Unrealisable Justice: Julian Assange in Strasbourg
It was good to hear that voice again. A voice of provoking interest that pitter patters, feline across a parquet, followed by the usual devastating conclusion. Julian Assange’s last public address was made in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London. There, he was a guest vulnerable to the capricious wishes of changing governments. At Belmarsh Prison in London, he was rendered silent, his views conveyed through visitors, legal emissaries and his family.
The hearing in Strasbourg on October 1, organised by the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), arose from concerns raised in a report by Iceland’s Thórhildur Sunna Ævarsdóttir, in which she expressed the view that Assange’s case was “a classic example of ‘shooting the messenger’.” She found it “appalling that Mr Assange’s prosecution was portrayed as if it was supposed to bring justice to some unnamed victims the existence of whom has never been proven, whereas perpetrators of torture or arbitrary detention enjoy absolute impunity.”
His prosecution, Ævarsdóttir went onto explain, had been designed to obscure and deflect the revelations found in WikiLeaks’ disclosures, among them abundant evidence of war crimes committed by US and coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, instances of torture and arbitrary detention in the infamous Guantánamo Bay camp facility, illegal rendition programs implicating member states of the Council of Europe and unlawful mass surveillance, among others.
A draft resolution was accordingly formulated, expressing, among other things, alarm at Assange’s treatment and disproportionate punishment “for engaging in activities that journalists perform on a daily basis” which made him, effectively, a political prisoner; the importance of holding state security and intelligence services accountable; the need to “urgently reform the 1917 Espionage Act” to include conditional maliciousness to cause harm to the security of the US or aid a foreign power and exclude its application to publishers, journalists and whistleblowers.
Assange’s full testimony began with reflection and foreboding: the stripping away of his self in incarceration, the search, as yet, for words to convey that experience, and the fate of various prisoners who died through hanging, murder and medical neglect. While filled with gratitude by the efforts made by PACE and the Legal Affairs and Human Rights Committee, not to mention innumerable parliamentarians, presidents, prime ministers, even the Pope, none of their interventions “should have been necessary.” But they proved invaluable, as “the legal protections that did exist, many existed only on paper or were not effective in any remotely reasonable time frame.”
The legal system facing Assange was described as encouraging an “unrealisable justice”. Choosing freedom instead of purgatorial process, he could not seek it, the plea deal with the US government effectively barring his filing of a case at the European Court of Human Rights or a freedom of information request. “I am not free today because the system worked,” he insisted. “I am free today because after years of incarceration because I plead guilty to journalism. I plead guilty to seeking information from a source. I plead guilty to informing the public what that information was. I did not plead guilty to anything else.”
When founded, WikiLeaks was intended to enlighten people about the workings of the world. “Having a map of where we are lets us understand where we might go.” Power can be held to account by those informed, justice sought where there is none. The organisation did not just expose assassinations, torture, rendition and mass surveillance, but “the policies, the agreements and the structures behind them.”
Since leaving Belmarsh prison, Assange rued the abstracting of truth. It seemed “less discernible”. Much ground had been “lost” in the interim; truth had been battered, “undermined, attacked, weakened and diminished. I see more impunity, more secrecy, more retaliation for telling the truth and more self–censorship.”
Much of the critique offered by Assange focused on the source of power behind any legal actions. Laws, in themselves, “are just pieces of paper and they can be reinterpreted for political expedience.” The ruling class dictates them and reinterprets or changes them depending on circumstances.
In his case, the security state “was powerful enough to push for a reinterpretation of the US constitution,” thereby denuding the expansive, “black and white” effect of the First Amendment. Mike Pompeo, when director of the Central Intelligence Agency, simply lent on Attorney General William Barr, himself a former CIA officer, to seek the publisher’s extradition and re-arrest of Chelsea Manning. Along the way, Pompeo directed the agency to draw up plans of abduction and assassination while targeting Assange’s European colleagues and his family.
The US Department of Justice, Assange could only reflect, cared little for moderating tonic of legalities – that was something to be postponed to a later date. “In the meantime, the deterrent effect that it seeks, the retributive actions that it seeks, have had their effect.” A “dangerous new global legal position” had been established as a result: “Only US citizens have free speech rights. Europeans and other nationalities do not have free speech rights.”
PACE had, before it, an opportunity to set norms, that “the freedom to speak and the freedom to publish the truth are not privileges enjoyed by a few but rights guaranteed to all”. “The criminalisation of newsgathering activities is a threat to investigative journalism everywhere. I was formally convicted, by a foreign power, for asking for, receiving, and publishing truthful information about that power while I was in Europe.”
A spectator, reader or listener might leave such an address deflated. But it is fitting that a man subjected to the labyrinthine, life-draining nature of several legal systems should be the one to exhort to a commitment: that all do their part to keep the light bright, “that the pursuit of truth will live on, and the voices of the many are not silenced by the interests of the few.”
Like what we do at The AIMN?
You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.
Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!
Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.
You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
7 comments
Login here Register here-
Gregory
-
Phil Pryor
-
Andrew Smith
-
Clakka
-
Canguro
-
Clakka
-
Steve Davis
Return to home pageNo matter which political party is in power America protects it’s own interests above ALL others (except the zionist scum who they appear to be scared of??) and will go to extreme lengths to keep it’s disgusting dirty secrets hidden away from the public. If the voters ever found out even 10% of what they are not allowed to see they would be storming the capital again but this time for a worth while cause, not for a demented megalomaniac clown who wants to be king, but for a government lying and deceiving their own people and the rest of the world for decades. The “Divided States” constitution was founded on a mistrust of government having too much power over it’s people and that is exactly what they have got now. If I believed in a higher being I would be saying god help us.
The USA is a product of the runaways, dropouts, victims, scum and scourings, disobedient types, anti-authority types, not the best fodder for a solid aware conforming unified nation. “They” came, mostly, for a nirvana, an el dorado, a paradise, a salvation, but with murder, theft, occupation, despoiling, humiliations, slavery, invasions and subversions, they and the descendents have “done well.” Now this USA is an intolerant nation, while preaching tolerance, and is often highly hypocritical. One should never trust them, as they have ways, often secretive, violent, egofixated in righteousness, to deal with life and its enemies. You can trust the USA to be untrustworthy. Spouting things truthfully and openly can get you the Socrates or Jesus treatment, and Assange has found that out. Many in the USA system can kill you or me, for “reasons”, perhaps, “of state”.
Ecuador’s former populist President Correra granted Assange honorary citizenship and asylum, but when his former colleague Moreno took over, he then rescinded these benefits for Assange.
Apparently, it was not a good look for Moreno, more centrist, but the activity and visitors Assange made them rethink the deal… eg. using an unregistered mobile, Nigel Farage turning up, at least once…. allegedly handed over DNC emails on a USB provided by..?
On the latter DNC, RNC emails have been hacked and dropped, but US media won’t publish……
No doubt, due to his ‘absence’, more than most, Assange would be astounded and shocked by the rapid degradation of human rights and privacy and the staggering increase in oppression wrought on individuals through theft and surveillance by corporations and govts alike.
Perhaps he would starkly see the enormous rise in both the feckless advance in destructive aspiration by some, and the increasing antipathy towards govts of all stripes, and corporations, in particular the MICs, ‘Big Tech’, and those in banking, finance and insurance by others. The loss of community and rise of aggressive individualism, a loss of willingness or ability to negotiate and compromise, and in its place a rise in mistrust, ‘hatred’, extremism and absolutism all leading democracy onto the rocks.
Is it fair to blame ordinary people for being driven to such behaviors, when they’ve been lied to and beguiled by those in power, and most significantly by those of the most powerful country on the planet, the USA. Not only by neo-liberalism and neo-conservatism, but especially by their smashing of the Fourth Estate.
In one sense, the whole miasma may be drifting ordinary folks of the world towards an anarchism of sorts, and as an ideal that’s ok, but in reality it won’t / can’t happen. So instead we are left with trying to reform a very sticky situation that won’t easily go away, particularly if we have to rely on the USA (and its friends) which are continuously subverting themselves.
Listening to the proceedings of Assange’s address to PACE, was worth close attention to every second of it. It will be interesting to read the EU rappoteur’s report, and the outcome of the EU Parliament’s deliberations.
Clakka, the British scholar Peter Kingsley’s 2018 opus, Catafalque: Carl Jung and the End of Humanity critiques Jung’s Red Book (Liber Novus), that deeply enigmatic work which expresses the mystic Jung’s deep fear and concern for the future of western humanity… societal collapse, infantilism of societies, deeply misguided dependence on technology as the key to a better future, loss of the core sense of having a living connection to the past and so on. Not only are we facing an unprecedented physical catastrophe of monumental proportions, but also the issue of millions if not billions of members of the human race who lack even the most basic of psychological insights into what constitutes the real purpose of inhabiting human form.
Ah yes Canguro, a deep dive, wonderful.
Being far from a scholar, from the time of my infancy, I was never inclined to dispatch my psychological experiences, per se, my second mind. And maintained an interest in the ‘religions’, philosophies and practices of the world, and although gregarious, brought me to much travel, mostly alone, and reading. And in that, rarely dwelt in rejection, but mostly in inclusion.
I never ‘studied’ Jung, but in the weirdness of transition from youth to adult, seeking to investigate my raison d’être, and psycho-sexual experiences, I read, amongst other works, Robert Johnson’s books (using Jungian perspective) on the subject – powerful and intriguing – a whole new language for me.
Growing up in the thick bush and riparian environments, the night dreaming experience brought differing spirits and cryptozoological eminences depending upon whether on or above the hills or in the valleys – they brought with them emotions, or was it my emotions that brought them to me?. Yet, given there would always be a meal on mother’s table, during my daytime adventures, I’d be incessantly seeking to find and understand the animals and all living things and the signs they left. Perhaps for the sake of acquiring ‘special’ insights for survival. But despite that, that I could imagine the workings of the door latch embedded in the door that kept me contained, it stood to reason that the designer and others before me also had such imaginings, therefore my thoughts were likely not ‘special’ or exclusive to me.
That we anthropomorphise in art and in cartoons and much children’s stuff and in the projections of gods, could it be dispatched just as allegory, or metaphor to place us in a story, or is it enabling us to see reality beyond ‘the’ reality? Interesting to hear discussion on ‘Personality type 1’ – the spirit of this age, of the ability to get along, of trickery and masks, and ‘Personality type 2’ – of mystery, of the ancient, the ancestors and the dead. More than ever, it seems we dwell in ‘type 1’. Whereas, ‘type 2’ offers greater understanding by bring our deep past present and drawing us to see inside our selves – yet it seems more and more people step back from ‘type 2’, probably in fear that it might be a descent into ‘hell’.
I am reminded of a time years ago when I was in remote North Western Australia, alone. I was awed by the massive presence of nature and comparative timelessness (per the discussion on Phanes and Aion), a nature of which I was unfamiliar, and perhaps the insignificance of my existence to all but me. Some time later, I dreamed of it, and in that dream, I felt as if I was of glass about to break – perhaps as a start to a descent into an essential ‘hell’ – a symbol, a numinous connection and calling for the soul.
In a recent AIMN article Big Super is still investing .. , in comments Steve Davis and Arnd turned to their pet argy bargy on neo-liberalism, liberalism and maybe anarchy. I enjoyed their sport, and couldn’t resist punting a comment. In the closing of my comment, I wrote:
“What makes me smile is the notion of quantum entanglement and timelessness, coherence and decoherence (where decoherence leaks into the environment and remains and interpretational issue), and the Yolgnu term makarrata – ‘a coming together after a struggle’, which seems not to be obliterative, but to premise that we’ll all still be here. 😎
Nevertheless a good difference of opinion keeps the blood flowing – so to speak.”
It’s kinda weird that there seems a correlation to what was discussed in the video you directed me to.
Many thanks Canguro, I thoroughly enjoyed it.
Clakka, a deep dive you say?
I nearly drowned !
Nice work fellas. 🙂