Caitlin Johnstone heeft sinds de gewelddadigheden van Israël tegen de Palestijnen (terecht) meerdere artikelen geschreven over deze bloedige agressie, waarbij ze zich ook in haar laatste artikel richt op Israëls propaganda verhaal waarmee deze gestolen staat de westerse media en politiek decennialang wist te overtuigen van haar gelijk, slachtofferschap en niet te vergeten haar zogenaamd terecht bloedige optreden tegen de Palestijnse minderheid, waar Israël wat betreft dat laatste het westen wist te overtuigen dat de Palestijnen een gelijkwaardige partij zijn, iets wat uiteraard te zot is voor woorden, maar die desondanks graag werd (en nog steeds maar al te vaak wordt) geslikt door westerse media en politiek….
Abraham Foxman, de ex-directeur van de Joodse niet gouvernementele rechtse organisatie Anti-Defamation Leaugue >> ADL (een organisatie die zich richt tegen demonisering van Joden) heeft zijn abonnement op The New York Times (NYT) opgezegd, daar hem een voorpagina foto in het verkeerde keelgat schoot: op die foto waren een groot aantal foto’s van door Israël vermoordde Palestijnse kinderen te zien, wat hij beoordeelde als antisemitisme, door te stellen dat dit een duidelijk geval was van ‘blood libel’ (bloedschuld), ofwel het antisemitische cliché dat Joden kinderen van anderen vermoorden (in vroegere tijden aangevuld met het verhaal dat Joden niet Joodse kinderen en baby’s doden t.b.v. rituelen >> natuurlijk totaal belachelijk en een uitermate achterlijke demonisering van Joden)……
Echter Foxman vergeet dat Israël met opzet woontorens en flats heeft platgegooid, waarin zich ook kinderen bevonden, dit nog naast het feit dat Israël er geen moeite mee heeft om tijdens demonstraties van Palestijnse op ongewapende mensen te schieten, waarbij zelfs kinderen niet worden ontzien en worden vermoord……. En nee, dit is niet te vergelijken met de demonisering van Joden zoals we dat in Europa maar al te vaak hebben gezien, ook in het Nederland van voor de Tweede Wereldoorlog…… Foxman heeft zich in feite pissig gemaakt dat een mediaorgaan als NYT voor het eerst de menselijke kant van Palestijnen heeft laten zien, waar dit orgaan in het verleden vooral pro-Israëlische propaganda bracht…..
Foxman vergeet dat we in de tijd van smartphones leven en iedereen die dit wil foto’s en video’s kan nemen/maken, die men bijna tegelijk de wereld over kan zenden, dus zonder dat er censuur of andere maatregelen kunnen worden genomen die dit tegengaan…… Niet voor niets ook dat Israël na de laatste arrestatie van 2 Palestijnse journalisten er nu 13 in ‘administratieve hechtenis’* vasthoudt….. Een ander teken waaraan je kan zien dat Israël haar vooral op het westen gerichte propaganda verhaal verliest zijn de Israëlische aanvallen op 20 Palestijnse persbureaus en het opblazen van de kantoren van de internationale nieuwsorganen AP en Al Jazeera, tijdens de oorlog die Israël tot een week geleden tegen vooral de Palestijnen in de Gazastrook voerde…… In feite een zinloze (censuur) noodgreep daar zoals gezegd iedereen met een smartphone beelden kan maken van de gruwelijkheden die Israël heeft aangericht in de Gazastrook.
Het zal me gezien het voorgaande dan ook niet verbazen als Israël bij een volgende oorlog tegen de Palestijnen, alle masten voor mobiele telefonie in de Gazastrook zal platgooien, ook al kan deze fascistische apartheidsstaat daarmee niet voorkomen dat er alsnog foto’s en video’s gemaakt kunnen worden, die na reparatie van die masten alsnog de wereld over zullen gaan……. Uitermate lullig is dat je daarbij moet bedenken dat wanneer de Israëlische oorlogsmachine tot staan is gebracht, de interesse van de westerse wereld voor de laatste oorlog snel zal verdwijnen, zoals dat gebruikelijk is…..
Vooralsnog is het bemoedigend te zien dat de westerse wereld zich steeds meer het lot aantrekt van het bloedig onderdrukte Palestijnse volk, ook al gaat dat m.i. veel te traag.
Lees het artikel van Caitlin, die dieper op deze zaak ingaat en zegt het voort, de hoogste tijd dat het hele westen ontwaakt en ziet hoe Israël een minderheid zo bloedig onderdrukt……..(en zoals al vaker op deze plek opgemerkt: e.e.a. heeft niets met antisemitisme te maken, elk ander land dat zo met een minderheid omgaat moet aan de paal worden genageld!!)
The National Director Emeritus for the Anti-Defamation League has announced on Twitter that he is cancelling his subscription to The New York Times, claiming that a front-page story featuring the photos of children killed in Israel’s assault on Gaza this month constitutes “blood libel” against Jews.
“I
am cancelling my subscription to NYTimes,” tweeted Abraham Foxman. “I
grew up in America on the NYT- I delivered the NYT to my classmates- I
learned civics- democracy and all the news ‘fit to print’ for 65 years
but no more. Today’s blood libel of Israel and the Jewish people on the
front page is enough.”
Foxman’s statement drew criticism from all corners, including from reliable establishment pundits like Jonathan Chait,
for his ridiculous assertion that merely humanizing Palestinian
children killed by Israel is the same as promoting the ancient
antisemitic canard known as blood libel.
I am cancelling my subscription to NYTimes. I grew up in America on the NYT- I delivered the NYT to my classmates- I learned civics- democracy and all the news”fit to print” for 65 years but no more. Today’s blood libel of Israel and the Jewish people on the front page is enough
680 likes
278 people are talking about this
Supporters of Israeli apartheid and mass murder are losing control of the narrative,
which has led to redoubled perception management efforts ranging from
the cringey to the iron-fisted. In the former category we’re seeing them
pen entire articles attacking Seth Rogen for tweeting a fart emoji at virulent Israel apologist Eve Barlow and claiming that putting “fart” in Barlow’s name is the same as a literal pogrom.
In the latter category they’re blowing up entire press offices and
arresting Palestinian journalists. This is narrative management at its
least subtle.
“Two
Palestinian journalists were arrested by Israeli security forces in
Jerusalem yesterday and were placed in administrative detention today,
bringing the total now held administratively by the Israelis to 13.
Reporters Without Borders (RSF) condemns Israel’s misuse of
administrative detention to hound Palestinian reporters.”
“Administrative
detention” is one of the many apartheid abuses which Israel has come
under criticism for employing, as Israel-based +972 Magazineexplained last year:
According to human rights group B’Tselem, as of September 2020, Israel is holding 376 Palestinians, including two minors, in administrative detention. Israel uses administrative detention to
indefinitely detain Palestinians (and on extremely rare occasions
Jewish extremists) without charge or trial. Administrative detention
orders, handed down by the IDF commander in charge of the occupied West
Bank, are reviewed every six months, but the detainees are not told what
crimes they are being accused of, nor shown the evidence against them.
According
to lawyers who defend Palestinian detainees, administrative detentions
are almost always based on “confidential material” handed over ex parte to
the courts by the Shin Bet, to which the detainees themselves and their
lawyers have no access. As a result, it is virtually impossible to
defend oneself against an administrative detention order.
لينة ✔
@LinahAlsaafin
Israeli forces just arrested two Palestinian journalists from Sheikh Jarrah:
“The world will know less about what is happening in Gaza because of what happened today,” AP president and CEO Gary Pruitt said in a statement after the building was destroyed.
Which,
of course, is the whole idea: for the world to know less about what
happens in Gaza. The Israeli government has a decades-long history of threatening and targeting
journalists in order to exert control over the public narrative about
what happens under its rule, and as that narrative slips from its grip
we are seeing this pattern ramp up with greater and greater aggression.
“Rather than reduce the cruelty, the Israeli government keeps trying to reduce accurate news coverage,” Antiwar‘s Norman Solomon writes.
“The approach is a mix of deception and brutality. Blow up the cameras
so the world won’t see as many pictures of the atrocities.”
Mohammed El-Kurd
@m7mdkurd
The Israeli authorities will keep the journalists arrested in Sheikh Jarrah last night in jail for 5 more days before trial.
This is a clear message: attempt to document & expose Israel’s colonial violence, you will be punished with incarceration & silencing. #SaveSheikhJarrah
People
are simply becoming too conscious of the Palestine issue to tolerate
its existence as a taboo subject anymore, even in the most mainstream
circles of discussion. The old tactics of silencing and marginalizing
Palestinian rights advocates simply do not work anymore, and politicians
and pundits can no longer get away with painting themselves as
progressive-minded humanists without acknowledging the brutal and unjust
nature of Israeli occupation.
Palestine
is simply not a third rail anymore, and it’s been this way for a while
now. By the time I started doing commentary in late 2016 people were
still saying you’ll be smeared as an antisemite and dragged through the
mud if you criticize Israel, but my experience this entire time has been
that I get a lot more vitriol and attacks coming my way by criticizing
US imperialist agendas toward nations like Russia, China, Syria and
Venezuela than by criticizing the Israeli government. There’s pushback
to be sure, but it’s not nearly as vituperative as what I’m used to.
Caitlin Johnstone
@caitoz
The Israel Narrative Is Crumbling Because Of Phone Cameras And The Internet
The Israel Narrative Is Crumbling Because Of Phone Cameras And The Internet
Listen
to this article: “Twenty-four people, including nine children, were
killed in Gaza overnight, most of them in Israeli strikes,” reads a new
report from AP. Nine children, killed with the help…
caitlinjohnstone.substack.com
1,951 likes
829 people are talking about this
This
last attack on Gaza was just the ignition of a powder keg in shifting
public sentiment that had been building for several years, and it hasn’t
been due to any top-down effort at perception steering by the
establishment narrative managers, but by ordinary people sharing ideas
and information and moving the Overton window of acceptable debate
through sheer force of will.
The
fact that this can be done makes one wonder in what other ways we can
collectively move the narrative in a way that benefits ordinary people
instead of the oligarchic empire of the US and its allies. This is an
exciting time to be alive.
_____________________
My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, following me on Facebook, Twitter, Soundcloud or YouTube, or throwing some money into my tip jar on Ko-fi, Patreon or Paypal. If you want to read more you canbuy my books. Everyone, racist platforms excluded, has my permission to republish, use or translate any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge. The
best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the
stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for at my website or on Substack, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, click here.
* Administratieve hechtenis: het vasthouden van mensen zonder enige rechtsgang en
zonder dat men hiertegen in verzet kan gaan middels een advocaat >> men
houdt deze mensen vast op basis van geheime informatie, die nocht de
arrestant, noch diens advocaat mogen inzien…. Israel houdt zo zelfs kinderen vast…..
Zie voor een constante stroom aan berichten uit Israël (eigenlijk:
Palestina) en zaken die te maken hebben met de ongelijke strijd daar ook het Twitteraccount van Sarah Wilkinson.
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“
–
Dictator
Bashir van Soedan is na een volksopstand opgestapt, waar hij Soedan
30 jaar met ijzeren vuist regeerde en genocide pleegde in o.a.
Darfur….. Bashir kon zo lang blijven zitten daar het westen hem
bleef steunen……
De
nieuwe president Burhan is de voorzitter van de militaire
transitieraad, vice-president Hemedti is de leider van de RSF, ofwel
de moordende bende die ook als Janjaweed bekend staat en die de genocide in Darfur pleegde…… Anders gezegd: Bashir is weg, maar het gewelddadige
beleid dat hij voerde wordt gewoon voortgezet, al staat er vanwege de
onrust nog enigszins de rem op……
Niet
vreemd dus dat het westen zich amper uitlaat over de situatie in
Soedan, immers het is ‘business as usual…….’ De belangrijkste
reden voor samenwerking echter is de vluchtelingstroom die vanuit
Oost-Afrika naar de EU loopt….. Het Khartoem-proces is een
verdrag tussen de Afrikaanse Unie en de EU, waarbij de EU geld geeft
om vluchtelingen in Afrika te houden, de manier waarop dat gebeurt
interesseert de EU niet, zoals de EU zogenaamd niet weet wat Turkije
met vluchtelingen uitvreet: een paar modelkampen, waar EU politici
worden rondgeleid, terwijl het gros van de vluchtelingen gevangen zit
in provisorische gevangenkampen, waar zelfs hele gezinnen worden
vastgehouden en waar het aan alles ontbreekt…… (kampen waar mensenrechten organisaties, hulporganisaties, advocaten en media niet welkom zijn…..)
Lullig
genoeg is voor vluchtelingen de situatie in Afrika nog veel erger en
worden vluchtelingen zelfs verkocht als slaven…. De situatie in
gevangenissen in landen als Libië is levensgevaarlijk voor
vluchtelingen, marteling, verkrachting en moord zijn hun deel,
althans als ze niet als slaaf worden verkocht…. Men zet de familie
van deze vluchtelingen onder druk om geld te sturen, zodat hun
familielid wordt vrijgelaten, maar zoals je begrijpt is er meestal
geen cent te halen bij deze families en veel van deze vluchtelingen
worden vermoord bij uitblijven van geld……
Ook
worden vluchtelingen gedwongen tot meevechten met de Libische
krijgsheer en massamoordenaar Haftar, waar vrouwen en kinderen worden
ingezet om hand en spandiensten te verrichten aan het front, zoals
het transporteren van munitie……..
Stuitend
te lezen hoe de EU belastinggeld gebruikt om vluchtelingen tegen te
houden, ook al betekent dit voor de vluchtelingen dood, verkrachting,
marteling en slavernij……. Dan te bedenken dat dezelfde EU, zoals de rest van het westen verantwoordelijk is voor de enorme ellende
waarin en groot deel van de Afrikanen moeten leven en datzelfde
westen het continent volpropt met wapens en munitie……
Het
volgende artikel over deze zaak komt van Doorbraak (voor nieuwe
berichten van doorbraak zie de onderkant van deze pagina). Het artikel
bestaat uit een toespraak van Rezager Kurshy, een overlevende van de
genocide in Darfur en zegt het voort: de EU (en daarmee Nederland) is
verantwoordelijk voor gijzeling, slavernij, marteling, verkrachting
en moord….. Ben het overigens niets eens met Kurshy wat betreft de VS, hij gelooft aartsleugenaar en oorlogsmisdadiger Bolton, dat de VS niets te maken heeft met de situatie in Soedan, waar de VS bij praktisch elk conflict over de wereld is betrokken, sterker nog als de VS 25 jaar geleden al genoeg zou hebben gehad van Bashir, was deze figuur al lang en breed vergeten…..
De
huidige situatie in Soedan en de invloed van de EU op de revolutie
Geplaatst
op 3 augustus 2019
Gisteren
hield Doorbraak-activist Rezager Kurshy een toespraak op het No
Border Camp in
Wassenaar. Hier de integrale tekst, vertaald in het Nederlands.
Dit
is een speech door een overlevende van de genocide in Darfur. Ik stel
het erg op prijs dat jullie allemaal gekomen zijn, en wil jullie
bedanken voor jullie empathie, enthousiasme en nieuwsgierigheid.
Het
is schandalig dat mensen als ik nog steeds moeten vechten om veilig
te kunnen leven, zoals elk van jullie leeft in veiligheid. In Soedan
leefden we dertig jaar onder dictator en warlord Al-Bashir. Hij
pleegde genocide in Darfur, het Noeba-gebergte en het Blauwe
Nijl-gebied, hij splitste Soedan op en bood onderdak aan Osama Bin
Laden!!
Al
die tijd werd hij gesteund door het westen om aan de macht te
blijven. Nu is er in Soedan een nieuwe generatie opgestaan en die
gelooft in slechts één zin: “kogels doden niet, stilte wel”.
Met massale protesten staan we op en we hebben Al-Bashir zijn macht
ontnomen.
Burhan
werd president en Hemedti werd zijn vice-president. Hemedti is de
leider van de RSF, ofwel Janjaweed, die de genocide pleegde in
Darfur. Burhan is de voorzitter van de militaire transitieraad in Soedan.
De
Amerikaanse nationale veiligheidsadviseur John Bolton zei dat de
Verenigde Staten niets van doen hebben met Soedan. Maar de EU is wel
heel nauw betrokken bij Soedan, omdat het land op de route ligt van
Oost-Afrikaanse vluchtelingen en migranten op weg naar Europa.
Momenteel gaat het om zo’n vier miljoen mensen. De EU wil hen
tegenhouden. Samen met de Afrikaanse Unie is men daarom het
Khartoem-proces gestart waarbij de EU geld geeft om Afrikanen in
Afrika te houden.
Het
geld dat de EU geeft gaat naar grenscontrole, en raadt eens wie de
grenscontroles doet? De Janjaweed van Hemedti. Die steken dus het
geld in eigen zak. Terwijl ze zelf mensenhandel doen: ze pakken
vluchtelingen en migranten op en verkopen ze aan de Libische
slavenhandelaren! De Libische warlord Haftar heeft kampen opgezet
waar hij hen leert schieten om hen vervolgens naar de frontlinies van
de Libische burgeroorlog te sturen. De vrouwen en kinderen worden
ingezet om water en kogels aan te voeren naar de strijders aan het
front.
Overigens
opende de EU ook een kamp in Niger om daar Afrikaanse vluchtelingen
en migranten op te sluiten. En de Libische ‘kustwacht’ wordt ook
betaald om te voorkomen dat vluchtelingen en migranten Europa
bereiken.
De
EU laat Afrikaanse vluchtelingen en migranten verdrinken, en velen
van hen die Europa wel bereiken, leven op straat en sommigen zitten
zelfs in gevangenissen! Sommigen van hen worden, getraumatiseerd als
ze al zijn, gedeporteerd. En nu horen we steeds meer verhalen van
vluchtelingen en migranten die geslagen en vermoord zijn na hun
deportatie.
We
moeten duidelijk zijn. De EU en haar bondgenoten moeten terug naar de
onderhandelingstafel en hun opvattingen veranderen: we zijn allemaal
menselijke wezens, en wie echt menselijk is, zal nog geen vlieg kwaad
doen. De EU moet onder ogen zien dat Afrikaanse vluchtelingen en
migranten vermoord worden in hun eigen land, in Libië sterven als
sprinkhanen en met duizenden verdrinken in de Middellandse Zee!
Wij
krijgen geen bescherming omdat we geen witte Europeanen zijn! We
komen niet voor ons plezier of zelfs maar om een beter leven te
hebben…. we vluchten om ons leven te redden van de oorlogen!
De
geweren die massamoorden aanrichten zijn niet gemaakt in Soedan. EU,
draai er niet langer om heen: stop met het leveren van geweren aan
Soedan. Wij vluchten vanwege jullie beleid. Als je wilt dat we
stoppen met naar Europa komen, stop dan met het destabiliseren van
onze landen.
Met jullie beleid dwingen jullie ons om te komen. Stop
de oorlog tegen vluchtelingen en migranten. Stop de
migratiebeheersing. Stop het hypocriete beleid dat mensen blijft
vermoorden vanwege geld.
Wie
iets kapot heeft gemaakt, moet helpen om het te repareren. De EU moet
vluchtelingen en migranten helpen om hun landen weer op te bouwen,
helpen om werk te vinden in hun landen, hen onderwijsmogelijkheden
geven, en hen niet aan het lijntje houden. Dan zal niemand naar
Europa komen, behalve misschien voor een vakantie, zoals ook
Europeanen voor vakantie naar Afrika komen.
Ik
ben niet anti-Europees of autoritair, maar ik ben ook een menselijk
wezen. En ik ben ervan overtuigd dat ik recht heb om te leven in de
grote wereld. Ik ben een overlevende van alle ontwikkelingen die ik
schetste. Niemand kan me ervan weerhouden om dat te zeggen. Ik ben
getraumatiseerd en slachtoffer van dit beleid.
Dank
jullie wel. Sorry, nog één gedachte: wij hebben een solidair
netwerk nodig. Ik bedoel: wij als vluchtelingen en migranten, en
jullie als activisten, vechten tegen hetzelfde probleem. Kom
alsjeblieft meedoen met onze demonstraties. Bijvoorbeeld als de
Soedanezen protesteren bij het Internationaal Strafhof (ICC) in Den
Haag. We hebben jullie solidariteit nodig, en we zullen ook naar
jullie activiteiten komen. Nogmaals bedankt en prettig weekeinde.
‘Klokkenluiders
zijn misdadigers’, althans zo kan je concluderen als je ziet hoe men
omgaat met klokkenluiders en de journalisten die smerige zaken van
overheden openbaar maken, neem Snowden, Manning en Winner en
een journalist als Assange……. In Nederland is het niet veel beter, zie het Klokkenluidershuis, een gigantische flop die na een paar jaar niet één zaak heeft weten te onderzoeken, men heeft dan ook in Nederland schijt aan klokkenluiders en ziet ze liever gaan dan komen……
Ook
Frankrijk timmert intussen lustig aan de ‘censuurweg’, zo blijkt uit
het hieronder opgenomen artikel van Middle East Eye (MEE). (door mij overgenomen van Anti-Media)
Drie
Franse journalisten van Disclose en Radio France, is de wacht
aangezegd over het publiceren uit gelekte overheidsdocumenten
over leveringen van wapens aan Saoedi-Arabië, wapens die worden
gebruikt tegen het Jemenitische volk, wapens waarmee een genocide
wordt uitgevoerd op sjiitische Jemenieten……..
De drie weigeren hun bron vrij te geven en was er geen verandering in wetgeving doorgevoerd in 2009, had de overheid hen niets kunnen maken, echter ze zouden nu kunnen worden veroordeeld tot een gevangenisstraf van vijf jaar en een stevige boete…….
Eerder loog Frankrijk niets van doen te hebben met de smerige oorlog tegen de sjiitische Jemenieten, een oorlog die zoals gezegd is uitgedraaid op een genocide…….
Met deze
dreiging schaart ook Frankrijk zich in een rij van landen, die het
jaarrond de bek vol hebben van vrijheid van meningsuiting,
transparantie, democratie en….. persvrijheid, terwijl deze landen, naast Frankrijk: Hongarije, Roemenië, Tsjechië, Polen en Italië* en de grootste
westerse ‘staat’ de VS, zichzelf schuldig maken aan de schending van
de genoemde zaken, niet zo vreemd als je ziet dat deze landen fascistisch worden geregeerd…….. (uitermate beangstigend te zien dat ‘democratische westerse staten’ steeds meer fascistoïde beleid overnemen, zoals het invoeren van vormen van censuur….)
Met een
machtiger EU, dat o.a. de Franse neoliberale schoft Macron bepleit,
gaan we af op een grote fascistische superstaat……… Mocht deze fractie in
de EU zo groot worden dat het zonder een coalitie kan regeren, heeft
men in de EU alvast diverse zaken op orde gebracht voor een fascistische machtsovername,
niet alleen de persvrijheid die geweld wordt aangedaan, de censuur van alternatieve media, of het
criminaliseren van klokkenluiders, maar ook de afbraak van privacy,
het bijna klokrond kunnen volgen van mensen middels camera’s in
stedelijk gebied, zelfs tot achter de voordeur (middels computer,
laptop, notebook, tablet en smartphone…).. Voorts zie je in de EU
steeds vaker militairen op straat die politietaken uitoefenen…..
Zelfs de
hernieuwde demonisering van Rusland en China is in het belang van
fascisten, zo staat de NAVO onder militair opperbevel van de VS
volkomen illegaal langs een groot deel van de Russische
westgrens…….
Hitler
en zijn terreurbende zouden hebben gekwijld bij de hiervoor
beschreven situatie in het begin van hun terreurbewind en de situatie die ze aan zouden treffen na de invallen in andere Europese landen, zoals een aantal van de huidige EU-lidstaten……..
Ga je nog stemmen, stem dan Partij voor de Dieren of SP, beiden fatsoenlijke partijen, die de EU voor een fiks deel willen uitkleden.
France
Threatens Journalists With Jail Time for Exposing Government Lies
About Yemen
French
journalists could face up to five years in prison and be fined up to
$83,000
(MEE) — France
has threatened three French journalists with potential jail time for
using secret documents to reveal the country’s involvement in the
Yemen civil war.
In
a series
of reports published
in April, investigative journalists from Disclose and Radio
France revealed the number of French arms sold to Saudi Arabia
and the United Arab Emirates.
The
documents, authored by France’s Directorate of Military
Intelligence (DSGI), showed that senior French officials had lied
about the role of French weapons in the Yemen War.
Following
the publication of the reports in April, Disclose’s co-founders
Geoffrey Livolsi and Mathias Destal and Radio France
journalist Benoît Collombat were asked to attend a hearing at
the DSGI headquarters in Paris.
The
three journalists refused to reveal their sources after being
questioned by the DSGI on the origin of the document, their work and
posts on Facebook and Twitter.
The
journalists used the hearing to defend press freedom and how it
was in the public interest to publish details from the leaked DSGI
document.
Press
Freedom has been protected for more than 130 years under the Press
Law of 1881, which gives journalists the right to keep sources
confidential.
But
the law, however, does not cover national security and the
journalists could be sentenced under a 2009 French law that considers
as an offence the handling of a classified
document without clearance or proper authorisation.
If
convicted, the journalists could face five years in prison and a
$83,000 fine. The case could be closed by the DSGI or be handed to a
judge who could take the case to trial.
Paul
Coppin, the head of Reporters Without Border’s (RSF) legal unit,
criticised the DSGI for attempting to prosecute the French
journalists.
In
a statement published on the RSF
website,
Coppin described the case as a “matter of legitimate public
interest”.
“We
are concerned that the sole aim of this hearing is to use the threat
of prosecution to put pressure on these journalists to reveal their
source,” said Paul Coppin.
“As
it is legally unable to force them to disclose the identity of their
source, the prosecutor’s office is using the possibility of a
charge of compromising national defence secrecy, a charge punishable
by five years in prison and a fine of 75,000 euros [$83,750].
“The
mere fact of threatening such a prosecution for publishing
information in the public interest would in itself constitute a
serious violation of the public’s right to be informed.”
Yemen’s
civil war has killed or injured more than 17,900 civilians** and
triggered a famine that has taken the lives of an estimated 85,000
children.
Campaigners
have argued that arms supplied by other Western countries,
including the United States and Britain, have been used by
the Saudi-led coalition to commit human rights abuses as they fight
against Iran-backed Houthi rebels.
* Dit keer heb ik Oostenrijk niet genoemd, nadat de fascistenleider daar een paar dagen geleden is betrapt met misdadig gedrag, er zou nu een overgangsregering worden gevormd in dit land. Overigens buiten Europa zijn er meerdere landen die ronduit fascistisch worden geregeerd: Turkije, de Filipijnen, Brazilië, Argentinië, Colombia, nog wat andere staten in Latijns-Amerika en (Zuidoost-) Azië en uiteraard in het Midden-Oosten de staten Israël (sinds 2018 zelfs officieel na aanname van de natiestaatwet), Saoedi-Arabië, Egypte en de verenigde Arabische Emiraten (VAE)…..
** Naar eerdere berichten van andere bronnen zou het werkelijke aantal Jemenitische doden al ver boven de 400.000 liggen……
Voor meer berichten over Jemen, censuur, Assange, Wikileaks, klokkenluiders en fascisme, klik op het desbetreffende label, direct onder dit bericht. Let
wel: na een aantal berichten wordt het laatst gelezen bericht telkens
herhaald, dan onder dat laatst gelezen bericht even opnieuw op het
gekozen label klikken, enz. enz.
PS: ook Nederland levert nog steeds onderdelen van wapensystemen aan de reli-fascistische terreurstaat Saoedi-Arabië.
Geen
nieuws eigenlijk, het bericht waarin Christophe Deloire, directeur van
Reporters Without Borders (RSF), heeft gesteld dat het vermoorden van
journalisten door de (nu officieel) fascistische apartheidsstaat Israël, met opzet gebeurde…… Deloire wijst zoals o.a. al vaker op deze
plek gesteld, op de kleding van de journalisten, waarop duidelijk te
lezen was dat het om journalisten ging, bovendien was duidelijk te
zien dat ze fotograferend aan het werk waren…..
Hetzelfde
geldt overigens voor de medisch hulpverleners en de arts die door het Israëlische leger werden vermoord, ook zij waren duidelijk te
herkennen door aanduidingen op hun kleding en bovendien verleenden ze
medische hulp op het moment dat ze werden vermoord door een stel
psychopathische moordenaars……..
De 54
kinderen die Israël heeft vermoord sinds The Great Return March vorig
jaar begon, spreken voor zich, zij hebben geen speciale aanduiding op
hun kleding nodig om te zien wat ze zijn en zelfs zij waren niet
veilig voor de vreselijke en laffe terreur van Israël tegen het
verdrukte Palestijnse volk…… Nog even voor alle duidelijkheid: de Palestijnse protesten i.h.k.v. The Great Return March zijn geweldloos…….
RSF
heeft volkomen terecht een klacht neergelegd bij het Internationaal
Strafhof (ICC), het vermoorden van journalisten, zeker tijdens hun
werk, is een oorlogsmisdaad….. Jammer genoeg is het ICC een meer
dan lam orgaan en het is maar zeer de vraag of men daar een
onderzoek zal beginnen, immers de VS erkent het hof niet en deze
beschermheer van de bloedige staat Israël zal zeker niet blij zijn
met een onderzoek naar oorlogsmisdaden begaan door zijn
beschermeling……
Onlangs
stopte het ICC zelfs een onderzoek naar oorlogsmisdaden in
Afghanistan begaan door de VS, daar de VS afzonderlijke leden van het
ICC bedreigde…… Overigens, het ICC zou vorig jaar een onderzoek zijn gestart naar oorlogsmisdaden door Israël begaan,
over die zaak hoor je helemaal niets meer……..
(MEMO) —
The director-general of Reporters Without Borders (RSF) said
yesterday that the Israeli army had deliberately targeted journalists
in the occupied Gaza Strip.
Christophe
Deloire was speaking to the
Jerusalem Post,
having received the Dan David Prize in Tel Aviv on behalf of the
international press freedoms watchdog.
“It
is a war crime to target journalists because they are journalists,”
Deloire told the paper. “When
Israel
shot those journalists [during the Great Return March protests], it
was intentional.”
“The
journalists could be clearly identified as journalists, with cameras
and jackets and it could not be just by chance,” he added.
Israeli
forces attack Palestinian journalists and protesters in the Gaza
Strip on 4 September 2018 [Dawoud Abo Alkas/Apaimages]
Referring
to the United Nations’ Commission of Inquiry into the Gaza
protests, Deloire pointed out that the report “confirmed
what we already considered a fact”.
According
to the
Jerusalem Post,
last week RSF formally asked the International Criminal Court (ICC)
to investigate suspected war crimes by the Israeli military against
Palestinian journalists covering protests
in Gaza since 30
March 2018.
At
the time, Deloire stated that “the Israeli authorities could not
have been unaware of the presence of journalists among the civilian
demonstrators, and therefore failed in the elementary duty of
precaution and differentiation when targeting these protected persons
with live rounds.”
“These
deliberate and repeated violations of international humanitarian law
constitute war crimes,” the statement continued.
The
RSF chief also had a warning for Israelis about deteriorating press
freedoms at home.
“I
am sure it does not happen in many countries that you have billboards
with faces of journalists mentioning that they will not decide,”
Deloire told the paper, a reference to Likud election posters.
Deloire
also criticised the prohibition on Israeli journalists entering the
Gaza Strip, and added: “There is freedom in Israel… but editorial
independence is not guaranteed.”
![Palestinian journalist and Palestinian protesters gather during clashes with Israeli troops following a protest against the United States decision to stop funding and backing the United Nations agency for Palestinian refugees (UNRWA) at the Erez crossing with Israel in the northern Gaza Strip on 4 September, 2018 [Dawoud Abo Alkas/Apaimages]](https://i0.wp.com/www.middleeastmonitor.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/040918_DK_00-13.jpg?resize=1200%2C800&quality=75&strip=all&ssl=1)
