<html>
<body>
<b><i>Lots more anti-genocide info here, as usual ;-)
<a href="https://politicsthisweek.wordpress.com/2024/03/28/not-the-bcfm-politics-show-presented-by-tony-gosling-183/" eudora="autourl">
https://politicsthisweek.wordpress.com/2024/03/28/not-the-bcfm-politics-show-presented-by-tony-gosling-183/<br>
<br>
</a></i><h1><b>The Assange Hearing Permission Appeal Judgment: Mad and
Bad. </b></h1><font size=5><u>March 29, 2024 </u>by <u>Craig Murray
<br><br>
<a href="https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2024/03/the-assange-hearing-permission-appeal-judgment-mad-and-bad/" eudora="autourl">
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2024/03/the-assange-hearing-permission-appeal-judgment-mad-and-bad/<br>
<br>
</a></u>The latest <u>judgment </u>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. <br><br>
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.<br><br>
Biden is politically in deep trouble. Biden’s 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. <br><br>
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. <br><br>
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. <br><br>
Precisely the same groups who are outraged by Biden’s 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. <br><br>
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. <br><br>
In this respect, and only in this respect, Dame Victoria Sharp and Lord
Justice Johnson have done brilliantly in their judgment. <br><br>
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. <br><br>
Dame Victoria Sharp’s 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. <br><br>
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.
<br><br>
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. <br><br>
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.
<br><br>
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. <br><br>
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. <br><br>
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.
<br><br>
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. <br><br>
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. <br><br>
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. <br><br>
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. <br><br>
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. <br><br>
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.<br><br>
<br>
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
Julian’s case against extradition. <br><br>
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. <br><br>
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. <br><br>
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. <br><br>
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. <br><br>
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).
<br><br>
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. <br><br>
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.<br><br>
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: <br><br>
<br>
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. <br><br>
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. <br><br>
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. <br><br>
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. <br><br>
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. <br><br>
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. <br><br>
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. <br><br>
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. <br><br>
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. <br><br>
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. <br><br>
A key US Supreme Court judgment in the case of <u>USAID versus Open
Society </u>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. <br><br>
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. <br><br>
This paragraph of the Supreme Court ruling appears inescapable in the
Assange case:<br><br>
<br>
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. <br><br>
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.
<br><br>
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. <br><br>
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. <br><br>
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. <br><br>
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.<br><br>
The state will again kick in with its iron resolve to crush Julian. I
don’t 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.
<br><br>
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. <br><br>
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.<br><br>
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. <br><br>
The British establishment continues to move inexorably towards ordering
Julian’s 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. <br><br>
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. <br><br>
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 Starmer’s 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. <br><br>
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. <br><br>
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. <br><br>
I need to close with an appeal.<b> Please do not stop reading</b>. You
will recall that I recently addressed the UN Human Rights Committee on
Julian’s case and in doing so had the opportunity to state a few hard
truths about the war crimes of the United States. <br><br>
Video Player<br>
00:00<br>
02:58<br><br>
My opportunity to do so was organised by the Swiss NGO Justice For All
International, who submitted a <u>shadow report </u>(open link and click
on red icon) by their lawyers to the UN 7 year Periodic Review of the
UK’s 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. <br><br>
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. <br><br>
Unfortunately the Assange campaign has refused to meet the bill and I
have been left holding it. <br><br>
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”. <br><br>
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 <u>Justice For All crowdfunder,</u> I should be very
grateful.<br><br>
<br><br>
<br><br>
<br><br>
<br><br>
<br><br>
<br><br>
<br><br>
<br><br>
<br>
</font></body>
<br>
<body>
<font size=4><b>Weekly politics show page
<a href="http://www.thisweek.org.uk/" eudora="autourl">
http://www.thisweek.org.uk</a> <br>
Radio stream live 5pm Fridays and repeated 11am/pm UK time
<a href="http://www.talkradio.org.uk/" eudora="autourl">
http://www.talkradio.org.uk</a> <br>
Also on: NOT The BCfm Politics Show App
<a href="https://apkpure.com/not-the-bcfm-politics-show/com.sweetsmile.bottom_navigation_flutter" eudora="autourl">
https://apkpure.com/not-the-bcfm-politics-show/com.sweetsmile.bottom_navigation_flutter</a>
<br><br>
</b></font>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<br>
<font size=4><b>And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took
bread, and blessed <i>it</i>, and brake, and gave to them.
<a href="http://biblehub.com/luke/24-31.htm">31</a> And their eyes were
opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight.
<a href="http://biblehub.com/kjv/luke/24.htm" eudora="autourl">
http://biblehub.com/kjv/luke/24.htm</a> <br>
'Capitalism is institutionalised bribery' TG - Cancelled ->
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/PublicEnquiry/videos" eudora="autourl">
https://www.youtube.com/user/PublicEnquiry/videos<br><br>
</a></font><h3><b>Albert Pike’s 1871
<a href="https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/650822/Letter-WW3-200-year-old-islam-final-battle">
WWIII plan to cancel God</a> –
<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/11/accelerationism-how-a-fringe-philosophy-predicted-the-future-we-live-in">
Accelerationist multicrisis</a>: my schoolfriend
<a href="https://www.philosophyforlife.org/blog/accelerationism-amphetamine-philosophy-and-the-death-trip">
‘Nazi Nick’s Dark Enlightenment ‘death trip’</a> is designed to
<a href="https://qz.com/1007144/the-neo-fascist-philosophy-that-underpins-both-the-alt-right-and-silicon-valley-technophiles">
discredit all democracy</a><br>
Essentials:
<a href="https://www.bitchute.com/video/AH8pJ8vLnpQQ/">Michael Hudson</a>
|
<a href="https://www.bitchute.com/video/mlGKutbgByo4/">
Blackrock/Vanguard</a> | Tony
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAq1q1_swyM">on Brexit </a>&
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsxxlpLccE8&pp=ygUWVGhlIFRyYWl0b3JzIG9mIEFybmhlbQ%3D%3D">
The Traitors of Arnhem</a> |
<a href="https://www.bitchute.com/video/s3keNigJaj63/">Evolution</a> |
<a href="https://www.bitchute.com/video/Yhv9ZMby68Ig">War between God
& Lucifer</a> |
<a href="http://www.itsuandi.org/itsui/downloads/Itsui_Materials/Albert_Pike's_Plan_for_Three_World_Wars.pdf">
Plan for three World Wars</a> | Armageddonists I have known:
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXKz4uwZC_k">Nick Land
(1975-8)</a> |
<a href="https://www.bitchute.com/video/pkIIeuailaUt/">George Monbiot
(1995-8)</a> | Manna for the Revelation Generation:
<a href="https://www.radio4all.net/program/108328">CONSPIRACY CLASSICS,
longer interviews/lectures</a> </b></h3>"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 <br>
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMn9GM4atN3t7AHJBbHMR0Q/videos" eudora="autourl">
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMn9GM4atN3t7AHJBbHMR0Q/videos<br>
</a><font size=4><b>
<a href="http://www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149" eudora="autourl">
http://www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149<br>
</a><a href="http://www.thisweek.org.uk/" eudora="autourl">
http://www.thisweek.org.uk<br>
</a><a href="http://www.911forum.org.uk/" eudora="autourl">
http://www.911forum.org.uk<br>
</a><a href="http://www.tlio.org.uk/" eudora="autourl">
http://www.tlio.org.uk<br>
</a>Tony's free watermarked books
<a href="http://www.bilderberg.org/" eudora="autourl">
www.bilderberg.org</a> - My ebooks
<a href="https://payhip.com/TonyGosling" eudora="autourl">
https://payhip.com/TonyGosling<br>
</a>
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvPbHiqhLtpNWA_cg_1NULw" eudora="autourl">
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvPbHiqhLtpNWA_cg_1NULw<br>
</a>
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMn9GM4atN3t7AHJBbHMR0Q" eudora="autourl">
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMn9GM4atN3t7AHJBbHMR0Q<br>
</a><a href="https://www.twitter.com/TonyGosling" eudora="autourl">
https://www.twitter.com/TonyGosling<br>
</a><a href="https://www.facebook.com/tony.gosling.16" eudora="autourl">
https://www.facebook.com/tony.gosling.16<br>
</a>You can donate to support Tony's work here
<a href="http://www.bilderberg.org/bcfm.htm" eudora="autourl">
http://www.bilderberg.org/bcfm.htm<br>
</a>Or buy Tony's three ebooks for £10-£15 here
<a href="https://payhip.com/TonyGosling" eudora="autourl">
https://payhip.com/TonyGosling</a> or paperback here
<a href="https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/254963338161" eudora="autourl">
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/254963338161<br>
</a></b>TG mobile +44 7786 952037</font> <br><br>
</body>
</html>