PART ONE — RE-INTRODUCTION

For the 4+ years in which Julian Assange has been held in a “Super Max” British prison, without charge or a decision on extradition, the public is witness to the shame and farce the UK court deems appropriate for a case with so much at stake. In one of the most important national and international law cases this century, the balance between state power and the people’s right to know is on trial. To date, the short answer is…you are not allowed to know. You are also not allowed to speak, not if the government finds what you have to say troublesome, embarrassing, or worse–true.

This is not simply a speech case, nor an individual rights case. This is a case wherein a publisher may be prosecuted by the United States government absent any U.S. Constitutional authority to do so. Moreover, the explicit prohibition of the U.S. government to use any legal theory to silence a publisher or journalist for the sole act of publishing must contend with “or abridging the freedom of speech, the press, or…”

For example, gunning down civilians in the streets of Bagdad, a Reuters journalist among them, from the cockpit of a U.S. attack helicopter in 2007 is not deemed admissible by the U.S. DOJ in this case. The infamous “Collateral Murder” video, I prefer to call it the “Orders to Murder for Oil” video, the civilians killed were not collateral casualties in a firefight in the streets of Bagdad, they were the intended targets. The irony, the U.S. is refusing to allow the introduction of the video as evidence in the Assange case, but twists on several thorny knots of legal theory. That a brutal and heinous crime had been committed, it is the duty of those with the authority granted to seek justice. Reuters learned of the journalists fate only after the release of the video. The U.S. government had been stonewalling Reuters for years claiming they knew nothing of the missing reporter.

Consider if an Iraqi helicopter crew, allowed to fly training missions in the United States, were to take similar actions, would there be a call for accountability? Would the disqualification from secret level classification protect a state secret, criminal acts cannot be protected under the color of law, but I guess they can. How do you compel the government to reconcile the secret being held, that secret describes in detail a criminal act, and the ability to formalize the criminality–ie making a determination it is indeed a criminal act, if it cannot be tested or vetted?

Yes, I know the laws of war do not preclude U.S. military personnel from acting on situational grounds and the rules of engagement, but this question has not be tested or evaluated. Was the massacre by Vietnamese by U.S. Marines not worthy of a hearing? How did the trial manage to make it to the Marine military court allowing JAG officers to try the case?

MURRAY COMMENTS — SWIFT APPEAL RESPONSE

During the start of the interview, Chris Hedges asks Murray to introduce the topic of Julian Assange’s status. In prefacing his coverage of the case Murray states, “…almost no pretense to due process.”, and it applies to the whole of the government’s handling of the Assange case. Murray then goes on to comment about the specific incoherence in the appellate process resulting in the appeal to the denial of appeal. Yes, a convoluted series of hoops and non-concentric circles about the drain leading to the mire of legal hypocrisy knowing no bounds.

The appeal made before a UK court, judge Swift, a former solicitor for the MoD MI5/MI6, dismissed the

150 page appeal with a three page response said, “there was no coherent legal argument in the 150 page pleading”, and, “and it followed no know form of pleading.” The Assange plea motion was written by Gareth Pierce, a well known defense attorney having an extensive background in IRA cases before the court. Murray cannot understand, rationally, why the judgement was not couched in terms of arguments regarding appeal but instead dismissed the whole pleading out of hand. I have to say Murray is not so naive as to think a rational basis can be found within the decision judge Swift summarized.

MORE TO FOLLOW

[1] The Real News Network, “The ‘slow motion execution’ of Julian Assange w/Craig Murray”, The Chris Hedges Report, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6x9Bltb7ZYE, website, download Sept 15 2023, Sept 15 2023

P Coffman •

September 16, 2023 9:27 AM

@name.withheld.for.obvious.reasons

About due process, I agree, even with Guantanamo detainees. If there is an excellent case, put together a nice case, then proceed judiciously.

However, Assange made a very high claim to moral superiority, which I cannot stomach. We are being asked to juxtapose wholesale posting of secret data with, at a minimum, one engagement that went (horribly) wrong. It does not indict everything labeled secret. Otherwise, it is a horrible argument for moral equivalence.

Assange’s moral equivalence comes across as some of the same old BS some religious people have used for (many) centuries. This rotor does not wash. Thus, while Assange deserves trial expeditiously, he should also grow up.

I realize a lot of our religious join the armed forces, so I am capable and do apologize to those who suffer the slings and arrows for a free world.

Winter •

September 16, 2023 9:56 AM

However, Assange made a very high claim to moral superiority, which I cannot stomach.

Justice is only justice when it is metered out equally to everyone. What you think about Assange as a person should have to be irrelevant to the question whether he should be incarcerated or not.

And everyone should have the right to a fair, public court case with a right to defend themselves in public.

Not giving anyone these rights tells us an injustice is performed.

name.withheld.for.obvious.reasons •

September 16, 2023 3:58 PM

@P Coffman

What? I am unclear as to your assertion, what I can say is the personal ticks or attributes of Julian has no place in what is going on, it is simply irrelevant. Even an objective weighting, if it were possible, where the power of the state can do what has been carried out on Julian and that of Julian’s behavior, possibly tens of orders of magnitude separable.

If it is your perception of Assange, it is on you to responsibly react, or act, in accord with Julian’s psychological behavior as it exists within the context of the perceived harm. Do or can you enumerate the case where Assange has breached your personal limits and makes it possible to be okay with condemning the man, for whom paid the cost of many other’s freedoms they still enjoy?

If you are inclined to respond, please do so with a well formed and delineated point by point statement or record. I’d wager, put my bet on the table, no one can reasonable argue or demonstrate with evidence anything that answers this challenge.

Those complaining or making a claim of Assange has it coming, I’d bet the accusers have yet to make their own remit to liberty, fidelity, or fraternity nor understand what these things mean.

Ismar •

September 16, 2023 5:58 PM

Re Julian’s mistreatment, it is worth mentioning that new Australian Labour government ( and it would appear that they have support from all spectra of the government as well) has been making concerted efforts on brining Julian home and should be commended for doing so

Subscribe to comments on this entry