The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewJonathan Cook Archive
Endless Procedural Abuses Show Julian Assange Case Was Never About Law
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

It is astonishing how often one still hears well-informed, otherwise reasonable people say about Julian Assange: “But he ran away from Swedish rape charges by hiding in Ecuador’s embassy in London.”

That short sentence includes at least three factual errors. In fact, to repeat it, as so many people do, you would need to have been hiding under a rock for the past decade – or, amounting to much the same thing, been relying on the corporate media for your information about Assange, including from supposedly liberal outlets such as the Guardian and the BBC.

At the weekend, a Guardian editorial – the paper’s official voice and probably the segment most scrutinised by senior staff – made just such a false claim:

Then there is the rape charge that Mr Assange faced in Sweden and which led him to seek refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy in the first place.

The fact that the Guardian, supposedly the British media’s chief defender of liberal values, can make this error-strewn statement after nearly a decade of Assange-related coverage is simply astounding. And that it can make such a statement days after the US finally admitted that it wants to lock up Assange for 175 years on bogus “espionage” charges – a hand anyone who wasn’t being wilfully blind always knew the US was preparing to play – is still more shocking.

Assange faces no charges in Sweden yet, let alone “rape charges”. As former UK ambassador Craig Murray recently explained, the Guardian has been misleading readers by falsely claiming that an attempt by a Swedish prosecutor to extradite Assange – even though the move has not received the Swedish judiciary’s approval – is the same as his arrest on rape charges. It isn’t.

Also, Assange did not seek sanctuary in the embassay to evade the Swedish investigation. No state in the world gives a non-citizen political asylum to avoid a rape trial. The asylum was granted on political grounds. Ecuador rightly accepted Assange’s concerns that the US would seek his extradition and lock him out of sight for the rest of his life.

Assange, of course, has been proven – yet again – decisively right by recent developments.

Trapped in herd-think

The fact that so many ordinary people keep making these basic errors has a very obvious explanation. It is because the corporate media keep making these errors.

These are is not the kind of mistakes that can be explained away as an example of what one journalist has termed the problem of “churnalism”: the fact that journalists, chasing breaking news in offices depleted of staff by budget cuts, are too overworked to cover stories properly.

British journalists have had many years to get the facts straight. In an era of social media, journalists at the Guardian and the BBC have been bombarded by readers and activists with messages telling them how they are getting basic facts wrong in the Assange case. But the journalists keep doing it anyway. They are trapped in a herd-think entirely divorced from reality.

Rather than listen to experts, or common sense, these “journalists” keep regurgitating the talking points of the British security state, which are as good as identical to the talking points of the US security state.

What is so striking in the Assange coverage is the sheer number of legal anomalies in his case – and these have been accumulating relentlessly from the very start. Almost nothing in his case has gone according to the normal rules of legal procedure. And yet that very revealing fact is never noticed or commented on by the corporate media. You need to have a blind spot the size of Langley, Virginia, not to notice it.

If Assange wasn’t the head of Wikileaks, if he hadn’t embarrassed the most important western states and their leaders by divulging their secrets and crimes, if he hadn’t created a platform that allows whistleblowers to reveal the outrages committed by the western power establishment, if he hadn’t undermined that establishment’s control over information dissemination, none of the last 10 years would have followed the course it did.

If Assange had not provided us with an information revolution that undermines the narrative matrix created to serve the US security state, two Swedish women – unhappy with Assange’s sexual etiquette – would have gotten exactly what they said in their witness statements they wanted: pressure from the Swedish authorites to make him take an HIV test to give them peace of mind.

He would have been allowed back to the UK (as he in fact was allowed to do by the Swedish prosecutor) and would have gotten on with developing and refining the Wikileaks project. That would have helped all of us to become more critically aware of how we are being manipulated – not only by our security services but also by the corporate media that so often act as their mouthpiece.

Which is precisely why that did not happen and why Assange has been under some form of detention since 2010. Since then, his ability to perform his role as exposer of serial high-level state crimes has been ever more impeded – to the point now that he may never be able to oversee and direct Wikileaks ever again.

His current situation – locked up in Belmarsh high-security prison, in solitary confinement and deprived of access to a computer and all meaningful contact with the outside world – is so far based solely on the fact that he committed a minor infraction, breaching his police bail. Such a violation, committed by anyone else, almost never incurs prosecution, let alone a lengthy jail sentence.


So here is a far from complete list – aided by the research of John Pilger, Craig Murray and Caitlin Johnstone – of some of the most glaring anomalies in Assange’s legal troubles. There are 17 of them below. Each might conceivably have been possible in isolation. But taken together they are overwhelming evidence that this was never about enforcing the law. From the start, Assange faced political persecution.

No judicial authority

In late summer 2010, neither of the two Swedish women alleged Assange had raped them when they made police statements. They went together to the police station after finding out that Assange had slept with them both only a matter of days apart and wanted him to be forced to take an HIV test. One of the women, SW, refused to sign the police statement when she understood the police were seeking an indictment for rape. The investigation relating to the second woman, AA, was for a sexual assault specific to Sweden. A condom produced by AA that she says Assange tore during sex was found to have neither her nor Assange’s DNA on it, undermining her credibility.

Sweden’s strict laws protecting suspects during preliminary investigations were violated by the Swedish media to smear Assange as a rapist. In response, the Stockholm chief prosecutor, Eva Finne, took charge and quickly cancelled the investigation: “I don’t believe there is any reason to suspect that he has committed rape.” She later concluded: “There is no suspicion of any crime whatsoever.”

The case was revived by another prosecutor, Marianne Ny, during which time Assange was questioned and spent more than a month in Sweden waiting for developments in the case. He was then told by prosecutors that he was free to leave for the UK, suggesting that any offence they believed he had committed was not considered serious enough to detain him in Sweden. Nonetheless, shortly afterwards, Interpol issued a Red Notice for Assange, usually reserved for terrorists and dangerous criminals.

The UK supreme court approved an extradition to Sweden based on a European Arrest Warrant (EAW) in 2010, despite the fact that it was not signed by a “judicial authority”, only by the Swedish prosecutor. The terms of the EAW agreement were amended by the UK government shortly after the Assange ruling to make sure such an abuse of legal procedure never occurred again.

The UK supreme court also approved Assange’s extradition even though Swedish authorities refused to offer an assurance that he would not be extradited onwards to the US, where a grand jury was already formulating draconian charges in secret against him under the Espionage Act. The US similarly refused to give an assurance they would not seek his extradition.

In these circumstances, Assange fled to Ecuador’s embassy in London in summer 2012, seeking political asylum. That was after the Swedish prosecutor, Marianne Ny, blocked Assange’s chance to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights.

Australia not only refused Assange, a citizen, any help during his long ordeal, but prime minister Julia Gillard even threatened to strip Assange of his citizenship, until it was pointed out that it would be illegal for Australia to do so.

Britain, meanwhile, not only surrounded the embassy with a large police force at great public expense, but William Hague, the foreign secretary, threatened to tear up the Vienna Convention, violating Ecuador’s diplomatic territory by sending UK police into the embassy to arrest Assange.

Six years of heel-dragging

Although Assange was still formally under investigation, Ny refused to come to London to interview him, despite similar interviews having been conducted by Swedish prosecutors 44 times in the UK in the period Assange was denied that right.

In 2016, international legal experts in the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, which adjudicates on whether governments have complied with human rights obligations, ruled that Assange was being detained unlawfully by Britain and Sweden. Although both countries participated in the UN investigation, and had given the tribunal vocal support when other countries were found guilty of human rights violations, they steadfastly ignored its ruling in favour of Assange. UK Foreign Secretary Phillip Hammond, flat-out lied in claiming the UN panel was “made up of lay people and not lawyers”. The tribunal comprises leading experts in international law, as is clear from their CVs. Nonetheless, the lie became Britain’s official response to the UN ruling. The British media performed no better. A Guardian editorial dismissed the verdict as nothing more than a “publicity stunt”.

Ny finally relented on interviewing Assange in November 2016, coming to London after six years of heel-dragging. However, she barred Assange’s lawyer from being present. That was a gross irregularity that Ny was due to be questioned about in May 2017 by a Stockholm judge. Apparently rather than face those questions, Ny decided to close the investigation against Assange the very same day.

In fact, correspondence that was later revealed under a Freedom of Information request shows that the British prosecution service, the CPS, pressured the Swedish prosecutor not to come to the London to interview Assange through 2010 and 2011, thereby creating the embassy standoff.

Also, the CPS destroyed most of the incriminating correspondence to circumvent the FoI requests. The emails that surfaced did so only because some copies were accidentally overlooked in the destruction spree. Those emails were bad enough. They show that in 2013 Sweden had wanted to drop the case against Assange but had come under strong British pressure to continue the pretence of seeking his extradition. There are emails from the CPS stating, “Don’t you dare” drop the case, and most revealing of all: “Please do not think this case is being dealt with as just another extradition.”

It also emerged that Marianne Ny had deleted an email she received from the FBI.

Despite his interview with Ny taking place in late 2016, Assange was not subseqently charged in absentia – an option Sweden could have pursued if it had thought the evidence was strong enough.


After Sweden dropped the investigation against Assange, his lawyers sought last year to get the British arrest warrant for his bail breach dropped. They had good grounds, both because the allegations over which he’d been bailed had been dropped by Sweden and because he had justifiable cause to seek asylum given the apparent US interest in extraditing him and locking him up for life for political crimes. His lawyers could also argue convincingly that the time he had spent in confinement, first under house arrest and then in the embassy, was more than equivalent to time, if any, that needed to be served for the bail infringement. However, the judge, Emma Arbuthnot, rejected the Assange team’s strong legal arguments. She was hardly a dispassionate observer. In fact, in a properly ordered world she should have recused herself, given that she is the wife of a government whip, who was also a business partner of a former head of MI6, Britain’s version of the CIA.

Assange’s legal rights were again flagrantly violated last week, with the collusion of Ecuador and the UK, when US prosecutors were allowed to seize Assange’s personal items from the embassy while his lawyers and UN officials were denied the right to be present.

Information dark ages

Even now, as the US prepares its case to lock Assange away for the rest of his life, most are still refusing to join the dots. Chelsea Manning has been repeatedly jailed, and is now facing ruinous fines for every day she refuses to testify against Assange as the US desperately seeks to prop up its bogus espionage claims. In Medieval times, the authorities were more honest: they simply put people on the rack.

Back in 2017, when the rest of the media were still pretending this was all about Assange fleeing Swedish “justice”, John Pilger noted:

In 2008, a secret Pentagon document prepared by the “Cyber Counterintelligence Assessments Branch” foretold a detailed plan to discredit WikiLeaks and smear Assange personally. The “mission” was to destroy the “trust” that was WikiLeaks’ “centre of gravity”. This would be achieved with threats of “exposure [and] criminal prosecution”. Silencing and criminalising such an unpredictable source of truth-telling was the aim.” …

According to Australian diplomatic cables, Washington’s bid to get Assange is “unprecedented in scale and nature”. …

The US Justice Department has contrived charges of “espionage”, “conspiracy to commit espionage”, “conversion” (theft of government property), “computer fraud and abuse” (computer hacking) and general “conspiracy”. The favoured Espionage Act, which was meant to deter pacifists and conscientious objectors during World War One, has provisions for life imprisonment and the death penalty. …

In 2015, a federal court in Washington blocked the release of all information about the “national security” investigation against WikiLeaks, because it was “active and ongoing” and would harm the “pending prosecution” of Assange. The judge, Barbara J. Rothstein, said it was necessary to show “appropriate deference to the executive in matters of national security”. This is a kangaroo court.

All of this information was available to any journalist or newspaper that cared to search it out and wished to publicise it. And yet not one corporate media outlet has done so over the past nine years. Instead they have shored up a series of preposterous US and UK state narratives designed to keep Assange behind bars and propel the rest of us back into the information dark ages.

• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: American Media, Britain, CIA, Julian Assange 
Hide 57 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. All roads lead to Tel Aviv. This wouldn’t be happening without Bibi’s approval.

    • Replies: @MarkU
    , @Jake
    , @sally
  2. You know through all this, it’s clear that the US does not have a case. We still have a 1st Ammendment even if the only institution that continues to enforce it is the Supreme Court.

    This is prosecutorial overreach. It’s much more than that. But it will be thrown out.

    All of this protest and writings is really just outrage that the venal US prosecutors would bring the case at all.

    Bringing a case does not mean conviction. Conviction is subject to appeal.

    There’s a lot of shreiking going on right now.

    But it is the US and all it stands for within the world that is at trial here.

    As time goes by, this will become glarlingly apparent to the demons that are bringing the case.

    No country will see the United States ever again in the same way if the case proceeds and a judge does not immediately through it out of court.

    No country will ever see the US as a beacon of freedom again if the Supreme Court does not adhere to the 1st Ammendment.

    We aren’t a country any longer if it breaks that way. If we let the cretins spit on our values? We are done.

    • Replies: @Willem
  3. It is because the corporate media keep making these errors.

    The aren’t errors: This is deliberate misdirection; propaganda.

    British journalists have had many years to get the facts straight…. They are trapped in a herd-think entirely divorced from reality.

    They are instruments of state propaganda.

    Rather than listen to experts, or common sense, these “journalists” keep regurgitating the talking points of the British security state, which are as good as identical to the talking points of the US security state.

    So, why do you keep referring to “press errors?”

  4. alexander says:
    @The Alarmist


    Excellent points.

    I would say it goes beyond “misdirection and propaganda” ……it is often, downright fraud .

    Blatant …Criminal …..Fraud.

    When every single media outlet is shrieking “imminent threat WMD’s,….we must attack now !”.
    …..and it’s all a “bald-faced lie”.

    They are guilty of “Defrauding us into War”.

    Which is a heinous crime .

    They should be held to account for that……..The sooner the better.

  5. Anonymous[381] • Disclaimer says:
    @The Alarmist

    I have another theory.

    There have been multiple murders of journalists around the world, not MSM-style corporate journalists—real ones. It’s not just the string of heinous murders of journalists, covering the drug trade in Mexico. One was a blogger journalist in Cyprus, reporting on that Panama Papers thing. They literally blew her up in her car, like a bunch of real mobster murderers. A young husband and wife couple in Slovenia were also brutally murdered after the husband reported on financial crimes.

    In light of the wanton brutality against journalists by nice family people around the globe—committing the worst sin possible, likely rationalizing it by saying they’re doing it for their babies (for their DNA dynasties)—you can’t really blame the corporate MSMers for not sticking their necks out, literally, to cover stories like this.

    You can blame them for lying about everyday economic issues, like half of all employed persons in the USA working part time and 95 million working-aged citizens out of the labor force, with the MSM reporting only the 7 million or so more counted as unemployed each month due to recent UC applications. They’re doing that, too, to please their corporate bosses.

    But the lack of reporting on things like the threat to journalistic freedom posed by Assange’s imprisonment might be for reasons of personal safety. Truth is: the global economy is full of central bank-created asset bubbles, debt-laden zombie corporations that can’t cover the interest on their loans with profit and mass-scale underemployment. Elites around the globe might be panicking about where to park their money with good reason.

    The consumer-driven economies of the West and the workshop / infrastructure-stimulus economies of the East are teetering. Populist, socialist and colored-vests movements are on the rise. Income inequality is as out of control as rents. Rent-a-servant welfare states—full to the brim with welfare-eligible legal / illegal immigrants, undercutting non-welfare-eligible citizens whose wages have declined for 40 years—might work for Elites, but not for a critical mass of citizens.

    It’s not really working for Elites, either, or they would not feel the need to censor journalists.


    Don’t talk about it. Whatever you do, don’t release the official workplace papers of people in high offices, although it’s Katy bar the door on the Fourth Amendment for the serfs. Lay low. Talk about approved topics: Russian bots, racism, sexism and xenophobia. Then you’ll have one of the few slots left in journalism. You’ll have enough money to barely live on if in print journalism, working for a big, nationally known news outlet, and a ton of money if your ratings are sky high in broadcast journalism. I did hear a couple of MSMers mention this topic. I was surprised at even that much coverage.

    • Replies: @Popeye
  6. alexander says:
    @The Alarmist

    Just to think……. that the United States is now TWENTY TWO TRILLION DOLLARS in HEINOUS DEBT because we were, all, LIED into WAR….and not “one person”…NOT ONE … has been held to account.

    It is shocking .

    The disgrace is beyond appalling.

    It is ,not only, an abomination of American justice, it is a complete “slap in the face” of every taxpayer in the country.

    Shameful, shameful , shameful.

    May they all be arrested tomorrow,….. if not sooner.

  7. El Dato says:

    Britain, meanwhile, not only surrounded the embassy with a large police force at great public expense, but William Hague, the foreign secretary, threatened to tear up the Vienna Convention, violating Ecuador’s diplomatic territory by sending UK police into the embassy to arrest Assange.

    A tearing up which happened when the US took over the embassy of Venezuela after an unsuccessful attempt to take over the whole of Venezuela. Police and Secret Service goons in this demonstration that peak stupidity has been reached (some of them heavy-handedly protecting the bused-in suspiciously muscular and aggressive “concerned citizens” in the street) should be given a special “robocop” medal for “just taking orders and leaving honor at home”. Apparently nobody cares in any particular way.

    As for the Guardian “getting it wrong”. The Guardian seems to be a thoroughly “managed” newspaper, where “inpho” from our “services” is printed as fact in between some low-key concern writing about underrepresented minorities or Tony Blair and permanent screeching about Anti-Semitism, Muh Democracy and Putin’s Super-Malfeasance (if nedded as sourced from “Bellingcat”).

    Just take a look at this random example: When free societies copy Russian media tactics, there’s only one winner

    Such tactics only work in free societies, where doubt and debate are encouraged, and in which mainstream outlets encourage a broad range of voices: arguably the most successful information operation Russia has ever launched was the hacking of John Podesta and the Democratic National Committee’s emails.

    As I landed after a six-hour flight with no internet during a December weekend, I discovered a number of British leftwing activists and then WikiLeaks (where I briefly worked from 2010 to 2011), with its 5.4 million Twitter followers, had discovered my name among a group of journalists named in the leaked files.

    Rather than serve as a counter to misinformation, [Integrity Initiative’s] very existence appeared to confirm the suspicions of several groups that are most susceptible to information operations: the UK left, who distrust the mainstream media as anti-Corbyn; those already sympathetic to Russia; and WikiLeaks and its supporters.

    Working largely from the shadows, Russia has co-opted our information ecosystem. Confronting it will have to be done in the open.

    This article reaches the complexity of Eco’s Foucault’s Pendulum in belief system swampland geometry – fantastic for high school debating – but I digress.

    So, someone called Luke Harding (who also wrote a book on the well-documented Trump-Russia collusion; still waiting for a book on the Trump-Israel collusion. No? Oh, ok then), apparently a “foreign coressponent” for the Guardian (Our Man in Havana, eh?), got the Wikileaks anti-campaign rolling back in “Afghan War diaries” times by publising a book and accidentally leaking a key to the dump in those printed pages. Ops. Recently he has been generating bullshit about Manafort colluding with Assange about which the Guardian still has to issue an apology AFAIK.

    Things have not become better since apparently.

    A Written Guide to the Guardian’s Smear Campaign Against Assange (but who the hell is or are Jimmy’s Llama??)

    From a better-known outfit:

    The Guardian’s Vilification of Julian Assange

    The truth is The Guardian has not erred in this latest story attacking Assange, or in its much longer-running campaign to vilify him. With this story, it has done what it regularly does when supposedly vital western foreign policy interests are at stake – it simply regurgitates an elite-serving, western narrative.

    Its job is to shore up a consensus on the left for attacks on leading threats to the existing, neoliberal order: whether they are a platform like WikiLeaks promoting whistle-blowing against a corrupt western elite; or a politician like Corbyn seeking to break apart the status quo on the rapacious financial industries or Israel-Palestine; a radical leader like Hugo Chavez who threatened to overturn damaging and exploitative U.S. dominance of “America’s backyard” [disputable]; or social media dissidents, who’ve started to chip away at the elite-friendly narratives of corporate media, including The Guardian itself.

    • Agree: the grand wazoo
  8. El Dato says:

    Putin’s Novichok again!

  9. Willem says:

    ‘No country will see the United States ever again in the same way if the case proceeds and a judge does not immediately through it out of court.’

    I think many (like >80% of the world population) sees the values of the United States government in a true way, even if they would not prosecute Assange. Which is a problem: it does not matter whether the United States government prosecutes Assange or not. Think that the term is: hiding in audacity.

    For me, I am dissapointed of course seeing the United States as a rogue State. Much more loved to see it as the country of the free and home of the brave, but alas, that is only true if you believe in Hollywood.

    The United States is bordered by 2 countries, and has, within its existence of 250 years, been at war for 230 years. That is a fact and people know this.

    Although Assange (and Manning) exposed some dirty truths, this fact will not be wiped out either when they do or do not prosecute Assange. In other words: the United States can only hide in audacity.

  10. The Assange case, the Mueller charade, the overseas drone killings ordered by the White House Negro, the systematic day-to-day violations of civil liberties and various Constitutional amendments and the UN Human Rights Charter by US Federal and State officials, the propaganda unleashed on a dumbed-down populace on a daily basis, the racist bombing campaigns throughout the world by US forces (killing thousands of black and brown people and mainly Mohammedans), I sometimes wonder what was wrong about that guy Hitler? What on earth did he do that the US doesn’t do? Why did the US go to war against him? He was an environmentalist, a vegetarian, loved animals and children, liked to watch cartoons (Mickey Mouse) and he helped the Jewish settlers in Palestine! Methinks he should be really a popular hero in Washington DC, Wall Street and Hollywood!

    • Replies: @anonymous
  11. JR says:

    Hilarious exposure:

  12. MarkU says:

    All roads lead to Tel Aviv. This wouldn’t be happening without Bibi’s approval.

    Israel is a tiny little country in the middle east that cannot possibly be the real source of that much power and influence. The real power (the deep state if you will) is the Western financial elite, apparently dominated by the Jewish financial elite (principally the bankers) None of the glaring anomalies that are so often attributed to Israeli power could possibly exist without the full compliance of the US/UK and European deep states. Israel is not the disease, it is a symptom.

    Until people accept that the problem is internal rather than external then they will persist in looking in the wrong direction for a solution. Do you honestly believe that if Netanyahu gets voted out, the western world will have a new ruler or will things continue exactly as they are?

    • Agree: Herald
  13. MarkU says:

    My thanks to Jonathan Cook for his clear and detailed summary of the legal issues surrounding the Assange case.

  14. Biff says:

    Endless Procedural Abuses Show Julian Assange Case Was Never About Law

    Stating the obvious, but I guess it’s worth repeating again and again, not that it will do the plebeian masses any good. For the intellectual outliers it’s worth going over the details of a rogue political beat down, and recognize it as such, for the truth tellers in the future will be Assanged.

    The worlds most powerful propaganda machine has marked Julian for a hate fest that he is unlikely to recover from making sure there is little backlash for his demise. They are working overtime constantly repeating the lies and innuendos that has been pointed out by Mr. Cook and others. They are bent on making sure the truth gets buried – literally.

    Let this be a lesson for the times we live in.

  15. anonymous[191] • Disclaimer says:

    Just goes to show that all “western” governments get their marching orders from the same location. If the case is considered to be important enough, all legal niceties are abandoned and head office Washington gets what they want at any cost. Its been that way since 1945 and nothing’s changed.

  16. anonymous[191] • Disclaimer says:
    @Hans Vogel

    Hitler went against the bankers and because he defied their power, he will be a pariah as long as they have power. Had Hitler not gone against the bankers, he would’ve been given much better press.

  17. Perhaps I’m one of the people who has been “hiding under a rock for the past decade,” but here is my observation, anyway.

    As a thought experiment, what would have happened to Assange if, instead of spending 7 years in asylum, he had just turned himself in to the British authorities, and then been shipped off to the US to face charges? Even if somehow convicted of something, could President Obama have commuted Chelsea Manning’s sentence while leaving Assange to rot in prison? The optics of that would be quite disturbing, no? And it sure wouldn’t have helped Obama’s legacy.

    Now, with his health ruined (at least in prison he would have received medical care), Assange is back to square one. Did he or did he not make a fatal error by voluntarily imprisoning himself inside the Ecuadorian Embassy? Did he or did he not waste the last 7 years? Charges don’t go away when one skips a court hearing. Judges don’t like their orders being flouted.

    I did have hope for Assange when candidate Trump praised Wikileaks (“I love Wikileaks!”). I thought a pardon or something might be forthcoming. But he dropped that like a hot potato after his election. Instead, he has installed the CIA chief as his SOS. And, vengeful Pompeo, if he can get away with it, would like to see Assange die in prison.

    Hindsight is 20/20. Still, I question Assange’s decision to put off facing the music (for a crime he did not commit). It’s possible, given Obama’s humanitarian decision to release Manning, that this nightmare could all be over by now.

  18. @JR

    Funny how they never mention America is Israel’s BITCH..

  19. lysias says:

    The feds have found a way to put Manning back in jail and at the same time imposed ruinous fines. I’m sure the feds could have devised means to do the same to a pardoned Assange.

    The way John Kiriakou describes health care in prison on his radio show, it’s pretty worthless.

    • Replies: @follyofwar
  20. TGD says:

    A couple of questions: What if any role did Karl Rove play in Sweden’s prosecution of Assange and if Labour wins in the upcoming election, will Jeremy Corbyn order Assange’s release from prison?

  21. GrahamSM says:

    I read at:

    ‘Mark Summers QC provided evidence that in 2012 Assange had been “gripped” by fears of rendition to the US due to WikiLeaks’ exposure of war crimes carried out by US government. “As threats rained down on him from America, they overshadowed everything as far as he was concerned. They dominated his thoughts. They were not invented by him, they were gripping him throughout.”’

    This, of course, is duress – acting from a subjective fear of a harmful consequence.

    Duress shifts the burden of proof onto the prosecution to prove that the defendant was not actiing under duress. The point about the case below is that it says ‘where the evidence in the proceedings is sufficient to raise an issue of duress’, not ‘where the defendant pleads duress’. In other words, the court should have identified that it was dealing with duress and acted accordingly. Its failure to do this is grounds for appeal.

    Hasan, R v [2005] UKHL 22 ( at 20:

    ‘Where the evidence in the proceedings is sufficient to raise an issue of duress, the burden is on the prosecution to establish to the criminal standard that the defendant did not commit the crime with which he is charged under duress : R v Lynch, above, p 668.’

    You will appreciate that it doesn’t matter if the judge ruled that objectively there was no threat to Assange, she also had to assess Assange’s subjective belief in the existence of the threat. If she did not do this then this is gorunds for appeal.

    The model direction for the subjective test in R v Graham [1982] 1 WLR 294 (, subsequently approved in Howe, R v [1987] HL, states: ‘(1) Was the defendant, or may he have been, impelled to act as he did because, as a result of what he reasonably believed King had said or done, he had good cause to fear that if he did not so act King would kill him or (if this is to be added) cause him serious physical injury? (2) If so, have the prosecution made the jury sure that a sober person of reasonable firmness, sharing the characteristics of the defendant, would not have responded to whatever he reasonably believed King said or did by taking part in the killing?’

    Furthermore I would argue that a subjective test is a test of what someone actually believes; it is irrelevant whether that belief is reasonable. Put it this way: ‘If a person genuinely believes that he will be killed, does it matter if that belief is reasonable?’ If a person does something because he genuinely believes that he will be killed if he doesn’t do that thing, then he is not making a free choice, regardless of whether that belief is reasonable. It is nonsensical to introduce an objective test of reasonableness into a subjective test of belief. The objective test in duress only arises to ask ‘Given that the person (subjectively) believed in a threat did he (objectively) show the level of resilience in resisting that threat that could reasonably be expected of him given his characteristics, including mental disorders?’

    As Lord Lane said in Gladstone Williams [1987] 3 All ER 411 at p 415F: ‘If the defendant’s alleged belief was mistaken and if the mistake was an unreasonable one, that may be a powerful reason for coming to the conclusion that the belief was not honestly held and should be rejected. Even if the jury come to the conclusion that the mistake was an unreasonable one, if the defendant may genuinely have been labouring under it, he is entitled to rely upon it.’

    Consider, a situation where an infirm old lady points a gun at you and says ‘Sign over your millions!’ It does not matter that the gun was, in fact, unloaded and you could have easily overcome the old lady; if you genuinely believed that the gun was loaded then you were acting under duress. The objective test then asks ‘Would a person of reaonsble firmness sign away their millions if they believed that they would be killed if they didn’t?’

    I wrote to Assange about this in Belmarsh but do not know whether he received it. Since it contains legal advice, it would be a serious matter if it was prevented from reaching him, particularly if it prevented him from appealing in time.

  22. Agent76 says:

    22 April 2019 Wiki-Gate: Julian Assange Was Framed by the People Who Supported Him

    Julian Assange’s arrest (after almost seven years in the Ecuadorian Embassy) constitutes a hideous and illegal act. He is imprisoned in Britain’s Belmarsh maximum security prison, pending his extradition to the United States.

    Apr 16, 2019 Weekly Update — Julian Assange: Political Prisoner

    Our freedoms are endangered by the US government’s desire to punish Assange.

  23. Julian Assange Case Was Never About Law

    Since when revenge was about law? What else is new?

  24. Jake says:

    It makes as much sense to try to make Saudi Arabia the main problem in this horror story.

    This is about London and DC. It is about the original WASP run empire and the now even greater WASP run empire part 2.

    Yes, both Israel and Saudi Arabia are involved. The US is best described as the Anglo-Zionist Empire, and those ties, that partnership, is inherent in WASP culture, which comes straight from the Judaizing heretics the Anglo-Saxon Puritans.

    Also, the CIA, the Mossad, and the Saudi General Intelligence Presidency were all found by Brit secret service. All the dirty tricks, the human rights abuses, the terror, of the lot of them are part and parcel of WASP culture.

  25. Republic says:

    The Left is changing its position on Assange

    This video was from Rachael Maddow

    Professional Assange smearers are finally realizing that his fate is tied to theirs

  26. @follyofwar

    You make a good point. But there is another side of the question. All this time we heard people talking very well of Snowden and at the same time talking bad of Assange. Snowden was the nice guy, Assange the despicable guy. Manning also aroused a lot of understanding. Manning was a soldier, he was a troubled guy and finally he or she became a part of a minority. In contrast with that, from the beginning Assange was demonised. He was a foreigner. It would be easy to charge him with spionage, with being the guy who had pushed Manning to leak the material.

    It’s true that Manning could leave prison after 7 years. In spite of that it’s completely unpredictable what could have happened with Assange. The US doesn’t have to care very much with appearences, with international right, with being minimally coherent or consistent. It doesn’t matter wether someone in prison is innocent or guilty. Nobody really cares. Take a look at this case:

  27. sally says:

    Has the Mosse_adnosium fixed the Assange problem? …

    Near as i can tell “problem Assange” has won, should he die in their prison, on their watch, after they forced him from the protection of the Ecuadorian Embassy, just in time to prevent Assange from exposing their criminal and treasonous exploits, prior to the time of the next general election in the USA, Britain, SA, France and Israel.. they will never be able to silence Assange.. his sacrifice will live into eternity.. a victim of the mind control war, shot thru the heart with an arrow made of propaganda.

    On the other hand, if its time to end the problem Assange charade; a OBL un confirmable death behind closed doors, where no one can confirm he has risen to accept his fake identity and to pocket the money he needs to return to a former life.

    • Replies: @abbybwood
  28. @lysias

    Manning is back in jail for refusing to testify against Assange before the grand jury. She cannot be tried again for the crime of which Obama commuted her sentence. If this whole thing was over under the Obama Admin (and it ‘might’ have been if not for Assange’s embassy stay), then Chelsea would not be back in jail. BTW, I admire Manning for standing on principle by refusing to testify, but, given that we now live in a police state, maybe she should worry about saving herself.

    • Replies: @lysias
  29. MarkU says:
    @Johnny Walker Read

    Sorry, what exactly is your point? Couldn’t Pompeo be going along with that stuff to suck up to his own Jewish dominated deep state, or because he is a deluded nutter, or more likely both?

    How would the Israel rules the world theory explain anything? How would they enforce its power over the US/UK/Europe? Threats? Why the hell would those much larger, richer countries allow a nation of 5 million to “rule” them? By what method are those countries controlled? Have you any remotely credible modus operandi to propose or are you living in a world where cause and effect simply don’t apply?

    What ethnicity would you ascribe to the US deep state? If they were white gentiles why would they allow the ridiculous and growing anti-white racism? Would they be weaponising the disgruntled blacks to use against whites? I don’t think so.

    Perhaps you could try some sort of reasoned argument next time?

    • Replies: @Antares
  30. abbybwood says:

    What if Wikileaks has a “Dead Man’s Switch” ready to go when he dies??

    • Replies: @Popeye
  31. Antares says:


    How would the Israel rules the world theory explain anything? How would they enforce its power over the US/UK/Europe? Threats? Why the hell would those much larger, richer countries allow a nation of 5 million to “rule” them? By what method are those countries controlled? Have you any remotely credible modus operandi to propose or are you living in a world where cause and effect simply don’t apply?

    The war against Libya was started by Sarkozy, a jew. The Netherlands have been led into the MH17-debacle by Timmermans, a jew. Jozef Stalin was a jew. And so were Lenin and Trotsky. Trump is married to jews. Corbyn is smeared by them. Part of my country has been given away to the tribe (part of our airport, what the hell could go wrong?). They also control the airports from which the planes departed that ‘did’ 9/11. They owned the buildings in which the explosives were planted. They drove around with more explosives but were released without any objective reason other then being jews. When did you hear about Building Seven for the last time?

    The holohaux was invented by jews and most whites believe it. This is the most obvious blackmail they commit. We couldn’t be against the forming of Israel. Evangelicals support jews. All Christians are taught to support jews which I know from first-hand experience. Our media are presented by jews of which I have seen the proof myself. No one in there to rebut them. They even train our police and control the internal messaging system of our secret service (secret to us). They print our money that we have to borrow at interest.

    On the other hand, we want to believe them because that is the way of least resistance. But that was caused by ages of brainwashing on us. Even our religion is actually theirs (albeit much better).

    What ethnicity would you ascribe to the US deep state? If they were white gentiles why would they allow the ridiculous and growing anti-white racism? Would they be weaponising the disgruntled blacks to use against whites? I don’t think so.

    You contradict yourself. It would have made more sense to point at anomalies like jews who order the F35. Perhaps they don’t have everything under control yet. Or you could have argued that Israel is in weapons manufacturers best interest. Our perhaps that the wars in the ME help maintain the petrodollar. That would have made sense but it would have explained some minor details only.

    In the meantime Europe is invaded by people from the ME, in order to make more room for Israel and to weaken Europe. The US had already been weakened. Perhaps you never saw it for what it is.

    Jews moved their slavery from Portugal to the Netherlands and from there to England, hence our ‘Golden Ages’. From there they moved to the US.

    They do not a host, however. Maybe they will move on to China. And after that? The Galactic Friends of Israel?

    • Troll: Wizard of Oz
    • Replies: @Anon
    , @MarkU
  32. Anonymous [AKA "deska"] says:

    Just checked the online editions of The Sydney Morning Herald and The The whole affair does not even get a mention. Its a though Julian Assange, who is undoubtedly the most famous Australian alive on the planet at the moment, did not even exist. Looks like they got their orders.

    And they were one of only SIX countries to vote with the US and UK on the Diego Garcia (Chagos Islands) resolutions at the UN!

    Australia. Shameless one day, despicable the next!

    No wonder it will be one of the first countries to get glassed.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  33. @Anonymous

    Don’t waste our time with lazy BS.

    You spoil a good cause.

    I just Googled “Assange smh” and immediately got three separate links from 3 hours to a few days back.

    And what has the Guardian’s wretched attempt at online intrusion in Australia got to do with whatever your point is?

    I write as one who knew the publishers of the SMH well and subscribed for years to its Melbourne counterpart The Age before giving up about 5 years ago however big the discount offered.

    Australia’s Labor PM spoke disgracefully about Assange a few years ago and I would like to know that Australia has tried to rescue him from the evil connivance of Swedes, Brits and Americans but it is really the Brits who have behaved as shameless lackeys of US vindictiveness for many years during which Assange has not lived in Australia.

    • Replies: @lysias
  34. Anon[219] • Disclaimer says:

    Do you use some other moniker when you want to be taken seriously? Why do you waste your and our time with trying to sell a Jew obsession?

    Sarkozy Jewish?

    “Born in Paris, he is of 1/2 Hungarian Protestant, 1/4 Greek Jewish, and 1/4 French Catholic origin. Mayor of Neuilly-sur-Seine from 1983 to 2002, he was Minister of the Budget under Prime Minister Édouard Balladur (1993–1995) during François Mitterrand’s second term”.

    Lenin – about the same Jewish ancestry.

    Timmerman responsible for some unspecified (and non existent) debacle over MH17? Utter crap.

    That’s for starters.

  35. MarkU says:

    I’m not sure what you are arguing with tbh, neither do I have any idea why you think I’m contradicting myself. I get the general impression that you haven’t really grasped the fundamental point I am making. Perhaps I should try one last time?

    Consider the following quote…..


    Notice that he didn’t say “We the Israeli people, control America” He said “We the Jewish people, control America”. That is the distinction I am making. You are presumably able to grasp the distinction between Israelis and Jews.

    I then go on to point out that the US deep state obviously seems to care (much) more about Jewish people than it does white gentiles or Christians generally. In fact it has allowed, even incited, a vicious campaign of racial hatred against white gentiles. Imagine the howls of outrage if anyone were to declare a campaign against “Jewish toxicity”. The evidence appears to suggest that the US deep state itself is controlled by Jews and that is the reason that Israel gets away with murder, the state of Israel itself is NOT all powerful (or anything like)

    Another quote for you..

    “I don’t care if Americans think we’re running the news media, Hollywood, Wall Street or the government,” Jewish columnist Joel Stein wrote in the Los Angeles Times in December 2008. “I just care that we get to keep running them.”

  36. lysias says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    Australian protests succeeded in getting the U.S. to release David Hicks. Who knows? Protests about Assange could also have an effect.

  37. lysias says:

    Manning may have a different priority from saving herself. As Tertullian observed, the blood of martyrs is the seed of the Church.

    I must say, I admire her bravery. And Assange’s.

  38. Parfois1 says:

    Thank you JR for that video. After all there is some decent and real journalism left Downunder. Is there another “Assange” coming up? Because Julian, I’m afraid, is not likely to survive the tender mercies of the “land of the free and brave”.

    On the other hand, there is a scintilla of hope that, for propaganda purposes only, they might suddenly turn “magnanimous” and “just” to fool everyone into believing they respect the legal process. Hard act to do after decades of trampling all laws, domestic or international. Their deviousness is unfathomable – continuously “creating a new reality” to befuddle the masses.

  39. Popeye says:

    Most likely it does. A so called doomsday machine. However one scenario is that various intelligence agencies have compromised WikiLeaks folks. ..just a thought.. so who has access to the switch?

  40. Popeye says:

    Yes indeed it seems like USA msm has more interesting angle to pop singer breast implants or facelifts or Botox

  41. Popeye says:

    Obama is as humanitarian as a jackal that hasn’t eaten in a week. He has only one more overriding trait…to fatten his bank account..hope&change b.s. fooled American voters twice

  42. Parfois1 says:

    Israel is not the disease, it is a symptom.

    That’s a cop out. Israel is a creation of international Jewish power, not a separate entity. Jewry, in addition to worm itself into the core of most governments that matter in international relations, also needed a state of their own, not only to have a say officially in world forums and give itself legitimacy, but also for their religious ultimate purpose as the chosen people.

  43. Parfois1 says:

    Assange’s chances of escaping the obvious CIA operation (that’s how I see his “honey entrapment”) were very limited – and going into the Ecuadorian embassy a serious miscalculation. His best chance of escaping – if he had the necessary resources – was to get out of the trap while on bail and go home to Australia (Russia would be a safe haven, but I doubt they would accept him).

    Of course the quisling Australian government would gladly turn him in to the US, but many Australians, including the judiciary, would rally to his support. After all, there is an undercurrent of defiance in the Ozzies’ cultural makeup personified by Assange as a maverick turning his nose up to authority. Pity I was not within earshot at the time with my present hindsight…

  44. Parfois1 says:

    Obviously you are a member of the learned profession and we appreciate your expertise by pointing out the legal arguments in a judicial context; but this is a political battle hidden under the mantle of “justice system”. It would require a very brave judge to rock the boat and that is very hard to find in the modern “full-spectrum dominance ” state. As you know, the doctrine of separation of powers is only a pretence – and a poor one at that.

  45. Parfois1 says:

    Jozef Stalin was a jew. And so were Lenin …

    I generally agree with the thrust of your comment but take exception as to the above. For the life of me I don’t see anything connecting Stalin to Jews, except as co-revolutionaries and traitors. I have read and accept as probable that Lenin had some vague Jewish ancestry (1/16th) and was part of the social milieu (middle class) typically populated by Jews.

    But Iosif Vissarionovich was a Georgian Orthodox Christian from a very poor peasant background who got a bit of an education in a seminary. If anyone in history was the antithesis of Jewry, Stalin was the man.

    But I am a learner and would be ready to be enlightened by some credible evidence; but I know your chances of that happening is Zilch.

    • Replies: @Popeye
  46. Anonymous [AKA "hanermo2"] says:

    Great article.
    Somewhat true.

    Assange had no real options, and avoided the US extradition warrants for 7 years.
    The UK warrants, his arrest, the ecuadorian complicity after a payoff in us loan agreements, are shameful.

    The UK treatment of assange in Belmarsh is shameful – essentially punishing in judicial incarceration a non-violent aging person being treated similarly to hard-core gangbangers and violent criminal offenders.

    The UK criminal penalty for assange is also ridiculous.
    It makes no mention of his very real threat to life in us criminal executions – the uk is supposed to prevent.

    The US warrants mentioning treason are ridiculous.
    Treason is only something a national can do, not a foreigner. And mostly in wartime, or as a member of the armed forces, cia, or similar.

    An australian citizen cannot be guilty of treason in the us, unless they are serving the us cia or something like that.

  47. Antares says:

    @ Anon 37
    “Sarkozy Jewish?

    “Born in Paris, he is of 1/2 Hungarian Protestant, 1/4 Greek Jewish, and 1/4 French Catholic origin. Mayor of Neuilly-sur-Seine from 1983 to 2002, he was Minister of the Budget under Prime Minister Édouard Balladur (1993–1995) during François Mitterrand’s second term”.

    Lenin – about the same Jewish ancestry.”
    1/4 is precisely what is needed.

    “Timmerman responsible for some unspecified (and non existent) debacle over MH17? Utter crap.

    That’s for starters.”
    I can follow it in his language. I didn’t say that he is solely responsible. My country has become completely anti-Russian, I can’t talk about MH-17 here.

  48. Popeye says:

    I have several Stalin biographies..have read that as well as one grandparent two or three generations before had Jewish blood..will do some checking in these books all by scholars of.reputation..

    • Replies: @Parfois1
  49. @GrahamSM

    A sound argument and great post. I cannot believe it may be necessary to use trained pigeons to communicate with the prisoner. Aren’t his lawyers now allowed to meet with him?

  50. annamaria says:

    The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak it

    George Orwell

  51. annamaria says:

    Who has ordered the spineless Brits, Swedes, and Australians to break their own and international laws in order to destroy Assange?

    By the way, “after Olof Palme was murdered, the Swedish government has become one of the worst of the Europeans vassals.” The miserable wretches in Sweden have been totally servile to the ZUSA.
    The governmental bodies of Sweden and the UK stink, badly.

  52. Parfois1 says:

    Thank you Popeye for your effort. Having a Jewish remote ancestor doesn’t make you one. I have been told that my DNA (test done for other purposes) contains about 5% Neanderthal genes – perhaps that explains why I am cantankerous curmudgeonly Neanderthal?!

    At one stage the Jewish propaganda machine adopted as theirs the Bolsheviks revolutionaries (Wikipedia still does it albeit differently) when it was fashionable and suited their plans. If Stalin had Jewish ancestry, they would have claimed him as theirs then. If they haven’t, than he wasn’t – you can be sure of that.

    One needs a broad historical perspective to understand the ways of the world and the plausibility of certain events. Of course there were Jewish communities in Georgia but by the time of its annexation into the Russian Empire (1800) there were few left over from prior Persian and Ottoman occupations. Jewish communities, because of their occupations (trades, professions) and ethnic cohesion, lived mostly in larger cities, not small rural towns as Gori was in 1879. His family was very poor so he was sent to the seminary at Tiblisi as a young boy.

  53. @GrahamSM

    I hope you emailed his solicitors and counsel as well.

    Very interesting. It hadn’t occurred to me that such a defence could be run in a bail violation case, though I can’t see a logical reason why it could not be. So his argument is that he was so afraid of what the English courts might do in relation to the European Arrest Warrant – because of his fear of the further consequences of what might happen if he were sent to Sweden – that he felt compelled to commit the offence of skipping bail. Is that right?

    I haven’t thought through its possible consequences if that reasoning is accepted as the prosecution surely is thinking it through and as judges will too. But suppose he succeeds. He is able to restore his health and deal with his lawyers much more efficiently if he is released but still faces extradition charges and, presumably, will at least be held in a remand prison.

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Jonathan Cook Comments via RSS
Becker update V1.3.2
The JFK Assassination and the 9/11 Attacks?