BAC News: Beeb Reports from the Courts
US barristers barrage the court with Assange arguments so tired they fall asleep
Published: 2024-02-22
Updated 2024-02-23: Additional links to useful reports were added. See sources.
The previous report from BAC News.
NB: If you are unfamiliar with Cryptome in the context of Wikileaks, please see this morning's article.
If you would like a real report on the court, Mohamed Elmaazi has written one. See also, Joe Lauria and/or Chris Hedges and/or Craig Murray.
But, without further ado, here’s BAC News …
Announcer: This evening our special correspondent in London, Beeb, brings us a hidden report from the courts.
How has the US case to extradite our hero to the US for the crime of journalism been going, Beeb?
Beeb: Julian Assange "put lives at risk" by releasing classified US documents and should be extradited to face justice, a High Court hearing has been told.
Announcer: Oh, that line again. Nothing illegal about that, say the US Supreme court back in the Pentagon Papers days, so that's a pretty poor start. Technically, it fails the dual criminality test, but lets leave the legal fine points to the judges.
Beeb: Lawyers for the US said Mr Assange revealed the names of sources when he used Wikileaks to release unredacted files on the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.
A: Yeah, that was John Young, from Cryptome, who the US has not gone after, so that's a red herring. Before we move on, may I just point out that Assange did not 'use' Wikileaks, he created it, and that the files were not ‘released’ but published.
Was there any substance to the court room performance today?
B: The hearing is the latest in his five-year battle to fight extradition.
A: Beeb, the man is fighting for his freedom. Four states ganged up on him, the UK, Sweden, the US and Ecuador (by revoking his asylum), or so said Nils Melzer, who had never seen this before. But, continue.
B: On Tuesday his lawyers said the US case was "state retaliation" and therefore extradition would be against UK law.
If his appeal is turned down, Mr Assange, 52, could be extradited within weeks.
A: Yes, Beeb, could we get to the 'news' bit?
B: The US legal team told the court that Mr Assange faces allegations he encouraged and assisted Chelsea Manning, a US intelligence analyst, in obtaining around 400,000 Iraq war-related activity reports and 250,000 US State Department cables.
A: Aaaah, Beeb, I can fill you in on something here. Manning needed no 'assistance'. Manning had the clearance to access the records. The US knows this, so they are misleading the court, which judges get pretty upset about. So that's a risky strategy. As for 'encouraged', a list of investigative journalists longer than you arm have stated that this is exactly what investigative journalists do as a matter of course. Its it not illegal. It is investigative journalism.
We can also expect that the judges would have been roundly unimpressed by the prosecution implying that they can't read, by reading history at them.
Its seems that the US have hired some incompetent lawyers, or that their case is pathetic, or both.
B: Many were published unredacted through WikiLeaks.
A: See above regarding Cryptome. This is crap, and the judges were informed about this yesterday. So, more embarrassment for the US lawyers there.
B: Clair Dobbin KC said the plans to extradite and prosecute Mr Assange, who founded Wikileaks, were based on his alleged actions, not his political opinions.
A: And that was the best Bobbin could do?!! One's actions can be political. The judges could just take a look at the street outside the court.
B: She said there were "profound consequences", with some of the named sources in the documents, who had provided information to the US, facing arrest, the loss of assets, threats and harassment.
A: Really? So, they've toned down the 'death' version to 'facing arrest' and 'threats' have they? Well, the repeated counter of citing the evidence given in Mannings' military trial, at which the US admitted that nobody died, must finally have made it to Bobbin's brain.
B: "This wasn't a slip, or an error, this was the publication of a vast amount of material unredacted," Ms Dobbin told the hearing.
A: Yes, see Cryptome above. What is the news part here, Beeb? We've got other programs to run and the audience might be getting a bit bored with this bull.
B: In written submissions, Ms Dobbin and James Lewis KC described the leak as "one of the largest compromises of classified information in the history of the United States".
"It is specifically alleged against the appellant that by publishing this information on the WikiLeaks website, he created a grave and imminent risk that the human sources named therein would suffer serious physical harm."
A: Beeb, we're heard this script before. It has been discounted. I imagine the judges were getting quite bored of this cold porridge and history lesson.
B: Ms Dobbin said: "The administration in the US of course changed during these proceedings... but nonetheless the prosecution of the appellant remains in foot. Because it is based on law and evidence, not political inspiration."
A: Aaaah, well it is possible that the British judges have yet to hear of the Uniparty, but who knows? Wonders never cease!
B: [repeats case history]
The latest hearing has been brought by Mr Assange, who is now asking for the right to challenge the original judge's dismissal of other parts [not health related, e.g 'is a journalist'] of his case.
Ms Dobbin said on Tuesday, the first day of the hearing, that the original judge "rejected outright" that Mr Assange should be treated like a journalist "or what he did could fall under the ambit of responsible journalism".
A: Really? Bobbin raised that? That was a bit of a slip up wasn't it? I mean, the man has been awarded a zillion prizes for journalism by journalists. I hate to think of which incredible argument Bobbin believes will bullshit the court into believing he's just randomly published evidence of state crimes.
B: [summarizes the hearing on the first day, Tuesday]
The hearing ended on Wednesday with the judges saying they will rule later. Their judgment is not expected before mid-March, based on timelines indicated in court.
A: Mid-march, eh? The 'in the know' calculation is, if the appeal is allowed, the date of the appeal itself, and that this needs to happen after the US election so that Assange is not an unavoidable election issue.
B: If Mr Assange is refused permission to appeal, his only opportunity to avoid being sent to the US is to ask the European Court of Human Rights to stop the flight.
A: Flight? Who is fleeing? Oh, you mean extradition. Get it up with your diction, Beeb.
B: If he wins permission, he will remain in jail while that case is prepared for later in the year.
A: The UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention adopted the legal opinion that Assange has already been deprived of his freedom, of movement at least, in December 2015.
It seems that the British are determined to continue to abuse him and the world's understanding of 'rights'.
or support this work via Buy Me A Coffee or Patreon.
Sources
Assange Is No 'Ordinary Journalist': US Opposes Request For Appeal, Mohamed Elmaazi, The Dissenter, 2024-02-21
DAY TWO: US Reinforces Grand Assange Deception, Joe Lauria, Consortium News, 2024-02-22
Special style points for Lauria, for the use of ‘delusory’ in his first sentence: “barristers for the United States wove a delusory tale in which journalism is espionage”. Losers they are. 😇
Julian Assange’s Grand Inquisitor, Chris Hedges, The Chris Hedges Report, 2024-02-22
Assange Final Appeal – Your Man in the Public Gallery, Craig Murray, Craig Murray, 2024-02-21
The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention Deems the deprivation of liberty of Mr. Julian Assange as arbitrary, Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights, UN, 2016-02-05
Assange Day-X: A Post Day 1 Discussion, YesXorNo, 2024-02-22
CN Live! — 'Assange's Last Stand?', Consortium News, 2024-02-22
Copyleft: CC0
