Julian Assange to be thrown under the bus

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
Skeptics ask, why are there no insiders blowing the whistle about 9/11 or any number of other government conspiracies? This seems like a good enough explanation to me.
Well Jerry, Robert Mueller did say that Atta's passport was vaporware. So there!

Your points are well taken.

But just as well, we've been long agreeing, and not arguing, that the national parties are "Controlled". And by definition that Hill and Bill are part of that corrupt structure. And, I'm saying that Trump is too, despite the sturm und drang about Trump's opposition to the Deep State. He was steered into this (with the (collusion) help of the RNC and others) and I'm saying that Wikileaks was used, wittingly or unwittingly, as the convenient vehicle to deploy the 'stolen' emails.

As a natural reaction to what Joshstone is discussing, Wikileaks was formed out of 'anonymous' individuals (excepting Assange) to protect against revenge of the corrupt state interests. This very construction ironically made it a target for being used as a political weapon. Like we've mentioned, leaks have a long history as political weapons, and there is usually impunity if the source is powerful enough.
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
The below are a series of in-depth presentations on different aspects of the Julian Assange story by the Australian ABC. I'm in the middle of watching the third video below about the sex charges and what led up to that. That entire story is utterly bizarre, but so is the prior story of how Assange attended a cocktail party, sans the woman who invited him, at the US embassy in Iceland and shortly after ended up with a data dump from there.



 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Richard, I watched the first 23 seconds of the first video, with the ominous music. It's already obvious that this is a hatchet job against Assange. A perfect example of what Nils Melzer called "A relentless and unrestrained campaign of public mobbing, intimidation and defamation."

So what if Assange is a "polarizing figure". And furthermore, so what if he went to a party in Iceland without his date, and came out with a scoop. Since when does that justify years of harassment?

https://consortiumnews.com/2019/05/31/un-torture-report-demonized-assange-has-faced-psychological-torture/

The UN special rapporteur on torture has issued a stinging rebuke to the United States, Great Britain, Sweden and Ecuador for “deliberately” exposing WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange to years of “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment,” which can only be described as “psychological torture.”
“In 20 years of work with victims of war, violence and political persecution I have never seen a group of democratic States ganging up to deliberately isolate, demonise and abuse a single individual for such a long time and with so little regard for human dignity and the rule of law,” Nils Melzer said in a statement published on the UN High Commissioner for Human Right’s website on Friday. “The collective persecution of Julian Assange must end here and now!”
“The evidence is overwhelming and clear,” Melzer said. “Mr. Assange has been deliberately exposed, for a period of several years, to progressively severe forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the cumulative effects of which can only be described as psychological torture.” [....]
Melzer said:
“It was obvious that Mr. Assange’s health has been seriously affected by the extremely hostile and arbitrary environment he has been exposed to for many years. Most importantly, in addition to physical ailments, Mr. Assange showed all symptoms typical for prolonged exposure to psychological torture, including extreme stress, chronic anxiety and intense psychological trauma.”
 
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
So you are saying, after 23 seconds, that the people interviewed that accuse Assange, are against Assange!!!!? And, that the people interviewed that support Assange are .... against Assange!!!!?

I'm in the middle of watching the third video below about the sex charges and what led up to that. That entire story is utterly bizarre, [...]
Are you saying that the narrative about the two Swedish women, who went to the police, not because they thought they were raped, but because they thought they might have contracted an STD, is NOT bizarro. Who does that? You go to a medical facility first, and then .... usually NOT the police, but maybe a lawyer. Instead, a warrant is issued to arrest him, after the prosecutor led him to believe that he was in the clear.

What works in Assange's favor here, is that this is so bizarre. Unfortunately, these matters that impact world affairs so much these days, oddly seem to contain these elements of bizarrness. And maybe this is the point. Such strangemess allows people to throw up their hands, unable to figure out complicity, maybe because the whole stage is rigged?

Again, we don't end up in this Trumpian situation without the likes of WikiLeaks and Assange (and ....) that fed the narrative.

“In 20 years of work with victims of war, violence and political persecution I have never seen a group of democratic States ganging up to deliberately isolate, demonise and abuse a single individual for such a long time and with so little regard for human dignity and the rule of law,” Nils Melzer said in a statement published on the UN High Commissioner for Human Right’s website on Friday.
This just goes to show how ignorant (at least) people like Melzer is, right? "democractic states"? The USA was an aspiring empire from day one, an now is an empire, that uses the illusion of a ((r)epublican) Democracy as a fascade [sic]. Is Melzer merely selling Kool-Aid, or drinking it too?
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
This just goes to show how ignorant (at least) people like Melzer is, right?
I don't think so. What Melzer said was, that the abuse of Assange is completely out of proportion to anything that has ever been done before to a single individual. Nobody has ever been targeted by multiple governments, tortured, and also demonized by the press, to such an extent.

Can you think of a single counter-example? Who has been subject to worse than Julian Assange?

And, nothing has changed since August. If anything, it's gotten worse, as Craig Murray confirmed yesterday.

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/10/assange-in-court/

I was badly shocked by just how much weight my friend has lost, by the speed his hair has receded and by the appearance of premature and vastly accelerated ageing. He has a pronounced limp I have never seen before. Since his arrest he has lost over 15 kg in weight.
But his physical appearance was not as shocking as his mental deterioration. When asked to give his name and date of birth, he struggled visibly over several seconds to recall both. I will come to the important content of his statement at the end of proceedings in due course, but his difficulty in making it was very evident; it was a real struggle for him to articulate the words and focus his train of thought.
Until yesterday I had always been quietly sceptical of those who claimed that Julian’s treatment amounted to torture – even of Nils Melzer, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture – and sceptical of those who suggested he may be subject to debilitating drug treatments. But having attended the trials in Uzbekistan of several victims of extreme torture, and having worked with survivors from Sierra Leone and elsewhere, I can tell you that yesterday changed my mind entirely and Julian exhibited exactly the symptoms of a torture victim brought blinking into the light, particularly in terms of disorientation, confusion, and the real struggle to assert free will through the fog of learned helplessness.
I had been even more sceptical of those who claimed, as a senior member of his legal team did to me on Sunday night, that they were worried that Julian might not live to the end of the extradition process. I now find myself not only believing it, but haunted by the thought.
 

Emma Robertson

Active Member
Skeptics ask, why are there no insiders blowing the whistle about 9/11 or any number of other government conspiracies? This seems like a good enough explanation to me.
Well, that's the same explanation that the supporters of chemtrails craze use to justify that there are almost no wistleblowers: they are too scared, they say.

And it has been replied that mafia's wistleblowers in Italy, for example, exist. Or "Brigate Rosse" ones, back in the '70 (Brigate Rosse used to put bombs around like muslim terrorists do now). And the wistleblowers are well aware of the measures used by such organizasions against traitors, yet they speak.

Are Americans just more scared? I don't think so. Are all the wistleblowers just double agents? Maybe yes maybe no.
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
I don't think so. What Melzer said was, that the abuse of Assange is completely out of proportion to anything that has ever been done before to a single individual. Nobody has ever been targeted by multiple governments, tortured, and also demonized by the press, to such an extent.

Can you think of a single counter-example? Who has been subject to worse than Julian Assange?
Maybe so.

Does this imply that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is indeed a double agent, and hence his better treatment - by comparison?
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Does this imply that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is indeed a double agent, and hence his better treatment - by comparison?
In terms of Melzer's comparison, the difference is that KSM was not targeted by "a group of democratic states". He was basically just targeted by the US, with assistance from Pakistan's ISI in making his arrest.
 

Emma Robertson

Active Member
I am very sorry for Julian Assange. I found this recounting written by a friend of him who used to go and visit in when confined, and I truly doubt that he is a double agent. It would be foolish of him to undergo such a torture. I think he didn't expect to be indicted when he started the whole Wiki-Leaks thing. That was something that journalists regularly do and they normally are not charged and imprisoned for that.

http://normanfinkelstein.com/2019/04/24/the-truth-about-comrade-julian-assange/

"As each month passed, his skin grew paler from lack of sunlight and his health deteriorated. Dr. Sean Love, who is part of a medical team with Dr. Sondra Crosby of the Boston Medical Center and British psychologist Dr. Brock Chisholm that has conducted regular evaluations of Assange since 2017, said, “He had no ability to access medical care.” Dr. Love complained that the physicians were under constant electronic surveillance, a violation of the doctor-patient relationship, and the British government would not allow Assange safe passage to a hospital for urgent dental surgery. While the British tabloid press scorned Assange’s hygiene, it ignored what Dr. Love called “the deleterious effects of seven years of confinement, whose risks include neuro-psychological impairment, weakened bones, compromised immune function, increased risk of cardio-vascular disease and cancer.” Reacting to the stories about Assange not washing, Dr. Love insisted, “This is a complete smear. This is meant to degrade his humanity.” He believes the “cumulative effect of pain and suffering inflicted on him is most definitely in violation of the 1984 Convention on Torture, specifically Articles 1 and 16.”

The recound shows very well how things changed for Julian in the Equadorian Embassy, when the new Equador president was elected and Julian found himself to be among hostile forces, pressed by the US to deliver him. Besides, he was spied all over the place by the company supposed to protect the embassy, a Spanish one, which gave all videos to the CIA, including his talks with his lawyer, so that they know what his defence strategy would be and how to set him up.

Let's hope that this guy is right:

Alexander J. Urbelis is a lawyer and self-described hacker with more than 20 years' experience with information security. He is currently a partner in the Blackstone Law Group, CEO of a separate information security consultancy, and co-host of hacker-focused radio show and podcast "Off The Hook." He has worked as a graduate fellow in the Office of General Counsel of the Central Intelligence Agency and as a law clerk at the US Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces

"(CNN)The Department of Justice's superseding indictment of Julian Assange should be seen for what it is: legally idiotic, politically shrewd, and downright scary for its implications.
As to legal idiocy, the additional 17 counts do nothing to increase the chances that the UK judiciary will extradite Assange to the United States to stand trial.
Indeed, the additional counts appear to be designed to ensure that Assange is not extradited to the United States.
I argued in a separate CNN Opinion article that the initial indictment -- which pertained to a single hacking charge -- was deliberately drafted for the charge to appear to be more about the manner of obtaining classified materials and less about the prosecution of a journalist.
The new charges, however, relate to seeking, obtaining, and publishing embarrassing US government secrets, making the superseding indictment much more overtly political. The US-UK extradition treaty in force is quite clear about how our respective courts must handle these situations: "Extradition shall not be granted if the offense for which extradition is requested is a political offense."

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/05/28/opinions/assange-superseding-indictment-implications-urbelis/index.html


But, as far as I know, latest news say that Julian is set to be extradited in February...
 
Last edited:

Emma Robertson

Active Member
But, as far as I know, latest news say that Julian is set to be extradited in February...
I have to make a correction here: in February what is set is not his extradition but the court hearing that will decide about his extradition.

That's why Assange requested three more months to prepare his defence, but he was refused.

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/10/21/assange_fails_to_delay_extradition_hearing/

but according to a friend of Assange who was present at the october hearing the judge seems to have already decided in favor of the US. Assange's friend is also worried that he will not survive until february, due to his health conditions. The US seem to have put pressure on the British judge to conclude his extradition process by February, before the trial against the security company accused of helping the US in spying on Assange while in the Equadorian embassy is concluded.

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/10/assange-in-court/

I think the best solution for Julian would be to die, so the public opinion would be shaken and would be offended at the way he was handled.
 
Last edited:

Emma Robertson

Active Member
UK blocks Spanish judge from questioning Julian Assange over spying allegations

The magistrate has requested to interview the WikiLeaks founder by videoconference as a witness, and says the refusal by British judicial authorities is unprecedented

https://elpais.com/elpais/2019/10/23/inenglish/1571817241_796975.html


This is about the spying of Spanish security company in the embassy. The fact that the UK refuses the Spanish judge to interview Assange, who would give testimony against the US for illegally spying, is a sad confirmation of the position of the British judges involved in favor of the US.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
I think the best solution for Julian would be to die, so the public opinion would be shaken and would be offended at the way he was handled.
Emma, I understand that you don't mean any ill will towards Assange himself, by saying this. But I'm sure you'd agree that the "best solution" would be for the UK to set Assange free, so that he can get prompt and effective medical care. Then after some period of recovery, he could resume his work of shaking up public opinion through the force of his voice.

If the public is not already offended by the way Assange is being treated, I don't see how his death is going to improve that.

If Assange dies in prison, he will not be forgotten, I agree. But his voice will be permanently silenced, which is exactly what his enemies want.
 

Emma Robertson

Active Member
the "best solution" would be for the UK to set Assange free, so that he can get prompt and effective medical care. Then after some period of recovery, he could resume his work of shaking up public opinion through the force of his voice.
Obviously that would be the best solution. But since it's probability of happening is so minimal I was thinking what would be the best solution in case he is extradicted. My reasoning was not hard to understand. Alive in prison for unlimited years would help nothing, his voice shut anyway, and a torture for him.
 
Last edited:

Claude Badley

Registered Guest
Fascist
I see what you mean Jerry...
If the public is not already offended by the way Assange is being treated, I don't see how his death is going to improve that.

If Assange dies in prison, he will not be forgotten, I agree. But his voice will be permanently silenced, which is exactly what his enemies want.
...but his permanent silencing is already in force. The Australian governments, left and right, were against him from the start. The real question comes with the dumping of Trump and his replacement with a Hillary-Killary type hankering for WW3 to ensure Rothschild financial control over Iran, Russia and China. Or more succinctly, where Putin is to concentrate the nuclear ballistic missile strikes - specifically to render the song "There'll Always be an England" obsolete.

Yours faithfully
Claude
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
As the worm turns:

An attorney for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange alleged in court Wednesday that President Trump offered a pardon to Julian Assange if he would deny any Russian involvement in the Democratic National Committee (DNC) hack in 2016.
Edward Fitzgerald, Assange's lawyer, said in a London court that Trump's message had been passed on to Assange by former Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.).
Fitzgerald said a statement made by Jennifer Robinson, another lawyer for Assange, shows "Mr. Rohrabacher going to see Mr Assange and saying, on instructions from the president, he was offering a pardon or some other way out, if Mr Assange ... said Russia had nothing to do with the DNC leaks."

Why would Assange have his lawyer allege this? If the allegation is true, why would Trump offer a pardon for such an obviously self-serving quid pro quo? Perhaps Trump doesn't trust that Assange will stick to his guns about anonymity, but if Russia wasn't involved then, this has to rest on Trump's supposed insecurity about being perceived as a legitimate president.

Rohrabacher was widely considered "the congressman from Russia", his name included in Kevin McCarthy's recorded joke about Trump and Russia. The WH is saying Trump barely knows Rohrabacher, because he never knows anybody.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
But, Assange did explicitly deny any Russian government involvement, back in December 2016.

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/julian-assange-russian-government-not-source-of-leaked-dnc-and-podesta-emails-wikileaks-editor-contradicts-cia-claims-in-new-interview-35300175.html

WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange has again denied that emails from the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman John Podesta were hacked and leaked to his organisation by the Russian government.
In an interview with Sean Hannity he was asked: "So in other words, let me be clear...Russia did not give you the Podesta documents or anything from the DNC?"
The Australian founder of the whistleblowing website, who has been living in the Ecuadorian embassy in London for over four years, responded: "That's correct."
So now, what does this "turn of the worm" mean? Did Trump actually offer this pardon, only to renege after Assange performed his side of the bargain?

Was Assange telling the truth about the Russians, or was he trying to curry favor with Trump by making this statement, or both?
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
It appears, since I have seen the first reports, that Rohrabacher is claiming that he made the offer to Assange on his own initiative.
 
Top