This report is an account of one of two protests in New Zealand that kicked off a week global protests against the extradition show of trial WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. It also includes astute observations of the trial in Woolwich Crown Court made by a former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray. The Snoopman finds that Her Majesty’s Government is attempting to ‘murder’ political asylum in this Assange extradition trial, because it is now the intention of the sovereign parliament of the United Kingdom, in conspiracy with the US Government, that persons are now extraditable for political offences, in spite of the Extradition Act and the Extradition Treaty.
The Snoopman – Auckland, Aotearoa New Zealand.
Denial of ‘political offense’ & attempting to ‘murder’ political asylum
As a small ‘Free Assange’ demonstration numbering approximately 25 ‘free’ Tax Slaves took place Monday February 24th outside the British Consulate on Queen Street, downtown Auckland – a former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray, who would provide independent reports from Assange extradition trial, was sleeping half a world away.
The protest – along with one outside Parliament in Wellington in the Neo-Feudal Realm of New Zealand – kicked off a day of global actions several hours ahead of the commencement of the US-UK moves to extradite WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange to the United States of the American Empire taking place this week at Belmarsh Magistrates Court inside Woolwich Crown Court.
The Australian born founder of the whistle-blower web-platform, Wikileaks, faces the threat of a 175 year jail term, brought in a US Department of Justice (DOJ) indictment filing with over 17 charges for alleged breaches to the 1917 Espionage Act for revealing classified files of the US Government and one count of conspiracy to commit computer intrusion.
Incredibly, the sovereign parliament of the United Kingdom is attempting to extradite the publisher, Julian Assange, for a political offence in spite of the fact that the Article 4.1 of the UK/US extradition treaty states that a person shall not be given up to another jurisdiction if the offense is a political offense. While, the UK Extradition Act of 2003, under which the court is operating, makes no exception for ‘political offenses’ – as the former UK Government diplomat Craig Murray observed in Woolwich Crown Court on Day 3 of the Assange hearing.
The UK/US extradition treaty states that crimes of violent nature such as assassinating heads of state or the aiding or abetting of such violent crimes are not deemed to be political offences, meaning only acts of terrorism can be deemed to be non-political offences and therefore are extraditable. other words, the US and UK governments are trying to construe that Julian Assange has participated in non-political offences and aided and abetted terrorists.
But he has been acting as publisher, performing a journalistic function to publish state secrets in the public interest. It is, therefore, now the intention of the sovereign parliament of the United Kingdom that ‘political offenses’, which means Her Majesty’s Government is attempting to ‘murder’ political asylum in this Assange extradition trial.
Assange’s QC, Edward Fitzgerald, tried several times through the week to Magistrate Vanessa Baraitser to have Assange released from the bullet-proof glass tank at the back of the court room. On Day 3 Baraitser blustered she the court would have no custody over Assange if she release him from the glass tank, claimed Fitzgerald would need to apply to court in writing and new bail would need to be posted and ‘Group Four’ would need to conduct a risk assessment. Murray described the magistrate’s blustering as akin to a Darlek’s head spinning out of control. Lewis evidently looked at Baraitser like a kindly uncle would at a family party when a favourite niece has just started drinking tequilla straight – from the bottle.
Speeches at Free Assange Protest in Auckland NZ
Free Assange NZ protest organizer, Fiona Hansen, said that Assange will not get a fair trial in the United States because the US Government, military and weapons manufacturers want to shut him up, scare the news media and shut-down Wikileaks. She said the news media in New Zealand are not informing the public about Assange’s case, despite the fact that he is an Australian citizen whose whistle-blowing platform has performed a vital service for media outlets to be able to report on corruption, crimes of war and free trade deals.
AUT communications lecturer Thomas Owen said Assange is wanted on trumped-up charges for actually exposing the crimes of war perpetrated by the US Government. He said the possible extradition of Assange is a threat to “everyone one of us who can walk about freely, shop in our lunchtimes and associate with whoever we like” in free and open societies that generations of our ancestors fought hard to gain.
The university lecturer opened his short speech by pointing out the irony inbuilt into the brazen extradition move. Specifically, Owen said the US Government is seeking to win a precedent-setting case to extradite an Australian citizen who had lost his political asylum in a South American Embassy in London and then fly him to America to face trial for informing the world about the war crimes of the US Government.
Owen added that if we expect the media to keep us informed about important issues as a check on those that have power but the media had not been performing that function well for a long time as they either big corporations themselves or more closely aligned with governments. He said Julian Assange saw a gap in news-gathering and had a vision for an anonymous, easy way for whistle-blowers to upload classified evidence to the internet. But now, the world faced the prospect of losing free speech rights, including those taken for granted by the major media outlets and that this prospect did not bode well, because a strong media that exposed war crimes, corruption and other forms of wrongdoing was a check against totalitarian tendencies of those with power.
Former Māori TV news and current affairs editor, Steve Edwards, spoke about a nine-year Swedish-Government sponsored smear campaign to scapegoat Assange by accusing him of two counts of rape, while never actually charging him for the rapes. Edwards said support for Julian Assange and Wikileaks had dwindled, as intended, due an orchestrated, malicious smear campaign that started with rape allegations in Sweden in August 2010.
He recounted how the UN’s Special Rapporteur on Torture, Nils Melzer, found to his surprise that Assange was never charged with rape. He said the Stockholm Police and Swedish Prosecutor changed the testimonies of two women who had simply gone to a Stockholm Police station to see if they could make Assange take a HIV test.
The two women had had sex with Assange while he was in Stockholm at a conference.
Moreover, Swedish authorities had fabricated evidence to frame Assange for the rape allegations, and wittingly conspired to inflict a malicious smear campaign that would fool much of the world into believing that Assange was a fugitive rapist rather than a political refugee of several hostile western regimes, Edwards said.
It turns out that the testimony of the first woman, S.W., had been altered against her will and without her knowledge, while the testimony of the second woman, A.A., was logically inconsistent about her claim that Assange deliberately broke a condom – as UN’s Special Rapporteur on Torture Nils Melzer said in an exclusive interview with Republik magazine. Melzer found that Assange had been persecuted by the Swedish authorities in a conspiracy with the United States, Britain and Australia, to punish him for exposing war crimes and corruption. Melzer said Assange was subjected to psychological torture. Indeed, the UN’s Special Rapporteur on Torture, Nils Melzer, told Republik magazine that the war crimes and corruption that Assange had exposed did not result in anyone being punished, which led him to make the chilling statement that a “A murderous system is being created before our very eyes”.
Edwards also deciphered how Assange’s asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London ended with the crescendo of Ecuador’s President claiming the WikiLeaks’ founder had smeared his cat’s faeces on the walls of the embassy. Edwards emphasized the “dark élite humour” as he repeated the key features of the scapegoating strategy and tactics.
The smear campaign that had started with the two women who wanted to know if the Stockholm Police could make Assange take a HIV test, ended with the crescendo of his asylum being abruptly revoked by President Lenin Moreno, who brazenly said five days later on the BBC, April 17 2019, that Assange had “smeared cat-shit on the embassy walls”. Edwards added, “so you can see the dark élite humour that goes into the Deep State’s scripting of news events”.
The listening audience smiled as they appreciated someone had broached the awkwardness of talking about fabricated rape allegations, the cat-shit smear and the sly intention underpinning the nine-year smear campaign to scapegoat the WikiLeaks’ most visible ‘face’ – on Queen Street to the lunchtime crowd in broad daylight. By scapegoating Assange, the Wikileaks’ founder would lose popular support, including sympathetic news coverage, and major media exposés of ongoing WikiLeaks document dumps.
With this attempt to gain a legal precedent to take-down of Assange and with him Wikileaks – the American Deep State can finish construction of what The Snoopman calls a ‘trans-jurisdictional bridge’ to go after any journalist, current affairs editor or news producer and any news outlet, documentary production company or leaks organization. The idea is to spread a contagion of ‘get Assanged’ fear as a mechanism to increase the news filtering already described by US foreign policy critic and MIT Professor, Noam Chomsky, who modelled for unofficial censorship in free societies, as the 1992 documentary, Manufacturing Consent, exposed.
As with all propaganda, omissions of key evidence occurred in this smear story. The smear tactic of the accusing the Wikileaks’ founder of smearing his cat’s faeces on the embassy’s walls, deflected from the fact that in March 2019 the International Monetary Fund (IMF) finalized a $4.2 billion loan for Ecuador. This US$4.2 billion loan was widely ridiculed as a reward for turning in Assange, and in effect the C-Grade political actor, President Moreno, had accepted the role of bounty-hunter.
Assange will not get a fair trial in the State of Virginia, Edwards said, because in US criminal proceedings the composition of grand juries must reflect that particular state’s population demographic. This sounds fair. However, the sealed indictment to authorize a grand jury was issued by the DOJ’s Attorney-General’s Office in the Eastern District of Virginia, where 80% of the adult population works for the government.
“The state of Virginia is home to the CIA’s headquarters, so there’s no way Assange is going to get a fair trial”, he said as everyone listening realised just how stacked the entire Kangaroo Court show-trial will be if it eventuates.
After the first day in court, Assange’s Queens Counsel Edward Fitzgerald reported in Woolwich Court his client was handcuffed 11 times, stripped twice, and moved between 5 holding cells, and his handwritten notes were seized by Her Majesty’s Belmarsh Prison staff. This was even beyond the theatrical sensibilities for the prosecution, James Lewis QC, who perhaps heard bells dinging in his head and saw ‘Rail-Way-Crossing’ signs flash in his mind’s eye that declared ‘Mis-Trial Unfair Conduct’ instead.
<< The Theatre of a Show Trial at Belmarsh, London >>
The show trial taking place to scapegoat an Australian national is taking place in a Kangaroo Court by the Thames River three squiggly bends away from the British Parliament in Westminster City, London, and closer towards the gaping maw of the English Channel and the Atlantic Ocean.
It turns out that extradition proceedings are supposed to be held at Westminster Magistrates Court, as the application is deemed to be delivered to the government at Westminster, wrote Craig Murray, the former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan, who queued from 6am for four hours amid the rain to get a seat on the first day. This magistrates prison court is attached to Her Majesty’s Belmarsh Prison, which is located on a windswept marsh by the Thames River amid a maze of dual carriageways. Murray observed that the location and architecture are designed to deter public access.
Murray, who reported in “Your Man in the Public Gallery – Assange Hearing Day 1” – that this court of Her Majesty was “built on totally the opposite principle” of facilitating public transparency by the centuries-long practice of locating courthouses in the centre of towns. Instead, Belmarsh Magistrates Court, “is nothing but the physical negation of the presumption of innocence, the very incarnation of injustice in unyielding steel, concrete and armoured glass” because the court is “a part of the prison system itself, a place where you are already considered guilty and in jail on arrival”.
The beginning of the trial’s first day set the tone for the unfolding theatre and was like a two-handed play between the prosecution lead counsel, James Lewis QC, and the prosecution’s ally representing Her Majesty’s Government, Magistrate Vanessa Baraitser. In his opening performance, James Lewis QC, did not direct his address to the magistrate but to the media, and according to Murray, it contained no legal argument.
Lewis twice stated he was addressing the media, according to Murray’s account.
On the surface, Lewis was reassuring the news media that they were not on trial because Assange was not charged with publishing classified documents but only with publishing the names of informants, and with cultivating Bradley (later Chelsea) Manning and assisting him to attempt computer hacking, Lewis claimed. It was Assange who stood accused of these crimes, not the news media. Fascinatingly, “Lewis then proceeded to read out a series of articles from the mainstream media attacking Assange, as evidence that the media and Assange were not in the same boat” – as Murray observed. To support his political address, the media were handed printed copies of his opening statement, as well as electronic versions for easy Cut and Paste Journalism.
Murray, who was a career diplomat in the UK Government, stated:
“It is completely out of order for a counsel to address remarks not to the court but to the media, and there simply could not be any clearer evidence that this is a political show trial and that Baraitser is complicit in that.”
And then Magistrate Baraitser’s complicity becomes clearer after an adjournment.
She questioned the prosecution’s claim that newspapers were not vulnerable to prosecution since Assange is charged with “aiding and abetting” Chelsea Manning in getting the material rather than merely publication of that material. The prosecution’s position appeared to be inconsistent with Lewis’ reading of the 1989 Official Secrets Act, which deemed that merely obtaining and publishing any government secret was an offence. Baraitser suggested newspapers whom published Manning’s leaks to Wikileaks would be guilty of an offence.
Evidently, this astute question threw Lewis off guard and the Queen’s Counsel fumbled. It’s worth quoting Murray’s account, because it has only been reported in a few re-posts of his report, such as Robert parry website, Consortium News, “ASSANGE EXTRADITION: Your Man in Public Gallery – Day No. 1”. Murray wrote:
“Lewis hummed and hawed, put his glasses on and off several times, adjusted his microphone repeatedly and picked up a succession of pieces of paper from his brief, each of which appeared to surprise him by its contents, as he waved them haplessly in the air and said he really should have cited the Shayler case but couldn’t find it.”
It’s fascinating that Lewis would mention “the Shayler case”, because it pertains to David Shayler who was a former member of the British Security Service. Who was charged with breaches of the Official Secrets Act 1989 for supplying classified documents to the news media, and indeed writing an article for The Mail on Sunday’s 24 August 1997 edition, based on secrets of the British State. The ‘renegade’ MI5 officer skipped the country just prior to the publication, and lived in France for three years, during which time an attempt to extradite Shayler failed, as the House of Lords’ case file shows. Therefore, are we to believe the prosecution team lacked a laptop and an internet connection to dial up ‘the Shayler case’ – which produces about 677,000 results in 0.62 of a second from the Snoopman’s news test facility beyond the sprawling urban limits of New Zealand’s 39th ranked global city, Auckland?
Lewis suddenly found his brain, and stated the Thatcher Government had passed the Official Secrets Act of 1989 removing the public interest as a defense and making unauthorized possession of an official secret a crime. He stated that under the principle of dual criminality, regardless of whether or not Assange had aided and abetted Manning, he was still liable for extradition. In other words, because the United Kingdom’s Official Secrets Act of 1989 is a similar law to the United States’s Espionage Act of 1917, the principle of dual criminality applies, meaning in cases of extradition an accused person can be extradited from one country to stand trial for breaking a second country’s laws only if a similar law exists in the extraditing country.
On day four of the trial, Lewis claimed that political offences were behaviour intended “to overturn or change a government or induce it to change its policy.” Additionally, the objective was to affect policy change or government in the short term, rather than over an indefinite period. He also asserted such offences had to have been made within the territory seeking the extradition. Moreover, Lewis argued that the UK Extradition Act of 2003 had not included the bar of political offence to block or obstruct extraditions.
Fitzgerald argued that the UK Extradition Act was the enabling act upon which the US-UK Extradition Treaty of 2007 came to be. Magistrate Baraitser made seventeen belittling, sarcastic interruptions during Fitzgerald’s counter-argument as a tactic to make it seem that the defence’s position was incoherent, lacking proper basis in law and to frustrate Assange’s QC getting his flow on. The Magistrate stated the Extradition Treaty was not incorporated into English Law. Fitzgerald demolished the Magistrate’s attempt to disregard this crucial provision of the Extradition Treaty in this way, replying that the extradition request was made on the basis of Extradition Treaty and that it was an abuse of process and bizarre to subsequently claim that its provision did not apply. Fitzgerald went on to argue that Assange’s activities were political, because he was exposing war crimes and corruption and therefore were aimed at changing the government’s policy direction. Magistrate Baraitser interrupted again, stating that to expose government wrongdoing was not the same thing as to try to change government policy. Fitzgerald replied, with some exacerbation after so many interruptions, what other point would there be to publishing material that exposed government wrongdoing than to change the government policy?
Murray oberved that it was Lewis whose arguments were illogical and yet he was interrupted “precisely once” for ‘clarification’ by the Magistrate. Cuttingly, Murray concluded his ‘Day 4’ report this way: “Baraitser’s comparative harassment of Fitzgerald when he had the prosecution on the ropes was straight out of the Stalin show trial playbook”.
America’s Most Wanted Man
The publisher, Julian Assange, is America’s most wanted man for leaking classified documents that revealed damning details of war crimes that the US Government is ultimately responsible for in its wars against Afghanistan and Iraq. The war crimes exposed by WikiLeaks included torture, rape, and executions of prisoners of war, rendition flights, the infamous helicopter shooting video showing US forces killing two Reuters journalists and nine Iraqis from a hovering helicopter, and cover-ups of official casualty figures and body counts and the suppression of dire portraits showing the US was wading deeper into catastrophe in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Both wars were justified as retribution for the terror attacks of September 11 2001.The major irony about the publication of the Afghan War Logs and Iraq War Logs is the United States never intended to liberate either people, because the military never intended to leave. Both wars were pursued for geopolitical reasons. The Taliban Government was accused of harbouring terrorists alleged to be responsible for the terrorism of September 11 2001. Taliban insisted that the US produce evidence and the United States responded by bombing the country in October 2001, as an opening salvo for a war that appears to be presently drawing to a close. The War on Afghanistan was inflicted to overthrow the Taliban Government because it had shut-down the poppy fields, which meant a vital source heroin cash flow was cut-off from the CIA which helps fund their black-ops to destabilize governments, kill political dissidents and assassinate real journalists, as Shadow Masters and Dope, Inc. show. Afghanistan now produces 80 percent of the world’s opium. Ironically, America did not make war against Saudi Arabia, in spite of 15 of the alleged 19 hijackers of the 9/11 plot were Saudi nationals. In the case of Iraq, the Bush administration subsequently admitted in 2005 it had fabricated its justifications that Saddam Hussein was connected to the planning of 9/11 Terror Attacks, that it had biological weapons and the missile delivery systems to attack the United States, as Eugene Jarecki’s Academy Award-winning 2005 documentary, Why We Fight, showed.
The purpose behind maintaining a form of violent feudal anarchy in the greater ‘Middle East’ region is to retard its development, and therefore, the control oil, gas, and mineral resources. Since its geographical position is central to the world island of Europe, Asia, the Eurasian region and Africa – constant conflict acts as a latent trigger to spark global war – as Daniel Estulin found while researching Shadow Masters about the links between the global drug trade, terrorist networks, big states, and their intelligence agencies.
With this context, it becomes clear that the machinations of the American Deep State is to frame Julian Assange as a terrorist aiding and abetting terrorists. Therefore, the purpose of the strange exchange between Magistrate Vanessa Baraitser in the ‘opening scene’ of the trial that Murray could not decipher, was to convey a codified message. Like a two-handed play performed by just two actors, their political theatrics was signalling that a trans-jurisdictional bridge was being constructed between the United Kingdom and the United States. In accordance with game theory, threats and promises were communicated to stabilize the transforming power structures. Should the news media defect from the official line, as handed to them and stated by Lewis, they would be targeted for breaching the Official Secrets Act 1989 passed by Thatcher Government or the U.S. Espionage Act of 1917 passed by the Government of President Woodrow Wilson.
As mention above, the hearing is deemed to be held at Westminster Magistrates Court, held by Westminster magistrates and Westminster court staff and is supervised by Westminster Chief Magistrate Lady Arbuthnot, about whom Murray said he could not conceive how her involvement in this case could be more corrupt.
Lady Arbuthnot is married to Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom, a former Conservative defence minister with extensive links to the British military and intelligence community exposed by WikiLeaks. In February 2018, and while Assange was a political asylee in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, Lady Arbuthnot refused a request by Assange’s lawyers to have his British arrest warrant withdrawn for having skipped bail conditions. Assange had skipped bail and sought Asylum protection in 2012.
In spite of Assange expressing concerns of being handed over to US authorities in the Swedish extradition proceedings, Lady Arbuthnot stated “I do not find that Mr Assange’s fears were reasonable.”
Lady Arbuthnot’s biased ruling five years after the Obama Administration dropped the case, ignored the Rule of Law Doctrine which requires just laws, fairness, and accountability, as well as timely due process with accessible, impartial disputes resolution, and a proper examination of the facts, rather than arbitrary applications of law – lest authorities aid or abet the formation of a totalitarian police state. Swedish Authorities had never charged Assange with a crime, but instead had created the perception that he committed the two rapes in Stockholm in August 2010.
Maliciously, Swedish Authorities spread these fabricated accusations to the news media. This was an escalation in the smear campaign against Assange and, in effect, worked as a screening action to set up later unwitting misdeeds such as the attack on his reputation, or what other people think of him, through character assassination – as a means to diminish popular, political and journalistic support. Colluding political actors commit screening actions, which are intentionally performed to avoid looking, whether institutionally, or individually, and when deftly executed at the right moments, they can very effectively sponsor subsequent unwitting misdeeds, as David Luban discussed in his 2007 book, Legal Ethics and Human Dignity, and as he modelled for his paper “Contrived Ignorance”, published in The Georgetown Law Journal in 1999.x Therefore, this contrived ignorance game played by the Swedish Authorities was intended to buy time for the American authorities to construct a case.
The decision to initiate an investigation into Assange and WikiLeaks was made by President Barack Obama in late 2010. Assange caught wind of secret criminal investigation, as CNN reported December 13 2010, in “Assange attorney: Secret grand jury meeting in Virginia on WikiLeaks”. Attorney General Eric Holder had acknowledged in the first week of December 2010 that he had authorized a criminal investigation into WikiLeaks following its publication of U.S. diplomatic cables, starting November 28. After a secret two-year US investigation was initiated, the DOJ in 2013 pointed out to President Barack Hussein Obama that Assange’s actions constituted journalism. Obama reluctantly dropped the case. The Trump administration doubled-down to indict Assange by re-presenting the same evidence that the President Barack Hussein Obama reluctantly dropped, as The Intercept reported in an April 2019 article, “The U.S. Government’s Indictment of Julian Assange Poses Grave Threats to Press Freedom”, upon Assange seizure from the Ecuadorian Embassy.
Specifically, “the Obama DOJ since at least 2011 was well-aware of the core allegation of the indictment — Assange tried to help Manning circumvent a password wall so she could use a different username — because that was all part of [Chelsea] Manning’s charges”, as The Intercept reported.
The DOJ’s key accusation to frame the WikiLeaks founder for conspiracy as a hacker – and not as a journalist – is that Assange attempted to help US Army Private, Bradley Manning, who subsequently became Chelsea Manning by helping the whistle-blower crack a password in order to cover his tracks. Assange is also accused of trying to help Manning log into the Department of Defence computers using another username to maintain anonymity in order to download documents for Wikileaks to publish.
The core allegations, therefore, can be distilled down to attempting to criminalize what is standard operating procedure for journalists: encourage a potential source to gain secret information and to take steps to protect that source’s identity – as former constitutional lawyer and Us citizen Glenn Greenwald reported for The Intercept.
The US extradition request to UK authorities was authorized by Sajid Javid, who was Britain’s Home Secretary from April 2018 to July 2019. It turns out, Javid was ensconced in the milieu of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), a pro-US Empire think-tank that holds annual World Forum conferences. Many ‘luminaries’ of Bush Regime whom were the architects, enablers or supporters of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars have presented talks at the AEI forums. These war-mongering conspiring élites and their former official posts included: Vice President Dick Cheney, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, CIA Director Michael Hayden; Air Force Space Commander William Shelton; and Governor of Florida Jeb Bush.
These wars were, in fact, consistent with the diabolical world domination vision of a little-known and now defunct think-tank called The Project for a New American Century (or PNAC). This Zionist Neo-Conservative think-tank was formed in 1997 and was riddled with élites such as Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle, among others, whom became key figures in the Bush Regime. In a white paper titled “Rebuilding America’s Defenses”, published in September 2000 by the Project for a New American Century (or PNAC), its authors argued that America had to be seen to be fighting two major wars simultaneously. If the US did not, the authors stated, then America would lose its sole superpower status and risk devolving into a no-war power. “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” advocated embarking on a ‘revolution in military affairs’, by which was meant a radical transformation of the US military organization, war technologies and deployment. This transformation, the authors chillingly stated, would likely be a long one, “absent, some catastrophic and catalysing event – like a new Pearl Harbor” – as an article, “John Pilger reveals the American plan: a new Pearl Harbour” in the NewStatesmanAmerica reported 16 December 2002.
In other words, the rhetoric to accusing Assange of recklessly risking US military lives in America’s Wars against Afghanistan and Iraq can only hold if the subterfuge remains intact that the United States Government’s viciously fraudulent justifications for those wars is forgotten. And, that the magistrates and judges presiding over the UK to US extradition proceedings advance the contrived ignorance game about the fact that the Anglo-American-NATO military empire needed these wars to inflict regime changes on behalf of super-wealthy coalitions of Oligarchs to secure carbon energy resources, drug production, and narcotics routes for their Techno-Feudal corporate empires.
Therefore, Westminister’s Chief Magistrate, Lady Arbuthnot’s ears are made of tin because Assange had said ever since the Swedish Authorities persisted with their fabricated rape allegations, that the real intent was to have him arrested and extradited to the United States to face a ‘show trial’ and lock him away for the rest of his life.
Therefore, it follows that Lady Arbuthnot’s ‘Tin Ears Ruling’ of February 2018 for an extradition to proceed could only have been made if she felt safe that the élite milieu she is embedded in, is a clique embroiled in a gambit so brazen, well-resourced and connected that they believe they won’t ever end up in prison themselves.
—-
—-
This milieu of vested interests from both sides of the Atlantic is revealed in a special investigation – “America’s Pivot to Dystopia: The Relentless Persecution of Wikileaks Founder Julian Assange” to be published Monday March 2 2019.