💧Mary Kostakidis Profile picture
Sep 30, 2020 71 tweets 10 min read Read on X
Extradition September hearing Day 16 (18 incl 2 Covid)

Joined the video link waiting to cross to the Old Bailey.

In a significant development yesterday, the judge agreed to accept the statements of 2 former UCGlobal employees without requiring them to reveal their identities..
.. This was a critical decision as the only protection they have (besides armed guards) is the fact that their former boss would be the suspect should anything happen to them given he alone would know their identities, Defence argued.

In accepting the Spanish court’s ruling on..
.. anonymity, these witness statements will form part of Defence evidence, paving the way for the extradition to be denied on the same basis the criminal case against Dan Ellsberg was thrown out: illegal activity on the part of the CIA. In Ellsberg’s case, for breaking into ..
..his psychiatrist’s place and in this case for spying on #Assange ‘s privileged conversations with his lawyers, completely undermining any chance of a fair trial in the US.
So far, the US case is not doing well on many fronts including the cruelty of the type of incarceration.
You have to wonder the extent to which we have forfeited our humanity and vigilance of our freedoms when there is so little media coverage of this historic trial.
There will be rapid reading of witness statements today and tomorrow. Rather than attempt to report the lot - can’t type fast enough! - I’ll try to convey the main points.
Stella has her ear to the glass to capture Julian’s words. He is wearing a mask and of course on the other side of the glass wall.
Statement of Patrick Cockburn, journalist with the Independent.

Testifying about the importance of the Wikileaks releases in establishing the truth about the wars he has covered, including the fate of the 2 Reuters newsmen in Collateral Murder.
Also, other incidents involving civilian deaths including children.

Brigadier Carr had to admit in Manning’s trial there had been no deaths due to WL disclosure.
WL is a news gathering org doing exactly what journalist are intended to do.
Statement of Ian Cobain of the Guardian

Has reported on rendition program and the treatment of individuals by the US and the UK, & UK complicity in US activities.

The impossibility of uncovering state crimes, evidence difficult to obtain, (judge appears to be listening intently
..), importance of reliable documentary evidence, citing an examples of individuals who have been tortured.

Gives examples of attempts to deceive journalists and threats to journalists.
.. UK tried to cover up collusion but ultimately had to investigate & conduct an enquiry. (All this can’t be comfortable the judge)

Concludes whistleblowers & journalists vital to expose this.
Statement of Stefania Maurizi, journalist & mathematician so interested in encryption & WL.
Testifies that WL publication of original documents provided an opportunity for vital scrutiny & importantly offered protection for sources.
SM was one of the media partners on the war logs, says she was interested in the lies wars were based on.
SM & her Italian media partners also brought into the Cables partnership because of special knowledge required.

SM makes several points about the WL releases:
Public interest value - gives many examples, including victims of torture. Italy has convicted CIA agents in absentia
.. but the Italian govt subverted the process & issued
pardons. (Me: this is all sounding terrible for the US). WL docs show evidence of US pressure on Italian Govt incl Justice Minister.
SM : WL shed extraordinary light many events she gives examples of.

Secondly SM relates WL efforts to redact.. she worked with WL on appropriate redactions. When names occurred the local partners went through replacing the names with xxxx of a different length to the name.
SM: Thirdly on protection of data itself: all procedures were strict beyond what international colleagues were accustomed to - never had there been such extreme measures. All media partners kept the password secret. Except for one.
SM cont.. (me: the US lawyers listen attentively , arms folded).

Relates her shock at the Der Freitag story, that JA was acutely troubled, that every possible steps had been taken to prevent this. She was at Ellingham Hall when JA tried to contact the State Dept.
SM says the Guardian is to blame. If not for their publishing the password, nothing could have breached the encryption.
Me: These words have been very very important to hear. All so very different to the coverage in the media.
Statement of Guy Goodwin-Gill, Prof of Law at UNSW, fellow at Oxford.
Attended the Embassy to discuss the international aspects of JA’s case. Expected the discussions were confidential so was shocked to hear his name mentioned in legal proceedings in Spain & hear that his ..
..Electronic equipment had been copied.
Statement of Robert Boyle,

US criminal & civil rights lawyer, a former staff attorney at the Grand Jury Project - his evidence focuses on abuse of the grand jury system, particularly in relation to Chelsea Manning.
RB sets out the treatment of on Manning, the importance of the information she revealed.
Grand Juries confirm what the Prosecutor wants them to. RB giving history of Grand Juries as a 12th century relic, intended as a buffer between citizens & the state but has not evolved.
RB says Grand Juries are used to silence individuals & groups for political purposes.
Quoting Manning on being in solitary - being in pain, nausea, vertigo, vomiting. This experience was intended to punish her for refusing to testify.
RB: Manning saw this as an attempt to undermine her testimony as a Defence witness in JA case.
RB says the court can’t just take Kromberg’s word on things because that is not due process.
RB includes Melzer’s report on effects of prolonged confinement & the purpose of JA’s treatment.
In his statement he includes evidence of Manning’s attempt to take her life
RB gives responses to Kromberg, & says JA would be coerced to give the names of sources
Statement of Bridget Prince – human rights investigator and CEO of One World Research.
Provides info about the jury pool in EDVA and the likely impact of pejorative government statements against JA,
and points to UC Global’s links to President Trump.
(Me: sobering to hear statistics on the big employers in the area)
(Me: All military, Intel& defence & their contractors. Grim faces in the courtroom.)
5 mins break
Medium shot of JA pacing. I think at this point it would be very difficult for anyone to grasp how this can possibly be happening to someone who is a publisher.
Next the statements of Witness 1 & Witness 2– former employees of Spanish surveillance company UC Global, who worked under contract at the Ecuadorian embassy.
The names of this witness will not be disclosed publicly.

Witness 1: this witness was a 50% coowner of UCGlobal with Morales. In 2016 Morales went to Las Vegas & did not allow me to go with him. The Casino owner in Las Vegas was known to be close to Trump. Morales said we are
..going to the dark side. We were going to give information about JA to the US and did. Staff openly talked about it. Morales went to tha US very often to talk to “out American friends “ & had a secure phone to communicate with them. I asked who they were & he said ..
“US intelligence”. Witness says Morales then became very wealthy.
New monitoring equipment was installed in the Embassy.
Witness 1 says he then sold his shares in the partnership.

Witness 2 is a tech expert employed to design a system to capture everything that was going on at the Embassy including sound.
Witness 2 told to deny the equipment was recording audio & to make sure the equipment allowed for streaming so US could observe contemporaneously.
There was a mic in the socket in the toilet as well. Witness challenged Morales on legality of this. Morales said the lawyer meetings were the primary target as this was required by our US friends.
Witness says Morales instructed him to steal the nappy of the baby as the US wanted to establish paternity.
W1: documents were stolen from JA by Embassy personnel.
W1 relates lawyers had their devices copied; that he was told by Morales the Americans were very nervous about the Californian politician who was to visit JA (Rohrabacher.. me: yes, Intel of course did not want any deal to go ahead)
(This is going very quickly & the tweets aren’t loading but also, some of the above is Witness 2 not 1, but essentially they are about the same issue)
Statement of Aitor Martinez Jimenez, JA’s Spanish lawyer.

gives a procedural history of the criminal case against UC Global & the key issues in the ongoing Spanish litigation.
Statement of political philosopher Emeritus Professor Noam Chomsky:
His evidence relates to WikiLeaks’ significance and the politically motivated nature of the case against Assange.
Me: This of course goes to the heart of the Treaty matter, that extradition cannot be approved for politically motivated purposes.
Chomsky: WL brought sunlight to power
(Me: Chomsky’s erudite & powerful statement is impossible to convey rapidly. This is one to bookmark & make sure to read.)

“The public is an enemy that must be kept in ignorance”
Chomsky: JA has performed an enormous service to those of us who value democracy & for this he is being punished.
Long break for lunch while Defence & Prosecution hammer out their differences over what can be included in the remaining statements, incl Worthington so possibly he won’t need to appear either.
Medium shot of JA pacing, hands in his pockets. He must surely be thinking,
I am spoken about in this way by Noam Chomsky,
there is all this evidence of what I’ve achieved
& what will happen to me (on top of what already has)..
but will any of it make a difference to my fate
At this point, can anyone observing this trial see how the US has not comprehensively lost this case?

@AndrewJFowler @kgosztola @MElmaazi @latikambourke @_taylorhudak @lcthoma
Worthington is unwell so Prosecution & Defence are nutting out contents of his statement so it can just be read.
Half an hour break to nut out agreement on remaining statements.
Statement of Andy Worthington, an investigative journalist,

Author of UN Report on secret detention. WL approached him to partner with WL on publication of the Guantanamo Files because he is an expert, & emphasised the importance of not jeopardising any individuals named.
AW: Innocent men detained because they had been named following bounties were paid.. prisoners informing about other prisoners... prisoners who confessed under torture including waterboarding
(Me: prior to allowing Summers to read this statement, the judge asked Lewis a question about the Prosecution’s attitude to the statement. I didn’t hear her exact question or his response but her final remark was”because you know it won’t have any bearing on my finding”. Please..
.. let me know if this has been better reported in another thread)
Summers continuing .. US said info to track down & kill Bin Laden was obtained from Guantanamo Bay but this was shown to be false.
Dobbin just clarified something about the Prosecutions attitude to Worthington evidence, but again I could not hear.
Statement of Jameel Jaffer

human rights and civil liberties attorney and director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University in New York.
His evidence tackles the use of the Espionage Act, the Trump Administration’s attitude towards journalists and the knock on effects of the case for press freedom in the United States.
JJ says the charges apply to journalism & if any harm at all can be shown it needs to be weighed against the benefits of publication.

The docs are vital to the public’s ability to understand, evaluate & influence govt policy.
JJ: Classified information needs to be published without authorisation - gives examples of instances like NSA docs, the benefit to the public.
This prosecution raises serious press freedom issues & the functioning of democracy.
Prosecuting a publisher is a new legal frontier.
JJ: Many activities in the first superseding indictment are integral to the reporting of Nat Sec reporting.
JJ: to assert JA is not a journalist is not a valid conclusion, these are core journalistic activities
Summers says tomorrow there will be an update on the Spanish case.
Judge says a decision on transcripts tomorrow.
And remainder of Statements read.
Fitzgerald talking to JA.

See you tomorrow

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with 💧Mary Kostakidis

💧Mary Kostakidis Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @MaryKostakidis

Jul 26
A devastating and damning report by @nirhasson 🧵

‘For Israeli decision-makers, starvation of the Gaza Strip was in the cards from day one of the war..
1. About 30,000 people live in the southern Israeli city of Sderot. Imagine that the refrigerators of all Sderot residents are empty. In fact, they don't even have refrigerators. The bakeries are closed. The supermarket shelves offer nothing. Residents are hungry. And then, once every 24 hours, a single truck enters the city gates and distributes food, door to door. And the food on that truck? That's all there is, for the entire city.
About 30,000 people also live in Or Akiva. And in Arad. Each city gets one truck a day.
Will the residents of Sderot still be hungry by the end of the day? And what will happen after a week? And after a month?’ Cont
‘2. According official data from the Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories, which is responsible for carrying out the government's civilian policy in those areas, an average of 71 trucks entered the Gaza Strip each day over the past month. Seventy-one trucks meant to feed 2.1 million people. One truck for every 30,000. Half of the trucks made it to a distribution center but the other half of them, brought in by the United Nations and various aid organizations, were looted en route.

It's a pitiful amount of food. But one can only wish the Sderot scenario was the reality in Gaza. The situation there is much worse.’ Cont
‘3. In Gaza, the truck does not distribute food door to door. Half of the food it carries is unloaded in large piles in remote military zones. The gates there open for just 15 minutes a day, according to a random schedule. You're reading that right: 15 minutes a day.

People loot the other half of the goods straight from the trucks. In both cases, those who manage to get to the food are almost exclusively young men, those who can carry heavy loads, run fast and are willing to risk their lives.

Over 1,000 have died so far while crowding around to get food, since late May, most of them from Israel Defense Forces gunfire.
What happens to those who can't make it to the trucks or the distribution centers? What about the women, the disabled, the sick, the elderly? What about the unlucky?
They are starving to death.’ Cont
Read 5 tweets
Jul 12
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.
Read 4 tweets
Feb 13
A very fine post on safety/unsafety by @RandaAFattah
on Instagram 🧵
Image
Image
Image
Image
Read 5 tweets
Feb 10
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.
Read 15 tweets
Feb 8
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:
🧵Image
Image
Image
Read 4 tweets
Feb 3
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

youtube.com/live/a8RorBeAi…
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
Read 35 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(