Extradition September hearing Day 15 (17 incl 2 Covid)
Joined the video link waiting to cross to court.
There are 12 of us on this videolink today. Perhaps @kgosztola can tell us how many journalists are on the link at the Old Bailey
The first witness is Maureen Baird, a former senior Bureau of Prisons official in the US.
Wow, she stood up for the judge too. First witness to do so.
Fitzgerald: worked in BOP for 27 yrs till 2016, experience with SAMs.
MB: it’s likely JA would be under SAMs pre trial - Nat sec issue.
Inmates spend 23-14 hours a day in their cell with no communication with other inmates at all. The recreation +ell is an empty cell, alwaysalone
.. allowed 2x15 min calls a month or 1x half hour; contrary to what Kromberg says all mail is screened & can be held up for a couple of months, so not “free flowing”, calls always monitored by FBI agent, inmate had to request a call 2 weeks in advance.
MB: we had 12-15 under SAMs at MCC in a unit built after 9/11 intended for inmates from Guantanamo Bay. SAMs is not discretionary & is the same across prisons, authorised by AG, created after Oklahoma bombing in 1996 & utilised more after 9/11.
MB: unless you are stage 4 cancer inmate, you would go to Florence, that’s where JA would be. There is no cell sharing.
Te challenging SAMs, I have been a case manager & I can tell you nothing happens at the twice yearly review. I used to answer remedies- I’ve never seen a SAMs..
..one approved (there is another internal process but is onerous & leads nowhere).
When I got promoted to NY prison, I received SAMs training & I went to annual meetings with other wardens inc the warden at Florence.
MB: it’s not supposed to be punitive but the consequences are, it’s even more isolated than restricted housing, correctional officers don’t engage in conversation with prisoners, I’ve met with with SAMs prisoners - causes severe depression, anxiety, paranoia, physical deteriora..
..tion, sometimes psychotic condition. (Long shot of JA, sitting up straight against the wall)
MB: agree with Sickler, JA risks being held in H block if he gets a lengthy sentence, “not designed for humanity”, Kromberg talks about programs available - they are not & as for the “phases” they are very minor, eg making it to second stage means you get one more phone call.
MB: any activity/program the inmate would still have to do alone, he can’t associate with family physically- no touching.
MB: he is likely to be SAMS pre trial & post conviction, contrary to being “content” (Dr Lukefeld) at ADX, it’s their fear of going somewhere else that could be worse. SAMs inmates complain about the conditions & litigate their conditions in fed courts & Inter American Commission
MB: does have a robust suicide prevention prog but not effective if someone wants to take their lives - I have experience of this unfortunately, reliance on inmate self reporting can result in successful suicide.
Fitzgerald: El Haj in 2000 (Dobbin referred yesterday) was ..
Permitted to have a cell mate.
MB: not after 9/11. Everything became more strict
Dobbin: questions whether MB is independent because she only acts for defendants ( Dobbin is extraordinary. If an actor wants to hone a sneer in their voice, they need to study this lawyer)
Dobbin quotes from a law firm website describing MB’s experience.
So MB’s experience has been with pretrial SAMs.
MB: terrorists & a drug trafficker (that I recall), no none accused of espionage or NAT SEC in my time there. From what I read the govt says, I think it’s likely he will be SAMs - its very much on the table according to Kromberg
Dobbin: Kromberg says it’s possible.
MB: The AG & Intel decide - my opinion from everything Ove read is that he would meet the criteria ie he is being charged with espionage
Dobbin: he has to be a threat to Nat Sec
MB: I believe the AG could present the case in that way
Dobbin: you can’t speculate
MB: I’m basing it on how much Kromberg focuses on SAMs. This is the first case I’ve worked where SAMs is on the table since I retired & have been involved in about a dozen cases since.
Dobbin: a tiny number are subject to SAMs
MB: 45-50
MB: pretrial all SAMs are the same
Dobbin: in the prison you were at but they can vary depending on the person
MB: modifications would be very rare & minor.
MB: yes, pretrial they are allowed 2 family visits per month, the internal admin remedy has to be exhausted before going to court post trial & pretrial (though Dobbin is saying pretrial they can go straight to court) judges in practice want to know if the internal process has..
... been exhausted.
Dobbin quoting from the Prosecution bundle the case of Hashemi (sp?) where the court heard pretrial the complaint that the prison violated his right to access counsel but found the SAMs to be lawful. Continues, spitting out “Bin Laden’s trusted Lieutenant”..
.. though MB dealt with el Haj earlier.
MB: Prior to 2001 & very much t(e exception, I have never seen that before.
Dobbin: so they have lawyer visits, family, you & your staff.
MB: there are 2 officers on t(at unit but they don’t talk to prisoners.
Dobbin: you were in a positio
..n to encourage your staff to speak with the prisoners.
MB: they open the viewing slot to check the inmate when doing their rounds, they don’t stop. I would stop if a prisoner wanted to talk to me, but I don’t have the authority to do that - they are in a union, it’s not on ..
.. their job description.
Dobbin: oh come on!
MB: it’s just not done. I lead by example, but I couldn’t direct them to do that. That’s not something that’s done in prison. What I want is not what I can enforce.
Dobbin: did you raise any concerns to your supervisor?
MB: no
Dobbin asking MB about Abu Hamsa, the judge in that case described visiting the prison.
MB: I don’t recall the judge in that case coming to the prison or meeting with her or him.
Dobbin: you didn’t express concerns to anyone or encourage staff to converse with SAMs inmates
MB: I tried to be a compassionate employee. The way the prison officers behave towards the inmates is not uncommon.
Dobbin: So these conditions didn’t cause you concern at the time, you are just expressing concerns now.
MB: I didn’t believe I had any control over that at the time
Dobbin asks about transfers to hospital (MB doesn’t remember any) Epstein was first suicide at MCC. You’ve never been to the Alexandria prison, are you in a position to comment on standard of medical care (MB:no, I can’t comment on ADC, I have no knowledge of it)
MB: cases that are similar all get life. We had an espionage case in the mid. 90s & they got life.
Dobbin asks about Reality Winner’s very short sentence. MB doesn’t know anything about that case.
What was the process for placing people at the ADX ?
MB: regional director has to
.. approve.
Dobbin reads that inmates are evaluated, there are reviews of those being considered for ADX, screening out seriously mentally ill. (Me: have been thru this with Sickler - schizophrenia)
MB: serious mental illness in prison means psychotic
Dobbin: there are only 14 with serious
... mental illness at ADX because there were other concerns about them. How do you know ADX is the only place to place SAMs inmates?
MB: other prisons just don’t have the facilities.
Dobbin lists a few at other prisons.
MB: they may be pre trail, female, if your info is correct
MB: “phase 3” on paper at ADX, (who can speak to other inmates), I haven’t heard any have achieved that
Dobbin reading about a phase 3 program. (Shot of JA, his head back against the wall).
MB: very few would make it to phase 3 - it defeats the purpose of what SAMs is for
Dobbin: this is to phase them out of SAMs.
MB: Kromberg describes these programs like they are accessible but there are no grey areas with SAMs & it’s not discretionary.
The witness doesn’t want a break but Ms Dobbin does, so,
10 min break
Dobbin is back on the SAMs phases .. quoting from the Prosecution bundle the numbers of SAMs prisoners incl terrorists who have been through the phases & are being transferred put.
Fitzgerald says the figures are all ADX not confined to SAMs.
Dobbin asks what can she say about
.. phases since 2012.
MB: firstly you say 200 prisoners when there are only 40 or so in SAMs
Dobbin: that is the basis this judge made the decision to allow the prisoner to go to ADX, Do you understand that? (Ouch, she is so patronising)
MB: 5 have been moved out of H unit since 2009.
Dobbin: so you have no idea since 2012.
MB: no
Dobbin: I’m asking you what you know about H unit since 2012 & if you don’t know the basic statistics, how can you predict what will happen to JA.
MB: there are people there who have been there for many years, incl Hamsa plus 3 terrorists.
Dobbin: you can’t name any more?
Dobbin refers to someone who has been moved out but MB can’t comment. .refers to Lukefeld’s statement saying SAMs inmates can have group therapy when the agency who requested the SAMs approves it? (Me why would they give permission for a Nat sec prisoner)
MB: reiterates this isn’t her experience of SAMs
Dobbin asks about Cunningham decision
MB: focus was general prison population, not SAMs
Dobbin: where in the settlement does it exclude SAMs?
MB: (OMGoodness she should respond, no you show me where it says it includes SAMs)
MB: wading through the Prosecution bundle to find the Cunningham settlement.. but says SAMs can’t do group activities.
Dobbin reads from the settlement...re constitutional violations & remedies, saying it’s absolutely clear the settlement benefits everyone at ADX.
MB: no group
.. therapy for SAMs. Dr Lukefeld works in central office not in the field for some years.
MB: if you’re familiar with SAMs & have worked with SAMs inmates, you can’t accept that.. Lukefeld specifically took out SAMs from one area because she didn’t know how it applied to SAMs.
Dobbin: are you in a better position than Dr Lukefeld to know?
Do you agree with Lukefeld..
.. all inmates screened for suicidal ideation & when placed on prevention watch?
MB: yes
Dobbin: program works well?
MB: good program but doesn’t always work.
Dobbin: don’t you agree the rate is good?
MB: one is too many so I can’t say that 10 is low
Dobbin persists but the judge
.. cuts her off saying the witness has answered the question..
Dobbin asks about programs
MB: JA would not be eligible for the autism program, designed for intellectual disabilities.
Dobbin asks her about staffing levels saying ADX has a full complement - a bigger ration of
.. staff to prisoners.
MB: they are offering an incentive at the moment because they are short staffed (remote rural area).
Fitzgerald: you made the point Kromberg says it’s possible JA will be subject to SAMS, & you have had experience with undertakings not to apply SAMs
MB: yes, & he is charged with espionage is significant.
It’s likely he will be subjected to SAMs.
Fitzgerald: re El Haj.. the judgement describes the conditions he was held in as solitary confinement whereas it was put to you there is no solitary in US prisons.
Of the 9 people
..convicted of espionage, both pre & post trial were in SAMs
MB: correct.
Fitzgerald: re Hamsa who has been under SAMs for 5 years, 13 have been for a decade, you believe JA could be indefinitely under SAMs
MB: yes
Fitzgerald asks about those who approve moving out of SAMs or entering a different SAMs phase, it would be the AG & Intel, either FBI or CIA, whichever agency is involved in imposing SAMs.
MB: yes (me, well given what the former head of CIA has said, that’s not going to happen
.. for JA is it).
Witness finished
Judge asks about the “anonymous witnesses”, whether they are agreed. Summers says their discussions depend on the judge’s approval of anonymity.
Lunch break
TYPO S/B 23-24
S/b 23-24
The next witness is up on video - Lindsay Lewis, who also stood for the judge. She is a young woman who appears to be pregnant.
Fitzgerald: you are a US lawyer, at the NY bar & the Supreme Court, practice in a law firm that represented WL in a civil matter, you represented ?.
..Abu Hamsa.
Fitzgerald: representations were made in the English courts that he would not be sent to ADX if he was extradited.
LL: yes
Fitzgerald: European Court & English magistrate relied on those undertakings, he was nevertheless sent to ADX.
LL: yes
LL: held under SAMs pretrial in NY in unit 10 south. (She is sounding underwater). He was almost never out of his cell & we had difficulties seeing him & he always had issues getting family calls. Judge complains about the sound
LL: JA will almost certainly be subject to SAMs pre and post trial because of the Nat Sec issue.
Trying to fix the sound issue, witness will log back in.
Now we can’t see her
5 min break
She’s back!
Now she can’t hear the court. It’s a balancing act. For her to hear, she has to sound somewhat underwater, so we may have done a full circle here...
Fitzgerald: conditions under which Hamsa is held... is he permitted to associate with other prisoners?
LL: not at all. There are long term physical & psychological effects.
LL: mental illness is not a bar - you have to have a very serious mental illness & even if you are psychotic you will remain there is they deem security is a problem & there isn’t anywhere else to put you. The Cunningham privileges are not available to him
LL: if you are in H unit under SAMs, you don’t benefit from Cunningham.
LL: he is frequently moved from cell to cell & that has been made public so I can say that but otherwise I can’t speak about it because of restrictions on me
Fitzgerald: as the lawyer of someone under SAMs
LL: yes
LL: JA would be held under SAMs at ADX, most inmates are ..
..completely alone for many years with a visit or call generally once a month. Difficulties getting family visits for him eg his young grandson who shouldn’t present a security prob (too hard to hear to be sure this is exactly what is said)
LL: there are 13 held under SAMs for over a decade & Mustafa 8 years with no step down (phase). We file complaint after complaint but I don’t of know of any inmate who has succeeded in the internal review process.
Re Al Haj.. my partner represented him. Despite a decision
.. he should have a cell mate, he was back in solitary & still is. Pretrial he was also held under SAMs.
Hashemi was a pre trial case, the court merely accepted to hear his case before exhausting internal review but maintained his SAMs. There are repeated complaints by inmates
.. about insufficient mental or physical health care and complete solitary.
Dobbin: why did you go to Wandsworth prison?
LL: to visit someone who maintains be extradited to the US?
Dobbin: Who?
LL: I’m not at liberty to say, but it was not JA.
Dobbin: asks about how often
..s he visited her client at ADX.
LL: on many occasions I was not able for various prison related reasons to see him.
Dobbin: you were the most junior of his lawyers.?
LL: no.
Dobbin now going thru the charges her client was convicted of - terrorism, Taliban, al Qaida related
Dobbin moving on to the various attempts to appeal, all while he was at ADX?
LL: yes but with great difficulty
Dobbin: he has now you to pursue legal action.
LL: it’s dismissive to not take into account the access challenges that complicated all the litigation, including my
.. current action for him challenging his conditions of confinement but there is a very slow trickle of mail I get for him that hampers progress
Dobbin: Warden Wiley states she is aware he has diabetes & no forearms plus other health probs & IF he is found not to be able to cope with conditions at ADX, he won’t be sent there. That was not an undertaking he would not go there.
LL: judge said there was a commitment from
.. the US govt to the UK govt & clearly without forearms he was not going to be able to cope with living conditions at ADX
(Me:Warden Wiley is a Mr).
Dobbin: Court approached this on a full medical evaluation
LL: but the judge said he could only be in that situation for a very short period of time. The US misled the court because he clearly has been there a very long time.
Dobbin: no assurance
.. was given.
LL: he was supposed to have a full and objective medical evaluation - the US has clearly not followed thru & there has been no transparency.
Dobbin: but the judge doesn’t agree with you
LL: She repeats the judges’ s words, saying , so no, I disagree with you.
Dobbin: Court says the Warden says he is aware of medical concerns, so after full medical evaluation, if he can’t manage activities of daily living, he would not be sent to ADX, he’d be sent to a medical facility.
LL: a full and fair medical was promised by the US prior to ..
.. extradition.
Dobbin covering how they deal at ADX with amputees, prosthetics specialists, push button showers.
LL: they can’t deal with double armed amputees. The only conclusion that can be taken from this is that the US did a 180 & completely backed out of their undertakings.
Lindsay Lewis is a very strong witness & Clair Dobbin has tried on the sneering persona on her. Quite astonishing.
Dobbin quotes what was attempted for her client
LL: there is completely inadequate care at ADX... & there is a complete reframing of what might be done from what would be done if necessary. The BOP has failed him.
Dobbin: quotes judge
LL: that her opinion, but she can’t pronounce the conditions constitutionally unacceptable because what do you do then with all these prisoners.
Dobbin says he was not regarded a hospitalisation case.
LL: he is forced to do things someone with his disability should not be forced to do, so it’s not that he necessarily would need to be hospitalised so that is not the right question.
Dobbin: everything you rely on is based on what Hamsa says
LL: no I also talk to staff
Dobbin: all allleged & need to be tested in court.
LL: there are some things beyond dispute- his is a double arm amputee, in a cell without the right toilet & shower as he had in the Uk
LL: his complaints have been independently verified. He needs daily nursing care which he received in the Uk. He is on his own
Dobbin: he is concerned about his toe nails & dental care.
LL: you have to understand these things worry him more that his serious health conditions ..
.. because unlike for people for whom these things are not a problem, these daily things are impossible - he has to open cans with his teeth & suffers constant infections, similarly toe nails become a problem.
Dobbin asks about step down.
LL basically says it’s overplayed.
Dobbin: 2013 judgement of European Court... quoting statistics showing some are moved out of SAMs
LL: in 2009 there were 30 under SAMs, in 2017 there are 51, so that suggests there are more.
Dobbin asking about the Cunningham Settlement modifications to policies governing ..
.. provision of mental health services, that 100 were moved out?
LL: shows how bad it was despite how good they say they are.
LL: mr Mustafa has not received adequate mental health care.
Dobbin keeps quoting Lukefeld who is describing group therapy.
LL: shows how little she understands about what happens, in t(e vast majority of cases, SAMs are not modified- it brings into question everything Lukefeld
.. says.
LL: his SAMs are arbitrary & punitive - how is not allowing him to tell his 1 year old grandson he loves him.. emblematic of how SAMs destroys relationships between members of a family.
Oh no. Dobbin does have a dig about how LL might draft her argument in court (sneering at
.. “arbitrary “. She just couldn’t resist a cheap shot that just made her look ridiculous . She belongs in a school yard. Primary school.
Fitzgerald asking about deference of the courts to the Executive in the US.
LL: always deference to prisons & the Executive, & unbridled power of the AG under SAMs.
Judge Objects to the use of “deference” of judiciary to the Executive. Fitzgerald tells her it’s the word
.. the courts use themselves. Judge asks for a legal example, Fitzgerald says yes of course, LL offers to give her one & does. I think the judge is rather shocked by this fact.
LL: it makes it difficult to get any progress on minor things within the BOP, there is always a reason they can’t do it for security reasons, or it’s withdrawn, or it hasn’t worked.
LL: JA would not get the level of care he is getting here.
Witnessed finished.
Judge: on the application for anonymity.
Unable to hear Summer.
Lewis: the court has to be persuaded there is a real risk of harm.
Judge: anonymity has already been granted by a Spanish judge?
So this must have to do with witnesses / statements with respect to the surveillance case
Summers: witness 1 asks for anonymity as he & his family are at risk.
Witness 2 - same
Summers: Spanish lawyer Martinez & Baltazar Garzon refers to the protection of anonymity granted by the Spanish court.
The basis: gave statements only after undertaking for anonymity.
Morales has army connections & they are afraid.
Judge: Morales can identify them from their
.. period of employment
Summers: that may be so but the measures taken incl armed security guards is offering protection.
Summers: the knowledge they are protected witnesses is keeping repercussions at bay. Morales has military training, & he has been released provisionally by the court, after what was found at his home (guns etc)
Summers: lawyer says if their names were to become public, Morales & his associates, incl the head of the casino pose a danger for the witnesses & the Sp courts agree & we invite you Madam to also accept anonymity
Summers: Morales & friends to either kidnap or poison JA.
Judge wants a break to consider the issue of whether to accept anonymity. (Me: If she doesn’t, I guess that means the evidence can’t be accepted by the court)
Summers: plans to do physical violence.. need to establish chain of command ordering it, discovery of loaded firearm, & if harm comes to them, it would be clear where it is coming from, if t(e names are revealed, that will not be clear. Morales is the only one at present who
..knows who they are.
Judge she stops him saying Mr Summers I’m with you. This court respects the decision of the Spanish court.
Evidence “we hope will be read” says Summers.
Summers: evidence of Chomsky, Maurizi & numerous others accepted in full by Prosecution, a couple of others with some edits & discussions ongoing with Prosecution on 2 remaining.
Tomorrow, witness Worthington in the afternoon, & reading of statements otherwise. Summers says may finish on Thursday.
Lewis says he has no instructions on cross examining the security company witnesses because of a Chinese wall.
Judge: the press is asking for all the transcripts (yes!).
She says she is unclear who has authority over the transcripts & what is to be done.
Court over for the day!
Medium shot of JA. I hope he feels it’s been a better day.
..has not so far tried on ..
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Louise Adler in The Guardian: 🧵
‘One must acknowledge the remarkably effective Jewish community organisations in Australia behind the latest antisemitism report. Collectively, with their News Ltd megaphone, they have successfully badgered the government of the day, cowed the ABC, intimidated vice-chancellors and threatened to defund arts organisations.
With the ability to garner prime ministerial dinners, a battalion of lobbyists has gained access to editors, duchessed willingly seduced journalists keen to enjoy junkets and corralled more than 500 captains of industry to subscribe to full-page ads against antisemitism and thereby blurring political argument with prejudice and bias. It is no surprise that this relentless propaganda effort has paid off…’
On those forever quoted statistics on antisemitism:
‘16 students at Sydney University feeling intimidated by the slogan “from the river to the sea” was reframed as 250 complaints submitted to parliamentary inquiry. A childcare centre that was not in fact a Jewish centre was added to the list of terrifying antisemitic attacks. The individuals police believe were hired by criminals seeking a reduction in their prison sentences who allegedly placed combustible material in a caravan became a “terrorist plot”’’
The figures include all the ‘fake’ antisemitism attacks by paid criminals orchestrated by a crime figure not in any way driven by antisemitism, antiZionism or anti Israel motivation. As for the keffiyeh and the phrase from the River to the Sea, interpreting the symbols and slogans of another group as threatening while promoting your own as needing protection is one eyed and undermines social cohesion.
‘The publication of the special envoy’s plan is the latest flex by the Jewish establishment. The in-house scribes have been busy: no institution, organisation or department is exempt from the latest push to weaponise antisemitism and insist on the exceptionalism of Australian Jewry. One might pause to wonder what First Nations people, who are the victims of racism every day, feel about the priority given to 120,000 well-educated, secure and mostly affluent individuals…
The envoy wants to strengthen legislation apparently. Isn’t that the role of the government of the day? Who is to be the arbiter? Who is to be the judge, for example, of universities and their report cards? Who will adjudicate “accountability” in the media? Who will recommend defunding which artist? Should this government endorse this proposal, it will clearly be the envoy.
Fortunately, a suite of laws protecting us from racism, discrimination, hate speech and incitement to violence are already deeply embedded in our civil society. No university is oblivious to these laws, no public broadcaster, no arts organisation.
Educating future generations about the Holocaust has long been a priority. I hope the envoy is aware of the work done engaging thousands of school students at such institutions as the Melbourne Holocaust Museum where my own mother was the education officer for over a decade. If the envoy is concerned that school students aren’t sufficiently well versed in the horrors of the Holocaust, she might take heart from such evidence as the sales of Anne Frank’s diary continue unabated, in the past five years more than 55,000 copies were sold in Australia.
The envoy helpfully proposes to nominate “trusted voices” to refute antisemitic claims – yet again seeking to prescribe who speaks and which views are deemed acceptable. One hopes that media organisations are resolute against the plan’s determination to monitor, oversee and “ensure fair reporting to avoid perpetually incorrect or distorted narratives or representations of Jews”. It seems that the envoy wants to determine what is legitimate reportage. Freedom of the press is of less importance. Independent journalism that is factual and speaks the truth is lightly abandoned.

What is Australia’s proposed antisemitism plan – and why are some parts causing concern?
Read more
Universities appear to be on notice: adopt the IHRA definition, act on it or be warned that in March 2026 a judicial inquiry will be established as the envoy demands.
Cultural organisations be warned – your funding could be at risk too. There isn’t a cultural organisation in the country that doesn’t have well-argued codes of conduct for staff, artists and audiences – in place well before the 7 October attack to combat homophobia, racism and hate speech. Now it is proposed that a Jewish Cultural and Arts Council is to advise the arts minister. To privilege one ethnic community over others is deeply offensive and dangerous.’
And there I’ll stop because Segal’s shopping list is deeply offensive and dangerous.
Breaking
ABC changes its position and defence, now acknowledging @antoinette_news IS Lebanese . A recognition the race exists 🤦🏻♀️
Today’s hearing began with the ABC apologising for filing an unredacted affidavit revealing the name of a complainant.
Two own goals for @ABCaustralia
With respect to the very wise move to change their position on race in this case, I think it can be assumed Chair Kim Williams would have come down on management like a ton of bricks. He has been outspoken on change required at the broadcaster, and this catastrophic case is public confirmation of the rectitude of that position.
@ABCaustralia Currently Ahern being cross examined by ABC - he is held responsible for hiring Lattouf. Next today will be then Chair Buttrose followed by Green, her direct supervisor whose evidence will be an integral piece in the puzzle of what Lattouf was told, as she did the telling.
In light of the ongoing court case brought by @antoinette_news against the @ABCaustralia for unfair dismissal, it’s worth recalling her proposal to the ABC in order to settle the matter which I’ll post in a thread below.
Instead, the ABC decided to defend their decision, exposed in excruciating detail and at enormous expense to the taxpayer - we are funding the 14 month battle (so far) and the massive US law firm Seyfarth the ABC has engaged to fight it. It will be costing a fortune.
Here is what she had asked for to settle it months ago:
🧵
Fascinating day in court as @antoinette_news lawyer outlines content of emails between senior members of the ABC prior to her HRW post, the pressure they came under from the lobby group Lawyers for Israel from the moment she was on air, because of her known political opinions, their conclusion the position was untenable but that they could not sack her abuse she had done nothing wrong and for fear of the phenomenal ‘blowback’.
The manner in which she was sacked - called to a brief meeting and told to collect her things and leave the building did not follow the proscribed procedure under the enterprise agreement according to her lawyer.
Her sacking followed her repost of a HRW report stating Israel was using starvation as a weapon of war.
Court adjourned briefly..
If you wish to follow, livestream here
Lattouf’s lawyer lists numerous additional complaints from the lobby group to the Chair and MD on the day she was sacked, and The Australian, which evidently knew of the complaints, called the ABC.
He says emails show ABC senior figures were sympathetic to the Israel lobby’s position.
A slide of AL’s post simply saying ‘HRW reporting starvation as a tool of war’ is shown - apparent this could not be construed as anything but a statement of fact, and in addition, with ABC news stories appeared on the HRW report prior to and after AL’s post.
Her lawyer refers to an unwritten expectation that ABC employees will not do at any time anything that may convey the view they are not impartial.
He says ABC claims it imposed on AL a bespoke rule (not to post about Gaza) and then sacked her for breaching that standard.
If Senior Exec Oliver Taylor asserts the post expresses an opinion, then the dismissal is because of her political opinions - ‘opinionated’ and ‘partial’ mean the same thing, so they hold the post revealed impartiality.
If Senior Management were agnostic on the Gaza issue, then they succumbed to a campaign.
Either ABC capitulated to a lobby or she breached a standard specific to her.
He says the ABC submission is long and an elaborate navigation for the ABC narrative, characteristic of a lawyers drafting, when there is ample material in the contemporaneous emails, in order to reinterpret clear statements in emails; the affidavits don’t deal with critical issues - who gave the direction and when? Her supervisor Green stated in their meeting that she did not give Lattouf a ‘directive’ not to post, she ‘advised’ her to avoid it. The complex affidavits don’t describe why the post was ‘partial’ - the post doesn’t appear in Taylor’s affidavit at all ie the very thing that was ostensibly the reason for the sacking.
Apropos communications, the ABC are prohibited from using Signal as they are subject to the Archives Act and can’t delete.
ABC Witness statements are he says replete with terms like ‘trust and confidence’, ‘impartiality’ etc
Oliver Taylor believes she was given a direction ‘bespoke to her’ not to post about Gaza, and her post ‘may’ have breached that direction.
He says the ABC justify not following their protocols for dismissal because a presenter can be removed even if she hasn’t done anything wrong (rostering change etc).
Lattouf asserts if she was not of the Lebanese race she would not have been removed in that way.
The ABC will assert says there is no evidence there is such a thing as a Lebanese race. The ABC lawyer rose - he objects to this being run as a discrimination case because it departs from the pleadings.
SAl’s lawyer says the issue is whether she was dismissed because of the HRW post, or because of objections to her political opinion by the lobby group and the Chair of the ABC.
Also, AL’s lawyer says that there could be no rational basis for Taylor to believe her post was a sackable offence. That the evidence she was given a directive particular to her was implausible given Green told management she didn’t issue a directive. Nevertheless, Taylor concluded a directive was given. And he thought there ‘may’ have been a breach of ABC social media policy.
1 of 2 for this morning session
Here is @SlezakPeter - academic and son of Holocaust survivors - powerful speech at the Sydney rally yesterday (1 of 3)
‘I’m among very many Jews, here and around the world to protest what Israel is doing in our name, and I’m proud to join you every week for over a year in solidarity with Palestinians.
I want to give a shout-out to those each week holding the banner “Jews Against the Occupation.” Our presence and our solidarity refute the smear that these rallies are antisemitic Jew-hate rallies. I know what antisemitism is and it's not here EVER at these rallies.
My mother survived the WW2 Nazi Auschwitz extermination camp, and she always asked why was the world silent? Why did they look away from the genocide of the Jews and do nothing? Today we know the answer as our government and media look away and do nothing for the Palestinians.
Well, in the last few days we have seen the landmark decision by the International Court of Justice – the ICC – an important victory for accountability:
The ICC has issued warrants for the arrest of two of Israel’s leaders – Prime Minister Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Gallant. Both are charged as perpetrators of war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Above all, the ICC arrest warrants confirm that those of us protesting here each week, and especially the university student encampments, were right all along.
The war crimes charged against Netanyahu include:
• Starvation of the civilian population of Gaza.
• depriving them medicine, fuel and electricity.
• military attacks against the civilian population.
• murder and other inhumane acts against the civilian population.
• blocking humanitarian aid.
• the destruction of the civilian population in Gaza – which is the very definition of genocide.
Australia as a member of the Rome Statute and ICC is legally under an obligation to arrest Netanyahu and Gallant if they arrive here. However, Australia is yet to confirm whether or not it will comply with arrest warrants issued for these indicted war criminals…
Cont
2/3 ‘The Weekend Australian newspaper (Nov 24, 2004) refers to the “silence by Foreign Minister Penny Wong” who is “pretending to sit on the fence”. And The ABC Headline says “Australia tip-toes around ICC decision” issuing only an opaque motherhood statements.
What is she waiting for?
Well, she is probably ambivalent because in March Albanese and Wong were also referred to the ICC for being complicit in the Gaza genocide in a claim co-signed by over 100 Australian lawyers.
Of course, Zionists in Australia are apoplectic and having a melt-down echoing Netanyahu’s excuses:
• Predictably, using the usual get-out-of-jail-free card, he called it an “anti-semitic decision.”
Even in Israel’s newspaper Ha’aretz the headline says:
"Netanyahu Brought the ICC Ruling on Himself and Now He's Whining About Antisemitism".
There is a great deal of deliberate, cynical confusion about this. Let me be clear: As the Jewish historian Norman Finkelstein has said, Israel is a rogue, lunatic state. It is not antisemitic to say Fuck Israel and Fuck Zionism: A guy was arrested on Bondi Beach for wearing this on his T-shirt.
• Netanyahu said “No war is more just than the war Israel has been waging in Gaza” because Israel’s destruction of Gaza is in SELF-DEFENCE !!!
This is DECEITFUL, DELUSIONAL BULLSHIT
In international law, it’s not actually OK to starve children to death for self-defence!!
We have all seen the pictures – mile after mile of residential cities reduced to rubble. What kind of sick mind can consider the complete destruction of Gaza as “self-defence” – targeting Hamas militants hiding behind human shields.
Since October 7 last year, Gaza has been transformed from the largest open-air prison in the world to the LARGEST MASS-GRAVE.
And the OTHER Albanese, the wonderful UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese, points out that Israel has no right to defend itself against resistance emanating from the territory it controls under occupation.
On the contrary, according to international law it is the people under occupation who have the right to resist, including the right to armed resistance.
Israel has dropped more bombs on Gaza than the Allied bombing in World War 2 on Dresden, Hamburg, and London combined! More bombs on Gaza in a week than the US dropped on Afghanistan in one year ...
In 1967 during the Vietnam War, American scholar Noam Chomsky said something relevant today:
“With no further information than this, a person who has not lost his senses must realize that the war is an overwhelming atrocity.”
The assault on Gaza is not a “war” but a cowardly act of terrorism by the most sophisticated military force against a defenceless population.
It’s important to recognize that the excessive, disproportionate military force against civilians – mass murder – is deliberate – it is official Israeli military policy. It’s actually called the DAHIYA DOCTRINE – GOOGLE IT!! ..
Cont
3 of 3
Doctors have been speaking out about the horrors they witnessed.
One American Doctor said “Every Day I was there I saw children shot in the head. That's not an accident. That's deliberate targeting of children for death. That's murder." SHAME.
Another doctor, British surgeon, Nizam Mamode, recently returned from Gaza, and testified in front of the UK Parliament. With tears, he barely could speak. He said that Israeli drones would pick off and shoot injured civilians, including children.
• Netanyahu says that “Hamas attacked us UNPROVOKED…”
But, of course, history didn’t begin on October 7th last year. GAZA has been under illegal, brutal BLOCKADE – since 2007.
In 2018 there was the peaceful protests of the Great March of Return in Gaza during which Israeli snipers killed or maimed hundreds of unarmed protesters, disabled people, nurses.
Australian Human Rights expert at the UN Chris Sidoti said: “Israel’s is one of the most criminal armies in the world” because “this is a period without precedent in a war that has been going for a century.”
= = =
After arrest warrants for Netanyahu & Gallant were issued, Israeli forces escalated mass killings of civilians in Gaza. At least 9 massacres were documented
• A day after, at least 90 Palestinians, including 36 children, were killed.
Of course, Penny Wong says that there is a need “to end the cycle of violence.”
What “cycle of violence”?
If Tel Aviv was reduced to rubble like Gaza City, Khan Yunis or Shujaiya, the world would stop the war immediately.
WEST BANK
We must not neglect immense tragedy of the occupied West Bank
Just since October 7, Israeli forces and settlers have killed OVER 700 people, including at least 167 children. More than 6,000 people have been injured.
There is NO HAMAS in the West Bank but for years, Israel has been killing on average two kids a week.
In July, Senator Penny Wong said that the Australian Government has imposed financial sanctions and travel bans on seven Israeli settlersfor their violence against Palestinians in the West Bank.
That’s PATHETIC!
The ENTIRE Israeli Government is a bunch of terrorists and extremist criminals – They are guilty of immense, obscene violence against Palestinians SINCE 1948.
In the West Bank, there are now over 700,000 Israeli settlers in vast cities all illegal according to international law …
Protected by the Israeli military, they are rampaging around uprooting millions of olive trees, destroying water wells and torching cars. Israel has demolished 60,000 Palestinian houses in the West Bank.
ICJ Ruling
On 19 July 2024 the ICJ reiterated the illegality of the entire Israel occupation of the West Bank and GAZA. The decision calls for dismantling of settlements and reparations.
The Court specifically said that states like Australia should not recognise Israel’s unlawful presence in occupied territory, nor should they render aid or assistance in maintaining it.
So far, Australia has done next to nothing
BDS
However, states must immediately suspend all investment, trade and scientific, technical and technological cooperation in these areas and engage in a systematic review of all economic, financial, academic, diplomatic and political ties with Israel.
We must recall our ambassador from Tel Aviv;
We must expel Israel’s ambassador from Australia;
FROM THE RIVER TO THE SEA
Finally, it’s important for me to say something about our chant heard at rallies around the world – “From the River to the Sea …”
The APOLOGISTS for ISRAEL’s crimes – including Prime Minster Albanese - claim that this slogan is antisemitic or even a call for the annihilation of Israel.
But The charter of the governing Likud party says there will be no Palestinian state between the River Jordan and the Mediterranean Sea.
Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu has repeatedly, publicly rejected the possibility of a Palestinian State…
Woops, one more.. cont