely the objectives 
of the UK and US states. Above all, Julian 
remains in the hell which is Belmarsh maximum 
security prison. He is now safely there alone and 
incommunicado, from the authorities point of 
view, for at least several more months.

Importantly, the United States has managed to 
keep him detained without securing his actual 
appearance in Washington. It is crucial to grasp 
that the CIA, who are very much controlling the 
process, do not actually want him to appear there 
until after their attempt to secure the 
re-election of Genocide Joe. No matter what your 
opinion of Donald Trump, there is no doubt the 
CIA conspired against him during his entire 
Presidency, beginning with the fake Russiagate 
scandal and ending with their cover-up of the 
Hunter Biden laptop story. They do not want Trump back.

Biden is politically in deep trouble. Bidens 
lifelong political support for Israel has been 
unwavering to the point of fanaticism. In the 
process he has collected millions of dollars from 
the Zionist lobby. That always seemed a source of 
political strength in the United States, not of weakness.

The current genocide in Gaza has changed all 
those calculations. The sheer evil and 
viciousness of the Israeli state, the open and 
undisguised enthusiasm for racist massacre, has 
achieved the seemingly impossible task of turning 
much American public opinion against Israel.

That is particularly true among key elements of 
the Democratic base. Young people and ethnic 
minorities have been shocked that the party they 
have supported is backing and supplying genocide. 
The mainstream media have lost control of the 
narrative, when the truth is so widely available 
on mobile phones, to the point that the MSM have 
actually been forced to change course and 
occasionally tell truths about Israel. That also 
was unthinkable a few months ago.

Precisely the same groups who are outraged by 
Bidens support for genocide are going to be 
alienated by the attack on a journalist and 
publisher for revealing true facts about war 
crimes. Assange is not currently a major public 
issue in the United States, because he is not 
currently in the United States. Were he to arrive 
there in chains, the media coverage would be 
massive and the issue unavoidable in the presidential election campaign.

The extradition proceeding has therefore had to 
be managed in such a way as to keep Assange 
locked in a living hell the whole time, without 
actually achieving the extradition until after 
the presidential election in November. As the 
years of hearings have rolled by this has become 
increasingly difficult for the British state to 
finesse on behalf of their American masters.

In this respect, and only in this respect, Dame 
Victoria Sharp and Lord Justice Johnson have done 
brilliantly in their judgment.

Senior British judges do not have to be told what 
to do. They are closely integrated into a small 
political establishment that is socially 
interlinked, defined by membership of 
institutions, and highly subject to groupthink.

Dame Victoria Sharps brother Richard arranged an 
£800,000 personal loan for then Prime Minister 
Boris Johnson, and subsequently became chairman 
of the BBC despite a complete lack of relevant 
experience. Lord Justice Johnson as a lawyer 
represented the intelligence services and the Ministry of Defence.

They did not have to be told what to do in this 
case explicitly, although it was very plain that 
they entered the two-day hearing process knowing 
nothing except a briefing they had been given 
that the crux of the case was the revelation of 
names of US informants in the Wikileaks material.

The potential danger of an appeal, the granting 
of which would achieve the United States 
objective of putting the actual extradition back 
beyond the election date, was that it would allow 
the airing in public of a great catalogue of war 
crimes and other illegal activity which had been exposed by Wikileaks.

Sharp and Johnson have obviated this danger by 
adjourning the decision with the possibility of 
granting an appeal, but only on extremely limited 
grounds. Those grounds would explicitly gag the 
defence from ever mentioning again in court 
inconvenient facts, such as United States war 
crimes including murder, torture and 
extraordinary rendition, as well as the plans by 
the United States to kidnap or assassinate Julian Assange.

All of those things are precluded by this 
judgment from ever being raised again in the 
extradition hearings. The politically damaging 
aspect of the case in terms of the Manning 
revelations and CIA behaviour has been cauterised in the UK.

There has been some confusion because the 
judgment stated that three grounds of possible 
appeal were open. But in fact this was really 
only two. The judgment states that freedom of 
expression under article 10 of the European 
Convention is adequately covered by the First 
Amendment protections of the US Constitution. 
Therefore this point can only be argued by the 
defence against extradition if the First 
Amendment will not be applied in the case.

The second ground of appeal which they stated may 
be allowed was discrimination by nationality, in 
that the prosecution has stated that as a foreign 
citizen who committed the alleged acts whilst 
outside of the United States, Julian may not have 
the protection of the First Amendment or indeed 
of any of the rights enshrined in the US Constitution.

So the first two grounds are in fact identical. 
Sharp and Johnson ruled that both would fall if 
an assurance were received from the government of 
the United States that Julian would not be denied 
a First Amendment defence on grounds of nationality.

The other ground on which an appeal may be 
allowed to go forward is the lack of an assurance 
from the United States that, following additional 
charges, Julian may not become subject to the death penalty.

I shall go on to analyse what happens now and the 
chances of success on any of these allowed appeal 
points, but I wish first to revisit the points 
which have not been allowed and which are now 
barred from ever being raised in these proceedings again.

The most spectacular argument in the judgment, 
and one which I trust will become notorious in 
British legal history, refers to the application 
to bring in new evidence regarding the US 
authorities illegal spying on Julian and 
plotting to kidnap or assassinate him.

There are any number of things in this case over 
five years which are so perverse that they have 
to be witnessed to be believed, but none has 
risen to this height and it would be a struggle 
for anybody to come up with anything in British 
legal history more brazen than this.

Judge Johnson and Judge Sharp accept that there 
is evidence to the required standard that the US 
authorities did plot to kidnap and consider 
assassinating Julian Assange, but they reason at 
para. 210 that, as extradition is now going to be 
granted, there is no longer any need for the 
United States to kidnap or assassinate Julian 
Assange: and therefore the argument falls.

It does not seem to occur to them that a 
willingness to consider extrajudicial violent 
action against Julian Assange amounts to a degree 
of persecution which obviously reflects on his 
chances of a fair trial and treatment in the 
United States. It is simply astonishing, but the 
evidence of the US plot to destroy Julian 
Assange, including evidence from the ongoing 
criminal investigation in Spain into the private 
security company involved, will never again be 
allowed to be mentioned in Julians case against extradition.

Similarly, we are at the end of the line for 
arguing that the treaty under which Julian is 
being extradited forbids extradition for 
political offences. The judgment confirms boldly 
that treaty obligations entered into by the 
United Kingdom are not binding in domestic law 
and confer no individual rights.

Of over 150 extradition treaties entered into by 
the United Kingdom, all but two ban extradition 
for political offences. The judgment is 
absolutely clear that those clauses are redundant 
in every single one of those treaties.

Every dictatorship on Earth can now come after 
political dissidents in the UK and they will not 
have the protection of those clauses against 
political extradition in the treaties. That is 
absolutely plain on the face of this ruling.

The judgment also specifically rejects the idea 
that the UK court has to consider rights under 
the European Convention of Human Rights in 
considering an extradition application. They 
state that in the United Statesas in other 
Category 2 countries in terms of the Extradition 
Act 2003those rights can be presumed to be 
protected at trial by the legislation of the country seeking extradition.

That argument abdicating responsibility for 
application of the ECHR is one that is not likely 
to be accepted if this case ever gets to 
Strasbourg (but see below on the possibility of that happening).

By refusing to hear the freedom of expression 
argument, the court is ruling out listening to 
the war crimes exposed by the material published 
and hearing that the publication of state level 
crime is protected speech. That entire argument 
is now blocked off in future hearings and there 
will be no more mention of US war crimes.

The judges accepthook, line and sinkerthe 
tendentious argument that Julian is not being 
charged with the publication of all of the 
material but only with those documents within the 
material which reveal the name of US informants 
and sources. As I reported at the time, this was 
plainly the one fact with which the judges had 
been briefed before the hearing.

That it is a legitimate exercise to remove 
entirely from consideration the context of the 
totality of what was revealed in terms of state 
crimes, and to cherry pick a tiny portion of the 
release, is by no means clear; but their approach 
is in any event fatally flawed by a complete non sequitur:

At para. 45 they argue that none of the material 
revealing criminal behaviour by the United States 
is being charged, only material which reveals 
names. Their argument depends upon an assumption 
that the material revealing names of informants 
or sources does not also reveal any criminal 
behaviour by the United States. That assumption 
is completely and demonstrably false.

Let us now turn to the grounds on which a right 
to appeal is provisionally allowed, but may be 
cancelled in the event of sufficient diplomatic 
assurances being received from the United States.

To start with the death penalty, which has 
understandably drawn the most headlines: it 
astonishes me, as this argument has been in play 
now for several months, that the United States 
has not provided the simple assurance against 
imposition of the death penalty which is 
absolutely bog standard in many extradition proceedings.

There is no controversy about it, and it is 
really quick and easy to do. It is a template: 
you just fill in the details and whiz off the 
diplomatic note. It takes 5 minutes.

I do not believe the Biden administration is 
failing to provide the assurance against the 
death penalty because they wish to execute Julian 
Assange. They do not need to execute him. They 
can entomb him in a tiny concrete cell, living a 
totally solitary existence in a living hell. 
Arguably, he is of more value alive that way as a 
terrible warning to other journalists, rather than an executed martyr.

I view the failure so far to produce a guarantee 
against the death penalty as the clearest 
evidence that the Biden administration is trying 
simply to kick this back past the election. By 
not providing the assurance, already they have 
achieved a delay of another few weeks which they 
have been given to provide the assurance, and 
then further time until the hearing on 20 May to 
discuss whether assurances produced have been 
adequate. Not giving the death penalty assurance 
is simply a stalling tactic, and I am sure they 
will go right up to the deadline given by the court and then provide it.

The second assurance requested by the court is 
actually much more interesting. They have 
requested an assurance that Julian Assange will 
be able to plead a First Amendment defence on 
freedom of expression and will not be prevented 
from doing so on the grounds of his Australian nationality.

The problem which the United States faces is that 
it is the federal judge who will decide whether 
or not Julian is entitled to plead that his 
freedom of speech is protected by the First 
Amendment. Neither the Department of Justice nor 
the State Department can bind the judge by an assurance.

The problem was flagged up by the US prosecutor 
in this case who stated that it is open to the 
prosecution to argue that a foreign national, 
operating abroad as Julian did, does not have 
First Amendment rights. It is extremely important 
to understand why this was said.

The prisoners in Guantanamo Bay are deemed not to 
have any constitutional rights, despite being 
under the power of the US authorities, because 
they were non-US citizens acting abroad.

A key US Supreme Court judgment in the case of 
USAID versus Open Society stated unequivocally 
that non-US citizens acting abroad do not have 
First Amendment protection. At first sight that 
decision appears to have little relevance. It 
concerns foreign charities in receipt of US aid 
funds which, as a condition of aid, they must 
oppose sex work. They attempted to claim this was 
in breach of First Amendment rights but the 
Supreme Court ruled that, as foreigners acting 
abroad, they did not have any such rights.

While that may appear of limited relevance, 
referring to NGOs not individuals, there is a 
paragraph in the Open Society judgment which 
states as a rationale that were First Amendment 
rights to be granted to those NGOs they would 
also have to be granted to foreigners with whom 
the US military and intelligence services were in 
contact  i.e. the Guantanamo problem.

This paragraph of the Supreme Court ruling 
appears inescapable in the Assange case:

Julian was a foreign national operating abroad 
when the Wikileaks material was published. So I 
do not see how the United States can simply give 
an assurance on this point, and indeed it seems 
to me very likely that Julian would indeed be 
denied First Amendment rights at trial in the United States.

The sensible solution would of course be that as 
a non-US citizen publishing material outside the 
United States, Julian should not be subject to US 
jurisdiction at all. But that will not be adopted.

So I anticipate the United States will produce an 
assurance which tries to fudge this. They will 
probably give an assurance that the prosecutor 
will not attempt to argue that Julian has no 
First Amendment rights. But that cannot prevent 
the judge from ruling that he does not, 
especially as there is a Supreme Court judgement to rely on.

In May when we come to the hearing on the 
permitted points of appeal, it is vital to 
understand that there will be two parts to the 
argument. The first part will be to consider 
whether the assurances received by diplomatic 
note from the United States are sufficient for 
the grounds of appeal to fall completely.

However if it is decided that the assurances from 
the United States are insufficient, that does not 
automatically mean that the appeal succeeds. It 
just means that the appeal is heard. The court 
will then decide whether the death penalty or 
nationality discrimination points are strong enough to stop the extradition.

The absence of the death penalty assurance should 
end the extradition process. But the hearing 
would see the prosecution argue that it is not 
necessary, as there are no capital charges 
currently and none are likely to be added. The 
judges could go with this, given the undisguised 
bias towards the United States throughout.

The state will again kick in with its iron 
resolve to crush Julian. I dont think that the 
United States will be able, for the reasons I 
have given, to provide assurances on the 
nationality and First Amendment rights, but I 
think the court will nonetheless order extradition.

The United States will argue that it is a free 
country with a fair trial system and independent 
judges and that Julian will be allowed to make 
the argument in court that he should have First 
Amendment rights. The UK court should accept that 
the US judge will come to a fair decision which 
protects all human rights considerations. They 
will say that it is perfectly reasonable and 
normal for states to treat citizens and foreign 
nationals abroad in different ways in different 
contexts, including consular protection.

A justice system which is capable of ruling that 
a person should be handed over to his attempted 
kidnapper, because then the kidnapper does not 
have to kidnap him, and ruling that the clauses 
of the very treaty under which somebody is being 
extradited do not apply, is capable of accepting 
that the ability to argue in court for a First 
Amendment defence is sufficient, even if that defence is likely to be denied.

There is, however, plenty of meat in those 
questions that would allow another adjourned 
hearing, another long delay for a judgment and 
plenty of leeway to get past the November election for Genocide Joe.

The British establishment continues to move 
inexorably towards ordering Julians extradition 
at the time of its choosing. Once extradition is 
ordered, Julian in theory has an opportunity to 
appeal to the European Court of Human Rights.

The European Court of Human Rights can delay the 
extradition until it hears the case by a section 
39 order. But there are two flaws: firstly the 
extradition may be carried out immediately upon 
the court judgement before a section 39 order can 
be obtained, which would take at least 48 hours. 
Secondly the Rwanda Safety Act has provision, 
though specifically in the Rwanda context, for 
the government to ignore section 39 orders from the ECHR.

It cannot be ruled out that the British 
government would simply extradite Julian even in 
the face of an ECHR hearing. That would be 
popular with the Conservative base and, given 
Starmers extremely extensive and dubious role in 
the Assange saga while Director of Public 
Prosecutions, I certainly do not put it past him 
either. It is worth noting that there have been 
several occasions in recent years when the Home 
Office has deported people despite British court 
orders putting a stay on the deportation. There 
has never been any consequence other than a 
verbal rap on the knuckles for the Secretary of State from the court.

So the struggle goes on. It is a fight for 
freedom of speech, it is a fight for freedom of 
the press, and above all it is a fight for the 
right of you and me to know the crimes that our 
governments commit, in our name and with our money.

I am ever more struck by the fact that in 
fighting for Julian I am fighting exactly the 
same power structures and adversaries who are behind the genocide in Gaza.

I need to close with an appeal. Please do not 
stop reading. You will recall that I recently 
addressed the UN Human Rights Committee on 
Julians case and in doing so had the opportunity 
to state a few hard truths about the war crimes of the United States.

Video Player
00:00
02:58

My opportunity to do so was organised by the 
Swiss NGO Justice For All International, who 
submitted a shadow report (open link and click on 
red icon) by their lawyers to the UN 7 year 
Periodic Review of the UKs human rights record. 
Justice For All also carried out a great deal of 
lobbying activity in connection with this to get 
me onto that stage and into meetings with key officials.

I had agreed a fee to pay Justice For All for 
this legal and lobbying activity, in the 
expectation that it would be met from the 
substantial funds held by the bodies comprising 
the US/European institutions of Julian Assange campaign.

Unfortunately the Assange campaign has refused to 
meet the bill and I have been left holding it.

I have been told that I failed to follow correct 
procedures to apply for the spending. I am 
frankly in shock and a form of grief, because I 
thought we were friends working for a common 
cause, in my own case for free. I am reminded of 
the brilliant perception of Eric Hoffer: Every 
great cause begins as a movement and becomes a business.

I am left with this bill I cannot pay for the 
work at the UN. Justice For All could not have 
been nicer about the situation, but if you could 
contribute to this Justice For All crowdfunder, I should be very grateful.

Weekly politics show page http://www.thisweek.org.uk
Radio stream live 5pm Fridays and repeated 
11am/pm UK time http://www.talkradio.org.uk
Also on: NOT The BCfm Politics Show App 
https://apkpure.com/not-the-bcfm-politics-show/com.sweetsmile.bottom_navigation_flutter 

NB please reply with any unsubscribe request in 
the email body, leaving the subject line intact, 
if you do not wish to recieve further emails - thanks
And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, 
he took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and 
gave to them. 
<http://biblehub.com/luke/24-31.htm>31 And their 
eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he 
vanished out of their sight.  http://biblehub.com/kjv/luke/24.htm
'Capitalism is institutionalised bribery' TG - 
Cancelled -> https://www.youtube.com/user/PublicEnquiry/videos

Albert Pikes 1871 
<https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/650822/Letter-WW3-200-year-old-islam-final-battle>WWIII 
plan to cancel God  
<https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/11/accelerationism-how-a-fringe-philosophy-predicted-the-future-we-live-in>Accelerationist 
multicrisis: my schoolfriend 
<https://www.philosophyforlife.org/blog/accelerationism-amphetamine-philosophy-and-the-death-trip>Nazi 
Nicks Dark Enlightenment death trip is 
designed to 
<https://qz.com/1007144/the-neo-fascist-philosophy-that-underpins-both-the-alt-right-and-silicon-valley-technophiles>discredit 
all democracy
Essentials: 
<https://www.bitchute.com/video/AH8pJ8vLnpQQ/>Michael 
Hudson | 
<https://www.bitchute.com/video/mlGKutbgByo4/>Blackrock/Vanguard 
| Tony 
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAq1q1_swyM>on 
Brexit & 
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsxxlpLccE8&pp=ygUWVGhlIFRyYWl0b3JzIG9mIEFybmhlbQ%3D%3D>The 
Traitors of Arnhem | 
<https://www.bitchute.com/video/s3keNigJaj63/>Evolution 
| 
<https://www.bitchute.com/video/Yhv9ZMby68Ig>War 
between God & Lucifer | 
<http://www.itsuandi.org/itsui/downloads/Itsui_Materials/Albert_Pike's_Plan_for_Three_World_Wars.pdf>Plan 
for three World Wars | Armageddonists I have 
known: 
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXKz4uwZC_k>Nick 
Land (1975-8) | 
<https://www.bitchute.com/video/pkIIeuailaUt/>George 
Monbiot (1995-8) | Manna for the Revelation 
Generation: 
<https://www.radio4all.net/program/108328>CONSPIRACY 
CLASSICS, longer interviews/lectures

"And I think, in the end, that is the best 
definition of journalism I have heard; to 
challenge authority - all authority - especially 
so when governments and politicians take us to 
war, when they have decided that they will kill 
and others will die. " --Robert Fisk
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMn9GM4atN3t7AHJBbHMR0Q/videos
http://www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149
http://www.thisweek.org.uk
http://www.911forum.org.uk
http://www.tlio.org.uk
Tony's free watermarked books www.bilderberg.org 
- My ebooks https://payhip.com/TonyGosling
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvPbHiqhLtpNWA_cg_1NULw
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMn9GM4atN3t7AHJBbHMR0Q
https://www.twitter.com/TonyGosling
https://www.facebook.com/tony.gosling.16
You can donate to support Tony's work here http://www.bilderberg.org/bcfm.htm
Or buy Tony's three ebooks for £10-£15 here 
https://payhip.com/TonyGosling or paperback here 
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/254963338161
TG mobile +44 7786 952037

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.gn.apc.org/pipermail/diggers350/attachments/20240402/7a671626/attachment-0001.html>