John Pilger on Julian Assange

[french frank]

Hero? In many ways, yes
Courageous? Yes ...
Reckless? Yes ....
Villain?

I could probably agree there. Then Lawless? Or is one only concerned about the law when you're on the receiving end of its imperfect rigour? It's like 'free speech' when that means freedom of expression for those I agree with. TalkRadio has today had its YouTube channel removed - thought to be for allowing the broadcast of conspiracy theories etc about Covid. Yet Ofcom's description of what its licensed broadcasters are allowed to do included giving the public a range of views on current topics.

The problem - for me - is that I can't see the Assange/Wikileaks affair in complete isolation. It's part of a geopolitical power struggle where individuals could, in practice, be perfectly justified in their actions yet in being focused on one restricted area they upset the balance. That, I see, as especially true in 'democratic' societies where people have the power to protest or reveal injustices and state lawlessness, whereas in authoritarian societies injustices go unchallenged - even when their lawlessness threaten those very democratic societies which demand transparency, democracy, humanitarian values (while undoubtedly falling short of these aims). In some ways, it's picking off the easy, local targets and shrugging off the more distant ones. My enemy's enemy is my friend.

[LHC]

For weeks on end the defendent was in solitary confinement for up to 23 hours a day (before the Covid pandemic) and I'm not aware that he was a danger to fellow inmates. His visitors reported that he was regularly strip-searched (for what, guns?), at times denied access to legal papers of his own case, and when in court not allowed to sit next to (and therefore easily communicate with) his own defence team but instead placed behind a perspex screen. There were also unusually prohibitive restrictions placed on press and media attendance, rather at loggerheads with normal British court protocol.

Too many flashing red lights to call this a "fair trial", considering the physical and psychological pressures placed on the defendent before and during the trial.

I must say, the evidence presented at the hearing paints a very different picture of Assange's treatment at Belmarsh:

"... according to Dr. Deeley, the absence of previous serious suicide attempts at HMP Belmarsh should not be taken as evidence either that Mr. Assange’s risk is low or that the risk can be adequately managed. He reminded the court that Mr. Assange currently has the benefit of protective factors which, before lockdown, included regular visits from his partner (three times a week) and children (twice a week), visits from his father and other family members, visits from a wide network of friends and supporters. During lockdown, he has had access to a telephone in his cell for 90 minutes each day; he has had access to and frequently uses the prison Samaritans phone; he has established a trusting therapeutic relationship with the prison In-Reach psychologist; and he has been housed with other prisoners in the general population since leaving the relative isolation of the healthcare unit."

During a search of his cell in May 2019 "half of a razor blade was found in his cell, inside a cupboard and concealed under some underwear" and it was "concerns about his health and his suicidality [that] led to a plan for him to be monitored with observations nocturnal checks." This suggests that regular searches were a result of concerns about possible suicide rather than anything more sinister.

Indeed, one of the key factors in the decision not to allow extradition was that he would not have access to this level of support in the US, and that the prison conditions were likely to be significantly worse there.

I would also say that the Judge's careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, and the final decision not to allow extradition, suggests that this was actually a 'fair' trial of all the evidence.