‘Julian Assange is free’: Wikileaks founder to be freed in deal with US

Assange to plead guilty to one charge of espionage and return home to Australia after decades fighting US extradition.

‘Julian Assange is free’: Wikileaks founder to be freed in deal with US | Julian Assange News | Al Jazeera

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange boards a plane at a location given as London, UK, in this still image from video released JUNE 25, 2024 ["@wikileaks" via X/Handout via Reuters]

Published On 25 Jun 202425 Jun 2024

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has been freed from prison in the United Kingdom and is set to travel home to Australia after he pleads guilty to a single charge of breaching the espionage law in the United States.

Assange, 52, will plead guilty to one count of conspiring to obtain and disclose classified US national defence documents, according to a filing in the US District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands.

KEEP READING

list of 4 items

list 1 of 4

UK ruling on Assange extradition ‘resets the game’. What happens next?

list 2 of 4

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange wins bid to appeal extradition to US

list 3 of 4

UK court to rule on Julian Assange extradition appeal: What could happen?

list 4 of 4

‘Bring Julian home’: the Australian campaign to free Assange

end of list

He was freed from the UK’s high-security Belmarsh prison on Monday and taken to the airport whre he flew out of the country. Assange will appear at a court in Saipan, a US Pacific territory at 9am on Wednesday (23:00 GMT on Tuesday) where he will be sentenced to 62 months of time already served.

“Julian Assange is free,” Wikileaks said in a statement posted on X.

“He left Belmarsh maximum security prison on the morning of 24 June, after having spent 1901 days there. He was granted bail by the High Court in London and was released at Stanstead airport during the afternoon, where he boarded a plane and departed the UK.”

PT -- Manlio Dinucci -- A arte da Guerra -- Por trás do veredicto de Londres sobre Julian Assange

 

A Arte da Guerra

Por trás do veredicto de Londres sobre Julian Assange

Manlio Dinucci

FRANÇAIS  ITALIANO PORTUGUÊS

 

De um processo injusto - o de Londres referente a Julian Assange, fundador do WikiLeaks - resultou numa sentença que, à primeira vista, parece justa: a não extradição do jornalista para os Estados Unidos, onde o aguarda uma sentença de 175 anos de prisão, ao abrigo da Lei de Espionagem de 1917. Resta saber, no momento em que escrevemos, se e de que modo Assange será libertado, após sete anos de confinamento na Embaixada do Equador e quase dois anos de prisão desumana, em Londres.

 

Fala-se da sua libertação sob fiança, mas se Washington recorrer da sentença (como parece certo), o processo de extradição pode ser reaberto e Assange deve permanecer à disposição da magistratura na Grã-Bretanha. Há também o facto de que, no veredicto, a Juíza Vanessa Baraister ter dito estar convencida da "boa fé" das autoridades americanas e da regularidade de um possível julgamento nos Estados Unidos, motivando o veredicto apenas por "razões de saúde mental" que poderiam levar Assange ao suicídio.

 

O que é que, na realidade, determinou a não extradição de Julian Assange para os EUA, neste momento?

 

Por um lado, a campanha internacional pela sua libertação, que levou o caso Assange ao conhecimento da opinião pública. Por outro lado, o facto de que um julgamento público de Julian Assange nos EUA seria extremamente embaraçoso para o ‘establishment’ político-militar.

 

Como prova dos "crimes" de Assange, a acusação teria de mostrar os crimes de guerra dos EUA trazidos à luz pelo WikiLeaks. Por exemplo, quando em 2010 publicou mais de 250.000 documentos americanos, muitos deles rotulados como "confidenciais" ou "secretos", sobre as guerras no Iraque e no Afeganistão.

 

Ou quando, em 2016, Assange já estava retido na Embaixada do Equador, em Londres, o WikiLeaks publicou mais de 30.000 emails e documentos enviados e recebidos entre 2010 e 2014 por Hillary Clinton, Secretária de Estado da Administração Obama. Entre eles encontra-se um email de 2011, que revela o verdadeiro objectivo da guerra da NATO contra a Líbia, concretizado em particular pelos EUA e pela França: impedir Gaddafi de utilizar as reservas de ouro da Líbia para criar uma moeda pan-africana alternativa ao dólar e ao franco CFA, a moeda imposta pela França a 14 antigas colónias.

 

Juntamente com dezenas de milhares de documentos, que trouxeram à luz os verdadeiros objectivos desta e de outras operações de guerra, o WikiLeaks publicou imagens em vídeo de massacres de civis no Iraque e noutros locais, mostrando a verdadeira face da guerra. Aquele que hoje em dia é escondido pelos grandes meios de comunicação social. Enquanto na Guerra do Vietname dos anos 60, relatos jornalísticos e imagens dos massacres desencadearam um vasto movimento contra a "guerra suja", contribuindo para a derrota dos Estados Unidos, o jornalismo de guerra está hoje, cada vez mais regimentado: aos correspondentes embedded, seguindo as tropas, é mostrado apenas o que os comandos querem, os únicos autorizados a fornecer "informações" nos seus briefing.

 

Os raros jornalistas íntegros trabalham em condições cada vez mais difíceis e arriscadas, e as suas reportagens são frequentemente censuradas pelos principais meios de comunicação social, na qual domina a narrativa oficial dos acontecimentos. O jornalismo de investigação do WikiLeaks abriu fendas no muro do silêncio mediático que cobre os verdadeiros interesses das elites poderosas que, operando no "Estado Profundo", continuam a jogar a carta da guerra, com a diferença de que hoje, com armas as nucleares, pode levar o mundo à catástrofe final.

 

Violar as salas secretas destes grupos de poder, trazendo à luz as suas estratégias e tramas, é uma acção extremamente arriscada tanto para os jornalistas como para aqueles que, rebelando-se contra o silêncio, os ajudam a descobrir a verdade.

 

É o caso emblemático de Chelsea Manning, a activista americana acusada de fornecer ao WikiLeaks documentos de que tomou conhecimento enquanto trabalhava como analista dos serviços secretos do exército americano durante a guerra do Iraque. Foi condenada a 37 anos de detenção numa prisão de segurança máxima e, libertada após 7 anos de prisão penosa, foi novamente presa por se recusar a testemunhar contra Assange e, após uma tentativa de suicídio, foi posta em liberdade condicional.

 

Manlio Dinucci

il manifesto,05 de Janeiro de 2021

Manlio Dinucci

Geógrafo e geopolitólogo. Livros mais recentes: Laboratorio di geografia, Zanichelli 2014 ; Diario di viaggio, Zanichelli 2017 ; L’arte della guerra / Annali della strategia Usa/Nato 1990-2016, Zambon 2016, Guerra Nucleare. Il Giorno Prima 2017; Diario di guerra Asterios Editores 2018; Premio internazionale per l'analisi geostrategica atribuído em 7 de Junho de 2019, pelo Club dei giornalisti del Messico, A.C.

IT -- Manlio Dinucci -- L'arte della guerra -- Dietro il verdetto di Londra su Julian Assange

 

L’arte della guerra

Dietro il verdetto di Londra su Julian Assange

Manlio Dinucci

FRANÇAIS  ITALIANO PORTUGUÊS

  

Da un processo ingiusto – quello di Londra a Julian Assange, fondatore di WikiLeaks – è scaturita una sentenza che a prima vista appare giusta: la non-estradizione del giornalista negli Stati uniti, dove lo attende una condanna a 175 anni di reclusione in base alla Legge sullo spionaggio del 1917. Resta da vedere, al momento in cui scriviamo, se e in che modo Assange verrà scarcerato dopo sette anni di confino all’ambasciata ecuadoregna e quasi due anni di carcere duro a Londra.

 

 Si parla di un suo rilascio su cauzione, ma, se Washington fa appello contro la sentenza (come appare certo), il procedimento di estradizione può essere riaperto e Assange deve restare a disposizione della magistratura in Gran Bretagna. Vi è inoltre il fatto che nel verdetto la giudice Vanessa Baraister si è detta convinta della «buona fede» delle autorità statunitensi e della regolarità di un possibile processo negli Stati uniti, motivando il verdetto solo con «ragioni di salute mentale» che potrebbero portare Assange al suicidio.

 

Che cosa in realtà ha determinato, in questo momento, la non-estradizione di Julian Assange negli Usa?

 

Da un lato la campagna internazionale per la sua liberazione, che ha portato il caso Assange all’attenzione dell’opinione pubblica.

Dall’altro il fatto che un processo pubblico a Julian Assange negli Usa sarebbe estremamente imbarazzante per l’establishment politico-militare.

 

Quale prova dei «crimini» di Assange l’accusa dovrebbe mostrare i crimini di guerra Usa, portati alla luce da WikiLeaks. Ad esempio, quando nel 2010 essa ha pubblicato oltre 250.000 documenti statunitensi, molti dei quali etichettati come «confidenziali» o «segreti», sulle guerre in Iraq e Afghanistan.

 

Oppure quando nel 2016, al momento in cui Assange era già confinato nell’ambasciata ecuadoregna a Londra, WikiLeaks ha pubblicato oltre 30.000 email e documenti inviati e ricevuti tra il 2010 e il 2014 da Hillary Clinton, Segretaria di Stato dell’Amministrazione Obama. Tra questi una email del 2011, la quale rivela il vero scopo della guerra Nato alla Libia perseguito in particolare da Usa e Francia: impedire che Gheddafi usasse le riserve auree della Libia per creare una moneta pan-africana alternativa al dollaro e al franco Cfa, la moneta imposta dalla Francia a 14 ex colonie.

 

Insieme alle decine di migliaia di documenti, che hanno portato alla luce i veri scopi di questa e altre operazioni belliche, WikiLeaks ha pubblicato le immagini video delle stragi di civili in Iraq e altrove, mostrando il vero volto della guerra. Quello che oggi viene nascosto dai grandi media. Mentre nella guerra del Vietnam degli anni Sessanta i resoconti giornalistici e le immagini delle stragi suscitarono un vasto movimento contro la «sporca guerra», contribuendo alla sconfitta Usa, il giornalismo di guerra è oggi sempre più irreggimentato: ai corrispondenti embedded, al seguito delle truppe, viene mostrato solo ciò che vogliono i comandi, gli unici autorizzati a fornire «informazioni» nei loro briefing.

 

I pochi veri giornalisti operano in condizioni sempre più difficili e rischiose, e spesso i loro resoconti vengono censurati dai grandi media, nei quali domina la narrazione ufficiale degli eventi. Il giornalismo d’inchiesta di WikiLeaks ha aperto crepe nel muro di omertà mediatica che copre i reali interessi di potenti élite le quali, operando nello «Stato profondo», continuano a giocare la carta della guerra, con la differenza che oggi, con le armi nucleari, essa può portare il mondo alla catastrofe finale.

 

Violare le stanze segrete di questi gruppi di potere, portando alla luce le loro strategie e le loro trame, è un’azione estremamente rischiosa sia per i giornalisti, sia per coloro che, ribellandosi all’omertà, li aiutano a scoprire la verità.

 

Emblematico è il caso di Chelsea Manning, l’attivista statunitense accusata di aver fornito a WikiLeaks documenti di cui era venuta a conoscenza lavorando quale analista di intelligence dell’Esercito Usa durante la guerra in Iraq. È stata per questo condannata a 37 anni di detenzione in un carcere di massima sicurezza e, rilasciata dopo 7 anni di carcere duro, è stata di nuovo incarcerata per essersi rifiutata di testimoniare contro Assange e, dopo un tentativo di suicidio, rimessa in temporanea libertà.

Manlio Dinucci

il manifesto, 05 gennaio 2021

Manlio Dinucci 

Geografo e geopolitologo. Libri più recenti: Laboratorio di geografia, Zanichelli 2014 ; Diario di viaggio, Zanichelli 2017 ; L’arte della guerra / Annali della strategia Usa/Nato 1990-2016, Zambon 2016, Guerra Nucleare. Il Giorno Prima 2017; Diario di guerra Asterios Editores 2018, Premio internazionale per l'analisi geostrategica assegnato il 7 giugno 2019 dal Club dei giornalisti del Messico, A.C.

ERIC ZUESSE -- World’s Top Legal Expert on Torture Identifies U.S., UK, & Canadian, Govs., as the World’s Top Torture

World’s Top Legal Expert on Torture Identifies U.S., UK, & Canadian, Govs., as the World’s Top Torturers

Eric Zuesse 

The U.N.’s Special Rapporteur on Torture, Nils Melzer, has declared that Julian Assange is being tortured in Britain’s super-max Belmarsh Prison, by applying “torture that will not leave physical traces, that will erase the personality of the victim,” and that these methods of torture were first applied by the Nazis at the Dachau concentration camp and subsequently refined through experiments on untold numbers of victims so as to establish mind-control over them. (The Nazis used this in order to convert anti-Nazis into their own agents.) The chief person who oversaw these experiments for the U.S., Canadian, and UK Governments, was Dr. Ewen Cameron, President of the American Psychiatric Association (1952–1953), Canadian Psychiatric Association (1958–1959),[2] American Psychopathological Association (1963),[3] Society of Biological Psychiatry (1965) and World Psychiatric Association (1961–1966). (The 114 page “1973 Amnesty International Report on Torture” didn’t mention Dr. Cameron even once. Neither did their 50-page “Torture in 2014: 30 Years of Broken Promises”. Neither did anything else from Amnesty InternationaI. Nor from Human Rights Watch. Both organizations are allied with — funded by billionaires of — the U.S. regime. It’s down the memory-hole, for Cameron.)

Melzer tweeted on May 8th:

Today one year ago we visited #Assange in prison. 

He showed clear signs of prolonged psychological #Torture.

First I was shocked that mature democracies could produce such an accident.

Then I found out it was no accident.

Now, I am scared to find out about our democracies.

CRAIG MURRAY -- Your Man in the Public Gallery – Assange Hearing Day 2

This afternoon Julian’s Spanish lawyer, Baltasar Garzon, left court to return to Madrid. On the way out he naturally stopped to shake hands with his client, proffering his fingers through the narrow slit in the bulletproof glass cage. Assange half stood to take his lawyer’s hand. The two security guards in the cage with Assange immediately sprang up, putting hands on Julian and forcing him to sit down, preventing the handshake.

That was not by any means the worst thing today, but it is a striking image of the senseless brute force continually used against a man accused of publishing documents. That a man cannot even shake his lawyer’s hand goodbye is against the entire spirit in which the members of the legal system like to pretend the law is practised. I offer that startling moment as encapsulating yesterday’s events in court.

Day 2 proceedings had started with a statement from Edward Fitzgerald, Assange’s QC, that shook us rudely into life. He stated that yesterday, on the first day of trial, Julian had twice been stripped naked and searched, eleven times been handcuffed, and five times been locked up in different holding cells. On top of this, all of his court documents had been taken from him by the prison authorities, including privileged communications between his lawyers and himself, and he had been left with no ability to prepare to participate in today’s proceedings.

Magistrate Baraitser looked at Fitzgerald and stated, in a voice laced with disdain, that he had raised such matters before and she had always replied that she had no jurisdiction over the prison estate. He should take it up with the prison authorities. Fitzgerald remained on his feet, which drew a very definite scowl from Baraitser, and replied that of course they would do that again, but this repeated behaviour by the prison authorities threatened the ability of the defence to prepare. He added that regardless of jurisdiction, in his experience it was common practice for magistrates and judges to pass on comments and requests to the prison service where the conduct of the trial was affected, and that jails normally listened to magistrates sympathetically.

Assange alleges Trump offered him ‘quid pro quo’QUID PRO QUO,

Assange alleges Trump offered him ‘quid pro quo’

Just as Trump’s impeachment trial has ended, another ‘quid pro quo’ story involving Trump emerges…

by InfoBrics

February 21, 2020

Submitted by InfoBrics, authored by Johanna Ross, journalist based in Edinburgh, Scotland…

A revelation in Westminster Magistrate’s Court on Wednesday sent shockwaves through the mainstream media. It is being widely publicised that in 2017 US President Donald Trump offered Julian Assange a pardon if he was to declare that Russia had not been the source of the DNC hack, which had exposed emails discrediting then presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton. A lawyer representing Mr Assange, the former Wikileaks editor who faces extradition to the United States, put forward evidence that former US congressman Dana Rohrabacher had visited him in the Ecuadorian embassy in 2017, in the early days of Robert Mueller’s investigation into alleged Russian interference in the US election.

Edward Fitzgerald QC said that the statement from Assange’s lawyer described: “Mr Rohrabacher going to see Mr Assange and saying, on instructions from the president, he was offering a pardon or some other way out, if Mr Assange … said Russia had nothing to do with the DNC leaks”. The deal was allegedly offered a year after Assange published the DNC troves, which provided insight into the inner workings of the Clinton campaign, and proved highly embarrassing and damaging to the presidential nominee. Clinton allies accused both Wikileaks and Russia at the time of working in cahoots with the Trump campaign.

A massive scandal: how Assange, his doctors, lawyers and visitors were all spied on for the U.S.

A massive scandal: how Assange, his doctors, lawyers and visitors were all spied on for the U.S.

La Repubblica has had access to the video and audio recordings of the Spanish company, UC Global, which spied on the WikiLeaks founder, his team of journalists and all of us who visited Assange at the Ecuadorian embassy for the last seven years. Video footage and audio recordings reveal an appalling violation of privacy. All the information gathered by UC Global was sent to US intelligence

by STEFANIA MAURIZI

18 novembre 2019

It sounds like a James Bond movie, but it really happened. Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks journalists and every single lawyer, reporter, politician, artist and physician who visited the founder of WikiLeaks at the Ecuadorian embassy over the last seven years was subjected to systematic espionage. Meetings and conversations were recorded and filmed, and all the information was sent to US intelligence. Sometimes the espionage operations were truly off the wall: at one point spies even planned to steal the diaper of a baby brought to visit Assange inside the embassy. The purpose? To gather the baby's feces and perform a DNA test to establish whether the newborn was a secret son of Julian Assange.

Repubblica has had access to some of the videos, audios and photos. Meetings between the founder of WikiLeaks and his lawyers, medical examinations of Julian Assange, diplomatic encounters of the Ecuadorian ambassador Carlos Abad Ortiz, meetings between Assange and journalists. Everything was spied on.
 

The author of this article found that she was not just filmed, but her phones were screwed open, presumably to obtain the IMEI code that allows uniquely identifying the phone in order to intercept it. Spies also had access to our USB sticks, though at this stage it is not clear if they managed to break the encryption protecting the information stored in the USB flash drives inside our backpacks. These are very serious violations of the confidentiality of journalistic sources, given that our meetings inside the embassy were entirely professional and, as frequent visitors, we were repeatedly registered as "journalists".
 

The most spied upon building on Earth

Jacob G. Hornberger -- Pardon Assange and Snowden

Pardon Assange and Snowden

by Jacob G. Hornberger

December 19, 2019

The Washington Post has just released a trove of previously secret records documenting that the U.S. war in Afghanistan has been based on a multitude of lies and deception. It is beyond dispute that the Pentagon and other elements of America’s deep state were determined to keep those records secret from the American people.That’s because it took three years and two federal lawsuits to force deep-state officials to finally release the records.

No one is accusing the Post of publishing lies. It is undisputed that what the Post has published is the truth.

Why then did the deep state oppose release of the records? Why was the deep state so insistent that they be kept secret?

Noam Chomsky: O maior desafio ao poder estatal

Mundo

Noam Chomsky: O maior desafio ao poder estatal

04.12.2019

 

por Plataforma 9

Os governos do Reino Unido e dos EUA estão usando o tratamento horrendo de whistleblowers como Chelsea Manning e editores como Julian Assange, como exemplo. O tratamento de Julian Assange é um dos casos mais extremos disso. Independentemente de suas opiniões pessoais sobre as decisões dele como editor, é preciso entender que esse caso é simbólico de até que ponto o Estado irá para esmagar a dissidência. A saúde e o bem-estar do fundador do WikiLeaks estão sendo destruídos, descaradamente e à vista do público, por ousar revelar a verdade sobre o governo dos EUA e seus inúmeros crimes de guerra no Iraque, Afeganistão e em todo o mundo. É responsabilidade de jornalistas, e das pessoas que se preocupam com a verdade e que expõem os abusos do poder estatal e corporativo, defender Assange e qualquer pessoa que coloque suas vidas e liberdade em risco. Se já houve um tempo para falar a verdade ao poder, é agora.

Sem whistleblowers e jornalismo investigativo, governos são livres para abusar de seu poder e manter a população no escuro sobre as atrocidades que cometem, não apenas aos outros, mas também às pessoas que supostamente representam. Estamos testemunhando as duras consequências de desafiar o poder do Estado com o editor do WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, enfrentando uma audiência de extradição em fevereiro, e whistleblowers como Chelsea Manning cumprindo pena por repetidamente se recusar a testemunhar perante um grande júri contra Assange. Se houvesse alguma ilusão sobre qual é o preço de responsabilizar os sistemas de poder por seus crimes, esses dois casos em particular deveriam dissipar essas noções indefinidamente.

Na transcrição da minha entrevista com o dissidente político de renome mundial Noam Chomsky, apresentada abaixo, examinamos o estado atual e a trajetória do império Estadunidense dentro do escopo da história recente. Destacamos o suposto "recuo" da presença militar dos EUA no nordeste da Síria como uma indicação de qual é a influência geopolítica dos EUA na região atualmente. A partir daí, falamos da responsabilidade que os jornalistas têm, especialmente neste momento de ataques cada vez mais hostis do governo Trump contra whistleblowers, jornalistas e editores, de falar a verdade ao poder.

Para examinar esse último ponto, focamos a situação atual de Julian Assange, detido na prisão de alta segurança de Belmarsh, em Londres. Ele aguarda uma audiência de extradição marcada para fevereiro, depois que seu asilo na Embaixada do Equador em Londres foi revogado e ter sido entregue às autoridades britânicas em abril. "Assange basicamente está sendo assassinado pelo governo britânico", afirma o professor Chomsky, pois a saúde de Assange continua a deteriorar rapidamente desde o tempo que passou na embaixada do Equador e, mais recentemente, por seu tratamento sob as autoridades britânicas na prisão de Belmarsh.

JOHN PILGER: Visiting Britain’s Political Prisoner

JOHN PILGER: VisitingBritain’s Political Prisoner

November 29, 2019 • 33 Comments 

“I think I’m going out of my mind,” Julian Assange told John Pilger at Belmarsh Prison. “No you’re not,” Pilger responded. “Look how you frighten them, how powerful you are.”

By John Pilger

I set out at dawn. Her Majesty’s Prison Belmarsh is in the flat hinterland of south east London, a ribbon of walls and wire with no horizon. At what is called the visitors centre, I surrendered my passport, wallet, credit cards, medical cards, money, phone, keys, comb, pen, paper.

I need two pairs of glasses. I had to choose which pair stayed behind. I left my reading glasses. From here on, I couldn’t read, just as Julian couldn’t read for the first few weeks of his incarceration. His glasses were sent to him, but inexplicably took months to arrive.

There are large TV screens in the visitors centre. The TV is always on, it seems, and the volume turned up. Game shows, commercials for cars and pizzas and funeral packages, even TED talks, they seem perfect for a prison: like visual valium.

I joined a queue of sad, anxious people, mostly poor women and children, and grandmothers. At the first desk, I was fingerprinted, if that is still the word for biometric testing.

“Both hands, press down!” I was told. A file on me appeared on the screen.

I could now cross to the main gate, which is set in the walls of the prison. The last time I was at Belmarsh to see Julian, it was raining hard. My umbrella wasn’t allowed beyond the visitors centre. I had the choice of getting drenched, or running like hell. Grandmothers have the same choice.

At the second desk, an official behind the wire, said, “What’s that?”

“My watch,” I replied guiltily.

“Take it back,” she said. 

So I ran back through the rain, returning just in time to be biometrically tested again. This was followed by a full body scan and a full body search. Soles of feet; mouth open.

At each stop, our silent, obedient group shuffled into what is known as a sealed space, squeezed behind a yellow line. Pity the claustrophobic; one woman squeezed her eyes shut.

We were then ordered into another holding area, again with iron doors shutting loudly in front of us and behind us.

“Stand behind the yellow line!” said a disembodied voice.

Belmarsh prison, where Assange is incarcerated.

Another electronic door slid partly open; we hesitated wisely. It shuddered and shut and opened again. Another holding area, another desk, another chorus of, “Show your finger!”

Then we were in a long room with squares on the floor where we were told to stand, one at a time. Two men with sniffer dogs arrived and worked us, front and back.

The dogs sniffed our arses and slobbered on my hand. Then more doors opened, with a new order to “hold out your wrist!” 

A laser branding was our ticket into a large room, where the prisoners sat waiting in silence, opposite empty chairs. On the far side of the room was Julian, wearing a yellow arm band over his prison clothes.

George Galloway -- Justice blind or blinded by titles? A tale of Prince Andrew and Julian Assange

Home  Op-ed

Justice blind orblinded by titles? A tale of Prince Andrew and Julian Assange

George Galloway

was a member of the British Parliament for nearly 30 years. He presents TV and radio shows (including on RT). He is a film-maker, writer and a renowned orator.

26 Nov, 2019 17:40 / Updated 2 days ago

Get short URL

©  AFP / Lillian SUWANRUMPHA; REUTERS/Henry Nicholls

Follow RT 

The grand old Duke of York sleeps tonight on a feather pillow in a royal palace. Julian Assange, the publisher of the century sleeps in the hell of Belmarsh Prison, Britain’s own Guantanamo Bay.

The Duke of York lied about the length duration and nature of his relationship with the presumed deceased child-sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein. Julian Assange told the truth about the high crimes and misdemeanours of the rich and powerful during times of war and peace.

The FBI need to speak to the Queen’s favorite son, but no power on earth will be deployed to make him testify about what he might have seen, or even have participated in, at the townhouse in Manhattan, a Sodom and Gomorrah of our times.

The same US Justice system has caused the cruel incarceration of Assange and his Kafkaesque entrapment in an extradition saga which may last for years - if he doesn’t die before it is over as no less than 60 doctors have recently warned he may well do.

The US-UK extradition arrangements may be the most unequal treaty ever concluded by Her Majesty’s ministers. In this case the former Blair government Home Secretary David Blunkett, a blind man who could, nonetheless, see exactly what he was doing.

In essence extradition from Britain to the US became virtually on request without the slightest need to show just cause. But not vice versa. It would be easier to pull a camel through the eye of a needle than for Britain to extradite a US citizen to face justice in the UK.

I was a member of the British Parliament at the time this treaty was signed. Not that this mattered a jot or tittle. The Treaty was signed during the Summer Recess when no Parliament was sitting and through the exercise of the Royal Prerogative.

Only when it was already in operation was I even able to oppose the extradition of its first victims - alleged City of London financial fraudsters, as well as a fitted-up “terrorist” London man Babar Ahmad.

Under the old extradition rules neither case could have satisfied the previous requirement to produce prima facia evidence sufficient to persuade a British judge. Under the new Treaty it was easy peasy lemon squeezy. And off they went.

Prince Andrew will face no such ordeal albeit now banished from Royal Circles and effectively reduced to the ranks, his epaulettes ripped off his glittering array of obscure medals turned to scrap metal on his tunic. 

Although accused of sexual abuse of a teenager and with an admitted close relationship to the alleged procurer of underage female victims, Ghislaine Maxwell, in whose London home it is alleged one of the sexual encounters took place - the US will never require the Prince to give evidence and the UK will never offer him up.

Assange, who was falsely accused of rape, has spent virtually the last decade locked up in one form or other of incarceration. And faces up to 175 years of prison time, if successfully extradited.

It is a tale of two cities - Buckingham Palace and Belmarsh Maximum Security Prison.

A tale of two individuals - one now a proven liar and one a well attested truth-teller.

A tale of two fates. The Prince who became a moral pauper, the other an impecunious journalist who became a moral giant.

It is a tale of our times.

Prince Andrew’s disastrous Epstein denial poses more questions than answers (VIDEO)

‘Beast of Buckingham Palace’ children’s book released amid Prince Andrew scandal leaves Twitter smirking

Assange treated as terrorist by UK, it's ‘almost murder by state’, doctors warn WikiLeaks founder may die in jail