Blood starts boiling at roughly 212°F. Julian Assange was awarded a fresh blow yesterday, as the U.K. High Court (high as in lacking sobriety) decided to grant U.S. authorities permission to expand their grounds for an appeal relating to the decision by the U.K. courts to block extradition of Assange to the U.S. where he is wanted on espionage charges. The decision to proceed with appealing a U.K. judge’s decision against extraditing Assange due to the potentially “oppressive” situation he faces in the U.S., and the potential for him to harm himself due to mental instability, was argued by Claire Dobbin, a lawyer representing U.S. authorities on this case.
According to NBC News, Dobbin argued that Assange surely couldn’t be “so ill” as to be unable to resist harming himself. She also stated that a decision not to extradite would require an individual to possess “a mental illness of a type that the ability to resist suicide has been lost.” I can’t help but think of Julian Assange sitting in on the video call. A face of light darkened by almost a decade of near solitude, concealed behind an even darker face covering.
Dobbin, who apparently can’t grasp how locking someone in a dungeon could put them in a severely fragile state, also attempted to discredit evidence put forth by Assange’s psychiatrist Michael Kopelman. It was Kopelman’s testimony that pushed then presiding District Judge Vanessa Baraitser to block the extradition of Assange to the United States. On Wednesday, Dobbin argued that Kopelman’s testimony had been unreliable, stating that he was “willing to mislead…rather than comply with his duties.”
The basis for that statement is rooted in the fact that Kopelman failed to acknowledge that Assange had fathered two children while locked in an Ecuadorian embassy. Failing to acknowledge someone’s sex life in a trial about hacking, according to Dobbin, is tantamount to misleading the court through omission… somehow. It’s as if Dobbin is arguing that Assange could not be a danger to himself simply because he has good swimmers. However, regardless of the novice-like technical tactics deployed by Ms. Dobbin, it appears the U.K High Court agrees with her, broadening the landscape for the appeal.
It’s like a modern-day Trial of Socrates. In September 2020, NBC News published an article with the basis being that in 2017, while Assange was trapped in the Ecuadorian embassy in London, a presidential pardon by then President Trump was on the table. Apparently, Assange was visited by two of Trump’s minions who told him that if he were to help resolve "ongoing speculation about Russian involvement" in the hacking of Democratic National Committee emails leaked during the 2016 U.S. election campaign, then Trump would greenlight an offer that was quoted by Assange’s lawyer at the time Jennifer Robinson as being a “win-win”. Assange denied the offer explaining that he should be pardoned solely based on the grounds of the First Amendment. Assange also stated that he could not reveal the source of the leaks because it would not be "consistent with WikiLeaks editorial policy.” Which is the Socratic way of saying, we don’t negotiate with terrorists.
The corporate media has evidently left Julian Assange to the wolves as well. Wednesday’s proceedings were but a footnote amidst the blockbuster story that was New York Governor Andrew Cuomo announcing his resignation after murdering thousands of elderly citizens under his protection during the COVID-19 pandemic last year. Oh, he also grabbed some ladies boob or something. I’ve never seen a more narcissistic group of people than the anchors and reporters covering the two idiot Corleone brothers while the greatest journalist of this century, (I don’t proclaim that lightly) fights in a supermax prison. Make no mistake prison is a fight, regardless of your philosophy toward violence.
The inherent hypocrisy while I write this is not lost on me. I am literally a novice whose word has never enacted any amount of action whatsoever in the realm of journalism. In fact, this is the first thing I’ve ever written publicly. Truthfully, I’m doing it for selfish reasons. I would gladly take up Assange’s post today, right now, as I know thousands of my comrades would as well, if just for a slight respite for the man. Not because I intend to gain anything from this, I can’t even know if someone will read this. But because my sub-conscious is screaming at me constantly, almost daring me, to act. And I don’t mean dare as in double dog dare. I mean dare as in the infamous quote by Thomas Jefferson, “when tyranny becomes law, rebellion becomes duty.”
If Julian Assange is extradited to the U.S., the American people must make a choice. Will we choose laws, which have been contorted and distorted beyond belief, just for the sake of comfort? Will we choose the duty bestowed upon us, a free citizenry to stand against tyranny? I couldn’t possibly know. However one thing I do know and have known is something Assange stated in a 60 minutes interview back in 2011 “I’m not yet a martyr.”
Julian Assange is Not a Martyr
Thank you, Zack.
My own efforts to help Julian can be found within https://candobetter.net/JulianAssange (although there are problems with this site, which we are trying to fix). My most recent article is "Will Australia's Parliament ever allow a debate on Julian Assange?" (8/6/2021) at https://candobetter.net/node/6155
I posted the following comment beneath that article:
Insightful but not exhaustive explanation of Assange's situation
In Julian Assange is Not a Martyr - The U.K. High Court continues to cave to U.S. pressure.(13/5/21), Zack Thomas gives a detailed and insightful account of Julian Assange's current circumstances. Zack analyses the recent decision by the UK High Court to allow the U.S. prosecutors decision to appeal Judge Vanessa Barraitser's decision of 6 January that Julian Assange was psychologically capable of enduring circumstances in the American prison system. [1]
However a number of questions remain unanswered for me, including:
1. Why has Julian Assange's Defence team not appealed against Vanessa Barraitser's ruling which upheld all of the U.S. prosecution's case against Julian Assange? Whilst, of course, we should be concerned about the psychological harm that being locked for 175 years in a United States' dungeon will cause Julian, why are they only focused on this and not the former?
2. Where can a comprehensive record of the High Court hearing of which Zack Thomas has written be found?
Footnote[s]
[1] Whilst ruling that prison conditions in the U.S. were too harsh for Julian Assange, Judge Vanessa Barraitser, nevertheless, implicitly ruled that Julian Assange's 23 hours per day solitary confinement, so far for 2 years and 4 months - a fate far worse than those endured by terrorists, murderers and embezzlers in Britain's prison system, was not too harsh.