It is a very cruel world.
There's a very long, very complex novel on BARD, written by an excellent
author. I'll forward my review of it to the list if anyone is interested, but
as I say, it's complicated. However, in this book, there are random scenes
describing conditions in Occupied Palestine (The West Bank). We read about it,
sort of, in general. But it takes a talented author describing a specific
situation in concrete terms, for you to really understand. Reading that book
was like having someone stick knives into me.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2020 6:00 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: ASSANGE EXTRADITION: International Lawyers Make
Urgent Appeal to British Government
I noticed. Assange has no rights because he's not a citizen, but he can be
accused of treason?
I suppose when you're the biggest bully on the block, you can grab off a
foreign journalist as easily as you can send a drone to murder a hospital
filled with patients, halfway around the world.
Carl Jarvis
On 8/17/20, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Did you notice that they remind us in this letter, that our government
does not believe that Assange is entitled to freedom of speech and
fair treatment because he isn't a US citizen?
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2020 5:42 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: ASSANGE EXTRADITION: International
Lawyers Make Urgent Appeal to British Government
No self respecting Kangaroo would allow its name to be connected with
this Court.
This is just one more unlearned lesson, teaching us that the American
Corporate Empire does not hold even a single speck of respect for
human life. I become enraged thinking of those who have persecuted
Julian Assange far beyond the limits of human decency.
Carl Jarvis
On 8/17/20, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I've omitted the long list of signatures.
Miriam
ASSANGE EXTRADITION: International Lawyers Make Urgent Appeal to
British Government
August 16, 2020
An array of international lawyers have written to the British prime
minister, foreign secretary, secretary of state for justice and home
secretary outlining his illegal treatment and demanding Julian
Assange's release.
LAWYERS FOR ASSANGE
Independent international legal observers of the proceedings in the
case of Julian Assange Open Letter to the UK Prime Minister Mr Boris
Johnson, the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice
Robert Buckland QC, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs
Dominic Raab and UK Home Secretary Priti Patel.
DOWNLOAD LETTER
Dear Prime Minister,
Dear Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, Dear
Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Dear Home Secretary, We write
to you as legal practitioners and legal academics to express our
collective concerns about the violations of Mr. Julian Assange's
fundamental human, civil and political rights and the precedent his
persecution is setting. We call on you to act in accordance with
national and international law, human rights and the rule of law by
bringing an end to the ongoing extradition proceedings and granting
Mr. Assange his long overdue freedom - freedom from torture,
arbitrary detention and deprivation of liberty, and political persecution.
A) ILLEGALITY OF POTENTIAL EXTRADITION TO THE UNITED STATES
Extradition of Mr. Assange from the UK to the U.S. would be illegal
on the following grounds:
1. Risk of being subjected to an unfair trial in the U.S.
Extradition would be unlawful owing to failure to ensure the
protection of Mr. Assange's fundamental trial rights in the U.S. Mr.
Assange faces show trial at the infamous "Espionage court" of the
Eastern District of Virginia, before which no national security
defendant has ever succeeded. Here, he faces secret proceedings
before a jury picked from a population in which most of the
individuals eligible for jury selection work for, or are connected
to, the CIA, NSA, DoD or DoS.[i]Furthermore, Mr. Assange's legal
privilege, a right enshrined in Art. 8 European Convention on Human
Rights
(ECHR) and long recognised under English common law, was grossly
violated through constant and criminal video and audio surveillance
at the Ecuadorian embassy carried out by the Spanish security firm,
UC Global. This surveillance was, according to witness testimony,
ordered by the CIA and has triggered an investigation into the owner
of UC Global, David Morales, by Spain's High Court, the Audiencia
Nacional.[ii] The surveillance resulted in all of Mr. Assange's
meetings and conversations being recorded, including those with his
lawyers. The Council of Bar and Law Societies of Europe, which
represents more than a million European lawyers, has expressed its
concerns that these illegal recordings may be used - openly or
secretly - in proceedings against Mr. Assange in the event of
successful extradition to the U.S. The Council states that if the
information merely became known to the prosecutors, this would
present an irremediable breach of Mr. Assange's fundamental rights to
a fair trial under Art. 6 of the ECHR and due process under the U.S.
Constitution.[iii] Furthermore, the prosecuting state obtained the
totality of Mr. Assange's legal papers after their unlawful seizure
in the Embassy. Upon hearing that the Government of Ecuador was
planning to seize and hand over personal belongings of Mr. Assange,
including documents, telephones, electronic devices, memory drives,
etc. to the U.S., the UN Special Rapporteur on Privacy, Joseph
Cannataci, expressed his serious concern to the Ecuadorian government
and twice formally requested it to return Mr. Assange's personal
effects to his lawyers, to no avail.[iv].
The UN Model Treaty on Extradition prohibits extradition if the
person has not received, or would not receive, the minimum guarantees
in criminal proceedings, as enshrined in Art. 14 of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).[v]
2. The political nature of the offence prohibits extradition.
The U.S. superseding indictment issued against Mr. Assange on the 24
June
2020 charges him with 18 counts all related solely to the 2010
publications of U.S. government documents. The publications,
comprising information about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, U.S.
diplomatic cables and Guantanamo Bay, revealed evidence of war
crimes, corruption and governmental malfeasance.[vi]Charges 1-17 are
brought under the Espionage Act 1917, which, in name alone, reveals
the political and antiquated nature of the charges.[vii]Furthermore,
the essence of the 18 charges concerns Mr.
Assange's alleged intention to obtain or disclose U.S. state "secrets"
in a manner that was damaging to the strategic and national security
interests of the U.S. state, to the capability of its armed forces,
the work of the security and intelligence services of the U.S., and
to the interests of the U.S. abroad. Thus, the conduct, motivation
and purpose attributed to Mr.
Assange confirm the political character of the 17 charges brought
under the Espionage Act ('pure political' offences) and of the
hacking charge (a 'relative political' offence). In addition, several U.S.
government officials have at various times ascribed motives "hostile"
to the U.S. to Mr. Assange, an Australian citizen.[viii].
The UK-U.S. Extradition Treaty, which provides the very basis of the
extradition request, specifically prohibits extradition for political
offences in Art. 4(1).
Yet the presiding judge and prosecution wish to simply disregard this
article by referring to the Extradition Act 2003 ("EA") instead,
which does not include the political offence exception. This
blatantly ignores the fact that the EA is merely an enabling act that
creates the minimum statutory safeguards but it does not preclude
stronger protections from extradition as expressly provided in
subsequently ratified treaties such as the UK-U.S.
Extradition Treaty.
Furthermore, there is broad international consensus that political
offences should not be the basis of extradition.[ix] This is
reflected in Art. 3 of the 1957 European Convention on Extradition,
Art. 3 ECHR, Art. 3(a) of the UN Model Treaty on Extradition, the
Interpol Constitution and every bilateral treaty ratified by the U.S.
for over a century.
3. Risk of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment in the U.S.
The United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel,
Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment ("the UN Rapporteur on
Torture"), Professor Nils Melzer, has expressed with certainty that,
if extradited to the U.S., Mr. Assange will be exposed to torture or
other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Similar
concerns have also been raised by the UN Working Group on Arbitrary
Detention, and Amnesty International has recently restated its
concerns in relation to the unacceptable risk of mistreatment.[x]The
detention conditions, and the draconian punishment of
175 years, in a maximum security prison, which Mr. Assange faces
under the U.S. indictment, would constitute torture or other cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, according to the
current UN Rapporteur on Torture and according to the consistently
expressed opinion of his predecessor, as well as of NGOs and legal
authorities.[xi]If extradited, Mr.
Assange would, by the U.S. government's own admission, likely be
placed under Special Administrative Measures. These measures prohibit
prisoners from contact or communication with all but a few approved
individuals, and any approved individuals would not be permitted to
report information concerning the prisoner's treatment to the public,
thereby shielding potential torture from public scrutiny and
government from accountability.[xii].
Under the principle of non-refoulement, it is not permissible to
extradite a person to a country in which there are substantial
grounds forbelieving that they would be subjected to torture. This
principle is enshrined in the 1951 UN Convention Relating to the
Status of Refugees, specifically Art. 33(1) from which no derogations
are permitted. Also relevant are Art. 3(1) UN Declaration on
Territorial Asylum 1967, Art. 3 of the Convention against Torture and
Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), and
Art. 2 of the Resolution on Asylum to Persons in Danger of
Persecution, adopted by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of
Europe in 1967. As an obligation arising from the prohibition of
torture, the principle of non-refoulement in this area is absolute
and also takes on the character of a peremptory norm of customary
international law, i.e.
jus cogens.[xiii]
Mr. Assange, who was accepted as a political asylee by the Ecuadorian
government owing to what have proved to have been wholly legitimate
fears of political persecution and torture in the U.S., should
clearly have been accorded protection of this principle, firstly by
Ecuador and secondly by the UK. Ecuador violated its human rights
obligations by summarily rescinding Mr. Assange's asylum in direct
contradiction of the 'Latin American tradition of asylum'[xiv] and
the Advisory Opinion OC-25/18 of 30 May 2018 of the Inter-American
Court of Human Rights affirming the principle of non-refoulement in
cases of persons who have entered an embassy for protection.[xv] The
entry of the Ecuadorian Embassy by UK police and the arrest of Mr.
Assange were thus based on an illegal revocation of his nationality
and asylum, which can only be rectified by the UK upholding its own
duty to protect the principle of non-refoulement by denying
extradition to the U.S.
B) VIOLATIONS OF THE FREEDOM OF THE PRESS AND THE RIGHT TO KNOW
Counts 1-17 of the indictment under the Espionage Act violate the
right to freedom of expression, the right to freedom of the press and
the right to know. These counts present standard and necessary
investigative journalistic practices as criminal.[xvi] Such practices
include indicating availability to receive information, indicating
what information is of interest, encouraging the provision of
information, receipt of information for the purpose of publication,
and publication of information in the public interest.
Under the charge of conspiracy to commit computer intrusion, the
initial indictment criminalised also Mr. Assange's alleged attempt at
helping his source to maintain their anonymity while providing the
documents in question, which falls squarely under the standard
journalistic practice and duty of protecting the source. In a bid to
detract from this fact and re-paint Mr. Assange as a malicious
hacker, the U.S. DoJ has published a new "superseding indictment" on
24 June 2020, without even lodging it with the UK court first,
alleging the recruitment of, and agreement with, hackers to commit
computer intrusion. The new indictment has emerged unjustifiably late
in the day, is based on no new information and the testimony of two
highly compromised sources.
We agree with the assessment of the Commissioner for Human Rights of
the Council of Europe that "The broad and vague nature of the
allegations against Julian Assange, and of the offences listed in the
indictment, are troubling as many of them concern activities at the
core of investigative journalism in Europe and beyond."[xvii]
Extradition on the basis of the indictment would gravely endanger
freedom of the press, a cornerstone of European democracies enshrined
in Art. 10 ECHR.[xviii]
The U.S. furthermore seemingly concedes the unconstitutionality of
the charges, having stated in one of its submissions to the Court that Mr.
Assange will be denied the protections of freedom of speech and the
press guaranteed under the First Amendment due to his being a foreign
national.[xix] Furthermore, extraditing Mr. Assange to the U.S. with
the knowledge of their intended discrimination against him would make
the UK an accessory in a flagrant denial of his right to
non-discrimination.
The extradition to the U.S. of a publisher and journalist, for
engaging in journalistic activities while in Europe, would set a very
dangerous precedent for the extra-territorialisation of state secrecy
laws and "would post an invitation to other states to follow suit,
severely threatening the ability of journalists, publishers and human
rights organisations to safely reveal information about serious
international issues."[xx] Such concerns for journalistic freedom are
echoed by the journalistic profession -over a thousand journalists
signed an open letter opposing Mr. Assange's extradition.[xxi]
Massimo Moratti, Amnesty International's Deputy Europe Director has
branded the U.S. government's unrelenting pursuit of Mr.
Assange as "nothing short of a full-scale assault on the right to
freedom of expression" which "could have a profound impact on the
public's right to know what their government is up to."[xxii]
Furthermore the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe has
stated that member States should "consider that the detention and
criminal prosecution of Mr Julian Assange sets a dangerous precedent
for journalists, and join the recommendation of the UN Special
Rapporteur on Torture" in his call to bar the extradition and for the
release from custody of Mr.
Assange.[xxiii]
C) VIOLATIONS OF THE RIGHT TO BE FREE FROM TORTURE, THE RIGHT TO
HEALTH, AND THE RIGHT TO LIFE
The UN Rapporteur on Torture has reported, and continues to report,
on the treatment of Mr. Assange as part of his United Nations
mandate. On
9 and 10 May 2019, Prof. Melzer and two medical experts specialised
in examining potential victims of torture and other ill-treatment
visited Mr. Assange in Her Majesty's Prison Belmarsh ("HMP
Belmarsh"). The group's visit and assessment revealed that Mr.
Assange showed "all symptoms typical for prolonged exposure to
psychological torture, including extreme stress, chronic anxiety and
intense psychological trauma."[xxiv] The UN Rapporteur on Torture
concluded "Mr. Assange has been deliberately exposed, for a period of
several years, to persistent and progressively severe forms of cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the cumulative effects
of which can only be described as psychological torture".
The UN Rapporteur on Torture condemned "in the strongest terms, the
deliberate, concerted and sustained nature of the abuse inflicted",
and characterised the failure of the UK government and the involved
governments to take measures for the protection of Mr. Assange's
human rights and dignity as "complacency at best and complicity at
worst".[xxv]
The abuse includes systematic judicial persecution and violations of
due process rights in all jurisdictions involved and in all related
legal proceedings.[xxvi] It has most recently been demonstrated in
the treatment of Mr. Assange during the extradition proceedings heard
at Woolwich Crown Court, proceedings destined to be infamously
remembered for the "glass box"
to which Mr. Assange was confined as if he, an award winning
journalist and a publisher, was a dangerous and violent criminal.
Mr. Assange was subjected to arbitrary detention and oppressive
isolation, harassment and surveillance, while confined in the
Ecuadorian embassy[xxvii] and continues to be so subjected as a
prisoner in HMP Belmarsh. In Belmarsh, Mr. Assange has served the
irregular and disproportionate sentence of 50 weeks[xxviii] for an
alleged bail infringement. Perversely, the allegation, charge and
conviction resulted from Mr. Assange legitimately seeking and being
granted diplomatic asylum by the Ecuadorian government, which
accepted Mr. Assange's fear of politicised extradition to, and
inhuman treatment in, the U.S., as well founded.[xxix] Although Mr.
Assange has now served the sentence, he remains imprisoned without
conviction or legal basis for the purpose of a political, and thereby
illegal, extradition to the U.S.
Further, he is imprisoned amid the Coronavirus pandemic, despite the
above and despite his vulnerability to the virus owing to an
underlying lung condition exacerbated by years of confinement and a
history of psychological torture. It is particularly worrisome that,
as a result of his health and the medical circumstances, he has even
been unable to participate by video-link at recent hearings, yet he
has been refused bail.[xxx]
UK authorities violated Mr. Assange's right to health while deprived
of his liberty in the Ecuadorian Embassy by denying him access to
urgent medical diagnosis and care.[xxxi] The two medical experts who
accompanied the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture on his May 2019
visit to HMP Belmarsh warned that unless pressure on Mr. Assange was
alleviated quickly, his state of health would enter a downward spiral
potentially resulting in his death.[xxxii] Mr. Assange's father, Mr.
John Shipton, has reported that his son was subjected to physical
torture by his being placed in a "hot box."[xxxiii] On 1 November
2019 the UN Rapporteur on Torture stated:
"[u]nless the UK urgently changes course and alleviates his inhumane
situation, Mr. Assange's continued exposure to arbitrariness and
abuse may soon end up costing his life."[xxxiv] Soon after, on 22
November 2019, over
60 doctors from around the world raised concerns about the precarious
state of Mr. Assange's physical and mental health which included
fears for his life, and requested his transfer to a hospital properly
equipped and staffed for his diagnosis and treatment.[xxxv]
Furthermore, it has been revealed by the employees of UC Global, who
worked at the Ecuadorian embassy, that the CIA actively discussed and
considered kidnapping or poisoning Mr. Assange.[xxxvi] This shows a
shocking disregard for his right to life and the due process of law
of the very government seeking his extradition.
We would like to remind the UK government:
of its duty to protect Mr. Assange's right to life, which is the most
fundamental human right enshrined in Art. 6 of the ICCPR, Art. 2 of
the ECHR and Art. 2 of the Human Rights Act (HRA); that the
prohibition of torture is a norm of international customary law and
constitutes jus cogens. The prohibition is absolute and so there may
be no derogation under any circumstances, including war, public
emergency or terrorist threat. It is also enshrined in Art. 5 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), Arts. 7 and 10 ICCPR,
CAT, and Art. 3 ECHR; of its unconditional obligation, under Art. 12
CAT, to ensure that its competent authorities proceed to a prompt and
impartial investigation of reported torture, which it has thus far
failed to undertake; and that it is a member State of the World
Health Organization, whose Constitution states: "The enjoyment of the
highest attainable standard of health is one of the fundamental
rights of every human being without distinction of [.] political
belief [,,,]everyone should have access to the health services they
need, when and where they need them.
We call on the UK government to take immediate action to cease the
torture being inflicted upon Mr. Assange, to end his arbitrary and
unlawful detention, and to permit his access to independent medical
diagnosis and treatment in an appropriate hospital setting. That
doctors, their previous concerns having been ignored, should have to
call on governments to 'End torture and medical neglect of Julian
Assange' in The Lancet is extremely worrying.[xxxvii]
D) VIOLATIONS OF THE RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL
We condemn the denial of Mr. Assange's right to a fair trial before
the UK courts. This right has been denied as follows.
1. Judicial Conflicts of Interest
Senior District Judge (Magistrates' Courts) Emma Arbuthnot, who as
Chief Magistrate oversees Mr. Assange's extradition proceedings, has
been shown to have financial links to institutions and individuals
whose wrongdoings have been exposed by WikiLeaks, the organisation
which Mr. Assange founded.[xxxviii] This seemingly clear conflict of
interest was, however, not disclosed by the District Judge. District
Judge Arbuthnot did not recuse herself and was permitted to make
rulings to Mr. Assange's detriment, despite the perceived lack of
judicial impartiality and independence.
District Judge (Magistrates' Courts) Michael Snow has further
exhibited bias and unprofessionalism by participating in the
defamation of Mr. Assange's character, labelling the
multi-award-winning public interest publisher and Nobel Peace Prize
Nominee a "narcissist who cannot get beyond his own selfish interests"
in response, ironically, to Mr. Assange's legal team raising what
were patently legitimate concerns regarding bias in the
proceedings.[xxxix]
2. Inequality of Arms
Mr. Assange has been denied time and facilities to prepare his
defence in violation of the principle of equality of arms which is
inherent to the presumption of innocence and the rule of law.After
his arrest, the British police did not allow Mr. Assange to collect
and take his belongings with him.[xl] Subsequently, Mr. Assange was
deprived of his reading glasses for several weeks.[xli] Until end of
June 2020 he was also denied access to a computer. While a computer
has now been provided it is without internet access and read only,
preventing the possibility of Mr. Assange typing any notes thus being
entirely unsuitable for the preparation of his defence.
Mr.
Assange was furthermore denied access to the indictment itself for
several weeks after it had been presented, while his access to other
legal documents remains limited to this day due to the bureaucracy
and lack of confidentiality involved in prison correspondence.
Furthermore, despite the complexity of the case and the severity of
the sentence that Mr. Assange would face if extradited to be tried in
the U.S., prison authorities are failing to ensure that Mr. Assange
can properly consult with his legal team and prepare for his defence,
by severely restricting both the frequency and duration of his legal
visits. Since mid-March 2020, Mr. Assange has altogether not been
able to meet in person with his lawyers.The effects of the torture to
which Mr. Assange has been subjected have further limited his ability
to prepare his defence and, at times during proceedings, even to
answer basic questions, such as questions about his name and date of
birth.[xlii] While further hearings have been delayed until
September, it is unclear whether this will enable Mr. Assange the
necessary time and resources to prepare his defence, since he is
unable to communicate with his lawyers (due to his imprisonment
during the
pandemic) apart from being given limited concessions for a limited
period of time, i.e. phone calls restricted to 10 minutes.
3. Denial of the defendant's ability to properly follow proceedings
and direct his legal team
Mr. Assange and his lawyers have repeatedly informed the Court of his
inability to properly follow proceedings, to consult with his lawyers
confidentially and to properly instruct them in the presentation of
his defence due to his being prevented from sitting with them and
being confined to a bulletproof glass box. The arrangement has forced
Mr. Assange to resort to waving to get the attention of the judge or
the people sitting in the public gallery, in order to alert his
lawyers who are seated in the courtroom with their backs to him.
Although District Judge Vanessa Baraitser accepted that the decision
as to whether Mr. Assange should be allowed to sit with his lawyers
was within her powers, yet she refused to exercise her power in Mr.
Assange's favour, despite the prosecution having made no objection to
the application. Amnesty International has expressed concerns that if
adequate measures are not in place at further hearings to ensure Mr.
Assange's effective participation in, and thereby the fairness of,
the proceedings would be impaired.[xliii]
4. Refusal to address mistreatment of the defendant
Mr. Assange's lawyers informed the Court that during a single day, on
22 February, prison authorities handcuffed him 11 times, placed him
in
5 different cells, strip-searched him twice, and confiscated his
privileged legal documents. Overseeing the proceedings, District
Judge Vanessa Baraitser explicitly refused to intervene with prison
authorities claiming that she has no jurisdiction over his prison
conditions. This oppressive treatment has rightly been condemned by
The International Bar Association's Human Rights Institute.[xliv]
Co-Chair, Anne Ramberg Dr jur hc, branded it a "serious undermining
of due process and the rule of law."[xlv] Further, international
psychiatrists and psychologists have cited this as further evidence
of psychological torture.[xlvi]
We remind the UK government that the right to a fair trial is a
cornerstone of democracy and the rule of law. It is a basic human
right enshrined in Art. 10 UDHR, Art. 14 ICCPR, Art. 6 ECHR and Art.
6 HRA. These provisions, along with long-standing common law
principles, demand a fair and public hearing before an independent
and impartial tribunal, the presumption of innocence until proven
guilty, the right to be informed promptly and in detail of the nature
and cause of the charges, the right to be provided with adequate time
and facilities for the preparation of one's defence, and the right to
have the ability to communicate with one's counsel.
For all these reasons we respectfully request that the UK government
bring an end to the U.S. extradition proceedings against Mr. Assange
and ensure his immediate release from custody.
Yours sincerely,
Lawyers for Assange
Signatories
Collective Signatories