Mick Hall doesn't think much of British beaks.
British magistrates and judges historically have a dreadful reputation Julian Assange is right to fear their retribution.
The judge who upheld the arrest warrant on Julian Assange is typical of her ilk. British magistrates and judges historically have a dreadful reputation. If it's political the UK government cries jump and they reply how high. A self selecting group of men and women who spend their lives desperately searching for status by punishing others.
Sweden long ago gave up the ghost of prosecuting Julian, having withdrawn their extradition warrant officially for any alleged crimes he was accused of committing within their jurisdiction.
Unlike in the UK, where if he leaves the Ecuadorian embassy in Knightsbridge he faces arrest for breaching his former bail conditions.
Let me remind readers of why Assange is really being targeted by the US state and their British caddy. He broadcast to the world a video of US troops murdering journalists and innocent Iraqi men and wounding their children. (See below)
Without the help of Wikileaks whistleblowers like Chelsea Manning, whose heroic attempt to expose her nation's wrong doing would never have seen the light of day. Hence the US government's vindictive determination to make an example of Assange in the hope this will put off any future potential whistleblowers currently working within the state apparatus.
In October 2013 Sweden advised the CPS lawyer that it was time to withdraw the European arrest warrant on the grounds of proportionality, but due to UK intransigence it was four years before this eventually occurred.
Earlier this month the English aristocrat and wife of a Tory politician, Emma Arbuthnot, the senior district judge sitting at Westminster magistrates court summed up why she was refusing to lift the arrest warrant on Assange. What she said had echoes of Denning and Widgery when as senior members of the judiciary they absolved the British government and it's military of any blame for Bloody Sunday after British soldiers shot 28 unarmed civilians in Derry during a peaceful protest march. Fourteen of them died.
Emma Arbuthnot:
Sweden long ago gave up the ghost of prosecuting Julian, having withdrawn their extradition warrant officially for any alleged crimes he was accused of committing within their jurisdiction.
Unlike in the UK, where if he leaves the Ecuadorian embassy in Knightsbridge he faces arrest for breaching his former bail conditions.
Let me remind readers of why Assange is really being targeted by the US state and their British caddy. He broadcast to the world a video of US troops murdering journalists and innocent Iraqi men and wounding their children. (See below)
Without the help of Wikileaks whistleblowers like Chelsea Manning, whose heroic attempt to expose her nation's wrong doing would never have seen the light of day. Hence the US government's vindictive determination to make an example of Assange in the hope this will put off any future potential whistleblowers currently working within the state apparatus.
In October 2013 Sweden advised the CPS lawyer that it was time to withdraw the European arrest warrant on the grounds of proportionality, but due to UK intransigence it was four years before this eventually occurred.
Earlier this month the English aristocrat and wife of a Tory politician, Emma Arbuthnot, the senior district judge sitting at Westminster magistrates court summed up why she was refusing to lift the arrest warrant on Assange. What she said had echoes of Denning and Widgery when as senior members of the judiciary they absolved the British government and it's military of any blame for Bloody Sunday after British soldiers shot 28 unarmed civilians in Derry during a peaceful protest march. Fourteen of them died.
Emma Arbuthnot:
I accept that Mr Assange had expressed fears of being returned to the United States from a very early stage in the Swedish extradition proceedings but, absent any evidence from Mr Assange on oath, I do not find that Mr Assange’s fears were reasonable. I do not accept that Sweden would have rendered Mr Assange to the US.
Legal language is precise even in a flawed legal system like the UK's so why would Arbuthnot use a word like returned?
What the judge says it so typical of the doublespeak and sleight of hand of the British judiciary. If extradited, Julian would not be "returned to the USA." He is not a US citizen and Wikileaks have never operated in that jurisdiction.
Sweden long ago gave up any claim on him as I pointed out above. What he rightly fears now is the British caddy in Westminster extraditing him to the USA.
The US and British government's had hoped the Swedish government would do the dirty deed but they eventually refused the poison chalice. Once in US custody he would be lost within the Supermax prison system.
If anyone seriously doubts the British government's intention they need to question why they continue to spend millions of pounds to get their hands on Julian. Now the Swedes have withdrawn their extradition request, the most Assange could be charged with in the UK is the comparatively minor crime of not answering his bail. At most the forfeit of his bail money would be the normal procedure when there are no outstanding charges due. That the British government has not gone down this road makes his legal team believe there is far more to his case than the British government is telling.
After Arbuthnot passed her verdict, Gareth Peirce, one of Mr Assange's legal team said: “The history of the case from start to finish is extraordinary. Each aspect of it becomes puzzling and troubling as it is scrutinised.”
The mainstream media glitterati
And what of glitterati of the mainstream media who were happy to use the info Wikileaks provided about US forces killing innocent civilians in Iraq and rightly so, but when it came to supporting Julian Assange after he had little choice but to find sanctuary in the Ecuador embassy, they turned their backs and reported the fake news manufactured about him in Langley.
Follow Mick Hall on Twitter @organizedrage
A few problems with the laptop has caused a delay - hope to be back to normal shortly.
ReplyDeleteBritish law, I suppose like all Western democratic societies, is purposely designed to be ambiguous so as it can be interpreted by the establishment appointed judges to do their bidding when called upon to do so and create the appearance of being perfectly legal and rational.....
ReplyDelete