Key witness in Assange case admits to lies in indictment - Stundin

David Barrett dbarrett at
Thu Jul 1 10:01:08 PDT 2021

I think I've received all your emails, though I'll admit there's a lot
going on so I might have missed something.

I'm not trying to make a grand point, other than it's hard to criticize the
justice department's treatment of Assange given that he has done everything
in his power to avoid it.  Any perceived wrongs against him are at this
point still entirely imagined -- it's entirely possible/probable that had
he just showed up to court to defend himself from the start (as is the
basic expectation of everyone in a modern society), he would be a perfectly
free man by now.  Yes, he might have been found guilty, and yes he might
have served time.  But unless your attitude is "People I like should be
above the law", then why is this a problem?

Unless you are his lawyer or a judge, I feel like we need to step back and
acknowledge that we literally don't know what's going on.  We don't have
the resources to investigate, we haven't seen all the evidence, we haven't
devoted the time to understand it, and we arguably aren't even qualified to
assess any of this.  Anyone who supports justice and the rule of law --
which I believe *should* include everyone reading this (anyone who would
self-identify as "I do not support justice, and I do not support the rule
of law" is a whole different matter) -- should be frustrated with Assange
for refusing to participate in our legal process.

And mind you, this truly has nothing to do with whether you think he is
guilty or innocent, whether you think the laws are fair, whether you view
him as a hero or a villain.  Your personal emotions toward him should have
nothing whatsoever to do with your support of him following the legal
process -- a process that despite its imperfections, is still one of the
best in the world.

I think criticizing the US justice system for doing the very basics of its
job (ie, trying to get someone to show up in court) -- when it literally
hasn't even done anything yet -- is kind of off base.  Yes, let's make good
laws.  Yes, let's make sure those laws are properly interpreted and
enforced.  But all of that *starts* with him showing up in court so we can
all actually hear the charges and see the evidence for real, and see what
our institutions actually do about it.  Running from the law makes for
great Hollywood plots, but is hardly what we should be celebrating in the
real world.

Unless of course you have just given up on our nation entirely and think
even attempting to enforce our laws is inherently unjust.  But at that
point, you've taken such an extreme position, nothing less than revolution
will satisfy you.


On Thu, Jul 1, 2021 at 12:12 AM Karl <gmkarl at> wrote:

> David, what are you are saying doesn't seem quite rational to me.  Are you
> on the same page?  Did you get my longer email that you didn't reply to?
> On Wed, Jun 30, 2021, 7:16 PM David Barrett <dbarrett at>
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 3:56 PM Karl <gmkarl at> wrote:
>>> 2. The UK is currently holding him (and has been for 2 years) while
>>>> Assange appeals the extradition request
>>> ThIs doesn't appear clear to me.  The article says the USA has appealed
>>> the extradition request, after a judge denied it.
>>> The US prosecutors lodged an appeal on 15 January.[460]
>>> <> A
>>> spokesman for the U.S. Department of Justice confirmed in mid-February 2021
>>> that it would continue the appeal under the new Biden administration.
>>> [458
>>> <>
>> Oh, that's a great clarification, thank you.  Regardless, unless you are
>> suggesting that the UK should offer no appeals process, I think it makes
>> sense to let the UK courts follow its process.
> Why is it you are saying this?  Does anyone have a way to change their
> process?
> So he's by every legal and semantic definition in the UK prison by
>>>> choice.  He can allow himself to be extradited to the US at any time.
>>> He is in the UK as opposed to the US.  The charges levied at him could
>>> imprison him longer than his lifespan in the US, so he probably doesn't
>>> think that extradition would free or benefit him or anything.
>> Just like Chelsea Manning.  Who went free after 7 years, and was given
>> credit for all her time in prison pre-trial.
> ==> is that normal? <== move 9?  Is 7 years just if the person was trying
> to aid and protect everyone with all their heart?
> Now, it's true that he would prefer not to be in any prison.  But it feels
>>>> like the US has a reasonable case against him that should be evaluated by a
>>>> court (and the UK agrees).
>>> Caps because your statement is ignoring the thread topic.  I'm wondering
>>> if you're forgetting it.
>> The courts determine what is true and false evidence; that hasn't
>> happened yet.  If you are
> This is only true within the confines of a trial.  Do you believe juries
> define physical truth?
> so confident it's easily proven as false, why wouldn't Assange's attorney
>> be able to easily show that?  The reality is, there is likely a
> Because the prosecutor has had 10 years to form a case involving massive
> funding and documents provided by the resources of secret services, while
> assange is in prison unable to collect data, or unaware of the threat?
> wide range of evidence against him -- some false, some true, and there is
>> a process to figure out which is which.  A process that the US is trying to
>> follow, but that is being blocked -- currently by the UK.  And that's
>> fine.  If the UK denies his extradition even after appeal, great.  The
>> system works.  If the UK does not deny his extradition, and he goes to
>> trial in the US, then great.  The system works.
> We're arguing a lot here and clearly come from different places.  I don't
> see how we can ever know for sure whether the ruling of a court is
> correct.  It's surprising to me that it's a point of argument.
> It's frustrating to disagree over our different conclusions.  I suspect
> we've had different experiences that lead to them.  Has the court system
> really protected you?
> I feel really scared when I read this Sturdin story, but also really full
> of hope, because my clear perception was that things like this happen a
> lot, and it rarely reaches the news.  Among activism, people are often
> getting "entrapped" in various real and unreal ways, ending up in prison
> because somebody put effort into framing them.
> Our more caring, selfless people, have been ending up in prison =(
> Unless you feel there is literally no law that he could reasonably be said
>>>> to have broken --
>>> such as aiding and abetting a fugitive by helping Snowden hide his
>>>> tracks while escaping, or collaborating with a convicted felon (Chelsea
>>>> Manning) in publishing state secrets?  I'm sure you would think that he has
>>>> a reasonable defense against those, and if so, he should do great in
>>>> court.  But do you believe the court has truly no reasonable case to even
>>>> hear?
>> Are you saying we should be certain to prosecute anyone who violates any
>>> law?  Does this include people working for governments?
>> Yes, I would support prosecuting anyone who breaks the law,
>> including/especially those in the government.  But whether or not someone
>> else is tried is irrelevant to whether Assange should be tried.
> Well, the people involved in falsifying evidence could likely reveal a lot
> of information helpful to justice around Assange.  Doing this seems illegal
> to me.  Is it illegal to coerce somebody to lie on the stand?  Which case
> should be brought to court first, to find justice?
>> -david
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 14780 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <>

More information about the cypherpunks mailing list