21stcenturywire--2020-02-21--What’s Really Behind Rohrabacher’s ‘Assange Pardon’ Story?

Just as Roger Stone ’ s sentencing was getting underway this afternoon , another story began drifting out into the media sphere – another potential spanner in the works just in time for part one of Julian Assange ’ s US extradition hearing which is due to commence this Monday .
According to a revelation aired during a recent scheduled case hearing on Wednesday by a member of Assange ’ s defence team , Edward Fitzgerald QC , Assange was informally offered some kind of pardon deal by a US representative during the first year of the Trump Administration .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Assange ’ s lawyer Jennifer Robinson , reportedly saying : This statement is referring to former US Congressman Dana Rohrabacher ( R-CA ) who says he visited Assange as part of Rohrabacher ’ s own independent ‘ fact finding mission ’ at London ’ s Ecuadorian Embassy in August 2017 , near the beginning of the Mueller Investigation .
The White House has firmly denied the claim and states the President had no contact with Rohrabacher .
Before we continue and unravel what has been said and by whom , there are three @ @ @ @ @ @ @ consider .
The first and most importantly – is the media spin aspect .
Given that this is both a highly-charged partisan , as well as geopolitical case , and that we are just days away from the start of Assange ’ s historic extradition hearing , there are powerful forces , be they state , partisan or media – who will try and spin this and other ‘ bombshells ’ in a way which suits their political agenda .
It also goes without saying that there are agents of influence within mainstream @ @ @ @ @ @ @ able to manipulate , twist , distort or fabricate any aspect of a story like this in order to further the interests of the two primary government stakeholders in this case , the United States and United Kingdom .
This has already been demonstrated time and time again with the Assange story , most notably by The Guardian newspaper who completely fabricated at least one headline story by Luke Harding and Danny Collyns claiming that former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort had visited Julian Assange in the Ecuadorian Embassy .
The Guardian then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a sequel in which they used Harding ’ s Manafort story to help bolster another bogus claim that an ally of Nigel Farage was attempting to obtain emails from WikiLeaks .
Bottom line : if there is any opportunity to advance a Trump-Russia or RussiaGate narrative , there are mainstream journalists and editors ready to publish or say anything , even if it ’ s a complete lie .
The second thing to consider is how this latest news will factor into Julian Assange ’ s extradition hearing next week .
And thirdly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ story will ultimately help , or hurt the real protagonist in this case , Julian Assange .
Most certainly , the mainstream media have distorted this story from the word go , mostly to advance anti-Trump and anti-Russian narratives .
We ’ ll look at two reports , one from the Daily Beast , and the other from the UK ’ s Independent .
The Daily Beast story written by Nico Hines carries an over-the-top headline , “ Trump Offered Assange Pardon if He Covered Up Russian Hack , WikiLeaks Founder ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this isn ’ t actually what the lawyer said .
The headline doesn ’ t actually correspond with the claims made below in the article .
Hine ’ s own article does not stipulate that Trump himself made such an offer to Assange .
Hine then repeats the same lie in the sub-header , saying that Rohrabacher “ had brought the message to London from Trump.
” In addition to this , the headline erroneously asserts that Assange is also orchestrating a cover-up .
No doubt the Daily Beast ’ s management and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percentage of online readers , especially those seeing content via social media , only skim the headline of a post and do not read the body of the article ( content engineers need to know this data because it is how they place and bill for advertising space ) .
In addition to this , according to a statement made by former Congressman Dana Rohrabacher , the former Congressman denies having made a pardon offer on behalf of Trump , saying that he made a proposition to Assange that if the WikiLeaks founder @ @ @ @ @ @ @ provided the DNC and related email leaks , Rohrabacher would do his best to lobby the President for a pardon .
Technically , this is not breaking news , as it was reported back in September 2017 my multiple mainstream outlets .
Just below the Daily Beast ’ s gratuitous headline is stamped with “ Quid Pro Quo ” in red lettering , Here author Hines was attempting to re-purpose the UkraineGate-Impeachment accusation of Trump ’ s abuse of power in asking the Ukrainian President Zelensky for an illicit ‘ Quid Pro Quo @ @ @ @ @ @ @ another under-the-table dodgy deal .
Above all , this story is being crafted to look as if Trump was in league with Assange to try and cover-up any Russian involvement in the DNC Leaks and the 2016 Election – leaving the reader to assume that there was Russian involvement .
This story is complete spin and clickbait by the Daily Beast .
In classic propaganda style , the author also uses this opportunity to reinforce the usual laundry list of unproven RussiaGate narrative talking points , stating a series of evidence-free assertions and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ facts ( now standard operating procedure for most US mainstream outlets ) : “ Russia ’ s involvement in hacking emails from the Democratic National Committee.
” “ WikiLeaks posted the stolen DNC emails after they were hacked by Russian operatives.
” This is followed by a cheap , ad hominem smear against Rohrabacher : “ Rohrabacher , who was known as Putin ’ s favorite congressman.
” Like The Guardian , formerly a respectable newspaper , the UK ’ s Independent has become a formidable online propaganda outlet .
It ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ further , adding ‘ Russian election interference ’ for good measure : “ Trump offered to pardon Assange if he covered up Russian interference in US election , court told ” .
Of course , this is not what the court was told , but the truth doesn ’ t seem to be a priority for these mainstream outlets .
It repeats most of the lies woven through the Daily Beast article , and then builds a partisan angle on top of the initial lie , making reference to the 2020 US election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Mr Trump ’ s re-election effort if proven true.
” Note also the use of the cheap throwaway propaganda phrase , “ if proven true ” – which more often than not denotes a fake allegation , and is proof of deceptive intent , or a pre-existing agenda or bias by the author .
A similar election smear here : “ It ’ s another indication that Trump ’ s assault on the rule of law isn ’ t new ; it ’ s been ongoing throughout his term .
And imagine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ yet know.
” The propaganda housekeeping continues , advancing the official conspiracy theory that the DNC and Clinton emails were hacked , when there is still no proof to validate this claim , citing a likely partisan source , Obama CIA official Ned Price : “ A series of emails embarrassing for the Democrats and the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign were hacked before being published by WikiLeaks… ” More of the same , reinforcing unproven , untested accusations tabled by Mueller probe : The Mueller investigation , published in April , found Russian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ private server for the first time just hours after Mr Trump ’ s public request for Russia to “ find the 30,000 emails that are missing ” .
SEE ALSO : Media Spinning ‘ Assange Pardon ’ as Proof of Russiagate Conspiracy Needless to say , when it comes to stories like this , most mainstream media outlets are not fit for purpose , and most likely co-opted by some partisan interests , or worse , by an intelligence agency .
History is replete with examples of this .
The second consideration is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Julian Assange ’ s extradition hearing next week ?
If you can filter out all of the media and partisan spin , you can see that this new information was introduced by the defense for a reason which may have less to do with Trump and Russia , and more to do with substantiating a complaint made by the defense that Assange should not be extradited to the U.S. because Washington ’ s case against him is in fact politically motivated .
In this case , as a serving member of Congressman , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ solicitation of a deal automatically proves that there was direct US political involvement in advance of the Department of Justice ’ s 18 superceding indictments of Assange served this past summer .
In addition to this , the defense has proof of a CIA-led operation which spied on Assange in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London , which included surveillance of his discussions with his attorneys .
Taken together , these two pieces of evidence could be crucial in the defense ’ s effort to have the US extradition request overturned on the basis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ motivated and therefore in violation the extradition treaty between the two countries .
WikiLeaks tweeted out today that this Rohrabacker story will come into play on Tuesday ’ s session of the hearing .
WikiLeaks also points out the issue of the timeline of events with this story – that the Rohrabacher meeting took place long after Assange had publicly stated that his source for the DNC leaks was not a sate actor .
In addition to this , former UK Ambassador and friend of Assange , Craig Murray , has also declared @ @ @ @ @ @ @ occasions that the source was not Russia , but from ‘ Washington DC circles ’ .
From Sputnik News : In December 2016 Murray told Radio Sputnik that the DNC Leaks had “ absolutely nothing to do with Russia ” .
He said that he discovered the source while attending a whistleblowing conference in the US and stressed that it came from “ official circles in Washington DC ” .
The hysterical way in which the mainstream media has spun this story , and the extreme politicization by the establishment – may also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ team .
Lastly , there is the question of whether or not the Dana Rohrabacher story will help , or hurt the credibility of Julian Assange and WikiLeaks .
As I have stated a number of times previously , the key to the DOJ case against Assange lies in the language in which they have reframed Assange and WikiLeaks from being a journalist and a press outlet , and instead labeled him as a ‘ cyber terrorist and Russian asset ’ , and a ‘ hostile non-state foreign intelligence service ’ , respectively @ @ @ @ @ @ @ US to strip Assange and WikiLeaks of any first Amendment protections upon arrival in the US , as well as justify Special Administrative Measures , which places Assange essentially in the same category as an enemy combatant or terrorist .
One way to make this reframing exercise more credible is by attacking the credibility of both Assange and WikiLeaks , to portray them as not acting like ‘ conventional journalistic outlets , ’ simply to demonstrate that Assange and WikiLeaks are cavalier or careless in keeping to their journalistic principles .
This is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ might be used to undermine Julian Assange ’ s insistence that WikiLeaks protects their sources at all costs .
The insinuation by Rohrabacher – which has now cascaded through the world ’ s media – is that Assange was willing to sell-out his principles by divulging to Washington who leaked the DNC emails in order to save his own skin in the form of a pardon from President Trump .
“ Upon my return , I spoke briefly with Gen. Kelly .
I told him that Julian Assange would provide information about the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pardon.
” In his statement posted on Feb. 20 , 2020 , Rohrabacher was careful not to state explicitly that Assange had told him “ Yes ” and agreed to give up his source in exchange for a Presidential pardon – it was only inferred in Rohrabacher ’ s above quote , “ I told him that Julian Assange would provide information… ” – but he does not specify what exactly that information would be : a source , contextual information , deductive information , ie .
who it wasn ’ t , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rule out a Russian state actor .
It ’ s hard to know at this point , but that didn ’ t stop the mainstream media from colonizing that vacuum of information with the usual bevy of speculation , spin and fake news which we demonstrated earlier in this article .
But the general impression in all of the reporting and from the Congressman himself , is that Assange had told Rohrabacher he would indeed give up his source in exchange for a pardon .
This does not square with many vehement statements @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of WikiLeaks ’ sources .
Who would really expect Assange to have have suffered this ten-year long ordeal – only to suddenly trust an emissary of the United States government to keep his promise to make good on some informal , and highly uncertain promise of freedom ?
It ’ s also worth noting here that this same narrative mirrors a story which has been circulating somewhat under the radar for months , about a former FOX News contributor named Ellen Ratner ( late brother Michael Ratner had been a U.S. lawyer for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Assange in the Ecuadorian Embassy in the fall of 2016 .
Claims about her visit were then made by an alleged associate , another FOX News contributor and Dallas financial manager named Ed Butowsky – and Butowsky claims that Ratner told him that Assange said his source was the late Seth Rich , a DNC employee who was shot and killed a block from his apartment in Washington DC on July 10 , 2016 .
This of course infers , by extension , that Rich was murdered because he was the leaker .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a few mainstream media outlets , but is more popular in alternative American conservative media .
All of this is purely speculative , and as yet , without any evidence to validate the theory .
However , Butowsky ’ s third-hand claims have triggered a chain a lawsuits led by a libel suit filed by the family of Seth Rich against various parties and media outlets who made the claim that Rich leaked the DNC emails to WikiLeaks .
Rohrabacher also mentions Seth Rich on this statement made on his website : “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in getting this message through to the President I still call on him to pardon Julian Assange , who is the true whistleblower of our time .
Finally , we are all holding our breath waiting for an honest investigation into the murder of Seth Rich.
” One has to also ask why , if Rohrabacher believed in Assange ’ s cause of press freedom and clear First Amendment implications for the American people should Assange be put on trial for doing journalism , that the Congressman has never canvased for the release @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years , but instead only dangles a private deal in front of Assange requiring him to give up his source ?
The amount of media noise surrounding this issue can easily obfuscate some of the fundamental principles and themes which are governing the mainstream narrative of this story .
What ’ s important to note here is that just like Rohrabacher ’ s inference that Assange had agreed to provide information on the DNC leaks , Butowsky ’ s unfounded claim infers that Julian Assange gave up his source to Ellen Ratner – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he would never betray .
Again , such a narrative actually undermines the ethical and professional credibility and staunch reputation of Julian Assange and WikiLeaks as serious journalists .
Rohrabacker ’ s approach wasn ’ t the first interface between US officials and Julian Assange .
While Rohrabacher ’ s approach was a traditional face to face meeting and offer of a pardon , a previous approach was said to have been made by the FBI and CIA agencies in 2017 , as reported by John Solomon in 2018 , whereby Assange would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for cooperation with intelligence agencies in mitigating some of the damage from WikiLeaks release of a CIA document trove .
Solomon reports for The Hill : This yarn begins in January 2017 when Assange ’ s legal team approached Waldman — known for his government connections — to see if the new Trump administration would negotiate with the WikiLeaks founder , holed up in Ecuador ’ s London embassy .
They hoped Waldman , a former Clinton Justice Department official , might navigate the U.S. law enforcement bureaucracy and find the right people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ James Comey then intervened later in the process in order to kill the deal .
The Rohrabacher story is just one of many fascinating details which will be introduced during the process of Assange ’ s hearing which will take place in two parts ; in February , and then in May .
But with all of these details and revelations , readers should pay close attention to how and why the news is being spun the way it is , and to the benefit of whom .
Also , consider the source @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Assange ’ s extradition hearing will begin on Monday Feb 24th at Woolwich Crown Court , where US lawyers will make the case that he should be extradited to the United States to face 18 federal counts of espionage and conspiring to commit computer intrusion , totally 175 years in prison – if he is found guilty .


21stcenturywire--2020-02-22--Global Surveillance State: Plans for New EU-US Transatlantic Facial-recognition Database

Much is made in western media and discourse about the horrors the Chinese surveillance state .
In many ways , this is a convenient scapegoat for western establishment pundits to deflect from what is currently being erected in North America and Europe .
This latest story ( below ) is indicative of the growth in power and influence of the Five Eyes intelligence sharing network , which can always expand to add the EU into its fold .
This new system will be driven by expansive Silicon Valley cloud services and an array of artificial intelligence processing hubs which the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A growing number of states are deploying advanced AI surveillance tools to monitor , track , and surveil citizens to accomplish a range of policy objectives—some lawful , others that violate human rights , and many of which fall into a murky middle ground.
” The European Union has not yet enacted new legislation for this new global surveillance system , but it has already allocated millions of euros in funding for exploratory research into the data logistic and architecture of this new Orwellian grid .
in Spain is trying to solve a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ image of a suspect ’ s face , caught by a nearby security camera .
European police have long had access to fingerprint and DNA databases throughout the 27 countries of the European Union and , in certain cases , the United States .
But soon , that investigator may be able to also search a network of police face databases spanning the whole of Europe and the U.S .
According to leaked internal European Union documents , the EU could soon be creating a network of national police facial recognition databases .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ police forces of 10 EU member states , led by Austria , calls for the introduction of EU legislation to introduce and interconnect such databases in every member state .
The report , which The Intercept obtained from a European official who is concerned about the network ’ s development , was circulated among EU and national officials in November 2019 .
If previous data-sharing arrangements are a guide , the new facial recognition network will likely be connected to similar databases in the U.S. , creating what privacy researchers are calling a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The report was produced as part of discussions on expanding the Prüm system , an EU-wide initiative connecting DNA , fingerprint , and vehicle registration databases for mutual searching .
A similar system exists between the U.S. and any country that is part of the Visa Waiver Program , which includes the majority of EU countries ; bilateral agreements allow U.S. and European agencies to access one another ’ s fingerprint and DNA databases… See more at The Intercept

By
Much is made in western media and discourse about the horrors the Chinese surveillance state. In many ways, this is a convenient scapegoat for western establishment pundits to deflect from what is currently being erected in North America and Europe.
This latest story (below) is indicative of the growth in power and influence of the Five Eyes intelligence sharing network, which can always expand to add the EU into its fold. This new system will be driven by expansive Silicon Valley cloud services and an array of artificial intelligence processing hubs which the Carnegie Endowment recently described as:
“A growing number of states are deploying advanced AI surveillance tools to monitor, track, and surveil citizens to accomplish a range of policy objectives—some lawful, others that violate human rights, and many of which fall into a murky middle ground.”
The European Union has not yet enacted new legislation for this new global surveillance system, but it has already allocated millions of euros in funding for exploratory research into the data logistic and architecture of this new Orwellian grid.
The The Intercept reports…
A police investigator in Spain is trying to solve a crime, but she only has an image of a suspect’s face, caught by a nearby security camera. European police have long had access to fingerprint and DNA databases throughout the 27 countries of the European Union and, in certain cases, the United States. But soon, that investigator may be able to also search a network of police face databases spanning the whole of Europe and the U.S. According to leaked internal European Union documents, the EU could soon be creating a network of national police facial recognition databases. A report drawn up by the national police forces of 10 EU member states, led by Austria, calls for the introduction of EU legislation to introduce and interconnect such databases in every member state. The report, which The Intercept obtained from a European official who is concerned about the network’s development, was circulated among EU and national officials in November 2019. If previous data-sharing arrangements are a guide, the new facial recognition network will likely be connected to similar databases in the U.S., creating what privacy researchers are calling a massive transatlantic consolidation of biometric data. The report was produced as part of discussions on expanding the Prüm system, an EU-wide initiative connecting DNA, fingerprint, and vehicle registration databases for mutual searching. A similar system exists between the U.S. and any country that is part of the Visa Waiver Program, which includes the majority of EU countries; bilateral agreements allow U.S. and European agencies to access one another’s fingerprint and DNA databases… See more at The Intercept READ MORE POLICE STATE AT: 21st Century Wire Police State Files SUPPORT OUR MEDIA PLATFORM – BECOME A MEMBER @21WIRE.TV


21stcenturywire--2020-02-22--SYRIA: Turkish-backed Militants Suffer Devastating loss in Idlib

BEIRUT , LEBANON ( 9:20 A.M. ) – The Turkish-backed militants suffered a devastating defeat on Thursday when their forces attempted to retake the key town of Nayrab in eastern Idlib .
Backed by the Turkish military , the National Liberation Front ( NLF ) and Hay ’ at Tahrir Al-Sham ( HTS ) attempted to capture Nayrab in order to make their way towards the strategic city of Saraqib , which is located along the Aleppo-Damascus Highway ( M-5 ) .
However , this offensive would turn disastrous for the Turkish-backed militants , as the Syrian Arab Army ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Air Force , was able to wipe out most of the enemy combatants during the battle .
SEE ALSO : Turkish Forces Filmed Attacking Syrian Army During Militant Offensive in East Idlib – Video Based on photos released this week , it appears that over 100 jihadists and Turkish-backed militants were killed during this battle on Thursday , including two soldiers from the Turkish Armed Forces .
The photos , which have been shared on Twitter , show many of the dead jihadists and Turkish-backed militants that attempted to capture Nayrab from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ News Agency released a video last night that showed the Russian Air Force ’ s devastating attack that stifled the militant advance .
With such great losses in their ranks , the jihadist rebels and Turkish-backed militants were forced to abandon their offensive and withdraw west of Nayrab .

By
Turkish-backed extremist militants occupying Afrin City in northern Syria (Image Source: AMN)
BEIRUT, LEBANON (9:20 A.M.) – The Turkish-backed militants suffered a devastating defeat on Thursday when their forces attempted to retake the key town of Nayrab in eastern Idlib.
Backed by the Turkish military, the National Liberation Front (NLF) and Hay’at Tahrir Al-Sham (HTS) attempted to capture Nayrab in order to make their way towards the strategic city of Saraqib, which is located along the Aleppo-Damascus Highway (M-5).
However, this offensive would turn disastrous for the Turkish-backed militants, as the Syrian Arab Army (SAA), backed by the Russian Air Force, was able to wipe out most of the enemy combatants during the battle.
SEE ALSO: Turkish Forces Filmed Attacking Syrian Army During Militant Offensive in East Idlib – Video
Based on photos released this week, it appears that over 100 jihadists and Turkish-backed militants were killed during this battle on Thursday, including two soldiers from the Turkish Armed Forces.
The photos, which have been shared on Twitter, show many of the dead jihadists and Turkish-backed militants that attempted to capture Nayrab from the Syrian Arab Army.
The Syrian Arab News Agency released a video last night that showed the Russian Air Force’s devastating attack that stifled the militant advance.
With such great losses in their ranks, the jihadist rebels and Turkish-backed militants were forced to abandon their offensive and withdraw west of Nayrab.
SOURCE: AL MASDAR NEWS
READ MORE SYRIA NEWS AT: 21st Century Wire Syria Files
SUPPORT THIS INDEPENDENT MEDIA PLATFORM – BECOME A MEMBER @21WIRE.TV


21stcenturywire--2020-02-23--Episode #316 – ‘Assange Hearing Begins’ with guests Joe Lauria and Andre Vltchek

Episode # 316 of SUNDAY WIRE SHOW resumes on February 23 , 2020 with host Patrick Henningsen , broadcasting LIVE on the Alternate Current Radio Network ( ACR ) … 5pm-8pm UK Time | 12pm-3pm ET ( US ) | 9am-12pm PT ( US ) This week the SUNDAY WIRE broadcasts LIVE on ACR with host Patrick Henningsen covering the top stories in the US , Europe and internationally .
We ’ re in London to discuss this week ’ s extradition hearing for Julian Assange , in-studio with special guest Joe Lauria , editor of Consortium News .
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s march by Assange supporters to Parliament Square , some of the great addresses made by Assange supporters including Roger Waters , Brian Eno , and Yanis Varoufakis .
Later in the second hour , we ’ ll return to 21WIRE intrepid reporter on the ground in Southeast Asia , with best-selling author , Andre Vltchek , for an exclusive report on the current devastation of the Southeast Asian island of Borneo , as well as a brief update on situation in Hong Kong and China with the panic and spread of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , much more .
Enjoy the show… See more LIVE reporting of Assange march and court hearing @ 21WIRE on Twitter ONE WEEK LEFT : SUPPORT 21WIRE – DONATE TO OUR WINTER FUNDRAISING DRIVE !
AND ALSO BECOME A TEAM MEMBER @ 21WIRE.TV *NOTE : THIS EPISODE MAY CONTAIN STRONG LANGUAGE AND MATURE THEMES*

By
Episode #316 of SUNDAY WIRE SHOW resumes on February 23, 2020 with host Patrick Henningsen, broadcasting LIVE on the Alternate Current Radio Network (ACR)…
LISTEN LIVE ON THIS PAGE – START TIMES:
5pm-8pm UK Time | 12pm-3pm ET (US) | 9am-12pm PT (US)
This week the SUNDAY WIRE broadcasts LIVE on ACR with host Patrick Henningsen covering the top stories in the US, Europe and internationally. We’re in London to discuss this week’s extradition hearing for Julian Assange, in-studio with special guest Joe Lauria, editor of Consortium News. We’ll also look back at yesterday’s march by Assange supporters to Parliament Square, some of the great addresses made by Assange supporters including Roger Waters, Brian Eno, and Yanis Varoufakis. Later in the second hour, we’ll return to 21WIRE intrepid reporter on the ground in Southeast Asia, with best-selling author, Andre Vltchek, for an exclusive report on the current devastation of the Southeast Asian island of Borneo, as well as a brief update on situation in Hong Kong and China with the panic and spread of the Coronavirus. All this and much, much more. Enjoy the show…
See more LIVE reporting of Assange march and court hearing @21WIRE on Twitter
ONE WEEK LEFT: SUPPORT 21WIRE – DONATE TO OUR WINTER FUNDRAISING DRIVE!
AND ALSO BECOME A TEAM MEMBER@21WIRE.TV
*NOTE: THIS EPISODE MAY CONTAIN STRONG LANGUAGE AND MATURE THEMES*
Download Episode #316
Sunday Wire Radio Show Archives


21stcenturywire--2020-02-24--Assange Begins Fight Against U.S. Extradition Today

LONDON – After nearly years of state posturing , legal maneuvering and open collusion between the U.S. , Great Britain , Sweden and Ecuador , and detention of an award-winning journalist in Britain ’ s maximum security facility at HM Belmarsh Prison , the main event is finally here .
On Monday morning begins the extradition hearing for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange , charged by the U.S. Department of Justice with 18 federal indictments , carrying a total sentence of 175 years .
It is hard not to overstate the gravity and potential impact of this case on the future @ @ @ @ @ @ @ press in the 21st century .
When Julian Assange was taken by force from London ’ s Ecuadorian embassy by British authorities and arrested last April , a crowd of less than a hundred people gathered outside Belmarsh demanding the release of Assange .
I was there .
It was a somber occasion to say the least , and some people there expressed there abject horror that such an injustice could be taking place in broad daylight , and with so relatively little people paying attention or caring .
Most notably absent during @ @ @ @ @ @ @ press ; the bitter irony of it all , considering what Julian was being taken down for , and by who .
But things have moved on quite a bit since then .
On Saturday , a large crowd gathered outside of Australia House on The Stand in central London , marching to Parliament Square , joining a crowd which numbered roughly two thousand .
This is now officially a global movement .
Supporters were holding signs and chanting slogans of like , “ Don ’ t extradite Assange , journalism is not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Saturday were Assange ’ s father John Shipton , WikiLeaks editor Kristinn Hrafnsonn , former Pink Floyd frontman Roger Waters , former Greek Finance minister Yanis Varoufakis , and fashion designer Vivienne Westwood .
Yanis Varoufakis , Joseph Farrell , Kristinn Hrafnsonn and John Shipton leading the march in central London ( Photo Credit : Patrick Henningsen 2020© ) As supporters continued to arrive at Parliament Square , where speakers like John Shipton addressed the crowd in an emotional appeal calling for an end to the unlawful incarceration of his son .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his nobility of purpose and also his strength of character after nine years .
I don ’ t really understand why Julian is in jail here , said Shipton .
Event speakers remarked on the extrajudicial and extra-territorial jurisdiction which U.S. authorities are attempting to exert here .
This has to potential to create a global chilling effect on journalism .
For the first time in months , I saw a number a mainstream journalists in attendance , as the reality of this situation begins to set in for many working members of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been deterred from getting behind this issue , afraid to throw their support behind the WikiLeaks founder , one of their own .
With the main event now imminent , many who were on that corporate fence are finally beginning to realize that Julian ’ s fate is theirs too .
This is arguably the most important civil liberties and human rights cases on this young century .
How it ’ s decided with affect everyone .
*** Author Patrick Henningsen is an American writer and global affairs analyst and founder of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wire , and is host of the SUNDAY WIRE weekly radio show broadcast globally over the Alternate Current Radio Network ( ACR ) .
He has written for a number of international publications and has done extensive on-the-ground reporting in the Middle East including work in Syria and Iraq .
See his archive here .

By
Patrick Henningsen
21st Century Wire
LONDON – After years of state posturing, legal maneuvering and open collusion between the U.S., Great Britain, Sweden and Ecuador, and detention of an award-winning journalist in Britain’s maximum security facility at HM Belmarsh Prison, the main event is finally here.
Monday morning begins the extradition hearing for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, charged by the U.S. Department of Justice with 18 federal indictments, carrying a total sentence of 175 years.
It is hard not to overstate the gravity and potential impact of this case on the future of free speech and freedom of the press in the 21st century.
When Julian Assange was taken by force from London’s Ecuadorian embassy by British authorities and arrested last April, a crowd of less than a hundred people gathered outside Belmarsh demanding the release of Assange. I was there. It was a somber occasion to say the least, and some people there expressed abject horror that such an injustice could be taking place in broad daylight, and with so relatively few people paying attention or caring. Most notably absent during that period of upheaval were the mainstream press: the bitter irony of it all, considering what Julian was being taken down for, and by whom.
But things have moved on quite a bit since then. On Saturday, a large crowd gathered outside of Australia House on The Stand in central London, marching to Parliament Square, joining a crowd which numbered roughly two thousand. This is now officially a global movement.
Supporters were holding signs and chanting slogans of like, “Don’t extradite Assange, journalism is not a crime.”
(Photo Credit: Patrick Henningsen © 2020)
Leading the march on Saturday were Assange’s father John Shipton, WikiLeaks editor Kristinn Hrafnsonn, former Pink Floyd frontman Roger Waters, former Greek Finance minister Yanis Varoufakis, and fashion designer Vivienne Westwood.
Yanis Varoufakis, Joseph Farrell, Kristinn Hrafnsonn and John Shipton leading the march in central London (Photo Credit: Patrick Henningsen © 2020)
As supporters continued to arrive at Parliament Square, where speakers like John Shipton addressed the crowd in an emotional appeal calling for an end to the unlawful incarceration of his son. “I bring to you his affection, his nobility of purpose and also his strength of character after nine years. I don’t really understand why Julian is in jail here, said Shipton.
(Photo Credit: Patrick Henningsen © 2020)
Event speakers remarked on the extrajudicial and extra-territorial jurisdiction which U.S. authorities are attempting to exert here. This has to potential to create a global chilling effect on journalism.
For the first time in months, I saw a number a mainstream journalists in attendance, as the reality of this situation begins to set in for many working members of the media. For whatever reason they have been deterred from getting behind this issue, afraid to throw their support behind the WikiLeaks founder, one of their own.
With the main event now imminent, many who were on that corporate fence are finally beginning to realize that Julian’s fate is theirs too.
This is arguably the most important civil liberties and human rights cases on this young century.
How it’s decided with affect everyone.
Brian Zeno, Roger Waters and Yanis Variufakis (Photo Credit: Patrick Henningsen © 2020)
Kristinn Hrafnsonn, John Shipton and Vivienne Westwood (Photo Credit: Patrick Henningsen © 2020)
Former British Ambassador Craig Murray (Photo Credit: Patrick Henningsen © 2020)
Musician and rap artist Lowkey (Photo Credit: Patrick Henningsen © 2020)
Roger Waters (Photo Credit: Patrick Henningsen © 2020)
Yanis Varoufakis (Photo Credit: Patrick Henningsen © 2020)
Kristinn Hrafnsonn (Photo Credit: Patrick Henningsen © 2020)
Brian Eno (Photo Credit: Patrick Henningsen © 2020)
(Photo Credit: Patrick Henningsen © 2020)
(Photo Credit: Patrick Henningsen © 2020)
***
Author Patrick Henningsen is an American writer and global affairs analyst and founder of independent news and analysis site 21st Century Wire, and is host of the SUNDAY WIRE weekly radio show broadcast globally over the Alternate Current Radio Network (ACR). He has written for a number of international publications and has done extensive on-the-ground reporting in the Middle East including work in Syria and Iraq. See his archive here.
READ MORE ASSANGE NEWS AT: 21st Century Wire Assange/Wikileaks Files
SUPPORT OUR MEDIA PLATFORM – BECOME A MEMBER @21WIRE.TV


21stcenturywire--2020-02-27--Assange Courtroom Drama Speaks to This Illusion of Justice

LONDON – Over the first two days of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange ’ s U.S. extradition hearing , the majority of the drama has taken place in the well of the court , but that all changed on Wednesday as the focus gradually drifted to the back of the room , behind adjoined panels of bulletproof glass .
Throughout the first three days of the hearing , Assange ’ s defense team , led by Edward Fitzgerald QC and Mark Summers QC , laid out an impressive score of skillful legal arguments , which can only be described as effortlessly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allegations contained in the prosecution ’ s 18 federal indictments .
If this were a normal jury trial , then the defense would have already called for a motion to dismiss .
In the opposite corner , the prosecution representing the United States Department of Justice , erected a classic stonewall ; a stoic and seemingly imperturbable argument which insists that absolutely nothing the defense has submitted , including any protections international treaties on extradition and human rights , is even remotely relevant in the face of immovable British statutes and the very @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It can not happen under the 2003 Extradition Act which was stripped of the provision which bars extradition from Britain for any political offense .
It had been there in previous versions of this UK legislation , but unfortunately was removed during the reign of Tony Blair ’ s government .
Hence , Lewis ’ s remit is simply to execute the order from Washington , and let Julian get his ‘ fair trial ’ once he arrives in one of America ’ s most notorious legal black holes : the eastern district @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much the same as the previous two days , with another commanding defense presentation by Fitzgerald who proceeded to lay out and unbox the fundamental legal backdrop which colours this week ’ s hearings , that is whether or not Julian ’ s extradition for purely political offense , like espionage , is protected by the existence of public international law , or will it be rendered irrelevant by UK domestic law , which , constitutionally speaking , can not confer that right to the defendant which is not expressly stated by an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that question may very well decide which way the judge ultimately rules on this issue .
All the while , Assange sat in the back of the courtroom , in the dock behind thick glass , seemingly relaxed , but clearly stirring underneath it all .
His defense had made it known earlier to the judge that their client was on medication for an ongoing condition , and how this may likely impair his ability to engage with the day ’ s proceedings .
It came to a head after lunch .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , only this time it wasn ’ t the sort of engagement his lawyers or the court , were expecting to see .
Breaking the court ’ s strict protocol , Julian stood up and addressed the judge and the court , in an exasperating plea declaring that he ’ d had enough of the repressive treatment and the spying .
He mounted a mordant protest in his own defense .
“ The problem is I can not participate , it ’ s that I can not privately communicate with my lawyers.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lawyers or ask them for clarifications without the other side seeing , ” said Assange .
“ The other side has about 100 times more contact with their lawyers per day.
” “ What is the point of asking if I can concentrate if I can not participate ?
” He added that , “ I am as much a participant in these proceedings as I am at Wimbledon.
” On Tuesday , Edward Fitzgerald informed the court that since the end of the previous session on Monday , his client had been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and had his legal and his privileged personal client-attorney paper confiscated from him by prison guards .
If that weren ’ t enough , according to his father John Shipton , the day before his hearing was due to begin , HM Belmarsh prison guards turned over his cell and searched his belongs for contraband .
When the defense raised some of these issues during session , Judge Vanessa Baraitser informed the defense that it was not in her jurisdiction to rule on such issues and told the defense to take the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prisons .
All of this clearly pushed Assange to this moment of outburst .
After a brief word between Assange and his solicitor Gareth Peirce , QC Fitzgerald then asked the judge if court would allow Assange to leave the glass enclosure in the back of the court , and relocate to the well of the court to sit with his lawyers in order to allow him to participate in the trial .
Fitzgerald reassured the court that his client posed “ no risk , ” to which Judge Vanessa Baraitser replied , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there was concern of a “ security risk.
” Technically , Assange would have to make an application for bail in order to leave the dock .
U.S. lawyer James Lewis QC seemed to support the request of the defense in general , but indicated that the prosecution would refuse bail , as legally he could not still be in custody but be able to move freely in the well of the court , unless perhaps he was handcuffed or was to have a security guard sitting on each side of him .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ client is a “ gentleman and an intellectual.
” The defense said they would make their application to the court for Assange to come out from the dock , and join his lawyers in the well of the court , at which time a risk assessment would take place sometime today .
This might be par for the course in a counter-terrorism court , which this Woolwich venue is , only Julian Assange is not a terrorist .
To pretend that he is , speaks to the total farce of the political theatre @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In its totality , what this situation demonstrates is that Mr. Assange has neither any rights , nor privileges .
In so many ways , this courtroom drama encapsulates everything that ’ s wrong with his apprehension and detention from day one , and even long before that .
The US and its ally the UK , along with the Swedish authorities and the Moreno government of Ecuador – have all colluded in concert to design this decade-long minotaur ’ s maze of legalese .
This , along with the unprecedented harsh @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the part of HM prisons to restrict access to his defense team and basic materials for the preparation of his defense , and this drama becomes a mere illusion of due process .
Considering the real civil liberty ramifications of this case , Julian deserves much better .
The arguments presented by the defense this week have been overwhelming , he doesn ’ t just deserve to be released , it is his right .
*** Author Patrick Henningsen is an American writer and global affairs analyst and founder of independent news @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and is host of the SUNDAY WIRE weekly radio show broadcast globally over the Alternate Current Radio Network ( ACR ) .
He has written for a number of international publications and has done extensive on-the-ground reporting in the Middle East including work in Syria and Iraq .
See his archive here .

By
(Photo: Patrick Henningsen © 2020)
Patrick Henningsen
21st Century Wire
LONDON – Over the first two days of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange’s U.S. extradition hearing, the majority of the drama has taken place in the well of the court, but that all changed on Wednesday as the focus gradually drifted to the back of the room, behind adjoined panels of bulletproof glass.
Throughout the first three days of the hearing, Assange’s defense team, led by Edward Fitzgerald QC and Mark Summers QC, laid out an impressive score of skillful legal arguments, which can only be described as effortlessly debunking and dismantling nearly all of the allegations contained in the prosecution’s 18 federal indictments. If this were a normal jury trial, then the defense would have already called for a motion to dismiss.
In the opposite corner, the prosecution representing the United States Department of Justice, erected a classic stonewall; a stoic and seemingly imperturbable argument which insists that absolutely nothing the defense has submitted, including any protections international treaties on extradition and human rights, is even remotely relevant in the face of immovable British statutes and the very narrow remit of the Crown Court. It cannot happen under the 2003 Extradition Act which was stripped of the provision which bars extradition from Britain for any political offense. It had been there in previous versions of this UK legislation, but unfortunately was removed during the reign of Tony Blair’s government. Hence, Lewis’s remit is simply to execute the order from Washington, and let Julian get his ‘fair trial’ once he arrives in one of America’s most notorious legal black holes: the eastern district of Virginia.
Day three started off much the same as the previous two days, with another commanding defense presentation by Fitzgerald who proceeded to lay out and unbox the fundamental legal backdrop which colours this week’s hearings, that is whether or not Julian’s extradition for purely political offense, like espionage, is protected by the existence of public international law, or will it be rendered irrelevant by UK domestic law, which, constitutionally speaking, cannot confer that right to the defendant which is not expressly stated by an act of Parliament. The answer to that question may very well decide which way the judge ultimately rules on this issue.
All the while, Assange sat in the back of the courtroom, in the dock behind thick glass, seemingly relaxed, but clearly stirring underneath it all.
His defense had made it known earlier to the judge that their client was on medication for an ongoing condition, and how this may likely impair his ability to engage with the day’s proceedings.
It came to a head after lunch. The defendant finally inserted himself into the proceedings, only this time it wasn’t the sort of engagement his lawyers or the court, were expecting to see. Breaking the court’s strict protocol, Julian stood up and addressed the judge and the court, in an exasperating plea declaring that he’d had enough of the repressive treatment and the spying. He mounted a mordant protest in his own defense.
“The problem is I cannot participate, it’s that I cannot privately communicate with my lawyers.”
“I cannot communicate with my lawyers or ask them for clarifications without the other side seeing,” said Assange.
“The other side has about 100 times more contact with their lawyers per day.”
“What is the point of asking if I can concentrate if I cannot participate?”
He added that, “I am as much a participant in these proceedings as I am at Wimbledon.”
https://twitter.com/SomersetBean/status/1232732350448009229?s=20
On Tuesday, Edward Fitzgerald informed the court that since the end of the previous session on Monday, his client had been handcuffed 11 times, stripped searched twice, and had his legal and his privileged personal client-attorney paper confiscated from him by prison guards. If that weren’t enough, according to his father John Shipton, the day before his hearing was due to begin, HM Belmarsh prison guards turned over his cell and searched his belongs for contraband.
When the defense raised some of these issues during session, Judge Vanessa Baraitser informed the defense that it was not in her jurisdiction to rule on such issues and told the defense to take the matter up with Her Majesty’s prisons.
All of this clearly pushed Assange to this moment of outburst.
After a brief word between Assange and his solicitor Gareth Peirce, QC Fitzgerald then asked the judge if court would allow Assange to leave the glass enclosure in the back of the court, and relocate to the well of the court to sit with his lawyers in order to allow him to participate in the trial.
Fitzgerald reassured the court that his client posed “no risk,” to which Judge Vanessa Baraitser replied, “security might disagree” and that there was concern of a “security risk.”
Technically, Assange would have to make an application for bail in order to leave the dock.
U.S. lawyer James Lewis QC seemed to support the request of the defense in general, but indicated that the prosecution would refuse bail, as legally he could not still be in custody but be able to move freely in the well of the court, unless perhaps he was handcuffed or was to have a security guard sitting on each side of him.
Fitzgerald went on to reiterate that his client is a “gentleman and an intellectual.”
The defense said they would make their application to the court for Assange to come out from the dock, and join his lawyers in the well of the court, at which time a risk assessment would take place sometime today.
This might be par for the course in a counter-terrorism court, which this Woolwich venue is, only Julian Assange is not a terrorist. To pretend that he is, speaks to the total farce of the political theatre we’ve witnessed over these years.
In its totality, what this situation demonstrates is that Mr. Assange has neither any rights, nor privileges.
In so many ways, this courtroom drama encapsulates everything that’s wrong with his apprehension and detention from day one, and even long before that. The US and its ally the UK, along with the Swedish authorities and the Moreno government of Ecuador – have all colluded in concert to design this decade-long minotaur’s maze of legalese.
This, along with the unprecedented harsh conditions of his detention and active effort on the part of HM prisons to restrict access to his defense team and basic materials for the preparation of his defense, and this drama becomes a mere illusion of due process.
Considering the real civil liberty ramifications of this case, Julian deserves much better. The arguments presented by the defense this week have been overwhelming, he doesn’t just deserve to be released, it is his right.
***
Author Patrick Henningsen is an American writer and global affairs analyst and founder of independent news and analysis site 21st Century Wire, and is host of the SUNDAY WIRE weekly radio show broadcast globally over the Alternate Current Radio Network (ACR). He has written for a number of international publications and has done extensive on-the-ground reporting in the Middle East including work in Syria and Iraq. See his archive here.
READ MORE ASSANGE NEWS AT: 21st Century Wire Assange/Wikileaks Files
SUPPORT OUR MEDIA PLATFORM – BECOME A MEMBER @21WIRE.TV


21stcenturywire--2020-02-26--South Carolina Debate Attended by Elite ‘Sponsors’, Featured Syria War Propaganda

The Democratic Party held its 10th presidential debate Tuesday night in Charleston , South Carolina , as candidates continued their attacks on national frontrunner Bernie Sanders in front of a live audience of elite ‘ sponsors ’ who paid over a thousand dollars to attend the event .
A local Charleston TV news station confirmed earlier this month that a “ guaranteed ticket ” at the debate required a sponsorship to be paid at levels between $ 1750 to $ 3200 , prompting the trending hashtag , # WineCaveDebate , during the live broadcast .
CBS News carried the debate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be asked by Twitter users .
Debate moderator Margaret Brennan then read the selected tweet and directed the question to Pete Buttigieg : It was apparent that CBS News did not verify the dubious claims made in the tweeted question , and thus was able to present a false narrative about the war in Syria to its viewing audience .
The Syrian Arab Army and its Russian military partners have actually been advancing on Idlib to liberate it from the jihadi terrorists that have taken control of it from peaceful Syrians .
Buttigieg @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I stand with the people of Idlib… ” Later , Brennan directed the same question to Elizabeth Warren , but rephrased it as “ What would you do to stop the mass murder ?
” Watch this egregious display of war propaganda on national television : At least television viewers did not have to spend lots of cash to watch the debate .

By
CBS News’ Margaret Brennan pushing Syria war propaganda with Pete Buttigieg.
The Democratic Party held its 10th presidential debate Tuesday night in Charleston, South Carolina, as candidates continued their attacks on national frontrunner Bernie Sanders in front of a live audience of elite ‘sponsors’ who paid over a thousand dollars to attend the event.
A local Charleston TV news station confirmed earlier this month that a “guaranteed ticket” at the debate required a sponsorship to be paid at levels between $1750 to $3200, prompting the trending hashtag, #WineCaveDebate, during the live broadcast.
CBS News carried the debate and featured a foreign policy question to be asked by Twitter users.
Debate moderator Margaret Brennan then read the selected tweet and directed the question to Pete Buttigieg:
#DemDebate The city of Idlib in Syria is facing an unprecedented humanitarian crisis. The Syrian regime and Russia are targeting schools, bakeries, and hospitals. What would you do as President to push back Regime and Russian forces and stop the killing of innocent civilians? — Ayoub Ouederni (@AyoubOuederni) February 26, 2020
It was apparent that CBS News did not verify the dubious claims made in the tweeted question, and thus was able to present a false narrative about the war in Syria to its viewing audience.
The Syrian Arab Army and its Russian military partners have actually been advancing on Idlib to liberate it from the jihadi terrorists that have taken control of it from peaceful Syrians.
Buttigieg responded to the question by saying “I stand with the people of Idlib…”
Later, Brennan directed the same question to Elizabeth Warren, but rephrased it as “What would you do to stop the mass murder?”
Watch this egregious display of war propaganda on national television:

At least television viewers did not have to spend lots of cash to watch the debate.
READ MORE 2020 ELECTION NEWS AT: 21st Century Wire 2020 Files


21stcenturywire--2020-02-26--Despite Turkish Threats, Syrian Army Launches New Military in Jabal al-Zawiya, Idlib

On Sunday evening , the Syrian army launched new military operations targeting militants-controlled areas in the countryside of Idlib governorate , focusing its progress towards the strategic Jabal Zawiya , which governs a wide geographical area from the “ M4 ” highway linking Saraqib to Latakia City .
Throughout its new operations , the Syrian Arab Army ( SAA ) are working to achieve a bank of strategic goals , the first of which is to expand control to the west of the M5 international highway from Aleppo to Damascus , as well as reopening the international highway linking the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Idlib countryside .
A field source said that the Syrian Army had brought in military reinforcements by which it launched a military operation towards the villages to the west of Maarat al-Numan city on the Aleppo-Damascus M5 international highway in the southern countryside of Idlib , and yesterday it controlled over the villages of Hantounin and Sheikh Dams getting close to Kafr Nebol , which is considered one of the biggest strongholds of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham ( HTS ) /Al-Nusra militia and its allied takfiri factions in southern Idlib .
The source @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Monday , the Syrian army has continued its progress and took control over Tal Al-Nar and Tal Bruma along with the villages of Al-Naqir , Sheikh Mustafa , Kafr Sijnah , Arinbah and Rakaya in Idlib southern countryside , after violent clashes with the militants of HTS/Al-Nusra and its allies and despite all the fiery support from the Turkish forces deployed in Idlib countryside .
There was a complete collapse among HTS/Al-Nusra militants and its allies during the Syrian army ’ s progress operations in Idlib countryside , while received information indicated that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and wounded during these fights .
Political analysts considered the Syrian military move in Idlib as a message to Ankara ignoring its threats of launching a military operation at the end of February against the Syrian army if it does not withdraw from the areas it recently controlled .
The Syrian army had confirmed earlier , in a statement issued by its leadership , to continue the military operations until complete removing of the militants from the two governorates of Aleppo and Idlib completely , despite all the Turkish threats and the raised @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Turkish officials against Damascus .

By
Khaled Iskef
21st Century Wire
On Sunday evening, the Syrian army launched new military operations targeting militants-controlled areas in the countryside of Idlib governorate, focusing its progress towards the strategic Jabal Zawiya, which governs a wide geographical area from the “M4” highway linking Saraqib to Latakia City.
Throughout its new operations, the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) are working to achieve a bank of strategic goals, the first of which is to expand control to the west of the M5 international highway from Aleppo to Damascus, as well as reopening the international highway linking the cities of Aleppo and Lattakia through Saraqeb in Idlib countryside.
A field source said that the Syrian Army had brought in military reinforcements by which it launched a military operation towards the villages to the west of Maarat al-Numan city on the Aleppo-Damascus M5 international highway in the southern countryside of Idlib, and yesterday it controlled over the villages of Hantounin and Sheikh Dams getting close to Kafr Nebol, which is considered one of the biggest strongholds of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham(HTS)/Al-Nusra militia and its allied takfiri factions in southern Idlib.
The source indicated that, since the dawn of Monday, the Syrian army has continued its progress and took control over Tal Al-Nar and Tal Bruma along with the villages of Al-Naqir, Sheikh Mustafa, Kafr Sijnah, Arinbah and Rakaya in Idlib southern countryside, after violent clashes with the militants of HTS/Al-Nusra and its allies and despite all the fiery support from the Turkish forces deployed in Idlib countryside.
There was a complete collapse among HTS/Al-Nusra militants and its allies during the Syrian army’s progress operations in Idlib countryside, while received information indicated that a large number of militants were killed and wounded during these fights.
Political analysts considered the Syrian military move in Idlib as a message to Ankara ignoring its threats of launching a military operation at the end of February against the Syrian army if it does not withdraw from the areas it recently controlled. The Syrian army had confirmed earlier, in a statement issued by its leadership, to continue the military operations until complete removing of the militants from the two governorates of Aleppo and Idlib completely, despite all the Turkish threats and the raised pace of media rhetoric put out by Turkish officials against Damascus.
STAY TUNED FOR MORE UPDATES.
READ MORE SYRIA NEWS AT: 21st Century Wire Syria Files
SUPPORT THIS INDEPENDENT MEDIA PLATFORM – BECOME A MEMBER @21WIRE.TV


21stcenturywire--2020-02-25--The Health of Julian Assange: A Case of State-sponsored Neglect

It is known that Assange ’ s removal from Belmarsh healthcare unit was a result of the combined effort by his legal team , public campaigning and a petition lodged by fellow prison inmates .
It followed seven months of unofficial segregation in the unit during which he was removed from association without legitimate grounds to do so , and in breach of prison rules and legislation .
There was no established reason for this treatment , making it arbitrary , and also deprived Assange of recourse , effectively throwing him into a lawless hole at the whim of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , however , that despite the fact he has been transferred out of healthcare to a wing where he can associate with others , reports indicate that he is still locked up for most of the time .
The full force of the state apparatus constantly targets Assange while others just pass through To show the arbitrary and unfair treatment of Assange , we have compared the way Belmarsh has treated him to the way it treated Tommy Robinson , founder of the English Defence League , where Robinson spent nine weeks there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his case , the governor was said to have personally intervened to ensure he did not miss a social visit , and that he had unlimited phone calls between 9am and 11am every morning , according to reports .
In contrast , Assange , an unconvicted prisoner , presumed innocent , has had devastating restrictions of access to his lawyers , was not allowed possession of his legal documents for a prolonged period of time , or the means with which to prepare his defence – all of which are breaches of legislation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Comparisons can also be made in the way Belmarsh treated multi-millionaire novelist and former Tory MP Lord Jeffrey Archer .
Archer was sentenced to 4 years in 2001 for perjury and perverting the course of justice .
In contrast to Assange , Archer was convicted by a jury .
He still retained the title Lord Archer , and was processed as a prisoner through Belmarsh in textbook fashion .
Belmarsh , despite being a Category A high security prison , is also a local prison serving courts in South East London and South @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a temporary stop for prisoners of all categories .
Usually , after a few months or weeks , men are released or moved to other prisons ( more suitable for their category ) .
According to Archer ’ s memoirs , on his arrival at Belmarsh following his sentencing , he was visited by the deputy governor who made this whole process clear , reassuring him that normal procedure should for him mean a short stay : ‘ You will be moved onto an induction block tomorrow , ’ she assures me , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ve been categorized A , B , C , or D , we ’ ll transfer you to another prison .
I have no doubt you ’ ll be Category D – no previous convictions , and no history of violence.
’ Due to procedure , he spent his first night in the healthcare unit under suicide watch .
Although only there for one day , Archer was allowed to use the general exercise area , and mix with the other inmates .
He was then moved from healthcare to a wing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ moved to a category D prison .
This was textbook processing .
But on arrival at Belmarsh , Julian Assange had no record of violence , or previous convictions , and the offence of skipping a police bail for which Judge Deborah Taylor sentenced him to 50 weeks , thus ignoring the UN decision that he sought asylum , which means it should ’ ve been a minor offence – much less serious than the crimes of Archer .
Yet , Assange was made a B category prisoner and has never left Belmarsh @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many months .
He has been denied basic rights as an unconvicted prisoner since being held on remand , including continued restrictions of access to his lawyers which has impaired his ability to prepare for his historic legal defence .
Undoubtedly , he is being treated like a terrorist and murderer .
By simply comparing the way the prison authorities processed another high-profile inmate in Lord Archer , we can again see the exceptional vitriol and impunity of the authorities towards Assange .
Diversion tactics of the prison authorities and the lack of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we have illustrated , the prison authorities ’ response to public complaints about the mistreatment of Assange ignores the statements by Nils Melzer , UN Special Rapporteur on torture , that Assange has been held in solitary confinement in healthcare .
In the same way the authorities have ignored Melzer ’ s findings following his extensive physical and psychological assessments of Assange last May , which revealed : “ Mr .
Assange showed all symptoms typical for prolonged and sustained exposure to severe psychological stress , anxiety and related mental and emotional suffering @ @ @ @ @ @ @ depressive and post-traumatic stress disorders ( PTSD ) … Melzer clearly identified the cause of the symptoms : “ It was obvious that Mr. Assange ’ s health has been seriously affected by the extremely hostile and arbitrary environment he has been exposed to for many years , ” … “ Most importantly , in addition to physical ailments , Mr. Assange showed all symptoms typical for prolonged exposure to psychological torture , including extreme stress , chronic anxiety and intense psychological trauma .
He warned that Assange ’ s health could deteriorate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or similar major stressors : “ …and that his current condition is likely to deteriorate dramatically , with severe and long-term psychological and social sequels , in the event of prolonged exposure to significant additional stressors , such as those expected to arise in the event of his extradition to the United States or any other country refusing to provide guarantees against refoulement to the United States.
” As his reports and appeals to the UK government were effectively dismissed , Melzer issued a further statement to the government in October , warning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in oppressive conditions could put his life at risk : “ Based on the information made available to me , the detention regime currently imposed on Mr. Assange appears to be unnecessary , disproportionate , and discriminatory and to perpetuate his exposure to psychological torture or other cruel , inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment .
I am very concerned that , if the UK does not take urgent remedial measures to alleviate Mr. Assange ’ s situation , his health may soon reach a critical stage , including the risk of death.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the authorities involved in the health or care of prisoners has responded .
Not only that , they seem to have also ignored the repeated appeals to the government by a global collective of doctors , Doctors 4 Assange , for independent assessment and treatment .
The doctors have asked for : “ …urgent expert medical assessment of both his physical and psychological state of health .
Any medical treatment indicated should be administered in a properly equipped and expertly staffed university teaching hospital ( tertiary care ) .
Were such urgent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , we have real concerns , on the evidence currently available , that Mr Assange could die in prison .
The medical situation is thereby urgent.
” So how has it come to pass that the medical findings and concerns of a UN special rapporteur and the concerns expressed by a global network of doctors , regarding the life of a prisoner , have been readily dismissed ?
This question is especially important given UK prison rule 21 : 21.— ( 1 ) The medical officer or a medical practitioner such as is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shall report to the governor on the case of any prisoner whose health is likely to be injuriously affected by continued imprisonment or any conditions of imprisonment .
The governor shall send the report to the Secretary of State without delay , together with his own recommendations .
( 2 ) The medical officer or a medical practitioner such as is mentioned in rule 20 ( 3 ) shall pay special attention to any prisoner whose mental condition appears to require it , and make any special arrangements which appear necessary for his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was sent to the government by Melzer in May , and a second statement was sent in October , making the urgency of Assange ’ s health needs clearly known .
The question must therefore be asked : how is it that not a single health or care institution charged with the health of prisoners has intervened ?
Nils Melzer , UN Special Rapporteur on torture , has explained how the assaults Julian Assange , founder of Wikileaks , is designed to create a sense of powerlessness and helplessness : the purpose of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ arbitrary treatment of Assange by the prison authorities and asks how those state institutions claiming to protect health and well-being of people held inside the UK prison system have stood by and allowed a prisoner to be tortured in full public view .
Watch : .
The state ’ s accountability in the neglect of Assange ’ s care In its response to the public concerns about Assange ’ s health , the prison authorities have attempted to divert attention onto the NHS : “ On the wider issue of matters of public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not responsible for the commissioning of healthcare services in public prisons as this is the responsibility of NHS England and the Welsh Government .
The commitment to working with health and justice partners is set out in the National Partnership Agreement for Prison Healthcare in England… ” The partnership agreement to which the prison authorities refer , is an agreement between five public bodies which include the Ministry of Justice , the Prison and Probation Service , the Department of Health and Social Care , Public Health England and NHS England .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ‘ collaboration ’ to illustrate that each body has a commitment and responsibility to safeguard the health of prisoners : “ We commit to collaborate and co-operate at all levels within our organisations to achieve our shared priorities and deliver our joint workplan.
” So , how is it possible to reconcile the joint commitment by no less than five public institutions to protect the health of prisoners , with the arbitrary treatment that threatens the life of Assange inside Belmarsh , as made public knowledge by a UN special rapporteur and a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ asked GP and Producer of the ‘ Great NHS Heist , ‘ Dr. Bob Gill , about the way in which the authorities have behaved towards Assange and the risks to his health resulting from this .
Q : How is it possible that Nils Melzer , supported by specialist doctors , identified Julian Assange ’ s specific needs and made specific recommendations , yet these were ignored by the authorities ?
Should the fact that Melzer and the accompanying specialists were not part of the partnership make any difference to whether Assange @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
Dr. Gill : The prison authorities and health providers are hiding procedural complexities to justify the unjustifiable .
Assange has not been convicted of a crime .
He finds himself in a maximum security prison for exposing the crimes of the state .
He is a political prisoner and his treatment is designed to be an example to others who are considering reporting the actions of our leaders .
I am in no doubt that under such circumstances the prison administration will not extend Assange the humane treatment he should be receiving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ecuadorian embassy for fear of extradition to USA for his journalism , then to be dragged out of the embassy into a police van breaching established political asylum protocol and ending up in Belmarsh a series of actions which confirm his fear all along of being persecuted for serving the public interest .
The deeply flawed legal process and his retention in custody to this day amount to intolerable levels of psychological trauma which would inevitably have major health impact on anyone .
Leaderships of public bodies implicated in this sorry affair will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ truth or justice .
If individuals within Belmarsh acted out of conscience and revealed the extent of Julian Assange ’ s mental and physical condition , they would suffer retribution .
The NHS has an appalling record for its treatment of whistlblowers and bullying and harassment of staff is endemic as highlighted in the recent report in the Mirror .
Hence any reassurances from the authorities are worthless .
The only reliable assessment of Julian Assange ’ s condition would be from external , independent sources of which Nils Meltzer is a respected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to know what went on regarding internal discussions between the health care provider and the prison management while Julian Assange was in healthcare .
But it was a regime decision to keep him isolated , not a medical one .
But how do you see the position of the NHS here ?
Many people have written to the Director of NHS England , Lord David Prior , to complain about Assange ’ s treatment .
As the NHS is a partner should it be held to account to some degree for what has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the healthcare unit ?
Dr. Gill : The reports from Nils Melzer are deeply concerning but come as no surprise .
Deprivation of liberty , lack of due process , character assassination , threat of extradition and solitary confinement are grossly disproportionate consequences for the allegations made against Julian Assange .
The effects of such treatment have devastating effects on mental health and functioning .
Chronic stress , poor living conditions , lack of sunlight and human companionship have serious negative physical effects on the body ranging from accelerated cardiovascular disease and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Julian Assange ’ s health , it is remarkable that his authorised medical personnel have failed to identify the harms his continued detention are having .
The prison regime have consciously decided to continue with Assange ’ s torture by not supporting his immediate release from Belmarsh .
The NHS and prison management should be held to account for their actions but there seems little chance of this given all normal processes have been ignored in the treatment of Assange for political reasons Q : We know that prisoners were so concerned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they kept up a campaign to have him removed from effective segregation conditions .
It is reasonable therefore to assume that members of staff may also have concerns .
However , staff are forced to sign the official secrets act and can not report concerns publicly .
They would have to go through internal channels .
To publicly show concern would be to risk imprisonment – regardless of employer – whether the prison service or the NHS .
Would this be a fair assessment of the situation faced by healthcare staff ?
Dr. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ risk retribution if their actions flag up concerns about the performance of their employer .
Protections that exist are not fit for purpose and managers can act with impunity as demonstrated with various scandals exposed over the years from Mid Staffs scandal to Gosport .
No action taken against the leaders that failed .
The additional fear of prosecution for breach of the OSA effectively prevents the abuses of prisoners being made public by staff .
Until and unless people can speak out without fear of retribution , institutional abuse will go unchecked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state that remand prisoners can not be released temporarily for medical reasons – the logic being that they will not be remanded for long and so can simply have use of doctors until they are convicted or freed .
However , in Julian Assange ’ s case , he could be remanded for years .
UK prison rules have a provision that should cover this , but like so many others , could be applied arbitrarily to Assange .
Dr. Gill : The adherence to the rules for remand prisoners ’ access to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s case is perverse .
An exception should be made in Assange ’ s case given the years of torment he has already endured .
Hiding behind procedure under circumstances where we hear of credible fears for his life , is yet another demonstration of the inhumanity of his continued imprisonment and the authorities complicity in his continued torture .
Bob Gill ’ s ‘ Great NHS Heist ’ can be watched here .
The UK treats Assange the way Bahrain treats its political prisoners Although it is the role of the prison @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all members of the partnership claim commitment to the health and well-being of prisoners .
What ’ s more , the group claims repeatedly to be focused on identifying specific needs of prisoners : “ People in prisons have complex needs .
We are committed to understanding the factors that impact on health and social care outcomes for people in prison .
This includes understanding specific needs… Melzer ’ s report identified Assange ’ s specific needs clearly .
Yet these were ignored by all five institutions which claim to “ …recognise our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Not only have they failed to recognise Assange ’ s health needs identified by Melzer ’ s report , they have stayed silent while Melzer has brought attention to the continued arbitrary treatment of Assange by the prison authorities and the detrimental and life-threatening effects of this on his health .
These warnings have all been circulated by Melzer in the public forum and officially in his correspondence to the UK government .
Still , they have failed to recognise their respective statutory responsibilities .
This failure and apparent complicity by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ back to the recommendations made by Melzer in May : “ Both medical experts accompanying my visit agreed that Mr. Assange is in urgent need of treatment by a psychiatrist of his own choice and confidence , whom he does not associate with the detaining authorities , … ” The sustained silence by each member of the partnership demonstrates that Assange ’ s health and life are not protected by the state health and care institutions connected to Belmarsh .
Whatever the efforts of individuals on the front line , those in charge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and in doing so are protecting the impunity and vitriol the prison authorities have shown towards Assange .
By ignoring the warnings from the UN rapporteur of risks to Assange ’ s life surely they have shown an abnegation of responsibility and allowed state-sponsored abuse .
The recent appeal from Doctors 4 Assange warns that complicity by the public health and care institutions in the neglect of Assange could set a dangerous precedent : “ …governments have sidelined medical ethics , medical authority , and the human right to health .
This politicisation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ concern to us , as it carries implications beyond the case of Assange .
Abuse by politically motivated medical neglect sets a dangerous precedent , whereby the medical profession can be manipulated as a political tool , ultimately undermining our profession ’ s impartiality , commitment to health for all , and obligation to do no harm.
” The UK has , in theory , committed to the UN standards for the treatment of prisoners .
Yet , where Assange is concerned , it is behaving no differently from the way Bahrain , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of its political prisoners – by refusing to recognise their arbitrary detention , by ignoring identified health needs , and by refusing access to specialist diagnostic assessment and treatment .
*** Author Nina Cross is an independent writer and researcher , and contributor to 21WIRE .
To see more of her work , visit Nina ’ s archive .

By
Nina Cross
21st Century Wire
It is known that Assange’s removal from Belmarsh healthcare unit was a result of the combined effort by his legal team, public campaigning and a petition lodged by fellow prison inmates. It followed seven months of unofficial segregation in the unit during which he was removed from association without legitimate grounds to do so, and in breach of prison rules and legislation. There was no established reason for this treatment, making it arbitrary, and also deprived Assange of recourse, effectively throwing him into a lawless hole at the whim of the prison authorities.
It should be noted, however, that despite the fact he has been transferred out of healthcare to a wing where he can associate with others, reports indicate that he is still locked up for most of the time.
The full force of the state apparatus constantly targets Assange while others just pass through
To show the arbitrary and unfair treatment of Assange, we have compared the way Belmarsh has treated him to the way it treated Tommy Robinson, founder of the English Defence League, where Robinson spent nine weeks there last year, officially segregated. In his case, the governor was said to have personally intervened to ensure he did not miss a social visit, and that he had unlimited phone calls between 9am and 11am every morning, according to reports. In contrast, Assange, an unconvicted prisoner, presumed innocent, has had devastating restrictions of access to his lawyers, was not allowed possession of his legal documents for a prolonged period of time, or the means with which to prepare his defence – all of which are breaches of legislation protecting the rights of the prisoner.
Comparisons can also be made in the way Belmarsh treated multi-millionaire novelist and former Tory MP Lord Jeffrey Archer. Archer was sentenced to 4 years in 2001 for perjury and perverting the course of justice. In contrast to Assange, Archer was convicted by a jury. He still retained the title Lord Archer, and was processed as a prisoner through Belmarsh in textbook fashion. Belmarsh, despite being a Category A high security prison, is also a local prison serving courts in South East London and South West Essex, and is used as a temporary stop for prisoners of all categories. Usually, after a few months or weeks, men are released or moved to other prisons (more suitable for their category). According to Archer’s memoirs, on his arrival at Belmarsh following his sentencing, he was visited by the deputy governor who made this whole process clear, reassuring him that normal procedure should for him mean a short stay:
‘You will be moved onto an induction block tomorrow,’ she assures me, ‘and just as soon as you’ve been categorized A, B, C, or D, we’ll transfer you to another prison. I have no doubt you’ll be Category D – no previous convictions, and no history of violence.’
Due to procedure, he spent his first night in the healthcare unit under suicide watch. Although only there for one day, Archer was allowed to use the general exercise area, and mix with the other inmates. He was then moved from healthcare to a wing, and after 3 weeks he was moved to a category D prison. This was textbook processing.
But on arrival at Belmarsh, Julian Assange had no record of violence, or previous convictions, and the offence of skipping a police bail for which Judge Deborah Taylor sentenced him to 50 weeks, thus ignoring the UN decision that he sought asylum, which means it should’ve been a minor offence – much less serious than the crimes of Archer. Yet, Assange was made a B category prisoner and has never left Belmarsh prison, and was unofficially segregated for many months. He has been denied basic rights as an unconvicted prisoner since being held on remand, including continued restrictions of access to his lawyers which has impaired his ability to prepare for his historic legal defence. Undoubtedly, he is being treated like a terrorist and murderer.
By simply comparing the way the prison authorities processed another high-profile inmate in Lord Archer, we can again see the exceptional vitriol and impunity of the authorities towards Assange.
Diversion tactics of the prison authorities and the lack of accountability for Assange’s health
As we have illustrated, the prison authorities’ response to public complaints about the mistreatment of Assange ignores the statements by Nils Melzer, UN Special Rapporteur on torture, that Assange has been held in solitary confinement in healthcare.
In the same way the authorities have ignored Melzer’s findings following his extensive physical and psychological assessments of Assange last May, which revealed:
“Mr. Assange showed all symptoms typical for prolonged and sustained exposure to severe psychological stress, anxiety and related mental and emotional suffering in an environment highly conducive to major depressive and post-traumatic stress disorders (PTSD)…
Melzer clearly identified the cause of the symptoms:
“It was obvious that Mr. Assange’s health has been seriously affected by the extremely hostile and arbitrary environment he has been exposed to for many years,” … “Most importantly, in addition to physical ailments, Mr. Assange showed all symptoms typical for prolonged exposure to psychological torture, including extreme stress, chronic anxiety and intense psychological trauma.
He warned that Assange’s health could deteriorate dramatically in the event of his extradition or similar major stressors:
“…and that his current condition is likely to deteriorate dramatically, with severe and long-term psychological and social sequels, in the event of prolonged exposure to significant additional stressors, such as those expected to arise in the event of his extradition to the United States or any other country refusing to provide guarantees against refoulement to the United States.”
As his reports and appeals to the UK government were effectively dismissed, Melzer issued a further statement to the government in October, warning that Assange’s continued arbitrary detention in oppressive conditions could put his life at risk:
“Based on the information made available to me, the detention regime currently imposed on Mr. Assange appears to be unnecessary, disproportionate, and discriminatory and to perpetuate his exposure to psychological torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. I am very concerned that, if the UK does not take urgent remedial measures to alleviate Mr. Assange’s situation, his health may soon reach a critical stage, including the risk of death.”
Yet it would appear that none of the authorities involved in the health or care of prisoners has responded. Not only that, they seem to have also ignored the repeated appeals to the government by a global collective of doctors, Doctors 4 Assange, for independent assessment and treatment. The doctors have asked for:
“…urgent expert medical assessment of both his physical and psychological state of health. Any medical treatment indicated should be administered in a properly equipped and expertly staffed university teaching hospital (tertiary care). Were such urgent assessment and treatment not to take place, we have real concerns, on the evidence currently available, that Mr Assange could die in prison. The medical situation is thereby urgent.”
So how has it come to pass that the medical findings and concerns of a UN special rapporteur and the concerns expressed by a global network of doctors, regarding the life of a prisoner, have been readily dismissed? This question is especially important given UK prison rule 21:
Special illnesses and conditions
21.—(1) The medical officer or a medical practitioner such as is mentioned in rule 20(3) shall report to the governor on the case of any prisoner whose health is likely to be injuriously affected by continued imprisonment or any conditions of imprisonment. The governor shall send the report to the Secretary of State without delay, together with his own recommendations.
(2) The medical officer or a medical practitioner such as is mentioned in rule 20(3) shall pay special attention to any prisoner whose mental condition appears to require it, and make any special arrangements which appear necessary for his supervision or care.
A thorough report was sent to the government by Melzer in May, and a second statement was sent in October, making the urgency of Assange’s health needs clearly known. The question must therefore be asked: how is it that not a single health or care institution charged with the health of prisoners has intervened?
Nils Melzer, UN Special Rapporteur on torture, has explained how the assaults Julian Assange, founder of Wikileaks, is designed to create a sense of powerlessness and helplessness: the purpose of torture. This piece focuses on the arbitrary treatment of Assange by the prison authorities and asks how those state institutions claiming to protect health and well-being of people held inside the UK prison system have stood by and allowed a prisoner to be tortured in full public view. Watch:
.
The state’s accountability in the neglect of Assange’s care
In its response to the public concerns about Assange’s health, the prison authorities have attempted to divert attention onto the NHS:
“On the wider issue of matters of public health, the Ministry of Justice is not responsible for the commissioning of healthcare services in public prisons as this is the responsibility of NHS England and the Welsh Government. The commitment to working with health and justice partners is set out in the National Partnership Agreement for Prison Healthcare in England…”
The partnership agreement to which the prison authorities refer, is an agreement between five public bodies which include the Ministry of Justice, the Prison and Probation Service, the Department of Health and Social Care, Public Health England and NHS England. It uses the words ‘partnership’ and ‘collaboration’ to illustrate that each body has a commitment and responsibility to safeguard the health of prisoners:
“We commit to collaborate and co-operate at all levels within our organisations to achieve our shared priorities and deliver our joint workplan.”
So, how is it possible to reconcile the joint commitment by no less than five public institutions to protect the health of prisoners, with the arbitrary treatment that threatens the life of Assange inside Belmarsh, as made public knowledge by a UN special rapporteur and a global network of qualified doctors?
We asked GP and Producer of the ‘Great NHS Heist,‘ Dr. Bob Gill, about the way in which the authorities have behaved towards Assange and the risks to his health resulting from this.
Q: How is it possible that Nils Melzer, supported by specialist doctors, identified Julian Assange’s specific needs and made specific recommendations, yet these were ignored by the authorities? Should the fact that Melzer and the accompanying specialists were not part of the partnership make any difference to whether Assange’s identified needs should be met?
Dr. Gill: The prison authorities and health providers are hiding procedural complexities to justify the unjustifiable. Assange has not been convicted of a crime. He finds himself in a maximum security prison for exposing the crimes of the state. He is a political prisoner and his treatment is designed to be an example to others who are considering reporting the actions of our leaders. I am in no doubt that under such circumstances the prison administration will not extend Assange the humane treatment he should be receiving.
After years of confinement in the Ecuadorian embassy for fear of extradition to USA for his journalism, then to be dragged out of the embassy into a police van breaching established political asylum protocol and ending up in Belmarsh a series of actions which confirm his fear all along of being persecuted for serving the public interest.
The deeply flawed legal process and his retention in custody to this day amount to intolerable levels of psychological trauma which would inevitably have major health impact on anyone. Leaderships of public bodies implicated in this sorry affair will remain loyal to their paymasters and not truth or justice. If individuals within Belmarsh acted out of conscience and revealed the extent of Julian Assange’s mental and physical condition, they would suffer retribution. The NHS has an appalling record for its treatment of whistlblowers and bullying and harassment of staff is endemic as highlighted in the recent report in the Mirror. Hence any reassurances from the authorities are worthless. The only reliable assessment of Julian Assange’s condition would be from external, independent sources of which Nils Meltzer is a respected voice.
Q: It is impossible to know what went on regarding internal discussions between the health care provider and the prison management while Julian Assange was in healthcare. But it was a regime decision to keep him isolated, not a medical one. But how do you see the position of the NHS here? Many people have written to the Director of NHS England, Lord David Prior, to complain about Assange’s treatment. As the NHS is a partner should it be held to account to some degree for what has happened to Assange while held in isolation in the healthcare unit?
Dr. Gill: The reports from Nils Melzer are deeply concerning but come as no surprise. Deprivation of liberty, lack of due process, character assassination, threat of extradition and solitary confinement are grossly disproportionate consequences for the allegations made against Julian Assange. The effects of such treatment have devastating effects on mental health and functioning. Chronic stress, poor living conditions, lack of sunlight and human companionship have serious negative physical effects on the body ranging from accelerated cardiovascular disease and neurological deterioration. Given these obvious impacts on Julian Assange’s health, it is remarkable that his authorised medical personnel have failed to identify the harms his continued detention are having. The prison regime have consciously decided to continue with Assange’s torture by not supporting his immediate release from Belmarsh. The NHS and prison management should be held to account for their actions but there seems little chance of this given all normal processes have been ignored in the treatment of Assange for political reasons
Q: We know that prisoners were so concerned about Julian Assange’s treatment that they kept up a campaign to have him removed from effective segregation conditions. It is reasonable therefore to assume that members of staff may also have concerns. However, staff are forced to sign the official secrets act and cannot report concerns publicly. They would have to go through internal channels. To publicly show concern would be to risk imprisonment – regardless of employer – whether the prison service or the NHS. Would this be a fair assessment of the situation faced by healthcare staff?
Dr. Gill: NHS staff in non-prison setting risk retribution if their actions flag up concerns about the performance of their employer. Protections that exist are not fit for purpose and managers can act with impunity as demonstrated with various scandals exposed over the years from Mid Staffs scandal to Gosport. No action taken against the leaders that failed. The additional fear of prosecution for breach of the OSA effectively prevents the abuses of prisoners being made public by staff. Until and unless people can speak out without fear of retribution, institutional abuse will go unchecked.
Q: The UK prison rules state that remand prisoners cannot be released temporarily for medical reasons – the logic being that they will not be remanded for long and so can simply have use of doctors until they are convicted or freed. However, in Julian Assange’s case, he could be remanded for years. UK prison rules have a provision that should cover this, but like so many others, could be applied arbitrarily to Assange.
Dr. Gill: The adherence to the rules for remand prisoners’ access to external medical treatment in Julian Assange’s case is perverse. An exception should be made in Assange’s case given the years of torment he has already endured. Hiding behind procedure under circumstances where we hear of credible fears for his life, is yet another demonstration of the inhumanity of his continued imprisonment and the authorities complicity in his continued torture.
Bob Gill’s ‘Great NHS Heist’ can be watched here.
The UK treats Assange the way Bahrain treats its political prisoners
Although it is the role of the prison authorities to impose regimes and rules, all members of the partnership claim commitment to the health and well-being of prisoners. What’s more, the group claims repeatedly to be focused on identifying specific needs of prisoners:
“People in prisons have complex needs. We are committed to understanding the factors that impact on health and social care outcomes for people in prison. This includes understanding specific needs…
Melzer’s report identified Assange’s specific needs clearly. Yet these were ignored by all five institutions which claim to “…recognise our respective statutory responsibilities and independence,…”
Not only have they failed to recognise Assange’s health needs identified by Melzer’s report, they have stayed silent while Melzer has brought attention to the continued arbitrary treatment of Assange by the prison authorities and the detrimental and life-threatening effects of this on his health. These warnings have all been circulated by Melzer in the public forum and officially in his correspondence to the UK government. Still, they have failed to recognise their respective statutory responsibilities. This failure and apparent complicity by the state health and care systems takes us back to the recommendations made by Melzer in May:
“Both medical experts accompanying my visit agreed that Mr. Assange is in urgent need of treatment by a psychiatrist of his own choice and confidence, whom he does not associate with the detaining authorities,…”
The sustained silence by each member of the partnership demonstrates that Assange’s health and life are not protected by the state health and care institutions connected to Belmarsh. Whatever the efforts of individuals on the front line, those in charge at government level are towing the line and in doing so are protecting the impunity and vitriol the prison authorities have shown towards Assange. By ignoring the warnings from the UN rapporteur of risks to Assange’s life surely they have shown an abnegation of responsibility and allowed state-sponsored abuse. The recent appeal from Doctors 4 Assange warns that complicity by the public health and care institutions in the neglect of Assange could set a dangerous precedent:
“…governments have sidelined medical ethics, medical authority, and the human right to health. This politicisation of foundational medical principles is of grave concern to us, as it carries implications beyond the case of Assange. Abuse by politically motivated medical neglect sets a dangerous precedent, whereby the medical profession can be manipulated as a political tool, ultimately undermining our profession’s impartiality, commitment to health for all, and obligation to do no harm.”
The UK has, in theory, committed to the UN standards for the treatment of prisoners. Yet, where Assange is concerned, it is behaving no differently from the way Bahrain, a Gulf State dictatorship, treats many of its political prisoners – by refusing to recognise their arbitrary detention, by ignoring identified health needs, and by refusing access to specialist diagnostic assessment and treatment.
***
Author Nina Cross is an independent writer and researcher, and contributor to 21WIRE. To see more of her work, visit Nina’s archive.
READ MORE ASSANGE NEWS AT: 21st Century Wire Assange/Wikileaks Files
SUPPORT OUR MEDIA PLATFORM – BECOME A MEMBER @21WIRE.TV