Craig
John Murray, historicus, voormalig ambassadeur van Groot-Brittannië
en mensenrechtenactivist, volgt het proces tegen Assange en doet daar
verslag van op zijn internetsite. 

 

Craig John Murray

In een
uitvoerig schrijven doet hij verlag van het proces in de Old Bailey,
waar hij in het begin m.i. Iets teveel ingaat op het gebouw en haar
geschiedenis.

Het
schrijven geeft aan dat er van een onafhankelijke en transparante
rechtspraak geen sprake is in deze zaak, zo worden door de verdediging
aangevoerde getuigen niet gehoord, dat is volgens de rechter niet
nodig daar ze al een schriftelijke verklaring hebben gegeven……
Schandalig uiteraard, immers zo’n verklaring op schrift is altijd
beknopt en het is dan ook zaak dat iedereen mag weten wat deze
getuigen nog meer te zeggen hebben…… De rechter was zo zot om te
beweren dat justitie is gebaat bij de meer dan belachelijke
en beperkende maatregelen die zijn genomen…. Alsof je zegt dat een eerlijk proces
is gebaat bij afwezigheid van de advocaat van de verdachte……

De
rechter durft zelfs te stellen dat wanneer getuigen een mondelinge
verklaring afleggen, de kans groot is dat er nieuwe feiten boven
tafel komen en dat dit niet in het belang is van een eerlijk
proces…….. Eventueel nieuw aangevoerde feiten zijn juist van belang voor Assange en komen daarnaast ook de transparantie van het proces voor het publiek ten goede…… Hoe is het gvd mogelijk??!!!

Daarover
gesproken, transparantie en het recht van het volk om te weten hoe
het proces verloopt, wordt ernstig schade aangedaan daar er vanwege
het Coronavirus maar weinig mensen in de zaal mogen aanschuiven en
moeten Murray en anderen het in een ander zaaltje doen, waar men NB
naast elkaar mag zitten, als is er ‘na elke rij’ één rij leeg…..
Daar moet men op een klein scherm proberen te horen wat er wordt
gezegd, iets dat moeilijk is daar het geluid zo slecht is dat John
Pilger, filmmaker en onderzoeksjournalist, de ruimte al snel verliet…….

Waarom
is er voor zo’n groot proces een zo kleine zaal uitgekozen? Juist, om
de beperkende maatregelen te kunnen legitimeren die de rechter
aanvoert……

Het
voorgaande is nog maar het puntje van de spreekwoordelijke ijsberg, wat (nogmaals)
aangeeft dat er van een eerlijk proces geen sprake is en kan zijn (al moet ik
zeggen dat het tegenovergestelde me enorm zou hebben
verbaasd…..)…..

Het smerige spel van de VS over de uitlevering van Assange is ook een vuig stuk werk dat tijdens het spel gewoon wordt aangepast met andere zogenaamde criminele daden van Assange, je gelooft je ogen niet….. (en dan durven te stllen dat mondelinge getuigenissen ongewenste nieuwe feiten kunnen opleveren…..) Men durft commentaar te leveren op rechtszaken in China, terwijl het Kafkiaanse gehalte van dit proces een heel stuk groter is dan processen daar en vergeet daarbij niet dat Groot-Brittannië en de VS zich in tegenstelling tot China voordoen als democratische rechtsstaten!!

Lees het
geheel en zie de video onder het artikel van Information Clearing
House. Geeft het door mensen, tijd dat de wereld zich het vreselijk
lot van Assange aantrekt, dat andere journalisten eindelijk erkennen
dat ze fout zitten met de door hen gevoerde aanvallen op Assange, die
de waarheid heeft verteld over o.a. het uiterst agressieve optreden
(grootschalige terreur) van de VS over de wereld en daarbij niemand maar dan ook helemaal
niemand in gevaar heeft gebracht….. 

Assange heeft in tegenstelling
tot de meeste van zijn collega’s zijn werk wel gedaan, zonder zich te
verlaten op misleidende informatie van neoliberale regeringen, regeringen die samen met de VS
illegale oorlogen voerden en voeren op basis van door geheime
diensten aangeleverde leugens, die met grote graagte werden herhaald
door de ‘collega’s van Assange….’ (bewijzen te over: vele meters
aan dossiers!!)

Beste
bezoeker het is een lang artikel, maar lees het, Murray is een goede schrijver, is bij tijd en wijle uiterst sarcastisch (op een humoristische manier), kortom meer dan de moeite
waard!! Onder het artikel nog een uiterst lollige video van een paar mninuten, zien! (onder het artikel kan je klikken voor een Nederlandse [Dutch] vertaling, dit neemt enkele tientallen seconden tijd in
beslag):

The
Assange Hearing Day 6: Your Man in the Public Gallery

By
Craig John Murray

September 08, 2020
“Information
Clearing House”
– I went to the Old Bailey today expecting to be awed by the majesty
of the law, and left revolted by the sordid administration of
injustice.

There is a romance
which attaches to the Old Bailey. The name of course means fortified
enclosure and it occupies a millennia old footprint on the edge of
London’s ancient city wall. 

It is the site of the medieval Newgate
Prison, and formal trials have taken place at the Old Bailey for at
least 500 years, numbering in the hundreds of thousands. For the
majority of that time, those convicted even of minor offences of
theft were taken out and executed in the alleyway outside. It is
believed that hundreds, perhaps thousands, lie buried under the
pavements.

The hefty Gothic
architecture of the current grand building dates back no further than
1905, and round the back and sides of that is wrapped some horrible
cheap utility building from the 1930’s. It was through a tunnelled
entrance into this portion that five of us, Julian’s nominated
family and friends, made our nervous way this morning. We were shown
to Court 10 up many stairs that seemed like the back entrance to a
particularly unloved works canteen. Tiles were chipped, walls were
filthy and flakes of paint hung down from crumbling ceilings. Only
the security cameras watching us were new – so new, in fact, that
little piles of plaster and brick dust lay under each.

Court 10 appeared to
be a fairly bright and open modern box, with pleasant light woodwork,
jammed as a mezzanine inside a great vault of the old building. A
massive arch intruded incongruously into the space and was obviously
damp, sheets of delaminating white paint drooping down from it like
flags of forlorn surrender. The dock in which Julian would be held
still had a bulletproof glass screen in front, like Belmarsh, but it
was not boxed in. There was no top to the screen, no low ceiling, so
sound could flow freely over and Julian seemed much more in the
court. It also had many more and wider slits than the notorious
Belmarsh Box, and Julian was able to communicate quite readily and
freely through them with his lawyers, which this time he was not
prevented from doing.

Rather to our
surprise, nobody else was allowed into the public gallery of court 10
but us five. Others like John Pilger and Kristin Hrafnsson, editor in
chief of Wikileaks, were shunted into the adjacent court 9 where a
very small number were permitted to squint at a tiny screen, on which
the sound was so inaudible John Pilger simply left. Many others who
had expected to attend, such as Amnesty International and Reporters
Without Borders (RSF), were simply excluded, as were MPs from the German
federal parliament (both the German MPs and Reporters Without Borders
at least later got access to the inadequate video following strong
representations from the German Embassy).

The reason given that
only five of us were allowed in the public gallery of some 40 seats
was social distancing; except we were allowed to all sit together in
consecutive seats in the front row. The two rows behind us remained
completely empty.

To finish scene
setting, Julian himself looked tidy and well groomed and dressed, and
appeared to have regained a little lost weight, but with a definite
unhealthy puffiness about his features. In the morning he appeared
disengaged and disoriented rather as he had at Belmarsh, but in the
afternoon he perked up and was very much engaged with his defence
team, interacting as normally as could be expected in these
circumstances.

Proceedings started
with formalities related to Julian’s release on the old extradition
warrant and re-arrest under the new warrant, which had taken place
this morning. Defence and prosecution both agreed that the points
they had already argued on the ban on extradition for political
offences were not affected by the superseding indictment.

Magistrate Baraitser
then made a statement about access to the court by remote hearing, by
which she meant online. She stated that a number of access details
had been sent out by mistake by the court without her agreement. She
had therefore revoked their access permissions.

As she spoke, we in
the court had no idea what had happened, but outside some
consternation was underway in that the online access of Amnesty
International, of Reporters without Borders, of John Pilger and of
forty others had been shut down. As these people were neither
permitted to attend the court nor observe online, this was causing
some consternation.

Baraitser went on to
say that it was important that the hearing was public, but she should
only agree remote access where it was “in the interests of
justice”, and having considered it she had decided it was not. She
explained this by stating that the public could normally observe from
within the courtroom, where she could control their behaviour. But if
they had remote access, she could not control their behaviour and
this was not in the “interests of justice”.

Baraitser did not
expand on what uncontrolled behaviour she anticipated from those
viewing via the internet. It is certainly true that an observer from
Amnesty sitting at home might be in their underwear, might be humming
the complete soundtrack to Mamma Mia, or might fart loudly. Precisely
why this would damage “the interests of justice” we are still
left to ponder, with no further help from the magistrate. But
evidently the interests of justice were, in her view, best served if
almost nobody could examine the “justice” too closely.

The next “housekeeping
issue” to be addressed was how witnesses should be heard. The
defence had called numerous witnesses, and each had lodged a written
statement. The prosecution and Baraitser both suggested that, having
given their evidence in writing, there was no need for defence
witnesses to give that evidence orally in open court. It would be
much quicker to go straight to cross-examination by the prosecution.

For the defence,
Edward Fitzgerald QC countered that justice should be seen to be done
by the public. The public should be able to hear the defence evidence
before hearing the cross-examination. It would also enable Julian
Assange to hear the evidence summarised, which was important for him
to follow the case given his lack of extended access to legal papers
while in Belmarsh prison.

Baraitser stated there
could not be any need for evidence submitted to her in writing to be
repeated orally. For the defence, Mark Summers QC was not prepared to
drop it and tension notably rose in the court. Summers stated it was
normal practice for there to be “an orderly and rational exposition
of the evidence”. For the prosecution, James Lewis QC denied this,
saying it was not normal procedure.

Baraitser stated she
could not see why witnesses should be scheduled an one hour forty
five minutes each, which was too long. Lewis agreed. He also added
that the prosecution does not accept that the defence’s expert
witnesses are expert witnesses. A Professor of journalism telling
about newspaper coverage did not count. An expert witness should only
be giving evidence on a technical point the court was otherwise
unqualified to consider. 

Lewis also objected that in giving evidence
orally, defence witnesses might state new facts to which the Crown
had not had time to react. Baraitser noted that the written defence
statements were published online, so they were available to the
public.

Edward Fitzgerald QC
stood up to speak again, and Baraitser addressed him in a quite
extraordinary tone of contempt. What she said exactly was: “I have
given you every opportunity. Is there anything else, really, that you
want to say”, the word “really” being very heavily emphasised
and sarcastic. Fitzgerald refused to be sat down, and he stated that
the current case featured “substantial and novel issues going to
fundamental questions of human rights.” It was important the
evidence was given in public. It also gave the witnesses a chance to
emphasise the key points of their evidence and where they placed most
weight.

Baraitser called a
brief recess while she considered judgement on this issue, and then
returned. She found against the defence witnesses giving their
evidence in open court, but accepted that each witness should be
allowed up to half an hour of being led by the defence lawyers, to
enable them to orient themselves and reacquaint with their evidence
before cross-examination.

This half hour for
each witness represented something of a compromise, in that at least
the basic evidence of each defence witness would be heard by the
court and the public (insofar as the public was allowed to hear
anything). But the idea that a standard half hour guillotine is
sensible for all witnesses, whether they are testifying to a single
fact or to developments over years, is plainly absurd. What came over
most strongly from this question was the desire of both judge and
prosecution to railroad through the extradition with as little of the
case against it getting a public airing as possible.

As the judge adjourned
for a short break we thought these questions had now been addressed
and the rest of the day would be calmer. We could not have been more
wrong.

The court resumed with
a new defence application, led by Mark Summers QC, about the new
charges from the US governments new superseding indictment. Summers
took the court back over the history of this extradition hearing. The
first indictment had been drawn up in March of 2018. In January 2019
a provisional request for extradition had been made, which had been
implemented in April of 2019 on Assange’s removal from the Embassy.
In June 2019 this was replaced by the full request with a new, second
indictment which had been the basis of these proceedings before
today. A whole series of hearings had taken place on the basis of
that second indictment.

The new superseding
indictment dated from 20 June 2020. In February and May 2020 the US
government had allowed hearings to go ahead on the basis of the
second indictment, giving no warning, even though they must by that
stage have known the new superseding indictment was coming. They had
given neither explanation nor apology for this.

The defence had not
been properly informed of the superseding indictment, and indeed had
learnt of its existence only through a US government press release on
20 June. It had not finally been officially served in these
proceedings until 29 July, just six weeks ago. At first, it had not
been clear how the superseding indictment would affect the charges,
as the US government was briefing it made no difference but just gave
additional detail. But on 21 August 2020, not before, it finally
became clear in new US government submissions that the charges
themselves had been changed.

There were now new
charges that were standalone and did not depend on the earlier
allegations. Even if the 18 Manning related charges were rejected,
these new allegations could still form grounds for extradition. These
new allegations included encouraging the stealing of data from a bank
and from the government of Iceland, passing information on tracking
police vehicles, and hacking the computers both of individuals and of
a security company.

“How much of this
newly alleged material is criminal is anybody’s guess”, stated
Summers, going on to explain that it was not at all clear that an
Australian giving advice from outwith Iceland to someone in Iceland
on how to crack a code, was actually criminal if it occurred in the
UK. This was even without considering the test of dual criminality in
the US also, which had to be passed before the conduct was subject to
extradition.

It was unthinkable
that allegations of this magnitude would be the subject of a Part 2
extradition hearing within six weeks if they were submitted as a new
case. Plainly that did not give the defence time to prepare, or to
line up witnesses to these new charges. Among the issues relating to
these new charges the defence would wish to address, were that some
were not criminal, some were out of time limitation, some had already
been charged in other fora (including Southwark Crown Court and
courts in the USA).

There were also
important questions to be asked about the origins of some of these
charges and the dubious nature of the witnesses. In particular the
witness identified as “teenager” was the same person identified
as “Iceland 1” in the previous indictment. That indictment had
contained a “health warning” over this witness given by the US
Department of Justice. 

This new indictment removed that warning. But
the fact was, this witness is Sigurdur Thordarson, who had been
convicted in Iceland in relation to these events of fraud, theft,
stealing Wikileaks money and material and impersonating Julian
Assange.

The indictment did not
state that the FBI had been “kicked out of Iceland for trying to
use Thordarson to frame Assange”, stated Summers baldly.

Summers said all these
matters should be ventilated in these hearings if the new charges
were to be heard, but the defence simply did not have time to prepare
its answers or its witnesses in the brief six weeks it had since
receiving them, even setting aside the extreme problems of contact
with Assange in the conditions in which he was being held in Belmarsh
prison.

The defence would
plainly need time to prepare answers to these new charges, but it
would plainly be unfair to keep Assange in jail for the months that
would take. The defence therefore suggested that these new charges
should be excised from the conduct to be considered by the court, and
they should go ahead with the evidence on criminal behaviour confined
to what conduct had previously been alleged.

Summers argued it was
“entirely unfair” to add what were in law new and separate
criminal allegations, at short notice and “entirely without warning
and not giving the defence time to respond to it. What is happening
here is abnormal, unfair and liable to create real injustice if
allowed to continue.”

The arguments
submitted by the prosecution now rested on these brand new
allegations. 

For example, the prosecution now countered the arguments
on the rights of whistleblowers and the necessity of revealing war
crimes by stating that there can have been no such necessity to hack
into a bank in Iceland.

Summers concluded that
the “case should be confined to that conduct which the American
government had seen fit to allege in the eighteen months of the case”
before their second new indictment.

Replying to Summers
for the prosecution, Joel Smith QC replied that the judge was obliged
by the statute to consider the new charges and could not excise them.
“If there is nothing proper about the restitution of a new
extradition request after a failed request, there is nothing improper
in a superseding indictment before the first request had failed.”
Under the Extradition Act the court must decide only if the offence
is an extraditable offence and the conduct alleged meets the dual
criminality test. The court has no other role and no jurisdiction to
excise part of the request.

Smith stated that all
the authorities (precedents) were of charges being excised from a
case to allow extradition to go ahead on the basis of the remaining
sound charges, and those charges which had been excised were only on
the basis of double jeopardy. There was no example of charges being
excised to prevent an extradition. And the decision to excise charges
had only ever been taken after the conduct alleged had been examined
by the court. There was no example of alleged conduct not being
considered by the court. The defendant could seek extra time if
needed but the new allegations must be examined.

Summers replied that
Smith was “wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong”. “We are not saying
that you can never submit a new indictment, but you cannot do it six
weeks before the substantive hearing.” The impact of what Smith had
said amounted to no more than “Ha ha this is what we are doing and
you can’t stop us.” A substantive last minute change had been
made with no explanation and no apology. It could not be the case, as
Smith alleged, that a power existed to excise charges in fairness to
the prosecution, but no power existed to excise charges in fairness
to the defence.

Immediately Summers
sat down, Baraitser gave her judgement on this point. As so often in
this hearing, it was a pre-written judgement. She read it from a
laptop she had brought into the courtroom with her, and she had made
no alterations to that document as Summers and Smith had argued the
case in front of her.

Baraitser stated that
she had been asked as a preliminary move to excise from the case
certain conduct alleged. Mr Summers had described the receipt of new
allegations as extraordinary. However “I offered the defence the
opportunity to adjourn the case” to give them time to prepare
against the new allegations. “I considered of course that Mr
Assange was in custody. I hear that Mr Summers believes this is
fundamental unfairness”. But “the argument that we haven’t got
the time, should be remedied by asking for the time.”

Mr Summers had raised
issues of dual criminality and abuse of process; there was nothing
preventing him for raising these arguments in the context of
considering the request as now presented.

Baraitser simply
ignored the argument that while there was indeed “nothing to
prevent” the defence from answering the new allegations as each was
considered, they had been given no time adequately to prepare. Having
read out her pre-prepared judgement to proceed on the basis of the
new superseding indictment, Baraitser adjourned the court for lunch.

At the end of the day
I had the opportunity to speak to an extremely distinguished and
well-known lawyer on the subject of Baraitser bringing pre-written
judgements into court, prepared before she had heard the lawyers
argue the case before her. I understood she already had seen the
outline written arguments, but surely this was wrong. What was the
point in the lawyers arguing for hours if the judgement was
pre-written? What I really wanted to know was how far this was normal
practice.

The lawyer replied to
me that it absolutely was not normal practice, it was totally
outrageous. In a long and distinguished career, this lawyer had very
occasionally seen it done, even in the High Court, but there was
always some effort to disguise the fact, perhaps by inserting some
reference to points made orally in the courtroom. Baraitser was just
blatant. The question was, of course, whether it was her own
pre-written judgement she was reading out, or something she had been
given from on high.

This was a pretty
shocking morning. The guillotining of defence witnesses to hustle the
case through, indeed the attempt to ensure their evidence was not
spoken in court except those parts which the prosecution saw fit to
attack in cross-examination, had been breathtaking. 

The effort by the
defence to excise the last minute superseding indictment had been a
fundamental point disposed of summarily. Yet again, Baraitser’s
demeanour and very language made little attempt to disguise a
hostility to the defence.

We were for the second
time in the day in a break thinking that events must now calm down
and get less dramatic. Again we were wrong.

Court resumed forty
minutes late after lunch as various procedural wrangles were
addressed behind closed doors. As the court resumed, Mark Summers for
the defence stood up with a bombshell.

Summers said that the
defence “recognised” the judgement Baraitser had just made – a
very careful choice of word, as opposed to “respected” which
might seem more natural. As she had ruled that the remedy to lack of
time was more time, the defence was applying for an adjournment to
enable them to prepare the answers to the new charges. They did not
do this lightly, as Mr Assange would continue in prison in very
difficult conditions during the adjournment.

Summers said the
defence was simply not in a position to gather the evidence to
respond to the new charges in a few short weeks, a situation made
even worse by Covid restrictions. It was true that on 14 August
Baraitser had offered an adjournment and on 21 August they had
refused the offer. But in that period of time, Mr Assange had not had
access to the new charges and they had not fully realised the extent
to which these were a standalone new case. To this date, Assange had
still not received the new prosecution Opening Note in prison, which
was a crucial document in setting out the significance of the new
charges.

Baraitser pointedly
asked whether the defence could speak to Assange in prison by
telephone. Summers replied yes, but these were extremely short
conversations. They could not phone Mr Assange; he could only call
out very briefly on the prison payphone to somebody’s mobile, and
the rest of the team would have to try to gather round to listen. It
was not possible in these very brief discussions adequately to
expound complex material. 

Between 14 and 21 August they had been able
to have only two such very short phone calls. The defence could only
send documents to Mr Assange through the post to the prison; he was
not always given them, or allowed to keep them.

Baraitser asked how
long an adjournment was being requested. Summers replied until
January.

For the US government,
James Lewis QC replied that more scrutiny was needed of this request.
The new matters in the indictment were purely criminal. They do not
affect the arguments about the political nature of the case, or
affect most of the witnesses. If more time were granted, “with the
history of this case, we will just be presented with a sleigh of
other material which will have no bearing on the small expansion of
count 2”.

Baraitser adjourned
the court “for ten minutes” while she went out to consider her
judgement. In fact she took much longer. When she returned she looked
peculiarly strained.

Baraitser ruled that
on 14 August she had given the defence the opportunity to apply for
an adjournment, and given them seven days to decide. On 21 August the
defence had replied they did not want an adjournment. They had not
replied that they had insufficient time to consider. Even today the
defence had not applied to adjourn but rather had applied to excise
charges. They “cannot have been surprised by my decision” against
that application. 

Therefore they must have been prepared to proceed
with the hearing. Their objections were not based on new
circumstance. The conditions of Assange in Belmarsh had not changed
since 21 August. They had therefore missed their chance and the
motion to adjourn was refused.

The courtroom
atmosphere was now highly charged. Having in the morning refused to
cut out the superseding indictment on the grounds that the remedy for
lack of time should be more time, Baraitser was now refusing to give
more time. The defence had called her bluff; the state had apparently
been confident that the effective solitary confinement in Belmarsh
was so terrible that Assange would not request more time. I rather
suspect that Julian was himself bluffing, and made the call at
lunchtime to request more time in the full expectation that it would
be refused, and the rank hypocrisy of the proceedings exposed.

I previously
blogged about how the procedural trickery of the superseding
indictment being used to replace the failing second indictment – as
Smith said for the prosecution “before it failed” – was
something that sickened the soul. Today in the courtroom you could
smell the sulphur.

Well, yet again we
were left with the feeling that matters must now get less exciting.
This time we were right and they became instead excruciatingly banal.
We finally moved on to the first witness, Professor Mark Feldstein,
giving evidence to the court by videolink for the USA. It was not
Professor Feldstein’s fault the day finished in confused
anti-climax. The court was unable to make the video technology work.
For ten broken minutes out of about forty Feldstein was briefly able
to give evidence, and even this was completely unsatisfactory as he
and Mark Summers were repeatedly speaking over each other on the
link.

Professor Feldstein’s
evidence will resume tomorrow (now in fact today) and I think rather
than split it I shall give the full account then. Meantime you can
see these excellent summaries from Kevin
Gosztola or the morning
and afternoon
reports from James Doleman. In fact, I should be grateful if you did,
so you can see that I am neither inventing nor exaggerating the facts
of these startling events.

If you asked me to sum
up today in a word, that word would undoubtedly be “railroaded”.
it was all about pushing through the hearing as quickly as possible
and with as little public exposure as possible to what is happening.
Access denied, adjournment denied, exposition of defence evidence
denied, removal of superseding indictment charges denied. The
prosecution was plainly failing in that week back in Woolwich in
February, which seems like an age ago. It has now been given a new
boost.

How the defence will
deal with the new charges we shall see. It seems impossible that they
can do this without calling new witnesses to address the new facts.
But the witness lists had already been finalised on the basis of the
old charges. That the defence should be forced to proceed with the
wrong witnesses seems crazy, but frankly, I am well past being
surprised by anything in this fake process.

Craig’s coverage of
Julian’s case is entirely dependent on your financial support.
Unlike our adversaries including the Integrity Initiative, the 77th
Brigade, Bellingcat, the Atlantic Council and hundreds of other
warmongering propaganda operations, this blog has no source of state,
corporate or institutional finance whatsoever. It runs entirely on
voluntary subscriptions from its readers – many of whom do not
necessarily agree with the every article, but welcome the alternative
voice, insider information and debate. –
“Source“
–

Subscriptions to
keep his blog going are gratefully
received.

Post
your comment below

See
also

Craig
Murray: Your Man in the Public Gallery: Assange Hearing Day 7;
Clive
Stafford Smith said he had been “profoundly shocked” by the
crimes committed by the US government against his clients.

In
Extradition Hearing, Julian Assange’s Legal Team Focuses On US
Torture And War Crimes Exposed By WikiLeaks

Honest
Gov?

Click
for
Spanish,
German,
Dutch,
Danish,
French,
translation- Note- Translation
may take a moment to load.

==================================

Zie ook: ‘Liveblog: Julian Assange Under Threat – Defend Wikileaks‘

En zie voorts:

‘Het martelen van onderzoeksjournalist Julian Assange: een interview met Andrew Fowler‘

‘YouTube verwijdert in aanloop naar presidentsverkiezingen video’s met info verkregen middels hacken, censuur door VS techreuzen‘ (o.a. censuur op info van Wikileaks….)

‘Labourpolitici in oorlog met elkaar: de antisemitisme leugen tegen Jeremy Corbyn die hem de verkiezingen kostte‘ (met o.a. aandacht voor Assange en zie de links in dat bericht over de verkiezingen in GB) 

‘Internationale Dag van de Persvrijheid: ARD hekelt geheel hypocriet Turkije zonder ook maar één woord te besteden aan Julian Assange‘ (en zie de links in dat bericht naar oudere artikelen over Assange)