LIVE THREAD: I am in London attending Julian Assange’s court hearing today from inside the courtroom, beginning at 10:30am local time at the Royal Courts of Justice.
Live updates below and subsequent coverage on rumble.com/richardmedhurst
Live updates below and subsequent coverage on rumble.com/richardmedhurst
2) The US is seeking the extradition of Australian journalist and WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange for publishing classified documents, which reveal US war crimes in Afghanistan, Iraq and more. If extradited he could face up to 175 years in prison.
3)
Amnesty International, Reporters Without Borders and numerous other human rights and and free press organizations have warned for years that an extradition would risk Assange’s live and set a dangerous precedent for other journalists.
Amnesty International, Reporters Without Borders and numerous other human rights and and free press organizations have warned for years that an extradition would risk Assange’s live and set a dangerous precedent for other journalists.
I am in court. Overflow issues, technical problems, and shuffling press around caused a small delay in the court.
Julian's lawyers will argue over the course of the next two days against two things. They want permission from the High Court to appeal two things
1) The decision of the former Home Sec Priti Patel to sign the extradition order
2) The decision of the lower court, by District Court Judge Barrister to block the extradition on Jan 4 2021. Why would they contest this, even if it blocked Julian's extradition?
Because the judge blocked it so solely on health grounds, while agreeing with all the political and bogus charges against Julian. This set up an easy appeal win for the United States, allowing them to overturn the decision and proceed with extraditing Julian. The judge also equated national security journalism with espionage, under the Official Secrets Act in Britain, setting an extraordinarily dangerous precedent for journalism.
1) The decision of the former Home Sec Priti Patel to sign the extradition order
2) The decision of the lower court, by District Court Judge Barrister to block the extradition on Jan 4 2021. Why would they contest this, even if it blocked Julian's extradition?
Because the judge blocked it so solely on health grounds, while agreeing with all the political and bogus charges against Julian. This set up an easy appeal win for the United States, allowing them to overturn the decision and proceed with extraditing Julian. The judge also equated national security journalism with espionage, under the Official Secrets Act in Britain, setting an extraordinarily dangerous precedent for journalism.
https://x.com/richimedhurst/status/1346078850640474112?s=20
Julian's lawyer Fitzgerald argues that any extradition on political charges is a violation of Sec 4 of the 2003 US-UK Extradition Treaty, which blocks extradition on grounds of political offences
(partial view of Sec 4 shown below)
(partial view of Sec 4 shown below)
Julian's lawyers: "The exception to political offences is included in almost every single international treaty ever signed by the UK"
It is one of the most universal concepts in international extradition law. It is protected against by the UN, Interpol convention, and in numerous western democracy e.g. Canada Argentina Spain Germany
It is one of the most universal concepts in international extradition law. It is protected against by the UN, Interpol convention, and in numerous western democracy e.g. Canada Argentina Spain Germany
Fitzgerald: Are the offences here political offences?
The US indictment sets out a series of offices under espionage act that are clearly political
The US indictment sets out a series of offices under espionage act that are clearly political
Fitzgerald: Espionage is recognised by leading academic authorities to be a purely political offence.
Fitzgerald: Treason and espionage are described in previous cases as clear political offences, and successfully used to block extradition.
F cites then-CIA Director Mike Pompeo speech in 2017 where he called WikiLeaks a "non-state hostile intelligence service", which makes it obvious that his work is an "offence" directed at the state, and clearly political
F recalls the mountain of testimony provided by expert witnesses during the weeks-long start of extradition case, that Assange's journalist was with intent to change behaviour of US State and inducing a change in govt policy esp re war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan.
F: Assange is at best guilty of "spying" for humanity and press, not any nation state as implied by the United States.
F makes very important point.
The 2003 Extradition Treaty between US and UK bans extradition for political offences. The Extradition Act, its translation into British law, conveniently removes this exception.
F argues that District Judge was wrong to assume this means that you can just extradite people for political offences.
Julian still has protections under Art 5 under European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) that apply. (Partial view below)
The 2003 Extradition Treaty between US and UK bans extradition for political offences. The Extradition Act, its translation into British law, conveniently removes this exception.
F argues that District Judge was wrong to assume this means that you can just extradite people for political offences.
Julian still has protections under Art 5 under European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) that apply. (Partial view below)
F argues that the protection against extradition for political offences is a centuries-old tradition in Anglo-American law and this simply cannot be ignored or said that it does not exist by "silence"
F: "Art 5 is incorporated. It protects you against arbitrary detention"
"Article 5 of the ECHR is part of English law, incorporated by the Human Rights Act".
F argues Julian's rights under Art 5 are being violated. The Court must respect Engl law & deny #Assange's extradition
"Article 5 of the ECHR is part of English law, incorporated by the Human Rights Act".
F argues Julian's rights under Art 5 are being violated. The Court must respect Engl law & deny #Assange's extradition
BTW, massive amount of people outside the court, yelling over and over "free, free Julian Assange!"
Very big crowd. Images coming later.
Very big crowd. Images coming later.
Many journalists who've done top notch work covering the case were denied press access, or placed in difficult conditions, rendering the continuation of their years-long reporting on this case impossible or difficult at best.
https://x.com/SMaurizi/status/1759906996067745950?s=20
F: It would constitute an abuse of process for the United Kingdom to simply ignore its obligations and responsibilities under the various international treaties to which it is a party.
Extraditing Julian #Assange would be an abuse of Art 5 under the ECHR and and abuse of process
Extraditing Julian #Assange would be an abuse of Art 5 under the ECHR and and abuse of process
Mark Summers takes over for Edward Fitzgerald
They have finished arguing on points pertaining to the 2003 Extradition Treaty between the US-UK for now
Many journalists complaining they can't hear a word being said by Mark Summers of Julian's defence.
A gorgeous, beautiful court, but very bad sound / tech infrastructure and practices that render the proceedings of the court inaudible for many.
A gorgeous, beautiful court, but very bad sound / tech infrastructure and practices that render the proceedings of the court inaudible for many.
Mark Summers explains the importance of cables released by Julian #Assange and WikiLeaks, which countless courts have relied on in order to establish that the United States committed war crimes such as the rendering, kidnapping, and torture of individuals.
MS: The nature of state retaliation is prosecution for the disclosure"
MS: "While some cases might be difficult and require an exercise in referential and circumstantial" evidence "to establish that there is retaliation in form of prosecution for disclosure, this [the Assange case] is a paradigm example of state retaliation for the exercise of political opinion. "
MS: the District Judge in the lower court didn't address the retaliation of US government against Assange's revelations of war crimes through an indictment/prosecution.
MS: It was established in lower court that US govt has a longstanding practice of obstructing and preventing investigations around the world into the crimes they have committed
MS: US has interfered in judicial systems of Spain, Poland, Germany, Italy. Intervention that sought to help US govt officials evade accountability
Ironically, MS goes on to say, Assnge is now being prosecuted (a form in itself of US interference) for revealing this interference
Ironically, MS goes on to say, Assnge is now being prosecuted (a form in itself of US interference) for revealing this interference
MS: United States officials had issued many threats to prosecute people for revealing US crimes, in the way they are doing to Assange.
Typing up many juicy things that MS said, be patient
MS: the District Judge didn't go on to ask: why the US suddenly decided to prosecute Julian after 6 years of non-prosecution. She didn't question what this says about state motivation behind prosecution. What did trigger the govt into actually going after Assange?
MS: The DJs decision didn't consider the timing of that sudden activity by the United States in late 2016-early 2017, against what else she knew: she knew that the ICC had announced it was preparing to investigate the subject matter of these revelations; it was unchallenged evidence before the District Judge that Julian Assange's materials would be central to that prosecution.
None of that features in the DJ's decision.
None of that features in the DJ's decision.
MS: Furthermore, the DJ knew that swiftly after the ICC had announced its intention to investigate these crimes, that US govt level officials were denouncing Assange as a political actor.
MS: Mike Pompeo describing #Assange and @wikileaks as a "non-state hostile intelligence agency", or claiming that Assange was "working with Russia"-- the DJ didn’t consider these her judgement.
MS: This is the first aspect that the DJ gave any consideration to: She acknowledged the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) had been quite hostile to Mr. Assange.
The CIA is a member of the executive.
The CIA is a member of the executive.
MS: In fairness to the DJ, no one in the defence team had reason to think that this accusation by Pompeo were anything more than a political denunciation, until after her judgement, Yahoo News interviewed numerous US govt officials, who revelled indeed that Assange was being targeted with those exact words; that with hindsight authorised direct action to cause disruption against Assange without congressional or indeed any other approval.
MS: The notion that the CIA was not hostile was not one that the DJ was prepared to entertain; the notion they were speaking on behalf of of the administration is laid bare
[Judge interrupts to say that the DJ did acknowledge that CIA was hostile. MS then says that she did not however accept that the US government, as a whole, was being hostile to Assange, nor that this hostility was adminstration-wide]
[Judge interrupts to say that the DJ did acknowledge that CIA was hostile. MS then says that she did not however accept that the US government, as a whole, was being hostile to Assange, nor that this hostility was adminstration-wide]
MS: Trump’s calls for Assange to be given the death penalty after CIA Vault 7 disclosures in 2017. The DJ concluded nevertheless that there was no presidential hostility from the US President. That conclusion cannot be correct.
MS: We know from the fresh evidence that President Trump had been presented options to kill Mr #Assange in 2017.
MS: This was against the backdrop [of the US Govt] attacking anyone who revealed govt crimes, or attacking the ICC investigation, and Assange himself
MS: What the evidence now shows is that the US developed a plan to try to either kill or either rendition Mr #Assange to the United States of America.
MS: For what evidence the DJ received from protective witness 2 [former employees of UC Global, contracted by CIA to spy on Assange in Ecuadorian embassy in London] it was clear there was a plan to kidnapp and poison Mr #Assange.
MS: For whatever the reasons of the DJ not consider the plot to kidnap and poison Assange, and whatever the quality of the protective witness' statement-- there is now compelling evidence in existence that the plot was real through Yahoo’s investigation. It is clear that US govt officials had told that agency [the CIA] that they wanted a plan to kidnap #Assange, and render him to America.
MS: Senior CIA and admin officials requested detailed plans; the US president himself requested to be provided with options of how to do it; that sketches were even drawn up.
MS: It gets even worse: the DJ thought that there was nothing fishy about the timing of this extradition. Whether she was right or not with the evidence she had at the time, the new evidence from news sources shows that the prosecution commenced in order to provide the framework for Assange's kidnap and rendition
MS: What was revealed by the US with this extraordinary plan to kidnap and render with charges in place once to hold on to him once he’s there, only fell away, when the UK authorities had him in custody (bail violation)
MS: for some reason, the DJ, with the evidence she had, saw no evidence that federal level prosecutors were under any pressure or to indict in this case.
MS: She didn’t know that the charges had been brought about in order to bring substance to an illegal rendition. She didn’t know that directions for timing had come from above, and resulted in murderous sketches, plans, and adoptions requested by, and provided to the president of the United States of America.
MS: This decision was plainly provided to ground-level prosecutors. This was government level decision making.
MS: Even with what the district judge knew back then in late 2017, it still had all the hallmarks of a persecution: it was selective.
Tablets and newspapers that had published the same data as #Assange, some even before @WikiLeaks, and the district DJ knew they were not prosecuted, with no explanation offered to her for that.
Tablets and newspapers that had published the same data as #Assange, some even before @WikiLeaks, and the district DJ knew they were not prosecuted, with no explanation offered to her for that.
MS: The DJ knew that the charges that then followed against #Assange, were ramped up 17 times by the United States DoJ.
All the counts were nearly identical to the initial 1st count, but split across 18 counts for the sole purpose of ensuring a long sentence.
All the counts were nearly identical to the initial 1st count, but split across 18 counts for the sole purpose of ensuring a long sentence.
MS: The DJ knew that this practice ran contrary to the treaties the UK is a party to and its obligations thereunder.
MS: Even on a circumstantial level, even at its lowest level, the judge should have rejected the case.
She didn't engage at all with the core proposition that there was explosive material – otherwise she would have recognized that this is a political indictment.
She didn't engage at all with the core proposition that there was explosive material – otherwise she would have recognized that this is a political indictment.
MS: [to High Court] This court is entitled to reevaluate where judges simply disregard relevant facts, even in their evaluative judgement; and they are certainly entitled to intervene where the end result of that judgement is plainly wrong.
MS: For good order, all of this squarely says that the Extradition Request is a misuse of the law.
Court breaks for lunch.
Will add more notes where necessary and resume coverage at 2pm London time.
Will add more notes where necessary and resume coverage at 2pm London time.
Recess is over, I'm back in the courtroom.
Mark Summers going through examples of US cases, and showing that publishers have never been prosecuted for revealings state secrets. They cannot be treated the same as spies or govt employees
"There is no case that has sought to prosecute publishers who publish state secrets"
"There is no case that has sought to prosecute publishers who publish state secrets"
MS: Mark Summers discussing grounds of appeal regarding Article 7 of the European Convention øf Human Rights (ECHR).
MS: the District Judge was wrong to simply accept that the protections afforded under the 5th Amendment in the United States are equivalent to those afforded under Art 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It was up to the United States to convince her
MS: discussing protections under Art 10 of ECHR. Chelsea Manning @xychelsea who provided @wikileaks and #Assange with the Collateral Murder video exposing US war crimes in Iraq, would meet the threshold under Art 10. Her duty to inform public outweighs duty to confidentiality
MS on revelations of US war crimes provided to Julian #Assange and @Wikileaks by @xychelsea : No harm is proven to have occurred as a result of these revelations
"There is no allegation that any one name has actually come to harm. That is an important matter."
"There is no allegation that any one name has actually come to harm. That is an important matter."
MS discussing the proportionality, or rather disproportionality, of US sentencing.
MS explains to judges that Chelsea Manning @xychelsea was given 35 years in prison for exposing "apex-level criminality, off the scale, that we have ever come across before.
MS explains to judges that Chelsea Manning @xychelsea was given 35 years in prison for exposing "apex-level criminality, off the scale, that we have ever come across before.
MS: Art 10 protects disclosure of materials by Maning to Assange despite her duties and risk of harm.
MS underscores importance of free press, and case of public interest
MS: the suggestion that #Assange is a "criminal" by "conspiring" with Manning doesn't make sense because Manning is already protected under ECHR. It's not criminal behaviour.
The suggestion that Assange put people in "danger", we would respond by saying it's only tiny fraction of of 18 counts indictment. And let's also look at the edtraordinary steps taken to redact
MS: We already considered the idea of "harm", there was no harm, and moreover, this is outweighed by content of the disclosures. What Strasbourg (ECtHR) would do for Assange is check proportionality and he would meet threshold.
MS: Julian Assange's publications were done in order to prevent the kind of machine gun killing that came out of that Collateral Murder video.
Julian #Assange and @wikileaks' disclosures contributed to the end of the Iraq War
Julian #Assange and @wikileaks' disclosures contributed to the end of the Iraq War
MS: nowhere in her judgement does the judge even talk about the right of the public to know; "No analysis or even recognition of public interest. She doesn’t undertake an Art 10 analysis at all. "
MS: The DJ recognises everything on the other side of the balance: she begins by talking about how Assange's publishing might fall under the Official Secrets Act; that's her dual-criminality assessment, but never talks about the aspect of public interest/public's right to know.
(Dual criminality is necessary for extradition. An alleged crime must be a crime in both countries, not just the requesting state [US]. This is why it's so dangerous that the DJ agreed with the US indictment, that journalism is essentially criminal behavior in both the US and UK. She created an equivalence of an already bogus allegation, that journalism violates the Official Secrets Act (OSA) in Britain, as it allegedly does the 1917 Espionage Act in the United States with which Assange is being indicted)
Honestly, Mark Summers is doing such an excellent job of cutting to the core of the Assange case. Listen to this:
It cannot be said in good conscience, that anybody who undertook that balancing act [of whether leaks were in the public interest], would have come to the conclusion that ongoing war crimes, murder, machine gunning ,had to remain legal with no criminal liability or accountability"
#Assange @wikileaks @xychelsea
It cannot be said in good conscience, that anybody who undertook that balancing act [of whether leaks were in the public interest], would have come to the conclusion that ongoing war crimes, murder, machine gunning ,had to remain legal with no criminal liability or accountability"
#Assange @wikileaks @xychelsea
Honestly, Mark Summers is doing such an excellent job of cutting to the core of the Assange case. Listen to this: It cannot be said in good conscience, that anybody who undertook that balancing act [of whether leaks were in the public interest], would have come to the conclusion that ongoing war crimes, murder, machine gunning ,had to remain legal with no criminal liability or accountability" #Assange
@wikileaks
@xychelsea
@wikileaks
@xychelsea
MS: The huge weight of public interest in disclosing ongoing crimes of rendition, torture, -- even if that disclosure was deliberate, which it wasn't -- it would have resulted in the exposure of the names of people involved in criminal behaviour. The court would have said that people are criminals behaviour. And all of this would play into a balancing act, an exercise, in which the judge would be required to engage in the evaluation -- but this is entirely absent from the DJ's decision.
MS: One could simply complain that the DJ failed to undertake Art 10 analysis. And she did. It’s a glaring legal error. Had the judge undertaken the exercise of balance, she would have inevitably come to the same conclusion.
Mark Summers is done, Edward Fitzgerald takes over again.
Fitzgerald recalls the absurd position of US officials Mike Pompeo and AUSA Kromberg:
Julian Assange will have no 1st amendment rights, but will still be prosecuted under US law for something he did outside the United States. He is not a US citizen.
Julian Assange will have no 1st amendment rights, but will still be prosecuted under US law for something he did outside the United States. He is not a US citizen.
https://x.com/richimedhurst/status/1346439854306062337?s=20
EF: No assurances provided thus far by the United States to UK to ensure Julian Assange shall be afforded protections under the First Amendment; on the contrary, US federal prosecutor AUSA Kromberg made clear to the district court the US may specifically seek to deny him them
EF proceeds to discuss why Julian is guaranteed not to receive a fair trial, violating his rights under Art 6 of ECHR
#Assange
#Assange
EF: It's clear there was a hectic and angry reaction to publication of Vault 7. Joshua Schulte, the source, recently given 40 years in prison. They're referred to in Yahoo article.
It's clear the publication angered CIA, led to denunciation by Pompeo, and Schult indictment
It's clear the publication angered CIA, led to denunciation by Pompeo, and Schult indictment
EF: undeniable evidence that if Assange convicted, he may even be imprisoned for things he hasn't even been indicted or extradited for, including based on redacted evidence or evidence illegally obtained. This is a Complete disregard for t rules of admissibility in court by US.
EF: US may increase Assange's sentence by referring to uncharged relevant conduct of which he has been acquitted. Cites cases where this happened to others.
"It is grossly unfair to punish someone for something they have been acquitted of or haven't even been charged with."
"It is grossly unfair to punish someone for something they have been acquitted of or haven't even been charged with."
EF: This is a gross violation of justice and we have big reason to believe it will happen in Assange case. Vault 7 made govt angry, increased interest in extrajudicial methods (kidnapping or worse)
Serious risk and must be taken into account with sentencing, like Garcia case where other things are brought in
Serious risk and must be taken into account with sentencing, like Garcia case where other things are brought in
Apologies, Twitter broke my thread so trying to paste these back in order + more things I didn't get to write from the hearing.
https://x.com/richimedhurst/status/1759965954815971653?s=20
EF spoke of how the US is known to violate the Rule of Speciality. This doctrine is codified in extradition law, ad means that a requesting state shall not place additional charges or punishments on an extradited person.
He says the US will likely do that to Assange
He says the US will likely do that to Assange
One specific case cited by EF is Garcia. He was initially charged for marijuana distribution, but later punished for murder.
EF explained in detail how the United States, in various manners, made clear to the court and to the world that they can and will punish Julian Assange for "crimes" that he has not been indicted for. This is a gross violation of the Extradition Treaty and his due process.
The judges then began engaging with Julian's lawyers and asking about the "assurances" provided by the United States not to kill or mistreat Assange
I found this amusing as I had done extensive work on these "assurances" and they are worthless crap.
I found this amusing as I had done extensive work on these "assurances" and they are worthless crap.
The assurances were not in the scope of today's hearing, but Fitzgerald ended up explaining basic rules to them of the Strasbourg prisoner transfer treaty
– You cannot simply extradite Assange to Australia. Australia must agree as well.
– The prisoner must exhaust their appeal process, which easily takes a decade in the US, time during which Assange could be attacked and would suffer.
– You cannot simply extradite Assange to Australia. Australia must agree as well.
– The prisoner must exhaust their appeal process, which easily takes a decade in the US, time during which Assange could be attacked and would suffer.
A case previously cited by Julian's lawyers was Mendoza.
US signed a legally binding contract that he could return to serve sentence in Spain. US broke it anyway– and it was far stronger than what Assange is getting. I published the classified docs here:
richardmedhurst.substack.com/p/mendoza
US signed a legally binding contract that he could return to serve sentence in Spain. US broke it anyway– and it was far stronger than what Assange is getting. I published the classified docs here:
richardmedhurst.substack.com/p/mendoza
EF then spoke of 2nd major part in Assange's appeal, re decision of former Home Secretary Priti Patel to extradite Assange.
(Remember, 1st part was re decision of district judge Vanessa Baraitser to agree with US political charges, but only block extradition for health reasons.)
(Remember, 1st part was re decision of district judge Vanessa Baraitser to agree with US political charges, but only block extradition for health reasons.)
EF argued that #Assange's extradition should be blocked for two reasons: 1) It is against the 2003 US-UK Extradition Treaty and 2) The US doesn't respect the rule of speciality and could hit Assange with new charges, or additional punishment as soon as he is in the US
They spoke about the power the Home Secretary has to bar extradition. They correctly mentioned the fact that when Theresa May was Home Secretary, she blocked Gary McKinnon's extradition to the US citing the Human Rights Act and the fact that extradition could kill him. As a "compromise", however, she made it harder for future Home Secretaries to use the Human Rights Act or similar reasoning to block an extradition. Nevertheless, Priti Patel could have of course barred Assange's extradition on a wide array of grounds but didn't want to.
Gary McKinnon is a really cool and interesting guy. The US wanted him because he carried out the largest computer hack in history, incl. the Pentagon, NASA, Air Force, Army and Navy, which completely embarrassed the US.
Read my interview with him here: richardmedhurst.com/gary-mckinnon-…
Read my interview with him here: richardmedhurst.com/gary-mckinnon-…
EF argued that the Home Secretary, nevertheless, retains powers to block an extradition on political grounds. This goes back to the core argument against the extradition: it's political and violates Art 4 of the Treaty.
Fitzgerald hands it over to Mark Summers
Summers explains the real risk that Julian could be given the death penalty. The United States could accuse him of random things like "aiding an abetting the enemy" and hit him with capital crimes and therefore the death penalty.
Summers refers to how Chelsea Manning was accused of "treason", and Assange could equally be accused of "treason" and given death penalty.
(I always found it funny when Americans say Assange is a "traitor". He's not from the US, you bozo lol. Not a US citizen and never lived or worked there)
Assange's lawyers explain to Court that the Home Secretary doesn't even dispute the fact that Assange could be given the death penalty. She knew this but didn't bother asking for assurances from the US not to give him the death penalty (a clear violation of Extradition Treaty)
I'll add the rest of my notes in a bit as I've an interview to attend and shall return shortly. Will be going on Al Mayadeen at 7:30pm London time to talk about the #Assange case. See you shortly
Summers finished by making clear that what the United States needs to do is provide assurances that say: Julian Assange will not be given the death penalty.
These are simple assurances, but nowhere to be found.
These are simple assurances, but nowhere to be found.
What I would add to this -- and this is something Summers said implicitly-- is that the United Kingdom, and specifically the Home Sec, are at fault for not even bothering to demand such a simple assurance.
In the Mendoza case which I link to above, the assurances given by the United States to Spain were so weak, the Spanish courts told the Spanish executive: hey, you're not extraditing Mendoza until the US give us something more concrete. This is what led to the contract.
What Julian has is not even a contract, it's a piece of worthless paper. It's a diplomatic note that is not enforceable in court.
In Mendoza's case, Spain did nothing to enforce the contract. Meaning they said 0 when the US did not send back Mendoza to serve out his sentence
In Mendoza's case, Spain did nothing to enforce the contract. Meaning they said 0 when the US did not send back Mendoza to serve out his sentence
This led Mendoza to sue both Spain and the United States. He sued the Spanish government in the Spanish Supreme Court, and won -- twice.
Then when he got his hands on the contract, that all 3 parties had signed, and threatened Obama's AG Eric Holder, they finally sent him back
Then when he got his hands on the contract, that all 3 parties had signed, and threatened Obama's AG Eric Holder, they finally sent him back
This shows you that even if you have a contract between 3 parties, the United States is still going to break it, and not only that, but the other state won't say or do anything because it's been compromised by the US.
This means that even if Assange had a contract, we know the US would break it anyway, and we know the United Kingdom would do absolutely nothing to make the United States honour their word. But it shows the US cannot be trusted and the United States should've never won the appeal
Mendoza didn't even have that big of a political target on his back, and they still screwed him. He told me how literally hundreds of people are extradited to the United States from all over the world every year. How many of its own do you think the US gives up?
In any case it's important to understand these things because the failure of the High Court to properly examine what US "assurances" are, is why Julian's team are having to go back to Jan 2021 and challenge the other aspects of the DJ ruling.
Part of my interview on Al Mayadeen on the #Assange case
https://x.com/MayadeenEnglish/status/1760044185447796805?s=20
Images from #Assange case this morning. Feb 20, outside Royal Courts of Justice, London
Protestors outside the court chanting "Free Julian #Assange Now!"
Mainstream media tried to make it seem like only a few people came out, which is absolutely not true. Literally tons of people were in front of the Royal Courts demanding #Assange's release.
Will be back in court tomorrow for Day 2 of Assange hearing.
Thank you for supporting independent journalism.
Subscribe:
Support:
Donate: rumble.com/richardmedhurst
patreon.com/richardmedhurst
paypal.me/papichulomin
Thank you for supporting independent journalism.
Subscribe:
Support:
Donate: rumble.com/richardmedhurst
patreon.com/richardmedhurst
paypal.me/papichulomin
“Today was the first time the crimes of the United States were entered into the record.”
Richard Medhurst summarizes Day 1 of Assange High Court Appeal (2024)
Richard Medhurst summarizes Day 1 of Assange High Court Appeal (2024)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
