Follow

ONE DAY.

Imagine spending ONE DAY in the "British Guantanamo", the max-security prison of Belmarsh in London, among violent criminals.

Now imagine spending ONE THOUSAND DAYS there.

Imagine, that as a publisher many times celebrated for your work (challengepower.info/assange_s_), you are not even charged.

You are waiting for extradition to the US where you face up to 175y in super-max.

You revealed war crimes involving the unaccounted death of dozen thousands of people.

@jz Yeah he's detained during the extradition process because he absconded the last time he was given bail. The fact that this is in any way controversial is very strange.

I don't think he should be extradited based on the US's current charges but he very much made his own bed when it comes to being detained right now.

@jack

He didn't *abscond* he requested and *obtained* f#ckn ***political asylum*** because of the provable and proven evidence that he will be harassed by the US govt.

The UK has absolutely no legitimacy in that parody of justice. none of it makes sense legally. it's a bloody shame.

@jz

"None of it makes sense legally"?

It's really not a hard concept to grasp, and a political decision by Ecuador does not undo the fact that he broke British law.

He was on bail.

He violated his bail conditions.

He was tried, convicted, sentenced and has carried out the sentence for that crime.

Now he can't get bail again, because he has shown he won't comply with any bail conditions imposed upon him.

@jack

“The offence of absconding by a person released on bail is set out in section 6 of the Bail Act. If a person who is on bail fails without reasonable cause to surrender he shall be guilty of an offence. On a straightforward reading of the section, which makes no mention of any underlying proceedings, 1. Mr Assange has been released on bail, 2. He has failed to surrender and 3. If he has no reasonable cause he will be guilty of an offence.”

Political asylum IS a reasonable cause.

@jack

Also shall we go back on the numerous illegalities from the UK that got him here in the first place?

* extracting him from an embassy (BEFORE any charge was placed)

* upholding an EAW for a suspicion of minor sexual offense, that got further proven as being fabricated (read the conclusion of Nils Melzer)

* Sitting on 2 reports by UN special committee on arbitrary detention

* Judge Emma Arbuthnot in obivious conflict interest with her husband exposed by WL and her son's company

@jack

+ sentence (of skipping bail for the arrest warrant of an offense for which he NEVER was CHARGED, that was then closed) was 50 weeks. it's now 1000 days.

* The UK leading all that bullcrap lapdogging of the US while knowing he was being surveilled in the embassy, including conversations with his lawyers

* 15min to prepare his hearing.

* denying him the right to speak at his hearing

* puting him in a glass box like a dangerous terrorist + keeping him in Belmarsh

UK = criminals

@jack

the list is not even over yet...

This is a mockery of justice. The "judges" implicated in this farce should be fired, and not even allowed to be hired for dishwashing in a court's cafeteria.

This slow-motion execution of a multi-awarded journalist, by the UK on behalf of their US "daddy" is an international crime.

It will be remembered in history along with the numerous brutal war crimes of the (fallen) UK empire.

Nonsense argument about Assange 

@jz I'm still waiting for "the numerous illegalities from the UK" you wanted to go back over.

You can't just declare something illegal because you don't like and/or understand it 🤷‍♂️

To respond to your points:
- The embassy arrest was for the bail offence
- EAW proceedings aren't a full trial, that's for the requesting country
- UN reports are legally meaningless
- Arbuthnot recused herself for the substantive hearings

Nonsense argument about Assange 

@jz

- He's being detained because he can't get bail, the 1k days aren't all for the bail offence
- bullcrap lapdogging. mmm, solid legal argument that one
- not speaking in procedural hearings isn't rare
- the dock is a particularly bad part of our legal system, I'll give you that, but hardly an illegal one
- again he's detained because he's a MASSIVE FLIGHT RISK.

Nonsense argument about Assange 

@jack

Formal decision of a sovereign country like Ecuador to grant political asylum, recognized by the UN is "political"...

...then what is a decision by these corrupt British clowns with dead sheeps on their heads? the word of god?

Such blindness, real or simulated, would be just amusing, if it wasn't the accomplice of the slow murder of a brilliant publisher.

Tony Blair should be in that glass box and in Belmarsh, along with those who justify his acts.

@jack

Come on! You can't be truly believing that crap! Are you also member of the Arbuthnot family? :))

- she didnt formally recuse herself. neither judge Burnett, 40y friend with the f*ck who arrested JA.

- storming an embassy is err.. legal?

- EAW decision was recognizing an illegal and flawed procedure.

- How about CPS writing to Swedish prosecutors "Don't you dare get cold feet", preventing them to move on w/ the empty case? Perfectly legal and standard procedure i guess? by Jove!

@jack

About judge Arbuthnot, whose husband is exposed by WL with his weapon sales, whose son hunts down whistleblowers with former CIA/NSA employees:

* absolutely did NOT recuse herself, just didn't appear at the hearing herself
* still oversees the case
* sent this not-even-junior-"judge" go in her place who obviously read pre-written judgements that she didnt even annotate during the hearings

ECtHR 22 December 2009, Case No. 24810/06, Parlov-Tkalčić v Croatia, para. 86:

@jack

‘The Court … reiterates that in order to establish whether a tribunal can be considered “independent” for the purposes of Article 6 § 1, regard must be had, inter alia, to the manner of appointment of its members and their term of office, the existence of safeguards against outside pressures and the question whether it presents an appearance of independence’

If there isn't appearance of or therefore independance of the judge, it is not justice. It is not legal.

a bloody scam!

@jack

..but i guess that the ECHR is just like the UN, or the sovereign state of Ecuador... it's not the godly Kingdom, so it's doesnt matter at all.

It cannot be relevant, right?

@jack

PS: finding exquisitely elaborate legal justifications to the most abominable crimes is definitely a characteristics of the imperial violence that killed millions and set disastrous socio-political order all through the World, to plunder its resources.

So some dudes can have their tea and feel superior to everyone, going to bed satisfied that all they did was righteous and honest to god.

The sort of bullshit that fortunately doesnt convince anymore....

@jz CIA is guilty, as proven by the Assange case ; they operate a war, using shadow and non-lethal unconventional weapons to bring down the people sovereignity, and popular, universal, intelligence actors.
Assange was a master intelligence in the fight for freedom and democraty.
USA declared war on all people in the world, even their own country.

Remember USA like Nazis in WW2 created their concentration camp abroad from their country.


Sign in to participate in the conversation
La Quadrature du Net - Mastodon - Media Fédéré

Mamot.fr est une serveur Mastodon francophone, géré par La Quadrature du Net.