FIRST READ:
When USA the 4th Beast of Daniel 7:7 Ordered its client the British Government to Detain Julian Asange: Assange Could Die in Prison, There Is No Time to Lose: Civil Liberty Vanishes. Free Assange. Suppressing Legitimate Dissent
https://watchmanafrica.blogspot.com/2020/05/when-usa-4th-beast-of-daniel-77-ordered.html
JULIAN ASSANGE: HUNTED BY THE U.S. GOVERNMENT
[A secularist whose courage to speak out against the
wickedness of the American Empire puts Christians to shame]
http://www.antipasministries.com/html/file0000347.htm
THE NEW ROMAN EMPIRE: The Catholic Church is the Whore of Revelation 17:4 and USA is the Beast of Daniel 7:7, Revelations 17:3 :Similarities between Washington DC and Rome: Did you know that Washington DC was once called Rome?
THE CHILDREN OF THIS WORLD ARE IN THEIR GENERATION WISER THAN THE CHILDREN OF LIGHT: WIKI LEAKS’ JULIAN ASSANGE: HUNTED BY THE U.S. GOVERNMENT
http://watchmanafrica.blogspot.com/2010/12/children-of-this-world-are-in-their.html
Julian Assange demands U.S. end WikiLeaks 'witch hunt'
Lawyer for Assange detained at Heathrow and told she was on a 'secret watch list'
https://watchmanafrica.blogspot.com/2012/09/lawyer-for-assange-detained-at-heathrow.htmlJulian Assange’s Political Indictment: Old Wine in Older Bottles
Global Research, July 29, 2020
The book of hours on Julian Assange
is now being written. But the scribes are far from original. Repeated
rituals of administrative hearings that have no common purpose other
than to string things out before the axe are being enacted. Of late,
the man most commonly associated with WikiLeaks’ publication project
cannot participate in any meaningful way, largely because of his frail
health and the dangers posed to him by the coronavirus. Having already
made an effort to attend court proceedings in person, Assange has come
across as judicial exotica, freak show fodder for Judge Vanessa Baraitser’s
harsh version of Judge Judy. He was refused an application to escape
his glass commode when he could still attend in person, as permitting
him to descend and consult his defence team in a court room would
constitute a bail application of some risk. This reading by the
judicial head was so innovative it even puzzled the prosecutors.
What we know to
date is that restrictions and shackles on Assange’s case are the order
of the day. Restricted processes that do nothing to enable him to see
counsel and enable a good brief to be exercised are typical. Most of
all, the ceremonial circus that we have come to expect of British
justice in the menacing shadow of US intimidation has become gloomily
extensive. On July 27, that circus was given yet another act, another
limping performance. As before, the venue was the Westminster
Magistrates’ Court in London.
During the
proceeding, Assange did appear via video link from Belmarsh Prison,
albeit it an hour late, and only at the insistence of his legal team. The Guardian report on his presence reads
like an account of a sporting engagement. “Wearing a beige sweater and
a pink shirt, Assange eventually appeared from Belmarsh prison after an
earlier attempt was aborted.”
Others were alarmed. During his call-over hearing, noted
Martin Silk of the Australian Associated Press, “neither the
Australian, nor his guards, were wearing face masks. I don’t understand
the reason for that given we have to wear them inside shops.” This
point was also made
by Assange’s partner, Stella Moris: “Belmarsh hasn’t provided Julian
with a face mask throughout this #covid crisis. The prison guards he
interacts with don’t wear them either.” WikiLeaks supporter Juan
Passarelli also felt
that Assange “was having trouble following the proceedings due to the
Judge and lawyers not speaking loud enough and into the microphones.”
Arrangements for the hearing for observers proved characteristically sloppy. Freelance journalist Stefania Maurizi was unimpressed
by being on the phone for two hours during which she “couldn’t
understand more than 20 percent of what has been discussed.” She was
adamant that “UK authorities don’t care at all about international
reporters covering” the Assange proceedings. “Dial in system is, as
usual,” agreed Passarelli, “a shambles!”
The topic of discussion during this administrative hearing was what was announced by the US Department of Justice on June 24, namely the second superseding indictment. That document
proved to be a naked exercise of political overreach, adding no further
charges to the already heavy complement of eighteen, seventeen of which
centre on the US Espionage Act. The scope of interest, however, was
widened, notably on the issue of “hacking” and conferencing. Assange is
painted as devilish recruiter and saboteur of the international secret
order, a man of the conference circuit keen to open up clandestine
governments and make various reasons for doing so. “According to the
charging document, Assange and others at WikiLeaks recruited and agreed
with hackers to commit computer intrusions to benefit WikiLeaks.”
Edward Fitzgerald QC, in representing Assange, fulfilled his norm, submitting
that the recently revised document did little to inspire confidence in
the nature of clarified justice. “We are concerned about a fresh
request being made at this stage with the potential consequences of
derailing proceedings and that the US attorney-general is doing this for
political reasons.” Fitzgerald reminded the court that US President Donald Trump had “described the defence case as a plot by the Democrats.”
This should have
been obvious, but Baraitser’s court would have none of it. To admit at
this point that Assange is wanted for political reasons would make it
that much harder to extradite him to the United States, given that bar
noted in the US-UK Extradition Treaty.
Whilst it was good of Fitzgerald to make this point, he should know by
now that his audience is resolutely constipated and indifferent to such
prodding. Assange is to be given the sharpest, rather than the most
balanced, of hearings. Accordingly, Baraitser insisted that Fitzgerald
“reserve his comments” – she, in the true tradition of such processes,
had not been supplied, as yet, with the US indictment. This made the
entire presence of all the parties at the Westminster Magistrates’ not
merely meaningless but decidedly absurd.
Assange’s defence
team could draw some cold comfort from Baraitser’s comments that July 27
was the deadline for any further evidence to be adduced by the
prosecution before the September extradition hearing. One exception was
permitted: psychiatric reports.
The current chief publisher of WikiLeaks Kristinn Hrafnsson had a few choice words
for the prosecutors of Wikileaks. “All the alleged events have been
known to the prosecution for years. It contains no new charges. What’s
really happening here is that despite its decade start the prosecution
are still unable to build a coherent case.” The scrapping of the
previous indictments suggested that they were “flagrantly disregarding proper process.”
Assange is facing
one of the most disturbing confections put together by any state that
claims itself to be free. Should this stratagem work, the publisher
will find himself facing the legal proceedings of a country that boasts
of having a free press amendment but is keen on excluding him from it.
What is even more troubling is the desire to expand the tent of
culpability, one that will include press outlets and those who
disseminate classified information.
To the next circus
instalment we go: a final call-over hearing in Westminster Magistrates’
Court on August 14, then the September 7 extradition hearing, to be held
at the Central Criminal Court most of us know as the Old Bailey. Will
justice prove blind, or merely blinded?
