The improper persecution of Julian Assange continues despite the Bogus Swedish sex charges being dropped

Squire

Active member
The UK government is leading the crimes against Assange by holding him in detention despite the fact that his extradition to the USA was denied by the court.

The Australian government is equally damned for not doing anything to assist Assange.

https://independentaustralia.net/po...l-to-get-their-hands-on-julian-assange-,15308

U.S. to appeal to get their hands on Julian Assange
By Binoy Kampmark | 19 July 2021, 12:00pm | 20 comments | 1,077 |

Julian Assange has endured much pain over the last decade as the U.S. has unjustly pursued him (image via YouTube)
On 7 July, the UK High Court of Justice agreed to hear an appeal from the U.S. Government on narrow grounds, though no date has been set for those proceedings.

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), representing the U.S. Government, is challenging District Court Judge Vanessa Baraitser’s ruling that Julian Assange not be extradited for health and medical reasons.

The original judgment accepted the defence’s evidence that Assange was a suicide risk and that the conditions of detention in a U.S. supermax prison facility might well exacerbate it.

There was also a:

'... real risk that … Assange will be subject to restrictive special administrative measures [SAMs].'

The result of such measures would see his mental health:

'... deteriorate to the point where he will commit suicide with the "single minded determination" described by Dr [Quinton] Deeley.'

She was further:

'... satisfied that Mr Assange’s suicidal impulses will come from his psychiatric diagnoses rather than his own voluntary act ... it would be oppressive to extradite [Assange] to the United States of America.'

The submissions by the prosecution are not publicly available, but they have been reviewed by the very able Kevin Gosztola of Shadowproof.

The prosecution contends that the Judge erred in law in determining that Assange’s extradition would be an oppressive measure. The Judge should have also been forthcoming to the U.S. Government of her concerns or “provisional view” of the risk posed to Assange and sought relevant “assurances”.

This latter point is disingenuous; the case by the U.S. Department of Justice (DoJ) was based on shoddy assertions by prosecutors and expert witnesses who betrayed their ignorance about the role played by SAMs and supermax prison conditions.

Julian Assange still not in the clear from prosecution or persecution
District Justice Vanessa Baraitser gave supporters of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange a surprise on Monday in blocking the request for extradition by the U.S.

But in making their appeal, the prosecutors were all sweetness, suggesting that SAMs would not be imposed on Assange in pre-trial detention or, should he be convicted, in prison. Feeling the need to draw the line somewhere, they would not promise that other forms of isolation of administrative segregation would not be used.

While Assange would not necessarily find himself incarcerated at the ADX Florence in Colorado, it would depend on any “future act” that would qualify.

As for how Assange would be treated medically, the CPS made another weak promise that he would:

'... receive clinical and psychological treatment as is recommended by a qualified clinician employed or retained by the prison.'

The prosecutors were also willing to give another assurance they refused to test at trial. Assange would be allowed to avail himself of the Council of Europe Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons in brokering a prisoner transfer to Australia.

The DoJ would give their consent to any such arrangement.

Assange’s defence lawyers were clearly sceptical about the prosecution’s motives:

'They had every opportunity to offer such an assurance at the extradition hearing, since the relevant Council of Europe treaty has been in operation for many years.'

Any such proceeding pursuant to the treaty, in any case:

'... could not take place until the conclusion of the trial and all appellate processes, which are obviously likely to be very prolonged.'

As this was taking place, the publisher would face conditions of isolation 'in an alien and hostile environment far from his family'.

The prosecutors further sought to weaken Judge Baraitser’s judgment by again targeting the testimony of Professor Michael Kopelman, whose evidence they had attempted to discredit with almost manic enthusiasm.

That less than noble effort involved claiming that Assange “had a strong incentive to feign or exaggerate his symptoms” aided by his consultation of “scientific journals”. The prosecution also accused Kopelman being partial to Assange, having deliberately concealed 'information that he had been told about Mr Assange’s partner Stella Moris and their children'.

JOHN PILGER: Eyewitness to the agony of Julian Assange
John Pilger has watched Julian Assange’s extradition trial from the public gallery at London’s Old Bailey.

Judge Baraitser conceded in her judgment that the concealment was:

'... misleading and inappropriate in the context of his obligations to the court, but an understandable human response.'

She accepted Professor Kopelman’s view that:

'Assange suffers from recurrent depressive disorder, which was severe in December 2019 and sometimes accompanied by psychotic features [hallucinations], often with ruminative suicidal ideas.'

The defence countered in their submission against the appealing prosecutors that Baraitser had not erred in law in concluding that Assange’s “suicidal impulses” would stem from his “psychiatric condition” and would not be the result of “his own voluntary act”.

The “attack” on Kopelman also failed to:

'... recognise the entitlement of the primary decision-maker to reach her own decision on the weight to be attached to the expert evidence of the defence on the one hand and the prosecution experts on the other.'

In a statement in response to the High Court decision, Moris recalled the miscellany of glaring defects in the case against her partner: the fabricated testimony of lead DoJ witness Sigurdur Thordarson; nefarious suggestions that Assange be assassinated by U.S. agents; surveillance of his legal team and the theft of legal documents; and, for good measure, threats against the family.

She asserted:

'The case is rotten to the core, and nothing that the U.S. Government can say about his future treatment is worth the paper it is written on.'

Moris’s reference to Thordarson is important since it forms an important part of the prosecution case claiming that Assange was more a hacker than a journalist and inclined to recruit people to that cause with an ideologue’s enthusiasm.

The argument is designed to neutralise any protections the publisher might have under the free speech amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

JOHN PILGER: Julian Assange's Stalinist trial mocks democracy
John Pilger gave this address outside the Central Criminal Court in London on September 7 as Julian Assange's extradition hearing entered its final stage.

The indictment alleges that Assange, in early 2010 and while in contact with Chelsea Manning for reasons of obtaining 'classified information … met a 17-year old ... who provided [him] with data stolen from a bank'.

The indictment asserts that Assange asked the teenager in question:

'... to commit computer intrusions and steal additional information, including audio recordings of phone conversations between high-ranking officials of the Government of NATO Country-1, including members of the Parliament of NATO Country-1.'

In 2011, Thordarson caught the eye of the Federal Bureau of Investigation after planning a distributed denial-of-service attack on an Icelandic website in concert with Hector Xavier Monsegur.

Monsegur, posing as a member of the hacking outfit LulzSec, had turned informant. With his touted links to WikiLeaks and Assange, the FBI sought the teenager’s services. Thordarson had never been much more than a volunteer with the mundane task of raising revenue for WikiLeaks, though he left an enduring mark by embezzling over $50,000 from the organisation’s coffers.

In an interview with the Icelandic biweekly Stundin last month, the witness who has had an inglorious record of fraud, embezzlement and abusing minors revealed that 'that Assange never asked him to hack or to access phone recordings of MPs'.

Thordarson now insists that he had:

'... received some files from a third party who claimed to have recorded MPs and had offered to share them with Assange without having any idea what they actually contained.'

He never went through the files, nor verified whether they had audio recordings as claimed by the third-party source. The allegation that Assange instructed him to access computers in order to find such recordings was also dismissed.

Despite all this, the sham theatre of British justice continues. Assange, his health fragile, remains locked up in Belmarsh prison, all previous bail applications refused. Despite January’s ruling against extradition, the Biden Administration is still keen to get their man.
 

Squire

Active member
I say they keep him. The stupid prick is getting what he deserves
The initial bogus sex charges against Assange were so appallingly corrupt it has exposed the Swedish government to perpetual shame for their crimes.

John, you have become a victim of the establishment and a minority.

The UN, which represents 100% of the world population ruled that the original detention of Assange and the prior isolation in the Ecuador embassy was an injustice.

Assange is a journalist and a fighter for freedom of speech.

The USA is appealing the UK court decision not to extradite Assange. Assange is still denied his freedom while the appeal is in process. The USA is in no hurry to end this, neither is the UK establishment. It is the compounding of injustice on injustice.

"Experts agree that a successful prosecution of Assange would undermine the First Amendment, and would particularly cripple investigative journalism."

https://www.businessinsider.com/if-we-care-about-free-press-we-must-defend-assange-2020-12

If we care about a free press, we must defend Assange
Ben Cohen , Opinion Contributor Jan 2, 2021, 9:36 PM

A judge will rule on January 4, 2021 on whether Assange should be extradited to the US. Reuters
The US wants to extradite Julian Assange from the UK to face unprecedented charges for publishing government documents leaked by Chelsea Manning in 2010.
The indictment could put Assange in prison for 175 years and could mark the end of First Amendment protections on journalism everywhere.
Prosecuting Assange for exposing war crimes and human rights abuses is a threat to free speech, press freedoms, the public's right to know, and the ability to hold our government accountable.
Ben Cohen is an activist, businessman, and cofounder of Ben and Jerry's. He divides his time between AssangeDefense.org, @DropTheMic2020, and working to end qualified immunity.
This is an opinion column. The thoughts expressed are those of the author.

With each passing day, it becomes more obvious that President Donald Trump views the media as his enemy. But with the pandemic, criminal justice reform, the presidential election, and now COVID-19 relief bill talks dominating headlines, little attention has been paid to the long-term damage caused by Trump's hatred of a free press.

Right now, Julian Assange, the publisher of WikiLeaks, is facing an extradition trial in England because Trump's Justice Department has hit him with an unprecedented indictment — seeking 175 years in prison for what experts consider customary newsgathering and publishing activities.

The Trump Justice Department is seeking to criminalize WikiLeaks' revelations that exposed war crimes, civilian casualties, torture, illegal surveillance, government lies, and corporate corruption. While the US government misled the country into tragic wars and concealed its actions, brave whistleblowers turned to WikiLeaks to share the truth with the public. For their efforts, WikiLeaks and Assange have received numerous journalism and human rights awards.

Charging Assange sets a dangerous precedent for the freedom of press
I had the privilege of meeting Assange during his time in the Ecuadorian embassy. Assange cares deeply about the public's right to know what governments do in their name. He cares about peace. He thought that by bringing this information to light, he could make the world a better place by bringing an end to foolish wars. Call him naive if you want, but he is not our enemy. The world needs individuals with Assange's passion and commitment to truth.

The American Civil Liberties Union's (ACLU) Ben Wizner warns that the charges against Assange are "an extraordinary escalation of the Trump administration's attacks on journalism, and a direct assault on the First Amendment."

The Trump Justice Department and its defenders rationalize this assault on press freedom with smoke and mirrors. They distract the public by changing the subject with what Noam Chomsky and Alice Walker call "inconsequential personality profiles." They downplay the danger of this indictment by suggesting that Assange is not a journalist. Even if you ignore the countless journalism awards WikiLeaks received and the full-throated condemnation of the charges from journalism organizations, this rhetorical sleight of hand is easy to see through. WikiLeaks is a journalistic enterprise that takes a more transparent approach than most, providing readers with curated source documents alongside more conventional reporting.

These semantic arguments over whether someone is a journalist or not miss the point. Journalism isn't about where you work. It's about what you do. Trevor Timm, founder of the Freedom of the Press Foundation, testified at Assange's extradition: "In the US, the First Amendment protects everyone. Whether you consider Assange a journalist doesn't matter, he was engaging in journalistic activity." Most importantly, the conduct Assange has been indicted for is textbook "journalistic behavior": communicating with sources and gathering, possessing, and publishing sensitive information.

The danger of criminalizing journalistic behavior extends far beyond WikiLeaks. This is why the Obama Justice Department did not indict Assange. They "looked hard" at him, but decided that charging Assange would create a "New York Times problem" — opening up to prosecution all news organizations who receive leaks or publish stories based on them.

Experts agree that a successful prosecution of Assange would undermine the First Amendment, and would particularly cripple investigative journalism. All journalism aims to inform the public, but what makes investigative journalism so vital to democracy is its power to inform us about what is deliberately hidden from our view.

Criminalizing journalism is 'killing the messenger'
The saying "don't kill the messenger" is as old as civilization itself, but we forget to take it to heart sometimes. People blast the bearers of bad news for "blaming America," as if being honest with ourselves is something shameful. Greatness depends on our willingness to look ourselves in the mirror and right the wrongs in our lives and in our society.

Without a free press shining light on the government, we are unable to hold our government accountable. Freedom of the press and freedom of speech are necessary for us to form opinions and choose leaders. Without the information that a free press provides, we can only stumble around in the dark, blind to the realities of the world and the conduct of our government. A blind public is unable to see society's problems, let alone fix them.

If we care about a free press, we must defend Assange
The Washington Post's Bob Woodward's revelations that Trump misled the public on the dangers of COVID-19 should serve as a stark reminder of the important role journalists play in our democracy. And the reports that Trump offered Assange a pardon if he would publicly exonerate his campaign (and Russia) over the DNC leaks are a huge red flag.


If the reports are true, then Assange chose to not lie for Trump, and as a result he is now the first journalist in our history to be indicted for publishing truthful information. You don't have to like Assange personally or be happy with the stories WikiLeaks has broken, but if we care about a free press, we must defend Assange.

As we transition to a new administration, we should remember the previous one. The Obama-Biden record on war, transparency, and whistleblowers was not perfect, but President Obama respected democracy. He did not make the press his enemy. And even though the WikiLeaks disclosures embarrassed his administration, Obama showed restraint by not prosecuting Assange.

All citizens, regardless of their politics, should be outraged. But I don't want to tell people that they should be outraged; I want to give them information that makes them outraged — that their government is escalating its war on journalism.

After all, a war on journalists is not just a war on the messenger. It is a war on some of America's most important legal, cultural, and political traditions. It is a war on our right to know and our ability to participate in important debates. It's a war on democracy itself.
 

johnsmith

Moderator
Staff member
Assange has a rather slanted idea of “freedom of speech.”
he doesn't give a shit about freedom of speech, he was only concerned with getting his name in lights.
Then when he was offered help he crapped on the people who helped him .... literally.
They should lock him up and throw away the key
 

Squire

Active member
I'm no ones victim

You on the other hand have fallen for the 'govt is the enemy' crap that is usually reserved for conspiracy theorists
Unfortunately, John, your denial lacks credibility.

You are a consumer and propagator of political dogma and propaganda and you are a follower of the easy path.

The world would be a more wretched place without the good done by Assange and Wikileaks.
 

Squire

Active member
“If extradited to the United States, he faces a sentence of up to 175 years imprisonment under inhumane conditions of near total isolation,” Mr. Melzer added.

"Mr. Assange has been subjected to more than 10 years of arbitrary detention and political persecution. During a visit conducted to Belmarsh Prison in 2019, the rights expert and a specialized medical team found that Mr. Assange showed all the symptoms typical for prolonged exposure to psychological torture."

"Mr. Melzer also said that the the judgement failed to recognize that Mr. Assange’s deplorable state of health is the “direct consequence of a decade of deliberate and systematic violation of his most fundamental human rights by the Governments of the United States, the United Kingdom, Sweden and Ecuador.”

https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/01/1081442

UN human rights expert ‘cautiously’ welcomes UK court’s refusal to extradite Julian Assange

5 January 2021
Human Rights

An independent UN human rights expert has welcomed a British court’s refusal to extradite Wikileaks founder Julian Assange to the United States on the basis that he would be exposed to oppressive conditions of imprisonment.

In a news release on Tuesday, Nils Melzer, UN Special Rapporteur on torture, noted that such conditions would almost certainly cause Mr. Assange to commit suicide.

“This ruling confirms my own assessment that, in the United States, Mr. Assange would be exposed to conditions of detention, which are widely recognized to amount to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment,” said the Special Rapporteur.

The Wikileaks founder is currently being held in prolonged solitary confinement at Belmarsh Prison in London under a US extradition request for espionage and computer fraud.

On Wednesday, a district judge ruled against granting bail to Mr. Assange while he continues to fight extradition, the US having appealed the UK court's decision.

“If extradited to the United States, he faces a sentence of up to 175 years imprisonment under inhumane conditions of near total isolation,” Mr. Melzer added.

According to the news release, the Special Rapporteur repeatedly expressed in individual communications and statements that Mr. Assange has been subjected to more than 10 years of arbitrary detention and political persecution. During a visit conducted to Belmarsh Prison in 2019, the rights expert and a specialized medical team found that Mr. Assange showed all the symptoms typical for prolonged exposure to psychological torture.

An alarming precedent
At the same time, Monday’s court judgement sets an alarming precedent effectively denying investigative journalists the protection of press freedom and paving the way for their prosecution under charges of espionage, Mr. Melzer said.

“I am gravely concerned that the judgement confirms the entire, very dangerous rationale underlying the US indictment, which effectively amounts to criminalizing national security journalism,” added the rights expert.

The US has announced it will appeal the judgment, but welcomed the judge's dismissal of all arguments in defence of Mr. Assange based on press freedom, the public interest in the exposure of government misconduct, the prohibition of political offence extraditions, and the US failure to provide fair trials to national security defendants, according to the news release.

I am gravely concerned that the judgement confirms the entire, very dangerous rationale underlying the US indictment, which effectively amounts to criminalizing national security journalism – Nils Melzer

“This is of great concern,” said Mr. Melzer, adding that “none of these questions will now be reviewed by the Appeals Court, as the only issue at stake will be Mr. Assange's medical fitness to withstand US conditions of detention.”

“Should the US provide assurances that Mr. Assange will be treated humanely, his extradition could potentially be confirmed on appeal without any meaningful review of the very serious legal concerns raised by this case,” he said.

Failure to denounce persecution
Mr. Melzer also said that the the judgement failed to recognize that Mr. Assange’s deplorable state of health is the “direct consequence of a decade of deliberate and systematic violation of his most fundamental human rights by the Governments of the United States, the United Kingdom, Sweden and Ecuador.”

He added that the failure of the judgment to denounce and redress the persecution and torture of Mr. Assange, leaves fully intact the intended intimidating effect on journalists and whistle-blowers worldwide who may be tempted to publish secret evidence for war crimes, corruption and other government misconduct.

“Mr. Assange must now be immediately set free, rehabilitated and compensated for the abuse and arbitrariness he has been exposed to,” said Mr. Melzer, adding that Mr. Assange could await the final judgement in a setting where he can recover his health and live a normal family and professional life.

“Hopefully this judgement will put an end to the persecution and imprisonment of Mr. Julian Assange as an individual. But in the big picture it sets a devastating precedent severely undermining press freedom, accountability and the rule of law,” the Special Rapporteur added.

Special Rapporteurs are part of what is known as the Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council. The experts work on a voluntary basis; they are not UN staff and do not receive a salary. They are independent from any government or organization and serve in their individual capacity.
 

mothra

Administrator
Staff member
I disagree strongly that Sweden acted in any improper fashion. He broke Swedish law, knowingly. Twice.

In breaking Swedish law, he also broke the laws of morality and ethics. He's a brazen misogynist with a god complex.

He is a pile of shit.

He also, knowingly, put many people's actual lives in danger.

All that said, the US cannot have him. They're just being ridiculous. He has become the poster child, however odious that may be, for journalistic freedom. It's more important for the greater good that he is cleared than it if he rots away.

And for my two cents, he doesn't deserve to rot away. He deserved to be taken down a peg or two and answer for the lives he endangered, i think this has been accomplished.

Enough already.
 

Squire

Active member
The sex charges in Sweden were a corrupt conspiracy between the USA and the government of Sweden.

The two women involved are publicly criticized by many for their actions.

The two women knew each other and conspired before filing charges several days after the alleged events.

Both women alleged that Assange had sex with them without a condom or that he deliberately sabotaged a condom in Ardin's case. In neither case did either of the women claim that they strongly protested against the alleged acts at the time of the alleged offenses, and in fact only did so after exchanging stories with each other.

The charges were nonsensical:

Coercion, Sexual Molestation, Rape (Sweden)
Back in 2010, the international public prosecution office in Gothenburg, Sweden issued an arrest warrant for Assange after two women came forward with allegations of sexual misconduct. The women, who knew each other and Assange, had similar stories of encounters that began consensually but allegedly devolved into coercive and even violent experiences. Swedish police wanted to question the WikiLeaks founder on suspicion of rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion stemming from the incidents with the women, who were referred to by the initials AA and SW. The warrant that was eventually issued detailed four alleged offenses:

Unlawful coercion – On 13-14 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [AA] in Stockholm, Assange, by using violence, forced the injured party to endure his restricting her freedom of movement. The violence consisted in a firm hold of the injured party’s arms and a forceful spreading of her legs whilst lying on top of her and with his body weight preventing her from moving or shifting.
Sexual molestation: On 13-14 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [AA] in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity. Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her without her knowledge.
Sexual molestation: On 18 August 2010 or on any of the days before or after that date, in the home of the injured party [AA] in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity i.e. lying next to her and pressing his naked, erect penis to her body.
Rape – On 17 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [SW] in Enköping, Assange deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state. It is an aggravating circumstance that Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, still consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her. The sexual act was designed to violate the injured party’s sexual integrity.
 

Squire

Active member
Both women conspired and went to the police some 10 days after the incidents and asked if the police could compel Assange to have an STD test. It appears Anna Ardin bullied the other women into the visit to the police.

The Swedish prosecutor decided to charge Assange with sex crimes despite the fact that neither of the victims had filed such a complaint.

Assange first went to the police and was informed they didn't need anything from him and advised him he could leave Sweden and then dropped the case. The Swedish government then reinstated the case and issued an Interpol red notice which is the highest level of arrest notice Interpol issues and is usually applied to terrorists.

Anna Ardin and Sofia Wilen are the criminals in the Assange case.

An Interpol red notice for an unprotected sex case? You've got to be kidding. The Swedish government was evidently involved in conspiracy with the US government.
 
Last edited:

johnsmith

Moderator
Staff member
Unfortunately, John, your denial lacks credibility.
you keep telling yourself that .. in the meantime, here's a list of websites you might find interesting

 

Squire

Active member
you keep telling yourself that .. in the meantime, here's a list of websites you might find interesting

Thanks for listing your favorite sites John. I won't visit because you deserve all the available bandwidth.

I wouldn't want to squelch John's thirst for the exotic.

Julian Assange is a great Australian.
 

Squire

Active member
Dear John, please consider:

"The Julian Assange Media Blackout Must End"

I tried to post an article and the Polanimal BBS provider blocked it.

The US government is blocking the publication of information about the case in the USA.

Error message:
Oops! We ran into some problems.
Oops! We ran into some problems. Please try again later. More error details may be in the browser console.

The US government is blocking publication in the USA of information in the USA and Australia.
 
Last edited:

Squire

Active member
not me mate ... Anyone who believes in conspiracy theory needs their heads checked. ANY of them. Including the conspiracy against Julian Assange

I wish there was a media blackout ... then I wouldn't need to keep hearing about the dickhead
John, let me guess your favorite Microsoft Windows feature ... the blue screen of death.
 

mothra

Administrator
Staff member
The sex charges in Sweden were a corrupt conspiracy between the USA and the government of Sweden.

The two women involved are publicly criticized by many for their actions.

The two women knew each other and conspired before filing charges several days after the alleged events.

Both women alleged that Assange had sex with them without a condom or that he deliberately sabotaged a condom in Ardin's case. In neither case did either of the women claim that they strongly protested against the alleged acts at the time of the alleged offenses, and in fact only did so after exchanging stories with each other.

The charges were nonsensical:

The charges were not a corrupt conspiracy. He, having bragged repeatedly to numerous people that he desired to impregnate as many women as possible so as to spread his seed far and wide, had coercive sex with a woman without using a condom, against her express wishes. Then, to add insult to injury, despite repeated requests, refused to submit to STD testing so as to put her mind at ease.

He is scum. Squire. He's a misogynist, a narcissist and a bully. Don't kid yourself otherwise.
 

Squire

Active member
Assange may be a narcissist but he has still been dealt an injustice.

Anna Ardin and Sofia Wilen were stooges of US spooks.

The governments of Sweden and the UK are corrupt and eager to do the bidding of US spooks.

John Smith has surrendered himself as a hostage to an army of quadriplegic civil servants chanting conservative slogans and dogma to pacify John and to ensure his continued obedience and obeisance to the deep state.
 
Last edited:
Top