Assange's Judge a Disgrace to the Bench, Former UK Ambassador Says
April 15, 2019
Craig Murray asks you to imagine Western media reaction if a Russian
opposition politician were dragged out by armed police, and within three
hours convicted on a political charge by a patently biased judge.
By Craig Murray
CraigMurray.org.uk
Both Chelsea Manning and Julian Assange are now in jail, both over offenses
related to the publication of materials specifying U.S. war crimes in
Afghanistan and Iraq, and both charged with nothing else at all. No matter
what bullshit political and MSM liars try to feed you, that is the simple
truth. Manning and Assange are true heroes of our time, and are suffering
for it.
If a Russian opposition politician were dragged out by armed police, and
within three hours had been convicted on a political charge by a patently
biased judge with no jury, with a lengthy jail sentence to follow, can you
imagine the Western media reaction to that kind of kangaroo court? Yet that
is exactly what just happened in London.
Westminster's Magistrate's Court, April 11, 2019. (Twitter)
Westminster's Magistrate's Court, April 11, 2019. (Twitter)
District Judge Michael Snow is a disgrace to the bench who deserves to be
infamous well beyond his death. He displayed the most plain and open
prejudice against Assange in the 15 minutes it took for him to hear the case
and declare Assange guilty last week, in a fashion which makes the
dictators' courts I had witnessed, in Ibrahim Babangida's Nigeria or Isam
Karimov's Uzbekistan, look fair and reasonable, in comparison to the gross
charade of justice conducted by Michael Snow.
One key fact gave away Snow's enormous prejudice. Julian Assange said
nothing during the whole brief proceedings, other than to say "Not guilty"
twice, and to ask a one-sentence question about why the charges were changed
midway through this sham "trial." Yet Judge Michael Snow condemned Assange
as "narcissistic." There was nothing that happened in Snow's brief court
hearing that could conceivably have given rise to that opinion. It was
plainly something he brought with him into the courtroom, and had read or
heard in the mainstream media or picked up in his club. It was in short, the
very definition of prejudice, and "Judge" Michael Snow and his summary
judgement is a total disgrace.
Assange on way to Belmarsh Prison, April 11, 2019. (Twitter)
Assange on way to Belmarsh Prison, April 11, 2019. (Twitter)
I am part of the Wikileaks media and legal team and the whole team,
including Julian, is energized rather than downhearted. At last there is no
more hiding for the pretend liberals behind ludicrous Swedish allegations or
bail jumping allegations, and the true motive - revenge for the Chelsea
Manning revelations - is now completely in the open.
To support the persecution of Assange in these circumstances is to support
absolute state censorship of the internet. It is to support the claim that
any journalist who receives and publishes official material which indicates
U.S. government wrongdoing, can be punished for its publication.
Furthermore, this U.S. claim involves an astonishing boost to universal
jurisdiction. Assange was nowhere near the USA when he published the
documents, but nonetheless U.S. courts are willing to claim jurisdiction.
This is a threat to press and internet freedom everywhere.
These are scary times. But those may also be the most inspiring of times.