The Surreal US Case Against Assange - "best dissection.. we’ve seen" -- Re: Wikileaks: Julian Assange - Journalism, Leaks, Collateral Murder, Censorship

Zenaan Harkness zen at
Thu Oct 1 07:05:00 PDT 2020

On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 06:57:29PM -0400, grarpamp wrote:
> The War on Journalism: The
> Case of Julian Assange
> Julian Assange MUST BE FREED.
> "If wars can be started by lies,
> then they can be stopped by truth.
> -- Julian Assange"

   The Surreal US Case Against Assange
     Alexander Mercouris via

   Zerohedge byline: The fox is guarding the henhouse and Washington is prosecuting a publisher for exposing its own war crimes... here is the best dissection of the incoherent US case against Julian Assange that we’ve seen...

      Following the Julian Assange case as it has progressed through its various stages, from the original Swedish allegations right up to and including the extradition hearing which is currently underway in the Central Criminal Court in London, has been a troubling and very strange experience.

      The U.S. government has failed to present a coherent case. 

      Conscious that the British authorities should in theory refuse to extradite Assange if the case against him were shown to be politically motivated and/or related to Assange’s legitimate work as a journalist, the U.S. government has struggled to present a case against Assange which is not too obviously politically motivated or related to Assange’s legitimate work as a journalist. 

      This explains the strange succession of one original and two superseding indictments. 

      The U.S. government’s first indictment was based on what was a supposedly simple allegation of computer interference, supposedly coordinated in some sort of conspiracy between Assange and Chelsea Manning. 

      This was obviously done in an attempt to dispel the idea that the request for Assange’s extradition was politically motivated or was related to Assange’s legitimate work as a journalist. 

      However lawyers in the United States had no difficulty pointing out the “inchoate facts” of the alleged conspiracy between Assange and Manning, whilst both lawyers and journalists in the United States and elsewhere pointed out that the facts in the indictment in fact bore all the hallmarks of action by a journalist to protect a source.

      The result was that the U.S. government replaced its indictment with a first superseding indictment, which this time was founded largely on the 1917 Espionage Act, and was therefore closer to the real reasons why the case against Assange was being brought. 

      However, that made the case look altogether too obviously politically motivated, so it has in turn been replaced by a second superseding indictment, presented to the court and the defence team virtually on the eve of the trial, which has sought to veer back towards strictly criminal allegations, this time of involvement in computer hacking.

      More Problems for Another Indictment

More information about the cypherpunks mailing list